the 2008 oscars: my 1/50 of a U.S. dollar

So, it's been now just over a week since the Oscars have come and gone, and like I have most years, this year I holed up beside my TV with wine and white trash picnic food. The hullabaloo about "will there or won't there be an Oscars this year?!?" because of the increasingly self-indulgent WGA strike seemed like such a moot point. Like all things in the media (re: Clinton vs. Obama), it was being made a much bigger deal than it actually was. Once upon a time, the Oscars wasn't even televised at all, so why would there be concern? If actors threaten not to show up because of the strike.... then don't televise it! Let them have the damn ceremony anyway. It would be better than the embarrassing auto-fellatio of the Golden Globes "press conference" this year which announced the winners in lieu of the typical drinking party. I couldn't get past more than five minutes of that without my stomach turning.

But I'm beating a dead horse. These were all potential snags which in the end didn't happen. The Oscars was its usual slightly-boring self (hence the necessity for wine and frito pie). Everyone got prettied up, awards went to mostly everyone that was expected (bravo to you people who chose Tilda Swinton in your respective Oscar pools), the hosting and presentation of awards was unmemorable, blah blah blah.

And now, my belated thoughts on some of the movies that were nominated and awarded:

*** Cate Blanchett. It’s no secret I love her. That said, I thought I’m Not There was kind of slow, maybe too self-indulgent with it’s Bob-Dylan-but-wait-it’s-not-Bob-Dylan premise, and too much a blitz of ACTING!!! on behalf of each and every one of the main cast. So, I thought her performance in the film was more of a hat-trick (re: acting for the sake of acting) than something passionate and transcendent. Also: Why is everyone hating on Elizabeth: The Golden Age? The movie, folks, really wasn’t terrible at all, but people felt the need to beat up on it anyway. That, and Blanchett’s fiery performance plays as a nice evolution from the first Elizabeth and was certainly deserving of the nomination she got. (Oscar trivia: Three women over the last twenty-ish years to be nominated for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress in the same year (Sigourney Weaver, Julianne Moore, and this year Cate Blanchett) have had a three-for-three losing streak. All the men who’ve been nominated twice for acting in the Oscars' history, though, have won at least one of their categories.)

*** Juno. Cute movie. I quite liked it. Best Picture worthy? Hell no. I find it somewhat disturbing that when teenage pregnancy is depicted on film or television, it’s usually a cute romp (re: Saved!, Juno).... except that’s almost resolutely NOT how it happens in real life. I think it’d be a bigger challenge to show how teenage pregnancy actually plays, sans the usual sass-talking precocious teenager. I’m getting a little tired of too-wise-for-their-age acid-tongued teens in movies; I think they show up so much because that’s how writers and producers wished they were as teenagers, and not a reflection of how the vast majority of teenagers actually are. My marks against Juno are mostly about the quippy dialogue (aside from Dwight Schrute playing Dwight Schrute, a character that doesn’t even belong in the world that Juno establishes, and is one of the most derailing openings to a movie I have ever seen).... most reviled by me is the line “honest to blog”, which I have a hard time hearing aloud let alone allowing myself to believe that kids think that that’s cool to say. Also: Diablo Cody, writer of Juno, wins Best Original Screenplay, and accepts the award dressed like Pebbles Flintstone. Last week’s "Saturday Night Live" offered a brilliant parody during Ellen Page’s (star of Juno, host of last week’s "SNL") opening monologue, with Andy Samberg dressed in Diablo Cody drag. Samberg’s firing of the tiresome over-witty dialogue from Juno (including “honest to blog”) was pitch-perfect, and offered a much needed lambaste of a film whose detractors have been driven into hiding.

*** Tilda Swinton. Great actress. She looked like a cadaver.

*** No Country For Old Men. Great movie. Even greater book. Nice to see Cormac McCarthy in the audience be the first to stand and applaud for them.... because it’s his story, after all. Too bad the Coen Brothers won Best Adapted Screenplay.... the adaptation is so faithful they practically dropped McCarthy’s book into an automatic screenplay generator. I think another film deserved the award instead (Away From Her, anyone?).

