2012 Academy Awards Picks
Original Song - Man or Muppet, The Muppets
Original Score - The Artist
Sound Editing - War Horse
Sound Mixing - War Horse
Film Editing - The Artist
Costume Design - Hugo
Visual F/X - Planet of the Apes
Live Action Short - Raju
Animated Short - The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
Adapted Screenplay - John Logan, Hugo
Original Screenplay - Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Art Direction - Hugo
Makeup - The Iron Lady
Cinematography - The Tree of Life
Animated Feature - Rango
Foreign Language Film - A Separation, Iran
Documentary Short - Saving Face
Documentary Feature - Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Supporting Actress - Octavia Spencer, The Help
Supporting Actor - Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Director - Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Actress - Viola Davis, The Help
Actor - Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Best Picture - The Artist
I've seen almost all of the films that garnered serious nominations. I had to take someone's word on War Horse, can't take credit there. The easiest pick was for Cinematography as the job that Emmanuel Lubezki accomplished was utterly amazing. Second easiest was Woody Allen for Midnight In Paris, Best Original Screenplay. Just a great story. I am really rooting for The Help's two fine actresses to win, they deserve it. The hardest choice was for Best Actor and Best Director. Clooney/Dujardin, I just couldn't choose. In the end I felt that The Artist was a better film and the role was more difficult. As for Director, I can see them giving Scorsese due here, he tackled technology and made it shine. Plus he was slighted several times before and I never felt The Departed was a deserving win for him. Hugo is.
Since I saw it The Artist was my choice for Best Picture. To be able to capture a bygone era perfectly was just amazing. But then I saw Hugo and became torn. I could see it going either way, but in the end pulling off a black and white, silent film is just magnificent. It's subject matter and narrative may be too light for many critics but that doesn't mean it can't be Best Picture. Now let's see what happens!
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
THE SAND PEBBLES (Robert Wise, 1966)
Years after his untimely passing, it's hard to watch a Steve McQueen film and not be completely mesmerized by his presence in the film. The man simply exuded coolness and as his career progressed his performances became more nuanced and he became much more than his persona. Such is the case with THE SAND PEBBLES (Robert Wise, Fox, 1966), a film in which McQueen received his only Academy nomination. That isn't to say this film only revolves around McQueen. Besides his nomination the film garnered seven others although it didn't win any of them. Still, eight nominations including Best Picture speaks volumes.
In every category the film received a nomination in the film stands out extraordinarily. The film has epic style and composition to it, and this is reflected in the categories it was nominated in. The cinematography was done on a grand scale and there are moments of brilliance. The films final shot, as Wise pulls away from the dead Captain Collins (Richard Crenna), Holman (McQueen) and the missionary Jameson (Larry Gates) is not only beautiful but closes the film with an emphatic statement about colonialism and it future in the east. The film also has an outstanding score again lending to the epic scope of the film as a whole.
Ultimately, the film belongs to McQueen who is outstanding in his role as Jake Holman. He takes a part that doesn't offer much and makes us watch him. Holman is a loner and not very personable. He has a mundane job and his one love interest doesn't exactly provide sparks (love interest is a very young Candace Bergen). Yet McQueen infuses Holman with his essence and that makes the world of difference between the role being dry and boring and eminently watchable. This film is not going to be for everyone, especially fifty plus years after its release. Still, anything with the "king of cool" is well worth the time!
In every category the film received a nomination in the film stands out extraordinarily. The film has epic style and composition to it, and this is reflected in the categories it was nominated in. The cinematography was done on a grand scale and there are moments of brilliance. The films final shot, as Wise pulls away from the dead Captain Collins (Richard Crenna), Holman (McQueen) and the missionary Jameson (Larry Gates) is not only beautiful but closes the film with an emphatic statement about colonialism and it future in the east. The film also has an outstanding score again lending to the epic scope of the film as a whole.
Ultimately, the film belongs to McQueen who is outstanding in his role as Jake Holman. He takes a part that doesn't offer much and makes us watch him. Holman is a loner and not very personable. He has a mundane job and his one love interest doesn't exactly provide sparks (love interest is a very young Candace Bergen). Yet McQueen infuses Holman with his essence and that makes the world of difference between the role being dry and boring and eminently watchable. This film is not going to be for everyone, especially fifty plus years after its release. Still, anything with the "king of cool" is well worth the time!
