Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts

Monday, February 25, 2013

Lincoln

Lincoln is a sumptuously mounted production that seeks to teach us how to pass a Constitutional Amendment through Congress. The mechanics of legislation, with which the film spends the bulk of its time, alas, are of only passing interest. The central issue, slavery, is addressed as an ethical and moral issue, yet it’s held at arm’s length. It is never a visceral issue.

On the positive side, Lincoln has some excellent acting. Daniel Day Lewis is very good in the title role. Tommy Lee Jones is great as the larger-than-life politician Thaddeus Stevens (which stands in blinding contrast with his quiet and internal portrayal of the sheriff in “No Country for Old Men”).

There are several very good scenes buried in this overlong, overly explanatory movie.  One of my favorite scenes is Lincoln’s young son looking at photographic glass plates by candle light. (Technical note: Those should have been negatives, not positives, shouldn’t they?)

On the other extreme, there was an unfortunate scene where white Union soldiers try to recite the Gettysburg Address to Lincoln from memory and botch the job. After they leave, a black soldier finishes the recitation flawlessly. My criticism is that the scene is too “on the nose” -- meaning it bangs hard on the most obvious emotional note in the most obvious way, on top of which it’s a cheat for modern audiences who, if they know anything that Lincoln wrote, they know that speech.

This “on the nose” mawkish awkwardness is a common failing in movies directed by Steven Spielberg, and this movie is rife with the problem, especially in the musical score, which pounds on every emotional moment. Spielberg seldom is willing to let the audience decide for themselves what to think. He insists on hammering home exactly how the audience should feel about each scene. This is beyond annoying and nearly unbearable. The brilliance of Tony Kushner’s screenplay is consistently undermined by Spielberg.

Finally, the movie, which was already too long, makes the misstep of not ending where it should have, with the passage of the 13th Amendment through Congress. It skips forward several months in time to show us Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, followed by Lincoln’s assassination, both of which feel unnecessary and outside the concerns of the previous story.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Oscars, Hugos, the nature of awards


All award systems are flawed; I hope we can all agree. Popular vote awards reflect popular tastes, but rarely reward artistic merit or innovation or subtlety. Small jury awards can become echo chambers for a narrow set of viewpoints. And so on.

Still, some are more flawed than others. Take, for instance, the recent Oscars awarded by the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  There probably are no more commercially successful awards in the world than the Oscars. As a marketing exercise it is rivaled only by the Grammy’s. Unfortunately, the quality of the award winners is less remarkable.

There is something systemically wrong with the methods of the Academy, as evidenced by the premier award category, the Best Picture. Most results are blandly likable and safe (The Artist, The Kings Speech), or bloated epics that rely too heavily on their own seriousness (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Titanic, Braveheart, Dances with Wolves), or sentimental slop (Titanic, Forrest Gump, Driving Miss Daisy, Out of Africa, Terms of Endearment).

Only rarely does the Academy find its way to a movie that reflects the best in film. Looking down the list, I think the hit rate for finding excellence is roughly once every 10 years. While you, dear reader, and I will likely disagree on which film is that once-a-decade wonder, I hope we can agree that one-in-10 is a dismal, dysfunctional hit rate. There were two movies in recent years that I thought demonstrated achievement at or near the best of the year: The Hurt Locker (2009) and No Country for Old Men (2007). Weighing against these is the truly bad Best Picture winner, Crash (2005), the most egregiously odious choice in the past 10 years.

Among 2011 films, I’ve seen three so far that I thought were first rate: The Tree of Life, A Separation, and Martha Marcy May Marlene. Only one of these, The Tree of Life, was on the Best Picture shortlist and, not surprisingly, it didn’t win.

Closer to the topic of this blog, the Hugo Awards, a popular vote award open to anyone willing to pay for a supporting membership in the annual World Science Fiction Convention ($50 this year), is subject to the same blind-spots. For all the criticism of the Hugo Award choices I have made on this blog, the Hugos have a better record than the Oscars. Just glancing at the Best Novel winners:

The Windup Girl (2009) by Paolo Bacigalupi
The City & the City (2009) by China Miéville (tie)
The Yiddish Policemen's Union (2007) by Michael Chabon
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (2004) by Susanna Clarke

That’s four first-rate Hugo Best Novel winners in the past 10 years. Not bad.

