Predictions For Sunday’s Big Party In Hollywood

We’re entering the final stretch in the race towards the 75th Annual Academy Awards, which will be held on Sunday, March 23. As of press time, both the show’s producer and the Academy president indicated the program would not be delayed due to the impending war with Iraq, though plans are underway for a more subdued event.

Per my usual disclaimer for this annual Oscar column, I make no claims to be an odds prognosticator, and don’t hold the keys to winning the office pool. However, I will take a peek at the top categories and toss in my two cents on which nominee should walk away with Hollywood’s most coveted prize.

*Best Supporting Actress – Kathy Bates (About Schmidt), Julianne Moore (The Hours), Queen Latifah (Chicago), Meryl Streep (Adaptation) and Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago). Having nabbed 13 nominations (the most of any film this year), Chicago should get the party started early with a win by Zeta-Jones.

In truth, she had more of a lead role than the other four actresses, but I’m sure Miramax didn’t want her going head-to-head with co-star Renee Zellweger. In any case, Zeta-Jones, who was simply dazzling in the film’s opening number, “All That Jazz,” immediately won over skeptics who might have assumed her singing and dancing credits were simply frivolous add-ons to pad her resume.

*Best Supporting Actor – Chris Cooper (Adaptation), Ed Harris (The Hours), Paul Newman (Road to Perdition), John C. Reilly (Chicago) and Christopher Walken (Catch Me If You Can).

This is a tough one. I might eliminate Harris and Reilly if only for the fact they had relatively small roles in films with other, much grander portrayals. Though I’m quite a fan of Road to Perdition, I think I’ll have to pull for Walken, who was so surprisingly subtle and sympathetic as the deflated father of a young con artist who still idolizes him.

*Best Actor – Adrien Brody (The Pianist), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York) and Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt).

Why is Michael Caine here? He did a fine job, but so few have seen his film, and there were some worthy candidates – Richard Gere for Chicago, Dennis Quaid for The Rookie, Tom Hanks for Road to Perdition, and Hugh Grant for About a Boy – left out in the cold due to his inclusion.

Well, it’s moot anyway. Day-Lewis is the best thing about a sprawling, sometimes unwieldy film, and the notoriously selective actor (this was his first movie in five years) proves he’s worth the wait by adding yet another engrossing, unique portrayal to his catalog.

*Best Actress – Salma Hayek (Frida), Nicole Kidman (The Hours), Diane Lane (Unfaithful), Julianne Moore (Far From Heaven) and Renee Zellweger (Chicago). Regarding these five ladies, I read an amusing letter which asked, “Has the Academy changed the title of this category to Most Babelicious and forgotten to tell the rest of us?” The list may read that way, but anyone who’s seen these performances knows they’re legit.

Of them all, I think I’ll have to back Moore, who hits all the right notes in a sterling homage to the ‘50s’ “women’s pictures” of director Douglas Sirk.

*Best Director – Pedro Almodovar (Talk To Her), Stephen Daldry (The Hours), Rob Marshall (Chicago), Roman Polanski (The Pianist), and Martin Scorsese (Gangs of New York). Despite the fact Miramax is fighting hard to get Scorsese his first Oscar, and it’s surprising he hasn’t yet won one, I’m afraid I can’t back Marty.

My vote goes to Rob Marshall, who so successfully translated a cabaret musical into an immensely entertaining and expansive movie experience.

*Best Picture – Chicago, Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and The Pianist. I have issues with each of these films except Chicago (though, to be fair, I don’t really have a beef with The Two Towers either... it’s simply the victim of falling in the middle of a trilogy, with no real beginning and no true end).

Gangs of New York showed flashes of brilliance, but also proved too unwieldy and far-reaching for its own good; The Hours is finely crafted but so depressing it hardly qualifies as entertainment; and The Pianist, while enlightening, proves to be something of an emotional and physical endurance test for both its lead character and the audience.

Chicago, on the other hand, was a welcome surprise full of showmanship, wit and, dare I say it, all that jazz!