Oscar Predictions: A Shot in the Dark

     

      I can hardly believe it, as it seems that we just wrapped up last year's awards season not all that long ago, but the start of the 2011 awards season is almost upon us. In less than a month's time, buzz from this and that festival will start to shape the landscape for the long trek of the moviedom awards rat race that culminates (usually in a pretty anti-climatic fashion) with the Academy Awards ceremony in late-February. Like the beginning of every sports season, now is the time when hope reigns supreme. Every film with an actor who, at least at one time, meant something, with a director who has shown signs of promise either now or in the past, with a writer who has contributed to some significant films, or even with a synopsis that sounds sufficiently "awards-baity", clings to the idea that they will be the breakout sensation of the year, and frankly, as far as we're concerned, why not. With the exception of the privileged few who have had the opportunity to see some the year's end films before the rest of us, we have no idea which films will be this year's "The King's Speech", and which films will be this year's "Hereafter". Obviously, for would-be Oscar prognosticators such as myself, this makes the task of predicting the Academy's taste nearly impossible at this point, but that's kind of fun of making guesses this far out. If something actually pans out, you look like a sooth-saying genius, and if you miss almost everything, no one thinks to hold you responsible. Only upside!

     In terms of film's that already released this year, so far there are only two that have received any significant Oscar buzz: Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life" and Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris". For frequent readers of this blog, you'll know my extreme adoration for Malick's "The Tree of Life", as the only articles I have written as of late have been nothing but excuses to gush over the film. Having given it a perfect 10 in my review of the film, I have a hard time imagining any film released later in the year topping it, but even, so I am somewhat doubtful of the film successfully navigating the rough waters of the Oscar season and taking home the Academy's top prize. The film is too esoteric, too experimental, too untraditional to win the Oscar for Best Picture, no matter how deserving it is. The only way the film has any chance in hell of having a successful awards season is with heaps and heaps of critical praise, which so far it is mounting, receiving the Cannes film festival's Palme d'Or back in May and more recently, earning FIPRESCI's (an international film critics body) film of the year (calendar running from September-to-September, meaning it beat out film's such as "The Social Network"), but as David Fincher's excellent "The Social Network" proved last year, often times even all the praise in the world from the highest sources of film criticism aren't enough to budge the Academy's stubborn affection for traditional sentimentalist filmmaking.

     As for the other film, Woody Allen's most popular film in years (and I believe his highest-grossing film ever, not adjusting for inflation), "Midnight in Paris", I would bet strongly on it receiving a writing award (Allen has been nominated many times for this award even when the film itself did not receive support in other categories), but outside of this I'm skeptical of it's chances. It's a good film (probably my favorite Woody Allen film since 1999's "Sweet and Lowdown"), and I could very well see it ending up in my top ten list at the end of the year, but with the Academy's new rules in the Best Picture category, where the number of nominees in the category is variable and depends on how many film's receive over 5% first place votes, I have a hard time picturing the film getting an enormous amount of 1st place ballots, given the light and fun nature of the story.

Filmography: Terrence Malick

    

    As some of you may have noticed (if anyone is still out there), the frequency of posts on this blog has dropped significantly over the last few weeks. My weekly retrospective Oscar article "If I Picked the Winners" has ceased and with the exception of some new trailers and one or two reviews of some of the summer's newest films, I haven't been on the ball in terms of updating this blog. The reason for scarcity of new articles is due to some work I am doing on side projects, and in all honesty, the sparse posting rate will likely continue for a few more weeks. I've missed writing articles for this blog though, so I thought I would take a breather from some of the other things I'm working on to introduce a new feature for auteurfan: Filmography. The idea behind Filmography is to review the entire body of work from an auteur (and maybe some actors too). It won't be a weekly article like "If I Picked the Winners" was (which I do plan to pick up again at some point), but I will periodically pick an auteur, discussing his style and imprint on cinema, and than rank his (or theoretically her) entire filmography, from my least favorite film in their repertoire to their absolute best.

     For my opening edition of Filmography, I thought I'd start with the auteur who has been most on my mind this summer: Terrence Malick. The enigmatic filmmaker (he never does interviews and hasn't allowed a photo of himself to be published since the 1970's) is coming off the success of his highly praised new film "The Tree of Life", starring Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain. The film (which is semi-autobiographical) is loosely based on a family growing up during in Waco, Texas during the 1950's, but it is more a menagerie of images contemplating and reflecting on the nature of existence. I recently reviewed film (which if you missed it, you can check out by clicking here), where I gushed over it's philosophical prowess and general brilliance, given it the highest ranking of 10. The film is easily the best film I've seen this year, and even if that isn't much of an endorsement (and so far it isn't), and encourage every filmgoer to go see it (keeping an open mind and adventurous attitude toward non-narrative filmmaking).

     "The Tree of Life" may be the culmination of what Malick has been trying to get across since his feature film debut in 1973, "Badlands" (a review for which I wrote here). Even within the confines of the film's narrative about two young lovers who go on a cross country killing spree, staples and themes are established that Malick has dealt with in every film since. In terms of raw filmmaking techniques and trademarks, the reliance on reflective narration by either the central protagonist(s) or some secondary observer (usually spoken in a hushed voice and mannered pace), revelrous shots of nature from the ground (or human's ) perspective, and measured pacing that let the film's events unfold instead of being foisted on the audience, all can be found in Malick's first film all the way through his last. In particular, in Malick's obsession with nature, I think we find the driving force behind Malick as an artist.

     Malick again and again comes back to man's relation to nature, and his love/hate relationship with his caretaker/captor, as his primary concern. A philosophy-major Rhode Scholar at Harvard who then went on to Oxford where he attempted to get a PhD in philosophy, but left after a falling out with his advisor (his thesis was unsurprisingly to be on Martin Heidegger, another man obsessed with man's place in nature), Malick's philosophical roots are always at the forefront of his films. In fact, the intellectual nature of his films are one of the hallmark signs of a Malick film. Ironically though, even though philosophy (outside of film) is one of my favorite subjects, the cerebral flavor of Malick's films has always been a barrier stopping me from embracing his work to the extent that others have. It's not that the ideas he presents are so beyond the grasp of the human mind as to make them indecipherable, even if hidden, they are usually plain (but interesting) enough to comprehend, but they exist in such a realm of the mind to almost dehumanize them. At times, his films have an almost academic feel to them, as if we were God study his creatures, like scientist watching lab mice attempting to navigate the maze we have built for them. In other words, they lack a certain subjectivity, making them feel a bit icy in their staunch objectivity. The result (for me anyway) is I end up admiring them more than loving them (although this is not the case with my favorite Malick film).

     The thing that Malick is famous (notorious) for is his slow work rate. Since his debut feature in 1973, Malick has made an astonishingly few 5 films, which includes a twenty year break between his second feature, "Days of Heaven" (1978), and his third feature, "The Thin Red Line" (1998) (most of the absence was spent teaching in France). His sparse output though has only added to his mystique and has made the release of his films eagerly anticipated epic events. Even during his long hiatus though, Malick did not abandon film altogether, as he continued to develop ideas during his cinematic fallow. In particular, through much of the 1980's he was developing a project simply referred to as "Q", which would explore the origins of life on earth. Although he eventually ended up abandoning the project, some of the ideas lasted and appeared in the wonderful "evolution" sequence in "The Tree of Life".

