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.

Documentary | Running Time: 108min | Director: Ulrike Koch | Available on DVD

Sweeping landscapes and picturesque mountains serve as the backdrop to a story of an ancient culture consumed by modern innovation. The film follows 5 men, the Saltmen of tibet, as they execute an annual journey to Lake Tsenso to collect salt so they may buy barley for the coming year. Fair warning: this documentary is not for everyone. It is extremely slow-paced and the average person will likely turn it off after the first 10 minutes. But if you’re reading this you’re probably not the average type of person.

It is after the first 10 minutes that shades and tones emerge. The roles of men and women in the larger Saltmen community are well defined and similar to what westerners would expect; the men do a lot of the physical labor and the women keep hearth and home. However, it is only the men who are allowed to journey to Lake Tsenso to collect salt. Once on the trail, the men reform a new social structure, with a “father,” a “mother,” “animal master” and “novice.” The men have even developed a segregated “Saltman language” that the women are not allowed to know or speak. The documentary, for its slow pacing fells more like an anthropological study of cultures and social structures. If there was a companion novel that would go with the film it would certainly be Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life or Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. And if you know these books I’m talking about, then you probably the right kind of person for this movie. From an anthropological standpoint, this is a fascinating exploration into foreign cultures and rituals.

The power of The Saltmen of Tibet comes from the deeply religious nature of the saltmen communities. We experience both the Buddhist rituals and the mythological histories of their beloved Tibet. The trip on foot and horseback to collect salt is also a religious journey to which the Saltmen sacrifice to be rewarded by the gods. How they have conducted their lives is reflected in the bounty the lake provides them; if they have lived a virtuous life, then the god of the lake will reward them. It may be selling the film short to say that if you get past the first 10 minutes that the rest of the movie is worthwhile. The first 10 minutes help readjust you away from the fast-cut, high-velocity entertainment we have here and transports you to a place of sincerity and reflection. The journey can be jarring, for sure and unfortunately a journey the average person is unwilling to make.

Most movies are garbage. There, I said it.

There are actually many great movies released every year. Unfortunately, it’s like sifting through a garbage dump for your grandmother’s pearl earrings that were accidentally thrown away.

That’s why everyone needs film-geek friends; they can tell you what movie to rent on a Friday night that will get you laid, or what movie to watch that will make that big, burly biker guy weep. Honestly, they are just really valuable people to have on your team.

I am your film-geek friend. I want you to see movies that are quality, entertaining films so you can enjoy the most that the medium has to offer.

As such, I have put together a list of five films you probably missed. It’s not your fault, and I don’t blame you. It’s easy to miss these things for that one week they are available in the Big, Huge, Giant, Blue Rental Chain before they are moved to the discount bin. Heck, some of these films came out on DVD while said Blue Rental Chain still was on the fence about the format.

Enough commentary. Here is the inaugural list of five. Check them out. I think you’ll be entertained.

1. Waking the Dead - Directed by Keith Gordon, best known as Rodney Dangerfield’s son in Back to School, Waking the Dead tells a hauntingly eerie love story about what happens to a man when he ignores what he loves and who he is. It stars the lovely Jennifer Connelly and introduced me to Billy Crudup, who you probably know better from rolls in Big Fish and Almost Famous. The performances are solid, especially Crudup, who manages to convey all the emotion anyone would experience if someone who vanished from your life suddenly reappeared.

2. The Dish - Those Aussies do great work on their continent. We all know that, right? Unfortunately, it’s hard for their films to get any great traction here unless there is someone fighting crocodiles in them. That was especially the case with 2000’s The Dish, a film about the moon landing and Australia’s role in making that happen. It’s a small, modestly budgeted film, and I love it. The cast is led by Sam Neill and features the most legitimately patriotic ending I have ever seen on film. If you want to feel better about being an American in these dark times, or if you want to be reminded how amazing human beings can be, watch this film.

3. Twice Upon a Time - I was tempted not to put this film on the list. It isn’t because it isn’t a lot of fun. It’s amazing and features an animation technique used regularly by the South Park guys, except I don’t think John Korty and Charles Swenson had the help of computers. Mostly it’s the fact that the film is not available on DVD, which is criminal. The plot revolves around Ralph, the All-Purpose Animal (voiced by Lorenzo) and Mumford the No-Purpose Nobody’s quest to rescue the Rushers of Din from permanent nightmares at the hands of Synonamess Botch. It’s witertainment at its best! Unfortunately, the best you can do is get an edited-for-kids VHS tape until Warners decides to give us what we want. (And thanks to Mark Kermode for the term witertainment.)

4. The Corporation - It’s a documentary. It’s from Canada. It’s one of the most important stories committed to polyester. You see, the American legal system gave businesses the same rights as normal everyday people. Unfortunately, if you subject corporate behavior to a human’s psychological test, you’d see that they are among the worst psychopaths the world has ever seen. This film investigates where and when things went wrong and encourages you to do something about it. Mostly it really helps open your eyes to what’s going on around you and what kind of monsters we have unleashed on the planet.

5. Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (that’s Spirited Away in English) - So maybe you actually have seen this flick. It was a hit in its native Japan and did pretty well when Disney localized it for the United States. It’s by Japan’s Walt Disney, Hayao Miyazaki, and is every bit as magical as the films Walt brought to the screen. Chihiro’s parents have been turned into pigs by the spirits that haunt an old amusement park. Chihiro must find a way to restore them. The plot is as simple as that, but the journey is amazing. Like many Miyazaki films, there are no evil villains, just characters that are following their own motivations, pretty much just like real life. The way the animation brings the locations and situations to life is astounding. This is one film I honestly can say I love.

There are other films I want to suggest, but that’s enough for now. And just as a reminder to myself for next time, “DD” is here to remind me of another Aussie film you will enjoy.