Oscar Roundup - Six Months Later

I barely had time to see all the nominees back in the good ol' days when there were only five... with ten, who could possibly watch them all? Hence my six-month delay. I don't think you'll mind.

The Artist - 3/5

(dir. Michel Hazanavicius)

I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this one, but I've got to stick to my guns: The Artist is not extraordinary. Good, yes. At times, very good. But that's about it. Hazanavicius's lackluster script is brought to life by an extraordinary pair of actors (Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo - who actually look like they could have been silent film stars), and I commend their work and recommend the film solely to see them. If I were just reviewing their performances, the rating would be much higher... but I have to take the film as a whole, and as a whole I could appreciate the concept and the intent, but in the end it just didn't really "hit" me with any sort of impact. This is a film that flits and dances and looks nice, but there's almost no weight to it - it's like getting the dessert without any meal. The Artist does try for gravitas and pathos, but in my view those are the most awkward scenes in the film. Dujardin's character becomes too over-the-top and unbelievable in his melodrama. When we see his marriage deteriorating early in the film, it's believable because he still approaches it with that charming arrogance he's established... by the time we reach a suicide attempt, it just doesn't work. This is not a man who would kill himself, and certainly not in the manner in the film. So why does it happen? Because it's convenient for the plot. It's this sort of thing which undoes the film and prevents it from making any substantial impact. I love the sentiment, the finale, the music, and the performances - I just wish the story were good enough to dance with those elements.

The Help - 2/5
(dir. Tate Taylor)

The Help is yet another caucasian apologetic for segregation, and it plays as such. Charming, hilarious performances from Octavia Spencer and (especially) Jessica Chastain elevate the material from soap opera, but there is nothing here that hasn't been seen or done before - in worse and better movies. White people exploited black people, but black people endured and carried on with pride and quiet dignity... We get it. I'm not saying these are not important issues, but they stopped being cinematic some time ago.

Midnight in Paris - 3.5/5
(dir. Woody Allen)

Those who know me best would say I'm just being preferential to Woody, but it's hard to say bad things about this charming little film from the master. I will be the first to say it does not compare to his better work, but few movies do. The point here, though, is that it was a return to form for Woody - who's been pretty hit or miss this century - and was able to contend pretty well with other critical darlings this past year. I'd sooner watch this again than any of the other nominees.

The Tree of Life - 3.5/5

(dir. Terrence Malick)

What can I say that I haven't already said about The Tree of Life? Enigmatic, poetic, epic, and yet at its core very enduring and human. The best way I can describe it is by comparing it to a Thomas Pynchon novel: it's about everything and nothing, the universe and the humanity, all wrapped under one heading; and while you may hate it, there is no denying the talent on display. What really burns me is that this somehow lost the Cinematography Oscar. That truly is unfathomable to me. Do Academy members have cataracts? Hugo was fine, and I love Robert Richardson as much as the next guy, but... there simply is no contest. Comparing Lubezki's work here to any film this year - even comparing it to almost any color film ever - is like putting men against boys.

Hugo - 3/5

(dir. Martin Scorsese)

Speaking of which, how is Hugo? It's perfectly fine, good, fast-paced, interesting to watch... but it feels half-baked. Based on a (supposedly) popular children's book, Hugo is perfectly good when it focuses strictly on the main character and his storyline; it's when the film ventures outside that main circle that it starts to drag and (worse) feel irrelevant. Most movies can stand to lose a few minutes here and there, or maybe even a scene to keep things moving: Hugo has entire characters and subplots which add nothing to the film, the protagonist's journey, and are not even particularly amusing on their own; they should have been cut, leaving the film better overall and about twenty to thirty minutes shorter.

The performances are good (Chloe Grace Moretz again shows she's the real deal, stealing virtually every scene she's in), the editing is superb, and the design and look of the film are top-notch, though that does come with a caveat... I love Robert Richardson. He's one of America's best cinematographers, no question, but his work is somewhat diminished here. Still looks great, don't get me wrong (he has an amazing way with faces), but too often his photography is undercut by unnecessary CG flourishes, and I'm still scratching my head in regard to the blue-yellow color scheme, especially when he's produced the most extraordinary reds and greens ever captured. In short, good as it is, this is not his best work, and for those interested, I recommend you see JFK and Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control - not just for the subject matter (great movies, both of them), but for the extraordinary cinematography. Those deserved Oscar wins, Hugo merely a nomination.

Moneyball - 4/5

(dir. Bennett Miller)

A rare accomplishment. Think of the typical baseball movie, or even just the typical sports movie: a schmaltzy tale of an underdog, able to succeed on pluck and determination in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. The whole point of sports movies, generally, is to recreate the experience of going to a sporting event: the filmmakers want you to cheer, they want to get your adrenaline going - they want you to want the team to win. Moneyball takes this in an entirely different direction. This is about what happens off the field, what goes into creating that experience; it intellectualizes and deconstructs both a real-life visceral event and a fictional narrative convention. The amount of baseball in Moneyball, for instance, is very little; in fact, basically insubstantial. What little of the game is shown is rarely given context - merely used to highlight the characters' unconventional approaches to the sport. I'm sure if one were to add up the minutes of actual baseball footage, it would be comparable to the minutes of Raging Bull boxing footage. The result is something new, refreshing, and... oddly spiritual - another nice touch. Moneyball has a meditative, soulful quality missing from the typical sports movie, indeed from most movies. And I don't mean sympathy, empathy, or excitement (usually served up in heaping amounts with this kind of story), but actual spiritual resonance - a quality deeper than viscera, even emotion. I wish more people would give it a chance and take the movie on its own terms - it really is something special.

