Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / March 23, 1989, edition 1 / Page 15
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
8DTHOmnibusThursday, March 23, 1989 Dean, Smith make predictions for this year's Oscars By RICHARD SS.HTH and jaj.:-s dean Staff Writers Next Wednesday, the great cinematic ceremony of the year will be upon us again. The Academy Awards will grace the screens of millions of television sets through out the free world. Your friendly film critics have once again put their heads together in an attempt to make some sense of the nominations and predict the winners. In each category, our predicted winner is in bold type. Though there will be no clean sweep this year in the manner of last year's last Emperor," each category can, as usual, be divided into those who may win and those who simply wont. BEST ACTOR The wonts in this category are Max von Sydow and Edward James Olmos. Sydow receives a nod for "Pelie the Conqueror" in the same spirit as Marcelio Mas troianni did last year for "Dark Eyes." An actor in a foreign lan guage film just does not win, however brilliant the perfor mance may be. Oimos's out-of -the-blue nomination for "Stand and Deliver," while not undeserving, also stands little chance, in a less competitive year, the award could have gone to Gene Hackman for his most memorable performance rrtnii"- "'mi iiii i ! """ ' 4 ..vi.:.::-.-- , ' t . Dean Stockwell (above) was in years in "Mississippi Burning." (Hackman, of course, won Best Actor back in 1 971 for "The French Connection.") This , year's underdog is the youthful Tom Hanks, who receives a worthy nomination for the summer hit comedy, "Big." in Hanks's favor is his equally good performance in a more dramatic role in "Punchline." Last year's recipient Michael Douglas won for "Wall Street." but his "Fatal Attrac tion" role undoubtedly helped, the same could work for Hanks. The clear favorite, however, is Dustln Hoffman, whose virtuoso perfor mance as the autistic savant in "Rain Man" is just the stuff for which Oscars are made. Should he win, it would be his second after winning in 1979 for "Kramer vs. Kramer." BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Clearly there was a major lack of supporting "roles for men in 1988, if the nominations are any thing to go by. It's hard to even remember what role Martin Lan dau played in "Tucker: The Man and His Dream." The still-pubescent River Phoenix, who showed great promise in "Stand by Me" and "The Mosquito Coast," receives a nom ination for the largely unseen "Running on Empty." He might have stood a chance, had the film been successful. Dean stockwell v one of the few capable Supporting Actors of 1988; Mira Nair's "Salaam Bombay!" (right) is in the obviously had a good time with his Mafia king role in "Married to the Mob," but his character never rose above the level of a carica ture. Kevin Kline had even more fun as the zany American in "A Fish Called Wanda' although his perfor-. mance verged on the irritating, his comic talent was a revelation to many and may be enough to swing the vote. But the Academy, for reasons best known to itself, has always favored veteran British actors in supporting roles, in the past three years Peggy Ashcroft, Michael Caine, and Sean Connery have all won Supporting Oscars, and in this manner Alec Guinness is likely to continue the tradition for his role in the seven-hour Dickensian epic, "Little Dorrit," particularly with the lack of competition. BEST ACTRESS Definitely the hardest category to call. Meryl Streep's performance in "A Cry in the Dark" stands out as last year's best, but it is too unglamorous a role in too small a film. And there's always the feeling that shell probably win next year, in a more typically Streepian role, Sigourney Weaver put in her most assertive work to date as anthro pologist Dian Fossey in "Gorillas in the Mist." She is, however, more likely to win in the Supporting Actress category where the com petition is weaker. Melanie Griffith is undoubtedly the current media darling (remarriage to Don John son, pregnant, etc.,), but her role in "Working Girl," while worthy, is unlikely to clinch the award. More likely is Glenn Close for "Dangerous Liaisons." She so obviously wanted to win last year t if n ft r -7 7 ) f 1 I ( v f v 1 I i... . . il - - for "Fatal Attraction," and her deliciously spiteful performance this year has its many admirers. But Jodie Foster gave the most startling performance of the year as the rape victim in "The Accused." The unexpected quality of her portrayal, in such a difficult role, transcends all the others, and with a little justice she should win. BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS It is almost as difficult to pick a clear winner in this category, which may be due to the youth fulness of the nominees. Joan Cusack certainly gets Best Hair style for "Working Girl," but along . with Frances McDormand in "Mis sissippi Burning," stands little chance. Michelle Pfeiffer had a great year. After "Married to the Mob" and "Tequila Sunrise," she gave her most accomplished per formance in "Dangerous Liaisons;" the role, however, may not be outstanding enough. Geena Davis certainly stood out as the quirky dog trainer of "The Accidental Tourist." The eccentric ity of her character though, while a delight, may be the reason she doesn't win. Double nominee Sigourney Weaver's supremely confident portrayal of the high flying New York executive in "Working Girl" gives her the edge. Jessica Lange was nominated for "Tootsie" and "Frances" in 1982, and won for the lighter of the two roles,- weaver will probably do the same. BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY Although it's difficult to discard "Roger Rabbit." the competition is between Bergman cinemato grapher Sven Nykvist for his work on the undernominated "The "".. . ; a. . Unbearable Lightness of Being," John Seale's beautiful photo graphy for "Rain Man" and Peter Biziou for his effective work in "Mississippi Burning." The Academy usually favors American cinemato graphers, however, and John Seale should probably win over Biziou. BEST COSTUMES The only reason that James Acheson might not win for "Dan gerous Liaisons" is because he won last year for "The Last Emperor." BEST VISUAL EFFECTS No competition. The "Roger Rabbit" team. BEST EDITING and SOUND Anyone's guess. BEST ART DIRECTION Of the nominations, only "Tucker," "Dangerous Liaisons" and "Roger Rabbit" stand out for their art and set decoration. All three are period pieces, but "Tucker" owes its authenticity to its art direction more than the others, which should be enough to win. MAKEUP The Academy usually goes for big makeup jobs, in which case "Beetlejuice" would win over "Scrooged." In "Coming to Amer ica," however, Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall's disguised cameos demonstrated a more subtle side to the art, which may get make up wiz Rick Baker another Oscar for a dubious film after last year's "Harry and the Hendersons." BEST ORIGINAL SONG Terrible songs always win Oscars, so Bob Telson's haunting n V Best Foreign Film category.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 23, 1989, edition 1
15
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75