Encore's World of Film & TV

Short Takes: The Descendants; The Iron Lady; War Horse

2012-01-29T18:54:00.001-04:00

I’m loathe to approach the review for ANY film in such a lazily flip manner, but…I just can’t. Neither of these is an abysmal film by any means, but I suppose one could consider my tepid response to them as indicative of my general response to so many of the films in 2011. I can’t muster up the dedication offer full perspectives on either of the three…so…bit notes.

“Paradise can go fuck itself” directed by Alexander Payne; written by Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash

And, this movie too…okay, that’s harsh and not really my actual feeling. I suppose, no –I know - that The Descendants doesn’t hit me in the way it wants to, and not in the way that it undoubtedly will hit a slew of other people. And, it’s because almost everything in it comes off as decidedly synthetic to me. This is more than a little ironic since in his opening voice-over monologue Matt King tells us that he’s intent on showing the world that Hawaii isn’t the tropical paradise it’s made out to be; people have real problems here. Okay, I’m game – or, I really want to be. I heard that it’s mentioned in the trailer, so I suppose it’s not a spoiler to say that The Descendants reaches part of its crux when Matt finds out that his comatose wife has been having an affair with a real estate developer of some sort who, incidentally, stands to benefit from a potential decision which Mike may make concerning the selling of some family land; because the name “King” isn’t subsidiary – his family apparently owns a significant portion of the island on which they live since they’re descendants from…umm, I can’t recall actually (I saw this at the beginning of January) – Hawaiian royalty, let’s say. Mike’s the title-holder so he has THAT burden along with the cheating, comatose wife burden, along with the added encumbrance of a father-in-law who hates him; a teenage daughter who is a typically angsty, angry, rebel; a younger daughter who flips people off and calls her sister a motherless whore; his older daughter’s annoyingly mellow boyfriend who tags along for the family escapades, and – it would seem – no friends to stand by him.

Homeboy’s got it rough, y’all, because he is a VICTIM. It doesn’t matter that he a) admits to being a back-up parent in an opening monologue that doesn’t seem to be considered after it is expelled, b) so apparently unaware of what goes on around him that his daughter who is away at boarding school realises that his wife’s having an affair and he doesn’t and c) unable to offer any gems in terms of parenting skills – he’s a noble creature who upon realising that his cheating, comatose wife won’t wake up starts out on a trek to find the man who has cuckolded (aside: cuckolded is a word I learned from Shakespeare’s Othello, and wouldn’t you know it. The Descendants features a a scene where the husband talks to his dead wife, a scene that seems put there simply to show how much Mike has suffered, and not because he’s come to any sort of development over time,) him so said man will have the chance to say goodbye. As any travel story works, surprises will be made, bonds will be forged and it comes off to me as so decidedly uninspired I can’t help but discern a bitter taste in my mouth at its machinations. And, really, I’m not against movies having characters being somewhat reprehensible but the movie is so bizarre about its ideals and that aforementioned railing scene at a semi-corpse is just odd, oddly placed, oddly acted and so strange since it’s as if we’re supposed to cheer it on…which is just rather weird. And, then it all wraps so, so, so very neatly with overly earnest speeches, and photogenic moments (that final shot) eliciting little more than a shrug from me. So….umm, I didn’t hate it. (Nick, I am sorry.)

C-

“What a strange beast you have become”: directed by Steven Spielberg; written by Richard Curtis and Lee Hall

Look, cards on the table – War Horse is not the type of film that was going to work for me. A boy following his horse over a continents, years and owners because he loves him so very much? Umm, sorry…. I can’t. Not really. Seven people I read have mentioned its similarities to How Green was My Valley (which I happen to like), and – okay – fine it looks like a Ford movie, hell it perhaps even looks better because War Horse looks GOOD. Which is about the only thing is truly excels at, and I think even if all the pieces had fallen into place and War Horse had managed to deliver on all fronts I still wouldn’t have been able to muster up more than pleasant appreciation, and the thing is War Horse isn’t quite good on all other fronts. Although, really, it’s not bad either – so that sentence might be disingenuous. In fact, I can’t put my finger on anything significantly wrong with War Horse other than the fact that my temperament does not allow me to be the type of person who gets caught up in the manoeuvrings of a horse for two and a half hours. Theatre folk help me out here – doesn’t Albert’s relationship with the horse remind you of Jack’s freakish relationship with Milky White in Into the Woods? The relationship between a boy and his animal isn’t meant for humour here, it’s all in earnest – think, sometimes mawky, sometimes cloying and oh, so very deliberate earnest.

Really, I can’t fault it for that, neither will I fault it for its attempt to evoke a period gone by. Everyone seems down on nostalgia this year, and if Spielberg is taking a trip back with this one…he’s allowed, I suppose. What I don’t care to allow is the way the story just ambles like one of those pastures it’s set on with apparently no sense of direction, which is all well-and-good if this is a bildungsroman but ISN’T all well-and-good when your lead character is a horse. And, the story is only robbing the actors of chances to portray people (though Emily, darling, Watson rises above it so beautifully) and I can’t really judge Irvine’s performance because I’m never sure if Albert is the slightest bit touched, or just…umm, I don’t know. He’s saccharinely sweet in his earnestness. It’s not completely off-putting. The entire thing is just so – unchallenging and it doesn’t seem to have anything to say, not even about what I’d assume is the major theme of love and perseverance against all odds…etc, etc, but golly it tries too hard. But, it’s hardly a poor exercise. And, I wager that if this is the sort of thing that seems like it could be your thing then it definitely will be your thing because it’s okay in the way it does its…thing. It’s just not really a thing for me. (Sorry, Alex.)

C

“One must know when to go”: directed by Phyllida Lloyd; written by Abi Morgan

…and, this one, my friends doesn’t know when to go, it doesn’t even have the good sense to realise that it probably shouldn’t have arrived in the first place. Good thing first, (and yes I will say it has its one good thing which are part and parcel with its bad things) is that because it’s wonderfully noncommittal about its subject The Iron Lady is never difficult to watch. In fact, it’s incredibly easy to watch. There is no tension, no appearance of sustained dramatic beats so the film sits there and it’s easy to watch and its poorness never as objectionable as it could be if the film was COMPLETELY terrible. Small mercies. Okay, I lie – Meryl Streep is okay, too. Look, it’s another in a long line of roles where Meryl dons an accent and (if you’re a fan, like millions of you are) *transforms* herself into X person. I, myself, am not an ardent fan of this. When I like Meryl, it is at her least ostentatious and playing the woman with the Iron fist donning two accents (one more RP than the other) it’s a performance that can be nothing BUT ostentatious especially in a film like this which is just inert that I have to wonder why on earth it was made other than to give Meryl the chance to traipse around, touch her face poignantly, glare and then raise her voice in a series of what seem to be ham-fisted Oscar bait clips in the worst of ways. And, that’s a sentence that pains me to write because I never like to think that a film was made simply for awards’ purpose but The Iron Lady has so little about its protagonist that you’ll forgive me if this is where I suspect its roots lie. And even though it might win awards for the performance it’s shame because other than what I assume is a fantastic accent, Meryl’s performance goes nowhere.

Look, a good performance can come from a terrible film – not often, but it can happen. But, a good performance cannot come from a film so undemanding, tepid and lazy and sometimes Lloyd chooses some inexplicable decisions to make. The cutaways aren’t serving the story, and they’re not serving the actors either. I am, embarrassingly, not as au fait with Thatcher’s legend as I wish but from what I do know it’s so painful that it an attempt to – what I assume is – humanise her Abi Morgan tacks on the hook of Margaret and her husband Denis and their relationship being buoyed around The King and I and, wouldn’t you know, “Shall We Dance”. And, perhaps it’s deliberate that they make Margaret’s assertions on storming the boys’ club mentality of those around her some sort of reaction to her *knowing* that she’s “just” a woman because the film essentially boils down her entire life into a delusional, batty woman unable to let her dead husband go. It’s not deliberate, though, Lloyd and Morgan just seem to have approached the project in the wrong way. That ghost issue could be could work with a more adventurous team, but it’s use here is baffling, comical, ridiculous and just rather strange. I don’t dislike biopics generally, but films like this get me so incensed because it sets the genre back 20 steps. No, just, no. (Sorry, Walter.)

D+

So, umm, short takes – with apologies, because – honest – I’d love to live in a world where I loved all the movies that came out. This is not that world. What think ye? All three of these just might win at least one Oscar, maybe more, in a month’s time. What do you think of them?

Incoherent Oscar: Makeup

2012-01-28T23:44:00.000-04:00

I plan on assessing each film category of the Academy Award nominations until February the 26th. So, no, you haven’t gotten rid of the prognostics yet.

THE NOMINEES: Albert Nobbs; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2; The Iron Lady

Is this the only category where there really is a fair chance of any one of the nominees winning? I wonder, it’s a curious category on its own because the winners are almost never that obvious. Often because other than the random The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or The Lord of the Rings it’s the less “prestigious” films which make it here.

So, what can we tell from their usual tastes? Contrary to popular belief, aging in a film doesn’t necessitate recognition from the Academy’s makeup branch, and they’re not particularly liable to recognise work simply because it’s obtrusive (consider the nominations for The Young Victoria, wins for Frida and How the Grinch Stole Christmas). I think that’s the reason predicting them is always such of a head scratcher. One is never certain what they’ll go for.

Albert Nobbs: Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnston andMatthew W. Mungle

Of the eight persons nominated, one has been nominated before – Matthew W. Mungle. He’s won for Bram Stoker’s Dracula nominated for Schindler’s List, Ghosts of Mississippi. He’s nominated along with the team from Albert Nobbs and it’s the film I immediately want to consider as the most likely winner. Glenn’s work is the one getting most recognition, but the work here doesn’t focus on a specific character and though the general blogging populace seems split on whether the work is convincing for making Glenn “manly”, it’s a foreseeable winner. Particularly because the work done isn’t for Glenn specifically, the period necessitates makeup work on the entire cast.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: (Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight and Lisa Tomblin)

The same goes for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. it’s the first nomination for the film, and despite its supernatural roots the work is not as pronounced as you’d anticipate. Despite the questionable work done on the main trio in the epilogue, there’s some significant makeup work done in the main story – from the obvious done on Voldermort and Griphook to the more subtle bits on Dumbledore and Bellatrix. If there’s any category where the series can actually be lucky at winning a prize it would be here (despite nominations over the years no Harry Potter film has won an Oscar).

The Iron Lady: Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland

Then, there’s The Iron Lady…the work done on Streep has retained significant praise (although I wonder if some of the effusive praise is just at the fact that it’s not as terrible as the work in J. Edgar, another film hinging on an aging protagonist). The work on The Iron Lady feels rather character specific, which mires its chances, although the argument could be made that the work done in La Vie en Rose was rather character-specific too –and, that, won an Oscar.

Projected Winner: Albert Nobbs

Alternate: The Iron Lady

Does Albert Nobbs walk away with it? Does The Iron Lady win a statue for the work on Meryl? Does Potter get some farewell love? Thoughts?

“You need to have something no one else has…”

2012-01-27T17:53:00.000-04:00

The Artist: directed and written by Michel Hazanavicius

“I’m not telling. I won’t talk!” The first title card of The Artist bears these words. By now even those marginally motivated cinephiles would know that The Artist Michel Hazanavicius’s silent film and one of the most lauded films of 2011. Let me give some perspective to the presentation of this bit of dialogue. We’re being introduced to our protagonist, but not to him really – it’s a film within a film we’re seeing – George Valentin’s latest silent film, “A Russian Affair”. Obviously, though, it’s a tongue-in-cheek bit of cuteness from Hazanavicius and a suggestion of what’s to come in the form of Valentin both deliberately on Hazanavicius as a bit of irony and in a more significant way, and one which I think escapes Hazanavicius. For, what The Artist is about is the fall from fame of Valentin – a moviestar whose position is displaced by the advent of talkies in cinema and simultaneously the rise of a young ingénue seemingly ready to take his place as the face of the movie studio he headlines. It’s a concept which has been tried – and tried excellently – in A Star is Born, Sunset Boulevard and I’m sure a slew others. So, I’m immediately intrigued by what Hazanavicius plans to do with the potential plot using the silent form. For, from the first few moments we realise that Jean Dujardin’s charming yet very exasperating Valentin is as assured of his entitlement to fame as Norma Dresmond and as dismissive of those around him as Norman Maine and my interest is piqued. How does Valentin become worthy of the title “The Artist”, I wonder.

The thing is he doesn’t. Not really. Not at all, even. Beginners, The Ides of March, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Beaver and particularly Moneyball, Drive and Rampart are seven films which sit comfortably along with The Artist as films which are difficult to extrapolate from the performance of their lead players Jean Dujardin (who holds the majority of scenes from the film on his shoulder) is surely to be trumpeted for her decisive performance. But, all his gusto can’t distract me from the thinness of the role he’s playing. Or, more accurately, the loose creation of the role seems at odds with the film it exists in. For, Hazanavicius’ creation (if it’s anything other a showcase for Dujardin, it’s a director’s film) plays up the joie-de-vivre of the world the characters inhabit, and Valentin’s carelessness and capricious meanness makes it difficult for him to coalesce with the world around him. In two scenes which mirror the stolidity of his words in the opening he’s urged to talk. The producer Al Zimmer is telling him that the silent craze is over. But, George will continue on his – “I don’t need you” is what he tells Zimmer. A few scenes later, sunk in a depression he refuses to talk. His exasperated wife tells him she’s unhappy. “So are millions of people.” And, immediately, it takes me out of the story.

In Young Adult Mavis Gary ends the film the same way she began. That film is a pessimistic outlook on life and how, sometimes, people are shown the light only to retreat and avoid it. It’s the same thing that happens in The Artist, but Hazanavicius stumbles because he doesn’t seem aware of this. For the first third of The Artist I was intrigued because I kept thinking that Valentin would have that epiphany and realise how ungracious he was being. He’d hit the bottom to learn from his state. Then, as Peppy’s star began to rise I thought that Hazanavicius was offering a whimsical presentation of the capricious nature of the film industry. But, neither occurs. Everything which occurs is treated in earnest as if we should accept Valentin’s boorishness as legitimate and true. This doesn’t sully the goodness of Dujardin’s performance but it does leave a sour taste in my mouth in regards to the film’s treatment of women. Penelope Anne Miller’s forgotten wife and her plights are played for mere laughs and conversely Bérénice Bejo’s charm can’t mitigate the flatness of Peppy, who is worse off than George. She enters the film in love with Valentin, and we leave her in the same way. There is shockingly little for her to do in the way of characterisation, and the poor thing comes off seeming somewhat vacuous. She has no qualms about his temperamental nature, it seems, and Hazanavicius gives her no dynamism to play, no tension to get through, which is a shame because Bejo seems impossibly game and more significantly because much of the film sails through like a breeze despite these issues.

The very tried adage, all style and no substance comes to mind when I think of the film and that shouldn’t be an issue for me because I love style and I don’t mind if it diminishes the shine of the substance but The Artist can’t help but come off to me as a sweet, aesthetic, lovely bauble. And, no, it has nothing to do with the simplicity of the themes it establishes. Two people have over the last two weeks accused me of being inherently dismissive of artistic worth which is decidedly light. “Andrew,” they said, “You’re a snob. A film need not be wrought with grandiose observances on the significance of life to be a worthwhile film.” (Obviously they didn’t use those words, I’m paraphrasing for effect.) I have nothing against simplicity when fully realised (see Winnie the Pooh)but what robs Hazanavicius’ skill with his cast and his impeccable direction from making this film soar is the lack of follow through in the screenplay. It’s not that I want The Artist to be about something “bigger” but I want it to be about something more complete than its concept.

