Oscar Expectations 2012

Another year of Oscar ahead of me, and while I've only finished twenty years of movies, I have managed yet again to watch every nominated film!  Collectively, it's a much more motley group of movies this year.  Last year definitely had better films.  But I'm hopeful that this year's ceremony with Billy Crystal as host will be far better than the train-wreck of last year.  Please?

Much more fun was watching the films themselves.  My life has gotten busy, and fitting in nine films in about two weeks was not very easy.  Added to that was the fact that a few of these films were in that limbo between theaters and DVD.  I may or may not have dragged my boyfriend to a small suburban town half an hour outside the city to watch back to back movies in crumbling down theaters.  All worth it!

I've discovered the best thing about this project is watching movies that I might never otherwise decide to see.  And even if I didn't like them, I'm glad I saw them.  And in last year's tradition, regardless of how I feel about them, here they are ranked in order of "winability."  I'll start with the one I know will win and end with the one that can't possibly...

The Artist

Who would've thought that a black and white silent film would be such a hit?  Well actually....falling just above Tree of Life, The Artist is the second lowest grossing film nominated.  Because no matter how much I try to endorse this wonderful film, it goes something like this: "It's romantic, action packed, dramatic, funny---there's great scenery and costumes.  It's incredibly acted, and manages to poke fun at itself in a witty way.  And it's an homage to great classic films.  It's just...it's silent!  Well, I mean, not completely...well, there's some sound...well a little..."  Yup.  Doesn't really describe well.  The minute someone figures out it's silent, no matter how great, they don't want to see it.  Black and white? Maybe.  Silent?  Nope.  Please do!  It's all I've said and more.  It's the fantastic film Hollywood wishes they had the guts to make.  Oh, did I not mention?  It's also French.

Tree of Life

As much as it pains me, this is actually an incredible film.  I don't think I liked it very much, but after reflection, this is a film that is entirely unique.  Rather than a traditional linear plot, the plot is cyclical, weaving back and forth through the main character's memories, his present life, and the history of time.  There are no typical character roles, and sometimes the actors seem superfluous to the crazy that is going on around them.  The film reminded me of the beginning and end of 2001 Space Odyssey combined with The Sound and the Fury.  While nearly every other word in this film is an annoying whisper, and it does fulfill on the fears I had from its trailer (it's a pompous, pretentious, piece of showy art),  I can't help but enjoy the ride.  After awhile, I got used to the style and enjoyed the experience of being inside someone's head.  And the sequence describing the earth's beginning was different from anything else I've ever seen.  In conclusion, it is a completely unique film that will stand the test of time.  And you should totally watch it on some kind of hallucinogen.

The Help
Despite the difficult topic of race, this film is entertaining and heartwarming.  It is well acted, and a perfect portrayal of an era.  From the costumes to the scenery, this film shows a (somewhat glorified) version of a difficult time.  However the sometimes slavish devotion to a hit novel manages to make this film overlong--a few edits may have made it drag less.  In addition, it does not commit to the topic of race enough.  It skims the surface, and spends more time on gags and pretty costumes.  This film is supposed to give voice to the help, but I wish I had seen more of them, and less of the uppity white girls we love to hate.  While entertaining, it doesn't dig deep enough to give true weight to this film.  So while I enjoyed it immensely, and it is, by the way, the top grossing Oscar nominee, I don't think it will win.  But Viola Davis might for Best Actress!

The Descendants

And speaking of movies that dragged...thank god this film was made in Hawaii.  I forgave the slow, plodding pace because I got to pretend I was on one of the many fabulous beaches they showed.  In addition, the story was compelling enough to make me want to know more.  And of course there's George Clooney, whom I just love to watch, no matter what.  Fantastic actor.  And the others don't do too bad themselves.  The girls aren't too bratty and overplayed and his relatives aren't too "stereotypey islandy."  Really though, this is George's movie and thank God for that.  The plot twists and turns kept me guessing, the acting kept me engaged, and the scenery was...well...wow.  I need to go to a beach ASAP.  Even though it felt like it was much, much longer than it should have been, I did enjoy the film.  Not as much as some that followed, but between the weighty material and the acting chops, this movie is pure Oscar bait.