*** Gary Busey kissed Jennifer Garner’s neck on the red carpet. Inappropriate: absolutely. Reflection of what we all deep-down wanted to do: absolutely.


In other news, I’m (hopefully) jumping back on the blog wagon after a hiatus to be a writer. Now the book is done, so I can turn my writerly hobby to more cynical pursuits.

recalibrating the oscar buzz radar

I don't really have a strong position, per se, on "oscar buzz", except that I find it ridiculous when it seems unwarranted. I'm even guilty of getting wrapped up in it from time to time (well, maybe a little more than that), especially when I feel passionately about a specific performance or director or writer.... but "buzz" is something that is generated before a movie is even released, a term anointed on films that are conceived with the awards it intends to win before it is even made. Last year, Christopher Guest's movie For Your Consideration was a great little romp that skewered the concept of oscar buzz by letting it hit a fever pitch on the set of a movie currently in production (just watch it for Jane Lynch, a comedic genius, who in this movie steals every frame of film she's in).... this is a great example of what gets to me the most about "oscar buzz".

But then there are movies that seem to have buzz and then lose it very quickly, especially once the movie hits the big screen. I remember a couple of years ago, film blog websites had Diane Keaton as an undeniable lock for a Best Supporting Actress nomination for the holiday dramedy The Family Stone (which I haven't seen, but have been told it's quite enjoyable).... but then the movie came out and her name dropped from lists with such a lack of fanfare that perhaps those people generating oscar buzz were afraid to admit they were wrong.

This year I am troubled by the lugubrious amount of oscar buzz attributed to the yet-to-be-released oscar-bait Atonement.... the novel, written by Ian McEwan, arguably Great Britain's most prolific living writer, was just okay (in my opinion) and it seems only inevitable that it would make the leap to film. The trailers and ads make it seem like Keira Knightley is the star (which is not the case, unless the screenplay has taken a good amount of liberty with her character from the novel), and already film blogs are signing her up for an oscar nomination. But wait.... not just her, but three other actresses who play the novel's/film's main character (three actresses, including Vanessa Redgrave, for the three stages of the character's life), each of whom are also being sprinkled with oscar fairy dust. I see these rumors everywhere.... film bloggers and other generators of oscar buzz seem pretty sure that this film will clean up in the acting nomination department.

Isn't that pushing it, though? Throwing so much weight behind acting nominations for just one movie.... that hasn't even been released yet? Atonement, judging by its trailer, is one of those movies made to win awards, and it disheartens me with all the hype it's generating. It probably doesn't help that the novel itself didn't blow me away, so I don't have particularly high hopes for the movie. It's not unheard of for a single movie to jeopardize all the acting oscar nominations (Network, a great film, won three acting oscars of five (!) across the four categories in 1977), but in every instance I do think it's awfully narrow-minded and not exactly inclusive of other great performances in countless other films released in a year. But, I'm not dumb enough to really think that the oscars are the be-all end-all of truly great filmmaking each year.... it all comes down to marketing every year and what studio has enough clout to get the Academy buzzing about, unfortunately enough.

So, why does this pique my interest today? I just saw Margot at the Wedding, written and directed by Noam Baumbach (whose previous film was The Squid and the Whale), and I thought it was a fantastic film. Lately I've noticed I'm starting to quite favor realist dramas about rotten people, and this movie doesn't disappoint. It's a dark movie that hits a chord about family interplay that a lot of movies try but many don't quite succeed, especially when making loved ones seem as terrible as they sometimes can actually be. Where did this film's oscar buzz go? The Squid and the Whale was an underdog favorite two years ago (and was even oscar nominated for Best Original Screenplay), but this new effort seemed to make a blip awhile back and now has been virtually swallowed whole. In an age where it seems original screenplays are a dying art (take a look at the movies and you'll find everything is based on something else), Margot at the Wedding is a beautiful work of storytelling.

