Five Academy Award Nominees in Five Days

Five Academy Award Nominees in Five Days

First of all, I have been writing on this website for more than a decade and in that time have written on the art of cinema many times. Those who know me, also know my history – admirer of film since the 1950’s, studied film at college in the 1970’s, worked in commercial film industry, acted, edited, and directed “filmed” commercials; went to Hollywood, met a lot of people in the film industry, managed a movie theater in LA, and have continued my love of the art form to this day. Therefore, I consider this post not just about one film, but about five important films released in the year 2012.

Monday, January 14, 2013 – Day one

“Django Unchained” – directed by Quentin Tarantino

Let me say right from the start that I like this movie – no, I love this movie – and anyone who admires filmmakers and who has studied the art of filmmaking the way Tarantino has will like the film as well, despite the “overt” violent images scattered around in certain scenes. I shall discuss those at the end of this critique.

This film is a love letter to Sergio Leone and John Ford, starting with the use of the floating “red” lettered credits. It was Kurosawa who once said that part of his preparation before he started a film project was to watch a few John Ford pictures, and there is a good reason why. Ford had perfected a distinct quality of looking at film in a way that expresses the near epitome of motion pictures as an art form. Ford loved the horizontal line and no one could film a wide “western” expanse the way he did, not even my personal hero in film, William Wyler (who probably picked up some of Ford’s technics to shoot his western epic, “A Big Country.”). Tarantino does and uses the technique liberally, a fitting tribute to a man who helped establish the art of the western.

Now to put everything into historical perspective, Sergio Leone was an admirer of Ford, and Tarantino loved/loves Leone’s westerns. Now to be fair, Leone wasn’t the only Italian director who admired and tried to emulate the American western for European audiences. The original “Django,” directed by Sergio Corbucci, was part of a series of films that Corbucci made that competed with Leone. Italian actor Franco Nero starred in the original film as Django and makes a cameo appearance here as a slave owner who loses in a fight (“Do you know how to spell it [your name]” he asks Jamie Fox. Fox spells it and adds, “The D is silent.” Franco does a beat and finishes, “I know,”) His appearance is largely thanks in part or probably mostly due to Tarantino’s tip-of-the-hat to both the actor who originated the part and the film’s director. In fact, the musical soundtrack is also an homage to Leone as Tarantino used variations of composer Ennio Morricone’s themes for the soundtrack cues and those were woven in at crucial moments, heightening the emotion of certain scenes. Even the opening song, “Django” is a takeoff on Tom Jones from the 1960’s, whose breathy booming ballads graced the opening of “Thunderball.” The other uses, such as Jim Croce’s “I got a name” are part of the many humorous touches Tarantino makes throughout the film and what endeared this movie to me.

Tarantino knows his craft and this film is beautifully filmed, staged, and laid out in linear fashion with just a few flashbacks briefly thrown in for background. Cinematography by Oscar winner Robert Richardson is both intimate and breathtaking in its grasp of the western horizon. The sudden use of zoom, as Leone often did for effect, is added by Tarantino as another nod to that style of filmmaking. “Django Unchained” isn’t just pretty pictures and lovely music. Instead, Tarantino relies on his Oscar-winning cast of actors to help drive the narrative, which turns out to be a classic German story – the pursuit of perfection and realization of that ideal in the form of eternal love. The story of Brünnhilde is, as the Christoph Waltz (pronounced Vaults) character, bounty-hunter Dr. Schultz, states over a campfire, one known to most German boys from the time they were small and the subject of numerous plays and one of the greatest operas ever written. Waltz is the perfect “side-kick” to the real star of the picture, Jamie Fox. Waltz is witty and fun, but Fox is both charismatic and intense, the kind of qualities you want in a hero – the ideal Sigurðr (Siegfried). Waltz tells him that even after Siegfried climbs the mountain (“What mountain?” Django asks. “Who knows?” Schultz says, “There is always a mountain!”), the hero must go through hell fire to reach the beautiful maiden. So the true plot of the story is revealed in the first few minutes of “Django Unchained” but the story is one that unfolds at Tarantino’s pace, as he must tell this “western” his way.

Like directors before him who have tackled this genre, Tarantino must put his own stamp on the story, so that we might say, this is how Tarantino made a western. With the same kind of grittiness that Leone brought and the same kind of violence Sam Peckinpah brought (it really isn’t so bad), Tarantino does not glorify what it was like to be a slave or how to die by the gun, rather through the use of humor and some brilliant camera work (along with editing), Tarantino belittles the idea of any difference between whites and blacks by making nearly every white man (or woman) in the film full of superficiality, lack of remorse, and completely uncaring for the human condition ( they do deserve what’s comin to them). They are but uneducated oafs compared to the compassionate Dr. Schultz, the only person besides Django with a shred of decency. “Django Unlimited” is truly a salute to past filmmakers and to the idea that a white director can make a great hero out of a black man without making him look silly (as Mel Brooks did in “Blazing Saddles”). Near the end (spoiler) when Django rides off to save his love, Tarantino goes for a close-up shot on a black prisoner. Slowly, the man’s expression changes from one of fear to one of admiration for liberator, as if he were saying that in expression – go get ‘em (a great job for a bit actor or a great director who pulled out that performance out)! This one shot lets us know that everything will be alright and we can almost breathe a sigh of relief at this point. The score is lopsided and only formality of the hero carrying out justice remains.

As to my earlier objection to the level of violence, I was wrong and I will be the first to admit it. Tarantino does have a big “shoot ‘em-up” near the end that uses quite a bit of stunt blood. However, he intermingles the scene with a hilarious (and it was funny) predicament of one character being repeatedly shot in the leg, in the same spot, crying out each time he is hit. Now this is funny and a mark of pure Tarantino. I loved it. While not recommended for anyone under the age of seventeen, and you can understand why, this film is a must for those who love the western and are admirers of Ford and Leone.

Quote:

---

Let me say right from the start that I like this movie – no, I love this movie – and anyone who admires filmmakers and who have studied the art of filmmaking the way Tarantino has will like the film as well, despite the “overt” violent images scattered around in certain scenes.

---

Hooray! I'm happy you went, and were converted. You have to see the film, to know how it is.

Monday, January 15, 2013, day two
“Argo” – produced, directed, and starring Ben Affleck

“Argo” is a recreation based on actual events that transpired during the 1979/1980 hostage crisis in Iran. The story entails a fictional account of “the Canadian Caper” and the involvement of CIA agent Tony Mendez in helping release six Americans who manage to escape the embassy just prior to its invasion by Iranian students. The screenplay, written by Chris Terrio, is loosely based on an article written by Joshuah Bearman that appeared in a 2007 issue of “Wired” which was based on documents declassified by President Clinton. That same year in 2007, actor George Clooney and others purchased the rights to the story and four years later set Ben Affleck to head the project. Affleck and writer Terrio took dramatic license with the historical facts and so added “loosely based on actual events” after the opening credits, probably to offset the outcry that followed the initial release of the movie. (The Canadians, the British, and New Zealand embassies that assisted with the American’s escape, were incensed over their diminished role)

In terms of production design, you have to recognize this design team with an incredible effort. Production designer Sharon Seymour took great pains to duplicate nearly every detail of life on the streets of Tehran and how the embassy appeared from photographs taken at the time. Affleck uses many hand held shots which gives us a sense of urgency during the storming of the embassy and in other scenes, such as the visit to the market place. The editing pace is quick and our eye does not linger on any image in the film longer than a second or two during nearly all of the action that takes place in Iran. Where the film tends to wander is when the setting changes to Hollywood (I was living in Hollywood right below the sign when it was fixed in 1978, one year before the hostage crisis) where Mendez takes his “phony film” idea to his friend, make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman). Jolly Goodman, who makes me laugh just to look at him, brings aboard producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and the two men concoct a film production company, as if they did this sort of thing every day. The scene I believe that sells Arkin’s nomination is during his negotiations with the Writer’s Guild, where his ruthlessness comes comically through his delivery. The line everyone will remember is when questioned by a reporter at its press release (“What does Argo mean?”), producer Siegel barks back, “Argo f**k yourself!” a joke that is repeated about five times after that to lessening effect.