It would seem lazily flip of me to say that Hazanavicius uses the silent genre as a gimmick but when despite the technical skill his only inclination for making the movie seems to be an homage I’m a little sceptical. There really is nothing there. It can’t succeed as a love story because I can’t buy Peppy’s sycophantic admiration of Valentin as romance especially when he seems to reciprocate only inasmuch as the relationship is helping his fame. And, curiously, I can’t say that it intends on serving as a shrine to silent cinema when the film’s endpoint is Valentin moving to the talkies out of necessary. Add sound to the story, and I think the novelty of The Artist wears thin – which doesn’t bode well for it as something of lasting effect. And, still throughout this The Artist is enjoyable in its own moderate and I’m already annoyed at how the state of the current awards is going to make this look like part of that god-awful conspiracy rooted in that terrible word backlash (something I need to write about some time). The Artist is a more than enjoyable bit of entertainment and it’s a fine film. And, it does have something no film in the last decade or so in that it’s a silent one. But, it forgets that it needs something all films have – at least all great ones – a working story. Which, alas, causes it to fumble a bit at its delivery . Aaah, but it is pretty, and it is enjoyable...but it so quickly dissipates...

B/B-

Incoherent Oscar: Two Days Later Reactions (Five Vaguely Vexing Issues)

2012-01-26T18:46:00.000-04:00

So….Oscars. Curiously, enough I had not planned on posting an official reactionary post to the Academy Award nominations announced on Tuesday morning. I’d just planned to take a few days, and return with some discussion on where the race is headed. But, then, that’d make my somewhat truncated Oscar coverage even more truncated and a few things have occurred in the past few days that have, unfortunately, increased by ire at the state of the race, not only specifically in regards to actual nominations but the way in which they’re being regarded. So, the thinnest layer of dust settles on the nominations I offer my thoughts – some on the nominees, and some on people’s reactions to them

Five issues that give me pause.

The Importance of the Screen Actors’ Guild

Prognostics were surprised by a number of notable omissions, among them the exclusion of Albert Brooks, Shailene Woodley and Michael Fassbender. Always happy to be “in” on the game, even if retrospectively, the common narrative now is that one should never underestimate the Screen Actors’ Guild because Brooks, Woodley and Fassbender were absent there, as well. Precursors play their part, each of them in their own way – and certainly there is some significance to extrapolate since the actors are a part of the AMPAS. But, there’s something along the lines of overreaching when the running thread is SAG is indelibly important when it’s the same SAG which nominated Tilda Swinton, Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer – all performances which went unnoticed by the Academy. In short, it’s a two-way street, precursors – like the SAG – can be accurate, and they can be inaccurate.

Only Late Releases are Remembered (a fallacy)

A mere glance over the list of nominated films, particularly the slate of nine best picture nominees elucidates the silliness of such a claim. Is it a point that could be made about previous Oscar nominations’ line-up before, perhaps….but we’re talking about the presence, so let’s ahead. War Horse and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close - the two December released to be nominated for Best Picture. We’ve got The Tree of Life and Midnight in Paris released in May, The Help released in August, Moneyball released in September, The Artist released in October, The Descendants and Hugo both released in November. Bridesmaids and Beginners are two films up for acting prizes, released in May and June. So, yes, only late released are remembered.

What’s more, three films which missed out on key nominations that most seem to be up in arms about (admittedly, not without reason) were released in December - Shame, We Need to Talk About Kevin and Young Adult. So, at least assess both sides of this rather thorny fence. They’re not all f0r late releases, nor are they all against them. Worth noting.

The Atrocities of the Music Branch

Joe Reid presents the issue in a much better written article (here), but I still have to mention what is perhaps the most galling development when it comes to the slate of nominees. I tweeted on Tuesday that the real upset of the nominees’ list was the two original song nominees, and not only because I was hoping for Alan Menken Oscar win. Something needs to be done to revamp the category. The current way of choosing nominees is not working. It’s not working for the potential nominees and it’s not working for the Academy’s rep and really if they’re not going to do it right they might as well just toss out the category, as much as it pains me to admit. Truly, some of my favourite moments of the ceremony came as a result of the category and I shall be sad to see it go, but with the way it is right now…it’s as if it’s already gone.

Best use of talent not best use of talent in a good film

“X film has this many nominations, when Y film only has this many.” It’s an understandable sentiment when some of your favourites are overlooked, but when that sentiment leads to the “agreement” that the Oscars are silly because of it, it’s a bit ridiculous. W.E. and Transformers are two easy targets that too many have been railing against. I haven’t seen this instalment, but the film always had excellent sound work and visual effects. And, I haven’t seen W.E. either but the stills of it do suggest some excellent costume designing. So, what gives? Should only “good” films be eligible for craft nominations?

The Oscars Don’t Mean Anything (fallacy)

Few things have absolutely annoyed me as much as Gavin Polone’s article (link) on (his words) “The Great Oscar Farce”. Obviously, like any event the Oscars’ are not for everyone but his entire article sits poorly with me, for an array of reasons – a number of which I wouldn’t bother entering into dissertation on because these things are subjective. But, one bit particularly annoyed me. In his desire to establish that the Oscars’ “value” had denigrated he notes:

“If possessing a statuette was actually worth something, shouldn’t there be some direct correlation between casting an Academy Award winner and higher box office? If you were financing a drama that starred a man in his mid-¬forties, would you feel more comfortable with your investment by offering the part to Sean Penn or Kevin Spacey, each with two Oscar wins, or to Will Smith or Johnny Depp, neither of whom has won?”

I think it speaks for itself, no? Especially when compounded by the fact that the suggestion that Depp and Smith would be the sounder “investment” when in the same article he lambastes Hollywood for thinking only in terms of numbers.The AMPAS has never shied away from their function, peers judging their fellow peers...and if nothing else, they'll mean that.

Am I sorry to see some of my favourites left off the ballot? God, yes. No Alexandre Desplat is particularly sad, when he’s had such a kick-ass year especially in the face of TWO John Williams’ citations. The exclusion of Michael Shannon, too, is unfortunate even though the Best Actor lineup is generally fair. But, really, I’m really okay with the nominations. Prognosticating shall be back to normal this weekend.

Two days later…what are you thinking about the nominees? What do you think of my issues?

Remembering Chance Wayne...

2012-01-26T14:51:00.000-04:00

I swear he had more on-screen chemistry with Geraldine than any of his other costars, or perhaps I just adore Sweet Bird of Youth so much that it makes it seem so.

Ah, well, happy birthday Paul.

Incoherent Oscar: Dream Duos

2012-01-25T15:20:00.001-04:00

I did this very random entry last year, and I think I’ll make it a tradition because it’s quite fun. Chances are your twitter timeline exploded yesterday when the Oscar nominations were announced. I haven’t posted an official response on the blog (yes, I know you’re just salivating waiting for that), I shall get to that later in the day – it is necessary. For, now, I’m looking at the slate of 20 nominated actors from the youngest (Rooney Mara at 26) to the oldest (Max Von Sydow at 82) and I picked out five pairs of the 20 that I’d like to headline a film together. To make things more interesting, for me, I’ve decided to add one of the five nominated directors to each pairing (some work, some don’t – you decide).

Potential movie pairs ahead…

Gary Oldman and Christopher Plummer (d. Michel Hazanavicius)
Naturally, since I know painfully little of Hazanavicius’ work outside of The Artist (thoughts on that forthcoming soon…ish) I’m not sure what would be a departure from the norm for him, or right up his alley. I do love the very British pairing of Plummer and Oldman, although I’m a bit more stumped on what their movie should be about. I would not be averse to Oldman reprising his role as Smiley (or a Smiley-esque figure) for a movie with Plummer as the stand-in for Control. Because, even though John Hurt is fabulous and even though it’s been nice seeing Plummer being gregariously nice in Beginners recently I’d love to see him get dark and dubious again opposite Oldman.

If I could glean anything from Hazanacicius work in The Artist it's that he's good with actors, and true I don't want Plummer and Oldman in a silent film, nor do I want them in a whimsical look back at Old Hollywood, but we do know that both men glower with distinction, and neither need words to penetrate your soul, so maybe it's a bit like a silent movie.

Demián Bichir and Brad Pitt (d. Terrence Malick)
I want Bichir and Pitt to star in a crime drama where they’re allies, but then I think what would Malick do with a crime drama? Transpose to some war, make a film about the battle-field? Replace them with dinosaurs? I’m just being silly. He’s not opposed to visceral crime (see Badlands) and sure he has his proclivities - but who doesn't right? Regardless of what might be his preference, Malick is obviously a fine director which I like to think means he could tackle anything he wishes to. And, Brad’s better performance this year was under him so why not have the two of them teamed up again?

Then, even if I didn’t love A Better Life Bichir is a fine actor. He has this quiet intensity going for him which I think makes him work excellent both as a the larger than life father he plays in that, as well as a still-waters-run-deep antihero. Cast him in a morally ambiguous role opposite Pitt and I’m sold.

Kenneth Branagh and Viola Davis (d. Woody Allen)
I dare you resist this. Viola Davis is a veteran of the theatre, and I love theatre people being gloriously theatrical on screen (see Annette Bening in Being Julia) for every theatrical avenue Viola could hit you just know that Shakespearean thespian Branagh would be right there matching her on every beat. Add that to the idea of Woody who did fine work with the theatre backdrop in Bullets Over Broadway and I think, my friends, we’ve got gold.

I can't validate why Branagh has sort of bee missing in action recently, and more than a few persons have intimated that they'd love for Viola, and black actresses in general, to find some key roles that don't focus explicitly on their race, I think a Woody comedy would be a nice way to both bring Branagh back to the fold, and give Viola a nice key role to sink her dramatic chops into.

Jean Dujardin and Meryl Streep (d. Martin Scorsese)
I want Scorsese to make another lady-picture. And, no this is not a deprecating comment, I want another The Age of Innoncence or Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. Scorsese is brilliant with the ladies (see Liza Minnelli give her finest performance under him). Why not have him team up with Streep for a film about an older woman and her young lover, played by Jean Dujardin. Will it be a tragedy? A comedy? A melodrama? Who knows? More importantly, who cares?

Sure, I am never completely on board the Meryl train, but the woman is lovely and I want to see her create a role from scratch. One of the reasons I loved 80s Meryl so much was because of her lovely work with introspective characters created from scratch and I'd love too see her create another role like that (it's not incidental that since the eighties my favourite performance from her was the excellent creation of Clarissa Vaughan). And, more importantly...who say no to Meryl and Jean AND Martin?

Jessica Chastain and Glenn Close d. (Alexander Payne)
If I want Scorsese to make a lady-picture, Alexander Payne NEEDS to make on. His sharpest critics tend to zero in on his boorish male leads and he has admittedly has issues with his women. So, what to do? Get Glenn Close and future world-ruler Jessica Chastain. At first, I was thinking a mother daughter duo, but then I thought boot Rose Byrne (who I like, have no fear) and create a faux-Damages affair for the cinema. Glenn in all her powerful, majesty and budding chameleon Jessica Chastain as a would be contender as heiress to Glenn’s throne.

I'm very curious to see what becomes of Chastain, she's lovely and even her more gritty characterisation in The Debt was still a bit sweet, so it'd be nice to see her attempting to come against someone with Close's general strength of projection. And, who doesn't love a good female/female showdown when done tastefully?

Mix and match the Oscar nominees....which pairs would you like to see emerge? Which actors need to work with which directors? Make your choices in the comments.

Incoherent Oscar (Final Gasps): Part Two

2012-01-23T23:05:00.001-04:00

So, Oscar nominees are set to be announced tomorrow, and I only must add my two cents to the mass of cents floating around the interweb predicting Oscars' and whatnot. Yesterday, I posted what I believed could be the nominees in the technical and artistic categories, now I head over to the big eight, and the other categories which are just a bitch to predict...foreign language, shorts, documentary, etc.

As usual, the potential nominees are listed in alphabetical order, and then the alternates in terms of probability. And, these are predictions for nominees only, so no stars to indicate potential winners....a whole lot of wild choices ahead, enjoy. (Part One)

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
MY GUESS: The Artist (Michael Hazanavicius); Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen); Young Adult (Diablo Cody); Take Shelter (Jeff Nicholas); Win Win (Thomas McCarthy)

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: A Separation (Asghar Farhadi); Bridesmaids (Kristen Wiig & Annie Mumulo); 50/50 (Will Reiser)

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Beginners (Mike Mills); Rango (John Logan, Gore Verbinski et al)

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
MY GUESS: The Descendants (Alexander Payne); The Help (Tate Taylor); Hugo (John Logan); The Ides of March (George Clooney and Grant Heslov); Moneyball (Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin)

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Bridget O'Connor and Peter Strong); Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Steven Zaillian)

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (Eric Roth); Albert Nobbs (Glenn Close and John Manville); War Horse (Lee Hall and Richard Curtis)

I love how random some of my choices for nominations might come off, and I'm probably going to be wrong - but I like going for these off-kilter choices for the hell of it. Still, I think that Take Shelter and The Ides of March (both uncertain guesses in the screenplay categories) are films that we could see surprising with a few nominations, hence my inclusion of both of them here. The majority of the original screenplay category is something of a toss-up, though, and it would seem that both 50/50 and Bridesmaids are likely choices for consideration but I'm feeling Win Win and the aforementioned Take Shelter more. It would be the sort of ironic occurrence for Win Win, the most tepidly received of McCarthy's features to be the one to net him the nomination.

ANIMATED FEATURE
MY GUESS: The Adventures of Tintin; Happy Feet Two; Kung Fu Panda 2; Puss in Boots; Rango

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Winnie the Pooh; Arthur Christmas; Chico and Rita

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Cars 2; Gnomeo and Juliet

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
MY GUESS: Hell and Back Again; If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front; Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory; Pina; We Were Here

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Project Nim; Semper Fi: Always Faithful; Under Fire: Journalists in Combat; The Loving Story

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Sing Your Song; Battle for Brooklyn

FOREIGN FEATURE
MY GUESS: Footnote; Omar Killed Me; Pina; A Separation; SuperClásico

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: In Darkness; Monsieur Lahzar; Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale; Bullhead

ANIMATED SHORT

MY GUESS: Dimanche/Sunday; The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr Morris Lessmore; Luminaris; Magic Piano; Wild Life

THEN AGAIN PERHAPS: La Luna; I Tawt I Saw a Puddy Tat; Specky Four Eyes

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Paths of Hate; A Morning Stroll

DOCUMENTARY SHORT

MY GUESS: The Barber of Birmingham; God is the Bigger Elvis; Incident in New Baghdad; Saving Face; The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: In Tahrir Square: 18 Days of Egypt's Unfinished Revolution; Witness; Pipe Dreams

LIVE ACTION SHORT
MY GUESS: Je Pourrais Être Votre Grand-Mère; Love at First Sight; Pentecost; The Road Home; The Shore

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Tuba Atlantic; The Roar of the Sea;

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Raju; Sailcoth; Timefreak

Everything from animated straight down to the shorts are wild guesses for me, and that's probably where I'll be shockingly accurate or potentially all wrong. But, what's the fun in predicting if you don't predict everything?

