The past few years I've had an approximate success rate of 75% predicting these things - usually about 18 categories correct. I'm not sure I'll do that well this year given the how weird some of these races are, so I'm going to be a bit bolder in some of my picks than usual and hopefully it'll pay off. Probably not. We'll see.
_____________________________________________________________
Best Picture: Argo
Best Director: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln - I know some are jumping towards Ang Lee for Life of Pi but I think industry respect will keep Spielberg ahead.
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Best Actress: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour - I correctly predicted Marion Cotillard for the French upset back in 2007, I think it will happen again tonight.
Best Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln - My head says it will be Waltz, and my gut feels De Niro for the upset, but since I'm probably gonna get this wrong no matter what, I'm following my heart and predicting Jones
Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables - even though I'm hoping somehow support fell off during the last weeks of voting and Field can upset, I know better than to predict it.
Best Adapted Screenplay: Tony Kushner, Lincoln - Again, I think industry respect and the fact that this actually deserves to win over Argo will have kept it on enough ballots. I will not be at all surprised to see Chris Terrio win for Argo, but I'm calling Kushner.
Best Original Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained
Best Editing: Argo
Best Cinematography: Life of Pi
Best Production Design: Anna Karenina - This is another where people have started to shift towards Pi, but I think it's still Anna Karenina's to lose, and Lincoln's next in line, not Pi. I could of course be very wrong. God help us if Les Miserables wins.
Best Costume Design: Anna Karenina
Best Makeup & Hairstyling: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. My head says Les Miserables will probably get this, but I'm going with my gut and the track record of big prosthetic-based stuff winning here.
Best Sound Mixing: Les Miserables. My gut says Skyfall or Pi, but here I'm going with my head.
Best Sound Editing: Life of Pi. I think. Maybe.
Best Visual Effects: Life of Pi
Best Original Score: Life of Pi
Best Original Song: "Skyfall" from Skyfall
Best Foreign Language Film: Amour, but I will not be at all surprised by an upset.
Best Animated Feature: Wreck-It Ralph
Best Animated Short: Paperman
Best Documentary Feature: Searching for Sugarman, but again, The Gatekeepers won't shock me.
Best Documentary Short: Inocente - if not this, then Open Heart
Best Live Action Short: Buzkashi Boys - if not this, then Curfew
________________________________________________________________
So those are my predictions.
If you're counting, I'm calling Beasts of the Southern Wild AND Silver Linings Playbook AND Zero Dark Thirty to go home empty-handed.
Les Mis to go the Dreamgirls route with Sound Mixing and Supporting Actress.
Argo to get only Picture and Editing.
Lincoln and Life of Pi to tie for most wins at 4 apiece.
I'll be happy if I get 16 right. I'm not confident I'll get more, as there are about 10 categories here I'm predicting based on a guess or wishful thinking.
I'll probably be live-tweeting @sl8rlawrence if you'd like to follow along.
Showing posts with label Life of Pi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Life of Pi. Show all posts
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Saturday, February 23, 2013
2012 Oscars: Directing and Picture
Okay, final analysis post.
Tomorrow I'll be back with my last-minute, very final predictions (some have them have changed since my initial postings).
Best Director Nominees
Michael Haneke, Amour
Ang Lee, Life of Pi
David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
5. David O. Russell - This was a writer's and actor's film, not a director's. Yes, Russell did write it well and he directed his actors well, but I think his work as a director was less substantial than the other nominees.
4. Michael Haneke - I like Haneke's slow and steady pace, and I like his use of sudden, hard-to-watch images to maximize emotional impact. But in Amour, I think that pacing was just a bit too slow and it made for a pretty boring movie. Fascinating, yes, but boring. This is just personal preference, but I also can't deny that Haneke's fingerprints are all over this movie. It's definitely a director's piece, but that just means its failures should be reflected in a loss here.
3. Benh Zeitlin - A friend posted an article about the subtle racism and glorification of poverty in Beasts, and while there are definitely some things to consider, I think the argument had some flaws. I'll touch on that in a second, though. Zeitlin took a peculiar story and creatively assembled a fun, sad, exciting, frustrating movie out of it. He expertly handled water, children, and animals (three challenges directors are generally advised to shy away from). I've seen him accused of "sentimentalizing poverty," but I don't think that's what happened - I think he's telling a fairy tale in a real-world setting, he's asking us to look at the characters and the family dynamic and how tightly they want to hold on to the lives they know. He's not asking us to condone their lifestyle or their acceptance of it, he's just asking us to consider it's importance to them. That article referenced one critic who praised Wink's parenting skills. Of course, Wink isn't a very good father most of the time, but he's still Hushpuppy's father and they love each other no matter what. This is, I think, Zeitlin's accomplishment - he doesn't sentimentalize anything except what's already sentimental: the very real love and affection flowing through this Bathtub community. It's a very strong debut, and I'm looking forward to what he does next.
2. Ang Lee - The first time I saw Pi, I was floored by the visuals, but not the storytelling. Of course, I loved it anyway because I loved the novel. The second time, I saw past the visuals to the storytelling, and I grew to love the film itself. Ang Lee did what no one thought possible in bringing Pi to the screen, and he also had to deal with water, children, and animals. He balance the real and the fantasy elements of his story and plays with the more malleable aspects of Truth. At first, I didn't feel he kept the "real story" lot device ambiguous enough to keep a debate going, but I changed my mind after watching the movie again. The main reason he's my #2 here is hat I'm not crazy about the way he had Pi delivery his 2nd story at the end of the movie - he seemed too sincere, not flippant enough the way I think he was in the book. It's a small thing, but I think it was a misstep.
1. Steven Spielberg - Lincoln might not be Spielberg's greatest film, but I think time will remember it as part of his top five or so. Spielberg reminded us this year that he still knows how to make a great movie, not just a good movie with great sequences and polished filmmaking. He showed restraint and nuance when he could have sanctified his subject. He allowed room for the president's moral and even legal doubts about his situation. His casting of almost-kinda-familiar faces was fantastic, as was the inspired use ofAlan Shore James Spader to great comedic effect to remind us that even 150 years ago, politics were really silly. Don't forget Spielberg brought a whole slew of solid performances from those "lesser" actors; not to mention that although Day-Lewis is, well, who he is, even he relied on Spielberg's direction to shape his Lincoln. Meanwhile Kushner is getting lots of (deserved) praise for his script, but it was a lot of Spielberg's guidance that led Kushner to his structure and tone, and the decision to focus on the legislative process behind the 13th Amendment was also Spielberg's. While this doesn't look or feel quite as quintessentially "Spielberg" as some other ventures, there's no doubt to me that this is his movie through and through, and it's a tremendous success.
Will win: I'm still gonna predict Spielberg, even though there's a strong possibility of Lee for the "upset."
Should win: Spielberg.
Should have been nominated: Ben Affleck. If Affleck had been nominated, I'd have picked him as #1. Argo was, above all else, a director's showcase, and everything that worked about it worked because of Affleck. Keep in mind that I said this before I rant for the next few weeks about how Argo didn't deserve to win best picture.
Best Picture Nominees
I'll keep these relatively short since almost
9. Les Miserables - It's just pretty shoddy filmmaking through and through. A few great acting moments, lots of forgettable acting moments. And yeah, I'll say it, Russell Crowe was my favorite part of the whole thing. He's the only person who made his character interesting and fleshed out, everyone else was just painting by numbers.
8. Zero Dark Thirty - A lot of expertly crafted sequences awkwardly strung together to make an episodic jumble that loses almost all tension until the raid on the compound redeems it.
7. Amour - Like I said above, it's fascinating and moving and haunting and beautifully acted. But it's really boring.
6. Silver Linings Playbook - It's pretty formulaic, honestly, but it steps outside the box just enough to stay interesting and entertaining without getting too predictable. It's a nice film, a good film, an interesting film. Not a great one.
5. Argo - It's good. It's maybe even great. But it loses it's luster and I think it's historical gaffs are more problematic than Lincoln's or Zero Dark Thirty's. It's riveting, in a way, but ultimately doesn't really say or do anything that interesting. It's well-crafted, but fluff. It's going to win and will join the ranks of The Artist, The King's Speech, and Slumdog Millionaire as unoffensive, heart-warming, easy to like, but ultimately insubstantial Best Picture winners.
4. Beasts of the Southern Wild - I briefly addressed some of the complaints regarding this film above. I don't feel like getting into it more. It was a lovely, creative, moving movie that I don't believe asks anything more of us than to simply consider Hushpuppy. To consider her life and what she feels and why she feels it. It's more fairy tale than film, and it's certainly not reality. Anyone who judges it based on "real life" is setting themselves up for frustration from the start. If you want a story, well here's a good one.
3. Django Unchained - It's just flat-out one of the most entertaining movies of the year. It's funny, it's graphic, it's uncomfortable and exciting. It's about fifteen minutes too long, yes, but long movies always feel shorter a 2nd time, and by the 3rd the good times just fly by. Great acting and writing, and personally I think that it tackles subjects of violence and slavery in a unique way, by treating them as subjects and not issues. This isn't a think piece, it's not a discourse, it's pure emotion. You feel what's right and wrong, you feel what has to happen and what can't happen and what shouldn't happen, and hope it plays out right. A few peculiar directing choices aside, Django was some of the best storytelling and filmmaking of the year.