As the film progressed, I kept hoping for something better. As far as I could tell, besides the incredible reproduction of the sets, the film lacked any performances that stood out. Arkin was good, but not nearly on the level of Robert DeNiro in “Silver Linings Playbook.” Even director/star Affleck, whose sympathetic Mendez seems more worried about his son than he does the hostages, is underplayed and subdued. The film’s tension almost comes across as forced, especially in the airport when the nervous, reluctant hostage suddenly grows a backbone and delivers the speech of his life, a little too convenient. For a man who has only directed three feature movies (and two shorts), I thought Affleck did a great job, but not of the caliber I found in the previous day’s work (Django) or even the polished work of Spielberg. While many are crying “foul!” at the Academy, I tend to agree. Affleck has given us a very entertaining film, but this movie is on par with many other director’s efforts this year and doesn’t really stand out as being that unique.

“Argo” is a film that elaborated on historical events and turned it into a Hollywood version of a story and made Mendez a hero in the process through the performance of Ben Affleck. However valiant and courageous Mendez was at the time, the film’s emphasis on the American role detracts from those who were the real heroes of this story, the Canadians. They risked their lives putting up the Americans (a minor role in the movie), they came up the passports (not the CIA), and they “snuck” the Americans out of Tehran with little fanfare (there was no incident at the airport, no shouting guards, no car chase, and no appearance in the bazaar the day before). While the “fake film” ruse worked as a cover, it turns out to be a minor part of this story, despite how the film made it seem the opposite.

I enjoyed “Argo,” found it entertaining with its building dramatic tension. But Best Picture of the Year? Not on my scoreboard.

I enjoy reading these reviews (although I haven't seen the movies) so... thanks and keep 'em coming.

I appreciate the encouragement. Tomorrow's film (hint, hint) will not be about war. I'm saving that one for Thursday.

We agree on pretty much everything on ARGO, cinemabon, it seems. You hit all the bases, adding more about the production team's excellent work than I was properly appreciative of. And your points about the weakening toward the end, some lack of credibility surely in the manufactured suspense of the airport (which as I noted in the real Mendez's account was actually smooth sailing), finally the failure to acknowledge the collective, cooperative effort actually involved in getting the Americans out of Iran, notably the help of the Canadians. There is a sort of parallel with ZERO DARK THIRTY's odd implication that most of the finding of Osama Bin Laden was the work of one young woman with no CIA experience outside of this one case. My only other point about ARGO is that he has achieved a great deal more audience attention and notoriety by tackling something pleasing to the American sense of our overwhelming importance in the world and filled with well manufactured excitement and suspense, but he has lost the feeling of authenticity he had in his more Boston-centric previous directorial efforts. It's no use comparing him to Spielberg or Tarantino. Any effort on his part to become an auteur seems to have faltered here. That ARGO came off very successfully is nonetheless unquestionable, and he's gotten and is getting more than his share of awards as a director outside the Oscars..

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 – Day three
“Les Miserables” – directed by Tom Hooper

In the lexicon of the “gritty” musical, of those that have attempted a more down-to-earth, realistic approach to their presentation, two stand out: “Oliver,” and “Paint Your Wagon.” Both tried to bring audience awareness to actual life in the harsh conditions of reality – one through “dirty” sets and the other shot on location. This is a difficult way to film a musical because by its nature – having your characters break into song, no matter the setting – is strange, abnormal, and bizarre behavior, far from ordinary life no matter how dirty or tattered your character’s clothes are. I do not walk down the street singing out my feelings to anyone. Yet, this is the axiom by which all musicals work and we accept this as being a normal part of their genre. We have come to accept the gritty musical’s transformation from the pristine three-dimensional stage to a life-as- representativeness, converting a stage show into the realm of film’s realism – truth at twenty-four frames a second. Victor Hugo’s world and the reasons for the Paris uprising of 1832 are those that originate inside an impoverished nation pushed to the brink by a so-called uncaring aristocracy, or so we are led to believe by sympathetic writers bent on making the overthrow of the privileged the basis for heroism. The downfall of this reign had less to do with poverty and more to do with a French revulsion to a monarchy. Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables” is a monumental work of gigantic proportion (nearly 1300 pages in length) that takes weeks to read and is considered by many to be one of the greatest literary works of all time next to “War and Peace” and other very long books we should all read. Adapted to the screen several times, I recall the 1935 Richard Boleslawski version the best in my mind. While whittled to the bone, it lays out the story as accurately as Hugo had it in his novel – an ex-convict is pursued relentlessly for years by an over-zealous prosecutor.

Bearing an open mind, I entered the cinematic world of a Broadway musical stage adaptation, completely unfamiliar with the show and its score except for the blaring song, “I dreamed a dream” whose refrains, like “Annie’s” song “Tomorrow” has been drummed into my brain by repeated versions from a variety of media outlets. Originally produced in France as a concept “album” in 1980 before being developed into a West End musical in London by producer Cameron Mackintosh and director Peter Farago, “Les Miserables” premiered in 1985 to harsh critical reviews by critics who decried the adaptation of Hugo’s novel. However, audiences loved the musical and it sold out during its initial three month run and successive openings ever since. (many, many spoilers follow) I noticed several elements of mass appeal in the show’s libretto, especially with its cheery ending of walking toward that great heavenly barrier in the sky filled with the dead now dressed in clean clothes singing with smiles on their faces patriots... and they lived happily ever after... but it all arrives much too late in my mind to redeem this musical/opera film (I think I counted six spoken lines, which would make it an operetta).

For three hours we are dragged through the mud, brown walls, tattered clothes, dirty faces, wet pavement, and perfectly white, straight teeth – all filmed in glorious television aperture with a steady cam so the director can move the camera in all kinds of places. Hooper loves faces and often takes the lens so close that they distort as if he was shooting with a fisheye lens. The main problem with crafting a film in this fashion is one of editing. Where do shots start and where do they end? The simple answer is you cut where can and when you can, making the whole production jump all over the place, like some editor’s nightmare. The only continuity that exists is when the screen flashes something like, “Nine years later” and similar flash-forwards in time. Otherwise, the film is a garbled mess of shots thrown together to form a linear flow of sort.

In addition to the depressing sets, costumes, and make-up, we are treated to really great actors (Oscar-worthy in other projects) who are being forced to screech out impossibly high notes, far out of their range and doing it live on the set. As any singer will tell you, it takes time to craft a song and give it polish. Expecting actors to deliver perfectly with each take is a ridiculous assumption and I fault the director for every sour note that fell on these poor battered ears; so many, that by the end of three hours I was ready to scream right back at the screen, my eyes full of tears, pulling my hair out, with blood shot eyes, and a red nose from crying into my popcorn (or was it bad makeup) – “No more! Please! I beg you! I’ve had enough!” But I bit my lip and said nothing until the smattering of white heads began to applaud around me. That’s when I stood up and said aloud, “Really?” My eighty-eight year old German grandmother who couldn’t sing a note could wield a bar song better than that. With all the British and American accents you’d wonder the film took place in France at all.