Moneyball
This is a guy's movie, no doubt about it.  It's about baseball statistics, with no romantic story line, or really any women at all.  Any women watching this movie should go into it with those expectations.  Despite the few female characters, I really liked this film.  Brad Pitt has the perfect foil in Jonah Hill.  Unlike many of the other nominated films this year, I never felt like it was dragging on.  Which is something considering it is a film entirely about sports.  There was always something catching your attention and moving you forward, and the scenes with the girl who plays Brad Pitt's daughter were a welcome relief from the spitting and sweating of the team.  Smart, funny, and engaging, this film was a surprising win for me.  It doesn't have the expected "good feeling" ending you get with most sports films, and I liked it the better for it.  Just don't expect any great romance...

Midnight in Paris
This is the best film that probably shouldn't be on here.  I love, love, love this film!  It's every English major nerd's favorite dream.  And the actors playing major historical characters are brilliant, and manage to subtlety wink at the audience at the same time.  It has the witty/off-kilter humor that is always part of Woody Allen's films, but even if you aren't an Allen fan you should like this film.  However, as entertaining as it is, it is not the stuff of Oscar films.  It's sweet, funny, but ultimately just another Woody Allen film.  I definitely loved it but I don't think it's the best film I've ever seen.  It's this high on the list because of Woody Allen.  Famous directors always get a bump.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Okay, so Hugo got better reviews and has the more famous director.  But this movie is so much better.  I mean, I definitely sobbed through most of it, but it is a 9/11 movie.      The main character, a young boy with some kind of social disorder, is both irritating and entertaining, and ultimately, extremely lovable.  Sandra Bullock and Tom Hanks both take a back seat, but make their few moments worthwhile.  Max von Sydow plays the silent, absent grandfather to Oscar acclaim, but I really thought that his young co-star stole the show.  Despite the almost graphically horrifying, wrenching scenes, I enjoyed, and was engaged by, every minute of this film.

Hugo


So this movie got the better ratings, the better director, and the bigger Oscar chops.  But it's probably my least favorite of all the films.  Which is sad because I really wanted to like it.  But is this a movie for children, or adults?  The first three quarters of this film dragggggeedddd.  And when it finally picked up, it became much more of an adult film than a child's.  I think that's the problem.  This movie floats between an adult's film and a child's film, and doesn't really settle on either.  Plus the kid is creepy.  Sasha Baron Cohen is the only relief, and every minute he wasn't on film I got bored again.  Scorsese reverts to his biggest problem--he's so in love with his films that he can't bear to clip them.  Hugo could have been a great movie with some serious editing.  It's a beautiful film to look at, especially in 3D (which I don't always like) and a tribute to the early age of film.  But if you want to see a film tribute...go see The Artist.  It's much better.

War Horse

So I expected to hate this movie.  As one of my best friends said so eloquently, "I know World War I isn't as sexy as World War II, but did they have to add a horse?  Why not just make a film about the war??"  So with my expectations pretty low, I was pleasantly surprised.  Mildly surprised.  Okay it wasn't the worst movie on here (see Hugo).  The main character is almost creepily obsessed with his horse, and his high pitched whining (the boy's, not the horse's) really started to grate.  But it was filmed like Gone with the Wind, with sweeping panoramas liberally painted over with bright colors.  I was entertained throughout the film, and despite myself, really wanted to see the damn horse get through.  But Best Picture?  Sorry Spielberg...I think not....

That's it!  As far as the other categories, I think Viola Davis in The Help will get "Best Actress," although My Week with Marylin's Michelle Williams may give her a run for her money.  "Best Actor" is anyone's game, with Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Jean Dujardin all contenders.  "Best Director" will probably go to The Artist, but should go to Tree of Life. My prediction?  The Artist will sweep pretty much everything, with a few bones tossed out to the remaining films above.  Fingers crossed for a Bridesmaids win in pretty much anything--that's guaranteed to be an interesting speech.

