Academy Award Week (2013): Best Supporting Actor....Are you Sure you are in the Right Place?

Throughout the years of Academy Awards performances are placed in acting categories by studios, the options are clearly lead vs. supporting.  Over the years people have bemoaned category fraud, and this year there are two specific cases of that extreme category fraud, Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in The Master.

Before I look at this year I am going to talk about this category, and category fraud over the years:

2010-Geoffrey Rush in The King's Speech has an equal amount of screen time as lead contender and winner Colin Firth.

2008-Robert Downey Jr. was in most of the scenes in Tropic Thunder, but you could argue the "ensemble rule."  Phillip Seymour Hoffman was a central part in Doubt, and was by no means a supporting player.

2007-Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was in more of the film than Brad Pitt how he was considered a lead is one of the biggest pieces of category fraud.

2005-Jake Gyllenhaal was a co-lead in Brokeback Mountain, the film was about both Ennis and Jack.

These are just a handful of the different elements of category fraud in the last few years, and while there are still several men who should be considered supporting, the true "supporting" players never seem to win.  One could argue that many of the past few winners Christian Bale in The Fighter, and Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men could be considered lead performances.

So why does this happen?  Studios want to pack on the number of nominations, would these men have beat out any of the leads to get a nomination? Probably not meaning films would potentially have less or no nominations meaning some films would have less consideration to be viewed.by less people, think The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. People often also have this notion that you need more acting nominations to be successful.  Think Brokeback Mountain, but for some reason the critics out there have not had the balls to correct this category placement.

Who are the men guilty of this category fraud crime, why the Weinstein Company's Christoph Waltz from Django Unchained, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman (once again) from The Master.  Both of these performances while not the center of their films are part of the central journey.

Django was obviously a story about Django (Jaime Foxx) and his bounty hunter companion Dr. King Shultz (Christoph Waltz), the two were in the majority of the film. At the earliest part of award season Waltz was placed in the Supporting Actor category.  On November 8th the website goldderby.com reported Waltz would be campaigned in the lead category instead.  After the lead race became crowded the Weinstein Company switched Waltz back to supporting. 

Hoffman was guilty of category fraud for another Weinstein film four years ago, and he is back.  This is a simple case of them wanting to get as many nominations for this smaller film as possible.  Like with Doubt all three central characters are nominated, and ironically both have Amy Adams, and Hoffman.  This is not a case for just the Weinstein's, Warner Brothers, Focus Features, FOX are also guilty of this fraud.  Let's focus on this year's nominees and who may win the top prize.

And the nominees are...

Alan Arkin-Argo

Robert DeNiro-Silver Linings Playbook

Phillip Seymour Hoffman-The Master

Tommy Lee Jones-Lincoln

Christoph Waltz-Django Unchained

This may be one of the tougher races to predict.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman took the early lead winning at the BFCA; he also won many critics groups awards.  Waltz gained momentum with a win at the Golden Globes, and BAFTA.  In the middle of Waltz's wins Tommy Lee Jones won SAG.  I think the power of Harvey Weinstein will guide the winner here, and my prediction all along has been Waltz the lead performance that steals the show.  Many are citing that DeNiro has the heart behind his performance and he has not won in years so he has more on his side, but he has not won a single award prior to this.  Maybe a James Coburn type deal?  Jones sour puss could also take the stage if they decide to throw more at Lincoln, but I think Lincoln seems a bit forgotten.  My gut is to go with the lead in supporting actor clothing.

Will Win: Christoph Waltz

Spoilers: Robert DeNiro, and Tommy Lee Jones

Django is a Bloody Good Time (Literally)

Django Unchained (3 1/2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed and Written by: Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill)

Starring: Jaime Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Samuel L. Jackson

There is a lot of peripheral talk about this film from Spike Lee's Vibe interview about the insensitivity to his ancestors to the question of violence in cinema.  Spike Lee (who refuses to see the film) stated via twitter "slavery was not a Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western.  It was a Holocaust.

