THE OSCAR RACE 2014: a few thoughts ahead of the nominations

Let me start with a disclaimer. I have not, and do not intend to, see every single movie that might
possibly pick up an Oscar nomination next week. I don't have the time or the patience to sit through everything and, to be entirely honest, I really don't have much of a clue when it comes to determining who edited the sound or created make-up and hairstyling better than everyone else.
So I'm going to limit it to those 'new' films that I have seen and the major categories like best actor, actress, director and film.

I don't know if it's just because I watched it last night but CAPTAIN PHILLIPS has left an impression - a very positive impression - on me. I didn't realise until the final credits that it was directed by Paul Greengrass but when I saw his name it all made sense - the semi-documentary style, the hand-held camerawork, that sense of claustrophobia, and of being in the story rather than just watching it. I'd experienced it all
before with 'United 93' which I found to be a profoundly powerful and moving piece of cinema. By the very nature of the story, CAPTAIN PHILLIPS doesn't possess the same level of intensity as the
story of events on the flight hijacked on 9/11 and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, but the final few scenes were almost as wrenching as 'United 93.' In both films Greengrass focuses on the quiet heroics of ordinary people responding to extraordinary and deadly situations, creating palpable drama, tension and empathy without resort to Hollywood heroics, sentimentality or moralising. He got an Directing Oscar nomination for 'United 93' and I think he deserves the same for CAPTAIN PHILLIPS, although I also think it's not the kind of film the Academy's likely to bestow that award on.
Tom Hanks stars in the title role demonstrating once again his convincing versatility despite a lack of conventional leading man good looks. What's impressive here is his ability to make us forget we're watching Tom Hanks, and accept Richard Phillips as a three dimensional, real person. Hanks makes it look so effortless that it's easy to disregard the level of talent that requires, and for that reason I can't see a Best Actor nomination although I think he's worthy of it.

Talking of Tom Hanks, a few thoughts about 'Forest Gump With a Purpose' or THE BUTLER as it's more popularly known. The intentions are worthy but the execution is lacking with Forrest Whitaker (yet again playing a character with a droopy eyelid) as the Gump-like witness to 50 years of Civil Rights history as seen from the inside of The White House. Trying to cram a half century's worth of events into a two hour movie is not a recipe for effective story telling, and director Lee Daniels is further hampered by the unnecessary stunt-casting of famous faces in unsuitable roles, most notably Robin Williams as the most implausible President Eisenhower in the history of Ike-impersonations. Short of a tv mini-series I'm not sure how else Daniels' could have handled the story but good intentions are not enough to warrant a nod for director. In my view, Oprah Winfrey as Whitaker's long-suffering wife is the only one worthy of an Oscar nomination, for Best Supporting Actress.

ENOUGH SAID is the kind of indie-movie that would normally slide in and out of cinemas with little notice but the fact that it was released shortly after the death of its star, James Gandolfini, has

given it more attention than it might otherwise have warranted. He plays a warm-hearted, slightly slobby, divorced dad with a teenage daughter, who strikes up a relationship with Julia Louis-Dreyfus's rather needy divorced mom, also with a teenage daughter. Director Nicholas Holofcener examines the premise that 'love is lovelier the second time around' without really coming to any new or surprisingly conclusions but it plays out pleasantly enough and - most importantly - both Gandolfini and Louis-Dreyfus succeed in transcending the tv characters for which they are best known. But both would have to be up against particularly weak competition to pick-up the Oscar, and I'm not convinced either is even deserving of a nomination but if Helen Hunt could get nominated for 'The Sessions', which was a similar type of performance in a similar kind of film - who knows?

If we're talking Oscars it's almost obligatory to mention Meryl Streep. With 3 statuettes and a further 14 nominations to her name there's a very good chance that if she's made a film in any given year she's going to get nominated for it. AUGUST:OSAGE COUNTY gives Streep the kind of role many
actresses would kill for. Violet Weston is a scenery-chewing monster of a matriarch, spewing bile, venom and self pity in equal quantities over her unfortunate family when they gather to remember her husband, their father, after he's killed himself. Bewigged and pasty faced, and alternately drunk from the liquor and woozy from the pills she's chugging, Streep doesn't simply dominate every scene, she overwhelms them and the fellow cast members unfortunate enough to share the space with her. Think Elizabeth Taylor in 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?' and you'll have some idea of the kind of force of nature co-stars Julia Roberts, Chris Cooper, Ewan McGregor and Juliette Lewis are up against. Despite Roberts' best efforts and the calibre of the cast AUGUST:OSAGE COUNTY is Streep's film from start to finish and she takes full advantage of the free rein given her by director John Wells. Whether the end result is a great performance or just an acting masterclass I can't quite decide. What I am certain of is that not for a moment did I believe in Violet Weston as a character. Maybe it's my own failing but I couldn't get past the idea of Streep pulling every acting trick, technique and method in an accomplished actor's repertoire to give a great stage performance. The film's based on the Broadway play (the screenplay's written by Tracy Letts who also wrote the original story) and it's impossible to escape the story's theatrical origins. Every line of dialogue, every gesture is theatrical with the characters as types designed to mouth attitudes and philosophies in that irritatingly theatrical way that bears little relation to the way in which real - and cinematic - characters speak, move and behave. If Streep gets another Best Actress nomination it'll be for the volume rather than the credibility of her screen performance.

