Last week I weighed in on most of the Oscars. I also happened to anger a lot of Internet-land by saying that Heath Ledger did not deserve his inevitable award and was only receiving it since he is no longer among us. Internet-land readers promptly responded that I could not insult his acting as he was dead. I felt that they only proved my point. Now onto the big five, complete with my unscientific odds of them winning.
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (2008) is 160 minutes long and features no conflict whatsoever (aging backwards is a premise, not a conflict, people). All this movie has to offer is a script that tells and does not show, rampant with clichés and completely ignorant of any complications involving race in the first half of the 20th century, and acting more wooden than my floor. In my eyes, even "The Dark Knight" (2008) is more deserving of the Oscar than this load. Even so, this is currently the picture most likely to win. It is bland, inoffensive, epic and pretty. It has the most nominations and a good, life-affirming message of the triumph of the human spirit and the joys of love, family and unity.
Odds: 5:1.
"Frost/Nixon" (2008) feels like the ultimate fifth-candidate movie. It's the "Good Night, and Good Luck" (2005) of this year, if you will. It's a reasonably well-made film about an important time in history, making it palatable enough for younger viewers to appreciate while maintaining some cinematic integrity. But is it particularly amazing and memorable? Can you imagine anyone ever using this film to teach anything important about the history of film or how to make film? Hell, can you picture it having overly astounding DVD sales? Not really. But it's good and has all the makings of an "important" movie. I would be much less outraged with this film's nomination had there been not so many snubs this year. But hey, it's not like it's going to bring home the Oscar. The only way it could is if the badness of the competing films overwhelms voters, leaving this placating, decent movie victorious after the struggle.
Odds: 20:1.
"Milk" (2008) is the only film that I would have nominated and the only one I can comfortably see receiving the title of "Best Picture." It's brilliantly acted, powerful and at times even a bit daring in terms of style and content. Would every film admit that its "saintly" protagonist hooked up with random strangers? However, it talks about homosexuals (shhh), which can make its chances of winning go one of two ways. Either we'll see a repeat of "Brokeback" (2005)/"Capote" (2005) and the Academy will be afraid to support such a controversial subject matter, or the case will be: "Dear Gay Community, we're sorry for 2006. And that whole Prop 8 thing. Please accept this little gold statue as a token of our regret."
Odds: 12:1.
"The Reader" (2008) must be the result of a mix-up. "The Wrestler" (2008) is an all-around powerful film worthy of an Oscar nomination, while this is a middling one that is only notable for a singular, strong performance. Kate Winslet is astounding in this film, portraying a morally gray character that excites both sympathy and disgust for feeling such sympathy in audiences. The rest of the film ranges between being boring and artificial. The other main character in "The Reader" rivals "Slumdog Millionare's" (2008) in terms of being the most undefined, un-compelling protagonist in an Oscar-nominated film.
Whenever Winslet's character was not onscreen, I found myself checking my email on my Blackberry. The film itself feels too much like it was made for the sole purpose of snagging an Academy nomination. It has the tired montages of "tense moment of heightened cutting between events as violins swell" and "inspirational scene as protagonist accomplishes something as a single speech plays in the background." Thankfully, this movie is too controversial and possibly even too bland to fit the Academy's tastes.
Odds: 30:1.
"Slumdog Millionaire" still makes me feel under-whelmed, and I saw it before the inconceivable hype broke out. Again, we have a very pretty film and some nice direction. The premise is clever, if not a bit gimmicky, and more reliant on coincidence than the complete works of Charles Dickens. However, I found it hard to be "the feel-good movie of the year" when I could not give two craps about any of the characters. They essentially all fell into the categories of "nicest people in the world," "meanest people in the world" and "meanest people turned nice" except for the host, who is also the only decent actor.
The big question, though, is if it will win. I say no. While there is a decent chance that the Academy may want to appear diverse and give a token Best Picture to a foreign film, I doubt that they will. The Oscars are a mess of masturbatory self-congratulation on Hollywood's behalf. Do you really think that, even for a year, they would self-congratulate anyone other than themselves? If there were any year that they would, this would be it, but ultimately I think the answer will be "No."
Odds: 7:1.
Will I be right? Will I be wrong? Only 11 days will tell.
--
Devin Toohey is a senior majoring in classics. He can be reached at Devin.Toohey@tufts.edu.
