Final Thoughts on 2022 in Film

-Stephen Spielberg thanked Tom Cruise for saving movies with Top Gun. You can call the film over-rated due to how big it blew up but, by that standard, a lot of things are overrated. Think of how little you expected when you walked into that theater and think of how you (most likely) were moved; how well done all of the film's elements were. Moreso, think of how this was not a Marvel film and managed to rule the Box Office for 3 weeks in the middle of Summer. It was the top grossing film of the year in an age where the only stuff thriving is superheroes and cartoons.

-Best director is likely going to two guys named Daniel. Although I don't love Oscars being used as lifetime achievement awards (like Don Ameche in Cocoon or Lee Grant in Shampoo who were indistinguishable from the rest of their casts when they won Academy Awards; I'll go to my grave saying Al Pacino did a great job in Scent of a Woman if people stop comparing it to the 70s), I tend to think it's a little embarrassing to have people who aren't particularly accomplished in that category. More than any other award, we can't tell what a director does from a single film since he relies on various craftsmen and actors to create his vision. The best director award comes close to reflecting a list of the best, but when you have the guy who directed Rocky (can't remember his name), Delbert Mann or Tom Hooper, you run a risk that the award is diluted. I'd prefer if the award went to someone with somewhat of a track record for doing big things.

-We need to just collectively admit this was not a particularly good year for American films:

*Baz Luhrmann is an erratic and polarizing guy. Whatever your opinion of him or this movie is, we should recognize this was not something that all viewers considered a success. I found it to not vary enough from the typical beats of the biopic to merit any special recognition.

*Tar is 2 hours and 37 minutes long. My friend Khari typically avoids films over two hours and while I disagree with that method of film going, this was a film that could have easily been told in an hour and 45 minutes. It's set in a highly specialized world of orchestral conducting and does little to explain why waving your arms in front of a group of classical musicians merits millions of dollars

*The Whale was gross (although that was probably the point) and a bit heavy-handed in its metaphors (the guy loves in a city with more thunder than any other). It's interesting.

*The Banshees of Inisherin is about two people who are mentally off and the film doesn't acknowledge that.  One person basically spends the whole movie whining that the other isn't his friend and the other responds in the worst way imaginable: Self-harm, not locking his door, etc. It's supposedly also about the Irish civil war and loneliness and coping, but all that stuff is muddled in the background. I could see someone reading it differently, but it didn't work for me.

-The result of the lack of decent films and the momentum behind films that were actually pretty good (at least in my opinion) like Empire of Light and Armageddon Time resulted in a bunch of foreign films like Everything Everywhere All At Once, RRR, Bardo, and Triangle of Sadness either getting nominated for BP or getting close. RRR and Triangle of Sadness I found to be terrific films but I also rarely add foreign films to my viewing diet so that was a positive effect on me.

-In spite of the Glass Onion's length, it worked as a critique of rich people. The Menu, Triangle of Sadness, and Death on the Nile also had this element which was a nice new direction. For films.

-Underrated films to me: Deep Water, The Bubble, Where the Crawdads Sing, Armageddon Time, Metal Lords, and Amsterdam

-Unfortunately, there is a sphere of entertainment-centered journalists who will always manufacture some controversy about how Hollywood doesn't properly honor people of color. They continue to attempt to drive headlines around this cause even when the facts don't support their case. This year, their double standard was highly evidence when Michelle Yeoh's broke existing campaign rules to knock down competitor Cate Blanchett.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/michelle-yeoh-deletes...

I don't think that Michelle Yeoh should be raked over the coals or even found guilty, but she violated a rule about campaigning by taking a potshot at a fellow nominee on social media.

There is no source that Andrea Riseborough directly marketed the film herself illegally (it was the director's wife who was under suspicion) and she investigated and found innocent, but her name will now be tainted because she's not really a name in the industry anyway.

That Michelle Yeoh gets all this support because of a strong double-standard here where if you're on the right side of what the identity politics crowd perceives to be social justice, you got cheered for getting on your soap box no matter what you say.

The more egregious thing here is that it's not even Andrea Riseborough's control that she was White when she had the greatest Cinderella story campaign in recent Oscars memory. The story doesn't matter: Just her skin color.

And I'm repeating myself here, but the absurdity of citing racism due to a (very probable, beforehand) snubbing of a four-time Oscar nominee dilutes the word beyond belief.

Settings for All Oscar Nominees of the 2010s

 

My Oscar wish list

Dear Oscars,

First off, I'd like to thank you for:
1. Nominating Leonardo DiCaprio
Despite being a three-time Oscar nominee, DiCaprio gets overlooked quite a bit. DiCaprio's role in Wolf of Wall Street is not just another great role indicative of the best actor of his generation (I can't speak from personal experience) but one that has been sparking water cooler discussion as well
2. Nominating Amy Adams and Christian Bale in American Hustle
While I'm not a huge fan of Cooper or Lawrence's performances, Adams and Bale are both phenomenal in their categories. I see Amy Adams in approximately 2-3 films a year (not intentionally. It just so happens she's in everything) and I've never seen these sexy and vulnerable sides to her. Christian Bale completely transforms into his role as well.
3. Snubbing Oprah for Best Supporting Actress
She's a talk show host who doesn't need an acting award. The five people who were nominated in place of her all act for a living and would likely benefit from it more.
4. Nominating guys like Pharell, U2, and Arcade Fire in the music categories
At the Golden Globes, with Justin Timberlake, Taylor Swift, Coldplay, and U2 all being nominated for best original song, we had that category alone having more twitter followers than all the other categories combined. Three of those artists got left off but I won't really miss them. We now have music producer and all-around cool guy Pharrell Williams and Arcade Fire nominated for Oscars in addition to U2. Great to see popular music artists at the Oscars.
5. Selecting nine solid films
This is somewhat subjective but I think this is the first year I can remember where I'm actually excited to see all nine films. I've seen six (seeing a seventh tonight) and have nothing but positive things to say about all of them and the other three look promising as well.


Please:

1. Choose a good host for the Oscars ceremony
This one has already been botched. Ellen DeGeneres is a wonderful personal success story having risen from gay pariah from a less tolerant era to America's favorite talk show host. But that was ten years ago and being gay or lesbian should be no big deal. I'd argue she's no longer the funniest lesbian comedian (Wanda Sykes is) or the most adorable out actress named Ellen (hello Ellen Page) anymore. In other words, we should be at the point where Ellen DeGeneres should be awarded or denied something as prestigious as the host of the world's most viewed television event on the basis of her merits. While she's great at certain things, I don't believe hosting an Oscars telecast is one of them. Her whimsy observational humor consisted barely registered the last time she hosted the Oscars in 2007 and this is even more of a travesty when there are so many gifted comedians who would kill at this gig.

2. Give Bruce Dern a solid chance
If you told me two years ago that Matthew McConaughey-- who has spent fifteen years as a poster boy for acting mediocrity -- would have a string of good roles in 2012 that boosted him to even better roles in 2013 including one that would land him an Oscar, I would have thought you were insane. Before I saw "Dallas Buyers Club", I spent much of this Oscar season thinking McConaughey's winning streak was shameful considering he was such a lousy actor for so long. I now understand what the buzz is about: McConaughey walking away with the Oscar wouldn't be a travesty as it's a capable performance. The thing is Dern also blows you away. Comparing Dern's performance to McConaughey's performance is like apples and oranges but I hope voters are giving Dern a solid consideration. After all, McConaughey's been a great film actor for two years, Dern's been at the top of his game for a period nearly twenty times that long.

3. Allow the performers to sing. Show some decent clips.
There are so many opinions on what works and what doesn't  in the "Oscars." I think most can agree that montages tend to be excessive. Personally, I think a short clip for each film and a film for each performance are most welcome additions. It even becomes somewhat of a parlor game among Oscar buzzers to guess which clips will be shown for which nominees so don't deprive them of that.
The Oscars tend to play with the format for score and song quite a bit. This is a year where we have some great musical artists so not letting them play during the ceremony would be a mistake.
 
4. Don't award Jennifer Lawrence a victory
Not only is she not that good in her role, she just won last year and is only 23 years old. Two-time Oscar winners are a rather elite club: There's no need to let her in prematurely. Of course, the Oscar should be decided on merit but let me point you to that "not that good" part of my argument above.

5. Give the original screenplay to "Her"
There seems to be some sense that David O. Russell is owed something because he's been nominated three of the last four years in the picture and director categories. That's simply not true. Being nominated three times is humongous for someone like David O. Russell who isn't yet idolized in film schools and doesn't have an amazing commercial reputation. We can afford to give the screenplay to the best candidate in this scenario and that would be "Her" by a mile. It's innovative, it's delicate, it's well-paced, and it's both depressing and inspiring. Besides,  Russell didn't even write "American Hustle" the way you saw it on the screen with all the ad-libbing and scenes that were entirely thrown in at the last minute. Russell deserves more credit as a director this year and unfortunately better candidates have that slot locked up.

Why the 5 picture system has always been a mistake

I'm looking this up and I think the 5-picture system was always a mistake.

