> Faux Pas, I have to disagree with you vehemently with two points you brought up in your "Oscar Nominations Game!" post.
>
> One, that Tom Hanks was basically playing Tom Hanks in a war film. Not true at all. It was a subtle performance, but downright stunning in its complexity. He deserves an Oscar more for Saving Private Ryan than for either of the two performances he won one for in the past. He may not win, though, because the Academy basically likes to award overacted performances these days, or at least performances of disturbed or mentally retarded people. But in Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks did something truly amazing. He created a realistic and compelling portrait of an ordinary guy under extreme circumstances -- with a performance that did NOT draw attention to itself. There was no hand waving -- "Hey, Academy! Look! It's *ME*, in a really great performance!" It's not just Oscar-worthy acting, it's better. Whether he *will* win or not is a wholly different question.
>
> My second objection also has to do with Saving Private Ryan. I sympathize with your complaint that things have to explode to get the sound awards. That's not always true, but it sure seems like it's more true than not. Armageddon deserves a Razzie for sound, IMHO -- it was obnoxious and unrealistic. But Saving Private Ryan deserves to win just for the D-Day landing scene in the beginning. I've never been in a war, but never has the sounds of battle felt more realistic. Soldiers who were there described the chaos on the beach much as SPR shows it. Gunfire and explosions happening at random, then something would explode near you, and your hearing would be knocked out for a while. People would bark orders you couldn't hear. Then your hearing would recover only to be knocked out again. The sounds in SPR simulate that effect startlingly well, and should win not just by process of elimination but because it truly deserves it. Best Cinematography is deserved for nearly the same reason.

--

Although Saving Private Ryan is a good film, I doubt it will take the top honors for Best Picture, Best Actor, or Best Director (although I feel that if it takes just one of those, it'll be for Best Director). Just because the Academy presents an award for Best Picture of 1998, doesn't mean that was the best picture of 1998. Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture at the Golden Globes. If Saving Private Ryan wins Best Picture at the Oscars, that doesn't nullify the Best Picture award SiL received. From what I've seen, there seems to be more momentum for Shakespeare in Love to take the top spots.

To directly address Tom Hanks' performance, there are always politics to be played. He won Best Actor in '94 and '95, but I doubt he'll win this year just for the reasons you cited -- Tom had a rather subtle performance and the Academy likes to award actors for playing 'difficult' characters such as mentally distrurbed or retarded people. As you said, if he will win the Best Actor award is not the same as if he delivered 1998's best acting presentation. (And remember, I started my awards reasoning by stating "I haven't seen any of these films..." Most of what followed was tongue in cheek.)

For the Sound/Sound Editing choices, I don't understand why The Mask of Zorro was nominated. When I reflect upon the film, the sound quality doesn't stand out. However, Armageddon's does -- but a blaringly loud movie does not necessarily translate into a Best Sound Award. Call me silly, but I feel that if a picture gets an award for Best Sound, the sound should be superb for the entire movie and not just for one or two scenes (or fifty scenes of people yelling, soundtracks screaming, and things exploding). If we just wanted to award a movie this award for just one scene, I'd give it to Deep Impact for the on-the-comet scene. No sound, just the breathing of the astronauts. But I'm digressing.

Looking at the three choices for Sound Editing, you've got Zorro, which didn't impress me at all in the Sound Editing category; you've got Armageddon, which was loud but nothing more, sound-wise; or you've got Ryan, which was more than just being loud for loudness sake. If in fact these three movies were the top three films of last year with Sound Editing, then yes, Saving Private Ryan should get this award because it was the best of the three. But truly, I can't think of any other films this year that had stellar sound editing.

Maybe Prince of Egypt should have been nominated, but I think that it would have lost to Saving Private Ryan.

-Faux "Alan Smithee" Pas