OVP: Picture (2001)

 OVP: Best Picture (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Brian Grazer & Ron Howard, A Beautiful Mind

Robert Altman, Bob Balaban, & David Levy, Gosford Park

Graham Leader, Ross Katz, & Todd Field, In the Bedroom

Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, & Barrie M. Osborne, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Martin Brown, Baz Luhrmann, & Fred Baron, Moulin Rouge

My Thoughts: And we have come to the end of our 22nd season of the Oscar Viewing Project.  We will have our My Ballot (where I pick my personal choices for all categories, regardless of Oscar nominations) tomorrow, but we are done today with Oscar's choices.  I initially wanted to start going out-of-order (we will be doing that relatively soon), but some things got in the way of doing that next, and so we will be starting 2000 (and finishing up all of the 2000's in the process) next week.  But for now, we have one last round with the five films we've been discussing for the past couple of months (links at the bottom of the page), so sit back, relax, and let's start the show!

Much of these write-ups, I've been ending with The Fellowship of the Ring, so we're going to switch it up and start with that.  Peter Jackson's beautiful beginning to JRR Tolkien's story technically has some issues if you want to judge it by inches.  It is an incomplete story, with maybe the least emotionally impactful of the endings of the original trilogy.  But that's splitting hairs.  The movie is iconic in every single second, rarely with any spare time (everything feels needed), and gives us a dozen characters we believe in & fall in love with.  It was made at the exact right time, and is one of my favorites-I can't pretend otherwise.

Moulin Rouge! I distinctly remember watching at a sleepover for the first time.  I was 17, and everyone else there had seen it (I had been told I couldn't, though I just looked and it's PG-13 so I'm not entirely sure what my parents were forbidding on this one).  I was smitten.  The film is gaudy, romantic, and beautifully-acted with a career-best performance from Ewan McGregor, and a lightning-in-a-bottle turn from Nicole Kidman.  Throw in the rare (only?) jukebox musical score that feels authentic to the songs and not just like a greatest hits album, and you've got the best musical of the 21st Century.

A Beautiful Mind is, in my opinion, one of those Best Picture winners that gets a bad rap.  It's a good movie-the way it plays, with thriller elements and a strong performance from Russell Crowe in the lead, it's really enjoyable & I like the film.  But the problem is that it's not good enough for a Best Picture winner.  If you're going to strive for that title, especially against four excellent films, you need to be distinctive, you need to bring new chapters, & you need to go beyond what Ron Howard is doing here.  Good is fine for a Thursday night movie, but if you're giving out an Oscar...you gotta stand out more than this.

Gosford Park definitely has that distinction.  Robert Altman doesn't naturally seem like someone who could feel at-home in an English manor (the man most famous for his insights into country music & the film industry).  But he brings that sensibility, that vision of seeing through just existing to Gosford Park.  The mystery, difficult-to-solve but all of the clues are there, stands apart, as do the performers.  Like all Altman films, you gravitate toward a different performance each time, but with strong work from Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, & Emily Watson (among others), this is an embarrassment of riches.

In the Bedroom was one of the best "what's hiding in the suburbs?" movies that came out at the turn of the century, and what keeps it strong is the central performances.  I love the ways that Tom Wilkinson, Sissy Spacek, & Marisa Tomei all have secret agendas behind each scene.  Watching the film again, I was struck by how those are there fro the beginning, clearly, when you know how it's going to end (Spacek's adjusting mother, Wilkinson's nostalgic father, Tomei's aware girlfriend), but Field's films always leave you with more questions than answers, and this is no exception.  But it still leaves you fulfilled, wanting more rather than filling short-changed.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their categories into Drama and Musical/Comedy so we have ten films to discuss, while Oscar was still only nominating five.  For Drama A Beautiful Mind beat In the Bedroom, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Man Who Wasn't There, & Mulholland Drive, while Comedy/Musical went to Moulin Rouge! atop Bridget Jones's Diary, Gosford Park, Legally Blonde, & Shrek (this was before the Globes had a separate category for animation).  BAFTA favored The Fellowship of the Ring against Amelie, A Beautiful Mind, Moulin Rouge!, & Shrek while the PGA went with Moulin Rouge! as the victor against A Beautiful Mind, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, The Fellowship of the Ring, & Shrek.  In sixth place, I think it's anyone's guess.  Black Hawk Down & Mulholland Drive got Best Director citations, Shrek & Harry Potter were populist hits with a lot of heat at the time, and even something like Memento, Iris, or Ali was probably closer than the precursors might indicate.  I'll let you debate in the comments if you want over sixth place.

