They was robbed, I tells ya!

The Oscar nominations were announced Tuesday morning, and everyone likes to chime in on who shouldn’t have been nominated or who should have been but wasn’t… and well, I wil now count myself among that “everyone”

Let’s start with something big—no, not Best Picture; I’ve already written at least two long blog entries on that subject, so I won’t be covering it here. So, on to Best Director. My top five for the year would probably be David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Danny Boyle, Christopher Nolan and maybe the Coen brothers. Though The King’s Speech was a fine film, I would not include Hooper, and though The Fighter is getting love from plenty of people I would really only count Christian Bale’s nomination for Supporting Actor as the only one the film really deserves

Christopher Nolan made a film that truly is a Christopher Nolan film, something that would be significantly different had anyone else directed it. The King’s Speech, The Fighter—these are generic enough that any director could have managed. There is nothing particularly insightful about the way Hooper directs the various close quarters of The King’s Speech and nothing particularly energetic or artistic about the way Russell put together The Fighter—those boxing scenes, for example, could have been pulled right out of any other generic boxing film. And the plotting could have been pulled out of any generic sports film (hell, The King’s Speech has the same basic throughline)

I would take Ben Affleck directing The Town over either of them. Or, if you want someone whose hand on the film is notable (and you gotta like that in a director, or why are they worthy of being noted?), I’d suggest Sofia Coppola for Somewhere, Doug Liman for Fair Game, or the easy standby, Roman Polanski for The Ghost Writer. Or, how about something from the Millennium trilogy: Neils Arden Oply for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, or better yet Daniel Alfredson for The Girl Who Played with Fire, or best of the three as far as direction, Alfredson again for The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest. These are movies where the director made a noticeable difference… seriously, I was actually surprised to discover (apparently, I’d misplaced his name in my mental rolodex) David O. Russell made a movie I love (Three Kings) and a few I like (Flirting with Disaster, I Heart Huckabees, Spanking the Monkey). It’s like he was eccentric and has gotten too tame. I didn’t really see his hand in The Fighter. And Tom Hooper’s done a bunch of British television apparently, and John Adams, which I loved… but even in that, I’d say the direction was too subtle to garner a directing nomination

Speaking of the Millennium series (even a few sentences on), let’s put Noomi Rapace on the list of actress nominees more deserving (notably for the third film, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, than say Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right. Yes, she’s playing a lesbian—that’s awesome—but, no, the film was not all that special and aside from maybe the crying bit near the end, she really doesn’t have to actually do much as far as the acting. She should not be in the running, and should certainly not be the likeliest to upset Portman’s shot at the win. If the Academy really wanted to nominate Bening, it should have been for Mother and Child, where she actually had to stretch and emote in more than one scene—damn it, I actually liked The Kids Are All Right (though I think it would have worked better without the “affair” being sexual, as I think I’ve mentioned before in this blog), so I should not have to be the one arguing against its inclusion… and Mark Ruffalo? Seriously, this guy has done great work in the past, but what was so great about his work in The Kids Are All Right? Perhaps Ryan Gosling and Aaron Eckhart should have gotten themselves promoted as “supporting” and taken Ruffalo’s slot (for, respectively, Blue Valentine and Rabbit Hole, for those not keeping up… note, of course, that the female leads in both these films were nominated; how else could they have been so good if not for their “supporting” husbands, right?

And, on that “supporting” note, the Academy has switched actresses before—Kate Winslet, for instance, was promoted as Supporting Actress for The Reader but got nominated for Lead. Then again, Hailee Steinfeld was in a Coen brothers film, and they have a good precedent for misplaced nomination in Frances McDormand, who won for Lead Actress in Fargo when she actually had 3 minutes less screen time than William H. Macy who was nominated as Supporting Actor… not to imply that it’s all about screentime. But, seriously, Steinfeld’s character is the protagonist of the film. Bridges and Damon—structurally, they are supporting players here in True Grit. Of course, I wouldn’t begrudge Bridges his nomination in the Lead category as his role is certainly meaty enough to qualify… of course, if we swapped him down to Supporting to, say, take Ruffalo’s place, then Gosling or Ekhart, or Paul Giamatti, for that matter, who just won the Golden Globe for his work in Barney’s Version, could slide into the Lead race… not that any of them will win over Colin Firth

The thing is, there’s plenty of room in the Supporting Actress category. Helena Bonham Carter, if she was going to get a nomination should have gotten it for Alice in Wonderland, or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I for that matter. Her role in The King’s Speech is a dutiful wife role that most any actress of the appropriate age could have played… and so probably could have some younger ones. She’s awesome and all, but The King’s Speech rests on Colin Firth about 80%, Geoffrey Rush about 10% and the last 10% is shared by Carter, Pearce, even Hooper. The film should not be up for the most awards of any this year. It should not be up for Sound Mixing for example. Sure, there was some good sound work going on—the film is focused on speech so it kinda has to get the sound right, but that slot would have been better served by going to (for the second time in this paragraph) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I. That film had some of the best sound of just about any film this year, good enough to be next to Inception or The Social Network, two other nominees for that award

