Weather Updates

Don’t agree the Oscar will go to ‘Argo?’ Try to Outguess Ebert

This film image released by Warner Bros. Pictures shows Ben Affleck as Tony Mendez center 'Argo'  rescue thriller about

This film image released by Warner Bros. Pictures shows Ben Affleck as Tony Mendez, center, in "Argo," a rescue thriller about the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. (AP Photo/Warner Bros., Claire Folger)

storyidforme: 44254643
tmspicid: 16392176
fileheaderid: 7362572

Cast your ballot

Outguess Ebert and you could win two tickets to the Los Angeles premiere of “Iron Man 3,” including airfare and hotel. For details, go to

Article Extras
Story Image

Updated: March 11, 2013 6:26AM

This year’s Outguess Ebert contest seems a little like shooting fish in a barrel. For the first time in many a year, maybe ever, I think I’ve guessed every one correctly.

A few years ago, I came across an article about the newly identified psychological concept of elevation. Scientists claim it is as real as love or fear. It describes a state in which we feel unreasonable joy; you know, like when you sit quiet and still and tingles run up and down your back, and you think things can never get any better.

I don’t think I felt uncontrollable elevation in making any of my guesses this year. That doesn’t mean it was a bad year at the movies. Harvey Weinstein, in accepting his life achievement award from the Producers Guild, said he thought 2012 was the best in 90 years. Maybe he felt elevation when he gazed upon the Weinstein Co.’s box-office figures.

Anyway, my guess for the best picture Oscar was made a while ago. On Sept. 10, I wrote:

“The winner of the Academy Award for best picture will be Ben Affleck’s tense new thriller ‘Argo.’ How do I know this? Because it is the audience favorite coming out of the top-loaded opening weekend of the Toronto Film Festival.” Also, because I had a feeling.

Nothing has changed. I did feel elevation during a 3-D shot in “Life of Pi” when the camera looks up from beneath the lifeboat and we experience the ocean’s surface as a membrane between sea and sky. But a membrane does not an Oscar win, and another reason Ben Affleck’s film will win this year is that it’s a dashed entertaining example of what Hollywood always knew how to do, and seems to be forgetting: It’s a great story. Lives are at stake, yet comedy sneaks in. There’s a caper needing split-second timing and blind luck. It depends on story and not star power or a franchise. Our side tries to rescue some Americans hidden inside the Canadian embassy in Tehran by concocting a phony sci-fi movie named “Argo” as a cover to smuggle a rescue team into Iran during the hostage crisis.

It is said “Les Miserables” has a chance in this category. That would be an insult to the other finalists. I get the sensation this year that the awards reflect a new Hollywood reality: With so many different ways for audiences to see films, the new emphasis will be on (yes) quality in whatever genre, and away from blockbusters that are pounded down our throats. Streaming video looks damned good. A good reason to see a first-run movie in a theater is to join a cool audience that knows why it’s there. Friday night at a superior film will feel more like the 8:30 a.m. press screenings at Cannes: We are the select, the chosen few.

The dark horse here may be “Django Unchained,” which appeals to an academy that is growing so much younger that, in many cases, these people have actually grown up on Tarantino. The realization is sinking in that he’s one of the greats and not just this goofy former video-store clerk kid with a chin Jay Leno envies.

Best actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, for Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln.” It’s a finely controlled, non-heroic performance. He interprets the character anew, not burdened by its weight of history. Day-Lewis and Spielberg create a Lincoln who is older and less robust than we usually imagine him, and who shows not fiery heroism but great patience as he shepherds his anti-slavery legislation through a congressional maze. This Lincoln makes me think of Obama in the way he doesn’t spout off and moves in deliberation. The movie is much about that political process. We understand the 13th Amendment passed not so much for moral reasons, but for immediate pragmatic ones. Lincoln won the necessary votes from the necessary legislators by making those pragmatic schemers an offer they couldn’t refuse.

