Skip

The 2003 Oscar and Golden Raspberry Nominees
February 11, 2003 10:02 AM   Subscribe

It's A Dirty Post But Someone's Gotta Do It: The 2003 Razzie and Oscar nominations have been announced and all bets are on (though I couldn't find any online odds). Meanwhile, nominee Meryl Streep recently denounced the Academy Awards process as a "political campaign". Be that as it may, are they still fun to follow and predict?
posted by MiguelCardoso (49 comments total)

 
I should add that I singled out Meryl Streep's opinion because she is now, with 13 nominations, the record-holding actress.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:08 AM on February 11, 2003


damn, you beat me to making the oscar post by 3 minutes....seeing as mine will probably get taken down as a double post, i'd like to suggest making predictions here and joining the metafilter group (password: mefi)
posted by rorycberger at 10:08 AM on February 11, 2003


I just got a warm glow when I saw that Sean Penn's "gimme an Oscar NOW" performance in I Am Sam was passed over. Other than that bit of schadenfreude, I prefer the Razzies to the Oscars.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:11 AM on February 11, 2003


For the record, I think it sucks that Jackass was cheated out of the documentary oscar nomination it so clearly deserved. Eating a pee-drenched snowcone and it's off to the Razzies. Harass a doddering old Charlston Heston, and the bourgeoisie will nominate you for an Oscar.
posted by ph00dz at 10:13 AM on February 11, 2003


fuck jack valenti. boycott MPAA. don't go to movies. don't watch the oscars. show some backbone. jam the culture that's trying to jam you.
posted by quonsar at 10:14 AM on February 11, 2003


I actually don't like awards shows. I think they're self-indulgent and gratuitous. But I've always been intrigued by how the selection of winners reflects the psychology of the voting body.

The "Best Documentary Feature" award is usually pretty easy to predict, even if you haven't seen the films. Historically, the holocaust film usually has the best odds. Four of the last seven winners were such films.

But Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is definitely the front-runner this year. A poll the International Documentary Association conducted of 2000 filmmakers even named Bowling for Columbine the "best documentary of all time."

I still can't realistically imagine the Academy giving the award to Moore, given his frequent vocal criticism of Israel. That's why I think Prisoner of Paradise will win. It's a film about a German Jew "forced to write and direct a Nazi propaganda film while being held prisoner in a concentration camp."
posted by pjdoland at 10:16 AM on February 11, 2003


yeah, yeah, yeah, jam the culture....

but i like movies. and so do you.
posted by grabbingsand at 10:16 AM on February 11, 2003


fuck jack valenti. boycott MPAA. don't go to movies. don't watch the oscars. show some backbone. jam the culture that's trying to jam you.

quonsar, I think you need to see your doctor. Your knee is jerking again.
posted by anathema at 10:18 AM on February 11, 2003


Rory: I was just posting a comment to your thread, lamenting I hadn't linked to the prediction box and welcoming the chance to partipate in the MetaFilter group, when it disappeared. Thanks for reposting and the usual apology for synchronicity. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:19 AM on February 11, 2003


I love you quonsar, but I STILL won't fuck Jack. And Andy Serkis not being nominated for anything is a tragedy. Meryl's past it. Julianne's the new Meryl, hasn't anyone made this official yet? Did I miss the memo?

I just hope someone wears a swan this year. Better yet, make it a sugar glider.
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:19 AM on February 11, 2003


i still love meryl even though she might be 'past it'. i've yet to see an actor (male or female) who even comes close to her range, imo. but yeah, what the hell is up with Mr. Serkis not being nominated??!! dammit all to hell!
posted by poopy at 10:26 AM on February 11, 2003


Meryl's past it. Julianne's the new Meryl

Oh, someone please restrain me: I feel a quonsaresque knee-jerking epilectic extravaganza coming on!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:26 AM on February 11, 2003


quonsar, I think you need to see your doctor.
doctors? tools of the imperialist running dog intellectual property barons.
</self parody>
posted by quonsar at 10:29 AM on February 11, 2003


What irritates me is that once they've decided a film is Oscar-worthy it gets nominated for everything. Was Chicago really outstanding in all those categories? Couldn't some films which didn't have outstanding performances or directors have had the best make up or cinematography? Isn't that possible?

