Advertisement

Calendar Big Oscars Issue : Picks From the Popcorn Gallery

Share
</i>

As the Oscars approach, millions of people are engaging in heated debates, passionately standing up for films that moved them and thrashing the ones that robbed them of time and money. Movie watchers Kalle Matso and Scott White are drawn helplessly to this smug rite of spring, offering here their picks for best actress, best actor, best director and best picture with the insight of the slightly educated and the vested interest of the concerned consumer.

Matso: So, who are you picking in the best actress category?

White: I like Winona Ryder for playing one of the few sane characters on this year’s ballot.

Matso: What is up with that? Two years ago, it was “The Year of the Woman.” In 1995, it’s “The Year of the Committable.” I mean, look at the list of characters in both the actor and actress categories. Jodie Foster (“Nell”), wild. Miranda Richardson (“Tom & Viv”), hormonally unbalanced. Jessica Lange (“Blue Sky”), just plain unbalanced. Tom Hanks (“Forrest Gump”), a moron. Morgan Freeman (“The Shawshank Redemption”), a convicted murderer. Nigel Hawthorne (“The Madness of King George), mad. Paul Newman (“Nobody’s Fool”), a trick knee.

Advertisement

White: I know. If you play someone differently abled, your chances for recognition by your peers skyrockets. “Rain Man,” “My Left Foot,” “The Piano,” “Charly” . . . whoever is most sense-deprived gets the most praise. If they remake “Tommy,” the lead will be a shoo-in to win.

Matso: Well, I’m going with Jessica Lange for best actress. I thought she was awesome in “Blue Sky” and I’m sure the other 12 people who saw this film would agree.

White: Maybe, but all she did was play an “atomic age” Blanche DuBois. It was a good performance, but she was crazy.

Matso: True, but not like Miranda Richardson was in “Tom & Viv.” Not to take anything away from Miranda--she did a great job--but she was all-out, bug-eyed nuts for most of the movie. To me, that’s the easiest kind of acting to do.

White: Well, you can’t give it to Susan Sarandon. Personally, I think she’s a great actress, but she deserved more recognition for her role in “Little Women” than for her performance in “The Client.”

Matso: Which brings us to Jodie Foster, who did a bang-up job playing a feral child. But I couldn’t give it to Foster because the movie bugged me so much.

Advertisement

White: I had problems with it as well. The character doesn’t put two sentences together for the first 90 minutes of the film. And then, in the corniest of endings, she turns and addresses the court on the troubles with life in the ‘90s.

Matso: I was expecting her to warn Liam Neeson in her unintelligible twang about the rising costs of entitlement programs. Which brings us back to Lange. I liked “Blue Sky” and I liked her role. She wasn’t over-subtle or boring. Nor was she foaming at the mouth. She was just messed up, like most people we know.

White: So, what about best actor?

Matso: Well, I can’t go with Freeman. I mean, he’s a great actor, but this wasn’t an Oscar-winning performance. Besides a couple of good scenes in front of the parole board, all he did was watch Tim Robbins get raped for two hours.

White: Freeman often plays the same role. He’s always this solid, good guy who works well under pressure. He’s headed for a lifetime achievement award for acting avuncular.

Matso: And as good as John Travolta was in “Pulp Fiction,” I don’t see him leaving the Shrine Auditorium with a statuette. The role just didn’t have the breadth to win this kind of award.

White: But he definitely gets most improved.

Matso: No doubt. To put Travolta’s career in perspective, Miramax probably sent out tapes of “Pulp Fiction” accompanied by the “Look Who’s Talking” trilogy.

Advertisement

White: Now, I know a lot of people like Nigel Hawthorne for best actor, but that just brings us back to the psycho ward. There wasn’t a lot of subtlety here.

Matso: No. Soiling your britches is not subtle. But there were quite a few scenes where Hawthorne effectively gave the sense that George knew he was crazy but was powerless to do anything about it.

White: I just can’t recommend a performance for an Oscar when it revolves around an affliction that can be cured with over-the-counter drugs.

Matso: So, for you, it’s between Hanks and Newman.

