"You wouldn't care to step into a waltz as the old year dies, would you, Mr. Case?"

 

As per normal I offer nothing in the way of posts recapping the year in blogging, and I shall not unveil my cinematic year in review until February. But, if we're ringing out the New Year what better way to do it than with Hepburn, Grant and Cukor?

See you on the other side folks...

Long Overdue 99 Cent Word Review: Warrior Muppets

It’s not so much a time issue as much as it is a laziness issue. I can’t be as brilliant as Tim who delivers an extensive review of each film he sees, I’m just too lazy. And, sometimes even films which are not necessarily bad don’t elicit any sort of cerebral response from me – I can’t toss out five paragraphs, but I can toss out 99 words.

The Muppets: directed by James Bobin; Bwritten by Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller

 

It is the nail in the coffin convincing me that, perhaps, the appreciation for this one is ultimately zeitgeist in some way and I just missed the train for it since I remain uninvited in it throughout. It’s too easy to watch to be either displeasing or offensive but it’s not interesting enough to a non-believer like me to be truly touching. The comedic hooks are presented with too much laziness to be invigorating and for all the winks at the audience; it doesn’t deliver as a humorous piece of whimsy either. The music is more than passable, though.
C-

Warrior: directed by Gavin O'Connor; written by Gavin O'Connor, Cliff Dorfman and Anthony Tambakis

It’s done in by some of the most bizarre photography choices of the year in cinema, and is not boosted by a script that is fair but almost always unexceptional - especially where it counts most. The direction delivers on occasion, but really it’s down to the actors who all try hard. Still, Hardy sometimes comes off as unnecessarily dour, Nolte comes off as unnecessarily hammily. Morrison tries but she sometimes comes off as unnecessary. But, Edgerton is perfection. Sure, it is stodgily manipulative, and thematically creaky but it’s ultimate payoff works in spite of itself. Most of the time.
B-

Any snap responses to my judgements on Warrior and the The Muppets? I might talk about both some more when I wrap up the year in a month or so.

“I don’t think what we saw was you taking it easy…on anyone”

Rampart: directed by Oren Moverman; written by Oren Moverman and James Ellroy

Two years ago Oren Overman delivered one of my favourite films of 2009, the very inconspicuous but very moving The Messenger featuring a tour-de-force performance from Ben Foster (with excellent supporting turns from Samantha Morton and Woody Harrelson) about a deployed soldier now Casualty Notification Officer , unable somewhat to make emotional connections with those around him. This time around he’s crafted Rampart a study of a police officer in 1999 Los Angeles with Harrelson as lead player this time. This protagonist, too, is not quite adept at carving emotional connections but he’s not as sympathetic. Dave Brown is a corrupt cop in the LA Rampart department, he’s living with his two ex-wives, sisters themselves, and his two children – one from each woman. A typical day of his is spent unnecessarily brutalising potential criminals, hitting the bars for a one-night stand and then heading home to hit up either wife for sex. And, that’s on a good day. On a bad day, the same thing happen but this time he gets caught on tape nearly beating a man to death and from there his life begins, it seems, to spiral out of control.

Deep down I’m more susceptible to sad stories with a glimmer of hope. So, even though my favourite film might be the ostensibly weepy The English Patient, there is more to discern in it than the death of the protagonist and his love (er, spoiler?). For all its bleakness, The Messenger was not an uncomfortably sad or angsty piece and Rampart with its unlovable antihero is a tough pill to swallow especially when it is essentially a character study of this hard to (give and receive) love man. And with this prickly man to navigate through the tale, it is uncertain whether Rampart is a tale about a man against a system, or a presentation of a man and his family issues. Nick Davis (his tweet-size review tells it good enough) mentioned that at its heart, the tale is about Woody and his women – and it’s not an incorrect assumption. In one of the earlier scenes Dave is showing a young female police the ropes. She buys a box of french-fries which she doesn’t plan to finish. He adamantly drives her to finish, and she offhandedly mentions that she never met her father who left her mother before she was born. Without any perceived change in temperament he takes the box from her and tosses it to a vagrant. Perhaps, and that is a very potent perhaps, I’m all too fond of romanticising even the darkest of characters but the entire duration of that scene, for me, plays out as the basic thesis of Rampart. This is why, then, the inevitable fall-out, and its ambiguous resolution (if it is even that) does not surprise me when it comes.

For, ultimately, Rampart is about a man on the journey to self-destruction. And, if I recall accurately, Harrelson is in nearly all (possibly all) of the film's scenes. Moverman has held on to that that grittily stylised form of shooting he utilised in The Messenger but put to, arguably, better effect here where the volatile photography and editing seems to be a reflection of the lead character's own volatility. It's a curious decision, especially when considered against the narrative's own lack of interest in getting beneath the issue affecting him. It's not so much that the tale we are presented with is one tinted with superficiality, but Moverman and Ellroy are not particularly interested in digging beneath the surface to find a significantly hook through which we are to identify with Dave. As the investigation into his machinations as a police officer gets under way he, or the film, has no qualms in revealing the most disgusting aspects of his qualities which are, curiously, neither played up for effect nor played down for empathy. It's what contributes to it being all the more interesting of an experience because with his adamant - misguided - belief that he's doing the "right" thing it lends an entire whole facet to the vigilante cop persona. Moverman, it would seem, is taking great pains to present an unglamorous perspective of a man with little hope of redemption.

But, as I said, I do think that there is some form of emotional resonance to take away from the piece. Taking the script into consideration it seems like little more than a modicum (which is really not a flaw in the script which is impressive in its paucity of embellishment), so it's up to the actors and considering the way the three significant scenes are presented it's difficult to NOT feel as if they're tacked on to elicit the same response it does in me, but the very fact that they do feel so incidental make me think that Moverman really is uninterested in moving the audience - at least in the most clichéd of forms. It's the actors who keep digging deeper, even as the film itself keeps trying to (like its protagonist) push us further away. Brie Larson, so incredible this last year doing her career best work on the final season of United States of Tara plays Dave's older daughter who for the first half of the film seems set up to represent the typical angst-ridden teen you'd anticipate. So, a visit to her father for a heart-to-heart, at first, seems bizarre but Larson and Harrelson in that very scene - for all its scarcity in running time - set up the roots for the dysfunctional family relations which the film, oddly, doesn't exploit as much as you'd expect.

For, you might have noticed me mentioning one of the most bizarre living arrangements captured on screen this year. Why is Dave living with his two ex-wives? Superlative credited is probably deserved to Anne Heche and Cynthia Nixon for making that particular facet ring true because it's not until things are over that I begin to question to the reality of that situation. As good as they are neither Heche, Nixon (or Robin Wright who is sort of excellent in turn as one of his women, nor Audra McDonald in two scenes delivering a profound performance) is able to rally with Harrelson for the film's attention because it is his film. Rampart is about Woody and his women but, for me, it becomes Larson's Helen (the angry daughter) who becomes Woody's best scene partner. A final visit to his hotel room with her younger sister turns into the film's most profound scene and even though I might be moved on my more cynical days to object to the reaction it elicits in Dave - especially considering how that final shot implies that he's driving around in circles never learning anything - I really can't here because it all rings through with painful authenticity. And, yes, it comes too late for me to actual LIKE him, but I don't really have to like him to appreciate his existence and I don't have to like him to like his film. Ultimately, I suppose you could say that it does not tell us anything new in the way people with harsh exteriors having a modicum of softness underneath (if you see it my way) or people with harsh exteriors just being people with harsh exteriors (if you see it the way I think most might be inclined to). I like it best for its ability to pierce the consciousness of its lead zeroing in on the paranoia and coarseness, unafraid to turn the audience off because it's aware that that's the only way to tell this story. It works.


