I Am DB

January 23, 2012

Oscars 2011: Nominations Eve

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 1:00 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Predicting the nominees has been a bitch this year.

For starters, everyone seems to agree that 2011 wasn’t all that strong a year for movies. There was a lot of good and not much great…yet almost every category sports an abundance of worthy nominees. And while a few frontrunners are starting to emerge, no win feels inevitable. Usually by this time, the countless critics awards and initial guild nominations have helped clarify the field a bit, with at least one or two categories sporting a sure-fire winner. Not so this year. Without the usual sense of passion centered around a handful of films, things seem more prone to change between now and late February. All of which makes it an exciting race, but not an easy one to forecast. The new Best Picture rules don’t exactly help either. What new Best Picture rules, you may ask? Well let’s get the party started and find out…

Oh, a note for the nine of you that have actually read these in the past: normally I include my personal nomination picks for each category, but I’ve decided to hold off on that this year since there are still a few key movies that have yet to arrive in the Bay Area or which I just haven’t had a chance to see. They include The Iron Lady, We Need to Talk About Kevin, Coriolanus and Albert Nobbs. I missed the boat on a few others, including the acclaimed indie Tyrannosaur, but once again I’m pleased to say that I’ve seen pretty much everything that’s part of the conversation (I even saw Margaret during its super-quick theatrical run! ). Anyway, at some point between now and the awards, I’ll be sure to publish my own picks. Because I’m way smarter than the Academy.

BEST PICTURE
The Artist
The Descendants
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life

Now then: rule changes. Note that on the list above, I’ve included eight movies. The especially astute among you will further note that eight is less than ten. Remember two years ago, when the Academy decided there would be ten nominees for Best Picture instead of the traditional five? The change benefited movies that, it’s safe to say, wouldn’t have made the cut on a five-film list. (Think The Blind Side, 127 Hours and District 9, to name a few.) Well last June, the Academy announced it was shaking up the process even further. The number of nominees will now fall somewhere between five and ten, and we won’t know the tally until the nominations are revealed.

Those of you familiar with Johnny Dangerously will understand if I pause at this point to quote Roman Maroni, who always had a colorful way of putting things.

Based on how many of the roughly 6,000 Academy members return their ballots and make selections in the Best Picture category, the accounting aces at PricewaterhouseCoopers will determine what percentage of first place votes a movie needs to earn in order to secure a nomination. According to the Academy’s press release on the topic, this new system means that the nominated films will more accurately reflect Academy members’ favorite movies. The downside is that because of the way the calculations work, a significant number of voters’ ballots will essentially be tossed out. It’s a system that favors consensus but means not every voting member will have their voice heard. For statistical nerds out there, Steve Pond of TheWrap.com is an expert in crunching Oscar numbers and has examined and explained the process in detail.

What this boils down to for schmucks like me is that predicting the Best Picture nominees just got a lot trickier. But schmucks we are, and predict we shall.

Count on The Artist and The Descendants, which have grabbed the lion’s share of the critics awards and each took home top Golden Globes recently (the former in the musical/comedy category, the latter for drama). The Help and Hugo are close to certain, and Midnight in Paris is probably in there too. After that, the real guesswork begins. Two movies with late December releases that were widely expected to be contenders are War Horse and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. But War Horse, despite strong reviews and good box office, has failed to gain traction with the industry. While cited by the Producers Guild of America and the American Cinema Editors, it went unnominated by the Writers Guild of America, the Directors Guild of America (which has been generous to Steven Spielberg over the years) and the American Society of Cinematographers. Those omissions hurt. Has War Horse been left out to pasture?

As for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, it was the last move of the year to screen for critics and guilds, with some of the season’s first voting critic circles convening before they’d seen it. The lack of recognition by the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild could be due to ballots being cast before the movie was seen. But mixed reviews and the same lack of guild support slowing down War Horse‘s chances indicate the movie just hasn’t caught on. There have been a smattering of nominations from this group or that, and it could factor into a couple of races further down, but Best Picture no longer seems in the cards.

The unlikely beneficiary of those two movies’ lackluster showings appears to be The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which in contrast to both, has scored big time with the guilds. It’s been nominated by the PGA, ACE, ACS and most surprisingly, the DGA and WGA. With all that support, its Oscar chances look better than anyone would have expected (and better than it probably deserves, but that’s another story). Then there’s The Tree of Life, Terrence Malick’s poetic rumination on life, death, the universe and really gorgeous swirls of color. It was admired by critics, and no doubt it has ardent supporters within the Academy. The question is whether it has enough to earn the necessary number of first place votes. Brad Pitt’s other 2011 effort, Moneyball, is a solid movie that garnered strong reviews and has one of the most acclaimed scripts of the year. It’s the kind of all-around admirable film that could absolutely find itself in the running.

An assured ten-picture field might have opened the conversation up to movies like The Ides of March, My Week with Marilyn, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Drive, or even some populist choices like Bridesmaids, Rango or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. (Don’t laugh; Potter was one of the year’s best-reviewed movies, and even within the industry a lot of people feel it deserves recognition as the closing chapter of the most financially successful franchise ever.)

War Horse could still muster the support it needs, while The Tree of Life may not have the necessary backing. Moneyball is a question mark too. But this is the list I’m going with.

BEST DIRECTOR
Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist
Alexander Payne – The Descendants
Martin Scorsese – Hugo
Woody Allen – Midnight in Paris
Terrence Malick – The Tree of Life

This category has three sure things: Hazanavicius, Payne and Scorsese. Two spots remain, and a lot of people are in the mix for them. The affection for Midnight in Paris will probably carry Woody Allen, but I wouldn’t call him a lock. Although The Help is a safe bet for Best Picture, its director Tate Taylor has been largely ignored throughout the season. The film’s direction isn’t especially dynamic (not that it needed to be), so he’ll probably fall prey to bigger names and bolder visions. If War Horse misses in Best Picture, it will kill any chance Spielberg has…which I sense isn’t much at this point anyway. David Fincher, on the other hand, could benefit from the lovefest that has swarmed Dragon Tattoo.

If the Academy goes with Hazanavicius, Payne, Scorsese, Allen and Fincher, it will match the DGA’s nominees five-for-five. That rarely happens. In the last 25 years, it’s only happened three times (1998, 2005, 2009). When the two bodies diverge, the Academy often favors an auteur or an indie filmmaker. (Mulholland Drive‘s David Lynch, City of God‘s Fernando Meirelles, The Sweet Hereafter‘s Atom Egoyan and Red‘s Krzysztof Kieslowski are among those who scored Oscar nods but weren’t cited by the DGA.) This year, that could mean good news for Drive‘s Nicolas Winding Refn, who took the Best Director prize at the Cannes Film Festival last summer. But Drive is feeling more like a critic’s darling and less like a movie that’s connecting within Hollywood. The more likely nominee would be Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life. While the movie is divisive and it certainly isn’t perfect, Malick is a visionary filmmaker and one who has the admiration of many colleagues. Whatever the movie’s chances in the Best Picture race, I think it has a good chance of landing here.

BEST ACTOR
George Clooney – The Descendants
Leonardo DiCaprio – J. Edgar
Jean Dujardin – The Artist
Michael Fassbender – Shame
Brad Pitt – Moneyball

With the assured presence of Clooney, Pitt and Dujardin, this category is shaping up to be a gathering of the Handsome Men’s Club. But as is usually the case, a number of strong candidates are left fishing for two available slots. Clint Eastwood’s J. Edgar didn’t pan out as an awards magnet, but DiCaprio has plenty of admirers for his excellent performance and scored nominations from the Broadcast Film Critics Association, SAG and the Golden Globes. The Academy likes DiCaprio, so his chances are good. (Like anybody who writes about the Oscars, by the way, I shall proceed to repeatedly reference “the Academy” as though it were a monolithic entity absorbing the consciousness of its many thousand members into one aggregated voice).

I’d say three actors are realistically vying for the fifth slot. Michael Fassbender had a great year, with acclaimed performances in four movies. Several groups have nominated him for Shame, though he was overlooked by SAG. Still, plenty of actors are sure to admire his nakedness. No, not that nakedness. Well, yeah, I guess that nakedness too. But I mean more his emotional nakedness. Next is Gary Oldman, who took center stage for the first time in years with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Fellow actors could feel that it’s time to pay tribute to one of the greats who has, amazingly, never been nominated. Still, the performance is so restrained and quiet. The Academy tends to favor flashier roles, and Oldman’s George Smiley is as buttoned-down as it gets. Then there’s Michael Shannon for the gripping indie film Take Shelter. Critics love the performance, and Shannon has the respect of his peers. But despite the September release, have enough voters made time to see it? He missed out on nominations from SAG, the Globes and the BFCA, which doesn’t bode well…but in 2009 he was ignored by the same groups and still scored a Supporting Actor nomination for Revolutionary Road. Can he do it again?

Woody Harrelson garnered ecstatic reviews as a self-destructive L.A. cop in Rampart, but it’s doubtful enough voters have seen the movie. SAG awarded a surprise nomination to Demián Bichir for his work as an immigrant father trying to provide for his teenage son in A Better Life, but again, the movie was probably too-little seen. SAG’s nominations don’t always match up with Academy’s, and Bichir – lacking name recognition and coming from  lower profile movie – seems the least likely to make Oscar’s cut. Ryan Gosling’s name keeps popping up as well, both for Drive and The Ides of March, but neither film is likely to earn him the necessary votes (and frankly, if he deserves a nomination for any of his work this year, I’d argue in favor of Crazy, Stupid, Love).

With DiCaprio and Fassbender vulnerable, this category is primed for a surprise or two.

BEST ACTRESS
Glenn Close – Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis – The Help
Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady
Tilda Swinton – We Need to Talk About Kevin
Michelle Williams – My Week With Marilyn

While all the major races this year have the rare excitement factor of lacking clear frontrunners, some are more up for grabs than others, starting with this one. Streep, Davis and Williams are the locks, and surprisingly, it’s Williams who has by far captured the most critics awards to date, plus a Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Musical/Comedy (neither of which her movie really fits into, but that sort of loose categorization is nothing new).

In addition to these three, SAG nominated Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs and Tilda Swinton for We Need to Talk About Kevin. (Both films have yet to go into wide release, so for those unfamiliar with them, here are the Cliff’s Notes: in Nobbs, Close plays a woman passing as a male butler in 19th century Ireland. Swinton, meanwhile, portrays a mother whose son commits a Columbine-like high school attack.) Close was an Oscar darling in the 80’s, racking up five nominations between 1982 and 1988. She’s never won the award, and has found more success on television over the last decade. While Nobbs is a small film struggling for attention, it could be seen as a homecoming for Close, whose peers may want to welcome her back with a nomination. As for Swinton, she’s managed to maintain a firm presence on the awards circuit so far despite appearing in exactly the kind of independent film that so often gets lost in shuffle among higher-profile year-end releases. Her buoyancy bodes well. Both movies opened in December for brief qualifying runs, so voters would have had to catch the movies during those theatrical windows or else made time at home to watch the screeners. This is not an uncommon practice and it certainly doesn’t stand in the way of work being nominated, but can two such movies make their mark in the same race?

A number of worthy actresses are waiting in the wings should Close or Swinton falter. Charlize Theron gave a bold, biting performance in Young Adult, but the character may be too unlikable to earn enough support. Elizabeth Olsen’s acclaimed breakout as a young woman who escapes a cult in Martha Marcy May Marlene has its fans, though probably not enough for her to pull through. Ditto for Kirsten Dunst, who earned stellar reviews as a deeply depressed bride in Melancholia. She took Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival, but Cannes acclaim only occasionally translates to Oscar heat, and when it does it’s usually fueled by more critics awards than Dunst has collected. Personally, I gotta give a shoutout to the preternaturally gifted Saoirse Ronan, who gave a knockout performance in Hanna that should have her firmly in the Best Actress discussion. Alas, she’s been completely left out, so no luck there. The last viable contender – and the one with the best chance of cracking the final list – is Rooney Mara as the iconic heroine Lisbeth Salander in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. If the movie catches fire throughout the Academy the way its guild support indicates it might, Mara could easily ride that wave. But I think the category will match the SAG slate of Close, Davis, Streep, Swinton and Williams.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh – My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks – Drive
Nick Nolte – Warrior
Christopher Plummer – Beginners
Max von Sydow – Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Plummer is in for sure. Brooks seems like a safe bet given that he and Plummer have split nearly all the awards given out so far. Although Brooks was a no-show on SAG’s list, it’s hard to imagine he won’t make the Academy’s cut given all the citations already under his belt.

Jonah Hill scored key nominations from SAG and the Golden Globes for his change-of-pace work in Moneyball, and most pundits are considering him a sure thing. I have my doubts. I think Hill could find himself in the same boat as Mila Kunis did last year for Black Swan. Despite nods from the BFCA, Globes and SAG, she was left off Oscar’s list. Like Kunis, Hill gives a good performance that allows him to stretch, but there’s nothing special about it beyond that. Voters may think an Oscar nomination is a little more than he deserves at this point.

Nick Nolte gives a moving performance in the underseen drama Warrior as a recovering alcoholic trying to reconcile with his grown sons after years of abuse that tore their family apart. The movie was well-received by critics and those who’ve seen it…but it doesn’t seem like many people have seen it. Then again, the movie came out way back in September, so they’ve had time. The SAG nomination has kept him visible, as have the frequent commercials for HBO’s new series Luck, in which Nolte stars. Lots of Academy members have HBO and have surely seen those spots. Plus, Nolte’s a survivor. Actors like that.

Max von Sydow garnered buzz in advance of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close‘s release, but the movie has been such a nonstarter that it’s tough to gauge his chances. If the movie has a shot at any major nominations, he’s the best bet. But sentiment to honor a veteran who’s never won before may be siphoned off by Plummer.

Others in the mix are Viggo Mortensen for his dry, sly Sigmund Freud in A Dangerous Method; Patton Oswalt as Charlize Theron’s nerdy confidant in Young Adult (Oswalt has had audiences cracking up at various events throughout the season; never underestimate the effect that can have on voters); Armie Hammer, admired for his work as the Winklevii in last year’s The Social Network, got a SAG nod playing Hoover’s right-hand man (if you know what I mean, HOO-HA!) in J. Edgar; and Brad Pitt really deserves a nomination for his stern 1950’s father in The Tree of Life, but he’ll probably be honored solely for Moneyball.

