Here Comes Oscar Einstein

Last Friday, an odd thing happened. The April issue of Sci Fi magazine arrived. Since it was still February, that was odd enough—a science fiction magazine from the future! But it wasn’t what I meant when I said something odd happened. I’ll get to that. The magazine had a two-page article titled "Award to the Wise: If Sci Fi Abducted the Oscars." It listed science fiction/fantasy nominees for Best Picture, Director, Actor, and Actress. And I thought, "Everybody loves the Academy Awards, even nerds."

Yes, even I love the Academy Awards. Actually, what I love is the pre-show from the red carpet with Joan and Melissa. Okay, I love the awards show, too. Even the year David Letterman hosted. Yes, even the year of that Rob Lowe production number. The Oscars was reality TV before we knew TV was actually a part of this reality. Streakers, Indians, Middle East politics, and What was she thinking wearing that dress? That’s really real.

I do have one big problem with the Oscars, though. Year in, year out, I’m lucky if I’ve seen even one of the nominees for Best Picture. Part of that is temporal politics, as Oscar-worthy celluloid is rushed to a few screens in L.A. just before Christmas to qualify for the annual nominations. There’s a promise of wide release to follow—though "Frida" still hasn’t made it to the Salmon Falls Cinemagic Theatre—but I’ll admit it. "The Hours" would have to stay at the local triplex a long, long, long time for me to get around to it.

On top of that, the one nominated picture I did see has no shot at winning. "Titanic" was a notable exception, but I’m not going to bet the mortgage on a "Two Towers" upset this year. Peter Jackson wasn’t even nominated for Best Director, an obvious negative indicator.

So, it’s a fashion show again this year. With Salma Hayek, Diane Lane, and Catherine Zeta-Jones nominated, that could be okay. But without a Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon or Sean Penn nom, there's little hope for political pyrotechnics. I wonder who’s hosting this year and why Letterman failed so miserably; then I remember that Eminem is nominated for Best Song, and realize there is hope after all that something unexpected might be expected.

But anyway, here’s the odd thing. As I read through the Sci Fi nominees I notice something. While I have seen only one of the Academy’s nominees—"The Two Towers"—I have seen all five of the Sci Fi nominees:

• "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" – For slow children it’s a chance to catch up with their smarter classmates who’ve actually read the books. For busy parents it’s a chance to try to make up for a year of neglect with almost three hours of quality time. And you want to tell me that’s not "Oscar-worthy?"


• "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" – The sequence beginning with Aragorn looking up to see the dawn of the fifth day spilling light through a window in the castle walls of Helm’s Deep, ending with Gandolf leading the army of goodness and light sweeping down a hillside on horseback to engage the forces of Mordor is worth every other movie that came out this year.


• "Minority Report" – Just when I think that Hollywood doesn’t get Philip K. Dick, a movie like this finally comes along. (Hugh Jackman, have your people acquire the rights to "Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said," stat! You are Jason Taverner.) Terrifically paranoid and clear-eyed all at the same time. (I just had to get an eyeball reference in there.) You just have to love a movie where the hero needs to get new eyes in order to see the truth.


• "Signs" – All the backlash focusing on those Aliens who never should’ve taken that left turn in Albuquerque is missing the point. It wasn’t the point in "War of the Worlds," or "The Day of the Triffids," either. The last time I watched this movie I was very much reminded of "The Birds." "Signs," like Hitchcock’s avian thriller, is not so much about the external forces that act upon us, but what we do in response and how that defines who we really are.


• "Spider-Man" – Is he tough? Well, he doesn’t have radioactive blood this time, but he’s tough enough.

"Minority Report," "Signs," and "Spider-Man" has already been added to the DVD collection, and I would probably watch any of the movies listed above one more time if given a choice between them and say, "Far From Heaven." Eventually, I would grow weary of "Chamber of Secrets," I suppose. Still, I have no qualms about making my picks for the winners and losers next March 23rd at the 75th Academy Awards. It doesn’t really have all that much to do with the movies themselves, anyway. Remember, they call it show business, not show art…

Winners

Losers

Best Picture

"Chicago" – Let’s face it. This is all about the fact that Catherine Zeta-Jones is the It Girl for rich, old, white men (not to mention poor, white, middle-aged men, though this group tends to split its vote with Halle Berry).

"Gangs of New York" – Martin Scorsese couldn’t beat "Ordinary People" with "Raging Bull" back in ’81.

Best Director

Stephen Daldry – Rob Marshall isn’t from Hollywood, or he might win. He might win anyway, given that all actors really want to be rock stars. Still, I think this is the statuette the Academy will use to honor "The Hours," with Best Adapted Screenplay going to "Adaptation."

Martin Scorsese – The Academy just punched your ticket for the return trip to Loserville. All aboard!

Best Actor

Jack Nicholson & Richard Gere – Gere wins by not being nominated because then he only could’ve been a loser, losing to Nicholson. This way, he can still be the guy who got screwed out of a nomination. Jack wins because he’s Jack, of course.

Daniel Day-Lewis – Maybe working with Scorsese was enough.

Best Actress

Renee Zellweger – For all the side-by-side photo ops with Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Julianne Moore – A few weeks ago she was the trendy pick. Then she got stuffed at the Golden Globes by Nicole Kidman’s prosthetic nose. Ouch!

Best Supporting Actor

John C. Reilly – Don’t get me wrong. I like the guy, but this is all about CZ-J, baby.

Paul Newman – What’s this guy doing in the Supporting category, anyway?

Best Supporting Actress

Catherine Zeta-Jones – See above.

Meryl Streep – Hang in there, kid. Your time will come.

So I’m expecting "Chicago" to retain its title as hog-butcher to the world, and sweep the Oscars, too. Not that I care all that much. I’m only in this one for the cleavage. But I am left to wonder: Is Hollywood out of touch with me, or am I out of touch with Hollywood? I wonder only briefly, as I realize that I’ll still watch the show, ever hopeful that this year there will be a streaker, an Indian, or maybe even some Middle East politics.

And at least one moment when I wonder, "What was she thinking wearing that dress?"