Part of me thinks that oscar buzz was squashed for Margot by the fact that Nicole Kidman is in the film. I don't know when people decided that she wasn't great anymore.... she was riding high just a few years ago. But after her oscar win for Best Actress in The Hours (an indelible performance that was actually a supporting role), it seems that she's not worthy of oscar attention. Why the hell not? She's great in this movie, playing a character so loathsome of herself but inarticulate of it and ultimately terrible to those she loves most.... and she wholeheartedly deserves a nomination for this work. Kidman's been dabbling in glitzier Hollywood movies as of late, so to turn in such a mannered performance in a quiet independent film is a breath of fresh air. There something about the information she transmits in her facial expressions that says it all, and makes her (likely) one of the greatest actresses of her generation.... She and Jennifer Jason Leigh (a great surprise and a warm performance here) both deserve some oscar attention for this movie, but I'm afraid they won't get it because of whatever kind of unjustly-appointed celebrity overkill Kidman brings with her. It's too bad. But I'm crossing my fingers for her, and silently hoping Atonement turns out to be an overwrought piece of crap.

on the radar, nine months later

Wow. Nine months since a blog post. Kind of ludicrous, right? I'll be lucky if this thing gets read anymore. Children have been conceived and born in that time. Just reading over my minor blog-resurrection back in January, it feels like it's been a long time.

I've been doing a lot of reading.

I've been doing a lot of writing.

And lately, I've been seeing a lot of movies....

--> The Brave One
Fully entertaining Jodie Foster vigilante fare. Another example of a movie whose target audience is me.... nouveau revenge film where wronged woman gets to make things right by taking out the bad guys (even with a crowbar through the head). Why reviewers keep wanting to to compare it to Taxi Driver I do not know (perhaps because the comparison is too juicy, too ripe to want to place Foster's role as teeny-bopper hooker in that movie to ass-kicking mama-san in this one). It seemed to have a lot of precursor steam, but generally negative reviews might punch away Foster's chance at an (fully deserved) Oscar nomination for Best Actress this year.

--> 3:10 to Yuma
Apparently it's a remake, apparently it's based on an Elmore Leonard short story. Still, this movie falls into a recent rut of crappy titles for films. That said, it took me by complete surprise.... I love westerns, especially the newer reincarnation of westerns (see also: Open Range), and this was a movie that held me from the start. Sometimes I think the western genre might try to plunger too many excuses for shoot-outs down our throats, but this movie seemed paced just right; a kind of "road picture" western that shows two men match wits and come to a truce in a satisfying, fulfilling way for us viewers. (Side note: Ben Foster seethes creepiness all over every scene he's in. Nice job.)

--> Across the Universe
Julie Taymor's directorial style is something unmatched in film today, and I wish the woman would make more movies. Frida (her previous foray into film) wasn't the best movie in the world but was shocking and gorgeous in its visual imagination. Taymor also wielded her wizardy as choreographer-cum-puppeteer on stage with the Broadway production of The Lion King (truly a breathtaking theatre experience). This film is, basically, a 60's coming of age musical woven together taking from the span of the complete repertoire of the Beatles, and it succeeds in leaps and bounds, and gives us a treat to the beautiful and the bizarre. I'd argue this is a movie whose experience wouldn't be the same if you just wait to rent it on DVD.

More movies to come.... I for one keep getting chills when I watch the trailer for Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Also, No Country for Old Men, which was an f-ing phenomenal book (one of my favorites, certainly one of the best I read this year), which looks like it will be one f-ing phenomenal bloodbath of a movie, directed by the Coen Brothers. Don't expect this to be some sprightly dark comedy, though.... the book was about evil to the core, and I hope the movie stays true.