B+

“Films have the power to capture dreams”

Hugo: directed by Martin Scorsese; written by John Logan
         
There is a scene in New York, New York taken from Francine Evan’s latest movie, a ten minute musical sequence overflowing with an forthright tongue-in-cheek nature, musicality and gaudiness that only the most ferocious of musicals would attempt at. It’s a gaudy sequence, in that it’s a bit bizarre in how audaciously it wears its emotions on its sleeves because even as everything in the scene adds to the development of plot it seems to exist more obviously as a strident show of style over substance, so that you’re lulled into the sense of thinking it’s not telling you anything when, really, it is. It’s the same way I think of Hugo*, Scorsese’s latest offering. It’s not that Scorsese has endured as a particularly cerebral director (what with his appreciation for the visceral, especially in the 90s) and the more I think of Hugo I think that it’s perhaps not as striking a departure from the typical Scorsese fare as it’s being marketed as. Scorsese has long been preoccupied with the relationship between a man and the thing(s?) he holds dear. Ostensibly, Hugo is about a boy. Really, though, it’s about dreams – the loss of them, the disillusionment which follows them, and the – often rare – blitheness which follows when they are regained.

It is apparent that on some level that Paramount hopes to use the tonal difference of Hugo as its biggest calling card – a Scorsese film for children. In fact, I’m not altogether doubtful that it’s an attempt to emphasise Scorsese’s movement into Spielbergian territory. In fact, before I saw the film, I noticed someone tweet disparagingly that in the same way that Spielberg could not succeed at making a Scorsese film Scorsese does not succeed at making a Spielberg film. I’d rather not enter into a debate on the merits of either director. One might argue that Hugo is fundamentally different from typical Scorsese, but that still would not establish much. There is still a painstaking attention to detail, and a precision which could be mistaken for mania. Consider it against in something like, say The Aviator, overflowing as much with production values and attention to its period’s detail. Replace Hugo’s appreciation with film with one for aviation and so replace Papa Georges with Papa Howard, and turn the film into something of a structural brother to Melvin & Howard and the film remains the same. What makes Hugo most different is its shift in focus, traditionally this would have been a character study of Méliès, but this time it’s through the eyes of the young boy wherein we meet the film’s true main character. It, in this way, recalls the inclinations of great artists entering a different phase of their lives and finding solace in youth – something of a defying act against mortality. But, not completely.

For, even though with its focus on the youthful machinations of Hugo, and even with a very hopeful joie-de-vivre inherent in its tableau the film still entertains the darkness. For in the same way that a fellow filmmaker has made a film rooted in mirth where he too is unable to completely expel the darkness, Scorsese does not let in the light at the expense of darkness. In fact, the light inherent in Hugo comes from the darkness. The jollity emerging from the manoeuvrings of the potentially villainous policeman are mixed with the very vibrant threat of foster care, Hugo’s adventures to watch the films are tinged with the sadness of his father’s death and even Georges’ comeback is a happy moment because of all the grief preluding it. Carrying the legacy of his dead father in his mind Hugo is determined to repair the broken automaton left to him, acquiring materials for the repair by pilfering. It’s a dangerous existence for on orphan in 1930s France and a running theme of the film which despite its ultimate specificity in assessing the importance of dreams and art, does not shirk at the chance to examine the milieu of the world its characters inhabit – as clear as it is that this is a world of make believe.

One of the things that’s most enchanting about Hugo is Dante Ferreti’s production design. His emphasising of the pretty, illusory cadence of this Paris does not – oddly enough – prevent the film’s most vociferous themes from finding their realness. I do not doubt that the embellished nature of the film’s presentation could be mistaken for an overly inundated production and even an overly garish one. But, with Méliès history playing such an important part of it such particular interest in visual detail is not bizarre. One of the film’s most beautiful scenes is a journey to the films of Méliès, such a beautiful piece of enchantment that the “real” world of the film and its beauty pales in comparison. A film about silent film necessitates visual detail, and it prevents Scorsese from paying as much attention to his actors. Or, at least, I think it does. I feel about the actors in this the same way I feel about them in The Last Temptation of Christ - important for their general contribution, but not specifically important. Butterfield’s childish cadence is difficult to replicate and he certainly is winsome. If anyone rises above the general offerings of the cast it is Sacha Baron Cohen and Helen McRory. Baron reveals a surprising adeptness for physical comedy. Inspector Gustav’s scenes are probably the scenes where Scorsese is least adept. They don’t teem with was much glee as you’d anticipate, but Cohen thrills nonetheless. McRory, with less screen-time is even more charming although I’m not sure I miss her so much in the film because she’s good, or because the film is lacking in the feminine.

Typically, Scorsese’s mode of directing always strikes me as of the Wordsworth type. Back in the Romantic period Wordsworth’s concept of seeing the poet as the main part of the artistic process was somewhat revolutionary. And, for Scorsese I’ve always felt that his inclinations were the main force behind his films – call it indicative of him being an auteur, if you will. And, with Hugo Scorsese’s history with film preservation still makes it a stemming from Scorsese’s consciousness specifically. But the film, more than any in his oeuvre I’ve seen other than maybe New York, New York is more about feeling than thinking. It recalls the proffered words of another Romantic poet – Keats – who yearned for a life a sensation and not thought. And, with its sweeping photograph, idiosyncratic editing, mellifluous score and deliberately flamboyant performances it is a film which, I feel, depends on being lost in that world. And, I do get a feeling of being more thrilled by isolated portions of Hugothan the complete whole of Hugo, but I am enthralled by the actual offerings of the film on its own. I suspect it’s one which could do well with a second viewing and then, I think that the very response to Hugo one focused on random non-specificities than the whole is just the way that a dreamscape works dulling your senses and drawing you the most peculiar of moments. And, more than anything, that just might be the barometer for adjudging a film like Hugo.

B+... maybe more? 

* Alas, I cannot take credit for being the first one to espy the parallels between Hugo and New York, New York Tom Shone mentions it in his somewhat disparaging review (also the place where the Scorsese/Spielberg quip emanated from.

“I think…that we are solid”

The Ides of March: directed by George Clooney; written by George Clooney, Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon

Those interested in Roman history or Shakespeare aficionados would know that despite little literal significance in the term, due to its somewhat oblique relation to Caesar’s death it has become indicative of bad things about to happen. So, with that mind and taking note that The Ides of March, Clooney’s latest directorial offering, focuses on a Junior Campaign manager attacking his job with a fervour rooted not in the thirst for winning, but in the firm belief that he’s fighting a battle worth fighting for we’re probably likel to know that things will come awry. In an early scene of the film, easily set up as the lone believer in a world of cynics Steve waxes on about his belief in the congressman he represents and the deliberate nature of the scene identifies itself as significant not only for its own existence, but as a set-up to impending disaster. It does not surprise me, then, that The Ides of March is an adaptation of a stage play. It is deliberately structured; the chronological developments, the character beats and revelations are all precisely delineated and established. It’s an assuredness that vaguely gives way to cautiousness on occasion and yet I never doubt that it’s getting its point across in the way which it intends to. Not that fulfilling one’s own purpose is proof of a good film, but The Ides of March - as passé a statement as it is – lies less in what it has to say and more in how. For me, at least.

