Saturday, April 9, 2011

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.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

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.

Monday, April 4, 2011

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!