While Tarantino pays homage to the Spaghetti Western the central story of Django revolves two key concepts within this genre, the revenge story, and the cowboy buddy concept.  Dr. King Schultz (Waltz) in his horse drawn wagon with a tooth hanging from the top is in search for Django a slave from a plantation.  When Dr. King Schultz finds Django (Foxx) the two embark on a journey as bounty hunters to kill the three men who captured him and his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) and sold them to other plantations in order to separate them.  While on their journey the duo begin to connect and threw German folklore they begin a journey as bounty hunters on a journey to save Broomhilda from Calvin Candie and his plantation Candyland in Mississippi.

While artists have their right to their opinion, I would respect Lee's thoughts on this journey if he had seen the film.  Lee and Tarantino both have used racial constructs in their films, in different ways, but they have been important to some of the construct of their films (Lee way more).  Avoiding seeing this film reminds me of the way in which the late Ernest Borgnine refused to see Brokeback Mountain, because he thought it defiled the legend of the cowboy flick.  While I can see and understand some of the racial problematic moments within the film.  Like Brokeback Django is more than the message on the outside, and I would be more curious to dialogue or speak with Lee  after he saw the film.

Let's move beyond Lee's problems, and talk about the actual film.  Django is a bloody good time, but also one that over stayed its welcome, by thirty minutes.  Tarantino's script is bold, mesmerizing, and often hilarious.  While not one of the best screenplays of the year this film crosses barriers in only ways that Tarantino, a master craftsmen, can manipulate.  There is something brave about Tarantino's direction, and writing.  Within his last two films (Django, and Basterds) there is a fuck history mentality.  Tarantino is constructing films which blend aspects of history within this film with the Spaghetti Western where a black man becomes a bounty hunter killing white men.  In both Basterds and Django the victims become the victimizers in a way pushes film to the next level.  Mix all of this creativity with of a soundtrack that includes a combination of music from Tupac, Johnny Cash, and Ennio Morricone-you can't help but get pulled into the story and the characters.

While Jamie Foxx is the star, and the center of all the action, the most talented cast member within this film, is Academy Award winner Christoph Waltz.  Waltz won his Academy Award playing a Nazi in Tarantino's last film Inglorious Basterds, a role which helped garner a lot of attention.  Waltz steals the show, once again, but not as the dastardly villain, rather as the man helping Django on his journey to get his wife back.  Foxx and Waltz, dance this dance almost as though it were a perfect Waltz.  The embody one of the key elements within this Spaghetti Western.  Their work as this sheriff and deputy like bounty hunters may provide more blood than I have seen in a long time.

This leads to another one of the other peripheral topics the film raises in regard to violence.  With recent incidents in Colorado, and Connecticut there is a question being posed, and now directly to Tarantino does the incredible amount of violence need to happen?  Artistically this has been one of his signature style choices.  Tarantino without violence is like Ben without Jerry, lost.  Does he cross the line too much?  There is an eternal blood bath within the film, but the goal of the film is vengeance and within a film that not only offends on many levels.  Tarantino uses the N-word more than I have even heard on film and almost becomes just as common as saying "hello."  As much as Tarantino offends he also challenges by showing the racism within the fascination the mammy and mandigo.  Going back to the violence, while he may push the line, that's the goal of the film.

Along with pushing boundaries Django and the good doctor are tying to get to Broomhilda, and the only way to do this is through Calvin Candie, and his ever faithful house slave Stephen (Jackson), well them and the many men who oversee the fields.  DiCaprio's Francophile Candie is one bad dude, and DiCaprio is one great scene stealer.  Yet Jackson's Uncle Tom like character is the person who steals the scenes most while in Candyland; he plays the darkest character in the film, and his abhorrence to those who do not help his master are what sets him off more than anything.