There are a couple of blockbuster longshots,  like Alan Rickman for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, in which he capped off a decade of inscrutability and finally revealed the true colors and pain beneath the pallid visage of Severus Snape. There was also a lot of talk last summer around Andy Serkis and his motion-capture performance as the gifted chimp Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. A few critics groups have nominated Serkis, but the fact is that actors vote for actors, and they just aren’t ready to recognize motion capture. I don’t think Serkis should make the list this time anyway, but I did think he deserved it for his performance as Gollum in The Two Towers, and I wish the Academy had recognized this work he’s pioneered over the last decade by giving him a Special Achievement Oscar this year. But that ship sailed in November. Perhaps down the line…

I think von Sydow will just squeak by, while Branagh has landed on enough lists by now to seem like a good bet. Few of these performances really thrill me though, so I’d love to see a truly-didn’t-think-it-would-ever-happen surprise like Corey Stoll for Midnight in Paris (he played Ernest Hemingway) or Kevin Spacey or Jeremy Irons for the financial crisis drama Margin Call.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Bérénice Bejo – The Artist
Jessica Chastain – The Help
Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids
Octavia Spencer – The Help
Shailene Woodley – The Descendants

Chastain has had an amazing breakout year, and has been honored by various critics groups for her individual performances in The Help, The Tree of Life and Take Shelter, while other groups have cited her for all three films plus The Debt, Coriolanus and Texas Killing Fields. Some have posited that she will split her votes between various films and wind up shut out of the race, but most agree that she’ll score most of her votes for The Help, in which she took a potentially one-dimensional ditz and infused her with levels of depth. As long as she gets nominated for something, I don’t really care what it is.

Melissa McCarthy seems primed for Bridesmaids recognition, but a word of caution: performances this purely comedic – and comedies this broad, in general –  are seldom favored by the Academy. Sure, the past 25 years are spotted with comparable (to varying degrees) nominees, including Joan Cusack for In & Out, Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder, Marisa Tomei for My Cousin Vinny and Kevin Kline for A Fish Called Wanda (the latter two even won). But when it comes to comedy and the Academy, nothing is assured. McCarthy’s chances look good, bolstered by nominations from SAG, the BFCA and several critics groups (though not the Golden Globes). But if her name isn’t announced, don’t be too shocked.

If we go by the critics, The Descendants‘ Shailene Woodley would be a sure thing here. Tough to say whether or not the Academy will follow. Support for the movie overall could definitely carry her. And while the logic I used against Jonah Hill might seem applicable to Woodley as well – that she’s too young, or it’s too soon –  the Academy has a soft spot for young, emerging actresses. So whereas I likened Hill to Mila Kunis, Woodley may be more comparable to Hailee Steinfeld, nominated last year for True Grit. Then again, Woodley’s character isn’t nearly as colorful as Steinfeld’s, so…who knows how this will go.

Janet McTeer has done well on the circuit so far, joining Glenn Close with a gender-bending performance in Albert Nobbs. If enough voters have seen it, she could land here too. Vanessa Redgrave is said to be brilliant in Ralph Fiennes’ Shakespeare adaptation Coriolanus, but this is another case where the movie is unlikely to have been seen by enough people. Shame‘s Carey Mulligan is floating on the edge, and can’t be counted out completely if we consider that voters will have made time for that film based on all the buzz it generated. Her inclusion would be a surprise, albeit a pleasant one. In a move I still can’t wrap my head around, Academy voters saw fit a couple years ago to award Sandra Bullock an Oscar for The Blind Side; if Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close does make an impression on voters, Bullock’s fine performance could earn her a second nomination.

I’m giving Woodley a slight edge over McTeer, but what do I know?

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist
Mike Mills – Beginners
Annie Mumalo & Kristen Wiig – Bridemaids
Woody Allen – Midnight in Paris
Tom McCarthy – Win Win

The screenwriting categories are often the place where admired movies that can’t quite gain a foothold in other high profile races get their pat on the back. Think Lars and the Real Girl, American Splendor, The Squid and the Whale and Do the Right Thing. This year, there are a number of such films that could fill out a category which is already likely to include Midnight in Paris, Bridesmaids and The Artist. Diablo Cody, who won this award for Juno a few years ago, could be back with her uncompromising comedy Young Adult. She did earn a WGA nod, but that’s never a reliable indicator since so many scripts fail to qualify for the WGA due to arcane regulations. (The Artist, for example, was left off the WGA list but is considered an Oscar shoo-in). There’s Margin Call, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Take Shelter, Beginners, Win Win and 50/50 (the latter two earned WGA nominations and have popped up consistently with critics groups), all of which could reasonably make the cut.

The Tree of Life is always a possibility, but might be seen more as a triumph of directing that writing. I mean, that ending sequence…even Sean Penn has said he didn’t know what the hell was going on, and he starred in it. (True, he calls the script “magnificent,” but voters aren’t judging the actual script; they’re judging what makes it to the screen.) Animated and foreign films frequently earn a spot in the screenplay races, and this year such chances rest with Rango and the Iranian drama A Separation, respectively. But Rango hasn’t been cited with a comparable nomination by any other group that I’ve seen. A Separation has fared a little better, but unless voters caught up with it in the final days of voting, I’d be surprised to see it slide in.

My gut is telling me that 50/50 is going to miss, but I’m not at all confident that I’m right, or of what will take that fifth spot if I am. I’m going out on a long limb with Beginners, knowing full well that said limb is likely to snap underneath me.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash  – The Descendants
Steven Zaillian – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Tate Taylor – The Help
John Logan – Hugo
Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin – Moneyball

All five films above were nominated by the WGA, though the nod for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo took many by surprise. Since the Adapted category wasn’t gutted by the guild as badly as the Original category, it’s tough to guess whether Dragon Tattoo got in by default of sorts or if it’s a real contender. There only seem to be a few other realistic candidates. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (which was among the ineligible for  the WGA) could go either way; did voters find it too confusing, or did they think it effectively streamlined an intricate, dense novel? War Horse doesn’t feel like it can go the distance here, and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close remains a question mark. It doesn’t appear to have the support, but this is a movie that could turn out to surprise everyone.

I’m going with Dragon Tattoo, but it’s a toss-up with Tinker Tailor.

BEST ANIMATED FILM
The Adventures of Tintin
Cars 2
Puss in Boots
Rango
Winnie the Pooh

Enough animated movies were released this year to qualify for a five-movie race. Nineteen films are in the mix, and it will be interesting to see if the nominees are all from the mainstream or if something more obscure muscles in, as was the case two years ago when The Secret of Kells had everyone asking, “What the hell is The Secret of Kells?”

The Adventures of Tintin made the list of eligible movies and seems a certain nominee…unless members of the animation branch don’t see motion capture as equatable to hand-drawn or computer-generated work. But I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t make it. Kung Fu Panda 2 is just as gorgeously animated as the first film, but felt a little flatter to me. Still, it dives deeper into some of the characters and manages to be more than just a rehash of the original. From what I’ve heard, the same can’t be said for Happy Feet Two. Although the original won this award in 2006, the sequel doesn’t seem to have registered. Then there’s Cars 2. Though a huge box office hit, it’s the most critically spanked movie in Pixar’s history. I didn’t think it was nearly the dud that so many called it, but yeah, it has problems that Pixar’s movies just don’t usually have. Still, the immaculate animation can’t be denied. If it misses the cut, it will be the first Pixar movie to do so since this category’s inception in 2001. Hard to imagine Pixar not having a horse in the race. I wonder – are animators from rival studios relishing a misstep by the great and mighty Pixar, or are they not thinking in such vindictive terms? The answer could hold they key to the movie’s nomination fate. I think it’s gonna make it, but I’m basing my guess more on the quality of the animation than the overall movie…which is probably a miscalculation on my part.

The only sure thing is Rango. So watch out for really any one of my guesses to be trumped by Arthur Christmas or a Kells-like surprise.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Guillaume Schiffman – The Artist
Jeff Cronenweth – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Robert Richardson – Hugo
Emmanuel Lubezki – The Tree of Life
Janusz Kaminski – War Horse

I’m so on the fence about War Horse. It missed with the American Society of Cinematographers, and the movie’s general lack of support from the guilds must be taken into account. But I just can’t write it off. I have a feeling that it could still pull through. If it doesn’t, or if Dragon Tattoo misses out (the other three are safe bets), the ASC’s fifth choice – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – could come in from the cold. Drive deserves to be here but probably won’t be, while Moneyball (shot by last year’s winner Wally Pfister) could be a surprise. It isn’t flashy, but it’s earned notices from critics and fellow cameramen. Other longshot possibilities might be The Descendants, Hanna, Melancholia, Anonymous and Midnight in Paris.

BEST FILM EDITING
The Artist
The Descendants
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Moneyball

The editing category usually consists of prestige movies that are also in the running for Best Picture, as well as perhaps a really well constructed action movie (The Bourne Ultimatum and The Matrix are past winners). I don’t know if The Descendants will really show up here, but admiration for the movie and its overall positioning in the field so far make a reasonable guess. The Social Network took the prize last year, and its editors re-teamed with David Fincher for Dragon Tattoo, which once again seems to have the guild support it needs. The editor’s guild was one of the few that recognized War Horse, and I could see it replacing The Descendants or Moneyball, but I suspect it will miss with the Academy. I may be in the minority thinking that The Tree of Life could be a surprise contender, but so be it. For a movie that goes in some unusual directions, the editing helps the film retain a shape that gives it forward momentum. Drive would be great to see, but it might be competing for votes with Dragon Tattoo.

BEST ART DIRECTION
Anonymous
The Artist
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Hugo
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

The Harry Potter films have earned more nominations in this category than in any other. None have won yet, and while there weren’t many new locations in the final film, it’s obviously their last chance to recognize it. It could be omitted for being more of the same, but I’m banking on its inclusion. From a purely objective standpoint, Anonymous deserves to be here, but if voters feel the movie lacks narrative respectability, will they go for it? (It explores the idea that Shakespeare’s plays were written by someone else, and its critics were none too kind.) Who knows how voters think about these things, but I’m guessing they evaluate the work first and the film second. I’m not sure if Tinker Tailor can go the distance, but it’s earned some key nominations so far and has an understated elegance and lived-in feel.

This is a category that favors period pieces and fantasy, so examples of the former that could find their way in are Jane Eyre, War Horse or even The Help. A couple of years ago, Sherlock Holmes made the cut, so its nominated team could repeat with the sequel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides has a shot as well (the second Pirates film earned a nomination back in 2006). And bridging the gap between period and fantasy is Midnight in Paris, so that’s a potential spoiler too.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Anonymous
The Artist
The Help
Hugo
W.E.

Also a category that goes for period and fantasy films. Not that I’m totally confident of Anonymous getting in for Art Direction, but I’m even less confident here given that I see a broader slate of contenders in this race than I do for Art Direction. Still, I’m sticking with it. Madonna’s directorial debut W.E. was ripped by the critics, but the costumes look like just the kind of lavish threads the Academy loves. If The Tempest could get in last year, W.E. certainly could this year, and its nomination from the costume designers guild places it in the running.

But there are lots of fine feathered films jostling for position here, including Jane Eyre, My Week With Marilyn, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, A Dangerous Method and Midnight in Paris on the period end of the spectrum. Comic book adaptations Captain America: The First AvengerX-Men: First Class and Thor all have a shot, and I’d rank their chances in that order even though Captain America was the only one of the three ignored by the guild. Unintentionally campy mainstream entries like Red Riding Hood (which scored a guild nomination) or Immortals could show up, but I’d say Jane Eyre is the most likely to break through if any of my five picks are wrong. And surely a couple are.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Lay Your Head Down – Albert Nobbs (5)
Life’s a Happy Song – The Muppets (1)
The Living Proof – The Help (4)
Man or Muppet? – The Muppets (2)
Star Spangled Man – Captain America: The First Avenger (3)

39 songs – culled from 30 movies – are eligible for the award this year. A look at the list reveals a handful of movies that you probably haven’t heard of…unless maybe you worked on one of them. So the final list could include something unsung…though not literally, since, well…it’s a…it’s a song, so it has to be…sung. However, lacking the time to seek out and listen to all 39 options and therefore limiting myself to what I’m aware of, these are my predictions.

Under recently passed rules, no more than two songs from a single film can be nominated, so while I’d personally like to see “Pictures in My Head” from The Muppets make the list, I think it will be overshadowed by the two I’ve included. Elton John wrote songs for the animated film Gnomeo & Juliet, and one entitled “Hello Hello” has been nominated by a few critics groups as well as the Golden Globes. A known entity and former winner like Elton could wind up nominated. So could Zooey Deschanel, who contributed songs to Winnie the Pooh. Of the two that are eligible, “So Long” could make it in. Madonna won a Golden Globe for “Masterpiece” from her film W.E., but the song didn’t qualify for the Oscar.

As the press release linked above indicates, songs must be substantially integrated into the film or be the first music cue during the end credits in order to qualify. These 39 songs have obviously met that benchmark, but sometimes appearing over the end credits can be a detriment nonetheless. Also, the voting is scored in a particular way such that there’s no guarantee a full slate of five songs will be nominated. There could be as few as two, or it’s possible the category could be omitted altogether. There’s a strong enough slate (by Oscar’s historical standards, at least) to ensure the category will be included this year, but as there’s no way to know how many songs will make it, I’ve ranked them in the order I think they’re likely to show up.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Ludovic Bource – The Artist
Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Alexandre Desplat – Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Howard Shore – Hugo
John Williams – War Horse

Despite the questionable presence of War Horse in other races, respect for John Williams is likely to carry the movie handily into this category. Many are betting he’ll make it for The Adventures of Tintin as well. Personally I felt the relentless Tintin score was the equivalent of being bludgeoned over the head with a giant cartoon hammer for the movie’s entire running time, not a second of which seemed to go unscored. I’m probably letting my own reaction cloud my better judgement, but I’m leaving the movie off.

I don’t have full confidence in any of these selections except The Artist, which is a slam dunk. (In fact, we can call that one for the eventual win right now.) Hugo could come up short, but I’m betting on it getting caught up in an overall sweep. Harry Potter is even less certain, but Alexandre Desplat has done a really nice job on these final two installments, and here is a last chance to recognize the series’ music. Desplat has other chances as well, with The Ides of March a possible option for recognition. Jane Eyre and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy both feature well-received scores, either of which could find a place on the final list. The Golden Globes list included the W.E. score by Abel Korzeniowski, but I’ve neither heard it nor heard much about it.

I’d love to see the Academy get adventurous and nominate The Chemical Brothers’ propulsive score to Hanna, but evidence over the last few years suggests that the music branch exhausted all their adventurous spirit on giving Oscars to Eminem in 2002 and Three 6 Mafia in 2005 (sing it with me everyone…).

Excerpts from some of these scores are available courtesy of The Playlist‘s look back at the best soundtracks of the year.

BEST MAKEUP
Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
The Iron Lady

The makeup branch has already narrowed the field of contenders down to seven movies, from which three will be chosen. In addition to those above, there’s The Artist, Hugo, Anonymous and Albert Nobbs. You’d think the limited field would make predicting easier, but this could be parsed out in a number of ways. Personally, I’m not sure what The Artist or Anonymous are doing here. From what I can tell, the makeup work consists mainly of creating era-appropriate hairstyles and applying facial hair. Fairly run-of-the-mill stuff. Ditto for Hugo, although the few sequences involving filmmaker George Méliès making his movies do feature some more elaborate and outwardly creative work. Still, the fact that The Artist and Hugo are Best Picture contenders sure to be recognized across a variety of categories means either or both could be swept in here.