SUPPORTING ACTOR
MY GUESS: Kenneth Branagh in My week with Marilyn; Albert Brooks in Drive; Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Ides of March; Viggo Mortensen in A Dangerous Method; Christopher Plummer in Beginners

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Jonah Hill in Moneyball; Armie Hammer in J. Edgar; Nick Nolte in Warrior

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Ben Kingsley in Hugo; Patton Oswalt in Young Adult; Max von Sydow in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Admit it, you're secretly happy about my outlandish choices because you can always say to yourself - at least I'm getting more right than someone... But, there you go. As I said, I think that The Ides of March is going to make a late (re?)-surge which could see perennial Oscar favourite Philip Seymour Hoffman benefiting from it all, and I continue to hold on to Viggo Mortensen. And, the thing is, I think that Moneyball might be one of those films assured of a nomination which ends up stumbling landing hill in jeopardy, and I still am not completely certain that Nolte's chances of being remembered are as sure as everyone else seem to think.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
MY GUESS: Bérénice Bejo in The Artist; Jessica Chastain in The Help; Janet McTeer in Albert Nobbs; Octavia Spencer in The Help; Shailene Woodley in The Descendants

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Jessica Chastain in Take Shelter; Vanessa Redgrave in Coriolanus; Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Carey Mulligan in Shame; Sandra Bullock in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

I wish I had the guts to predict Chastain for Take Shelter, but I suppose my choices are crazy enough on their own leaving McCarthy (SAG and BAFTA nominee) off my list...but there you go, I live dangerously.

LEAD ACTOR

MY GUESS: George Clooney in The Descendants; Leonardo DiCaprio in J. Edgar; Jean Dujardin in The Artist; Brad Pitt in Moneyball; Michael Shannon in Take Shelter

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Ryan Gosling in The Ides of March; Michael Fassbender in Shame; Gary Oldman in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Demian Bichir in A Better Life;

I really wanted to switch Gosling for DiCaprio, but it came down to the fact that even though Gosling was only recently forgotten DiCaprio's last chance at what should have been a nomination was in 08, and he's a bigger star, and formerly ubiquitous, and in an Eastwood biopic which they seem to love. As I established, I think Take Shelter could surprise, which means that Shannon shows up.

LEAD ACTRESS
MY GUESS: Glenn Close in Albert Nobbs; Viola Davis in The Help; Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady; Tilda Swinton in We Need to Talk About Kevin; Michelle Williams in My week with Marilyn

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Charlize Theron in Young Adult; Rooney Mara in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Kirsten Dunst in Melancholia

This race seems rather standard to me, and I suspect that even if my predictions are wrong elsewhere this will be the single race which sees itself coming in the same as the SAG awards. I really can't see anyone of the predicted five losing their spots, and I almost definitely cannot see any of the two below being lucky, because even if I think The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will benefit from some technical love, it's too late for Rooney to break into this already sealed race.

DIRECTOR
MY GUESS: George Clooney in The Ides of March; Michael Hanazavicius for The Artist; Alexander Payne for The Descendants; Martin Scorsese for Hugo; Tate Taylor for The Help

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris; David Fincher for The Girl with Dragon Tattoo; Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Bennett Miller for Moneyball; Steven Spielberg for War Horse; Stephen Daldry for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Yup, Clooney. Good lord, I'm crazy? But, if it's really his year, why wouldn't the Oscars remember him? And even though I think his direction is the least impressive aspect of The Ides of March which I liked very much, I think it's a logical choice. And, yes, a Woody snub despite the DGA support which in immediate retrospect is a bit crazy, and probably means I'm wrong...but really, who cares if I'm wrong. Oh, yes, and Tate Taylor makes it in, too.

PICTURE
MY GUESS: The Artist; The Descendants; The Help; Hugo; Midnight in Paris; The Ides of March

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Moneyball; War Horse; A Separation

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; Drive; Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

No Moneyball. That's it, really. I feel that there will be six, so even though I think that Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will be get a slew of #1 votes I had to drop something and I anticipate that Midnight in Paris will be - marginally - more successful with the populace.

For those interested in even more silliness - The Artist and Hugo tie for the most nominations with 11 each, followed by The Help with 7, The Ides of March and The Descendants with 6 each and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows with 5, then The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Albert Nobbs (WTF, Andrew?), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (WTF, Andrew, again) with 4 a piece. These sound like statistics from a mad man's brain, which I think make them strong possibilities.

Really, it's just tossing pennies in a well. Chances are, you're probably churning out your own list of potential nominees. Are you going for each category like I? How crazy do you think the chances of surge for The Ides of March and major snubs for Moneyball are? What Oscar hunches have you got?

Incoherent Oscar (Final Gasps): Part One

2012-01-22T17:53:00.000-04:00

Should I even be doing this? Of course I should, I’ve been intermittently devoting imaginary ink to Oscar prognosticating for months, it’s only fair that I toss out some final predictions, even though I’m almost certain to be wrong and even though I don’t even mind the certainty of being wrong. It’s all about the…umm…fun? Er, final predictions ahead.

NOTE: As usual the five nominees I project to get mentioned are listed alphabetically; the potential spoilers are listed in terms of probability. No stars in this entry, though, I'm predicting nominees only...not potential winners.

SOUND EDITING
MY GUESS: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides; Hugo; Rise of the Planet of the Apes; Super 8; Transformers: Dark of the Moon

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II; Rango; Captain America: The First Avenger; The Adventures of Tintin; War Horse

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Hanna; The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Fast Five; Drive

SOUND MIXING
MY GUESS: The Artist; The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II; Hugo; Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Drive; Hanna; War Horse; Transformers; Super 8

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol; The Tree of Life; Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I have a strangely fun time predicting the sound nominees, because they’re so difficult to read – for me at least – and every now and then they’ll throw a complete curveball and delight me with an inclusion like Wanted or Salt (both of them Angelina Jolie movies, I know, I’m easy). And, it’s not that I don’t put credence in the CAS nominees, but precursors are never actually the real thing and the voters will vote for who they wish, end of story. But, who will that be? I just moved Harry Potter off the sound editing list, even though in retrospect it’d probably be a more likely nominee there than in sound mixing where I have it now, and who’s to say that Drive won’t show up? And who’s to say that Transformers will? The last one didn’t. Do I mind if I am completely wrong on Tuesday? Considering that I expect to be wrong, I don’t mind.

ORIGINAL SONG
MY GUESS: “Lay Your Head Down” (Albert Nobbs; “Star Spangled Man” (Captain America); “Hello, Hello” (Gnomeo and Juliet); “Life’s a Happy Song” (The Muppets)

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: “The Living Proof” (The Help); “Coeur Volant” (Hugo); “Pictures in my Head” (The Muppets)

MORE POSSIBILITIES: “Bridge of Light” (Happy Feet Two); “Think You Can Win” (Win Win); “The Keeper” (Machine Gun Preacher; “Man or Muppet” (The Muppets)

ORIGINAL SCORE
MY GUESS: The Artist (Ludovic Bource); Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor); The Ides of March (Alexandre Desplat); Hugo (Howard Shore); War Horse (John Williams)

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II (Alexandre Desplat); Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Alberto Iglesias); Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (Alexandre Desplat)

MORE POSSIBILITIES: W.E. (Abel Korzeniowski); The Skin I Live (Albert Iglesias); The Adventures of Tintin (John Williams)

The music branch often gets me unncessaily incensed, and I sort of feel like I’m being a bit silly having Desplat here although I had him in for another film an hour ago. But, then, I realised I had Harry Potter slated for EIGHT nominations in my first draft – and that’s just ridiculous (almost as ridiculous as me having four drafts of Oscar predictions, but not quite). Anyhow, I’m predicting four for song, withAlbert Nobbs being the one to leave if its three, but I feel like people will want to honour Glenn with a nod because she’s probably not going to be winning.

Am I underestimating the Muppet love? Likely.

MAKEUP
MY GUESS: Albert Nobbs; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II; The Iron Lady

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life; Hugo

MORE POSSIBILITIES: The Artist; Anonymous

VISUAL EFFECTS
MY GUESS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II; Hugo; Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides; Rise of the Planet of the Apes; Transformers: Dark of the Moon

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Captain America: The First Avenger; Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

MORE POSSIBILITIES: The Tree of Life; X-Men: First Class; Real Steel

Both these categories have shortlisted potential nominees, but the makeup one for me us most difficult category to predict. We have seven potential nominees shortlisted, and I could see any of them being nominated and winning because this category is always very, very weird for me. Am I completely at ease with these picks? Hell no. But….Eh.

Yes, I see Harry Potter showing up in both instances, even though it’s probably not assured a nomination in either. I also don’t see The Tree of Life surprising and making it in. And, why does it seem like everyone is underestimating Pirates of the Caribbean? Or am I overestimating it?

COSTUME DESIGN
MY GUESS: Anonymous (Lissy Christl); The Artist (Mark Bridges); The Help (Sharen Davis); Hugo (Sandy Powell); Jane Eyre (Michael O’Connor)

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Jacqueline Duran); Immortals (Eiko Isioka); W.E. (Arianne Phillips); Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Penny Rose)

MORE POSSIBILITIES: My Week with Marilyn (Jill Tayor)

It ties with cinematography for my favourite technical category. I’m sort of stumped, though. It seems easy, and then it doesn’t. I like this quintet, though, they all seem likely to me and no matter what the Guilds say no W.E. will not get a nomination, even though I sort of want it to, just because.

ART DIRECTION
MY GUESS: The Artist (Laurence Bennet, Austin Buchinsky and Robert Gould); Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II (Stuart Craig); Hugo (Dante Ferretti); Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (John Myhre); Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Marka Ricker and Rena DeAngelo)

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Anonymous (Sebastian Krawinkel); The Help (Marka Ricker and Rena DeAngelo)

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Jane Eyre (Karl Probert); A Dangerous Method (James McAteer); Captain America: The First Avenger (Rick Heinrichs)

CINEMATOGRAPHY
MY GUESS: The Artist (Guillame Schiffman); Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Jeff Crenoweth); Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Eduardo Serra); Hugo (Robert Richardson); The Tree of Life (Emmanuel Lubezki)

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Hoyte van Hotyema); War Horse (Janusz Kaminski)

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Drive (Newton Thomas Siegel); Melancholia (Manuel Albert Caro)

I find that these two tend to overlap, and I was tempted to include Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in both instances, but I can’t find space for it in cinematography even though actual logic would suggest it’s assured of a nod there more likely than my WTF pick Harry Potter. I’m really being a bit silly with the Potter love, I suppose, but then I really could see all these nominations for it panning out and though I’m perhaps being a bit silly in not including Hotema and Kaminski, but give me my gutsy choices.

EDITING
MY GUESS: The Artist (Anne Sophia Bion); The Descendants (Kevin Trent); Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Kirk Baxter and Anne Wall); Hugo (Thelma Schoonmaker); The Ides of March (Stephen Mirrione)

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Moneyball (Christopher Tellefsen); War Horse (Michael Kahn)

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Yup, I’m predicting a surprise inclusion of The Ides of March at the expense of Moneyball which is perhaps the silliest of my decisions here, but it’s another one those unlikely to pan out hunches. And, I sort of want to move up Tinker Tailor, but then I’m not too sure how it’ll pan out. I feel that we’re in for some surprises but where? And from which films?

For those keeping check it’s Hugo with 8, The Artist with 6, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows with 5 and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides with 4 (Andrew, you fool!)

Tomorrow I’ll publish the predictions for the last eight categories. What do you think of my thoughts on the technical nominees? How absurd are my hunches? Or does the absurdity make them realistic surprises?

“It’s almost convincing…”

2012-01-22T14:50:00.000-04:00

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: directed by David Fincher; written by Steven Zaillian

Ummm, January and all those films to see…

I tend to churn out those 99 word non-reviews for films I have nothing particularly significant say anything on. Of course, this belies the fact I don’t necessarily have anything particularly significant to say in the full length reviews I churn out – but I’m already digressing from the main thread here, which is – I would love to toss out actual 1000 word thoughts on the last dozen or so films I’ve seen recently, but for the fact that words at my disposal (struggling to string two of them together), and neither is time for that matter. So truncated thoughts ahead.*

Due to my deliberate blindness in terms of pre-release information, specifically trailers I did not know much of any of these films I’ve seen recently (Sleeping Beauty, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, War Horse, The Descendants) going in; even The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which I knew the most about – but still not much. Honestly, all I knew was that it had anal rape, a goth looking lead and Robin Wright in what Jose said was a rich role. I love him, but he lied – but, more on that later. I know enough about the film to know that it’s based on a trilogy, and the sort of literary mystery which as presented by Zaillan’s screenplay wears it literary roots in a rather obvious showing itself to be more of a John Grisham than a John le Carre, which is not a specific criticism because I happen to like John Grisham. And, although it’s not a well-known position of mine, I think the world needs more well-made genuine mystery films. Pleasure in the simple things, and whatnot, right?

And, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is proficiently made. Even though I adore two of his films (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) and greatly like and appreciate two more (Se7en and The Social Network) I don’t consider myself as someone enthralled by David Fincher’s abilities specifically – as a director. But, he’s notorious for meticulous control of the aesthetics in his film, and the sort of thin but pliable mystery which grounds the film’s narrative (narratives?) necessitates a director with deliberate visual flair. Because, narrative wise The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo unfolds with less truly seismic moments in its plotting than a lesser Agatha Christie works, which I would assume is something which the sequels make good on but is the slightest bit unfulfilling because cinema is not television and even continuous narratives in a series are better off for being self-contained.

Or, maybe I’m looking at it from the wrong angle because I feel like everything it establishes is so small scale. Again, not a criticism, but there’s a certain…not exactly whimsy, but tongue-in-cheek silliness (which would admittedly come across better in the page, assuming it’s found in the novels) which I feel the film should have but doesn’t and that’s probably because Fincher’s proficiency with his very serious aesthetics make it something of a humourless which I assume (again, with the assumptions. I KNOW,) the book digs into. Because, really, a Nazi villain, tape rape, then violent retribution, a more than subtly shoehorned in romance? There’s the slightest of dichotomies in the fact that Fincher’s presentation of it is so lofty – or maybe that’s part of the joke and I’m missing it? What we’re presented with, though, isn’t quite a mystery – the conclusion to it all would be a slap in the face if it were, neither is it a love story because said romance between our de facto hero and heroine feels particularly disingenuous.

Taking into account, again, the dearth of actual information I had about the film I’d anticipated Lisbeth Salander to exist as the voluble protagonist keeping it all together, but it doesn’t come off in that way for me. Much has been said about potential Oscar nominee Rooney Mara’s work as the Salander, and it’s as nearly effective a performance as I can imagine playing someone who’s less “person” and more “character” seemingly containing all the brash sensibilities that a prototypical bad-ass heroine would comprise. Mara’s just a bit too effortful for me to take her performance in earnest, which I’m sure is a crutch of this type of role to begin with. Still, I have to say it’s a bit jarring to coalesce her occasionally mannered line-readings with her character’s spontaneity. Craig fares better, with less to work with. Count me in the, I assume, stark minority who would have preferred a character study on the events leading up to the film’s opening. Craig, and a luminous but often absent Robin Wright lend credence to their characters that the film doesn’t seem wholly interested in cultivating.

BUT, this is not a character and I don’t think it’s meant to be and the team-up half way through of Lisbeth and Mikael is a necessity for the “mystery” to be solved and though it’s hokey wrap-up is more than a little exasperating – and not particularly “surprising” it’s well orchestrated in the basest of ways. And, considering how many films managed to lose my love this year for being so excellent but for the way that they were presented it’s gratifying to see how Fincher makes his case for this fairly middling escapade and turns it into something that seems worthy of giving significant thought to, even when on perusal it all seems to be startlingly…empty.

B-

* Honestly, this started off as a two-paragraph bit piece and turned into…this. The tone’s off in regards to my usual reviews, but good lord this is long. Ummm, apologies?

Live, Laugh, Link

2012-01-21T18:17:00.000-04:00

Amidst all the Oscar hubbub Tim (Antagony & Ecstasy) is taking a look back through the years at Tyler Perry's filmography. It's a strange choice, ostensibly, but his essay on Diary of a Man Black Woman is a good read.

