cyrus and cyrus... and somewhere

I kinda wanted to see Cyrus when it came out several months back, but I never got around to it. I can’t recall which movies were in theaters at the time but I’m sure they were more theater-worthy films. Anyway, so I got the movie on my computer and finally was going to watch it yesterday and it starts very dramatically, and coming off a little like a horror film, and then Danielle Harris and Lance Henrikson get listed in the opening credits, and the title comes up: Cyrus – the mind of a serial killer. By this time, I have figured out I am watching a different Cyrus, of course; the title just clinches it. So I reduce the window for a moment, get on IMDB and look up the movie I am watching. Like the other Cyrus, this one came out this year, but unlike the other Cyrus, it stars not John C Reilly, Marisa Tomei (who have both been on Oscar’s stage) and Jonah Hill but, as I mentioned already, Danielle Harris (fine enough back in Halloween IV the return of Michael Myers but seemingly losing her ability to act with each role… not that she was particularly great back then), Lance Henrickson (who can somehow make horrible dialogue sound awesome… he should headline Shyamalan’s next movie, put all memory of Wahlberg’s ridiculous turn in the happening out of our collective heads) and Brian Krause (appropriate since he was in Sleepwalkers and coincidentally the dream I was having just a few hours before this viewing involved creatures not unlike he and his mother in that film… even needed my two cats to help fight them off… it is worth noting that I cannot recall him ever being a good actor, and without an IMDB search I can’t actually recall another film he was in though I know his face for sure).

So, this movie attempts to be somewhat postmodern, not meta but structuring itself a little differently from the usual slasher film (or, really, an even more sub- genre, the likes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Wrong Turn but without the crazy mutants… which makes no sense now that I’ve typed it, since that genre depends on the crazy mutated (by inbreeding if not radiation) hillbillies, while this one just has some small town folk), but managing to neither deconstruct nor reconstruct the subgenre. It does try (and occasionally manages) to be a little smarter than some movies like it, using the framing device of a reporter (Harris) interviewing a local (Henrikson) who claims to know the identity of the guy who may have killed hundreds of college students locally… SPOILERS AHEAD. This guy is the titular Cyrus, a guy who everybody thinks had his wife run out on him with their baby and another guy. But, in flashback, we see Cyrus actually started his killing with them, even the baby, killed just below frame but with a good bit of creepy acting on the part of Krause and some nice sound with the abrupt cutoff of the baby’s crying. Of course the real creepy part comes later, when that baby shows up again… END SPOILERS. Krause does some good creepy, and transitions from nicer guy who owns a local eatery (which ties into his killing in the manner of Motel Hell, if you know that film). Henrikson does fine but his part actually gets a little ruined by the writing when the film tries to include an extra twist to distract from how obvious the other one should be—SPOILERS AGAIN—the obvious would be Henrikson actually IS this Cyrus guy pretending to just have known him, but instead for no reason except really the obviousness of that option, he isn’t, and Cyrus shows up and well, enough spoilers. For a better take on this kind of thing, reporter and killer, but with much better meta stuff going on, get Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon.

As for the other Cyrus, which I got around to watching last night, it was a serviceable film, with much better writing than that other Cyrus. John C Reilly was good, Marisa Tomei really didn’t have much to do, Jonah Hill was rather good, playing a guy who almost would have fit in as the titular Cyrus in the other film, though—SPOILER—not killing anybody. In the end, this film was less than the sum of its parts, good but not great, and honestly, I almost hoped this Cyrus might end up homicidal as that would have turned a fairly straightforward throughline into something more interesting. The writing was fine, occasionally clever, but there was nothing particularly notable here, nor with the directing.

