For Your Consideration: My 2013 Oscar Ballot

After a case of early-onset Oscar fatigue, I was surprised to find myself rather interested in the race while processing my predictions in the major categories for my Oscar preview article (you can read it here, especially if you want to know my rationale for picks you probably disagree with). 

I think my rebound is due to the fact that 2012 was actually a strong year for film, which means there was a lot less cynical eye-rolling as I vacillated between the candidates. 

But enough stalling. Let's get down to the ballot. Just one disclaimer: I am not to be held responsible for any losses you might incur by following my lead. I will, however, be happy to take a cut of the winnings. 

Either way, enjoy the show - even if Seth MacFarlane ruins it with too many Hitler jokes.

BEST PICTURE

Will win: Argo

Should win: Argo
Because it's a perfect distillation of everything a conventional Hollywood film should be -- and this is, after all, a night about Hollywood. After a second viewing of "Life of Pi," however, I'm almost ready to change my mind. 

BEST DIRECTOR

Will win: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln

Should win: Ang Lee, Life of Pi
Because he pulled off the impossible and created a film that actually made me want to pay extra to see it in the best possible venue.

  

BEST ACTOR

Will win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln

Should win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Do I need to explain?

BEST ACTRESS

Will win: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour OK, I actually think Jennifer Lawrence will win, but I'm demonstrating wishful thinking that Academy voters will see past the Weinstein marketing assault and vote the way they should. I loved Silver Linings Playbook and Lawrence's performance, but she'll have plenty more chances at the podium.

Should win: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour

Because she is astounding in the role. Because her co-star wasn't nominated. Because Amour won't win in any other major categories, except Foreign Language Film. 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Will win: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln

Should win: Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master

Because he's masterful in The Master and none of his equally incredible co-stars, Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams, have a chance.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Will win: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

Should win: Amy Adams, The Master

Because just when you think you've figured her out, she reveals another side to her talent.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Will win: Searching for Sugar Man

Should win: How to Survive a Plague

Because director David France definitively redefined the American hero.

DOCUMENTARY SHORT

Will win: Inocente

Should win: Inocente

Because it's the only one I've seen and because it's about an inspiring young artist from San Diego.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Will win: Amour

Should win: Amour

Because director Michael Haneke gave us a love story wrapped in a bleak, bloodless horror film.

ANIMATED FEATURE

Will win: Wreck-It Ralph

Should win: ParaNorman

Because I've simply never seen anything like it.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Life of Pi
Again, because I've simply never seen anything like it.

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

Will win: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Should win: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Even though much was betrayed by the hyper-vivid HFR photography, the work was exceptional.  

PRODUCTION DESIGN
Will win: Anna Karenina

Should win:Anna Karenina
Because it was sumptuous and inventive and the best thing about the film. 

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Will win: Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty

Should win: Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty

Because Kathryn Bigelow wasn't nominated and his script is the other half of the reason I was riveted for the entire 2 1/2 hours. (I'm choosing to ignore the politics surrounding torture in my assessment because there is simply nothing new to say about it.)

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Will win: Chris Terrio, Argo

Should win: For the life of me I can't decide. 

And because I don't have to, I'm making it a four-way tie between Terrio, David Magee (Life of Pi), Tony Kushner (Lincoln) and David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook). Think about the range of films and subject matter represented here and you'll see why I think these kinds of contests are fundamentally flawed. Talk about apples and oranges.

ANIMATED SHORT FILM

Will win: Paperman

Should win: Adam and Dog

Because it's serene, picturesque and about the incomparable bond between human and dog. I'm a sucker for sappy dog stories.

LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM

Will win: Curfew
Should win: Asad
Because it helped me understand a social issue that's otherwise just a news headline, and I love that the cast was made up mostly of Somali refugees.

VISUAL EFFECTS

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Life of Pi

Because it opened up a whole new level in what technology can do for storytelling.

COSTUME DESIGN

Will win: Anna Karenina

Should win: Anna Karenina

Because you want to reach out and touch every garment Keira Knightley dons.