There was one bright note where Hooper and editor Chris Dickens managed to bring off a great moment in the film, during the quintet “One Day More” that reached a natural crescendo with full orchestra, pull back, reveal and climax. Musical filmmaking at its finest (which should have been followed by an intermission). Hooper obvious saw “West Side Story” as this scene duplicates the “Tonight” quintet in pacing and similar climax without the giant crane pull out at the end. But one song in the middle of a miserable movie does not forgive what took place before and after. The makeup, made to give everyone a ghastly appearance; the costumes, a little too much like rags, too filthy, too worn, and too monotonous; the sets – now there’s a depressing subject; and the lighting made the whole film one big downer from the very beginning. The only “bright” spot arrived with Sasha Cohen and Helena Carter as the owners of a disreputable establishment, who like Ron Moody’s Fagin (“You’ve got to pick a pocket or two”) scurried around their saloon picking everyone’s pocket who stopped by for a drink or bed. You’d think word would get around to stay away from the place. The song was light-hearted and humorous for me until they ground up everything and made something that resembled feces, feeding it to the guests. So much for my popcorn. That made me gag and took me right out of the scene.

If I try to stand back and look at “Les Miz” as a whole film, weighing the good with the poor (mostly technical problems), I found the acting well done, the singing atrocious, the songs forgettable (except “I dream...”), and the direction sloppy. I realize I am older and that younger people may find many elements of this movie enjoyable. I’m certain those same people find wrestling enjoyable, too. As a person who has spent his life listening to music, studying music, singing, playing an instrument, being in a band, being in madrigals, performing onstage in musicals, being the star of an off-Broadway musical, teaching music, having a minor in Music at college... this was not a happy experience for me. I’m sorry. Because it looked like Ann Hathaway, Russell Crowe, and Hugh Jackman went through hell for this director. If they get an Oscar, it should be for the strain of working on that set, but not because this is a great film. It’s not even a good movie musical. Now I wish I had seen the play.

cinemabon on "Les Miz" at last!

You have gone over it all very carefully. Your general stage history, more specific and complete than mine. The precedents, ditto-- Oliver and Paint Your Wagon; I understand that Oliver! was actually a specific, acknowledged inspiration for the French stage piece. Then the various categories: the acting, good you think, I say sometimes yes, sometimes no; the singing, "atrocious," check; the songs, "forgettable," check; the camera sometimes fisheye and up too close, check. There is nothing we disagree on. You just give more detail. I may have missed the "one bright note," the crescendo during "One Day More." " Depressing sets, costumes, and make-up," okay -- though not all the sets are depressing, most of them are wasted. The feces fed to the guests of the hellish hotel: indeed revolting.

You haven't missed anything, cinemabon.

Just one thing: I would not make allowances for a benevolent possibility that "younger people may find many elements of this movie enjoyable." If they do, the more fool they: but I protest: there are younger people who have taste and discernment too! Consider that it may not be that younger people see something you don't, but that it is simply popular, and therefore it is not just younger people but young and old love it; allow yourself the luxury of considering that none of the see something you don't. They're just less discerning than you are.

Thanks for relenting and seeing it. Now you know what I'm talking about. Is this an Oscar-worthy film? If they are going to choose ten Best Picture nominations, they need to be bold and digress -- when necessary -- from the obviously popular and mediocre to some things that are unusual and offbeat but truly fine to fill out their list. There may not always be ten mainstream popular good movies.

Chris, you hold the distinct advantage over me in that your access to films like "Amour" which WILL be shown locally next month making its screening too late for the Oscars or even consideration for end of year "best of" lists. In addition, many independent films and scores of movies from a variety of sources are not screened locally to my dismay and annual disappointment. Therefore, I must eliminate films like "Moonrise Kingdom" which you listed first, and "Beasts of the Southern Wild" as neither film was distributed locally yet. As our friend Oscar put so well recently, "there's a sudden buzz of activity on our site." Indeed. I'm in the mood to take in as many movies as I can. Let's dust off those pens and get to work! We have some opinions to polish and share with our fellow cinephiles.

I have the same feeling about movies I'd like to have seen before making 2012 lists up -- nobody can get to see everything and I'm very interested in what you're going to have to say about all that you see now.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 – Day four
“Zero Dark Thirty” – directed by Kathryn Bigelow

(Spoilers) I’m having a difficult time saying something critical in an objective way about this film, as it plays more like a documentary than it does a feature film with film-style rather than story driving its plot. In essence, the film is about a CIA analyst responsible for finding Osama Bin Laden and how, over a period of several years, she single-handedly came up with the key witness that narrowed the search for Bin Laden to one specific compound in Pakistan. While this might be plausible, it forces the audience to make a leap of faith that this person exists. Since director Bigelow and her screenwriter, Mark Boal, have made analyst Maya (Jessica Chastain) the central figure around which the plot twists, none of the other characters in the film – excluding Dan (Jason Clarke) the main torturer, who appears later in Washington – are onscreen long enough to develop into likable or even knowable characters. Even the woman who is Maya’s co-worker, Jessica (Jennifer Ehle of “Pride and Prejudice” fame) has very little screen time except for their brief luncheon together (ending in a bomb going off) and the tragic meeting scene where she meets her demise. Therefore, Bigelow has placed all of the storytelling on Maya’s shoulders via her numerous scenes in a variety of settings (one covert compound after another): at her desk, observing torture, driving through checkpoints, etc. However, none of this tells us anything about the plot other than Pakistan and Afghanistan are dangerous places. We know that from the news. But we learn nothing from these scenes except that there are lots of pictures on the wall and she is after “Akmed” the infamous courier of Bin Laden. Oddly, it isn’t torture that reveals the information but a conversation exchange that takes place during an interview she watches on video. After years of searching for this elusive character, presumed dead, an obscure office worker, who appears out of nowhere and then recedes just as quickly, shows up with a file that points the way, saving Maya’s butt in the process as she had exhausted all of her leads (Whew!). The explanation is that the file was overlooked. How convenient and strangely coincidental! Onto the film’s conclusion and the best part – the assault.

On the technical side, I found the direction fascinating. The placement of the camera is often behind something, a stack of books, a file cabinet, a chain-link fence, a dirty window and so on. It’s as if Bigelow wants us to be observers on the outside looking in on something important that is going on. The reason many people find the torture scenes at the beginning so stark is that within this claustrophobic enclosure, Bigelow moves the camera in so close we can count the hairs on the prisoner’s eyebrows. The make-up here is very realistic and it has to be if you’re going to move this close (unlike yesterday’s movie where the makeup looked silly). Cinematographer Greig Fraser uses just the right amount of light, especially in the torture scenes, to reveal what is essential to our understanding of the setting. Otherwise, the background is out of focus (very little POV used). The sets and costumes are nothing unique that might add to the film’s story as the locations often become a blur, one compound is about the same as the next except for a strange settee or a “Persian” rug. The score is virtually absent until we enter the last stretch of the film and accompany the Navy Seals in an even more tightly enclosed space. The film’s “driving” music adds to the dramatic tension and is superior in that regard, albeit brief. The feeling or sensation of being an eyewitness to actual events is a thrill that helps sell this film, if this is what happened and the way it happened. Unfortunately, we will never know. The reported account reinforces visually what we were told, but that does not mean it happened exactly this way. However, the technique Bigelow uses here, nearly all steady-cam (which she has used sparingly to this point) and via night-vision, enhances the realism. If a setting could be awarded as appearing genuine, then the recreation of Bin Laden’s compound was quite incredible and a feat that does deserve an award, as that was truly believable. Unlike some reviewers, I chose to ignore the “Seal-speak” simply because it made no sense to me. I tuned it out. Yet, like the night-vision and the compound’s realism, I felt it added to the realism and did not detract for me.