Joey (The Awards Circuit) discusses some Oscar surprises that could happen come Tuesday.


Stevee (Cinematic Paradox) raises some interesting points in her article on The Oscars. Only last week I wrote by own Oscar post in defense of the AMPAS (here), and I do think that the fact that lovers of a particular film are more vocal than its past Oscar competition means that it's failed to endure...but these are all points to chew on.

CS (Big Thoughts From a Small Mind) does the unthinkable and pits the two lovely ladies from The English Patient against each other. I refuse to choose between Kristin Scott Thomas and Juliette Binoche, what say you?

Luke (Journalistic Skepticism) invites you bloggers to take part in his second annual Film Bloggers' Choice Awards. Voting in a poll is NOT difficult people, head over there before Tuesday. On the topic of polls, time to vote for the LAMB Casting picks for Taxi Driver. Get thee there (here) and vote.

Finally, Nick (Cinema Romantico, Anomalous Material) invited me and a few others for a roundtable discussing 2011 in film. It amounted to a very lengthy piece, but some interesting talking points come up (Midnight in Paris and its end, Albert Brooks and Drive, the art of "good" direction).

What say you? Read anything good lately?

TV Week in NON-Review: 15th-19th January

2012-01-21T13:25:00.000-04:00

I’m way too busy to do actual recaps, so screen caps for the win! (and twitter sized reviews)

No recap of Once Upon a Time this week, I’ll probably take a look at the episode sometime in the future, because I hate the idea of quitting a show – but it’s hardly a priority for now.

The Good Wife: Season Three, Episode Thirteen; “Bitcoin for Dummies” [B/B+]

Excellent use of guest stars, but maddeningly filler-like in keys spots. Excels in building momentum for ultimate showdown, though.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]

Glee: Season Three, Episode Ten; “Yes/No” [C+]

Appalling turns in character development (Will, though Morrison tries) and some zany conclusions. It goes down easy, though, and Mays shines.
[Writing: C+; Directing: B-]

Parenthood: Season Three, Episode Fourteen, “It Is What It Is” [B+]

Firmly in control of its narrative with strong handles on characters’ sensibilities and making the little moments count, as they should in such a show.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]

Modern Family: Season Three, Episode Thirteen, “Little Bo Bleep” [B+]

Still, exasperatingly dependent on the issues of thrills but holistically satisfying in the end-all for most of them. The earnestness makes it all coalesce.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]

Revenge: Season One, Episode Thirteen; “Commitment”; Season One, Episode Thirteen [B+]

Contains an unfortunate expulsion of a favourite character from the narrative, but a glorious reaffirming of its original purpose AND a great mounting of stakes.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]

30 Rock: Season Six, Episode Two; “Idiots are People Too”; Season Six, Episode Two [B+/A-]

Wonderfully and almost giddily evocative of early season work with great plot turns that don’t feel forced. Krakowski and Baldwin excel, Fey shines.
[Writing: A-; Directing: B+]

The Office: Season Eight, Episode Twelve; “Pool Party”; [B]

Kempler is the only who rises above in this episode what has become an almost annoyingly ensemble show. Still, great fun until the last few minutes oversell it,=. [Writing: B/B+; Directing: B/B+]

Parks and Recreation: Season Four, Episode Twelve; “Campaign Ad”; [B/B+]

A minor offering, but hardly a poor one – Ben and Leslie’s conflict is just a bit too cutesy as is April and Andy’s escapades. Charming throughout, though.
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B/B+]

Grey’s Anatomy: Season Eight Episode Twelve; “Hope for the Hopeless” [B/B+]

Still, flails a bit in balancing drama with the bits of comedy (what gives? S1-S3 depended on that) but a significant episode with moving struggles between Adele and Richard and Cristina and Owen.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]

Standout Performers
Tina Fey in 30 Rock A-
Alec Baldwin in 30 Rock B+/A-
Julie Bowen in Modern Family B+/A-
Archie Panjabi in The Good Wife B+/A-
Jane Krakowski in 30 Rock B+
Amy Poehler in Parks and Recreation B+

Jesse Tyler Ferguson in Modern Family B+
Ellie Kempler in The Office B+
Madeleine Stowe in Revenge B+
Sandra Oh in Grey’s Anatomy B+
Lauren Graham in Parenthood B+
Bonnie Bedelia in Parenthood B+
Sofia Vergara in Modern Family B+

What did you watch this week?

Incoherent Oscar: Supporting Actress

2012-01-19T19:57:00.000-04:00

And, just like that time has flown and there are only a few days until the Oscar nominations are announced. Here goes…something…

The supporting actress category is both wildly exciting and incredibly boring. A few performances come to mind which might have been much more interesting to see getting laurelled along the way, but here’s what the race is looking like as a few days remain.

MY GUESS: Bérénice Bejo in The Artist; Jessica Chastain in The Help; Janet McTeer in Albert Nobbs; ★Octavia Spencer in The Help; Shailene Woodley in The Descendants

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Vanessa Redgrave in Coriolanus; Carey Mulligan in Shame

MORE (IM?) POSSIBLITIES: Sandra Bullock in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

It seems to be something of a free for all in some ways where anything can happen, until you realise that most pundits seem agreed that it’s down to six performances (six if you include Vanessa) which could suggest that it’s all much easier to predict than we’re choosing to believe. If anything, the last few days have seemingly assured Octavia Spencer’s position as frontrunner. I had mentioned before that even as I listed Spencer as my projected winner, I was still uncertain of her solidity at taking the prize home. But, there she remains and there she probably will remain. There doesn’t seem to be any actress with a viable chance of upsetting their way to a win.

The only potential spoiler in the race is Jessica Chastain and she has a particular hurdle to overcome which seems all but insurmountable from where I sit. It’s not the fact that she had a plethora of performances to choose from (it seems assured that voters will rally around her work in The Help). What loses her the chance of taking the statue is the simple fact that the most ardent supporters of The Help would certainly not miss the opportunity to reward two black actresses in a single year (and from a single film) and regardless of how lovely Chastain’s Celia Foote is it doesn’t land with the same humanistic nature that Octavia’s more ostensibly sympathetic Minny will, or at the very least so I assume. Excuse my lack of tact, but I’m still doubtful people won’t feel bad voting for the pretty white girl over the sassy black maid amidst all the political correctness surrounding The Help and its stance on racism at the moment. (Not that there aren’t those who adore Spencer’s performance more, just something to chew on.)

So, the question is – who joins these two ladies from The Help? I suppose with the love for The Artist and its “frontrunner” status, Bejo is assured a nod but I still feel that it’s not as simple as it seems. True, I have no seen The Artist as yet, but the support for this performance seems to be coming specifically from the school of “we-love-your-film-so-much-so-hop-on-board” and it’s the very same sort of love that Woodley seems to be getting, which means that I think those two are most susceptible to missing out on nods. Not because people don’t like their performances, but because those performances are so easily overshadowed (seemingly, at the very least) by other attributes of the film.

This means, I think McTeer is more assured of a nod than these two. I have a few reasons for such a supposition. First, actors love it when fellow actors take these gender bending roles, second supporting actresses often get love for these slight but sprightly roles which seem like nothing on paper but spring to life on screen and third and most importantly McTeer is a former nominee, and if we assume that it’s an easy bake-off and McTeer is out and McCarthy is in it means that we’ve got a list of nominees none of which have been nominated before. The last time that happened in this category was in 1999, and I just feel (don’t ask for proof) that voters are liable to invite at least one veteran – even a relative one – the ceremony. It’s this reason too which makes me think that Redgrave has a better chance of showing up on the slate than McCarthy, despite the former’s dodgy precursor showing and the mass of support for the latter including a BAFTA nod which you’d think Vanessa might have been a shoo-in form. But, this is what I’m thinking – and if it’s not for gut feelings, what else is Oscar prognosticating for? Poor Sandy probably has zero chance...

How crazy am I? Is McTeer a shoo-in? Is Redgrave still a possibility? Does the tetchy race factor warrant consideration in Spencer and Chastain's race for winning for The Help? What think ye?

“Can’t you get a new dress?”

2012-01-18T17:27:00.003-04:00

Young Adult: directed by Jason Reitman; written by Diablo Cody

In my gut I feel that, yes, Young Adult is a leap forward for Diablo Cody and Jason Reitman, both individually and together as a team even as I almost immediately feel the need to qualify that statement by saying that the movement forward is more pronounced in the former than the latter. I should probably begin on a note of full disclosure because unlike what I’d assume to be the majority of people turning up to see Young Adult the presence which gave me pause was not the sometimes maligned Diablo Cody but the director Jason Reitman. Cody is, at best, hit or miss but with Reitman I’ve never been specifically enthralled by his directing choices, on occasion I’ ve even loathed them. And, it’s not so much that it made me worrisome about the film, because form the little I could tell Young Adult seemed like a departure from the oeuvre of Reitman at the very least (although, how much could you assess of his oeuvre from three feature films? But I digress). I approached Young Adult with my antenna down because, for the most part, I was just curious to see how Charlize Theron would play out in a lead role since other than her work in Monster I find her a bit effortful in her lead roles (Aeon Flux, North Country, The Burning Plain, Hancock).

So, Young Adult… it’s a holistically more put together venture than Juno (the two's last collaboration), at least relatively. For example, it’s more in tune with its lead character and not particularly liable to forget her cute moments with the supporting cast, even though this means that to some extent the supporting players here come off a bit shallow. Moreover, the situation here – although the premise is a bit WTF – comes off as decidedly more logical, things play out as you’d expect them to, people speak as you’d imagine they would. And that’s a big plus. If we’re to take Reitman’s last feature into consideration, curiously, also about a somewhat deluded protagonist you’d notice that there’s no garish moment where the status quo is flipped and the character turns into someone we must root for…so positive again.

And the whole thing is a good experience but it probably rivals We Need to talk about Kevin (a strange analogy, I know) as that film where the divide between good and very good is so strident. Because, it should be…or perhaps I oversell it – it couldbe something particularly special. A self-deluded, very likely alcoholic, definitely and defiantly too, unhinged woman makes her way back to the small-town she despises because a taunting photograph of an old-flame’s new-born baby becomes a siren announcing said boyfriend’s degradation into a life in matrimonial abyss. It is her job to save him. This woman is Mavis Gary, as pretty as she is emotionally crippled – a ghost writer for a young adult series, and the type of woman who sleeps with the TV on, guzzles litres of soda and alcohol, and would not be averse to looking at a baby and saying “g-roooossssss”. Arrested development? Yes, but, not in the most obvious of ways for Charlize plays this girl-woman as a curious creation. Not like the female counterpart of the man-child characters in, say, Stepbrothers. Its logic is sounder – Mavis’ unlikely “friendship” with everyman Matt who was a victim of a not-a-hate-crime is a surrogate for the audience. Like us he is both disgusted, and affronted by Mavis’ actions but just as enthralled by them (he doesn’t do much in the way to stolidly prevent her rampage).

There’s a trio of scenes at the film’s end which play out like a one-two-three punch to the gut and it wraps the film up deftly, efficiently, handily (maybe a bit too much) and everything works in those three scenes, but the bone I have with Reitman is that I wish he’d have given the same directing savvy to the rest of the film. Because that scene works more because of Charlize and Diablo than for him. For a black comedy, it’s directed in a rather humourless fashion and there are moments which should elicit more than a chuckle on screen, but they are moments which don’t land as decisively as you’d hope. And, really I am loathe to indict the director as the end-all of the issues in a film. But, I can’t give Reitman the benefit of the doubt simply because his track record is suspect and it’s the self-same dawdling on the wrong side of laidback direction which I find so exasperating in the film’s lowest points. And, Cody has her issues – most of which stem from having paid so much emphasis on Mavis’ psychosis ending up in something of a rut where the rest of the supporting cast are on the verge of being full characters.

And, you know, maybe it might have not been as much of an issue if Reitman didn’t root all our avenues into the supporting cast through shots of Mavis’ sneer.Cody is at her usual equivocal self and although it makes good on the ultimate point of serving a story where, perhaps, people don’t learn and change isn’t always forthcoming. And, that’s not bad because the movie we’re served with ends up being a rewarding experience, just not for the reasons that I’d have initially like. Because, Young Adult abandons any possibility of an ironic observance of a small-town mid-way through and I wonder if perhaps it might not have been served best by focusing on Mavis’ lunacy without the threat of any peripheral interest in the small town. But, that’s too many ifs. And, I’m satisfied with what I do get even if I can’t help but wish that the actual idea might have been dovetailed into a more decisively presented package.

B *

*Yes, more thoughts - I do feel like a bit of a curmudgeon for judging a film on what it could have been and not what it actually is. I still can't get over some annoying tics of Reitman (for example, almost every scene in Matt's room is directed in such a lazily flip way, or scenes which should play out as jokes just land there because Reitman seems much too much laidback; or the scenes with Mavis putting on her makeup which show - yes pretty girl needs to work to look pretty - but do nothing to make this character anymore complex). And, then, I do like this one - my favourite of the movies I've graded B (all 2011 films, thus far), or maybe a really low B+....*shrugs*

"Oh, you forgot your birthday, didn't you, Frank?"

2012-01-17T12:39:00.000-04:00

...or dropping the ball, aka the third....

Ummm, it's not as if I've been particularly busy but I forgot that the 8th (two Sundays ago) was my blog anniversary, the third ones. Usually, I take a day out to make mentions of the past year in blogging (year one, year two) but as I said it straight slipped my mind, which is sort of a shame because I'd have liked to shine a light on the great bloggers I've grown fonder of in this past year (but, that's why I've got a ton of blogs on the blogroll to the right). Otherwise, this is simply serving as a footnote in my blogging posts to remind me to be more assiduous and whatnot with the blogging in the coming year.

I've sort of dropped not only the celebration of the blog anniversary, but the memory of a number of features like Forgotten Characters (which shall return next week as I recap 2011 in film), Failure to Launch, Pilot Me, The Spinoff...Sunday saw a tentative return of Scene On a Sunday. Although, it's really up to you if I resuscitate them or no. To all the people who've been steadfast readers from the beginning - thanks a million. To the newer but just as stalwart visitors, your support, too, is appreciated. I'm loathe to call out anyone specifically, but you know who you are. Here's to another year of not terrible meandering cinematic discussions.

Thanks for reading.

PS. My name's not Frank, obviously, it's a quote from a movie...bonus points if you can tell me which without googling.

Scene On A Sunday: All About Eve

2012-01-15T17:10:00.000-04:00

I have returned!

These Scene Analysis sure do take up a lot of time, but it’s fun to dig through films and take note of particular scenes and in celebration of the upcoming Oscar Ceremony I’m making my way through some Oscar winning films to resuscitate this feature. I haven’t had a general scene analysis since May (Rabbit Hole), and I haven’t done the equivalent (Sunday Openings) since August (Dangerous Liaisons). I’m heading further back in time, and starting with All About Eve.

Is this my favourite scene of the film? In a film made up of brilliant scenes it’s difficult to choose, but it is high up there because it involves almost the entire cast. I was moved to include a prelude scene, but this analysis is already long enough and I love it for the fact that it all occurs in a particularly small environment. It’s halfway through the film at Bill’s welcome home party, Margo has grown tired of her sometimes sycophantic ward, and as the night wears on she’s grown more and more drunk. But, this isn’t her scene in particular – it isn’t anyone’s. As the night draws to a close Birdie, Margo’s maid, and Karen make their way down from upstairs after retrieving a sable coat. They interrupt a discussion in progress.