FILM EDITING

Will win: Argo

Should win: Argo

Because you can't effortlessly weave intense suspense and humor without one hell of an editor.

SOUND MIXING

Will win: Les Miserables

Should win: Les Miserables

Because they sang live, people.

SOUND EDITING

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Life of Pi

Because I can't get the sound of that shipwreck out of my head.

ORIGINAL SCORE

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Life of Pi

Because it was magical, dramatic and inclusive of non-western sounds.

ORIGINAL SONG

Will win: Skyfall, by Adele

Should win: Skyfall, by Adele

Because it's been a long time since a Bond theme song seemed even slightly relevant.

Read More

On Second Thought: "Life of Pi"

I saw "Life of Pi" in October, several weeks before it was released, in preparation for a phone interview with its director, Ang Lee (you can read the story here). It was a 10am screening, with just me and two studio security guards in attendance.

Not exactly the ideal time of day and atmosphere for film appreciation, but when I walked out of the theater to rush back to my "regular" job, I knew I'd seen something special; something that elevated 3D filmmaking from a spectacle to be gawked at, like "Avatar," to a tool used to express an artistic vision. I valued its technical accomplishment, the performance of its novice lead actor, Suraj Sharma, and Lee's overall achievement of successfully adapting a book that most of Hollywood had deemed unfilmable.

I knew all of that, but I didn't really feel what the film had to offer. That is, not until I saw it again last night.

In the four months since I first saw the film, what stuck with me most was its beauty, particularly the scenes that melded ocean and sky, and the wonder of the world beneath the surface of the sea. With this in mind, I decided to see it for the second time at one of the "luxury" cinemas here in San Diego, where the cushy recliners would set me up to absorb Lee's wondrous canvas in comfort.

I'd yet to visit one of these fancy theaters and, I have to say, I was impressed by the one I chose, Cinepolis in Del Mar. How wonderful to walk into a theater lobby and see people milling about, drinking cocktails or coffee and chatting. No cattle herding through the snack stand lines; no sullen teenage staff upselling you popcorn or rolling their eyes as they tear your ticket stub. Finally, the movies are a place to be again. When I discovered I could order SweetTarts off the menu (the good kind, small chewy nuggets of sugary tang) and have them delivered to my seat, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven.

While my moviegoing experience was transformed by the theater upgrade, it was the film itself that transformed upon second viewing. The artistry and hypnotic beauty were still front and center, but since I'd already been introduced to it, it didn't steal every ounce of my attention as it did in round one.

In fact, I was struck by the volume of sheer, spectacular horror Lee puts Pi (and us) through before he winds up on the open sea with his hungry tiger companion. I was reclined, not in relaxed comfort, but in clutching anguish as I was transported to the depths of Pi's despair, then up and back again as he battled with the elements, the animals, and his own understanding of and belief in God.

After first seeing the film, I was bothered by the exchanges between the grown Pi (Irrfan Khan) and a visiting writer (Rafe Spall), which felt almost like a beloved uncle reading old-fashioned fables to an awestruck child. As I pointed out in my original review, I found these scenes simplistic and repetitive, if not somewhat condescending to anyone on the mid-to-upper end of its PG-range audience.

I was still somewhat uncomfortable with the tone of these scenes upon second viewing, but I was entirely unbothered by the simplicity of their content.

With an opportunity to tune in more closely to David Magee's script, it became clear to me: the act of faith actually is that simple. You believe because you need to. Or you don't. You can debate the fine points and break down your rationalizations for accepting or rejecting them, but in the end the decision to believe the "story" that, for you, makes your life meaningful really is as simple, and potentially profound, as that.

Once the end credits concluded and the lights came up, I was surprised to see nearly everyone in the theater still in their seats, casually talking to one another as the waiters quietly cleared the tables. No mad rush to the exits. No obnoxious cell phone conversations. My companion and I remained seated for quite some time discussing the film, relating it to our lives and, for me, drying my eyes.

If I had made the choice to actually rank my Top 10 films of 2012, I would most definitely be moving "Life of Pi" up the list after last night's screening. If you haven't seen it yet, please make sure to do so -- in 3D -- before it leaves theaters.

Read More