Films I Would Have Nominated: You'll find out tomorrow!

Oscar’s Choice: A Beautiful Mind is one of those films that's so up Oscar's alley, and against flashy musicals and fantasy epics...there was no beating it.  It won by more than the precursors suggest.

My Choice: For sure The Fellowship of the Ring.  I love Moulin Rouge! (silver), but of the three Peter Jackson OVP Best Picture wins, this is the the one that gets the easiest victory (even if The Two Towers is my favorite).  It's just so distinctive, and such a titanic achievement.  Behind them will be Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, and then A Beautiful Mind.

And there you have it-another OVP in the books.  Do you want to solve math problems with John Nash & Oscar or cast spells with Gandalf & I?  With a lot of options, who do you think was the just miss for this lineup?  And overall-what is your favorite movie of 2001?  Share your comments below!

Also in 2001: Director, Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2001

Past Best Picture Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Director (2001)

OVP: Best Director (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Robert Altman, Gosford Park

David Lynch, Mulholland Drive

Ron Howard, A Beautiful Mind

Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Ridley Scott, Black Hawk Down

My Thoughts: We are nearing the end of our 2001 races, and we're now getting to maybe the most maligned Oscar race of my lifetime, certainly the most-maligned Best Director race of my lifetime.  The Oscars have a very specific type of brand, and also a grand history of rejecting major names in directing.  Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Akira Kurosawa, & Ingmar Bergman-all icons of cinema, all nominated for Best Director...all never won it.  In 2001, Oscar decided in a field of no previous winners that Ron Howard was the most overdue for a victory, and to Howard's detriment, only one of the four directors competing against him has won since, making this look like he took the statue from three legends making better films.

I wish I could stand here and say that Howard is being misrepresented or defend the guy, but I can't.  Howard is capable of directing good movies, and A Beautiful Mind is a good movie, but the direction is the weakest aspect of the film.  The additions of the queer narrative at the edges, the way that Connelly's character feels like just a vessel for Crowe to pass through, and the schmaltzy ending all are choices by the director to lean into the sentimental, rather than the compelling or charming aspects of Crowe's leading work.  It feels like a paint-by-numbers approach from a director who had been doing job-for-hire work for nearly two decades come 2001.

While the other three have the chance still to win a competitive Oscar (and Jackson, of course, already took one for this category two years later), the ship has sailed for Robert Altman.  While Gosford Park is not his best movie, it is a very strong film, and one that encapsulates what he does well.  I love the way that the camera feels like a spectator, passing between rooms & catching little conversations in real time.  This is a staple of Altman's style, but it also works particularly well between the upstairs/downstairs angles, where you are catching things that the wealthy crowd missed because they're the ones talking.

Mulholland Drive is not showing up again from Oscar (I'll be talking through it a bit more in the My Ballot), so I want to profess my love of it on record since this was its only nomination.  I think what Lynch does here is genius, giving us the world of a young woman, desperate for fame, and what happens to that young woman when it doesn't materialize.  The way that it's structured is meant to be ambiguous, but it works well.  The movies are about us projecting our insecurities, our desires, our revenges...all of it onto a beautiful pixilated figure coming out of the darkness.  Lynch captures that essence while also showing the dangers of living your life as if it's destined for the stars.

Ridley Scott, a year after coming within centimeters of winning this trophy outright, got something of an afterglow nomination for Black Hawk Down.  I think this is good-the attack scenes are tight, and the balance with what we learn from the other actors when they aren't in action is also good.  I would've liked a bit more perspective, or maybe some sort of mix on the "war is hell" trope that I didn't already see from him, particularly given it's Scott (who we know is capable of such intellectual exercises).  It's a good, solidly-constructed war film, but I want more when we're talking Oscar.