Simple things in movies make me happy, and just a lovely establishing shot like this makes me immensely pleased. The film earned a whopping 14 Oscar nominations (the record, tied with Titanic). It lost the cinematography in black-and-white nod to Carol Reed’s The Third Man, but Milton R. Krasner’s work is excellent.

Addison: “Every now and then some elderly statesman of the theatre or so assures the public that actors and actresses are just plain folks; ignoring the fact that their greatest attraction to them, their public, is their complete lack of resemblance to normal human being.”

The film did win a well-deserved screenplay nod it’s not only a good screenplay in terms of the usual construction, each line lands with great effect – and there’s so much wisdom to be found in the discussions entertained by its characters. One of the themes of the film is the state of theatre, acting and art and it isn’t facetious that it is a discussion on theatre that Birdie and Karen interrupt. These are theatre folk after all…

What’s so great is that despite the significance of the words Mankiewicz doesn’t overplay its importance with close-ups. This is a typical discussion among these glamorous folk. And, a close-up would rob us of the lead-in to one of the film’s finest throwaway moments. You’d notice how Miss Caswell’s eyes (Marilyn Monroe in my favourite performance of hers) are following Birdie and the coat….

Miss Caswell: “Now there’s something a girl could make sacrifices for.”

I am so in the love with the choice to keep the camera on everyone; I don’t know who to focus my attention on. Baxter being typically silent but deadly? Sampson enjoying himself? Holm watching over everything literally and figuratively?

Bill: “Probably has.”

Miss Caswell: “Sable.”

Monroe’s still a relative unknown at this time, but the camera is just in love with her and perhaps because of its paucity in lines and screentime she’s just fabulous here, absolutely commanding the attention (and Edith Head’s Oscar winning costuming helps).

Max: “Sable? Did she say sable or Gable?”

A perfect line.

Miss Caswell: “Either one.”

And an even better response. I love how Holm is there reacting to everything. Karen is a simple character but Holm is just fabulous. She lost the Oscar to Josephine Hull in Harvey, but she’d have been my pick. And, the conversation which was on pause continues….

Addison: “We all have abnormalities in common. We’re a breed apart from humanity we theatre folk. We are the original displaced personalities. ”

Bill: “You don’t have to read his column tomorrow, Eve. You just heard it.”

Isn’t Anne Baxter just gorgeous? Villain or no, she’s a star and I love her performance just as much as I love Bette’s.

Bill: “I don’t agree, Addison.

Addison: “That happens to be your particular abnormality.”

Bill: “Well, I’ll admit there’s a screwball element in the theatre. It sticks out; it’s got spotlights on it and a brass band. But, it isn’t basic. It isn’t standard. If it were it couldn’t survive.”

Not to trumpet Holm again, but it takes such dedication for an actor to listen with distinction. This isn’t really her moment, but she’s so completely engrossed in the conversation, as you’d expect Karen to be and it works so brilliantly having her in the shot along with Sampson and DeWitt.

Another gorgeous group shot, above.

Miss Caswell: “Oh, waiter…”

Addison: “You can’t say waiter, my dear. That’s a butler.”

Miss Caswell: “Well, I can’t yell Oh, Butler can I? Maybe somebody’s name is Butler.”

This brings me to a scene I had done on Mirror Images (HERE), and you have to admit that Marilyn looks freakishly like Katherine Heigl there. It’s ridiculously uncanny, I have yet to see My Week with Marilyn, but I wonder what the Emmy winning Heigl might have done with a role of that scope, she does have the looks and body for Marilyn, I think.

Addison: “You have a point. An idiotic one, but a point.”

Love that smile from Miss Caswell, there.

Miss Caswell: “I don’t want to make trouble. All I want is a drink.”

Max: “Leave it to me…”

Miss Caswell: “Thank you, Mr. Fabian.”

She sure is gorgeous, and watch Addison – the sly fox – looking on. Nothing gets by him, as fans of the films would remember.

Addison: “Well done. I can see your career rising in the east like the sun.”

A brilliant editing choice there to switch to Eve, you just know she’s ready for her career to reach stratospheric heights, and it has not even begun. And, then, we return to our main conversation.

Addison: “You were saying?”

Bill: “I was saying that the theatre is nine-tenths hard work. Work done the hard way – by sweat, application and craftsmanship.”

The camera moves back to Eve midway through, beautifully. After all, the climb from the bottom rung to the top in theatre takes up a great deal of the film’s theme and it’s encapsulated by Eve. Baxter has some sharp features, and her countenance tells so much here and she hasn’t had a single line as yet.

Bill: “I’ll agree to this – to be a good actor or actress or anything else in the theatre means wanting to be that more than anything else in the world.”

Eve: “Yes. Yes, it does.”

It’s one of the curious things about Eve. It’s easy to just read her as a standard duplicitous villainess, but is she acting here? Or is she really that enthralled by the theatre and all it offers? I think the latter, it’s as if she isn’t even fully aware of her utterance here…

Bill: “It means concentration of desire, ambition and sacrifice such as no other profession demands…and, I’ll agree that the man or woman who accepts those terms can’t be ordinary, can’t be – just someone. To give so much for almost always so little…”

And, this particular cut to Eve is important because it launches in to one of the more important monologues of the film.

Eve: “So little? So little, did you say? Why, if there’s nothing else – there’s applause.”

The musical adaptation of All About Eve, a massive Tony winner starring Lauren Baccall (who was replaced by Anne Baxter in the run) was titled “Applause”. I love that sort of symmetry.

Eve: “I’ve listened backstage to people applaud. It’s like…waves of love coming over the footlights and wrapping you up. Imagine…to know, every night that different hundreds of people love you. They smile, their eyes shine. You’ve pleased them. They want you. You belong. Just that alone is worth anything.”

That piece alone solidifies Anne’s worth of a nomination, she’s so in touch with her character and it’s why I can’t hate Eve Harrington. The quest for love and belonging is one which leads so many persons to evil, but Baxter is the kind of actress who doesn’t make this shrieky which is of course what makes Eve so chilling. Her sense of calm is unnerving.

I love how everyone responds to her there, Karen almost proud of her love for the theatre, Addison clearly intrigued and Bill as if uncertain of what to think. And, Eve so very contrite…but is it real or simulated?

And on Eve’s face, she notices something…

Margo: “Don’t get up. And, please stop acting as if I were the Queen Mother.”

Bette’s entrance, and one of the most memorable shots of the film. My favourite shots in the scene are still the group ones, but that one above is a beauty.

Eve: “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to–”

Bill: “Outside of a beehive, Margo, your behaviour would hardly be considered either queenly or motherly.”

Aaah, group shots, though – watch everyone reacting to this face-off. I swear I live for these type of reactionary moments where everyone is working.

Margo: “You’re IN a beehive, pal, didn’t you know? We’re all busy little bees – full of stings, making honey day and night.”

Margo: “Aren’t we, honey?”

Karen: “Margo, really…”

Another nice thing, the quick cut from Margo’s jab to Karen’s reaction.

And Bette’s face above.

Margo: “Please don’t play governess, Karen. I haven’t your unyielding good taste. I wish I could have gone to Radcliffe, too. But, father wouldn’t hear of it. He needed help at the notions’ counter.”

And, that moment is all Bette’s. Powerful.

Margo: “I’m being rude now, aren’t I? Or should I say, ain’t I?”

Addison: “You’re maudlin and full of self pity. You’re magnificent.”

Lloyd: “How about calling it a night?”

I feel bad for both Merrill and Marlowe that their performances weren’t remembered more, or that their stars never rose as much as they should have.

Margo: “And you pose as a playwright? A situation pregnant with possibilities and all you can think of everybody go to sleep.”

Bill: “It’s a good thought.”

For example, Bill’s reactions to Margo are just on point here – albeit quietly so.

Margo: “It won’t play.”

Karen: “As a nonprofessional, I think it’s an excellent idea. Excuse me.”

Aaaah, Karen – always such a lady.

Karen: “Undramatic, perhaps, but practical.”

And, I just love the paucity of close-ups.

Margo: “Happy little housewife.”

Bill: “Cut it out.”

My favourite Bill moment of the scene. It’s so funny how almost everyone is so protective of Karen, she’s the only one who’s not a theatre folk of course – and seems immediately gentler.

Margo: “This is my house, not a theatre. In my house you’re a guest, not a director.”

Karen: “Then stop being a star. And stop treating your guests like your supporting cast.”

But, Karen is no simp. She can stand up for herself.

Lloyd: “Now, let’s not get into a big hassle.”

If there’s any weakling in the bunch (character wise, not performance wise), it’s Lloyd.

Karen: “It’s about time we did. It’s about time Margo realise what’s attractive on stage need not necessarily be attractive off.”

Another key line in the way of themes, and I’m glad Celeste gets it. we love Margo’s machinations on screen, but we would slap her in real life.

Margo: “All right! I’m going to bed.”

She says it as if it’s a threat.

I love her not-quite-a-retreat

Margo: “You be host. It’s your party. Happy birthday, welcome home. And we who are about to die salute you.”

Bill: “Need any help?”

Margo: “To put me to bed? Take my clothes off, hold my head, tuck me in, turn out the lights, tiptoe out…? Eve would. Wouldn’t you Eve?”

Poor Eve…

Eve: “If you’d like…”

Margo: “I wouldn’t like.”

And she leaves.

And because this not a film to languish, things move right along. Miss Caswell retrieves her drink from Max who must have appeared during the spat. I love that this moment is there, both for allowing Bette’s departure to move to something else, and because something as throwaway as a request for a drink is actual realised – bit things like this add to the continuity in films.

Max: “Oh, I forgot I had it.”

Miss Caswell: “I didn’t.”

And, then Bill leaves too.

Addison: “Too bad. We’re gonna miss the third act. They’re gonna play it offstage.”

And, I suppose Eve is “acting” here but damn she sure does go for broke perhaps because the always gregarious Karen is watching.

Lloyd: “Coming Max?”

Karen: “In a minute…”

Karen: “Eve…you mustn’t mind Margo too much, even if I do.”

Eve: “There must be some reason. Something I’ve done, without even knowing…”

Karen: “The reason is Margo, and don’t try to figure it out. Einstein couldn’t.”

Eve: “But, if thought I’d offended her…of all people…”

I love the two shots above.

Karen: “Eve. I’m fond of Margo, too. But, I know Margo, and everyone now and then there’s nothing I want to do so much as to kick her right straight in the pants.”

Eve: “Well…she has to pick on someone. I’d have it just as soon be me.”

Notice how the above shot (and once again) is similar to the one with Margo and Eve, but so much gentler with Karen and Eve.

Lloyd: “Max is gonna drop us.”

Eve smiles, I suppose she’s happy with her work…

Eve: “Mrs. Richards. You won’t forget will you? …What we talked about before?”

Karen: “No, Eve, I won’t forget.

And the lovely Karen responds positively…

Just a bit of information, that painting is The Tragic Muse with Sarah Siddons, the name of the society award which Eve wins at the film’s end. How’s THAT for symmetry?

Am I the only one who loves Celeste as much in this? Is Anne as good as Bette? Is Marilyn as hilarious as I find? How much do you like this scene as representative of All About Eve and its excellence?

Incoherent Oscar: Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Cinematography and Editing

2012-01-15T01:01:00.000-04:00

Well, Oscar voting for nominations are done but that sure as hell doesn’t mean that Oscar predictions for the Oscars are done. I was doubtful of predicting the editing category before the editing guild revealed their nominations, but I suppose you could consider these my predictions for the Oscars and the ACE.

I explained last year, and if you search you’d find explanations, but I always consider it my duty to explain the difference between the two sound categories. The sound mixing is more than not the place where prestige pictures or Best Picture nominees show up and it looks at the entire soundwork of a film, the blend between dialogue, music, special sound effects – the entire gamut. Sound effects is more specific to sounds created for the film, those special sound effects added to enhance moments, from simple things like tires squealing to bombs blowing up or a bridge being destroyed or a lurid scream…you get the point right?

SOUND EEFFECTS

MY GUESS: The Adventures of Tintin; ★Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II; Rango; Rise of the Planet of the Apes; Transformers: Dark of the Moon

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Hugo; Mission Impossible; The Tree of Life; Super 8

MORE POSSIBILITIES: War Horse; Captain America; Cars 2; Girl with the Dragon Tattoo;

It’s here that I’d expect the two animated films to turn up, although it’s more than likely than any of the films above could have a shot at turning up. What are they really looking for? The most sound effects? The most unusual? I’d assume that Harry Potter and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are two assured of some love here and more than likely Transformers which has been nominated and which saw more positive reviews for this instalment than the last. Even if the year in animation has been suspect, Rango depends so much on those added sounds I’d expect it to turn up here and I’d assume the same for The Adventures of Tintin.

What to make of Cars 2 being so low down in the predictions? They usually love Pixar here, but isn’t everyone trying to forget that movie? And, although I could see Hugo making a play here or Mission Impossible in that order, but I’m not confident about it, and The Tree of Life is such a head scratcher. I’d nominate it, but that really means naught in the grander scheme of things. Will it get love in the technical department? Perhaps, but I don’t suspect it’d be here.

SOUND MIXING

MY GUESS: The Adventures of Tintin; The Artist; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II; Hugo; ★Transformers: Dark of the Moon

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: War Horse; The Tree of Life; Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Rango

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol; Rise of the Planet of the Apes; Super 8; Captain America: The First Avenger

Considering that The Artist poses as a silent film and makes ample use (I assume) of its score, and then the fact that it’s headed to at the very least a nomination for Best Picture I presume it’s a safe bet for a nomination here and if it’s being joined by any other Picture contender I’m almost certain that it shall be Hugo, which depends exponentially in some key moments on the blend of sounds. Is it too much expecting The Adventures of Tintin, Transformers and Harry Potter to cross over? Last year in particular there wasn’t as much similarities in the sound categories as usual, I’d say of the three Harry Potter is the most likely to show up and Tintin is the least likely…but what replaces it? The Tree of Life? Rango?

The seven contenders outside my five are all legitimate contenders, and perhaps I have Rise of the Planet of the Apes too low but then everything in the second tier seem like they could be legitimately sound choices and then when I consider that The Social Network turned up here last year Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is at least in the running, especially since it’s work is more “obvious” – if you will.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

MY GUESS: The Artist; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II; ★Hugo; The Tree of Life; War Horse

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; Drive

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Melancholia; Moneyball; Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

It might be folly on my part holding on stolidly to my prediction of Harry Potter here, but as I have said before the AMPAS has recognised its photography and considering the mass of goodwill people seem to feel towards it (and the fact that it will NOT earn love in the Best Picture race) it might be heralded with some technical mentions and I’d think here could be a place where they decide to throw it a nomination. It is the choice I’m least certain of, and the three films in the second tier all seem like credible choices.

And, despite a lack of love from the guilds I think War Horse is relatively safe in being assured of a nod, I’d actually say it’s more assured of a nod than The Tree of Life, but then …who knows? I think we can agree that Hugo and The Artist are at least assured of nominations…the only question really is if Richardson is any threat to winning, or if it’ll simply be a nomination.

EDITING

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

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Drive; The Ides of March; Rise of the Planet of the Apes

MORE POSSIBILITIES: The Descendants; Tailor, Tinker, Soldier, Spy; The Tree of Life; Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Conceivably, Drive could be a nomination here in the vein of The Bourne Supremacy but I feel so iffy about the film and the Oscars. It’s not quite a populist action film, neither is it completely art-house and other than Albert Brooks I’m not sure how the Academy will respond to it, and if they feel the need for an “action” film, maybe Rise of the Planet of the Apes could be what they go for, but I’m also doubtful of THAT one being heralded with nominations. And, it is perhaps additionally bizarre of me to have War Horse in my top 5 but the editing category seems destined to be a troubling one.