I have my thoughts on this years theme...but that will have to wait!  Got to start cooking.....

Wings

 "Small town 1917 - Youth and dreams of youth."

-Opening Title Card from Wings

I take it all back.  No more silent films!  I actually prefer Sunrise now, after having seen Wings.  Okay, okay, it could have been worse.  The plot did move a lot faster than Sunrise’s did.  There were enough cheap thrills to keep me engaged.  But—I will explain myself.  Picture any generic war movie.  Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Top Gun even Forrest Gump will do.  In particular, I would like to use Pearl Harbor.  So, picture Pearl Harbor.  Now remove all the sound and color. Replace the sound with one continuous score where an organ is the only instrument.  And then, any time there is any narration or dialogue in the script, insert a title card.  Now drag it out for 140 minutes.  I don’t think I’m intellectual enough for this.

The Plot:

We begin in small town America, where two young men are getting ready to enlist in World War I.  Jack, played by Charles “Buddy” Rogers, is eager to leave, having wanted to be a pilot his whole life.  David, played by Richard Arlen, is more somber, but believes this is right thing to do.  Both are in love with the prettiest girl in town, Sylvia, though she has eyes only for David, who is from the wealthiest family in town.  Meanwhile, Jack’s neighbor, Mary, played by Clara Bow, is desperately in love with Jack, though he doesn’t realize it.  Before they leave Sylvia, played by Jobyna Ralston, is preparing to give David a locket with her picture, but Jack gets there first, tells her he loves her, and takes the locket, thinking she meant it for him.  Afterwards, Sylvia apologizes to David and explains that she felt bad for Jack.  But while he may have the locket, David has her heart.  Mary attempts to give her picture to Jack, but is saddened by the way he simply pats her on the head and waves farewell.

Both boys head to training, and though Jack hates David at first, they become best friends after they beat each other up.  Men.  Anyway, the two best friends fly through danger and death, honored with medals and becoming famous pilots.  Meanwhile Mary has joined up as well, and is driving a truck with medical supplies to the various camps in France.  While stopped in Paris, she hears that Jack is there on leave but that all the men are being immediately recalled for one “final push.”  Worried that Jack won’t hear and be court-martialed, Mary searches the bars in Paris until she finds Jack and David, drunk on champagne with their arms around loose women.  Jack doesn’t recognize her (because his vision is blurry and all he sees are bubbles) so Mary decides to change into a sparkly flapper dress and see if that will attract him.  It does and she manages to get him to his room where he passes out.  She unbuttons his shirt and sees the locket with Sylvia’s picture, which upsets her further.  She starts to change behind a screen back into her uniform, but his commanding officers open the door and see her changing, leap to all the wrong conclusions, and cause her to be discharged.

Later, it is the final push for the Allies, and David charges Jack with bringing his things home to his mother, convinced he will not make it.  He tucks letters into his jacket bearing love from Sylvia while Jack insists he is crazy.  Jack then says that he wants to be straight with his friend and shows him the locket, claiming that he and Sylvia are in love.  As he shows the locket, he drops it, and the picture flies out.  David hastily grabs it and asks to put it back in, so that Jack won’t see the inscription to David.  Jack refuses, and David rips it up rather than hurt his friend.  Jack runs out in a rage, angry at David.  They fly, and David is shot down.  Jack is riddled by guilt and sorrow and the next day hunts Germans with a fierce determination.  Unfortunately, he ends up shooting down his best friend, who, having survived his crash, had stolen a German plane and attempted to fly back to safety.  Jack cradles his friend in his arms as David dies telling him not to blame himself.

Jack goes through David’s possesions, realizes the truth about Sylvia, and heads home to deliver his things to David’s parents.  There is a parade in Jack’s honor, but the only thing he cares about is forgiveness from David’s parents, which they grant.  He goes home, finds Mary and realizes he loved her all along.  They stare up at the stars and kiss, planning their future.


