More Oscar Predictions

So I've already listed six predictions for Best Picture. Obviously, this is one of the most interesting, if not THE most interesting race, so I am especially curious to find out which films will fill the remaining four slots.

Two films that I think have a pretty good shot are Winter's Bone and Toy Story 3. I also think that The Kids Are All Right, Blue Valentine, and 127 Hours have a good chance. I've heard The Town tossed around, but I watched it two nights ago and thought it was good but not great.

I'll go out on a limb and make this my final list:

1. The Fighter
2. True Grit
3. Black Swan
4. The King's Speech
5. Inception
6. The Social Network
7. Winter's Bone
8. Toy Story 3
9. The Kids Are All Right
10. 127 Hours

I don't necessarily agree with all of these choices, I just think that's what they'll be. I wish Shutter Island would get a nod, but as it came out right after last years awards, I doubt it will.

As for Best Director, I think David Fincher (The Social Network) is a sure thing. I also think Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan) will be nominated since I don't think he's gotten a nod before. But as for the last three spots, there are six feasible names I can seen filling them, the most likely probably being David O. Russell (The Fighter), Tom Hooper (The King's Speech), and Christopher Nolan (Inception). The other three who have a shot are the Coen Brothers (True Grit), Lisa Cholodenko (The Kids Are All Right), and Debra Granik (Winter's Bone). Maybe the last two are just wishful thinking on my part, since this category is so notoriously short on women, but I can see Granik getting a shot as the indie dark horse.

Of course, there's always the chance that Danny Boyle could get nominated for 127 Hours (which I still haven't seen, and thus can't comment on whether or not he deserves it) or Ben Affleck for The Town (which I have seen, and thought it was a less good version of Gone Baby Gone, so, while I hope Ben gets nominated someday, I hope it's for a better movie than this).

Next up are predictions for the acting categories and maybe if I feel like it, screenplays.

Playing the Oscar Prophet

In a couple of days, after I've had some time to sit down and think about it a little more thoroughly, I will come up with a more complete list of Oscar Nomination Predictions. And once the actual nominations are posted, I'll make more accurate predictions about the winners. But until then, here's what I predict:

Among the Best Picture nominees will be -

1. True Grit
2. The Fighter
3. Black Swan
4. The King's Speech
5. Winter's Bone
6. Inception
7. The Social Network

And I predict that The Social Network will win.

Why I Watch Movies

I've been lucky enough to see A LOT of great movies lately, each of them worthy of their own lengthy post. Unfortunately, there's just no way I can get thoroughly caught up. So, with the adage of "Something is better than nothing" in mind, I'll give a brief gut reaction to each of them.

1) The Fighter - Excellent, understated film that manages to live up to the hype but not in the way you would expect. Avoids cliches and "triumphant-sports-movie-swell-of-emotions" moments by refraining from indulgent camera-lingering after "important" or "moving" lines have been said. Matter-of-fact in the best sense possible.

2) True Grit - As good as you would expect a movie with this subject matter made by the Coen Brothers to be. Could not be a more perfect marriage of content and director; an exceptionally great cast to boot. At its core, about how Time itself (much like protagonist Mattie Ross) plods matter-of-factly and mercilessly on.

3) Black Swan - Slightly disappointing, simply in that it was not as shocking as is was touted to be. However, this could be due to one of two reasons: 1) because I had read a signigicant number of reviews and spoiler alerts before watching this film, and 2) because I am very familiar with the world of ballet and thus could not be shocked by what otherwise might be "shocking realities" of the ballet world. That said, I was impressed by Natalie Portman's appearance, though not Barbara Hershey's. I also applaud Darron Aronofsky for spotting an excellent opportunity for a setting - the world of ballet (rife with vulnerable girl-women striving impossibly for perfection, domineering Balanchine-esque directors, physical rigor bordering on masochism, and the ever-present mirror, with it's second-guessing, esteem-sucking quality) - and using it as the stage for one woman's descent into obsession and insanity.

4) The Wind That Shakes the Barley - This film broke my heart and ended before it could mend it again; still, I would recommend it to anyone. Like The Lives of Others, this film portrays the daily lives of common people during an era of history largely unfamiliar to most. At the end, I was left really questioning for the first time the causes of war, and if any cause is ever worth it. More specfically, I found myself marveling at the fact that a belief in an abstract idea, government, or political concept could be so strong that you could look another human being in the eye and kill them because of it. This movie contains characters who are both able and unable to do this, and compassionately portrays all of them.

5) The Lives of Others - Astoundingly interesting and moving film that manages to be compelling on multiple levels - first as an in-depth look into the realities of pre-fall Germany, secondly as a testimony to the transformative power of art, and finally as a subtle celebration of our ability to be moved by another person's humanity.

