OscarWatch 2012: It Begins!

September is well over and we are deep into OscarWatch - something that was made QUITE clear to me on Sunday, when I went to see Argo.

Argo is a stunning film.  It is tense and claustrophobic, exciting and unbelievable - made even more so by the fact that it IS A TRUE STORY.  I repeat: the CIA inventing a fake Star Wars ripoff, press release and terrible poster included, in order to rescue six people from being publicly beheaded in Iran, ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  As with any film adaptation of historical events, I imagine things may have been spiced up a bit for the screen...although the way Ben Affleck presents it on screen feels very true to life, down to the terrible 70s mustaches and slightly grainy film quality.  It's harrowing, watching the six Americans get more and more convinced that they're going to die in the Canadian Embassy, and thrilling to watch the admittedly half-assed plan take shape.  At one point, Bryan Cranston as the CIA Chief refers to Plan: Argo as "The best, worst idea we've got."  That hopelessness, that desperation, drips off the film - which makes the payoff even more worth it.  Everything about this movie is brilliant and you should go see it, posthaste.

AwardWatch: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay (there's a book!  I wanna read it.).  Possibly a Best Actor nom for Affleck.  Best Visual Effects.  In my fantasies, John Goodman or Alan Arkin pulls a Best Supporting Actor nomination, but I don't think it's too likely.

Let's take a look at the other hardcore Oscar Bait movies I saw trailers for, and make some predictions over what awards these films will pull:

Life of Pi

Stunning, stunning trailer.  I haven't read the book yet (I KNOW), but if one was going to make a film adaptation about a boy in a boat with a tiger, I would want it to look like this.  And Ang Lee has serious philosophical chops (which worked for Brokeback Mountain, not so much for Hulk), so I think we can expect cerebral and gorgeous things from this one.  Plus, the word from the early release at the New York Film Festival has been largely positive.

AwardWatch: Best Cinematography for sure.  Best Adapted Screenplay is also a pretty safe bet.  Best Director and Best Picture, MAYBE, but it depends on how the Academy feels about another 3D feature by someone with less pull than James Cameron.

Cloud Atlas

This feels like the illegitimate lovechild of The Fountain and Tree of Life to me, which gives me conflicted feelings.  I want it to be more Fountain and less bullshit - but it looks potentially overwrought, over-complicated, and unintelligible.  I won't mind the skips around in time and place if the story stays streamlined, and I don't have a lot of hope for that.  Looks pretty beautiful, though.

(On a related note, a Google Image search of "Cloud Atlas" brings up what looks like pictures from seventeen different movies.  This is my concern: that it will not only be overly complicated, but disconnected and incomprehensible.)

AwardWatch: After last year's Tree of Life event, I don't think this one has a lot of hope for Best Picture.  Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography and Visual Effects and probably Art Direction, Best Costumes and Best Makeup nominations are assured, and it'll probably pull some other technical awards - I can see Best Film Editing and Sound Mixing, and Sound Track if the Cloud Atlas sonata score was written for the movie.

Lincoln

It is deeply ironic that this film is being released in the same year as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  Ironic and a little sad, because AL:VH might have had more pull as a summer action flick if it hadn't drawn the inevitable comparisons to Spielberg's historical beauty.  Ah well.  

AwardWatch: Possibly everything.  Best Actor for Daniel Day Lewis for sure, Best Picture, Best Director.  Best Original Screenplay?  Probably.  Best Costumes and Makeup, because duh, it's a historical.  Best Art Direction, Cinematography, probably a Best Supporting Actor nominee in there (my bet is on Tommy Lee Jones), and Best Supporting Actress for Sally Field.  

