What a contest this year: 11 nominations for Scorsese's HUGO, and 10 for Michel Hazanavicius' THE ARTIST--a 3-D movie up against a black-and-white silent film (mostly silent, anyway) for Best Picture. Here's spectacularly visual triumph from the director that the Academy loves to snub (TAXI DRIVER lost to ROCKY/John G. Avildsen, RAGING BULL lost to ORDINARY PEOPLE/Robert Redford, and GOODFELLAS lost to DANCES WITH WOLVES/Kevin Costner--seriously, fuckin' *Costner*?...) in one corner, in the other corner a crowd-pleaser in two "out-dated" formats, silent film and b/w. Much more so than in years past, I'm not sure which way the voting will break. I could see it either way.
Both of these front-runners love movies, and if they end up splitting the Best Picture vote then I'd say the one to come from behind would be Woody Allen's MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, another love letter to a bygone era. MONEYBALL and THE DESCENDANTS are very solid films as well. All in all, there's a lot to watch for in this year's contest. Here's a brief rundown of the entries that I managed to squeeze in this year:
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, Woody Allen
I consider Woody Allen to be the best filmmaker this country has ever produced (one of my more controversial opinions), so I was disappointed in this light, breezy comedy. It was entertaining, and very funny at some points, but I expected more from the creator of PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO and ZELIG. Here's someone who can do magical realism, and give it a good underpinning. This time around, though, the story only really works on one level, which seems to be a lot of name-dropping about the literary scene in 1920's Paris. And he has fun with that, having Owen Wilson meet luminaries such as Hemingway, F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Dali, and Gertrude Stein. But the central character arc results in the realization that you can't live in an idealized past--which is kind of thin, but then again these characters aren't very fleshed out to begin with: it's obvious from the opening scene that Inez (Rachel McAdams) is all wrong for Owen Wilson's Gil. Watching them drift apart is pretty dull, then, compared with Gil's scenes in Paris, past or present.
But it's funny in enough parts, and the movie is winning enough. It's Woody Allen's highest grossing film to date, and I'm not one to begrudge its success. I'd say it stands a good chance at winning Best Original Screenplay, since I don't think THE ARTIST was all that hot because of its story--though I hear good things about A SEPARATION, so I won't be stunned if that's what ends up winning.
HUGO, Martin Scorsese
Yes, Scorsese has made a movie for kids. Sort of. At least there's nothing objectionable here, and a lot to behold. I'm not a big fan of 3-D, though I loved (the look of) AVATAR, this is what great filmmakers do with a new medium. The first hour, which shows young Hugo running around a Paris train station in breathtaking detail, is dazzling enough; but the second hour, which delves into the life of George Melies (Ben Kingsley), is just mind-blowing. I think this one will sweep the technical awards, and will give front-runner THE ARTIST a good run for the money. I'll put my money on this one for Best Picture.
MONEYBALL, Bennett Miller
Here's one I liked more than I thought I would. I don't follow baseball, and didn't know anything about the Oakland A's, so I watched the movie not knowing how their 2002 season would play out--I got caught up in it. I was told by a co-worker that the book is all about statistics, he thought it was unfilmable. It certainly helps when your screenwriters are Aaron Sorkin (who won last year for THE SOCIAL NETWORK) and Steven Zaillian (who won for SCHINDLER'S LIST). You certainly don't need to know much about baseball, either the game or the professional sport, to follow the story, and they keep the math in the background. All in all, I found the movie very engaging, and is further proof that Brad Pitt is an excellent actor. He could have walked through this movie, relying on his star power and good looks; as it is, he turned in a nuanced, understated performance that was fun to watch. And Jonah Hill should get credit as well: their scenes together really work.
Now, I've been following the Oscars since 1979, and eat Oscar trivia and stats, but I don't always get to see all of the nominated movies to make my own direct comparisons between them, so you could say I'm applying my own Sabermetrics to predicting the winners. Which leads me to say that unfortunately, Jonah Hill doesn't stand much of a chance in the Best Supporting Actor race, which will go to one of two 82-year-olds (Christopher Plummer for BEGINNERS, or Max von Sydow for EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE, neither of which I've seen). Then again, I've found the supporting acting categories to be the real wildcards, very difficult to predict.
THE DESCENDANTS, Allen Payne
This may be the very definition of "dramedy": a quasi-humorous take on an outright tragic situation, as George Clooney plays a wealthy Hawaiian real estate attorney whose wife ends up in a coma with too much brain damage to ever recover, so he has to take her off life support. Realizing that he is now going to be a single parent to his two daughters is hard enough; when his oldest tells him that his wife had been having an affair, he determines to meet the guy, both to see who had his wife's affections, and to let him know that she is about to die.
