Oscar Wrap-Up

First thing’s first – yes, Jon Stewart is the best host in Oscar history for letting Once’s Market Irglova make her speech. I know that the thing is freakin’ long, but I’d rather be up until 12:30 than have to feel bad for one out of every two winners who aren’t allowed to make comments. (And incidentally, if you’re looking to save time, we can dump the utterly dull 8:00-8:30 Red Carpet blowjob session. E!’s been showing the carpet since about 10 AM, we don’t need it once the show’s already started, k thx.)

I couldn’t quite explain why I felt the No Country sweep coming. Maybe it was the fact that everyone I know has been talking about that film for a good five months; maybe it was the fact that the post-release buzz for There Will Be Blood didn’t quite match its buildup. But, in any case, the Coens just couldn’t stop winning (and never seemed particularly enthused about it, but that’s neither here nor there.) Hopefully There Will Be Blood will be remembered as a great film in its own right, for more than just Day-Lewis’s performance, but in the end, I think the right film won.

Big surprises in the women’s acting categories. Tilda Swinton is certainly deserving of an Oscar, and her performance in Michael Clayton was undoubtedly strong; I suppose Amy Ryan and Ruby Dee split votes, allowing Swinton to slip in. And justice prevails in a win for the fantastic Marion Cotillard. I’ve been a fan of hers from years – A Very Long Engagement is a favorite – and her performance in La Vie en Rose was truly excellent.

Last year, Jennifer Hudson won an Oscar for singing “And I Am Tellin’ You I Ain’t Leaving” really well. We’re all feeling pretty silly about that now. This year, Diablo Cody won an Oscar for previously being a stripper and then writing lots of super-hip puns. A year from now, we’ll feel similarly silly about that one. Juno was a good movie, mostly on Ellen Page’s performance and Jason Reitman’s deft direction, but it had to come a long way to overcome its hipster-than-thou, often absurd dialogue. The “anyone can win an Oscar” theme was nice (as if that wasn’t already demonstrated by Three 6 Mafia,) between Cody and Hansard & Irglova, but let’s be serious, here.

Stewart was solid once again, and I sincerely hope he’s asked back. As for my predictions, I went a so-so 11 and 10 overall (damn Bourne movie winning technicals,) but I hit all the big ones not related to women’s acting, so that’s something.

-Posted by Sean on 2/26/08

Oscar Hubbub: Best Picture, Full Picks

It truly looks like this one is still pretty damn close. From a distance, it seems that No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are in a mad footrace, with Paul Thomas Anderson riding piggyback on the oil-encrusted frame of Daniel-Day Lewis towards the award, while the Coen Brothers madly scramble a yard ahead with Javier Bardem repeatedly shooting the ground behind them, Yosemite Sam-style. Overly facetious metaphors aside, however, the concept of vote-splitting comes up once again here. When two nominees are seen as just about as good as one another (especially when those two are vaguely similar in tone,) it occasionally happens that Academy voters are split right down the middle in their support – allowing a dark horse third nominee to gain a groundswell and edge out the favorites. This year’s dark horse would be better termed a dark pregnant foal. If Day-Lewis and Bardem do stop mid-race to beat the hell out of one another, Juno could well carefully and gingerly walk to the finish line. And then there’s Atonement. While support for the film has dried up more or less entirely, it did take the Golden Globe over both of the heavyweights, and somebody had to vote for it. There’s still a chance that it carries an unexpected silent majority.

Your nominees are:

Atonement

Why it might win: While the Golden Globe winner (for drama) does not often correspond to the Best Picture winner (only once in the past five years – Return of the King,) this one was such a surprise that somebody has to like it. There’s an off chance that some of the quieter voters could defy the buzz and help Atonement pull off a huge upset.

Why it might not win: Support has more or less dried up entirely, at least among mainstream circles. Without a strong lead acting performance, doesn’t stick in viewer’s minds as much as its competitors. Frankly, isn’t nearly as good as the front-runners.

Juno

Why it might win: Feelings toward the little indie that could (a label that it should pay Little Miss Sunshine royalties on) are almost universally positive. In a year with a lot of very, very sad movies, voters might be heartened that a tiny little unexpected love story can still be awfully good. In spite of Coen involvement, it’s widely regarded as the “hip” candidate. And, as mentioned, could win solely on indecision between No Country and There Will Be Blood.