Peter Jackson would win an Oscar two years later for Return of the King, but this is a friendly reminder that with the OVP, you only judge what's in front of you (and not if they'll win a different year), and with Fellowship of the Ring, you get something pretty remarkable.  The preamble is perfectly done, giving us exposition without it feeling that way, and the ending works pretty well too; yes, it's not a complete film like the other four, but it does stand alone too.  In the middle, we get a dozen brilliant characters introduced, a long movie that never feels like it's serving up dishes to spare, and several miraculous performances.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Robert Altman (I didn't remember that either), besting Howard, Jackson, Lynch, Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!), and Steven Spielberg (AI: Artificial Intelligence).  The DGA went to Howard against Jackson, Luhrmann, Scott, & Christopher Nolan (Memento), while BAFTA went to Jackson against Howard, Altman, Luhrmann, & Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie).  Of the crew...it's gotta be Luhrmann, right?  I mean, he also got in with Best Picture and his leading lady was nominated-it screams sixth place.

Directors I Would Have Nominated: Luhrmann's miss here is so bizarre not just because he hit every checkmark headed into the night, but also because he deserved to be there.  Totally robbed, and should've gotten his first (and for my money, only) directing nomination for Moulin Rouge!.
Oscar's Choice: I'm guessing there was at least some movement toward Jackson, but the acolytes for Altman & Scott also deserving trophies probably took some of his support, and Howard nabbed the statue.

My Choice: Jackson, for sure...this birthed an entire new chapter in cinema, he deserves credit for that.  Lynch, Altman, Scott, and then Howard follow.

Those were my thoughts-how about yours?  Do you want to join me over in the Shire, or do I dare to ask if Ron Howard has his supporters?  We know Altman's time has passed, but will Lynch or Scott get their trophy (or at least an Honorary) before their time is up?  And why did Baz get skipped here?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Also in 2001: Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2001

Past Best Director Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Adapted Screenplay (2001)

OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Akiva Goldsman, A Beautiful Mind

Daniel Clowes & Terry Zwigoff, Ghost World

Rob Festinger & Todd Field, In the Bedroom

Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, & Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, Joe Stillman, & Roger SH Schulman, Shrek

My Thoughts: Like I pointed out in Best Original Screenplay, if you were looking for Best Picture nominees, this is where you were going to find them.  Three of the films cited here were in the Best Picture race, and to be honest a fourth was darn close.  That of course means, in theory, that the category was competitive, but in practice it was not.  Despite rewrites of history that might peg this as closer than it was given how well Peter Jackson's JRR Tolkien epic has aged, this was not a contest, and Akiva Goldman won it in a landslide.

Goldman's script, it has to be said, is not the worst.  Something happens to you when you win an Oscar that pretty much everyone in retrospect agrees you shouldn't have, and part of that cycle of shame is that people misremember how good your movie is.  A Beautiful Mind is a good movie, and the script works pretty well.  I think that the soliloquies are well-constructed (I quote Connelly's "I have to believe that something real is possible" line at least once a week, which may say something about my personal life but that's an article for a different day), and it incorporates scientific theory without it feeling overbearing or confusing.  The love story isn't as well-written as it needs to be (and the glossing over Nash's real-life bisexuality feels tacky decades later, especially as it is very briefly hinted at so I think it's fair to criticize the script's handling of it), but this wouldn't be an embarrassing win were it not for the competition.

That competition includes, of course, the adaptation of JRR Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring.  In the next nine months, I will be rereading The Hobbit and reading Tolkien's trilogy for the first time, so I'm just going off of anecdotes here, but from what I've gleaned this is a really remarkable adaptation given how prescriptive & poetry-driven the source novels are.  It comes across beautifully in the picture, with the narration at the front feeling hallowed rather than expositional (and it could've easily been the latter), and the way that a movie with over a dozen characters doesn't confuse the audience with too much at once (despite the film not having a lot of well-known actors at the time).  Throw in some magnificent speeches & dialogue, and you've got a masterpiece.

In the Bedroom is the third Best Picture of the group, and is really wonderful.  There was a trend at this point to talk about the "what lies beneath the surface of the suburbs" in movies (there was literally a film called What Lies Beneath the year before that did just that), and this is one of those films where you don't entirely know the characters at the beginning of the picture, and what they're capable of becoming.  The way that it unfolds, with hidden truths springing from our main couple after unspeakable tragedy befalls them, and how they can find a place together after it, is bold & surprising...words you wouldn't guess at first for a family drama.

