Sunday, April 17, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Oscar Wrap Up
The second least memorable Oscars goes to...The 83rd Annual Academy Awards. The Academy's attempts at expanding demographics left an odd hybrid that fell somewhere between the drunken mess of the Critics Choice and the vomit-inducing MTV Movie Awards.
Anne Hatheway's sweet demeanor ultimately clashed with James Franco's quiet and subtle humor to produce more awkward moments than pithy wit. I expected a lot out of this duo and I think unfortunately their on-stage chemistry fell short and James will be receiving a fair amount of criticism come tomorrow morning. That being said, there were moments when I saw this year as a step forward from the stuffy atmosphere of your typical Oscar night. However, a medium clearly has yet to be met.
In sum, most awards were entirely predictable. All technical and acting awards ended up in hands of the front runners. I say this not to discourage the achievements and celebrations of films who exhibited technical excellence this year (like the Social Network's poignant score, or Inceptions complex sound mixing), but to highlight what will and will not survive conversations beyond the water cooler tomorrow. So here it is, my list of winner and losers:
1. God of Love: For the first time, I managed to make it to the Best Live Action Shorts. The promising batch of shorts were weighted down by heavy themes and chilling dramatic action (key ingredients to making that feature film happen). Except one. God of Love, the last film screened in the series, was like a spirited fresh breath of air. Reeking of NYU film student living in Brooklyn, the short basked in the odd looks of its writer/director/star. Despite it's somewhat flat plot and ironic overtones, it managed to reassert life into the regular batch of dramas dished out by the Academy Awards. And honestly, I walked out of there saying there's no way it would win. So, to my surprise when the goofy-faced Luke Matheny comes barreling down from way back (clearly seat assignments didn't think he'd be winning either), I was actually overtaken with joy. For in that moment, to be a struggling film student winning an Oscar, it was pure glory in the face of the stuffy pomp and circumstance of the Academy Awards. So kudos, Luke, we'll be looking for you at Sundance.
2. The Kings Speech. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy The Kings Speech, I really did. Much more than I thought I would. And Colin Firth's lovely little speech was deserved and touching. However, as a film to mark a moment, and a year, it ultimately fails. (Almost more than the Hurt Locker, which I had to actively stretch my brain to recollect!) As another period piece takes home the Best Picture, the Academy fails to open up their show and their nominees to a wider range of films and extended demographic. They add 5 films to the Best Pictures to combat this very problem. And sure, Toy Story and Inception got nominated, but it's all essentially moot when the best picture ends up to be the historical drama of individual hope. The Social Network as a cultural document would have ultimately marked this year as one distinct from any other; giving weight to their attempts at breaking free of their old bonds in favor of film erected as a reflective of the current historical moment. Will we look back on The Kings Speech in a year? Maybe. In ten years? Absolutely not. Will The Social Network be fodder for generations fifty years from now to over analyze this period? Yes. I suppose you should just join the ranks of Raging Bull as Spielberg says. (Also, wtf Tom Hooper?)
3. Documentaries! I think what we've all forgotten in the rush between The Kings Speech and The Social Network is that this was really the year for documentaries. Quite frankly the best race was between 5 films that I'm sure almost none of the general public saw, but were a buzz across critics and cyberspace. I think we need to just take another moment to remember those films, for we may see them survive well beyond the shelf life of Inception or The Fighter. Note to the future awards: celebrate the little people. If we had seen more rep for the docs, shorts and technical awards out there, I think this show can really turn-round.
3.5. I suppose I should also take a moment to say that the awards did a great (all be it predictable) job of awarding the technicians who made this years' batch of films incredible. This was also the year for film celebrating visual style and formal merit. Inception would not be what it was if not for the brilliant sound mixing and editing. The Social Network would not have been nearly as enjoyable or effortlessly smart without it's perfectly-timed editing. And even Alice and Wonderland; I would have probably demanded my money back if not for the whimsy of their costumes.
All in all, I'm not impressed. That is not to say that they were more of snooze than last year's forgettable flop. But this was certainly one of the messier shows we've seen in a long time. I cannot say if this is good or bad. One one hand it could be a sorry attempt at masking oneself as something you're not. On the other, it could simply be a tinkering transitional period, one that promises a new vision of the awards in the new future. Maybe they've just got to get the chemistry right to inspire viewers across generations.
Anne Hatheway's sweet demeanor ultimately clashed with James Franco's quiet and subtle humor to produce more awkward moments than pithy wit. I expected a lot out of this duo and I think unfortunately their on-stage chemistry fell short and James will be receiving a fair amount of criticism come tomorrow morning. That being said, there were moments when I saw this year as a step forward from the stuffy atmosphere of your typical Oscar night. However, a medium clearly has yet to be met.