That's tough material, and this could have gone wrong in any number of different ways. But writer-director Allen Payne finds just the right tone, navigating this just right. The story and the actors never step wrong, and the result is a lot of good, honest laughs right along with poignant moments all around. I'm putting my money on Clooney to win Best Actor, since I was most impressed with his performance (the front-runner is Jean Dujardin for THE ARTIST). I wouldn't be disappointed if this picked up Best Adapted Screenplay over MONEYBALL.
THE ARTIST, Michel Hazanavicius
I have to say, this one may depend on just how cynical you are about moviegoing. If you're one of those--and I can sympathize--who balks at silent film, if you don't have the appreciation--or at least the patience--to watch old-school film, then skip this one. Though this movie is beautiful in every way, and has a seductive charm, I honestly don't think it would necessarily win over someone who isn't already disposed to its subject matter: early Hollywood filmmaking. But, for those willing to take the movie on its own terms, it's a wonderful (and not overly long) story set in the time when film was going from silence to sound. (Many have pointed out the similarities between this story and SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, but I have to confess to never having seen that, so I can't rightly say.) Sure, the story is melodramatic and fairly predictable--this movie hasn't seen as many movies as you have--but its innocence and simplicity are integral to its character. Unlike MAN OF THE CENTURY, a very amusing and wry attempt to bring an old-time movie character into the present, THE ARTIST plays within its own universe, never winking at the audience with any present-day sensibility. It wants to evoke the cinema of the 1920's--and it succeeds wonderfully. The photography is perfect, and along with the costumes and production design the movie is a marvel to behold. And although I'm still more impressed with HUGO, I wouldn't be disappointed if this one took top honors.
THE TREE OF LIFE, Terrence Malick
You know those European avant-garde films from the 50's and 60's, where you'd have something like, say, a shot of three people sitting in a room, not looking at each other, while a voiceover morosely intones "Love is a dog from hell", which then cuts to a ball bouncing down some stairs, then a cut to the sun being eclipsed by clouds? All very self-consciously bold and artistic?
That's TREE OF LIFE. Or, more appropriately, that's how modern viewers are going to see it: as a disjointed and confusing but visually stunning meditation on life and death and...something something. While the movie is very accomplished, and I have no doubt Terrence Malick got exactly what he was going for, I think the audience might not, since the end result is less like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (to which it is being compared), and more like the acid sequence in the cemetery at the end of EASY RIDER. 2001 at least had a plot, as difficult as its final act was to puzzle out; here, Malick dispenses with plot and continuity altogether, and offers a pastiche of past, present, and cosmic. This movie deserves its nominations, but I can't see a KOYAANISQATSI-type film winning Best Picture or Best Director. It's up for Cinemtography (Emmanuel Lubezki), and has a good shot there, though I don't get the sense there's much momentum for it.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
IN THE DAYS OF THE COMET by H.G. Wells
I'm a huge fan of H.G. Wells; I've read most of his stuff, both the novels and the short stories. He and Jules Verne took their science very seriously, something that can't be said for later generations of science fiction writers (whatever it is that Ray Bradbury writes, it isn't science fiction, as I have yet to find any science at all in anything of his that I've read). Wells was also a good storyteller, with a grand imagination and a very good eye for detail. At times, he had a helluva sense of humor as well (see his stories "Aepyornis Island" and "The Truth About Pyecraft", two of my favorites). His political views weren't exactly subtle: THE TIME MACHINE is a pretty straightforward parable about class warfare (though he cleverly inverts things, with the parasitic elites as underground dwellers and the proletariat living carefree lives of leisure), and FIRST MEN IN THE MOON leaves off an excellent sci-fi story to veer off into a discordant epilogue where the inventor has a dialogue about humanity with the leader of the moon creatures, depicting mankind as pernicious and murderous. But generally speaking, he keeps his politics restrained and his science intriguing.
So I'm sad to report that IN THE DAYS OF THE COMET is a complete waste of time. The first half of the book describes how miserable life is for a young, ambitious socialist who resents the capitalists who run the factory slum he lives in. He wants to marry a young woman in the next township, only to see her elope with the son of a wealthy family. He vows revenge, gets a gun and chases the couple to a beach resort, planning to kill them both. All this plays out against the appearance of a rapidly approaching comet, and people are fearful that it might strike the earth.
It doesn't, but earth passes through the comet's tail, which...Wells doesn't explain very well. Something to do with the atmosphere's nitrogen and oxygen balance. Anyway, everyone loses consciousness, and when they awake the entire population of the world is suddenly nice. Socialist in the extreme, everyone collectively agrees to do away with governments and factories and slums, and all work together to make a better world. Huh.
The last few pages provide some kind of closure for the would-be romance, as the protagonist meets up again with his erstwhile beloved and her husband, and Wells intimates that in the new world order, free love (another of his social causes) would be commonplace. While I'm all for that, personally, this story is ultimately an inexplicable and unsatisfying fantasy from Wells, and I can't recommend it at all. Guess there's a reason this one isn't mentioned much among his other works.
