I thought I'd post this here just for the hell of it . Don't expect a detailed analysis...

As the February Oscar ceremony approaches, film studios make their final bid towards winning the opulent trophy that has come to represent first class film-making. For the studios, an Oscar represents infinite opportunity: an Oscar has the potential to make a large budgeted production profitable by raising interest in the film. It also has long-term benefits; the eight pound and 13 inch tall trophy can lure in large audiences to see the winning actor or director in future projects.

The Oscar doesn’t only aid studios financially, but also can turn great, yet, unknown actors into A-List stars overnight. For every Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts, there are Kevin Spaceys and Charlize Therons. Oscar wins and even nominations can put them on the cover of magazines.

This year itself has been a “hit-or-miss” year. While there have been surprise hits, such as Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ, there have also been anticipated Oscar contenders that flopped (Alexander and The Phantom of the Opera) Such critical misses have paved the way for smaller films such as Sideways and Million Dollar Baby. Only two films, The Aviator and Finding Neverland, have maintained steady Oscar buzz.

Best Picture – The Aviator, which has been the favorite to win since the beginning of the year has earned strong reviews and won several awards, including two Golden Globes. Hollywood’s love for Martin Scorsese’s past work combined with his never having won an Oscar should lead to a Best Director win. A Best Director award is often a harbinger of Best Picture. The Aviator also has a compelling ensemble cast and excels in several technical categories. This well-rounded film is likely to win the grand award and represent 2004 in future almanacs.

Million Dollar Baby, directed by Clint Eastwood, debuted in late October and has received the strongest critical acclaim of the nominated films. However, the film has not won many awards and the majority of those have been for Hilary Swank’s performance as a female boxer. Although Clint Eastwood was “snubbed” last year for Mystic River as a casualty to the strong Lord of the Rings trilogy, his failure to win from 2003 cannot compare to Martin Scorsese’s lack of a single Best Director Oscar.

Sideways, Alexander Payne’s take of an adult road-trip has swept the majority of critic circle awards, including winning Best Film at award ceremonies in New York and Toronto and Best Comedy at the Golden Globes. However, the film is probably too small to walk away with the big award. Oscar voters aren’t critics but more so people involved in the film-making process who vote on film based on its achievements in the category they represent. For example, 6.3% of voters in 2003 were art directors. A film like Sideways is unlikely to hit with art directors because it isn’t an “artsy” film. It’s a simple well-made comedy that isn’t aided through the technical aspects. A film that doesn’t touch with those groups isn’t likely to win Best Picture, as it won’t garner that constituency.

Best Actor – Best Actor is perhaps the most competitive category this year. Leonardo DiCaprio, Jamie Foxx, Johnny Depp, Clint Eastwood, and Don Cheadle have all won accolades for their performances. Jamie Foxx’s turn as Ray Charles is most probable to win, however. Like Charlize Theron in Monster, Mr. Foxx lifts Rayabove just mediocre. Critics alike have described Foxx’s performance as one that fully captures the essence of Charles himself to the point that the two become inseparable during recaps and footage of the real Ray. Jamie Foxx also appeared in Michael Mann’s Collateral, another critically acclaimed performance for which he received a Best Supporting Actor nomination. It’s very possible that voters will choose to commemorate his work in both films through this Oscar.

The runner-ups at this point appear to be Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio. Johnny Depp’s role as J.M. Barrie in Finding Neverland received rave reviews. Like Foxx in Ray, Depp makes Finding Neverland into the film it is. Working against Depp is the view that his performance is in fact one of his weaker ones. Although Depp was “snubbed” for Pirates of the Caribbean in 2003, the critics seem to be poised to give him the shiny statue for a more groundbreaking performance. Leonardo DiCaprio, on the other hand, hasn’t ever been better than his performance as Howard Hughes. Critics have noticed this, rewarding him with more awards than previously could be conceived of the ex-Titanic poster boy. These aspects, along with the general awareness and appreciation for Scorsese’s latest, should give DiCaprio a slight edge over Depp.