I’ve been encountering a single problem in so many of my review attempts this past year. What constitutes a good film? Or, more accurately, how do I make it so the distribution of grades does not seem overly arbitrary? A facet of The Ides of March which immediately revealed itself to me was its glossiness. It’s for all intents and purposes a movie, and even as the entire cast delivers on performances I’m never moved to believe that the machinations are real. And, yet, I’d proffer that this in no way reduces the film’s ability to deliver. For, like the same way in which it teems with its deliberateness it exists as a sort of allegory. But, the emblematic purpose to excise is not one rooted particularly in political manner. It’s perhaps erroneous on my part to think so, but the real parable to assess here is the effect the world has in making you jaded. For, in my eyes, The Ides of March is a character study in the guise of a political thriller and that foreboding thing that happens is – as quaint as it sounds – the loss of innocence and hope.

This loss of innocence occurs amidst the Ohio primary where two Democratic candidates are facing off for the title of Presidential candidates. Less interested in the candidates, at least initially, what we are presented with is a face-off teasingly hinted at (and sadly, one which does not quite unfold in the climatic way you’d imagine) between the campaign managers of the two candidates played by Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman) working for Morris and Tom (Paul Giamatti) advisor to Pullman. The The young Stephen despite his genius level Stephen is a minor player in the big leagues, assistant to Paul and with an overwhelming shrewdness he’s still idealistic in that way of the very green. Even though we know that there shall befall out soon, it’s a credit to Clooney’s directorial technique (but, more importantly, the script) that the first act doesn’t overplay it. We know we’re heading for a fallout and we’re not sure what, so as Stephen seems to be on the brink of being pilfered by the opposing candidates, as he dodges reporters adeptly and engages in a hook-up with a young intern we’re still not precisely sure how said fallout will occur. When a certain affiance is revealed then we let out a sigh of relief. The cards are on the table and now we shall see how they’re played. And, it’s sort of inevitable that after the second big reveal occur and things begin to spiral out of control the film dips in quality the slightest bit.

It is in the first half of the closing act where The Ides of March is at its weakest, and if I am to consider its harshest critics a significant amount of their discontent could probably be traced to that portion. What point do Clooney and company make by showing how dirty politics can be? How does the ultimate revelation of human chess playing merit consideration? And yet, I’d be hard-pressed to criticise The Ides of March for not languishing in palpable innovation of ideas. It sounds like a copout – and I’m writing it – but good writing doesn’t rest in necessarily “fresh” writing and even if well-worn paths are treaded it doesn’t negate the crispness of the script. Considering the impetus of the story, this could have made for a particularly arid escapade but the script for its precision is never overwrought and better yet the film benefits from a superlative cast doing excellent work.

It does not sound like a sincere compliment, but the actors are so good in their roles that they end up making me dissatisfied that this wasn’t an ensemble piece. Not that Gosling doesn’t hold the film down; he’s excellent giving in my (minority) opinion a rounder more satisfying performance than his already good work in Drive. Giamatti and Hoffman – the former in particular – both thrive in roles that are finely played but titillate with offering us depth which the film doesn’t have time to examine. Clooney, the weakest of the main six does a fine job. Like his directing there are moments of genius, immediately followed by some oddball choices (the film is occasionally exasperating because of the direction, which doesn’t prevent the film from working but makes it just a bit harder). Ultimately, it’s the female duo of Wood and Tomei, who ironically fare best. They both are plot propellants in the best of ways, and Tomei’s role in particular is rather short but the two women offer such full performances with such little time. The admission price is worth it just to see how they fare. And I haven’t even mentioned the excellent bit roles embodied by the rest of the cast particularly Jennifer Ehle in a slight role and Max Minghella being brilliant in yet another thankless sidekick role.

What makes a good movie? That’s a post for another time, if ever. But, I left The Ides of March feeling rather satisfied. Clooney’s directing style does contain its oddities, but the good outweighs the bad impressively. The directing is the most deliberate aspect (the times the American insignia is in a scene with a character, for example) but it works ultimately – for example the organic correlative nature between the opening and close. The script impressed me, the acting wholly captivated me and for me that, I suppose is enough. Does it offer anything new? No, but…in the face of a solid offering who cares?

B+...but, perhaps, the lowest tier of B+

Incoherent Oscar: Music

Umm, hello there. Excuse the dry brief dry-spell. But, I have returned with rambling Oscar prognosticating for your reading…pleasure? Er…
             
The music category is notorious one that has appeared as something more than abstruse to a number of predictors. On some level, like with most of my Oscar predictions, I revel in the wrongness of my choices and look forward to moaning when they surprise us more often than not with outstandingly bland choices, particularly in the original song race. But, already, I’m getting ahead of myself.

ORIGINAL SONG

MY GUESS: “Lay Down Your Head” Albert Nobbs; ★“Star Spangled Man”; Captain America; “Love Builds a Garden” from Gnomeo and Juliet; “Couer Volant” from Hugo; “Pictures in My Head” from The Muppets;

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: “The Living Proof”; The Help; “Bridge of Light” from Happy Feet 2; “Man or Muppet” from The Muppets; “So Long” Winnie the Pooh

MORE POSSIBILITIES: “Hello Hello” from Gnomeo ansd Juliet; “Collision of Worlds” from Cars 2; “When the Heart Dies” from In the Land of Blood and Honey; “Shelter” from Take Shelter

This really is the category I take part in random guesswork most for, because there is no telling what they’d go for. They don’t go for end credits’ song, unless they do (see “Jai Ho” and “We Belong Together”). They go for songs from musicals unless they don’t (see Hairspray and Burlesque). They go for songs that serve as character bios until they don’t (see “The Wrestler” from The Wrestler). So, really, nothing is assured and with that I offer my predictions. A review of The Muppets is forthcoming. The music is lovely (although I wasn’t very fond of the actual film). I don’t think that it is assured of overloading this category as many seem to think, but The Muppets is my blindspot so maybe more are as receptive to its apparent nostalgia than I.

It’s all fair game, really, but I presume that Hugo will be loved, Gnomeo and Juliet will be the song which makes it on solely on the song and not the film. I feel as if they may respect Albert Nobbs for its history and throw it a few nods and The Muppets and Captain America do seem to be good bets. I’m predicting the win for Captain America mostly because I feel that the AMPAS may be feeling foolish about giving that Oscar to Randy Newman over Menken last year…as they should. Anything from the second tier could easily replace my predictions, though, as is wont in these uncertain times.


ORIGINAL SCORE

MY GUESS: The Artist (Ludovic Bource); Hugo (Howard Shore); Jane Eyre (Dario Marianelli); The Ides of March (Alexandre Desplat); ★War Horse (John Williams)

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: The Tree of Life (Alexandre Desplat); Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Alberto Iglesias); The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross); Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (Alexandre Desplat)

MORE POSSIBLITIES: The Adventures of Tintin (John Williams); Moneyball (Thomas Newman); The Help (Thomas Newman); Super 8 (Michael Gaicchino)

Were this to be the actual line-up, with the exception of Bource it’d be a list of some of the most noted composers in the industry so it’s both a possibility and unlikely. The thing about the score branch is that like the original song branch they always fall into this sometimes bizarre inclination to (arbitrarily, it often seems) adjudge what is and what is not eligible. Shore’s work on Hugo like Desplat’s in The Tree of Life makes use of additional unoriginal music to complement their own scores (the latter a bit more than the former, I believe). I can’t be sure which, if any, might be deemed eligible or ineligible. And, still, I think Hugoseems like a more than assured bet – even though it’s quite possibly not. I go with Williams simply because he’s an iconic composer and they’re not loath to honouring greats just for being that. I haven’t seen War Horse or heard the score, though, so I can’t say if a win as I predict will be deserved.