But, I was talking about Supporting Actress. Melissa Leo is amazing; I’ve loved her since I first saw her on Homicide Life on the Street and last year her role in Frozen River was a serious contender against Mo’Nique. But, aside from being willing to get her hair and makeup done up, there wasn’t “obvious winner” painted on her role in The Fighter. And, Amy Adams even less, though I’ve liked her in everything she’s done (I think) since Junebug. The roles in The Fighter are, despite coming off a true story, very clichéd, almost trite. I think that’s why Bale stands out so much, as he rises above the material, and above his castmates

But, I was talking about Supporting Actress. I’m not sure Mila Kunis should be on the list; what did she do that was so great… beside Natalie Portman? Perhaps Winona Ryder, sufficiently creepy and rounded with very little screen time. Or Barbara Hershey as the overbearing mother. How about Rosamund Pike in Barney’s Version? Lesley Manville in Another Year. Or, Dale Dickey for her not-quite villainous turn in Winter’s Bone. And, speaking of villainy, though most don’t know who she is or what the movie is, don’t bump Jacki Weaver out; she was awesome in Animal Kingdom

A final note on acting, at least they didn’t put Mark Wahlberg up. Better Tobin Bell for the final chapter of Saw… actually, that dude’s done pretty well and it could be a nice capper to the series if he was up for an Oscar

Moving on to Documentary feature, notably absent is Waiting for ‘Superman.’ And, I would pick that over The Lottery as far as the school lottery documentaries go. One documentary I rather liked was Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work but for some reason I don’t know, it isn’t even on the official list of films eligible for Oscars. I’m not sure I’d nominate it for Documentary Feature, but it is certainly worth a mention, since it took a prize at Sundance last year. Two very different documentaries that were eligible but didn’t make the final cut are Catfish and The Tillman Story. Both very emotional documentaries, but playing on different emotions. The former is a tragic examination of a doomed relationship and at least one very damaged person. The latter plays on rage, putting a simple character examination in the midst of a larger political story. While Restrepo (which got nominated and covers the war angle among the nominees) got better as it went along, The Tillman Story was riveting right from the start, and had a much tighter focus (inherent in its subject relative to Restrepo’s, of course). Inside Job, which was nominated, covers the economy angle among the nominees, and it covers the subject well, but really isn’t, outside of a good, timely, audience-enraging subject, that great a documentary (personally, Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story covered the economy much better, giving it more emotional heft than Inside Job does (not saying it purports to be emotional, but it certainly could have used more personality)

Finally, Mike Leigh should be indefinitely disqualified from the screenplay category—he doesn’t write screenplays… there is certainly something worth awarding here but it does NOT fit in this category at the Oscars

And a personal wish: Ana’s Playground needed to be nominated for Live Action Short, as an Oscar nod would have meant a much better chance of me getting to see it

Animated features of 2010

So, 15 animated feature films were accepted for consideration for the Oscars for 2010. They are:

• The ones I Saw: Despicable Me, How to Train Your Dragon, The Illusionist, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole, Megamind, Shrek Forever After, Tangled, Toy Story 3
• The ones I didn’t see: Alpha and Omega, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue
• And, the ones I didn’t even hear of until it was on this list: The Dreams of Jinsha, Idiots and Angels, My Dog Tulip, Summer Wars

That last group—none of those have been on any critics lists or been nominated for say Golden Globes or Critics Choice awards. Similarly, the second group—well, those ones haven’t been and won’t be getting nominated for anything either. So, it’s really between the eight in that first group to be nominated at the Oscars. Note: because only 15 animated features were accepted, there will only be 3 nominees.

The obvious in is Toy Story 3. Nominated along with Despicable Me, How to Train Your Dragon, The Illusionist and Tangled, it took the Critics Choice Award tonight. It also was picked as the top animated feature by, in no particular order, the National Board of Review, the Boston Society of Film Critics, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. And, it’s been nominated as well for Best Feature by the PGA and is expected to get the same from the Academ. Just like the change to 10 nominees sorta guarantees that a comedy (this year The Kids Are All Right) will make the list, it also kinda guarantees an animated feature (read: Pixar film) will make the list as well; last year, that was Up, this year’s it’s Toy Story 3

Golden Globe nominees and Annie nominees for Best Animated Feature, the same as for Critics Choice: Despicable Me, How to Train Your Dragon, The Illusionist, Tangled, Toy Story 3

Getting past other people’s nominations, I would argue that Toy Story 3 definitely deserves not only a slot on the Best Animated Feature list but also the Best Feature list. There is arguably no real flaws to the film; much as it is with any of Pixar’s features, taste in the subject matter may differ but the film does what it does well, with a script that works for kids and adults, a storyline that has room for some great laughs (Mr. Tortilla Head, Mexican Buzz, just for a couple examples) and some great drama (the toys grabbing hands as they fall toward the incinerator was probably one of the more tense, sad moments in any film in 2010). Pixar (and most any animated film, in theory) has the benefit of time to get the script put together well, so by the time it gets to the screen, the film should be perfect. Still, many an animated feature comes across a bit too shallow, a bit too simplistic, or simply spends too much time catering only to the kids, neglecting the fact that parents will inevitably be seeing these films as well. Toy Story 3 comes nowhere near to having these problems