I really hope Nicole Kidman doesn't win just for putting putty on her nose.
posted by Summer at 10:30 AM on February 11, 2003


I have the feeling that the Academy is thinking, "Eh, we'll award LOTR next year for ROTK, the nominations should keep them happy."

I can only assume there's going to be a really, really, good movie next year that won't win because they're pretty much are going to have to award LOTR for all 3 movies as a whole.

While I of course, still don't think LOTR is that good.
posted by Stan Chin at 10:33 AM on February 11, 2003


I am saddened that Punch Drunk Love got nothing. Not particularly suprised, but saddened nonetheless.

Also, The Fast Runner should have gotten nominated for something.

I really hope Nicole Kidman doesn't win just for putting putty on her nose
Well, I don't know if she'll win for that, but IMO she deserves to win because she gave the most impressive performance of the nominees.
posted by boltman at 10:33 AM on February 11, 2003


Distant tangent: Are there any Razzies for Worst Fonts, 'cause they deserve one for the font they used for their nominees - what is the damn thing anyway?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:34 AM on February 11, 2003


I really hope Nicole Kidman doesn't win just for putting putty on her nose.

Ever since Kim Basinger won for doing... well, nothing really, in L.A. Confidential all bets have been off. Probably since before that actually, but it's the one that jumps to mind.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:36 AM on February 11, 2003


PinkStainlessTail - I thought I Am Sam was nominated last year and Penn lost out to Samuel Jackson for his seminal (gag) performance in Training Day? Am I wrong? I don't love Penn but thought he was great in that movie.
posted by vito90 at 10:41 AM on February 11, 2003


pjdoland: There's no chance, IMHO, that 'Bowling for Columbine' will take the Oscar. The thing to remember about the Oscars is that the vast majority of the academy are oldsters with a stern regard for old-time Hollywood etiquette. Poking fun at a H'wood legend -- esp. one who was later diagnosed with Alzheimers -- is not on.

And hey, as you've pointed out, there's a holocaust flick to vote for, so...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:42 AM on February 11, 2003


What irritates me is that once they've decided a film is Oscar-worthy it gets nominated for everything.

Exactly. You're just seeing the film that Miramax or whoever decided to push for an Oscar.

It's my opinion that any film that features more than ten (10) minutes of Michael Douglas content should be disqualified from any potential recognition.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:42 AM on February 11, 2003


Yup, I Am Sam was last year, and was nominated. Mea culpa.
Man, that was a fast year!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:47 AM on February 11, 2003


Um, vito90. I'd like to think that you just woke up, cause Denzel Washington was in Training Day, not Samuel Jackson.
posted by jeremias at 10:48 AM on February 11, 2003


The Oscars are overhyped and overrated and all that. I do wish they'd break down the best picture into Drama and Comedy though, so as to give some of the great comedies of the year a chance. What was the last truly funny (read: not just in two scenes, but the whole movie) that won for best picture?
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:56 AM on February 11, 2003


What irritates me is that once they've decided a film is Oscar-worthy it gets nominated for everything. Was Chicago really outstanding in all those categories?

Ummm...no. And it didn't get nominated for everything; every actor/actress with a significant speaking role got nominated except for Richard Gere.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:56 AM on February 11, 2003


I am disappointed that Serkis wasn't nominated for supporting actor, but feel reasonably confident that TTT will take the visual effects Oscar.
posted by xyzzy at 11:06 AM on February 11, 2003


The spec font for the nominee listings is Garamond, which is a gorgeous font but shows at its best in print work - on the web it's pretty much a disaster at small pixel sizes - too heavy on the serif or something. If you don't have Garamond installed then you see the site in whatever font you have specified as your default.
posted by iconomy at 11:10 AM on February 11, 2003


What stuns me is that "Lord of the Rings : The Two Towers" didn't get nominated for best director or best cinematography. That's a bizarre snub to Jackson in the directing category, and the New Zealand vistas and the battle scenes should have made the cinematography nod a given.