     Since his return to film in 1998, his work rate has steadily increased. After 1998's "The Thin Red Line", he was back with another film a mere seven years later (cut down from the previous twenty year span between "Days of Heaven" and "The Thin Red Line") with 2005's "The New World". For his next film, he managed to cut a year off of that for a six year difference between "The New World" and this year's "The Tree of Life", but now the unthinkable may occur. We may get two Malick films in two years, as he has already wrapped filming on his newest film with a release tentatively scheduled for some time next year. Nobody knows a lot about the film yet (right now it doesn't even have a title) other than the fact it supposedly fits into the "romance" genre, but it does sport an impressive cast that includes Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Rachel Weisz, Javier Bardem, Jessica Chastain (from "The Tree of Life"), and Barry Pepper just to name a few. After the film's release, maybe I'll go back and place it among the rest of his work, but for now Malick has five films to his name, so lets delve into those films.

Scorsese's "Hugo" Gets a Trailer

     Given his amazing track record, whenever a Martin Scorsese film is released, my movie antenna is raised. Only considering his filmography over last decade, with his extensive collaborations with actor Leonardo DiCaprio on such modern classics as "The Departed", "The Aviator", and "Shutter Island",  there is plenty of reason to get into a tizzy over the newest "Scorsese". This is why I placed "Hugo" (at the time titled "Hugo Cabret", which itself was shortened from the original title of "The Invention of Hugo Cabret") as my second most anticipated film of 2011 (a list you can check out by clicking here). Part of the reason I put the film so high on the list, other than Scorsese's impeccable reputation, is because it is the filmmaker's first foray into the "family" genre. A "family-friendly Scorsese film" seemed oxymoronic, which is exactly what peeked my interest. What would be someone who typically dwells in the dark recesses of 20th Century American Crime see in the "kids" film genre? What take would an auteur who consistently deals with conflicted emotions of hate and redemption be able to do fantasy world of imagination and wonder? We'll have to wait to later in the year to answer these questions, but I have to admit that my excitement to these answers have waned somewhat after viewing the trailer. From the trailer, "Hugo" appears to pretty conventional "family film" fare (aside from above par art direction), including the obligatory "uptight adult authority chasing whimsical children" sequence, but as any veteran filmgoer knows, trailers can be misleading, so I reserve final judgement for when I actually see the film later in the year. One things for sure though, between Scorsese's "Hugo" and Spielberg's "The Adventures of Tintin", this is definitely a year for high-profile directors family films.

Review: The Tree of Life

     Terrence Malick is considered by many as one of the all-time great auteurs. Even with his sparse work rate (he's made five films in 38 years, which includes a twenty year break in between his second and third features), he has still managed to craft a reputation for himself as a master of the craft.  Many profess their profound love for his work, citing each of his films as influential masterpieces that deserve to be put up among the pantheon of the greatest works in the history of cinema. Unfortunately though, I've never been able to get on the Malick bandwagon. While I admire and enjoy most of his films (read everything but 2005's "The New World"), there is always something about them that keeps me back a bit, something strangely distant about them. It's hard to pin down exactly what it is about his films that keep me from embracing them as much as I would like, but if I had to hazard a guess, I think I would say the problem with his films is a lack of humanity. With endless shots of nature and the environment surrounding his characters, the lives of the protagonists have always seemed secondary to his interest in the world barring down on them, giving them a cold, almost austere feeling.

     To cure this, I would have thought the answer would be to go the traditional route and focus more on the narrative, making the stories more character driven, like the films of some of my all-time favorite auteurs such as Tarantino and Kurosawa. Apparently I would have been wrong though, because the thing Malick needed was not to go more into the traditional narrative, but less. For this is exactly what he does with "The Tree of Life", only retaining the slightest semblance of narrative but paradoxically creating the most human film of his career , one of the most human films in the history of cinema. I wouldn't have thought it going into the film, but Malick's almost experimental "The Tree of Life" gives him a film I can embrace with total sincerity, whole-heartedly. Finally, a true masterpiece that belongs with the greatest films in the history of the moving image.

Review: Super 8

     Have you ever anxiously taken a bite out of your favorite food, say pizza, cake, ice cream, buffalo wings, or whatever floats your boat (and if it's not one of the aforementioned foods, you're a terrible excuse for a human being, just so you know), and half-way through chewing, stopped dead in your tracks. Your face takes on a terrible expression that would undoubtedly frighten any passersby and your heart flutters a bit, possibly skipping a beat. "What the hell did I just take a bite out of". You looked at the food before you took a bite and it looked the same as always, smelled the same as always, felt the same as always, so why doesn't it taste the same as always? It might not even necessarily taste terrible, just different, definitely not what you were expecting (which is the cause of the shock). Now, I'm about as far from a cook as humanly possible, so I'm not going to begin to pretend that I know what the difference is between the "usual" and "flawed", but presumably the ingredients are pretty much the same in both the "good" batch and the "bad" batch. It's likely just slight differences in mixture that, to the particular taste of human beings, make a world of difference. Which finally brings me around to the purpose of this article, J.J. Abrams'"Super 8".

News: First Trailer for "Moneyball"

     When I made my Top 5 Anticipated of 2011 list, I put "Moneyball" on top partly because of the people involved ("The Social Network" writer Aaron Sorkin, "Capote" director Bennet Miller, and actors such as Brad Pitt, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jonah Hill, and Chris Pratt), but mostly because of the interesting subject matter. How do you make a movie about a typical style of general managing? It's not the most obvious subject matter to explore on screen, which is why I'm so curious to see how it is executed. Well we now have our first glimpse of how it will be done with the film's trailer. Obviously, it is always hard to pick a movie's success based on the trailer, so I don't want to put too much stock in it, but it still looks very promising. Check it out for yourself and make up your own mind down below.

News: "Django Unchained" Gets a Release Date

     Christmas 2012 folks, I'm already counting down the days (and not because I believe it will be the end of the world). If you're a reader of this blog, then you probably know I am an avid fan of everything Quentin Tarantino does. The man has yet to make a film that falls short of "masterpiece" in my book, making him without a doubt my all-time favorite director. This is why I wait with baited breath for his next release, "Django Unchained", a spaghetti "Southern" about an escaped slave who teams up with a bounty hunter to free his wife and take revenge on her slave holder. We already know that Tarantino alum Christoph Waltz and Samuel L. Jackson are singed up for the film and it looks more and more like Leonardo DiCaprio will be playing the part of the film's villain (which is extremely exciting for me, seeing as DiCaprio is my favorite working actor). The lead role of Django is still up for grabs, but it looks like original frontrunner Will Smith will not be taking on the controversial role. Right now, the three names being floated around are Jaime Foxx, Chris Tucker, and Idris Elba (who created the very memorable character Stringer Bell on the greatest dramatic television show ever, "The Wire"). Whoever Tarantino picks, at least now we know when we will get to see the finished product, Christmas 2012. While I had wished it would be coming out a little sooner than that, I just happy to get a release date. It looks like in the year 2012, Christmas will be the best day of the year for reasons that has absolutely nothing to do with the holiday.

News: Oscar Finds a Happy-Medium

     If your a close follower of the Academy Awards (or an obsessed nerd such as myself), then you'll know that the previous two Oscars the Academy has experimented with expanding the Best Picture lineup to ten nominations, after it had retained five slots for the big kahuna of awards since 1944. I have generally been a fan of the ten nominee category because I felt it has allowed the Academy to spotlight a larger array of movies and genres, but some have felt that doubling the amount of nominees has diluted the prestige of a Best Picture nomination.

     Well today, the Academy announced a compromise between these two positions. Instead of strictly have either five or ten nominated films, the number of Best Picture nominees will now be a variable number, depending on how many films receive over 5% first-place Best Picture votes from Academy member. Now the category will still retain a minimum of five nominees and a maximum of ten nominees (even if 4 or fewer, or 11 or higher, films receive over 5% first-place votes), but this means each year we could have anywhere from the old-fashioned five, to the new ten. Apparently, if this practice had been in place over the last few years, we would of had years with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, but not 10 Best Picture nominees.

