Pitcute: Slumdog Millionaire (I'd love to see a quasi-Bollywood film win)
Director: Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
Actor: B Pitt, Benjamin Buttons (I think it could be anyone's game, who knows)
Actress: Winslet, Revolutionary Road (finally, let's see Winslet get it)
Supp. Actor: Ledger, The DK (posthumous award sounds interesting, also )
Supp. Actress: Cruz, VCB (It would give Woody Allen another supporting actor/actress win, and I like Penelope Cruz. I like seeing Latinos be rewarded and she's been paying her dues for a while. Certainly better then Selma Hayek, IMO)
O Screenplay: Rachel Getting Married (Milk? if Milk is original or adapted i don't remember, Rachel Getting Married screenplay wouldn't go to Johnothan Demme, but it would make him look good, so why not? Besides i don't want to see O Screenplay go to a dramedy/comedy AGAIN (i.e. Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, Sideways, Lost in Translation))
A Screenplay: Benjamin Buttons (I'd like to see Ben Buttons and Slumdog be the top 2 award getters of the night so throw Ben Buttons the screenplay, even though there's much to
Editing: Frost/Nixon (I wouldn't mind seeing Frost/Nixon walk away with a win, and it's a little better edited than Dark Knight, IMO)
Score: Slumdog Millionaire
Song: Wall-E (Wall-E was a unique film, i'd like to see it get more wins than just animated)
Cinematography: Dark Knight or Slumdog (I'm torn, I understand that Dark Knight had revolutionary new methods and innovations in cinematography, but Slumdog was amazing and traditionally the best picture gets at least 2 or 3 other wins for the night)
Art Direction: Benjamin Buttons (that makes 3)
Costumes: Australia (Australia deserves a technical, i don't want to see it go all Memoirs of a Geisha and sweep the technical awards when it clearly wasn't a deserving picture as a whole, but one technical award sounds right)
Make-Up: Dark Knight (2nd for Dark Knight. I would've liked to see it win cinematography but what can you do
Sound: Wall-E (I had no idea how to judge best sound until I heard Wall-E and knew that the film was great, in part, because of the sound)
Sound Editing: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (I'd like to see it get a technical award somewhere, maybe Lucas and Spielberg couldn't make a great story out of their efforts to revive the Indiana Jones
Animated: Wall-E
Documentary: Encounters at the End of the World, Warner Herzog (I don't even know if it's eligible, but it was my personal favorite)
Special Effects: Iron Man (when you think about it, Dark Knight has a lot of drama, and a small amount of explosions, but nothing in the way of Iron Man)
Foreign: Waltz with Bashir (catchy name for a film. reminds me of Dr. Bashir on Star Trek, so I'll go with that)
Showing posts with label Heath Ledger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heath Ledger. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Could the Dark Knight be a potentially dangerous film?
I saw The Dark Knight the other day and found it too disturbing of a film for me to really think that it was worth watching. I'd give a review of the film (unlike some other critics, I certainly wouldn't give it 4 stars, even on the basis of whether it's mismarketed), because I think there are a couple more pressing issues.
One thing that worries me heavily about this film, is that it's a PG-13 rating, it's basically the silence of the lambs or seven disguised as a comic book film. It's more a horror film than it is a crime drama, and it's certainly not in the spirit of a comic book film. And I can understand people applauding the film for being a good film, but i get the sense that people are applauding the film for succeeding in pushing the boundaries of the comic book genre to make it dark, scary, psychopathic, etc., but has anyone ever thought that perhaps those boundaries were there for a reason? I think people who are not used to seeing violent films and parents taking children should be plenty forewarned about it.
At the same time, I'm concerned about potential violence that the film could spur and I know I'm now one of those anti-violence-in-the-movies advocates, but I maintain what I'm saying:
Remember back in the days of the Hayes Code when Hollywood didn't want a portrayal of unglamorous lifestyles because they wanted to promote a moral society? Obviously, we think that that's far-fetched and restricted a great number of artists back in those days from telling things in stories, but I do believe that there could be a such thing as too much. There are some examples of how some films have promoted copycat crimes, and issues like that. Studies have shown that on some occasions, the line between reality and what you see in the movies gets blurred and I can see that being blurred here because the film is real. We are influenced by what we see.
I am profoundly worried that with all the excessive praise lavished on the Dark Knight, and the cult following that has grown around the character of the Joker, that the message might be lost on impressionable youths with violent undertones that the Joker's actions were completely reprehensible and disgusting in this film. I could see some guy who's treated like a freak in some high school somewhere get inspired by this film to get the idea that if only he inflicted twisted and sick enough terrorist acts of violence among those who picked on him, than he'd have their respect.
