With four losers for every winner, the biggest Oscar party is a party for losers
By JASON HAMMONTREE
Scene Movie Critic
With the Academy Awards only days away and the stolen Oscar statuettes finally recovered, the nominees for this year's event can begin work on the hardest and most important part of the evening: the loser's smile. With four losers for every winner, most actors must work hard to perfect that gritty grin that is displayed upon hearing another person called to the podium. A grin that says, "Oh yes, you are such a deserving winner," while underneath that teethy, locked-jaw smile, the expletives and comments about the winner's outfit can be unleashed. It is a smile so absolutely fake, and yet so necessary, to avoid being caught on television with a death stare as one's name is not called.
Some of the nominees and winners seem obvious; others leave us shaking our heads. In this wonderfully spiteful spirit, Scene thought it would be fun to take a look at the losers of the past few years, (and those not even nominated), in another important movie category: "Best Oscar Snubs."
We'll begin with the 1997 awards, the so-called Year of the Independent Film. That year critics and film pundits pontificated about the death of the studio picture and the lack of vision and creativity to be found there, for the truly great features were in the low-budget independent films. This hubbub started when the best picture nominees for that year were announced, and "Jerry McGuire" stood as the only big-budget studio film nominated (the other four: "Fargo," "Secrets & Lies," "Shine" and "The English Patient").
The Academy had rewarded the smaller films and the wonderful performances in them; and we were introduced to actors like Emily Watson, William H. Macy and Edward Norton, and directors like Anthony Minghella, whose "The English Patient" swept the big awards. For once, it seemed that the Academy had gotten it right. The deserving were nominated, and the deserving won. But no "Best Snub" winners is little fun, so let's move on.
If 1997 was the year of the small feature, 1998 was the Year of "Titanic," in all its big-studio, big-budget glory. It's hard to remember other films from that year — were any other films even nominated? But though "Titanic" received a whopping 13 nominations, winning 11, there was also one "Best Snub" for the film. Mr. Leonardo DiCaprio was not nominated for best actor. Lest you think this kid is some acting slouch, remember that he was nominated in 1993 for a terrific performance in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." And so, while everyone and their brother got to go on stage for "Titanic," Leo sat at home, watching the show on television. (Although, don't worry Leo. None of the performances from that movie won an Oscar.)
1999 was an exciting year, which saw "Shakespeare in Love," "Saving Private Ryan" and "Life is Beautiful" duke it out for the year's best, and an awards show that was not without some exciting snubs and controversy. The first "Best Snub" occurred with the early favorite "Saving Private Ryan" failing to win best picture. Now, "Shakespeare in Love" was a deserving film, but there was a feeling that the Oscar had been bought because of Miramax's strong push for the film. The amount that they spent promoting "Shakespeare" (especially to the Academy voters) made many feel that the integrity of the awards had been compromised. This sort of thing arose again this year during the Golden Globes, when Sharon Stone, wanting a nomination for her work in "The Muse," sent gold watches to members of the Foreign Press, who vote for those awards. The watches were eventually returned.
Other "Best Snubs" for last year included the movie "Rushmore," especially the failure to nominate Bill Murray for best supporting actor. His performance was a particular favorite of the critics that year. Another picture that many felt was unfairly left out was "Out of Sight," the George Clooney-Jennifer Lopez dark comedy, which had won the New York Film Critics Best Picture Award.
But the most interesting snub of that year was Jim Carrey's performance in "The Truman Show." He won a Golden Globe for the movie, yet did not get a best actor nomination. That scenario repeated itself this year, with Carrey again winning the Golden Globe for his performance as comedian Andy Kaufman in "Man on the Moon." But again, come Oscar time, both Carrey and the film go empty handed.
Two "Best Snubs" in a row: Way to go Jim! What makes Carrey's snubs so provocative (and entertaining) is not that he was necessarily deserving of the nominations, but that he refuses to "grin and bear it." He has spoken openly many times on how he "was robbed."
Which brings us to this year's Oscar race. We can only talk about the "Best Snub" nominees right now, of course. We'll have to wait until Monday to cry foul over the winners. But already there has been much talk on the films that were left out of the show. Entertainment Weekly called 1999 the best year of film ever, with so many wildly inventive films made. Many then were disappointed when films such as "Being John Malkovich," "Election," "Three Kings" and "Fight Club" received few, if any, nominations. Other snubs include "The Talented Mr. Ripley," Minghella's first since "The English Patient," which only got one "big" nomination (Jude Law for best supporting actor). And, "The Hurricane" received only one nod (Denzel Washington for best actor). That film was hurt by questions over the film's bending of the truth, and it wiped out virtually all its support.
And so, the snubbing continues.
Enjoy the broadcast Sunday night. And when the winners are called, watch the losers use their pearly whites to try and draw attention away from their beady little eyes. And if that doesn't work, they can always be like Carrey and claim they were snubbed. Good luck and may the "Best Snub" go to the sorest loser.
All Scene Stories for Thursday, March 23, 2000