A Letter to the Academy, or, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID

I was working on an in-depth look at my top ten films from 2010, but really, there aren't any surprises on my list - I tried really hard to include The Wolfman, Daybreakers, and Kick-Ass, but in the end it boiled down to:

10. The Other Guys
9. Easy A
8. Scott Pilgrim v. The World
7. The Runaways
6. Toy Story 3
5. Inception
4. The Fighter
3. The King's Speech
2. How to Train Your Dragon
1. The Social Network

Then I planned this impassioned defense of why things like True Grit and Black Swan and Winter's Bone aren't on here, but let's be real, we all know a few things about me: a. I love kid's movies; b. I love dragons, c. I didn't like True Grit, and d. I sweat Jesse Eisenberg and Christian Bale. All of which really explains just about everything up there.

But I'm a procrastinator, and I lost my window to make that discussion relevant. Luckily for me, new things are happening in film media all the time, and I have been hand-served a topic rife with controversy just this morning.

So let's talk about the Academy Awards.

It's hard for me to explain my devotion to the Oscars. I've watched the entire telecast, front to back, including the red carpet show, every year since I was 14 (Fellowship of the Ring had a lot to do with that). I love the spectacle, true, but as I've learned more about film and become more able to view it critically and, most importantly, discuss it intelligently, I've been able to watch the Oscars critically as well. Especially because the more often I watch the awards, the more "awards fodder" I take the time to watch. It's a feedback loop - I enjoy movies, so I watch the Oscars; I watch the Oscars, so I see awards-bait to put them in context.

My boyfriend laughs at me because I take film too seriously (which I do, no doubt), but...there's something to being able to watch the ceremony on an informed basis. I like being able to see the nominations and say, "Well, I agree with this this and this, but this is clearly my pick for the win, because of this." The more I know about the nominees, the more fun it is.

What happened today is appalling. For the most part, I was neither surprised nor displeased with the nomination results - I may not like True Grit, but the rest of Hollywood does. The Social Network, The King's Speech, these have always been the front runners. Sure, there were a few (pleasant) surprises in the acting categories, but not many, and none I actively disagreed with. I'm sure at this point you all know where I'm headed with this, but I'm plowing onward anyway.

Dear Academy,

Why, oh why, didn't Christopher Nolan get nominated for Best Director? Why nominate Inception AT ALL if you're not going to recognize that Nolan was the reason it was so great? You know as well as I do that in less capable hands, Inception would have been a confusing, stuttering mess. Nolan was able to take a handful of psychology, some talented but disjointed actors, and an exposition-heavy script and turn it into a visual, thrilling masterpiece. The script itself is not enough to elevate this film to its exceptional levels; even the (admittedly stunning) visuals by themselves didn't make it great. Nolan did.

This is also not the first time that Nolan has taken an ensemble cast and a fabulous backdrop and produced something amazing. I understand why The Dark Knight didn't get much love from you - I didn't agree with the decision, but I know summer blockbusters, even when they are exceptional films, aren't really part of the Academy image. Which begs the question: why nominate Inception, which was just as much of a big-budget spectacle as TDK, at all unless it's partly an apology to Nolan for not recognizing his work last year? And if you're going to take that step, why the directorial snub? Your choices make no sense.

Nolan deserves that statuette, Academy. Not just the nomination he was so clearly robbed of, but the win as well. The Social Network will clearly win the Best Picture award, and I'm fine with that. But please, please start giving credit where credit is due. TSN is Best Picture material because of outstanding acting, a phenomenal script, and handling such topical material with deft panache. Inception is Best Picture material because of Nolan. And not recognizing that just makes you blind.

God help you if Nolan produces a hat trick of greatness with The Dark Knight Rises, and you continue to sit on your red velvet pedestal and look down your nose at a man who not only makes entertainment, but great entertainment.

True Grit, or, Jeff Bridges is Awesome

True Grit is a movie made up of pieces, which never quite come together to form a coherent whole. While each of its stars, Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and the charming Hailee Steinfeld, are great in their own roles, the roles themselves almost feel like they’re from three very different films – like the Coen Brothers couldn’t decide what kind of movie they were making.