2. Life of Pi - I pretty much address my praises of the film throughout all the categories and especially with Lee above. I think it misses out on a bit of Martel's wonderful prose, and I think the final scenes are a tiny bit too straightforward, but it's a movie that I will go back to many times. Each time I will love looking at it, and each time I think I'll love thinking my way through it again. I still don't know what to believe, but I know which story I prefer.
1. Lincoln - Of the nominees, I think this is the movie that uses the most expertly crafted filmmaking elements and brings them together to the greatest whole film. I personally didn't find a second of it dull or uninteresting, I didn't find a single performance to be out of place, and I think it's a movie that we'll go back to for decades to remind ourselves that America has always been a mess, and that there are always people on the wrong side of history, but there will always be people on the right side of it too, and there's always reason to hope that we'll get where we're going eventually.
Will win: Argo
Should win: Lincoln
Should have been nominated: The Master, Cloud Atlas, The Impossible, The Sessions, and the best movie of the year, Holy Motors.
Tomorrow I'll be back with my last-minute, very final predictions (some have them have changed since my initial postings).
Best Director Nominees
Michael Haneke, Amour
Ang Lee, Life of Pi
David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
5. David O. Russell - This was a writer's and actor's film, not a director's. Yes, Russell did write it well and he directed his actors well, but I think his work as a director was less substantial than the other nominees.
4. Michael Haneke - I like Haneke's slow and steady pace, and I like his use of sudden, hard-to-watch images to maximize emotional impact. But in Amour, I think that pacing was just a bit too slow and it made for a pretty boring movie. Fascinating, yes, but boring. This is just personal preference, but I also can't deny that Haneke's fingerprints are all over this movie. It's definitely a director's piece, but that just means its failures should be reflected in a loss here.
3. Benh Zeitlin - A friend posted an article about the subtle racism and glorification of poverty in Beasts, and while there are definitely some things to consider, I think the argument had some flaws. I'll touch on that in a second, though. Zeitlin took a peculiar story and creatively assembled a fun, sad, exciting, frustrating movie out of it. He expertly handled water, children, and animals (three challenges directors are generally advised to shy away from). I've seen him accused of "sentimentalizing poverty," but I don't think that's what happened - I think he's telling a fairy tale in a real-world setting, he's asking us to look at the characters and the family dynamic and how tightly they want to hold on to the lives they know. He's not asking us to condone their lifestyle or their acceptance of it, he's just asking us to consider it's importance to them. That article referenced one critic who praised Wink's parenting skills. Of course, Wink isn't a very good father most of the time, but he's still Hushpuppy's father and they love each other no matter what. This is, I think, Zeitlin's accomplishment - he doesn't sentimentalize anything except what's already sentimental: the very real love and affection flowing through this Bathtub community. It's a very strong debut, and I'm looking forward to what he does next.
2. Ang Lee - The first time I saw Pi, I was floored by the visuals, but not the storytelling. Of course, I loved it anyway because I loved the novel. The second time, I saw past the visuals to the storytelling, and I grew to love the film itself. Ang Lee did what no one thought possible in bringing Pi to the screen, and he also had to deal with water, children, and animals. He balance the real and the fantasy elements of his story and plays with the more malleable aspects of Truth. At first, I didn't feel he kept the "real story" lot device ambiguous enough to keep a debate going, but I changed my mind after watching the movie again. The main reason he's my #2 here is hat I'm not crazy about the way he had Pi delivery his 2nd story at the end of the movie - he seemed too sincere, not flippant enough the way I think he was in the book. It's a small thing, but I think it was a misstep.
1. Steven Spielberg - Lincoln might not be Spielberg's greatest film, but I think time will remember it as part of his top five or so. Spielberg reminded us this year that he still knows how to make a great movie, not just a good movie with great sequences and polished filmmaking. He showed restraint and nuance when he could have sanctified his subject. He allowed room for the president's moral and even legal doubts about his situation. His casting of almost-kinda-familiar faces was fantastic, as was the inspired use of
Will win: I'm still gonna predict Spielberg, even though there's a strong possibility of Lee for the "upset."
Should win: Spielberg.
Should have been nominated: Ben Affleck. If Affleck had been nominated, I'd have picked him as #1. Argo was, above all else, a director's showcase, and everything that worked about it worked because of Affleck. Keep in mind that I said this before I rant for the next few weeks about how Argo didn't deserve to win best picture.
Best Picture Nominees
I'll keep these relatively short since almost
9. Les Miserables - It's just pretty shoddy filmmaking through and through. A few great acting moments, lots of forgettable acting moments. And yeah, I'll say it, Russell Crowe was my favorite part of the whole thing. He's the only person who made his character interesting and fleshed out, everyone else was just painting by numbers.
8. Zero Dark Thirty - A lot of expertly crafted sequences awkwardly strung together to make an episodic jumble that loses almost all tension until the raid on the compound redeems it.
7. Amour - Like I said above, it's fascinating and moving and haunting and beautifully acted. But it's really boring.
6. Silver Linings Playbook - It's pretty formulaic, honestly, but it steps outside the box just enough to stay interesting and entertaining without getting too predictable. It's a nice film, a good film, an interesting film. Not a great one.
5. Argo - It's good. It's maybe even great. But it loses it's luster and I think it's historical gaffs are more problematic than Lincoln's or Zero Dark Thirty's. It's riveting, in a way, but ultimately doesn't really say or do anything that interesting. It's well-crafted, but fluff. It's going to win and will join the ranks of The Artist, The King's Speech, and Slumdog Millionaire as unoffensive, heart-warming, easy to like, but ultimately insubstantial Best Picture winners.
4. Beasts of the Southern Wild - I briefly addressed some of the complaints regarding this film above. I don't feel like getting into it more. It was a lovely, creative, moving movie that I don't believe asks anything more of us than to simply consider Hushpuppy. To consider her life and what she feels and why she feels it. It's more fairy tale than film, and it's certainly not reality. Anyone who judges it based on "real life" is setting themselves up for frustration from the start. If you want a story, well here's a good one.
3. Django Unchained - It's just flat-out one of the most entertaining movies of the year. It's funny, it's graphic, it's uncomfortable and exciting. It's about fifteen minutes too long, yes, but long movies always feel shorter a 2nd time, and by the 3rd the good times just fly by. Great acting and writing, and personally I think that it tackles subjects of violence and slavery in a unique way, by treating them as subjects and not issues. This isn't a think piece, it's not a discourse, it's pure emotion. You feel what's right and wrong, you feel what has to happen and what can't happen and what shouldn't happen, and hope it plays out right. A few peculiar directing choices aside, Django was some of the best storytelling and filmmaking of the year.
2. Life of Pi - I pretty much address my praises of the film throughout all the categories and especially with Lee above. I think it misses out on a bit of Martel's wonderful prose, and I think the final scenes are a tiny bit too straightforward, but it's a movie that I will go back to many times. Each time I will love looking at it, and each time I think I'll love thinking my way through it again. I still don't know what to believe, but I know which story I prefer.
1. Lincoln - Of the nominees, I think this is the movie that uses the most expertly crafted filmmaking elements and brings them together to the greatest whole film. I personally didn't find a second of it dull or uninteresting, I didn't find a single performance to be out of place, and I think it's a movie that we'll go back to for decades to remind ourselves that America has always been a mess, and that there are always people on the wrong side of history, but there will always be people on the right side of it too, and there's always reason to hope that we'll get where we're going eventually.
Will win: Argo
Should win: Lincoln
Should have been nominated: The Master, Cloud Atlas, The Impossible, The Sessions, and the best movie of the year, Holy Motors.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
2012 Oscars: Original and Adapted Screenplays
There are an awful lot of categories this year with no clear winner (score, the sound awards, cinematography could surprise, supporting actor is way up in the air). Even many awards with frontrunners have a 2nd or 3rd option close behind. The frontrunners appear to be Argo and Django with Lincoln and ZDK as spoilers, respectively. But we could also see SLP and Amour win these... I'm not sure either writing category can be considered a "lock" at this point, but who really knows?
Sorry I haven't taken the time to get photos and video clips, but it's crunch time and I just wanna get this stuff out there.
Best Original Screenplay Nominees
Amour - Michael Haneke
Django Unchained - Quentin Tarantino
Flight - John Gatins
Moonrise Kingdom - Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola
Zero Dark Thirty - Mark Boal
5. Flight - This was clearly a filler nomination. Not a bad screenplay by any means, but overshadowed by the style of the filmmaking and the quality of performances. That said, I think that way this film tackled alcoholism was even more fascinating than a movie like Young Adult, despite the risks it takes in addressing the disease head on. It avoided movie-of-the-week cheeseball stuff, so I don't mind that it made the cut. Made the cut over The Master? Eh...maybe not.
4. Amour - This was a nice movie, but Haneke's strengths really seem to be as a director. Sometimes I felt like I was watching the same scene over and over again. They were varied slightly, to move the story along just slightly, and that worked most of the time. But if a different director had taken this screenplay, and made a 90-minute movie instead of a 2-hour movie (which seems plausible given the scant amount of material to work with), would we still be praising the screenplay? I'm not convinced.