No Harry Potter movie has been nominated for makeup before, but it’s the only one of the seven contenders that features “fantasy” work, which is almost always represented. Between Voldemort, a bankful of goblins and all the battle wounds, I think it will get in. When it comes to more realistic makeup, I think the aging work done in The Iron Lady will trump the efforts that make Glenn Close look masculine in Albert Nobbs (though I haven’t seen either film and can’t speak to the breadth or quality of work). Finally, there’s Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life, which I know nothing about other than it being a biopic of French singer Serge Gainsbourg. I’m including it among my final three because it’s such an obscure selection, which leads me to think it must have a lot of support to have made it past higher profile movies.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Hugo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Tree of Life

As with the makeup race, the visual effects contenders have already been narrowed down. The final five will be chosen from a list of ten featuring the five I’m predicting, along with Captain America: The First Avenger, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and the suspiciously sans-colon-in-title Real Steel. Say what you want about the Transformers movies, but their technical achievements are always superb. The first movie should have won this award, so I can only assume that too many Academy members felt a refusal to vote for it could be the difference between getting into heaven or going to hell. The second film wasn’t even nominated, but this third entry was better received by critics and audiences (which is hardly saying much), and c’mon – the work is undeniably impressive. I think it will make it.

The Tree of Life‘s effects are as old school in technique as they are in substance, but goddamn if they aren’t pretty to look at. It’s possible that branch members will appreciate the throwback in a world dominated by computer graphics (though to be fair, the movie does include some CGI). Current industry leaders may not be able to resist an opportunity to honor one of the pioneers, Douglas Trumbull, whose credits include 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Blade Runner – movies that, along with Star Wars, probably inspired most of them to enter the field in the first place. Adding to its chances is the fact that the effects are featured front and center – they’re pretty much all you’re looking at for a good 20 minutes of the movie.

I can’t recall anything in Hugo that was especially impressive from an effects standpoint, but it’s the only certain Best Picture nominee that features effects prominently, and usually one such film makes the cut. Of the remaining five, the most likely spoilers are Captain America and Mission: Impossible. The former’s most notable achievement is making the impossibly buff Chris Evans look as scrawny as his 12 year-old self. (Seriously…I knew Chris Evans when he was 12, and that’s exactly what he looked like.) The result is good, but not quite seamless…and since it builds on work seen a few years ago in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, it might not be able to push through. As for Mission: Impossible, the effects are more subtle, which always means an uphill battle. But the film has been received with high praise from critics and audiences, and the work is solid. It could happen. I don’t see X-Men or Real Steel advancing, and although each of the previous Pirates movies has been nominated, I don’t remember anything in this one as elaborate or impressive as the first film’s skeleton pirates or the second and third films’ Davy Jones.

BEST SOUND EDITING
Rango
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Super 8
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

BEST SOUND MIXING
Hanna
Hugo
Super 8
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

I always preface talk of sound awards by pointing out that I have no understanding of what really goes into creating sound for film, nor distinguishing between great, good or poor sound. As for the difference between sound editing and sound mixing, I’ve never been able to keep that straight either. For the curious among you, this short article from The Hollywood Reporter offers explanations of the two disciplines from some of its practitioners. So all of that said, my predictions in these two categories are always crapshoots where a couple of things are likely to stick. I’m relying on instinct; a review of past nominees; the wisdom of Gerard Kennedy, who covers below-the-line categories for the great Oscar website In Contention; and nominations from both The Cinema Audio Society and the Motion Picture Sound Editors.

I could list out other options that might score a nomination if any of those above miss, but there are so many possible contenders it seems pointless. So I’ll do it up Wheel of Fortune style. For the final puzzle on Wheel of Fortune, the contestant picks a few letters and then after seeing which ones turn up in the clue, they get to pick a few more. So here are four more movies that I would say have a good shot of showing up in one or both categories: The Adventures of Tintin, Cars 2, Drive and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Vanna, how’d I do?

x

And so now we wait. As usual, I remain woefully uninformed in the areas of documentaries, foreign language films and short subjects…but do you really want to read any more of this crap? Tomorrow morning at the ungodly time of 5:38 PST, Academy president Tom Sherak and actress Jennifer Lawrence – past Best Actress nominee and future Hunger Games heroine – will announce the nominees. I’m sure you’d be tossing and turning tonight with anticipation, so I’m glad I was able to provide this commentary to put you to sleep. Sweet dreams…I leave you with the first Oscar promo of the season, which debuted a few weeks ago. They’re not wasting any time…

September 16, 2011

A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away, I Actually Cared

Filed under: Movies — DB @ 7:16 pm
Tags: , ,

May 19, 2012: This post was originally published in September 2011. I temporarily removed it two months ago, and am now reposting it with its original date. In case you email subscribers are wondering why you’re getting it now…

x

Today, the Star Wars Saga arrives on Blu-Ray disc. All six movies, available for the first time in high-definition. In addition to the movies themselves, the box set includes new special features, including a treasure trove of deleted scenes from the original trilogy, none of which have been officially released before. For those fans like me, who grew up in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s watching these movies over and over again, this should be a great day. This box set should be a must-have. So it makes me pretty sad to say that I have no intention of buying it.

For any fan of my era, it should come as no surprise why. The versions of the original trilogy being released in this box set are the Special Editions which George Lucas created in 1997. You know…the ones where Greedo shoots first. Where the house band in Jabba’s palace has been given an overblown and dorky musical number. Where Jabba himself appears in a re-inserted deleted scene (skip to 1:00 mark), rendered in abysmally poor CGI (which was redone yet again in 2004, better but still not great). These versions have long replaced the ones that I grew up with, the versions as they appeared upon initial release in 1977, 1980 and 1983. And the movies have been released so many times on home video and DVD over the years that it comes as no surprise at this point that the originals are not being made available. But hey, that doesn’t mean it’s not still worth venting about.

I was incorrect, actually, when I said the originals are not available. They are. Lucasfilm tried to placate fans by releasing substandard prints of the unaltered films as “bonus features” on the 2006 DVD releases. Those discs, it should be noted, were made available for a limited time only and are no longer in the marketplace.

I was also incorrect when I said that these versions arriving on Blu-Ray are the 1997 editions of the films. They aren’t. Lucas has continued to tinker with them in the years since, making additional changes and moving them further away from the classics of my childhood. After the release of the prequel trilogy, Lucas made changes that would make the original films more consistent with the prequels (not exactly the direction one should be moving in, given their inferiority). Such changes included replacing actor Sebastian Shaw, who appeared as the ghost of Anakin Skywalker in the final moments of Return of the Jedi, with Hayden Christensen, who played Anakin in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. Lucas also replaced the performer who played Emperor Palpatine in hologram form in The Empire Strikes Back with Ian McDiarmid, who played Palpatine in the remaining four films.

Now for this latest release, Lucas has made additional changes, and his choices grow increasingly inexplicable. In A New Hope, he has replaced Obi-Wan’s “dragon call” – used to scare off the Sand People – with a new sound that is, sadly, laughable. In Return of the Jedi, when Darth Vader picks up Palpatine and throws him down an abyss to his death in order to stop him from torturing Luke, his once-silent action is now accompanied by a hokey cry of, “NOOOOOOOOO!!” (mimicing a similar hokey cry from the end of Revenge of the Sith.)

Lucas has every right to make these changes. I don’t dispute it. These movies are his creations, they belong to him and he should be able to do whatever he wants to them. The frustration comes from the fact that he refuses to preserve the original versions of the films that existed prior to 1997, so that we have a choice. The new legion of Star Wars fans – those who grew up watching the 1997 (or later) versions – don’t know anything else, and so they can continue to enjoy these incarnations. But those of us who came before simply want the option of watching our versions of the Star Wars movies. And yes, they’re ours. They belong to us as much as they belong to Lucas. Not in any sense of copyright of course, but in our hearts and minds – and that’s a powerful sense of ownership that can’t be discounted. Everything Lucas has, he has because of Star Wars fans. We’re the ones who went to the theaters to watch the movies over and over again. We’re the ones who bought the toys, the lunchboxes, the trading cards, the storybooks, the bedsheets, the soundtracks and the innumerable other products. “Merchandising, merchandising!” chanted Yogurt, played by Mel Brooks in the actor/director’s 1987 Star Wars parody, Spaceballs. “Where the real money from the movie is made.”

And ain’t that the truth. One of the smartest and most prophetic things George Lucas ever did was negotiating, prior to the release of the first film, to retain all the merchandising and sequel rights. Check out this graphic, which came out about a year ago, depicting The Economics of Star Wars. The merchandise section accounts for movie tickets, video games and toys…but I’m not sure if  “toys” encompasses all the other products, like coffee mugs, cookie jars, Halloween costumes, shampoos, posters, etc.

If it seems like I’m moving away from my original point, I’m not. I’m speaking about the power of Star Wars fans; a power that, according to the chart, equals over $22 billion dollars. So yes, Star Wars belongs to us as much as it does to Lucas. And yes, everything Lucas has, he has because of Star Wars fans. It’s our money that allowed him to build Skywalker Ranch, his secluded retreat initially comprised of 2,500 acres purchased in 1978. It’s our money that allowed him to build a facility in San Francisco’s Presidio to house Lucasfilm Ltd., Industrial Light & Magic and LucasArts. It’s our money that has put his kids through school, paid for his home and afforded him every luxury he enjoys. It’s our money that has kept him on Forbes list of the 400 richest people in America (at the time of this post, he ranks 97th). I’d say we deserve to be heard, our opinions valued.

True, we aren’t always easy. Fans so passionate and committed can be harsh. To say that those of us raised on the initial trilogy were disappointed in the prequels is something of an understatement, and we were vocal in our disappointment. The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones each have a few things going for them (Darth Maul is a kick-ass, if sadly underdeveloped villain, and I’m a big fan of the rain-soaked fight between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett), but for the most part these are just terrible films. It pains me to say it of anything Star Wars, but it’s true. Revenge of the Sith was certainly an improvement, but was too little too late. Lucas would say that the prequels could never meet the expectations fans had built up for them over the years, and that may well be true. It doesn’t change the fact, however, that the prequels – the first two, especially – are poorly written and directed. Our complaints were largely valid. Yet they seemed only to harden Lucas’ resolve. It’s almost as if he became determined to upset the fans; as if making them angry actually gave him some sort of thrill. Perhaps it does. That might be the only way to explain some of the changes he has made to the films. Really, compare Obi-Wan’s original dragon call to the one newly created for this DVD release:

How could anyone think this is an improvement? The new call sounds like the melting Wicked Witch of the West crossed with a victim being mutilated in a Saw movie.

And here is Vader’s outburst as he stops Palpatine from torturing Luke:

Are we really to believe that this has been bothering Lucas all this time? Are these really the thoughts that weigh on his mind? Not a single change he has made to the trilogy since beginning this fiddling in 1997 has been an improvement. Some of the changes may have been innocuous – expanded vistas outside of the Cloud City windows, for example – but nothing he’s done has made the movies notably better. Even some of the changes on these Blu-Rays are harmless enough (here’s a rundown of all of them). Okay, so he widened Jabba’s palace door and made the Ewoks blink. Necessary? No. But not terribly troubling either. More often than not though, the updates have ranged from bad to dreadful. Compare the original performance by Sy Snootles and the Rebo Band from Return of the Jedi to the new version he added in 1997.

x

Even when Lucas made Jedi in ’83, he was already showing signs of the juvenile humor that was found throughout the prequel trilogy. The original musical number is already kinda dumb. But seeing what he replaced it with lends the original a gravitas on par with The Beatles playing The Ed Sullivan Show. Dare I say, the original version actually has some subtlety. The song is pretty dopey, but it’s primarily there to set the scene and establish Jabba’s palace as a cool hangout for a ready-to-party crowd of intergalactic riff-raff. In the ’97 version, the musical number becomes the focus of the scene, and is just…obnoxious.

A less abhorrent but still ill-advised change Lucas made is the aforementioned replacement of Emperor Palpatine’s hologram in The Empire Strikes Back. Replacing the original actor with the one who plays Palpatine in the prequels isn’t so bad an idea, but as the comparison clip below illustrates, there are four different versions of the scene, the last of which adds clumsy, superfluous dialogue about Luke’s identity.

Four versions. Why? Does Lucas have nothing better to do? Defenders of the dialogue-heavy update could argue it was added because Vader isn’t aware that his children survived their mother’s death…but since that version of Empire came out in 2004 and Episode III came out in 2005, might it not have been smarter to have Palpatine relay the information to Vader in the new movie, after informing him of his wife’s fate?

Again, Lucas making changes isn’t really what bothers the fans. Two things bother us. One, they’re bad changes. He takes things that are completely fine as they are, and makes them worse. His instincts as a filmmaker are long gone. If his changes were at least well-conceived, then we might not mind so much. We’d probably still be annoyed by his continued messing with the movies, but maybe it wouldn’t be anything to get our lightsabers in a twist over. The greater offense – the thing that really bothers us – is that he makes these changes without offering the original versions as an alternative. Like I said, Lucas has every right to muck with the movies to his heart’s content. All we ask is that he gives us a choice.

In 1988, a well-known filmmaker testified before Congress on the subject of film preservation. “It will soon be possible to create a new ‘original’ negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control…In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.”

These remarks were made by George Lucas.

While the full statement primarily speaks to the rights of the creator of a work of art, Lucas is clear that the public also has rights. The public has the right to view a work of art in the form and context in which it originally existed. “The public’s interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests,” he said. “And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.”

This is all Star Wars fans want. We want to watch the versions of the movies we grew up with, and we want Lucas to acknowledge their importance – and our right to them – by taking care to preserve them properly, with the same high-definition remastering he has provided for the Blu-Rays. He claims that to do this would be prohibitively expensive, but nobody’s buying that from a guy who, according to the Forbes article referenced earlier, is worth $3.25 billion. His position is not only an insult to the fans, but to the hundreds of crew members who worked on the films and whose efforts are often eliminated through the changes. Remember, Lucas didn’t direct The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. Of course he wrote the stories and owns the rights and technically can do whatever he wants to the films, but is it not a sign of disrespect to directors Irvin Kershner (Empire) and Richard Marquand (Jedi) to alter their films? Lucas may have been frustrated by the technological limits at the time the films were made, but they should continue to exist as records of that time, of the hard work poured into them by dedicated crews and of the countless childhoods spent immersed in them.