In sum, most awards were entirely predictable. All technical and acting awards ended up in hands of the front runners. I say this not to discourage the achievements and celebrations of films who exhibited technical excellence this year (like the Social Network's poignant score, or Inceptions complex sound mixing), but to highlight what will and will not survive conversations beyond the water cooler tomorrow. So here it is, my list of winner and losers:
1. God of Love: For the first time, I managed to make it to the Best Live Action Shorts. The promising batch of shorts were weighted down by heavy themes and chilling dramatic action (key ingredients to making that feature film happen). Except one. God of Love, the last film screened in the series, was like a spirited fresh breath of air. Reeking of NYU film student living in Brooklyn, the short basked in the odd looks of its writer/director/star. Despite it's somewhat flat plot and ironic overtones, it managed to reassert life into the regular batch of dramas dished out by the Academy Awards. And honestly, I walked out of there saying there's no way it would win. So, to my surprise when the goofy-faced Luke Matheny comes barreling down from way back (clearly seat assignments didn't think he'd be winning either), I was actually overtaken with joy. For in that moment, to be a struggling film student winning an Oscar, it was pure glory in the face of the stuffy pomp and circumstance of the Academy Awards. So kudos, Luke, we'll be looking for you at Sundance.
2. The Kings Speech. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy The Kings Speech, I really did. Much more than I thought I would. And Colin Firth's lovely little speech was deserved and touching. However, as a film to mark a moment, and a year, it ultimately fails. (Almost more than the Hurt Locker, which I had to actively stretch my brain to recollect!) As another period piece takes home the Best Picture, the Academy fails to open up their show and their nominees to a wider range of films and extended demographic. They add 5 films to the Best Pictures to combat this very problem. And sure, Toy Story and Inception got nominated, but it's all essentially moot when the best picture ends up to be the historical drama of individual hope. The Social Network as a cultural document would have ultimately marked this year as one distinct from any other; giving weight to their attempts at breaking free of their old bonds in favor of film erected as a reflective of the current historical moment. Will we look back on The Kings Speech in a year? Maybe. In ten years? Absolutely not. Will The Social Network be fodder for generations fifty years from now to over analyze this period? Yes. I suppose you should just join the ranks of Raging Bull as Spielberg says. (Also, wtf Tom Hooper?)
3. Documentaries! I think what we've all forgotten in the rush between The Kings Speech and The Social Network is that this was really the year for documentaries. Quite frankly the best race was between 5 films that I'm sure almost none of the general public saw, but were a buzz across critics and cyberspace. I think we need to just take another moment to remember those films, for we may see them survive well beyond the shelf life of Inception or The Fighter. Note to the future awards: celebrate the little people. If we had seen more rep for the docs, shorts and technical awards out there, I think this show can really turn-round.
3.5. I suppose I should also take a moment to say that the awards did a great (all be it predictable) job of awarding the technicians who made this years' batch of films incredible. This was also the year for film celebrating visual style and formal merit. Inception would not be what it was if not for the brilliant sound mixing and editing. The Social Network would not have been nearly as enjoyable or effortlessly smart without it's perfectly-timed editing. And even Alice and Wonderland; I would have probably demanded my money back if not for the whimsy of their costumes.
All in all, I'm not impressed. That is not to say that they were more of snooze than last year's forgettable flop. But this was certainly one of the messier shows we've seen in a long time. I cannot say if this is good or bad. One one hand it could be a sorry attempt at masking oneself as something you're not. On the other, it could simply be a tinkering transitional period, one that promises a new vision of the awards in the new future. Maybe they've just got to get the chemistry right to inspire viewers across generations.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Since when did Kirostami start making wistful romantic dramas? Shouldn't they just be shouting at each other in a car?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
moving forward and standing still?
So, Oscar nominations were released this morning and were essentially the predictable bunch of folks that have been making the rounds all month. However a few interesting little twists arose at the crack of dawn this morning; here are my surprises:
1) Two of my favorite people of the year didn't make it into the running for Oscar gold. Christopher Nolan's absence from the Best Directing category makes me wonder what sort of game these people are playing. Look, I understand he's been put up in Original Screenplay and the Best Picture category, but why snub him in directing? To make way for David O. Russel? (Who, just because your entire cast got nominated, doesn't mean you automatically deserve a nomination, Lee Daniels.) Additionally, a member of my favorite young cast is missing: Andrew Garfield. His heartbreaking performance has been earning him a nod at just about every award ceremony out there, but the Oscar fuddy-duddies have snubbed him in the Best Supporting Actor Category. Look, no one actually thinks he'll win (after all, Christian Bale lost a ton of weight and played a drug addict this year), but the brilliance of the Social Network's bright young cast deserves to be recognized. Sure, they may have done the right thing and given a nod to True Grit's Hailee Steinfeld, but they are not making progressive steps to disband their "old boys club" reputation.
