Five Academy Award Nominees in Five Days

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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....

[cinemabon]

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.

[cinemabon]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[cinemabon]

Tab, I am often the lone wolf/voice in the wilderness. I am the only person on this site who hated the Steven Speilberg sci-fi drama - A.I. We (Oscar, Johann, Chris and others) went back and forth, arguing over this and that. I love a good debate. Stick to your guns. If you like a thing, then stand up for it. That 's what I tell my children. I've done it all my life and I admire people who do so (to a point - the quote about guns being figurative and not literal). You liked "Les Miz" and "Argo" and have valid points. I would never say that my opinion is better than anyone elses because I know this or that. In my mind, this is an open forum and we are all free to express our ideas. I must add, that this group, this intelligent, witty group of disparate but talented writers, unlike other blogs, have stuck together through good times and bad. It is secretly my dream some day that we all fly to New York or Miami or Toronto or Salt Lake City, meet, have a beer/glass of wine/ shot of cognac and talk about movies for two days until we've exhausted every aspect of the subject. That would be a meeting of the minds.

Some dream. Huh, kid.

[Chris Knipp]

Tabuno, no one is insisting on a rigid conformity to anything. We are insisting on excellence. But you are welcome to your opinion, and you are talking about movies that the Oscar people have singled out as outstanding.

[oscar jubis]

Just checking in to say how much I enjoy reading your posts, to make one clarification and one correction. Clarification: Although The Jazz Singer was the first sound film to include speech (only in two scenes), DON JUAN (starring John Barrymore) is considered the first "sound film". Correction: The Wizard of Oz made a small profit upon first release. It did not "lose money" or "was a box office failure" as noted above. Minor stuff. What's important is bon's assertion that a film must be judged against members of its own genre, or against the conventions of its genre, is quite right in my opinion.

[cinemabon]

Sunday, January 20, 2013
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel – directed by John Madden

Seeing them all lined up at the airport, you are looking at the current “best of British Actors” group (or nearly so). It must have been a hoot on the set – the stories and all. With the age of the characters firmly established from the start as being the basis for the film’s humor, we can expect jokes about death, bowel movements, and missing sex – the usual. (Dirty Old Men, etc) Some of those jokes are used initially, along with nostalgia for one’s past. Looking back with regrets seems a common theme in movies about the elderly. But the script is more about living one’s life in the present as opposed to one’s past. In addition to the rich Indian setting and its colorful markets (chosen by director Madden specifically for that purpose) the film relies almost entirely on the performances of its core of “veteran” British “Old Vic” actors. What an ensemble Madden collected! Maggie Smith is a two time Oscar winner. Judi Dench also has an Academy Award. Tom Wilkinson has been nominated twice. The rest of the cast has appeared in numerous films over the past three decades or longer. Bill Nighy and Ronald Pickup started in British television back in the 1960’s.

The plot and situation are somewhat contrived. All seven happen to be retiring at the same time and find themselves with very limited funds on which to live. They all see an ad to live cheaply in India by staying at a retirement hotel called the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. An explanation for the name is never given by the manager, Sonny (Dev Patel of “Slumdog Millionaire” fame). When the group arrives, they discover no shuttle bus from the airport and must take public transportation (the first of many inconveniences). Sonny is painting as they arrive. The beds are unmade. The phones don’t work. Some rooms have no doors and air conditioning is non-existent. To say the place is a work in progress is to be kind. However, most of the hardy group takes this all in stride. Despite the hardship, they gradually adapt to the new life and begin to discover an aspect to their lives missing for a long time – an ability to feel needed. Each person begins to find their place in this Indian locale except for the wife of one guest, Jean (Penelope Winton). She doesn’t like India, is a nervous woman and frequently voices her complaints (an annoyance at best). Their marriage is falling apart. Rather than leaving her, the husband continues to support the wife until she finally sees the handwriting on the wall and simply walks away from their relationship. She returns to England, leaving her husband behind.

I purposely have left out most of the film’s story. I do not wish to spoil this film for anyone else so I won’t go further into the plot. Like “Moonrise Kingdom” this is a small independent film that has gained a reputation since its premiere last February in the UK. “Marigold Hotel” has become one of the highest grossing independent films of last year bringing in nearly $140 million US dollars worldwide, second only to “Moonrise Kingdom.” The film was nominated for two Golden Globes but did not make Oscar’s list this year. Since I could not view “Amour” on video (streaming) and “The Master” is also not available (unless I buy the DVD), I chose this film and tomorrow intend to see “Beasts of the Southern Wild” via streaming.

Post Script: My bad about info on "Wiz of Oz" as I was misinformed and the first sound film. Thanks, Oscar.

[Chris Knipp]

I should think AMOUR is not legally available in "streaming" yet because it is still in theaters in the US. It opened in NYC 18 Dec. but in San Francisco only last week I think and in the East Bay this weekend. BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL I reviewed in my Paris Movie report last May, it being released in the original English with French subtitles under the simpler title INDIAN HOTEL; and it's a pleasant, lightweight film. It's not on a level with MOONRISE KINGDOM in any respect other than commercial. Is it some kind of Oscar contender? I'm glad it didn't make the Best Picture list. Are you drifting away from your project, cinemabon? THE MASTER will be good to watch on DVD or BluRay when it comes out 26 Feb. 2013 because these will include 20 minutes of deleted scenes, it's been reported. Too bad you have to wait to see THE MASTER and AMOUR till after the Oscars but they are not all about the Oscars, even if AMOUR made the Best Picture List.

I'll certainly be interested to read what you have to say about BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD, though, and it definitely IS on the Best Picture list, and if you wanted to put your review on the thread I originally started for it when it came out in these parts in theaters 13 July 2013 you'd go here.

From what I observed the public and the Academy are unlikely to overcome the contradictions and the mud and much to give this movie any big award, but the cuteness prize of the Oscars is sure to go to the youngest contender ever, seven-something Quvenzhané Wallis, who was five when she won the lead role of Hushpuppy, pretending to be six to qualify for an audition.

In 1925, Warner Bros., then a small Hollywood studio with big ambitions, began experimenting with sound-on-disc systems at New York's Vitagraph Studios, which it had recently purchased. The Warner Bros. technology, named Vitaphone, was publicly introduced on August 6, 1926, with the premiere of the nearly three-hour-long Don Juan; the first feature-length movie to employ a synchronized sound system of any type throughout, its soundtrack contained a musical score and sound effects, but no recorded dialogue—in other words, it had been staged and shot as a silent film.
--Wikipedia, "Sound Film."

F.W. Murnau's SUNRISE was similar, and a little later. There were a lot of "first" sound films, but it seems that THE JAZZ SINGER is a significant one because it contains, though not a full sound track, more on-set live recorded singing and dialogue in parts than any film before it; hence its frequent mention as
'first talkie." So maybe there's not a single right answer on this. If I were teaching a film history class I'd either be very vague on this part or I'd have to go into more detail listing all the intermediate stages. And what was really the first full-length feature film with a live-recorded dialogue and music soundtrack throughout? It must have come after both DON JUAN and THE JAZZ SINGER.

Oscar is quite right about THE WIZARD OF OZ's finances: it wasn't a big success, but it didn't lose money either.

Although the film received largely positive reviews, it was not a huge box office success on its initial release, earning only $3,017,000 on a $2,000,000 budget.
--Wikipedia, "The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)."

I assume this is more accurate than other online sources that give higher figures for both budget and box office. For 1939 this sounds like a lot of money.