Jeff Bridges, as the whiskey-soaked, gravelly Rooster Cogburn, hasn’t been this entertaining to watch since his turn as the Dude in another Coen Brothers piece. His performance is so gritty (if you’ll forgive my using the phrase) it almost leaves sand in your mouth – he’s rough, tough, and way past his prime. Watching him is like remembering the golden era of Western film, reminiscent of the gun-toting outlaws and town defending sheriffs. But he’s old, too, and more heart-breaking in his way than the tale of Mattie’s vengeance for her wrongfully slain father.

Let’s talk about Mattie: I don’t know where the Coens found Steinfeld, but she’s a treasure in this movie and I look forward to seeing her in future projects. Her Mattie Ross is self-possessed and righteous, quoting the law at anyone she perceives as standing wrongfully in her way. Her “good lawyer” back home does not feature bodily in the film, but pops up in almost all of her conversation. Steinfeld successfully brings to life Mattie’s precociousness and also her own illusions; that is, that wrongs will always be brought to right, and that the law will always triumph. Mattie has to learn some hard lessons about preconceived notions and, more importantly, about the way that people really work, but Steinfeld makes her believable.

Matt Damon’s Texas Ranger, Mr. LaBoeuf, is the wrong note in the film. I’ve never seen the original True Grit, so I don’t know how he played out in that version, but here LaBoeuf is played (wrongfully, I think) for laughs. He is too tight, too formal, too absurd. Damon is excellent in the role, but the role is wrong for the film.

That is the weak point of True Grit: it can’t decide if it wants to be serious, or if it wants to be absurd. And rather than becoming a serious film with moments of humor, it ends up as an emotionally weak film with moments of awkwardness. I never really felt the immediacy of Mattie’s problem; I was never invested in seeing her father’s killer brought to justice. The dialogue, which is mostly very smart, does distance the audience by occasionally becoming comically flat or tremendously melodramatic - no one uses contractions ("This scheme did not unfold like I had planned;" after cutting down a hanged man, "I do not know this man."). For a film all about family and justice and revenge, True Grit itself fell a little comically flat.

Up In The Air vs. The Blind Side

I've now seen eight of the ten nominees for Best Picture, and of the last two (Precious and A Serious Man, which I have been reading as A Single Man for a long time now, and explains why people look at me weird when I talk about "the best picture nom with Colin Firth in it) I am only vaguely interested in seeing A Serious Man. I've discussed my thoughts on Avatar pretty freely, y'all know how I feel about District 9 (it should win), and I did a pretty in-depth review of The Hurt Locker. An Education was a thoughtful coming-of-age story and Carey Mulligan was charming in it; I really, really, did not enjoy Inglorious Basterds, and Up, while wonderful and whimsical, will have a better chance in the Best Animated slot than this one.

So. To the last two nominees, both of which I had a chance to see quite recently.

Up In The Air was, quite simply, fabulous. Clooney, who is really playing himself here, bounces his wittily written dialogue off his two formidable supporting actresses with aplomb, both of whom hold their own with the leading man in a really interesting way. Anna Kendrick, fresh off the Twilight stage, is an absolute find here - her anal retentive, idealistic Natalie is both refreshingly real and irritatingly superior. She knows what her life is supposed to be like, dammit, and God help you if you get in her way.

Vera Farmiga is the perfect counter-point to Natalie's youth and naivete, and I felt that the weakest scene the film had was due to the writers and the director getting confused about her character. Alex is a sexy, strong, intelligent philanderer and the movie falters when it tries to steer Farmiga away from that; it is best when it lets her and Clooney do what they do naturally (or, you know, what I assume to be natural) without a lot of directorial interference.

I do wonder if the story will age well; it is SO severely topical that it is a great movie for our age, but if when the economy does get better and unemployment is no longer quite such an issue, will it seem as poignant? I hope so - I'd like to think that Clooney's odyssey of self-discovery against the backdrop of such a hopeless, bleak environment is really quite stunning.

Now. Let's all ask ourselves the important question: why the HELL The Blind Side even got nominated.