For example I wouldn’t be shocked if The Artist doesn’t turn up here, despite the general correlation between picture/director and editing but then it seems unlikely because there are no obvious contenders waiting to unseat it. I’d assume that Thelma is in for Hugo but what of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Moneyball? I’d say the latter has less of a chance than the former, particularly because the latter’s work isn’t as obvious and moreover because despite Moneyball having its ardent supporters, the passion for Girl with the Dragon Tattoo seems at its peak at the moment. And, then, The Descendants I do think it could be a threat for the statue, and they recently sent out screeners of their films paying focus on its editing, so they’re campaigning but is it too late? And if I think it could win Picture, why am I not predicting it here? As I said, this category seems destined for excitement, we’ll see.

Who gets in for sound? Is War Horse a threat for editing? Is Drive a threat for anything? Does Harry Potter factor in? what do you think?

TV Week in Review: 8th - 12th January

2012-01-14T15:37:00.000-04:00

The Good Wife: Season Three, Episode Twelve; “Alienation of Affection” [A-]

Lockhart/Gardner are back with the type of episode that was well worth a wait. Oftentimes it’s the simple deposition cases which do the show well, because we stay at the office allowing for as much of the cast as possible to become involved. It’s a nice bit of continuity having issues from Alicia’s first year turn back up for major stakes and the return of F. Murray Abraham was a nice touch. More and more Margulies has succeeded in losing that aloofness that often defined Alicia for me, and it’s nice seeing her wrestle with her capabilities during her first year. It’s also a nice touch having Cary turn up and explicating just how much things have changed over the year seasons. Speaking of which, it’s a great touch having Elsbeth turn up as Will’s lawyer, and the promise of the showdown between her and Wendy Scott Carr is reason enough for anxiety. And, Anika Noni Rose is so good you can’t help but feel a bit bad for Wendy as things play out. Then, there are the Eli/David Lee/Julius showdowns which all work so well in the fabric of the show, just as well as someone – but who? – saving the day and Alicia’s hide, and Diane controlling the outcome of everyone, the always sedate mother-hen.
[Writing: A-; Directing: A-]

Once Upon a Time: Season One, Episode Eight; “Desperate Souls” [C-]

I’m continuously losing interest in this show, and it continues to be because for all its pomp and scenery and machinations it is lacking in scope and dynamism. Everything all feels desperately low stakes, the past seems too modern and the modern portions seem bland. And Lana Parilla continues to turn in a performance which continues to grate on me with its lack of subtlety and nuances. The show itself isn’t hard to look at, but it’s incredibly too easy to look away and by episode eight I’d think it’s time for them to stop with the build-up and begin telling their stories without continued necessity of retrospective looks to “establish” the stakes. It’s a perfect example of network shows wasting time and failing to effectively utilise the time available them.
[Writing: C; Directing: C+]

Parenthood; Season Three, Episode Thirteen; “Just Smile” [B+/A-]

It’s so difficult finding creative ways to applaud this show for wearing its simplicity so easily on its sleeve managing to be all the better for it. Crosby and Adam’s relationship has always been something of a hot button, and it’s nice that when this argument comes around it’s neither for the reasons you’d expect nor is it resolved in the way you’d expect. It’s nice that it leads to Adam having a moment with Max, a moment handled with praiseworthy delicacy. And, what makes this episode so good is that as significant as that arc is it’s hardly the only important development. Joel and Julia finally get some closure on their adoption issues, and it’s so nice to see because Christensen and Jaegar do such a good job of making us feel for these characters that are good but not saintly. And, Amber’s issue at work seem set to give Mae Whitman some good things to do, because she’s been a bit underused this season. The sweetest thing, though, was Mark and Sarah’s relationship moving along so nicely, really Lauren Graham and Jason Ritten are doing beautiful work opposite each other.
[Writing: B+/A-; Directing: B+]

Modern Family: Season Three, Episode Twelve; “Egg Drop” [B+]

It’s not so much that this episode is a stark departure from last week’s subpar one, it’s still obvious jokes, the characters are still a bit static but it works exponentially better because the earnestness is honest and effective even if I’m still not appreciative of Ty Burrell this season as I usually am. I don’t know, it’s as if Phil has become the character worst written on the show, and everything for him is established through such broad strokes. Not that portion doesn’t work this episode, it just doesn’t soar as well as past escapades with Burrell. The Egg Drop scenario is ridiculous, but it works and it leads to an effective moment with Claire and Jay. And, once again Cam and Mitchell are lucky enough to have the best arc of the episode with both Stonestreet and Ferguson (doing his best work of the show this season) are excellent.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]

Revenge: Season One, Episode Eleven; “Infamy” [B+]

It’s the reveal at the end which this episode seems determined to focus, it’s directed in a way that plays the entire episode up for it, but there’s good stuff to take away. First off, how great is it seeing Robert Bart show up to be deliciously hammy as a victim for Emily and it leads to great Nolan/Emily bonding and the inclusion of Amanda in the takedown, which is a nice touch especially as in all her promise for potentially unhinged machinations I’m starting to feel a bit sorry for Faux-Manda and her sad life. It will be intriguing seeing how this divorce war between the Grayson’s turn out, especially considering the reveal at the episode’s end which is both a surprise and then not, since if I recall a friend called that – in jest, though – a few weeks back. The potential for drama shall be interesting, especially since I think Charlotte’s potential as a character has been a bit squandered as of late.
[Writing: B+/A-; Directing: B+]

30 Rock: Season Six, Episode One; “Dance Like Nobody’s Watching” [B-]
The group is back with their usually kookiness, and really I’ve never been in love with 30 Rock, so a premiere such as this with languishes in their self-awareness as much and then gives a big chunk of time to Kenneth who really doesn’t work most of the time as a solid character for me to appreciate. But, at the end of the day I had some nice little bits to one of them being Jack’s seeking of advice from Liddy, but the most being the awesome Jane Krakowksi returning to my TV and being absolutely awesome. Good god, someone get this woman an Emmy.
[Writing: B; Directing: B]

Parks and Recreation: Season Four, Episode Eleven; “The Comeback Kid” [B+]
Well, turns out that Ben is going to be Leslie’s campaign manager and the show takes the long way to get there, but it’s a fun ride. But before, the subplot of Chris/Ben was excellently handled especially when you recall that these two entered the show in conjunction with each other and haven’t had as much to do opposite each other of note for some time. Sure, Ben turning into something of a manic depressive is a bit over-the-top but it’s the sort of silliness that works in Pawnee and it’s great that Chris’ smoothie turns up to save the day. The silliness which follows Leslie’s campaign is a wonderful step in showing that the gang is not immune to failures, even if their failures are so entertaining and I’m particularly glad to see Ann get a solid arc this episode being her typically adorable self.
[Writing: B+/A-; Directing: B+/A-]

The Office: Season Eight, Episode Eleven; “Trivia” [B]
It’s something a stretch to imagine the entire gang leaving their own lives to drive hours just to play trivia, but we’ll allow them those gaffes because this episode is sweet and entertaining and funny for the most part. I’ve tired of Robert California, or at least the way the show is writing him and Dwight is at his most annoying in this episode and put him with Gabe and that arc becomes something of a chore. The main plot is lovely, though, from Jim’s apathy which works so well to the surprising-not-a-surprise fact that the “fun” team ends up taking it all and it’s all played out with some generally surprising laughs (the Ray Charles joke for example was a nice one) that I can’t help but smile.
[Writing: B; Directing: B

Grey’s Anatomy: Season Eight, Episode Eleven; “These Magic Moments” [B/B+]

I don’t like Dr. Bailey’s romance because I can’t appreciate Ben who just comes off as a boor, but even with something as rudimentary as a simple romance Chandra manages to deliver a fine performance. Sandra Oh is good, with less time, responding as Cristina to Teddy dealing with Henry’s death in a particular harsh way. The main case of the conjoined twins allows for some nice bits like Alex and Richard’s interactions (but god, give Justin Chambers more to do) and the dynamic of Arizona and Callie in the operating room (give Sara Ramirez more to do) and the sweetness of having Meredith and Derek and their adorable baby be happy is perhaps good enough.
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B/B+]

Random Notes
Does Diane Lockhart have chemistry with everyone?
Did Charlotte and Declan really think they could pull of living together? Those fools.
I swear, I live for the Ann/Leslie interactions on this show. That opening gag? *perfection*
“Jump back up your mother, Liddy.” Nothing more needs to be said.

Standout Performers
Christine Baranskin in The Good Wife A-
Adam Scott in Parks and Recreation B+/A-
Rashida Jones in Parks and Recreation B+/A-
Jane Krakowski in 30 Rock B+/A-
Jesse Tyler Ferguson in Modern Family B+
Amy Poehler in Parks and Recreation B+

Dax Shepherd in Parenthood B+
Eric Stonestreet in Modern Family B+
Madeleine Stowe in Revenge B+
Rob Lowe in Parks and Recreation B+
Chandra Wilson in Grey’s Anatomy B+
Julianne Margulies in The good WifeModern Family B+
Sofia Vergara in Modern Family B+
Peter Krause in Parenthood B+
Lauren Graham in Parenthood B+

What did you watch this week?

Oscar Voters are People Too

2012-01-13T11:26:00.000-04:00

Today at 5:00 pm the first half of Oscar season comes to an end. Voters who don’t get their ballots to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in the green envelope by the time aforementioned wouldn’t have any impact on the race. This means that everything that happens between this afternoon and the nominations day on Tuesday the 24th has no bearings on the outcome of the nominations.

And, aaaah, Oscar nominations. Simultaneously the bane and the highlight of any cinephiles existence. An excellent barometer for adjudging the year’s best, or the deluded views of a group of old cruds depending on who you talk to. It’s often difficult to neatly divide oneself, as a cinema enthusiasts, from the machinations of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. They are impossibly ubiquitous. Their placement in comparison to other film awards mark them as the last “important” one, cumulatively making them seem to be the most important one. They’re dedicated to honouring the excellence of professionals in the film industry, so that would explain why people expect to choose the “best” and that would also explain why so many take umbrage when they don’t choose what is “excellent”. And stemming from that we launch into a definitive kerfuffle…for what is excellence?

It’s as good a time as any to remember that the members who make up the Academy are persons from each of the disciplines represented with actors notoriously taking up around 22% of the total. So, when people accuse them of being self-congratulatory as if it’s meant to be an insult, they’re not wrong – thespians are voting for their peers, so it’s probably self-congratulatory. And, it’s here that the fallout occurs because peers of the contenders are not liable to vote the same as objective (and I use the words quite aware of the irony it portends) critics. And, who’s to say either is wrong? If we wanted the choice of the critics wouldn’t we just tune in for the slew of critics’ awards that run all the way through the last two months of the year and into January? If we’re heading into an awards’ ceremony made up of Academy members who like what they like (critics be damned) why complain?

Well, why not? We’ve all complained about the times that Oscar got it “wrong” because we want our favourites to win everywhere, and it’s human nature. If Meryl wins every laurel but a single critics’ award, the Meryl lover would more than like be incensed that she didn’t win it even if the gamut ranges from the Feminist Critics, to the Black Critics to the Gay Critics (made up bodies, but you get my idea) all critics who I’d assume have different agenda and different tastes. And, it isn’t any searing brilliance on my part to point out that different people have different tastes, film critics and bloggers always tip their hats when their peers differ on top ten lists, but we’re less likely to tip our hats at the AMPAS. We’re more likely to take it off and hurl it at them. And, I’m guessing is because unlike the AMPAS the average critic doesn’t send off his top ten list and “best of” citations with a red carpet and months of anticipation. Neither does the average critic invite campaigns for their undying love and so on and on. Fair enough.

But, does the AMPAS owe us a validation of our choices? They can’t please everyone, and unless they’re being held on duress and being forced to vote for some nominees (we never really know how far Weinstein will go) aren’t they making the right choice if they’re making the choice they think is right? We give our fellow peers a smile when they disagree with us and argue playfully. Why can’t we do the same for the Academy? They’re not a lean-mean-cinema destroying machine…or maybe they are. But they’re made of members, and those members are people too. Who are we to tell them what they love is wrong?

(Am I encouraging no criticism of their choices? How could I? C'est impossible! Just proceed with reticence, is all.)

“I didn’t do nothing”

2012-01-11T17:05:00.000-04:00

A Better Life: directed by Chris Weitz; written by Roger L. Simon, Eric Eason

About all that you need to know about A Better Life can be discerned from its opening few scenes. The father at the film’s heart gets up from his makeshift bed in the couch, the single bed used for his son who from his act of giving him money he doesn’t have tells us that in many ways Carlos Galindo is our protagonist who belongs to the school of parenting made most popular by Lana Turner in Imitation of Life and Joan Crawford (and more recently Kate Winslet) in Mildred Pierce - selflessly living for their children. (And, okay maybe that’s a bit of oversimplification because Carlos’ son Luis isn’t as diabolical as Mary Jane or Veda but allow me my conceits.) Somewhere near the opening we learn too Carlos is an illegal immigrant, and he’s palpably nervy about this experience. And, like him, we spend much of the film waiting for the knock on the door to expose it all.

A Better Life is one of those films which seems made to engender acute feelings of sympathy in the audience towards the plight of its protagonist. It plays out with, what should be scene after heart-warming scene meant to hit us on an emotional level, almost daring the audience the audience to not be moved, to not be impressed. Well, I take that dare. It does not gel. Immigration is a hot button issue, and it makes for particularly polemic meanderings in the United States. So, immediately it’s a bit underwhelming that such a potentially complex issue is presented in such a melodramatic way.

For most of the movie we don’t know what has become of Carolos’ wife and Luis’ mother, but Carlos it would seem is the sole breadwinner of the home, and the solitary parent to this sullen boy who when his father admits to being unable to offer him any money glibly says, “I’ll jack an old lady, then,” and it’s not so much because he actually will do it (he’s not hardened enough to actually try it, and to add tension to Carlos’ hope of a good life for his is the ubiquitous presence of hard-edged gangsters in their neighbourhood, the lure of which Luis must fight); he just knows to get what he wants and is unaware of the struggle his father is making to give him a *ahem* better life. He’s working at a landscaping business at the moment, but his employer is soon returning to Mexico and with the help of his sister (Dolores Heredia, particularly effective in a few scenes) buys a truck to get himself started on his own business. He doesn’t have a license, and driving without one will get him deported. Clearly, he’ll be getting deported some time soon.

But, not immediately, for the film necessitates that the father and the son duo share some tough moments together to bond with each other and thus, on the very first day out to work with his new (old) truck helping out someone down on their luck he gets his truck stolen and he and Luis make out – the next day – to retrieve it. Little, sometimes infinitesimal, things can take me out of a movie. As I said, little things but they add up to make a film completely lose its effect. There is a scene in A Better Life where a father and son set off in search of the father’s stole truck a day after it was lost. At what seems to be a dead end, the son decided to call his father’s phone which happened in the truck. It immediately takes me out of the movie. First, you’d think that would have been one of the first reactions to a stole phone – to call it. And, more obviously, you’d think that anyone stealing a phone would take the gargantuan amount of time to take the sim card out. And, it’s a small thing, but it’s one of the examples of how things in A Better Life happen just to serve plot arcs, and not for any logic.

And, sure, the eventual pay off works when Demian Bichir with those soulful eyes breaks down in a jail cell without actually breaking down but one moving performance does not a moving film make, and it doesn’t even make a necessarily good film. And he’s backed by a thudding performance by José Julián who I feel bad for criticising because of his youth, but is so astonishingly bad running the gamut from sullen teen to VERY sullen teen in a role that’s admittedly one-note. Sure, the film has earnest concerns and lovely intentions but still, it’s a bit unfortunate how it skirts over what could have been something significantly better. It has all these things it could do…but it doesn’t do “nothing”, but…eh, whatever. I won’t make that pun, too easy.

