Student Life Archives

Bernell Dorrough

That special time of year has come again. It’s a time when celebrities don their finest (or ugliest) garb and stuffy film critics give an indignant “harumph” when their favorite flicks don’t make the cut. That’s right, it’s the 76th Annual Academy Awards, and we here at Cadenza have assembled a crack team of analysts to tell you where to place your bets. It has shaped up to be an exciting Sunday night, as the categories include a wide variety of genres, and lesser known films like “Lost in Translation” and “House of Sand and Fog” have stealthily slipped into the nominee pool. Of course, there are all the requisite blockbusters as well, including “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” (11 nominations) and “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World” (10 nominations). Watch for a cat fight between Charlize Theron and Naomi Watts, and be sure to keep your eye on the Best Supporting roles for the most even competition and the biggest indicators of future stardom. Now, let’s see what our panel of experts has to say. Guys?

Best Supporting Actress

Who will win:

Travis: Renee Zellweger, “Cold Mountain.” The movie itself was resoundingly ignored, but what good things were said about it had to do with her feisty comic performance. This crusty type of comedic role is best suited for the Supporting role Oscar, and she’ll win also because of leftover good will from her performance in Chicago.

Tyler: This is always the random clusterf**k unpredictable category, so I’m gonna go with my gut and say Clarkson. They love her and she’s never won.

Who should win:

Mike: Another category where the winner is a toss up, I would have to go with Shoreh Aghdashloo in “House of Sand and Fog.” Although there was not much publicity for her or the movie, she could be a surprise this year.

Matt: Call it in the air, Clarkson or Hunter. Clarkson, as the pot-smoking, cancer-ridden, bitter mom was the best thing about the otherwise weak “Pieces of April,” but Hunter was awesome, too, despite an unnecessary nude scene.

Who got snubbed:

Matt: How about Nikki Reed, who played the conniving adolescent Evie alongside Hunter in “thirteen”? She could’ve been a new Tatum O’Neil, except hotter, in a creepy, ashamed-of-myself way.

Robbie: Sheri Moon in “House of 1000 Corpses” was probably the foxiest thing to happen to a horror film since Helen Chandler got a juicy hicky from Bela Legosi in the original “Dracula.”

Best Actress

Who will win:

Robbie: Theron is the(r)on(e)

Mike: The Academy will grant Theron the award, most likely due to the overwhelming critical support that she has received.

Who should win:

Matt: Charlize again, and NOT because of the makeup. She was Aileen Wuornos for two hours, and I hung on her every move.

Travis: I’d be happy with Theron, though I’d prefer Naomi Watts, because she made herself seem ugly without the benefit of tons of makeup. The girl from “Whale Rider” was awesome but the movie wasn’t.

Who got snubbed:

Tyler: Although there wasn’t exactly much character depth involved, Uma Thurman-wait, what am I talking about? Where the hell is Scarlett Johansson?

Best Supporting Actor

Who will win:

Travis: Tim Robbins. The only thing I could see stopping Academy voters from casting their ballot in his favor is the fear that he might give a Michael Moore-esque political acceptance speech.

Tyler: Robbins. Give Baldwin an outside shot, but this will be one of the consolation prizes “Mystic” gets when “Return of the King” takes both the big boys.

Who should win:

Robbie: “God knows when a single hair moves on your head,” Benicio del Toro says multiple times in “21 Grams.” I know when a single actor deserves an award.

Matt: Ex-con-turned-Jesus-freak roles are a sure way to get yourself the gold, but I think Tim Robbins had a serious “Sound and the Fury” Benjy thing going on in “Mystic River.”

Who got snubbed:

Robbie: Billy Crudup continues to go under the radar screen as one of America’s best young actors. His role in “Big Fish” quietly brought many a tear to many a viewer’s eye.

Mike: This list is certainly complete as it stands.

Best Actor

Who will win:

Mike: Although unfortunate, Bill Murray will most likely take the Oscar. His performance was respectable, but not the best of the year. Due to Penn’s outspoken political views and his reluctance to “play the game” in Hollywood (star on late night talk shows, etc.), I’m sure the Academy will avoid giving it to him.

Matt: “Aloha, Mr. Oscar.” Sean Penn nabs this one, because Johnny Depp is a joke in this category and Bill Murray is too much of a crap shoot.

Who should win:

Travis: Bill Murray. “Lost in Translation.” Had Penn been nominated for “21 Grams,” I would have thought he should have won, but Bill Murray’s actor/fish out of water role in the year’s strangest romance deserves recognition. Every look on his sad-sack face was comic and tragic gold.

Who got snubbed:

Travis: The movie left something to be desired, but Paul Giamatti’s performance in “American Splendour” was an amazingly low-key portrait, a perfect match for the real-life Harvey Pekar’s personality.

Robbie: Sean Penn. Did anyone else feel uncomfortable in their own skin watching Sean Penn gasp for air throughout half of “21 Grams”? It’s not ridiculous to say that even his second best acting role of the year he was better than Jude Law.