Ghost World is the only one of these films that didn't get nominated in any other categories (it was close for Supporting Actor), and therefore you generally know that the screenplay is the star when this branch is the only one calling.  It's a movie that, for much of the first half, I wasn't feeling-it felt too suspended from reality, and needlessly cruel in its perspective.  But the movie works because of the ending, which is staggering & melancholy in a way that I didn't expect heading into the picture.  That's on the script (and Thora Birch's timing as a young woman who doesn't see the potential her youth gives her in the way the other, older characters, understand it), and I give kudos where they're due-it finishes well.

Which brings us to Shrek.  This is a movie I have a complicated relationship with, because it does have good elements, and some of them come from the script.  Eddie Murphy's voiceover work as the Donkey is sensational, funny & full of the quick-wit that the comedian has been known for in movies & television for years.  But it's also brimming with dated pop culture references, gross-out humor, and charmless nonsense from Mike Myers.  I lived through this sensation-I know what a big deal Shrek was at the time.  That doesn't mean I condone it.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine their writing categories so there is no adapted or original distinction, and in 2001 only one nominee was adapted, A Beautiful Mind (but it did win).  A Beautiful Mind also took the WGA Award, taking out Black Hawk Down, Bridget Jones's Diary, Ghost World, and The Fellowship of the Ring while the BAFTA's went with Shrek against A Beautiful Mind, Bridget Jones's Diary, Iris, and The Fellowship of the Ring.  In sixth place, I feel pretty confident in guessing Bridget Jones even if Iris & Black Hawk Down both had better Oscar runs.  It's hard to underscore what a big deal this novel was at the time (pretty much everyone read it, including me), and it was one of those event books that oftentimes got nominated in this category.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Taking over where Kubrick left off, it's hard not to be impressed with what Steven Spielberg brings (from both directors) to AI: Artificial Intelligence.

Oscar's Choice: Oscar went with its Best Picture winner atop its second place Best Picture contender, The Fellowship of the Ring.

My Choice: I am not denying Peter Jackson anything-it gets the gold for me.  Behind it, I'll go In the Bedroom, A Beautiful Mind, Ghost World, and Shrek, in that order.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Are you with me that this is the start of an epic story of hobbits & elves, or do you want to get into the magical mind of John Nash?  What do you think of that truly out-of-character victory for Shrek at the BAFTA's?  And how do you think Ghost World pulled off a surprise against expected contender Bridget Jones?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2001: Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2001

Past Best Adapted Screenplay Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Picture (2002)

OVP: Best Picture (2002)

The Nominees Were...

Martin Richards, Chicago

Alberto Grimaldi & Harvey Weinstein, Gangs of New York

Scott Rudin & Robert Fox, The Hours

Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh, & Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Roman Polanski, Robert Benmussa, & Alain Sarde, The Pianist

My Thoughts: We are officially at the end point here!  After possibly our longest Oscar Viewing Project season, we've cruised through the past month for most of these articles, and will continue on that pace, starting our next set of nominees as early as next week.  If you're new to the blog, or to the series, welcome, and check out the links below for past Best Picture races, as well as past 2002 contests.  Tomorrow, we'll conclude with which films I would've nominated and awarded in 2002, but let's not hold you in suspense any longer-here are my thoughts on the five films nominated for Best Picture by Oscar, and my pick for who should've won.

Chicago is a film that's hard to dislike.  It's a winning score (one of the best in the history of musical theater), and has some splendid performances, particularly from Catherine Zeta-Jones.  It's also a film that kind of jump-started the musical trend.  While Moulin Rouge! was the catalyst, this mammoth hit & the awards that came after honestly were the real reason we ended up with Dreamgirls, Les Miserables, and La La Land in the years that followed.  It's not a perfect film (the direction is sloppy, I don't think Gere is a good choice for Billy Flynn), but it's the top of the heap of the Broadway transfers that would follow, and it's a lot of fun.  A nomination that ages well.