I think that, probably, the inclusion of The Artist, The Ides of March and Jane Eyre are less sound. The first I predict just because it does seem possible that The Artist may sweep, and I feel they must honour the ever ubiquitous Desplat for something and even though I think Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close could surprise it doesn’t seem poised for a nomination here. Marianelli is a winner for Atonement, and his work on Jane Eyre is impressive like so much of the film’s technical aspects, but I do wonder if Oscar shall remember the film. And, will defending champions Reznor and Ross turn up again? It seems possible, but not very likely. I like the five I predict, but they seem like such an unusually safe bet I’d not be surprised if the actual nominees are quite different.

UPDATED ADDENDUM: The list of eligible scores has been released (full list here) and The Tree of Life is indeed not on the list.

Musically speaking, the AMPAS is even more difficult to predict. Still, what notes would you cast your weight behind?

She's a bit sceptical, but Susan Walker is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
       
Cheers.

All I Need is the Link

Okay, so this is a review of a film I already reviewed, but Beginners is such a sweet gem I can't think of anything wrong with linking to reviews of it over and over again. Take a look at Nick's (Cinema Romantico) review which touches on the film's importance on a humane level. And, that's why it's my favourite post of the week...and I may as well link to Aiden's (Cut the Crap Movie Reviews) positive words on it too. Beginners for the win. Obviously.

 

Onwards with more links...
    
I'm nowhere near ready to start recapping the year in film yet (need to churn out like twelve reviews, still have to see some big ones) but already people are starting. Craig (dark eye socket) takes a look at the year's biggest cinematic surprises. I've not seen How Do You Know (though I recall Nick, above loathed it) so I can't say yay or nay on its inclusion, but Henry's Crime is a flawed, but lovely one. And Vera Farmiga is excellent in it.

I think Lisa Kudrow should have at least gotten some precursor love for Analyse This, and Paolo (Brown Okinawa Assault Incident) takes a look back, he unfortunately doesn't focus too much on Lisa. But, then, the film has its other merits.

Most of you probably know that I don't watch movie trailers, which means that I shan't be watching The Dark Knight Rises trailer (not that I'd care to, really). More importantly, I shall not be watching the trailer for The Hobbit, though I'm very excited that it's being made...Ryan (Sorta That Guy) certainly will, though.

We Need to Talk About Kevin has been reviewed pour moi, but the film still sits uncomfortably with me - for better and for worse. Dan (Dan the Man Movie Reviews) is particularly positive about it.

Will Hanna turn up on your year-end list? It might turn up somewhere on my mind. Maybe it shall, we shall see. Meanwhile, Andrew - not me - (Andrew at the Cinema) offers up a positive look at it. I'm so anxious for Wright's Anna Karenina.

One film that will turn up on my year end list is the astonishingly good Certified Copy which Robert Hamer (The Awards' Circuit) made a year-end plea for last week. It shall not win any love from awards it seems but it's a beauty.

I do not adore Mad Men like so many of you do and I doubt that any drama shall top the phenomenal second season of Boardwalk Empire (though I'm open for shocks). Still, Marcy (The Critical Escapist) touches on one reason I'm anxious for the next season of Mad Men to return. It's about time someone, other than me, shine a light on Vincent Kartheiser who should really have been Emmy nominated over John Slattery for his work on the show.

Poor Pete is tired of getting no love...

Michael Atkinson, a celebrated critic, released his top ten films (I've seen a single one) and the list looks like a fine, smart list and then he proceeded to disparage a number of picks not on his list, and it only raises an issue that always rears its head at this time. When X film starts getting love, or hate those in opposition get indignant. That's a post in the making.... On that note, even though he does sort of inadvertently criticise the other films of 2011 I appreciate this plea Tom (Reinvention: The Journal of a Dog-Lover, Book-Reader, Movie-goer and Writer) gives for The Tree of Life.
       
Any great links you're willing to share? What have you been reading?

Incoherent Oscar: Director, Picture

If we learned anything from last week’s slew of nominations and wins at precursors it’s that nothing is assured. And, for me, that’s the crux of the fun in Oscar prognostics. When the nominees are announced next months these words might either seem sage or ridiculous. Potential unintelligibility ahead…
             
The results of the Golden Globe and SAG nominees, for me, proved that this year’s race is still something of a question mark and I have this inkling that the actual Oscar nominees will see a divide from them. I don’t know what’s with all the bodies wanting to get their nominees out earlier and earlier, and will it affect the parallel between the precursors and the real thing? Maybe, maybe not. For now, I’ll take a look at the top categories…

DIRECTOR

MY GUESS: ★Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist; Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life; Bennett Miller for Moneyball; Alexander Payne for The Descendants; Martin Scorsese for Hugo;

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Stephen Daldry for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close; Steven Spielberg for War Horse; George Clooney for The Ides of March; Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris

MORE POSSIBILITIES: David Fincher for Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Tate Taylor for The Help; Clint Eastwood for J. Edgar

Remember Julian Schnabel and Mike Leigh in 2007 and 2004? Both earned lone director nominations for films which weren’t showing up much in precursors. Leigh’s Vera Drake earned a single other nomination (Best Actress for Imelda Staunton) and Schnabel’s took nods for Director, Screenplay, Cinematography and Editing. Now, I have a feeling that The Tree of Life could take some important in the technical categories and The Tree of Life is unremittingly “director’s” film. And, looking below the belt I don’t see any of those men as assured of nominations, even though they could very well make it in.

I’ve got Daldry next in line. His film is opening VERY late in the year, which was probably the reason for its absence from the Globes, and still I think that his chances are not gone. Oscar loves a story and what a think it would be for him to get a fourth consecutive Oscar nod here. The film is a classic Oscar tale, and other than Scorsese, Harris and Payne I’d say that the race is open for two spots. Miller got in for similarly unobtrusive work in 2005 for Capote, but remember how dry a year that was? There are so many contenders that could make it in over him, and I want to predict Daldry over him, but I shall stick with him for now because at least Moneyball has been screened and fêted by critics and audiences. I can’t say the same for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

For the moment I think all bets are off until the DGA shows up and tells it what and who.

PICTURE

MY GUESS: The Artist; ★The Descendants; Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close; The Help; Hugo; Moneyball


THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Midnight in Paris; War Horse

MORE POSSIBILITIES: The Ides of March; Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Bridesmaids; The Tree of Life

I’ve chosen six, and I’m even thinking it could be five because I really won’t be surprised if it’s a short list of nominees here. We’re all essentially agreed that The Descendants, The Artist and Hugo have it. But, what from there? I’m still reticent about the inclusion of The Help, sure it got love from the SAG and the Globes but that doesn’t mean anything and if they want to honour its acting they don’t need to honour it here and for all the goodwill I don’t think it’s that assured. Moneyball is probably more assured of a chance, even though I’m not completely certain about that one either – but it’s been critically acclaimed, and though love for it seems something of a slow burn its fan seem loyal. So, think of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as my WTF pick. I just don’t want to give up on that one because I think it could very well end up turning up.

If it doesn’t, I expect Midnight in Paris and War horse to be the ones that make it in…in that order. Sorry, despite the Golden Globe nod I’m just not buying the War Horse support. And, it’s not like it’s a Munich situation with history and erudition on its side. It’s why I’ve got Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in my predictions and not War Horse. Between the two sweeping perspectives of tragedies, I have more faith in the latter.

You’d notice I don’t put much faith in Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in either of the two categories, with the three last minute releases - Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, War Horse - it’s the one which needed the precursors love the most. It’s not tailor made for Oscar, and if voters were looking for what was fêted earlier in the year and decided to jump on the bandwagon it would have been better off, I think. I could be wrong, but we shall see…and the choices for winners is still something premature, but make of them what you will.
            
Coming Soon: Supporting Actor / Previously: Visual Effects, Cinematography, Editing
             

Is my on-and-off confidence in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close extremely unlikely and incredibly dumb? Is Moneyball really going to make it in both categories? Is Malick even IN the race? What horses are you betting on?