Why it might not win: A light candidate has a chance in a light year, but much less in a year of heavy hitters. Vote splitting might not be as widespread as possible, and if it isn’t, no one else stands a chance. While public backlash is non-existent, industry insiders might be a little sick of the Juno lovefest and all those Kimya Dawson songs they’ve got stuck in their heads now.

Michael Clayton Let’s not even bother.

No Country for Old Men

Why it might win: If you put your ear to the ground, you can feel the early rumblings of a No Country clean sweep. It’s had consistent fervent love since about October, and no one has anything bad to say about it. Even for as long as its been around, it seems to have been gaining momentum.

Why it might not win: Daniel Day-Lewis. While Javier Bardem is just as strong, people have somehow been brainwashed into thinking his was a supporting performance. Day-Lewis not only is a lock for Best Actor, he could tilt the scales in There Will Be Blood’s direction. Don’t forget that Blood was released two months after No Country, leaving it more fresh in the minds of the voters. Also, No Country is damn bleak. It may well have depressed a few voters too much to earn their love.

There Will Be Blood

Why it Might Win: Half the world seemed convinced that it was the Best Picture of the year before it even premiered. I, for one, recall first seeing the preview in front of 3:10 to Yuma and getting angry that I was stuck watching Russell Crowe instead of jumping forward to There Will Be Blood. It mostly held up its reputation after it premiered, and is widely regarded as the most finely crafted film of the year (whether or not that also means the best is debatable.) Also, don’t forget that Magnolia wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture – a win here might be an apology.

Why it Might Not Win: As I said, No Country is starting to look like a juggernaut. While people have been impressed with pretty much every aspect of No Country, the love for There Will Be Blood has been more or less limited to Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis. The Academy also has an occasional aversion to films that are rabidly anti-capitalist. That might not matter, in the end, but it might be enough of a subconscious motivation to give No Country the edge.

Sean’s Official Oscar Predictions 2007

Best Picture (Should and Will Win:) No Country for Old Men
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
Best Actress: Julie Christie, Away From Her
Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Best Supporting Actress: Amy Ryan, Gone Baby Gone
Best Direction: Joel and Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
Best Adapted Screenplay: Joel and Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
Best Original Screenplay: Diablo Cody, Juno
Best Animated Film: Ratatouille
Best Foreign Language Film: Katyn
Best Documentary: No End in Sight
Best Cinematography: Robert Elswit, There Will be Blood
Best Editing: Juliette Welfing, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Best Art Direction: Dante Ferretti et al, Sweeney Todd
Best Costume Design: Albert Wolsky, Across the Universe
Best Makeup: Didier Lavergne et al, La Vie en Rose
Best Score: James Newton Howard, Michael Clayton
Best Song: Glen Hansard, “Falling Slowly,” Once
Best Sound: Skip Lievsay et al, No Country for Old Men
Best Sound Editing: Randy Thom et al, Ratatouille
Best Visual Effects: John Knoll, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

In the interest of not guessing randomly any more than necessary, I’m not calling the shorts. Post-show thoughts coming, plus our Top 10s of 2007.

-Posted by Sean on 2/24/08

Oscar Hubbub: Actors Who Do The Leading

Best Actor

Look, I’m going to go ahead and pretend I don’t have to just write “Daniel Day-Lewis” forty-seven times here, but only briefly. Even if the maddeningly strong performance Day-Lewis gave in There Will Be Blood wasn’t arguably the best acting any of us have seen since Monster, the field around him is a little anemic. Clooney just got his award a couple years ago, and Depp will get his eventually – but for something a bit more well-received than Sweeney Todd. Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises) and Tommy Lee Jones (In the Valley of Elah) were completely off the radar before nominations came out – while both were strong performances (and Tommy Lee Jones is having one hell of a year,) they’re just rounding out the category. I’m going to forgo running down the nominees – this one isn’t even a race.

Sean’s Official Call
Who Should Win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Who Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis

Best Actress

The complete opposite. This one couldn’t be more wide open. There’s no clear choice, and strong arguments can be made for just about every contender. Anyone’s guess is as good as mine on this one, but let’s give it a shot. Your nominees are:

Cate Blanchett, Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Why she might win: She’s Cate Blanchett. Hollywood could not possibly love her any more.
Why she might not win: Her Supporting nod will get the votes, and this film is widely regarded as confusing and unnecessary. She’s the only one to really fall behind in the pack here.

