2016 Oscar Nominations: The “Minor” Sure-Thing Awards

Posted on February 25, 2016 by Mark DuPré

To those in the so-called “minor” awards—those outside the top six—the Oscar is anything but minor. But to most folks outside of the industry, the awards outside of the acting, directing and best picture awards are of somewhat less interest.

Today, I’m addressing a small handful of important but less high-visibility awards. They are also those that I am pretty sure of at this point.

Best Original Screenplay nominations are:

Matt Charman, Joel & Ethan Coen—Bridge of Spies

Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley—Inside Out

Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer—Spotlight

Alex Garland—Ex Machina

Jonathan Herman, Andrea Berloff, S. Leigh Savidge and Alan Wenkus—Straight Outta Compton

 Without addressing those that I don’t think will win, I’ll just go right to the winner:

Best Original Screenplay: Spotlight.

Spotlight intelligently addresses a difficult and complex topic with grace and sensitivity, as well as placing the issues in the context of a gripping and suspenseful story. It contains layer upon layer of fascinating sub-stories that are smartly brought together at the end but with a conclusion that is satisfying and disturbing at the same time.

Best Adapted Screenplay nominations are:

Emma Donoghue—Room

Drew Goddard—The Martian

Nick Hornby—Brooklyn

Adam McKay and Charles Randolph—The Big Short

Phyllis Nagy—Carol

And the winner will be:

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Big Short

The Big Short intelligently addresses a difficult and complex topic with humor and attitude, as well as placing the issues in the context of a gripping and suspenseful story. It contains layer upon layer of fascinating sub-stories that are smartly brought together at the end but with a conclusion that is satisfying and disturbing at the same time.

Best Animated Feature nominations are:

Anomalisa

Boy and the World

Inside Out

When Marnie Was There

Shaun the Sheep

Two things first: I thought when Anomalisa was released to such positive reviews that it might provide an upset. I certainly don’t think that anymore. And…I’m glad that The Good Dinosaur didn’t get nominated because it was pretty bad.

The winner will be: Inside Out. Perhaps the best Pixar movie ever. For a “classically” animated film, it’s head and shoulders above all the others like it.

And since you most likely stay up nights worried about what film will win best sound mixing and best sound editing, relax! Both are going to Mad Max: Fury Road.

Other “sure” things:

Best Documentary Feature: Amy

Best Foreign Language Film: Son of Saul

The other categories? Too hard to make a solid call!

The next two days: Best Director and Best Picture.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Oscar Nominations—Best Actress

Posted on February 24, 2016 by Mark DuPré

 

Here are the nominations:

Cate Blanchett-Carol

Brie Larson-Room

Jennifer Lawrence-Joy

Charlotte Rampling—45 Years

Saoirse Ronen-Brooklyn

This category is a bit of a yawn, though it may have set a record for the shortest names of the films they are associated with. The nomination list is almost a lazy one. There are the obvious nominees (Larson and Ronen), the old favorites (Blanchett and Lawrence) and the nod to the old professional that it is time to honor because of a great performance (Rampling).

Rampling is a legend, but more on the other side of the Atlantic than here. She’s been a star since the “mod scene” in Britain in the 1960s, but has a career of sensitive, brave performances since then. The nomination is the Academy’s version of a Lifetime Achievement Award, and with her recent controversial comments regarding the #OscarsSoWhite issue, she doesn’t stand a chance times two. This is simply the Academy saying, “We appreciate your career.”

Cate Blanchett has already won two Oscars, and looked like a possible winner again. But after a flurry of awards at the start of the awards seasons, Carol’s momentum has become as evanescent as the film’s tone. It’s a good performance, but just not strong enough to snag a win over Larson and Ronen.

Jennifer Lawrence’s nod for Joy seems like a filler, or the good performance that rounds out the other four more sure nominations. She got good reviews, but again, it’s not strong enough to even come close to winning. It’s a sign of the love the Academy has for her—one win, four nominations, and she’s just 25.

