Tom the Dog's You Know What I Like?: MOVIES: 2005 Oscar Nominations

Wow, before even updating today, I've got over 130 hits! Just a couple short weeks ago, I would've counted that as exceptional for a full day. With two updates. But I've been getting a steady and regular flow of new visitors here recently, thanks to a most kind and complimentary number of links (especially to my Golden Globes coverage) from many of you other bloggers. Such as Johnny Bacardi, House of the Ded (twice), the very interestingly named How To Be Free (and Save the World... Eventually), Crocodile Caucus, Precocious Curmudgeon, Blog THIS, Pal!, Thrilling Adventures, Clandestine Critic, Pop Culture Gadabout, Motime Like the Present, Fred Sez, and especially Cognitive Dissonance, which I don't think has linked specifically to me any time recently (as the others I mentioned have), but whose sidebar link to me has brought this blog more traffic than anything other than the Comic Weblogs Updates page, and Misty May's ass (I'm the #5 site on Google for that phrase -- yay me?).

To all of those above, to the always-supportive ACAPCWOVCCAOE, and to any others I may have missed because I'm a doofus, a most sincere thank you. It's a great feeling, knowing someone is out there looking at the crazy-ass things I write.

Enough of the blibbity-blab! On to the important stuff: this morning's Oscar nominations. You know, I actually considered getting up at 5:30 this morning and blogging the nominations press conference (announced by Adrien Brody -- who, much like David Schwimmer, is handsome... in an ugly sort of way), but, well... there are many things I will do for you, my brethren and sistren, but getting up at 5:30 ante meridian is a bullet I am not willing to take.

It's a relatively respectable list, as far as the Oscars go. At least the obligatory three-hour-plus period epic which dominates the nominations (The Aviator, with 11) isn't a total piece of dog crap, as many other recent films to fill that slot have been (like, say, I don't know, Gladiator? Or Titanic?). It could've been Troy getting all those nominations. Or Alexander. See what I mean? A respectable list.

So, here's some opinions, and some very early picks. You may do with them what you will.

Best Picture

There's always one film that nobody's seen, but somehow becomes an Academy darling, and this year that appears to be Finding Neverland. Now, I haven't seen it (duh -- nobody has); maybe it is a staggering work of genius, more deserving of a nod than Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But I highly doubt it.

It's a two-horse race here. The Aviator, or Million Dollar Baby. Early indications seem to favor Aviator -- most nominations this year, Scorsese is way overdue, etc. -- but Baby is opening in wider release this week, and finding new fans, and I think the momentum is eventually going to swing in its favor.

Best Actor

This is the category I can most easily nitpick. Finding Neverland again -- Johnny Depp is wonderful, don't get me wrong, he is great. I'd go so far as to say that he's the best actor of his generation. That's right, I said it! (Wait, is he in Sean Penn's generation?) And I'm glad he finally broke into the Academy's good graces with last year's nomination for Pirates of the Caribbean. But he should more properly have been nominated for Ed Wood, or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, or Donnie Brasco, or Blow, or Before Night Falls. I fear the Academy will be making up for their oversights in his early career by nominating him too frequently, and possibly unjustly, in his later career, taking nomination slots away from more deserving performers. As they appear to have done this year.

Who did he take a spot from? Well, Paul Giamatti, for one. Last year's exclusion of his performance in American Splendor is a classic, gigantic Academy blunder, one that is almost always made up for with a nod the following year, if the performer appears in anything with the slightest hint of quality. And yet, Giamatti gets shut out again this year, while his Sideways co-stars get recognized. Ouch. He must owe someone money.

Who else? Jim Carrey. No, I'm not kidding! He gave a brilliant performance in Eternal Sunshine, one that (in all likelihood) was far more deserving of a nom than Depp's.

Or Eastwood's. I love Million Dollar Baby. Love it. But it wasn't Clint the actor's movie. It was Clint the director's, as well as Hilary Swank's and Morgan Freeman's. I'm glad to see Clint nominated, but I would've been happier if his space had gone to Giamatti or Carrey instead.

Not that it matters. Jamie Foxx has got it sewn up. Most solid lock of all the major categories this year.

Best Actress

Possibly the biggest surprise inclusion (as opposed to Giamatti's surprise exclusion) in the major categories is Catalina Sandino Moreno for Maria Full of Grace. Enjoy the show, hon!

