Best Picture? Really?

  Having begun this trek of mine to view every movie thus far that has won the Academy’s Best Picture award, it is interesting to note certain trends among the films receiving nominations for the film industry’s highest honor.  For example, it is quite rare to see animated films, musicals, action films, adventure films, fantasy films, romantic comedies, horror films, science fiction films or comic book films receive Best Picture nominations.  There are exceptions (see The Return of the King, Chicago, Beauty and the Beast, E.T., and Star Wars) but by and far it is nearly unheard of for movies with any sort of fantastical element to them to be considered for Best Picture nods.  Which, in my mind, begs the question…just what exactly is it that the Academy looking for in its considerations for Best Picture?

            Perhaps we can answer that question by looking at several of the winners.  No Country for Old Men.  Crash.  Million Dollar Baby.  A Beautiful Mind.  American Beauty.  The English Patient.  Forrest Gump.  Schindler’s List.   What do these movies have in common?  I would propose that a common element among these films is a hard to define sense of “normal-ness.”  The majority of the Best Picture winners are movies that feature characters that are very firmly planted in reality.   Some of these characters might find themselves in unique circumstances, but they react in ways that normal people would be expected to react.  In fact, many of the winners at the Oscars (not just Best Picture winners) are films either based on non-fictional stories or films based on obscure novels.  Several of the Best Actor/Actress winners in recent years have been for portrayals of real people instead of fictional characters.

            It seems to me that the members of the Academy favor films that are, quite simply, plain and ordinary.  They tend to favor (unfairly, I might add) films with stories about real people going through real struggles.  It’s almost as if the Academy feels the best sorts of movies are the movies that most realistically portray what your average everyday person goes through in his or her life.   Most people in the world make tough decisions about their future.  Most people in the world have elements from their past that they regret or would change if they could.  Most people fall in love and deal with the complications of that.  The Academy, it seems, is more appreciative of films that mimic reality instead of films that suspend reality.  Which, in my opinion is stupid.

            I have always believed, and continue still to believe, that films are most enjoyable when you are completely immersed in the fictional universe of that particular film.  I’ve always believed that the best kind of movie is the one that suspends your sense of reality and gets you, the viewer, to accept something that you know is not really happening.  A film that closely mimics the reality of life is one that is usually less enjoyable for me, because I live life every day.  I deal with real people, with real emotions, with real difficult decisions on my own and I don’t want to pay money to watch characters on a screen deal with the same things.  When I go to the movies, I want to be entertained.  I want to see and experience things that are unique and unusual, to see extraordinary characters, to experience something new and exciting.

            I think it is a downright shame and embarrassment to the film industry to go back over the years and see the exclusions in the category of Best Picture. The Disney animation renaissance of the late 80’s and early to mid 90’s passed by without a single winner in the category.  Driving Miss Daisy, Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs, and Unforgiven all took home Best Picture awards in this time period without so much as a nod to the defining animation films put out by Disney at the time.  No offense is meant towards the films mentioned, but surely none of them has had nearly the same impact that Disney’s work has had nor does the general public look back so fondly on them as they do with the Disney's animations from the time.  This period inspired an entire generation of artists and animators as well as establishing revolutionary new advances in computer animation technology.  I also think it shameful that none of the Star Wars movies never won a Best Picture award, and only the original was even nominated.  The Star Wars trilogy (original) is undoubtedly one of the most celebrated series of films in history and I believe it is worth a Best Picture award in consideration of the impact it has had on the world and an entire generation of youth.  The Empire Strikes Back was the highest grossing film of 1980 and cemented Star Wars’ place among the finest science fiction stories, but when the Best Picture nominations were revealed it was nowhere in sight.  In fact, the film pulling down the Best Picture award that year was a film titled Ordinary People, ironically enough.  How appropriate. 

            Another thing I have suspicions about is in the area of budget.  I am quite aware that a film’s financial success has no effect whatsoever on its chances for nomination, but it seems (especially in recent years) that films with a low budget stand a greater chance of scoring a nomination than those with a higher budget.  Even if the higher budgeted film ends up being of a higher quality, the lower budget film seemingly has a higher probability of getting the honors.  It’s almost like a decent film that was produced on a budget of $5 million is more deserving of recognition than an excellent film produced on a budget of $100 million.  Perhaps the powers that be prefer an underdog scenario, or feel that a higher budget is an unfair advantage, but I think that films should be considered for the award regardless of the budget. 