My reasoning is that in every decade the Academy has always picked films that don't hold up to history and look ridiculous years later. Throughout the 5-picture years, the academy has a fairly good track record of selecting 1-2 or 1-3 (most people agree that Social Network-Kings Speech-True Grit were all good choices as was No County-There Will Be Blood, Avatar-Hurt Locker, Argo-Lincoln, Crash-Brokeback, Little Miss Sunshine-Departed, Aviator-Million Dollar Baby-Sideways, Mystic River-LOTR) but in slots 3-5, the academy makes arbitrary decisions that could often look stupid down the line.

For example, let's look at 1960. The best picture nominees were Elmer Gantry (worthy), the Apartment (worthy), Sundowners, Sons and Lovers, and Alamo. I'm almost entirely unfamiliar with those films, except I know that the Alamo was heavily campaigned for and yes, ignorance is no excuse for whether a film is good, but there are definitely four unnominated films from that year I've heard of and I'd consider them classics  (as with everything on this post, YMMV): Exodus, Inherit the Wind (although some find Stanley Kramer preachy and he never makes a short list of the best directors in comparison to contemporaries like Kazan, Lumet or Nichols, this is among his best films), Psycho, and Spartacus.

Decisions that are stupid in retrospect at the 3-5 slots have happened in every decade.

The 90's, for example, had Awakenings (about as dramatic as an episode of ER), Godfather III (considered to be a disappointment), Four Weddings and a Funeral (80% of Jon Cusack romantic comedies have more to say than that film), Il Postino (clearly has been forgotten: I just asked eight of my facebook friends if they've heard of that, I got ZERO yeses), Secrets and Lies (I got one of eight on that one), Babe (how many films were influenced by that? I think Homeward Bound 2 and Zookeeper was the only other film ever to use the formula of talking animals), the Fugitive (decent for an action film, but even a good action film today like Source Code or Adjustment Bureau is not going to make the Oscars).

It's pretty reasonable to assume that great films like Ed Wood, Misery, The Player, Leaving Las Vegas, Heat, Usual Suspects or Dead Man Walking would have gotten a nomination considering the other awards they were getting that season.

In the 00's: Almost Famous, Mullholland Drive, Memento, Royal Tenenbaums, Far From Heaven, Adaptation, About Schmidt, Road to Perdition, Eternal Sunshine, History of Violence, Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, Dream Girls, United 93, Into the Wild, Sweeney Todd, Wall-E, Dark Knight, and Wrestler, all had a good chance of being included if they expanded the nominee slate.

Would it have made up for questionable choices like Chocolat? Most definitely. I think more movie fans were happy with 2011's choices than 2000 because all the good nominees were included and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (according to RottenTomatoes.com, it was the most unpopular choice of Best Picture nominees in the 21st century with Chocolat) will just be seen as a quirky anomaly in retrospect

Oscars: The Good, The Bad, What I was on the Fence On

Check out my Last Edition of this Segment:

Great things about the Oscars:


1. Getting an early start on the awards and saving the best supporting actor for a little into the ceremony-The awards were being given out so fast at first, it was seeming to be a sure bet that they’d clock in at three hours. It’s also good to work your way up to supporting actor

2. Presenting the awards by talking about the process-Every year they seem to mix things up just a little in terms of how they present the awards. Sometimes, they show detailed clips of the editors or show us actual pages of the screenplay. This year they had the directors pay tribute to their technical staffs.

3. Jean DuJardin preserves over the great wall of Clooney-Score one for integrity! Pundits were predicting that because George Clooney is a lovable guy people were thinking he might just pull off a second win. I don’t doubt that George Clooney would be a wonderful guy to hang out with and, when given the right script, he’s a good actor at times. Still, is that enough to justify not one but two Oscars and might we be looking otherwise great guys and better actors by always pointing our cameras at Clooney? In this case, DuJardin was the victor and rightfully so.

4. Three live action directors won Oscars Tonight-Because they only award one per year, there will likely be a lot of great directors who will never be awarded an Oscar, which is why it was a delightful surprise to see two directors get Oscars tonight. Gore Verbinski won in the animated category for Rango while Terry George won for best short. George is best-known for Hotel Rwanda while Verbinski is best known as the man who turned a theme park attraction into one of the most fun blockbuster franchises of recent times with the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy.

5. Billy Crystal Sticking With His Guns-A lot of people thought Crystal was outdated an urged him to do something new. I think a fresher host might have definitely mixed things up but once we were stuck with Crystal, I think he played it as best as he could by sticking to what he did best. I happened to enjoy the song parodies. I also thought Justin Beiber was used quite well. He might have bigger acting chops than Zac Efron.

7. Zach Galifianakis and Will Ferrell’s best song presentation-This closely mirrors the 2004 Oscar ceremony where Will Ferrell stole the show with Jack Black during the presentation of the same category. Interestingly enough, Galifanakas’s rise to fame came through the Hangover which he got because Jack Black backed out of the movie. Todd Phillips’ stated reaction in a GQ interview: “I thought, 'Fuck this fucker. I'm going to make a new Jack Black out of Zach Galifianakis.” Looks like he succeeded.

8. Best screenplay not matching the winners-It’s nice when the academy can separate the best films from the best screenplays. Oftentimes, (e.g. The Social Network/King’s Speech, Milk/Slumdog Millionaire, and Brokeback Mountain/Crash) the two front-runners split the awards, but this year the Academy had enough foresight to recognize that the best two pictures weren’t especially strong in the screenplay department.

9. Chris Rock reminding us of the days of edgier hosts-Rock’s presentation for best animated film was a pretty good bit and just what the ceremony needed to shake things up.



On the fence:

1. Meryl Streep- Streep last won an Oscar two days after I was born and has since been nominated 12 times without winning. For comparison, no one else has ever been nominated more than 12 times. It was a complete shock and pleasant surprise to finally see Meryl earn her Oscar. At the same time, the reviews I’ve read have indicated that this is the kind of film I hate to see earn nominations in the best actress category: Films made solely for the purpose of winning someone an Oscar in this category. The reviews indicate that this isn’t a strong film at all, and offers little outside of Meryl Streep. Viola Davis was a strong choice too. I’m not sure if I wanted to see Meryl a 13th time so I’m on the fence here. I would have preferred to go back to 2009, and reengineered a Streep victory over Bullock if it comes down to it.

2. Woody Allen winning-On the one hand, it did provide some diversity and it’s slightly different than some of Woody’s other films. It even looks good on paper. At the same time, does Woody need three screenplay awards? Maybe, because he’s been nominated so many times. See, I told you I’m on the fence…I can’t even complete this passage.

3. The Bridesmaids Presentation-A good occasion to have more than one presenter onstage and to also remind us of one of the year’s best films to not make the short list. I’m also pleased that they knocked all those pesky short film categories out in under five minutes. I just personally don’t find double entendres about penis length humor that funny.

4. Brett McKenzie-I’m  a Flight of the Concords fan, but I can’t but feel that in this case it was a little bit of a matter of choosing the more popular guy as of now. I don’t think Brett is comparable to Sergio Mendes as a musician. On the plus side, Brett was very eloquent backstage.



Bad:

1. Old-Timey Montages-Everything they put in the show means they have to take something out of the show to keep it from being overlong and losing the audiences. Ideally, a montage-heavy Oscars show should only be used every few years when they hit some anniversary. This was done beautifully when they had the 75th Anniversary show in 2003 (I believe this was the 2nd Ceremony I watched) and accompanied it with a living Oscar winners’ reunion. In most other years, it’s out of context, and highly repetitive. If you’re familiar with movies (or remember last year’s ceremony), you’ve seen these scenes before already and if you’re not, you probably won’t care.

3. Jessica Chastain Losing-I’m  not unhappy for Octavia Spencer because she has a great personality and I feel a kinship with people who’s name starts with the same letter as mine. At the same time, Jessica had the stronger performance and also killed it in “Tree of Life” as well.

4. The ceremony mostly being preordained-Stupid guild awards and gluttonous pre-cursor awards. Without them, there might actually be legitimate suspense on everything.

5. Treating the Supporting and Lead Categories Differently-Like the 2010 ceremony, the nominees in the lead categories get to be sweet talked by the presenter while the supporting nominees get shafted. There’s nothing inherently less honorable about acting in a supporting role and it’s pretty clear that Plummer has a better pedigree than DuJardin anyways.

6. Oprah Winfrey gets an honorary award-Oprah Winfrey was in one prestigious movie ever and hasn’t been associated with movies in over 25 years. Albert Finney is still around, let's honor him  instead.

Saw the last of 2010's Oscar Haul....

I recently saw "Black Swan"(about 3 weeks ago, but it took me this long to getting to write about it) which means I’ve seen what I believe are the top 5 of 2010 by Oscar’s standards. I wish I could say for certain that "Inception" and not "The Fighter" would have made the short-list under a five picture system, so I’ll do the next best thing: Continue to refuse to see "The Fighter" and just call it as 5 for 6.

Why aren’t I watching "The Fighter"? I am highly uninterested in boxing movies. There have been too many boxing movies over the years with little variation and I’m not convinced I’ll be seeing anything remotely original. Even Mark Wahlberg admitted as much. Boxing is also just way too easy a venue for metaphors about the human spirit. He gets knocked down in the rink, like he gets knocked down in life, oohhhh, I can relate to that. It’s symbolism for second graders.

Now that I’ve seen each of the best picture contenders (the ones worth seeing), I feel I can comment on this race.

