writhaus

Oscar time is a big ass gold rush for the major studios all hoping to get one of their movies lauded as the Best Picture of the Year. See number of nominations by studio. And why not… it can mean big bucks for them. According to a 2001 study by Colby College economics professor Randy Nelson, a Best Picture nomination could garner nearly $11 million in ticket sales for a film between the day the nominations are announced and the Oscar telecast. Thus, along with the awards themselves, every studio literally throws millions of dollars to create buzz around their Oscar contender. The whole process is so overrun with money, it’s results bitter, political battle that often has little to do with the quality of the film. So often we see lesser movies take the top spot despite better alternatives. As we are amidst the run-up to the big ceremony, with all the stepping stone award ceremonies paving the road with discarded presentation envelopes, five films have been nominated for Best Picture: Atonement, Juno, No Country for Old Men, Michael Clayton, and There Will Be Blood.

I thought it was time then to take a look at the quality of the nominated films, block out the buzz, and really get into them. I make my Oscar picks and then I’ll tell you what I think will actually win. It’s a game I play with myself every year and I’ve been pretty accurate the past three years.

Without further delay, the nominees are…

Atonement

Honestly, I can’t think why this film was nominated. Set in the interwar and Second World War eras, a love story unfolds between an upper-crust pixie, Cecilia Tallis (Keira Knightly), and a lower-class up-and-comer, Robbie (James McAvoy), in a picturesque English manor. War is on the horizon but the characters, wholly sequestered from the outside world, don’t seem to be aware of it. Their love is unrequited until Robbie accidentally gives Cecilia a dirty letter and their passions flare in a library tryst. However, they are torn apart when Cecilia’s younger sister, Briony, who separately witnesses a rape, mistakenly accuses Robbie. Robbie is carted off to jail and Cecelia promises never to stop loving him. We are left to believe they are to reunite at some point.

What follows is none such thing, but rather an aimless story with all of the wan looks and hand-wringing of Pride & Prejudice, but none of the impetus, passion or focus (what A.O. Scott describes as “literal-minded irrelevance.”) We follow the lives of Robbie, Cecelia, and Briony several years after this fissure. Robbie has joined the military to escape prison, Cecelia and Briony have both become nurses, though in separate parts of London, as Cecilia still blames Briony for her situation. There are long, sweeping shots to give the semblance of an epic but the film is more a facsimile than the real thing. The filmmakers seem to have taken the blithe prose of Ian McEwan’s novel and written a book report. To their credit (and detriment) the film followed the plot points of the novel quite closely and translation from one to the other did not work.

This film falls short like so many other adaptations because it is not the job of the filmmaker to make a good adaptation, it is the job of the filmmaker to make a good film. In the end, little of the second half of the film matters and thus the story suffers greatly. This kind of film gets nominated all the time but this one should be seen for what it is: not great.

Prediction—
Best Picture: No.
Best Director: Not Nominated.
Best Adapted Screenplay: No.
Best Actor: Not nominated.
Best Actress: Not Nominated.

Juno

I have not seen this film so my judgments are based off of what I have seen, heard, and read about this film. My initial reaction is that it is the Little Miss Sunshine darling of last year, only, not quite as good. Witty, sardonic, self-reflexive it’s the story of a 16-year old girl and dealing with pregnancy. I’ve also heard it’s odd, decent, and worth seeing. Best picture? Probably not.

Prediction–
Best Picture: No.
Best Director: Not Nominated.
Best Original Screenplay: No.
Best Actor: Not nominated.
Best Actress: No.

No Country For Old Men

This, very possibly, could be the hardest movie to review this Oscar season. The film is unsettling in many ways and is exactly how I feel about the film. No Country For Old Men features an almost instantly iconic villain played by Javier Bardem (of The Sea Inside fame and whose character’s inner life is as deep) finds the most efficient method of killing his victims is either with a silenced shotgun or the device they use to kill cattle before slaughter. The film is about failure, the brutality of life before death, and misery.