Look, it’s easy to dump on George Lucas. He makes it easy. And I suspect he even enjoys it, in a way. For many fans, the prequel trilogy and the revamped versions of the original trilogy have soured them on Star Wars altogether, but they shouldn’t allow these later crimes to sully what was once a pure source of joy and inspiration. I love Star Wars. I’ve always loved Star Wars. I always will. The title of this post proclaims that I no longer care, but of course I do. I wouldn’t be writing all this if I didn’t. Fans wouldn’t be commenting about the newest changes all across the internet and Twitterverse if they didn’t care. And for as much as Lucas has been a source of frustration over the past nearly decade-and-a-half, it was his fertile imagination that drew millions of us, tractor beam-like, into the Star Wars universe. He created an amazing world filled with beloved characters and unceasingly cool weapons, vehicles, creatures, etc. Okay…then he created Jar Jar Binks. But that doesn’t negate everything that came before. And let’s not forget that  Lucas has done a tremendous amount for the art and craft of filmmaking. With his THX system, he championed the importance of presenting movies in digital sound. With Skywalker Sound, he created a haven for directors and sound designers to create rich aural landscapes. With Industrial Light & Magic, he helped change the state of visual effects. Without Lucas, there would be no be Pixar, which began life as a small group within ILM. Beyond his contributions to film, Lucas is a generous philanthropist, who has long supported education efforts through his George Lucas Educational Foundation and who has signed onto The Giving Pledge, an effort led by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates to encourage the world’s wealthiest people to give the majority of their money to philanthropic causes. Just this week, Lucasfilm and Stand Up 2 Cancer unveiled a partnership involving a line of Star Wars/SU2C T-shirts.

My point is, the guy’s not the Dark Lord of the Sith we tend to take him for these days, and with all the vitriol he receives from disappointed fans, there is still good in him. So perhaps, just as Darth Vader was redeemed through the tough love of his son Luke Skywalker, Lucas will eventually have the change of heart that we, the fans – a collective Luke Skywalker, if I might be so bold – desire and deserve. As The Digital Bits editor Bill Hunt pointed out today in his review of the the Blu-Ray release, if Lucas wants to mine any more money from releasing these movies on DVD (and going back to the VHS days, there have been at least six releases of the Star Wars trilogy on home video), remastered versions of the original trilogy may be the last thing left in his bag of tricks to make it worthwhile for consumers. For while this Blu-Ray set will surely sell like gangbusters – with a treat like the long-sought deleted scenes inspiring even disgruntled fans to fork over their cash – what else is left that will be exciting enough for fans to pay yet again? It’s not the upcoming 3D conversions, I can tell you that.

So on this day that should be cause for unanimous celebration amongst Star Wars fans everywhere, comparable to the elation experienced by the destruction of the second Death Star, let those weary and disappointed among us continue to hope that Lucas will recognize the importance of preserving the original versions of the original trilogy and will remember his own words that illuminate their significance as cultural artifacts. That will be a day long remembered, and a day when Lucas can, in one stroke, win back the love and respect of disappointed fans.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to see if I can track down someone who bought the Blu-Rays so I can watch the deleted scenes.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

March 7, 2011

Oscars 2010: What Went Down

Filed under: Movies,Oscars,TV — DB @ 10:02 pm
Tags: , ,

Complete List of Winners

Well, that was…interesting.

My commentary on this subject comes late as usual, allowing me the necessary time to re-watch, reflect and comment on every little thing that crossed my mind, but the gist of it won’t be much different than what has already been said in all corners of the Oscar-watching world (though I’ll try saying it more nicely than others may have):

That could’ve been better.

The main reason I always enjoy watching the Oscars is that I actually care who wins. Not just Best Picture and Best Actor, but Best Art Direction and Best Makeup and so on. So I’ll always enjoy the Oscars, even if the show itself isn’t that great. And this year’s show wasn’t so great. It was badly produced, badly directed, blandly written…it was, in fact, the weirdest and yes, the worst Oscars I can remember in my 20+ years of Oscar watching. To be fair, the first year I watched the Oscars was 1987, year of the infamous Rob Lowe-Snow White opening number and the dancing Oscar statuettes. That show may have been worse, but I was 10 years-old and don’t actually remember it well enough to say. Now then…let’s get into it.

THE HOSTS
James Franco and Anne Hathaway are taking a lot of the heat for this, but I’m not going to pile it on. I don’t think they’re the reason the show was bad. We all knew from the beginning that they were odd and inappropriate choices to host, and sure, it could be argued that they should have known as much and therefore deserve the blame for taking on the job. But hey, they’re professional actors who were given a rare and pretty cool-sounding opportunity, so why wouldn’t they go for it? I think they did the best they could with the poor material they were given. Well…maybe Franco didn’t do the best he could, but I’m not sure he knew what the hell to do.

Things started off promising enough. The opening video in which Franco and Hathaway traveled, Inception-style, through some of the Best Picture nominees, aided by Alec Baldwin and Morgan Freeman, was funny. Not hilarious, but funny, even if the insert-host-into-actual-movie-scene has been done a lot by now. I’m not sure why the skit came around to inserting them into a scene from Back to The Future, which would have made sense only if the piece had featured other older movies as well.  But okay, it was early. No big deal. The duo finally made it onto the stage, but right off the bat it didn’t quite feel right. They just didn’t have the natural ease that comes with knowing how to stand on a stage in front of a lot of people and work the crowd. They’re not comedians. Or Wolverine. Their banter was a little awkward, but okay, that’s the natural state of award banter. Still no big deal. They did the requisite joke about being chosen as hosts in an effort to lure a younger audience, as well as the requisite joke about Franco being nominated while Hathaway was not. It all seemed stiff from the outset. The monologue was brief, the jokes weren’t great, and there was little of the typical give-and-take with the nominees and stars in the audience. Last year’s monologue by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin featured too much pointing-to-stars, whereas this year’s featured too little. Check out almost any other recent Oscar show and you’ll find the right balance.

As the night wore on, things did not much improve. Hathaway’s song – an abridged and altered version of “On My Own” from Les Miserables which she sang to Hugh Jackman as a sort of follow-up to the great musical comedy bit they did during his 2008 MC gig – was the best hosting moment of the night. Hathaway’s got some genuine pipes, and this bit hinted at the playfulness that the show needed desperately but which was pretty much nowhere to be found. (Sorry, Franco’s Marilyn Monroe get-up didn’t qualify.) Other than that moment, Hathaway had only her enthusiasm to cling to. And she had that in spades, sometimes going overboard. I like Hathaway and think she’s a really good actress, but as herself she sometimes comes off like that girl in drama club who’s a little too theatrical a little too often. On the other hand, can you blame her for overcompensating, considering how little actual material she was given to work with? Also, was it just me or did she seem to be coming out solo a lot? There seemed to be a lot more of Hathaway than Franco. He was probably backstage studying for class while creating an avant-garde installation for MoMA at the same time that he was concurrently shooting and editing a film exploring the inequities between male and female performers as exemplified by Hathaway’s many costume changes, all the while writing an episode of General Hospital which he would run off to shoot during a commercial break. When Franco did show up, he looked bemused, uncomfortable, uncertain…if he was deliberately playing aloof, it was the wrong way to go. Or he just wasn’t doing it well.  And it’s not like the guy can’t act. Not really sure what was going on there.

But again, I blame the writers and producers for a lot of this. The producers, Don Mischer and Bruce Cohen, made a mistake hiring Franco and Hathaway in the first place, and then gave them little to work with. Hosts need to do more than just introduce people. There were no bits for them to do, no comedy for them…nothing. It was all very puzzling, to say the least.

THE AWARDS
-The first big prize of the night was Best Supporting Actress, and in the curious absence of last year’s Best Supporting Actor Christoph Waltz, the Academy brought out screen legend Kirk Douglas to present the award. It wasn’t pretty. At 94 years old, Douglas still seems pretty sharp, but he kept making jokes that made no sense (Hugh Jackman is laughing at him? Colin Firth isn’t laughing at him?) There was a total non sequiter that found him pretending to fight over his cane with the random young guy who was standing with him onstage. Then, after opening the envelope, he kept delaying the announcement of the winner. Did he think he was being funny? I mean, it was funny…but in a painful, awkward way that makes you want to cover your eyes. Why even have him there to present this particular award? It’s not like there was a theme of Hollywood icons presenting in other categories. That would somewhat go against the stated desire to draw a younger audience to the show, wouldn’t it? Most of today’s teens probably don’t even know who Michael Douglas is, let alone Kirk. His presence wasn’t a logical fit with the show at all. The Oscars are one of the few awards shows all season long where the presenter actually reads the nominee names themselves, rather than the task being handled by some anonymous voice, yet they didn’t have Douglas read the nominees. Why not? He barely shut up while he was there, so why couldn’t he read the names himself? Were the producers worried that people wouldn’t be able to understand him? Hearing-impaired actress Marlee Matlin did it when she presented Best Actor in 1987 (to Michael Douglas, in fact). It just stood out against the rest of the presentations, and highlighted the oddity of him being there. When he finally did announce the winner, it was Melissa Leo, and thrilled for her though I was, her “is this really happening” schtick was a little overdone, and wasn’t helped by Douglas continuing to insert himself in the moment as she accepted her award. The whole thing was just uncomfortable.

-As expected, Aaron Sorkin took the Best Adapted Screenplay award for The Social Network, and kudos to Sorkin for calmly continuing with his speech and ignoring that the orchestra was obnoxiously trying to play him off. I don’t know what their problem was. He hadn’t even been talking that long before they chimed in, and here they had an eloquent, grateful and humorous guy who has a way with words, so why no let him give his speech? Dicks. (Not really the orchestra’s fault; the show director is to blame, and that job was held by co-producer Mischer. )

-In another win for The Social Network, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross took Best Original Score. It was the one bold choice the Academy made all night (a deserving win, though I would have preferred Inception). But you gotta love that they gave an Oscar to Reznor, the guy who sang “I want to fuck you like an animal.”

-Don’t worry Randy Newman, you were good television. One of the bright spots of the show, in fact.

-If you’ve read my previous Oscar commentaries this season, you probably know that Tom Hooper’s Best Director win is a disappointment to me. It seems that every year, at least one Oscar needs to be given out that can go into the books as one of the all-time bad choices, and Hooper’s win is the one this year. My annoyance was heightened by the look on his face when Kathryn Bigelow said his name. See for yourself at the 1:30 mark, and tell me you don’t kinda want to punch him. (If you think he actually deserved the award, maybe it doesn’t bother you. But I wanted to punch him.) I will, however, give him kudos for his speech, which was gracious and included a nice story about how he came to direct the movie. Still, I’ll never understand how he won this award.

(By the way Academy, here’s one way you can bring your show into the modern era and maybe even cater to some of those younger viewers: let them embed your clips on their blogs instead of making them leave and view them on YouTube).

-Two years ago, each acting award was presented by five previous winners of that same award, each one saluting a current nominee. Last year, an attempt to do something similar by having a past co-star address each nominee stumbled a bit. This year was better than last, with the presentation of Best Actor and Best Actress being done solely by last year’s winners Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock, respectively, still speaking to each nominee directly. But where was the love for the Supporting nominees? Just like last year, they were treated like second-class citizens while the extra love was given to the leads. Why is the Academy messing with the hierarchy? If you delineate between actors, it just means everyone else gets shoved further down the food chain. Pretty soon the sound and visual effects artists won’t even be allowed in the building.

THE PRODUCTION: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE WEIRD
The Good:
You know…there was so much bad and weird that we should really start there, and come back around to the good in an effort to end on a positive note.

The Bad and the Weird:
-The first awards of the evening, presented by Tom Hanks, were for Cinematography and Art Direction. With imagery from Gone With the Wind and Titanic employed to striking effect – the projections grandly filling the proscenium arch – Hanks made the connection between Best Picture winners that had also won the two awards he was giving out. It was an odd way to frame the presentation, since there was no guarantee that the winning movies would go on to win the night’s Best Picture award (and in fact, neither did; Cinematography went to Inception, while Art Direction went to Alice in Wonderland). The evoking of Gone With the Wind and Titanic suggested that the show might incorporate Oscar winning classics as a theme, but the idea turned out to be half-baked. The only other films referenced in such a direct way were Shrek and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and while there’s nothing wrong with those, they aren’t exactly reaching back into the Oscar history books. How about incorporating some older spectacles, like Lawrence of Arabia or 2001: A Space Odyssey?  Maybe The Wizard of Oz or Mary Poppins?

There were a few jumps back in time, but not using specific movies. Presenting the two screenwriting awards, Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem appeared as white-tuxedoed waiters in a replica of Hollywood’s Roosevelt Hotel, where the earliest Academy Award ceremonies were held. Later, a special podium was wheeled out and 18-time Oscar host Bob Hope was projected there to give the audience a glimpse of what it might have been like in the room when Hope hosted. Both segments were nice pieces of nostalgia, but the Roosevelt Hotel bit didn’t quite gel with the rest of the show, and the Bob Hope gimmick was kind of unsettling since it alternated between actual jokes as they’d been spoken by Hope and someone impersonating Hope to comment on the ceremony at hand and introduce the next presenters. It was done affectionately, and so wasn’t as offensive as Fred Astaire dancing with a vacuum cleaner or John Wayne hawking Coors Beer, but it still felt odd.

Bottom line: the theme for the show, such as it was, didn’t really come off.

-The stage was once again used to great effect for the Best Original Score presentation, which found the orchestra projected in silhouette behind the screen and the layers of the proscenium lit up in bright colors while the musicians played a medley of classic movie music from Star Wars, E.T., Lawrence of Arabia and West Side Story (as well as the famous THX sound effect). But while the orchestra proceeded to play selections from the nominated scores, accompanied by a montage of clips from each film, someone in the booth cut away to a crew member leading presenters Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman to a different part of the stage. Why would you do that? It was just one of many terrible cutaways throughout the show. While Oprah Winfrey was on stage making a nice point about the power and importance of documentary films, there was a cut to Joel Coen, scratching his ear and looking around like he dropped something. Who was running the booth?!? It’s like someone let their 12 year-old kid come in and direct the show. Actually, I take that back. I directed some cable access TV when I was 12, and I knew better then to cut away to something like that.

Moreover, did you notice how random the reaction shots of the audience were? Usually there are frequent glimpses of movie stars reacting to the jokes or presentations. Here, it was like director Mischer went out of his way not to show celebrities. I lost count of how many medium shots capturing a sea of unrecognizable faces in the middle of the auditorium we were treated to instead of the movie stars that most people are actually tuned in to see. All respect to recent Academy president Sid Ganis, who I saw at least three times, but I suspect people would prefer a cutaway to Halle Berry or Mark Ruffalo. Did anyone notice there was not a single shot of Natalie Portman all night until the Best Actress presentation came around? Not one shot of the star of the moment – a beautiful, pregnant actress who was the favorite to win one of the night’s top awards. Get your hands on any past Oscarcast and tell me when you’ve seen the likes of that. Forget it, I’ll save you the time: you haven’t seen the likes of that, because it doesn’t happen, because any moron can tell you that the when you have a bunch of movie stars sitting in room full of TV cameras it’s pretty much understood that you actually show some of them.

-Lest we think that Hathaway and Franco had the market on awkwardness cornered, there was plenty to go around. What was going on with Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis during their presentation of the Animation awards? I liked Timberlake’s opening joke, hesitantly announcing to the audience that he’s actually the mysterious, never-seen graffiti artist Banksy, one of the evening’s nominees for directing Best Documentary contender Exit Through the Gift Shop. But the joke died when Kunis had no real retort, and throughout the rest of their presentation they seemed to either be sharing a private joke or dealing with an incomplete script. After pretending to use his iPhone to decorate the stage with a backdrop of Shrek‘s The Kingdom of Far Far Away, Kunis told him that he missed a spot. Then he stared at her for too long a beat, then she laughed, then he feigned being flustered and began announcing the nominees while we tried to figure out what the hell was going on.

