..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

Give ‘Em the Old Razzle Dazzle

An Oscar vet and two-time winner of the award scratched his head and confided that he couldn’t recall an Oscar show that had been so rife with surprises. Polanski, Brody, Almodovar.

One could also add for different reasons the statuette to Spirited Away in animation, Ronald Harwood’s screenplay adaptation of The Pianist and a clutch of prizes to Chicago in tech categories. He was far from displeased with the upsets and even voted for many of them … he, and most so-called seers, just didn’t see them coming.

Surprise hasn’t been a significant part of Oscar history. We’re told it was a shock when Loretta Young received her statuette for The Farmer’s Daughter (Rosalind Russell was favored that year) but more recently the likes of Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman and Al Pacino were each favored to receive long over due honors for secondary work and Robert De Niro, Holly Hunter and Jeremy Irons took home statues for what were considered singular, popular performances.

The last time I can recall something coming out of left field was the best picture prize awarded Chariots of Fire in 1982. How big a surprise was it? Well, at the time, I called up its publicist Joe Hyams to give him a pat on the back and, in passing, said that the party afterwards must have been amazing. Hyams said it apparently was but he was in New York. He had worked so long and hard on the picture, he could not bear to go to the awards and experience the moment when either Reds or On Golden Pond was named the winner.

Hyams opted out by scheduling some Warner Bros. business in Manhattan. On Oscar Monday he was invited to a party but elected to watch the event alone in his hotel suite. Chariots won an anticipated statuette for its music score and a slightly less obvious prize for its screenpla,y but Warren Beatty was the winner in direction. When the big winner was announced, Hyams said he leapt up and danced and a moment later thought “I could have been celebrating at a party.” Then, he realized, he could have been at the actual event.

For many years, I’ve spent most mornings at the Fairfax Farmer’s Market playing color commentator about the film industry with a group of movie mavens that include six Academy voters. Last week we polled votes over coffee and Danish and these were the results: Adapted screenplay: The Hours –3, The Pianist – 2, Adaptation – 1; Original screenplay: Talk to Her – 3, Y tu Mama Tambien – 2, Chicago –1; Supporting Actor: Chris Cooper – 4, Ed Harris – 1, Christopher Walken – 1; Supporting Actress: Kathy Bates – 4, Julianne Moore – 1, Meryl Streep – 1; Director: Roman Polanski – 3, Stephen Daldry – 2, Pedro Almodovar – 1; Actress – Julianne Moore – 4, Nicole Kidman – 1, Diane Lane – 1; Actor: Adrien Brody – 3, Jack Nicholson – 1, Daniel Day-Lewis – 1, Nicolas Cage – 1; Picture: The Pianist – 3, The Hours – 2, The Gangs of New York – 1.

Following the impromptu survey, one intoned “but what’s going to win?” My prognosis was absolutely nothing the group had checked on their respective ballots.

While far from a microcosm of organization membership, the individual choices certainly reflected that at least .1% of its scroll preferred The Pianist and Talk to Her to Chicago and Gangs of New York. In some instances, those sentiments were embraced by enough other voters to generate the evening’s surprises and in other categories they did not.

What was evident from the game was a general feeling of being battered and bruised by the process. They felt that the months of campaigning had left scares on their psyche to a point where the line between what they were voting for and what they were opposing had blurred to a degree that was incalculable. The whipping boy for their anger was Harvey Weinstein and, particularly, his scorched earth pursuit of an Oscar for Martin Scorsese. Monday, they felt somewhat vindicated by the Academy choices that included a 0 for 10 record for Gangs of New York.

According to one well-placed source, another person who’s tired of the award onslaught is Weinstein. He says the co-president of Miramax wants to present the Academy board with a proposal that would cap the amount and extent of Oscar advertising.

(Another source within the Miramax family insists that immediately after the show Weinstein said next year he’d really assume a no holds barred approach to winning the golden man)

Naturally the intriguing notion prompted a couple of calls to its apparent source and this scribe continues to stay by his phone for Mr. W’s response. In the interim, a member of the Academy’s inner circle confirmed that Weinstein had indeed requested a meeting with the organization director and president - Bruce Davis and Frank Pierson - to discuss the issue on the Saturday prior to the event. The duo begged off, citing a not unsurprising busy schedule and asked that it be put off until the Manhattan-based Weinstein was next in Los Angeles.

Considering the vigorous, often innovative, sometime questionable and fitfully effective methods Miramax has employed for its potential nominees and winners in the past decade, one can only hope that if there is indeed a move afoot to revamp and restore a degree of dignity to the campaign process, it will be equally clever and thoughtful. One might even hold out hope that reforms would strive to assure that all deserving candidates had, at least, an equitable opportunity to be seen and appreciated.

