Predictable winners leads to dull Oscarcast

By PHILIP WUNTCH
Film Critic Emeritus

It's been less than two hours since I watched the Oscar ceremony, and already I'm having trouble remembering details.

The ceremony was comfortable. The mood was cozy. The awards were predictable. In other words, this was one dull Oscarcast. It wasn't the fault of host Jon Stewart, who started slowly but rebounded with his usual wry wit. Still, a couple of surprises would have been nice, not that I wanted anything as drastic as the "Crash" victory two years ago

The only borderline surprise among major winners was Marion Cotillard's victory for "La Vie en Rose," the Edith Piaf biopic. Julie Christie, whose provocative walk in 1963's "Billy Liar" brightened my high-school fantasies, was the anticipated winner for her radiant performance as an Alzheimer's patient in "Away From Her." Ms. Cotillard's Edith Piaf was also radiant, but her film was more conventional.

The Cotillard triumph makes sense -- at least from a dollars-and-cents perspective. Ms. Christie is an icon of a bygone era, the "swingin' London" of the '60s. Ms. Cotillard represents the future. She's recently been cast opposite Johnny Depp's John Dillinger in Michael Mann's "Public Enemies," also starring high-profile contemporaries Christian Bale and Channing Tatum. And she'll play one of several women in Javier Bardem's life in the movie version of "Nine," to be helmed by "Chicago" director Rob Marshall.

Bardem, of course, was the expected supporting-actor winner for his killer performance in "No Country for Old Men," as was Daniel Day-Lewis as lead actor in the searing "There Will Be Blood." They may play loathsome characters, but their acceptance speeches could bring tears to a mother's eyes.

Day-Lewis is on a roll as the most gracious awards recipient ever. When winning his first Oscar for 1989's "My Left Foot," he made a point of acknowledging Hugh O'Conor, the 14-year-old actor who played his character as a child. His recent SAG acceptance speech, in which he honored Heath Ledger, won plaudits for its warmth and sincerity. And at last night's Oscars, he lauded his wife Rebecca Miller (daughter of the late, esteemed Arthur), his three sons and "There Will Be Blood" director Paul Thomas Anderson. Of course, virtually everyone thanks families and directors, but with Day-Lewis it didn't sound obligatory. He seems the type of lovable eccentric you like to watch win awards.

I was rooting for another eccentric talent, Tilda Swinton, who first won attention as Virginia Woolf's gender-switching hero/heroine in 1992's "Orlando." As I suspected, Academy voters, marking their ballots in the midst of the writers' strike, could identify with her "Michael Clayton" performance as an edgy, nervous executive who never worries about doing the right thing. Also, a Swinton victory would be a convenient way of acknowledging George Clooney, now a resident of Hollywood's top tier and one of the major forces behind "Michael Clayton." I've heard several staunch Dallasites say they refuse to see Clooney's movies because of his political views, and I'm always delighted when their feathers get ruffled. Besides, Swinton's sardonic yet warm acceptance speech was a highlight.

It's impossible to imagine contemporary American cinema without Joel and Ethan Coen. But their most recent efforts prior to "No Country for Old Men" were the plodding "The Ladykillers" and the glossy "Intolerable Cruelty." The joyousness of "Fargo" and "Raising Arizona" threatened to become dim memories. "No Country for Old Men" can hardly be called a joyous movie, except from the vibrant perspectives of reinforcing the Coen brethren's talent and reminding us that watching a superbly executed movie can be indeed be a joyous experience.

In the future, we may look back at this year's Oscar race as a triumph of true eccentrics. At the moment, I'm in a dilemma when making a judgment call. The winners may have been predictable, but their movies were not. So maybe forget what I said about this being a dull Oscar derby.