C

2012-01-11T05:35:00.000-04:00

Incoherent Oscar: Makeup and Screenplays

2012-01-11T00:23:00.001-04:00

Well, lookie here it’s just a few days until voting closes for the Academy Awards and then we’ll have to start this all over again. In the interim, rambling discussion on potential nominees…

Take everything with a grain of salt, then add a cup more…

MAKEUP

Like the visual effects category the makeup category makes things easier for us by listing a shortlist of contenders to the race. I’m pleased that the cake batter of J. Edgar doesn’t make it on to the shortlist, but other than that I’ve really little to say of this category which is not so much a head scratcher as rather bland. Essentially, I don’t get the award. It should in theory be hair and makeup, but it seems like the nominees or the shortlisted films never pay much emphasis on the hair, and the make-up is almost always for making X person look more like Y person and never for making people pretty – which REQUIRES MAKEUP too. But, whatever.

MY GUESS: Albert Nobbs; Anonymous; ★The Iron Lady

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life; The Artist

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Harry Potter; Hugo

Am I confident of these choices? Can you ever confident of shooting fish in a barrel aka Oscar predictions? No. The thing is, I could make a case for any of the seven films shortlisted. Both Albert Nobbs and The Iron Lady feature significant work on an Actor likely heading for a Best Actress nod and it would seem the makeup branch appreciates *transformations* and then Anonymous is a renaissance period piece with significant work for Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth, and just in case they remember that it’s hair and makeup.

The makeup voters don’t seem slaves to high-profile films, thus Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life which from what I’ve seen employs fine work, would not be an oddball nominee. And if The Artist really is the frontrunner everyone thinks it is then it could get it in for pretty makeup, it worked for Shakespeare in Love (but then, Shakespeare in Love was a renaissance based period piece a la Anonymous). And, Harry Potter could conceivably make an appearance, as could Hugo especially if the AMPAS fall in love with it.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
MY GUESS: ★ The Descendants; The Help; Hugo; The Ides of March; Moneyball

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Girl with the Dragon Tatoo; Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; Drive

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close; Albert Nobbs; War Horse

I don’t know what to make of the WGA and their apparent lack of love for The Ides of March, but I really won’t make too much of it because I do think that that necessarily jeopardises its chances at an Oscar nomination. It’s because even if love for Girl with the Dragon Tattoo seems to be on an upsurge I’m moved to place more plausibility between The Ides of March getting appreciated here than that, so call it my no-guts-no-glory prediction. Now, I was tempted to leave The Help off my ballot but as I said I don’t think Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is assured a nomination here and although both Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Drive are potential here, the emphasis is on *potential*.

Otherwise, I suppose that the trio of The Descendants; Hugo and Moneyball are assured of their places.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
MY GUESS: The Artist; Bridesmaids; ★ Midnight in Paris; Take Shelter; Young Adult

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Win Win; 50/50; A Separation

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Rango; The Tree of Life; Beginners; Martha Marcy May Marlene

The original screenplay discussion is much more volatile because there’s only one Best Picture certainty in the race, and after we’ve struck off one spot and reserved it for The artist where does that leave us? Well, then, we add Woody Allen because it seems that Midnight in Paris IS his comeback, to the Oscars’ at the very least. Then, what? A Guessing game, I say. Structurally, I would not be pleased with a nod for Bridesmaids, but that doesn’t matter. It is at the very least a significant threat, but everything seems like a significant threat. For example, Win Win has showing up being nominated here and there as has 50/50 and both films earned nods from the WGA. But then, a number of key contenders weren’t eligible for the WGA so where does that leave us?

I don’t know where it leaves you, but it leaves me with Cody who I think will end up here regardless of whether Charlize turns up in the actress race, and I include potential vote stealer Take Shelter because despite not having seen it – yet – it seems poised to become a potential spoiler in this very unpredictable Oscar season. Will I be proven wrong? Likely.

What do you think? Is Ides in? Is 50/50 out? Harry Potter for makeup? Who the hell knows, right?

“All the admiration in the world can’t fill the spot where love goes”

2012-01-10T13:06:00.001-04:00

J. Edgar: directed by Clint Eastwood; written by Dustin Lance Black

I don’t care to enter into a dissertation on art which seems focused on informing and little else; neither do I care to enter into a discussion on films which do the same specifically or even more specifically biopics and their ultimate “purpose”. I will say that I find it tedious when biopics seem intent on presenting a cliff-notes version of important events in its protagonist’s life – and nothing more. Because, if the only reason I biopic is being made is because its protagonist is worthy of note – then it probably isn’t worth much effort or devotion. And, Clint Eastwood has always been a specific type of less-is-more director who immediately turns such a situation into even more of a quagmire.

I’m immediately moved to point out similarities (even if superficially) between J. Edgar and Eastwood’s last American based biopic. Both make use of especially dark and bleak hues in their photography, a simultaneously bare and oppressive score (in both cases penned by Eastwood), protracted investigation scenes, oh, and Jeffrey Donavan being monotonous and somewhat villainous (so bizarre, because he’s so charming in Burn Notice). In addition, both seem to go on longer than their respective narratives necessitate, although – and this is rather curious, J. Edgar is just over two hours and Changeling clocks in at well on its way to three. And, truth be told, both have this tendency to ramble through their narrative plot points with an occasional lack of specificity, as if unaware of the precise point of their cinematic existence. And, yet I liked Changeling a great deal more than I liked J. Edgar, if I liked it all to begin with. And despite the inherent messiness of both their canvases I’d imagine that a great deal of my appreciation for the former and the latter has to do with the fact that take away the “truth” of Changeling (and thereby it’s biopic roots) and make the same film and it would be still be interesting. And, if I step back and consider J. Edgar’s celebrity outside the realm of the film I suppose he did have a life interesting enough to warrant a film. But, if there is a good film to make from the life of this stoic, and distant man and the escapades he experienced in building the FBI this is not it.

From its opening J. Edgar decides to root itself as one of those exasperating biopics. It’s not that the somewhat generic technique of framing a history of character’s life (whether real or fiction) essentially makes for a poor film. Most recently, the very quaint technique of that same device was used to much better effect in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Then, there was at least an attempt made to shoehorn the framing device into an actual plot-point, but here it’s simply John feeling that it is the necessary time to delineate his life story. Hmm, okay, I’ll bite (would that I was wise enough to know better). The film jumps back and forth between Hoover in the sixties dictating his biography to a series of FBI agents as he hops through important moments in his life. We’re given no specific reason as to why the window through J. Edgar the film and the person must move from the sixties, but – you know – whatever. And, it’s possibly because of that the film seems to have no solid structure other – first third of his life as a youth, second part meeting Clyde and moving up in life, third part end of the Lindberg baby issue, everything goes to pot, etc. And, okay, fine I’m being more than a little flip about it because that is structure, but Lance’s screenplay seems to be suffering both from a dearth of story and from a plethora of information he doesn’t know what to do with.

On a scale of poor to bad, his ramblings into John’s relationship with the women in his life – his mother and his secretary – constitute the best part of the film. And, I can’t even fully credit him for that because there’s a distinct sense that the scenes work because the actors are trying so hard. Judi Dench is in all her campy glory as the mother from hell, but it’s Naomi Watts in an unenviable sliver of a role who manages to turn in the film’s second best performance. The first, of course, being DiCaprio. Now I have a long history with DiCaprio, and I’ve been wavering in my love for some time now. And, it’s hard NOT to think of his work here against his work in The Aviator which ranks among his greatest achievements. It’s not that good performances can’t come from films less so, but first off it’s tough for anyone to act well while performing under three pounds of cake batter and second it’s even more difficult to act when neither the screenplay nor the direction seems to be working for you. And, third, it’s even more difficult when the film seems unsure whether you’re a hero or a villain and decides to observe you with this uncertain diffidence that becomes akin to reticence.

Other than that, though, Leo is fine, and I’m not being facetious even as I don’t like the performance near as much as I’d want to, but I’d say that it’s superlatively better than the performances in that other other biopic Invictus…and really, the performances are generally good ranging from okay to fairly good. The usual Eastwood issues apply, like Armie Hammer who in my untrained estimation seems in need of a strong director who between single takes moves from inspired acting to troubling blandness. And, there is the very obvious sense that Eastwood wants to make a history lesson but for the fact that this thing doesn’t rise up as a particularly solid historical piece and one with what seems to be a striking lack of perspective. And, really, the transition from period to period isn’t awful in the same way that the movie itself isn’t awful. But, that’s hardly a resounding note to go out, but then that’s what J. Edgar is. It sits there being not awful, but not very good either.

C-

Scene On a Sunday: Oscar Edition

2012-01-09T22:07:00.000-04:00

As much work as my Scene on a Sunday (sometimes disguised as Sunday Openings) were to do, they were always fun for the opportunity of rediscovering favourite scenes from classic and contemporary cinema. I haven’t done a scene analysis in a while, but I’m anxious to dissect a great movie and I’m rounded up a list of Oscar winning film, all of which I’d be interesting in choosing a scene from to assess. I’ll get started next week and do about half of them, once a week, until the end of February.

Make your arguments for which of the fifteen you’d like to see me discuss.

TV Week in Review: 3rd – 5th January

2012-01-08T11:44:00.000-04:00

Just in case you noticed, doubtful, but I’m a stickler for continuity if nothing else – I’m aware that I haven’t reviewed the finales of American Horror Story, Homeland and Dexter (and the last two episodes of The Closer) and with so much time gone, it’s unlikely that I shall. Just a heads up.

With that out of the way, welcome back network TV. On with the (few) shows…

Parenthood: Season Three, Episode Twelve; “Road Trip” [A-]

Kudos for Jason Katims for bringing back this great show with a knockout episode. I was worried about it from the title because oftentimes those episode that transpose the main cast of ensembles from their usual abodes seem to be heavy-handed but this one worked beautifully as we saw the gang making it up to Zeke’s mother’s for her birthday. From that tense argument between Max and Kristina you just knew that this trip was not going to be all smiles and watching Zeke undergo his meltdown, and watching Camille and his children react to it was a nice prolonged theme for the episode making way for a number of great moments. It gave both Nelson and Bedelia chance to do good work, and I’m especially happy for that because with a stronger arc in most episodes Bedelia could easily cart away best-in-show accolades, and that’s saying something considering how densely populated this ensemble is. As usual, in between significant issues like Adam and Haddie and Sarah and Drew we get some brilliant little moments of humour like everyone responding to the walkie-talkies and we get poignant dramatic beats like Kristina’s conversation with Zeke at the end. What a way to come back. I’m annoyed that the show only has eighteen episodes this season (WTF, NBC?) but at least they’re using them wisely.
[Writing: A-; Directing: A-]

Modern Family: Season Three, Episode Eleven; “Lifetime Supply” [B-/C+]

I’ve already noted the way that Modern Family utilises the same beats weak after weak to establish its humour – and I’m not mad at it. It is what it is, and most times it works but this episode although good on some levels just smacks of laziness in all departments. We already know that Jay has grown fatherly of Manny; we already know that Mitchell can be unnecessarily harsh (and really, this was UNNECESSARILY harsh) and that Phil can blow things out of proportions. So, even as there were some bits that landed especially well the episode just felt way too much like an afterthought and it’s a bit of a let-down thinking that this is the way the producers decided to come back from the midseason hiatus.
[Writing: C+; Directing: B-]

Revenge: Season One, Episode Eleven; “Duress” [B+]

Even as the show begins with an over-the-top “who will die” hook which we know will not be delivered, I have to give them credit for delivering another stellar episode. I love when shows like this, which don’t allow us to watch the entire cast together, allows us to see them all in one space. Even though it’s such a bizarre notion to imagine Jack and Fauxmanda being at Daniel’s birthday, but this is the Hamptons – logics don’t always as apply to them. On the note of Fauxmanda, though, I’m actually getting more invested in her character even if I’m sure that she’s headed to a nasty fall courtesy of Emily/Amily, who just seems to grow as one cold evil mastermind. It’s nice to see her and Nolan back as that corrupt form of BFF’s although I wish that Tyler had killed off Ashley, but I can’t everything. This episode feels very like a bridge, and with Tyler apparently gone things will start getting serious – what with divorce wars and whatnot.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+/A-]

Grey’s Anatomy: Season Eight, Episode Ten; “Suddenly” [B]
Considering how many ends needed to be tied up, the show might have done better to either make this a two hour episode or drop half of the arcs because the episode despite being good felt occasionally half-baked and occasionally overcooked. Clearly, the centre of it all was Teddy finding out about her husband’s death via Cristina and then finding out so long after. I’m not that much in love with the character or the actress, so I’m not much excited to see her potential spiral downwards. I’m more interested in the scenario to see plum scenes being given to Sandra Oh who remains as the show’s strongest asset. It’s nice seeing Callie step up and take the blame even if I cringe that it’s for Jackson, who still annoys me – even if Debbie Allen is his mother. Everything else felt rushed in the face of the main conflict, including Alex’s adrenaline rush, Lexie and Mark’s new girlfriend, and Dr. Bailey and her annoying boyfriend. But, one the upside – Baby Zola, the most adorable tot on TV, has returned.
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B/B-]

Standout Performers
Monica Potter in Parenthood B+/A-
Craig T. Nelson in Parenthood B+/A-
Sandra Oh in Grey’s Anastomy B+
Sofia Vergara in Modern Family B+
Bonnie Bedelia in Parenthood B+
Ty Burrell in Modern Family B+
Madeleine Stowe in Revenge B+

What did you watch this week?

“Careful, Martha, you’re treading on thin ice”

2012-01-07T17:26:00.000-04:00

Martha Marcy May Marlene: directed and written by Sean Durkin

Aaaaah, the ups and downs of cult living. Really, Martha Marcy May Marlene is terribly insular in its presentation of its eponymous lead’s journey away from, but not necessarily out of, cult living. And, it’s not so much a definitive criticism of Durkin’s presentation of the film and its issues, and it is a general observance of the way he decides to establish said issues. With the very idiosyncratic name of Martha Marcy May Marlene you would expect, and you would be accurate in that expectation, that Sean Durkin’s first feature would harbour a stout relationship with its lead character and her machinations. Even though the first three minutes, or so, tell us otherwise. Sort of. For, the opening presents us with an eerie calm – a house somewhere in the backwoods. The men eat dinner, while the women wait on the step to enter when the men leave. And, because it’s her film, Martha is the first person to appear in a prolonged shot on her own. Most persons approaching the film probably have done so for the much fêted performance of the young Elizabeth Olsen in the lead, and although we don’t know her Martha yet we’re immediately struck by how haggard, sad and unhappy she is. It’s no surprise, then that we soon see her making her away from this…whatever it is. A nervous departure, a fractured call to a sister, and away we go. But, we never actually leave.

The film takes place on two planes. In the present, Martha tries to assimilate herself with society and in the past we see her descent into the life of the cult headed by the dubiously effective, but not altogether charming Patrick played by John Hawkes. I don’t think it’s fair to critique movies for being occasionally implausible especially when the very arc reveals itself to be rooted in the incredible. For all its interest in its protagonist Martha Marcy May Marlene is not a character study. It is, instead, an observance of Martha at too protracted periods in her life. Durkin uses his camera well, murkily shot when necessary, injecting personality with the photography, finely edited so that we might mistake these technical attributes for actual insight. But, the film doesn’t offer much in the way of that. As I said, it is not a study neither is it an observation. It is an observance, never detached, but still apart. It’s a telling crutch of the film, for we never really know Martha in the same way her sister does not. Who was she before she was inducted in the cult? What led her to that induction? Without such essential perspective what I end up with is a successful unsettling spectacle, but one from which there is little – if any – cathartic worth from this tragedy.