Toy Story 3 also doesn’t go too dark, turning off some parents—Megamind (not nominated) and Despicable Me (nominated) both focus on villains, and I’m sure there were plenty of parents who didn’t care for the notion that the central characters here are essentially amoral (or at least start out that way). I think that might actually be the thing that keeps Despicable Me off the Oscar list

(if not its lack of true gravitas, its limited cast, cartoonish (pun not intended but certainly accepted) characters or its over-the-top violence).

How to Train Your Dragon was one of the best uses of 3D in 2010—Toy Story 3 was also in 3D but used it as more of a given, making the toy world as real as ours, while How to Train Your Dragon really used the 3D, just as Avatar did a few months earlier, getting us into the flight, getting movement in the film that still isn’t quite possible with regular cameras (or the usual animation). But, ultimately, the scariness of some of the dragons might turn off some voters and the film was the first released of the ones getting nominated, i.e. it was so long ago, some might not even think to vote for it… of course it’s also on DVD already, so that could get it back in people’s heads (Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me are also on DVD already, as well)

Tangled had some deliberately misleading advertising—focusing on the male rather than the female, not making much noise about it being a musical (at all)—but it still took #1 at the box office. It was the return of non-Pixar Disney animation. And, really, it was a good film, but there was just something about it that didn’t scream, to me, Best Animated Feature. It was almost too generic, despite its own attempts not to be. While its background cast might remind one of some of the variously built Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon (especially visually), they just came across as more real characters and not just silly caricatures in the latter and seemed almost like an excuse for a song and dance in the former. Tangled was good, and certainly deserves any song nomination it might get, but I don’t see it making the cut at the Oscars

So, it comes down to The Illusionist… I’ve ignored Shrek Forever After (which was the best in the series since the first and might have actually had a better-constructed script even than the original) and that owl movie (even though I actually enjoyed it, it has to its detriment a fairly generic plotline that made it so even those who saw it wouldn’t have noticed that it did what How to Train Your Dragon did; it really used 3D well) because these two films have already been ignored by other awards (as noted above). Plus, I only just finally saw The Illusionist tonight and rather enjoyed it. And, what I enjoyed about it was stuff that really sets it apart from every other movie (except Toy Story 3) on the list at the top of this post. It does not have the manic energy of most recent animated films. It doesn’t cram in jokes an quirky background characters… well, it does have quirky background characters but in the world of The Illusionist—1959 when stage performers like clowns, ventriloquists and magicians are being left behind while rock and roll is getting attention—these characters fit in organically, not extraneously, and not simply for extra amusement. The Illusionist is not a comedy, though there are funny moments. It is a slow-paced (for an animated film, anyway) drama, a meditative story that is… well, it’s European, not American, and so it takes its time, lets its characters live rather than be pushed along by a plot. And, it is visually beautiful, stylized like an older animated film, with less vibrant colors, less movement, less eye-catching visuals (except for a few notable exceptions). On the one hand, this film doesn’t even need to be animated, so perhaps it doesn’t deserve to be nominated, but on the other hand, the simple animation, the lack of detail—these make it more universal than, say, Tangled is. The Illusionist is an animated film that isn’t made for children (not to say children won’t enjoy it—Kieran and Saer both liked it) and, while it doesn’t have ennui exactly, it does have a faint odor of entropy, of things ending (even while Alice’s story counters that) and the world moving on. Though the New York Film Critics picked The Illusionist, it is a sad film, which may count against it at Oscar time (and even if it gets a nomination, I doubt it will win over Toy Story 3), but it would be nice to see it on the list, if for no other reason than it will maybe get more people to see it…

• Toy Story 3 $415 million
• Despicable Me $251 million
• How to Train Your Dragon $217 million
• Tangled $177 million
• The Illusionist $193 thousand

Then again… (in which I contradict some of what I wrote in my previous post)

In my most recent post I went through what I believe are the 14 contenders for being nominated for Best Picture at this year’s Oscars. I concluded that Another Year, Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole and The Town would get left out while the following would be nominated:

• The Kids Are All Right
• The Social Network
• The King’s Speech
• Winter’s Bone
• Black Swan
• Toy Story 3
• The Fighter
• 127 Hours
• Inception
• True Grit

But, here’s the thing… or the start of a list of things:

The Kids Are All Right should not be on the list. It’s a comedy with little depth. It has some good performances, but nothing spectacular. Moore and Bening are probably getting more credit for playing lesbians than for any particularly notable work they put on the screen here. This might have been one of the more intelligent comedies of the year, which garners some attention, but this film is not worthy of a Best Picture nod. If the nominations were 5 again instead of 10, it would far too easy to forget that The Kids Are All Right was on or even close to the list.