So I'm sad to report that IN THE DAYS OF THE COMET is a complete waste of time. The first half of the book describes how miserable life is for a young, ambitious socialist who resents the capitalists who run the factory slum he lives in. He wants to marry a young woman in the next township, only to see her elope with the son of a wealthy family. He vows revenge, gets a gun and chases the couple to a beach resort, planning to kill them both. All this plays out against the appearance of a rapidly approaching comet, and people are fearful that it might strike the earth.
It doesn't, but earth passes through the comet's tail, which...Wells doesn't explain very well. Something to do with the atmosphere's nitrogen and oxygen balance. Anyway, everyone loses consciousness, and when they awake the entire population of the world is suddenly nice. Socialist in the extreme, everyone collectively agrees to do away with governments and factories and slums, and all work together to make a better world. Huh.
The last few pages provide some kind of closure for the would-be romance, as the protagonist meets up again with his erstwhile beloved and her husband, and Wells intimates that in the new world order, free love (another of his social causes) would be commonplace. While I'm all for that, personally, this story is ultimately an inexplicable and unsatisfying fantasy from Wells, and I can't recommend it at all. Guess there's a reason this one isn't mentioned much among his other works.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
SHUTTER ISLAND
When I saw MYSTIC RIVER, another movie based on a Dennis Lehane novel, I couldn't understand the central conflict of the plot: we're supposed to be guessing whether Tim Robbins' character killed that girl or not? At the time, I honestly thought "What, these two detectives [Kevin Bacon and Laurence Fishburne] have never seen NYPD BLUE or LAW AND ORDER?" I could tell right off he didn't fit the profile, didn't have a motive, and what's more, why are they worried about his injured hand when the victim was shot from a distance, and didn't show any signs of contact with the killer? The movie didn't work for me.
Neither did SHUTTER ISLAND, well-made as it is. I don't even want to hint at the plot twist at the end, but I'll say this: most movie-going audiences, especially the younger crowd, will see this coming an hour away. For anyone who's seen MEMENTO, FIGHT CLUB, ANGEL HEART, DARK CITY, VANILLA SKY, IDENTITY, JACOB'S LADDER, THE MATRIX (kinda), or any other dozen less-successful takes on the whole you-can't-trust-your-narrator gambit, SHUTTER ISLAND will seem liked warmed leftovers. Which is unfortunate, since everything else about the movie is first-rate: performances, photography, set design, music--it all worked, but the story is a dud. I take no pleasure in saying that about a Martin Scorsese movie, and though I wasn't blown away by the direction, it doesn't stand out with his usual style, only passing hints.
Let me make two recommendations here. First, the kind of spooky atmosphere they achieved here brought to mind an overlooked movie from 1999, overshadowed by THE SIXTH SENSE that year. STIR OF ECHOES was a restrained supernatural thriller, with that same sense of mounting dread.
As for truly original mind-fuck movies, check out Marc Forster's STAY from 2005. That's as good a twist ending, to a disturbingly surreal movie, as any of the others I've already mentioned. If you haven't seen it, seek it out--and pay attention to the details.
Neither did SHUTTER ISLAND, well-made as it is. I don't even want to hint at the plot twist at the end, but I'll say this: most movie-going audiences, especially the younger crowd, will see this coming an hour away. For anyone who's seen MEMENTO, FIGHT CLUB, ANGEL HEART, DARK CITY, VANILLA SKY, IDENTITY, JACOB'S LADDER, THE MATRIX (kinda), or any other dozen less-successful takes on the whole you-can't-trust-your-narrator gambit, SHUTTER ISLAND will seem liked warmed leftovers. Which is unfortunate, since everything else about the movie is first-rate: performances, photography, set design, music--it all worked, but the story is a dud. I take no pleasure in saying that about a Martin Scorsese movie, and though I wasn't blown away by the direction, it doesn't stand out with his usual style, only passing hints.
Let me make two recommendations here. First, the kind of spooky atmosphere they achieved here brought to mind an overlooked movie from 1999, overshadowed by THE SIXTH SENSE that year. STIR OF ECHOES was a restrained supernatural thriller, with that same sense of mounting dread.
As for truly original mind-fuck movies, check out Marc Forster's STAY from 2005. That's as good a twist ending, to a disturbingly surreal movie, as any of the others I've already mentioned. If you haven't seen it, seek it out--and pay attention to the details.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Oscar Homework, 2010
So it's cram time, gotta see as many of the nominees before the ceremony on March 7th. Well, here goes:
THE HURT LOCKER
Very involving--gripping, for the most part--and yet curiously unmoving. While the whole cinema-verite style was immediate and jarring, I can honestly say that I didn't feel bombarded the way I do with most action movies. Kathryn Bigelow is one of the best action directors working today, and I hope she wins Best Director. But there's no over-reaching story or plot, we're just following this unit wondering if everyone will make it to the end of their tour of duty. It's nice that they weren't trying to layer on a lot of personal drama, but without that the characters--particularly the lead character--don't seem engaging. Vivid and immediate, but impersonal. Still a great visceral experience.