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
HUGO (Martin Scorsese, Paramount, 2011)
Fads come and go in the movie business and it is often with disdain that I try to avoid such fare as 3D films when choosing a film to view. Such is the case with HUGO (Martin Scorsese, Paramount, 2011). I tried to avoid this film even though Scorsese directed it, primarily because of the 3D aspect of the film. Fortunately the film was nominated for Best Picture and I make a point to see every nominee and after having watched HUGO, I am glad that I did. HUGO is an incredible film, with amazing production values, a brilliant narrative that involves the history of film and one of the best directing jobs Scorsese has ever done, truly.
With any film the quality ultimately revolves around the films narrative. HUGO provides a brilliant narrative. It is not only fun and entertaining it is remarkably inventive as well as charming. The narrative is structured around characters that are fully developed and complete their individual story arcs. The characters are lovable and entertaining, even when they are being their dastardly selves like Gustav, the station inspector (the inimitable Sacha Baron Cohen). But the brilliance of the narrative lies in the self reflexivity the film provides itself on a long forgotten aspect of film history. I couldn't help but wonder how many in the audience knew who George Melies (Ben Kingsley) was as his part of the narrative unfolded. Adding that self reflexivity to the narrative serves to strengthen the narrative immensely and makes the film infinitely more enjoyable for me personally.
Another major aspect for which the film is purely entertaining and enjoyable is the dual spectacle of art direction and production design. The filmmakers achieve extraordinarily in crafting a magnificent world, one simply set in a train station. The world is imaginative always but there are shades of joy, adventure, love and fright involved throughout. And not enough can be said for the dazzling world of clocks, gears and machines in which Hugo (Asa Butterfield) resides.
Ultimately this film is all about it's director, the great Martin Scorsese. Scorsese tackles a new technology and captures its best and truest features readily. He leads a team that creates an amazing world, simple and imaginative. He pays homage to one of the pioneers of film as only Scorsese, a true modern film student, lovingly can. His work with the actors is superlative in the film. He gets good performances from Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz (Isabelle), his child actors. He gets a subtle yet great performance from Cohen, one that kinda shines in an unexpected way. Finally, Scorsese provides commentary on the maxim of "film reflecting life, life reflects film". He reveals films to be dreams, reflections of what we want our lives to be. As Hugo's father tells Hugo, "it's as if I could see my dreams in the day".
There are those that will read what I am about to write and call me foolish but I believe this may be Scorsese's best work yet. The man has a library of classic films to his credit, but this one offered unique challenges. Whether it is the new technology or working with child actors, Scorsese tackled the challenges and came out shining brightly. The film is nominated for Best Picture and Best Director amongst eleven nominations. I would not be surprised in the least if the film swept those two majors and then some, it is that good.
With any film the quality ultimately revolves around the films narrative. HUGO provides a brilliant narrative. It is not only fun and entertaining it is remarkably inventive as well as charming. The narrative is structured around characters that are fully developed and complete their individual story arcs. The characters are lovable and entertaining, even when they are being their dastardly selves like Gustav, the station inspector (the inimitable Sacha Baron Cohen). But the brilliance of the narrative lies in the self reflexivity the film provides itself on a long forgotten aspect of film history. I couldn't help but wonder how many in the audience knew who George Melies (Ben Kingsley) was as his part of the narrative unfolded. Adding that self reflexivity to the narrative serves to strengthen the narrative immensely and makes the film infinitely more enjoyable for me personally.
Another major aspect for which the film is purely entertaining and enjoyable is the dual spectacle of art direction and production design. The filmmakers achieve extraordinarily in crafting a magnificent world, one simply set in a train station. The world is imaginative always but there are shades of joy, adventure, love and fright involved throughout. And not enough can be said for the dazzling world of clocks, gears and machines in which Hugo (Asa Butterfield) resides.