TV Week in Review: 12th-14th December

We get one devastating season finale, and some other fine episodes...on with the shows...

Boardwalk Empire: “To the Lost”; [SEASON FINALE]; Season Two, Episode Twelve [A-]

There are so many ways to approach this season finale because it is not an overstatement of fact or a conceit to call it a game-changer of the most significant kind. Since my time watching the machinations of the Atlantic City crew I’ve expressed that, for me, it’s a dual narrative of the old against the young and in the battle of Buscemi vs Pitt I always found the latter to be the more nuanced performer. Buscemi does fine work as Nucky Thompson, but he always lacks a certain degree of greatness which oftentimes eludes me so the loss of Jimmy hit me foremost as a significant blow to the show than as significant plot development. I’m almost moved to give up on the show, not because I think it will not be excellent but because I’m unwilling to accept an Atlantic City without James Darmody – it would just feel illicit and sacrilegious. I might be overreacting – as is my wont – but I think I actually went through the stages of grief when he got shot, because at first I denied the reality of the occurrences. I just couldn’t believe that it could happen, and it’s a step in discrediting Nucky as a character. Alone, I wonder how Buscemi could ground the show and with Nucky proving how merciless he could be it sets up some disturbing conceits. It’s why I’m happy that Margaret gave away his land. It’s not a Margaret overcome religious fervour, but coming to realise her new husband’s ruthlessness it was a brash act of rebellion, which I hope does not lead to her destruction too. Clearly, the show isn’t scared about offing its main characters, and clearly Nucky isn’t incapable of killing those who betray him, despite their ties. For now, I can’t manage an actual review. I have nine months to come to grips with Michael Pitt leaving the show, and I hope that the Emmy voters recognising his indelible contribution to the show. And, at least Winter and Van Patten gave him a send-off worthy of his genius. RIP James Darmody. You will be missed. (Allow me the mourning in pictures.)
[Writing: A-; Directing: A-]

Homeland: “The Vest”; Season One, Episode Eleven [A-]

I’ve fêted the excellence of Claire Danes on this space before and this week she turns in her finest performance of the season in a near perfect instalment of this show that came out firing on all cylinders. Carrie’s excellence at her job has been suggested throughout the season and this episode we get affirmative evidence of this. And, it’s an excellent decision to have her brilliance be complemented by her breakdown. The relationship with Saul and Carrie has always intrigued, even if I’ve always thought that it wasn’t as deftly handled as I’d hope and it doesn’t get quite the attention in screen-time this episode but it still lands resoundingly. I must confess that the machinations of Brody and brood only served to make me antsy for Carrie and Saul at first, but then it got more unsettling and then the final straw was Brody’s very deliberate move to derail Carrie’s career. It’s going to something watching how this wraps up, and even in an hour and a half I can’t imagine all the stands being tied which should make for a similarly explosive second season. If there’s anything that’s a potential quagmire it’s the suggestion the suggestion that Carrie might be in love with Brody, she did think he was a terrorist for months so it feels the slightest bit disingenuous.
[Writing: A/A-; Directing: A/A-]

Dexter: “Talk to the Hand”’; Season Six, Episode Eleven [B+/A-]

Last season’s penultimate episode was arguably the finest of the season. Last season, though was an excellent one while this season is simply good. It holds on the natural order of things, though, where Dexter makes a play for but misses the big bad and Travis’ descent into lunacy, though admittedly a little off still, is making for interesting ramifications. The near-genocide on the police was deftly handled but I’m not sure what I make of it leading Debra’s shrink to observe a potential romantic affiliation between Debra and Dexter. I will say, considering how they’re relationship has been prickly this season it doesn’t shock me but it feels insincere when Debra immediately starts having dreams about it but I’m not ready to write it off completely, yet. Then there’s Masuka’s obviously demented intern (but how, I don’t quite now). I suppose that I shall eventually have to cast off any allegiance for LaGuerta who continuously turns up to show how much a devilish woman she is; it does increase the potential for drama in the upcoming season. Of course, Dexter will get rid of Travis next week but I’m more antsy when I think of what will happen in his personal life.
[Writing: B+/A-; Directing: A-]

The Good Wife: “What Went Wrong”; Season Three, Episode Eleven [A-]

And, the Kings’ send off the show for its midseason finale with a bang. Things are making strides in moving the season along to a definite climax with developments of all kinds. It’s nice that we don’t have to wait long for Alicia to find out how Kalinda got Grace back home and the tentative standoff the two had in the car was a nice movement forward in that relationship. Elsewhere, though, Kalinda continues to have a thorny relationship with Cary (and by de facto Dana) and I do wonder what shall become of that threesome. Having Cary actually sign off on jailing Kalinda is especially remiss of him. Alicia must now get acclimated to life without Will, and though I’d have hoped that she’d turn to Kalinda it’s nice to see her and Diane forge a bond – woman to woman picking up an arc that has been hinted at since the pilot episode. Alicia falls easily back into maintaining a rapport with Peter in the quest of moving their children back to a private school. I’m always game for more Chris Noth. Of course, though, the crux of the episode was the revelation that Wendy Scott-Carr is a cold, stone fox who’s actually trying to bring Peter down. It’s a nice way to tie all the potentially loose strands together, and it shall be interesting seeing how that develops and what part (if any) Will shall play in it all.
[Writing: A-; Directing: A-]

Once Upon a Time: “The Heart is a Lonely Hunter”; Season One, Episode Seven [B/B-]

It does suck that just when turned into an interesting character that the town’s Sherriff gets killed. It’s unfortunate because the show is sorely lacking in male characters, interesting or otherwise. Still, it’s about time that Regina/Evil Queen do more than pontificate angrily and it’s proof that she clearly is cognisant of her former life and supremely dangerous even if the performance turned in by Lana Parilla continues to be horribly one-note and not the least bit charismatic. The thing is, though, having Regina kill Graham raises more issues about the apparent silliness of the show. Why doesn’t Regina just not kill everyone in the town and exact her revenge. Because, by having them suffer in normalcy without even knowing that they’re suffering is hardly punishment. A diverting, credible episode but in the long run the show still hasn’t proven that it’s worth my undivided attention.
[Writing: B/B-; Directing: B/B-]

The Closer: “Relative Matters”; Season One, Episode Thirteen [B]

It’s another Christmas themed episode, though the Christmas nature is more subtly handled. It’s also another episode without Captain Raydor which is something of a downer because I do miss Mary McDonnell. The case this week seemed destined for greatness but ended up being a little bit limp, but there were other issues to deal with the most important being Brenda’s parents dropping by to tell her that her father has cancer. Because of its nature the show doesn’t milk that opportunity for as much “acting” as you’d expect which is both a good and a bad thing. Still, as incidental as they come off the moments with Brenda and her parents are nice to watch especially when Fritz is included in the lot. Watching Brenda and Fritz on opposing ends, as occasionally happens, is also a nice if bland arc and it does make for a fairly good episode, I just wished with so few episodes left they’d try for better than good.
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B/B+]

Glee: “Extraordinary Merry Christmas”; Season Three, Episode Nine [C+]