THE HURT LOCKER
Very involving--gripping, for the most part--and yet curiously unmoving. While the whole cinema-verite style was immediate and jarring, I can honestly say that I didn't feel bombarded the way I do with most action movies. Kathryn Bigelow is one of the best action directors working today, and I hope she wins Best Director. But there's no over-reaching story or plot, we're just following this unit wondering if everyone will make it to the end of their tour of duty. It's nice that they weren't trying to layer on a lot of personal drama, but without that the characters--particularly the lead character--don't seem engaging. Vivid and immediate, but impersonal. Still a great visceral experience.
AVATAR
Everybody is complaining that the story is insipid and hippie-dippie. And it is, but it's in the service of a dazzling and imaginative fantasy. It's notable that of the nine Oscar nominations it has received, Best Screenplay isn't one of them, which is highly unusual. Not that I think it deserves to be, but nobody was criticizing UP for its story. Anyway, this is an exciting and inventive movie that people will be watching for years to come, and I think it deserves Best Picture.
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
Pure Tarantino--and its greatest strength may be its greatest weakness. His genre movies all always about the movies as much as they are the genre itself: this World War II movie of his isn't about World War II, it's about World War II movies. Hell, the plot revolves around the screening of such a movie. There are some great scenes, and Christoph Waltz is the odds-on favorite to take Best Supporting Actor, but I don't think this one is likely to pick up many more, other than maybe Best Original Screenplay. I'll be laughing my ass off if this is the spoiler between AVATAR and HURT LOCKER, and Tarantino gets the Best Picture Oscar he should've gotten for PULP FICTION.
UP
This is the movie I probably have the fewest problems with, among all the contenders. It's a great kids movie, but works equally well for adults. The youngster doesn't outsmart or out-talk his elders, and not every other joke is some pop-culture reference.
UP IN THE AIR
Starts out strong, does OK, then ends weak. I like the characters, I like the set-up (I couldn't help thinking, a friendlier and less obstrusive Tyler Durden). But what's the point of this movie? To deconstruct the life and values of a man on the road? The reviews I've read all tout this movie as being a sign of our times, but I don't see that. FIGHT CLUB had a lot more to say about our cultural values.
PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL PUSH BY SAPPHIRE
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Russ Goes To the Movies, 2009--updated 2/20/9
I don't get out much anymore. Not to see many films, at least. I used to see dozens of movies a year, I followed directors and writers along with actors and actresses, kept up with everything happening in the industry. When I was a film student, back in '92 and '93, I saw upward of 70 movies a year.
Last year? I saw three. No wait, four: SHINE A LIGHT, DARK KNIGHT, GONZO: THE LIFE AND WORK OF DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON, and THE HAPPENING. Three out of four, that's not bad. Right?
But I didn't catch any of the movies that went on to get any significant Oscar nominations, and I'm all about the Oscars: I'll beat anybody at Academy Award trivia, I've been following the Oscar races since '79, the way other guys analyze the Superbowl or the World Series.
So, if Sunday's Oscar broadcast is going to mean anything to me--and I plan on blogging it live--then I gotta do some homework.
So I've seen a Best Picture nominee a night all week, and then some. Here's what I think so far:
THE WRESTLER
Good performances and some deft direction, not much else. The story seems recycled from cliches that must date from wrestling pictures since the 30's: pro wrestler who's too old to continue, heart-of-gold stripper who can't/won't date customers, estranged kid that can't be bought off by belated apologies and heartfelt gifts, etc. All brought to life with a cinema verite quality and an attention to detail that itself may be new to the wrestling genre, but doesn't elevate the material much beyond that. Still, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy seeing Marisa Tomei strip for a good cause: that being fleshing out a two-dimensional supporting character into something that provides a good motivation for the protagonist. I never thought Mickey Rourke was a bad actor, WILD ORCHID notwithstanding--ANGEL HEART is one of my favorite movies, and I can't picture anyone else in the role. And he certainly does a great job here, though it's not transcendent like Langella as Nixon or Pitt as Button. So: here's hoping for Marisa.
MILK
Good, but I don't see it winning in any major categories. Looks great, though, a vivid evocation of the 70's, both in period detail and the cultural climate. And once again, Sean Penn disappears completely into a role. And like most Gus Van Sant movies, the supporting cast really stands out. Not too flashy for a biopic, which works in its favor, but its understatement makes it an unlikely choice for anything other than its acting nominations (Penn and Josh Brolin), and they're up against almost impossible competition.