     It's an interesting idea, and though I was okay with the ten nominations, it will definitely make the announcement of the nominees much more exciting. It will also make prognosticators work much harder, for now no will can even be sure how many films will be nominated, much less which films it will be. It is also likely to make debates much more heated, because now ever attack can be seen as direct attempt to lower a film's popularity just enough to make it miss the cut. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. If you want to see the official announcement yourself, along with some other minor changes the Academy made in a few other categories, click here.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Supporting Actor 1994

     Recently I have been on a tear of highlighting my favorite years in cinema. I discussed the 2007 Best Supporting Actor race (my all-time favorite cinematic 12-month period), in which Javier Bardem won for one of the most iconic villainous roles in the last decade or so with the serial-killing, air-gun aficionado, misanthrope Anton Chigurh in the Coen Brothers Best Picture-winning instant classic, "No Country for Old Men". I then went on to analyze another great year in film, 1967, where I delved into the Best Actor race (won by Rod Steiger for "In the Heat of the Night"), only to return to the extraordinary year a few weeks later with a look at the year's Best Picture race (also won by "In the Heat of the Night"). All this focus on years with outstanding cinematic output set off an atomic chain reaction in my mind, "What other years would I put up with the ranks of the 2007s and 1967s of the world". Given the large body of Oscar history (not counting the years before 1927), there is a wide variety of choice of superb years to choose from (1939 being the most commonly cited "Golden Year"), but after careful consideration, and given my current collection of viewed films (which is still frustratingly lower than I would like), the next year that I would nominate for Hall of Fame status is 1994.

     Unlike 1967, I can't really say that 1994 started a revolution or set a new language of film, but was instead the fateful aligning of planets, the blind luck of happenstance, or if you must, "the perfect storm". A group of directors, both new and old, were firing on all cylinders in 1994. Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen, Tim Burton, Robert Zemeckis, Frank Darabont, and Robert Redford, for whatever reason, were all on their A-game, creating classic films that entered and stayed in our consciousness, and as always, directors on their A-game mean actors allowed to exercise their true potential. Case in point, Best Supporting Actor, which boosts a truly great lineup of amazing performances. It's the type of nominees list that you yearn for every category each year (but rarely materializes). Could it have been improved though? For once, I'm confident in answering this question in the negative. My only two possible substitutes both have questionable qualifications as "supporting" actors. The first is Bruce Willis in "Pulp Fiction" as the boxer on the run Butch. Now since one whole story line of the film is dedicated to him, I would have a hard time swallowing a nomination for him as a supporting actor, but with the Academy's awkward classification technique, I have no idea what Academy members considered the performance to be. The other case to consider is Tim Robbins in "The Shawshank Redemption". In my mind (and I feel fairly safe in saying in every sane mind in the world) Tim Robbins is the star of film, but since the Academy did nominate Morgan Freeman in leading role, we have to consider the possibility that some may have voted for Robbins as a supporting actor (which would be beyond ridiculous, but in the past, that threshold has not stopped the Academy from making unwise decisions). Finally, the one other person I would be tempted to include in the category, despite their small screen time, is Harvey Keitel as "The Wolf" in "Pulp Fiction". Like I said, it is a really small role, but it is such a memorable character, and Keitel nails it so perfectly, it would be extremely tempting to nominate him. It's a fine crop of nominees though, so let's get to it.

News: No "If I Picked the Winners" Article This Week

     I just wanted to alert anyone expecting a weekly edition of my "If I Picked the Winners" article that unfortunately, there will not be an article this week. Due to some unforeseen circumstances, I was not able to get the time to write the article this week. I apologize for the delay, but I will be back with another edition next week. Until then, I hope you all are checking out some good films (maybe even some I have mentioned in past articles).

News: First Trailer for Fincher's "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

     As one of my "Top 5" anticipated films of the year (and given the fact that David Fincher directed my favorite film last year), I have been eagerly awaiting any news about David Fincher's version of the popular  novel, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". This week, we got our first peak (which you can see for yourself down below) with the official release of the trailer. Interestingly, earlier in the week there was a "leak" of an "unofficial trailer" that is similar to the trailer below, with the exception of a few different  images (there was some nudity in the "pirated" trailer). Although it wasn't an official release, many believe it was part of a planned guerilla marketing technique, which is given credence by the fact that Sony left the trailer up on Youtube all the way until they released the official trailer. If it was a planned marketing stunt by Sony, it was a smart one, but what's even more exciting is that the trailer makes the movie look great. I'll be excited to check it out when it roles around Christmas time this December.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Actor 2006

     The good, the bad, and the mediocre: that's what you get with the Oscars, and this week, we'll be highlighting the latter of the three with Best Actor 2006. Up to this point, I've tried to pick Oscar categories that included at least some nominees that I had a passionate opinion on (whether it be positive or negative), but this week, I thought I would highlight indifference incarnate, blase personified, mediocrity embodied. Now of course, these adjectives won't apply to this article, which (as always), will be peerless, but rather the lineup of candidates that made up the Academy's Best Actor race of 2006. Whether in writing or in thought, it is actually an extremely useful exercise to analyze the middle of the road fair, for when we understand what separates the average from the excellent, we have a better understanding of the things that truly touch us, make us move as human beings. If "it's all relative," then we sure as hell better know relative to what, and this week we will discussing the what.

     Now as critics of the Academy (and who isn't), the question arises, was 2006 just a middling year for lead actors, or did the Academy, yet again, skip over superior work for more comfortable choices conforming to their typical patterns of familiarity? While maybe not the most stirring year for male lead performances, like almost any year, 2006 did have some above-par turns, but a typical Oscar nemesis reared its ugly head, preventing meritocracy from ruling the day: the ensemble film. I don't know what it is about film's with great ensemble casts that prevent the Academy from rewarding their individual actors (category confusion, cast cancellation?), but with a few exceptions (such as the first two "Godfather" films), multiple cast members from the same film are rarely nominated, no matter how deserving they all are. For 2006, the biggest example of a wronged actor is actually one of the nominees (which was undoubtedly part of the problem), Leonardo DiCaprio. As you will see momentarily (if you did not already know), DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor in 2006, but not for his career's best work as an undercover Boston policeman in Martin Scorsese's "The Departed", but rather for his underwhelming role as a mercenary involved with the African conflict diamonds trade in "Blood Diamond". How DiCaprio did not win, much less get nominated, for "The Departed" is a mystery that only people in Hollywood know the answer to. It may have something to do with the fact that DiCaprio's costar in "The Departed", Matt Damon, was also likely eligible for the lead category, and likewise gave one of his all-time best performances. As some sort of stupid compromise, instead of doing the right thing by nominating them both, some in the Academy may have decided to throw their weight behind DiCaprio's sub-par "Blood Diamond" performance. It doesn't make sense, but it's the type of reasoning the Academy seems to employ all too often.

     Another wonderful performance from a great ensemble film that was deserving of a nomination was Greg Kinnear as an aspiring motivational speaker in 2006's "Little Miss Sunshine". Again, I'm not sure of which category most people placed him in, but as the dad of "Little Miss Sunshine" herself, if he is not considered lead, then I guess everyone in the film is "supporting". Another worthy, but categorically questionable, performance is that of Michael Sheen as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in "The Queen". It's one of the best portrayals of a modern political figure that I can remember (and one Sheen has done three times), but whether it should qualify as a lead performance is tough to say. Finally, one last performance that isn't spellbinding, but a step ahead of some of the competition, is Ryan Phillippe as John Bradley, in Clint Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers", the story of the men who were forever engraved in American consciousness after their picture was snapped raising the American flag over Iwo Jima. For now though, let us take a look at the group of so-so nominees.