The conclusion of the film, rather than being a formality, came off as ambiguous and bizarre. I was puzzled in regards to the Bigelow/Boal ending. Out of the darkness, Maya boards a large cargo plane, empty except for some wooden chairs. When asked by the pilot, “You must be someone important. The plane is all yours. Where would you like to go?” Maya doesn’t answer. She stares ahead and cries. Throughout the film she has shown very little emotion except for one angry outburst in a hallway, which Chastain performed well. We’re uncertain why Maya is crying or for whom. If it is for her CIA co-worker, I find it difficult to believe. The two women never got along and never bonded. Perhaps it is a sense of relief or release. We never find out. The image fades to black. The other roles are so minor in comparison to Maya, we never learn what happens to them either and that is ok to a point. But surly we should know what happens to friendless, homeless Maya, whose mysterious background is only alluded to in a brief scene with then CIA Director Leon Panetta (James Gandolfini). “Of course you know I was chosen [for the service],” she replies when asked why she joined the CIA. “I’m not certain I can say,” she adds before he can answer. This not only makes Maya’s character obscure by implication, it practically makes her non-existent. That might be what Bigelow and Boal had purposely alluded to from the start – that Maya doesn’t exist but exemplifies or embodies all of the analysts who worked so hard to solve this case. Therefore in the end, it doesn’t matter what happened to her. Why is she crying? For all the victims of 9/11 and all the soldiers who gave their lives. Perhaps that is the point. I find it difficult to think of another.

Your readings of all these movies have been very interesting. This time your comments toward the end seem more speculative than conclusive. I can't exactly read this as a rave, not anyway in the range of the through-the-roof 95 Metacritic rating. You describe ZD30, convincingly, as revolving around a central character who is a cipher, and may not even exist. And yet the constant focus on Maya keeps any of the other characters from being likable or even knowable. Nor is the action very specific, as you tell it (and I won't argue with you), telling us only what we knew already from the news, that Pakistan and Afghanistan are dangerous places to wander around in. However you do like the finale, for its "realism," to which the Seal-talk contributes.

[An aside: as I noted Maya (somewhat strangely, given her 12 years of investigating Arab suspects) incorrectly pronounces the alleged courrier's name "Akmed," but that's not his name (there's no such name), just a mispronunciation of his name, Ahmed (or Ahmad). ]

I also somewhat question your saying "oddly" the key lead to the courier didn't come through torture. That's not so odd. There is widespread information and there have been recent statements by high up government sources that the US post-9/11 torture has yielded scant information. You don't take up the controversy over ZD30's alleged "advocacy" of torture. Maybe that theme has been overworked (though not her). My complaints with the movie's politics or the apparent lack of them aren't just about that anyway though.

You like the recreation of the Abbotobad compound Navy Seals invasion -- most people see to. I actually don't; I think it's a ridiculous overuse of "realism" that leaves us numb and tells us nothing. I think it's very anticlimactic.

Maybe that's why Maya is crying. Because her quest has come to its end and she feels nothing. And we don't feel anything either. Except maybe "gee, that was realistic!" If all it's got going for it is an illusion of realism, I'm not satisfied. Realism is very relative, especially when as you say, we don't really have any way of knowing thus far anyway, if this is how it "really" happened. I dislike the shooting of this whole sequence because it emerges as more chaotic and difficult to follow than the news reports I read at the time. It was a later decision to have us see virtually nothing of what Bin Laden (if it was he) actually did when confrontned. The actor who plays Bin Laded wrote an article in today's NYTimes, saying they had meant to show him moving around, but then decided not to, so his main appearance was as a partial profile in a body bag.

All the sequences up to this strike me as resembling stuff in previous post-9/11 movies such as SYRIANA or RENDITION, and others, such as GREEN ZONE, and the night-vision invasion sequence has been done before, just not at such length.

Boal and Bigelow (whose work I've liked before, especially POINT BREAK) seem overwhelmed with a sense of their own importance and of the significance of their material. And that corresponds pretty much at least with what Americans may believe, 9/11, certainly a tragedy, being seen here as the cardinal sin of all time, a crime against humanity. This overlooks the fact that the US has killed millions of people. What about the bombing of Japanese cities; the fire bombing of Dreden? But killing Bin Laden is seen by many Americans as a major coup. The only trouble with it is that it is at bottom only a revenge killing, and Al Qaeda seems stronger now than it was in 2001.

I would go further and say that originally I thought THE HURT LOCKER was much better than ZD30, but I'm beginning to feel that ZD30 makes me think if this is what they were doing in THE HURT LOCKER, maybe it's not as good as I thought, either!

I recommend taking a look at Armond White's review of ZD30, titled typically with a reference to classic French cinema, "Zero for Conduct." I think you may agree with some of White's analysis of the movie. However he takes more of a stand. You seem to be imitating Boal and Bigelow in not taking much of one, about the material. You maintain jut a bit too much neutrality: "On the technical side, I found the direction fascinating." We need more than that. Not that I don't agree, again, with many of your observations.

I feel that I could go through all the post-911 movies and would find parts that correspond to much of what's in ZD30. I tend to agree a bit with Rex Reed's comment that it's "not a movie," i.e. it's a documentary, though not with real footage. I guess the reason why I liked THE HURT LOCKER better is that its action is taught; too much of ZD30 is numbingly dull, enlivened only, as I commented, by periodic explosions of IUDs or suicide bombs etc.

Unlike cinemabon, it is for the very fact that no particular performance stood out that Argo made for a very engrossing, captivating experience. What I believe makes this movie one of the best films of the year is that it avoids performance and instead portrays an intensively visceral and riveting sensory locking and inter-connecting episodes of real life importance that captivates the audience throughout without having the distinctive distraction of outstanding performance. Like figure skating, what makes for a great figure stake is making it look so easy that there isn't any thought or mental distractions...Argo's brilliance is in its seamless and continuous presentation of events that keep one stuck to the screen until the very end, a hallmark of great storytelling.

Now that I'm feeling better, I am highly anticipating an opportunity to see Zero Dark Thirty so I can comment of Chris Knipp's opinion contrasting these two movies. Since ironically, it is for the very nature of the technical flaws in The Hurt Locker that I had major problems with the movie, I am very curious whether or not the similar flaws for which Zero Dark Thirty is being criticized for will also impact my opinion about this movie.

I think we tend to agree, Chris, on "Zero" more than disagree. I will elaborate that the ambiguity in "Zero" diminishes the value of the film to the point I, too, did not feel it one of the years best pictures. A simulated documentary does not translate into a quality story if it has no point.

Whereas, Tab, your analysis of "Argo" is flawed by its lack of realism. The whole film is a fake. The entire end a lie. In fact, for the sake of jingoism, Affleck not only inflated the American role, he threw in patriotism to help sell a weak film; much in the same way "Les Miz" uses sentimentality to help sway its lack of substance. That you give me no credit to me with "Zero" in my eval is blinded by your over indulgence on "Argo" being a great film. "Argo" is no more like an Olympic skater (an ideal) than "Les Miz" resembles a documentary on the uprising of 1832. Both target their audience with sentimental images and lack substance. Whereas, "Django" represents the work of a craftsman who has finally come into his own, making a film of expert -level quality with an array of talent to help him tell a story of sublime excellence. Of the four films I've watched this week, the one with the most overall superiority is definitely "Django Unchained" for all the reasons I stated in my review and then some. While the other films I've reviewed this week lack some vital aspect which render them inconsistant and unable to compete.

As I still have not submitted my final and fifth film in this series, as things stand right now, I would place these films as the top three contenders for Best Picture: "Django Unchained," "Lincoln" and "Silver Linings Playbook" with "Django" showing best direction, "Lincoln" showing strong screenplay, and "SLP" having the strongest cast.

I have to tell this background story, since this is my blog, so to speak...