Ultimately this film is all about it's director, the great Martin Scorsese. Scorsese tackles a new technology and captures its best and truest features readily. He leads a team that creates an amazing world, simple and imaginative. He pays homage to one of the pioneers of film as only Scorsese, a true modern film student, lovingly can. His work with the actors is superlative in the film. He gets good performances from Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz (Isabelle), his child actors. He gets a subtle yet great performance from Cohen, one that kinda shines in an unexpected way. Finally, Scorsese provides commentary on the maxim of "film reflecting life, life reflects film". He reveals films to be dreams, reflections of what we want our lives to be. As Hugo's father tells Hugo, "it's as if I could see my dreams in the day".
There are those that will read what I am about to write and call me foolish but I believe this may be Scorsese's best work yet. The man has a library of classic films to his credit, but this one offered unique challenges. Whether it is the new technology or working with child actors, Scorsese tackled the challenges and came out shining brightly. The film is nominated for Best Picture and Best Director amongst eleven nominations. I would not be surprised in the least if the film swept those two majors and then some, it is that good.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
THE TREE OF LIFE (Terence Malick, 2011)
Like the great Stanley Kubrick, Terence Malick makes films only when and how he wants them to be made. The immediate analogy that springs to mind when watching THE TREE OF LIFE (Terence Malick, Fox Searchlight, 2011) is Kubrick's opus 2001. There are stunning visuals, a wonderfully juxtaposed musical arrangement for those visuals, superb special effects, an examination of the human condition and a narrative that is not easily followed. The result is a marvelous film, one that can be viewed over and again and interpreted in a multitude of ways by the viewer of the film.
A multitude of visually beautiful shots is the first and foremost thing that springs to mind when viewing the film. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki accomplished a Herculean job with the film. As I watched all I kept thinking about the cinematography was how many setups they did. The number was astronomical (again, Kubrick). The shots were all unique as well, it wasn't as if they set up their shot and then just re-positioned the camera multiple times. And the depth and intricacy was breathtaking. You can watch the film silently and just be awed by the work Lubezki and Malick accomplished.
Malick pulled a trick from Kubrick's bag by placing these visually stunning images against a lyrical and beautiful score. This use of sound, placing the images with sound that really doesn't pertain to the images, is masterful. The images, which seemingly clash, are brought together by the flow of the music. The musical choices also serve to further the film as a work of art.
The special effects alone can be seen as a work of art. Here, Malick used the genius of special effects man Douglas Trumbull. After viewing the film I read up on Trumbull and the man worked on some impressive films and much like Malick reclusively avoids Hollywood. But the real treat is to learn that they created many of the effects without computers, and did them the "old fashioned" way. The fact that Malick used Trumbull also gives the film more of that Kubrick feel to it.
Finally, the narrative is similar to a Kubrick one in that it is hard to follow and gives an examination of the human condition. Malick uses a non linear format for his narrative and this form, combined with a story that isn't explained to its audience by simplifying it makes for a hard to follow film. This is okay though, films do not have to be explained fully for our enjoyment. Part of films greatness lies in individual interpretation and Malick provides it for us here wonderfully.
Malick also provides a nice parallel examination of two father/son relationships. The first of these is the relationship between Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pitt) and young Jack (Hunter McCracken). The strained relationship between the two, one bred of fear and misunderstanding, is a microcosm of underlying tensions in America during the late fifties and early sixties. One has to wonder, knowing Malick is from Waco, TX (one of the films settings) and his age, if this isn't a semi autobiographical narrative storyline? And the second father/ son relationship is the examination of our bigger struggle with God. How Mr. O'Brien treats Jack (and Jack's confusion towards this treatment) parallels our own confusion towards God. Malick brilliantly weaves the two narrative themes.
The film is not for a mass audience. My initial reaction was to think that I knew why so many had disliked the film. That said, I think the film was amazing and beautiful, deserving of its Oscar nomination and something to be watched and interpreted for years to come.
A multitude of visually beautiful shots is the first and foremost thing that springs to mind when viewing the film. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki accomplished a Herculean job with the film. As I watched all I kept thinking about the cinematography was how many setups they did. The number was astronomical (again, Kubrick). The shots were all unique as well, it wasn't as if they set up their shot and then just re-positioned the camera multiple times. And the depth and intricacy was breathtaking. You can watch the film silently and just be awed by the work Lubezki and Malick accomplished.