By no means is this an easy film to watch–I found myself cringing and not liking the experience of watching the film. With few exceptions, when Anton Chigurh Javier Bardem shared a scene with another character, he would inevitably murder them. In most films, coupled with the spectacle of violence is a grain of mystery, suspense, or (in some cases) humor. One is lead to the impression that the murderer will get his comeuppance or at least there is some specter that the killer will be caught or captured. While it is understood that No Country is different, it was conspicuously devoid of tension in this regard. One was forced to endure violence (graphic violence at that) with apparently no reason other than a framework of a plot. For this reason, I left the theater highly critical of the film.

Here, strangely enough, is where the film gains some ground back. It was only after I started thinking about the film that some of the gaps started filling in. It is exactly this senselessness and brutality that Joel and Ethan Coen intended. The tapestry of the film–where the plot, setting, characters, and theme all intersect–is finely detailed with the subtleties the Coen Brothers are so able to incorporate. The craft hallmark of the Coen Brothers exhibited in this film is extremely strong and should be recognized for it. Chigurh is less human and more a vehicle of death, a grim reaper, traveling the land taking lives with no more reason than a flip of a coin or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What seemed to be senseless violence was, in fact, not and this is even alluded to in the script. Chigurh has his own logic, to which we are never privy. As in most films, killers have a reason, here Chigurh does not.

This alienation we feel from the story is certainly in line with the themes of the film. As viewers, we flock to a character we can follow and care for and it seems Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is it. I will not say what happens but it is safe to say we cannot identify with him at some point and run fleeing to Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) but it is too late. Bell is an old man, tired, and a failure. The ending is as anticlimactic as growing old is. We are just left with what is.

Prediction–
Best Picture: Probably.
Best Director:No, because of the Director Guild’s ongoing disagreement with listing two directors on their films. Do they deserve it? Probably more than Best Picture.
Best Original Screenplay: Yes.
Best Actor: No.
Best Supporting Actor: Yes.
Best Actress: Not nominated.

Michael Clayton

Of the best picture nominees, Michael Clayton is probably the most traditional of the choices. The perennial star vehicle, it casts George Clooney as a smart, world-savvy lawyer who gets caught up in big business cover-up, which leads to the murder to his long time partner and friend. This role isn’t a stretch for Clooney nor is it original but he plays it well. This is perhaps why the film came and went in the theaters without a huge blip. Those who did see it must’ve thought, “this is better than I though it was going to be.” And indeed they were right. It was only when the film was nominated for Best Picture did it leap back into people’s consciousness. For those who didn’t see it, suddenly thought, “where did this film come from.” A lot of people must’ve voted for it… however, I’m sure it was a lot of people’s second choice film.

Director/Screenwriter Tony Gilroy employs a very classic structure to the film peppered with very strong performances from (especially) Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson. There is enough misdirection in the film that it maintains a good level of intrigue. The main character must make the decision to either the right thing or that which will benefit him. There are several stand-out scenes that certainly influenced Academy members in favor of this film and it does deserve the Best Picture Nomination.

Unfortunately, not the best picture award.

Prediction–
Best Picture: No.
Best Director: No.
Best Original Screenplay: No.
Best Actor: No.
Best Supporting Actor: Yes.
Best Actress: No.
Best Supporting Actress: Yes.

There Will Be Blood

In terms of sheer filmmaker craft, There Will Be Blood is the only film that rivals No Country For Old Men. Based on Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel “Oil!”, P.T. Anderson takes us back to just before the turn of the 20th Century and the rise of the oil industry in southern California. It centers on Daniel Plainview, an oilman whose grit and sheer determination allow him to build an oil empire. Like other Anderson films, it also tracks the rise and fall of a central male figure whose own success breeds corruption, misery and disassociation from the world as representative of the larger societal shift. Namely Boogie Nights, which follows the development and evolution of the porn industry in the 70s, There Will Be Blood delves into the oil industry (and to some extent religion). In a way few directors can, Anderson mixes the thematic with the personal to create a rich texture to his films.

This is all to say, however, that this film has its faults. A very strong first half develops into a meandering, somewhat listless second half, buttoned by a powerful final scene. It is these faults that I think hurt it’s eventual chances.

It is Daniel Day-Lewis, however, that steals the show. Dark, brooding and utterly convincing, Lewis finds the nuances of the character. Anderson can be credited as an actor’s director and Lewis is the consummate actor. The collaboration is electric. Paul Dano also puts in a stellar performance and it is a shame he was not nominated. The film is definitely worth watching for these two performances.