Julie Christie, Away From Her
Why She Might Win: Strong buzz. Took the SAG and the Golden Globe. Won an Oscar 42 years ago, so has comeback appeal. The film is highly admired by those who saw it.
Why She Might Win: Not everyone saw the film, myself included. When there’s a notably younger candidate (Page) and a notably older candidate, votes are split.

Marion Cotillard, La Vie en Rose
Why She Might Win: A fantastic, shape-shifting performance. Biopics, inexplicably, are still beloved. Had to have worked harder than any other candidate.
Why She Might Not Win: Foreign-language nominees in the major acting categories are hard to sell – not everyone will have seen the performance, and there are still those who can’t be impressed with acting if they’re reading subtitles (these people are, generally, not that bright.) In any case, a tough sell.

Laura Linney, The Savages
Why She Might Win: Like Blanchett, Linney is a perennially admired performer. The Savages probably won’t get love anywhere else, and Linney could be seen as the representative.
Why She Might Not Win: The buzz around The Savages belonged to Philip Seymour Hoffman, not Linney. This is her third nomination – she’s starting to look like an everyday also-ran. Linney and Blanchett are not really in the race, frankly.

Ellen Page, Juno
Why She Might Win: This is where things get interesting. There was intense buzz about Page as an up-and-coming performer long before Diablo Cody put her clothes back on and wrote a screenplay, and everyone who liked her back when might be inclined to throw a vote her way now. People still have nothing but good to say about Juno, and it’s likely that it’ll take home either this or Best Original Screenplay (but not both.)
Why She Might Not Win: Such a strong performance at such a young age will put “She’ll get her chance later” in people’s minds – if this is what she’s doing now, she’ll be doing truly amazing things later. (Then again, Heath is still fresh in everyone’s minds.) While Juno backlash still has not sunk in publicly, Hollywood may be over the film by now.

Sean’s Official Call
Who Should Win: Marion Cottilard
Who Will Win: Julie Christie

-Posted by Sean on 2/24/08

Oscar Hubbub: Directing, Writing, Other Things

Best Direction

Much like Best Picture, this one really comes down to a race between No Country and There Will Be Blood. And on that note, we may end up seeing a bit of vote-splitting – voters who were torn, but gave the best picture nod to No Country might pencil in Paul Thomas Anderson for this one as a consolation prize. However, this indecision makes for a dark horse – Julian Schnabel, for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. That film is highly admired, not nominated elsewhere, and an undeniable directing achievement – Schnabel tells a compelling story almost completely from the perspective of a paralyzed man who can do little but look and think. If the Coens and Anderson split the vote down the middle, Schnabel might be able to grab it. (Tony Gilroy, for Michael Clayton, and Jason Reitman, for Juno, are right out.) Don’t be surprised if an awkward presenter is stumbling over the name “Schnabel” after the envelope is opened, but I’ve gotta go with the Coens.

What Should Win: Joel and Ethan Coen
What Will Win: Joel and Ethan Coen

Best Original Screenplay

Whatever wins here won’t win anywhere else. With three nearly-forgotten films nominated (Lars and the Real Girl, by Nancy Oliver, Ratatouille, by Brad Bird et al, and The Savages, by Tamara Jenkins,) and two big category also-rans (Juno by Diablo Cody, and Michael Clayton, by Tony Gilroy,) this could be the big consolation prize category. Rule out Lars – not enough people saw it. Ratatouille is probably out, since it’s a mortal lock for Best Animated Feature. Michael Clayton was more handsomely directed than written. Diablo Cody’s hyper-hip, somewhat disjointed (sorry Julian) script for Juno doesn’t quite deserve to win, but since the indie-gone-big flavor of the year won’t take home the big prize, look for a win here.

What Should Win: No opinion, I haven’t seen Lars or The Savages yet. I’m going to go ahead and say that Palme d’Or winner The Wind that Shakes the Barley should have been nominated here and win – just in case Julian wasn’t already angry enough about my Juno slighting.
What Will Win: Juno

Best Adapted Screenplay

And we have round three of No Country vs. There Will Be Blood. The other nominees can’t topple either of these two – Atonement is still getting resentment over its Golden Globe win, and its script is too choppy; Away From Her is…sorry, I literally know nothing about this film, which will become evident when I try to do a Best Actress prediction, but it’s not going to win here, and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has its chance in Direction, not Writing, although it’s the closest thing to a dark horse there is. While There Will Be Blood is probably the finer work of adaptation – I mean, come on, Paul Thomas Anderson made an Upton Sinclair story interesting – Coens + Cormac McCarthy = little gold statue. Again, it could go either way, but I am beginning to feel the rumblings of a No Country sweep.