I suppose my point to all of this, is to say that I suppose the Academy has the right to nominate and award Best Picture to any film it wants.  The award belongs to the Academy and it can do whatever it wants in that regard.  For me however, the award will henceforth be near meaningless.  I have determined that the Academy places value on the same things that I associate with mediocre cinema and therefore the Best Picture award loses much of its significance.   The End. 

I would like to thank Andrew Clark and Chris Monthie for influencing the content of this post.

The Fellowship of the Ring Review

Where to begin with such a set of movies as the Lord of the Rings?  I am at something of a loss for words in my attempt to review this first installment, the Fellowship of the Ring.  I suppose rather than explaining the story or detailing the technical elements of the film I will try to explain how this film resonates within my mind and heart.

              The film makes such a strong connection with me on a personal level in so many ways that I find it difficult to describe them all.  The friendship that the main four hobbits share is not at all unlike the friendships that I share with my friends.  We don’t bother ourselves with many female distractions; we spent some of the most significant years of our lives living and adventuring together; and we are unquestionably devoted to one another.  I know that I will move on, my friends will move on, time and distance will separate us, but the bonds that we forged in the short time we were together will never be broken.  The connection established by the four main hobbits is, for me, a reminder of what my life was like during the best of times with my closest friends.  Regardless of whatever is happening in the story, these four hobbits are all together through everything.  These hobbits share a level of camaraderie that nearly every human being has experienced before or wants to experience at some point.  The viewer is drawn to them like a magnet because everyone either has or wants friendships as close as these hobbits.  The emotional response lifted from the viewer is quite a powerful experience, whether the emotion is appreciation for the friendships established or the longing desire to reach such a level of devotion. 

            Specifically, the relationship Sam and Frodo share is one that, for me, is extraordinarily powerful.  To have a friend who is devoted to you wholeheartedly, with no regard for his own wellbeing is a concept that nearly brings me to tears.   I am not one to cry at movies, or even in general.  Not because I consider crying a sign of weakness or that I think myself too “manly” to cry…I just don’t really cry very often.  But this movie manages to pull tears from these eyes nearly every time I see it.  If my emotional response to the four hobbits’ friendship is one of appreciation for the friendships in my own life, my emotional response to Sam and Frodo’s friendship is one of yearning.  Granted, I will probably never be put into a situation like Frodo, where it is required that a friend give of himself unreservedly to my safety and wellbeing but my desire to have a friend willing to go to such astronomical lengths is brought to the surface by the honesty, the raw emotional vulnerability portrayed in Sam and Frodo’s friendship.   And perhaps even more than wanting to be the recipient of such attention, this film awakens the desire for me to be the kind of friend that Sam is to Frodo.  After all, the real hero of the film eventually turns out to be Sam, not Frodo.  Frodo gives in to the pressure eventually; he gives it his best, but at the point where he can go no further it is Sam who carries Frodo on his back the rest of the way.  The reason this film resonates so deeply in me is because of the portrayal of this friendship. 

            On a more practical level, there are few (if any) elements of this movie that I have any sort of negative view on.  This latest viewing drew my attention to Sean Bean’s performance as Boromir, the hero from Gondor.  Sean Bean manages to bring a sense of well intentioned but misguided passion for his character’s pursuing the Ring.  Where, in earlier viewings, I saw him mainly as a selfish character that pursues the Ring in order to make himself more in the eyes of his people and his father, this latest viewing I found myself seeing him more as a protector who has been driven to desperation.  His people stand on the brink of destruction (as they are the nearest geographically to Mordor) and their hope is almost gone.  It crossed my mind, what if my family, my mother and father, my brother, were in mortal peril? Would I throw away what seems to be the best chance to ensure their survival?  I see now that Boromir is doing what he believes he must do to fulfill his duties as heir to his father’s responsibilities.  The pressure lowered on his shoulders to find and bring back salvation to the battered, hopeless people of Gondor is what drove him to his desperate attempt to take the Ring from Frodo. 

            One particular facet of the DVD that I wish to draw attention to is the special features.  I don’t believe there has ever been, nor likely will be again, such an in-depth glimpse of how a movie is put together.  I appreciate so much, as both a fan of movies and a student of film, the level of detail that is outlined so clearly for us in these DVDs.  Every step, from conceptual art to post-production is explained to us in such a way that the viewer almost feels like it is experienced first-hand.  Filming techniques are explained, story and dialogue are detailed, tours of the prop workshops are conducted, sound production is covered and digital effects are explained, just to name a few.  There are overall about 5 to 6 hours of special features contained in these discs, and every second is worth viewing (for those curious and those studying film).