But the biggest crime is that it didn't get nominated for best makeup. I mean, sweet fancy moses, did they not see the amazing work that was done to create the orcs, dwarf, goblins, etc.? And it wasn't like there were "more deserving" movies because only 2 were nominated!

I think the toughest category to predict is Special Effects. I don't think "Spider-Man" was anywhere NEAR as good in that department as "LotR:TTT" or "Star Wars : Attack of the Clone". However, this category is used to being ruled by Lucas films. However, "LotR:TTT" was the most recent of the three films and that might stick in the voters minds. If they had done the obvious and thrown "Minority Report" into the mix, it would have been one of the toughest categories EVER to predict.

As for the "get nomintated for everything" trick at the Oscars, what's telling are the categories that these multiple-nominee movies DIDN'T get tapped for. When "Titanic" got the ridiculous number of nominations, it was a very telling note that Leo D. didn't get one himself. And it's even more telling when the "Best Movie" didn't have the Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress or Best (Adapted) Screenplay by the end of the night. Sometimes the avalanche happens (Silence of the Lambs) and sometimes it's avoided (The Color Purple).
posted by grum@work at 11:11 AM on February 11, 2003


I don't think any of the best picture awards over the last 35 years have been considered comedies, probably not since Tom Jones or The Apartment.

Of course, the fact that Driving Miss Daisy won best picture is still really, really funny.
posted by jeremias at 11:19 AM on February 11, 2003


I am with you Boltman. Two massive oversights. But maybe Atanarjuat was last year?

Can't look deeper; gotta go make dinner.
posted by Dick Paris at 11:21 AM on February 11, 2003


Annie Hall was a best picture and a comedy.
posted by pjdoland at 11:27 AM on February 11, 2003


About Schmidt wuz robbed. Not even a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination.

And I can understand Streep's reaction. When you've acted your heart out and you've been shut out for the Best Actor award in favor of a somnolent Kidman leaping into rivers and smoking cigarettes and Julianne Moore playing a variation of the same character in another movie, when in fact you've become the Oscar's Susan Lucci, you're bound to be a little upset even if you have won two awards.

What's disappointing is that City of God was completely overlooked in the Best Foreign Film category while Gangs of New York, a film that is, by comparison, tepid in its depiction of street life, was nominated all across the board, including the glum screenplay. Kind of interesting, given that last year was the Year of the African-American. If Gangs sweeps, which completely overlooks the Colored Orphange burning during the draft riots, then it will be almost as if last year never happened.

This is also the first year in which a fictitious author has been nominated for an award. Donald Kaufman is up for Best Adapted Screenplay for Adaptation.

My predictions:

Best Picture: Chicago

Lord of the Rings has another shot with Return of the King and The Two Towers is bound to be the least of the bunch. The Hours has certainly got people talking, but I think that Academy members will vote against Weinstein and Miramax out of spite (which also rules out Gangs, which was received to good but not great results). And The Pianist is ruled out because Oscar has a history of going with the splashy positive picture, no matter how good the competition. (Witness Oliver's win over 2001 for Best Picture.) This leaves Chicago as the clear winner, a musical that nearly everyone has loved and a return to an abandoned form.

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis

Brody is too young, Caine is well-liked but The Quiet American got lost in the hype. Despite his work, Nicholson won only a few years ago for As Good As It Gets. People may consider Schmidt to be too similar to that. Cage has the dual character thing going, but his performances are too understated for Academy tastes. Day-Lewis has won before, but he will win again because he's the only thing people remember about Gangs of New York. Plus, he has a five year acting absence on his side.