-In a presentation similar to the one for Cinematography and Art Direction, Best Makeup and Best Costume Design were lumped together for no other reason than that both awards had once gone to Best Picture winner The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. One of that film’s stars, Cate Blanchett, did the honors, though the connection between the awards was even more tenuous this time since none of the Makeup nominees were among the Best Picture contenders.

Also, for what it’s worth, smarter Oscar producers would have had Blanchett present the award for Best Supporting Actor, instead of Reese Witherspoon. For whatever reason, Blanchett was not at the Oscars the year after she won Best Supporting Actress, and so was unable to carry on the tradition of the previous year’s winner presenting the award to the opposite sex the following year. Blanchett has still never presented an acting award, so given that last year’s winner Mo’Nique was unable to attend this year, it would have been the ideal time for Blanchett to get her chance of presenting to a fellow actor.

-The presentation of Best Original Song included a random “man on the street” segment of people on Hollywood Boulevard talking about their favorite songs from movies. Where did that come from? Who cares what some tourist from Nebraska thinks? If you’re going to do a segment like that, find a way to make it funny. Remember Chris Rock’s hosting gig in 2004, which featured a taped segment of Rock interviewing patrons of a Magic Johnson Theatre (all African-American, except for Albert Brooks)? That’s how it’s done. I wish I could find that clip online. So good. Anyway, this segment was yet another WTF moment. That goofball couple singing “Beauty and the Beast” to each other was just horrible. And on top of that, the interviews weren’t even filmed well! The camera was way too close to the subjects, the shots were badly framed…and then after all these average Joe’s off the street, suddenly there’s President Obama in the White House, commenting on his favorite movie song. Seriously, who put this thing together?!? Awful.

-The actual performances of the nominated songs were not without their problems either. Randy Newman was up first, battling poor sound quality (through no fault of his own, I’m sure) and clumsy staging. It was just Newman at the piano, belting out the tune, yet he was set so far back on the stage. There was a circular platform right in the center, nice and close to the audience. Why couldn’t the piano have been placed there, to create a little more intimacy? Later on, Gwyneth Paltrow performed her song from Country Strong, and while she’s proven she can sing, she didn’t look or sound all that great this time around. As for the song from 127 Hours, it’s a pretty but unconventional song that doesn’t really lend itself to a live performance.

-Following the interviews for Best Original Song, another misfire came with a joke introduced by Franco and Hathaway in which auto-tuning was applied to scenes from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I, Toy Story 3, The Social Network and Twilight: Eclipse. A joke like this might play fittingly at the MTV Movie Awards or Broadcast Film Critics Awards, but this is the big leagues. You can do better.

-As has been the case in recent years, the In Memoriam segment, acknowledging the passing of Academy members during the past year, was accompanied by a live song performance, this time by Celine Dion (I’m surprised the Academy didn’t go for Willow Smith). However, unlike in previous years, the names of behind-the-scenes folks who weren’t necessarily familiar to most viewers flashed by without any examples of their work. Usually, the photo of the person or live footage of them is shown alongside a poster, clip or title font of a famous movie or two that they worked on, to provide some context. Not this time, meaning that most people watching the show – even those in the audience, I’d wager – had no idea who many of the people were. How hard is it to get these little things right? Had Don Mischer or Bruce Cohen ever watched the Oscars before? (I know Bruce Cohen has, because he won an Oscar for producing American Beauty.)

-As of last year, honorary awards are no longer given out on Oscar night, but are instead presented at the Governor’s Ball, a special ceremony held a few months earlier. This year, honorary awards went to actor Eli Wallach, director Jean-Luc Godard and film historian and preservationist Kevin Brownlow, while Francis Ford Coppola was given the Irving G. Thalberg Award. (Click here for video highlights from the ceremony.) It would be nice if the television audience was at least treated to a few moments from the Governor’s Ball, just as the Sci-Tech Awards are briefly covered each year. Instead, Coppola, Wallach and Brownlow were trotted onto the stage (Godard did not attend either ceremony) to stand awkwardly while the audience gave them a deserved standing ovation. Yet another poorly conceived moment in the show. Next year, show us some clips from the private reception and then have the recipients stand up in the audience or from special balcony seats and give a wave. That’s what happened last year, and that’s how it should go. They’ll still get their standing O, and it will feel much more natural.

-When it came time for Best Picture, clips from the 10 nominees played in a montage which used Colin Firth’s climactic radio address from The King’s Speech as a through-line. Some people felt this showed favoritism toward Speech, but I thought it was just a nice connective tissue. Didn’t bother me. What did bother me was that the montage cycled back through most of the nominees two or three times before a single clip of Toy Story 3 was shown. A big deal? No, of course not. (None of this crap is a big deal. It’s the friggin’ Oscars, not cancer research). But it was further evidence of the sloppiness that ran through the entire show. Who put that reel together? How hard is it to feature all 10 nominees once before going back and showing each one again?

-Speaking of Best Picture, couldn’t they have found someone else besides Steven Spielberg to present it? Don’t get me wrong – I loves me some Steven Spielberg. But he’s presented Best Picture three times in the last decade (and while we’re keeping score, Michael Douglas, Tom Hanks, and Jack Nicholson have each done it twice). How about having Kirk Douglas do that award? Or Francis Ford Coppola, who was there for his Thalberg win anyway? How about trying to get the retired Gene Hackman to come out and present it? There are more than a few people left in the movie business with the stature to make them worthy Best Picture presenters. Can we get a little more creative?

-Whatever the producers intended as the theme of the Oscar show, “Awkward!” proved to be the actual theme of the night, and the final moments of the show didn’t disappoint on that front. I found it a little hokey when cute kids from Staten Island’s PS22 flooded the stage to sing “Over the Rainbow,” but okay, kids are sweet and what a thrill it was for them and fine, I’ll go with it. But then all the evening’s winners walked out on stage behind the students, ambling about in a scattered assembly, some swaying and joining the song, others just standing there, all clutching their Oscars. Why, I ask you? Why?

-The show’s schizophrenia included its slate of presenters not really being ideal choices for that oh-so-desirable youth audience. Hilary Swank, Oprah Winfrey, Nicole Kidman and Tom Hanks (and again, Kirk Douglas) are not who the kids want to see. And that’s fine, because the show shouldn’t be catering to kids. These are the kind of people who should be at the Academy Awards, so the producers and Academy executives need to start acknowledging that and stop trying to turn the Oscars into something it will never be by trying to cater to an audience that will never care.

The Good, Take 2:
-Okay, I promised we’d come back around to some of the show’s good moments, so let’s get to those. Shouldn’t take long. It may have been a bizarre show, but it certainly wasn’t without its pleasures, some of which I’ve already mentioned and one of which – or four of which – were the acting winners. Although Firth, Portman, Bale and Leo were the favorites and had already won many awards throughout the season, I was no less pleased to see them emerge victorious here. For me, there’s still something special about seeing people win the Oscar, no matter how many other trophies they collect in the months and weeks prior. I’m especially thrilled for Bale and Leo, if only because my confidence in their wins was a bit shaken at this late point in the season. It was also pretty cool that Bale and Portman both began their careers as child actors. I think they were both 13 when they starred in their breakout movies, Empire of the Sun and The Professional, respectively. Both exhibited huge talent even in those early roles, and as we watched them grow up on screen we knew it was only a matter of time before they got their Oscars. Nice to see that promise fulfilled.

-The duos of Helen Mirren and Russell Brand and then Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law were among the few presenters who earned a laugh, though each pair was onstage only briefly. Cate Blanchett scored a great moment as well, when she was reading the nominees for Best Makeup and followed the clip of Benicio del Toro’s transformation in The Wolfman with the impromptu, sincere quip, “That’s gross.” The award did go to The Wolfman, and was shared by makeup legend Rick Baker and Dave Elsey. I liked Elsey’s comment, “It was always my ambition to lose an Oscar one day to Rick Baker. This is better.”

-I also appreciated 73 year-old Original Screenplay winner David Seidler’s comment, “My father always said to me I would be a late bloomer.”

-The enthusiastic speech from Best Live Action Short director Luke Matheny demonstrated that sometimes the best or funniest moments come from unlikely sources. The first thing people probably noticed as Matheny made his way down the aisle was his mass of tangled black hair that could easily have been housing a collection of bird eggs, and his first comment upon reaching the microphone was that he should have gotten a haircut. His short speech was a charmer, as he thanked his mother for providing craft services on his film and paid sweet tribute to his girlfriend.

-One of the highlights of the night was the surprise appearance of Billy Crystal, who walked out to an enthusiastic standing ovation. Was that purely out of affection for one of Oscar’s all-time great hosts, or more because the audience was desperate by that point in the evening for someone who knew how to do the job? Hope Franco and Hathaway didn’t take it the wrong way. Billy was there to introduce the aforementioned Bob Hope bit. He did a few jokes and instantly breathed life into a ceremony that was sorely in need of it.

-Although I already questioned Steven Spielberg’s appearance as Best Picture presenter, I did love what he said when he came out. “Well in a moment, one of these ten movies will join a list that includes On The Waterfront, Midnight Cowboy, The Godfather and The Deer Hunter. The other nine will join a list that includes The Grapes of Wrath, Citizen Kane, The Graduate and Raging Bull.” There was enthusiastic applause as he continued, “Either way, congratulations, you’re all in very good company.” It was a wonderful way to frame the award, and a nice reminder that it really doesn’t matter what wins the Oscar. Great work stands the test of time, and the ultimate winners are the audiences who get to enjoy them. (Still doesn’t take the sting away when the wrong thing wins, but oh well.)

-Okay, I’m sorry, I know this is supposed to be The Good section, but thinking about Mirren, Brand, Downey Jr., Law and Crystal just makes me wonder, where was the comedy? If ever there was an Oscar show that needed an infusion of Jack Black and Will Ferrell singing a song, or Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson playfully arguing, this was it.

THE DRESSES
Thank god for beautiful women and their frocks, because this Oscarcast needed all the push-ups it could get. I’m no Joan Rivers or Mr. Blackwell, but for me, the winners of the night were Mila Kunis, Natalie Portman, Jennifer Lawrence, Marisa Tomei, Reese Witherspoon, Amy Adams and Scarlett Johansson. Thank you ladies, for doing your part to help the show.

FINAL THOUGHTS
The takeaway for me from this year’s Oscar show, and it seems like we go through this every year, is that both the Academy and TV critics and viewing audience need to accept that Oscar night should be an evening for celebrating filmmakers first and foremost, and a television show second…while still making it the best television show it can be. That means the Academy needs to stop making decisions based on a desire to get higher ratings, and the at-home audience needs to get over it if they don’t care about any but the top few awards. Everyone, even cinematographers, art directors, visual effects artists and sound designers should be given their moment to speak without being cut off (though yes, they should be encouraged ahead of time to try and avoid reading lists of names, as Randy Newman references in the clip above). The Oscars weren’t created to satisfy the public; they were created to honor achievements in filmmaking. Public interest after the first awards in 1929 led to the ceremony being broadcast on the radio, and eventually television, but us movie fans who want to be included should remember that we are invited guests. Think the show is boring? Don’t care who wins Best Film Editing? Then don’t watch. These days, you can go online the next day and find video of the acceptance speeches by the actors. If that’s all you care about, then don’t subject yourself to the whole three-plus-hour presentation.

On the flip side, the Academy has to accept that the Oscars aren’t the Super Bowl. (They’re my Super Bowl, but I’m abnormal.) They aren’t going to score Super Bowl-level ratings. There may have been a time when they did, but things have changed. The media landscape is overstuffed with information and options. The movie landscape, specifically, is more fragmented as well, with many more movies released each year and the true “event movie” now a rarity. Gone with the wind are the days when the movies the public went to see en masse were the same movies that were of high enough quality artistically to be top Oscar contenders. Now such movies – Titanic, Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Inception – are few and far between, while Oscar is more likely to shine on smaller films, indie films – Secrets & Lies, The Pianist, The Hurt Locker, The King’s Speech. The kind of films that studios hesitate to finance, and the kind of films that don’t ring up billions in ticket sales or entice the large viewership to the Oscarcast that the Academy would like to see.

But there are still millions of viewers who tune into the Oscars, so as I said earlier, stop cheapening the show by trying to attract a demographic that, by and large, isn’t interested. The Oscars celebrate a certain kind and caliber of movie, and most younger people aren’t interested in those movies. The Oscars may be a bit stodgy, a bit old fashioned, but that’s part of their appeal. So focus on creating a show that truly celebrates the nominees and winners, and be comfortable enough to recognize what the Oscars have always been and should continue to be. Then, once you’ve done that, do all that you can to make the show entertaining to the audience – in the room and at home. Hire comedians or skilled comic actors to host it. Write good material and get charismatic presenters (not every movie star is as captivating in reality as they are when playing a character). Hire a competent director to run the booth. Continue making attempts to shake it up, but don’t lose sight of tradition. The acting presentations from the 2008 ceremony – which I mentioned earlier –  is the perfect example. Some liked it, some didn’t, but it was a new idea that still colored inside the lines.

My final note to the Academy: I am available to consult, produce, write or direct. Call me.