No such concerns about a Best Actress nomination for Cate Blanchett's turn as a troubled New York socialite on the edge of a nervous breakdown in BLUE JASMINE. She is absolutely compelling and never less than totally believable, by turns likeable, impossible and everything inbetween. Blanchett's so good, in fact, that you'll forget this is a Woody Allen movie and, given his unique writing and
directing style, that's no easy thing to do. I'm a longtime admirer of Allen's work but the one thing I don't like (other than his misfires) are the films where he doesn't appear and instead gives his part to one of his star cast, resulting in John Cusack (for example) doing a Woody Allen impression and, inevitably, suffering in comparison to the original. Jasmine is absolutely not an Allen stand-in and everyone benefits.

In the Best Actor category I'd like to see Christian Bale get a nod for his irresistible turn as showy, sleazy conman Irving Rosenfeld in AMERICAN HUSTLE. Bale again submerges himself in his character giving a performance that is dominant without dominating. Co-stars Bradley Cooper,

Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams are given plenty of room to shine but there's never any doubt this is Bale's film. The film re-unites 'Silver Linings Playbook' stars Cooper and Lawrence with director David O. Russell, and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that any of these three will also be Oscar nominated. Might we see Lawrence with a Best Supporting Actress statuette to put alongside the Best Actress award she picked up last year for 'Playbook'?

Also deserving in the Best Actor category is Matthew McConnaughey for his committed performance as waster and hustler turned unlikely AIDS activist Ron Woodroof in THE DALLAS BUYERS
CLUB. McConnaughey literally proved he's more than just a pretty face by losing 50 pounds to get into the part, rendering himself almost unrecognisable and forcing him to rely on his acting chops rather than his looks and charm to carry the film. It's a compelling story told with a minimum of sentimentality (given that this is a mainstream Hollywood movie), and while Woodroof never really shakes his hustler origins it's to McConnaughey's credit that it's impossible not to root for him by the end.

Impressive though McConnaughey and Bale are, the actor with the strongest claim to the Best Actor statuette this year is Chiwetel Eijiofor for his spellbinding performance as Solomon Northup in 12 YEARS A SLAVE. Eijiofor simply 'is' Northup. There's never any sense of acting or artifice, nor does he try (or need to try) to dominate any scene he's in. There's a quiet, understated dignity to Northup which can't be shattered no matter how demeaning, vicious, or just unfair the injustices heaped on him after he's kidnapped from the free
north and sold into slavery in a pre-Civil War Louisiana. I have a feeling Eijiofor won't be the only person connected with 12 YEARS who gets a nomination come this Thursday morning in LA. Expect to see co-star Michael Fassbender named in the Best Supporting Actor category, Steve McQueen as Best Director and 12 YEARS itself as Best Film. In fact this could be the second year running that a momentous piece of American history dominates the nominations, but where last year's Oscar frontrunner 'Lincoln' was worthy but dry, ponderous and - frankly - dull, 12 YEARS A SLAVE is a vibrant, living thing.

This is in no way to minimise the contributions of Sandra Bullock or George Clooney, but the story
and the method of telling it are the true stars of GRAVITY and if there's any justice (not always a concept that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is familiar with) there'll be nominations for director Alfonso Cuaron, cinematography, and visual effects. I wouldn't begrudge Bullock a Best Actress nom but I would be surprised to see her get it.

I would, however, begrudge James Franco a best actor nod for SPRING BREAKERS. My disapproval is - I'll admit - driven more by dislike of the film and Franco's character than any particular failing on his part. His Florida drugs and arms dealer is so unpleasant on every level that I found it impossible to assess his performance objectively. Neither the film nor anyone in it is deserving of recognition by the Academy.

I've left the longest til last. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is an epic, clocking in at a little over three hours. In the hands of a lesser director that could easily feel like a lifetime but this is a Martin Scorsese production and Scorsese is always worth the investment. For a director whose best years are probably now behind him he's still working at a pretty high level even if the misses ('Shutter Island',

'Bringing Out the Dead') are about as frequent as the hits ('The Departed', 'Hugo'). My view is that WOLF is more of a hit than a miss. It's almost impossible to maintain a story's initial tension and pace for the entire three hour running time, but Scorsese does better than many other directors would, and while the momentum does start to flag in the second half (reflecting the slowing pace of the characters' journey through their story arc) it never gets boring. Scorsese has certainly not lost any of his stylistic and visual creativity when it comes to telling the story, but there's a nagging sense of a lack of depth. We never really get to explore below the surface of the characters (perhaps there's nothing much to see beneath their glossy, brash drug-fueled exteriors) so what we're left with is a stylish and engaging tabloid-style black comedy expose of Wall Street excess. Is that enough to get Scorsese a best director nomination? I don't know. The achievement is certainly more impressive than many other directors could achieve on their best day.
I do think Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in the title role deserves serious consideration for a Best Actor nod. He really is impressive as hyper-active, hyper-amoral, hyper-greedy stockbroker Jordan Belfort, a young man with boundless talent and appetites and little concept of boundaries. DiCaprio's real-life (though not necessarily true) image as a playboy and ladies man works perfectly for him, bolstering his credibility as Belfort, while allowing him to build on it and take it places the actor has never been accused of going in real life. It's a very engaging, enjoyable and - most importantly - committed performance which I believe deserves recognition by Academy voters.
Anyone who's watched the Academy Awards over the years knows that who wins what is often more about rewarding the righteous than rewarding the best, so I'm conscious that what I've written here may bear little reality to what happens on January 16, and I'm also aware that there's plenty of other films likely to be in the running that I've not have time to get to yet. I will try my best to rectify that before March 2!