            I quite simply cannot say enough about this first film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  The story is fantastic as are the effects, performances, new techniques, old techniques, but the real reason this film is of such a high caliber is the emotional resonance stirred up inside the viewer.  It is a difficult concept to put into words, and perhaps even more to intentionally evoke from your audience, and therefore all the more reason to heap praise on Peter Jackson and his team from New Zealand.  For me, I think I could perhaps imagine another film reaching the same emotional heights alongside the Fellowship of the Ring, but I daresay it won’t be topped. A masterpiece.

 

10/10

 

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

 

Directed by Peter Jackson

Produced by Peter Jackson, Barrie M. Osborne, Tim Sanders, Fran Walsh

Written by: (Novel) J.R.R. Tolkien; (Screenplay) Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson

Starring Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett, John Rhys-Davies, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan, Orlando Bloom, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, Sean Bean, Ian Holm, Andy Serkis

Rated PG-13 for epic battle sequences and some scary images

Crash Review

I decided a couple of years ago to make it a goal of mine to view every single movie that has been awarded the “Best Picture” Academy Award.  I have seen surprisingly few of them over the years and the way I see it, if a film wins the Best Picture award it’s probably for good reason.  My first official stop on the Best Picture Tour is the 2005 winner “Crash.”  I had no idea whatsoever about the film’s content, characters or story when I purchased a copy of it for $7 at Wal-Mart, which was very exciting for me.  It’s become quite rare for me to watch a movie with absolutely no idea about what’s to come.  After viewing Crash though, I may have to be more cautious about buying a movie with no previous knowledge of it.

It turns out Crash is about the most one-dimensional film I have seen in quite some time.  Indeed, I find it hard to pinpoint any other film I have ever seen that hits one note, one issue, one controversy as wholeheartedly as Crash does.  Crash is all about racism.  There are several characters (none of whom I would consider a “main,” character) and all of them deal with racism in one way or another.  I would go into details, but I don’t believe there is a point.  This is a movie unlike any other I have encountered…it’s almost like a documentary or maybe even a new employee training video in that it is so one dimensional (providing little in the way of depth, immersion and a sense of escape).  Crash zeroes in on the issue of race, and beats the horse long after the life has expired from it. 

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe race is an incredibly important issue that needs to be discussed and argued.  But for me, the silver screen is not the place it should be discussed.  The movie theater is a place of entertainment, a place of laughing, crying, thrills and (ultimately, in my opinion) fun.  When I purchase a ticket, I expect a film to lift me out of my daily routine and tell a story that suspends my sense of reality.   This is one reason I love movies as much as I do.  In my opinion, Crash accomplishes none of these things.  Crash is a movie that seeks to chain its audience with a sense of guilt, a punch in the face if you will, over the fact that racism is still a problem in today’s society.  I came away from my viewing of Crash feeling disgusted with the world and hopeless that harmony between races can be achieved.

In addition to the general feeling of despair, I was confused and frustrated with the characters.  Many of the characters are both victims of racism and proponents of racism.  A pair of young black men complain that they received poor service at a restaurant because they believe the waitress assumed black people don’t tip well.  Of course, they didn’t tip her well destroying their argument altogether and justifying the waitress’s assumptions.  The same pair complain that a white woman walking with her husband tensed up when they passed each other, presumably because the woman assumed that young black men like the two of them are thugs.   Of course, then they rob the white couple and steal their car, again justifying the couple’s fear of the two black men.  This inconsistency in Crash’s characters is, in my opinion, the primary reason the film fails.  There are no goals presented for any characters to achieve, and therefore, a sense of progression is lacking in this film.  There is precious little in the way of personal growth or understanding from anyone in the film.

The performances are there, believable and well delivered.  The actors are fine, though none stand out to me as memorable.  The technical elements of the film again, are fine but with no particular stand out moment.  In my opinion, the film fails on a foundational level – it never makes a connection to the audience, never giving us characters we can relate to.  Maybe I just don’t understand it.  I certainly don’t understand how a film like this is awarded the industry’s highest honor.  All the same I felt altogether detached from Crash’s world, and judging from the two-faced, self-absorbed racist pigs inhabiting it, maybe that’s a good thing.

