Politics & Predictability... Oscars 2009

Show-wise, the 81st Oscars Night was a well-put production. I guess if there’s anything that was worth “debatable” about it would be the Winners (as always). Although I love Heath Ledger, I would have also wanted to give the Best Supporting Actor trophy to Michael Shannon for his role in “Revolutionary Road”. There has been an Oscar tie. Two incidents actually – Best Actor in 1932 and Best Actress in 1969 between Barbra Streisand (Funny Girl) and Katharine Hepburn (Lion in Winter). However, as much as it would be cool to have another tie, especially since they both played “insane fellows” I guess it’s just always harder to beat the dead guy.



The Academy Awards is probably the most politicized award-giving body in the US, if not the world. So every win definitely has an angle to it. For example, let’s talk about the Best Actor category. The nominees this year are: Richard Jenkins (The Visitor), Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon), Sean Penn (Milk), Brad Pitt (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), and Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler). Let’s face it. Though it may sound cliché, being nominated is already an honor in it itself. But it’s really true. If it were me, picking the single best out of five bests would be HARD. It’s like trying to tell which chocolate is the most delicious. I dunno! They’re all chocolates. How can they ever go wrong?

Anyway, that’s the thing about awarding stellar performances. There’s always a collective subconscious rule to it. It’s really all about Who and What the audience (or the Academy for that matter) wants to HEAR on that podium. What's the agenda for the evening?

Why not give the Best Actor trophy to Jenkins? The speech tribute to him said he’s already done 60 films in the past 30 years of his career. The subtext: you’ve been here so long but we don’t think the papers or the world would be interested about you now more than it had never done in the past. Now this is just my intelligent “guess” but there may be some truth to it. The Academy after all needs all the press it could get. There’s nothing press-worthy about Richard Jenkins. He’s been around. Sure, he’s a great actor. I love him to death (pun intended) in “Six Feet Under.” Unfortunately, he’s not headline material.

Next… why not Langella? The Academy has been notorious in their obvious preference for American-themed movies. So given that “Frost/Nixon” is a very American story, why not give it a win? Well, unfortunately, as much as the story hits very close to home, it hit them where it hurt. I guess the collective subconscious on this was that: Who wants to honor a President who was practically an a**hole? Langella played Nixon too well that we forgot he was an actor vying for an Oscar.

Next… why not Pitt? Brad had better roles and performances in the past. Clearly, the collective subconscious agrees that even if we realize that Brad can still look “hot” even as an octogenarian that does not warrant an Oscar. Maybe another Sexiest Man Alive title to his belt instead.

Next… why not Rourke? I think the collective subconscious agrees that Rourke had enough “redemption” stories in the past months following the release of “The Wrestler”. His nomination is enough to rake in cash for the DVDs. And besides, the Oscars are all about PEERS. Mickey Rourke clearly has been out of the loop for a very long time. And I think they would want someone with at least some respectable amount of class to hold one of those gold trophies. They probably don’t want another “I’d like to thank my dog” speech.

So the Oscar goes to Sean Penn I think because he played a homosexual politician out to fight for Gay Rights. I’m not saying he wasn’t good at it. I love Sean Penn but sorry my favorite character of all time would be his bleach-blond surfer dude Pecoli. I’m just saying that he’s had better roles and performances in the past. Some got the Oscar nod while others were left in the gutter. So why give an Oscar now? It’s interesting to know that as of press time, activists on Gay Marriage Ban are on the streets. This is certainly a perfect orchestration (by Hollywood insiders, gay mostly) to drive a point.

The Academy can sometimes be fickle-minded. For the longest time, they have trouble giving the Best Actress trophies to non-American women. And they like giving a lot of these golden boys to Meryl Streep who I think should have a category of her own by now. A lot of spectacular British actresses have been snubbed and yet they gave one to an American who with a very fake English accent played a Shakespearean woman. Last year they gave it to a French girl and this year finally after a couple of misses, British actress Kate Winslet goes home with an Oscar for a film (The Reader) that everyone is so oblivious of that even Hugh Jackman had no idea what the movie was all about, which he interpreted by doing an ambiguous song & dance number with dancers in metallic silver body suits. His lyrics even said, “I’ve got to watch The Reader…” yadiyadiyada because like everyone else he doesn’t know what it’s all about.

Coming from its raving reception at the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards surprisingly snubs the husband and wife story set in the 50s “Revolutionary Road”. Everyone else except Michael Shannon who played a small albeit very strong role was lucky enough to be nominated for the said film. But then again, this may just be another marketing ploy to drive viewers to “The Reader.” Anyhow, I think that the voters made Kate win not because of “The Reader” but secretly for “Revolutionary Road.”

The Oscars have been infamous for turning up their noses to blockbusters and giving their nods to lesser-known films. Actually, that’s not bad at all. It’s just another way to keep the banks rolling. It is after all an industry. Some hands have to oil the gears.

Such is the case for big winner “Slum Dog Millionaire”. Who knew anything about this film until it got nominated? Nobody. That’s also because the producers never released it in the major theaters. It almost became a straight-to-DVD production. But due to its indie (short for independent not Indian) attributes, it found its niche. Clever if you ask me because I believe the producers knew that promoting a film set in India, with Indian actors, and with a story about the slums of Mumbai (Yes that’s in India) would be quite tricky in LA. So to cut costs while generating interest, why not produce it below the line? So that’s just what they did. Of course, it wasn’t just any film. They had an ace in hand – Danny Boyle. That was enough for them to bet their life that this film would soon find its way into the hands of cult film enthusiasts, movie critiques who have a taste for the exotic, and well yeah Danny Boyle fans. I’m one of them actually. I liked “Trainspotting,” “A Life Less Ordinary,” and “The Beach.”

So I was happy that he won as Best Director for “Slumdog Millionaire.” Good thing Clint Eastwood was not nominated. That was actually a big surprise too. But in the end, Eastwood’s absence gave Boyle a fair game against Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon), David Fincer (Benjamin Button), Gus Van Sant (Milk), and Stephen Daldry (The Reader). Eastwood, if you don’t know is like the male version of Streep.

Another debatable win was that of Penelopé Cruz’s Best Supporting victory for “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.” I think Taraji Henson (Button) and Marisa Tomei (Wrestler) were strong contenders. But I guess once you play one of Woody Allen’s quirky female characters, that’s a certified Oscar. Mira Sorvino won Best Supporting Actress for “Mighty Aphrodite” and of course Diane Keaton won as Best Actress for “Annie Hall” among many other Oscar-winning Woody Allen roles. And besides, contrary to the Best Actress category, I noticed that the Academy has always been much nicer to foreigners in the female supporting role.

So how about you, what do you think about this year’s Oscar winners?