3. Zero Dark Thirty - This is the screenplay giving Tarantino the most competition right now, and coming off a WGA win, it may very will win the Oscar as well. (It's hard to say, given Django wasn't eligible for the WGA award.) While I wasn't crazy about the film, I'm not sure that's the screenplay's fault. The movie was too episodic - too jumpy - was that the screenplay's lack of organic transitions through time? Or was it Bigelow's directing that pushed from event to event? A combination? I'm honestly not sure. I think my biggest problem with the screenplay is the fact that I really don't find Maya - the lead character - very interesting. We know we has one singular obsession, that she has an ambivalent relationship with torture, and that she's got a strong will and mind to back up her emotions. But... is that a character, really? Or is it just a collection of a traits designed to push a story forward?
And I won't lie, I still a have a grudge against Mark Boal for his totally undeserving win for The Hurt Locker in 2009. He doesn't need another one.
2. Moonrise Kingdom - This movie was just delightful and charming and wonderful to behold. Anderson's directing and always unique look elevates it visually, and the performances are all off-beat and perfect, frequently showing us new sides to actors we thought we knew completely. The way the screenplay handles young romance is delicate, and at moments uncomfortable, but underneath all the quirky Wes Anderson-ness of it all, it's honest to its core. But I submit the same challenge here that I posed with Amour - give this screenplay to a different director, and is it still the screenplay that shines? Maybe it's not fair to separate a writer/director's writing from his directing but these are different categories after all, so I'm not sure this is the screenplay that quite deserves to win.
1. Django Unchained - I had a few issues with this movie as well, but those were limited almost entire to directorial choices. I think this screenplay passes the test I've used - give this screenplay to a different director and I suspect the movie would still work. It would be different, but it could be nearly as good as long as it was well-cast and the director has just the right amount of crazy. (I hesitate to ask, but without Tarantino behind the camera, could it have been an even better movie?) The movie could have been shorter, but that's an editing problem not a writing one. Some of the characters are archetypical, but that fits in with Django's mythological themes. Most of the characters are remarkably fleshed out. The dialogue, as always, is fascinating and intelligent and disarming. This seems like the most deserving winner to me and I suspect it will keep the momentum until Sunday.
Will win: Django Unchained
Should win: Django Unchained
Should have been nominated: The Master, Paul Thomas Anderson. Regardless of one's opinions of the movie, it was a fascinating character study. I know people who hated the movie once they got outside the theater, but while they were inside they couldn't take their eyes off the screen. Also, NOT Looper, which I applaud for originality, but had some serious plot issues.
Best Adapted Screenplay Nominees
Argo - Chris Terrio
Beasts of the Southern Wild - Lucy Alibar and Benh Zeitlin
Life of Pi - David Magee
Lincoln - Tony Kushner
Silver Linings Playbook - David O. Russell
If Original Screenplay is about bringing to life a world from scratch, I compare the screenplays merits with the work on the production and try to determine where the credit is deserved. With Adapted Screenplay, though, I consider the challenge of the adaption itself as well as the writing merits.
5. Argo - I don't hate Argo. I even think it deserved more nominations than it got (Director, Prod. Design, Costume Design). But the screenplay was one of its weakest elements and it pisses me off that it's currently the most likely winner in this category (also Best Picture, but that's a different conversation). Every single character in this screenplay is a cardboard cut out. Arkin's character is just a bag of one-liners, Affleck's character is the most boring man alive. At least Bryan Cranston made his boring character interesting to watch. There was basically zero character development or change over the course of the film, and the only really emotional thread was a very thin subplot about Affleck's kid. The dialogue is merely efficient, but that seems appropriate for this sort of procedural. And the blending of pseudo-thriller scenes with historical commentary made for a more interesting movie. But overall, honestly, how do people think this is writing that deserves to win the same award won by Larry McMurtry, Aaron Sorkin, Joel & Ethan Coen, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, Robert Bolt, Horton Foote, James L. Brooks, and Billy Wilder?
4. Silver Linings Playbook - This is fine enough I guess. It's got great characters, but those were in the book. I suspect Russell wrote some of the stronger scenes to his taste and he deserves credit there. But near the beginning of the movie, Bradley Cooper sits down with his therapist, who appears to already know him and know his backstory. Then Bradley Cooper narrates in full all the events that got him where he was. To someone who already knew. Plus we get awkward flashback-type scenes during the monologue showing us how his wife was cheating on him. There HAD to have been a better way to tell us who this character was and what he'd been though than having him deliver lines to a character who doesn't need to hear it again. It was just lazy.
3. Life of Pi - The challenge of this adaptation alone deserves recognition. It's a meandering story at times, a poetic and philosophical novel whose narrative is really secondary to its themes, one of which is that the details or reality of a narrative are secondary to the experience of the narrative itself... and so on and so forth. Yet the screenplay here efficiently condenses the breadth of novel's plot without sacrificing its depth, and for a book supposedly "impossible to film," that's a tremendous accomplishment. It's only #3 in my personal preferences because I went back and thumbed through some passages of in the novel, and unfortunately the "efficiency" of the screenplay did sacrifice large bits of really beautiful prose - prose that probably would have seemed overly flowery if it had been translated word-for-word - but beautiful nonetheless, and I felt that the language in the screenplay lacked a certain gravitas or transcendence. Those qualities were more than compensated for with the visuals, but this is the screenplay category. So, well, there it is.
2. Beasts of the Southern Wild - I don't know the source play for this film, but basically all the pretty language I think Life of Pi had to discard for the sake of cinema, Beasts managed to maintain due to it's almost pidgin-like dialect. It was fascinating and immersive language servicing a unique story and complete human characters who were defined by certain functions but never confined to them. This, to me, is Moonrise Kingdom's adapted counterpart - a 90 minute film with unique characters and circumstances that seem implausible in the real world, but somehow convince me of their reality nonetheless.
1. Lincoln - I'm gonna throw something when this doesn't win on Sunday. Kushner doesn't begin with "characters" the way most of these other adaptations do, he begins with historical figures and then gives them flesh and blood and brains until they become characters in an historical battle of wills. Unlike Argo which fills in the necessary spots with stand-ins for the people who were really there, Kushner recreates those people, gives them motivations and emotions and some of the most brilliant dialogue on screen this year. Consider Lincoln himself, not a saint here but a man struggling to work within the limits of his power, questioning even his own political excesses - his speech on why and how he exercised the power of the presidency to make the Emancipation Proclamation, despite its potential illegality, is a powerful insight not only into period politics but into the self-reflective nature of a man confined to the rules of those politics. There are moral issues of slavery at work here, but as is frequently the nature of politics, morality comes second to what can actually get done, and the stress it causes to those moral men and women is apparent in every scene of this film. Kushner's screenplay balances character, history, and drama in one of Euclid's triangles that Lincoln speaks of with such tension that despite knowing the outcome of history, we're left always worrying that tension will snap and give way. Some criticism was given to Joseph Gordon Levitt's subplot, but I appreciated it more with a second viewing. Creating Mary Todd Lincoln as a woman overcome with grief to the point of flirting with insanity, but not falling over the cliff, showed remarkable restraint by both Kushner and Sally Field. And there was even room left over for a few surprises, regarding, for instance, Stevens and the person who finally reads the 13th Amendment out loud. And finally, as wonderful a job as Spielberg did crafting this film, this is one of those screenplays that could be read on its own, or given to another director and still make an excellent film (though perhaps not quite the same caliber as the one Spielberg made). On top of all this, Kushner tackles one of my favorite challenges to see screenwriting overcome - taking a story which by rights really ought to be dull and making it a fascinating character study and process story. Consider the work Sorkin did to turn a book about the creation of facebook for crying out loud into an exciting... legal drama? buddy comedy? cyber thriller? A movie about getting votes in congress just shouldn't be this good.
I'm reminded as I write this of Neil Simon. I've seen bad productions of Simon's plays. Like, bad direction, bad acting, bad timing. But the audience was still laughing. Because Neil Simon is almost impossible to mess up, he's just that good. Similarly, Kushner here is so good that it's hard to imagine really bad film resulting from this screenplay. Unlike Argo which required Affleck's deftness, or Life of Pi which required Ang Lee's ambition and soft heart and remarkable effects, or Silver Linings Playbook which is nothing without its cast. Lincoln is, simply, a remarkable screenplay.
And I'm going to throw something when it doesn't win.
Will win: Argo
Should win: If you read this far, I'm not going to bother answering that.
Should have been nominated: Eh, Cloud Atlas maybe? I still haven't gotten around to Perks of Being a Wallflower, but I know many people who feel that was snubbed here.
Sorry I haven't taken the time to get photos and video clips, but it's crunch time and I just wanna get this stuff out there.
Best Original Screenplay Nominees
Amour - Michael Haneke
Django Unchained - Quentin Tarantino
Flight - John Gatins
Moonrise Kingdom - Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola
Zero Dark Thirty - Mark Boal
5. Flight - This was clearly a filler nomination. Not a bad screenplay by any means, but overshadowed by the style of the filmmaking and the quality of performances. That said, I think that way this film tackled alcoholism was even more fascinating than a movie like Young Adult, despite the risks it takes in addressing the disease head on. It avoided movie-of-the-week cheeseball stuff, so I don't mind that it made the cut. Made the cut over The Master? Eh...maybe not.