Saoirse Ronen gave the most touching, subtle performance of the year in Brooklyn, and it will become a model of understatement and beauty. That’s the problem—it’s the finest performance of the year, in both senses of the word. It’s the best of the year, IMHO, and “fine” as opposed to “coarse.” Her eyes rather than her words often tell the story, and to watch her develop her sense of confidence over the course of the film is to see a person blossom and unfold like a flower. It will likely be studied for years. Ronen is one of our finest young actresses and promises years of acting delight.

This year’s winner is going to be Brie Larson for Room. It’s not quite on the level of Ronen’s in Brooklyn, but the story is more dramatic, and Larson gets to have the “big moments” of stress, anger and frustration that makes for a more attention-getting performance. It’s a very good performance, to be sure. It’s just that Ronen’s is a step above.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Oscar Nominations—Best Actor

Posted on February 23, 2016 by Mark DuPré

This year’s nominees are making for a lot of head-scratching in Hollywood. Best Picture and Best Director nominations are presenting a big challenge for predictors. The one “lock” this year, however, is the Best Actor category.

Nominees are:

Bryan Cranston, Trumbo

Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant

Matt Damon, The Martian

Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs

Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl

Bryon Cranston’s nomination is a kind of “We loved, loved, loved you in Breaking Bad, so welcome to the movies, and you did a really solid job here in Trumbo.” Not a snowball’s chance in Hades for a win.

Matt Damon, who should have won the Oscar for The Informant!, wasn’t even nominated for that film. This is a great American actor who is so pleasant and sympathetic that we almost don’t notice that he create a myriad of complex and fascinating characters in a variety of genres. He’ll win someday, but this is a nod to his likability, this ability to carry a film almost single-handedly, and to the film itself. Sorry, Matt. You’ll get your Oscar for acting at some point.

Michael Fassbender’s nomination is a bit of a surprise—not because he didn’t deserve it, but because most folks thought this finely-acted film would be lost in the shuffle. Whatever buzz it had seemed to be nearly gone by nomination time. So it’s a joy to see this future Oscar-winner get a nomination. But it’s not Michael’s year yet.

Eddie Redmayne just won this award last year for The Theory of Everything. It’s not impossible to win two years in a row; both Spencer Tracy and Tom Hanks have done it. But while the first wave of admiration for the film included both Redmayne and Alicia Vikander, most of the enduring love has been aimed in her direction. One, it’s not a strong enough performance to overcome the reluctance to grant the award to an actor two years in a row. Two, it’s not his year.

It’s Leo’s year. Yes, he gave an amazing performance. It’s a triumph of endurance, to be sure, as well as a feat of acting skill to hold together a film of his epic scope with so few words. The sheer difficulty of pulling this all off is in Leo’s favor. But the bottom line is that it’s his time. He could have won from as far back as when he was 14 years old in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. Everyone agrees that it’s award his year, and there is no stronger performance that could threaten his win. He will win, people will stand, people will clap for a long time. You can count on it.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Oscar Nominations—Best Supporting Actress

Posted on February 22, 2016 by Mark DuPré

It’s certainly not the “best” performance that always wins—or even gets nominated. There are always other considerations that go into winning the award. For instance, a performance night be the crowning achievement of one’s acting career, and that might put someone into the win column when there are other, better performances in that category.

It might be that it’s just a really great role with a good fit, as J.K. Simmons in Whiplash. Or it may be a new discovery making his/her mark in a film that shows off one’s talents well, as with Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. Or it could be an example of buzz and momentum. Some films have great buzz at the beginning of the Oscar season, but lose it after a while, and a performance gets lost, or at least less attention is paid. And some films seem to gather momentum at either the right time or the wrong time, and someone might win on the coattails of a film that is peaking in interest at voting time.

This year, the Best Supporting Actress category include the following

Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight

Rooney Mara, Carol

Rachel McAdams, Spotlight

Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl

Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

I was excited when I heard that Jennifer Jason Leigh was nominated for The Hateful Eight, though as all my film students know by now, Tarantino is not my favorite director. But Leigh is an accomplished veteran that many thought would have won an Oscar by now. She’s pulled back a bit in recent years, and this is as strong a comeback as any this year. But the film didn’t make the mark many thought it would, and it looks as if Leigh’s award is the nomination itself.