A quick summary: “The King’s Speech” is a crusty British film about the shenanigans of the royal family, which let’s admit: The British royal family has never been interesting. Largely removed from actual power, they’re function is mainly to smile and attend important functions, meet with important people and mug for the camera. I can’t be the first cultural commentator to notice that they’re parallel over here in the states is becoming Paris Hilton, the Khardashians, Lauren Conrad, etc.

Still, the British royal family is important in the cultural context of having grown up British. To them, the royal family is understandably important, and the dramatic arts community here has had a strong affinity for all things British, which is why such duds as “Cavalcade” “Four Weddings and a Funeral” “Billy Elliott” “The Queen” (arguably not that much of a dud), “The Madness of King George” “Shakespeare in Love” “Mrs. Miniver” and many, many more films have succeeded at the Oscars just because they had to do with something British.

The “Social Network” came along and said: Don’t vote for another stuffy British film again. Vote for a film about something hip and current, like the story of Facebook. “The King’s Speech” had the defense: Just because we’re a film about something very British, doesn’t mean we’re a stuffy British film or a bad film. Voters should still give us a chance.”In my opinion, both of these films were what they said they’d be. “Social Network” made a movie about something current and hip and could also qualify as artfully made. I had the reaction of admiring many of its elements: The editing, the score, Aaron Sorkin’s more restrained script, and the performance by Jesse Eisenberg (neither of the other two leads impressed me much at all) were all impressive. “King’s Speech” was about something stuffy but was less stuffy than I expected. I suppose that’s the best I can say about it. I won’t say the film didn’t succeed, but I’ve also largely forgotten about it by now, except for the particularly innovative performances of Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bohman Carter.

My reaction to “True Grit” on the other hand wasn’t intellectual like it was to the Social Network. I didn’t say to myself, “I’m impressed.” I just felt a sense of “wow, that was something.” It was a movie that moved me emotionally. This is very ironic when you consider that while the Coen Brothers have been referred to as “film scholars” and they’ve shown a somewhat perverted interest in copying genres and stripping them of the elements that have given them emotional resonance . “True Grit” has a sense of quirkiness to it, but it really cares about telling it’s story.

As for the other two films:
"Black Swan" is a film that is without a doubt the boldest, most experimental of the films. Aranofsky is a filmmaker with a distinctive style that’s adding something new to the conversation and for that he deserves reward. Even though I haven’t seen Wrestler (I hate wrestling films in addition to boxing films), I imagine that it’s the perfect marriage of the Wrestler’s profile of an artist with self-esteem issues plot motif with Requiem for a Dream’s general reality-bending trippiness. In some ways, I very much didn’t enjoy Black Swan, but it’s a shame it didn’t enter the conversation for Best Picture or Best Director. It also was very deserving of technical awards like editing and cinametography.

"Inception" was the best film of the year I saw. Whether it had too much exposition or not, it was endlessly fascinating and a highly intelligent piece of work. Like Black Swan, it broke from the norm and took viewers outside of their comfort zone. The cast also delivered pretty heavily. Everyone from Cillian Murphy to Joseph Gordon-Leavitt to Tom Hardy were all on the same page. Again, it's too bad it didn't enter the conversation as the race wore on.

Best Actor Oscar Winners (1927/28-2009)

I get slightly teary-eyed watching this. Best Actor Winners I've seen:

1934-Clark Gable, It Happened One Night-A-
Gable was the first quintessential leading man. He was malleable enough to be put into a romantic comedy, a stirring class-tinged drama, an adventure, or an epic and still maintain his charm. I suspect if marketing to the four quadrants existed in the
1930's, Gable would hit them all. What I like best about this part is its duality: Even while he's involuntarily falling in love, Gable exhibits a certain stubbornness to even believing in the concept of love.

1936-Paul Muni, Life of Emile Zola-B-
Muni is somewhat stiff in the role but stiff acting appears to be the norm in many films of the time. Like a lot of films I've seen in the 1930's, there was a certain stuffiness to the acting that affected all but the exceptionally great screwball comedies and gangster pics. I haven't seen the original Scarface, but if Scorsese's affection for the film is to be believed, Muni really breaks out into new territory there.

1939-Robert Donat, Goodbye Mr. Chips-B-
A fairly good performance. It includes that requisite aging over the course of the picture that always seems to help. I would probably list Robin Williams from "Dead Poets Society" as my preference for filmdom's archetypical teacher/mentor figure, but that's neither here nor there. His performance is also interesting because it highlights the sexual naivete of characters in this era (a significant part of the film's plot centers around his courtship of Mrs. Chips).

1941-Gary Cooper, Sergeant York-C+
Cooper's screen persona is that of a folksy everyman. Sort of like Jimmy Stewart except he's a little more broody. In this film, he dials up that folksiness to the point where the character isn't too far removed from the Clampetts on "Beverly Hillbillies." The performance is also somewhat static throughout the film. Cooper's version of York doesn't seem that much different in temperament from the start of the film to the end of it. At the same time, that might be a good thing.

1942-Jimmy Cagney, Yankee Doodle Dandee-A
Another one of those aging performances. Cagney was a very energetic presence on screen and it's cathartic to watch him let loose all that kinetic energy.

1944-Bing Crosby, Going my Way-B-
Crosby had a very affable persona and was someone you liked seeing on screen. Whether it took Bing Crosby effort to be "Bing Crosby" I have no idea. In other words, Crosby wasusually Crosby on screen, but this was a fairly good use for him.

1947-Ronald Colman, A Double Life-F
Pretty hammy. It reminds me of that episode of Frasier where that great actor the Crane brothers admired as kids delivers his lines so over-the-top, that no one would ever believe them. That's the big question: Is that era's style of dramatic acting over-the-top by today's standards?

1951-Humphrey Bogart, African Queen-A
Bogart deserves an Oscar somewhere. The chemistry between Bogart and Hepburn in African Queen was pretty make-or-break for that film and Bogart certainly bended enough to meet Katherine halfway. Bogart was a very effective hard-boiled detective and I don't know if I would have preferred seeing him nominated for a gritter part like "Big Sleep" or "Maltese Falcon." From what I've seen, "African Queen" and "Sabrina" are the two films that stretched him the most.

1952-Cary Cooper, High Noon-A
Cooper's Sheriff Will Kane is as iconic a Western sheriff and heroic a role as there ever was. More importantly, it's unique to what Cooper brings to the screen. It's one of the few times I've seen Cooper in a film and not thought Jimmy Stewart could have easily replicated it.

1956-Yul Brenner, The King and I-A-
Making your mark on a role is an indication that you've owned it and can you imagine anyone else portraying that role? If sexual chemistry is also a mark of a great role, Brenner and Kerr are remembered as a great screen couple and you can also read the entire relationship is unromantic.

1957-Alec Guinness, The Bridge on the River Kwai-A
Guinness' character is a morally complex (and ultimately morally misguided) and its his handling of those moral complexities that make the film so great. His chemistry with Colonel Saito is also something that can't be undervalued. Guinness was one of the great chameleon-like actors but he could have built a career playing characters of strong resolve like this one and it would have still been just as distinguished.

1962-Gregory Peck, To Kill a Mockingbird-A
Atticus Finch in the book is so endearing that he's almost impossible to live up to but Peck did it. He beat Peter O'Toole for Lawrence of Arabia, but his role is just as iconic. Peck's character here is the definitive father figure of filmdom (feel free to disagree with me) and beacon of justice.

1964-Rex Harrison, My Fair Lady-C
In middle school science classes, we're taught to look at the scientific method through controls, independent variables, and constants. Maybe that's a good way to describe how I see various movies in terms of what the actors bring. In My Fair Lady, Rex Harrison is the control/constant while Audrey Hepburn is the independent variable. The Rex Harrison screen persona is such a caricature of prim British stuffiness that it's even being caricatured on "Family Guy."

1965-Lee Marvin, Cat Ballou-C-
No matter how you look at it, Marvin's win is pretty extreme category fraud. Other than that, it's not a particularly bad performance. The other problem is that Marvin doesn't particularly stand out within the ensemble either. Jane Fonda is brilliant as the antihero Cat Ballou and so is Michael Callan as sex-crazed Clay Boone.

1969-John Wayne, True Grit-C+ (Didn't see the film whole film)
Watching John Wayne's performance next to Jeff Bridges' performance is like having an Olympic champion from Beijing play against the Olympic 1968 champion where you see how far movie-making (and even acting) has come. It might have helped if it was Wayne's best film. Wayne is older and not particularly good-looking at this age, but that shouldn't necessarily have been held against him. In some of his better performances (Searchers, Quiet Man), I could have seen him earning an A-.

1971-Gene Hackman, French Connection-B-
I love Gene Hackman but I've always thought of this film as more of a technical achievement than a human story. Of all the directors who've won Oscars for best picture, I've had the opportunity to directly question, um, one of them and that was Friedkin. I asked him what he wanted his picture to be remembered for and he replied that he wanted his film to be remembered for the way it portrayed cops as not what you always associated them with. Hackman certainly ups it on the toughness scale for this role, but I can't help but feeling his performance plays second fiddle to the car chase scene.

1975-Jack Nicholson, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest-B+
Nicholson is a great actor of both great intensity and the ability to bring that intensity with variation. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest didn't fully resonate with me the way it captivated and continues to captivate audiences and that's where the gap between A and B+ comes out of.