Best Director

Who will win:

Mike: I have a feeling the Academy is ready to give Jackson his due this year, and he will most likely win this one. I can see them considering Sofia Coppola, and if she does win, she better go and thank her father, Francis Ford Coppola, without whom her nomination would probably not be possible.

Who should win:

Matt: It would be so easy to say “Lost in Translation” and be done with it, but on second thought, “Mystic River” was solid as Clint Eastwood’s jaw line. A great, subtle display of directing that never stole time from the amazing performances on screen.

Travis: Sofia Coppola, “Lost in Translation.” This was not only one of the funniest movies of the year but one of the most lyrical and beautiful in its imagery. Her balance of pretension and humor makes this project worth a reward.

Who got snubbed:

Tyler: Danny Boyle, for the abject fear and striking, strange beauty of “28 Days Later.”

Robbie: The nominees all appear worthy. Only Alejandro Gonzlez Irritu for his direction of the staggeringly bleak “21 Grams” seems missing.

Best Picture

Who will win:

Matt: The hobbits take this one, if only so the Academy can reward Jackson for the entire trilogy, with “The Return of the King” being the best of the bunch.

Mike: Expect the makers of “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” to come up to the stand at the end of the night. Overall, the film is quite deserving and concludes the trilogy in an impressive fashion.

Who should win:

Robbie: The Oscar for best picture should be about drama, and there was no movie as intensely gripping from start to finish as “Mystic River.” Sean Penn’s acting alone makes this film the hands-down best of the bunch.

Tyler: “Lost In Translation.” Period.

Who got snubbed:

Travis: “Cuckoo.” A small, Russian/Finnish co-production about deserting soldiers in the Finnish Lapp country in World War II, this was the funniest, bawdiest and most powerfully spiritual film of the year. Too bad nobody saw it.

Tyler: “Lost In Translation” will be, award-wise. Nominationally, it’s a small shame “Love Actually” didn’t grab the annual sentimental-flick nod that “Seabiscuit” garnered this year. Same for “Bend It Like Beckham.” Or “School of Rock.” Really. And did everyone forget “Kill Bill, Vol. 1?”

Final Cadenza Predictions

Best Picture: “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”

Best Actor: Sean Penn, “Mystic River”

Best Actress: Charlize Theron, “Monster”

Best Supporting Actor: Tim Robbins, “Mystic River”

Best Supporting Actress: Renee Zellweger, “Cold Mountain”

Best Director: Peter Jackson, “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”

The Feb. 9 issue of the New Yorker is missing from the apartment. The blame falls not on the cats, who are known to tear things (even well-written, pretentious weeklies) to shreds; not on the abyss, as is called the phenomenon of suckage that claims everything from socks to thesis abstracts; but on my partner, who, in a fit of food poisoning brought on by the lunch buffet at an otherwise delicious Indian restaurant, spewed all over the living room. Victims of his vomit, or “The Great Curry Spew” as it is known, included several bills, a towel, a backrest, and the Feb. 9 copy of the New Yorker, may they rest in peace.

A hunt for the issue online proved not only fruitless but frustrating, though it brought attention to David Denby’s excellent article about “The Passion of the Christ” (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema). The search was for an article concerning not only Charlize Theron’s wowee zowee (note: “wowee zowee” is not a direct quote from the New Yorker) Oscar-nominated performance in “Monster,” but film actresses as a whole. We are, apparently, living through a golden age for women on the silver screen.

Apparently, Anthony Lane has yet to see “The Italian Job.”

Thinking of this and watching a newly purchased copy of “Emma” I wondered if perhaps the Jane Austen-remake fad of the mid-90s provide a better example of women gilding the screen than the films of 2003.

Kiesha Castle-Hughes (“Wale Rider”) vs. Amanda Root (“Persuasion”)

Easily the most realistic of the Austen remakes (well, up until the last few frames), “Persuasion” features British stage actress Amanda Root, who realizes the role of Anne Eliot perfectly, right down to her eyes, which seem to have dialogue of their own. Pitted against Castle-Hughes, we must compare two unknown actresses and two stellar performances, but the tide ebbs for Castle-Hughes on account of her youth (does the name Tatum O’Neil mean anything to you?) and previous acting experience (none). Not that we don’t wish her the best, when it comes right down to it, the classically-trained Root blows her out of the, um, water. The Oscar goes to Root, for making “Persuasion” a cult classic, at least for JASNA (Jane Austen Society of North America) enthusiasts.

Diane Keaton (“Something’s Gotta Give”) vs. Sophie Thompson (“Persuasion” and “Emma”)

In this kind of situation, it’s easy to want to reward someone for their entire body of work, rather than their work in the specific film at hand. This problem is ubiquitous this year-if “The Return of the King” wins best picture it will doubtlessly be on behalf of the entire trilogy. Sophie (Emma’s sister) Thompson shines both as bitchy hypochondriac Mary Musgrove in “Persuasion” and as mousy, mouthy Mrs. Bates in “Emma.” Awarding one performance seems moot without recognizing the other; similarly if Keaton were to win, it would not only reflect her performance as an aging-yet-still-horny woman in “Something’s Gotta Give,” but on a career of excellence. Still, when thinking of Keaton’s career, it’s hard to make her over into an actress of today. Her heyday was the late 70s, and though it’s more than meaningful to see her classy and brilliant on screen twenty-five years later, the Oscar goes to Thompson for her more measured, supporting skill, and of course her modernity.