4. Amour - This was a nice movie, but Haneke's strengths really seem to be as a director. Sometimes I felt like I was watching the same scene over and over again. They were varied slightly, to move the story along just slightly, and that worked most of the time. But if a different director had taken this screenplay, and made a 90-minute movie instead of a 2-hour movie (which seems plausible given the scant amount of material to work with), would we still be praising the screenplay? I'm not convinced.
3. Zero Dark Thirty - This is the screenplay giving Tarantino the most competition right now, and coming off a WGA win, it may very will win the Oscar as well. (It's hard to say, given Django wasn't eligible for the WGA award.) While I wasn't crazy about the film, I'm not sure that's the screenplay's fault. The movie was too episodic - too jumpy - was that the screenplay's lack of organic transitions through time? Or was it Bigelow's directing that pushed from event to event? A combination? I'm honestly not sure. I think my biggest problem with the screenplay is the fact that I really don't find Maya - the lead character - very interesting. We know we has one singular obsession, that she has an ambivalent relationship with torture, and that she's got a strong will and mind to back up her emotions. But... is that a character, really? Or is it just a collection of a traits designed to push a story forward?
And I won't lie, I still a have a grudge against Mark Boal for his totally undeserving win for The Hurt Locker in 2009. He doesn't need another one.
2. Moonrise Kingdom - This movie was just delightful and charming and wonderful to behold. Anderson's directing and always unique look elevates it visually, and the performances are all off-beat and perfect, frequently showing us new sides to actors we thought we knew completely. The way the screenplay handles young romance is delicate, and at moments uncomfortable, but underneath all the quirky Wes Anderson-ness of it all, it's honest to its core. But I submit the same challenge here that I posed with Amour - give this screenplay to a different director, and is it still the screenplay that shines? Maybe it's not fair to separate a writer/director's writing from his directing but these are different categories after all, so I'm not sure this is the screenplay that quite deserves to win.
1. Django Unchained - I had a few issues with this movie as well, but those were limited almost entire to directorial choices. I think this screenplay passes the test I've used - give this screenplay to a different director and I suspect the movie would still work. It would be different, but it could be nearly as good as long as it was well-cast and the director has just the right amount of crazy. (I hesitate to ask, but without Tarantino behind the camera, could it have been an even better movie?) The movie could have been shorter, but that's an editing problem not a writing one. Some of the characters are archetypical, but that fits in with Django's mythological themes. Most of the characters are remarkably fleshed out. The dialogue, as always, is fascinating and intelligent and disarming. This seems like the most deserving winner to me and I suspect it will keep the momentum until Sunday.
Will win: Django Unchained
Should win: Django Unchained
Should have been nominated: The Master, Paul Thomas Anderson. Regardless of one's opinions of the movie, it was a fascinating character study. I know people who hated the movie once they got outside the theater, but while they were inside they couldn't take their eyes off the screen. Also, NOT Looper, which I applaud for originality, but had some serious plot issues.
Best Adapted Screenplay Nominees
Argo - Chris Terrio
Beasts of the Southern Wild - Lucy Alibar and Benh Zeitlin
Life of Pi - David Magee
Lincoln - Tony Kushner
Silver Linings Playbook - David O. Russell
If Original Screenplay is about bringing to life a world from scratch, I compare the screenplays merits with the work on the production and try to determine where the credit is deserved. With Adapted Screenplay, though, I consider the challenge of the adaption itself as well as the writing merits.
5. Argo - I don't hate Argo. I even think it deserved more nominations than it got (Director, Prod. Design, Costume Design). But the screenplay was one of its weakest elements and it pisses me off that it's currently the most likely winner in this category (also Best Picture, but that's a different conversation). Every single character in this screenplay is a cardboard cut out. Arkin's character is just a bag of one-liners, Affleck's character is the most boring man alive. At least Bryan Cranston made his boring character interesting to watch. There was basically zero character development or change over the course of the film, and the only really emotional thread was a very thin subplot about Affleck's kid. The dialogue is merely efficient, but that seems appropriate for this sort of procedural. And the blending of pseudo-thriller scenes with historical commentary made for a more interesting movie. But overall, honestly, how do people think this is writing that deserves to win the same award won by Larry McMurtry, Aaron Sorkin, Joel & Ethan Coen, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, Robert Bolt, Horton Foote, James L. Brooks, and Billy Wilder?
4. Silver Linings Playbook - This is fine enough I guess. It's got great characters, but those were in the book. I suspect Russell wrote some of the stronger scenes to his taste and he deserves credit there. But near the beginning of the movie, Bradley Cooper sits down with his therapist, who appears to already know him and know his backstory. Then Bradley Cooper narrates in full all the events that got him where he was. To someone who already knew. Plus we get awkward flashback-type scenes during the monologue showing us how his wife was cheating on him. There HAD to have been a better way to tell us who this character was and what he'd been though than having him deliver lines to a character who doesn't need to hear it again. It was just lazy.
3. Life of Pi - The challenge of this adaptation alone deserves recognition. It's a meandering story at times, a poetic and philosophical novel whose narrative is really secondary to its themes, one of which is that the details or reality of a narrative are secondary to the experience of the narrative itself... and so on and so forth. Yet the screenplay here efficiently condenses the breadth of novel's plot without sacrificing its depth, and for a book supposedly "impossible to film," that's a tremendous accomplishment. It's only #3 in my personal preferences because I went back and thumbed through some passages of in the novel, and unfortunately the "efficiency" of the screenplay did sacrifice large bits of really beautiful prose - prose that probably would have seemed overly flowery if it had been translated word-for-word - but beautiful nonetheless, and I felt that the language in the screenplay lacked a certain gravitas or transcendence. Those qualities were more than compensated for with the visuals, but this is the screenplay category. So, well, there it is.
2. Beasts of the Southern Wild - I don't know the source play for this film, but basically all the pretty language I think Life of Pi had to discard for the sake of cinema, Beasts managed to maintain due to it's almost pidgin-like dialect. It was fascinating and immersive language servicing a unique story and complete human characters who were defined by certain functions but never confined to them. This, to me, is Moonrise Kingdom's adapted counterpart - a 90 minute film with unique characters and circumstances that seem implausible in the real world, but somehow convince me of their reality nonetheless.
1. Lincoln - I'm gonna throw something when this doesn't win on Sunday. Kushner doesn't begin with "characters" the way most of these other adaptations do, he begins with historical figures and then gives them flesh and blood and brains until they become characters in an historical battle of wills. Unlike Argo which fills in the necessary spots with stand-ins for the people who were really there, Kushner recreates those people, gives them motivations and emotions and some of the most brilliant dialogue on screen this year. Consider Lincoln himself, not a saint here but a man struggling to work within the limits of his power, questioning even his own political excesses - his speech on why and how he exercised the power of the presidency to make the Emancipation Proclamation, despite its potential illegality, is a powerful insight not only into period politics but into the self-reflective nature of a man confined to the rules of those politics. There are moral issues of slavery at work here, but as is frequently the nature of politics, morality comes second to what can actually get done, and the stress it causes to those moral men and women is apparent in every scene of this film. Kushner's screenplay balances character, history, and drama in one of Euclid's triangles that Lincoln speaks of with such tension that despite knowing the outcome of history, we're left always worrying that tension will snap and give way. Some criticism was given to Joseph Gordon Levitt's subplot, but I appreciated it more with a second viewing. Creating Mary Todd Lincoln as a woman overcome with grief to the point of flirting with insanity, but not falling over the cliff, showed remarkable restraint by both Kushner and Sally Field. And there was even room left over for a few surprises, regarding, for instance, Stevens and the person who finally reads the 13th Amendment out loud. And finally, as wonderful a job as Spielberg did crafting this film, this is one of those screenplays that could be read on its own, or given to another director and still make an excellent film (though perhaps not quite the same caliber as the one Spielberg made). On top of all this, Kushner tackles one of my favorite challenges to see screenwriting overcome - taking a story which by rights really ought to be dull and making it a fascinating character study and process story. Consider the work Sorkin did to turn a book about the creation of facebook for crying out loud into an exciting... legal drama? buddy comedy? cyber thriller? A movie about getting votes in congress just shouldn't be this good.
I'm reminded as I write this of Neil Simon. I've seen bad productions of Simon's plays. Like, bad direction, bad acting, bad timing. But the audience was still laughing. Because Neil Simon is almost impossible to mess up, he's just that good. Similarly, Kushner here is so good that it's hard to imagine really bad film resulting from this screenplay. Unlike Argo which required Affleck's deftness, or Life of Pi which required Ang Lee's ambition and soft heart and remarkable effects, or Silver Linings Playbook which is nothing without its cast. Lincoln is, simply, a remarkable screenplay.
And I'm going to throw something when it doesn't win.
Will win: Argo
Should win: If you read this far, I'm not going to bother answering that.
Should have been nominated: Eh, Cloud Atlas maybe? I still haven't gotten around to Perks of Being a Wallflower, but I know many people who feel that was snubbed here.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
2012 Oscars: Editing and Animated Feature
So there's only a week before the awards, and I've gotten behind on these posts, so I'm doubling up to unrelated categories today.
