Oscar Predictions - 2006

Well here we are again, with my annual list of oscar predictions. And with every passing year, I feel a growing lack of enthusiasm for an event I once, eagerly looked forward to. I guess its cos of a variety of reasons. When I was younger and in India, I just did not have the opportunity nor the avenue to watch mature, sensible movies, the ones which usually end up being nominated for the big awards. Afterall, in India, its the commercial value of a movie which is taken into consideration before a movie is released. So a movie like say, Anaconda, would receive an almost immediate and enthusiastic thumbs-up from the Indian film distributors and theater owners but other worthy movies like - L.A. Confidential would be met with guarded skepticism.

Infact most of such movies were usually released depending on how well they did at the oscars. I remember watching movies like LA confidential, American Beauty, Saving Private Ryan etc. most of which was shown for not more than a week, and primarily because they won the Oscar. And isn't that the reason why Oscars were introduced in the first place - as a marketing tool for movies? Except now we, as the audience, watch the movie expecting it to be good (it has won the oscar, right) and this expectation may or may not ruin the movie. I remember going into Shakespeare in Love with great expectations and coming out in a coma. But that's a different story.

All that changed, however, when I moved to the US. Now I had the opportunity to watch any and all movies I wanted to. One of the advantages of being close to a city like New york. And it was here, I began to 'critically' watch movies, and developed a keen interest in movies which ordinarily I would skip, movies like Far from Heaven, or the Others. It was around here, I began to develop a certain awareness of what a good movie should be and ought to be, and the key elements a critical jury, or reviewer would look at, the look and feel of the movie and the way certain movies were tagged and marketed as potential oscar winners as early as august or september.
But on the flip side, being exposed to all these movies beforehand and the way they are marketed, and the prolifiteration of awards, took away most of the suspense from the Oscars, as most avid movie watchers could predict with a certain degree of assurance, the movies which would be nominated and eventually win.

Which brings us to the year 2006/07. A pretty ordinary year when compared to previous years. I personally feel they're only a handful of movies which can be classified as oscar-worthy, and this year it'll be more of a challenge to figure out what goes in rather than what does not. Let me explain - In other years the competition was quite stiff, and there were so many good performances and movies that the academy faced quite a challenge to decide which ones DO NOT get the nod. Selection by elimination, if you may. But this year, its quite the opposite, where I feel, they are challenged to find good performances to fill out the mandatory five nominations.

Here are my predictions :-

Best film -
1) Dreamgirls
2) Babel
3) Departed
4) Two letters from iwo jima
5) Little children

I haven't watched Dreamgirls yet. So I cannot say if it should win although they're many out there who say it definitely should. Same for Two letters from Iwo Jima. Babel is a good, solid movie and definitely one of Innaritu's best works. Departed may not represent Scorcese's best work, but it was definitely a thrilling and engrossing drama till the ending which kinda ruined it for me. Little Children is a fantastic movie, with a surprisingly strong story and heartfelt performances. If I were the person to hand out the awards, I would give it to this movie.

Best actor in a leading role -
1) Leonardo Di caprio - Departed
2) Peter O' toole - Venus
3) Forest whitaker - Last King of Scotland
4) Will Smith - Pursuit of Happyness
5) Aaron Eckhart - Thank you for Smoking

The reason why Aaron Ekchart is in italics, is cos I'm quite confident he wont be nominated. But I couldnt think of any other performance which should be on there, apart from the four other performances which are all but confirmed. Maybe Matt Damon for the Good Shepard, but it just wasn't a special enough performance to convince me. But it thats kinda year. In any case its a moot point, cos the real competition is between Forest Whitaker and Leonardo Di Caprio. Speaking of Leonardo Di Caprio could be also be nominated for his performance in Blood Diamond. That could be the fifth nomination.