When I lived in Los Angeles, I went to the LA run of "A Chorus Line" fresh from NY, sitting in about fifth row orchestra, middle. I was thrilled. I loved the show. I loved the story. I loved the songs. I briefly met Michael Bennett (the original director of the Broadway production). Afterward, Rick took me to the stage door. I met and got autographs from the entire cast on the huge fold-out program (which I still have). Did I mention I loved the show? I laughed, I cried, and when Bennett died from HIV, I cried again. I couldn't wait to see the movie. And I thought, "It's directed by the guy who just won Best Director Oscar for 'Gandhi,' Richard Attenborough (of "The Great Escape" fame). This is going to be great!"

When the movie came out, I went opening day. I wish I had a camera for a the before and after shot. You would have seen a smile wiped right from my face. Some stage plays do not translate well to movies. From what I've heard, many, many people loved "Les Miz" (the play) and went to see it again and again. But like "Phantom" the movie is not too good. The funny thing is, the fans really want it to be good and are afraid to say anything. But I know they must be supremely disappointed, which is a shame. The theater is a wonderful place. If you've never seen a play in New York, go... the sooner the better. And I will tell you from years of experience that very few musical plays translate well into films, very few.

Regardless of what cinemabon might write about Argo, his opinion even though based on his film experience is disputed by reputable film critics who have had much more experience than I, even though the Academy of Arts and Science might prefer cinemabon's position which seems a rather odd turn of events here considering. I believe that cinemabon's argument is weak because it contains a strong bias between truth over art, that artistic license must be sacrificed for telling an authentic documented, by the letter narrative. For me the importance of a movie and in this a dramatic thriller is not so much truth but how a story is told and how in impacts me emotionally and intellectually not scientifically based on testable hyptheses in under laboratory conditions. If I wanted supposed truth, I'd watch documentaries, but I usually prefer theatrical films based on artistic merit instead. cinemabon's argument is more like those critics from the U.S. Department of Defense and the CIA, not as a film critic.

It's a miserable, disappointing experience to watch the movie version of Chorus Line, among my most favored Broadway Musical, limited though my Broadway experience is. I too was devastated by how awful the movie version was and it was a real wake up call for me. I had so looked forward to being able to just buy a copy of the DVD and watch in again and again at my leisure. Now I shutter and regret that the movie version failed me...and I miss the opportunity to see re-experience the ONE ever again in all its glory.

Well, Tab, when you start the movie "based on real events" then it should be close to the mark. To make things up for the sake of drama is fictionalizing events and that's a stretch when the purpose of your film is to recreate actual events. It would be as if I put Germans in the cockpit over Pearl Harbor because I thought it would make a better film. That's not what happened. There were no Germans in the cockpit. You can't excuse a filmmaker when they start to just make things up just because they want to spice up the ending and make it more dramatic. This isn't because I did a little digging. The British State Department (like our own) were upset over the way Afflect altered events. Even the Canadians voiced protests. But in addition to the fabrications, there are other weakenesses in the storyline, especially the appeal to patriotism which is like waving the American flag and saying anyone who doesn't salute is a traitor. I'm glad you like the film. But the Hollywood Foreign Press has been wrong about many films in the past. They are a small group of individuals and not filmmakers. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) is made up of film professionals - the artists who actually make the movies - directors, producers, screenwriters, actors, cinematographers, editors, set designers, costume designers, makeup artists, etc. They know the work it takes to make a movie and they are pretty good at judging what constitutes a well-made film. While we can argue as to their choices (which sometimes are based more on sentiment than on accomplishment), overall, they do a damn good job of picking individuals who deserve recognition. Remember, it is an honor to be nominated and that in itself is a win in my book.

When Ben has been nominated and winning film directorial awards:

Golden Globes winner
British Academy Film Awards (BAFTA) nomination
African American Film Critics Association winner
Broadcast Film Critics Association winner
Central Ohio Film Critics Association nomination
Chicago Film Critics Association nomination
Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association nomination
Denver Film Critics Society winner
Detroit Film Critics Society nomination
Directors Guild (DGA) nomination (this nomination and Ben's absence of an Oscar nomination is particularly telling)
Florida Film Critics Circle winner
Houston Film Critics Society winner
International Press Academy nomination
Oklahoma Film Critics Circle winner
Online Film Critics Society nomination
Online Film Critics Society nomination
San Diego Film Critics Society winner
Southeastern Film Critics Association winner
St. Louis Film Critics winner
Washington, D.C. Area Film Critics Association nomination

I think you're right, cinemabon, on the ones you're considered that survive scrutiny. Not sure we hve to divide them up that way, LINCOLN best writing, SILVER LININGS best acting, etc.


You haven't dealt specifically with several, AMOUR, BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD, LIFE OF PI, which you may not have been able to get a look at. AMOUR is probably out of the running, because it's a French film by an Austrian director, but it has Haneke's severe greatness and more humanity, if feels like, than usual; he is a consummate craftsman and his two 80-something actors, Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignat are impressive; they got the best actor awards at Cannes last year. I like PI, though it may be too oddball (and Indian) to be considered. I'm not sure about BEASTS, but Armond White is quite possibly right in his devastating criticism of its urban white boy view of southern black experience. (He's black; he gets to say that.)

I think you made that point before, tabuno, about Ben Affleck having been widely awarded in smaller critic venues -- and the Golden Globes and BAFTA aren't small.

And yes, cinemabon, I also found that without profound research one found many were unhappy with the way ARGO fudged events to make the Americans look better and jazz up the ending.

Anybody ever read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick which was made into Bladerunner (1982). Movies based on, inspired by...the insistence on truth as opposed to logical inconsistency is like me having to enforce my interpretation of Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible (1996) being literally based on the television series which it really took huge liberties and at first I thus despised the movie until I watched it again and enjoyed it as a movie, not a documentary. This slippery slope argument can't be won because there will always be some requirement by the very nature of film to edit, make composite characters, slice and dice to make a movie interesting, compelling, representative, symbolic, figurative...poetic, interpretative, subjective...

A movie is better examined on its technical film merits and the emotional and intellectual experience as a movie not as a factual, literal depiction of real events. Having watched Fail Safe (1964) and Dr. Strangelove (1964) with their Department of Defense disclaimers incorporated into each movie that such movies could never actually occur in real life...well I guess they must be based on some truth, but ultimately fail the whole truth test and therefore must be bad movies.

When you're dealing with specific historical events it's not just a matter of truth vs. logical consistency. The same issue comes up with ZERO DARK THIRTY. Boal/Bigelow are making a hash of a complex process and a very recent historical event in the interests of a unifying protagonist and a feminist theme. Would you have had Tony Kushner and Stephen Spielberg muck around with the events in LINCOLN in this fashion? The irony is that ARGO is a crowd-pleasing actioner, and ZD30 is a drab semi-documentary, but both distort history.

By its very nature, Les Miserable is about the masses attempting to revolt against the powerful, wealthy, educated elite and so to we have a movie that also is cast in the same light with its mainstream masses of the people watching this movie using non-professional singers as most of the audience is and who might also share the delight of singing in the shower. Thus this movie which represents Victor Hugo's focus on the masses, so to the movie itself is for the masses and thus embraces its values and beliefs in what constitutes a common but enlightened entertainment. Thus for a person more than half a century old, this movie fits perfectly with my common sense of music and thus resonates at the same frequency of understanding and empathic embrace of its presentation. As I've discussed elsewhere, the quality of the common movie has improved over the past decade and continues to do so...thus we the people of the dwindling middle class have the benefit of experiencing great movies suited to our less than film-educated senses. Unfortunately, such perhaps profit-driven movies for the masses has also degraded to some extent the higher principled standards of formal movie theory. But for the rest of us, we get the benefit of a substandard standard.