The same can be said for The Pianist, which is the film on this list that is most in Oscar's wheelhouse.  Polanski's film opus (despite steadily working in the twenty years since, this is his last "great" movie) shows us a jarring, horrifying look at what it was like in the Warsaw Ghetto's first hand (something that Polanski, who grew up in Poland during the Holocaust, lived through).  Aided by a spectacular performance from Adrien Brody, this is a truly mesmerizing, large piece of film, and one of the best films ever made about World War II.

The Hours is also jaw-dropping in the way it handles three separate but interwoven narratives.  The thing that I always come back to with this film is that the filmmakers do a marvelous job of making it feel necessary.  Like every conversation could be the last one we have with a character, the last time they'll interact with each other.  There's a giant ticking clock over a movie where we announce that a major character will die within the film's opening minutes, and must wait to find out who will have the Sword of Damocles falling on their shoulders.  It's also gorgeously shot, costumed, and acted, and I'll admit it, one of my all-time favorite movies.

The Two Towers also numbers among my favorite movies, and is to me the best part of Peter Jackson's miraculous six-part look at the world of JRR Tolkien.  In the same way that Zeta-Jones makes Chicago and Adrien Brody is the heart of The Pianist, here we have an unlikely magnet in our film, keeping us at the edge of our seats: a spindly creature named Gollum, perfectly played by Andy Serkis.  Everything about this movie works-the confidence it starts out with, and maintains the whole film, and a gorgeous cast, set design, & cinematography.  But if you think about The Two Towers, you cannot help but focus on Serkis, finding humanity in pixels in a way that no other actor, before or since, has been able to achieve.

Which brings us back to Gangs of New York.  Every season, there's at least one film that Oscar loved that I didn't, and it becomes something of a punching bag.  There are elements of Gangs that I enjoyed-I think Daniel Day-Lewis is stupendous in this movie, and I think the set design is really incredible.  But overall, it left me cold.  The central tension between the two leads feels underwhelming with DiCaprio over his head, and the romance with Cameron Diaz...it doesn't work.  This isn't a bad movie in the traditional sense, but it is by any metric you'd use to measure "Best" Picture, or the filmography of Martin Scorsese.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their categories into Drama and Musical/Comedy, so you have The Hours beating the Drama list that included About Schmidt, Gangs of New York, The Two Towers, and The Pianist, while Comedy/Musical gave it to Chicago against About a Boy, Adaptation, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and Nicholas Nickleby.  BAFTA gave their Best Picture to The Pianist, atop the entire Oscar lineup, and Chicago won the PGA, with Adaptation, Gangs of New York, The Two Towers, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and Road to Perdition as the nominees.  In terms of sixth place, I honestly think these five were very set, and so it's hard to guess who was closest as I don't think they were very close.  People will say "it's Talk to Her" simply because of the directing/writing nominations, but there was very little buzz for this film for the top prize, and I think that's a stretch.  I'm guessing it's between Road to Perdition and Far from Heaven, both of which had a lot of support in the tech & acting branches...though if you told me it was My Big Fat Greek Wedding, I wouldn't have totally been blind sided (pun intended).

Films I Would Have Nominated: You'll find out tomorrow!

Oscar’s Choice: Chicago went into the night the frontrunner, and though it lost key contests for Director & Actress before the night was over, it did end up winning, likely over The Pianist.

My Choice: The Hours beats The Return of the King, but against The Two Towers, my favorite installment in the Tolkien sextet...I just can't do it.  Jackson beats Daldry, with The Pianist, Chicago, and Gangs of New York following them.

And there you have it-another OVP in the books.  Is everyone siding with the flappers of Chicago, or do you want to focus on the ents & orks of The Two Towers?  In a very established field, what do you think was the sixth place contender?  And overall-what is your favorite movie of 2002?  Share your comments below!

Also in 2002: Director, Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2002

Past Best Picture Contests: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

OVP: Picture (2003)

OVP: Best Picture (2003)

The Nominees Were...

Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson, & Fran Walsh, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Ross Katz & Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation

Samuel Goldwyn, Jr., Peter Weir, & Duncan Henderson, Lost in Translation

Robert Lorenz, Judie G. Hoyt, & Clint Eastwood, Mystic River

Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall, & Gary Ross, Seabiscuit

My Thoughts: Frequently when I look at a list like this, after spending weeks and nineteen articles talking about the movies themselves, the eventual winner for Best Picture (in my mind, maybe not in yours dear reader), is relatively anticlimactic.  Usually Oscar chooses maybe 2-3 nominees that I'd put in my personal Top 10, and then the rest are films that show the clear dividing line between my taste & Oscar's, and to a degree that is true this year (this full list isn't going to repeat with me, even with me choosing ten nominees), but this year...I don't honestly know which movie I'm going to pick at the beginning of this article, and so we're going to have a bit of a conversation as I try to convince myself before we get to my eventual "My Ballot" choices this afternoon.

To delay the inevitable, let's focus on the three films that won't be getting Best Picture (spoiler alert, though if you look at our links to all past races at the bottom of this article, you're going to know that this isn't much of a spoiler).  This isn't because they are unworthy.  After all, Master and Commander has grown on me the past ten weeks quite a bit, both in terms of me rewatching it for these write-ups and truly appreciating the way that it really paints a beautiful, complete picture of life on the high seas.  With solid performances from Russell Crowe & Paul Bettany and Peter Weir's steady hand, it might not always win every battle (I think the character development beyond Crowe & Bettany needed a bit more growth), but it's steadfast & a nominee that has aged well.

Seabiscuit is the clear "fifth nominee" not just in my rankings, but in terms of Oscar's preference.  In the days before the ten-wide fields, there was usually one film that was a crowdpleaser that otherwise couldn't make it in Best Director, and for 2003 it was Seabiscuit.  For me, it's just an underdog sports movie.  It doesn't have any of the heart you'd need to make it rise above cliche, and it doesn't have the kind of sentimental click that occasionally works for me in a field like this (when we get to 1999, you'll find I'm going to be a bit kinder to a movie like Cider House Rules which I connected with more than I did Seabiscuit even though they're cut from the same cloth).  It's not a terrible movie (though I don't even know if it's a good one), but when you put it next to some of 2003's best...it feels woefully out-of-place.

Mystic River is a solid thriller, and speaks to what Clint Eastwood does best (or at least used to do best), turning antiheroes into complicated leading figures that the audience has to deduce where the ethical boundaries lie.  I do feel that the beginning & endings of this movie hide that the middle is a bit rougher; the dialogue is good, but I feel like the treatment of Tim Robbins' character of Dave feels off, partially by some of Robbins character choices & also by Eastwood's treatment of him as the director.  But this is a decent movie, and it's not embarrassing-I get what Oscar fell for here, and even if I wouldn't join them, I respect it.

Which brings us to the two movies I am going to nominate for Best Picture.  Lost in Translation is a wonderful movie, one that is filled with a lot of wisdom that becomes clearer the older you get.  Thoughtful in the way it's romantic but rarely sexual (it would have been a nightmare to make Charlotte & Bob feel like lovers rather than spiritual soulmates), it shows the way that we value different things as we age, our bodies getting older slightly before we do, and how youth becomes elusive, but in brief moments something we can capture for a night or a moment.  If I'm being picky (and I've gotta be at this point), some of the humor feels dated (it's intended to be cringe territory, but I suspect Coppola would today avoid it all-together because there's a mocking element to it), but that's really my only complaint.  I love Lost in Translation.

The problem is I also love Return of the King.  It's honestly hard for me to compare the two in part because when you combine Lord of the Rings, which you do subconsciously even if you try not to, pretty much nothing beats it.  Lord of the Rings came out when I was a teenager, and became so synonymous with movies for me that to reward anything else for Best Picture feels like blasphemy; as a collective, it's certainly my favorite film franchise and possibly my favorite movie, period.  But, we are only rewarding Return of the King here, not the entire trilogy (that's the point of the OVP), and like Lost in Translation, if I'm being picky, I think the endings of Return of the King feels like a weak point (which, in contrast, the ending is one of Lost in Translation's finest scenes).  They are also very, very different pictures, so it's hard to grasp how you compare one with the other.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their categories into Drama and Musical/Comedy (a tactic I'm envying right now), with The Return of the King winning the former against Cold Mountain, Master and Commander, Mystic River, & Seabiscuit while the latter went to Lost in Translation against Bend It Like Beckham, Big Fish, Finding Nemo, and Love Actually.  BAFTA also went to Return of the King atop Big Fish, Cold Mountain, Lost in Translation, and Master and Commander, while the PGA picked Return of the King against Cold Mountain, The Last Samurai, Master and Commander, Mystic River, & Seabiscuit.  In terms of sixth place, I think it's either City of God (Oscar nominations for Best Director, Editing, & Writing), against Cold Mountain (Oscar cited for Directing, Editing, & two acting trophies, plus the PGA/BAFTA/Globes triumvirate).  I know it's tempting to think it's City of God solely on that Best Director nomination, but I'm going with Cold Mountain-it was a genuine stunner when the Weinsteins couldn't get this movie in in 2003, and I think it was a close call, probably against Seabiscuit.