Best actress in a leading role -
1) Penelope cruz - volver
2) Judi Dench - Notes on a scandal
3) Maggie Gyllenhaal - sherrybaby
4) Helen Mirrren - Queen
5) Kate Winslet - Little Children

Probably the most likely five to get nominated. Helen Mirren looks good to win her first oscar. I would be extremely disappointed and shocked, if any of these five fantastic actors do not get the nod.

Best supporting actress -

1) Rinko Kikuchi - Babel
2) Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
3) Cate Blanchett - Notes on a Scandal
4 )

I'm not even going to bother to fill out the remaining two nominations. Jennifer Hudson has this one locked down. But I hope Rinko Kikuchi wins it. Suprising cos usually this is the one of those categories which is difficult to predict who gets in.

Best supporting actor -
1) Eddie Murphy - Dreamgirls
2) Jack Nicholson - Departed
3) Djimon Honsou - Blood Diamond
4) Brad Pitt - Babel
5) Mark Wahlberg - Departed

Probably the toughest category of the night. But in the end this would have to come down to a showdown between Brad Pitt and Eddie Murphy. Jack Nicholson has won one too many. Djimon Honsou is always good, but apparently never good enough, and Mark Walhberg would just be happy to be nominated and be part of this awesome group.

Best director -
1 ) Clint eastwood - Two letters from iwo Jima
2) Stephen Frears - Queen
3) Alejandro Inarritu - Babel
4) Martin Scorcese - Departed
5) Todd Field - Little Children

Which brings us to the the best director category. By the looks of it Clint Eastwood has made two great movies in the same year - The Flags of our Fathers and Two letters from Iwo Jima. Of the two, the latter is the better movie, which is the reason why I have it in my list. There is a good possibility that he would be nominated for both movies which brings us to who makes way for the second Clint Eastwood nomination. Todd Field or Stephen Frears look to be the likely victims. Surely they could not ignore Martin Scorcese. I fear poor old marty wouldn't be able to bear that shock. Not at his age. Especially since he is the emotional favorite to win.

I feel Oscar would try to do a bit of re-arranging to accomplish this. They could move Two letters of Iwo Jima to the best foreign movie category (since it is made entirely in Japanese) and that would allow the option of Clint Eastwood winning the best foreign language director and Two letters potentially winning the best foreign language picture and Scorcese picking up the coveted best director award. However this is not may not be as easy as it sounds cos in the foreign language film category, Eastwood would face a more spirited competition in the form of Guillermo Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, Pedro Almodovar's Volver and possibly Mel Gibson's epic Apocalypto. Now that's one tough category and I'm personally rooting for Del Toro's superb fantasy Pan's Labyrinth.


Lots of interesting possibilities. Remember you read it here first. As I mentioned, there is no unpredictability to look forward to at the Oscars.

Nav

How GURU could've been a better movie..

Yes, I've been away from my blog for awhile, but it was never away from my mind for long. And as any true blogger worth his/her salt would tell you, you can rarely go about leading your life, noticing and observing details, without wondering whether its worth mentioning or writing about.

But a true blogger would also quickly point out its immensely difficult to carry out the simple step of converting ideas and abstract thought into written words. Writing, afterall, requires discipline, like any other form of art. And discipline is what I apparently lack.

But I digress. Moving onto a subject, the only subject, I feel i'm qualified to write about -- Movies, which brings us to GURU - the latest movie by Mani Ratnam. I don't believe I've waited so eagerly to watch a hindi movie since, well, a really long time. A Mani Ratnam movie, afterall, is a reason to celebrate.
And boy, what a glorious movie it could've been! It had all the makings of a classic saga of emotion, love and triumph over adversity. I may have been particularly drawn to the movie cos of its specific storyline, which has always been one of my pet set-up plots.

It usually comprises a strong, charistmatic, enigmatic central protagonist, a person who may or may not have humble origins, who works his way to the top, but not before having to face and overcome a tough group of able adversaries, who make equally fascinating character studies. And to further heighten the drama, it could also involve a strong female character (the love interest) and a close friend/associate of the central character, who breaks away from the hero and takes sides with the enemy.

