Signs point to big Oscar upsets
Just five years ago it was unthinkable. Even one year ago no one could have conceived of it. Even last summer this kind of earth-shattering upset would have been labeled a pipe dream.
But several years after all but being completely out of the business and all but forgotten someone out there thought he was worth one more shot. Now, shaggy hair and all, this natural and supremely gifted talent has come all the way back to the top to claim the ultimate honor in a profession he almost threw away.
Sound like Mickey Rourke?
Actually I was talking about the remarkable comeback last week of Stump, the 10-year-old Sussex spaniel who came out of a five-year retirement to become the oldest dog to win the Best In Show Silver Cup of the 133rd Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.
Shortly after winning the sporting dog competition at Westminster in 2004, Stump contracted a mysterious illness and nearly died. But after a 19-day stay at Texas A&M Hospital, the vets saved his life and he retired to life as a house pet. That is until about a week before this year's Westminster event, the Super Bowl of dog shows. His owner decided on a lark to enter him and the rest is now history as he has become the toast of the town, appearing as lead guest on shows that wouldn't have even booked him a few months ago.
Is this an Oscar sign for notorious canine lover Mickey Rourke, who has six dogs of his own? Does the unexpected triumph of Stump signal something in the air that could transmit all the way from Madison Square Garden to the stage of the Kodak on Sunday? From some angles Rourke and Stump even look alike. Perhaps they share the same groomer. Could they have been soul mates in another life?
After all, everyone loves a comeback story. The crowd went wild when Stump won. It was just as the Fox Searchlight ads for "The Wrestler" trumpeting Rourke's return say, we had witnessed the "resurrection" of Stump. This Sussex spaniel came all the way back from the depths and the forgotten heap to regain the spotlight and respect that was always his until he threw it away for a life of fighting cats and begging for kibble. Now the dog world's most coveted award is his, where it belonged all along.
Is this a sign the comeback gods have the same thing in store for Rourke? It's something to think about when filling out your Oscar pool ballots this week.
And that's not all. Even though that other "dog," "Slumdog Millionaire," appears to have this Best Picture thing all sewn up there was a peculiar sign that occurred last week at the White House when, according to CNN, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," the Best Picture contender with a leading 13 nominations became the first movie officially shown there since President Obama took over three weeks ago.
Even with all those nominations, "Button" is a decided long shot at this point but with Obama's special screening could that mean another stunning comeback surprise is in store Sunday night? After all a year ago Obama himself was in the position of the unthinkable underdog and look what happened to him!!
Another eerie sign came this weekend when three, count 'em, three (older) academy voters whose opinions I respect all said the exact same thing to me at different times. They weren't voting for "Slumdog Millionaire" because "it's just not an Oscar picture." I thought it was very strange that I would suddenly be hearing virtually the same kind of reasoning out of the mouths of three different academy members, but there it was. All of them, by the way, had cast their Best Picture vote for "Button". Dare I say it? A SIGN????
Of course in all fairness I have to point out that like "Slumdog," the past five Best Picture winners have also not been what we might traditionally call "an Oscar picture." Consider:
"The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" -- the third film in a trilogy and no fantasy movie had won UNTIL THEN.
"Million Dollar Baby," a small drama which came of nowhere to beat a textbook designed "Oscar picture," "The Aviator."
"Crash" -- need I say more?
"The Departed," an American remake of a Hong Kong actioner that even its own studio initially tried to convince journalists WASN'T an "Oscar picture."
"No Country for Old Men," violent, offered no hope and was made by the Coen Brothers.
Finally, the Oscars are being presented on Feb. 22 this year. That is the actual birthdate of our FIRST American president, George Washington. Could this be a hidden sign that an upset might be looming for Best Picture nominee "Frost/Nixon" or its star, Best Actor nominee Frank Langella, who played Nixon, our FIRST American president -- to resign?
So see, the signs are everywhere. Mark your pool ballots accordingly and watch how the stars align. Can Stump, Obama and George Washington all be wrong?