Quote:

---

By its very nature, Les Miserable is about the masses attempting to revolt against the powerful, wealthy, educated elite and so to we have a movie that also is cast in the same light with its mainstream masses of the people watching this movie using non-professional singers as most of the audience is and who might also share the delight of singing in the shower.

---

You're said this before also. I think it's an argument that could have absurd consequences. We can't sing so we should have a musical movie in which the characters are played by people who can't really sing? The idea that we would like to go to see movies in which all the singers are no better than people singing in the shower is ludicrous. We go to see professionals at work. All of the cast members in LES MIZ can sing. They are just in many cases more known as actors than as singers, and the live-action recording instead of post-synch soundtrack tends to produce singing performances more heartfelt than polished. Eddie Redmayne had to prove he could sing to get the role of Marius.

Quote:

---

the quality of the common movie has improved over the past decade and continues to do so

---

\
Sorry, I missed that and can't imagine what it would mean. What is "the common movie"? I thought we were seeking movies that were uncommon. I see a lot of common movies. I don't like them and I don't see any sign they are getting better. How can they, if they're common? And how can you, tabuno, say you are not film-educated, when you know so many films and care passionately about them?

I just don't know what you're talking about here.

Friday, January 18, 2013 – Day five
“The Impossible” – directed by Juan Antonio Bayona

(Spoilers) Disaster movies have been part of film history since Moses parted the Red Sea. We are fascinated by tornados, hurricanes, dust storms, earthquakes, and tsunamis. The bigger the disaster, the more people want to see its impact on society. Since the advent of widescreen, color, and stereo sound the disaster is a cash cow for studios that have drummed out just about every variety from upside-down ocean liners to end of the world scenarios. The difference with “The Impossible” is that while the disaster is in the foreground, the story of one family’s struggle to rise above this calamity is at the core of the film. Separated when the giant wave strikes, the family faces the impossible journey of finding one another inside a wasteland that spreads across several thousand miles of shoreline.

There is no admission of alteration at the start, no “based on actual events” mia culpa. Instead, the director simply states, “A true story.” With that declaration, we should expect the story to stick to the facts. However, with the permission of the Belón family, Spanish director Juan Antonia Bayona made the decision to blur the main characters’ nationality in order to make the film more internationally commercial (the Belón family are Spanish; the film’s Bennet’s one presumes British). In fact, all of the actors are English/American origin. Unlike the treatment given other factual recreations this week, the Belón family actually participated in the film’s production, meeting with the actors to help hone their performances.

It’s hard to imagine these events took place eight years ago this past Christmas. People all over the world sat riveted to their televisions watching the aftermath of the worst natural disaster the world has ever witnessed. The scale of destruction is still difficult to grasp. The Bennet family, on vacation in Thailand, are staying in an ocean front resort not far from the epicenter. Without warning, (unlike some locations that could see it coming), the Bennet’s and others were completely caught by surprise by not just one but two huge tsunami waves that destroyed the shoreline and permanently altered its shape.

Director Bayona opens with a shot of a jet plane flying over a wide peaceful blue ocean, benign and harmless. When the family arrives at the resort, they are informed by the manager that the third floor rooms are sold out. He moves them to a ground floor suite. Although Maria Bennet protests at first, the manager opens the ocean front doors and we see a beautiful view of the shoreline, with angular palm trees dotting the space between the resort’s pool in the foreground and the beach. The world resembles of one of paradise. As the story continues, we find the hotel is full of European tourists who either play in the pool or romp near the ocean, snorkeling, playing ball on white pristine sands, or simply laying out in the sun. Christmas morning is documented by the family and the following day starts out just as peaceful as the last. When a gust of wind snatches Maria’s bookmark out of her hands, she walks over to a large glass wind barrier to retrieve it. The glass begins to vibrate. She looks up. A flock of birds takes flight. A roar fills the air. Everyone realizes something is wrong and turns toward the ocean. At several hundred miles an hour, foaming brown water full of debris bursts through the trees and engulfs everyone and everything. The screen goes black. What follows is a journey of terror, a tumbling, gasping for air, in a turbulent turgid pool that shows no mercy. Bodies are hurdled against immovable objects, or a variety of junk in the murk strikes people as the water rushes around them. Buildings, trees, everything in the water’s path succumbs to the power of the tsunami. With eyes, ears and mouths full of water, it is difficult to orient and swim let alone know where you are. Maria finally breaks the surface and locates her oldest son just as he spots her. For the next twenty minutes of film time the two try to keep each other in sight in hopes of escaping together. But nature continuously forces them apart and the first struggle in the aftermath of this disaster comes when Maria and Lucas finally survive the initial two blasts of water by sheer luck. Maria does not know if her husband has survived. Lucas (Thomas Holland), whose performance is so masterful that it largely carries crucial elements of the film’s story throughout its middle sections. The young actor should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor Oscar as his performance is pivotal and compelling.

Through all of the anguish, frustration and chaos around the Bennet’s, we know the end is inevitable as the story is being told by the family. In fact, the end of the film is the only joyous moment Bayona gives us. The rest of the images are filled with masses of dead bodies, miles of debris field, and the sadness of broken families. The only other bright spot comes when one of the children Maria and Lucas rescued in the beginning is reunited with his father. Otherwise, the carnage that remains is too terrible to fathom, piled up before us in shot after shot until we grow numb from its bombardment. The last shot of a jet flying back to Singapore over a wide calm blue sea now carries a subtle message, that Mother Nature can rise up and inflict terrible damage in the wink of an eye.

The film’s special effects and set decoration, the incredible hospital scenes and even the numerous crowd scenes which were so painstakingly recreated are praiseworthy. Naomi Watts performance is good, memorable, but not the best I’ve seen this season. She mostly moans under an oxygen mask on a variety of stretchers. Note to cameraman, “Lock down your camera when shooting Geraldine Chaplin!” I felt seasick from the wavy unsteady handheld shot that wasn’t necessary at night by the campfire. Overall in considering Oscar nominations for acting, as I haven’t seen Amour, I can only judge “The Impossible” against the other films I’ve seen. I’d still pick the cast of “Silver Linings Playbook” over any other in terms of acting performance with the exception of Daniel Day Lewis who was a very strong Lincoln. Still, Brad Cooper is no slouch either.

My Oscar pix are as follows:
Best Picture: Lincoln, Django Unchained, or Silver Linings Playbook
Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis or Brad Cooper
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence
Best Supporting Actor: Robert DeNiro (I would have picked Tom Holland)
Best Supporting Actress: Jackie Weaver
Best Director: David Russell for Silver Linings Playbook (Tarantino wasn’t nominated) or Spielberg for Lincoln if it’s picked Best Pix
Best Cinematography: Robert Richardson for Django Unchained (although he’s already won which might limit his chances but his WAS the best) or Claudio Miranda for Life of Pi
Costume Design: Anna Karenina
Film Editing: Michael Kahn (one of the best in the business)
Foreign Language: Amour
Make up: The Hobbit
Music score: Thomas Newman, Skyfall
Best Song: Skyfall by Adele
Production Design: Lincoln
Sound editing: Skyfall
Sound Mixing: Life of Pi
Visual Effects: Life of Pi
Best Screenplay Orig: Django Unchained
Best Screenplay Adapt: Beasts of the Southern Wild or Lincoln
Argo and Zero get shut out!

FYI - I did see Life of Pi and wrote a review on this site, Chris.

tabno, I thought this was cinemabon's thread (his "blog," as he said), ours only to comment on his osts about the five Oscar films he was going to report on. Your posts here are random and inappropriate, I'm afraid. I was addressing cinemabon when I said I thought he had not seen LIFE OF PI. I was referring to a post he made that I can't currently locate. There is a thread in the Forums for THE IMPOSSIBLE: http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.p...Bayona-2012%29.

tabuno: why post your Oscar predictions here, and not on the Academy Awards nominations thread cinemabon started? http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.p...rd-Nominations. I agree with you that Tom Holland gives a great performance. All this would have gone more appropriately on other threads, not this one.