I saw this, I enjoyed it - I like Sandra Bullock, and she was quite charismatic as the Southern housewife-turned-personal activist. Goodness knows I love uplifting sports movies. The problem was that there was hardly anything TOO The Blind Side. There was no tension; I was never afraid bad things would actually happen to any of the characters, no matter how much the film wanted to make me think so. Part of that is because it's a true story, so you know how it ends, but it isn't as though this is the first time someone has turned a true story into a film. I also thought that one of the central "conflicts" was COMPLETELY ludicrous: a woman from the NCAA tries her damndest to make me think that it could possibly be a bad thing for rich, privileged people to help impoverished, troubled minorities, because SOMEHOW this makes it UNFAIR for universities because they might send talented athletes to their alma maters.

Make sense to you? Me, neither.

I've been thinking about it, and I think that The Blind Side got nominated because the Academy didn't want to double-dip in genres. Star Trek was out because Avatar and District 9 amply fulfill the science fiction quota. The Messenger is out because of The Hurt Locker. (500) Days of Summer was beat by the other indie darling, An Education. It's a place filler; a bad one, but a place filler nonetheless. I don't like it much, but since there are only three real contenders here anyway (no matter what Tarantino wants you to think) I'm not sure how much it matters.

Which in and of itself is a pretty sad thought, in the grand scheme of cinema.

My mother's quest

My mother, like myself, is a very big fan of cinema and also of the Oscars telecast. Every year, she makes it her personal mission to see most, if not all, of the films that have been recognized by the Academy, because it makes the show more interesting to watch. I also try to do this, because I enjoy having a knowledge of the performances - this way I can agree or disagree with the Academy's choices on an informed basis.

This year is no different - my mother made up a list of all the films nominated for the major awards and planned her attack thusly. I am to be taken along for the ride, because my father is not quite so invested in the Oscars as we are. It's a bit tricky at the moment, since some of the films on her list (Invictus, The Last Station) were not wide-release to begin with and are now almost vanished from theaters. But some are actually out on DVD or available on Pay-Per-View, which was how we came to see The Hurt Locker.

Do not doubt that The Hurt Locker deserves all the praise it has been receiving. Ms. Bigelow has created something raw and gritty, that gave me insight into something I didn't know much about before. She captures the tense moments perfectly and for exactly the right amount of time - it is easy, I think, to over- or under-play those "edge of your seat" moments, and Bigelow gets them down perfectly. The opening scene had me sweating in my chair after only a few minutes; a scene in which Jeremy Renner works on a car bomb made me near forget to breathe.

The one technique Bigelow overplayed, in my opinion, was the shaky real-cam. I developed a bit of a headache by the end because of all the bouncing around; this style of shooting does give it somewhat of a documentary type feel, but it is a conceit that the movie is strong enough to do without. I would have felt the impact more if it had been used more sparingly to highlight the peak moments of stress.

Renner is fair brilliant as the adrenaline-addicted bomb diffuser; I had to ingest the film for a while after I saw it, to reconcile the two distinct halves of the film, but I think they ultimately mesh so well because of how Renner folds the mechanics of bomb diffusion show-cased in the first hour into the deeper examination of his psyche in the second hour. (Immediately after viewing I had a problem with two deaths that I thought were unnecessary and cheap - on further thought, I still think that of one, but not the other.)

The Hurt Locker suffers by occasionally overplaying its hand. As I mentioned above, Bigelow takes two easy shots, one of which she convinces me is worth it at the end and one of which she doesn't. I already know that war is hell and that there are no winners and it's unfair and all of that, and the film does a good job of reinforcing those points; I don't need the extra, predictable, unnecessary death to prove that. I also felt the end was too obvious; I won't go into details, but a quote opens the movie and then you get slammed in the face with it at the end.

Worthy of the Best Picture nom? Absolutely. Worthy of the win? Moreso than Avatar, but District 9 is still my favorite - D9 and Hurt Locker are both movies about war and about marginalized people, but D9 tells a stronger story in a more impressionable way. And it doesn't overload you with shaky-cam.