It is also around these two characters that the dizzying relationship of industry and religion to Capitalism swirls (yes the capitalization is intended). Both men are forced to compromise that which he holds to be true and yet, while one gains monetary wealth, the struggle of personalities and points of view strip them by the film’s end. It turns cultured and religious men into animals (or merely strips the facade of socialization away) and reveals true greed. Anderson does an admirable job of juxtaposing the two and setting each of them in continual conflict with on another. Overall, it is a powerful film and deserves the accolades it has received.

Prediction–
Best Picture: No.
Best Director: Yes.
Best Original Screenplay: No.
Best Actor: Yes.

Bill Hunt, of The Digital Bits, has had an impact. In the early days of dvd, he was on the front line fighting against Divx. No, not the video encoding format. Divx was originally a dvd byproduct pushed by Circuit City. The format was a pay-per-view dvd. For $5 (I think it was), you could unlock the disc for a day or two. After that time, it turned into a coaster until you unlocked it again. Bill saw that as a dreadful thing (and I agree). He rallied the enthusiast community. Thanks to his help to educate people, Divx died.

He’s played a similar role in the HD DVD/Blu-ray role. This time, the role appears to be different, though. He started writing for a Blu-ray owned site. He stopped taking advertising for HD DVDs. He will tell you his role was the same in both the Divx and HD DVD deaths, except there are notable differences.

Divx was launched by Circuit City. There were legitimate concerns as to how you’d play your discs long term like “What happens if the player’s modem died?” or “If the servers that unlocked the discs shut down?” HD DVD was a product that was ready for the market. It’s only disadvantage in the face of Blu-ray is that the maximum for disc storage space was 60% that of Blu-ray’s (which, incidentally, is why I am writing this on a laptop with a Blu-ray burner).

HD DVD had advantages, though, like price. The format was an outgrowth of standard dvd and authoring was cheaper because current dvd fabbing plants could upgrade, whereas for Blu-ray it was a new set of equipment that needed to be purchased. Another HD DVD advantage was that it had a complete format specification. Their format was complete at launch, whereas the Blu-ray spec wasn’t finalized until a few months after they started selling players, and all players don’t have to match the final spec until fall of 2008. That’s right, even today, on the eve of HD DVDs death, you can go buy a Blu-ray player that won’t play some of the content on discs on shelves right now. Hunt hasn’t rallied against this. He’s said comments that suggest this is an ok tactic to take…releasing a product before it’s ready. He points out that some HD DVD players have trouble, too. What he doesn’t mention is that every HD DVD player, because it’s spec-final, has an ethernet port so you can patch the firmware of your player.

He did have a column that was critical of the Blu-ray firmware update system by a columnist, but that column did not mention that the problem didn’t exist for HD DVD.

He readily criticized HD DVD releases for any fault he could find, but never offered similar criticisms of Blu-ray releases. If there was a release that HD DVD had the better release of, you simply find no mention of that title on his site, save for when the title was announced for release. The latest Harry Potter film featured an entirely new feature: The ability to sync HD DVD players over the internet where multiple people watched the movie as a screening. HD DVD offered live commentaries, too. Blu-ray can’t offer such until that final spec is in place, though.

The worst, in my opinion, though is that there is one Blu-ray player on the market that will play every disc: The Playstation 3. He mentions other players people can buy, but never suggests people buy the full featured one.

On Sunday, the 17th, he responded to people saying it sounded as though he was paid off with comments that there had been a lot of accusations of that in this format war. He also said that he only did what he thought was best. What he didn’t do was suggest he wasn’t paid by the Blu-ray backers.

I don’t think it would have mattered in this electronics fight. Nearly twice as much storage is a huge advantage, and Toshiba, to their benefit, didn’t force an update for HD DVD out that would have fixed this and left people holding the bag on non format compliant players.

This situation does call into question Hunt’s ability to be objective while reporting. Hopefully he will say whether he did or didn’t accept payments from Blu-ray backers to work against HD DVD. Until he does, there will be a cloud hanging over him that prohibits him from being considered a journalist.

Journalists work too hard to protect their reputations to have someone who doesn’t take the commitment to objectivity seriously damage everyone’s credibility.