2) No Blue Valentine love? The film only received one notable nomination for Michelle Williams in the Best Actress category. Her counterpart Ryan Gosling was passed up in favor of James Franco's equally disturbing performance in 127 Hours. Though this film wasn't going to receive any nods in the technical or writing categories, I thought for sure it would be a shoo in with the move to 10 nominations for Best Picture. Quite honestly I could do without 127 Hours up for the best of the year.
3) Perhaps the most purposeless and perplexing oversight came in the form of Inception passed over for Editing. It almost felt arbitrary for me; sure, lets give 'em all the other categories but not editing just so we don't tip the scales and have an action movie as the most nominated film of the year? I don't want to sound like this is some big conspiracy against mainstream cinema amid the artistic prestige of the year, but let's be honest, Inception was one of the best things out there. It's been dry, and we all deserved to have a little fun and shouldn't feel bad about it.
4) Finally a nod for Javiar Bardem. Finally.
I'm not quite sure what to do with this year's list of nominations. In relation to this year's odd mix of triumphs and typical fair, it's hard to see any logic or reasoning behind a number of their choices. It felt like they gave up: sure, lets just give the Coen Brothers the most nominations, and The Kings Speech a strong second. They're classic films that "deserve" to be recognized. And all this is to be expected (every. single. year.), but why throw in some deserving nods and hold back on others? Is this an attempt to appease all? I get that you're trying to be hip, Oscars, by nominating Tron Legacy and Inception, but a clear overview on this year's best films seems to be muddled in this crowd-pleasing process. Figure it out, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. You'll never be the cool, hip parent with traditional values.
1) Two of my favorite people of the year didn't make it into the running for Oscar gold. Christopher Nolan's absence from the Best Directing category makes me wonder what sort of game these people are playing. Look, I understand he's been put up in Original Screenplay and the Best Picture category, but why snub him in directing? To make way for David O. Russel? (Who, just because your entire cast got nominated, doesn't mean you automatically deserve a nomination, Lee Daniels.) Additionally, a member of my favorite young cast is missing: Andrew Garfield. His heartbreaking performance has been earning him a nod at just about every award ceremony out there, but the Oscar fuddy-duddies have snubbed him in the Best Supporting Actor Category. Look, no one actually thinks he'll win (after all, Christian Bale lost a ton of weight and played a drug addict this year), but the brilliance of the Social Network's bright young cast deserves to be recognized. Sure, they may have done the right thing and given a nod to True Grit's Hailee Steinfeld, but they are not making progressive steps to disband their "old boys club" reputation.
2) No Blue Valentine love? The film only received one notable nomination for Michelle Williams in the Best Actress category. Her counterpart Ryan Gosling was passed up in favor of James Franco's equally disturbing performance in 127 Hours. Though this film wasn't going to receive any nods in the technical or writing categories, I thought for sure it would be a shoo in with the move to 10 nominations for Best Picture. Quite honestly I could do without 127 Hours up for the best of the year.
3) Perhaps the most purposeless and perplexing oversight came in the form of Inception passed over for Editing. It almost felt arbitrary for me; sure, lets give 'em all the other categories but not editing just so we don't tip the scales and have an action movie as the most nominated film of the year? I don't want to sound like this is some big conspiracy against mainstream cinema amid the artistic prestige of the year, but let's be honest, Inception was one of the best things out there. It's been dry, and we all deserved to have a little fun and shouldn't feel bad about it.
4) Finally a nod for Javiar Bardem. Finally.
I'm not quite sure what to do with this year's list of nominations. In relation to this year's odd mix of triumphs and typical fair, it's hard to see any logic or reasoning behind a number of their choices. It felt like they gave up: sure, lets just give the Coen Brothers the most nominations, and The Kings Speech a strong second. They're classic films that "deserve" to be recognized. And all this is to be expected (every. single. year.), but why throw in some deserving nods and hold back on others? Is this an attempt to appease all? I get that you're trying to be hip, Oscars, by nominating Tron Legacy and Inception, but a clear overview on this year's best films seems to be muddled in this crowd-pleasing process. Figure it out, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. You'll never be the cool, hip parent with traditional values.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)