Thoughts on 10 Nominations

The Academy is reverting back to ten nominations for Best Picture this year, which will a.) make the show interminably long and b.) make my never-ending rant in defense of summer film pretty much void. And since I secretly love how long the show is, both of these have me cheering the decision.

Entertainment Weekly is pretty sure they've got seven of the ten possible Best Picture nominees nailed down:
Avatar
Up In The Air
Inglourious Basterds
An Education
Up
The Hurt Locker
Precious

I have been torn for years about the existence of the Best Animated Film category, because on the one hand, its presence means that when an animated film is released that is so good it deserves the Best Picture award (Wall-E), I know it won't get nominated because it is MORE LIKELY to win the Best Animated category. So having Up be an almost guaranteed choice for a Best Picture slot is bittersweet - I know it won't win, but I love that it's there, but did we really need ten slots to fill in order for it to get there in the first place?

(On the other hand, I haven't really decided if it would be my personal Best Animated choice, because I liked Fantastic Mr. Fox so very much, so maybe I'm on the fence for no good reason at all.)

So what fills out the rest? (500) Days of Summer, District 9, A Serious Man. (My predictions, not my choice.)

It's interesting that if there were only five slots this year as per usual, I think it's fairly obvious what they would be:
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Up In The Air
Precious
Inglourious Basterds

I love that this expansion is giving other brilliant films a chance they wouldn't normally have; when I first heard about them opening up the category, I felt overwhelmingly like they'd be shoving stuff in just to fill out the noms. But could it be that the Academy, like myself, thought this was just too good a year for film? Did they realize that, even though only one can win, it would do them good to acknowledge film normally outside of their comfort zone? In a normal year, films like Up, (500) Days of Summer, and even Star Trek wouldn't have gotten anywhere near that award - now there's Oscar buzz all over them. So good on the Academy for diversifying a little, even though I know that my personal choice won't win.

Impending Oscars

The Oscars, which are coming up very soon, are quite an event in my house. Since the first year a Lord of the Rings movie was a player, myself and my family have watched the whole telecast, start to finish. (My sister and I really get into it and watch all the red carpet lead-in too, but that's because we're slaves to fashion.) I confess, I usually only actually see a handful of the nominees, because frankly summer is my movie season and the fall/winter is Oscar season. If I was in charge of the Academy, District 9 would win Best Picture, Spike Jonze would win Best Director (for Where the Wild Things Are), and Eli Roth wouldn't be allowed to come (although his turn in Inglourious Basterds was better by far than any of his directorial offers, that hack).

That said, here are my Will Win/Should Win for the Big Six:

Best Supporting Actor
Will win/Should Win: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Why this film has become the darling of the critics, I don't really get - I finally saw it recently, and I thought it had some fun moments but was nothing to write home about. That said, Waltz is absolutely terrifying as the quadri-lingual "Jew Hunter," delivering line after line in a blood chilling, cheerful manner while he's shooting renegade Jewish families in the back. His recognition at the Globes and the love for this film has pretty much sealed the deal for his first Oscar.

Best Supporting Actress
Will Win: Vera Farmiga, Up In The Air
Should Win: Either Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air, or Mo'Nique, Precious

Yes, Mo'Nique got the Globe, and no, I haven't seen this film, but the clips I've seen of her are pretty much one of the best dramatic performances all year. I'm torn on my should-win vote because of that; I think Kendrick is the best thing to happen to young actresses in a long time, but it's her inexperience and possibility for nomination in the future that's going to keep her out of the winner's seat. Up In The Air is an awards show breeding ground, and rightfully so, and I'm surprised that it didn't show better at the Globes - but I think Farmiga's bitterly charming turn in the film will be too much for the Academy to resist.

