In preparation for the Academy Awards on March 26, four arts writers and I got together to discuss this year's Best Picture contest and the state of the Oscars in general. Joining me are Suzy Gibbons, Steve Kantor, Hank Leukart and Brad Russo.
-John Teti, Arts Editor
JT: Let's start off by talking about the movies that weren't nominated. What films do you think got robbed?
SK: "Being John Malkovich." It totally redefined the way that movies can be made. The extended metaphor of the puppeteering worked very well. It was an artsy kind of feel, but everybody could enjoy it.
BR: I liked "Malkovich" a lot. I was happy to see that it at least got a Best Director and Best Screenplay nominations.
SG: I think "Sixth Sense" deserved its nomination. It's rare to be so surprised by a movie. It amazed me.
BR: But let's face it -- it was just a good ending.
HL: I agree. Its only merit is its finale. The script is silly, the characters are one-dimensional, and Bruce Willis underdelivers. Even more offensive is that the Academy nominated "The Sixth Sense" over "Fight Club," which was superior with top-notch actors and an edgy script.
SK: Yes, "Fight Club" was a better film throughout. Male identity in general has been a major topic in film this year, which "Fight Club" showed very well. You see this in "American Beauty" also. The conflict between materialism and inner
SG: Worth?
SK: Yes, inner worth. I think this year offered a much better look at the state of American manhood these days than in the past.
BR: There were a couple more deserving films. "Magnolia" and "Eyes Wide Shut" should have been nominated before "Sixth Sense."
JT: OK, let's start with "Magnolia" -- why?
BR: I think that, like "Malkovich," this movie was a very artsy type of movie on the surface, with a complex web of characters and storylines, but it really came down to a good story. It was over three hours long, but it really felt no longer than a standard film. It was interesting and it kept us talking -- not controversial, but thought-provoking.
SK: You mentioned length of the movie. I should mention "The Green Mile" -- people have criticized it as being overly long. I disagree that length made it any worse. Everything that was in the movie should have been in there.
HL: No, an editor could have shortened this by at least an hour by removing the nauseating superfluous story about a mouse.
JT: Speaking of pace -- Brad, your other choice for a Best Picture nomination, "Eyes Wide Shut," suffered from a dragging pace in my opinion. Kubrick spent almost three hours showing us what a great artist he was and what a beautiful movie he could make.
BR: I couldn't disagree more. The pace made us feel like we were traveling the streets of New York with Cruise and living through his horror.
JT: Looking at recent Best Picture contests, what did you think of the "Shakespeare in Love" fiasco last year?
SG: I was horrified. I thought that was awful. "Saving Private Ryan" definitely should have won.
SK: I liked the movie, but it was kind of a light comedy. "Saving Private Ryan" was a better movie as a whole.
JT: What about "Titanic"? I may be in a minority here, but I think it was so stunning that it deserved to win even though it had fairly standard plot and characters.
SK: "Titanic" shouldn't have won. It was flashy and looked very nice, but the story was canned. It won for the budget.
SG: It had splendor, for sure. I think it did have moments of deeper meaning in the nostalgia -- it was a whole new look at this event. It made me think of that era very differently. I thought of the people in the boat, when there were only enough lifeboats for half of the people to leave -- the selfishness, the horrifying experience. Aside from that, my thoughts on the Titanic had been from fourth grade history class. The movie put some humanity behind it.
JT: We talked about "The Sixth Sense" already, but how about the rest of this year's nominees -- "The Insider"?
HL: I'm surprised it got discovered by the Academy after it bombed at the box office.
BR: I liked "The Insider" as a film -- it probably had the best acting of the year -- but I was troubled by the historical inaccuracies. Normally, I wouldn't hold that against it. But the movie was so hypercritical of the media for holding back on facts while the filmmakers are changing facts. You have a message problem there.
HL: "The Insider's" most valuable asset is its ability to truly frighten the audience, but this darkness might work against it. It's obvious that the Academy wants an upbeat tale for its winner this year after it passed over "Fight Club" and "Election."
JT: And "Cider House Rules"? This would be my second choice for winner. One oddity I found was Charlize Theron, who I felt was out of place in the 1940s setting.
SG: No, I thought she was good for that. The '40s woman was a powerful figure -- look at Rosie the Riveter. Women were a little more daring than usual. I think that parallels the '90s woman in a way. "Cider House" was a great movie, but I wasn't awed.
BR: I didn't think that Theron was the problem. I thought the writing was too heavy-handed.
SG: It was didactic. It had the doctor in the orphanage constantly preaching about abortion. And when the part about the daughter being raped came I thought it was a little much -- it was so much about this abortion.
BR: "The Green Mile" should win. It's a good Best Picture field, but it's not an exceptional field this year. "The Green Mile" is an excellent, solid, quality film. I think when we look back in ten years it's going to be the most memorable film of the five.
HL: But it has this problem as a book adaptation in that it uses too much dialogue to explain the film instead of using images to show a message.
SK: "Green Mile" has a chance. Frank Darabont also directed "[The] Shawshank [Redemption]," which was nominated but didn't win. They might look well upon that, saying, "Here is a really good movie by the same team."
JT: I think the favorite, "American Beauty," is going to win, and I think it deserves to. Going back to Brad's remark about memorability, I think that people will remember the essential 1990s suburban imagery of "American Beauty" longer than "The Green Mile."
SK: "Beauty" is such a wonderful commentary on suburban life and how it becomes mundane. Kevin Spacey does such a good job as a suburban father. By the end of the film,he's relived his childhood and now he's ready for adulthood. Annette Bening did a great job, too. Their interaction is genuinely dysfunctional.
BR: Was it genuine or over-the-top? I question the supposedly accurate depiction of suburbia and this moral dilemma. Maybe I'm living in a different America. "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a better depiction of American in a moral crossroads with its look at divorce.
SK: What I liked most about "American Beauty" was the you could watch it as a work of art and enjoy it as well. It seemed like other films this year were either vacuous and enjoyable or didactic and boring.
HL: It really is a superb film. And its popularity tied with its critical commendations make it the most obvious candidate for the Oscar.
SG: From everything we're saying it looks like American Beauty is screaming "winner."
JT: While I'm sure Brad won't be pleased, I'm inclined to agree. So the majority pick is "American Beauty" with "The Green Mile" a distant second. Thanks for your time everyone, and be sure to tune in to the Oscars on March 26 to see how we did.