Malick pulled a trick from Kubrick's bag by placing these visually stunning images against a lyrical and beautiful score. This use of sound, placing the images with sound that really doesn't pertain to the images, is masterful. The images, which seemingly clash, are brought together by the flow of the music. The musical choices also serve to further the film as a work of art.
The special effects alone can be seen as a work of art. Here, Malick used the genius of special effects man Douglas Trumbull. After viewing the film I read up on Trumbull and the man worked on some impressive films and much like Malick reclusively avoids Hollywood. But the real treat is to learn that they created many of the effects without computers, and did them the "old fashioned" way. The fact that Malick used Trumbull also gives the film more of that Kubrick feel to it.
Finally, the narrative is similar to a Kubrick one in that it is hard to follow and gives an examination of the human condition. Malick uses a non linear format for his narrative and this form, combined with a story that isn't explained to its audience by simplifying it makes for a hard to follow film. This is okay though, films do not have to be explained fully for our enjoyment. Part of films greatness lies in individual interpretation and Malick provides it for us here wonderfully.
Malick also provides a nice parallel examination of two father/son relationships. The first of these is the relationship between Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pitt) and young Jack (Hunter McCracken). The strained relationship between the two, one bred of fear and misunderstanding, is a microcosm of underlying tensions in America during the late fifties and early sixties. One has to wonder, knowing Malick is from Waco, TX (one of the films settings) and his age, if this isn't a semi autobiographical narrative storyline? And the second father/ son relationship is the examination of our bigger struggle with God. How Mr. O'Brien treats Jack (and Jack's confusion towards this treatment) parallels our own confusion towards God. Malick brilliantly weaves the two narrative themes.
The film is not for a mass audience. My initial reaction was to think that I knew why so many had disliked the film. That said, I think the film was amazing and beautiful, deserving of its Oscar nomination and something to be watched and interpreted for years to come.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
JULES ET JIM (Francois Truffaut, 1962)
The dynamics of any relationship are always fascinating but when you add a third person to the mix, and all three love each other equally, the results are unpredictable and captivating. This mixture is exactly what you see in JULES ET JIM (Francois Truffaut, 1962) and this film is a great stepping stone for Truffaut. He crafts a narrative which focuses on adult issues and problems but paints his characters in a way to identify them as children, a task not readily achieved. His narrative is controversial and a reflection of issues bubbling quietly below the surface of when the film was made. He stretches as a filmmaker, using techniques he hadn't used before. He continues his examination of human interaction and the intricacies entailed there. Finally for the first time in his filmmaking he allows a star to dominate his film and believe me there is no time when Jeanne Moreau doesn't hold the strict attention of the viewer.
Playing the part of Catherine, Moreau teams with Oskar Werner (Jules) and Henri Serre (Jim) in forming a childlike trio. Truffaut skillfully creates a childlike presence to his characters in dress, activity and emotion. One scene particularly stands out. Jules has been spending a lot of time with Catherine and he wants Jim to join them. Jim arrives and Catherine proceeds to dress up as "Thomas". The three run through the streets of Paris masquerading as three boys. They come to a bridge and race across, with "Thomas" using a childlike subterfuge to win. As the trio laugh and giggle at the finish line they decide to visit the sea. For these three adults, life is childlike and innocent. It is a vacation and this is exactly how Truffaut wants them portrayed. They become an extension of characters he already has shown us on screen. Jules and Jim can be seen as extensions Antoine and Rene, older versions of his two truants.
Cinematically Truffaut himself showcases a more experienced and experimental filmmaker. Throughout the film he uses techniques previously unseen in his work. When we are introduced to Catherine we see several images of her frozen on the screen. Later he uses the same technique for her again, giving us a glimpse of the fracturing taking place inside her mind. Truffaut uses handheld camera more extensively and even takes to aerial work, imparting a dreamlike quality to aspects of the narrative. He also is more experimental with camera placement and movement. His narrative subject matter is adult and controversial, tackling a subject long considered taboo not only in cinema but in society in general.
This tackling of controversial narrative fascinates me. Truffaut's examination of the human condition and our interactions with each other is often quite profound. With this film he tackles love and monogamy, forcing a look at not only our own personal views but societal ones. The societal conventions he places under the microscope are remarkable in regards to where we stand presently. The place in society for marriage, cohabitation and the roles children play in our adult decisions are prevalent topics today. And what of his examination for love outside marriage? Truffaut's dealing with three people that love each other equally is deftly and tastefully done. In fact it is almost Utopian, if it weren't for a brilliant and fractured protagonist, Catherine.