Editing
Argo
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
5. Silver Linings Playbook
There was nothing especially bad or wrong with the editing here, but it was mostly just efficient - there were no particular challenges the editor had to overcome. It was a mostly straightforward dramedy with a few characters in a few locations - I imagine the editor mostly just followed the script. And even so, there were one or two distinct scenes where the film lost all sense of space and direction - the camera was flipping all around the eyelines and the editing didn't do much to fix it. I expect this is more David O. Russell's fault than anyone else's, but it was still a problem.
4. Zero Dark Thirty
On the whole, I thought ZDK was a collection of extremely well-made sequences that didn't amount to that great of a film, and one of the problems was the pacing. The first hour of this already long movie was laboriously slow, it struggled to keep my attention and by the time the movie really got going I almost didn't even care anymore. That said, the entire raid on the compound scene at the end was remarkably crafted on all levels, including the editing, so I don't want to dismiss it's nomination entirely - I just hope it doesn't win.
3. Life of Pi
I had the opportunity to hear Tim Squyres speak about the editing process on Pi and sounded like a lot of fun and a lot of hard work. How do you edit in a way that maintains a logical sense of space when your scenes are set on an endless sea? Ultimately, Squyres held strong to the emotional needs of the story, allowing some interesting layered dissolves to transition through space and time, and keeping the pace of the film spot-on as it moves back and forth between action-filled scenes like the sinking of the Tsimtsum and more contemplative sequences like Pi's stay on the floating island. Not to mention the challenges of editing in 3D with lots of effects.
2. Lincoln
All of the problems I had with ZDK's editing slowing down an already slow story, Michael Kahn avoids with Lincoln. The movie might be 2 1/2 hours, and by the end you might feel like you've been sitting through a lot of history, but while I was watching it, I was constantly engaged - and when a long, dialogue-driven movie that's a difficult think to accomplish. I felt that the story was always driving forward, stopping for emotional beats along the way, but never losing sight of its end goal. In my opinion, Kahn's editing deserves as much credit as Kushner's script for making a seemingly dull legislative process come alive.
1. Argo
This is perhaps the only award Argo truly will deserve come Oscar night. Take all the strengths of the other 4 nominees, and William Goldenberg utilizes them here - balancing multiple locations and subplots, keeping a sometimes dull story or sequence feel exciting, keeping the action and comedy scenes feeling light and the heavier scenes feeling...well, heavy. Unlike Silver Linings Playbook, I feel as though Goldenberg used the script as a tool to inform his work rather than dictate it. His cross-cutting, the inserts of the Iranian press conferences and other historical details, it all works to keep you engaged in a film that, by rights, shouldn't be all that interesting.
Will win: Argo
Should win: Argo
Should have been nominated: Cloud Atlas
Animated Feature
Brave
Frankenweenie
ParaNorman
The Pirates! Band of Misfits
Wreck-It Ralph
5. The Pirates! Band of Misfits
I mean, I guess this was alright and all... it has some funny moments, but I didn't really get why I was watching it, why it was made. The characters were 2-dimensional, the pseudo-history wasn't even that amusing. I...yeah, I dunno.
4. Frankenweenie
I wanted SO much to like this movie, but I just couldn't. I loved the voice acting, and most of the design. I really did buy the love between Victor and his dog. But the 'villains' weren't really villains, they were just brats. The Vincent Price figure was just a rehashing of characters Burton has done better in other films. That one Asian student was... really pretty offensive, wasn't he? There are ways to make stereotypes interesting and funny and insightful, but none of that happened here.
3. Brave
I really did enjoy this one, it was just a tad too traditional - I feel like we've seen this story before in one way or another. It was beautifully animated, very funny, heart-warming, all that. But just kind of "meh" at the end of the day.
2. Wreck-It Ralph
Very funny, great characters, tremendous writing - the "bad guys" therapy session in particular - it has so much going for it. And the more video game-literate of my friends tell me it had an awful lot of added humor if you know where to look for it (apparently the detail of certain lines, sounds, and labels referenced who knows how many other games). It was great. But again, walking out of the theater, what did I leave with? Something about accepting people for more than what they seem? Not exactly new ground.
1. ParaNorman
But then I'm going to sound like a hypocrite because this film has basically the same message - don't write people off just because you don't understand them. But the way it's delivered in ParaNorman was so much more emotionally satisfying than in any other film this year. It's a very dark movie, and not just because it features a boy who speak with ghosts. At the heart of all of it is a very troubled young girl from centuries past who is still scarred from the way she was, essentially, bullied by her friends and elders. There is such a strong theme here about the dangers of bullying and intolerance because it shows its devastation across the generations, rather than just in someone who's a bit sad right now. And when the people in Norman's town are faced with the horror of their own behavior, what an epiphany it is to learn that they are the true monsters, more so than the risen dead walking amongst them. And of course I haven't even addressed the beautiful blend of stop-motion animation and CGI effects - at times this film looks even more real than the ones with real people! This was the best animated feature of the year and if there's justice in Hollywood it will win the Oscar next sunday.
But there isn't, so it won't.
Will win: Wreck-It Ralph
Should win: ParaNorman
Should have been nominated: Not really sure as I didn't see too many animated features this year, but I heard wonderful things about The Painting. I didn't hear too many complaints about Hotel Transylvania and Rise of the Guardians missing out here...
Editing
Argo
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
5. Silver Linings Playbook
There was nothing especially bad or wrong with the editing here, but it was mostly just efficient - there were no particular challenges the editor had to overcome. It was a mostly straightforward dramedy with a few characters in a few locations - I imagine the editor mostly just followed the script. And even so, there were one or two distinct scenes where the film lost all sense of space and direction - the camera was flipping all around the eyelines and the editing didn't do much to fix it. I expect this is more David O. Russell's fault than anyone else's, but it was still a problem.
4. Zero Dark Thirty
On the whole, I thought ZDK was a collection of extremely well-made sequences that didn't amount to that great of a film, and one of the problems was the pacing. The first hour of this already long movie was laboriously slow, it struggled to keep my attention and by the time the movie really got going I almost didn't even care anymore. That said, the entire raid on the compound scene at the end was remarkably crafted on all levels, including the editing, so I don't want to dismiss it's nomination entirely - I just hope it doesn't win.
3. Life of Pi
I had the opportunity to hear Tim Squyres speak about the editing process on Pi and sounded like a lot of fun and a lot of hard work. How do you edit in a way that maintains a logical sense of space when your scenes are set on an endless sea? Ultimately, Squyres held strong to the emotional needs of the story, allowing some interesting layered dissolves to transition through space and time, and keeping the pace of the film spot-on as it moves back and forth between action-filled scenes like the sinking of the Tsimtsum and more contemplative sequences like Pi's stay on the floating island. Not to mention the challenges of editing in 3D with lots of effects.
2. Lincoln
All of the problems I had with ZDK's editing slowing down an already slow story, Michael Kahn avoids with Lincoln. The movie might be 2 1/2 hours, and by the end you might feel like you've been sitting through a lot of history, but while I was watching it, I was constantly engaged - and when a long, dialogue-driven movie that's a difficult think to accomplish. I felt that the story was always driving forward, stopping for emotional beats along the way, but never losing sight of its end goal. In my opinion, Kahn's editing deserves as much credit as Kushner's script for making a seemingly dull legislative process come alive.
1. Argo
This is perhaps the only award Argo truly will deserve come Oscar night. Take all the strengths of the other 4 nominees, and William Goldenberg utilizes them here - balancing multiple locations and subplots, keeping a sometimes dull story or sequence feel exciting, keeping the action and comedy scenes feeling light and the heavier scenes feeling...well, heavy. Unlike Silver Linings Playbook, I feel as though Goldenberg used the script as a tool to inform his work rather than dictate it. His cross-cutting, the inserts of the Iranian press conferences and other historical details, it all works to keep you engaged in a film that, by rights, shouldn't be all that interesting.
Will win: Argo
Should win: Argo
Should have been nominated: Cloud Atlas
Animated Feature
Brave
Frankenweenie
ParaNorman
The Pirates! Band of Misfits
Wreck-It Ralph
5. The Pirates! Band of Misfits
I mean, I guess this was alright and all... it has some funny moments, but I didn't really get why I was watching it, why it was made. The characters were 2-dimensional, the pseudo-history wasn't even that amusing. I...yeah, I dunno.
4. Frankenweenie
I wanted SO much to like this movie, but I just couldn't. I loved the voice acting, and most of the design. I really did buy the love between Victor and his dog. But the 'villains' weren't really villains, they were just brats. The Vincent Price figure was just a rehashing of characters Burton has done better in other films. That one Asian student was... really pretty offensive, wasn't he? There are ways to make stereotypes interesting and funny and insightful, but none of that happened here.
3. Brave
I really did enjoy this one, it was just a tad too traditional - I feel like we've seen this story before in one way or another. It was beautifully animated, very funny, heart-warming, all that. But just kind of "meh" at the end of the day.
2. Wreck-It Ralph
Very funny, great characters, tremendous writing - the "bad guys" therapy session in particular - it has so much going for it. And the more video game-literate of my friends tell me it had an awful lot of added humor if you know where to look for it (apparently the detail of certain lines, sounds, and labels referenced who knows how many other games). It was great. But again, walking out of the theater, what did I leave with? Something about accepting people for more than what they seem? Not exactly new ground.