Films I Would Have Nominated: You'll find out later today. 😉

Oscar’s Choice: There was no stopping Return of the King-it won all eleven trophies in a steamroller effect.

My Choice: Let's work backward.  Seabiscuit is in last, and I'll go Mystic River in fourth.  Master and Commander is a fine bronze, and it's the movie that most grew on me throughout this retrospective.  As for the winner?  My head is saying Lost in Translation, my heart is saying Return of the King...if ties were an option I'd probably tap into that right now, but since they aren't I'm going to go with my heart.  Return of the King defines so much of what I love about movies that I can't bear to give it a loss, even if there are certainly days I'd pick Lost in Translation instead.

And there you have it-another OVP in the books.  Later today we'll do the My Official Ballot, but in the meantime-where did you land?  Do you think that Return of the King is a landslide winner (like it was with Oscar) or are you barely giving it the edge (like me)...or did you choose something else all-together?  And overall-what is your favorite movie of 2003?  Share your comments below!

Also in 2003: Director, Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2003

Past Best Picture Contests: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019

OVP: Director (2003)

OVP: Best Director (2003)

The Nominees Were...

Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation

Clint Eastwood, Mystic River

Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Fernando Meirelles, City of God

Peter Weir, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

My Thoughts: We're going to be moving into the final two races of 2003 this weekend.  I'm not entirely sure what pace I'll be doing this at after this (we likely won't do them daily, though I will be honest that I'm going to be doing them at a sharper speed than two-a-week as part of a still-secret project I'm trying to accomplish for later in the year).  Today, we're going to move into a pretty solid Best Director lineup.  It is not often that I can say that I'd give a "thumbs up" to all five of the movies in a list, but here I definitely would.  Of course, if you're competing for an Oscar nomination, you should be able to do better than just a thumbs up, and a few of these filmmakers don't quite get far enough, in my opinion.

One of them is Clint Eastwood, who was using Mystic River as a way to tee up a comeback in 2004 for Best Director, followed by a decade of major successes, both artistic & (increasingly more importantly to Eastwood) commercial.  Mystic River is the rare one of these movies that he didn't star in, but you've got the Sean Penn character taking on the obvious Eastwood trope of "man against the law."  Mystic River is a good movie that sometimes feels a bit lost in the middle stretch, coasting off of what is a dynamite ending by not focusing enough on where some of the characters (specifically Tim Robbins' Dave) needs to go.  Eastwood is a bit of a lightning rod amongst progressive cinephiles these days due to his conservative politics, but I'll admit that isn't really the problem with Mystic River in the way that it would be years later with American Sniper (which for the first two-thirds is about as strong of a "conservative vantage point" to a political issue as I've seen in a movie, and then totally derails in the final forty minutes).  It's more that it becomes just a film of a few great moments, without enough substance in-between.  If he weren't competing for an Oscar, I wouldn't complain (it's a good movie), but when you're trying to be the best of the year, details matter.

This is also my problem with Fernando Meirelles' City of God-it's too reliant on big moments.  Meirelles has some key sequences that are jaw-dropping, and though this film was mimicked ad nauseam in the years that followed (including by Meirelles), it deserves credit for being the first of this style/visual palette of filmmaking.  City of God, though, relies too often on increasing shock value to get its point across, and that's a problem when the story is as repetitive as it is.  You understand as the film continues which characters are going to escape & which ones won't, and while it's jaw-dropping to see this group of violent teenagers put in unspeakable situations, Meirelles uses the same types of stories repeatedly to the point where it feels like the movie needed editing.  Picky, I know, but again-it's for an Oscar.