This is what happened on screen in this film: The Joker was a freak, one that a select few might have empathized with when he walked in the room and the mob was picking on him and not taking him seriously, by unleashing reprehensible acts of violence and practically torturing people, he became highly revered and respected. As implausible as I found this, the mob swore allegiance to him and Harvey Dent chose not to shoot him after some small little diatribe. I raised the point in one discussion thread that I think one flaw of the film was that unless there was a direct threat on your life at that very moment, it would have never been in any character's interest to follow him, for any character to have truly wanted Joker to have been in charge, except the mentally derranged people he had at first. I think the mob would have really wanted to see them gone and would have turned on him at any opportunity, especially when he was in prison, they wouldn't have underestimated him, and they would have not cared about what he could do for them if he represented a direct threat to their establishment. They would have gotten to work on bringing him down. The joker is also portrayed as somewhat omnipotent, he knew more details about what and when things would happen in each plan that would have been plausible, and if the script was true to life, the Joker would probably have been killed quicker. It's not relevant whether you agree with the plot holes or not that leads to the Joker getting away with as much as he does, but what is important is that the film makes the Joker such a dangerous and scary villain because it presents us with that illusion that simply unleashing sinister enough acts of violence will get you anything you ever wanted. The film portrays everything in a very realistic setting.
What I think makes this all worse, is the celebration that's going on in response to the Dark Knight's success and the way that some disturbed people might misinterpret all of it. As a result of what we think is a good performance, we've sort of championed the character of the Joker a lot. We have kind of treated the character of the Joker as we would traditionally treat the hero of a film, a lot of us have adopted imdb names with the Joker in them. Maybe we'll all be wearing joker costumes on halloween or wearing joker costumes at one of those conventions. The truth is that what is being glorified is artistic freedom: The fact that the film broke free of the conventions to sugarcoat the violence inherent in comic book films.
At the same time, that's not being explicitly stated: What someone could get the message from it is that not only do you all love the Joker, you love the character, you would secretly love it if someone in real life decided to kill and torture people, and take a town hostage. There's not enough of a message I'm getting out there from all the whirlwind of media and every other source that some young person can be exposed to of "We love the character as a moviegoer but we'd hate for someone to act in this manner in real life." The viral marketing kind of makes it even worse.
I'd be eager to be proven wrong, but I think that's at the heart of what worries me and I'm afraid for some violent school shooting that could potentially happen because of this film. I think the magnitude of response to this film might make it a bigger disaster than any other film.
One thing that worries me heavily about this film, is that it's a PG-13 rating, it's basically the silence of the lambs or seven disguised as a comic book film. It's more a horror film than it is a crime drama, and it's certainly not in the spirit of a comic book film. And I can understand people applauding the film for being a good film, but i get the sense that people are applauding the film for succeeding in pushing the boundaries of the comic book genre to make it dark, scary, psychopathic, etc., but has anyone ever thought that perhaps those boundaries were there for a reason? I think people who are not used to seeing violent films and parents taking children should be plenty forewarned about it.
At the same time, I'm concerned about potential violence that the film could spur and I know I'm now one of those anti-violence-in-the-movies advocates, but I maintain what I'm saying:
Remember back in the days of the Hayes Code when Hollywood didn't want a portrayal of unglamorous lifestyles because they wanted to promote a moral society? Obviously, we think that that's far-fetched and restricted a great number of artists back in those days from telling things in stories, but I do believe that there could be a such thing as too much. There are some examples of how some films have promoted copycat crimes, and issues like that. Studies have shown that on some occasions, the line between reality and what you see in the movies gets blurred and I can see that being blurred here because the film is real. We are influenced by what we see.
I am profoundly worried that with all the excessive praise lavished on the Dark Knight, and the cult following that has grown around the character of the Joker, that the message might be lost on impressionable youths with violent undertones that the Joker's actions were completely reprehensible and disgusting in this film. I could see some guy who's treated like a freak in some high school somewhere get inspired by this film to get the idea that if only he inflicted twisted and sick enough terrorist acts of violence among those who picked on him, than he'd have their respect.
This is what happened on screen in this film: The Joker was a freak, one that a select few might have empathized with when he walked in the room and the mob was picking on him and not taking him seriously, by unleashing reprehensible acts of violence and practically torturing people, he became highly revered and respected. As implausible as I found this, the mob swore allegiance to him and Harvey Dent chose not to shoot him after some small little diatribe. I raised the point in one discussion thread that I think one flaw of the film was that unless there was a direct threat on your life at that very moment, it would have never been in any character's interest to follow him, for any character to have truly wanted Joker to have been in charge, except the mentally derranged people he had at first. I think the mob would have really wanted to see them gone and would have turned on him at any opportunity, especially when he was in prison, they wouldn't have underestimated him, and they would have not cared about what he could do for them if he represented a direct threat to their establishment. They would have gotten to work on bringing him down. The joker is also portrayed as somewhat omnipotent, he knew more details about what and when things would happen in each plan that would have been plausible, and if the script was true to life, the Joker would probably have been killed quicker. It's not relevant whether you agree with the plot holes or not that leads to the Joker getting away with as much as he does, but what is important is that the film makes the Joker such a dangerous and scary villain because it presents us with that illusion that simply unleashing sinister enough acts of violence will get you anything you ever wanted. The film portrays everything in a very realistic setting.