And, is it even a tragedy really? The average contemporary audience would immediately find the cult distasteful, and with its rape, drug-use, apparent brainwashing, misogyny, larceny and murder it probably is. But, I’m curious as to what effect Durkin is hoping to move to when the ostensibly off-putting activities of the cult are complemented by an air of easiness and calm unlike the very uptight portrait of middle class established by her sister and her husband. Then, buoyed on by Martha’s rudimentary psychological jabs accusing them of pretentious living I sort of wonder what the point is. I wouldn’t doubt that we are to believe that Martha has grown so effete on the farm that she has been completely brainwashed, but the situation is addled when Martha diverts between holding staunchly on to principles of Patrick and in seeming fearful that he’s trying to get her. It’s altogether possible, though, that in her state of mental anguish Martha is herself, unsure of what she thinks and believes. Still, the motional poignancy is lost because we don’t know either, and we care for her difficulty in assimilation simply because it is a miserable existence, not because we hope for her to return to the girl she was. Whoever that was.

Despite my admittedly flip opening sentence, Martha Marcy May Marlene is not really a cult film, or at least Sean Durkin tries to avoid making it into a cult film. I appreciate his intentions, and yet had Durkin taken more than observatory glance at the cult the film might have been a bit tighter. It’s strange, half of the film is spent in the flashbacks, but we learn an alarmingly little amount of the cult. John Hawkes (very effective here) is gripping, but not altogether charming so I’m not sure what to make of the generally invisible iron grip he wields over his flock. And, when the final reveal of the depths of the cult’s depravity arrive it feels simply like a plot point meant to thrust Martha to leave it and not an organic development of its existence. Thus, ultimately, the creation of the entire cult feels real only on a surface level, and thus not very real at all.

So, with a story that succeeds mostly on the superficial level we’re left with acting and technicalities to hold on to. And, I have to stress that Martha Marcy May Marlene is not necessarily bad for its thinness in story. Story is not everything, and film works for what it is quite well. Again, Durkin’s skill with the camera is particularly good although it is not soon before I get a bit exasperated with him for the coyness is moving from the past to the present and back hoping to elicit, what I assume, to be a parallel between the lake-house and the farm. We get it, “normal” society is just as cultish as an actual cult. But it only plays up the shallowness of the film’s ideology. Which leaves us with the performances, with are across the board successful. Olsen, perhaps, is not as marvellous as I would hope which is not her fault since there is no place for her to move with the rigidity od the script, but she works. As does Hawkes and Dancy, the latter with a more difficult the role the former with a better performance. It’s Sarah Paulson, though, who is the acting standout for me, avoiding the harshest edges of the character and turning in a performance that’s surprisingly moving. And, I say surprisingly because I did after the way that the film dances across its issues cold and very thinly realised I did not expect for any performance to be as emotionally robust. It is, chilling, disturbing, but navigating on a plane that cherishes the obvious more than the profound. Again, this is not an insult. It is what

B-

All I Wanna Do is Make Link to You

2012-01-06T07:31:00.000-04:00

My favourite post this week is this supremely written article from Guy Lodge (In Contention) and the role that backlash plays in the awards' race. I mean to, or meant to, write an article on something vaguely similar. In case I do not, he raises some excellent points...even if you're not into the Oscars'.

I promised myself that I wouldn't link to any year in review posts. I lied. First, I just love what Tim (Antagony & Ecstasy) does with his recap of 2011. His top ten is lovely, his writeups for each title are excellent....and Winnie the Pooh. YAY. Also, Yojimbo (Let's Not Talk About Movies) recounts his 2011 in film, he doesn't do a top ten list but he does write a great post on what he liked last year. It's good stuff, go, read, discuss.

And, what did we learn from the movies in 2011? Stevee (Cinematic Paradox) lists the ten things she did. All sage dissertations. And, I'm not quite sure if we can say this is what Candice (Reel Talk) learned, but here's what she hopes stays in 2011 and doesn't spill over to the 2012 movie world.

Joe (Low Resolution) is really not a fan of Albert Nobbs. I can't remember the last time disliking a film made for such humour.

And, to close on a very high point - Nick Davis (Nick's Flick Picks) is working on a new project centred on Best Actresses (what else).

AND The Kid in the Front Row has a competition for filmmakers. You should definitely go check that out.

Incoherent Oscar: Visual Effects and Art Direction

2012-01-05T07:55:00.000-04:00

And, yet more Oscar talk. Can you blame me? It's only a few weeks to nominations. *must get soothsayer skills working*

VISUAL EFFECTS
The last time I spoke on this category the lovely people over at AMPAS had narrowed the list down to fifteen, and yesterday they narrowed it again to ten knocking out Super 8 which is a bit surprising but doesn't bother me either way. So, ahoy, what to make of the ten potential nominees...

MY GUESS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II; ★Hugo; Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides; Rise of the Planet of the Apes; Transformers,

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: The Tree of Life, Captain America: The First Avenger, X-Men: First Class

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol; Real Steel

In my stubbornness I still predict Hugo here even though everyone tells me that Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the frontrunner. I'm street like that. Why do almost every nomination pool seem to forget that Pirates of the Caribbean is a viable contender for a nomination, at the very least. True, The Tree of Life in all of its critical glory could slip in here and the nomination would not be undeserved, but even if Pirates of the Caribbean: OST is occasionally...okay often...shoddy it does look pretty. Otherwise, I think the other four are assured of nominations. But, then, I was so sure they'd nominate Scott Pilgrim vs the World for the best visuals last year and look where that got me.

For now, these incoherent Oscar posts are more about predicting nominees than winner and I shall admit that Hugo is an unlikely winner not because it's visuals are sub-par, but the crossover between what is the visual effects, what is the photography and what is the set decoration is so mired. And, really, you're never sure just what the visual lovers go for.

ART DIRECTION

And, also yesterday, the Art Directors' Guild submitted their nominees in three different categories and even though they are not the Oscar voters it does make us consider what's in the running for Art Direction? And who doesn't love this category? Well, I do...so, whatever. Anyhow, my predictions...

MY GUESS: The Artist; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; ★Hugo; Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides; Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Anonymous; Captain America: The First Avenger; Jane Eyre; The Help

MORE (IM)POSSIBILITIES: A Dangerous Method; The Tree of Life; Midnight in Paris

How bizarre was the lack of love for Jane Eyre and A Dangerous Method from the Guild, admittedly probably not that much because the period category is packed with goodies but I think both films might have uphill battles in terms of landing nominations, which is especially unfortunate. I'm lost as to how I managed to not include Pirates of the Caribbean on my previous art direction discussion, and with Sherlock Holmes apparently forgotten by everyone I feel that it should not be counted out. Is there any chance of betting against Hugo here? Surely, even its largest detractors will not grudge its potential win this category? And, damn, those people need to make up to Ferretti after that Shutter Island snub.

So, when it comes to looking good and pretty what are you hoping the AMPAS falls in love with?

Randomness: The Mask of Zorro

2012-01-05T05:07:00.002-04:00

The weirdest thing about appreciating movies, or any form of pop culture really, is how the oddest bits will stick with you. Case in point, The Mask of Zorro which is not quite a flawless production but a film I watched a number of times in my youth (back when I thought that Catherine Zeta-Jones was from Spain or somewhere thereabouts). And, I was mentioning to Nick (Cinema Romantico and elsewhere) yesterday that I still can’t hear the word “vigorous” without being reminded of Martin Campbell’s best films (yup, better than Casino RoyaleThe Legend of Zorro).

The Mask of Zorro works so well, because it’s so much fun. Like that scene where Banderas’ Zorro makes his way into Elena’s father’s house (well, not her real father but I’d rather not get into that). Naturally, the two duel (because Elena’s is a Latina woman so her temperament must be volatile).

Eventually he disrobes her during the duel with his sword and then leaves, but not before…

And, then her not real father comes in and leads to arguably my favourite exchange of the film.

“What are you doing here? What happened?”

“I fought Zorro, and he left. He left!”

“Did you recognise him?”

“No, but he was young and vigorous...

...he was very vigorous father.”

I can't establish it with pictures, but there's something just delightful about the cadence of Catherine's Latina pronunciation of vigorous...which would [vɪgərəs] but comes out as [vì:gərəs] with those prolonged stress on the first vowel which is so over-exaggerated, but lovely and the reason I can't use or hear the word in normal conversation.

“Vigorous?”

“Yes.”

I love Stuart Wilson’s reaction shot there. Vigorous? I'll bet.

Okay, you may not have the relationship with vigorous as I do, but this movie is great is it not?

“It became serious…”

2012-01-04T03:03:00.001-04:00

A Separation: directed and written by Asghar Farhadi

Shockingly, without spoilers…

If I were to immediately attempt at drawing parallel, one could say that Asghar Farhadi’s A Separation (the Iranian submission for Best Foreign Language Film) is something of a structural relative to Noah Baumbach The Squid and the Whale. And, were I to say that I’d probably be grasping at straws because even though both rest most heavily on the eventual divorce of a couple and the effect on their brood the two are not that similar and I’m most likely doing a disservice to both my implying as such. Still, I bring up The Squid and the Whale because I think it’s the recent film I can recall most easily which does a credible job of assessing the way which divorce affects the people involved, even though I felt it was a bit too whimsical and occasionally limited for its own good. A divorce is what looms over the entire narrative of A Separation, the title mentions it. I have admitted before that I place a great deal of emphasis, sometimes unnecessarily, on titles. The actual translation of the film’s Persian title would be “The Separation of Nader from Simin”. I think I might be much fonder of the leaner “A Separation”, though. For, even as it portends to the obvious separation at the film’s crux, it also suggests the film’s greater interest (unlike, for example, The Squid and the Whale) in assessing the issues which abound in the society its characters inhabit, most of which rest on that chilling noun – separation. Which would mean that A Separation is not really as clinical as one would expect, it’s not really about a divorce…

And, yet, it opens a bit clinically. Considering the precise way it opens, both times, I did not expect for A Separation to be as interested in the softer social beats it explores. And, the title of “separation” is admittedly a cold one. But, for a film with a title suggesting coldness, parting and disinterest A Separation isn’t detached. Sure, the first actual opening shot of passports being scanned might seem that way, and then it’s followed by a shot of two people – a man and woman – at a court arguing for a divorce. It’s not clinical, but it does seem - well, lacking in spontaneity. But, then, if I return to the original title (yes, titling again) it contains a potential duality. The phrase “The Separation of Nader from Simin”, any student of syntax would know could mean a separation which has already occurred or a continuous act of something being separated. And, it’s the latter which I feel applies most to this film. Even as the visit to the court materialises, the actual separation is still in the process of being fully realised.

But, I’ve gotten ahead of myself because I have not even moved to the plot – and while there’s not really a whole lot of it – it’s of voluminous importance. For, in that opening scene Nader and Simin are at loggerheads because she wants to leave the country and he cannot, he will not, because his father suffering from Alzheimer’s needs him. The scene is important because it sets the tone for the entire film. When Simin tells Nader, “He doesn’t know you, anymore” and Nader responds, “But, I know him” makes way for all the moral ambiguity which film shall become so fond of taxing us with. For the moment, a decision has not been made. Simin moves to her mother, and Nader must look for a caretaking to care for his ailing father. Simin suggests the sister-in-law of a friend, a woman with a husband who seems like a typical husband but for his vaguely combative outbursts. The film’s subtleties in examining class differences necessitates that the two couples shall clash, and that they do – with each other, and among themselves. And, it seems like right before our eyes A Separation unfolds from a familial drama about a domestic squabble to a legal drama to a social drama about religious taboos, the role of women in society and the pains of childhood. It touches on everything, and yet it’s not really about it specifically.

Take, for example, one of my favourite bits in the film where the camera dances between the children of the two couples. What is Farhadi telling us? Are we learning about the injustices of the middle class against the lower classes? Are we to think how both, despite their difference in “status”, might grow up subservient to their husbands? (For despite the way they wield their powers, it’s interesting how both Simin and Razieh are still not on even keels with their husbands.) We’re never show what he wants us to think, we’re not even sure he wants us to make up our mind. The film’s climax depends on one of the biggest “movie” conceits of keeping the audience in the dark, but it works because the moral ambiguity of the tale depends on it. For the film to have its greatest effect the audience needs to be coerced into realising that as Tracy Lords said, “The best time to make up your mind about people is never” (or some variation, at this point in the morning I’m much too lazy to certify the actual quote). For this to work it depends as much on Farhadi’s excellent script and directing and as much on the talented band of actors who elicit all the grey character shadings as you’d hope preventing any character from emerging unscathed from our perusals unable to completely love or hate any, but impossible to not feel for them all.

It makes sense that it all builds from something as innocuous as an elderly man with little screen time. It shouldn’t become as big an issue as it does, but then, who are we to say? We can’t really say that any of the characters is unjustified in their conceits.

A-/A

Incoherent Oscar: Supporting Actor

2012-01-03T23:50:00.000-04:00

I'm back from an unintentional break from blogging, but more specifically Oscar prognosticating. So, here I go with random guessing on AMPAS and their nominees...or considering my odd choices, Oscar guessing on crack. Be warned.

Really, I'm feeling more than a blasé about the entire Oscar scenario at the moment, which is unfortunate since I'm penning a column about the Oscars' and two because I'll always have my coattails tied to the AMPAS and their machinations in some way, even if I'm not as besotted as I used to be, even if I think that they're being given an unfairly bad rep. More in due, time. The Supporting Actor race right now is looking both simple and difficult to predict. It would seem that Christopher Plummer shall sail through to an Oscar win, which would be lovely, but it's becoming more and more a headscratcher thinking who will join him and even though there is a likely group of men, I have a a feeling that this could be the category where the surprises turn up.

MY GUESS: Kenneth Branagh in My Week with Marilyn; Albert Brooks in Drive; Jonah Hill in Moneyball; Viggo Mortensen in A Dangerous Method; ★Christopher Plummer in Beginners

THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS: Nick Nolte in Warrior; Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Ides of March; Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life; Armie Hammer in J. Edgar

MORE POSSIBILITIES: Max von Sydow in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close; Patton Oswalt in Young Adult; Ben Kingsley in Hugo

Okay hear me out...or don't - your call really - but I'm not really assured of Nick Nolte's Oscar chances. But then, I'm the one who doubted Natalie Portman's chances of easily winning that Oscar, and we all remember how that turned out. It's just that not only did Warrior open with little fanfare (and forgotten with even less) we already have not one, not two, but three actors who shall be plausibly nominated as "career" laurels (Plummer, Brooks and Branagh - the latter two haven't been nominated for acting since the late 80s). Nolte does not seem that assured to me, despite citations elsewhere and looking at the bigger picture one must admit that Hill at least seems like a stronger bet than he. And, Mortense, my WTF pick perhaps? I don't know, I just have a feeling this category will offer some weirdness...but maybe I'm overthinking it.

Do you find my predictions ridiculous? Are Branagh, Brooks and Plummer definitely headed to nominations?

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

2011-12-31T19:55:00.001-04:00

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

2011-12-31T00:15:00.001-04:00

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”

2011-12-30T15:03:00.000-04:00

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”

2011-12-27T15:12:00.001-04:00

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”

2011-12-25T18:09:00.001-04:00

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

2011-12-25T02:41:00.001-04:00

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?

2011-12-25T02:25:00.000-04:00

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

Cheers.