1976-Peter Finch, Network-A
For the ratio of Finch's screen-time to your average best picture Oscar winner or nominee's screen time (minus Marvin), Finch is almost like a one-scene wonder. Network is almost like an ensemble piece with Holden, Dunaway, the Holden-Straight marriage and Finch's arcs commanding equal presence. Finch commands the screen with what he has and his inspired diatribes are what you remember more than anything else. It doesn't hurt that Paddy Chayefsky's script is widely regarded as among the greatest ever put to screen or that Finch's dialogue would become so eerily prophetic, but Finch's possession by some maniacal suicide-inducing force commands enough attention on its own to earn the top mark from me.

1981-Henry Fonda, On Golden Pond-B
Fonda in his prime is so much better than Fonda as an old man. It's a sad, inescapable fact. Samuel L. Jackson was quoted in Charles Barkley's book (I know, it's an unlikely source, but go with it) as saying that Oscars are won for moments and not for whole films. I can't help but thinking that the Oscar was voting on the basis of the scene where Fonda, whose prime years of his career existed during the Hayes and Breen codes, startles his son-in-law by pressuring him to discuss his sex habits. Nevertheless, it's a great drama with great moments all around. I do think that using the independent variable/control analogy, Jane Fonda bent a little more than her dad did. (For those keeping score, this is the second time, I downgraded an Oscar winner for being outacted by Jane Fonda)

1986-Paul Newman, Color of Money-F
I like Paul Newman just fine but there's really nothing to celebrate about this perfomrnance at all (the picture fares slightly better at a D). It's very clearly just dues. I do enjoy it when an actor I've known for a while finally gets his Oscar but not when it's so blatant that it's distorting the Oscar race.

1987-Michael Douglas, Wall Street-A-
I enjoyed seeing a popular film get a win and I think Michael Douglas is one of the best actors of his generation. I'm not sure why he doesn't get Oscar nominations as often as some of his contemporaries (this was his only nom). Gordon Gecko has also become iconic which has been great for the legacy of the younger Douglas.

1988-Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man-A
Playing someone with a mental disability can often be cheapening in the wrong hands, but Dustin Hoffman's performance is multi-layered which is what I imagine a person with his condition would be. Raymond Babbit is a very complex person and just as his rare moments of lucidity and warmth are infinitely rewarding for his brother to experience, they are for the audience because they're so genuine in Hoffman's hands.

1991-Anthony Hopkins, Silence of the Lambs-A-
Somewhat of a tangent, but why is he still Dr. Lechter. Wouldn't the state of New York strip Hannibal Lechter of his medical license once he started eating people? Anyway, it's a performance of frightening intensity. If I had to explain away the minus (which normally wouldn't be worth explaining since that's really just an intuitive gap in judgement), I always felt that the refined classical-music listening angle to the character was a little bit of a crutch.

1992-Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman-A
Pacino gets so much flak for this performance of the type that I just gave to Paul Newman (too blatant an attempt for dues). I wish that the historical consensus on Pacino in SoaW wasn't "bad performance, awarded because of dues" but rather ""Your Mileage May Vary"". In Kirk Douglas' autobiography, he mentions that when Pacino does the tango blind, it's practically his favorite performance in all of acting. I think it's a mesmerizing performance and there's not a false moment in here. The reasoning behind Pacino's dramatic monologue at the end is a little bizarre (saying that Chris O'Donnell's shouldn't have to tattle because he's poor) but that's the fault of the screenplay and not him.

1994-Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump-A-
Is this a standard person-with-disability role or is it a life story about a guy who's been through a lot? At times, you almost forget that it's the former. The film would have been hokey if not for Hanks. The fact that it's a life story with different stages doesn't prompt me to cry "Oscar bait" on this performance. With little to no make-up (although there's a lot of excess facial hair in the cross-country running scenes), Hanks authentically infuses the character with the maturity and growth of each experience.

1996-Geoffrey Rush, Shine-B
Rush is a great actor and I think this is a perfectly good performance. If I had to nitpick about why this isn't an A, I don't think I entirely understood him inside and out from a perspective of his disease. I understood the emotional scarring from the character's father, but what exactly did the disease do to him? I felt like the diseased man that Dustin Hoffman portrayed gave just a little bit of a more engaging and complex picture with Babbit than Rush did with the character he was portraying.

1997-Jack Nicholson, As Good as It Gets-C
It's not in Nicholson's top ten performances, that's for sure. I don't even particularly like the film and the May-December romance doesn't entirely work. If you're going to award a third Oscar, even to the great Jack Nicholson, it should be for going into new territory. It's not an overtly bad performance, though.

1998-Roberto Benigni, Life is Beautiful-B
This is certainly a controversial win. For one, Benigni was already honored with a best director nom and a foreign film win and he didn't really need the best actor award for validation. In addition, the film's trivialization of the holocaust for joke fodder won over audiences at the time, but in retrospect, the film has come off as a little tacky. Lastly, Benigni's campaigning (with the encouragement of the Weinsteins) was a little excessive at the time.
I definitely agree with the first count and the field was crowded enough to have a pretty good winner. Then again, how often has someone with genuine comic gifts been rewarded by the academy for using them. I'd have to look this up but I believe many comic geniuses have only been nominated or awarded by the Academy for going serious.

1999-Kevin Spacey, American Beauty-C+
Spacey basically won for playing a character on "Weeds." But in all seriousness, Spacey has some great moments in here but I found "American Beauty" to be awkward and unsettling (although maybe unsettling was part of the point). Because the film rests on Spacey's shoulders, I can't help but blame that on how Spacey interpreted the part. Two brilliant things about the performance stick out years after watching the film: How Spacey continued to remain a sort of there-but-not-really-there presence at dinner tables as he was beginning his slow descent into suburban madness and his scene with Chris Cooper where he responds to the twist of what his homophobia is all about. At the same time, Spacey's conversion from caring so much about work to saying F-you to his boss or talking back to his wife felt a little rushed and didn't pack as much dramatic punch as I would have wanted.

2000-Russell Crowe, Gladiator-A
Crowe is, in my opinion, the best actor of today. His choices as an actor are very subtle and intricate. The role here is undeniably a showy one. He makes grand pronouncements about saving the Roman Empire by usurping it's corrupt (yet unimpeachable) emperor which doesn't lend itself to being played half-assed. Yet, his intricacies and subtleties make the downs and ups of his arc richer. The parts of the storyline where Maximus is weak in prison or feeling destitute, it's all there.

2003-Sean Penn, Mystic River-B+
I remember being impressed with Penn when I finished watching the movie. Upon retrospect, it was just a lot of yelling, but I have to go with my first impression or at least split the difference.

2004-Jamie Foxx, Ray-A
Possibly, the performance of the decade. He completely inhabited Ray Charles and bonus points for the singing and playing. His moments of vulnerability, of charisma, of empathy (at times) for causes (fighting segregation) or people around him (his late mother and brother) are all moving.

2005-Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote-C
Hoffman is a great actor but I never saw Capote's charisma when I saw Hoffman on screen. It was reported that Truman Capote, despite being flamboyantly gay in an era where being out of the closet was difficult, was such a charismatic figure that everyone flocked to him. Even macho men like John Huston and Humphrey Bogart enjoyed his company. I never saw that with Hoffman's version of Capote. His chemistry with Clifton Collins Jr., however, and the aspects of the story that revolve around Capote's friendship and guilt over Perry Smith worked well and is the reason this isn't being downgraded to a D. The other reason for the low grade is that it was a very competitive year filled with great performances.

2006-Forest Whitaker, Last King of Scotland-A
The mannerisms of Idi Amin and the gravity of his presence are both captured very well by Whitaker. Amin turns out to be a very scary presence and it's to Whitaker's credit that the full terror of his ways is, at first, overshadowed by his charisma and self-assessment that he's a visionary trying to do good. It is very hard to believe that despite being in so many high-profile films (Crying Game, Good Morning Vietnam, Color of Money, etc.), Whitaker was never a well-known actor until this Oscar came along.

2007-Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood N/A
I don't think I can properly discuss this one. I saw about an hour of the middle of the film in a movie theater while waiting for another film to start. I then saw it on netflix, but I was distracted with having pieced together with what I watched before with what I was watching at the time. I believe I have seen something like 80% of his performnace, but it wasn't enough

2008-Sean Penn, Milk A-
A very good performance by Penn. Harvey Milk was a charismatic force of nature, but with Penn's performance, it's all the little things that add up to making us mourn the character's inevitable death and being moved by his presence. In the film, Milk always comes off as a guy who always feels a little bit out of place whether he's gay in a straight world, someone without political background entering politics, or a guy ill-suited for monogamy. Penn also plays that uneasiness very well.

Also, check out this article: Is the star era over?

Links to my Oscar Grades

First off, this was a gem I found about the ten most successful nonsequels:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-3877-DC-Film-Industry-Examiner~y2009m5d18-Where-No-Man-Has-Gone-Before-The-10-Most-Successful-NonSequels

Also, I graded the Oscars:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-3877-DC-Film-Industry-Examiner~y2010m3d10-Grading-the-Oscars-Part-II-Awards

Just watched my 20th film this year...review of what was the best so far

I've been working on some posts and because they haven't been completed yet, i didn't post them yet. In the meantime, here's a list of the 20 films I've seen so far in approximate order of best to worst, and my attempt to do a short list of the best i've seen so far.