March 1, 2011

Twenty Films I’m Looking Forward to in 2011

Filed under: Movies — DB @ 9:54 pm
Tags: , ,

Well now that the Oscars are done (my commentary is forthcoming) and we can finally put 2010’s movies to bed, it’s time to look ahead to what 2011 has to offer…and with the release of one of these films now less than a week away, it’s not a moment too soon. As always, this list is based on the films I know about at this point, and there are even more that I’m looking forward to than I had room to include here. I’m sorry, for instance, that I didn’t list either of the two movies Steven Spielberg is directing this year, but what can I say?  Neither War Horse nor The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn (both due for release days apart in December) are all that compelling to me at this stage. But I shouldn’t feel like too undevoted a Spielberg fan, as he is definitely connected to one of my top choices. Anyway, here goes…

20. MARGARET – Kenneth Lonergan’s debut film as a writer/director was 2000’s You Can Count On Me, a very good movie that earned a Best Actress nomination for Laura Linney, a Best Original Screenplay nomination for Lonergan and introduced moviegoers to Mark Ruffalo (in a role that should have been Oscar nominated as well). Lonergan was nominated again as a co-writer on 2002’s Gangs of New York. So expectations were high when he began production in 2005 on his second effort as a writer/director, Margaret, starring Ruffalo, Anna Paquin and Matt Damon. That’s right…2005. Turns out the film became bogged down in creative and legal quagmires, as detailed by the Los Angeles Times two years ago. Last summer it was reported that Margaret would finally be released this year. That’s the last I heard, so I don’t know if it’s still on track or not. Curiosity factor lands it on my list. After all that time and all the entanglements, can a good movie emerge? I hope we’ll get to find out. (Fall…maybe)

19. TAKE THIS WALTZ – There may be no more intriguing a match of director and actor this year than Sarah Polley and Seth Rogen. Polley is the young actress, writer and director behind the quiet, mature 2007 film Away From Her, about a couple dealing with the wife’s slide into Alzheimer’s. It earned Oscar nominations for Julie Christie and for Polley’s adapted screenplay. And Rogen, well, we more readily associate him with the hilariously crude tomfoolery of Judd Apatow films than the more indie, dramatic leanings of Polley (although she did go commercial as star of the 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake). Not knowing the tone of the film, said to be a love triangle involving two guys and girl, it’s hard to say whether Polley or Rogen is the one stepping farther into unfamiliar territory. The fact that Sarah Silverman co-stars might suggest more of a comedy, but the main female role actually belongs to Michelle Williams, so…wow…this is quite the fascinating line-up of talent.  (Fall)

18. THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO – I have yet to get swept up in the literary phenomenon of Stieg Larsson’s Milennium Trilogy. I haven’t read the books, nor seen the Swedish films that launched actress Noomi Rapace to international stardom. But the American version is directed by David Fincher, so…’nuff said. Rooney Mara, who made a strong impression on Fincher as Mark Zuckerberg’s girlfriend in the opening scene of The Social Network, takes on the role of hacker Lisbeth Salander, with other key parts filled by Daniel Craig, Robin Wright, Stellan Skarsgaard and Christopher Plummer. (December)

17. J. EDGAR – Leonardo DiCaprio teams up with director Clint Eastwood to play the famed FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in this biopic written by Milk Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black. I don’t actually know if the movie is scheduled for release this year; it just began production in early February. But given the efficiency with which Eastwood shoots and edits, he’s probably handing his final cut into he studio right around now. Alright, maybe not that fast, but a 2011 release seems likely. Eastwood’s last two outings – Invictus and Gran Torino – left me underwhelmed. But with DiCaprio in another strong central role, heading an ensemble that includes Judi Dench, Naomi Watts, Josh Lucas and The Social Network‘s breakout star Armie Hammer, this could be Eastwood’s return to form. (Fall/Winter)

16. RANGO – We’ve entered an era where the lines between live-action and animated films have become increasingly blurred. The Star Wars prequels found actors performing on stages against greenscreens, their environments digitally constructed around them, while Robert Zemeckis, James Cameron and Peter Jackson have led pioneering work in motion capture technology (with some results more successful than others). Now we’re seeing directors who’ve traditionally worked in one medium cross over to the other. Pixar’s Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird are working on their live-action feature debuts, and now Pirates of the Caribbean director Gore Verbinski follows Wes Anderson into the world of animation. Rango tells of a lizard (voiced by Johnny Depp) who finds himself in an Old West town. How or why that happens I don’t know, but the animation looks great and early glimpses suggest a quirky, unique animated adventure. As you can see from the video below, the buzz has been building. (March)

15. HANNA – Popular film has gifted us many trends over the years: body-switching movies, erupting volcano movies, asteroid movies…and now we seem to be in the midst of a new trend: young girls killing the shit out of everyone in sight. Last year gave us the hilarious, hyperviolent Kick-Ass, a movie which was nearly stolen by pint-sized Chloe Grace Moretz as the blissfully homicidal Hit Girl. This year brings Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch, but far more intriguing to me is Hanna, re-teaming director Joe Wright with his Oscar nominated Atonement star Saorise Ronan as a deadly tween on a mission…or something. I don’t know exactly, but it looks pretty damn cool based on the trailer. Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana also star. As it happens, Ronan will stick with this trend in the upcoming Violet & Daisy, playing another teenage assassin alongside Alexis Bledel and Tony Soprano himself, James Gandolfini. Girls just wanna have fun…by tearing your fucking head off. (April)

14. THE BEAVER – I know that I’m supposed to be completely disgusted by Mel Gibson these days, but I’m not. His personal demons are his personal demons, and I hope he works through them. As long as he doesn’t beat, maim, rape or kill, then it’s all just sticks and stones. Or not. I don’t know. The guy is a good actor, a good filmmaker and I still look forward to his work. The Beaver, directed by Gibson’s close friend and Maverick co-star Jodie Foster, centers on a man whose life is falling apart and who is so depressed that he can only communicate by using a beaver hand puppet. Sounds wonderfully weird. Early buzz on the film (which was filmed before The Great Meltdown of 2010), and Gibson’s performance in particular, is strong. And it certainly sounds like an original. Before Foster came along, the script was featured on the 2008 Black List, a Hollywood executive’s annual scroll of the best unproduced screenplays kicking around the industry. (Incidentally, Take This Waltz appeared on 2009’s list). Frankly, I can’t wait to see what Gibson does with this role. (May)

13. THE TREE OF LIFE – I know…we’ve been here before. This is the third year that Terrence Malick’s “new” film, featuring Sean Penn and Brad Pitt, has appeared on my list, but this time it’s really, really coming out. I swear. It has a poster, a trailer, a release date…everything an actual movie coming to a theater near you is expected to have. I don’t know too much more about it than I did the past two years; the trailer is somewhat cryptic, teasing a story as epic as the cosmos and as intimate as the relationships between fathers and sons. So what took so long? Apparently it got caught in limbo when there was a shake-up at the studio originally set to distribute it. Fox Searchlight picked it up last September, but decided to hold off on releasing it until they could market it properly, with the care warranted by a Malick movie. Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if the director was still tinkering away on it all that time. But believe it or not, he’s already shooting his next film – his fastest turnaround ever. So look for that one to show up on this list next year. And the year after that. And the year after that. (May)

12. WIN WIN – I don’t know much about the premise of Thomas McCarthy’s third film as writer/director, but the fact that it’s written and directed by Thomas McCarthy is good enough to place it on my list. He’s given us The Station Agent and The Visitor, both of which are simple, unique and wonderfully acted. His newest stars Paul Giamatti, Amy Ryan and Bobby Canavale. How can you lose? (April)

11. SOURCE CODE – One of 2009’s best cinematic surprises was Moon, the feature directing debut of David Bowie scion Duncan Jones. His follow-up finds him sticking with a sci-fi premise but significantly ramping up the action. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a soldier tasked with reliving an 8-minute period prior to a train crash over and over again until he can determine who is responsible for setting the bomb that caused the derailment. Vera Farmiga, Michelle Monaghan and Jeffrey Wright co-star…but for me, Jones is the one to watch. (April)

10. THE DESCENDANTS – Hard to believe, but Alexander Payne hasn’t directed a feature film since 2004’s Sideways (he did contribute one of the best segments to the anthology film Paris J’Taime, and has kept busy with other projects). How nice it will be to have him back. His leading man this time around is George Clooney, and the actor’s impeccable eye for material makes his team-up with Payne all the more tantalizing. I don’t know much about the story (that’s quite a pattern, isn’t it?), but I’m further excited by the casting of Judy Greer and Matthew Lillard. Payne has shown a gift for matching actors to material, and has done so with people both on and off the A-list. He gave Virginia Madsen and Thomas Haden Church career-resurrecting roles in Sideways, so I’m crossing my fingers that Greer, a great actress whose long resume includes Adaptation, Arrested Development and many films and TV shows that aren’t as good as she is in them, will finally have a role rich enough to bring her the level of attention she deserves. And Lillard is usually seen as an over-the-top goofball in not-so-great movies, so I can’t wait to see if Payne can reign him in and show us another side of him. (Fall/Winter)

9. CARNAGE – Roman Polanski’s follow-up to last year’s gem The Ghost Writer is this adaptation of 2009’s Tony-winning Best Play, God of Carnage. The dark comedy is about two couples who meet to discuss a fight between their school-aged children, but prove as the night goes on to be not much more than children themselves. Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly will play one couple, Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz the other. That’s one damn awesome cast, though I can’t help feel a bit of disappointment that the original Broadway quartet wasn’t tapped for the film. After all, we’re talking Jeff Daniels, Hope Davis, James Gandolfini and Marcia Gay Harden (who won a Tony for her role; all four were nominated). That’s not exactly a slate of no-names. But then, the Broadway cast weren’t the originals either. The play ran in London prior to arriving in New York, and featured Ralph Fiennes and Janet McTeer. Despite the revolving door of performers, we’re surely in for a treat with Foster, Winslet, Waltz and Reilly tearing up the meaty script, adapted by Polanksi and the play’s author Yasmina Reza. (Fall/Winter)

8. THE IDES OF MARCH – In addition to his starring role in The Descendants, George Clooney steps back behind the camera this year as well, and may just have another Good Night and Good Luck on his hands with this story, based on the play Farragut North, about a dirty political campaign. (Is there any other kind?) I’m not sure if the film is a satire or straight-up drama, but whatever it is, this cast has me sold: Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Marisa Tomei, Paul Giamatti and Evan Rachel Wood. (October)

7. MONEYBALL – Here we have an adaptation of a book by The Blind Side author Michael Lewis, recounting how the Oakland A’s used unconventional statistics to put together a competitive team despite a significantly smaller budget than big spenders like the Yankees. That may not sound like gripping cinema, but neither did The Social Network…and like that film, this one boasts a script by Aaron Sorkin (re-writing a draft by Steven Zaillian). Ready for another killer cast? How about Brad Pitt, Philip Seymour Hoffman (again), Robin Wright, and going against-the-grain, Jonah Hill and Parks and Recreation‘s Chris Pratt? Capping off the roster is director Bennett Miller, who made 2005’s stunning Capote but has been MIA ever since. With a talent line-up like that, the bases are clearly loaded. (September)

6. CONTAGION – No one enjoys catching a virus, but catching a good virus movie can be an entirely different proposition. There’s the slightly cheesy but highly enjoyable Dustin Hoffman flick Outbreak; HBO’s And the Band Played On is a great detective story about the early days of the AIDS epidemic; and post-apocalyptic tales like 28 Days Later, I Am Legend and 12 Monkeys all have a virus to thank for nearly wiping out mankind. So okay, Contagion doesn’t exactly cover new ground. But with Steven Soderbergh in the director’s chair and Kate Winslet, Marion Cotillard, Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law and Laurence Fishburne all on the hunt, it’s ground I’ll be happy to tread. Soderbergh is shooting the film in 3D…which makes it the first movie since Avatar that I actually want to see in 3D. (October)

5. YOUNG ADULT – Four years after collaborating on Juno, director Jason Reitman and screenwriter Diablo Cody reteam with the story of an author who returns to her hometown and pursues an ex-boyfriend, now married with children. Charlize Theron stars, along with Patton Oswalt and go-to handsome guy Patrick Wilson. Reitman has emerged as one of the brightest storytellers in Hollywood, which makes anything he’s doing worth getting excited about. (Fall/Winter)

4. SUPER 8 – As someone who came of age in the Age of Spielberg – the suburban adventures of Close Encounters, E.T., Poltergeist, The Goonies and Gremlins fueling my imagination – the notion of J.J. Abrams writing and directing a film that pays homage to Spielberg’s 70’s and 80’s classics kinda makes me giddy. In many ways, Abrams is the second coming of Spielberg. He shares the youthful and infectious enthusiasm for movie magic, his work balances sentimental with scary (without going too far in either direction), he’s great at staging action, he draws good work from child actors…and he just pretty much rules. With Spielberg onboard as executive producer, and a trailer indicating that Abrams is clearly on the right track (which is more than can be said for the clip’s freighter train), I’m pumped for a smart summer movie that promises both a sense of discovery and taste of the wonderfully familiar. (June)

3. THE MUPPETS – Like the movies of Steven Spielberg, The Muppets were a major part of my childhood. And as I’ve never really grown up, they remain a source of serious joy. So when I heard a few years ago that Jason Segel was plotting to bring them back to the big screen, it was like music to my ears…if the music in question was a psychadelic, hard rockin’ jam by Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem. Segel stars in the film, which he co-wrote with his Forgetting Sarah Marshall collaborator Nicholas Stoller. Flight of the Conchords director James Bobin is at the helm, and Segel is joined by Amy Adams, Chris Cooper and in keeping with Muppet tradition, a slew of big name guest stars. (November)

2. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II – I had my usual issues with Part I of the final installment of Harry’s journey, but all in all I thought it was one of the best entries in the series. I’m sure I’ll have my issues with this grand finale as well (I’m already concerned by shots in the trailer that suggest Harry and Voldemort’s showdown takes place in isolation, rather than surrounded by their respective followers as it does in the book). But the final film has arguably the best cinematic potential of all the books, because its centerpiece will be the epic Battle of Hogwarts. An opportunity like this is one where, for as much as J.K. Rowling was able to accomplish on the page, the screen can just do so much more. I expect the filmmakers will draw out the battle, add details and generally go for broke. But I think more than anything, I’m looking to see how the filmmakers handle a chapter from the book called “The Prince’s Tale,” in which we finally learn the many hidden truths about Severus Snape. Alan Rickman, this is your moment. I know you won’t let me down. (July)

1. HUGO CABRET – Martin Scorsese’s career has covered a wide variety of ground, and after all this time the director is still exploring new territory…in this case, a children’s book. The Invention of Hugo Cabret is described by its author Brian Selznick, in a letter on the book’s Amazon.com page, as a story of “Paris in the 1930’s, a thief, a broken machine, a strange girl, a mean old man, and the secrets that tie them all together.” As usual, Scorsese has assembled a terrific cast, featuring Ben Kingsley, Chloe Grace Moretz, Christopher Lee, Jude Law, Emily Mortimer, Sacha Baron Cohen and Ray Winstone. Most intriguingly, the director makes his first foray into 3D filmmaking to bring the book’s acclaimed pictures to life. I haven’t bought into the recent 3D explosion, but when filmmakers like Scorsese (and Steven Soderbergh, as mentioned above) embrace the technology, I’m eager to witness the results. (November)

February 13, 2011

Favorite Movies of 2010

Filed under: Movies — DB @ 1:02 pm
Tags: , ,

#1
INCEPTION

The movie I was most looking forward to all year met and exceeded my expectations, easily becoming the movie I loved more than any other all year. When it ended and the lights in the theater came up, people around me standing and collecting their belongings to shuffle out, I was still pinned to my seat. I had to sit there for a moment and take a breath, very possibly the first I’d taken in at least an hour. I couldn’t wait to see it again. Not just because the twisty plot requires multiple viewings, but because I wanted to get back into the cinemascape so brilliantly conceived by master filmmaker and storyteller Christopher Nolan. I never knew what was coming. That’s true of many good movies of course, but here every moment carried the thrill of what would happen next.