White: Yes, and I was very impressed by Hanks. Gump wasn’t an inherently interesting role. He did a lot with it, like the scene when he meets his son and realizes that his offspring might have more of an affinity for putting the square peg in the square hole.

Matso: That was great, as was the scene where he gets to second base with Robin Wright.

White: And it wasn’t a mimicking role either, the kind where you just go study people with a certain condition and imitate it for the camera. After “Scent of a Woman,” everyone was saying, “Wow. It really seemed like Al Pacino was blind.” That’s not the point of Gump. No one walked out of the theater amazed that Hanks maintained a dopey expression for 120 minutes. That said, I still have to go with Paul Newman. He was understated, believable and fun to watch.

Matso: I can’t sanction that. Look, no one was happier than me when Newman won for “Color of Money,” but, besides looking great for his age, he didn’t do anything in “Nobody’s Fool.”

Advertisement

White: It’s called subtlety, man.

Matso: No, it’s called a walk in the park. Basically, he got nominated for being darn charismatic.

White: So who are you picking?

Matso: I’m going with Hawthorne, for the scenes when he was sane.

White: But you can’t qualify it like that. That’s like saying you’re picking Krzysztof Kieslowski (“Red”) for best director, but only for that funky first scene with the telephone wires.

Matso: I would never pick Kieslowski for best director. I don’t even want him to come to this country.

White: I think the other nominees will probably give him the wrong address for the post-Oscar party, and ditch him.

Matso: Maybe we’re being a little hard on the guy. Perhaps he deserves some praise for making an ambiguous, pretentious story tolerable from a visual standpoint. It’s just hard for me to separate his direction from a screenplay consisting solely of non sequiturs.

White: This movie is why Europeans want to protect their movie markets from American competition. I’m fairly certain “Red” was entered as evidence at the GATT talks.

Advertisement

Matso: So who are you picking for best director?

White: Quentin Tarantino for “Pulp Fiction.” I was impressed with Robert Zemeckis’ direction for “Forrest Gump,” but how much credit goes to Zemeckis and how much goes to a bunch of computer nerds at Industrial Light & Magic? If Zemeckis does win, there’s a good chance he’ll be followed to the podium by half a dozen men with pocket protectors.

Matso: I think I’m going with Tarantino as well, but my runner-up is Robert Redford for “Quiz Show.” He did a great job of spicing up subject matter that was suited less for the silver screen and more for a two-day symposium on morality.

White: I’m sorry--in terms of originality combined with entertainment, “Quiz Show” wasn’t even in the same ballpark as “Pulp Fiction,” which was near-flawless in my opinion. My only caveat is that Tarantino should have kept his face and his hubris behind the camera.

Matso: Everyone talks about Tarantino’s gift for quirky dialogue, but I think his direction is equally striking. The original way he films collisions--cutting away at the last second behind the impacted object--is just one example.

White: Which brings us to best picture. To start off the round of elimination, I give you “The Shawshank Redemption.”

Matso: I agree. This was a good movie, but I think it got blown out of proportion with a well-timed release. Let’s face it, for about two months, the only competition this film had was from “Stargate” and “The Puppet Masters.” I think another movie we can safely scratch off the list is “Four Weddings and a Funeral.”

Advertisement

White: Absolutely. If there was an award for the breeziest picture, this would be in the running. As it is, even a child could tell you that one of these films is not like the others.

Matso: And even though “Forrest Gump” made more than $300 million and launched a new brand of canned shrimp, I’m going to have to eliminate it from contention. Great acting and great direction can’t hide the fact that this could have easily been one of those mid-’70s Disney movies called “The Fastest Dumb-Guy in the World.”

White: You’re right. This is the Oscars, not the People’s Choice Awards. Which gives us the winner, “Pulp Fiction.”

Matso: Not so fast. At this point, I’m teetering between “Pulp Fiction” and “Quiz Show.”

White: What are you hesitating about? Look, “Quiz Show” was a good expenditure of time and it brought up some interesting issues, but you can say the same thing about an hour in therapy.

Matso: Well, forgive me for wanting to laud a well-directed film with interesting and complex characters.

White: Laud it all you want, just give the Oscar to “Pulp Fiction.” This year is crazy enough without the honest consumer going off the deep end.*

Advertisement
Advertisement