Where the directing was good was once I moved past yesterday’s Cyruses and went out to see Somewhere today. Sofia Coppola has a tendency toward long shots, lingering occasionally too long, but if you go in expecting that sort of thing, it works, like group meditation on each scene. There’s a remarkable absence of music in the film, with there really only being background music at the very beginning and very end and in one key scene. Otherwise, music is ambient, present in certain scenes for various reasons—strippers dancing (twice), a party, a massage, an ice skating routine (and aside from the massage which is interrupted, these songs play out in their entirety… more of that slow meditative Coppola style. The movie is very quiet, and certain scenes that might play out quite loudly and dramatically in other films play here without any words at all (notably a scene that is briefly in trailers—so there isn’t much of a spoiler here—in which Cleo (Elle Fanning) is a little angry that her father (Stephen Dorff) had a woman stay over. The climax of the film comes without much detail; fitting to the title, Dorff’s Johnny is headed somewhere but we aren’t privy to the specifics… really, at this point, I would argue we don’t need the specifics. Others might argue, amusingly, that the film goes nowhere. But, Johnny has a clear character arc, has realized who he is (or isn’t) and is setting out to change it. This film isn’t about how he changes it, though, but a lot of people would probably rather it be about that part of Johnny’s story instead of just this bit leading up to it. Personally, I like Coppola’s meditative style and the little story she’s decided to tell here. Dorff is good in a very subdued role—far from, say, his role long ago in SFW (love that movie), for example. Fanning has moments that seem inspired, getting a lot done with very few words, but then also has scenes where she really doesn’t have to do much but be present. The supporting cast comes and goes and isn’t really worth talking about

Now, for fun, I would love to see the first Cyrus, but with Jonah Hill as the killer, directed by Coppola, a nice film mash up that would definitely deserve some sort of notice if not awards… or maybe someone should just get her to direct a remake of Three on a Meathook, as that film could use a good meditative pace befitting its antiwar message (or at least the message it pretends it has so briefly in the middle of the film)

For the record, Three on a Meathook is an awful film, but it falls in the so bad its entertaining category. In Shyamalan terms, that would make it more The Happening than The Lady in the Water.

Rabbit Hole, The Tourist, and True Grit

Was watching The Social Network again last night and while I doubt Jesse Eisenberg will take the win at the Oscars, I still absolutely love that role and that performance. James Franco had a—and I don’t use this phrase, really—tour-de-force thing going on in 127 Hours; that movie does not exist without him. Jeff Bridges was incredible in True Grit (saw it today, more on it below). But, there are a lot of actors in the Academy and they will appreciate more what Colin Firth did for The King’s Speech; and, really they should, and he is deserving of a win. Nonetheless, as far as personal choices go, I would say Aaron Eckhart close to if not on the list as well for his performance in Rabbit Hole—Nicole Kidman seems to be getting a little more attention but I was more impressed by Eckhart—for which he has only gotten a Spirit Awards nomination. (Given Ryan Gosling’s track record—The Believer, Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, if you want to see him do some great work—I am hopeful that his performance in Blue Valentine will be a good one, but like Eckhart, I’m not sure the Academy will notice him… too small a movie when there are some big ones with worthy roles (the ones mentioned above)

Rabbit Hole wasn’t all Eckhart, though. Kidman was good, and the movie was far better than I’ve seen some critics give it credit, calling it emotionally empty and whatnot. Sure, these aren’t characters that wear their emotions on their sleeves (most of the time) but that’s sort of the point. It’s a couple facing everyday life—though, it occurs to me now, I’m not sure what Eckhart’s character did everyday, for work… which reminds me of a screenplay I wrote a while back, not to toot my own horn or anything, but Rabbit Hole did remind me of it, made me want to dust it off and reread it to see if it’s any good. Like Rabbit Hole, it’s about a couple whose child has recently died, though not by accident but by murder, and at one point the husband breaks down and there was a line I always loved (and I’m not necessarily one to love my own lines after I write them) about how he can’t even remember what he used to do for a living. The fact that it only occurred to me now, writing this, that Eckhart’s character’s job was not specified (or at least, not so that I noticed) kinda fits with that sort of emptiness (though not the emptiness critics have mentioned). Rabbit Hole paints a bleak sort of picture but doesn’t wallow in the pain of these people, and the actors play it well, from Kidman to Eckhart, Miles Teller to Dianne Wiest. These actors play quite well people who are in pain but are not letting it show except in very vulnerable moments, something you wouldn’t get usually from a more mainstream movie—hell, you won’t really get much of a mainstream movie that’s so much about grief as this is; at least, I can’t think of a recent one*

*mainstream meaning studio movie, not Oscar recognized, as just last year The Single Man got some Oscar attention

