Oscar Picks

Best Picture: “Brokeback Mountain”

“Brokeback Mountain” is my choice and I think it will be Oscar’s as well. I loved “Capote,” enjoyed “Crash” and “Good Night, and Good Luck” enormously, and I respect “Munich” (though I thought it more flawed than the other nominees, though well acted), but “Brokeback Mountain” was not only an excellent film story well told, it was also socially influential and groundbreaking. The provocative subject matter made many heterosexual people question their stereotypes about gay men, and it seems to have helped a number of straight folk to understand more clearly and viscerally that people don’t always choose with whom they fall in love, and what the consequences are when people are false to themselves and those around them. It was touching, wonderfully directed, beautifully acted, and thought-provoking: I think it's a shoo-in. “Capote” was a terrific movie, every bit as beautifully acted and directed, but because it was smaller in scope and in influence I don't think it has a chance. “Brokeback” also surprised many conservatives and proved to them that Middle America can watch, root for, and enjoy a movie about gay people in love, which I think is a fabulous message. I hope the film wins the Academy Award so that its fame will reverberate and its influence spread for as long as possible.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role:
Philip Seymour Hoffman

I thought it was amazing that Philip Seymour Hoffman could inhabit the persona of Truman Capote so perfectly and yet not become a caricature or distract from the story. He made that voice and those mannerisms work, made them charming, real, and frightening by turns. I've always thought he was an exceptional actor but I think this is the film that will get him the leading roles he deserves. I believe the Academy will agree with me, but Heath Ledger is a close second; he was so moving, so believable, so far from his usual screen persona. His character was so sympathetic despite his taciturn ways; it was horrible to watch him seal his own misery with his fears. I loved the character, and thought about his performance a great deal afterwards. If he wins, I will understand the choice and can support it. I think the “Brokeback: brouhaha may give him a victory, but I think Hoffman will ultimately win out.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role:
Felicity Huffman

Felicity Huffman was funny, moving, and brave as the transgender heroine of “Transamerica.” It was a delightful performance, and Oscar does love it when attractive, appealing women (especially those over 30) allow themselves to look unattractive and vulnerable. Huffman is bright, articulate, and outspoken, and she’s been waiting for a worthy leading role for a long time. But the Academy loves Reese Witherspoon and would be delighted to celebrate her for having been the very best thing about “Walk the Line.” She was really the nurturing heart of that movie, and her character, June Carter Cash, had to show why she was Johnny Cash's obsession and his salvation. Witherspoon sparkled in the role and made it easy to see why Johnny Cash could want to build a world around her. Her portrayal of June Carter was intelligent and subtly done, and she came across as capable of much more subtlety than she is usually allowed in her usual pretty, perky comic actress roles. I think she's a strong contender, but I think Huffman’s range of emotion the “Transamerica,” the growth of her character, and the physical and vocal transformation she accomplished through sheer talent and force of will win in the end. Still, Witherspoon has a very strong chance.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role:
Jake Gyllenhaal

Jake Gyllenhaal's performance was of course a co-leading role, so much more than a supporting actor, and if he hadn't been so strong and worked so compellingly with Ledger, if they hadn't had chemistry and a carefully balanced mixture of virility and vulnerability that was believable both individually and together, the whole thing wouldn’t have worked. George Clooney was very fine in “Syriana,” and I see why he’s received some awards and acclaim for it, but Gyllenhaal was more crucial to “Brokeback” than Clooney was to “Syriana,” and he had more chance to show subtleties and varied emotions and motivations than Clooney's character had, and he met the challenge. So I have to vote for Jake, and I think Oscar will, too.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role:
Rachel Weisz

If I have my way, Rachel Weisz will get this award. She was more crucial to the film, to the motivation for Ralph Fiennes’ character, and to the forward movement of the story than the other nominated actresses were for their films. I loved Catherine Keener as Harper Lee in “Capote”; I thought she was just right for the role, but she had less to do, less range, and the actions of her character weren’t as pivotal to the emotional resonance of the film. Amy Adams was cute, but I just didn't find “Junebug” a compelling film or her character very fully realized (not her fault, just the way the character was written). Michelle Williams was very good, but more peripheral to her film than Rachel Weisz's character was to “The Constant Gardner,” which was a very fine and moving film, one of my favorites of 2005. Rachel Weisz’s character was completely necessary for the story, Fiennes’ performance, and the emotional impact of the film. Go Rachel!

Best Director: Ang Lee! Ang Lee! Ang Lee!

Ang Lee’s direction of “Brokeback Mountain” was perfect. It got the details right, including the overarching feel, the sweep of the land and the story, the tenderness and the roughness of the characterizations, the quiet spaces when nothing needed to be said, the tone and power and chemistry between the characters, the senses of failure and disappointment and betrayal felt by all the main characters at one time or another. I sensed his strong hand throughout without his ever getting in the way of the writing, the setting, or the acting. He got wonderful, realistic, compelling performances from the actors, built tension perfectly, paced it wonderfully, and let the story seem to tell itself, without hitting the audience over the head with meaning or self-importance and without telegraphing what was to come. It was intelligent, and it assumed the intelligence of the audience. He led, but never got in the way. I loved his work, and so will Oscar.