Yeah, probably. Even though I would love to, I don't really believe in signs, unless it's one that says "No U Turn." I am sticking with favorites Sean Penn and "Slumdog Millionaire." I want to win the Envelope Buzz Meter again this year.
-- Pete Hammond
(Photo courtesy Fox Searchlight)



IMO, a win by Mickey Rourke would not be an upset!
He almost split the Best Actor awards, right down the middle, with Sean Penn.
And he won the prestigious BAFTA Best Actor award.
So it's not only dog lovers who will be in his corner; there are the veteran wrestlers who were so impressed by his performance in a tough and tender role, that it brought them to tears.
Posted by: A. M. | February 16, 2009 at 03:50 PM
The Academy owes one ... Crash above Brokeback, (travesty).
Milk would be the underdog, CCBB another travesty, (poor s/l).
I'll take Milk, Penn, Streep, Hoffman and Cruz.
Posted by: Beth | February 16, 2009 at 05:37 PM
I couldn't disagree more with this article. Slumdog will sweep. Ledger will win. Streep or WInslet will win. A true upset would be if anything or anyone else defeats them. Plus, Rourke is on even footing with Penn so that would hardly be an upset. A more accurate article would have been titled "Signs point to no big Oscar upsets."
Posted by: LonePirate | February 16, 2009 at 06:20 PM
slumdog, rourke, streep, ledger and cruz...
hope it happens... the only thing I'm affraid is best actress, mostly sure winslet is taking the prize home
Posted by: sid | February 16, 2009 at 10:09 PM
What an awesome movie....so profane in content. Mickey and Marisa should win hands down. Also Penelope Cruz.
Posted by: Wiseowl | February 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM
The upset would be if Brad Pitt won Best Actor and Button won for Best Picture. Mickey Rourke winning would not be an upset over Penn because he actually did a better acting job. I saw the reader and didn't think that Winslett was as good as the other actresses in her category. Tomei or Leo should win for Best Actress. Supporting should and hopefully will go to Taraji P. Henson. She was the heart and soul of the Button movie.
Posted by: Jules | February 17, 2009 at 02:16 AM
Three Academy voters weren't voting for "Slumdog Millionaire" because "it's just not an Oscar picture"?
This, from members of an industry that saw fit to remake "Friday the 13th" ...
Anyway, my picks:
Best Picture: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Best Director: Danny Boyle, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Best Actor: Frank Langella, "Frost / Nixon"
(To be honest, if I could split this award four ways, I would, and leave Brad Pitt as odd man out.)
Best Actress: Kate Winslet, "The Reader"
(I have to admit, Winslet's not an actress that I particularly care for, but she just totally blew me away in this film, so I figure that's gotta be worth something.)
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, "The Dark Knight"
(Sentimental favorite for obvious reasons, but I also like Josh Brolin in "Milk".)
Best Supporting Actress: Viola Davis, "Doubt"
(Caveat: If Marisa Tomei springs an upset here for "The Wrestler", then look for co-star Mickey Rourke to also strike Oscar gold later in the evening.)
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii | February 17, 2009 at 02:39 AM
Ledger will win because he died. If he had not died, he would not win. An over-the-top portrayal of a one-dimensional villagin. Yawn. I'm sorry he died, but the Oscar won't bring him back. But, then, Scorcese winning an Oscar for a weak film was also a travesty.
Posted by: steve | February 17, 2009 at 03:43 AM
I say The Ram wins Best Actor. Then he stage-dives in to the crowd and uses his Oscar statue to put Christian Bale in a choke-hold.
Posted by: chrisfranklin | February 17, 2009 at 04:08 AM
Who really cares anymore? The Oscars are on life support.
After the snub of The Dark Knight and Wall-E for The Reader(!, the worst Holocaust movie since woefully wrong-headed Life is Beautiful), the Oscars just showed what a rusty institution they are, clanking there way to irrelevancy.
Posted by: HoHum | February 17, 2009 at 05:12 AM
Good film. Great acting. Crappy director. Darren Aronofsky and his camera movement should never be allowed on film again. All you directors that think all that camera movement is real, grow up... and give your audiences a break. Knock it off already. Or there should be a warning so people can avoid such films.
