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..

[cinemabon]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[cinemabon]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[cinemabon]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[cinemabon]

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.