The King’s Speech and the Fighter are both crowd-pleasers, but they also don’t provide much originality (and not just because they are based on real events and people). The King’s Speech has an awesome performance in Colin Firth’s king, and he may very well win Best Actor for it, and Geoffrey Rush does a great supporting job, sure. Even Helena Bonham Carter does a fine job, though she is working with less. The problem with The King’s Speech is there are no surprises; not sure if it was because reality just fit the obvious story structure or the someone stuck it into that structure but it fits it perfectly. The Fighter suffers from this as well, and has the detriment (not benefit) of being based on real people and events; specifically, while Bale does a great job with his character (and may get Supporting Actor for it), his character’s drug problems never really get in the way of the momentum of the story, never really seem like something that will keep Wahlberg’s character from not making it. The plot is a by-the-numbers Boxing film, that just happens to include some amusing characters (the sisters, the mother, even Amy Adams’ character, at least in that porch scene where she finally gets to do something, and the aforementioned Bale of course). The end product is far less than its various parts, and some of its parts—notably, Wahlberg—aren’t much in the first place. The King’s Speech is predictable but well made enough to be an understandable candidate for Best Picture. The Fighter should be left behind.

True Grit has great writing, great directing, some good performances, but in retrospect I’m not sure the chemistry between Steinfeld and Bridges earns the big dramatic ride in the end or the jump forward in time ending that follows, not to mention the ride itself coming off as fairly fake visually. So, let’s strike True Grit from the list.

So, I’d slide Blue Valentine and Another Year and The Town onto the list of ten. Except The Town, while a good picture, especially for its genre also doesn’t hold many surprises (especially if one has ever seen Heat (even though, apparently, The Town is based on a book, but maybe the author of that book has seen Heat one too many times). It’s well directed in my opinion and there are good performances, but we have to be picky here. So, slide The Town right back off the list.

Now, I wouldn’t slide Rabbit Hole in. And, I would grab some dark horse like, say, Get Low and move it into the conversation. Instead, I’d pull back from 10 nominations. My personal favorites for the year, in no particular order: Black Swan, The Social Network, 127 Hours, Inception, Toy Story 3… and there’s five.

I actually have yet to find fault with Blue Valentine, but Best Picture should be about more than just favorites. There has to be some objectivity, some value to bigger pictures, the ones that involve larger crews, grander visuals. Of course, the Independent Spirit Award nominations are out and Blue Valentine isn’t up for Best Picture there either. Black Swan is, and 127 Hours is, so the crossover is confusing…

Plus, to contradict what I just said, Best Picture should be about more than just who can spend more money or employ more people. There should be an emphasis on the combination of writing, acting, directing, everything that goes into movies. A big period piece or war movie with a lot of costumes shouldn’t automatically have an advantage over something like Blue Valentine, which doesn’t even seem to have costumes per se but just the clothes that Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling happened to wear (not sure if this is actually the case, but it certainly seems like it could be). Inception is a well made film that juggles its ensemble cast quite well, but in the end the spectacle holds up better than the story…

So, how do we measure it? Some years it’s obvious. Regardless of what one might of thought subjectively of, say Titanic, that film did things no film had ever done before. Nowadays, more is done digitally so when (again James Cameron) puts together something as visually stunning as Avatar (but arguably so dependent on archetypes as to be weak in its characterization) that it doesn’t take the Oscar so easily. There is no big movie dominating the scene this year. If anything, that would be Inception, but no one’s predicting Inception as the winner. The momentum right now is with The Social Network and has recently been with The King’s Speech. Both of these are more dependent on acting and writing than any awesome visuals. Black Swan, on the other hand, has the awesome visuals, but it is also has some imagery (both in the disturbing and the sexual) that would put off some audiences… so must a Best Picture be eminently watchable? Or should it push boundaries, dare to disturb an audience? Why can’t the winner be depressing? Why must it be an audience-pleaser? Of course, last year’s winner, The Hurt Locker, isn’t much of a feel-good movie. But, then Slumdog Millionaire, the previous winner, is. The Oscars are nothing if not inconsistent.

I loved Blue Valentine, but it shouldn’t win the Oscar for Best Picture. I loved Black Swan, and while it is very deserving of maybe Director, it should not win Best Picture. 127 Hours takes a risk, putting everything it has into on the shoulders of one actor, but James Franco manages to carry it (and could be a serious contender against Colin Firth… or more likely just a fellow nominee for Firth to mention when he’s accepting his statue). But, if a movie is so small, is that the “Best” use of cinema?