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
I have to confess that I'm not at all taken with Indian culture (that being Asian Indian, not American Indian--I myself am a half-breed, and I find Native culture to be fascinating). I don't like Indian food, art, music, or cinema. This whole Bollywood thing is going to pass me right by. Which is not to say that I didn't like this movie, it was engrossing and had a minor epic sweep to it. Danny Boyle is kinetic enough, and knows how to structure a quirky story. But the story is farfetched and the characters too simple, kind of out of step with the stark realism in its depiction of the slums of Mumbai, and the brutality of abject poverty. Its popularity could cut either way, but my money's not on this one. Maybe Best Photography or Best Editing.
FROST/NIXON
I was surprised at how blown away I was. Never mind that Ron Howard was the same guy who did SPLASH--he also did A BEAUTIFUL MIND, not one of his best, though it won him Best Director and won Best Picture. Here, he's spot-on and no-nonsense, almost as good as his masterwork, APOLLO 13. Though I'm a big Watergate buff, I only dimly remember the Frost interviews from when I was a kid, and was never too curious. But this depiction of ten hours of videotaped talk is riveting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at how much work went into the whole television endeavor, but I didn't expect it to make for such a fast-paced drama. Didn't seem dumbed-down at all. But the real driving force here is Frank Langella's performance as Nixon. That Oscar is his. This is the best evocation of Nixon I've ever seen, beating out Dan Hedaya in DICK and Phillip Baker Hall in SECRET HONOR. This is on par with Val Kilmer's portrayal of Jim Morrison, it's uncanny. I can see this winning for Adapted Screenplay and Best Editing.
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
I can't believe how this movie won me over. This is my vote for Best Picture and Best Director. Certainly Best Makeup, though I thought DARK KNIGHT was goddamned impressive, too. It isn't too sentimental or cloying, like FORREST GUMP, which is its obvious comparison. It's low-key and is focused on its characters, not the historical sweep, and that makes its impact all the more subtle. I love the fact that everyone just kind of accepts the premise that the lead character is aging backwards and works with it, rather than treating it as an opportunity for cheap quirky humor. Thirteen nominations? I wouldn't have believed it til I saw it. My money's on this one.
THE READER
Even without copious nudity and sex, this would still be a knockout performance by Kate Winslet. I don't know that she'll win--and in truth, I haven't seen the other nominees in this category, but she's just amazing in a very demanding role, and she may be the one I'm pulling for most. The whole film is a real winner, a meditation on past mistakes and atonement, about missed opportunities and healing. It's a shame that this one won't win many awards tonight, as it's overshadowed by more luminous contenders.
Last year? I saw three. No wait, four: SHINE A LIGHT, DARK KNIGHT, GONZO: THE LIFE AND WORK OF DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON, and THE HAPPENING. Three out of four, that's not bad. Right?
But I didn't catch any of the movies that went on to get any significant Oscar nominations, and I'm all about the Oscars: I'll beat anybody at Academy Award trivia, I've been following the Oscar races since '79, the way other guys analyze the Superbowl or the World Series.
So, if Sunday's Oscar broadcast is going to mean anything to me--and I plan on blogging it live--then I gotta do some homework.
So I've seen a Best Picture nominee a night all week, and then some. Here's what I think so far:
THE WRESTLER
Good performances and some deft direction, not much else. The story seems recycled from cliches that must date from wrestling pictures since the 30's: pro wrestler who's too old to continue, heart-of-gold stripper who can't/won't date customers, estranged kid that can't be bought off by belated apologies and heartfelt gifts, etc. All brought to life with a cinema verite quality and an attention to detail that itself may be new to the wrestling genre, but doesn't elevate the material much beyond that. Still, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy seeing Marisa Tomei strip for a good cause: that being fleshing out a two-dimensional supporting character into something that provides a good motivation for the protagonist. I never thought Mickey Rourke was a bad actor, WILD ORCHID notwithstanding--ANGEL HEART is one of my favorite movies, and I can't picture anyone else in the role. And he certainly does a great job here, though it's not transcendent like Langella as Nixon or Pitt as Button. So: here's hoping for Marisa.
MILK
Good, but I don't see it winning in any major categories. Looks great, though, a vivid evocation of the 70's, both in period detail and the cultural climate. And once again, Sean Penn disappears completely into a role. And like most Gus Van Sant movies, the supporting cast really stands out. Not too flashy for a biopic, which works in its favor, but its understatement makes it an unlikely choice for anything other than its acting nominations (Penn and Josh Brolin), and they're up against almost impossible competition.
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
I have to confess that I'm not at all taken with Indian culture (that being Asian Indian, not American Indian--I myself am a half-breed, and I find Native culture to be fascinating). I don't like Indian food, art, music, or cinema. This whole Bollywood thing is going to pass me right by. Which is not to say that I didn't like this movie, it was engrossing and had a minor epic sweep to it. Danny Boyle is kinetic enough, and knows how to structure a quirky story. But the story is farfetched and the characters too simple, kind of out of step with the stark realism in its depiction of the slums of Mumbai, and the brutality of abject poverty. Its popularity could cut either way, but my money's not on this one. Maybe Best Photography or Best Editing.