The world of the film is our own, but here there exists technology that allows Extractors like Leonardo DiCaprio’s Dom Cobb to infiltrate a person’s subconscious and steal an idea. It’s the latest form of corporate espionage, and although Cobb is the best, he’s paid a heavy price for living inside the mind. It has separated him from his family, and the only way back to them is through his most difficult job ever, involving a task many deem impossible. The assignment will take Cobb and his team into the mind of an heir played by Cillian Murphy, where they will have to move through multiple levels of his subconscious to complete their task. It’s head-trippy stuff, but Nolan keeps confusion at bay. Not that the movie is simple; you can’t sit back and let it wash over you. You need to participate in it, make the connections, follow closely the how’s, who’s, why’s, where’s and when’s. And I still can’t say that I understand every single piece, but the whole thing is so damn thrilling that a few loose strands hardly matter. The ride sweeps you willingly along.

Standing out among the strong ensemble is Marion Cotillard as Cobb’s wife, a complex character whose presence is a wild card in a job that relies on careful planning. Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues to prove just how effortlessly cool he is, handling some of the most mind-boggling action in the movie with total commitment. As the newest member of Cobb’s team, Ellen Page is a smart and appealing surrogate for the audience, learning truths about Cobb that even his longtime associates don’t know, and helping him from losing his way in the recesses of their subject’s mind. But the real star of the movie is Nolan, who gives us personal filmmaking on an epic scale and orchestrates it with flair and dexterity, guiding brilliant work from his usual team of collaborators which includes cinematographer Wally Pfister, editor Lee Smith and composer Hans Zimmer. Inception is a grand, cerebral spectacle with an emotional core that, fittingly, will remain lodged in my mind for a long, long time. It’s literally a dream movie.

#2
THE SOCIAL NETWORK

During a press conference to promote The Social Network, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin said, “It might seem counter-intuitive, this marriage of director and material. David is peerless as a visual director. I write people talking in rooms.” The David he speaks of is, of course, David Fincher. And while Sorkin is right that the marriage may seem an odd one, the resulting offspring is the latest evidence that opposites attract. Remove the players from the equation and you’re still left with an unlikely premise: that a movie about the founding of a website – even one as game-changing and ubiquitous as Facebook –  would make an interesting movie. But against the odds, The Social Network – like The Insider – takes court depositions and related events that don’t seem inherently cinematic and spins them into movie gold. It’s been hailed as a generation-defining work by film and cultural critics, but I’ll leave that to the professionals. For me, it’s just a great story well told.

Set largely on a Harvard University campus that seems perpetually cloaked in night, the film traces the creation and skyrocketing ascent of Facebook, and the personal conflicts born as a result between founder Mark Zuckerberg and some of the people he steps on along the way. While based on factual events and legal documents (the film is actually adapted from Ben Mezrich’s book The Accidental Billionaires), there is no way to know how close the Zuckerberg of the film is to the real man, but in the hands of Sorkin, Fincher and actor Jesse Eisenberg, he’s a fascinating figure – arrogant, awkward, brilliant, selfish, petty, lonely, pathetic, bold and often inscrutable. It’s a great performance by Eisenberg in which he adds a harder, darker edge to his frequent persona of the fast-talking geek. There’s always been something sharp about the actor’s speech; his words, with their staccato cadence, always sound pointy. Here, more so than in his past work, they truly cut like a knife.

One of the movie’s more interesting elements is the friendship between Mark and Facebook’s co-creator Eduardo Saverin, played in a breakthrough performance by British up-and-comer Andrew Garfield (also on this list in Never Let Me Go). Eduardo is the movie’s most sympathetic character, a nice guy who is a much better friend to Mark than Mark ever is to him, prompting one to wonder what he ever got out of the relationship. Facebook’s popularity soon brings them into the orbit of Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake, also very good), and Garfield does excellent work as the rapid growth of Mark and Eduardo’s creation comes between them and Mark becomes increasingly worshipful of Parker.

The other revelation in the cast is Armie Hammer, who gives two great performances playing the Winklevoss twins, Cameron and Tyler, who accuse Mark of stealing Facebook from their idea. In most movies, these guys would be reduced to just douchebag antagonists, but Aaron Sorkin doesn’t do one-dimensional. The twins are, in some ways, everything Mark wishes he could be: attractive, wealthy, privileged…and yet his jealousy of those same qualities is what drives him to create his own site rather than labor under them as a programmer-for-hire. As the twins struggle with the right course of action to take after Facebook goes live, Hammer impresses with his ability to offer distinct shadings to the brothers while making them more than athletic pretty-boys. One would also be remiss not to mention actress Rooney Mara, who plays a small but critical role in the film, most of her screentime coming in the outstanding, much-heralded opening scene. Like Garfield and Hammer, this will surely prove to be a breakout role for her (Fincher has already cast her as the lead in his next film, an English language adaptation of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.)

Fincher’s direction is confident but unintrusive. Whereas many of his other movies deliberately call attention to the ruse of filmmaking, here his camera (guided by cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth) is not self-conscious. He lets Sorkin’s script and the actors take center stage, and reinforces their work with fine editing by Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, as well as a terrific, moody score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross.

I know many people, young and old, who have no interest in Facebook, but you don’t need to “get” the site, or be a user, to enjoy this story of its creation. Facebook is the MacGuffin in a story about ambition, isolation, creation and betrayal. The Social Network, and its incredibly compelling main character, leaves you with plenty to discuss.

x

#3
TOY STORY 3

I know, I know…the continual act of marveling at Pixar’s accomplishments is getting old, and yet they just keep defying expectations and producing movies of such incredible quality that marveling can’t be helped. How often do we reach the third movie in a series (a series that, it’s important to note, was not conceived as a series; this isn’t Star Wars or Lord of the Rings) and find that not only has there been no drop in quality whatsoever from one film to the next, but that it’s arguably better than its predecessors?

We pick up with Woody, Buzz and the rest of the gang as their owner Andy is about to depart for college and must decide what to do with his once beloved and now largely forgotten childhood playthings. They wind up at a day care center called Sunnyside, which seems to promise them a good life of attention and adoration. Instead, they face dangers both from over-enthusiastic children and some of their new fellow toys, prompting them to stage an elaborate escape that would make the likes of Steve McQueen and George Clooney proud. Along the way, some new characters are introduced, including an avuncular pink bear called Lotso (voiced by the great Ned Beatty), the foreboding, near-silent Big Baby, a theatrical porcupine ingeniously named Mr. Pricklepants (Timothy Dalton) and Barbie’s love interest Ken, hilariously portrayed as a fashion-loving metrosexual and voiced by Michael Keaton. The movie is often laugh-out-loud funny, and Ken is often the reason.

I try not to get into spoilers here, but I can’t talk about Toy Story 3 without bringing up its thrilling climax, so stop reading if you haven’t seen it yet. As you know if you’re still here, the toys find themselves at the city dump facing the threat of incineration, and I credit the team at Pixar for making that threat entirely real. I honestly believed that it might happen, not just because of how the writers and director (John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich receive story credit, while Little Miss Sunshine scribe Michael Arndt wrote the script; Unkrich directed) presented the scene, but because of how the character animators sold the emotions. When Buzz looks at Jessie and reaches for her hand, the expression on his face that says, “This is it; don’t fight it” is stunning, and was instantly seared in my memory. It’s a moment of unspoken communication to which any flesh and blood actor should aspire. The subsequent moments of the toys grabbing hold of each other and staring down what seems an inevitable, fiery demise is as powerful an image as any I saw all year. The toys do survive, and of course I felt foolish for ever thinking they wouldn’t; this is a G-rated family movie. But that’s how well done it is. And the movie still has one last high to hit: its pitch-perfect coda, in which Andy delivers the toys to a little girl in the neighborhood, introducing them one by one and joining her for one last round of playtime. With that scene, the Toy Story trilogy – never intended to be a trilogy when the first movie announced the arrival of Pixar fifteen years earlier – came to a brilliant and beautiful close that could not have been more satisfying. I hope the filmmakers are smart enough to stop here. These characters should endure as the stars of short films, but in terms of another feature, there’s simply nowhere else to go. Not even the phenoms of Pixar can up the emotional ante of Toy Story 3. They nailed it. Again.

x

#4
THE FIGHTER

Loved this movie. From first frame to last, it had me. Mark Wahlberg has been on a years-long crusade to bring this true-life story to the screen, and how gratifying for him and fortunate for us that it arrives in such stellar shape. Although boxer Mickey Ward (played by Wahlberg) is the central figure, it’s the characters around him that give the story its color. Wahlberg is smart enough as the film’s producer and generous enough as its star to let the other actors flex their muscles, and the result is aces. Christian Bale dominates the movie as Mickey’s step-brother Dickie Ecklund, a one-time fighter himself whose own potential was squandered to a drug addiction. Bale’s performance is natural, moving and completely commanding. As the boys’ mother Alice Ward, Melissa Leo chews plenty of scenery as well. Alice manipulates Mickey by playing the “importance of family” card (she manages him, while Dickie serves as his trainer) even as their handling of his career threatens to end it. And into the close family fold, which includes seven fierce and funny sisters mostly played by non-professional, local actresses from in and around Lowell, Massachusetts (where the movie takes place and was shot) comes Mickey’s love interest Charlene, played with gusto by Amy Adams in yet another display of her talent and range. As a story, the movie is fairly traditional, but under the direction of David O. Russell and the tremendous skill of the cast, it’s a perfect combination of commercial crowd-pleaser and award-caliber artistry.

The Rest:
ANIMAL KINGDOM

When his drug-addicted mother dies, 17 year-old “J” goes to live with his grandmother and uncles. Unfortunately those uncles are criminals fresh off a robbery that has the police hot on their trail, and through no crime other than proximity, J finds himself caught between cops hungry for blood and family practicing self-preservation at any cost. This Australian thriller is a taut gem, full of surprises. Actor James Frecheville has a tricky task in making J interesting despite being so numb, and he pulls it off nicely, holding himself with a rigidity and blank stare that invite concern and empathy. Guy Pearce, always a welcome presence, plays a decent cop trying to help J make the right decision, and Jacki Weaver has won raves, critic’s awards and an Oscar nomination for her role as J’s grandmother, fiercely loving and protective of her boys. But even more chilling than Weaver is Ben Mendelsohn as the eldest of J’s uncles and the one most worried about his nephew’s ability to toe the family line. His performance, in particular, got under my skin. I realize this may not be the best way to convince anyone to see it, but to play on the title’s jungle metaphor, Animal Kingdom is the movie-watching equivalent of an anaconda attack. It grabs you, holds you, tightens its grip and doesn’t let go. But, you know…in a good way…and minus the killing you part. Trust me. See it.

x

BARNEY’S VERSION
While I certainly enjoyed this movie, it wouldn’t have quite made my list for favorites of the year were it not for the tremendous performance by Paul Giamatti as Barney Panofsky. Perhaps my affection for the movie also stems from the fact that, in a circumstance that’s rare for me, I knew nothing about it in advance. I had no idea what the movie was when I walked into it, and even as I watched the first half hour or so, I still wasn’t sure. Was it a murder mystery? A tale of an older, lonely man recalling his more colorful youth? A warts-and-all love story? The movie turned out to be all these things and more. Mainly, it’s the story of a man’s life – a man who loves women, hockey, a good drink and a good cigar. It’s a life as ordinary as it is interesting and flawed. Good, bad and ugly, Giamatti nails it all. He had me rooting for Barney’s highs and shaking my head in disapproval for his lows.

Even with the glowing lead performance, Barney’s Version has room for other actors to shine as well. Dustin Hoffman portrays Barney’s father, and what a treat to watch Giamatti and Hoffman play off each other with that warm, father-son dynamic. The two enjoy a great rapport. Rosamund Pike gives a graceful and tender performance as Miriam, the love of Barney’s life who stands by him even when he hurts, embarrasses and disappoints her. Together, Giamatti and Pike beautifully portray a true marriage – one with ups and downs, but never without love. Like Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine (see further down), they make the relationship so real and recognizable. Among many other things, Barney’s Version is a wonderful depiction of an adult relationship, maybe the best I’ve seen since 2008’s Ben Kingsley/Penelope Cruz drama Elegy.

I wish Giamatti had scored an Oscar nomination for this, one of the highlights of his admirable career. He did just win a Golden Globe award, surprising many who had predicted the award would go to his heavyweight competition Johnny Depp (nominated for both The Tourist and Alice in Wonderland) or Jake Gyllenhaal for Love and Other Drugs. Their roles may have been in higher profile films, but anyone who saw Barney’s Version shouldn’t have been surprised by Giamatti’s victory. Unfortunately the movie was a victim of poor marketing, released too late in the year with too little fanfare against too stiff competition. The market was saturated with award-hopeful movies, and this one was given no room to breathe. I think had it been released more strategically or advertised more aggressively, Giamatti would at least have been a more prominent part of the Oscar conversation, even if he eventually got squeezed out. But if you see the movie, the performance is a reward in itself.

x

BLACK SWAN
This is one fucked up movie. I debated whether or not to include it since, in a way, I’m not sure how good it really is. Watching it, I was riveted, sucked in by Darren Aronofsky’s bravura, operatic direction. But strip away all the razzle-dazzle – the bold directing, the committed performances, the art direction, the cinematography, the costumes, the music, the makeup – and what’s really left on the page? What is it all built on? Is it a house of cards? A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing? Maybe that’s going too far, but the script is pretty flimsy. Yet in the end, despite the thin foundation, I was taken in by its extremes and how creepy and darkly funny it is. It’s brazenly over the top, but Aronofsky beat me into submission with the sheer force of his filmmaking skill. In a strange way, it’s not unlike what Michael Bay does. Maybe I’m more willing to go along with Aronofsky because he at least has loftier aspirations.

Natalie Portman’s Nina Sayers is a timid ballet dancer in New York’s premier company who lands the dual-lead in Swan Lake. While Nina dances the elegant White Swan role to perfection, she struggles to tap into the rougher, darker persona of the Black Swan. Mila Kunis plays Lily, a confident and sensual new dancer to the company who tries to help Nina tap into her wild side. Kunis does good work, as does Vincent Cassell as the company director, Barbara Hershey as Nina’s overbearing mother and Winona Ryder as the company’s aging star, but the movie rests on Portman’s shoulders. Black Swan, more than any film I’ve seen in a long time, fits the description “psychological thriller,” and Portman is marvelous as she depicts Nina’s increasing instability. I still don’t know what was real and what wasn’t, what to believe and what to doubt, but I know that the actress gives it her all. Playing meek or strong, unraveling emotionally and mentally, and delivering on the physical demands of portraying a top ballerina, this is a tour-de-force for Portman.

x

BLUE VALENTINE
The dissolution of a marriage is hardly new terrain. From Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf to The War of the Roses, from Carmela and Tony on The Sopranos to Revolutionary Road, this is territory that has been frequently explored in literature, on stages and on screens large and small. That doesn’t mean there’s not more to say on the subject. As long as people continue to struggle in marriages, the topic will be explored through drama. The latest example stars Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling as Cindy and Dean, a couple whose relationship is cracking under everyday pressures and the shifting expectations they carry of themselves and each other. Though the marital strife does sometimes escalate to bouts of screaming, mostly the movie is made up of smaller moments that show the marriage fraying. These scenes, which take place over the course of just a day, are juxtaposed with the sweet courtship and romance that brought them together. Derek Cianfrance writes with an ear for realism and directs in close-ups that bring the viewer right into Cindy and Dean’s personal space. His background as a documentarian allows him to approach his first fictional film with unsentimental observation, and while this is a piece driven by writing and acting, he shows an eye for composition as well, filling the movie with reds, blues and blacks that help it come alive.