1. ParaNorman
But then I'm going to sound like a hypocrite because this film has basically the same message - don't write people off just because you don't understand them. But the way it's delivered in ParaNorman was so much more emotionally satisfying than in any other film this year. It's a very dark movie, and not just because it features a boy who speak with ghosts. At the heart of all of it is a very troubled young girl from centuries past who is still scarred from the way she was, essentially, bullied by her friends and elders. There is such a strong theme here about the dangers of bullying and intolerance because it shows its devastation across the generations, rather than just in someone who's a bit sad right now. And when the people in Norman's town are faced with the horror of their own behavior, what an epiphany it is to learn that they are the true monsters, more so than the risen dead walking amongst them. And of course I haven't even addressed the beautiful blend of stop-motion animation and CGI effects - at times this film looks even more real than the ones with real people! This was the best animated feature of the year and if there's justice in Hollywood it will win the Oscar next sunday.
But there isn't, so it won't.
Will win: Wreck-It Ralph
Should win: ParaNorman
Should have been nominated: Not really sure as I didn't see too many animated features this year, but I heard wonderful things about The Painting. I didn't hear too many complaints about Hotel Transylvania and Rise of the Guardians missing out here...
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
2012 Oscars: Production Design
Yikes, the show is creeping up on me and I've still got plenty of categories to do...
Trucking along, then.
Nominees
Anna Karenina
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
5. Les Miserables
The whole movie was a close-up on faces. We almost never get to see the sets, and when we do they look bizarre, cartoonish, and disproportioned. For a movie trying to capture something realistic in its musical material, the design at times looks weirdly like a Tim Burton movie. Stupid, lazy nomination.
4. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Any trip to Middle Earth is going to look astounding, and there were plenty of new elements here - Goblin's cave, the Misty Mountain goblin kingdom, etc. But we've seen most of this stuff before - the Shire, Rivendell, etc. So not a stupid nomination, but still a lazy one.
3. Life of Pi
Bearing in mind that production design encapsulates the entire visual world of the film (except the framing of the camera), and not just the sets, justifies Life of Pi's nomination. Technically speaking, makeup, costumes, and visual effects are all subcategories of Production Design. So if we were just looking at the lifeboat, well that would be a bit too simplistic. But there's also the zoo, Pondicherry, the floating island, and Adult Pi's house. Then there's the visuals of the sunsets and the water, the whale and the flying fish and the jelly fish. THEN there's the tiger-vision sequence which was really a beautiful experience all by itself.
2. Lincoln
The basic job here was historical authenticity. The filmmakers wanted to recreate a time period, and they did it impeccably. They fully immersed you in this time period and these locations and this world. The only reason I list it above a movie like Pi is that I was at times only slightly more of the effects-driven nature of Pi's design. It's a minute, subjective reaction and I'd be totally cool if either film wins this award.
1. Anna Karenina
One of the most talked-about production design jobs of the year, Sarah Greenwood's theatre-inspired sets for Anna Karenina made for a fascinating, fun, and challenging experience. Some people hated the whole idea of the film, creating it like a play taking place mostly in one theater. But most people were at least intrigued by it, and I think it worked. And look at all the things they did with that space! Ballrooms and bedrooms and office spaces and an ice skating rink and a freaking horse race all existed here. The transitions were noticeable, yet somehow not jarring. Because the filmmakers were so committed to their theatre-inspired world, it all gelled naturally and efficiently. Sure, it might take some getting used to, but I would be that many people who hated it the first time might like it a little more the second time after knowing what they were getting themselves into. Yes, this is the most obvious or most production design in the bunch, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not the best.
Should win: Anna Karenina (though Lincoln or Life of Pi would be just fine)
Will win: Anna Karenina, because the Academy tends to skew towards the obvious pick in this category. Possibly Lincoln if they're looking for more ways to reward it since there's no way it wins best picture now with the way Argo has picked up steam.
Should have been nominated: Argo, Cloud Atlas
Trucking along, then.
Nominees
Anna Karenina
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
5. Les Miserables
The whole movie was a close-up on faces. We almost never get to see the sets, and when we do they look bizarre, cartoonish, and disproportioned. For a movie trying to capture something realistic in its musical material, the design at times looks weirdly like a Tim Burton movie. Stupid, lazy nomination.
4. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Any trip to Middle Earth is going to look astounding, and there were plenty of new elements here - Goblin's cave, the Misty Mountain goblin kingdom, etc. But we've seen most of this stuff before - the Shire, Rivendell, etc. So not a stupid nomination, but still a lazy one.
3. Life of Pi
Bearing in mind that production design encapsulates the entire visual world of the film (except the framing of the camera), and not just the sets, justifies Life of Pi's nomination. Technically speaking, makeup, costumes, and visual effects are all subcategories of Production Design. So if we were just looking at the lifeboat, well that would be a bit too simplistic. But there's also the zoo, Pondicherry, the floating island, and Adult Pi's house. Then there's the visuals of the sunsets and the water, the whale and the flying fish and the jelly fish. THEN there's the tiger-vision sequence which was really a beautiful experience all by itself.
2. Lincoln
The basic job here was historical authenticity. The filmmakers wanted to recreate a time period, and they did it impeccably. They fully immersed you in this time period and these locations and this world. The only reason I list it above a movie like Pi is that I was at times only slightly more of the effects-driven nature of Pi's design. It's a minute, subjective reaction and I'd be totally cool if either film wins this award.
1. Anna Karenina
One of the most talked-about production design jobs of the year, Sarah Greenwood's theatre-inspired sets for Anna Karenina made for a fascinating, fun, and challenging experience. Some people hated the whole idea of the film, creating it like a play taking place mostly in one theater. But most people were at least intrigued by it, and I think it worked. And look at all the things they did with that space! Ballrooms and bedrooms and office spaces and an ice skating rink and a freaking horse race all existed here. The transitions were noticeable, yet somehow not jarring. Because the filmmakers were so committed to their theatre-inspired world, it all gelled naturally and efficiently. Sure, it might take some getting used to, but I would be that many people who hated it the first time might like it a little more the second time after knowing what they were getting themselves into. Yes, this is the most obvious or most production design in the bunch, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not the best.
Should win: Anna Karenina (though Lincoln or Life of Pi would be just fine)
Will win: Anna Karenina, because the Academy tends to skew towards the obvious pick in this category. Possibly Lincoln if they're looking for more ways to reward it since there's no way it wins best picture now with the way Argo has picked up steam.
Should have been nominated: Argo, Cloud Atlas
Friday, February 8, 2013
2012 Oscars: Cinematography
This is a strong year for this category, featuring strong work in strong films, and including a few long overlooked nominees. The nominees range from flashy 3D CGI work to subtle, tableau-crafting compositions, with some retro homage and bold colorful action sequences thrown in for fun. Almost any of these nominees could win and deserve it, but a few stand above the rest.
Anna Karenina - Seamus McGarvey
Django Unchained - Robert Richardson
Life of Pi - Claudio Miranda
Lincoln - Janusz Kaminski
Skyfall - Richard Deakins
5. Anna Karenina
Basically, the camerawork here was just capturing all the movement of the sets and actors. Which is no small feat, to be fair, and the theatrical lighting is impressive. I saw one article, though, that suggests the long take of Anna and Vronsky dancing almost deserves this award by itself... except it was really a triumph of staging and choreography more than cinematography, and was really just ripping off (or perhaps intentionally referencing) the scene from West Side Story where Tony and Maria meet for the first time.
4. Django Unchained
Richardson is always remarkable, but in Django, all of the B-movie flourishes and fast zooms distracted more than enhanced. And although there was certainly gorgeous scenery shots and a great Western feel, the work here seemed more serviceable than really interesting.
3. Skyfall
Roger Deakins isn't a big budget action movie cinematographer. But then, Skyfall isn't your typical action movie. Even the basic action scenes like motorcycle chases were framed somehow more elegantly than they had any right to be. And the lighting schemes in the Macau casino, the fight in the skyscraper, and obviously all the fire and nighytime photography at the climax... well, it's all breathtakingly beautiful work that elevates this Bond flick to visual poetry. That said, having the best cinematography in an action film of the year doesn't necessarily mean it's the best cinematography of any film of the year, there...
2. Lincoln
It's almost not even noticeable how hard Kaminski was working here. It's very tempting and almost very easy nowadays to give way to epic crane shots, fast hand-held work, and strikingly wide lens angles or shallow depths of field. But Kaminski restrains so much here. He locks his camera down or if he moves it, it does so so slowly as to be almost imperceptible. He allows his composition and Spielberg's blocking to dictate his camera. And these are the conscious decisions of a master - don't forget this is the guy who helped popularize the docu-drama shaky-cam with Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, so he can do all of that too, but that's not what Lincoln calls for. This is a film that calls for a claustrophobically shot cabinet meeting, with cigar smoke in the air and a shuttered windows letting only the necessary light seep in. Or white-washed windows with sunlight flooding the halls of Congress, keeping the outside world both invisible and impossibly bright. There is so much going on here, if you blink you might miss it. I very nearly wish this would win, if it weren't for...