FROST/NIXON
I was surprised at how blown away I was. Never mind that Ron Howard was the same guy who did SPLASH--he also did A BEAUTIFUL MIND, not one of his best, though it won him Best Director and won Best Picture. Here, he's spot-on and no-nonsense, almost as good as his masterwork, APOLLO 13. Though I'm a big Watergate buff, I only dimly remember the Frost interviews from when I was a kid, and was never too curious. But this depiction of ten hours of videotaped talk is riveting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at how much work went into the whole television endeavor, but I didn't expect it to make for such a fast-paced drama. Didn't seem dumbed-down at all. But the real driving force here is Frank Langella's performance as Nixon. That Oscar is his. This is the best evocation of Nixon I've ever seen, beating out Dan Hedaya in DICK and Phillip Baker Hall in SECRET HONOR. This is on par with Val Kilmer's portrayal of Jim Morrison, it's uncanny. I can see this winning for Adapted Screenplay and Best Editing.
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
I can't believe how this movie won me over. This is my vote for Best Picture and Best Director. Certainly Best Makeup, though I thought DARK KNIGHT was goddamned impressive, too. It isn't too sentimental or cloying, like FORREST GUMP, which is its obvious comparison. It's low-key and is focused on its characters, not the historical sweep, and that makes its impact all the more subtle. I love the fact that everyone just kind of accepts the premise that the lead character is aging backwards and works with it, rather than treating it as an opportunity for cheap quirky humor. Thirteen nominations? I wouldn't have believed it til I saw it. My money's on this one.
THE READER
Even without copious nudity and sex, this would still be a knockout performance by Kate Winslet. I don't know that she'll win--and in truth, I haven't seen the other nominees in this category, but she's just amazing in a very demanding role, and she may be the one I'm pulling for most. The whole film is a real winner, a meditation on past mistakes and atonement, about missed opportunities and healing. It's a shame that this one won't win many awards tonight, as it's overshadowed by more luminous contenders.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Sex and Bacon Sarah Katherine Lewis
This is a must-read--but only for those with appetites, since that's what the book is about. Lewis, a Seattle native, is a former sex worker with a literal lust for life, so whether it's describing a blind date in Capital Hill or answering the question of how much bacon will satisfy her bacon craving, she evokes the sensuality of the experience with a carnal immediacy. She disdains diets and artificial foods as not satisfying natural hunger, and so only prolong the body's need; better to just trust your desires and enjoy them rather than starve yourself in whatever way. I'm a hedonist myself, so that's a life philosophy I can relate to.
But be warned: she also has a wicked scatological streak that rivals that other Sarah. In the first chapter she bemoans the fact that all her recent boyfriends seem to think she's turned on by oral-anal attention. And she has a chapter about one of her former clientele, a guy nicknamed "Baby Ruth Man" who may have been permanently warped by viewing CADDYSHACK at a young age. Now, whereas Cynthia Heimel or Laurie Notaro would recoil from this sort of stuff in Judeo- and/or Christian revulsion, Lewis understands that there are some awkward moments in life that can only really be shared if you're willing to hear about the grim details. But she avoids the common pitfall of graphic detail for its own sake, the shock-humor of the last decade or so. What she's telling you needs to be said to draw the picture, whether it's the anatomical detail of the mussel she's about to cook, or her own personal hygiene at the moment she meets an ex-boyfriend, there are things ordinarily left unsaid that can lend an immediacy and humanity that is often missing in most narratives, no matter how otherwise evocative.
A chick who tells it like it is, and makes no apologies. But if the devil is in the details, then God is too: I defy you to read her chapter on cooking mussels and not want to try it (I more or less hate shellfish, and yet somewhere for me a switch has been flipped...). And her essay on the personal quality of pasta sauce had me re-evaluating my thoughts on culinary identity, about what beyond ingredients and preparation account for a distinct style. Sure, I have my own way of doing pasta--I call it fettucine al bachelor--but I hadn't thought of it as an existential expression. The book is a pure delight: I feasted on it.
P.S. -- In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I met the author over the weekend--and she is as striking in the flesh as she is on the page. She showed me her tattoos, and schooled me in Latin--both at the same time. How cool is that?
But be warned: she also has a wicked scatological streak that rivals that other Sarah. In the first chapter she bemoans the fact that all her recent boyfriends seem to think she's turned on by oral-anal attention. And she has a chapter about one of her former clientele, a guy nicknamed "Baby Ruth Man" who may have been permanently warped by viewing CADDYSHACK at a young age. Now, whereas Cynthia Heimel or Laurie Notaro would recoil from this sort of stuff in Judeo- and/or Christian revulsion, Lewis understands that there are some awkward moments in life that can only really be shared if you're willing to hear about the grim details. But she avoids the common pitfall of graphic detail for its own sake, the shock-humor of the last decade or so. What she's telling you needs to be said to draw the picture, whether it's the anatomical detail of the mussel she's about to cook, or her own personal hygiene at the moment she meets an ex-boyfriend, there are things ordinarily left unsaid that can lend an immediacy and humanity that is often missing in most narratives, no matter how otherwise evocative.