On to happier things with The Tourist. It isn’t likely to be on any Oscar lists, but then again, it did get a Best Picture nod from the Golden Globes, where drama and comedy (not that I consider The Tourist to be a comedy, mind you) are awarded separately, not to mention acting nods for both leads. The leads do well with what they’ve got—don’t get me wrong—but these two won’t be on Oscar lists for their performances here. Angelina Jolie, in particular, is given very little to do but stand around and look good, more a femme fatale/macguffin than a rounded character… except maybe in a few spare moments where one is reminded that Jolie can still do subtle. Johnny Depp has the larger role here, and perhaps if The Tourist had played more as a comedy (as the Golden Globes see it) he would have had something truly award worthy here. But, really, this movie isn’t played as a funny mistaken identity piece but a straight spy/crime film crossed with a romance that isn’t very romantic. And—SPOILER ALERT—if you think about where this film has to go in the end, given tourist mistaken for lover (who’s had plastic surgery but no one, even Jolie’s character, knows what he looks like now), then you can guess a major twist before you even go in… consider: how does the climax go if Jolie’s character falls for Depp’s and then the real guy shows up? If this were some realistic drama, there’d be death and sadness but this is a movie that is just light and shallow enough that the Golden Globes see it as a comedy, so it isn’t coming to that, so—SPOILER, REALLY—you guessed it, he’s not mistaken for the guy at all; he IS the guy, and it all gets wrapped up in a neat little package… too neat really. This movie needed to be more of a comedy or more of a drama, not taking itself seriously or really inserting some believable jeopardy. And, despite being built around two big leads, this is not enough of a romance or even a comic caper to be driven by personality but instead yields to plot. So much so that even at the Globes, I don’t see this film taking any awards home; it is up against The Kids Are All Right, after all, and despite its flaws, that film very well may show up at the Oscars—for Best Picture maybe but definitely for Annette Bening… (and, to get off on a brief tangent, I was more impressed by her performance in Mother and Child than in The Kids Are All Right, but other than maybe my wife, I haven’t heard of anyone who agrees with me on that)

Another film that WILL show up on Oscar day is True Grit. Expect Jeff Bridges (but I wouldn’t guarantee it), and I would hope the Oscars follow behind the Golden Globes and SAG and Critics Choice in recognizing Hailee Steinfeld for Supporting Actress. The Coen brothers will likely get nominated for adapted screenplay and maybe director—actually, I predicted they WOULD fill out Best Director a few days ago, along with Fincher, Nolan, Aronofsky and Hooper—and Deakins has a shot at an award for Cinematography… it seems that at least since Dances with Wolves—and probably before—westerns kinda have to do some great camera work (and, with those wide open spaces, have some great opportunity for such). Though the score got a Golden Globe nomination there’s been talk of it possibly being disqualified from Oscar consideration because of the percentage of existing music (some old hymns) used in it, but really I wasn’t too impressed by the music. For music, I’d go with The Social Network, Inception, Black Swan, or Tron Legacy (but I have seen almost no talk of that last being up for an Oscar so I’m wondering if there’s some aspect that disqualifies it). Of course, Black Swan has a similar problem as True Grit regarding the music, maybe more so, since it depends on the music from Swan Lake so much (though I haven’t actually read anyone suggesting as much). My personal choice for the winner would probably be The Social Network.

But, I digress. True Grit will also probably show up in the lesser categories, editing, art direction; the Golden Globes have it up even for makeup, and the makeup work here may be subtle enough to garner an Oscar nod, maybe even a win, but not if something like Alice in Wonderland (another makeup nominee at the Globes) is against it. Still I digress.

Back to the acting. Bridges’ other role in theaters right now, Flynn in the already mentioned Tron Legacy, comes across (and has been compared to several times already that I’ve seen) as the Dude from the Coen brothers’ The Big Lebowski, just stuck in the virtual frontier and having to get his mellow not from drugs but from an awesome zen apartment (unfortunately, Tron Legacy probably doesn’t have a shot at Art Direction, since much of it is virtual, but that apartment was awesome). Though his Rooster Cogburn is definitely old and a bit of a drunkard (not a drug user), he doesn’t come across as laid back and as comfortable with life as the Dude or Flynn. He also doesn’t come across as much a broken old man as he did last year in Crazy Heart, though there is a bit of that in Cogburn. The key difference here is that Cogburn is a guy who is capable of shooting a man just to get the attention of those around him, capable of killing a guy just so, maybe, he doesn’t have to drag him alive back to the courthouse. Still, the way Bridges plays him (and, not that unlike John Wayne’s take on the character way back when), Cogburn is not bloodthirsty, nor necessarily does he seem like he drinks because he’s weary of this particular line of work. That kind of take would be a little more bleak than this movie is trying to be. After all, despite being about a hunt for a killer, with the promise of numerous deaths, several quite bloody, the film actually doesn’t come across dark. The various killers do seem a little darker than they might have, say, pre-Unforgiven (though that film might actually be a little late in the deconstruction of the western to really be an apt signpost), this movie has the Coen wit and doesn’t tend toward bleakness or darkness except in brief flashes of violence. Still, this isn’t some reconstructionist or revisionist western, just the Coen brothers doing outright what they were hinting at with No Country for Old Men.