“Crash” was a hell of a good story, compelling and exciting, and it was bold, powerful and relentless throughout. I thought it was great filmmaking, but I felt it often pushed the boundaries of believability because each substory was a hyperreal, extreme distillation of a scenario punched up to a series of emotional peaks beyond daily reality. One or two in a film mixed in with more realistic stories would be more believable, but it was meant to be beyond reality to push us to a better awareness of the less sensational horrors of racism that run through our daily lives. Though I enjoyed it tremendously, a lot of people were pushed away from “Crash” because it felt so over-the-top to them, and it knocked them on the head with its messages by being so unrelenting with each story building to a fever pitch, each subplot building to a crescendo, so that, when put together, it felt like a pounding, diatribe-filled runaway train to some viewers. Compare that to the strength of “Brokeback Mountain” and its message, which is just as unmistakable and moving without hitting you on the head, even though a major character is murdered just for appearing gay. Its direction carries it along in an organic, natural, believable way. It’s kind of like comparing apples and orangutans to compare the two, since they have different reasons for being. “Crash” is all about the feeling of being in a metaphorical racial car crash where the consequences of race hatred leave people obviously broken. “Brokeback Mountain” is about the insidiousness and hidden nature of hatred and fear. I enjoyed both films very much, but I think the range of skills shown by Ang Lee is greater and deeper in “Brokeback Mountain” than that shown by Paul Haggis in “Crash.”

Original Screenplay:
“Good Night, and Good Luck” (by a nose)

This is a hard one. “Crash” was clever and fresh and important. “Good Night, and Good Luck” was carefully researched, witty, and captured all the essential points of an important historical situation and person without rendering them dry and dull. I didn’t see “Match Point” because I find Woody Allen, whom I used to love, largely stale and misogynistic nowadays, and because I found “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” to which “Match Point” has so often been compared, morally bankrupt, mean-spirited, and repugnant. “The Squid and the Whale” disappointed me greatly; there was so much mean-spiritedness, nearly all the family interactions were so disturbed, and each character was so self-absorbed and hurtful. “Syriana” was clever and impressive, but ultimately, I thought, unnecessarily convoluted. It was made difficult to follow on purpose, but I thought that difficulty undercut its power, unlike a film like “Memento,” where the confusion is integral to understanding the character, building the tension and surprise, and making the payoff work. I think it’s between “Crash” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” and it’s a really close call. One is so exuberant, the other played so close to the chest, and both are insightful about issues close to our hearts, i.e., tolerance and being vigilant about seeing that civil liberties are respected. I think “Good Night” will win, but Oscar could very well go for “Crash” and I’d be happy either way.

Adapted Screenplay:
“Capote” (though it’ll be a photo finish)

“Capote” was wonderful, and the fact that it worked so well is largely because the script was exceptional, and, surprisingly, not too wordy. The writer, director, and actors weren’t afraid of silences, or of behavior telling the story instead of having to spell everything out with words. I loved it and would be thrilled if it won. But the script for “Brokeback Mountain” was also exquisitely crafted and basic to its success as a film. I’d like “Capote” to win, but I enjoyed “Brokeback” so much that I’d be satisfied if it takes the Oscar, too.

Cinematography: “The New World”

“The New World” is my choice, both because I think it deserves it and because I think it will win. Why didn’t more people see this movie? It’s remarkable. The natural world is a key player in it; Terrence Malick’s trademark seduction of and by nature is a basic and important element to the story. I loved it; it’s exquisite to look at, and told with very few words; the dreamy visuals are absolutely key, not just to the enjoyment but also to the story, which is moving. I also loved Malick’s “The Thin Red Line,” which has a similarly beautiful, dreamy quality. People who found that too drawn out or too full of interior monologues will probably find the same issues with “The New World,” but I found both films powerful and moving works of art. The young woman who plays Pocahontas (who is never called by that name throughout the entire film) is Q’Orianka Kilcher, and she is a wonder; what perfect casting. (Interesting trivia tidbit: She’s the cousin of singer Jewel Kilcher, a.k.a. Jewel.)

Animated film:
“Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit”

Nick Park’s claymation short films have won several Oscars, all deserved, and I think and hope he’ll win again for this full-length Wallace and Gromit movie. I’m a huge fan of his and have been for over a decade. (Have you ever seen the short subject “Creature Comforts,” for which he won his first Oscar? It’s delightful.)

Documentary:
“The March of the Penguins”

Yes, it was cute and charming; “The March of the Penguins” was also brilliant, technically amazing and difficult filmmaking. It’s beautiful, captivating, it was difficult as hell to film, wonderfully edited, compelling, sweet without being saccharine or too anthropomorphic. No wonder it’s been the monster-hit documentary of all time. I want it to win, and I think it will.