The Descendants - 3/5

(dir. Alexander Payne)

Another case of a film which is incredibly hard to rate numerically. The strengths of the film are obvious - a few truly devastating, heart-wrenching scenes, capped with nice, nuanced writing and acting. The weaknesses, however, are not so obvious, so it's no surprise critics were doing backflips when it's really nothing more than a compelling, strong, yet all too typical drama. Let's start with the strengths... obviously, Alexander Payne knows what he's doing. Since his exceptional Election, he's been one of Hollywood's premier unsung heroes, delivering high-quality work with compelling, character-driven dramedies. So of course the script is nice, the acting top-notch, and the direction clear and unfettered. Those things are no surprise. What was shocking, to me anyway, is that despite a compelling story that really does hit you hard (a couple of these scenes are hard to watch with a dry eye, unless you have no heart), the film carries an air of affectation throughout its entire running time. At the beginning it is especially noticeable (the narration is unnecessary and sounds comprised of direct lifts from the source material), but even later in the film - when we're actually interested and invested - I just couldn't shake the "film"-ness of it... Too many scenes just felt contrived, pretentious - so subtle and understated that they were heavy-handed and overstated. There is a great movie to be had from this material, I'm just not sure this incarnation gets the tone right. (Also, as a postscript, I was let down by Clooney's performance. He does a fine job, but mostly as a surrogate for audience members. He does not bring a unique take to the character, playing him truly as an everyman. The actress playing one of his daughters, however, Shailene Woodley, steals every scene she's in and has quite a promising career ahead of her.)

War Horse - 2/5
(dir. Steven Spielberg)

With a career as successful as his, it is no wonder Spielberg's films (especially the recent ones) have been labeled as overly sentimental, heavy-handed, emotionally cloying, fraught with plot devices and contrivances, obvious Oscar baiting, and hammy in their "verisimilitude." War Horse is all these and more, and I'd go so far as to say it's one of Spielberg's worst. There are, quite simply, very few things the movie does right. A few of my major complaints: (1) None of these characters develop, or are interesting on their own, or are even given anything interesting to do... but never mind that - it's the casting that is really the problem. I've watched a number of foreign films, even simply from the UK, but a number of these actors are frankly hard to understand. It's not cockney, it's not the hyperstylized slang of Trainspotting, they just kind of mumble and the sound mix doesn't make their voices crisp enough. Plus the voice of the lead male bugs me - he sounds too whiny. Sorry. (2) This one surprised me... No matter the film or its weaknesses, Spielberg has always been at the technological forefront, but it seems like he had some trouble deciding what he wanted War Horse to look like, or maybe he had trouble photographing the animals. Albert's farm house, for example, is lit too much like a set. The way the light reflects off the rocks and the grass, and the multiple angles at which the actors' faces are lit - it all calls attention to itself and as a result simply looks fake. Then later on he seems to take an almost episodic approach to the cinematography: the war scenes are soft, ethereal, romantic (almost as if vaseline has been spead over the lens); night scenes have an overly blue tinge, like shooting day for night; and the extremely romanticized red/orange of the ending raises an obvious parallel to Gone with the Wind. This would be fine if the material itself were episodic, but as War Horse follows the titular animal, there should be a photographic consistency which is frankly lacking. (3) Not to beat a dead horse (pardon the pun), but this may also be John Williams's worst work in recent memory. My guess is that he was simply taking his cue from Spielberg's overdone sentimentality in terms of direction, but the score here is so overblown it approaches cringe-worthy... All in all, War Horse is by no means unwatchable, but a film with such a talented crew should have been much, much better. Despite a couple very strong, emotional scenes near the conclusion, the film as a whole is a bit of an embarrassment.

HONORABLE MENTION

I've already mentioned that Drive was among my favorite films of last year, and overall 13 Assassins topped the list. I see absolutely no reason why Drive was overlooked at the Oscars (deserved a number of acting nominations), but the real travesty is the following snub...

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - 4/5

(dir. Tomas Alfredson)

What a stunner... Interesting, engaging, complex. This is not a film for the casual film-goer - even film-lovers will have a hard time following all of these tenuous plot threads - but we need more movies like this. Not just Hollywood - the world. A wonderfully intricate film aimed at intelligent people (what a thought!).

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy does not really have a central character, but if it did, it would be George Smiley. It's unclear if Smiley is his real name or a cover, but he and virtually the entire cast work in British intelligence during the Cold War era. Word is there's a mole who's penetrated the highest ranks, and Smiley and others take it upon themselves to uncover the secret.

Sounds like yet another inane plot from yet another big budget actioner, right? That's what's so great about Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - where it takes you, how it keeps you guessing, and how it leaves you unsure of just about everything right up to the end. This is not some romanticized, idealized, adrenaline-fueled version of the spy lifestyle; this is what it would actually be like to be a spy, I imagine... Never quite sure who to trust, never quite sure whether you've just heard a truth, a lie, or something in between. The tension (and paranoia) of the film is palpable. A must-see for anyone serious about movies.

p.s... A word about cinematography. Specifically, it's just about perfect in this film. Not flashy, mind you, but more movies would do well to keep their photography more understated. It's rare to find a film which is so balanced by itself... Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy engages us with its complex plot and characters; the cinematography complements them perfectly, showing us all we need to see, omitting some things we'd like to, and allowing us to actually appreciate the pace and composition rather than be bludgeoned by unnecessary movements and banal close-ups. A beautiful film for the eyes and the mind.