Boogie Nights

Yup, I watched it. I don't know why I watched a movie about the porn industry and expected it not to have a lot of sex in it, but I did. If you're wondering why I watched this movie in the first place, I'll give you three reasons:

1) Mark Wahlberg.
2) It's actually somewhat critically acclaimed, and Marky Mark's breakout film.
3) I was snowed in.

Whether any or all of those reasons is good enough for you is matter for a different discussion. I have an inexplicable "thing" for Mark Wahlberg (clarification: a "thing" is different than a crush; I don't watch his movies because I think he's hot and I want to see more of him; I watch his movies because he confuses and amuses me).

Apart from seeing more sex than I wanted to (and in reality, there was probably no more sex than was in The Reader, it just didn't look as pretty or seem as romantically tragic), I have mixed feelings about this film. On the one hand, it's about more than the porn industry; it's about a lost boy looking for a way to be something and thinking he finds the answer down his pants. It's also about what a significant number of other movies have been about, i.e., the downside of fame, fortune, and power, particularly when they're obtained through some illegal, unsavory, or atypical means deemed unacceptable by society (Ex: drug dealers, mobsters, prostitutes, rock stars). Maybe this is why the movie ultimately didn't do it for me - because the main story (or "message," if you will) seemed so familar. I've seen it before, recently (Blow, American Gangster ), and I've seen it before, done better (The Godfather and Godfather II).

Still, this movie deserves some credit for a) discovering that Marky Mark had more to offer than just his fit bod as an underwear model, and b) having the nerve to tackle the porn industry and essentially treating it as if it were just any other business. What's good about this movie, and at the same time what makes it sad, is that it shows us the most overt human vices - sex, drugs, money - and lets us see what happens when they're taken to their utmost extremes. Eventually, Dirk Diggler (Marky Mark's character) get's everything he ever wanted, loses it all, and, at the very end, slowly starts to regain it again. The thing is, even when he was on top, it didn't look all that appealing.

What makes this film still relevant, and at times - if you can call it that - touching - are the various moments of desperation and humiliation experienced by the ensemble of characters. There's Don Cheadle as the Western-clad, wannabe cowboy and pathetic stereo salesman Buck Swope, wondering to his buddy why he's not successful even as his friend tells him that fringed shirts are no look for a black man; Heather Graham and Julianne Moore as porn stars Rollergirl and Amber Waves, sobbing in each other's arms after deciding to be a surrogate mother/daughter pair while tweaking out on coke; John C. Reilly as Dirk's best friend Reed Rothchild, initially trying to one-up him like a little kid comparing card collections; William H. Macy as the director's assistant Little Bill who's forever stumbling upon his wife in bed (or on the lawn, or in the pool) with another man, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the porno groupie Scotty J, with his misplaced admiration for Dirk that leads to a supposedly drunken kiss and an ensuing love declaration. It's these moments and these characters - and their desperate attempt to find some sort of meaning in a world that has none - that provides the heart of the film. Ultimately, everyone in the movie has the same story as Dirk - not the fame and the fortune part, but the part that brought them to the industry in the first place - of a lost someone looking for a place to call home, or a somebody to think they're something.

The movie doesn't glamorize this world, nor does it make it look terrible. Instead, it tackles the whole thing with an "it is what it is" attitude - these are porn stars, yes, but they're people too. Boogie Nights doesn't pose a lot of questions, but it does present some situations that could lead to them. Nor does it make any attempts to provide the answers. It's just "Here are some people, they do what they do." Some have reasons for the choices they've made, and maybe some of these reasons are excuses for the way they turned out. They rise, they fall, and (if they're still alive), they find solace in the father figure that is director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and the camraderie of the others who have ended up, by chance or by choice, in the same sordid profession as they did.

The Reader

I've been wanting to see this film ever since I first heard about it. First, because Kate Winslet is probably my favorite actress and fantastic and diverse in everything she does. And secondly, I'll admit, because the subject matter seemed so salacious: older woman has sex with underaged boy and turns out to be some sort of Nazi. I'm not a pervert; it's just that there's no way you can read that description of a film and not think it sounds interesting. Plus, the fact that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards and starred Kate Winslet meant that it had to be more than just a sensationalized sex story.

And it was. As soon as I finished watching it, I felt eager to recommend it to my family. Upon second thought, I realized that it really does have quite a few very nude love scenes and might not be the best "family film." But the reason why I initially failed to remember the multiple sex scenes in this film is exactly the reason why it's so good: this is one of those rare movies where I felt the sex/nudity was neither gratuitous nor did it overshadow the point of the movie. I can't say much without giving too much away, but for me, this film was ultimately about the life of one woman as discovered by a boy (and later man) who once, and perhaps still does, unconventionally love her. A truly good film has the ability to take an obscure and unrelatable situation (for example, a Nazi woman who has sex with fifteen year old boys) and help us see our own humanity in it.