1. Up in the Air
2. Inglolriouos Basterds
3. Soloist
4. Star Trek
5. In the Loop
6. Up
7. Hangover
8. Funny People
9. Extract
10. Invention of Lying
11. Night at the Museum 2
12. Angels and Demons
13. Invictus
14. Proposal
15. Whip It
16. Julia
17. Wolverine
18. Brothers Bloom
19. Land of the Lost
20. Bruno

Actor:
Rob Downey Jr., The Soloist-I will admit that because it was released before Summer, it stands virtually no chance of getting nominated, but there’s plenty to appreciate here. His role of a beat reporter was entirely without glamour and in the hands of many other actors, he would easily be upstaged by Jamie Foxx’s more showier role of a schizophrenic artist. Downey commanded attention through consistency. It was a solid character whose presence felt heartfelt and inspirational in every scene. He also
took on a real-life character and changed him significantly to alter the story while keeping the general spirit of the story alive.

Morgan Freeman, Invictus-I put Downey Jr. first because this was one was a little Oscar-baity. He’s Morgan Freeman playing Mandela, what are you going to expect but something sincere? It was probably technically perfect and a pretty good stretch for Freeman so I’d say he deserves a nom. It just moved me a little less than Downey Jr.

George Clooney, Up in the Air-For the record, I’m still pretty sick on all the Clooney love in Hollywood. He’s a good guy and good actor, but I’m so tired of all these mushy speeches about how he’s the reincarnation of Mr. Smith Going to Washington. Clooney is so overexposed that when I see him on the screen, I get pretty bored pretty quick. As a result, Clooney practically has to mix it up at this point to hold my attention, and that he did in this film. Reitman said iin an interview that he was looking to actually put Clooney in an emotionally vulnerable stage and have him fall in love, and he succeeded. Clooney played a character I could emotionally get behind in his mentoring scenes of Natalie and in his love scenes with Vera. You even felt that heartbreak when he finally got that 10,000,000th mile. Deserves an Oscar nom by a hair, in my opinion.

Jamie Foxx, Soloist-Foxx is usually always on my lists for films I wasn’t even expecting him to be on (Jarhead, Dreamgirls, etc.) and in the Soloist he played it just right. There was one particular scene that I felt was awkward in the wrong way and one scene after that, that didn’t entirely make sense with me (when he proclaimed Steve Lopez was like God, and went a little delusional with singing about how ballerinas are graceful and dance around) and detached me from the character.

(tie) Ricky Gervaise, Invention of Lying and Adam Sandler, Funny People- These aren’t serious Oscar contenders although I wouldn’t have been disappointed to see either of them as Golden Globe nominees in the comedy category. Sandler played moments of sadness very well and on its own would be worthy on my very short list, at least. Gervaise, himself, I admired for taking his comic persona and fine-tuning it just the right amount to meet the demands of this movie.

Actress: Because I don’t watch a lot of Jane Austen films, I always worry that I couldn’t possibly produce a list of 5 leading actresses but I managed 5.
Rachel Weicz, Brothers Bloom-Not a particularly good film but Rachel Weicz’ wide-eyed recluse who is discovering adventure for the first time is practically the only reason she holds your interest. She’s the stand-in for the audience as you’re watching everything unfold for her eyes and if she wasn’t taken in by what she was experiencing you wouldn’t either
Tilda Swinton, Julia-It’s a role reminiscent of Anne Hathaway last year in Rachel Getting Married: Essentially it’s a messed-up woman with addiction problems going nowhere in life. It’s not something I’d endorse for Oscar because it didn’t captivate me but relative to the other 19 films on this list, it’s good enough for 2nd here.
Sandra Bullock, The Proposal-Maybe I’m buying into all the hype of Sandra Bullock’s career comeback, but I do have to admit that while it wasn’t too much more than a standard rom-com role, I was reminded of how fresh Sandra Bullock makes a tired script and how challenging it might have been to pull that off with her increasing age and the number of times I’ve seen it done before..
Anna Chlumsky, In the Loop-As someone who lives in D.C., I see interns like Liza Weld: knows everything, ridiculously ambuitious, and underneath it all, probably a little unsure of what to do with their power.
Anna Friel, Land of the Lost-She’s in the absolute worst film I’ve seen this year. Sometimes you see someone play a role so charmingly that you have to applaud them for making due with a terrible script and leaving it unscathed

Supporting Actor: (this list is not yet fully formed)
Christophe Waltz, Inglorious Basterds-With Javier Bardem and Heath Ledger winning the last two years for being the worst of villains, I imagined before watching Christophe Waltz that he would be equally villainous. What I saw instead was an interesting man of contradictions: A Nazi who is a sophisticated man with a refined sense of manners. He’s not so much defined by his villainy as he is defined by being a worthy opponent to the protagonist.

Tom Hollander, In the Loop-The straight man in the middle of a scene of complete chaos is an always underappreciated role (see Jason Bateman, Arrested Development or John Ritter, Three’s Company). Hollander played it very well

Ed Asner, Up-I don’t usually feel that animated films deserve a shot for acting noms. I still don’t. He’s just #3 on my list because it wasn’t as good of a year for supporting actors as it was for actresses.

Matt Damon, Invictus-I love Matt Damon and think he has one of the best seven or eight bodies of work this decade for an actor (behind Depp, Blanchett Streep, Crowe, DiCaprio and Penn). He absolutely deserved nominations for Good German (over Ryan Gosling) or Talented Mr. Ripley (over Richard Farnsworth) or possibly Bourne Ultimatum (over Virgo Mortgensen). What’s done is done, however, and if we’re simply looking at the best five actors this year, I don’t believe he’s it. Other than donning an accent, there’s nothing particularly notable about Damon here except that he’s in a Clint Eastwood film and everyone in Eastwood’s films get noms. Still, Damon in a weaker performance is good for about 4th here.

Saul Rubineck, Julia-There was one perfectly delivered scene where Julia was accusing Rubineck’s character of sleeping with her when she was drunk, and he’s answering her in a way that is all at once alleviating himself of any guilt, blaming her for her illness, reaching out to help her, and avoiding the question entirely. It’s a scene that was one of the most memorable of my year, and wouldn’t have worked without him pulling it off so well.

Supporting Actress:
Melanie Laurant, Inglorious Basterds-Her character has many facets: Direct and uninterested when being approached by a German soldier smitten with her; uncomfortably nervous when approached by the man who killed her family; and empowered when she and her immigrant lover plot revenge.

Vera Farminga, Up in the Air-Without disclosing a spoiler, I’ll just say she’s a woman with a secret. You can measure how great of a job she does simply by noting that up until the big reveal, she has us looking the other way on first viewing and see the obvious on second viewing.

Zoe Saldana, Star Trek-I heard she was great in Avatar. Star Trek’s cast members are all great in replicating the original roles while reinvigorating them at the same time (something that is very hard to do). Saldanna’s might have possibly been my favorite performance of the cast. The scenes where she approaches Spock in the elevator (and we’re not even sure if they’re together) was a moment that resonated a lot.

Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air-Something that I have no objection to taking home the Oscar. If the film is considered comedic, then she was the big scene stealer. She was someone who could be given a spinoff as far as I’m concerned. She had less moments in the script that she could take off and run with as Farminga did as far as I’m concerned.

(tie) Catherine Keener-The Soloist-Keener can make a big impression in a few scenes and make you want to see more of her.
Amy Admas-Night at the Museum-If they gave an Oscar to Cate Blanchett for channeling Katherine Hepburn, why not Amy Adams? Even though her film wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously for Oscar consideration, she was a fantastic homage to Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby.

Screenplay:
Up In the Air (adapted)-Major changes had to made to the book including adding the two female characters. The spirit of the book which is about the transience of being permanently on business travel is also on display there very well.

Soloist (adapted)-From Steve Lopez's book, the film takes and adapts the two characters to fit a more cinematic mold

Inglorious Basterds (original)-I've always heard Tarantino had a knack for dialogue and that sounds most appropriate. Negative points for not making Brad Pitt's part much different than his comedic turn in Burn After Reading. Writing Dianne Kruger, Christophe Waltz and Melanie Laurent's parts alone do deserve big points, however.

In the Loop (adapted)-It was a great film, but it could have felt just a little more cinematic, so a few negative points for that.

Funny People (original)-I had to respect it for integrating all that comedy and finding truth in so many funny moments.

Hangover (original)-It just won best comedy at the globes. It's a great movie that grows on me in time. I'm not going to knock it down

Director:
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air-Kept it at the right length and made what could have been flat material come alive. His chances of winning the Oscar might be significantly lower but has a good chance of winning as producer as well as screenwriter

Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds-Anyone could see that the film is artfully done so there's little convincing to do

Armando Ianoucci, In the Loop-The director went all handheld on us to give us an indie feel. It worked well.

J.J. Abrams, Star Trek-It's hard to establish a unique voice in your directing style as a director of a summer blockbuster when you've only done one film before. I think he set the tone for the revived franchised just right on his first go and that's really when you need it.