In other news: check out stinkylulu's Supporting Actress Sundays post on one of the best acting performances I've ever seen on film.... that of Diane Ladd in David Lynch's Wild at Heart.

so nice that the 2006 movie season has some redemption

I'm not exactly surprised that Notes on a Scandal rocked my world. It's basically a story about a lonely old woman who tends to get obsessive with her younger and hotter female cohorts. But don't let that poor pitch stand in your way; this is a seething melodrama with teeth, and perhaps one of the best dual-actress showcases seen in recent movie history.

No, I haven't seen The Queen. Yes, Helen Mirren will win her Oscar for it. I've moved on. People tire of Judi Dench because they think she locks up nominations left and right simply for showing up to work.... but compare the stately Judi Dench with her roles in the recent James Bond flicks and something like last year's Mrs. Henderson Presents up against the monster of a character she's got in Notes on a Scandal. This woman so much deserves a nomination (and a win? Why not?) just in the nuance and ferocity of her performance.... she becomes someone else while still maintaining her Judi Dench-ness, and is all the more terrifying for it. She underplays her desperation until she can make it pounce like some kind of feral cat, and there are some tense scenes where you can see the balance of power tipping in her favor that make you feel creepy all over.

The object of Dench's affection in this film? Cate Blanchett. I've read many places that people feel she's miscast here.... I would tend to disagree. Blanchett plays a young-ish school teacher who just happens to fall in with a 15-year old student of hers.... and by "fall in" I mean have dirty sex on abandoned train tracks. But her character's life is so fully wrought and displayed in a such a cool and subtle manner that I never become totally unconvinced of her character's actions. She's got a happy marriage (I guess, I suppose this is up to debate) and two children she loves with all of her heart.... but she gets swept up and accidentally (or something like that) falls in love with the kid, silly to forget that he's just 15 and will easily toss her aside like kleenex. There comes an awesome and very-filmic and somewhat creepy/beautiful scene where we see Blanchett try to go back to her teenage youth by slapping on some harloty makeup. All throughout the movie, too, she's screaming hot.... very downplayed, very sexy, and it works. Certainly in the vein that Judi Dench's character gets a little bit (okay, a lot) attached, and likes to play a kinky arm-stroking game with her too.

Bottom line: Cate Blanchett, for all I care, can step up to the podium and claim her Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this. I feel for her, felt sorry for her, and loved the explosive energy she eviscerates from herself toward the end when she gets to confront Judi Dench and then go ape-shit in front of the reporters waiting for her outside.... I bought it, and I can imagine this character losing it like that. This scene, particularly with Dench, is some tight and tense moviemaking.... well-written, well-acted, well-enjoyed by me.

What stands in Blanchett's way of swiping a second Oscar for herself? The unevenly reviewed musical and Beyoncé-wardrobe showcase that is Dreamgirls. I have not seen the movie, but likely will.... if only because my interest is piqued that Eddie Murphy can actually recover from the recent career lows of wasting away in unfunny family comedies. For some reason ex-"American Idol" alumnus Jennifer Hudson has all the Oscar buzz wrapped around every one of her digits for Best Supporting Actress. To my knowledge, this is all because she knocks it out of the park because of some solo she has in the middle of the movie. Okay.... but can she act? Don't immediately auction off an Oscar just because the chick can sing. Does her role have any more oomph than just some powerful solo? (Well.... keep in mind that rapper-turned-actress-turned-Pizza Hut spokeswoman Queen Latifah scored an Oscar nomination off a solo song in Chicago.... she must have just off the song, because her role was somewhat nonexistent otherwise.)

So, is Notes on a Scandal my favorite movie of 2006? Let's go with second favorite; I certainly look forward to adding it to my movie shelf. It's totally dark and twisted and hits you with the right amount of sub-campy force and intensity that's necessary for a quality rock-your-socks-off melodrama. The top of the list for the year deserves its own post upon rewatching in the near future. Just to keep you all in drooling suspense.