Best Actress: Nicole Kidman

Generally, it's the depressing characters who win Best Actress Oscars, which gives Kidman a lock. Zellweger is too bubbly. Give her five to ten years and she'll probably be given a Best Supporting Actress Oscar when her B-list stature wears out. Lane's performance is fantastic, but her character isn't dour enough for an Oscar. Salma plays a fascinating character, but I have a hunch that Academy voters are instinctually afraid of unibrows. This leaves Julianne Moore, who will become the new Meryl Streep (a great actress nominated for every role, rarely a winner), and Nicole Kidman, more mainstream and cast ideally in Miramax's concept of an art movie. She'll win.

Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Walken

Who honestly remembers Paul Newman from The Road to Perdition? Chris Cooper deserves an Oscar, but he won't win for a "fringe" movie like Adaptation. ("Fringe" movies only win in the screenplay awards.) If Ed Harris can't win for one of the best performances of his career in Pollack, then he certainly won't win for The Hours. John C. Reilly is too young a character actor staple in Hollywood movies (at least from the studios' perception, even though he's been around a long time). Walken has the perfect balance between cult and mainstream audiences. Everybody knows him. Everybody impersonates him. Everybody loves him. That he was cast against type in a Spielberg film, playing a normal character, was a boon.

Best Supporting Actress: Queen Latifah

The race is very close to call, but since Latifah stole a good deal of Chicago, I'm counting on her to win. The Supporting Actress Award generally goes towards comic or eccentric characters. I think voters will side with her because they won't be able to decide between Moore and Streep, they will completely overlook Kathy Bates (in the same way that they overlooked Schmidt) and they won't even bother with Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Best Director: Martin Scorsese

Talk to Her was a lesser Almodovar effort. Marshall and Daldry don't have the years of experience behind them, leaving two veterans who have never won an Oscar, Scorsese and Polanski. Polanski won't show up. He has also been wildly inconsistent in the last ten years. But Scorsese will win the sympathy Oscar.
posted by ed at 11:34 AM on February 11, 2003


the New Zealand vistas and the battle scenes should have made the cinematography nod a given.

surely the quality of the cinematography is not dependent on the beauty of the scenery being filmed? (although I agree that the battle scenes were impressively filmed). One of the reasons that I liked Punch Drunk Love is because I thought it was one of the most beautifully filmed movies of the year, even though there was not much in the way of scenery. Road to Perdition was also quite good in this respect, although the movie itself was kind of bad.
posted by boltman at 11:37 AM on February 11, 2003



Am I the only one who thought that Adaptation was a trite, pandering, self aware piece of dookie?
Must be. I think PT Anderson was robbed.

posted by BrodieShadeTree at 11:46 AM on February 11, 2003


This is also the first year in which a fictitious author has been nominated for an award.

Well, Roderick Jaynes, the Coen brother's editor and Academy nominee, does not exist
posted by matteo at 11:59 AM on February 11, 2003


surely the quality of the cinematography is not dependent on the beauty of the scenery being filmed?

That's for damn sure. One more helicopter shot rotating around 'actors' running along New Zealand's country side and I was gonna walk out. Also, Andy Serkis didn't deserve it. Not because of the fx work, but because he wasn't that good. (Supporting Actor this year is crowded)

I'm with everyone on PDL and P.T. Anderson being robbed. I'd take Sandler over anyone in the Best Actor category.

I'm a little surprised with all the noms for The Pianist, not really sure what to think about that. Anyone?

Animated Feature improved greatly from last year. Spirited Away was good, but I think the more traditional Lilo & Stitch will take it.

don't want to see an acceptance speech from: Michael Moore
really want to see an acceptance speech from: Eminem

posted by dogwalker at 12:03 PM on February 11, 2003


Nice to see Spellbound discussed here, getting the recognition it deserves.
posted by dhacker at 12:15 PM on February 11, 2003


Dogwalker: I'm a little surprised with all the noms for The Pianist, not really sure what to think about that. Anyone?

Personally, I thought it was the best movie I saw during the year. (Although I need to confess I have not seen all the nominees. Some of them have not played yet in Cheese Eating Monkey Surrender Land*.)