Here again, the runner-up is probably “Les Miserables” and Hugh Jackman. God knows he does the best that he can with the material he’s given, but what a load of bloated and stagy baggage he has to haul. I remind you that my task here is to predict the winners to help you in the office pool, and not to write new reviews of films.

Best actress: If I were predicting based on elevation, I’d choose Naomi Watts for “The Impossible,” no question, and praise how seamlessly her work blends into CGI to make it all convincing. But I’m guessing Jennifer Lawrence, who plays the new lover of the hero (Bradley Cooper) in “Silver Linings Playbook.” She’s all edges and elbows with this guy who has the misfortune of having chosen professional sports as the avatar for his personal life. “Silver Linings Playbook” would have been an ideal choice for many wives and mothers to sneak out and see during the Super Bowl, and would have given them a lot more to think about than the football game.

Best supporting actor: I would have voted for Christoph Waltz in “Django Unchained,” illustrating once again how Tarantino can take an overlooked actor, give him ingenious dialogue and use him to carry a picture. But the winner will be Tommy Lee Jones for “Lincoln.” His character is invaluable to the film, and often he projects the conviction that he has private means and reasons that aren’t what everyone assumes. Also Oscar-worthy: Alan Arkin, who with John Goodman, helped “Argo” work by providing Affleck with comic Hollywood cutaway scenes to increase tension and avoid the monotone of action. They’re in another film, a Hollywood comedy.

Best supporting actress: I’m guessing Anne Hathaway for “Les Miserables,” because she holds the general consensus, and we’re predicting, not choosing. She may benefit from an occasional academy tendency to award this category to what it sees as the best picture runner-up. Her character isn’t even essential in ‘Les Miserables,” but which character is? The Victor Hugo novel fills its characters with abundant life. The film assigns them to line up and belt out dirges to the camera, which represents the audience. The Oscars haven’t even been held yet, and “Les Mis” is already a picture that is over with.

Best original screenplay: Michael Haneke’s Cannes Palme d’Or winner, “Amour,” will win. His work avoids the slightest attempt to sentimentalize its story of a long-married, loving couple finally brought down by the realities of old age. Hollywood often believes audiences aren’t prepared to accept the inevitability of a sad ending, and finds a cagey way during the end credits to elevate the tone. Surely amour can’t end in despair? Oh, yes. It can. And does.

Best adapted screenplay: Tony Kushner will win for “Lincoln,” and deserves to, in taking a story marinated in history and viewing it as something that could have gone either way. The slaves weren’t freed entirely for reasons of decency. Working from books about the politics involved, Kushner in “Lincoln” shows that Congress often has cynical and pragmatic motives for its “idealism.”

Best animated feature: “Wreck-It Ralph,” because the academy members aren’t idiots, and in this category, the academy often prefers a film that goes somewhere and says something, over cute pandas that use Earth as a trampoline. The film’s creative inspiration takes place inside video games, like “Tron,” another Disney film from 31 years ago. Wreck-It Ralph is the avatar who gets assigned to do the munching and stomping. That’s no life, and the movie suggests to the kids in the audience to have a little empathy for those whom life has typecast as the villains.

Best foreign film: Haneke’s “Amour,” hands down. Don’t bet against it.

Best cinematography: Although cinematography can involve a great many things apart from “being beautiful,” Claudio Miranda’s work for “Life of Pi” does those things. For my money, here is a film that justifies the use of treacherous 3-D. Its story of a boat on the wide Pacific risks giving many of its images the appearance of being flat, and Miranda does something I didn’t realize was possible. It brings depth to “empty” space.

It has no need of those bungee-jumping pandas who zoom toward us. Long shots and close shots all take place in tangible space. We see the boy and the tiger and the Pacific Ocean is behind them, and we can see that it is. I don’t know how it’s possible, but empty air takes on presence. A lifeboat might seem claustrophobic. Miranda’s cinematography raises the passivity of agoraphobia.

© 2014 Sun-Times Media, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission. For more information about reprints and permissions, visit To order a reprint of this article, click here.