What I think makes this all worse, is the celebration that's going on in response to the Dark Knight's success and the way that some disturbed people might misinterpret all of it. As a result of what we think is a good performance, we've sort of championed the character of the Joker a lot. We have kind of treated the character of the Joker as we would traditionally treat the hero of a film, a lot of us have adopted imdb names with the Joker in them. Maybe we'll all be wearing joker costumes on halloween or wearing joker costumes at one of those conventions. The truth is that what is being glorified is artistic freedom: The fact that the film broke free of the conventions to sugarcoat the violence inherent in comic book films.
At the same time, that's not being explicitly stated: What someone could get the message from it is that not only do you all love the Joker, you love the character, you would secretly love it if someone in real life decided to kill and torture people, and take a town hostage. There's not enough of a message I'm getting out there from all the whirlwind of media and every other source that some young person can be exposed to of "We love the character as a moviegoer but we'd hate for someone to act in this manner in real life." The viral marketing kind of makes it even worse.
I'd be eager to be proven wrong, but I think that's at the heart of what worries me and I'm afraid for some violent school shooting that could potentially happen because of this film. I think the magnitude of response to this film might make it a bigger disaster than any other film.
Interesting that Anthony Minghellia isn't being mourned
So everyone's mourning Heath's death and talking about how the world is deprived of so many pictures becaues he died young. I think that's reasonable and Heath was on his way to being a great actor.
At the same time, I find it curious that the Heath Ledger effect doesn't work for directors as well. I find it curious that the 2 founders of Mirage died premature deaths this past year and while Sidney Pollack's funeral was one of the most widely attended events in Hollywood this past year, no one has felt it's a loss to the world of movies that he won't be making any more pictures. I don't know but I imagine Pollack might have had 2 or three films left in him. He was 74 when he died, which is pretty old, but Altman, Lumet and Scorsesee seem on course to make films into their 80s as does Eastwood.
Granted, Pollack was old, but Minghellia died at age 54. He could have done a dozen more films before he died and while Pollack could be uneven, Minghellia's films were usually Oscar caliber. Cold Mountain almost got nominated, Talented Mr Ripley got him a best director nomination, English Patient won best picture and recently placed #14 on a poll of best films of the 90s. Breaking and Entering was quiet and not widely received but well-received. Minghellia usually tackled books and challenging adaptations which are a much more timeless and consistently reliable source material than what most films are made of, so it's a good bet he would have had many more memorable films within him.
At the same time, I find it curious that the Heath Ledger effect doesn't work for directors as well. I find it curious that the 2 founders of Mirage died premature deaths this past year and while Sidney Pollack's funeral was one of the most widely attended events in Hollywood this past year, no one has felt it's a loss to the world of movies that he won't be making any more pictures. I don't know but I imagine Pollack might have had 2 or three films left in him. He was 74 when he died, which is pretty old, but Altman, Lumet and Scorsesee seem on course to make films into their 80s as does Eastwood.
Granted, Pollack was old, but Minghellia died at age 54. He could have done a dozen more films before he died and while Pollack could be uneven, Minghellia's films were usually Oscar caliber. Cold Mountain almost got nominated, Talented Mr Ripley got him a best director nomination, English Patient won best picture and recently placed #14 on a poll of best films of the 90s. Breaking and Entering was quiet and not widely received but well-received. Minghellia usually tackled books and challenging adaptations which are a much more timeless and consistently reliable source material than what most films are made of, so it's a good bet he would have had many more memorable films within him.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Review of The Brothers Grimm
The Brother's Grimm might not succeed as the definitive postmodern compendium of fairy tales that Director Terry Gilliam made it out to be. The plot's finer points and its references to fairy tales get easily lost on the viewer. At the same time, the movie works as a playful ride fueled by the odd couple chemistry between its two stars. Heath Ledger and Matt Damon play brothers Will and two witch doctors who travel the 18th Century German countryside offering their services as witch doctors. In reality, they're con artists who elaborately plot hoaxes. The main plot is that the two brothers are forced to play witch doctors for real when they are hired to clean out a forest that they discover is truly haunted. Terry Gilliam, who is somewhat of an acquired taste for being more of an art director than a storyteller, achieves more impressive and less distracting visuals than usual and imbues the film with touches of humor. Overall, the film works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)