*France
posted by Dick Paris at 12:33 PM on February 11, 2003


Jeremias - umm...all those actors look the same to me. thanks

It's funny - as I was typing Samuel Jackson I was thinking to myself, or was it Larry Fishburne?
posted by vito90 at 12:48 PM on February 11, 2003


matteo: Yeah, I think they're trying to differentiate between pseudonyms (Roderick Jaynes, P.H. Vazak) and totally fictional people (Donald Kaufman)

I think it kind of works unless you count "Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman" as a pseudonym for Charlie Kaufman. In the end, I don't think Adaptation deserves as many nominations as it got, and probably won't win any.
posted by John Shaft at 1:50 PM on February 11, 2003


I'm wondering if LOTR didn't make it into the makeup category because the voters thought "hey, didn't we see this makeup last year?" (I mean, Grima Wormtongue was really the only new design there, as opposed to orcs and elves x n.) Omitting Jackson from the Best Director category struck me as a tad more startling.

But I hope The Pianist wins, in any event.
posted by thomas j wise at 3:09 PM on February 11, 2003


Nobody cares about Hero or Spirited Away? Have been following Hero since before it was released. Asian movie fans have been fired up about it, and Miramax not releasing it in the U.S.
posted by son_of_minya at 4:26 PM on February 11, 2003


son_of_minya: Spirited Away is up for best animated feature. I'm waiting for the DVD release since a subbed print never made it to my area, so I can't comment beyond that. But if it's as good as Nausicaa or Princess Mononoke I'll have a lot to say in April. Which will of course be too late for the Oscars.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:28 PM on February 11, 2003


I agree about city of god, that was a fine movie.
Walken should win an oscar every year, just for being chris walken.
ed made some good predictions there and i cant see past day lewis either although they might just decide to stick one up him and vote for brody.
of more interest to me is the fact that peter o' toole is refusing to accept his lifetime achievement award because he sees it as a sign of retirement, i love that guy.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:32 PM on February 11, 2003


They won't release Hero in the states?

W.
T.
F.
M(iramax).
?

BTW, Talk to Her is amazing. I don't agree that it is a "lesser" effort. It's a bleedin' masterpiece!
posted by cx at 6:33 PM on February 11, 2003


Not intending to derail the thread at all. I just want to clarify in case people read what I posted earlier. I didn't mean to imply that Hero will never be released in the U.S.

They won't release Hero in the states?

From MonkeyPeaches.com: According to Variety, MiramAxe has planned a May release for Hero.

The DVD is already out in China, and an English subtitled edition will be released later this month. Even if you don't consider the camcorder bootlegs circulating already, legitimate consumers will have already seen this movie by the time it hits the theater.

Speculation was that Miramax would completely sabotage any chance of U.S. success like it did with Shaolin Soccer. I'll be seeing it in the theater, even if it doesn't play in my area. Just hope they don't make any changes, now that it's finally being released.
posted by son_of_minya at 7:12 PM on February 11, 2003


When "Titanic" got the ridiculous number of nominations, it was a very telling note that Leo D. didn't get one himself.

I don't think that was so much because of the poor quality of the film (although poor it was), but because romantic male leads don't tend to get nominated whereas their female co-stars do. Look at Nicole Kidman and Ewan MacGregor in Moulin Rouge. Leo D's a fine actor IMO. A wanker, but a good actor.
posted by Summer at 1:57 AM on February 12, 2003


So what's the deal with "Talk to Her"? Up for best director (I haven't seen it, but Almodovar's reputation is deserved), but not best picture/best foreign picture? Obviously just a "tribute" nomination, where they feel obligated to nominate someone just because they've had a career, and not necessarily because they've produced a solid effort.

And wasn't Gangs of New York based on a book? I remember Scorsese making a big deal of that, this book he read in the 70s that took him thirty blah blah years etc. So what's it doing in the original screenplay category? I know nobody cares about the scripts (you know, the basic *idea* of the movie and all), but you'd think they'd at least get that right.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:27 AM on February 12, 2003


i've read gangs of new york,
its very badly written, you're doing pretty well to get a script out of it.
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:11 AM on February 12, 2003


« Older This is odd   |   Art and science collide Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post