A Decade of Oscars: 2003
2003 was a great year for movies. Unfortunately, none of it mattered.
As Summer began, Disney/Pixar provided audiences with it’s finest work (sorry, Toy Story fans) in Finding Nemo. With arguably the greatest animation to date, Nemo let the child in all of us go under the sea (again) and experience the journey as a clown fish tries to find his son. This could have been a Best Picture nominee, but instead, Nemo was rewarded with Best Animated Film – the first for Disney/Pixar.
The ocean theme of 2003 continued when Disney gave us Pirates of the Caribbean, a larger than life adaptation of the famed theme park ride. This was sure to be a hit or miss project. Johnny Depp was the lead, giving it credibility but no guarantees. It only took one weekend for everyone to realize that the film was fantastic, and it went on to gross just over $300M – Disney’s second film to do so in as many months, behind Finding Nemo. Pirates was great, but not many considered it a Best Picture nominee. On the morning of the nominations, Johnny Depp’s name was called as a nominee for Best Actor, bringing smiles to everyone’s faces. Unfortunately for Disney, Pirates did not make the short list for Best Picture.
One more Ocean movie did make the list of Best Picture nominees, though. Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World, directed by Peter Weir, starred Russell Crowe as an early 1800’s ship captain bound and determined to sink his French rival. It’s a great movie with epic battle scenes and wonderful character development. Master & Commander landed itself 10 Oscar nominations – a feat that would make anyone over at 20th Century Fox optimistic, had it not been for Peter Jackson and company.
Seabiscuit was another Best Picture contender. This was the true story of the greatest race horse ever to not be named Secretariat. Nestled right in between his first two stints as Spiderman, Tobey Maguire played the jockey that was far too big to be a jockey and shocked the world by taking Seabiscuit to stardom in the 1930’s. I like Seabiscuit a whole lot. Many critics panned the movie for focusing more on the personal stories than the racing, and I suppose in a movie about a racehorse, it’s a valid concern. I didn’t think it was a big deal. There was enough racing to keep me happy at least.
Another film that got recognition as a Best Picture nominee was Sofia Coppola’s Lost In Translation. Set in Tokyo, this film starred Bill Murray and Scarlet Johannson as two Americans who cross paths in a hotel bar and become very close. It’s a character piece done to perfection. Bill Murray was recognized with a nomination for Best Actor. The race seemed to be between him and Sean Penn for Mystic River. It was very different to see Murray in such a poignant and vulnerable role – the kind of opportunity that I claimed he may never be afforded again. Sofia Coppola wrote and directed Lost In Translation, earning her the distinction of becoming the very first woman ever to be nominated for Best Director. She would go on to win the award for Best Original Screenplay, and I think she would have been in contention for Best Director as well, but she didn’t even have a chance. No one did.
With all due respect, Mystic River was the best film of 2003. Clint Eastwood had been directing movies for more than 10 years at this point, but he hit a stride around this time that still continues annually to this day. His effort for 2003 was a gripping tale of three childhood friends who, after growing up leading very different lives, are all reunited after a tragic murder. Sean Penn delivered one hell of a performance as a grieving father in search of his daughter’s killer. Up until this point, Penn had been known to be anti-Oscar, which is not always a deal-breaker (see the career of Woody Allen). His extreme political views seemed to also polarize the Academy voters, making him not the ideal recipient. Mystic River was so good, though, that the Academy couldn’t help but reward him for his efforts. Upon winning the Best Actor Oscar, he just stood at the podium with his head down as he received a standing ovation from the audience. I think I stood up too, in my living room, waiting to hear what he had to say. What followed was a speech of gratitude (and only one snide remark about WMDs). Sean Penn deserved this moment. Also deserving was Clint Eastwood, but he would have to wait to accept his Best Director Oscar.
Leading the night was Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, with 11 nominations. At this point, it was very hard to determine how many of those 11 came as a result of Return of the King itself and how many came as an opportunity to reward the entire trilogy. By the time the ceremony came around, it was clear just what the intentions were. Call me a purist, but I have a hard time justifying awarding 3 years worth of films in one night. The technical awards usually do a much better job at rewarding specific achievements. Things like Art Direction, Costume Design, Makeup, and Visual Effects were all spectacular throughout the series, but you could make a case for any them to win for this film. Howard Shore created three similar but different scores for the three films, so it was reasonable to nominate him three times. He won two out of the three, so I felt like there was some justice in the system. As far as Editing and Sound Mixing were concerned, it certainly felt like those groups just saw Return of the King on the ballot and said, “Hey, I like those films…” The song that Annie Lennox and Howard Shore wrote for the film, “Into the West” was mediocre at best. To me, it did not captivate the essence of the film, and it didn’t add anything to the film.
Was Return of the King’s screenplay REALLY the best adaptation of 2003? Does anyone out there remember watching the movie and thinking it should have ended about 30 minutes before it actually did? That’s because the screenwriters (Jackson and his wife) tried to follow the book too closely. It may come as a surprise to some, but movies and books are not the same kind of storytelling, and you have to treat them very, very differently. Most of the time when you don’t like the movie as much as the book it’s because whoever wrote the movie didn’t realize that you can’t just use the novel as the screenplay. The fact that SO MANY people thought the ending of Return of the King was lousy is proof positive that it was NOT the best adaptation. Here again, it’s a reward for all 3.
It’s such a shame that Mystic River happened to be released the same year as Return of the King. Clint Eastwood deserved to win for Best Director and as a producer for Best Picture. But both went to Return of the King as a symbol of gratitude for a franchise well done. Return of the King went on to win all 11 of the awards it was nominated for, a record that still stands – and probably always will.
Before I get too much hate mail, I will say this. I loved the Lord of the Rings films. I thought they were amazing. In fact, when you put them together and look at them as 1 film (which they are and always should be), I think it’s the greatest movie ever made. EVER. It’s not my favorite by a long shot, but it’s the best. The time and effort that went into it is hard to fathom, and the end result is nothing short of brilliant. That being said, you wouldn’t pull out the last 2 reels of The Wizard Of Oz – starting when Dorothy gets captured by the monkeys – and call it the Best Picture.
Mystic River was the best film of 2003.
-Steve
Comments
Post a Comment