What Should Win: There Will Be Blood
What Will Win: No Country for Old Men

Quick Hits

In Best Animated Feature, Persepolis should win, but only stands a chance if there’s any justice in the world, so Ratatouille is a lock. Speaking of the lack of justice and reason in these things, The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters isn’t even nominated for Best Documentary, so the entire category is invalid in my mind. The Academy isn’t too fond of Michael Moore anymore, so I’d say it’s going to No End in Sight. There are numerous bizarre omissions in Best Foreign Language Feature, as well – Lust/Caution? Anywhere? – and I, nor anyone else, has any idea what the nominated films are. In the name of random guessing, how about Katyn – Poland needs some love. In Best Song, we’re all going to have to endure not one, not two, but three performances from Enchanted tonight, which will thankfully split the several dozen voters who care, leaving room for a surprise win by Glen Hansard for “Falling Slowly” from Once. There were a number of excellent possibilities for Best Score this year, and a number more not nominated; while I’d like to see my sentimental favorite Marco Beltrami take it for 3:10 to Yuma, it’ll probably go to James Howard for Michael Clayton. Across the Universe can’t help but win in Best Costume Design, unless breast-crunching, jet-black bodices (Sweeney Todd) are back in this year. Atonement could well get a sympathy win in Best Cinematography. There’s no way you kept reading after I brought up Costume Design, so I’ll cut this one here.

Review: “There Will Be Blood”

There Will Be Blood, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, USA, 2007. Reviewed by Julian on 2/22/08.

On the first night a plague swept the land, sowing pestilence and poisoning the very air we sought to breathe. On the second night a friend turned Judas, stranding us in solitude as he abandoned the outstretched arms of the waking world. On the third night a great wave washed over everything, sweeping the sun from the sky, uprooting trees, casting shadows that crept like tendrils across the horizon. And on the fourth night in as many weeks, armed with impossibly high expectations, I finally managed to see There Will Be Blood.

Forgive me if the preceding paragraph sounds a little like a sermon. Viewing P.T. Anderson’s latest epic, I couldn’t help but feel that the work on the screen wasn’t so much a narrative film as an extended moral discourse on some topic I didn’t quite understand. Anderson orchestrates the action like a preacher pacing before his congregation, lowering his cinematic voice to a barely audible whisper, tempering the outflow of emotion until it reaches a near standstill, then suddenly bursting forth with a salvo of such intensity that the audience has to gather their bearings and get ready to begin the cycle anew. As with any sermon, there are undoubtedly some moments when things get a little inscrutable, and others when the places the preacher wants to go don’t quite coincide with the interests of his audience. But the film’s power is undeniable: it inspires viewers to think, doubt, and ultimately interrogate their current views on morality and human nature.

Interestingly enough, fellow Best Picture nominee No Country for Old Men had a similarly rhythmic pace, but Anderson and the Coen brothers draw upon entirely different mythologies. As a result, the works they’ve produced inspire an entirely different range of emotions. While the Coens use humor, bits of Americana, and their gift for witty dialogue to both undermine tension and imbue the narrative with a vital pulse of humanity, Anderson projects a sense of solemn emotionality that only breaks when his characters do. Then, in moments when the most terrifying extremes of human will and emotion descend into grotesque parody, Anderson touches on something filmmakers are rarely able to glimpse, something likely to inspire equal parts fascination, repulsion, and laughter.

You won’t get any plot points from me; I went into the film nearly blind and would advise any prospective viewers to do the same. Just be aware that Anderson, as always, paints on a very large canvas. Things are a bit slow to start, with dissonant strings in the soundtrack playing up tension well before it becomes evident in the narrative. This is an interesting strategy, one that I found rather annoying while in the theater but came to appreciate about twenty-four hours afterwards. Still, the disjuncture between visual and auditory elements in the first act served to prolong things a bit more than I found necessary.

Plenty has been written about the film’s performances, so I’ll only echo what’s already been said: Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano take turns being amazing throughout the first two acts, then unleash mutual awesomeness in Act three. Dano disappears for a little too long about two-thirds of the way through, and a bit more could have been done with his character, but the film is Day-Lewis’ to carry. I’d say he rises to the occasion, but he’s been operating at such a high level throughout his career that it may be more apt to suggest that any film he appears in rises to him. I may not rush to endorse Blood for Best Picture (neck and neck in my mind with Country), but the Best Actor race is no contest.