News: Cannes Film Festival Hands Out Its Honors

     Over the last ten days or so, the world's most prestigious film festival, the Cannes film festival, has been going on in France. Today though, the festival, which had a fair amount of big name premieres this year, as well as some unwanted media attention for controversial Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier scandalous "I am a Nazi" comments (for which he was banned from ever attending the festival again), wrapped up with its traditional end-of-festival awards. The way the festival awards films is it places them in different categories of competition, with the films considered to be in the "major leagues" put in the Palme d'Or competition, and it has a selected jury watch every eligible film. After seeing each of the films in competition, the jury (which this year was headed up by Robert De Niro) argues with one another until they decide in which films receive which awards.

     So then, who was this year's big winner? Terrence Malick's highly anticipated "The Tree of Life", which releases world wide this Friday, took the festival's top prize, the Palme d'Or. The film, which stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, actually received mix scores from the reviewers at the festival, but it apparently hit a cord with the jurors. Being an American film with big name actors and a highly acclaimed director, this is also a film to watch at the end of the year for the Oscars, but the crossover between Palme d'Or and Oscar Best Picture is small. In fact, it has only happened once, in 1955, when a film originally meant for television, "Marty", miraculously took both highly regarded top prizes. A few other Palme d'Or winners have managed to do pretty well at the Oscar's, with Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" being the most famous, but no others have managed to win both, so it's hard to say how this affects "The Tree of Life"'s overall Oscar potential.

     Some of the other big winners of the festival include Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn, who picked Best Director for his action/"B"-movie homage flick, "Drive". The film stars Ryan Gosling, along with a lot of other fairly big names, and probably would have been the general consensus Palme d'Or winner had the critics been allowed to decide. Personally, I have not seen any of Mr. Refn's previous films, but from the description of the film and its rave reviews, this is now one film that is high atop my anticipated list. Another big winner was Jean Dujardin, who picked up the Best Actor award for "The Artist". Yet another film earning high marks, "The Artist" is a black-and-white film about the tail end of the silent-age of cinema, which the film itself is almost completely done in pantomime. Even before the film debuted in Cannes, the Weinstein's picked it up for U.S. distribution, which given their track record (this was the team behind last year's "The King's Speech" victory), may make this a end of the year awards season player. Finally, the jury, maybe in a rebellious stand for the right of freedom of expression, were not too scared off by von Trier's unfortunate remarks to award the film any prizes, giving it's Best Actress to Kirsten Dunst in "Melancholia". Given the Academy's general xenophobia, it's hard to say that (even with the good reviews) any of these three films will end up to be Oscar contenders when all is said and done. It's true that all three films are not in foreign languages ("Drive" and "Melancholia" are in English, and "The Artist", being a silent film, is not in any language at all), but unless these films get a lot of critical backing consistently throughout the year, I have a hard time imaging any one of them beating out any of the big-shot movies such as, say, "The Tree of Life". The good news though is just how many well-received films there were at this year's festival. Compared to last year, where the main word critics used to sum up the festival was "underwhelmed", this year looks to be a much more promising year for unique, groundbreaking cinema.

     For the curious, the complete list of this year's winners is given below.

Palme d'Or: "The Tree of Life"
Grand Prix (aka Runner-up): (tie) "The Kid With a Bike" and "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
Best Director: Nicholas Winding Refn for "Drive"
Best Actor: Jean Dujardin for "The Artist"
Best Actress: Kirsten Dunst for "Melancholia"
Best Screenplay: Joseph Cedar for "Footnote"
Prix du Jury: "Polisse"

Camera d'Or: "Las Acacias"
Palme d'Or (Short Film): "Cross Country"

If I Picked the Winners: Best Picture 1967

     A few week's back, I used this weekly column to discuss the Best Actor race of 1967. It was a fine category that included some of the all-time great cinematic thespians giving some of their finest performances (such as Spencer Tracy, Paul Newman, and Dustin Hoffman) and in the article, I expressed my great love for the year (in terms of cinema) in general. Now I'm not a wine connoisseur by any stretch of the imagination (I've never found a wine that compelled me to take more than a few sips before I quickly tired of the taste), so I never really understood what wine enthusiasts mean when they call some particular year a "good year". Is it just a catch phrase they brandish to illustrate their supposed vast intelligence and expertise on the matter? Like some sort of wino's credentials to prove your worthy of being in the club (the coldness of the top wine aficionados is reminiscent of how Nazi elites would plainly ask to "see your papers"). Or, at least for some, is there real meaning in that phrase? For instance, maybe a certain year had greater precipitation than most, and that lead to a larger mean grape size, which somehow creates a more alluring taste. Like I said, I know next to nothing about wine, so I'm totally spitballing here, but I do know a little bit about cinema, and I can vouch that 1967 was indeed a vintage year.

     This is why, merely a few weeks later, I'm already back. There is something about 1967 that just won't let go of it's hold. My hypothesis to the siren-like spell 1967 has over me is just the pure excitement that can be sensed in films from the year. As you may have heard me express before, the 1950's was an abysmal decade for the advancement of film as an art. While, as always, their are exceptions, in general, the films of 1950's gave in to every negative impulse of drama. Maybe in a vain attempt to differentiate itself from the incoming threat of television, the auteur's answer to everything in the 1950's was apparently, "Let's make it bigger". The "issues" were bigger, the "emotions" were bigger, the "realism" was bigger, and sometimes the screen was just literally larger, but whatever the case, like a man with a bruised ego, it was all hot air. The only cinematic neophytes of the era who were able to cut through the hyperbole and find something meaningful were the actors James Dean and Marlon Brando, the former who would not survive the excesses of the era, and the latter who would only be able to cover up serious emotional problems (including a massive eating disorder) for about the span of the decade. By the early 1960's, the first signs of a new understanding of what cinema was and could be began to emerge, but all too commonly the films were dragged down by the left over traditions of the previous era. It was finally in 1967 though, that the break became clear. A new generation was in town and they were not at all satisfied with the way things had been. This new generation would go on to create the greatest decade in cinema history, 1970's, but it was in its roots, 1967, that you find the most excitement. The new auteurs were still honing their craft, but what they lacked in polish they made up for with an abundance of passion. This emotional devotion to creation is palpable, which is why 1967 is the brilliant year that it is.

     For the most part, though probablY filled with old-timers of the Hollywood of yesteryear, the Academy did a decent job recognizing the films of the new generation. The largest glaring omission, and the film that is actually my favorite of the year (it ranked in at #5 in my all-time list), is "Cool Hand Luke". The film and the character "Cool Hand Luke" is one of the coolest creations in film history, the ultimate rebel (a much less self-aware version of " A Rebel Without a Cause"), a true existential warrior. How the Academy passed over the film, especially in favor of one miserable film I will be discussing briefly, is a mystery that I frankly don't want to uncover (or to be fair to the Academy, they did honor the film in a number of other areas). Another great American film that should have received consideration for the top prize is "The Dirty Dozen", a fun "group of men on a mission" movie that would later influence such great work as Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds". Finally, there are two films from around the era whose eligibility is questionable. The first is Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The film was first released in 1966, but did not receive an American release until 1967, so I don't know what year the Academy considered it eligible. Which ever year it fell under the proper eligibility though, it should have been nominated. Finally, the last case is "The Battle of Algiers", which is a strange case indeed. First released internationally in 1966, and receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Film in that year, the film would not receive an American release until 1967. However, somehow the film managed to receive Oscar nominations for Best Director and Screenplay in 1968, hopping over 1967. Had it been eligible though, it too should have absolutely been included into the list of the year's five best films. Now though, it's on to the actual nominees.