 

Rooney Mara in Carol gives an ethereal performance in a film that’s already too twee and precious. It’s solid work, but nearly floats off the screen. Again, the nomination is the award.

Rachel McAdams’ nomination is a bit of a mystery, unless the Academy wanted to balance the genders by granting a female nomination next to Mark Ruffalo’s in Spotlight. She’s very good, but so is everyone in the cast. The nomination is a nod to the entire cast, which is one of the strongest of the year. McAdams has been thought of as a strong rom-com actress, and hasn’t been considered an Oscar contender until just now. The nomination is her reward, and Spotlight’s.

Kate Winslet is already a multiple nominee (seven nominations, including this year’s) and relatively recent Oscar winner (for The Reader). And she won the Golden Globe for this performance in Steve Jobs. But her Oscar win, and the fact that at her young age, she will likely be a future Oscar winner at some point, probably puts her out of the winner’s circle. But this could be the dark horse performance that surprises everyone.

Alicia Vikander is the girl of the moment. She is nominated as Best Supporting Actress this year for The Danish Girl, but many think of it as a lead role, which often works in the nominee’s favor. Vikander also turned in a star-making performance in this year’s Ex Machina, which recalls Diane Keaton’s win for Annie Hall, which to many of us was a win for her work in that film as well as her dark dramatic work that same year in Looking for Mr. Goodbar. Somewhat as in the early years of the Academy, which recognized an actor’s work in more than one film in a given year, there might be at least an unspoken recognition for Vikander’s work in the two films, which could easily put her over the edge. She has won several awards for each of these films this year, and as the It Girl right now, this looks like her year.

Should Win: Kate Winslet or Alicia Vikander

Will Win: Alicia Vikander

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Oscar Nominees—Best Supporting Actor

Posted on February 20, 2016 by Mark DuPré

It’s that time of year again, when Hollywood looks at itself, and works hard to look objective. It’s also a great time for Hollywood physical therapists, as the Oscars ceremonies are a great time for patting oneself vigorously on the back.

I’ll be putting my predictions out this week category by category.

Today, it’s the Best Supporting Actor Category, one of the richest and deepest in years. The nominees are:

Christian Bale, The Big Short

Tom Hardy, The Revenant

Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight

Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies

Sylvester Stallone, Creed

Thoughts on each one:

Bale was nothing short of magnificent in The Big Short, and is a much greater actor than is generally supposed, though he deservedly won an Oscar for The Fighter. He plays a difficult character here, something of a hero, but not exactly accessible. It’s part of a funky, bumpy tapestry that makes up the film. It “sticks out” in the way that many Oscar-winning roles do, but it gets lost in the energy, themes, and editing of the film. Besides, Bale has his Oscar and is young enough to earn at least one more.

Tom Hardy is no less magnificent in The Revenant, but most of the attention has gone to Leonardo DiCaprio as the lead. Hardy is almost unrecognizable, changing his voice, look and way of moving completely for a new character. He’s so good you almost don’t notice it. He could win and I’d be happy indeed.

Mark Ruffalo always tends to “stick out” in his performances, as he has an acting rhythm all his own. He is, in many way, the heart and soul of Spotlight, and perhaps was nominated as much for that as for his excellent performance. This is a great example of “the reward is the nomination.” He doesn’t stand a chance of winning, but the nomination is well deserved.

Mark Rylance is probably the greatest actor in the list, though you might not know it from his lack of fame (in film) and the subtlety of his performance in Bridge of Spies. This three-time Tony Award winner is considered one of the greatest living actors, especially by his peers, and judging by his stage and television work, can do almost anything. Once again, thank you, Great Britain. He won’t win, but it’s good to see him recognized for his film work.

Sylvester Stallone gives his greatest performance in Creed. He’s done some real acting in the past, but nothing that combines the Rocky legend with touching, vulnerable, solid acting. He’s a revelation here, and helps add gravity (believe it or not) to an already good film. Sentiment will lean in his direction. And those that see finer acting in the other categories will likely cancel themselves out, as there is nothing in the other four that rises high above the rest.