Related links:

Monday, February 28, 2011

2011 Oscar results and reactions

Best Picture:
The best picture category was particularly weak this year. The problem is storytelling. Most of the stories were slight or barely there at all (The Kids Are All Right). Many relied on visual hocus pocus, flashbacks and flashforwards (Inception and 127 Hours) or trumped up drama (Social Network and Black Swan) to pad out what should have been 15-minute short films.

I’ll admit that I still haven’t seen Winter’s Bone or Toy Story 3. I have high hopes for the storytelling of Winter’s Bone. The Toy Story brand of sentimentality doesn’t have much appeal for me.

The King’s Speech was a fine film and unobjectionable winner. The acting was brilliant. On the down side, it never outgrew its stage-play origins. A safe and predictable choice by the Academy.

My own choice among the best picture nominees (or at least the eight that I have seen) is True Grit, which was the complete package. It had excellent storytelling, visuals both grand and minute, and one of the best musical scores, which helped focus the story in both its time and place. The period dialog rang true and the actors, led by the wonderful Hailee Steinfeld, were exceptional. Jeff Bridges was better here than he was in the weak film, Crazy Heart, for which he won the best actor Oscar last year.

The Coen brothers’ True Grit was nominated in 10 categories and won zero Oscars, a disappointing shutout. Joel and Ethan Coen won best picture and best director Oscars recently for the bleak modern Western, No Country for Old Men (2007), which probably eliminated them from serious contention so soon.

Actor:
Colin Firth’s win was well deserved for his role as King George VI in The King's Speech. Firth was perhaps even better last year in A Single Man, when he didn’t win.

Actress:
While this was a predictable win for Natalie Portman for Black Swan, her almost entirely one-note performance didn’t offer much for me. A lead actress nomination should have gone to Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit. She was nominated instead as a supporting actress. I haven’t seen several of the nominees in this category. I am especially looking forward to seeing Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone.

Supporting Actor:
A Los Angeles film critic remarked that Christian Bale should get the award for “most acting” in The Fighter. John Hawkes’s work was remarkable in the television series Deadwood. I look forward to catching up with his nominated performance in Winter’s Bone.

Supporting Actress:
Melissa Leo was very good as the mother in The Fighter. She was even better as the lead in Frozen River (2008) when she didn’t win. I look forward to seeing Jacki Weaver in Animal Kingdom.

Animated Short Film:
A big congratulations to Shaun Tan and Andrew Ruhemann for The Lost Thing.

Related links:
Shaun Tan named on Oscar shortlist
Oscar nominees for Best Picture for 2010 films
Why Best Picture Oscars are like a Broken Clock

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Oscar Nominees for Best Picture for 2010 films

Nominees for Best Picture Oscar for films from 2010:

Black Swan (capsule review)
The Fighter (capsule review)
Inception (capsule review)
The Kids Are All Right (capsule review)
The King's Speech (capsule review)
127 Hours (capsule review)
The Social Network (capsule review)
Toy Story 3
True Grit (capsule review)
Winter's Bone

I haven’t been knocked out by the greatness of any of the nominees that I have seen for 2010.  Several of the films are firmly in the “good” category. Last year I was much more enthusiastic about The Hurt Locker and Bright Star. The Hurt Locker actually won the Best Picture Oscar last year, which is unusual, since the Academy typically picks films that I don’t have much appreciation for. Closer to form, the Academy was blind to Bright Star, which was equally as brilliant as (and completely different from) The Hurt Locker, leaving it off the best picture nominations list entirely.

My plan is to write short reviews of each of the nominees, adding links here as each review is added. I haven’t seen three of these. Perhaps I will be able to add those in time.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Three films: Stalker, Bright Star, 9


Stalker (directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)

This Soviet-era film (movie poster at left) is loosely based on the excellent short novel, Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. The Strugatsky brothers wrote the screenplay. This is an extraordinary science fiction film, which I have only now caught up with. A Stalker is a guide who brings people into and out of “the Zone,” a region where natural laws do not hold, space and time are bent in curious ways and constantly shift. Missteps can be deadly. Within the Zone is a room with a powerful, inexplicable object. Scenes of decaying buildings and tunnels are wonderfully photographed. This multilayered film touches on an amazing range of topics: family and trust, social responsibility, the limits of science, and how we think about the universe. For me, it has vaulted to the front ranks of all-time best science fiction films. I can’t wait to watch it again.