Being Julia is another Finding Neverland. Nobody's seen it. Nobody's even heard of it. Jesus, Warren Beatty hasn't even heard of it! And yet, Annette Bening won the Golden Globe. Whatever. She's a contender here, but not a shoo-in.

Imelda Staunton had a lot of momentum going into the Globes, but her loss to Hilary Swank took a lot of wind out of her sails. She's not out, but she's not the front-runner some critics would've had you believe less than a month ago.

If Swank hadn't already won an Oscar for Boys Don't Cry, I might count her as the winner right now for Million Dollar Baby. But she has won, and she even beat Annette Bening (in American Beauty) to do it. It's petty and stupid, but the Academy often sees things like this and says, "Well, Swank was clearly better, but she's had her turn. Plus, she's young, and she'll get another chance." (Even though no one, especially me, thought she'd ever give a performance that great again.) I think (and hope like hell) Swank will win; god damn, she was awesome in that movie. But I'm gonna wait a while before putting any money on her.

Best Supporting Actor

Let's play "Process of Elimination!"

Alan Alda and Thomas Haden Church, unfair as it may be, are always going to be thought of as TV actors. Very few ever truly escape that stigma (like, say, George Clooney). I'd really like to say Church could take it, but knowing the Academy's history, I just don't see it. They're out. (Especially since Church already lost at the Golden Globes, and Alda wasn't even nominated.)

Jamie Foxx will win for Best Actor, so everyone will vote for him there, not here. He's out. [EDIT: Also, as I had to be reminded by Monty's Oscar nomination post, Foxx was a TV actor, too! Oops. I guess, the way I see it, he's shaken off In Living Color a lot more successfully than, say, Church has shaken off Wings. Hell, if you want to get really picky, Morgan Freeman used to be on The Electric Company, Ryan's Hope, and Another World, and Clive Owen has a couple British TV series under his belt. That said, it's only Alda and Church who still have the feel of TV-level acting about them, because they came to be so closely identified with their TV characters, Hawkeye and Lowell. In my mind, at least.]

Morgan Freeman is solid, but his was a very low-key, unflashy role. Plus, Supporting Acting Oscars frequently go to younger, relatively unknown, less established performers. But... this award can also double as a Lifetime Achievement award, which means Freeman is definitely in the running. But... he lost at the Globes. He's not out.

And that brings us to Clive Owen. Will he really repeat his shocking Globe upset for Closer? My early hunch is yes. But...

At gunpoint, considering the Academy is stodgier in its Supporting Actor votes than its Supporting Actress votes, and given their selective short attention span (which means Owen's Globe win will be ancient history by the time they vote), I'd go with Freeman.

Isn't this fun?? We're almost done!

Best Supporting Actress

This is tough. The Academy loves tributes to film history, which means Cate Blanchett's turn as Katharine Hepburn is a strong pick. They love rewarding young first-time (and probably last-time) nominees in this category (think Marisa Tomei, Mira Sorvino, Anna Paquin, Tatum O'Neal), which means Natalie Portman is another strong choice. (Plus, she won the Globe.) They love sexually-charged performances from older actresses, so Laura Linney (god, is she really "older" in Hollywood terms? Afraid so) and Virginia Madsen aren't totally out of it. And the Academy loves pretending it's not racist, so Sophie Okonedo in Hotel Rwanda has a genuine longshot hope. (Though all those votes for Foxx will probably assuage their consciences enough to skip voting for her, too.)

I'm gonna say Portman, but I really had to talk myself out of saying Blanchett.

Best Director

I'm with Ian in thinking Michel Gondry got robbed. He did a spectacular job with Eternal Sunshine, both visually and emotionally. But he did get robbed, so it's another two-horse race. Scorsese or Eastwood.

Eastwood won the Globe, and the Academy loves the hell out of him. Plus, he really did do some brilliant work. But, like I said above, Scorsese's overdue. Will this finally, finally be the year the voters say, "Let's give it to him already"? Or will he again be the Susan Lucci of the Oscars? (Man, Susan Lucci isn't even the Susan Lucci of losing awards anymore -- it may have taken her 19 tries, but she finally won).

It's tricky. Some voters will say, "Clint was more deserving, but let's give it to Marty as a belated award for Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and 17 other movies he should've won for." But some others will say, "Give it to Eastwood; Scorsese can just settle for his film winning Best Picture." I'd be happy either way, but I'm gonna hedge my bets on this one. I picked Baby for Best Picture; I'm picking Scorsese for Best Director. The exact opposite of what the Globes said -- but what the fuck do they know?