News: Spielberg's "The Adventures of Tintin" Teaser Trailer

     If you read my article "Top 10 of 2010 and Top 5 Anticipated of 2011", then you know I am very much looking forward to Steven Spielberg's newest film, "The Adventures of Tintin", which is why I'm so happy to see the film's first teaser trailer. Based on a comic book series, the movie uses motion capture technology (something I'm usually not a fan of, but looks decent enough in the trailer below) to tell it's adventurous tale of mystery and lore. Along with Spielberg at the helm, who has obviously mastered some of the greatest achievements in cinema history (even if his last film, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", was a rather dismal effort), part of the reason I am so excited for the film is it also boasts Edgar Wright (whose three films "Shaun of the Dead", "Hot Fuzz", and "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" have all been incredibly well written and directed) as a co-writer. The film also includes the voice work talent of Wright regulars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, as well as Jaime Bell, Daniel Craig, and Andy Serkis. So as we wait for its Christmas release, check out the cool looking trailer below.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Actor 1935

     In this week's addition of "If I Picked the Winners", I thought I would go back into the furthest possible catacombs of Oscar history that I have fully explored, which happened to be Best Actor 1935. Now as much as I may be tempted to inflate my own cultural prowess by playing up the fact that I have seen all the nominated films in an Oscar category that took place a full 52 years before I was born, I feel obligated to point out that to the complete viewing of the filmography of Best Actor 1935 consists of watching all of two films. That's right, only two films are nominated in the four alloted slots the Academy gave to the category in 1935, and if you're an "old movie" buff such as my self, both films are relatively famous, so their viewing is expected and not something to point out proudly, like some difficult merit badge.

     The two films in question are 1935's Academy Award-winning Best Picture, Frank Lloyd's "Mutiny on the Bounty", which had an amazing three out of the four nominations, a feat that has rarely been repeated in an acting category (never again in Best Actor, and "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II" in Best Supporting Actor are the only other times I can think of off the top of my head), and John Ford's "The Informer". Both film's are considered classics of the era (an appraisal that I would whole heartedly agree with the former, but not quite the latter), and any frequent viewers of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) are likely to have at least caught a glimpse of the films at one point or another. Both films have had a lasting impact on cinema, as proved by the remaking of "Mutiny on the Bounty" in 1962 with Marlon Brando as the star (supposedly much inferior to the original, but since I haven't seen it I can render no judgement), and for "The Informer", influence on auteurs of later generations, such as Martin Scorsese who included a cameo appearance of the film in his only Best Picture winner, "The Departed" (the film's famous last scene makes a brief appearance on a television screen).

     Despite my fondness for Depression-era cinema, I have seen disappointingly few films from 1935. The means the choice of viable alternatives is sparse, with the only possible worthy alternative I can think of being Groucho Marx in "A Night at the Opera" (sorry Errol Flynn in "Captain Blood", your acting, as as well as the movie, are overrated). On the plus side though, this allows us to more quickly get to the actual nominees, so let's do that.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Original Screenplay 2009

     As a sort of companion piece to last week's article, I thought this week I would look at the other side of the writing awards in 2009: Best Original Screenplay. As I've stated before, the Best Original Screenplay category is usually one that is open to cinema's more quirky films, including film's whose sole nomination comes from the category, while the Best Adapted Screenplay category is usually home to the more prestigious multi-nominated films. That's not to say this is always the case, as Best Original Screenplay usually has a few big players (proved by "The Hurt Locker"'s victory in 2009), but it is also the only category where you see movies such as 2004's "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" receive the official seal of approval from the Academy. The category then is commonly exciting (at least in terms of who gets nominated, not so much in who wins, which like most categories, is well-known going into the awards ceremony), because it is one of those rare categories that truly feels open. In this category, voters look beyond the obvious usual suspects and consider possibilities that would quickly be shot down in other categories. The result then is a category that quite often serves as a cinematic scouting report, highlighting up and coming writers and directors, such as in 2001, when both Christopher Nolan and Wes Anderson were nominated for the screenplays "Memento" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" respectively.

     As audience members, an original screenplay is exciting because we have no idea what to expect. Given trailers and genre conventions, going into the movie we may have some idea of what we're about to see (especially if the film relies so heavily on traditions and cliches to the point it is "original" in name only), but what is exciting about films with original screenplays is their high standard deviation (or high level of variation for those not up in their statistics) in terms of quality. You could get a "Sucker Punch" (which if you missed my low opinion of the film, you can catch up with by clicking here), or you could get an "Another Year" (which if you missed my high opinion of the film, you can catch up with by clicking here). It's the cinematic equivalent Russian Roulette.

     In my opinion, which I made clear last week, 2009 was a relatively good year for cinema, and this includes original screenplays. In fact, with one lone exception that I will be covering in a moment, the batch of nominees the Academy came up with is excellent. These were films that really pushed the genres they operated in to new directions, truly deserving of every sense of the word "original". The Academy's nominees were actually so good, that this week's list of ideal alternatives consists of one movie, but one that was definitely an unfortunate absence. The missing piece of the puzzle was Michael Haneke's "The White Ribbon", a relentlessly gothic German film dissecting the strict, repressed roots of the generation that would become the Nazi monsters of the 20th Century. Had the film been nominated, it would have been the third nominated film in the category to make my Top 100 list (the only three films from 2009 to make my list), but given the Academy's xenophobia, the fact "The White Ribbon" missed the cut comes as no surprise. Enough day dreaming though, let's get down to business.

News: Tarantino's Next Film Gets a Name and Plot

     Some exciting news today from my all-time favorite director: Quentin Tarantino. A few weeks back, we learned that he was writing his next movie and that it would be a Spaghetti Western, but that was about all we knew. Well  today, we now have a name: "Django Unchained". The name is a reference to a Spaghetti Western by Sergio Corbucci that is simply titled, "Django". The Corbucci film tells the story of a gunslinger who enters a town that is being torn apart by two warring factions, the KKK and Mexican bandits. Just like Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" was not a direct remake of Enzo Castellari's "The Inglorious Bastards", "Django Unchained" will have a separate plot from "Django". Apparently, "Django Unchained" will tell the story of a freed slave in pre-Civil War south, Django (who is not cast yet according to our knowledge) , who is mentored by a German bounty hunter (to be played by "Inglourious Basterds" Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz). The two men work some jobs together for awhile, but eventually Django's mind wonders back home, where he wife is still being held in perpetual forced labor on a plantation by her evil owner. Django and the bounty hunter decide to try and free his wife and take revenge on the plantation owner. The story sounds absolutely amazing, and with Tarantino behind camera, shot in a Spaghetti Western style, this is sure to be another all-time great. Unfortunately, there is no release date yet or even a planned start date for shooting, so we may have to wait a while longer. In the meantime though, if you would like to read more about this story, click here.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Adapted Screenplay 2009

     For this week's edition of "If I Picked the Winners", I will be peering into the recent past: 2009. Being so close to our current time in this never ending story (with no flying dragon-dogs mind you) that we call History, it's hard to say anything profound about the year in cinema that was 2009. The "does it stand the test of time" trial is inapplicable in this case, with at least another two or three years to go before we can even begin to get proper distance for objective judgement, but at this early stage of the game, my own opinion is that history will treat 2009 kindly. It wasn't the stellar year that 2007 was, but still very solid nonetheless. What I especially appreciated about 2009 was the wide variety of high-quality art and entertainment that was offered. Whether you were into sci-fi ("Avatar", "Star Trek"), comedy ("Up in the Air", "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Funny People", "In the Loop", "The Informant", and for people who like dark meat, "A Serious Man"), family ("Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Up"), drama ("A Serious Man", "The White Ribbon", "The Secrets in Their Eyes", "Precious"),  action ("Inglorious Basterds", "The Hurt Locker", "Public Enemies"), or like myself, a mix of all of the above, then there was some really well-crafted options for you the choose from. Of course, a lot of this is due to some extremely well written scripts (the birth place of all good movies), which will be looking at today.