The History:
Wings won Academy Awards for “Best Picture, Production,” and for “Best Engineering Effects.”  It is one of only three films in the history of the Academy Awards to win for “Best Picture” but not even be nominated for “Best Director.”  It was a major box office success at the time, largely because of a fad for aviation perpetuated by Charles Lindbergh.  The movie was praised for its realistic aviation scenes, and actually both actors flew their own planes in the movie.  Richard Arlen was a real pilot in World War I, but when he flew for the movie he and Buddy Rogers had to fly, act and operate the camera all at the same time.  Richard Arlen met and ended up marrying his onscreen love interest, Jobyna Ralston, in 1927.  Despite the number of air crafts in the air, there were only two incidents, one involving the injury of a stuntman and the other a fatal injury for a United States Army Air Corps consultant.  Wings has faded very far into the past, and is actually one of two “Best Picture” films that is still not on DVD.  Though it is now considered the sole winner of the “Best Picture” award of 1927 by most critics and historians, it is mainly remembered for launching the career of film star, Clara Bow.  The movie is also notable for its first onscreen male-on-male kiss (albeit in friendship) and for its nudity (you can see Clara Bow’s breasts for an instant while she’s changing.)

The Verdict?
Like Sunrise, I had to watch this film in 10 minute clips on YouTube.com.  Yes, someone actually found a way to upload Wings onto YouTube.  I would like to meet this person.  So that in itself is a little irritating.  On the positive side, the plot did move a lot faster than Sunrise.  I was slightly more interested in the plot line, and the love triangle was fun.  So was Clara Bow, and it was interesting to see one of the biggest sex symbols of the 1920s play the girl next door.  I can also appreciate, if you were in the audience in 1927, how exciting it would be to see actual planes flying.  It’s still exciting to realize that there are no green screens or computer effects, and the shots of the actors flying planes are real.

HOWEVER

This movie was over two hours long.  That’s over two hours of an organ playing.  Two hours of title cards instead of dialogue.  And this is also coming from the girl who fast forwarded through the battle scenes in Braveheart.  I’m not extremely interested in battle scenes.  In Sunrise, I believe that the silent film aspect actually added to the film itself.  I couldn’t imagine a talking version, or if I could, there just wouldn’t be that much dialogue.  But this movie would be so much easier to watch if there was actual sound.  I mean, picture a war movie without even sound effects!  But at least I have become very good at reading lips.  And the guys were cute.  So I guess that’s something.  But that’s it!  No more silent films.  My next movies with have sound.  And no organs.  Can’t stand the organs.

The bright side would be the food I got to make for this movie…

PS:  And this is a side note:  Can anyone else who's seen this movie comment on whether you thought the bro-love was a little intense?   I mean I understand David is dying, but the mouth on mouth was a little much.  And look at that picture up there.  Don't just think the two guys have the best chemistry over all?  Just saying.

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

"This song of the Man and his Wife is of no place and every place; you might hear it anywhere, at any time.  For wherever the sun rises and sets, in the city's turmoil or under the open sky on the farm, life is much the same; sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet." - Opening Title Cards for Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans.

Well it wasn’t entirely what I expected, but I can’t be sure if I liked it or not.  Actually, given the opportunity to watch it again I probably wouldn’t.  I think I have just been too conditioned to look for actual sound, so that the subtly of silent film escapes me and I find myself tapping my toes.  There is sound, and actually if the movie hadn’t come out after The Jazz Singer, the public would have been a little more receptive.  There are sound effects, and a score of music that runs all the way through.  Amusing moments occur, however, like when a woman tries to whistle and all the audience sees is the pursing of her lips.  And of course no one has any names in the movie.  Why would they need them?  No one is talking.  It is surprising how little words are needed, though, to get the general point across.  But I should backtrack. 

The Plot:
This story takes place in a country village, separated from the Big Bad City by some sort of body of water.  It is a happy village, until the camera pans to the vampy evil seductress, played by Margaret Livingston, from The City, who is having an affair with (and consummately corrupting with lust) a young farmer, played by George O’Brian.  She convinces him to drown his wife and make it look like an accident so they can run away together to The City.  His beautiful, sweet faced wife, played by Janet Gaynor, cries herself to sleep while clutching their child.  The next day, looking dark and tortured, the man takes his wife on an outing on the water—side note: this man is almost constantly tortured looking.  And he stomps a lot.  And rends his hair.  And chokes people.  In case we missed the fact that he is tortured.