But, I was on acting. Matt Damon, Josh Brolan, even Barry Pepper as a surprisingly controlled killer—they all service the film well, but aren’t putting out anything particularly notable. Damon delivers some good lines but I would credit the Coen brothers’ writing and directing for a lot of that more than Damon (not to discount Damon, of course). Hailee Steinfeld, though, is given a lot to do here. The film depends on her in such a way that even having the Coen brothers behind her wouldn’t be enough if she didn’t step up and give an awesome performance. And, she does just that. Her Mattie Ross is at once both more stubborn and more vulnerable than Kim Darby’s take. She’s more headstrong, something that is obvious early on when she barters (although, as uneven as the ground is there, the way Steinfeld plays it, it can hardly be called bartering) with Stonehill over the horses. She’s definitely worthy of an Oscar nomination (like Frances McDormand in the Coen brothers’ Fargo, for supporting even though she’s really the driving force of the film).

I don’t know if she’ll win—she could be up against the likes of Jacki Weaver from Animal Kingdom (who had a great role as the menacing matriarch of a bunch of criminals), Amy Adams and/or Melissa Leo for The Fighter (though I wouldn’t pick either of them, they certainly did well enough), Mile Kunis for Black Swan, Helena Bonham Carter for The King’s Speech (or Alice in Wonderland for that matter). Given these options, I’d say Steinfeld should win, and it seems like it’s been a while since a newcomer won (Anna Paquin comes to mind, though I’m sure there was another one since then)

Alice in Wonderland… Best Picture?

Simple answer: no.

But that is the latest movie I watched that will likely show up in Oscar nominations come 25 January. Tom O’Neil listed Alice in Wonderland among the possible nominees for best picture, but that won’t happen. My predictions for best picture nominees are as follows… in no particular order: Inception, Black Swan, The King’s Speech, The Fighter, The Social Network, 127 Hours, True Grit, Winter’s Bone, Toy Story 3… and filling that last spot will probably be The Kids Are All Right, but it might be The Town. While I figure I’ll enjoy Blue Valentine or Rabbit Hole (two I haven’t seen yet), can’t imagine them getting any best picture nominations.

Now, who will win?

Inception had some momentum back when it was in theaters, and Christopher Nolan is likely to get a director nomination for the film, but I think that momentum may be gone. Still, it was a visually amazing film, with a nice, complex plot, fit to entertain the less intelligent while working its slow motion magic on the more discerning audience as well. While I can’t picture any of the actors being nominated, there’s a good shot at Visual Effects or one of the Sound awards.

Black Swan was also visually amazing—and I am a sucker for Aronofsky (who will get a director nomination)—but I have a feeling the—SPOILER ALERT—“downer” ending, not to mention the bizarre visuals and lesbian sex might put off some voters. Still, Natalie Portman gave a performance that will get her a nomination and that gives her a great shot at the win.

So, then comes the seeming front runner, The King’s Speech. It certainly has the elements of an Oscar winner—true story, main character with a challenge to overcome, and an awesome performance from Colin Firth… well, I guess “an awesome performance from Colin Firth” is not really an element of an Oscar winner, but that does seem to be guaranteed win for The King’s Speech (even if, say, Jesse Eisenberg and James Franco (and maybe Jeff Bridges, but I haven’t seen True Grit yet) were fantastic, but I’ll get to that below) even if it can’t take Best Picture. The problem with The King’s Speech, though, is the plot is actually fairly generic, no real surprises if you go in having any idea what it’s about. Still Geoffrey Rush is, as usual, great, and Colin Firth should take the win.

Another film that suffers from genericness (probably not a word, but oh well) is The Fighter. Mark Wahlberg didn’t detract from the film as much as I personally expected (didn’t help that I actually watched The Happening again just a matter of hours before going to see The Fighter). Christian Bale was, as usual, great; should definitely garner a Supporting Actor nomination. Amy Adams and/or Melissa Leo (more the latter than the former) will likely show up as the Academy’s Supporting Actress nominees, but personally, I’m not sure either one did much that was that impressive.