Mike Judge, Extract-I liked this film very much. It wasn't as flat-out funny as Office Space but it was interesting and its characters felt real. Bravo to him for following up Office Space with something that feels interesting in its own right but retains the charm of the original.

Judging best directors in the off-years

A quick informal post judging the merit of directors who got nominated for directorial nods without a Best Picture Oscar Nomination:

1998-Peter Weir: The Truman Show-I tend to think of Weir's strength as delicately structured epics with sweeping visuals. "The Truman Show" was certainly a shift for Weir but he's a great director, brought great performances in his cast, and this is one of the best films of 1998 period. With snubs for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actress, I'm glad this film got rewarded somewhere.
Grade: B+


1999-Spike Jonze: Being John Malkovich is more of a Charlie Kaufman film than a Spike Jonze film. This was earlier in Kaufman's career, so the Academy probably wasn't aware that Kaufman was the genius who made it happen. It's also unfortunate that Frank Darabont got snubbed here for a film that's still highly regarded and when one considers that he also got snubbed for "The Shawshank Redemption." If they were going to snub "Green Mile", I would have preferred the Academy have gone with "Talented Mr. Ripley" and Anthony Minghella.
Grade: C-

2000-Stephen Daldry: Billy Elliot- I'm not too opposed to Lasse Holstrom getting snubbed since he got nominated the year prior and "Chocolat" is very much Oscar-bait film of the least deserved BP nom of the decade. But why Daldry? Rob Zemeckis, who's always quite innovative even if he's not recognized very widely for it, made "Cast Away" ring with great intensity despite the fact that it was a one man show. Cameron Crowe made a very personal picture in "Almost Famous" as well. The Oscars love Daldry as evidenced by "Hours" and "The Reader"'s accolades. On the other hand, "Billy Elliott" wasn't yet at a point where Daldry started getting overly sappy.
Grade: C+


2001-David Lynch: Mulholland Drive and Ridley Scott: Black Hawk Down: Both great directors who deserve nods so no complaints here. Still, it's too bad Todd Fields wasn't nominated for "In the Bedroom."
Grade: A-

2002-Pedro Almodovar: Talk to Her: This nod baffles me the most. First, I would have thought foreign film enthusiasts might have gravitated toward Alfonso Cuaron's "Y Tu Mama Tambien" or "Monsoon Wedding" or at the very least, there would have been a foreign film bote split. However, Alexander Payne, who was 3 for 3 with critical hits at the time, however should have been a strong contender for a directorial nomination, Then there's Todd Haynes' Sirk send-up "Far From Heaven", Sam Mendes' "Road to Peridtion" or critical darling Spike Jonze's juggling of two Nicholas Cages with a great ensemble in "Adaptation" and Alfanso Cuaron himself. I might be able to imagine Pedro Almodovar's body of work being rewarded but it was such a competitive year. The nomi
Grade: B

2003-Fernando Meirelles truly deserves a nomination but I was just baffled by the year in which it came. "City of God" was nominated for the Golden Globes, a BAFTA and the Broadcast Film Socety in 2002. How many voters would even assume it was still eligible the following year?
Grade: B+

2004-Mike Leigh already had a nomination for "Secrets and Lies" and while "Vera Drake" had a deserving accolade it seemed like not much more than a biopic. In the meantime, Bill Condon (Kinsey), Michael Mann (Collateral) or Mike Nichols (who's Closer was somewhat of a comeback) were waiting in the wings
Grade: D

2006-Paul Greengrass: United 93: This was was a pretty good pick for the alternate slot since he's Australian (not exclusively foreign-language), chopped his teeth with the Bourne Supremacy and made a hit picture out of an ensemble (not a single star in the United 93 cast)
Grade: B+

2007-"Julian Schnabel for the Diving Bell and the Butterfly": Another instance in the 2000's where the last slot went to a foreign director. This is a fairly good entry for a genre that's vastly overrewarded (see: "My Left Foot", "The Sea Inside", "Elephant Man", "I Am Sam"). There were a few other directors like Sidney Lumet, Ridley Scott, and  Tim Burton who would have been nice to see in this category as opposed to Schnabel who was essentially a newbie.
Grade: B-

How to make the Oscars Less Predictable and Why this is a Necessity

Few people probably know that once upon a time, the Academy would issue press releases to the newspapers announcing the winners before the Oscars were presented but in 1939 when some of the greatest films ever created up to that date (Stagecoach, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gone with the Wind, and Wizard of Oz) were locked in a tight race and the results got leaked to the press, some complained that this ruined a considerable amount of the suspense and excitement of the night. In 1940, the Academy decided to go with a policy of complete secrecy. The policy has remained to this very day.

Today, however, the Oscars have reverted to the 1930s where the winners are basically known in advance and that's a good reason why they're considerably less exciting. In the previous Oscars for the 2007 film season, 59 out of 63 film critics correctly predicted the best picture winner according to Oscarcentral. In addition, 61 out of 63 predicted the best actor, 61 of 63 picked best supporting actor, 60 of 63 film critics picked best director, 57 of 59 picked best original screenplay, and 47 out of 59 picked best adapted screenplay. Two years ago, best picture was up in the air and the best supporting actor category was an upset, but Mirren, Whitaker, Scorsese, William Moynahan (for Departed) and Michael Ardnt (for Little Miss Sunshine) were pretty much locks.

It's true that this is better than in the 1930's because the studios aren't announcing the winners beforehand, but is that really much of an improvement? Today an army of Oscar bloggers and prediction-oriented websites analyze historical trends and trace the momentum of awards season so they can virtually guarantee who will win in some race. Even the Los Angeles Times (theenvelope), Toronto Star (Peter Howell's blog), and the New York Times (carpetbagger) have joined in the phenomenon with highly popular websites dedicated to the Oscars and other awards races that utilize Hollywood connections to enhance their predictions. Are these online Oscar trackers perfectly accurate? No, but they are all usually very similar which makes the case that the sheer number of them is excessive. When the Oscar bloggers are wrong, they're usually all wrong together as well, so it's little improvement. For best actress, all but 10 of the Oscar pundits predicted Julie Christie.

The only one of the major races that was truly exciting to follow this past year was best supporting actress, because Ruby Dee of American Gangster, Amy Ryan of Gone Baby Gone, Tilda Swenton of Michael Clayton, and Cate Blanchett of I'm Not There all had legitimate chances at winning and when my preferred choice Tilda Swenton won it, that was the highlight of the night for me because there was genuine suspense and subsequent joy. I would have imagined that thirty or forty years ago that sense of suspense existed in every race. I remember loving last year's race much more than the the years that preceded it because I didn't bother to read the suspiciously accurate Entertainment Weekly Oscar Prediction issue.

I think this excitement-diminishing epidemic is spreading to the casual viewer as well. Your average casual viewer will probably involuntarily come across three or four of these sources telling them who will probably win by the time Oscar time comes around. A special Oscar section will be printed at least two or three times before the ceremony in USA Today and their daily newspaper, they'll probably see the Golden Globe Results on the CNN ticker and their Morning news program will feature the entertainment correspondent telling them who will win. When it all adds up, you're average viewer will already have as good of an idea as I do over who will win.

Solutions I am proposing?
1. Guild awards should not take place or if they do, that should happen after the Oscars. It's a fairly dead giveaway who will win when a great number of the same people are voting in both contests.

Revolutionary thought: Just because you have a guild doesn't mean you have to have an awards ceremony. I'm sure other professional organizations like the American Institute of Engineers or the Meatpackers' Union doesn't give annual awards with nominees and a red carpet celebration. Your writing, cinematography, acting, directing and producing professions are already honored through the Golden Globes and Oscars, this is clearly redundant. Especially, the producers guild. If anything, I question whether producers even need a guild. Guilds stemmed from the Middle Ages as a way of protecting the interests of the artisan class, not upper-level management. You guys own movie studios, you make millions of dollars, you have the town of Hollywood at your hands, do you really need statues and awards to make you feel pretty?


2. Critics awards groups, the Golden Globes should make efforts to present different awards: Best family comedy, best breakout performance, best low budget film, best ensemble. The Golden Globe adds suspense to the ceremony because it nominates 10-12 actors, movies, and actresses, and sometimes an additional supporting actors, supporting actress, or director so that they will give you a broad field but narrow enough that you know who is likely to win.

3. I thoroughly enjoy some of the sites which revolve primarily around Oscarbuzz so I say with much love for these people that there is a definite oversaturation of Oscar buzz-oriented sites out there. Writers on these sites need to avoid focusing solely on predictions for the Oscars. They treat the preidction of the Oscar nominees and winners as if they were trying to decipher the passcode to a nuclear missile silo and are missing site of the opportunity for meaningful analysis. Besides, using historical progressions (i.e. 9 out of the last 10 best supporting actresses won the BAFTA award and got a nomination for the Chicago film critics award, so we can count on Actress B to win) to try to trace down the nominees does not make for particularly interesting writing anyway. To avoid redundance, there should be more emphasis on who should win or more emphasis on the "precursor awards" as if they were a means to their own end. This also prevents quality films from being invalidated because they didn't make the final five as A.O. Scott recently wrote.

Are stars obsolete?