Best Actor
Will Win: Collin Firth, A Single Man
Should Win: Liam Neeson, Taken

God, how can you NOT have loved Neeson in Taken? He's got this calm, collected British accent that lulls you into a sense of security while he's kicking ass and taking names. He terrified me and made me want to comfort him all at the same time. Plus, I thought that A Single Man was kinda overrated to begin with, even if Firth was pretty persuasive (also I just kind of love him). But COME ON. TERRORISTS. And LIAM NEESON. The man has played a ninja, a lion who is also Jesus, a convincing step-dad, and now a counter-terrorist. Give him the credit he deserves.

(As a side note, I'm thinking more and more that the Globes are a much more accurate portrayal of current cinema - I think their split between Drama and Comedy/Musical is a little contrived, but really, The Hangover was the funniest thing I saw all year, and I think that popular film deserves more recognition than it gets. After all, people wouldn't and haven't paid to see the truly steaming piles of shit, so why can't we trust the popular vote a little more? And yes, I begrudgingly admit that Avatar gets encompassed by this, too. It simply would not have made as much money as it did if people didn't want to see it, and people do not want to see [generally] crap film.)

Best Actress
Will Win: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Should Win: Carey Mulligan, An Education

You know who should NOT win this? Or even be nominated for it? Julia Roberts. HFPA, what were you THINKING? Duplicity was a terrible movie.

Continuing: it took me about ten minutes of wavering between Bullock and Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia, because we all know how much the Academy loves biopic portrayals and c'mon, it's MERYL STREEP, but I think they're more likely to pick a serious biopic than a light-hearted family affair. I think that An Education was criminally underseen, and Mulligan's charm and believability turned what could have been an unbearably saccharine and naive character into someone you want to buy a soda and let them know it's all going to be ok, everyone makes mistakes. I hope she makes more films.

Best Director
Will Win: James Cameron, Avatar
Should Win: Spike Jonze, Where The Wild Things Are

Is there anyone left on the planet that doesn't believe Cameron's going to get another turn in the winner's chair? Whether you liked Avatar or not, what Cameron did in terms of world-building was monumentous. And, like it or not, Avatar is going to change the way that movies are made, and I don't mean that story quality will be thrown over for special effects. Film is a visual media and I applaud those who push the boundaries of that media in a significant way. Avatar is also the first non-stop motion film to utilize 3D technology in a way that struck me as integral to the visual structure of the film, rather than a gimmick (I include Up in that, because really Pixar, I couldn't tell the difference). Cameron took an archetypal story and used that pretty simple vehicle for a lavish world, and honestly, I think that if the story had been more complicated, it would have gotten muddled in the immensely complex and visually intricate scenery. So no, I don't begrudge Cameron for using a story we've heard before and telling it will.

Speaking of risk taking, though Jonze's Wild Things was emotionally raw, stunningly sparse, and utilized an untrained child actor to fabulous results. Visually, it's pretty much the polar opposite of Avatar, and as an adaptation, it is nothing short of brilliant. Jonze kept the spirit of Sendak's original twelve lines while making it a full-fledged fable, that was both childishly romantic and breathtakingly nostalgic.

Best Picture
Will Win: Avatar
Should Win: District 9

Hasn't it been a fabulous year for science fiction film? Whatever you feel about Avatar, it in combination with District 9 and Star Trek (and the little-talked about Moon) has shoved sci-fi film permanently out of the B-movie realm and into the critically acclaimed mainstream. These three films in one year did for the genre what Lord of the Rings did for fantasy film over the course of three years. At this point in the awards season, Avatar is pretty much the already announced winner for Best Picture, although The Hurt Locker could surprise us all (although I don't think it's likely).

Let me tell you about the tragedy of District 9: it was a summer release. If Peter Jackson could have held on to his producer's perogative for just a few more months, D9 would have been TOTAL Oscar bait. In any other year, Avatar could have been a summer popcorn blockbuster - but timing is everything in cinema, and there is an undeniable bias towards films released after September as far as the Academy is concerned. Which means a powerful, harrowing, meaningful film that left me shaken in my seat won't get any nominations past effect-driven ones. And that's a true tragedy.