Best Actress – The 2004 nominees feature two actresses facing off for a second time. Hilary Swank and Annette Bening, the two frontrunners for Best Actress back in 1999 (for Boys Don’t Cry and American Beauty, respectively), are similarly competing against each other in 2004. Hilary Swank won the last time. Although Annette Bening delivered a strong performance in American Beauty that many believe deserved to win over Swank’s turn in Boys Don’t Cry, her latest film, Being Julia, seems too small to win an award. Bening did win the Golden Globe for a Comedic picture (and Swank won for a Dramatic picture), but the company backing Being Julia hasn’t effectively marketed the film or held screenings to raise awareness of her performance. Hilary Swank, on the other hand, delivers yet another tour-de-force performance. With Warner Brothers handling the marketing and with a larger hold over the critics’ love, Hilary Swank should win the second Oscar of her short career. If the two actresses happen to split votes, Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake) could walk away with the award.

The ceremony on the 27th of February with the comical Chris Rock as the host should prove to be one of the more interesting ones. Unlike Lord of the Rings last year, no film should sweep the awards, allowing for a collection of winners that will represent each category individually.

[/end]

Enjoy. Feel free to comment. Just don't make me write the damn thing over again

Nice article. I wish our school writers were as enlightened. You pretty much nailed the big awards, atleast in my opinion.

Our school writers are pretty bad, too.

I don't write for the school newspaper. Unfortunately, I can't. You have to go through two years of Journalism classes and even with a recommendation, I couldn't get in and skip the two years.

This is for an independent teen paper. Kind of a geeky lil' activity, but the final product (even though it's around the same size) tends to cover much more than the school newspaper. I do copy-editing too...you can ask kermit05, if she ever comes back on WOKJ .

I keep wondering what high school you go to, because I probably know it :razz: Heh.

Aww ya.

At my school, non Journalism Academy students cant touch the paper. They claim to be oh-so-good with their constant State and National Champ awards, but I think it's seriously lame.... heh.

Its cool you're into it. It's something that interests me, too.

The preppiest part of Maryland, Libs. Asides from where Cabin 12 (from BOM) goes.

If you ever want to teach your kids how NOT to write, stop by and pick up some copies of our school newspaper. Even when the writing's good, the editing isn't - last issue, the headline had a major typo. Apparently, it's the longest running HS newspaper in our county, yet, we couldn't get the word "published" right to make this comprehendable to the readers.

Ours has won some awards, too. Although I'd like to write for it (it's gotta be quite a nice break from other "note-taking" classes), I sometimes worry that they'd get everything wrong and put my name under an article about "nugging" backpacks (the best part about last issue, lol) instead of an editorial . Maybe there's some sick plague going around on the third floor of the building...

You think backpacks are stupid? We had a Bush vs. Kerry article that was simply atrocious! Too PC to have hany value. Or more complaints on how the renovations are making it hard to go from building to building (Our school is on about a square mile of land - literally. With all the fields, landlabs, 25 technical programs, and 5 acadamies, it's like a mini college....). Ugh. Don't get me started. I so wish I could have had a part in newspaper. Or yearbook. Last year, our's sucked. And the HS a block away, a regular/IB school, had such a pretty one.....

Nugging backpacks = the act of turning backpacks inside out so they look like a "nugget".

It was the best article last December only b/c the administration allowed 'em to publish it

Gahahaha! Only those stupid, punkish, whiteboy psuedo-Gothic freshman do that.

pretty cool. interesting, although not much new...

however, isn't "[/end]" incredibly redundent? not only does it mean "end end" basically, but also that you typed the whole thing in an "end" tone, or something...whatever that means...l'm sure thats not part of the article, but if so, ymight wanna change it...or maybe l dont understand what ot means exactly.

oh well...

Errm, I think he is just trying to seperate the article from his own comment at the ned.

Correctamundo.

Kypade, I know there's not much new. It's written for a "clueless" audience that's interested in the Oscars. Just a basic analysis... :razz:

Neat article. Wouldn't be in my school's newspaper, though, because no one here except for me cares about stuff like that.