     Now for most years, it is more likely than not that the stronger batch of screenplays will come from the "adapted" side (movies based on previously published material, which usually means books), but 2009 actually had a stronger year for original material, a rare feet indeed (especially given Hollywood's recent total lack of originality). That doesn't mean the year's adapted screenplays were anything to scoff at. As the year was strong all-around, this meant there were a fair many high merit adaptations, including most of the nominees. Unfortunately, as is par for the Academy, they left off some very worthy contenders in favor of one or two questionable choices. The most egregious error on the Academy's part was their failure to nominate the brilliant Wes Anderson-Noah Baumbach translation of the Ronald Dahl  book, "Fantastic Mr. Fox". Given the Academy's history of under-appreciating the outstanding films of Mr. Anderson, I guess the snub wasn't all that surprising, but seeing as how the film managed a Best Animated Feature nominee, you would of thought the writers might have given the film some consideration. Another film that would have have made my cut, was the Argentine film that won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film, "The Secrets in Their Eyes". Based on the novel, "La Pregunta de sus ojos" (which I believe roughly translates into "The Question in Their Eyes", by Eduardo Sacheri, the film is one of the best modern day crime/noir films I have seen in quite some time (very reminiscent of the excellent Kurosawa film, "Stray Dog"). Finally, as a replacement for the one science fiction film that managed to get a nomination in the category, I would have preferred to have seen Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman's reboot of "Star Trek" among the nominees. I'm no Trekkie, but the film was a superb rendering of Gene Roddenberry television series. So much so in fact that the film's sequel is one of the only (out of numerous) continuations of a film series that I am actually looking forward to, but now let's get down to the actual nominees.

News: Oscar 2012

     I know it's a bit early to be discussing the 2012 (or really 2011) Oscars yet, we did get our first morsel of news yesterday regarding this year's Academy Award show. There had been speculation that the Academy would try to move the show up another month (yet again), to try to add some spice to the show by quickening the pace of the awards season, but this turned out not to be the case. Academy president Tom Sherak confirmed the following Oscar schedule:


Dec. 1, 2011   Official screen credits forms due
Dec. 27, 2011 Nomination ballots mailed
Jan. 13, 2012 Nominations ballots due by 5 p.m. PT
Jan. 24, 2012 Nominations announced at 5:40 a.m. PT
Feb. 1, 2012 Final ballots mailed
Feb. 6, 2012 Nominees luncheon
Feb. 11, 2012 Scientific and technical awards
Feb. 21, 2012 Final ballots due by 5 p.m. PT
Feb. 26, 2012 Academy Awards at 5:30 p.m. PT

In other words, we'll be having a show in late February again. While I personally would like to see some more surprises in the awards show (at least in the major categories, the winners having been painfully predictable), the only way this would be possible is if the Academy was able to circumvent the multitude of preceding award shows, many of which have a heavy crossover with the body of the Academy. Had the Academy moved everything up a month, no doubt all the other award shows would have followed suit (they become absolutely meaningless if their not precursors to the Big Rodeo), so unless the Academy can think of some way to banish all other movie award ceremonies (save the Golden Globes maybe, which do differ from the Academy quite often), it doesn't really matter when the awards are held. They won't get anymore exciting.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Picture 2003

     When I look at the slate of Best Picture nominees from 2003, it appears to have been a true high-water mark, or a crescendo if you rather, for the industries' "epic" films. While we still suffer from the aftershocks of Hollywood's obsession with "the epicness of epicdom" (two made up words, I know, but that's just how self-consciously epic these films are, ordinary words from the English language do not adequately describe them), in 2003, the tone still felt new and fresh, which not only allowed for successful box office receipts, but high critical praise as well (thus the Oscar nominations). In the years following, while the box office receipts may have remained consistent, Tim Burton's dreadful version of "Alice in Wonderland" is a prime example of this ongoing monetary success (thank you world for continuing to encourage this sort of garbage), the grades from critics and enthusiasts have slowly fallen away as the genre has become increasingly stale. In 2003 though, we had mostly good films from the genre in our rearview mirror ("Gladiator",  the first two "Lord of the Rings" films, and to a lesser extent, "The Patriot"), so the potential for the genre was promising and people were ready to bite on anything that had the slightest whiff of saga. This is why you see two films ("The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World") among the nominees with a colon in their title (a surefire sign of how epic a film is), and while "Mystic River" and "Lost and Translation" exist well outside the boundaries of the "epic" genre, I am tempted to throw in "Seabiscuit" into the "epic" mix as well.

     There may be no swords, bow and arrows, or large battle scenes in "Seabiscuit", but tonally it carries a lot of similarities to these films. The heavy use of cliches and conventionalities without the slightest sense of acknowledgment or self-deprecation, blatant ploys to smother the audience in sentimentalities, and exaggerated finales where everything comes down to "this one moment", plague all three of these films. This should really come as no surprise, seeing as how the "sports" genre and the "epic" genre are really parallels of one another (is a "game" not just a low stakes version of a "battle"?), and the tone of the modern day sports film has seen the same shift to overwrought drama that the epic has experienced in the last few years, which is why I include "Seabiscuit" in the group of epic films.

     Were there any superior alternatives to these epic films though? For any one year (including 2003), there is always a growing list of films from that year that I still wish to see, so while I haven't become the expert of "films in 2003" that I would like to be, I still feel I am able to answer this question with a definitive, "Yes"! As you may have ascertained from the opening paragraph, I am a tough critic of Tim Burton's recent films, but in a decade of average to sub-par work, the one shining exception to his recently abysmal output is 2003's "Big Fish", a delightful return to form about a son and his dying father's "tall tales", and a film superior to almost all of the Academy's nominations. Another film that I would have preferred to see as a Best Picture nominee over most of the actual nominees, is my favorite auteur's film, Quentin Tarantino, "Kill Bill Vol. 1". Other possible substitutes that I would have preferred over some of the nominees include the Harvey Pekar biopic, "American Splendor", the Jack Black rock comedy, "School of Rock", the small little dramedy about the life of a dwarf (pun absolutely intended), "The Station Agent", and the true story of the journalistically fraudulent life of Stephen Glass, "Shattered Glass". As always though, we must come back to reality, so let's get down to ranking the nominees.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Actor 1967

     After covering a category from my favorite year in cinema (2007) last week, this week I keep the good vibrations going by covering a category from what is probably my second favorite year in cinema, 1967. Being before my time, to say 1967 is my second favorite year in cinema may sound a bit peculiar and random, like it was drawn out of a hat in a raffle, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The late 1960's was an interesting time in the world of cinema, just as it was in almost everything else. The radical shift in culture opened up the medium to more experimentation, as well as the ability to go places and do things that the moral norms would not have allowed before. For instance, "The Graduate", one of my favorite films of all-time (which we will be discussing more about later in this article), tells the story of a young man having an affair with his neighbor's wife, a woman who is very much his senior. Not only does the film tell this sordid perverse tale of seduction and robbing from the cradle, it does so in a humorous manner, which makes the film the inimitable classic that it is, but would also have been too offensive to the sensitivities of the populace just a few years earlier. Previously, a story about such outrageous promiscuity would only be told in the utmost dour, melodramatic fashion ("Peyton's Place" anyone?), but being a new time and era, Mike Nichols and company were brazen enough to push the genre in new and exciting places (like Robert Altman would do for war films three years later with "M*A*S*H"). Another example from 1967 of the deconstruction of the old norms in favor of the establishment of new ground rules is the film "Bonnie and Clyde". The film caused and enormous stir for its (at the time) graphic depiction of violence. Formerly, while there was definitely a lot of violence in films' plots, when it got down to the real action, the violence was mostly implied or sanitized. "Bonnie and Clyde" took this trick and spun it, causing a ruckus in the short-run, but creating a whole new language of cinema and paving the way for countless films down the road (like almost every Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino film).