I saw this article on time.com about how the movie star era is ending because reliable stars like Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, and Tom Cruise didn't gross a lot of money for Lions for Lambs and neither did Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1720049_1720050_1721687,00.html

The article claims that since Charlie Wilson's War and Lions for Lambs did not do well that we are no longer in an age of stars and people gravitate towards story lines now. I disagree with Corliss' notion that anything has changed much at all. Take his examples: Lions for Lambs starred Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, and Tom Cruise which I don't consider a good combination of star power to begin with for the time the picture was released.
-Cruise, although I don't say this with any sense of joy, was already going downhill in terms of reputation.
-Streep is in 3-4 films a year which dilutes her star power significantly. It's hard for the public to tell which of the many, many films she's in are worth going to whether it's Evening, Redacted, or Lions for Lambs. In 2004, Manchurian Candidate didn't do particularly well but Lemony Snicket did because Lemony Snicket was a better use of her star power.
-Redford hasn't really been a big star since the 1970's and early '80's. Today's teens and 20-year-olds are going to have to practically be film historians to remember the heyday of Robert Redford and get all worked up about it.

As for Charlie Wilson's War, that film didn't do particularly poorly. It grossed a respectable $66 million dollars and is enjoying a surprisingly long run at the theater. My local 8-theater complex is still playing Charlie Wilson's War all the way into March, and that's what's really important: For your film to still be accessible to the public months after release. Charlie Wilson's War debuted in an incredibly crowded weekend where Tom Hanks' star power competed head-to-head with Johnny Depp in "Sweeny Todd" and Nicholas Cage in "National Treasure 2 "anyway, so it's not like it was a battle of the best stories. As for the failure of Julia Roberts to secure box office clout, she's semi-retired and like Redford hasn't appeared in many films in the last few years to keep her name hot.

There's no doubt that star power still is the controlling factor in Hollywood. It's what makes Will Smith, the trio of Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightly and Johnny Depp; and Nicholas Cage dominate the box office with mediocre material. More importantly, stars still capture the public attention. That's why in most Oscar pools, people are 10 times much more excited about the acting races than they are best screenwriting or best directing races. Whenever, I suggest a movie to my parents, the first question they ask is, "Who's in it?"

The only difference between today and yesteryear? The public just has short-term memory. The Oscar races and the special edition end-of-the-year reviews that appear in most newspapers and magazines covering pop culture are eager to crown the stars of today and leave the stars of yesterday behind. How hot are the names Joaquin Pheonix, David Strathain, Reese Whitherspoon, Felicity Huffman, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman right now? How excited do you get about a film when you hear that one of those names is in it? Those were the leading contenders in the best actor and actress races at the 2006 Oscars, just two years ago. Two years ago, the public might have been far more excited about them which just goes to show how fast the trends move.

Not to worry, success can be achieved by catering to this trend. Case in point: Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen, and Jonah Hill not only had the good fortune of being involved in the summer's surprise hit "Knocked Up," but since their next film came out before the summer even ended, they benefited even more from being fresh in the minds of moviegoers. The result: Not only was Superbad a surprise hit as well, but Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill have become stars big enough to attract invites to host Saturday Night Live, and Judd Apatow was named the smartest man in Hollywood by Entertainment Weekly. Shia LeBouf, arguably the year's breakout star has benefited from a double-dose of audience exposure as well, slowly building his familiarity with the movie going public with Disturbia before officially breaking out in Transformers and this strategy has been going on for years. Would "Ray" have enjoyed the same level of hype if Jamie Foxx didn't start getting attention for "Collateral" earlier that summer? Of course being too prolific like Jude Law (the butt of an infamous Chris Rock joke during the Oscars), Will Ferrell, and Ben Stiller can tend to backfire.

So the trends have changed but the same formulas are still there. As long as people ask "Who's in it?" before they ask "What's the storyline?," stars will be the tools that drive the star system.

The Oscars becoming too predictable

Ratings declined for this year's Oscar ceremony but I don't see that as too big of a deal. It was a year in which a humongous number of like-minded pictures on the Iraq war entered into the theater and it was a little too hard for audiences to differentiate between them. The volume of Oscar contenders was incredibly high: Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Assassination of Jesse James, 3:10 to Yuma, In the Valley of Elah, Gone Baby Gone, Persopolis, Eastern Promises, Hairspray, I'm Not There, Into the Wild, Sweeny Todd, Great Debaters, American Gangster, Charlie Wilson's War and Zodiac all got such great reviews and entered the theaters with such great ambitions behind them, I imagine the average moviegoer thought, "oh screw it, I'm just gonna go watch National Treasure II, Transformers or I Am Legend instead."

That was what I think happened with the Oscars this year and that can be remedied next year if the slate of films becomes more favorable.

But nevertheless, I think another problem with the Oscars these days that I'm sure won't be prevented next year is the growing prevalence of websites dedicated to predicting the outcome of the Oscars.

Few people probably know that once upon a time, the Academy would issue press releases to the newspapers announcing the winners before the Oscars were presented but in 1939 when some of the greatest films ever created up to that date (Stagecoach, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gone with the Wind, and Wizard of Oz) were locked in a tight race and the results got leaked to the press which ruined a considerable amount of the suspense and excitement of the night. In 1940, the Academy decided to go with a policy of complete secrecy which is tightly kept to this very day.

Today, however, the Oscars have reverted to the 1930s where the winners are basically known in advance and that's a good reason why they're considerably less exciting. This past year, according to oscarcentral, 59 out of 63 film critics correctly predicted the best picture winner, 61 of 63 predicted best actor, 61 of 63 picked best supporting actor, 60 of 63 film critics picked best director, 57 of 59 picked best original screenplay, and 47 out of 59 picked best adapted screenplay. Last year, best picture was up in the air and the best supporting actor category was an upset, but Mirren, Whitaker, Scorsesee, William Moynahan (for Departed) and Michael Ardnt (for Little Miss Sunshine) were pretty much locks.

It's true that this is better than in the 1930's because the studios aren't announcing the winners beforehand, but is that really much of an improvement? Today an army of Oscar bloggers and prediction-oriented websites analyze historical trends and trace the momentum of awards season so they can virtually guarantee who will win in some race. Even the Los Angeles Times (theenvelope), Toronto Star (Peter Howell's blog), and the New York Times (carpetbagger) have joined in the phenomenon with highly popular websites dedicated to the Oscars and other awards races that utilize Hollywood connections to enhance what will be voted on. Are these online Oscar trackers perfectly accurate? No, but they are all usually very similar which makes the case that the sheer number of them is excessive. When the Oscar bloggers are wrong, they're usually all wrong together as well, so it's little improvement. For best actress, all but 10 of the Oscar pundits predicted Julie Christie.

The only one of the major races that was truly exciting to follow this year was best supporting actress, because Ruby Dee of American Gangster, Amy Ryan of Gone Baby Gone, Tilda Swenton of Michael Clayton, and Cate Blanchett of I'm Not There all had legitimate chances at winning and when my preferred choice Tilda Swenton won it, that was the highlight of the night for me because there was genuine suspense and subsequent joy. I, Imagine thirty or forty years ago, that existed in every race. I remember loving last year's race much more than this year's because I didn't bother to read the suspiciously accurate Entertainment Weekly Oscar Prediction issue.

I think this excitement-diminishing epidemic is spreading to the casual viewer as well. Your average casual viewer will probably involuntarily come across three or four of these sources telling them who will probably win by the time Oscar time comes around. A special Oscar section will be printed at least two or three times before the ceremony in USA Today and their daily newspaper, they'll probably see the Golden Globe Results on the CNN ticker and their Morning news program will feature the entertainment correspondent telling them who will win. When it all adds up, you're average viewer will already know who won just as much as I am.

Solutions I am proposing?
-Guild awards should not take place or if they do, that should happen after the Oscars. It's a fairly dead giveaway who will win when a great number of the same people are voting in both contests. Revolutionary thought: Just because you have a guild doesn't mean you have to have an awards ceremony. I'm sure other professional organizations like the American Institute of Engineers or the Meatpackers' Union doesn't give annual awards with nominees and a red carpet celebration. Your writing, cinematography, acting, directing and producing professions are already honored through the Golden Globes and Oscars, this is clearly redundant. Especially, the producers guild. You guys own movie studios, you make millions of dollars, you have the town of Hollywood at your hands, do you really need statues and awards to make you feel pretty?

-Critics awards groups, the Golden Globes should make efforts to present different awards: Best family comedy, best breakout performance, best low budget film, best ensemble. The Golden Globe adds suspense to the ceremony because it nominates 10-12 actors, movies, and actresses, and sometimes an additional supporting actors, supporting actress, or director so that they will give you a broad field but narrow enough that you know who is likely to win

-I think we need less Oscar writing out there of the same sort where people have websites that rank the candidates in order of likelihood. It's become too much of a good thing and there are so many different angles you can take on the Oscars that aren't being covered as much. For god's sake, there are so many different things to write and explore about the current state of films that doesn't even have to do with the Oscars.

Guest blog: Academy award predictions by Anthony Gullino

Honestly guys, I have failed as a film critic this year. I caught up on films and increased the number of films I have watched from John Huston, Terry Gilliam, Tim Burton, Johnothan Demme, Billy Wilder, Wes Anderson, Mike Nicholls and a few others on home video and have seen 30+ films this year, but a great number of those films came out earlier in the year and are what I'd call summer fluff.