 

2/10

 

Crash

 

Directed by Paul Haggis

Produced by Paul Haggis, Don Cheadle, Bob Yari, Cathy Schulman

Written by Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco

Starring Brendan Fraser, Sandra Bullock, Ludacris, Larenz Tate, Don Cheadle, Jennifer Esposito, Ryan Phillipe, Matt Dillon, Keith David, Terrence Howard, Thandie Newton, Michael Pena, Shawn Toub and Ashlyn Sanchez

 

Rated R for language, sexual content, and some violence

 

 

 

Friday the 13th (2009) Review

I don’t know how, but by some unusual design the entire 11-movie-spanning Friday the 13^th franchise passed me by over the course of the last 29 years.  I only just saw the 1980 original the day before this remake burst into theaters but thankfully enough, the mythology behind the series is blissfully simple.  Little retarded/physically-deformed boy drowns in a lake at a summer camp in 1956; his mother murders the camp counselors who should have been watching him; 24 years later she’s at it again, murdering new camp counselors on what would have been Jason’s birthday; the one survivor beheads Jason’s mother effectively ending the nightmare.  Oh wait…nope, turns out Jason survived(?) the drowning and has been living at the bottom of the lake for the last 24 years.  And he saw his mother get her head chopped off and he’s decidedly unhappy about it.  Much killing ensues. 

            I’m a firm believer that enjoyment of a movie is relative to the viewer.  It’s hard to say definitively that a movie is “awesome” or “crappy” without explaining exactly what you mean.  It is more accurate to say, “It’s not what I expected it to be,” if you’re disappointed than to say, “This is a steaming pile of dog turd.”  Expectations are everything when it comes to entertainment value.  A “good” movie will be one that meets your expectations.  A “bad” movie will be one that doesn’t meet your expectations.   A “great” movie will be one that exceeds your expectations.  Let me explain in the case with Marcus Nispel’s Friday the 13^th. (see Ed. note at bottom)

            This franchise established the modern horror slasher film in the early 80’s.  Its popularity was founded on several elements – teenagers in the woods, boobies (usually in conjunction with premarital sex), marijuana, unexpected and creative kills, and a single defining jump scene at the end of the film.  Jason stalks these unsuspecting teenagers and murders them.  Not for any real reason, but in his own mind I suppose he feels that these teenagers are threatening his home and he is simply protecting it.   I believe we are to assume Jason (who may or may not be retarded) never matures emotionally and/or mentally so he simply sees these teenagers as rivals who are infringing into his playground.  It’s hard to say.  But my point is, one does not see a Friday the 13^th movie for great drama, nuanced performances or character development.  If that’s what your expectations are, you will be disappointed.

            That in mind, if all you’re expecting is the aforementioned teenagers, drugs, nudity and killing then Friday the 13^th will be a fun ride.  The film doesn’t so much refine or build on the formula (that was established by the original) but it was never meant to. It is not a sequel or prequel but rather a trip down memory lane of sorts, a celebration of what made the series popular.  And in that regard, the film is a resounding success.  The film is a little short on the creativity of its kills, (with several exceptions – the sleeping bag scene is excellent) but on nearly every other level it fulfills expectations.  There was too much sex/nudity (of course, I am of the opinion that nudity is rarely if ever appropriate in film) and I do wish there was more motivation for Jason.  Or rather…I wish there was any motivation for Jason.  He simply kills to kill it seems like, which leaves the film feeling a little hollow. 

            One accomplishment I was very fond of was the general quality of the picture, framing, lighting, color, and cinematography.  Cinematographer Daniel Pearl brings the franchise to new heights in these terms, and it intensifies the atmosphere exponentially compared to earlier installments.  Given the proper expectations, viewers will be very much satisfied with this remake.

 

6/10

 

Friday the 13^th

 

Directed by Marcus Nispel

Produced by Michael Bay, Andrew Form, and Brad Fuller

Written by Damian Shannon, Mark Swift, and Mark Wheaton

Starring Derek Mears, Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, Aaron Yoo, Amanda Righetti, Travis Van Winkle

Music by Steve Jablonsky (included because I think he has a funny last name)

Cinematography by Daniel Pearl (because I appreciate the achievement in this category)

Rated R for strong bloody violence, some graphic sexual content, language and drug material

Ed. note - I would like to amend my comments about expectations.  I do not believe that a movie that meets your expectations necessarily means the movie is good.  I expected Mortal Kombat 2 to be an awful movie and it met my expectation to the letter, but I would never say it is a good movie.  Perhaps it is just more accurate to say that keeping your expectations in check is a good way to avoid disappointment in movies that could be considered disappointing otherwise.

