Sections

Nominees vie for the little guy

By Joshua Rich
Daily Arts Editor

At about 5:30 a.m. on a day sometime in mid-February every year, there is absolute silence in Hollywood. Every one in the City of Angels isn't necessarily asleep or even out on their morning jogs. No. Last week, on Tuesday, the nominations were announced for the annual Academy Awards, and residents of that filmmaking Mecca woke up early and quietly held their breath.

Like always, they exhaled and sighed after the anticlimactic disclosure was made -- a strange summation for a year in which over 200 films were eligible for accolades. This year, however, sighs were not of joy or relief, but of overall confusion and doubt. For, unlike in so many past years when a crop of exceptional films nominated for a series of awards emerged, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences instead honored a strange and wide range of sub-standard movies for this year's much-hyped presentation.

Certainly, one will always question some of the many omissions from the exclusive groups of nominees. But no fear for those left out: In many ways a nomination is just as great an honor as the mere formality of receiving one of those golden statuettes. Nevertheless, we will appreciate the many exclamations of: "This movie didn't direct itself!" after considering that while their films were both nominated for Best Picture, directors Ron Howard of "Apollo 13" and Ang Lee of "Sense and Sensibility" were both ignored in the Best Director category.

But let's not get too distracted from the more important issue -- namely, those who were actually nominated. The nominees who fight for the top prizes are of much greater concern and, in many categories this year, they are an even more puzzling group than those forgotten altogether.

Perhaps most bizarre is the group of films nominated for Best Picture -- "Apollo 13," "Babe," "Braveheart," "The Postman" and "Sense and Sensibility." This is a very disappointing crop; the Oscars may not always include all of the year's best films, but this group includes almost none. When we speak of films of "Oscar quality," like "Casablanca," or "Gone with the Wind" or even "Schindler's List," we are talking about films that bear both an immediate impact on our senses, and a long-term effect on the film industry. These three films are still classics in their own right, and they were not soon forgotten after being named Best Picture.

Hollywood, however, does have its off-years. And 1995 was most certainly one of them. As far as the Best Picture list is concerned, only "Sense and Sensibility" truly deserves to be considered in this category; it should easily win. The other four honorees, though all fine films, simply don't belong. Most indicative of this fact is the spring or summer release of them all. One may usually look at the warm months of the year as a time of big-budget, lower-quality blockbuster movies that are not of Oscar quality. There is usually one such lighter, more thrilling motion picture included on the list of nominees (read: "The Fugitive" or "Ghost"), but FOUR -- that is unacceptable.

With the exception of "Sense and Sensibility" (already the winner of the Golden Globe for drama and National Board of Review Best Picture awards) all the films nominated for Best Picture are fluff -- above-average fluff, yes, but fluff nonetheless.

Having garnered the most nominations of any movie this year (a total of 10, beating "Apollo 13"'s nine and "Babe" and "Sense and Sensibility"'s seven each), "Braveheart" is an epic film that ultimately focuses too much on battles rather than plot. Hollywood, however, generally likes grand-scale motion pictures such as this -- look for it to be "Sense and Sensibility"'s only serious challenger.

"Apollo 13" is an exciting, technically-stunning movie (look for it to take many of the special effects awards) that never totally makes a gripping drama out of an event with which many are familiar. "Babe" -- winner of the Best Musical or Comedy Golden Globe -- is a delightful children's film that may please many, but does not belong in this group of much deeper, mature movies. And while "The Postman" enjoys being the first foreign language film in over 20 years to be included as a Best Picture nominee, it is no more than a quaint, happy story, as simple in plot as it is in content.

Often excluded from this category are more depressing films because they are not always fun to watch and many voters -- actors, directors, cinematographers, etc. -- simply haven't seen them. This might explain the absence of two of this year's extraordinary movies from the Best Picture category: "Leaving Las Vegas" and "Dead Man Walking."

After the consistent citations "Leaving Las Vegas" received from critical groups at the end of the year, both lead actor Nicolas Cage and director Mike Figgis appear to be front-runners in their respective categories. After all, Cage was named Best Actor by the New York, Los Angeles and National Society of Film Critics, the National Board of Review and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (which gives out the annual Golden Globe Awards). Figgis was also named Best Director by the Los Angeles and National Society of Film Critics.