Bright Star (directed by Jane Campion, distributed by Apparition, 2009)

This is the best romantic movie (and, yes, Romantic movie) I have seen in years. The story follows the love affair between poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne, told mostly from her point of view. Their relationship develops leisurely and naturally. It has little in common with Hollywood romance films, which rush from one plot point to another, constantly hammering at the audience with what emotion should be experienced at every step. Bright Star has everything: exceptional acting, dialog, cinematography, and a convincing sense of period. It even has intelligent discussion about poetry. It’s the sort of quality film that won’t get much recognition from the Academy Awards (see an earlier post about how wide of the mark the Oscars usually are). Perhaps they’ll give it a consolation prize for costuming.

9 (directed by Shane Acker, distributed by Focus Features, 2009)

As much as this film is a visual treat, the story is a disappointment. The CGI animation gives a spectacular sense of scale and details of cavernous cathedrals and other architecture are impressive. Alas, the story is full of inconsistencies, a kind of grab-bag of post-apocalyptic clichés. The MacGuffin, a talisman that canvas doll come-to-life, 9, unwittingly uses to activate evil mechanical forces, was apparently not necessary to trigger all the evil mechanical critters that 9 and his friends were fighting up to that point. The mystical ending is unsupported by the preceding story. The canvas dolls are reminiscent of the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, one of many subtle and not so subtle nods to that 1939 film.

Links:
Wikipedia on Romanticism
Wikipedia on MacGuffin

Friday, October 9, 2009

Why Best Picture Oscars are like a Broken Clock

1997:
Academy pick: Titanic (Cameron)
SF Strangelove’s pick: The Sweet Hereafter (Egoyan)

1995:
Academy pick: Braveheart (Gibson)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Exotica (Egoyan)

1994:
Academy pick: Forrest Gump (Zemeckis)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Heavenly Creatures (Jackson)

1990:
Academy pick: Dances with Wolves (Costner)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Goodfellas (Scorsese)

1989:
Academy pick: Driving Miss Daisy (Beresford)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Do the Right Thing (Lee)

1985:
Academy pick: Out of Africa (Pollack)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Brazil (Gilliam)

1984:
Academy pick: Amadeus (Forman)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Stranger Than Paradise (Jarmusch)

1983:
Academy pick: Terms of Endearment (Brooks)
SF Strangelove’s pick: The Right Stuff (Kaufman)

1982:
Academy pick: Gandhi (Attenborough)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Blade Runner (Scott)

1980:
Academy pick: Ordinary People (Redford)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Raging Bull (Scorsese)

1976:
Academy pick: Rocky (Avildsen)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Taxi Driver (Scorsese)

1968:
Academy pick: Oliver! (Reed)
SF Strangelove’s pick: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)

1964:
Academy pick: My Fair Lady (Cukor)
SF Strangelove’s pick: Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick)


The actual winners listed above are safe, predictable, comforting films. That couldn’t be more different from what I look for in a film. Sure, I want all the usual things: good story, acting, photography, and so on. But I also want to be challenged. I want to be shown something new, something I didn’t know that I was interested in until I saw it. I want to be surprised, not pandered to. That’s why I rarely agree with the Academy’s choice for best picture.

I will admit to doing some cherry picking to emphasize the cluelessness of the Academy. Every Oscar winner listed above is weak, ponderous, seriously flawed, or all three. As my broken-clock reference suggests, it should be apparent that if a worthy film wins the Oscar it is merely an accident.

You will notice that some of my choices are science fiction films (Brazil, Blade Runner, 2001, and Dr. Strangelove), a genre toward which the Academy is not usually generous. Does this reflect poorly on the science fiction films listed? Or on the Academy?

I bring this up since awards and their relevance is a continuing thread on this blog.

Links:
Wikipedia’s Academy Award for Best Picture