A film like There Will Be Blood takes a while to sink in. It features an unconventional narrative structure, an unlikable constellation of protagonists, and a directorial style that often grates at its audience’s sensibilities. Unlike the vast majority of trash released to U.S. theaters in 2007, it feels like the product of a unique, inquisitive human mind. And while I’m not really sure how I feel about the film just yet, the fact that it is fundamentally different, that it is a work of genuine cinematic art, is more than enough to make it requisite viewing for any fan of modern film.

Rating: 4.5 screens out of 5

Review: “Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten”

Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten, directed by Julien Temple Reviewed by James on 2/20/08

I absolutely love the Clash. Really, it comes down between them and the Bealtes for best rock band of all time. And as such, I idolized the Clash’s frontman, vocalist and lyricist Joe Strummer. He was a more immediate Bob Dylan to me. He couldn’t really sing, but he could, you know? He had a gruff, limited voice, he sang with one hundred percent confidence and passion. Listen to the live version of Straight to Hell off of Live: From Here to Eternity and tell me he’s a bad singer. And his lyrics! Dude had a way with words. Listen to White Man in Hammersmith Palais, for example.

Joe died in 2002 at the age of 50. His music is his legacy now, and I idolize him for it. He’s a rock and roll god.

He didn’t really want to be, though. Watching Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten, you see that Joe Strummer was indeed human, flawed and tortured like the rest of us. We hear how, at boarding school as a youth, he was one of the lead bullies. We hear how he left behind all his old hippy and rockabilly friends, shunned them almost, when he decided to turn to punk. We hear how his punk persona was mainly an act, and few people got a chance to see the real Joe. (They could probably make an I’m Not There-esque film about him. He even used to call himself Woody like Dylan.) And most painfully of all, we hear how he disassembled on of the greatest rock bands ever.

The film hits the ground running and keeps going with the energy of a punk rock song. Using old interviews and concert footage, new interviews with friends and family, music (both Joe’s and otherwise), footage from old movies (including an Animal Farm cartoon and an old version of 1984), and even animations based on Joe’s own drawings, the director Julien Temple (who also did two documentaries about the Sex Pistols) creates a tightly-edited barrage of biographical information that almost never lets up.

I say almost never. There are strange, jarring interviews with celebrities in the film, with Bono (please take off your fucking sunglasses for one goddamn minute), John Cusack, and jarringest of all, Johnny Depp in full Jack Sparrow regalia. These moments (especially Bono’s input) take you out of the thrust of the film, and threaten to turn the whole thing into a VH1 documentary. Thankfully they are few and far between. Jim Jarmusch and Matt Dillon are interviewed too, but at least they actually knew Joe.

The film ends on a nice note. After the Clash ended, Joe was exhausted from years of touring and recording at breakneck speed (The Clash released 6 albums in 8 years, including one double and one triple album), and depressed from the dissolution of his band and loss of his identity. It took him years to find himself, years before he could play music again. But we can’t help but be happy for him when we see Joe the family man, Joe the radio DJ (“This is London Calling”), Joe the utopian dreamer, and once again, Joe the musician with his new band, the Mescaleros. Fitzgerald said “there are no second acts”,” but Joe Strummer said “the future is unwritten.”

Rating: 3.5 screens out of 5

Oscar Hubbub: Actors Who Support Other Actors

2008 Oscar Preview: Best Supporting Actor

Here’s the big problem with this category this year: two of the leading contenders are by absolutely no stretch of the imagination supporting actors. Javier Bardem’s role in No Country for Old Men is clearly the film’s core, and he almost certainly has more screen time than anyone else (it might be close with Josh Brolin, but I’d say Bardem wins.) This is patently not a supporting role. The same goes for Casey Affleck’s performance in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford; you’d have to not even bother watching the movie to mistake Brad Pitt’s Jesse James as the leading man. About 90% of the scenes in this film concern what Robert Ford is doing. The Academy simply blundered on this one – I guess the assumption is that it’s impossible to have Brad Pitt in a movie and not call him the lead.

Anyway, your nominees are:

Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Why he might win: Carries the film. Steps out of his brother’s shadow (likely permanently.) Is a promising up-and-comer (and they like giving supporting awards to promising up-and-comers.)
Why he might not win: Is not Javier Bardem.

Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Why he might win: The most talked about and best performance of the year, if not the decade. Overshadows every other acting nominee in any category. Kicks more ass than previously thought possible.
Why he might not win: There is absolutely no chance he will not win.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson’s War
Why he might win: The Academy loves him. Charlie Wilson’s War didn’t get much other nomination love. Highly entertaining role.
Why he might not win: Is not Javier Bardem.

Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
Why he might win: The Academy loves old dudes in supporting roles. Director Sean Penn carries a lot of clout.
Why he might not win: Is not Javier Bardem.

Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton
Why he might win: Incredibly strong performance. Grabbed all the acting attention before No Country came out. Doesn’t have an Oscar yet, and deserves one sometime.
Why he might not win: Is not Javier Bardem.

Sean’s Official Call
Who should win: Javier Bardem.
Who will win: Javier Bardem.

2008 Oscar Preview: Best Supporting Actress

Kind of a mish-mash this year. They hit a bunch of the stereotypical supporting nominee archetypes: the old person who wasn’t in the film all that much, the precocious youngster worth mentioning, the hot actress looking not like a hot actress, the near psychotic professional, and whatever happened in Gone Baby Gone (it’s on my queue, I’ll get to it eventually.) Early buzz is that Amy Ryan is running away with this one, but it might be closer than that.

Your nominees are:

Cate Blanchett, I’m Not There
Why she might win: As demonstrated by the fact that she’s nominated in Best Actress as well (for a swiftly forgotten unnecessary historical sequel that exactly seven people in the world saw,) everyone in Hollywood freakin’ loves her. I’m Not There is popular, and voters might be looking to throw a bone in its direction.
Why she might not win: Her own oversaturation. She’s on every ballot ever; voters may not even be thinking much about her at this point.

Ruby Dee, American Gangster
Why she might win: Old woman who slaps around Denzel = gold.
Why she might not win: She was in the movie for like eight minutes, and did very little other than get excited about a house and the aforementioned Denzel-slapping.

Saoirse Ronan, Atonement
Why she might win: Everyone loves a pre-pubescent supervillain. If Atonement hadn’t come out in the same year as No Country and There Will Be Blood, people would be hailing her as the best villain of the year. Kids do well in these categories.
Why she might not win: Resentment that Atonement won the Golden Globe for no particular reason. Feeling that, after Abigail Breslin last year, we now have a “token child” entry.

Amy Ryan, Gone Baby Gone
Why she might win: Has won just about every critic’s award in the category. Has incredibly strong buzz. Is all anyone remembers about Gone Baby Gone at this point.
Why she might not win: Despite momentum, failed to grab either the Golden Globe or SAG Award. Stiff competition. Not enough people saw the film.

Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton
Why she might win: Another strong performance in a film full of strong performances. The most empathetic villain in the year of the villain. Incredibly honest performance.
Why she might not win: Hasn’t been doing much winning around the guilds or critic’s awards. Michael Clayton may be entirely overlooked.

Sean’s Official Call
Who Should Win: Saoirse Ronan.
Who Will Win: Toss up. I’ll go with the smart money and say Amy Ryan, but I wouldn’t be surprised in any direction.

-Posted by Sean on 2/19/08 (By the way, I’m getting to those promised globetrotting mini-reviews eventually.)

DVD Review: “3:10 to Yuma” (2007)

3:10 to Yuma, directed by James Mangold, USA, 2007. Review by Julian on 2/17/08.

People tend to belabor the point, so I’ll just say what all of us already know: remakes suck.  For every Fistful of Dollars or Ocean’s Eleven there’s about twenty Psycho’s or Italian Job’s.  But re-making 3:10 to Yuma, a stoic western that not too many people remember…that can’t be too bad, right?

Nah. It’s still pretty bad.  Like most recent remakes, this 2007 retread of the Delmer Daves original introduces a lot but adds nothing.  Utilizing thirty additional minutes of runtime, director James Mangold (who also put together the equally-overlong and often pointless Walk the Line) meanders through various subplots and narrative convolutions that ultimately detract from the central conceit.  The film’s screenwriters throw in some impetuous kids, give the villain a bible to thump, and lengthen the second act so that some minor characters can fall victim to the old pick ‘em off. I guess they felt they had to pad things out to earn their pay, because all of the key scenes from the original have been lifted wholesale. Unfortunately, everything they’ve added is tedious at best, with Mangold’s uninspired direction making most of the film an artless chore.