Well, yay I guess for Glee keeping up the level if the level of easy quasi-mediocrity with the Christmas episode. I still feel a connection to the show, in theory, but my interest has sort of waned and this episode does little to significantly change it. It’s too easy to watch, like last week’s episode, to be completely offensive but that’s the problem really. I’m averse to Christmas specials on the whole they don’t fit into the fabric of some shows and last year’s Special actual depended on plots that had more to do than trying to shoehorn the “spirit” Christmas into every characters’ lives. True, it does lead to a fairly good black-and-white portion, but I wasn’t as bowled over as most seemed to be and I don’t doubt because the Christmas “spirit” is a bit of an annoyance to me. The show is still having severe issues dealing with characters and their inclinations. Sue appears now at opportune moments and it’s often difficult to coalesce her actions from one episode to the next. Sam’s moving back to Lima seems particularly broad and uneven. Otherwise, it’s the simple lack of character development (that ending doesn’t count) that doesn’t work or the very fact that as vaguely interesting it is it just isn’t that good, alas. Bah, humbug.
[Writing: B-/C+; Directing: B-/C+]

American Horror Story: “Birth”; Season One, Episode Eleven [B+]

With only one episode left to go the Murphy/Falchuck team delivers a typically bizarre mind-fuck of an episode. We have to face the fact that the house and its machinations are still new to us, so it’s difficult to criticise the show for lack of believability – the only tactical error I can call them out on this part is the reaction of both Constance and Dr. Harmon to Violet’s death, the latter in particular. In a packed forty minutes I suppose there wasn’t much time to make it a bigger issue, but still. Now that Constance has given birth to two babies, one a stillborn (neither of which we saw) it’s left to the final episode to tell us who…or perhaps, what…Tate gave birth. Call them out on their lack of continuity, but Nip/Tuck was a fine show in its day, and I assume that the devil-like creature who showed up at the beginning of the episode to Tate wasn’t just incidental. I continue to wrestle with my feelings on Tate because Evan Peters keeps turning in such a fine performance, and though it’s about time that Violet wises up I still end up feeling bad for him when she banishes. Still, I’m confused – how can she banish him if she is a spirit as he? And has he gone from the house, or will she just not be able to see him anymore? Ugh, confusion.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+/A-]


Observations

• Oh, Wendy Scott Carr you despicable harridan. I did not see that coming, and on that note – can we start Anika Noni Rose on an Emmy Campaign?
• In an episode overflowing with tension, how great was the levity of Eli’s response to Nucky’s “Es tu, Eli?”
• From Jimmy and Gillian to Dexter and Debra, are incestuous overtones making a comeback?
• Other than enjoying him briefly in “The First Time” I find Blaine, and his singing to be excessively forced and corny.

Standout Performers
Claire Danes in Homeland A/A-
Michael Pitt in Boardwalk Empire A-
Steve Buscemi in Boardwalk Empire B+/A-
Julianna Margulies in The Good Wife B+/A-
Mandy Patinkin in Homeland B+
Kelly MacDonald in Boardwalk Empire B+
Evan Peters in American Horror Story B+

Jessica Lange in American Horror Story B+
Jennifer Carpenter in Dexter B+
Archie Panjabi in The Good Wife B+
Michael C. Hall in Dexter
Sherriff in Once Upon a Time B+
Christine Baranski in The Good Wife B+
Kyra Sedgwick in The Closer B+
Damian Lewis in Homeland B+
Chris Noth in The Good Wife B+
Lea Michele in Glee B+
             
What did you watch this week?

“You can’t get uncomfortable enough, can you?”

We Need to talk About Kevin: directed by Lynne Ramsay; written by Lynne Ramsay and Rory Stewart Kinnear
                     
One of the earliest shots of the film is one of Eva, our protagonist, being carried by a group of half-naked people covered in red tomatoes clearly suggestive of blood. It bears a faint allusion to crucified person being crucified. I’ve come to learn that it’s a recreation of La Tomatatina, a Spanish festival. This, the second shot of the film, is overflowing with the garish and is the first revelation of what becomes a tendency of Ramsay to be maddeningly unsubtle. The title refers to the child but We Need to Talk About Kevin is the story of the mother. Most of it done in flashbacks we meet Eva from the past, a different person from the mouse of a woman we are introduced to in the present. Eva is in a nondescriptly happy relationship with her husband when her son his born, a cantankerous thing who seems to immediately have a dislike for his mother. He wails constantly when in her arms, and Eva so overwhelmed by a palpable disinterest in her child, a disinterest which is not just returned by her son but is matched with a seemingly strident hatred for his mother.

It is not unclear that Eva is unable to strike a significant rapport when it comes to her relationship with her son. Or so it seems. Because, with a singular focus on Eva the film’s perspective is delivered with an almost insular focus on her reaction to the tragedy which destroyed her family. And, as one would expect, Eva is like any parent who spawned a child overflowing with sociopathic tendencies harbours significant guilt for the way in which things have developed. And, herein leads us to one of the strange things about the film. Because Ramsay decides to evoke the trials of Eva via her seemingly demonic son via flashbacks we’re never certain if what we’re seeing are actual flashbacks or increasingly insular, flawed memories streaming out from a guilty mother. As people in the present observe her with barely tempered disgust Eva seems almost to take a sort of pleasure in being the martyr of the situation. Half of the instances it seems as if Kevin is just an outright beast, and yet on occasion Eva’s memories seem intent on making her the root cause of it all. And, Tilda, always content to play up to her characters’ most puzzling ambiguities seems intent on blurring the lines as much as possible.

The very manner in which Ramsay presents the film makes me recall the dissertations of Longinus in is “On Sublimity”. He proffers that in the quest for finding truly subliminal art tacit errors in presentation are incidental. Ramsay’s execution is not quite subliminal but in its garish stridency it is certainly arresting. I have not read the novel on which the film is based, but considering the strength in the film’s (admittedly, very literal) screenplay I have to believe Ramsay diminishes the material’s original resonance. Ramsay is so intent on utilising a directorial style infused with moments of overwhelming poignancy but bookended by moments overflowing with artistic conceits and gratuitousness. There is a fine line to be treaded between good use of imagery and an overwhelming lack restraint and Ramsay doesn’t just skirt from side to side on this line, she launches into a spirited rhumba, samba and tops it all off with an impassioned bottle dance.

I have a feeling that conscious of – what I expect to be – the film’s provocative inclinations Ramsay immediately goes on the offensive and attacks the material with an overly audacious tone and the fact that it ends up working is more in spite of the overloaded direction than because of it. Or, maybe it’s an amalgamation of both. It’s a messy film, rife with encumbrances but it’s also a brave film – sometimes for no reason other than to be brave. But, in being so single-minded in its onslaught it’s more than effective in making us uncomfortable. It is, I suppose in theory at least, a character study of Eva but Tilda (and no fault of hers, the film doesn’t allow her) doesn’t allow us to know much and Ezra Miller’s chilling Kevin is outstanding but it’s a bit of a shame we never seem to understand. It’s not that a reason for his actions rob the film of its strength, but after Ramsay has succeeded so well in making in making us shudder she ultimately seems content to just astonish us…but not much else. Still, maybe that’s enough.

B

Conversations with Ryan: Reaction to the SAGs

So, it's been almost twelve hours since the Screen Actors' Guild announced their nominations, so they've been able to sink in. How are we feeling about them? The always entertaining Ryan (of Sorta that Boy) launch into a random discussions on the general field and what we liked most.
         

Andrew: I am here. Let's talk about the good stuff like the awards' races.

Ryan: Jesus. The "good stuff" you mean unlike today's SAG nominations?

Andrew: Okay, see in my head I’m saying the good stuff and in reality I'm still thinking...meh on the most of the nominations. But, really, I'm not pissed at them. It could have been worse.

Ryan: Okay, the more I think about it the film nominations at least were fine. Just conservative. It's those TV ones that just seemed so tone deaf and lazy.

Andrew: My snap judgements on the nominees were less WTF and more, really? You again?

