Five Academy Award Nominees in Five Days

[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.

[cinemabon]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[cinemabon]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

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.