And to me, ultimately Catherine is the protagonist to the film and much of this has to do with an outstanding portrayal by Jeanne Moreau. So many adjectives describe Catherine; powerful, strong, broken, imperfect, joyful, morose, loving. Moreau skillfully maneuvers between her three loves (can't forget Albert), seeking and finding that which she needs from the three. Unable to comprehend the needs of others and being full of disdain for the conventions of society, Catherine exudes the essence of a contemporary woman. Her best moment in the film is as she sings Le Tourbillon de Vie. The lyrics are melodic and the tune catching. But placed into the context of where she is in the film, they are haunting. Who is she singing to? And can't the lyrics really be aimed at all three males? Truffaut's genius really shines through here in his composition of the scene in how he positions Catherine to face Albert but still be amidst the three.
The more I watch of Truffaut the more he grounds himself in my mind as a genius director. This film is great, albeit paced a little slowly. And as I always write in my notes on his films, remember his films are always autobiographical. Which makes me wonder what inspired this gem. Oh to know that!
Playing the part of Catherine, Moreau teams with Oskar Werner (Jules) and Henri Serre (Jim) in forming a childlike trio. Truffaut skillfully creates a childlike presence to his characters in dress, activity and emotion. One scene particularly stands out. Jules has been spending a lot of time with Catherine and he wants Jim to join them. Jim arrives and Catherine proceeds to dress up as "Thomas". The three run through the streets of Paris masquerading as three boys. They come to a bridge and race across, with "Thomas" using a childlike subterfuge to win. As the trio laugh and giggle at the finish line they decide to visit the sea. For these three adults, life is childlike and innocent. It is a vacation and this is exactly how Truffaut wants them portrayed. They become an extension of characters he already has shown us on screen. Jules and Jim can be seen as extensions Antoine and Rene, older versions of his two truants.
Cinematically Truffaut himself showcases a more experienced and experimental filmmaker. Throughout the film he uses techniques previously unseen in his work. When we are introduced to Catherine we see several images of her frozen on the screen. Later he uses the same technique for her again, giving us a glimpse of the fracturing taking place inside her mind. Truffaut uses handheld camera more extensively and even takes to aerial work, imparting a dreamlike quality to aspects of the narrative. He also is more experimental with camera placement and movement. His narrative subject matter is adult and controversial, tackling a subject long considered taboo not only in cinema but in society in general.
This tackling of controversial narrative fascinates me. Truffaut's examination of the human condition and our interactions with each other is often quite profound. With this film he tackles love and monogamy, forcing a look at not only our own personal views but societal ones. The societal conventions he places under the microscope are remarkable in regards to where we stand presently. The place in society for marriage, cohabitation and the roles children play in our adult decisions are prevalent topics today. And what of his examination for love outside marriage? Truffaut's dealing with three people that love each other equally is deftly and tastefully done. In fact it is almost Utopian, if it weren't for a brilliant and fractured protagonist, Catherine.
And to me, ultimately Catherine is the protagonist to the film and much of this has to do with an outstanding portrayal by Jeanne Moreau. So many adjectives describe Catherine; powerful, strong, broken, imperfect, joyful, morose, loving. Moreau skillfully maneuvers between her three loves (can't forget Albert), seeking and finding that which she needs from the three. Unable to comprehend the needs of others and being full of disdain for the conventions of society, Catherine exudes the essence of a contemporary woman. Her best moment in the film is as she sings Le Tourbillon de Vie. The lyrics are melodic and the tune catching. But placed into the context of where she is in the film, they are haunting. Who is she singing to? And can't the lyrics really be aimed at all three males? Truffaut's genius really shines through here in his composition of the scene in how he positions Catherine to face Albert but still be amidst the three.
The more I watch of Truffaut the more he grounds himself in my mind as a genius director. This film is great, albeit paced a little slowly. And as I always write in my notes on his films, remember his films are always autobiographical. Which makes me wonder what inspired this gem. Oh to know that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)