It's been almost 15 years since the British dominated at their own film awards but, with Slumdog Millionaire leading the way, 2009 may be different...or perhaps not.
More so even than the Golden Globes, the BAFTA awards are now the chief warm-up act before the only global awards that truly matters in the movie industry, namely the Oscars. Since moving the ceremony to a month before the Oscars in 2001 the profile of the British Academy Film Awards has risen significantly. It was a controversial move that drew both criticism and applaud in equal measure as the BAFTA big wigs attempted to find a compromise between British identity and Hoolywood's pulling power. But how much has this affected the original concept and identity of the awards?
As the nominees were announced last week for the February 8 event, it seemed to be the same story all over again. Just 4 Brits were amongst those in the acting categories compared to 12 Americans and the Best Film and Best Director sections were also flooded with names from across the pond. Brit Sally Hawkins, who won a Best Actress award at the recent Golden Globes for her role in Mike Leigh's Happy-Go-Lucky was shockingly overlooked, as was the award winning British director. And to make matters worse, Kate Winslet was embarassingly given the nod twice in the Best Actress category (for the second time in recent years). Tilda Swinton, who looks set to be our new Judi Dench (i.e. appear in any film and the nomination's yours) was once again put forward but doesn't realistically stand a chance against Winslet or Kristin Scott Thomas, who was magnificent in I've Loved You So Long.
BOYLE AND HIS BAFTA BEAST
This year's bona fide British hit is Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire which looks set to sweep up at both the BAFTAs and the Oscars the following month. Set in Mumbai, it tells the heart-warming story of an impoverished Indian teenager who answers questions on a TV quiz show by recalling events from his poverty-stricken past. A truly great British movie, it would be more than surprising if another picture took home the Best Film award and Boyle, too, should comfortably walk away with Best Director accolade as he did at the Globes.
That said, however, Hollywood should dominate in the other categories. It's hard to see past anyone other than Mickey Rourke for the Best Actor award for his role in The Wrestler and all sensible money would have to go on Heath Ledger as Best Supporting Actor for his demonic portrayal of The Joker in Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight. And, if truth be told, they both deserve to win.
However, watching one Yank after another walk away with the top prizes is becoming a bit of an annual deja vu at these ceremonies. For the past two years, the winners of the acting awards at the BAFTAs have all went on to win at the Oscars, which is frankly quite astonishing. Does the newly-founded credibility of these awards have an impact on the Oscars? Are the BAFTAs big enough to actually pollute the votes of American Academy members? Those questions are debatable but there's no arguing the advances the awards have made since American Beauty swept up at the 1999 event. Hell, it's even got to the point where most of Hollywood's nominated stars actually turn up to the ceremony now.
AND THE RESULTS ARE...
Undeniably, the awards are now the biggest indicator of Oscar glory and are fast becoming an event eagerly anticipated all across the globe due to it's Hollywood pulling power. If truth be told, the British probably win more awards than they should (see The Queen, Atonement etc) and we should be grateful for any homegrown talent walking away with prizes. On the bright side, if the worst comes to the worst, at least we should get something from the Best British Film category. Probably.
The simple truth is that in the UK we have a cottage industry that produces overly dramatic films focussing on local themes and, as long as we don't have to suffer another Winslet acceptance speech, we should all be glad.