The Social Network took Best Picture from the Boston, New York and Los Angeles film critics associations, and was a great film and possibly my pick for Best Picture—though I think I liked Black Swan more, I think access to a wider audience, despite its main character being a bit unlikable, gives The Social Network an edge here. Eisenberg was great, as were Armie Hammer, Justin Timberlake and Andrew Garfield… of course, while this cast has a good shot at a SAG award for ensemble, I don’t think any of them will get any individual awards; Jesse Eisenberg did get Best Actor from the Boston critics and should get an Oscar nomination, but he won’t win. Fincher will get a director nomination and will probably take the win, though Aronofsky or Nolan have a good shot here (and the Coen brothers could make the list as well).

127 Hours is an amazing film, but as far as awards go, it all comes down to James Franco (though Boyle could garner a Best Director nomination, but not a win) as Lead Actor. While his performance is certainly worthy, I think audiences and actors (and a good percentage of the Academy is made up of actors) will appreciate what Colin Firth did for The King’s Speech more than what Franco did here, so I am not expecting an Oscar win for 127 Hours.

True Grit I have not seen yet. But, given the Coen brothers and Jeff Bridges, Critics Choice nominations also for Hailee Steinfield, for Makeup and Costume Design and Cinematography (and winning this last one from the Boston Critics), not to mention it looks like it will be as great if not better than the John Wayne version, it seems like True Grit will be a big player on Oscar day.

Winter’s Bone is the little movie that will probably make the big Best Picture list (unlike, say, Blue Valentine or Rabbit Hole or Get Low or numerous others). Jennifer Lawrence has shown up on the Globes list, the Critics Choice list, the Spirit Awards… but I don’t think she’ll win. Still, she put up a strong performance and I hope the nomination she’s likely to get will give her a good choice of roles to come.

Toy Story 3 should take Best Animated Feature and could be a surprise win for Best Picture, but probably not the latter. It is certainly one of the best films this past year, but animated films don’t even make the Best Picture list generally, and they never win (or never have, yet… it certainly seems like if anyone is going to break that, it will be Pixar).

The Kids Are All Right was a good film for a while, but really I think it would have worked better—SPOILER ALERT—if the cheating had been more of an emotional kind than just sex (not that it was just sex). In the end, the movie didn’t have anywhere to go, and while I might appreciate an open ended story, most audiences like the plot to come to a nice conclusion, all wrapped up and handed to them—like the feel-good ending of The Fighter or The King’s Speech or even the oh-my-god-do-you-think-that-top-kept-spinning? cleverness of Inception. Annette Bening seems like the front runner for Best Actress, though. Aside from maybe that scene near then end when she breaks down in tears on the couch, I didn’t see anything that blew me away, but the Academy loves it when an actress plays her age and the lesbian angle may give her role just enough edge to ensure her a win.

The Town was a well-directed film, but suffers from a bit of the genericness (there’s that word again) of a heist movie. But, still, I can’t imagine Affleck being nominated, and none of the actors will be on the list either. So, this is a long shot for Best Picture. I think The Town’s best shot on Oscar day will be for writing, even though its strong point is its direction.

So, which film will win? Momentum may change as Oscar day gets closer, but right now, I’d say it’s between The Social Network and The King’s Speech, with the edge going to the former.

And, Alice in Wonderland will not even make the Best Picture list.

notes on a blog title

The title of this new movie blog is not intended to be pretentious—though obviously film qualifies as art and I will comment on film under such “pretense”

The title is not necessarily just supposed to be clever and trademark-able—though obviously for the purposes of using blogger (and differentiating this blog from my existing one, where I occasionally make political entries or post essays or speeches I’ve written for college) it needed a unique address

The title should convey some seriousness—despite the tone I will probably end up taking most of the time—in my take on film

Specifically, the title, for those who have never heard the term “seventh art” before, it is a reference to the work of Ricciotto Canudo, who about a century ago suggested that the emerging art of cinema was the seventh art, rising out of a combination of the already existing six (architecture, music, painting, sculpture, poetry and dance)

Also specifically (but not intentionally), the title—or the version I ended up using—could be taken as a reference to the film SE7EN, one of my personal favorites

Anyway, I hope to post here regularly—starting with some commentary on various Oscar worthy films for 2010 in the next few days—so that this once-upon-a-time USC cinema-major wannabe can talk about films everyone’s talking about and films no one’s even bothered to see

At present, I am a student again, having returned to school a few years back. I am no longer trying to major in cinema but I do make plenty of time for films and should have plenty to say about them, about those who make them, and about those who watch them