So, I thought I'd call upon Anthony Gullino, an acquaintance of mine who is a former film critic for the Dusquene University student newspaper and intern at the Pittsburgh film office, to contribute to my his predictions:
Ok gang. The new year is here, and the award season is upon us. Many critics groups have already handed out their prizes for the best in film of 2007 (notably, No Country for Old Men took the top prize from the National Board of Review). I'd feel confident in saying right now that No Country is a lock for a Best Picture Oscar nomination and a frontrunner for the win.But before we can get to the Oscars, the Golden Globes come first. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association (the group who decides the Globs) announced their nominees for this year's awards early Thursday morning. The Golden Globes honor both film and television, but in this blog, I'll look at the film nominations only. So.. here they are!
Best Picture - Drama
American Gangster
Atonement
Eastern Promises
The Great Debaters
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
No, your eyes do not deceive you. The HFPA nominated SEVEN films in the Best Picture - Drama category, as opposed to the usual five. (Ok, they nominated six in that category for the '04/'05 awards). I think this one is a four-way race. Michael Clayton, Eastern Promises and The Great Debaters are far off the pace for the win. At this point, all signs would point to No Country as the frontrunner. But there is something to be said for the fact that Atonement was the most nominated of all the films (with seven). I expect buzz to grow significantly for There Will Be Blood once it opens nationwide. And never count out a box office smash like American Gangster.

Best Picture - Comedy/Musical
Across the Universe
Charlie Wilson's War
Hairspray
Juno
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

This is a pretty open race with no real surprises here, except perhaps the exclusion of Waitress. Based on what the buzz is now and the recent critics awards, I'd say that this one is between three: Charlie Wilson's War, Juno and Sweeney Todd. The reception for all three of these has been overwhelmingly positive. That's not saying that Across the Universe and Hairspray have no shot whatsoever, but I think their only prize is the nomination itself.

Best Actor - Drama
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
James McAvoy - Atonement
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
Denzel Washington - American Gangster
The only surprise here is Mortensen's inclusion. And the biggest injustice is the exclusion of Emile Hirsch for his dazzling performance in Sean Penn's Into the Wild. Out of the five, I think this one is between Clooney and Day-Lewis. Again, if Atonement's seven nominations are any indication of growing momentum for the film, we could see it sweep. But for now, I'll put McAvoy on a second tier with Washington, with Mortensen just off the pace from the other four.

Best Actress - Drama
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie - Away from Her
Jodie Foster - The Brave One
Angelina Jolie - A Mighty Heart
Keira Knightley - Atonement
Right now, this one is Christie's to lose. She and Marion Cotillard (who is nominated in the Comedy/Musical category, even though her film is neither a comedy nor a musical) have been receiving all of the critics awards, and they have the most buzz. Who could be the spoiler in this one? Only Knightley. Blanchett has more attention for I'm Not There, and Foster and Jolie have absolutely no shot. Sorry ladies.

Best Actor – Comedy/Musical
Johnny Depp – Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Ryan Gosling – Lars and the Real Girl
Tom Hanks – Charlie Wilson's War
Philip Seymour Hoffman – The Savages
John C. Reilly – Walk HardI think it's safe to say this award is Depp's to lose. His stiffest competition could come from Hanks, but overall, Sweeney Todd is receiving much more praise. Reilly's nod is a bit of a head scratcher, but he's always been excellent, so in this case, he's being awarded for his talent rather than the movie itself (probably). And I must say, what an inspired and delightful choice they made in nominating Gosling.

Best Actress – Comedy/Musical
Amy Adams – Enchanted
Nikki Blonsky – Hairspray
Helena Bonham Carter – Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Marion Cotillard – La Môme
Ellen Page – Juno
This one goes to Cotillard, almost definitely. Not only was she triumphant as the late singer Edith Piaf, but the film is French, and this is the Hollywood Foreign Press after all.

Still, surging support for Juno puts Page right in this race. I think it's also safe to say that Adams and Blonsky, though both fantastic, are not in the running here. But within this category lies what is perhaps the biggest shocker of this year's crop of noms: NO LAURA LINNEY. Linney has been receiving rave reviews for her turn in The Savages (Some critics call it her career best performance), and her less buzzed about co-star Hoffman was nominated. If Linney is snubbed by the Screen Actor's Guild, then it's safe to say she's out of the Oscar race. But I wouldn't count the lovely Linney out quite yet.

Best Supporting Actor
Casey Affleck – The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem – No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Charlie Wilson's War
John Travolta – Hairspray
Tom Wilkinson – Michael Clayton

This one pretty much looks like a no-brainer. This is Bardem's to lose, and I'd be shocked if he did lose. The one performance that could cause an upset is, shockingly, Travolta. It's unlikely, but if anyone is going to upset the frontrunner, it will be John Travolta in drag. Ugh.

Best Supporting Actress

Cate Blanchett – I'm Not There
Julia Roberts – Charlie Wilson's War
Saoirse Ronan – Atonement
Amy Ryan – Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton – Michael Clayton
This is such a tough category to predict. There are three strong contenders who could all win this one: Blanchett, Ryan, and Swinton. For months, Blanchett had enormous (and deserving) buzz for her mind blowing portrayal of Bob Dylan. But once the critics started handing out their awards, Amy Ryan gathered up a few awards and some serious momentum. Still, we can't count out Tilda Swinton. Buzz for Michael Clayton has been mounting since the nominations were announced, and if the HPFA loves it enough to reward Clooney, they may just reward his co-star too. Roberts and Ronan – no shot here.Well thanks for reading my rambles.

Academy pictures by genre

I was curious about the kinds of pictures that get selected by the academy, and started making this list. The top 5 of each year are picture noms, a * means a nom for the director, and a - means writing nom.

2006:
Departed-Crime Thriller
Little Miss Sunshine-Family Dramedy
Letters from Iwo Jima-War Film
The Queen-Docudrama/Political
Babel-Ensemble Piece
*United 93: Docudrama
-Borat-Mockumentary
-Children of Men-Sci-fi
-Little Children-Family melodrama
-Notes on a Scandal-Psychological Thriller
-Pan’s Labrynth-Foreign language/Experimental


2005:
Good Night and Good Luck-Period Docudrama
Crash-Ensemble Piece
Brokeback Mountain-Queer cinema
Munich-Political Thriller
Capote-Biopic
-Match Point-Dark romance
-Squid and the Whale-Family Melodrama
-Syrianna-Political Ensemble Piece
-History of Violence-Crime Thriller
-Constant Gardener-Political Thriller


2004:
Finding Neverland-Biopic
Ray-Musical Biopic
Aviator-Period Piece/Biopic
Sideways-Neorealist comedy
Million Dollar Baby-Sports
*Vera Drake-Biopic
-Incredibles-Animated
-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind-Experimental comedy
-Hotel Rwanda-Docudrama/Biopic
-Motorcycle Diaries-Foreign
-Before Sunset-Romance

2003:
Master and Commander-Period epic
Seabiscuit-Sports/Period piece
Lost in Translation-Independent/Romance
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King-Fantasy epic
Mystic River-Tragedy
*City of God-Foreign crime thriller
-In America-Tearjerker/Family melodrama
-Dirty Pretty Things-Independent
-Barbarian Invasions-Dramedy
-Finding Nemo-Animated
-American Splendor-Comedy

2002:
Chicago-Musical
The Hours-Period piece/Family melodrama
Pianist-Biopic
LOTR-Fantasy Epic
Gangs of New York-Period piece
*Talk to Her-Foreign language
-Adaptation-Comedy
-Far From Heaven-Family melodrama
-My Big Fat Greek Wedding-Comedy
-About a Boy-Comedy
-Y tu Mama Tambien-Foreign language/Coming-of-age

2001:
Moulan Rouge-Musical
Godsford Park-Ensemble piece
Beautiful Mind-Biopic
In the Bedroom-Family melodrama
LOTR-Fantasy Epic
*Mullholland Drive-Experimental
*Black Hawk Down-War film
-Amelie-Foreign language/romance
-Royal Tannenbaums-Family Dramedy
-Ghost World-Coming-of-age
-Momento-Experimental
-Monster’s Ball-Tragedy
-Shrek-Animated


2000:
Gladiator-Period epic
Traffic-Ensemble docudrama
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon-Foreign epic
Chocolat-Period piece
Erin Brockovitch-Biopic
*Billy Elliot-Biopic
-Wonderboys-Dramedy
-Almost Famous-Coming-of-age
-You Can Count on Me-Dramedy
-Oh Brother Where Art Thou-Epic
-Cast Away-Survival
-Contender-Political



1999:
Sixth Sense-Horror/Thriller
Insider-Docudrama
American Beauty-Family melodrama
Green Mile-Tearjerker
Cider House Rules-Coming-of-age
*Talented Mr Ripley-Psychological Thriller
-Being John Malkovitch-Experimental
-Magnolia-Ensemble Piece
-Topsy Turvy-Musical biopic
-Election-Satire


1998:
Elizabeth-Period piece
Shakespeare in Love-Comedy
A Thin Red Line-War film
Life is Beautiful-Foreign comedy
Saving Private Ryan-War film
*Truman Show-Experimental
-Out of Sight-Thriller
-Simple Plan-Dark Comedy
-Primary Colors-Satire
-Bullworth-Satire
-Gods and Monsters-Biopic