Should Win: Tom Hardy or Christian Bale

Will Win: Sylvester Stallone

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Big Short

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Mark DuPré

The Big Short is the film that addresses the marketing collapse of 2008. It’s suddenly the talk of the town, because it took the Producers Guild of America Award for Best Picture over The Revenant and Spotlight. Perhaps the latter two films canceled each other out and The Big Short rose to the top. But as one of the strongest predictors of what may win the Oscar for Best Picture, that single award has completely upended that race.

In some ways, The Big Short is like those two other films. Like Spotlight, it’s an investigatory film, chock-full of excellent actors giving top-notch performances, all unfolding at a rather rapid pace. Like The Revenant, its reach exceeds its grasp, and while it comes up short, what there is up there on the screen is whip-smart, tough and well worth the visit.

Of course, the big challenge of the film is how to explain subprime mortgages, etc., in an interesting way. To do this, the film takes risks, and generally succeeds. For one, it breaks the fourth wall in a way that no recent film has, with lots of explanatory narration and direct address. It also breaks from its narrative line with quick asides to real people (e.g., Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez)—introduced by their real names—trying to make sense of what’s going on with metaphors and attitude. The editing is quick, and the pace reminds old-timers of His Girl Friday.

The acting is good to great. Good is Steve Carell, who nearly leaves his comic persona behind him with a focused and uncomfortable intensity that works for his character. It’s not a brilliant performance, but it’s a solid one, and he locks down on his character the whole time—a challenge for many another comic-turned-dramatic actors. Also good is producer Brad Pitt, now apparently casting himself as the moral center of his productions (this film and 12 Years a Slave). Very good is Ryan Gosling, who essentially the carries the film in terms of tone and perspective. Great is the inestimable Christian Bale, who proves once again that he is quickly becoming an American treasure (though he’s not originally American). A good-looking actor who consistently hides that fact, he is willing to go to great lengths to create unusual characters that are not always easy to relate to but are completely believable. Think The Mechanic, think The Fighter. This is his best work since that latter film, and it proves he can go places that most actors wouldn’t even understand, much more be able to go there.

There are many, many other solid performances in the film, and it can function as something of an actors’ showcase. Following three threads of the whole falling market story, the editing is sharp and intelligent. If there’s one fault, it’s that the quickness and acuity can occasionally fall into the film’s being just a little too smart-aleck (used for the sake of a G rating for this analysis) and smug for one’s good. It’s a risk the film takes, and one can’t fault it too much for being just a little too happy with itself as it cuts through layers of human graft and stupidity.

Philosophically and politically, after all the attitude and head-smacking, it ends on a profoundly depressing note. The little guy can’t win, there are conspiracies within conspiracies, and the big/rich guys have all the politicians and market leaders in their pockets. I would love to believe that this will be the opening salvo in a new wave of investigations and ethical reform. But I don’t. The film is a funny, smart, well acted reminder that we are all being played.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Room

Posted on January 24, 2016 by Mark DuPré

Room may well be the most moving, intimate, emotional and gut-wrenching mainstream film this year. It’s tender, sweet, tense, wondrous, lyrical and biting—all at different times. Featuring a shattering performance by Brie Larson (pretty much a shoo-in for Best Actress) and directed by Lenny Abrahamson (Frank), this accomplished film seemed to come out of nowhere and has arrived as a fully formed, mature work of art.

For those who don’t know the story, (major spoiler alerts ahead), the film throws us into the middle of Ma (Larson) and five-year-old Jack (Jacob Tremblay), kidnap victims held hostage by Old Nick (Sean Bridgers). The film’s beginning is nearly as shocking as seeing Meryl Streep’s tear-stained, tortured face at the start of Kramer vs. Kramer. The reality of the situation is stark, and it takes us a while to orient ourselves to this reality.

But this is not another film about escaping physically. They do get free, or at least they are freed from physical captivity. But the second half of the film is about the thrilling and painful adjustments to “normal life” once Ma and Jack are back “home.” The world is huge and colorful for Jack, but he has his own games and securities that he developed in “Room,” all which demand adjustments in the big, bright and loud world.