And so, it comes down (though I may have skipped past a few) to The Social Network. Ensemble cast, but not so large as to be unwieldy. Great writing, with Sorkin’s high-energy dialogue delivered successfully by the assorted cast members. Fincher directs a fairly static storyline (with a lot of scenes of people just sitting (or standing) around talking, with a great energy to match the script but with the help of Reznor’s music sets a very dark sort of mood that almost goes too far for the tone of the story… but, then again, the protagonist is either an asshole or a guy trying to be one, a guy who may or may not have screwed over not just some arrogant jocks but also his best friend, yet still comes across, much to the benefit of Jesse Eisenberg, as somewhat… not likable, per se (though I liked him), but not as someone the audience rejects outright. So, what’s wrong with The Social Network? Perhaps the ending doesn’t make most of the audience feel good. Perhaps that musical interlude in the race scene goes on a little too long. Or maybe there isn’t anything “wrong” with The Social Network. Which is why it will win on Oscar day.

filling out the "best picture" list

With 10 nominees again, there are a few obvious contenders for Best Picture at the Oscars this year:

The frontrunners are, of course The King's Speech and The Social Network. Other givens are Inception, True Grit and The Fighter. Just like Up, Toy Story 3 should also make the list. Black Swan should be there, but then it gets a little iffy.

Given the above films making it, there are 3 slots left. By my reckoning, there are 6 films contending for them. 127 Hours should make the list but Entertainment Weekly (for reasons that don't really have to do with that film specifically but a couple of those that follow) thinks it may just miss the mark. There are a few indies vying for a spot--Rabbit Hole, Blue Valentine, Another Year, Winter's Bone, each of these quite good (better than The Fighter, for example), built around solid performances that might end up getting some acting nods (Kidman more likely but Eckhart more deserving for Rabbit Hole, Williams and Gosling for Blue Valentine, Manville perhaps--and Broadbent would be cool too--for Another Year, Lawrence almost guaranteed a nomination for Winter's Bone).

There is also The Kids Are All Right, which has been showing up on numerous lists, will likely get at least one Actress nomination and has the benefit of being a comedy, and with 10 nominees it seems at least one comedy would show up. Worth mentioning, though: The Kids Are All Right does not deserve to be on the list, but it still may be there. Of course, it wasn't too great a year for comedy... The Golden Globes, which award a Comedy or Musical separate from Drama, put up Alice in Wonderland, Burlesque, Red, The Tourist and The Kids Are All Right. The Tourist, as I mentioned in my blog a while back, is not a comedy. Burlesque, arguably not a musical, is also not a comedy, and purportedly is not that good (note: it leads in nominations for the Razzies). Red won't get anywhere near the Oscar stage. Alice in Wonderland will probably be at the Oscars, but for Visual Effects.

The National Board of Review, not to mention the Los Angeles Times' Tom O'Neil, includes Shutter Island on their big lists for the year, as well as Hereafter. I can't imagine the former being nominated for much of anything at these Oscars and the latter, while it might score some minor nomination, likely won't garner anything big like Director for Eastwood or Best Picture.

So then, which ones will be nominated?

Winter's Bone seems like the indie to for sure make the cut.

Personally, I would put Another Year, Blue Valentine, and Rabbit Hole over The Fighter--while Bale was awesome and Leo was great, the film overall was far too predictable and lacking in real drama to have earned the place it will take at the Oscars. These movies are all three quite sad (Another Year the saddest)... maybe this will be a year for sad films, since Biutiful will be on the Foreign Language list--and since I'm on the subject of sad films, personally I would have made sure Catfish was on the short list for Documentary Feature (though I can't imagine it being among the final nominees or winning) but it didn't make it. More likely, the sad films might get some acting wins but will get shut out of winning Best Picture... but this isn't about the win. Take the seven listed at the top of this post and add in The Kids Are All Right, Winter's Bone and... I just realized I forgot to mention (but did count) The Town. So, that last Best Picture slot comes down to The Town, Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole and Another Year and 127 Hours. This last one seems like the easy candidate.

So, final ten:

The King's Speech

The Social Network

Inception

Black Swan

Toy Story 3

The Fighter

127 Hours

Winter's Bone

True Grit

The Kids Are All Right

Left out, but deserving: Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole, Another Year, The Town

JCVD

I’m a little late on this one, seeing Jean Claude Van Damme in this little European movie in which he plays himself, stressed over a lack of money and having recently lost custody of his daughter. The plot is simple enough—JCVD (I’ll use the titular abbreviation hereafter, though it’s worth noting that because of this film I learned that his real name is actually Jean-Claude Camille Francois Van Varenberg) goes into a post office/bank to cash a check because he needs cash and happens upon some men holding people hostage in the place.

But, this isn’t an action film, its “real life.” He doesn’t fight them off and save everyone but instead gets drawn into the situation, being their go between with the police (who, along with JCVD fans outside, think HE is the one holding people hostage inside) and occasionally sitting around with them discussing films and life. It’s an odd little film in a way, using a slightly disjointed continuity to frame the events and climaxing (sort of) with a scene that exists quite literally outside (or rather above) the film, with the fictional JCVD moving out of the action on screen to talk about JCVD’s real life, his life coming to America, his trouble with drugs, etc.