     It's this sort of radical thinking about the conventional practices of cinema that endears 1967 to my heart (the only year with two films in my Top 10). It also makes deciding between nominees very difficult, especially for this Best Actor category. It is a truly impressive lineup (probably one of the greatest single categories in Oscar history), with every nominee being a household name giving one of their signature performances. It truly is ridiculous the amount of talent displayed in this category. I don't say this often, but you have to give credit when credit is due, so to the Academy, big kudos for the Best Actor nominees of 1967. It may be your masterpiece. In fact, I don't really have any viable substitutes for any of the nominees. Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" I guess could be two possible candidates, but the movie was released in 1966 in some countries, so I'm not really sure of their eligibility for the year. The only other possible nomination-worthy performance that comes to mind is Lee Marvin in "The Dirty Dozen", which, had he been nominated over my fifth ranked performance in the category, would have been fine by me, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an improvement. Before I get into the rankings, I would like to stress one more time how difficult the process was this week. In particular, deciding between the top two performances was incredibly agonizing, as both performances rank up there with my all-time favorites. In the end, I made a decision for better or worse, because I don't believe in wimping out and doing a stupid "tie" like too many critics do on these sorts of lists. Just know that the difference in my mind between the first and second ranked performance is miniscule, microscopic, infinitesimal, as they both rapidly approach the limit point known as perfection.

News: R.I.P Sidney Lumet (1924-2011)

     Today came the regretful news of the passing of director Sidney Lumet. The auteur had a long and prolific career, including many films that have left their unmistakable mark of pop culture and cinematic history. His most famous work includes films such "Network", "Dog Day Afternoon", "12 Angry Men", "Murder on the Orient Express", "Equus", "The Verdict", and "Serpico". Lumet got his start doing television around the dawn of its ascendence into the American household during the 1950's, and his style as a filmmaker remained very influenced by norms of the medium even as he graduated into making full-length feature films later in his career. His debut effort in the world of cinema was amazingly "12 Angry Men", putting him with the likes of Quentin Tarantino for best debut film for a director, which earned him an Oscar nomination on his first time out. He would go on to receive a total of five Oscar nominations, four  Best Directors ("12 Angry Men", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Network", "The Verdict") and one Best Adapted Screenplay ("Prince of the City").

     Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of Mr. Lumet's work that I have seen, although I am ashamed to admit I have yet to see what are probably the two most famous films in his filmography, "Network" and "Dog Day Afternoon" (both films are very high up on my "to watch" list though). The reason why I am not an ardent admirer of his work as some seem to be, is because, undoubtedly due to his background of working in the small screen, all his film's have a "made for TV" feel to them. Some of his more famous and well regarded work, such as "Serprico" and "Murder on the Orient Express", are overrated in my book, mostly because of their stylistics similarities to television norms. Even my favorite Lumet film, the great "12 Angry Men", has a television-like quality from a stylistic standpoint. The amazing acting by a superb cast though, along with a good premise, put the film miles ahead of any drama you could catch on TV at the time (and most of the dramas that are on television today too for that matter). This ability to get great performances out of his cast was probably Mr. Lumet's strong suit, as even in some of his flawed films, he was still able to draw out great performances from his actors. Though I have some reservations with his stylistics choices, Sidney Lumet will be missed, and his legacy will live on in his movies for as long as their are people interested in watching them.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Supporting Actor 2007

     Among film critics and film historians, 1939 is commonly cited as "The Golden Year" of cinema. You had all-time classics such as  "Gone With the Wind", the film that sold more tickets than any other movie in history, to "The Wizard of Oz", which may be cinema's number 1 fantasy film, to "Mr. Smith Goes Washington", my personal favorite from the year and maybe the most passionate and beautiful argument in favor of democracy in the history of mankind (with all due respect to Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence" and Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense"). As great as the year 1939 was for movies though, it is not my own "Golden Year" of cinema. No, if I had to pick one year to stand atop all others in terms of cinematic output, it would not be 1939, but 2007 (which had a grand total of six films appear in my "Top 100" list, more than any other year). Now being very recent, this means 2007 has an advantage in that I could actually see many of its films as they came out, which wasn't the case for say 1976, to pick a year at random, and as I catch up with films from years that preceded my birth or at a time when they were not "age appropriate", my "year of all years" my change. In all honesty though, I'm not sure how much of advantage this really is, because there are many recent years in cinema that a look at with much disdain. In particular, 2005 stands out as possibly the worst year at the movies since the early days of sound, when filmmakers were still finding their feet on how to properly incorporate this new technology. In other words, the fact that 2007 was just four short years ago should not diminish the amazing accomplishment that the year was for films.

     In line with the achievement that was 2007 for the film industry, in the Best Supporting Actor category, the Academy put together a great lineup of performances. Out of the five nominees, there is really only one that I have negative words for. Having said this though, being such a great year also means there were many great performances the Academy failed to acknowledge. For supporting actors in 2007, the non-nominated performance that seemed most awards worthy in my mind is probably Robert Downy Jr. in David Fincher's "Zodiac". Playing an alcoholic reporter at the San Francisco Chronicle (which could be any of their reporters, am I right folks?) who is driven mad by the case, Downey Jr's manic madness draws the audience into the world of the newspaper business, and perfectly illustrates the large radial impact of serial killings. Downey Jr.'s costar in the film, Mark Ruffalo, playing the detective in charge of catching the Zodiac killer, is another prime candidate for "missed opportunity" Oscar nominee. Others that I would have considered as well include Tommy Lee Jones in "No Country for Old Men" (Josh Brolin in "No Country for Old Men" would be my first choice of anyone, but I believe his performance would qualify for lead), Paul Dano and Dillion Freasier in "There Will Be  Blood", Adrien Brody and Jason Swartzmen in "The Darjeeling Limited", Nick Frost in "Hot Fuzz", and if not considered a lead performance, Kurt Russell in "Deathproof". Like I said though, the list of nominees is actually pretty decent, so let's break the category down.

Review: Sucker Punch

     Have you ever watched a movie and thought to yourself, "Yeah, this is okay, but the stupid plot keeps getting in the way of the action. I don't care about character development, I want to see a bunch of soulless goons get killed by the good guys in flashy stylistic fashion. And to be honest with you, I really don't want the action sequences to move the narrative forward at all either. I want pure action for the sake of action, uninhibited by the traditional adherence to the outdated notions of 'story'". If this is you, then don't worry, Zack Snyder hears you and feels your pain. In fact, he's a made an original movie just to satisfy these demands. It goes by the name of "Sucker Punch".