I haven’t seen the Miramax proposal; I don’t even know if it exists as more than a rumor. I’d like to believe something has been put on paper and we’re not simply dealing with an ethereal concept about the need for change. It’s safe to assume that someone at the Academy has been assessing the landscape of this year’s battlefield and come up with some initial campaign revisions such as no personal endorsements from members (think Robert Wise) and, perhaps, closer scrutiny of special screenings involving talent from nominated pictures. The Academy itself has to assess its decision to display the work of designer Dante Ferretti during the period leading up to Oscar nominations. (He was nominated but did not win for Gangs of New York)

However, more to the point, it cannot continue to serve up band-aid solutions to festering problems.

Not long ago, several companies employed people to call up Academy members to ask whether they had seen a particular film. If they had not, the person would tell them where it was playing or screening. The member would receive follow up calls, etc., etc. Those employing this technique insisted they were simply ensuring that members would have the theatrical experience but the Academy board was not swayed, barring the practice as intrusive

The issues to be addressed pose considerable problems with less than obvious solutions. For starters, assuming some reasonable construct can be devised, exactly who will monitor its enforcement; who will be the equivalent of the weapon’s inspectors?

Let us, for the sake of discussion, say that $1 million cap is set on media buys per film leading up to the announcement of nominations. Will the distributor be asked to submit a weekly accounting of trade and mainstream ad buys? Variety editor Peter Bart - whose publication is a current beneficiary of Oscar largesse - wrote an open letter to Pierson last week that maintained the idea of limiting campaigning was delusional. Granted he may have a vested interest in not seeing curbs placed on the number and size of ads placed in Variety. But whereas one can quantify “for your consideration” material, there’s a lot more bulk in the campaign iceberg that lies beneath the surface.

During the period leading up to the announcement of the Oscar slate, one sees ads extolling Golden Globe nominations, accolades doled out by a collection of organizations and individual critic’s lists and strategically placed and timed articles trumpeting individuals and films. Where does one draw the line between promoting a film to the general public and subliminal campaigning for a statuette?

And that’s simply the opening hurdle. 0nce the slate of nominees is set, will the Academy determine subsequent spending based on the number of nominations a film receives?

Even imagining that some basic ground rules can be established, the premise remains locked within the confines of the “haves.” One does not hear tales of crass spending from the likes of Lions Gate, Artisan, Strand or Zeitgeist. Independent and alternative movies are generally disadvantaged and if the unconfirmed effort is sincere, shouldn’t it aspire to creating a level playing field in which everyone can compete equally in an effort to honor the best films and individuals achievements.

It All Adds Up

The ongoing Oscar conundrum is how is it possible for the best film winner not be the best directed or written? People ponder endlessly how an individual member might vote for a particular movie and not its director or writer.

Understanding that I’m not privy to the voting methodology of each and every Academy member, let me simply say that there’s a logical explanation to why Chicago was named movie of the year while the writer and director of The Pianist received the Oscars in their categories.

The first thing one has to understand is that the Oscar goes to the film and individual that receives a plurality rather than the majority of votes. If there are 5,000 voters, one can win with as few as 1,001 ballots.

As the Academy never divulges the actual vote count, let’s imagine that Roman Polanski received 26% of the popular vote, followed by Rob Marshall with 25% and Martin Scorsese with 24%. And let’s also assume that a significant number of members chose to vote for Mr. Scorsese for the body of his work rather than the individual achievement of Gangs of New York. Or, to put it another way, considered Chicago their favorite film but opted to give their vote for Mr. Scorsese’s direction.

Now, if the group that opted to split picture and direction was just 10%, it would constitute 2.4% of voters and boost Chicago’s picture tally to 27.4%, a slight edge to The Pianist’s tally assuming voting consistency. It’s a plausible scenario as long as one ignores the old saw that there’s no consistency in character.

Who Says Irony is Dead?

It’s unclear who makes these decisions, but year after year the Academy or the show’s producers must decide whether, in the absence of the actual recipient, an alternative person can go on stage to collect the Oscar.

Back in 1977, it was determined that Paddy Chayefsky was a suitable choice should the late Peter Finch be voted best actor for Network. They rejected the producer’s choice of Finch’s widow but Chayefsky brought her on stage anyway.

This year, it was determined that the son of Conrad L. Hall could collect the Oscar (and did) for his late father. It’s unclear whether anyone was designated to accept for director Roman Polanski but likely, if any candidates were put forward, all were found unacceptable or inappropriate.

When Caroline Link, the director of foreign-language recipient Nowhere in Africa had to bow out of the ceremony due to the illness of her infant daughter, she requested that the producer of the film be allowed to collect the statue should the picture win. She was informed that Academy policy did not allow for that option even though its sanctioned annual foreign film symposium decided he should participate in the forum.

In light of current sensitivities about America’s relationship to the rest of the world, the no-Link decision seems particularly short sighted. Though Oscar extended itself to Pedro Almodovar, the sole category devoted to international filmmaking was silenced at the very moment it needed to be heard.

- by Leonard Klady