Five Academy Award Nominees in Five Days

[cinemabon]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[cinemabon]

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.

[oscar jubis]

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

[cinemabon]

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

[Chris Knipp]

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..