A chick who tells it like it is, and makes no apologies. But if the devil is in the details, then God is too: I defy you to read her chapter on cooking mussels and not want to try it (I more or less hate shellfish, and yet somewhere for me a switch has been flipped...). And her essay on the personal quality of pasta sauce had me re-evaluating my thoughts on culinary identity, about what beyond ingredients and preparation account for a distinct style. Sure, I have my own way of doing pasta--I call it fettucine al bachelor--but I hadn't thought of it as an existential expression. The book is a pure delight: I feasted on it.
P.S. -- In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I met the author over the weekend--and she is as striking in the flesh as she is on the page. She showed me her tattoos, and schooled me in Latin--both at the same time. How cool is that?
Monday, August 4, 2008
How Not To See JUNO
This is an email I sent around a few weeks before the Oscars this year. JUNO is out on DVD--catch it.
Finally caught it last night. It's been getting a lot of play-up as being the sleeper hit of the year, as well as a lot of backlash criticism of being overrated and glib, including one handjob I know who dismissed the movie as "a pro-life soapbox", which, whatever else it is, it ain't: teen pregnancy here being little more than a plot contrivance, an occasion for a lot of (pretty good) one-liners and off-hand biological observations. The movie seems more interested in its musical sensibilities than in the emotional and moral realities of getting knocked up at sixteen, which is treated with all the seriousness of a nine-month head cold. Which is not to say that it'd be a better movie it had more of a conscience about teen pregnancy, or if its main character came to any profound realizations about life as a result. Writer Diablo Cody said she wanted to create a credible, smart and funny teen girl protagonist, and that's what she's done; the pregnancy is only a set-up for the movie, and it should be seen in that regard. And you will be missing something special if you don't catch it; I enjoyed it thoroughly, the worst thing I can say about it is that it's light and breezy, and occasionally sardonic. Is the dialogue just too cute and quirky? Sure. How long's it been since you saw BREAKFAST CLUB? John Hughes, Kevin Smith, Tarantino--they're all too scripted. What's more, the real Henry V didn't speak in iambic pentameter, either. It's more a question of whether you like hearing the characters talk, whether you want to spend time with them. On that count, JUNO is a pure delight. If anything, my biggest problem with the movie is that it didn't make the most of its greatest strength: the relationship between Juno and her erstwhile inseminator, Bleeker (played pitch-perfectly by Michael Cera--and where's his Oscar nomination?). The movie should have focused more on them together; instead, they only have maybe half a dozen scenes together, which are the heart and soul of the movie. And that's maybe the most formulaic thing about this otherwise bright and original comedy, that the two principals have to be kept apart til the end, at which point they'll live happily ever after. Which doesn't ring true: you're trying to tell me that after they have sex once, they don't date or even talk much for the next 12 weeks? I GUARANTEE: you invite a 16-year-old guy over to watch BLAIR WITCH PROJECT on Starz! and instead opt to fuck him on the recliner (alleviating both your virginities), and he WILL come calling again. What's more, she described sex with him as "magnificent", and said "he's great in chair", but loses all interest in her new discovery? (That's only slightly less credible than the fact that she mentions nothing about the incident to her best friend until she fails--or is it passes?--the pregnancy test.) Then once he finds out, he still has virtually no contact with her other than a few conversations in the school hallway? I feel like there's a movie here that didn't get made. Diablo Cody said that too often, the supporting role of girlfriend to a teen male character gets relegated to either a comforter or a problem; it's too bad she carried that mistake over to this story.
For all of that, however much I'd like to see a sequel (JUNO AND BLEEKER GO TO COLLEGE, or something), what's there is solid, long as you don't expect it to be on par with SAY ANYTHING or HEATHERS. It's a worthy Oscar contender, and I wouldn't be upset to see Ellen Page win over Julie Christie, and as the odd sentimental nominee for Best Picture, there's a hell of a lot more to recommend it than the usual dark horse they put up every year (did you *see* LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE? Did you have to pay?). I'm definitely pulling for Cody to win Best Original Screenplay, and if THERE WILL BE BLOOD splits the Academy vote for Picture with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (my choice), I hope JUNO takes it.
Want to see a more involved movie about teen pregnancy? Check out Molly Ringwald's forgotten little gem FOR KEEPS. However lightly it deals with issues like post-partum depression, family disagreements, and the fact that teen pregnancy can compromise an otherwise promising college career, at least these are addressed, whereas they're conspicuously missing from JUNO's universe.