Ryan: Precisely. And it's like the voters didn't watch any TV the past 12 months or so. Like they were filling out their ballots for 2010 or even 2009. Lazy.

Andrew: Okay, come on. Happy thoughts. What was the name or citation, on the ballet which made you squeal most with delight

Ryan: Sadly it was probably Kate Winslet's nomination. The film nominations weren't shocking and the TV noms were expected/boring/awful.

Andrew: Indeed, yay for Kate. I hope she wins and acts as delighted as she always is when she wins things. I love when actors are happy about winning. When everyone is so blase it just seems so pretentious.

Ryan: I know! It's the best. And she SHOULD win. Maggie Smith is her biggest competition.

Andrew: And, I wouldn't mind Maggie winnning, but she won't turn up and I want a speech, goddamnit!

Ryan: Exactly. I want fun, exciting, heartfelt speeches. I did love the mentions for Game of Thrones/Breaking Bad ensemble nods, too, I suppose.

Andrew: It was easily the mentions for Glenn, for me. Mostly for Damages but for both I guess. I want her to turn up everywhere and be awesome. Of course, even mentions of Glenn can’t eviscerate icky things like citing Betty White. Twice. They CONTINUE to reward Betty White? I mean seriously that was a what the fuck moment. Because I was seriously like what the fuck. TWO nods for White? Honestly, even the citations for Modern Family seem really de facto.

Ryan: But see at least for Modern Family I GET IT. It's also not in my top 5 comedies. But with the Emmys and the critical acclaim... I get it. Betty White on the other hand... yes, she's a treasure, but damn.

Andrew: It's just that anyone who's been watching the first half of season 3 for Modern Family knows that Jesse Tyler Ferguson has been killing it! I hate that he's almost always the afterthought when it comes to the adult cast.

Ryan: Yeah. Though I seem to agree with the majority on that. Not that I don't like him, but if I had to rank them he's not in my top 3 or 4. And if you factor in the kids also... well. I still like him though!

Andrew: Boo!

Ryan: You what what upset me, the Parks and Recreation snub. I am so angry. SO ANGRY.

Andrew: I immediately went ick at Betty, Big Bang and Cryer, though.

Ryan: Jon Cryer and Betty White citations were definitely two of the worst for me as well.

Andrew: But, are we surprised about Parks and Recreation getting snubbed, though?

Ryan: YES. It's been building momentum for the past year or so. At the very least I thought Poehler was a shoe-in.

Andrew: I'm not. It's disappointing, but it's so like them. They just sort of have this tendency to do weirdness like this. But, the drama nods are lovely. Sure, they shaft almost every supporting player and the Suits inclusion is wack...but it's a mostly solid list.

Ryan: It is a solid list. Those ensemble nominations are damn good though I'd probably swap Dexter with something like Revenge (ha!). Or critics are livid that Homeland got shut out. I haven't seen it.

Andrew: I'm not livid, it's unfortunate since it is one of the finest dramas on...but we can't have everything. But we can have Jessica Lange and Glenn Close. Kathy Bates stinks up that category but Glenn and Jessica with Julianna and Kyra is an ace lineup. The next spot should be either Kelly MacDonald or Archie Panjabi or Claire Danes...or anyone really. Bates is awful.

Ryan: I wished I watched more than just Julianna Margulies in that category, but it is a good list regardless. Could you imagine if Madeleine Stowe was in there instead of Kathy Bates?

Andrew: It would be a full-out diva-off. And, even though I'm not big on the actual nominees you have to admit the Lead Actress Film nominees are a sweet lineup. All are fine women.

Ryan: I have no complaints whatsoever on those. I love them all and I haven't seen Albert Nobbs so I don't know yet whether to be happy/sad it's still alive in the Oscars race.

Andrew: The film is a question mark, and Glenn is VERY restrained but I think it's well worth a nod. But, I adore Glenn.

Ryan: As we all should.

Andrew: Everyone seems to be wondering if the actress will be the Oscar actual lineup. Sure, we've got the likes of Theron and Oleson...but it could very well be the lineup.

Ryan: I'll be just fine if that turned out to be the Oscar lineup because I'd be happy for anyone who wins.
Lead Actor Film is very conservative. All of the edgier performances this season were left out in the cold, but it's to be expected. Though there was that shock nomination for Demian Birchir. Haven't seen the film, but I actually like the surprise. At least it wasn't a Patrick J. Adams kind of surprise. I'm not over that.

Andrew: So, does Leo get nominated or does he get replaced by some combination of Oldman, Shannon, Harrelson?
     

Ryan: Before today obviously, I'd have said his chances are low, but Oldman and Harrelson are getting nil attention as well from critics and others. The BAFTAs might help Oldman (and Vanessa Redgrave). But it's definitely competitive for those final 1-2 spots.

Andrew: I haven't seen J. Edgar, and I must admit I've waned in Leo love since Inception but...I want him to get nominated just because I don't want him to get snubbed, BUT I don't want him to get nominated and lose...but I don't want him to win for an Eastwood film. Blech.

Ryan: If he gets nominated, he won't win.

Andrew: The supporting categories are even more up in the air. But, I don't the think the lack of SAG hurts Vanessa, because as you point out all the actors' don't vote for the nods and Vanessa is a legend. She'll most likely get the Globe love, almost certain to get the BAFTA's love, and even if the movie landed the way a dog whistle did (with no one hearing a freaking thing) I don't think they'll ignore her.

Ryan: And her category is even more up in the air than others. How many ladies from The Help will make it in? Which performance of Jessica Chastain will get noticed? Melissa McCarthy? Shailene Woodley?

Andrew: I didn't love Bridesmaids, I liked it (B- ) and Melissa was MVP for me....but, the love is just a bit too overexuberant for me.

Ryan: What you said is exactly how I feel.

Andrew: And, what annoys me about her more ardent fans is if you say you don't want her nominated it becomes a slap in the face to comdic women. Silliness.

Ryan: And yet, I'm OKAY. McCarthy's wins is making awards season fun somehow. It's all inherently silly anyways.

Andrew: But, we loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove it.

Ryan: But, not the nominees…

Andrew: Think of it this way, despite the nominations' weirdness we'll always have Kate.
          
Are you as excited for Kate as we? Do the TV nods exasperate you? Do you like that Best Actress lineup? What were your snap reactions?

Incoherent Oscar: Visual Effects, Cinematography and Editing

Rambling predictive Oscar discussions...
    
If you’ve heard it once, then you’ve heard it a dozen times and probably a thousand – film is a visual medium. So, ahoy, the predictions of those visual technical categories…some of which often offer insight into the top prizes of the ceremony.
          
VISUAL EFFECTS

MY GUESS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2; ★Hugo; Rise of the Planet of the Apes; Super 8; Transformers

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: The Tree of Life; Captain America: The First Avenger; Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides; X-Men: First Class; Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows

MORE POSSIBLITIES: Thor; Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol; Cowboys and Aliens; Sucker Punch; Real Steel

Everything would be so much easier if every category sent out a shortlist of the potential nominees. But, as it is, only the visual category does so and what we have are fifteen potential nominees and some seem much more assured of a nod than others. Next month they shall narrow it down further to ten, and we’ll see who made that list. For now, I’m moderately confident in the quintet I’ve lined up. This is despite me having an inkling that The Tree of Life could very well end up with a much deserved nomination here. Of the five, I’d say four of the five see particularly assured of a nomination and Transformers could, perhaps, be a bit in danger. It’s not the most critically acclaimed film of the year and with so many options to choose from – a number of which seem right up the Oscars’ alley, there’s always the possibility that it gets shafted. The thing about them, though, is that they love their visuals loud and raucous (which is why the, sob, snubbed Scott Pilgrim vs the World last year. Sigh). Therefore, I’ll stick with the five that I have, for now.
           