A six minute monologue that was supposedly ad libbed—it comes across, at first, as a little pretentious, as this film hasn’t quite earned this departure from “reality.” But, JCVD shows he’s a good actor—and here is where I’m late, as critics were noting this when the film came out a couple years back (it is also worth noting that he has demonstrated bits of great acting here and there in between the action scenes, but this film showcases it)—and he earns this break from the reality of the film with a monologue that in a matter of minutes is funny, informative, angry, and even a little heartbreaking (so good a mix, that I’ve already done a cut of the English translation to maybe interpret it in a speech competition).

This is the kind of role, at least in this scene, that many an actor would kill for, but of course, only one actor could play it. This is a former action star presenting himself in a fairly raw form, humanizing a guy who’s in the past been a bit idealized. It’s an awesome film in the end, though it starts small and ends perhaps a little abruptly, but its center, Jean-Claude Camille Francois Van Varenberg and, in particular, the key scene, raise a fairly simple story above what it should be, just as literally, the titular actor is raised above the set for the emotional heart of the piece.

films for 2010

just a quick post, listing the 252 films (of varying lengths--i count the short films along with the feature length) i watched last calendar year:

1. $9.99
2. 11th hour, the
3. 127 hours
4. 28 days later
5. advantage
6. afghan star
7. after.life
8. ajami
9. alice in wonderland
10. alien nation
11. alien nation body and mind
12. alien nation dark horizon
13. alien nation enemy within
14. alien nation millennium
15. alien nation the udara legacy
16. american, the
17. amreeka
18. animal kingdom
19. antichrist
20. antychryst
21. aparacidos
22. avatar
23. babies
24. big fan
25. black swan
26. blind side, the
27. blue valentine
28. book of eli, the
29. boondock saints ii, the
30. bowling for columbine
31. box, the
32. bright star
33. bruno
34. buried
35. burma vj
36. burn!
37. catfish
38. china’s unnatural disaster
39. chloe
40. christmas story, a
41. chronicles of narnia prince caspian, the
42. chronicles of narnia the voyage of the dawn treader, the
43. clash of the titans
44. close shave, a
45. coco avant chanel
46. cold souls
47. countdown to zero
48. crazy heart
49. cyborg
50. cyrus
51. cyrus the mind of a serial killer
52. dawn of the dead
53. dawn of the dead
54. day of the dead
55. dead alive
56. dead snow
57. defendor
58. despicable me
59. devil
60. divo, il
61. door, the
62. downfall
63. due date
64. eagle eye
65. easy a
66. edge of darkness
67. edge of darkness
68. en la cama
69. enduring love
70. everlasting moments
71. evil dead
72. exit through the gift shop
73. expendables, the
74. exploding girl, the
75. exterminating angels
76. faubourg 36
77. fighter, the
78. fistful of dollars
79. flatter
80. fletch
81. flipped
82. forgetting sarah marshall
83. french roast
84. frozen
85. gasland
86. gentleman broncos
87. get him to the greek
88. get low
89. girl who kicked the hornet’s nest, the
90. girl who played with fire, the
91. girl with the dragon tattoo, the
92. grand day out, a
93. grandmother, the
94. granny o’grimm’s sleeping beauty
95. greenberg
96. groundhog day
97. hamlet
98. happening, the
99. harry potter and the deathly hallows part i
100. harvie crumpet
101. hereafter
102. homeless the motel kids of orange county
103. hotel
104. how to train your dragon
105. i love sarah jane
106. i sell the dead
107. imaginarium of doctor parnassus, the
108. in the loop
109. inception
110. inglourious basterds
111. instead of abracadabra
112. invention of lying, the
113. iron man 2
114. it’s kind of a funny story
115. joan rivers a piece of work
116. karate kid, the
117. karate kid, the
118. kavi
119. kick-ass
120. kids are all right, the
121. king’s speech, the
122. ladies and gentlemen the fabulous stains
123. lady and the reaper, the
124. land of the dead
125. last station, the
126. last truck, the
127. legend of the guardians, the
128. legion
129. life and debt
130. life during wartime
131. line of beauty and grace
132. logorama
133. lottery, the
134. love and other drugs
135. machete
136. maison petit cubes, la
137. man from earth, the
138. maquilapolis
139. matter of loaf and death, a
140. max
141. maxed out
142. megamind
143. memento
144. men behind the sun
145. messenger, the
146. metamorphosis, the
147. micmacs
148. miracle fish
149. monsters
150. most dangerous man in america, the
151. mother and child
152. music by prudence
153. my effortless brilliance
154. my grandmother ironed the king’s shirts
155. my name is bruce
156. new tenants, the
157. next floor
158. night of the living dead
159. nightmare on elm street, a
160. not another teen movie
161. not your typical bigfoot movie
162. nowhere boy
163. occupations
164. once upon a time in the west
165. operacion, la
166. outlaw josey wales, the
167. pal/secam
168. paranormal activity 2
169. pen pusher
170. pieces
171. planet 51
172. please give
173. pol pot’s birthday
174. pontypool
175. predators
176. prestige, the
177. rabbit hole
178. rabbits
179. rains
180. ramona and beezus
181. rec2
182. repo men
183. resident evil
184. resident evil 2
185. resident evil afterlife
186. resident evil apocalypse
187. resident evil degeneration
188. restrepo
189. return of the living dead
190. return of the living dead iii
191. right at your door
192. robin hood
193. ryan
194. saw 2
195. saw 3
196. saw 3d
197. saw iv
198. saw v
199. saw vi
200. scrooged
201. secret of kells, the
202. secreto de sus ojos, el
203. sensology
204. serbian film, a
205. sex in a cold climate
206. shaun of the dead
207. sherlock holmes
208. shrek forever after
209. shutter island
210. social network, the
211. soft
212. soloist, the
213. somewhere
214. spider
215. splice
216. street of crocodiles
217. strong roots
218. surrogates
219. tales of mere existence
220. tangled
221. tempest, the
222. tourist, the
223. town, the
224. toy story 2
225. toy story 3
226. toyland
227. transformers revenge of the fallen
228. treeless mountain
229. trick ‘r treat
230. tron
231. tron legacy
232. trotsky, the
233. true grit
234. true grit
235. un prophete
236. unstoppable
237. uprooted…
238. valhalla rising
239. vicious kind the
240. waco the rules of engagement
241. waiting for armageddon
242. waiting for superman
243. wargames
244. wednesdays, the
245. white ribbon
246. winter’s bone
247. wrong
248. wrong trousers, the
249. wrong turn 2
250. young victoria, the
251. youth in revolt
252. zombieland

