Oscar Watch 10.5

A few nights ago, I pondered deeply: How many times in the past ten years have I been disappointed with the Oscar wins? I tell myself it's about half the time, but I don't know if that is accurate. So, let's see:

1998: "Shakespeare In Love" over "Saving Private Ryan." Ugh. While I may like "Shakespeare In Love" better, it's because war movies aren't my speed. But is it better? Um, nope. This year was a disappointment for sure, all the way around.

1999: "American Beauty" takes it all. I won't disagree with that choice per se, but the movies were all so strong it's hard to pick the "Best." See the nominees: "The Green Mile", "The Sixth Sense", "The Cider House Rules" and "The Insider." It's hard! But, the real snub came when Russell Crowe did not win Best Actor. See: Next year...

2000 : "Gladiator" beats out "Traffic" even though Steven Soderbergh wins Best Director and Ridley Scott does not. That is always the sure-fire way to tell no one can make up their minds. I did not agree at the time, and still have trouble with this...but not nearly the problem I have with Russell Crowe winning Best Actor this year. I love, love, love Russell Crowe, but his win should have come last year for "The Insider" and not here. His performance in "The Insider" ranks, to me, as one of the very best ever. An example of the right actor winning for the wrong role.

2001: "A Beautiful Mind" wins and "Moulin Rouge" does not. Enough said. I can appreciate the reasons behind it, but I don't agree. The Academy has a hard time rewarding new filmmaking styles. (Witness "Pulp Fiction" losing to "Forrest Gump." I rest my case.) So, Baz Luhrman's frenetic, hyper-realized musical certainly does not look like the traditional Best Picture, no matter the visual brilliance of it. I won't say it's a total wash, though.

2002: "Chicago" beats both "The Pianist" and "Gangs of New York" and no once since the ceremony ended will let anyone forget it. The outrage - from some of the same people who voted for crying out loud! This is just wrong on many, many levels - even though I adore "Chicago" on stage and screen, love the music and wish I could play Velma Kelly sometime. But seriously, people...just, seriously. At least there is a silver lining - Adrien Brody's surprise win for Best Actor in "The Pianist" ranks as one of my best Oscar moments ever! They got that right for sure.

2003: "The Lord of the Rings - Return of the King" is awarded top prize, since Peter Jackson had to be rewarded for his groundbreaking trilogy. I would personally have picked "Mystic River" but I appreciate the choice. In terms of filmmaking on a whole, Peter Jackson did create a new mold.

2004: The "Million Dollar Baby" year. Oh, boy. It's hard to even talk about it. Clint Eastwood is a major Hollywood player and last year, for "Mystic River", I would have stood up and cheered for his win. But this? I can't get in line...too bad because "The Aviator" is tremendous and one of Martin Scorsese's best.

2005: The whole "Crash" debacle. I think I"ve already discussed this. Suffice it to say that "Crash" manipulated its audience and likewise, manipulated itself into the top Oscar spot. It's not a terrible movie and I don't hate it. But it's not the best of that year.

2006: Finally! "The Departed" wins Martin Scorsese's first Best Director prize. (That itself is scandalous.) This is by far the right decision. Yea! A lot of cheers for this one!

2007: "No Country For Old Men" and the Cohen brothers win. I love the Cohens. I don't agree with this choice over the more deserving "There Will Be Blood." But, Daniel Day Lewis did win as Best Actor, so I guess there is some atonement in that.

So, all in all, I only count four years I could say were personally satisfying and one that was truly awesome. So, forty percent of the time I'm happy. Huh.

Doesn't matter! The Oscars are less than a week away! I wonder how it will turn out this year? I can't wait to find out. I hope you can't either!