Prince Caspian Review

I have to be honest; Prince Caspian is my least favorite of the Chronicles of Narnia book series.  Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy the book, but I sat down to watch Price Caspian with a little less excitement than I did when I sat down to watch The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.  Still, I told myself I would keep an open mind about the film and (seeing as Caspian is my least favorite of the books) perhaps I might even appreciate the inevitable changes made by Andrew Adamson to the story and characters.  After three viewings, I still cannot fully enjoy this movie and let me explain why.

            I understand that a dilemma faces most filmmakers who attempt to translate a story from the pages of a book to the silver screen.  An author can explain motives, thoughts, desires, fantasies and emotions on a page very clearly to the reader, but filmmakers have to communicate those same things visually.  The transition can be difficult to say the least, and like I said, I understand that sacrifices must be made and that compromise must be attempted both from the filmmakers (to stay true to the original story) and from the audience (to allow the filmmaker room to breathe and adapt within the structure of the original story).  And since I am not as much a fan of Caspian as I am of LWW or my personal favorite, the Silver Chair, I was more than willing to accept some changes made to the story.  But after this third viewing, I must say that I do not approve of the changes made by Adamson and his team.  My disapproval stems mostly from the changes made not to the story, but to the characters (Peter in particular).  In Adamson’s movie, Peter spends most of his screen time pissed off at every living thing that happens to breathe

in his general direction.  It is leagues apart from the eldest Pevensie in Lewis’ book, so far apart that I felt the original character is lost.  Adamson’s Peter is immature, displaying a hair trigger temper and eagerness to fight.  He is ignorant and arrogant.  The magnificence, the dignity and honor of Lewis’ Peter are nowhere to be found on the screen, and the film suffers for it. 

In the book, Caspian and Peter work together towards the preservation of a Narnian future, while in the movie, Caspian and Peter quarrel about the most insignificant of things.   Adamson apparently felt the film would benefit from the tension between the two male leads throwing hissy fits over who should be in charge and who the blame should fall on for failures. The Pevensie children are snappy and sarcastic with one another in the film adaptation, which I understand is more realistic, but I don’t think it is entertaining to pay for a $9 movie ticket to watch children bicker with each other.  The other children’s character is handled well, but I will never ever approve of the Caspian – Susan romance plot.  It is so underdeveloped that it doesn’t deserved to be mentioned in a commentary, let alone in the film itself. 

            On the positive side, the effects of the film are of the highest caliber.  I have recently developed a newfound appreciation for effects, and even if the story and characters are disappointing I can still enjoy the effort and detail that goes into spectacular effects.  The sets, props and clothing are all top notch as is the quality of the picture, sound effects, musical score, and lighting.  From a technical standpoint, the film is fantastic which is an accomplishment that I feel does deserve praise.  Technical excellence is not an easy goal to achieve, so the film wins points in this regard. 

            There are several other aspects to the story that I do not appreciate (mainly aesthetic elements such as the Spanish/Italian accents given to the Telmarines) but I won’t go into much detail there.  Overall, enjoyment of the film will stem directly from the expectations of the viewer.  Fans of the book will be disappointed in all likelihood (perhaps even frustrated with the changes made to the characters) but those unfamiliar with the book series may not be as offended by the changes.  Viewers looking for bright colors and flashy effects are in for a fantastic ride.            

            Seeing as how Disney has jumped ship (no pun intended) on Dawn Treader, I foresee one of two futures for the Narnia franchise.  Having been guaranteed at least one more film, I believe the franchise will be either revitalized and refreshed(after the departure of Adamson and Disney) or the franchise will crash and burn with one last hurrah.  I dearly, dearly hope the series continues on (particularly because Silver Chair is next in line after Dawn Treader) but the bottom line is that Dawn Treader needs to make a lot of money when it comes out for the franhise to live on. Here’s hoping.

 

5/10

 The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Directed by Andrew Adamson

Produced by Andrew Adamson, Cary Granat, Mark Johnson, Perry Moore, Douglas Gresham, Philip Steuer

Book written by C.S. Lewis; Adaptation written by Andrew Adamson, Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely

Starring Ben Barnes, William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes, Georgie Henley, Sergio Castellitto, Eddie Izzard, Peter Dinklage, Liam Neeson

Rated PG for epic battle action and violence