Look for Cage's biggest competition to come from Sean Penn for his role as a condemned prisoner in "Dead Man Walking." Though his was probably too bleak a role for him to receive commendation, Penn gave an inspiring performance.

Figgis is certainly helped by the absence of "Sense and Sensibility"'s director, Ang Lee, in the directing category -- usually the director of the Best Picture takes this prize as well. But, assuming "Sense and Sensibility" wins Best Picture, then all five directing nominees have a much more fair chance of victory.

Mel Gibson is another favorite in this category, considering that he did an admirable job crafting the spectacular "Braveheart." Directors (who vote for this award), however, may resent that Gibson is an actor first; a true director, they may think, deserves the prize more than he. Such might be the problem for actor Tim Robbins, who is nominated for directing his masterpiece, "Dead Man Walking." Despite his superb production, he is impaired by both his reputation as an actor and the extremely depressing nature of his movie.

There's no clear front-runner in the Best Actress Category; all five nominees gave outstanding performances, and all deserve to win. The best performance of the group is Susan Sarandon's nun in "Dead Man Walking." She may be the closest thing to a favorite in this category, given that she has been nominated numerous times yet never won.

Other possible victors are Sharon Stone ("Casino"), the Golden Globe recipient, and Emma Thompson ("Sense and Sensibility"), winner of the National Board of Review prize. Stone gave an exceptional and atypical performance in Martin Scorsese's otherwise flawed film, but she may be hindered by her reputation as a sex-goddess and/or dumb blonde. Expect Thompson to win if her film takes home many other prizes, otherwise, the once-victorious and many-times-nominated actress may have to settle for just the nomination.

There is no doubt that, while the selections for Best Picture are not impressive, the acting nominees are. It is in the acting category that some of the most deserving and accomplished nominees in whole program exist. Consequently, look for man-of-the-moment Kevin Spacey to win the Best Supporting Actor award for his role in "The Usual Suspects," and Joan Allen (who gave an astonishing portrayal of Pat Nixon in "Nixon") to take the prize as Supporting Actress.

Each performer has already been honored by the critics -- Spacey won the New York and National Board of Review awards; Allen received accolades from the Los Angeles and National Society of Film Critics. While Spacey enjoys little competition -- only Ed Harris ("Apollo 13") and Brad Pitt ("12 Monkeys") should be considered -- Allen may have a greater challenge against Mira Sorvino ("Mighty Aphrodite"), the winner of both the New York critics' and National Board of Review's awards.

Unfortunately, like the Best Picture group, the nominees in many other categories are not nearly as appropriate as those in acting. While we can expect "Braveheart" to capture many of the artistic elements (cinematography, costume design and makeup awards seem destined to go to Gibson's film), it is still absent from the Best Art Direction category. Why is it not nominated for that award as well?

Similar questions arise when we consider that "Batman Forever" was nominated for a cinematography award while "Apollo 13" wasn't; when we notice that "Seven" and "Crimson Tide" -- both worthy nominees in many other categories -- were given nods for editing while "Sense and Sensibility," "Casino" and "Nixon" weren't; or when we realize that the Best Original Score category has been divided into "drama" and "musical or comedy" sections.

The fact is, we can always question the inclusion or omission of certain people from certain categories, but such queries could be without end. Why were John Travolta ("Get Shorty") or Nicole Kidman ("To Die For") left out of the lead acting competitions? How were "The American President," "Get Shorty," "Toy Story," "The Usual Suspects," "Seven" and many other worthy movies almost completely excluded? Why is only one flim ("Apollo 13") that was shot and produced almost completely in America, nominated for the Best Picture award in this traditional American ritual? Who knows ... voters do strange things sometimes.

Instead, let's simply enjoy the proceedings. Admire the winners, pity the losers and get a little nervous when someone says: "And the Oscar goes to ... ." In the end, this ceremony could be more entertaining than watching many of the films themselves. The Academy Awards usually are.