A great little film about how a pregnancy disrupts life not only in a family but a whole township is THE SNAPPER, another overlooked movie that's by turns hilarious and poignant.
RICH IN LOVE has a great supporting cast of likable characters, headed by Kathryn Erbe as a smart teenager trying to hold her family together. Genial and very observant.
The one movie that JUNO reminded me of more than any other is THUMBSUCKER, which treats ADHD about as realistically as JUNO does pregnancy. But it's got likable characters, realistic parents, and a lot of laughs.
But no teen girl story will ever beat DARIA, the first season of which I got from Scarecrow, and have been watching all week. Which is perhaps what occasioned so much thought on the subject.
Finally caught it last night. It's been getting a lot of play-up as being the sleeper hit of the year, as well as a lot of backlash criticism of being overrated and glib, including one handjob I know who dismissed the movie as "a pro-life soapbox", which, whatever else it is, it ain't: teen pregnancy here being little more than a plot contrivance, an occasion for a lot of (pretty good) one-liners and off-hand biological observations. The movie seems more interested in its musical sensibilities than in the emotional and moral realities of getting knocked up at sixteen, which is treated with all the seriousness of a nine-month head cold. Which is not to say that it'd be a better movie it had more of a conscience about teen pregnancy, or if its main character came to any profound realizations about life as a result. Writer Diablo Cody said she wanted to create a credible, smart and funny teen girl protagonist, and that's what she's done; the pregnancy is only a set-up for the movie, and it should be seen in that regard. And you will be missing something special if you don't catch it; I enjoyed it thoroughly, the worst thing I can say about it is that it's light and breezy, and occasionally sardonic. Is the dialogue just too cute and quirky? Sure. How long's it been since you saw BREAKFAST CLUB? John Hughes, Kevin Smith, Tarantino--they're all too scripted. What's more, the real Henry V didn't speak in iambic pentameter, either. It's more a question of whether you like hearing the characters talk, whether you want to spend time with them. On that count, JUNO is a pure delight. If anything, my biggest problem with the movie is that it didn't make the most of its greatest strength: the relationship between Juno and her erstwhile inseminator, Bleeker (played pitch-perfectly by Michael Cera--and where's his Oscar nomination?). The movie should have focused more on them together; instead, they only have maybe half a dozen scenes together, which are the heart and soul of the movie. And that's maybe the most formulaic thing about this otherwise bright and original comedy, that the two principals have to be kept apart til the end, at which point they'll live happily ever after. Which doesn't ring true: you're trying to tell me that after they have sex once, they don't date or even talk much for the next 12 weeks? I GUARANTEE: you invite a 16-year-old guy over to watch BLAIR WITCH PROJECT on Starz! and instead opt to fuck him on the recliner (alleviating both your virginities), and he WILL come calling again. What's more, she described sex with him as "magnificent", and said "he's great in chair", but loses all interest in her new discovery? (That's only slightly less credible than the fact that she mentions nothing about the incident to her best friend until she fails--or is it passes?--the pregnancy test.) Then once he finds out, he still has virtually no contact with her other than a few conversations in the school hallway? I feel like there's a movie here that didn't get made. Diablo Cody said that too often, the supporting role of girlfriend to a teen male character gets relegated to either a comforter or a problem; it's too bad she carried that mistake over to this story.
For all of that, however much I'd like to see a sequel (JUNO AND BLEEKER GO TO COLLEGE, or something), what's there is solid, long as you don't expect it to be on par with SAY ANYTHING or HEATHERS. It's a worthy Oscar contender, and I wouldn't be upset to see Ellen Page win over Julie Christie, and as the odd sentimental nominee for Best Picture, there's a hell of a lot more to recommend it than the usual dark horse they put up every year (did you *see* LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE? Did you have to pay?). I'm definitely pulling for Cody to win Best Original Screenplay, and if THERE WILL BE BLOOD splits the Academy vote for Picture with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (my choice), I hope JUNO takes it.
Want to see a more involved movie about teen pregnancy? Check out Molly Ringwald's forgotten little gem FOR KEEPS. However lightly it deals with issues like post-partum depression, family disagreements, and the fact that teen pregnancy can compromise an otherwise promising college career, at least these are addressed, whereas they're conspicuously missing from JUNO's universe.
A great little film about how a pregnancy disrupts life not only in a family but a whole township is THE SNAPPER, another overlooked movie that's by turns hilarious and poignant.
RICH IN LOVE has a great supporting cast of likable characters, headed by Kathryn Erbe as a smart teenager trying to hold her family together. Genial and very observant.
The one movie that JUNO reminded me of more than any other is THUMBSUCKER, which treats ADHD about as realistically as JUNO does pregnancy. But it's got likable characters, realistic parents, and a lot of laughs.
But no teen girl story will ever beat DARIA, the first season of which I got from Scarecrow, and have been watching all week. Which is perhaps what occasioned so much thought on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)