Dont ask me why I'm drawn to the above story set-up. I just am. Although if I were to guess, it may have to do with being so greatly engrossed with Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead' at an impressionable age. Rand, builds such great characters with such presicion and unfolds the drama with careful attention to each and every possible nuance. And what memorable characters they were -- Howard Roark, the perfect hero, and worthy adversaries - the cunning Ellsworth Toohey and the complex newspaper moghul Gail Wynand.
I don't recall any movies which has fully explored the above storyline. Scorcese's Aviator comes to mind, and so does Ram Gopal Varma's Sarkar, which coincidentally , also featured Abhishek Bachchan, were he was pitted against a slew of dangerous criminals, including his own brother (played with menacing perfection by Kay Kay menon). Guru had the possibility of including all of the above elements and which inturn would've been a more complete, more powerful effort. But like Sarkar, the superb buildup in Guru was undone by a sub-par ending.

As-is, Guru is a fine movie. The first half is nearly flawless, save for unnecassary songs, which hindered the flow and broke the momentum of the movie, on several ocassions. Seriously, one expects Mani Ratnam to better utilize the songs by using it to transition the scenes - play the song in the background, but at the same time keep the story moving forward.There really is no need for seperate and lengthy song and dance sequences.
One of the key reasons for the continuing interest in the movie, apart from the refreshingly crisp dialogue are the performances of all lead actors.
The performances were well tuned with the characters. Abhishek Bachchan turns in a strong performance. His best yet. I was pleasantly surprised cos I honestly believed, based on his past performances, that he is a much over-rated actor. Same goes for Aishwarya Rai, but she proved me wrong too with a very believable and mature performance. Mani Ratnam is able to create a very comfortable chemistry between the two leads which brings a feel-good factor to the movie. But its Mithun Chakraborthy who steals the show with a superb supporting performance. A finely written role, but then again, his character is left without proper closure towards the end. Ditto for Madhavan's role of fiery reporter Shyam Saxena.

So here are 4 scenes which if included, I believe would've bolstered the impact of the movie -

1) A brief scene of Abhishek Bachchan meeting and cajoling ministers/politicians. It is never expressly shown him bribing or offering gifts to the people in power, which I feel is essential to establish some shades of grey into his character. It also would've been effectively used in the ending when he testifies against the commission who have levelled charges of corruption against him. His argument could've been something along the lines of - he used all resources available to him to ensure the growth of his business. Instead we had to sit through an un-inspiring and mind-numbing piece of dialogue which goes on for a full five minutes and was hardly relevant to the issue in hand. Ideally, after a short, yet forceful monlogue, Guru should've walked out of the commission hearing a la Howard Hughes in the Aviator.

2) A more proactive role by Madhavan's and mithun's character - Applying pressure by exposing the nexus between Gurukanth desai and the politicians he has bribed. Or as simple as a press conference where probably Mithun's character mocks gurukanth's success by pointing at the evils which comes along with capitalism. This allows an interesting sub-text, socialism vs capitalism. Good movies always tackle multi-dimensional issues.

3) A meeting between several other leading industrialists, including the Contractors, and Roshan Seth, the high profile judge, secretly pushing for a public trial of Guru. Mani Ratnam has so many good actors playing small supporting roles, might as well use them well.

4) Better closure for Madhavan and Mithun's characters. Probably a shot of them deciding to go ahead with printing the news of guru walking out of the commission and all charges against him being dropped, signalling a setback to their campaign, which would've been a more realistic ending cos it forebodes the growth of corruption, in the 70's and 80's in India, and all the high moral values and ambitions held for the brief period after Indian independence slowly disappearing.

These were just some of the immediate thoughts which came to me as I was walking out of the movie hall. It wouldnt have been tough to include the above scenes. And it would've gone a long way towards allowing a more satisfying ending. And even better would've been a sub-plot involving guru's brother-in-law. Whatever happened to him?

Nav