     Now I'm not sure if the title is meant to ironically humorous, but after exiting the theater at the end of the film I could not think of any more apropos saying than "sucker punch" to describe how I felt. In fact, I would be tempted to consider the whole film an elaborate commentary on the state of the modern action movie in the Hollywood studio system, but then I remembered Snyder is the director of the movies "300" and "The Watchmen", so unless his whole career is to be considered some grand conceptual art piece, I'm afraid I am going to have to take the film at face value. Before the jump then, for any of the lazy readers of this blog who don't take the time to read anything beyond the breaks, I feel compelled to give you a warning right here and now. DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!

If I Picked the Winners: Best Actor 2004

     As time goes on, I don't look at the early 2000's kindly in terms of cinematic output. Not to say there wasn't some great films from the era (and there have definitely been time periods with more dismal films than the early 2000's), but on average, movies from this time just didn't pack a punch. It is hard to say why exactly, but I think the industry might have been in a transitional period in terms of artistic leadership. The directors from the previous generation seemed to be running out of creative steam, while some of the younger talent (the Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, and Darren Aronofskys' of the world) were still finding their feet and hadn't broken through enough to demand the respect of the studios. Since actors are at least somewhat dependent on good roles, no matter how talented they are as thespians, this means acting as a craft was not at a high point either at the time. The 2004 Best Actor race is a perfect example of this fact, because while the category is filled with star-studded names of capable actors, with the exception of a few, most of the performances are not the actor's best work (even if they are decent performances).

     How about performances that missed being nominated though? Well there was one great performance that has since gained pop culture status through parodies on Youtube: Bruno Ganz as Adolph Hitler in the German film "Downfall". Playing THE villain of the 20th century, Ganz finally brings a level of humanity to the Nazi leader who had previously only been portrayed as a cartoony super-villain. While Ganz would walk away with the Oscar, no contest, in a meritocracy, unfortunately, with the Academy's inane rules about foreign actors' eligibility, I'm not sure if the performance was ever eligible for any awards. Other than this stand-out performance, while I might have substituted this for that here and there (Tom Hanks in "The Ladykillers", Bill Murray in "The Life Aquatic", Jim Caviezel in "The Passion of the Christ", and if considered lead, David Carradine in "Kill Bill Part 2" would all be possible replacements), nothing jumps out as an awful blunder on the Academy's part. As fun of a pastime as Academy-bashing is then, aside from their xenophobia, I can't really criticize them in this category, which means it is time to get to the ranking.

News: Batman Forever!

     This week Jeff Robinov became president of Warner Brothers, and along with his hatred of director David Fincher, who he had worked with on "Zodiac" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (but will apparently never work with again, which is a bad sign for the studio's future releases), we also learned he has passion for DC comic books. Or at least the profits that come from turning them into movies. The blueprint for the future of Warner Bros. looks to be a carbon copy of the long-term plan that Marvel has been working out for some time now: make a movie of every comic book character in the catalogue that is even mildly popular, and then have a super-duper, extra-special, once-in-a-lifetime crossover film that will blow everyone's socks off. This crossover film is going to be "The Justice League", film that has been gestating in Hollywood for some years now (originally Wolfgang Peterson was attached to direct). The Justice League universe will be totally separate though from Christopher Nolan's "Batman" universe, as well as Zack Snyder's upcoming "Superman" universe, with different actors playing the roles in each series (i.e. no Christian Bale as Batman in "The Justice League").

     While I'm sure this news has some fanboys salivating at the mouth (as well as some other things I won't get into), I'm not particularly interested by the news. What caught my attention more, was Robinov's announcement that after "The Dark Knight Rises" concludes Christopher Nolan's superb Batman trilogy, the studio plans to reboot the series almost immediately. From the report, Christopher Nolan and his wife Emma Thompson will still produce the next series, but some other director (with an actor other than Christian Bale playing the Caped Crusader) will be taking the iconic super-hero in a new direction.

     Now I love Batman as much as the next person, as the character has to be one of the best character creations of the 20th century, but enough is enough. Given the wretched taste that was left in the mouths of Bruce Wayne fans around the globe with Joel Schumacher's two Batman films in the late 1990's, I supported the first reboot, but Christopher Nolan has taken the character to his furthest reaches. Who ever takes the job of rebooting the series now will have a monumental task ahead of them, as there will almost certainly be nowhere to go but down (and I thought I felt bad for Christopher Nolan trying to follow up "The Dark Knight"). With Batman's massive popularity, and the huge profits the studio took in from "The Dark Knight", I can't say I am too surprised the the studio i would yet again reboot the series, but given the amazing artistic achievement that Nolan's version of Batman has been, I naively hoped that the studio would stop the Batman series at least for a decade out of respect. In retrospect this was a pretty stupid expectation, but at some point it has to end, right? Or does the studio plan to keep making Batman films ad infinitum, into the horizon of space and time itself? I don't know, but something tells me they can't continually hold the audiences attention forever by making the same stories again and again. In the meantime, let me know how you feel about the second Batman reboot in the poll above.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Picture 1956

     After spending seven weeks covering the major categories of the most recent Academy Award nominations, I thought I would mix things up a bit by going retro this week, so I picked the first Best Picture category in which I saw all of the nominees: 1956. Don't ask me why 1956 was the first year in which I saw all the Best Picture nominees, because I'm not quite sure myself. 1956 was well before my time (it is even before my parents time), and it's not like these movies are all that famous or well-regarded either. In fact, as you are about to learn in a moment (assuming you read this article all the way through), I'm not too keen on any of these movies. It would be hard for me to stand in front of you and, with a straight face, seriously argue for the merits of any one of these as "Best Picture worthy".

     Over the ten or so editions of this article that I have written, I have had to make some excruciatingly tough ranking decisions due to the high quality of the contenders. For instance, how can anyone really decide between Jack Nicholson's characteristically eccentric performance in "As Good as It Gets" and Dustin Hoffman's savant political guru in "Wag the Dog"? Or to bring up a more recent example, the decision to put Mark Ruffalo's laid back sperm-donor father ahead of Christian Bale's crack addict Dickey Eklund is one that I still have my serious doubts about. This week turned out to be just as tough as some of these previous examples, but for a much different reason. This time, the task was to try separate the miniscule differences between boring mediocrity and sub-par work. It's a much different process (and much less fun), but no easier nonetheless.

     The category does serve the purpose though of illustrating why I consistently consider the 1950's to be the worst decade in cinema history. There were some exciting things going on in the world of cinema in foreign countries, but for the American studio system, it doesn't get much uglier. At a time where the studios felt extremely threatened by the new, up-and-coming media known as television, they seem fixated on the idea that the only way to beat TV was to make everything BIG! Whether it be gimmicks such as CinemaScope, 3-D films (something that has unfortunately been resurrected), or the regrettable Smell-O-Vision (I don't know who thought that was a good idea), or simply the self-consciously over-the-top, scenery chewing madness that many actors embraced in the predictably "heavy" plots of the typical melodramatic awards fare, it is all too apparent that "subtlety" was not in the vocabulary of anyone working in Hollywood during the 1950's.

     Right on cue, the year of 1956 is a prime example of everything that was wrong with movies at this time. Each of the nominated films I am about to cover at least partially contains something symptomatic of a dying system that was grasping at straws, frantically doing whatever it could to tread water and keep its head afloat. Even outside of these five nominated films, there isn't much to speak of from the films of 1956 which I have seen. The only American film from the year that comes to mind as something praiseworthy is John Ford's "The Searchers", and even for foreign films the only thing I have seen that is of considerable merit is the Japanese film "The Burmese Harp". Hopefully, there are more films which I have yet to see that will come up big at the plate, but of what I have seen so far (and these five films especially), 1956 is a year best forgotten in the cinema history books. However reluctantly though, on to the countdown.... ?