Sofia Coppola knows how to make her time judicious.  Even from the opening moments of Lost in Translation, time hangs over the story as a way for us to understand that everything between Bob & Charlotte is precious (but also, that all of life should be treated as precious).  Coppola achieves a sort of "cinematic" approach to Lost in Translation (I'm not entirely sure that's a descriptive enough adjective, but hopefully it comes across), making it feel warm & like this complete vision (she used film, rather than digital, to make the movie, and I wonder if that helps make it look a bit softer onscreen).  Everything about the way that she resists certain romantic impulses, making sure that the framing is perfect in key moments (especially the karaoke scene)-it all just works beautifully.  It was her breakthrough film, and while she's made great ones since, it's still her best.

Oscar-winner Sydney Pollack once said Hollywood's view of the director's job is "less an artist, more a damage containment expert."  This might explain why so many directors get cited for epics, including our final two nominees-both are trying to make sure a gigantic sequence is kept onscreen without sprawling too badly.  Both men pull this off, though.  Peter Weir's film occasionally veers too much into the "handsome, but not enough character development" column for my taste, but it looks great & I think the battle sequences are gorgeous.  Master and Commander also, as we've mentioned a few times, seamlessly combines sound stage, CGI, & real world sequences all into the same film without ever feeling like you can tell them apart, which is certainly a credit to its director.

Peter Jackson won this Oscar nominally for Return of the King but really for his entire brilliant Lord of the Rings series.  I can only count it for Return of the King, though, so I will admit that I have to dock a point or two off for the slightly repetitive nature of the film's endings.  That being said, the rest of the film is such a treasure you won't care.  Particularly strong points for the way that Jackson manages to make the anticlimax of some of the battles (there are very few major character deaths in LOTR, certainly compared to something like Game of Thrones, which makes the stakes feel less high) by giving such detailed emotional sendoffs to each of the primary characters.  Return of the King represents not just a high point for Jackson & 2003, but also for movies in general-few films stand apart quite in the same way that Lord of the Rings does.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes preferred Jackson (singling how easily he'd win the rest of the season, as the Globes are pretty genre averse) against Coppola, Eastwood, Weir, & Anthony Minghella (Cold Mountain), while the DGA went with Jackson as well against Coppola, Eastwood, Weir, & Gary Ross (Seabiscuit).  BAFTA favored Weir as their winner, the only blip in Jackson's run (Return of the King did win Best Picture there, for the record), against Jackson, Minghella, Coppola, & Tim Burton (Big Fish).  In terms of sixth place, it's between Minghella & Ross, and while Ross hit more of the hallmarks we associate with Best Director (i.e. Seabiscuit is up for Picture, Screenplay, & Editing), I feel like it was slightly more Minghella, as I think that Cold Mountain feels more like a directing branch preference than what Ross is doing.

Directors I Would Have Nominated: I'll have my My Ballot out tomorrow, so I won't spoil the contenders quite yet.  Suffice it to say, this is a good list...that I plan on totally upending.
Oscar's Choice: After two years of misses across all of the categories he was cited in, Peter Jackson was inevitable.  Not even Academy favorite Clint Eastwood could give him a race.

My Choice: I'm a bit closer than AMPAS both because I'm not giving this award for the full series and because I do think that Return of the King is the weakest of the three Lord of the Rings films AND it's competing against a movie as flawless as Lost in Translation.  But Jackson wins this-he manages to make it 3/3 in Grade A quality for a film series which is next to impossible to do, and I will argue that Lost in Translation is slightly more a writer's/actor's triumph than it is a directing one (it's close though-both are being mentioned tomorrow).  Behind them would be Weir, Eastwood, & Meirelles, in that order.

Those were my thoughts-how about yours?  Does everyone cosign the Peter Jackson gravy train or does someone want to stand apart?  Do we think that Sofia Coppola, whose filmmaking style has slightly fallen out of favor with Oscar, will ever get back into this lineup again?  And was it Ross or Minghella who was just out-of-reach in sixth place?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Also in 2003: Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2003

Past Best Director Contests: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019