1. Life of Pi
I'm still not sure what to do with the relationship between heavy visual effects use and the cinematography. How much credit should Miranda get for images which were likely constructed in a computer? I'm not entirely sure, but neither can I deny the fact that the images captured here were utterly transcendent. And there was plenty of principal photography on the water and of course on sets during the opening scenes of Pi's childhood, so it's not exactly Pixar we're talking about. And does adding a digital sunset, for instance, really compromise the work of the cinematographer any more than the heavy color correction that almost certainly went to Skyfall compromises Deakins'? The sinking of the Tsimtsum was a triumph of visual effects, yes, but also of cinematography. And nighttime on the floating island? Well sure the meerkats were digital, but the lighting on Pi during his night in the trees was haunting. I'm going to continue a philosophical debate in my head for a while about the relationship between CGI and the Cinematographer, but this year at least, I can't deny the partnership was a necessary symbiotic one when it comes to the most visually stunning work this year. You can't have one without the other here, so I say give them both Oscars.
I couldn't find a decent standalone clip on youtube, so just go watch the trailers.
Should win: Life of Pi (or Lincoln)
Will win: Life of Pi (or possibly maybe Skyfall)
Should have been nominated: The Master, Cloud Atlas
I couldn't find a decent standalone clip on youtube, so just go watch the trailers.
Should win: Life of Pi (or Lincoln)
Will win: Life of Pi (or possibly maybe Skyfall)
Should have been nominated: The Master, Cloud Atlas
Saturday, February 2, 2013
2012 Oscars: Song and Score
As usual this year has some easy picks, and as usual there are some out-of-left field picks, and as usual many of the more popular songs were left by the wayside.
How all of the original music from Django Unchained got ignore, I'll never know or understand. But at least with Skyfall we get a nominee that was a commercial pop success for the first time in several years.
And sorry, but I was just too lazy to embed or link to any of these songs. Do it yourself, I'm not your mother.
Best Song Nominees
"Before My Time" - Chasing Ice
"Everybody Needs A Best Friend" - Ted
"Pi's Lullaby" - Life of Pi
"Skyfall" - Skyfall
"Suddenly" - Les Miserables
5. "Suddenly"
Aside from the fact that the song wasn't necessary to the film, and aside from the fact that this is clearly just another stage musical that adds an original song likely for the sole purpose of garnering this very Oscar nomination, this song just isn't very good. It wasn't memorable, it wasn't necessary, and it wasn't exactly Hugh Jackman's finest moment in the film. It shouldn't be here.
4. "Everybody Needs A Best Friend"
It's a fun enough song, and Norah Jones is always nice to listen to, but this song doesn't really do anything new or different or unique compared to the songs Randy Newman has already won Oscars for, except perhaps with a more tongue-in-cheek approach to the lyrics.
3. "Before My Time"
This is the one film I wasn't able to see, but for this category that isn't always necessary. Simply put, it's a really lovely song, a sort of lament, that seems to go well thematically with a documentary about glacial melting.
2. "Skyfall"
I know this is probably going to win, and that's okay. It's nice to see a song so closely associated with a film become to popular - that used to be a regular occurrence up until around the beginning of last decade. And look, Adele is great and everyone would love to see her win another award, but let's face it: the song is built on pre-existing musical motifs and occasionally nonsensical lyrics. It's a pleasant thing to listen to, and I like it a lot, but objectively it's not exactly a great song.
1. "Pi's Lullaby"
I never would have thought to nominate this song, and it's probably only here because it got swept in with some greater love for the movie it's from and a desire to show some diversity with an ethnic sound rather than the merits of the song itself. But you know what? It's a really cool song. It's seamless integrated into the film's score at times, and the lyrics are actually really insightful when you think about what the movie is really about:
"are you the peacock or the plumage of the peacock?are you the cuckoo or the cry of the cuckoo?are you the moon or the light of the moon?are you the eyelashes, or the dream?are you the flower or the nectar?are you the fruit or the sweetness?"
It really is a lullaby of sorts, and the questions it asks drive straight to the heart of the movie - what are we dealing with? The truth? Or something that is a shadow of the truth? Reality, or our sensation and perception of reality?
Should win: "Pi's Lullaby"Will win: "Skyfall"Should have been nominated: "Who Were We" from Holy Motors, "Who Did That to You" from Django Unchained, or almost any other original song from that movie. Also one of the songs from Brave would have been nice to see here. Possibly "Song of the Lonely Mountain" from The Hobbit.
Best Score NomineesAnna Karenina - Dario MarianelliArgo - Alexandre DesplatLife of Pi - Mychael DannaLincoln - John WilliamsSkyfall - Thomas Newman
5. Anna Karenina
Dario Marinelli tries to recreate the magic of his Atonement score with a few more intergrated sound effects into the music (rubber stamps and actors playing instruments, etc.) but aside from a few cues, the score here never really does anything that interesting. It works for the film, sure, and it has some nice Russian-inspired instrumentation and themes, but it's more serviceable than anything else.
4. Argo
When I saw this nomination, I scratched my head trying to even remember the music from Argo. Then I went and listened to the score and found it fairly interesting, noticed some truly beautiful musical moments, and thought that it was something new and different from Desplat's other work. Unfortunately, it's not that new from music that other composers have already written for other film set in and around the Middle East - most of the time it just seems like cookie-cutter Arabian-sounding thriller fare.
3. Skyfall
Thomas Newman is one of my favorite composers and it's a crime that he's gone 0-10 at the Oscars so far in his career. But while he definitely elevates action film music Skyfall to a new level with his signature sounds - unique chord progressions, that crystal clear oboe - at the end of the day, much of it remains typical and let's not forget that he still obligingly draws heavily on the James Bond theme and sound that already exists in everyone's mind. That's not a criticism, mind you - it should be somewhat typical because we go into a Bond movie expecting some degree of familiarity. But it's hardly the best work of the year.
2. Life of Pi
Beautiful work here, and nearly ceaselessly playing during the film. The music really helps tell the story. It is delicate and fascinating. My main problem is that eventually it all sort of sounds repetitive and similar. It would be a completely deserving winner, don't get me wrong, it just doesn't consistently get to me on a gut level. At time it is transcendant, but falls short too often for me to pick it.
1. Lincoln
I almost didn't even notice the music when I first saw Lincoln. John Williams shows great restraint, frequently letting the music work underneath the images and dialogue, slowly, subtly, but necessary and present nonetheless, almost never drawing attention to itself. The folksy fiddle tunes are wonderful comic relief and do wonders for the scenes in which they are used, the few "themes" are not over used, nor especially catchy - and that's a good thing. The music stays with you, but it doesn't get stuck in your head. And near the end of "The Peterson House and Finale" - essentially a suite summarizing the whole score - I still get chills when the music swells and reminds me of the triumph the movie celebrates (the passage of the 13th Amendment), as well as the triumph the movie is. Some have complained the score sounds like a little too typically John Williams, not exactly his most innovative stuff. And sure, it's not as radical as his scores for Prisoner of Azkaban, Memoirs of a Geisha, or Tintin, but classic John Williams is still better than 95% of the scores out there.
Should win: LincolnWill win: Life of PiShould have been nominated: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Cloud Atlas
How all of the original music from Django Unchained got ignore, I'll never know or understand. But at least with Skyfall we get a nominee that was a commercial pop success for the first time in several years.
And sorry, but I was just too lazy to embed or link to any of these songs. Do it yourself, I'm not your mother.
Best Song Nominees
"Before My Time" - Chasing Ice
"Everybody Needs A Best Friend" - Ted
"Pi's Lullaby" - Life of Pi
"Skyfall" - Skyfall
"Suddenly" - Les Miserables
5. "Suddenly"
Aside from the fact that the song wasn't necessary to the film, and aside from the fact that this is clearly just another stage musical that adds an original song likely for the sole purpose of garnering this very Oscar nomination, this song just isn't very good. It wasn't memorable, it wasn't necessary, and it wasn't exactly Hugh Jackman's finest moment in the film. It shouldn't be here.
4. "Everybody Needs A Best Friend"
It's a fun enough song, and Norah Jones is always nice to listen to, but this song doesn't really do anything new or different or unique compared to the songs Randy Newman has already won Oscars for, except perhaps with a more tongue-in-cheek approach to the lyrics.
3. "Before My Time"
This is the one film I wasn't able to see, but for this category that isn't always necessary. Simply put, it's a really lovely song, a sort of lament, that seems to go well thematically with a documentary about glacial melting.
2. "Skyfall"
I know this is probably going to win, and that's okay. It's nice to see a song so closely associated with a film become to popular - that used to be a regular occurrence up until around the beginning of last decade. And look, Adele is great and everyone would love to see her win another award, but let's face it: the song is built on pre-existing musical motifs and occasionally nonsensical lyrics. It's a pleasant thing to listen to, and I like it a lot, but objectively it's not exactly a great song.
1. "Pi's Lullaby"
I never would have thought to nominate this song, and it's probably only here because it got swept in with some greater love for the movie it's from and a desire to show some diversity with an ethnic sound rather than the merits of the song itself. But you know what? It's a really cool song. It's seamless integrated into the film's score at times, and the lyrics are actually really insightful when you think about what the movie is really about:
"are you the peacock or the plumage of the peacock?are you the cuckoo or the cry of the cuckoo?are you the moon or the light of the moon?are you the eyelashes, or the dream?are you the flower or the nectar?are you the fruit or the sweetness?"