The concept is very simple: Dan Evans (Christian Bale), a down on his luck farmer, is drawn into escorting notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to the 3:10 prison train to Yuma in exchange for the reward money.  This version clogs things up by giving Evans a Civil War injury and a rebellious son, but it’s supposed to be all about the dynamic between Evans and Wade, two tough men with more in common than they’d like to admit. The original starred Van Heflin and Glenn Ford, two black holes of charisma who somehow made their utter inability to express themselves a notable asset.

In this version, however, we get Bale and Crowe, two mismatched actors whose incompatible styles result in a distinct lack of chemistry. Bale emotes just fine, and certainly looks gritty enough, but it gets painful to watch himself repeatedly throw himself against the brick wall that is Crowe.  I’ve defended Crowe in the past, but his performance here is abjectly terrible. Instead of bringing anything to the character, he just walks around for two hours with a smug expression that seems to say, “I’m a big star. Yeah…I’m pretty cool.” This may be the worst leading performance in a major movie this year. I mean, when you make Glenn Ford look like a nuanced character actor, it’s time to seriously reevaluate.

Things are redeemed ever so slightly by Ben Foster, who as Wade’s number one man is as cool as ever. If you don’t recognize Foster’s name yet, be sure that it’s only a matter of time.  He brings something unique to every performance, be it a cockeyed glance, an unusual dialect, or just an odd way of carrying himself. Keep an eye out for him, as he’s likely to steal every film he’s in.

Especially when they’re as boring as this one. Any time I check out a new rendition of something – be it a song, a mythic narrative, a film—I’m looking for a change. It doesn’t have to be objectively better, just solid and different enough to justify the effort. Well, aside from being a half hour longer, the new 3:10 to Yuma features weaker performances and direction, a bloated plot that undercuts the key dynamic, and a brief cameo by Luke Wilson. Luke Wilson? I thought this movie was trying not to suck?

Rating: 2 screens out of 5

 

DVD Review: “Bug”

Bug, directed by William Friedkin, USA, 2007. Review by Julian on 2/16/08.

Being a Hollywood marketer can’t be fun.  You’ve got to make people believe that Martin Lawrence is witty; that Brokeback Mountain isn’t quite as gay as it looks; that the latest Veggietales adventure, despite all appearances, might actually be fun for the whole family. You’ve got to play up the romantic aspects of King Kong, and convince some schmuck that Harrison Ford wouldn’t put up with Anne Heche for Six Days, Seven Nights unless there was some gunplay to be had. 

And when you’re assigned to work with Bug, an off-beat, claustrophobic stage piece, you might as well call it horror. You might as well toss around the name William Friedkin, the man who helmed genre classic The Exorcist.  You might as well play it up as a creature feature, fill the trailer with blood and guts, show some guy spasming as he’s consumed by a swarm of monstrous creepy-crawlies.  Of course, you’d be engaging in a feat of gross misrepresentation, but then again, that’s what you’re there for.

I came in to Bug expecting to take a line like “It’s a blood-sucking aphid, and we’re infested,” at face value. Within twenty minutes, however, I realized that the film wasn’t at all what the previews portrayed it to be; instead,  I was in store for an intriguing if often over-the-top character study. Tracey Letts, who adapted the film from his play, offers up an exploration of the power of loneliness, and the depths to which a damaged mind will plunge in search of solace.

Agnes White (Ashley Judd), a waitress at a lesbian bar,  leads a life of isolation and fear. She shacks up in a crummy motel, hiding from her recently released convict husband (Harry Connick Jr.) and using hard drugs to forget about her missing son. When a fellow waitress introduces her to Peter Evans (Michael Shannon), a strange but equally lonely drifter, the two immediately hit it off. After a night of bonding, Peter lets Agnes in on his little secret: he’s an ex-serviceman who the government decided to infect with mechanical bugs. And now that they’ve spent some quality time together, she’s probably infected too.

The first two acts of Bug unfold in an extremely satisfying fashion, cultivating a sense of entrapment both physical and psychological.  No one is ever meant to think for a second that the bugs are real; that’s not a spoiler, despite what the  marketing may have led you to believe. No, the intensity of the film springs from the dynamic interplay between two fragile, bizarre characters.  While the groundwork for this relationship is laid out quite well on the page, the success of the film owes a great deal to Judd and Shannon. 