His wife, though happy at first at the thought of reconciliation, is horrified when she sees her husband standing over her with grim purpose in his eyes.  He, in turn, is horrified at himself.  They dock the boat and she runs from him into The City.  After he chases her and apologizes, she eventually comes around.  They watch a couple being married; the man realizes how far he has fallen and looks tortured in his wife’s arms.
The rest of the movie involves the couple about town as they get to know each other again and play in The City.  In the boat ride home she falls asleep in his arms as he steers, the image of idyllic bliss.  Until—CRASH!  Lightening strikes!  No, seriously.  There’s a massive storm.  The man frantically tries to get them home, but to no avail.  He ties the bundle of floating reeds to his wife’s body, ironically the same reeds he was going to use earlier to save himself.  They clutch each other in terror.

Once the storm settles, the man washes up on shore, sans wife.  He immediately sets up a search, but all he can find is a shawl amongst some reeds.  He stomps home rending his hair, not knowing that the evil woman-from-the-city has seen the search.  Thinking she has won, she whistles for him outside his home, expecting a joyful assignation.  He runs out to meet her, but instead begins to choke her in his rage.  Before he can kill her, their housekeeper yells from the house.  They’ve found the wife and she is alive.  Abandoning the frivolous flapper, he rushes home to his wife’s side, while she lies in bed and looks up angelically at him, her blonde hair spread across her pillow like a halo.  As the sun rises on a new day the couple kiss and are reconciled as the seductress leaves the village forever on the back of a cart, taking her lustful corruption with her.


The History:
As we know, this film won an Academy Award for best “Artistic Production.”  Incidentally, Janet Gaynor, who I believe was the best part of this film, won for “Best Actress.”  Sunrise also won “Best Cinematography,” and was nominated for “Best Art Direction.”  The director, F. W. Murnau, was German, and a leading light in the German film movement of Expressionism.  He was brought in by William Fox, of Fox studios, to make an Expressionist film in America.  This means a film that uses art design for symbolic effect.  Sunrise was not popular in the box office, in part because Janet Gaynor went blonde for the role, rather than her traditional brown locks.  The other part was the advent of talking films in the form of The Jazz Singer only a month earlier; this movie would be the death knell for silent films.  This was unfortunate for Murnau, as he had spent a fortune making the move, creating elaborate sets and music.  His further attempts at films were greatly curtailed as a result.  Since then, however, it is considered one of the best silent films ever made,  and is now #82 on AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies.

The Verdict?
While I don’t think I’m going to become a silent movie lover anytime soon, I do think there is something to be gained for watching one.  Once.  Let’s not overdo it.  But without any dialogue, the viewer to forced to focus on the actions of the actors.  Janet Gaynor is particularly good at this.  She never has to say a word, and in fact, you hardly see her speak at all.  Unlike George O’Brian, who conveys his grief by rending his hair and bugging out his eyes, Janet Gaynor conveys her emotions by simply fluttering her eyelashes or turning her head.  You immediately connect with her, and can telling that the slow, methodical way she deals with the dishes is indicative of a broken heart.  Any dialogue is unnecessary.  She conveys emotion by the nuance of movement. 

In the time we are in now, a film needs incredible special effects to catch our attention.  I will admit myself that I have so many distractions in my life at one time that it takes something truly extraordinary to catch my interest.  But I think subtly is valuable and we forget how much can be said with no words at all.  We don’t need Janet Gaynor’s character to extrapolate on the effect of her husband’s infidelity; we can see it in the way her shoulders slump as she rests her head in her hands.  The people don’t need names.  This story is, as the title suggests, the story of two humans, and the trials of everyday life.  I can appreciate the basic humanity it represents.  Which is something I should keep in mind as I move into my next (and my last) silent film.

Stay tuned for the foodie portion…