Posted by: LMO | February 17, 2009 at 05:26 AM
Why is there no mention of steroids when talking about Rourke's comeback?
If A-Rod should be demonized for taking them, why not Rorke?
Posted by: Tim | February 17, 2009 at 06:02 AM
Saw Slumdog on the weekend followed by a second viewing of Milk. There is NO COMPARIOSON. Milk is a vastly superior film. Slumdog is a lot like Crash - everyone is jumping on the bandwagon because, well, everyone else is jumping on. In the years to come, it will be relugated to the same level as Crash and Shakespeare in Love - an okay movie that rode momentum all the way to the big prize. Milk would be a far more deserving choice. Now, that would be an "upset" that would thrill me!
Posted by: TorontoTom | February 17, 2009 at 06:33 AM
The Wrestler is continually marred by an all too predictable Rocky-like motif, unoriginal plotting, and some weak character development. Fortunately, Rourke and his female co-stars provide the necessary star power to rise above those weaknesses. The film ends up being an absorbing but ultimately monotonous character study of an ordinary man, a self-destructive palooka going all out for his last shot of glory and redemption. We’ve seen this melodrama played out before, in many other countless better sports films. For me, the best actor...got Milk (Penn!)
Posted by: dearmoviegoer | February 17, 2009 at 07:25 AM
Ouch! The Wrestler is continually marred by an all too predictable Rocky-like motif, unoriginal plotting, and some weak character development. Fortunately, Rourke and his female co-stars provide the necessary star power to rise above those weaknesses. ends up being an absorbing but ultimately monotonous character study of an ordinary man, a self-destructive palooka going all out for his last shot of glory and redemption. We’ve seen this melodrama played out before, in many other countless better sports films. My choice for best actor...got Milk (Penn)!
Posted by: dearmoviegoer | February 17, 2009 at 07:33 AM
The fact that Benjamin Button is even in contention with a piece of art like Slumdog Millionaire shows how ridiculous the Oscars have become. I'm hoping it's all hype to build suspense in an otherwise predictable best picture race.
Posted by: enough | February 17, 2009 at 07:41 AM
Pete -- don't tear a ligament with all those ridiculous stretches, okay?
Posted by: Ray | February 17, 2009 at 08:03 AM
Ok, so a dog winning best in show that's unexpected means we're now in for upsets at the Oscar. Call me daft as a brick, but I don't get the connection.
Posted by: Ethel Charles | February 17, 2009 at 10:02 AM
I hope Mickey wins! I've never cried so hard in a movie -- touch and tender. A wonderful performance! And I loved sexagenarian (in human years) Stump -- God bless them! There's hope for all us here!
Posted by: Migdia Chinea | February 17, 2009 at 12:47 PM
To quote from a story on npr.org "Building the Curious Faces of Benjamin Button," ""There's 325 shots — 52 minutes of the film — where there is no actual footage of Brad," says Steve Preeg, a character supervisor at Digital Domain, the studio that did all the special effects for the film. "He's not in any of the shots."
So why should he get Best Actor?
Posted by: janes | February 17, 2009 at 01:52 PM
Ray, I think the article is written tongue in cheek. I don't think the author was serious in his assumptions. Great article, Pete!
Posted by: Glenn | February 17, 2009 at 01:56 PM
Wrestler is one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Totally predictable, bad handheld camera, unnecessary graphic violence. Maybe a nod for the acting, but never in a million years for a best film.
Posted by: Rocco | February 17, 2009 at 02:14 PM
Thank you Glenn.
You got it.
Pete
Posted by: Pete Hammond | February 17, 2009 at 02:38 PM
Hmmm..hadn't thought of that..you're right. Pitt didn't show up for a while.As to SDM? colorful and interesting story and well acted...sweep???!Woa! Not that good...Also agree on comment about too much camera movement...gimmiky..
Posted by: Andrew Masset | February 17, 2009 at 02:40 PM
Greatest upset will be Brad best actor, Angelina best actress, W best movie.
Posted by: Al | February 17, 2009 at 02:44 PM