Where Oscar screwed up

So it’s that time again. Vegas betting pools are filled to the brim, major film studios suddenly become white-hot greasefires of activity and everybody thinks they’re an expert on Hollywood. Yes, folks, it’s Oscar time, also known as yet another excuse for Joan Rivers to climb out of her hole. In just three days, all the campaigning, blood, sweat and tears that have built up over the past four months will climax in a sea of broken hearts and new stars.

So will Oscar get it right this year? If the nominations are any indication, probably not. With 2000 already a dismal year in the American film industry, Academy members have chosen to nominate some of the year’s weakest and completely ignore what little magic there was. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the category of Best Picture. Sure, the Academy has done right by Steven Soderbergh’s double nomination, recognizing his epic masterpiece “Traffic,” but do we really need to honor “Erin Brockovich” as a whole? Was it really that good of a film? And is “Gladiator,” the present front- runner, really anything more than a Roman “Braveheart,” filled with Hollywood glitz and cinematic claptrap? Thank heavens for “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” which indicates that SOME voters have been able to get past this jingoistic obsession with American films and see that there is life beyond the two shining seas.

Throwing a small bone out to the thriving international film market with a category as weak as Best Foreign Language Film hardly makes up for it, especially given that most of 2000’s best international cinema was conspicuously ignored (“In the Mood for Love,” “Yi Yi,” “Dancer in the Dark,” “A Time for Drunken Horses”). With one more chance to redeem itself, the Academy did not nominate Darren Aronofsky’s masterful drug exposé “Requiem for a Dream,” did not nominate Cameron Crowe’s warm and beautiful coming-of-age tale “Almost Famous,” and even ignored their own nomination formula with the Academy-friendly “Cast Away.” Instead, the fifth and final slot was robbed by the mediocre “Chocolat,” as the Academy bent over backwards for Miramax. Even Academy insiders are blinking in disbelief at this nomination. It seems that at this point the Weinstein brothers could make a film about belly button lint and get it a nomination.

Moving into the acting categories, Best Actor finds a panel of new and veteran talent alike, but is this really the correct lineup with which to represent lead actor roles of 2000? Billy Crystal ribbed Meryl Streep at last year’s Oscars for being a “designated hitter,” and here we take the same look at Tom Hanks, who with six nominations, two wins, and a potential third, is becoming something of a perennial staple. And what of Australian golden boy, Russell Crowe, ignored for “LA Confidential” and then nominated for his fine work in “The Insider,” now a favorite for a routine, slow burn, all-braun performance in “Gladiator”? At least the Academy decided to shine its light on Javier Bardem (this year’s Hilary Swank-esque newcomer), Ed Harris (superior and long-ignored), and the always-reliable Geoffrey Rush. But that leaves Michael Douglas for “Traffic” or “Wonder Boys”, who has had his best year of cinema, out in the cold, to speak nothing of ignoring Mark Ruffalo of “You Can Count on Me,” BAFTA winner Jamie Bell of “Billy Elliot”, John Cusack of “High Fidelity” and Christian Bale of “American Psycho.”

Every year there seems to be a truly undeserved winner in some category. In terms of performance and sheer talent, frontrunner Julia Roberts does not measure up to any of the other actresses, with exception of Binoche’s role in “Chocolat.” The only thing that American golden girl Julia seems to equal and surpass is her miracle bra cupsize in her performance as “Erin Brockovich.” The best female performances this year come from a veteran Oscar legend and an actress who has paid her dues. Ellen Burstyn, the diamond performance in Aronofsky’s “Requiem for a Dream,” daringly portrayed a 60-year-old woman who falls from grace with her addiction to diet pills. Laura Linney takes the most subtle of roles in this year’s wonderfully written “You Can Count On Me” and transforms it into a steamroller of charisma and emotion. Joan Allen doesn’t have a prayer, but her commanding screen presence in “The Contender” parallels that of Glenn Close. With four deserving performances, it seems Juliet Binoche, much like any category nominated with “Chocolat,” is an undeserved nomination. The suitors for her spot are many, including the snubbing of the Hollywood disrespected Gillian Anderson for “The House of Mirth” and the siren songstress-turned-actress Bjork for “Dancer in the Dark.”

Fortunately for the Academy, their crop of best supporting actors turned out well, with exception of the debatable choices of Joaquin Phoenix and Jeff Bridges. Phoenix and Bridges could be easily replaced by Fred Willard in “Best in Show” and the whole male cast of “State and Main” and “Traffic.” The choices are forgivable because there is no way in hell Benicio Del Toro is going to lose. In the female supporting actress category, there are some great choices, but the Oscar voters turned away too many dominant performances. The most intriguing choice was Marcia Gay Harden for “Pollock” — intriguing because it was a good choice. Kate Hudson, the front-runner, seems to be the only other deserved nomination when you face the likes of the sultry Zhang Ziyi in “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” the fiendishly evil Laura Linney in “The House of Mirth,” the always daring Kate Winslet in “Quills” and the unattractive pregnant Catherine Zeta Jones in “Traffic,” who shows family loyalty still runs deep 30 years after “The Godfather.”

In many ways, the Academy has committed cardinal sins with this year’s nominees, but has expertly made some bold choices so as not to completely sell their souls to the devil (or Harvey Weinstein). Even in the expertly chosen Best Director category rests Stephen Daldry for “Billy Elliot,” completely out of his league with the likes of Ang Lee, Ridley Scott and a Soderbergh doubleheader. What about Cameron Crowe, or Philip Kauffman or Darren Aronofsky? We could go on forever (editing in “Requiem for a Dream,” with its 2,000+ cuts, maybe?), but we’ve got an awards show to heckle. Here’s hoping the Academy will make the most of a mostly sour lot.