losing your subtext… when a film’s message gets lost behind what’s on the screen

The first few paragraphs of what follows is not what I intended to write. I wanted to write (and do, to an extent) about films with political/social subtext and how that can be lost when the text is too big, too flashy, too extreme, too offputting, too… well, anything else that may get in the way of the point that is intended. But, the second of the two films, the one I was more interested in using as an example, is actually quite hard to write about without getting into specifics, and the specifics, even simple discussion of them, would be offputting to readers. So, the following is more vague than I would have liked but I don’t think I can get into it anymore than I did here in these few paragraphs (note, several more paragraphs, written a few hours later and more befitting my point, follow):

The following pertains to two films: Monsters and A Serbian Film

The former is simply about a man and a woman trying to cross dangerous country (the north of Mexico) to get into America… with giant alien monsters that don’t show up much on screen and a big wall to keep these aliens out of America—there is a blatantness to that last bit that is so rife for serious commentary on immigration but the film doesn't quite get into that… more on that below. The latter is about a former porn star who signs up for a big paycheck to make a film the contents of which he won’t know ahead of time and which turn out to include graphic sex and violence (often combined)—knowing that the film was made as a comment on conditions in Serbia after many years of war, the subtext is definitely there, but it gets lost underneath such disturbing visuals that most anyone who would bother with the film (and I wouldn't really recommend it to anyone I know, at least) wouldn't catch it…

First, some more on Monsters. The two leads are good and despite some comments on IMDB from more than a few people who didn’t care for the characters, I rather liked them both fairly early on in the film. But, then again, I am not the average moviegoer. The titular alien creatures have a fairly basic design, like massive walking squids, but they don’t get much screen time. This is not an alien invasion film, nor is it an action film. If there were no aliens, then this would simply be about two strangers getting to know one another (never with much depth but pretty naturally) as they get smuggled (essentially) up through Mexico to America. Along the way, there is a conversation around a fire with some of the guerillas helping them get north that hints at immigration subtext, and the border wall mentioned above is almost painfully obvious in its message… but the subject really ends there. Just as this isn’t a film about aliens, ultimately, it’s not a film about immigration that much either. It’s a sort of road movie, a bit of a romance that happens to involve travel options that would usually be found in a very different film and some alien creatures that would be in a whole other, third film

A Serbian Film has no romance to it. In the beginning of the film, the lead character and his wife seem to have a healthy relationship but that isn’t central to the film (except perhaps in the end as something of regular life to be lost to the chaos of what this man is going through). And, right from the start the average viewer would be put off, with the notion in the opening scene that the man’s young son is sitting around watching one of his porn star dad’s films that got left sitting around. This film is said to have gotten the most cuts of any film ever for the British market and it’s very legality has been challenged in Serbia (where it was produced but not where its intended audience is… similar to the film within the film) and in Spain, because of its graphic sex… and, I’m avoiding details here because even discussion of some of what’s in this movie would disturb most people. Plus, the details aren’t important here. What is important here is that the imagery is so notable that the message gets lost. While there is something to be said for this man losing his wife and son and his regular life to violence and foreign interests, without better commentary on its own subtext and WITH images and subject matter that would put off most people, no one is really going to be paying attention to the subject

That is what I wrote earlier, and while I generally post a blog entry (in this blog or any other) immediately after writing it, I saved this instead. I considered coming back and adding more detail, mention the rape, the necrophilia, the incest, and even the stuff that’s worse. But, while I think there’s a valid point being made even in my own writing above, just as in the film being discussed, the point may get lost behind the disgust and folks wondering just what kind of things this guy watches…