It really is a lullaby of sorts, and the questions it asks drive straight to the heart of the movie - what are we dealing with? The truth? Or something that is a shadow of the truth? Reality, or our sensation and perception of reality?
Should win: "Pi's Lullaby"Will win: "Skyfall"Should have been nominated: "Who Were We" from Holy Motors, "Who Did That to You" from Django Unchained, or almost any other original song from that movie. Also one of the songs from Brave would have been nice to see here. Possibly "Song of the Lonely Mountain" from The Hobbit.
Best Score NomineesAnna Karenina - Dario MarianelliArgo - Alexandre DesplatLife of Pi - Mychael DannaLincoln - John WilliamsSkyfall - Thomas Newman
5. Anna Karenina
Dario Marinelli tries to recreate the magic of his Atonement score with a few more intergrated sound effects into the music (rubber stamps and actors playing instruments, etc.) but aside from a few cues, the score here never really does anything that interesting. It works for the film, sure, and it has some nice Russian-inspired instrumentation and themes, but it's more serviceable than anything else.
4. Argo
When I saw this nomination, I scratched my head trying to even remember the music from Argo. Then I went and listened to the score and found it fairly interesting, noticed some truly beautiful musical moments, and thought that it was something new and different from Desplat's other work. Unfortunately, it's not that new from music that other composers have already written for other film set in and around the Middle East - most of the time it just seems like cookie-cutter Arabian-sounding thriller fare.
3. Skyfall
Thomas Newman is one of my favorite composers and it's a crime that he's gone 0-10 at the Oscars so far in his career. But while he definitely elevates action film music Skyfall to a new level with his signature sounds - unique chord progressions, that crystal clear oboe - at the end of the day, much of it remains typical and let's not forget that he still obligingly draws heavily on the James Bond theme and sound that already exists in everyone's mind. That's not a criticism, mind you - it should be somewhat typical because we go into a Bond movie expecting some degree of familiarity. But it's hardly the best work of the year.
2. Life of Pi
Beautiful work here, and nearly ceaselessly playing during the film. The music really helps tell the story. It is delicate and fascinating. My main problem is that eventually it all sort of sounds repetitive and similar. It would be a completely deserving winner, don't get me wrong, it just doesn't consistently get to me on a gut level. At time it is transcendant, but falls short too often for me to pick it.
1. Lincoln
I almost didn't even notice the music when I first saw Lincoln. John Williams shows great restraint, frequently letting the music work underneath the images and dialogue, slowly, subtly, but necessary and present nonetheless, almost never drawing attention to itself. The folksy fiddle tunes are wonderful comic relief and do wonders for the scenes in which they are used, the few "themes" are not over used, nor especially catchy - and that's a good thing. The music stays with you, but it doesn't get stuck in your head. And near the end of "The Peterson House and Finale" - essentially a suite summarizing the whole score - I still get chills when the music swells and reminds me of the triumph the movie celebrates (the passage of the 13th Amendment), as well as the triumph the movie is. Some have complained the score sounds like a little too typically John Williams, not exactly his most innovative stuff. And sure, it's not as radical as his scores for Prisoner of Azkaban, Memoirs of a Geisha, or Tintin, but classic John Williams is still better than 95% of the scores out there.
Should win: LincolnWill win: Life of PiShould have been nominated: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Cloud Atlas
Sunday, January 20, 2013
2012 Oscars: Visual Effects
Over the next several weeks, I'll be going through each Academy Award category giving my personal rankings of the nominees. I'll give my thoughts on which films/performances didn't deserve to be nominated, and which should have been in their place. I'll start with the techs, move to artistics, then the major categories. I'm holding off on shorts, foreign, and docs since they're harder for me to get a hold of, and as often as possible I only want to address categories when I've seen all the nominees.
(Heads up, the most vs. best comparison comes up frequently in end-of-year awards discussions. Most cuts doesn't mean best editing, fanciest shots doesn't mean best cinematography, most beads and boldest colors doesn't mean best costumes, etc., etc.)
Nominees
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Life of Pi
Marvel's The Avengers
Prometheus
Snow White and the Hunstman
5. Snow White and the Hunstman
This movie really did look pretty great and the effects were effective enough, but something about shards of black glass and ravens flying around just seems kind of "been there, done that." Not to mention the celebrity actor faces on dwarf bodies was a bit peculiar-looking.
4. Marvel's The Avengers
I warned you: most effects doesn't mean best effects. There are great effects in all the Marvel films, but by the end of The Avengers I just lost any sense of reality when the flying slug things were floating up and down the streets. It was CGI overload. I know these films aren't trying to bring a gritty true life feel to comics the way Nolan tried with Batman, but there was something unintentionally cartoonish about The Avengers and I don't think it was intended the way I took it.
3. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Again, most doesn't equal best, but The Hobbit felt real the entire time. I believed I was looking at Middle Earth the whole time - even in 48 fps - and with the excellent 3D cinematography, at times I believed I was in Middle Earth. The fighting rock formations in the rainstorm was one of the most simultaneously terrifying and majestic scenes of the year. That alone deserves recognition, but the whole film was visually stunning. The main missteps would be the CGI goblins in the Misty Mountains. I thought the taller, more humanoid orcs of Moria had a stronger, realer presence. Peter Jackson wanted a lighter feel for these films, and that works, but for me the Misty Mountain goblins stepped a toe over the line from light to silly.
2. Prometheus
Lots of people hated this movie, and plenty of people loved it. It basically depends on how much you choose to focus on the plot holes. I would also argue that since it's a film about human origins and cosmogony and religion, how much one likes the film is dependent on one's interests in that subject matter. But no one complained about the way the movie looked. The production design and especially the realization of that design by the FX team is near flawless. Again, at times I felt like I was looking at real, tangible sets and creatures and sand storms, etc.
1. Life of Pi
Life of Pi, though, managed to find a brilliant balance between that real, tangible sort of effect (those flying fish look like they're hitting you in the face) and the fun, more colorful sort of effects like in Avengers (the gorgeous "Tiger Vision" scene). Then consider the backgrounds and seascapes, the shipwreck, the "God Storm," and it becomes clear this movie had the best visual effects of the year. And all of that goes without mentioning Richard Parker, who this year trumps even Gollum as the best animated creature on the screen. That tiger was a thing of terrifying beauty and subtle character which all by itself earns this award. Just watch the trailer below for proof. The most visually stunning film of the year.
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Will win: Life of Pi
Should win: Life of Pi
Should have been nominated: Cloud Atlas, instead of Snow White and the Huntsman
(Heads up, the most vs. best comparison comes up frequently in end-of-year awards discussions. Most cuts doesn't mean best editing, fanciest shots doesn't mean best cinematography, most beads and boldest colors doesn't mean best costumes, etc., etc.)
Nominees
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Life of Pi
Marvel's The Avengers
Prometheus
Snow White and the Hunstman
5. Snow White and the Hunstman
This movie really did look pretty great and the effects were effective enough, but something about shards of black glass and ravens flying around just seems kind of "been there, done that." Not to mention the celebrity actor faces on dwarf bodies was a bit peculiar-looking.
4. Marvel's The Avengers
I warned you: most effects doesn't mean best effects. There are great effects in all the Marvel films, but by the end of The Avengers I just lost any sense of reality when the flying slug things were floating up and down the streets. It was CGI overload. I know these films aren't trying to bring a gritty true life feel to comics the way Nolan tried with Batman, but there was something unintentionally cartoonish about The Avengers and I don't think it was intended the way I took it.
 |
| See what I mean? |
3. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Again, most doesn't equal best, but The Hobbit felt real the entire time. I believed I was looking at Middle Earth the whole time - even in 48 fps - and with the excellent 3D cinematography, at times I believed I was in Middle Earth. The fighting rock formations in the rainstorm was one of the most simultaneously terrifying and majestic scenes of the year. That alone deserves recognition, but the whole film was visually stunning. The main missteps would be the CGI goblins in the Misty Mountains. I thought the taller, more humanoid orcs of Moria had a stronger, realer presence. Peter Jackson wanted a lighter feel for these films, and that works, but for me the Misty Mountain goblins stepped a toe over the line from light to silly.
2. Prometheus
Lots of people hated this movie, and plenty of people loved it. It basically depends on how much you choose to focus on the plot holes. I would also argue that since it's a film about human origins and cosmogony and religion, how much one likes the film is dependent on one's interests in that subject matter. But no one complained about the way the movie looked. The production design and especially the realization of that design by the FX team is near flawless. Again, at times I felt like I was looking at real, tangible sets and creatures and sand storms, etc.
1. Life of Pi
Life of Pi, though, managed to find a brilliant balance between that real, tangible sort of effect (those flying fish look like they're hitting you in the face) and the fun, more colorful sort of effects like in Avengers (the gorgeous "Tiger Vision" scene). Then consider the backgrounds and seascapes, the shipwreck, the "God Storm," and it becomes clear this movie had the best visual effects of the year. And all of that goes without mentioning Richard Parker, who this year trumps even Gollum as the best animated creature on the screen. That tiger was a thing of terrifying beauty and subtle character which all by itself earns this award. Just watch the trailer below for proof. The most visually stunning film of the year.
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Will win: Life of Pi
Should win: Life of Pi
Should have been nominated: Cloud Atlas, instead of Snow White and the Huntsman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)