King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes (funny, I always thought it was Shakespeare) "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Though we don't all consummate our lust for people that are off limits, and we certainly aren't all Nazis, the emotions portrayed in this film - wonder, innocence, uncertainty, excitement, confusion, shame, pity, anger, grief, love - have been felt throughout the ages, time and time again, by all sorts of people. This film recognizes both the beauty, and the frailty, of such emotions, no matter who they are felt by. While The Reader by no means celebrates the actions of the characters in the film, it honors the integrity of the emotions that result from them.

I am so glad I watched this film, and so glad that Ms. Winslet finally, finally won her much deserved Oscar.

The Fountain

I've watched so many movies since last posting, many of them memorable, and have at least a couple of unfinished posts waiting to be published, so rather than try to catch up thoroughly, I'm just going to give some very brief reactions to whichever ones I can remember. I have given no deep thought or extended contemplation towards the critique of any of these films, apart from the reflection that is a natural part of time's passage.


First up: The Fountain. This movie wasn't perfect - I suppose a few moments didn't quite "land" - but I loved it. Going into it, I knew nothing about the plot, when it had been released, or who directed it, and I couldn't remember having read a single review of the film. This was the ideal state of mind with which to go into watching this movie (and indeed, I wish I could go into more movies with such total ignorance). The movie is directed by Daron Aronofsky, who I later found out directed Requiem For a Dream, Pi, The Wrestler, and the soon to be released Black Swan. I hadn't seen any of those other films at the time; the only thing I knew was that he often uses the composer Clint Mansell, who wrote the epically memorable score of Requiem For a Dream that was used in The Two Towers trailer. The music for this movie is every bit as memorable and beautiful (I'm listening to it right now), and appropriately captures both the devastating, all-consuming grief and the eternal triumph felt by the main character in the story. Speaking of characters, the two main ones are played wonderfully by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Rachel Weisz was and always is lovely - both lovely acting and lovely looking. As for Hugh Jackman...I had no idea he could act! But he can, and he was excellent in this film - so good that I totally forgot he was Hugh Jackman at all, that buff, singing, Sexiest Man Alive.

A previous review sums up the story better than I can, so I'll paste that description here: "A love story weaving together three interrelated tales set in the past, present and far future, with the couples in each all played by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz: a medical researcher racing to find a cure to save his terminally-ill wife; the characters in a novel she's writing about a 16th century conquistador questing after the fabled Fountain of Youth for his lover, the Queen of Spain; and the same scientist, who mysteriously hasn't aged, traveling to a distant star in the 26th century, still searching for the secret of eternal life." I can see some people distancing themselves from this third sequence and dubbing it too "New Age-y" (I myself felt a slight pull in this direction), but don't if you can at all help yourself. There is actually nothing in the sequence that need be silly (or for Christians) heretical. Some may think this film advocates for its own specific vein of vague "spirituality", but I would disagree. Rather, I think it's a mediation on one man's attempt to deal with death, grief, and loss, and the very reason it's so wonderful is because it manages to be simultaneously acutely personal and relatedbly universal. One more thing I would like to mention: this movie is visually beautiful, especially the scenes in the snow.

Well, that was longer than I thought it would be, but in closing: see this movie, go into it with focus and an open mind, and you might be taken by surprise.

Revocation of previous statement

In my recent post about A Serious Man, I said "Actually, the Coen Brothers seem the sort who care about their viewers’ opinions about as little as I cared about the plight of Larry Gopnik..."

This is not true. I did care about Larry Gopnik, which I realized after talking to my mom. I think sometimes when people have such inconceivable bad luck, I get frustrated and take it out on them, because it is easier to feel anger and fed-uppedness than it is to feel sadness and sympathy. I felt this same sort of frustration during the first part of Jane Eyre, which is why it took me until the third read to actually enjoy the book. It's easy to start blaming the recipient of the misfortune for the misfortune. I think this is what I did with poor Larry ("Just STAND UP FOR YOURSELF and PUNCH SOMEONE ALREADY!"), which is why I left feeling cold hearted.

The larger point of this post is that I don't ever want the aim of criticism to supercede my natural human reaction the things. I do not want to fall into the trap of snark for snark's sake. Obviously, I hope to analyze movies fairly, objectively, and level-headedly, but I hope to always leave room for compassion and empathy, because what are movies if they cease to make us feel anything?