An interjection: I watched 254 different movies this year, from short films to features, American, foreign, documentaries, scripted, of varying genres and varying qualities and tones. It isn’t that I will just watch any film that comes along, of course, but I love the medium. When I first went to college, I wanted to major in cinema, I wanted to be a filmmaker, and to be honest, I still harbor some urge toward such a thing, though I have moved into other pastures. I watch hundreds of films a year and have put together a list on IMDB of, as I type this, 3431 films I have seen (http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=18127184). I’ve watched low budget crappy films. I’ve watched big budget blockbusters, low brow crap, high brow art

As far as standards of decency go, in some countries they are just different than they are here, and some cultures cannot help but make a certain type of films, especially at certain periods in history. Look at 1980s American cinema and you will see a lot of big action pictures, a lot of late Cold War era machismo, the likes of Rambo and Commando. We were at a certain right wing height, arguably the end of our hegemony over the world as the Red Menace was purported to be something huge but turned out to be of little substance as far as its threat to us… and now I wonder if this blog entry could be crossposted on my political blog if I keep on with this angle

The thing is, it is understandable that a Serbian film (as opposed to, but of course including, “A Serbian Film”) would include themes of exploitation, of violence, of people being used and abused, raped and murdered. Serbia and the surrounding Balkan states have been the center of war after war, and ongoing ethnic-based violence for far too long. This particular film could be made with less explicit sex, less graphic violence, but then the point might be lost altogether and, more importantly, it would not get the attention it gets from controversy. One of the films stars, Sergej Trifunović, is said on IMDB to be controversial all the time, a guy that audiences and the Serbian public either love or hate. Here he plays a producer of films for a foreign clientele who are effectively standing in for all global powers that would sit around thriving while Serbia and its Balkan neighbors kill each other

The aliens in Monsters stand in for immigrants even though the experience of the two leads trying to get by them is also standing in for a certain immigrant experience. The producer. his security (or rather Security, capitalized as, if I get the implication rightly in the film, they work for some government Security organization) men, and the foreign clients who want a certain kind of snuff film made for them in A Serbian Film, stand in for, if nothing else, we Americans who see films like Hostel, an American film with a similar take on certain parts of Europe (but playing it, arguably, more exploitatively, than this film that includes a character so damaged—WARNING, DISTURBING DETAILS AHEAD—that she smiles when her newborn is raped and presumably killed in front of her. Yes, I suggested the American film is more exploitative, putting a secretive torturing organization within a culture we don’t necessarily have the right to present in such a way. A Serbian Film is a Serbian film, produced for a foreign audience perhaps as a cry for help, begging for rage in the same way a documentary might while providing us with footage of real rape and murder victims, real dead children, real beheadings. One could argue that this film both detaches itself from the real violence and destruction wrought in Serbia’s past while also quite fully embracing the existential desolation left in its wake in a way that perhaps still images of a documentary could not

But, then again, what does it matter if no one will want to see the movie. And, as I said above, I am not recommending anyone watch it. I would recommend Monsters as a good film regardless of its subtext, a low budget alien invasion film with no invasion, a romance with more quiet moments than overt, and also, some subtext perhaps on illegal immigration, the razor’s edge brink of being caught and/or killed at any moment while making the trek to a better place to live. But, I will not recommend A Serbian Film. I had read about what was in it and even seen clips before I sat down to watch the entire film. I knew what I was getting into and was specifically looking for the message, seeing the film as something other than an exercise in exploitation… One could wonder if any so-called exploitation film, simply by existing, does not demonstrate some social/cultural/political message. Why, for example, did we have blaxploitation films in the 1970s? Just after the promise of the civil rights movement had been shown to be little more than a promise, characters like Shaft were vital to exorcising certain cultural demons. The film 8mm dealt with the existence of snuff films and delved into a seedy underground film market but it came across far less real than A Serbian Film does. 8mm didn’t make it seedy enough, didn’t make it dirty enough, disgusting enough. It didn’t make us want to turn away (except inasmuch as it wasn’t received too well at the box office, if I recall rightly, but that was more a comment on the quality and not the content of the film, a mediocre followup to SE7EN by David Fincher). Read a description of A Serbian Film and some might curious, just like people were curious at The Human Centipede. But, I ended up watching very little of that film, skipping most of it because, well, there was no subtext, no point. A film like Men Behind the Sun (sorry to insert yet another film so close to the end of this entry) seems to have been made for good reason, to show what happened in Japanese camps during World War II, but along the way the film lost some of its point, just as A Serbian Film does, using extreme images (e.g. frozen arms being skinned, autopsy footage purported to be real) to titillate and not necessarily to educate. A Serbian Film suffers a bit of the same problem, with one or two too many graphic images (one involving an eye comes to mind) weighing the film down on the side of exploitation a little more than it should be if it intends to be a true commentary on social or cultural or political conditions, a portrait of a damaged country who has nothing left to export except its own pain