I don't know whether to say thank you or I love you, but you inspire me, Chris/Oscar/Johann/Tabuno/Howard etc. I really can't be a critic unless I seek out all of the films up for consideration. So I am extending my viewing pleasure by adding TWO more Oscar contenders today. Granted, they are on video, but I hope to give you an update later that will help round out my list/predictions.

I love a good fight over principles. Don't ever think that by challenging what I say you upset me in any way/shape/form. I'm a big boy. I can defend my stance (although I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong, as with Django and Tarantino). But as with any person, words of encouragement are always appreciated.

See you in the dark... only in this case today, in front of a video screen.

Cinemabon,

You're contributing greatly to Filmleaf's Oscar/Best Movies of 2012 discussion by staging this personal mini film festival now. I also appreciate your integrity and flexibility in sticking close to observations and altering your pre-viewing assessment of DJANGO. You and I and Johann and a lot of other people now agree that it's a great movie. However silly or outrageous or fanboy-mad his movies are, he's a consummate filmmaker. I also was really glad that despite apparently having an aversion to seeing it, you watched LES MISERABLES too and did a detailed assessment. And for these further movies on home video, "bonne vision" as the French say.

I went to your website and read your analysis/review of "The Impossible" which was thorough and outstanding, Chris. I can't understand why you aren't picked up by a major publication. I guess you need a better agent than the one you have.

http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/vi...c71533b7187fc0

Thanks, cinemabon, but they're laying off print critics, not hiring unknown ones, I'm afraid. I've heard about that at Lincoln Center events. There was a flurry of concern when Todd mcCarthy was let go as main critic for Variety -- a sign of where things were going. There were numerous shakeups at the Voice, once a lot of paid critics I believe, now few. I have to be content with appearing on Flickfeasst.uk, which is much more active than our site, and Robin published my Impossible review there and other recent ones. I'm also on Cinescene, which is even less active than Filmleaf, lately much less so. I'm also a regular on a commercial website, IC Places, just because Steve, who runs it, is a nice guy and he asked me too. He should pay me money but he doesn't. I do it for the love of it. If you look at my website you see that I'm an artist and i was a full time artist for about 25 years, but recently have set aside the art projects in favor of movie reviewing.

I believe that people's experiences filter their appreciation of movies. Those who have extensive experience in particular areas such as music or military ops will have a distinctively different standard by which to enjoy a movie. Thus those who have experienced quality musical productions and heard the best singers will have an ear that will filter less experienced singing. So with Le Miz, what I experienced interestingly was a heightened enjoyment of the songs in the movie because I was able to understand and feel most of the lyrics and music being sung as well as the close up visual non-verbal essence of the sung which from psychological standpoint is an much or even more important than then actual singing itself from a communication stand point. Thus when I talk about musicals and the common person, it's possible to approach a movie and experience it using a standard that's different from those in the profession. It's not about people singing badly because they aren't specialists, but about people singing decently who can be clearly understood sufficiently to get the essence of the emotion and thoughts against in a way that connects to the audience, such isn't the requirement of having the best singers singing these songs - in some cases it's about actors who can perform and get across important underlying themes using the form of music and singing, not about the music and singing itself.

I think you've expressed this whole thesis already, earlier. But I still don't see how one would want to go to anyone about how good a movie is but the person who is familiar with the arts involved. I don't think it's a good argument. The argument is that since the movie is not post-synched as musicals normally are, though the singing quality is less polished, they were able to inject more "acting" into the performances of the songs. And that's a valid point. But I still say a musical should be musical. This whole idea would never go over for classical opera. Or would one attend a recital by a pianist of limited skill because his performances of Beethoven had a lot of "feeling"? I don't think so....

A musical film is judged by different standards, just as an action movie is judged against other action movies or romance movies are discussed differently than a horror movie is. We call them genres and classify them thus. The musical is as old as sound movies. The very first sound movie was a musical – The Jazz Singer. Ever since that time, Hollywood has trotted out the old horse with a different coat of paint every year or so, hoping we won’t notice it’s still the same old horse. It used to be musicals were one of the standard films up for awards – films like Gigi, My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Oliver, Funny Girl – all excellent examples of the genre. No longer. They’ve become relics. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s prediction in 1996 that with “Evita” he was going to single-handedly bring back the movie musical landed with a resounding thud. Many loved “Evita” but many found Madonna a poor choice. Accomplished director Alan Parker (Mississippi Burning, Midnight Express – both won him a nomination for Best Director) was not able to deliver the goods – and the score had more than one good memorable song! (Unlike “Les Miz” which really only has one). I’ve spent my life collecting soundtrack albums from Broadway versions and film versions of musicals. Sometime the soundtrack is better than the movie or the play! “Hair” was one such instance. I attended the premier in Hollywood with klieg lights and everything! Milos Forman (One flew over the cuckoo’s nest and Amadeus) was in attendance. You should have seen his face change from one full of smiles to one of panic when he heard groans in the theater. He left before the end to avoid questions. It bombed!

Modern musicals are like opening restaurants. Most fail. As I’ve said on this site many times. I can count on my fingers the number of truly successful musical films (and The Jazz Singer was one of them. Even The Wizard of Oz was a box office failure during its first release and lost money. We love it today because they played it on TV a thousand times. But back in 1939, audiences hated it. They thought it was silly. If you don’t believe me, read the reviews). Hooper tried an experiment. To achieve realism, he wanted the actors to sing on the set. In order to achieve this feat, he had to create special microphones that would pick up the actors voices but wouldn’t pick up the rustle of clothing, not an easy thing to do. Kubrick tried to shoot a movie in candlelight. He succeeded but the movie sucked. Too bad, because most people regard him as a genius – he wasted innovative technique on a bad script and bad actors. While director Hooper did use playback on the set of the orchestration (they use a pulse-sync on the playback that is matched later in post-production), the straining voices and over-dramatization of songs ruins the music. Many loved her performance, but I consider Anne Hathaway’s quivering lip on “I dreamed the dream” a distraction. All of this dramatic screeching and caterwauling tends to play down the music and play up the drama. Otherwise, why have singing at all? Just make it a drama and be done with it! You can’t say, well, we’ll have a little bit singing because it was based on the play, but it’s mostly drama. Really? Aye there’s the rub! Directors at the helm who love to meddle with a medium they don’t understand tend to scuttle the ship. You take a perfectly good musical like “South Pacific” and then cast an Italian star who cannot sing bass and a young male star who cannot sing baritone with two of the most recognized songs of their era. Really? The singing by Rossano Brazzi had to be dubbed by Giorgio Tozzi, a famous operatic bass. Even then the heavy Italian accent of Brazzi was a laugh, as the part of Emile was that of a Frenchman!