Judd, whose thick make-up, slight Southern drawl, conflict with abusive males, and perpetual occupation of motel rooms made me think I was watching Charlize Theron in Monster, finally proves once and for all that she’s not just that chick that people occasionally confuse with Charlize Theron. And as for Shannon—well, he’s officially on my short list for actors to check out all the time.  I caught him in a couple super-indy performances while working in LA in 2006 and appeciated his appearance in World Trade Center a little while later, but this one definitely adds his name to the “Ben Foster Invitational.” (Yeah, that’s what it’s called).  Shannon’s got a weird facial structure and voice to begin with, but when he gets things going, you’ll think they’ve replaced his body with an animatronic doll.  That, by the way, is a compliment.

One could give director Friedkin some credit for the quality performances, but after William Peterson’s all-time-worst-acting-in-the-history-of-the-universe turn in To Live and Die in L.A., I’ll just guess that he let the actors do their thing. Behind the camera, however, Friedkin certainly displays his expertise, utilizing tight, controlled movements to deftly navigate a confined space. Beginning with relatively static shots, the camera’s loss of control parallels that of the characters; by the third act, the camera assumes the role of a panicked observer, shaking and barely able to contain the contents of the frame.

Sadly, the third act is also where things fly a bit off the rails.  The delicate arc of narrative and characterization suddenly cuts a hard angle, abandoning the build-up in favor of a jagged and disconcerting turn.  Things get so weird and ridiculous that they become cool again, but by then the viewer may already be too alienated to care. 

And if a viewer believed the marketing and came in expecting some middle of the road horror…well, they probably would have been better off with Minnesota Cuke and the Search for Samson’s Hairbrush.

Rating: 3.5 screens out of 5

 

DVD Review: “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, directed by Andrew Dominik, USA, 2007. Review by Sean on 2/16/08.

Just about every year, a western comes out, immediately followed by a thousand reviews claiming it to be the resurrection and/or final death of the genre. I’ll just sort of skip past this issue; let’s just file it over in “Dramas w/Cowboy Hats” and leave it at that. The Assassination has fallen off the radar rather quickly, with the exception of Casey Affleck’s excellent performance (nominated in the wrong category though it may be; more on that in a later post.) It’s the filmmakers’ bad luck that it came out in the fall of 2007, just in time to be railroaded out of memory by those other Dramas w/Cowboy Hats, No Country and There Will Be Blood; for those few who will seek it out, The Assassination is a surprisingly intense offering.

As with everything pertaining to the life of Jesse James, the story of his death is half-true and half-legend in its best form; Dominik’s film takes certain liberties with the chain of events and the who-did-what of it all, but is still close enough to score that oft-abused “true story” label. We find the James brothers engaged in their final train robbery and being pestered by Robert Ford, a wide-eyed youth with a James Gang fetish. After the robbery, Ford delights at brief moments of conversation with Jesse; within days, Robert is a trusted member of Jesse’s entourage. However, Jesse begins to grow more and more paranoid, suspecting and shooting most of those around him; the bulk of the film’s struggle concerns whether or not Ford will remain close long enough to kill Jesse. Any suspense on the topic should be directed to the title of the film.

Really, though, the story is about Robert Ford, and the shaky middle ground between hero worship and dangerous obsession. Key moments see James questioning whether Robert wants to be like Jesse or to actually be Jesse; around the Ford family dinner table, Robert’s brother goads him into admitting that he’s developed a laundry list of similarities between himself and the outlaw. Affleck’s performance is spot on; Ford is a permanently flawed and hopelessly complex character, but Affleck still can imbue a bizarrely dynamic quality in him; even if Ford never truly changes, he’s always about to.

The acting throughout the film is equally admirable; Brad Pitt’s James is affable and charming even with increasing paranoia and anger, and strong support is spread throughout by the likes of Sam Rockwell, Mary-Louise Parker, and the highly underrated Jeremy Renner. The direction is eerie and atmospheric, and the script compliments the feel of the film nicely; this is all especially notable considering The Assassination is only the second film written and directed by Andrew Dominik. Much like its title, the film is notably too long, and a few of the subplots fail to go anywhere; your enjoyment will also be tempered by how much you like voice-over. Nevertheless, there’s plenty to like here; remember to give this one a chance before it gets too buried in your Netflix queue to ever emerge.

Rating: 3.5 Screens (Out of 5)

A bit of Blog Business: over the next week, I’ll be breakin’ down those crazy Oscar races, and offering my picks and predictions. A little closer to Oscar night, the assembled Cinema Five troops will offer their long-awaited 2007 Top 10 lists, and we’ll see if we can’t finally find a There Will Be Blood review lying around here somewhere. Later today: I CIRCLE THE GLOBE, in the form of capsule reviews.