Williams and Gosling are Cianfrance’s partners every step of the way, acting with raw intimacy and intensity that is remarkable to behold. Neither character is completely right or wrong, and the movie doesn’t lead you to sympathize with one over the other, though you may well find yourself choosing a side. From the city streets where they get to know each other to the kitschy, “future-themed” hotel room where they try to save the relationship, Blue Valentine gives us a front row – almost invasive – view at the life of a couple: love, sex, regret, secrets and hopes. It isn’t always comfortable, but it’s pretty damn powerful.

x

CYRUS
A good script and good performances distinguish this dark comedy from writer-directors Mark and Jay Duplass, whose indie film background (they come from the mumblecore movement) probably explains why they wring more authenticity and emotion from a story that, in mainstream hands, would likely be much more shallow. John C. Reilly has a great role as John, a sad guy who has failed to move on since his marriage fell apart. Then he meets Marisa Tomei’s Molly, and the two connect almost immediately. Things get complicated when John meets Cyrus (Jonah Hill), Molly’s creepy, live-at-home son, who does not approve of John’s intrusion into the uncomfortably close relationship he shares with his mother.

Aside from being so funny, it’s the realism and restraint that impress me most about Cyrus. When the building tension between John and Cyrus explodes for all to see, the brothers Duplass play the aftermath in a way that respects an audience’s intelligence. A lesser movie would have villified John, or failed to include the scene where he fully explains the situation to Molly. But by not going too broad with the humor, the movie earns the right to include that scene and to allow Molly to actually hear what John has to say…and then, in turn, to have an honest conversation with Cyrus. It’s such a simple thing, and yet it’s what makes a movie like this so much better than, say, Meet the Parents, in which Ben Stiller’s character is made out to be an asshole by everyone around him, never given the benefit of the doubt or an opportunity to explain himself. Don’t get me started on that tangent…the point is that Cyrus avoids that kind of nonsensical plotting, and instead scores with humor that is heightened but believable.

x

THE GHOST WRITER
Skillfully directed by Roman Polanski, this quiet, elegant political thriller stars Ewan McGregor as a writer hired to complete the memoirs of Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), Britain’s recently exited Prime Minister, after the original ghost writer dies in an accident. He journeys to the house on Cape Cod where Lang and his wife Ruth (Olivia Williams) are staying, and quickly finds that the job is not nearly as simple – or safe – as he expected.

It seems to come across onscreen how much fun Polanski is having with this clever mystery, and following its twists and turns is just as much fun. In addition to a strong and engaging story, the film’s pleasures include its outside-the-box casting, with James Belushi, Kim Cattrall, and Timothy Hutton among the familiar faces popping up, and a super score by composer Alexandre Desplat. The Ghost Writer is also a triumph of contemporary art direction, with the interior design of the beach house contributing intangibly but unmistakably to the movie’s air of intrigue. And the ending…well, having directed Chinatown, Polanski is responsible for one of the great movie endings of all time. The Ghost Writer‘s final moments may not be in that hall of fame, but they’re pretty memorable.

x

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I
As we move toward the finale of this grand adventure, director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves continue to do a mostly admirable job of translating J.K. Rowling’s story to the screen. The three lead actors are excellent (Daniel Radcliffe, while still lacking in certain areas, has done his best work under Yates’ guidance), and this time more than ever before, the film is truly on their shoulders. Rather than returning to Hogwarts for the final year of school, Harry, Ron and Hermione are on the hunt for hidden fragments of Voldemort’s soul. Destroying them all is the only way to defeat him, but their journey is perilous and exhausting. Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson convey the weight of the task as the characters struggle to keep their spirits up and their friendship intact. Some viewers may find the journey drags, but I appreciated the filmmakers staying faithful to the idea that the trio must keep moving even without always knowing where they’re going or what to do next. As the days stretch on, Voldemort’s Death Eaters tighten their noose on the wizarding world while the Dark Lord himself pursues a tool he believes will make him truly invincible.

Although much of the film tracks Harry, Ron and Hermione’s wanderings across the countryside, the supporting cast isn’t entirely absent. In particular, Brendan Gleeson, Helena Bonham Carter and Imelda Staunton all get good (if brief) moments to play. As usual, the production values are top notch – art direction, cinematography and score are all noteworthy, and the visual effects are the best and most seamlessly integrated we’ve seen in all the films. While no Potter movie can ever live up to the one in my head, Deathly Hallows Part I left me quite satisfied and excited for the conclusion.

x

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON
“Dragons is sooo stupid.” So said Yosemite Sam’s Black Knight in the classic Looney Tunes short Knighty Knight Bugs. If only he’d had Hiccup on his side. The protagonist of this film adapted from a series of children’s books by Cressida Cowell, Hiccup is a boy in the seaside Viking village of Birk, where for generations man has battled dragons. Not exactly the warrior type, Hiccup finds he has other gifts when he begins observing and then interacting with a wounded dragon. As the two enemies take stock of each other, Hiccup discovers a more complicated truth about the creatures that his fellow villagers are determined to destroy.

Dreamworks Animation often seems to build its movies around a star-studded vocal cast, so it’s ironic that the success of this outing – which emphasizes story and character – is so connected to the central vocal performance. Jay Baruchel’s distinctive voice, with its sarcastic overtones and inherent likability, makes Hiccup an enormously appealing hero, and the vocal work is matched by the excellent character design and animation that bring Hiccup to life. Together, Baruchel and the animators make Hiccup into a character that’s easy to root for because he’s got scrappy, underdog appeal. As he surprises the village and himself with his cleverness and bravery, the movie proves a funny, charming and moving adventure.


THE KING’S SPEECH

Okay, just because my Oscar ramblings make clear I’d rather see something else win Best Picture doesn’t mean I don’t think The King’s Speech is great. Cause the movie is great – an entertaining examination of one man’s personal triumph set at a fascinating moment in history when Hitler was on the rise and the advent of radio was changing the way people were connected and informed. It really is an instance of truth being stranger than fiction that against that backdrop, Prince Albert – known to loved ones as Bertie and eventually to the world as King George VI – would find himself having to overcome a debilitating stutter. When nothing and no one seems able to help, his wife Elizabeth turns to quirky Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue, whose unconventional methods begin producing results. As the movie goes on, Bertie and Lionel’s relationship moves beyond doctor-patient and into a friendship that proves as vital to Bertie’s growth as the attack on his stammer.

Colin Firth’s layered performance as Bertie is impressive for more than just his handling of the obvious handicap. He shows us a man whose fear exceeds public speaking and extends to whether he has it within him to lead the nation – a role that, as the younger sibling, he never expected to fill. Geoffrey Rush has fun with Logue’s eccentricities and sense of humor, his loose style flying in the face of the stiff formalism of Bertie’s world. As a member of Britain’s royal family, with its protocol and pomp, Bertie doesn’t quite know how to deal with Logue’s  directness and attempts at familiarity, and sparks fly between the actors and characters as Logue increasingly tries to dig beneath the surface of Bertie’s life not only to get at the root of the stutter, but also to encourage him to embrace his inner strength. It’s more fun than you’d think to watch these two match wits. In fact, for a period piece about British royalty, it’s more fun than you’d think, period.

x

NEVER LET ME GO
Despite earning high praise, Kazuo Ishiguro’s 2005 novel Never Let Me Go didn’t do much for me, so the fact that it was being made into a movie was barely on my radar. I wasn’t particularly eager to see it, but when the opportunity came up, I took it. And I’m glad I did, because it turned out to be one of my favorite movies of the year…obviously, given its place on this list. The story covers a 16 year span, and feels like a period piece even though it begins in 1978 (which, some might say, does in fact make it a period piece). It concerns three friends at a boarding school called Hailsham, nestled in the English countryside. And like the most famous English boarding school (Hogwarts, of course), Hailsham is a place for special students…and I’ll say no more than that. As with many normal relationships, the one between this trio of friends – Kathy, Ruth and Tommy – is complicated, both because and irregardless of what makes them special.

In the last two-thirds of the movie, which take place after the Hailsham days, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy are played by Carey Mulligan, Kiera Knightley and Andrew Garfield, and they create a familiar and believable dynamic that pays off in the story’s quiet but powerful endgame. Mulligan’s Kathy is the central character and narrator, and she gives an especially good performance, conveying a lot through silence and stillness. Where I felt the book meandered and went too far at times into Kathy’s disjointed memory, the film streamlines events and makes more immediate the delicate entanglements between the three, resulting in a movie that I found sad, beautiful and moving…none of which I got from the book. There is one sequence toward the end, when Kathy and Tommy encounter someone from their Hailsham past, that does suffer in the film from being too abbreviated. In the book, the scene is actually too heavy with exposition; here it’s too light. I wish the filmmakers could have found the middle ground. But in the end the movie packs a punch thanks to the open performances and the stark visual composition brought by director Mark Romanek. This was one of those movies – there seems to be at least one every fall – that arrived with high expectations and award-season pedigree yet didn’t seem to catch on. But I suspect and hope that in time, people will find their way to it and be as touched by it as I was.

x

SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD
Movies don’t get much more fun than Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, which is based on a graphic novel series about the titular 23-year old musician/video game enthusiast/heartbreaker/geek (played by Michael Cera) who falls for the aloof, alluring Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) but must defeat her seven evil exes in order to be with her. It’s a movie that adheres to absolutely no laws of realism, logic or gravity…and therein lies its huge appeal. At the point mid-movie when Ramona pulls a gigantic sledgehammer out of her bag as casually as if it were a case of mints, it didn’t even phase me. I barely noticed the oddity. I was on my third viewing of the movie before I stopped to think, “Hey, where did that ridiculously large sledgehammer come from?” But that’s par for the course in this movie that plays like a gonzo mash-up of comic book and video game without being at all vapid or brainless. For all the loopy fantasy the movie basks in, it provides Scott with a worthy character arc and even has something to say about the baggage people bring into their relationships.

Much of the credit for the film’s success belongs to the direction by Edgar Wright, not just for so inventively realizing the story onscreen, but for so successfully communicating his vision to the cast. Watch the movie and then try for a moment to imagine the actual on-set filming of, just for one example, the fight which finds Scott squaring off against the flamboyant Matthew Patel. It’s ludicrous enough (delightfully so) in the finished product, but what must it have been like to actually shoot it, in the moment, without the music, editing, and sound and visual effects to tie it all together? Seriously…how much trust do you need to have in your director to play that scene?

That down-for-anything ensemble cast, one of the strongest of the year, includes the welcome return of Kieran Culkin (back in the smart-ass mode he nailed so well in Igby Goes Down), Up in the Air‘s Anna Kendrick, a wonderfully deadpan Allison Pill and among the exes, Chris Evans, Brandon Routh and Jason Schwartzman. Cera, meanwhile, continues to mine variations of the awkward persona he perfected on Arrested Development. I know some people have grown tired of him and think he just does the same thing from movie to movie, but I still find him hilarious and see distinct shifts between his roles in Development, Juno, Superbad, Youth in Revolt and this.

Comparing a movie to a video game is usually intended to denigrate it, but not so in this case. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World asserts that a movie can play like a video game and still offer intelligence, wit, originality and heart.

x

TRUE GRIT
Having never seen the 1969 classic that won John Wayne an Academy Award, the only baggage I carried into the remake by Joel and Ethan Coen was my love of their films. They did not disappoint. With their usual cadre of collaborators, including the brilliant cinematographer Roger Deakins, the Coen Brothers spin the story of 13 year-old Mattie Ross, who hires the formidable marshall Rooster Cogburn to find and kill her father’s murderer, Tom Cheney. Determined to personally see the job through, Mattie insists on accompanying him…and there’s just no winning an argument with Mattie Ross.

While the film’s star and presumptive main character is Cogburn, played by Jeff Bridges in his first collaboration with the Coen Brothers since they gifted The Big Lebowski unto the world, the true main character and star of the film is Mattie, played wonderfully by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld. This modern teenager slips effortlessly into the skin of a girl living in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s, left to help manage her family’s affairs and seek justice by her own means. She’s a great character, and Steinfeld plays her to the hilt, displaying strength, subtlety, confidence and a mastery of the verbal acrobatics provided by the Coens (and by Charles Portis, author of the book on which the film is based). Steinfeld would outright steal the movie were it not for Matt Damon, adding yet another feather to his cap in the role of LaBoeuf, a Texas ranger who’s also in pursuit of Cheney. Damon is often hilarious without ever playing for an obvious laugh. His take on LaBoeuf is perfect and priceless, and I’m consistently amazed by his ability to occupy the role of Movie Star and yet continue to be so versatile and surprising. With Steinfeld and Damon commanding so much of the spotlight, it might seem like there’s none left for Bridges, but he makes a great Cogburn, lending the character the toughness to match his reputation, as well as the grim humor required for sparring with Mattie and LaBoeuf. Once again the Coen Brothers meld violence, humor and intensity into a hearty stew. More please.

x

WINTER’S BONE
Hailee Steinfeld was not the only young actress to impressively leap onto the scene in 2010. Meet Jennifer Lawrence, star of this Sundance breakout that could have gone by the name True Grit just as easily as Steinfeld’s film. As it is, Winter’s Bone is a perfectly apt title for this original and affecting drama set in an insular Ozark community where secrets run ominously deep. Lawrence plays Ree Dolly, a tough, resourceful teen with a rarely-present father and a mentally frail mother. Left to care for her younger siblings, Ree’s already fragile world is threatened when she learns that her father, recently out of prison, is missing and had put the family’s house up as collateral for his bail. If he fails to appear in court the next week, they’ll lose their home. So Ree sets off to find him, but quickly realizes that those most likely to know his whereabouts are not inclined to help. Her determination to protect her family equals a refusal to stop stirring the pot, and her search for answers leads her down a dangerous road.

The script by Debra Granik and Anne Rosselini is a fresh and detailed examination of a community unlike those we normally see in mainstream film. Director Granik palpably captures the chill in the mountain air, though that chill is as much about the mystique of the setting as the temperature. Even Ree’s allies are sketchy and unsettling, most particularly her father’s brother Teardrop, played with a mix of menace and concern by John Hawkes. Ree’s journey into the dark heart of her surroundings makes for a thrilling story of discovery, but for the audience, the movie – and the talent in front of and behind the camera – is a discovery of its own.

x

As always, there are other movies that made a positive impression to one degree or another, but these are the ones that I felt compelled to single out. But because I love me a good montage of movie scenes, the following two clips offer another look at  2010’s playlist – good, bad and ugly. The first is much more inclusive, but the second hit some images that I also liked, plus I dig the song.

(Click here for list of films featured)

(Go here and click Show More for list of films featured)

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.