These two evil men, help Tarantino juxtapose the "heroes." and provide an interesting, and harsh reality on the evil within slavery.  Tarantino along with Cinematographer Robert Richardson create a visually sumptuous story that once you are strapped in, you do not want to hit eject, until the last thirty minutes. The film loses a little steam as the blood bath rises at the end of the film.  While the film is by no means perfect, and there are reasons people may struggle with the way things are portrayed this is still one solid film that challenges the film landscape, you would expect nothing less from Tarantino.  

Academy Awards Best Picture Revisited: Inglorious Basterds (2009)

While on my trip home from Manhattan I watched Inglorious Bastereds.  It's now November, and award season is right around the corner.  Starting with 2009 I am going to watch a Best Picture nominee from every year, and analyze it's position in the Oscar race, and then talk about how it holds up looking back.

Basterd was the product of the genius, Quentin Tarantino.  Tarantino's early credits include being an extra in The Golden Girls where he was an Elvis impersonator.  Tarantino has moved far beyond this acting work, and has helped to shape film making today; his first major directorial work Reservoir Dogs is pretty solid.  Tarantino's most critically acclaimed work came in in 1994, Pulp Fiction.  Pulp Fiction earned the director two Oscar nominations for directing and writing; he won the award for best original screenplay.  After these two films Tarantino's career has continued to thrive, but his next set of nominations did not come until 2009 for Inglorious Basterds (writing/directing).

2009 was the first year the Academy went back to ten Best Picture nominees since the year of Casablanca in 1943.  The Academy never actually stated with directness why they went to ten nominees, but one of the things many award show gurus cite is the omission of The Dark Knight in 2008.  The switch to ten nominees was a cultural change, that was met with mixed reviews.  The rules have still continued to evolve.  The Academy stated that this this year there can be anywhere from between 5 to 10 nominees.  This will provide an interesting situation this year.

2009 was an interesting year for the Oscars where many people were focusing on the Avatar (big budget sci-fi extravaganze) vs. The Hurt Locker (the smaller scale war film).  In this epic battle for the big prize and other awards most people discredited Inglorious Basterds.  Basterds was nominated for Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Christoph Waltz), and Best Original Screenplay.  Waltz was an early on front runner, and was poised to take the trophy throughout the entire awards season.  Basterds got a decent number of nominations in the technical categories.  Most of these categories were set to be split between The Hurt Locker and Avatar.  Many people predicted that Tarantino would win in the screenplay category again, but he was bested by Marl Boal's The Hurt Locker.  The Academy got it right!  The Hurt Locker deserved to be the big winner.

While re-watching Inglorious Basterds, I was not as enamored with this film as much as I was the first time I saw the movie.  It's sad that Tarantino's second nominations came from lesser work.  The Academy seems to be obsessed with honoring films that center around World War II, the holocaust, the Nazi's etc. and this film fits within this category.  Tarantino's Kill Bill Volume I and II were much better, but they did not gain any recognition.  I love Tarantino, but he did not deserve the screenplay win for this film.  Waltz was just as great the second time around, and I love how maniacal his character is portrayed, just brilliant.

The one thing I noticed this time was how much Diane Krueger impressed me.  Kruger played Bridget Von Hamersmark a German actress who was also a double agent for Allies.  Kruger's subtle looks in the sequence in the bar, and while she is being interrogated by Waltz are sheer brilliance.  Melanie Laurent who plays Shosanna was also great in this film; her scene where she interacts with Waltz, the man who murdered her entire family is chilling!  These two women deserved nominations for their work in this film, and it is sad that voters could not move past Tarantino's machismo aura of this film and recognize the actresses who did some of the best work in the film.

In the world where there are 10 nominees for Best Picture, I would have nominated this film, but looking back on the year there could have been five better films.  This was the year of The Hurt Locker, Up, Up in the Air, A Serious Man, District 9, Star Trek, and my personal favorite 500 Days of Summer.  Tarantino did a lot of interesting things within this film, but I would not cite this as his best best work.