Samantha Morton (“In America”) vs. Kate Winslet (“Sense and Sensibility”)

Ok, this comparison is kind of fortuitous since Winslet actually was nominated and lost, which is exactly how bookies expect Morton to fare. Most of us who are slightly crazed about Jane Austen movies love Morton because of her performance in the A&E film version of “Jane Eyre,” and love A&E for being the BBC’s American pimp. We are delighted to see Morton succeed in mainstream cinema, although it was scary to see her in “Minority Report” alongside Tom Cruise, who, if put to the test, would probably make a really lousy Mr. Rochester. Like Morton, Winslet was a virtual unknown when she received her first Oscar nomination, though we hope that the nod brings Morton the attention she deserves. More likely, Morton will continue as an actress of note for those in the know, and as Samantha Who? for everyone else. And so the Oscar goes to Winslet, and her perfectly agreeable performance of Marianne Dashwood.

At the end of the evening, it will almost certainly be Charlize Theron who walks away gold in hand, and no amount of lauding the best actresses of 1994 will take away from Theron’s performance in “Monster,” the best of 2004. Kate Beckinsale’s BBC performance, despite opinions on the Internet Movie Database, was better than Gwyneth Paltrow’s Miramax performance as Emma, precisely because Emma is not meant to be likable. Emma Thompson won for screenwriting, not acting, though her performance as Eleanor Dashwood was flawless. Perhaps what the New Yorker should have said is not that we are living through a great age of women on screen, but that we are living through an age of finally recognizing it.

Local H
Whatever Happened to PJ Soles?
Thick Records
Grade: B

Local H hits the ground running with their release of “Whatever happened to PJ Soles?” Hailing from the town of Zion, Illinois, it is perhaps appropriate that this little-known band with a small but vibrant cult-following would name their album after an actress with cult appeal (PJ Soles stared in ‘Halloween,’ ‘Stripes’ and other films and has somewhat of a cult following). Other than that, the title is a bit puzzling.

The band does, perhaps, garner some titular credibility with the best song on the album, “PJ Soles.” In this song they extend the analogy of PJ Soles to a past love obsession: “I think of you like PJ Soles. I was your biggest fan . . . I guess it’s like they said: that it was all just built up in my head.”

Except for ‘P.J. Soles,’ the album lacks radio friendliness, but is a good effort by what is an ultimately local band. True to their roots, they even devote a whole song to ranting “we’re all so sick of California songs . . . and f*ck New York too.”

The most interesting moments are created in experimentation with keyboard and guitar to create a soulful blend that is heartfelt and authentic. While the album is a little too heavy on the formulaic driving drums and snarling guitars, it should be enjoyable for fans of the band and those who like earnest rock and roll with colloquial appeal.

Bernell Dorrough

Galactic with Mike Doughty
Tickets: $15 advance, $17 day of show
Where: Mississippi Nights, 914 North First Street in Laclede’s Landing
When: Saturday, February 28, Doors open at 7:00 PM, Show at 8:00 PM
All ages welcome

Mardi Gras may have ended on Tuesday, but you can party on through Lenten with the New Orleans funk grooves of Galactic. Flavoring their music with spices of jazz, rock, and hip-hop, the sextet bases their sound in down-home style southern funk and East Coast electronics to cook up a mean musical jambalaya. Embracing the longtime New Orleans tradition of street music, the band brings the energy and intoxication behind Bourbon Street parties to their shows (minus the boobs).

A band that has long championed the retro sound of 70’s funk from artists like The Meters, James Brown and Funkadelic, Galactic jumps onto the electronic bandwagon to explore the territory of computerized beats and remixes on their newest release, “Ruckus” (Sanctuary, 2003). Produced by hip-hop and electronic DJ Dan “The Automator” Nakamura, “Ruckus” marks a change from their raw, organic grooves to shinier, more technology-conscious beats. Effects, echoes, and loops prove that Galactic is prepared to enter the future of music, incorporating the spacier elements of dance and electronic into their songs. They retain an original sound, however, as on their first two albums: powerful melodic blends of sax and guitar bite over the heavy rhythms of organ, bass and drums, while at the same time leaving room for fiery jams.

Galactic will heat rooms with the mad blare of Ben Ellman’s saxophone while Theryl DeClouet’s funky strut and throat tenor fits their groove-easy-going yet exciting.

Galactic carries a kitchen full of stinkin’ funk upriver to Mississippi Nights Saturday, so you’ll have a chance to don all of the beads you collected at the parades last weekend.