CINEMATOGRAPHY
MY GUESS: The Artist; ★Hugo; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2; The Tree of Life; War Horse

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; A Dangerous Method; Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Rise of the Planet of the Apes; Moneyball; Anonymous
This is, unofficially, my favourite category. Photography is such an important part of cinema and call me schmaltzy but don’t you just love beautifully shot films? Now, I know, considering all the films which seem right up the Oscars’ alley it’s weird that I have Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in my top 5. And, it’s not that I think it’s headed to a Best Picture nod. But, remember when the sixth instalment got a nod for its photography and it was nowhere near the best loved entry of the eight (although it was MY second favourite). I’m sticking with it for now, there is usually that one sweet oddity in this category and they could do much worse than fêting the admittedly good work of the Potter films. Everything else seems sort of a lock, which makes me think that it probably isn’t but I cannot fathom a discussion on photography without taking note of either of the four remaining films. The only film I see taking it to the five, is if Girl with the Dragon Tattoo surprises Harry Potter and knocks it out. And, it could very well happen. I'm dubious about predicting Hugo, but I just feel silly betting against it...
          
FILM EDITING

MY GUESS: The Artist; Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Hugo; Moneyball; ★War Horse

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close; Rise of the Planet of the Apes; The Descendants; Drive

MORE POSSIBILITIES: A Dangerous Method;

Now, editing is a category which sort of annoys me because it oftentimes unnecessarily seems to be nothing but regurgitation of the main players for Best Picture which significantly robs it of its name. A best picture contender does not necessarily mean that it has fine editing, but I digress. This is predictive writing, not opinion writing. This is, I think, a solid five. They seem headed to at least Best Picture consideration and clearly it’s possible that Extremely Loud for example or The Descendants (both potential spoilers in the Picture race) could enter the argument, but I’m not as certain of those as I am of the five I have. The thing is, sometimes they get interesting and nominate or even a leftfield choice a la The Bourne Ultimatum, but we don’t really know, do we? I’m just doing my guessing game. Which is why War Horse is my winner, I don't think Hugo will sleep...I'm not even sure I think it will win Best Picture so I don't WANT to predict it winning here, and even if it wins Best Picture I don't think The Artist will win here which leaves Spielberg... hence the prediction.

Coming Soon: Best Director and Picture / Previously: Best Supporting Actress

So, who gets the visual award wins? Will editing be a boring rehash of Best Picture? What do you think?

“I liked the idea in theory”

50/50: directed by Jonathan Levine; written by Will Reiser

Adam Lerner is the epitome of the everyman. He has an overbearing presumptuous cad for a best friend, an over attentive mother and a girlfriend who’s not as besotted with him as he would hope. He recycles, he does not drink and he does not smoke. He’s such an everyman, and yet he contracts an incredibly rare genetic form of cancer. From the few adverts I’ve allowed myself to see of 50/50 it sets itself up as something like the anti-terminal illness film. True, our protagonist might have a life-threatening disease, but the presence of Seth Rogen, and a very easy but not overtly avant-garde vibe promises a film which promises more belly laughs than sobs. It’s a purpose I can understand. Contemporary cinema has been continuously trying to eviscerate oversentimentality from its canon, to look at the most mawkish of situations with the most objective of eyes and without sentiment. Maybe, I overestimate, though. Because, by disallowing the viewer to be caught up in strategically placed precipitants to tears 50/50 does not evade banality.

There is the slightest disinclination to get the claws out for 50/50 when its origins’ story is so quaint. At the behest of his buddy (Rogen), Will Reiser decided to put his own experience of being struck with cancer to paper as the basis for the film. Not only is the film, then, a not just metaphorical tale of overcoming adversity it’s also based on fact (to what extent, though, I’m not sure) so I’m initially doubtful of criticising it its inconstancies. Still, movies are movies – they’re not real. So, for all its goodwill 50/50 can’t go unscathed for all its good intent. In fact, its good intentions emerge as its most obvious crutch. Reiser’s screenplay is adamant in its attempt to convince us that our protagonist worth rooting for. In a vaguely awkward scene, after his best friend Kyle coerces him to pick up a girl using his cancer as the pickup line he ends up in bed with her. And, because Adam is such a chivalrous guy he proceeds to have sex with her even though it’s clearly causing him significant pain. It’s an interesting moment because Gordon-Levitt’s performance is the beacon of the film because of and in spite of the script. It’s hard to root against a guy who is so accommodating, but it’s also difficult to actively root for someone who is so pliable that he seems to have given up the ghost even before he’s entered the doctor’s office for the diagnosis.

The pliancy of the lead is not a problem in and of itself. It, however, becomes a bone of contention for two reasons. One, is that the film does not (nor attempt to) do a fair job of examining why this man seems so afraid to live. One of the first shots of the film is of a jogger running past him, which suggests an interesting inertness which we never really get to understand. Is it because his light is being constantly dulled by existing amidst a group of people all of whom are too selfish to eschew their own personal hang-ups to inquire as to how he’s doing? The suggestion is there, but I’d like to think that the examination of that issues in Adam’s life would have made for a more rewarding drama/comedy than the one we’re given. Because, as it is, Adam’s most significant act of being predictably “strong” happens against one of the film’s slew of conventional characters – Rachel, Adam’s emotionally unavailable girlfriend who drives him to chemotherapy and spends four hours in the car because she doesn’t like hospitals. I’ll impeach myself for being naïve and not immediately realising that this relationship was going to go kaput, and soon. For, like with a number of Rogen related ventures the film’s most exasperating quality stems from its treatment of women. Bryce Dallas Howard, who only recently was the resting pool for everything evil in The Help returns for a second turn at all that is evil in 50/50. I have to commend her for trying twice as much to make this particular carnation of evil work.
         

For a film that pretends it is interested in the reality of the disease the singleness of the narrative focus on Adam and Kyle robs Rachel of something as a simple as character inclination. She is an emotionally reclusive, cheating girlfriend because the film demands that she be expunged from the drama so that Adam can move on to younger, “prettier” and more caring things – in the form of his interim therapist Katie, played by Anna Kendrick. When Rachel returns, then, it is not for us to understand her character but to allow Adam to “grow some balls”, tell her off and proceed to take part in a cathartic trashing of her painting. And, it’s annoying situation because it becomes more ridiculous when the film end he has a similar outburst against Kyle who’s caddish is just as ignominious as Rachel but which the film skirts over because Kyle is honest about his ungallant disposition. And, it’s clear from Reiser’s script that he doesn’t mean to be mean-spirited about it because what ultimately stands out most clear from the film is its incredible good-naturedness. We know from its origin that Adam will not die, and as needs be we know that the reunion will occur between he and his mother, and when it comes it is as effective as needs be and when he gets through it all there will be an eligible bachelorette waiting at the finish line.

Ultimately, the very fact that it’s such an ostensibly difficult film to criticise – because of its origin – ends up making it rather easy to criticise because other than the concept of having a feel-good comedy about cancer, of all things, 50/50 teems with ordinariness. And, being ordinary is not necessarily an apprehensible quality so it ends up being an okay film. True, it teems over with occasionally misogynistic qualities but, it is so earnest in its attempt to be heart-warming that one is occasionally tempted to give it leeway. What we’re left with, then, is a standard dramatic comedy which intermittently leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth but eventually wears me down – not into loving it, but into appreciating that for all its generic meanderings it’s okay. Just…okay… Is it a waste of a potentially innovation journey into a stoic protagonist’s emotional inclinations? Yes. But, I’ll cut my losses.

C+