I will give it to Hugh Jackman. He has played in musical theater on Broadway and in Australia. He’s very good and accomplish, even singing a special opening for his hosting job at the Oscars, “I am Wolverine!” (which was a hoot). But even someone as trained as Jackman knows that in order to deliver a good rendition of a song, you need time to work with an orchestra and the arranger and the producer to make a song work. Otherwise, musicians could just play in any old place, strike up a tune, record it and there you are. You have to give the music community a little more credit, Tab. Some of us do know what we’re talking about when it comes to music and musicals. Now if we were discussing horror movies. I’d be mute. That is one genre about which I know very little.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

“Moonrise Kingdom” – directed by Wes Anderson

I’m reminded of a fair, not any particular fair, just the sidewalk variety kind where people have crafts for sale and perhaps the local high school or even community college has works of art on display. Some are efforts at art, but occasionally you come across a real talent with a flair for dimension, color, placement, form, and balance. These and other qualities go into creating art. While I have studied a little, what I know amounts to nothing compared to most. My drawing appears more like scratches and I have no eye for depth or shadow. Wes Anderson, on the other hand, has an incredible flair for creating art out of ordinary spaces. A room is not photographed at oblique angles. Rather, everything takes on symmetry, colors have significance, music isn’t simply a cue, it’s a statement of feeling harmonious with the picture and not supplemental. “Moonrise Kingdom” is a work of art by someone capable of making a “Lord of the Rings” but content to make his art on a smaller canvas – watercolors on paper as opposed to oil on canvas that stretches across thirty feet.

From the very start of the movie, I was immediately reminded of another movie about two thirteen-year-olds seeking youthful romantic fulfillment – “A Little Romance,” directed by George Roy Hill (The Sting). The parallels are similar. Two misunderstood adolescents flee their homes and set out together in search of romance. The setting here is established by narrator Bob Balaban (long film history that really started with his first major role in “Close Encounters”). From the opening shot, we understand this story will be framed by an act of nature that will be the worst in the history of the island. This creates a dramatic tension that Anderson uses throughout the film as we keep wondering when the hurricane will strike. As it turns out, the hurricane isn’t significant at all.

Here is a film that is largely dependent on the cast. Not only is the cast peppered with seasoned professionals – Frances McDormand, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Tilda Swinton – each actor bring his or her own brand of humor to these small parts that help make “Moonrise Kingdom” a sheer joy to watch from start to finish. Despite the banality of the plot and lack of background, I found the interplay between Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) completely believable. Their awkwardness expressed by hesitancy in their dialogue and stilted gestures added to the quality of their characters. With most of the screen time focused on them, I found their interplay relaxing and cordial. The rest of the cast made up of misfits – two small time lawyers, a scoutmaster, and the island’s only cop – interact with what I would call “polite confrontations.” It’s as if Anderson said, “Ok, I know these parts are small... make something out of them.” That they do. Murray and McDormand as the husband and wife also battle one another in all areas of their marriage as if it were one big litigation. Ed Norton plays against type as the timid but punctual, cigarette-smoking scoutmaster. Finally, Bruce Willis plays the timid frustrated island cop, who tries to be understanding but shows little patience with the eccentric islanders.

Then there is the artwork – the book covers, the tents, the uniforms, the houses – in fact, everything about the film is a work of art. Everything is original. I don’t believe I saw a trade name product anywhere. Even cars looked like something a shop would create and not Detroit. Nominated in a heavily weighted category of Best Original Screenplay, “Moonrise Kingdom” like its peaceful island setting, is a refreshing break from flying bullets and car chases.

Thanks, cinemabon, for your even more enlightening small essay on musicals and their screen adaptations, and your review of MOONRISE KINGDOM. The more you say the more your expertise on this subject of musicals becomes convincing, and helpful. It's a bit harsh to say BARRY LYNDON "sucks," maybe true though. Hugh Jackman is a good case in point. He's a musical pro, yet unimpressive because this format undermines his ability to deliver the songs. Then the question you overlook: why the Best Picture nomination and all the audience admiration? Evidently people are like tabuno moved and swept away, and many loved the musical and just accept this as being it, even if to a critical or knowledgeable eye, it ain't.

Thanks also for going back to MOONRISE KINGDOM, almost forgotten by the Oscars people it seems, and giving it its due. I chose to put Wes Anderson's masterful movie at the top of my Best American Movies list for the year (which admittedly includes a Canadian movie with a British star, COSMOPOLIS; but it's a letter-perfect faithful adaptation of an American novel, set in NYC).

BEST AMERICAN
Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson)
The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson)
Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino)
Cosmopolis (David Cronenberg)
Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell)
Looper (Rian Johnson)
Life of Pi (Ang Lee)
The Sessions (Ben Lewin)
Flight (Robert Zemeckis)
Beasts of the Southern Wild (Benh Zeitlin)

Of those top three you could put any one first. After that it gets dicier. Note that you don't see LES MIZ (obviusly!) -- or LINCOLN -- because LINCOLN just didn't do anything for me. It's not great filmmaking. Nothing Spielberg has done lately is.

MOONRISE KINGDOM not only has something fresh and pure and wholly original about it that even the masterful and impressive THE MASTER and the dazzling and amazing DJANGO UNCHAINED lack: importantly, it's an American auteur working absolutely in top form. He has never done anything better, which I could not say with certainty of THE MASTER or DJANGO, fine though they are.

Below this on my list I get doubtful. COSMOPOLIS and LIFE OF PI are not really exactly "American," for starters. I'm not sure SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is a great movie, just that it really works and that it was very enjoyable. Oscar pointed out my remarks about LOOPER make its appearance in my Best List slightly surprising. Nobody has talked much about THE SESSIONS. I'll let it pass. I do think it's a fine film, and about a topic you expect to be schmaltzy. FLIGHT has problems, too long, a weird mixture, too preachy at the end. But I think the subject is interesting and that Denzel delivers some of his best work ever. I'm more in doubt about BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD since its Oscar Nomination. That's a nod to the Sundance film, to the little guy, but I think it may have been overrated and is not quite as original as it's been cracked up to be. Nonetheless it is a cool film and it's kind of cool that the new longer Best Picture nominations lists allow for inclusion of oddball items like this. I'm okay with LIFE OF PI, even if it's a Taiwanese film of a Canadian novel with an Indian star, it's somehow a glorious visual and imaginative experience, with a sense of wonder. However, I am much more sure about my Best Foreign list--more clearly studded with fine films. And one of those is AMOUR. This Best Picture nomination is a nod to Cannes, where it got the Golden Palme. I don't think Haneke has gotten a Best Picture nomination before? I would rate it and HOLY MOTORS way above anything on my Best American list below DJANGO.

But enough about my list. Again, my appreciation cinemabon of your contributions in this thread. But my question is: would you displace one of those choices on the Best Picture nominations list of nine, with MOONRISE? I would.

Oh my...To insist on a rigid conformity to some genre standard would be to corral the art form of films into distinct categories which then by there very nature would have distinct different standards by which to judge them, like the Golden Globes as opposed to the more generalized field of the Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Even if one were to thus restrict Les Miserable to the criteria for musicals, one might instead insist that the movie be judged on a period drama epic standard instead. I don't consider Les Miserable a musical as it was filmed, but rather a period drama epic that uses music and lyrics and live recorded music to reflect a more authentic realism and to which to better express the message of human pain and suffering and the jovial joy of pick pockets.

In the end, the subjective nature of this discussion, like abortion will likely preclude the ability to discuss this movie with the same language or communication as the differences of the perception and how this movie is rated are so different.

Evita happens to be on my must see list and I've been found of the movie since it came out. Madonna capture well her character and I assume she was just stereotyped by the general public. I took away from her performance a much greater respect for her as a singer and actress.

Between Chris Knipp and cinemabon they combine to produce some of the most clear, compelling, and interesting reviews that strike directly home to the essence of movies. Here with Moonrise Kingdom, cinemabon has created his little own work of art in his commentary on this movie.

To answer Chris Knipp's question about what movie one might replace Moonrise Kingdom as best picture of the Oscars, I would select Zero Dark Thirty or Lincoln. Since I haven't seen Amour or Beasts of the Southern Wild, I would be more circumspect, but neither of their trailers caught much of my attention or interest. I also haven't see Django Unchained, but it's on my list of movie I will see, but I suspect I won't like it as much as some other people have.