Ma’s journey is a different story. She has had to hold things together in “Room” for her son, and sometimes it has clearly taken everything she had to stay mentally and physically strong for him. Now back at her childhood home, she is at times angry, confused and hurt at some of the changes in her family, and her decompression can be unnerving to watch and experience.

Larson has gotten most of the attention here, and deserves it. It’s that career-making performance for this child actor with lots of credits, but who hasn’t had a breakout role until now. Though I think that Saoirse Ronan’s performance in Brooklyn is somewhat more accomplished, Larson’s hyper-realistic style (think a younger Julianne Moore) and opportunity for big moments will put her into the winning column for the Oscar.

Her work is nearly equaled by an astonishing performance from young Jacob Tremblay, who here makes the best possible case for bringing back the juvenile Academy Award. He is extraordinary. His character is a real child, with sweetness leavened with attitude. It’s the best child performance since Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense.

Behind these two performances is the strong hand of Lenny Abrahamson, who created a personal film unlike any other this year. One rarely has the feeling that a film is exactly the one the director wanted to make, but this assured film seems the result of a director who knew what he was after, and got it. The camerawork, the performances, the music—these all combined to create a cinematic vision of an unimaginable journey, filled equally with pain, joy, agony, and hope.

Room is more than a story of a kidnapping, or even of the challenges of making adjustments to freedom. It has moments of such pain that we can barely stand the experience, followed by images, music, and perspectives so transcendent that we look anew at the world we’ve gotten so accustomed to. The sum of Room’s parts is enough to earn one’s great respect. But beyond its constituent parts, its overall effect is touching, occasionally heart-stopping, and, if you allow it, transformative.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Oscars–first thoughts

Posted on January 16, 2016 by Mark DuPré

OK, they nominations are out. And the celebrating, sniping and whining has begun. But the nominations are not exactly shocking, and are in fact fairly predictable. There are a few surprises, though, and while not shocking, are at least attention-getting. Here are some thoughts on the whole thing….

Best Picture

The Revenant (https://film-prof.com/2016/01/11/the-revenant/) came up with 12 nominations, the most of any film this year. Nothing is guaranteed in terms of capturing the top prize, however, and those who watch the Oscars closely notice that there is a rise and fall with certain films. Some appear certain to win and then seem to fade; others gain steam and attention during the voting season. (That’s exactly what happened last year with Boyhood and Birdman.) This year, the early money was on Spotlight (https://film-prof.com/2015/12/15/spotlight/), but the recent win of The Revenant at the Golden Globes, combined with its relatively recent release, may shift weight toward this epic.

Probably the only surprise here is the presence of Room, which was thought to be admired more for Brie Larson’s performance than for the film itself.

Bridge of Spies is not first-rate Spielberg, and I was a little surprised to see it in the list. But with the expanded list—now allowing for up to 10 films instead of the former five—a solid film by a first-rate director may well belong here.

There is no Straight Outta Compton, Carol or The Hateful Eight nominations for Best Picture. Let the endless and mostly groundless speculations continue. Whatever anyone tells us that it means, it doesn’t.

Best Director

The big “snub,” a term I have to dismiss when it comes to Oscar nominations, is Ridley Scott, who should have been nominated for The Martian. This one I can’t understand, especially since “his spot”–another thought I don’t have a lot of respect for–was taken by Room’s Lenny Abrahamson. That’s a surprise, but it’s probably more a sign of respect for the film than a rejection of Scott.

If The Revenant’s Iñárritu wins Best Director, it will be the first back-to-back directorial win since 1950. Since The Big Short’s Adam McKay and Spotlight’s Tom McCarthy might cancel each other out, it may well be Iñárritu’s year again. Then again, if the group gets in a short-lived cutting edge mood, they may go for George Miller for Mad Max: Fury Road as a combination comeback/career award.

Best Actor

Leonard DiCaprio in The Revenant. For this performance and for his career. End of story.

Best Actress

It is likely to be Brie Larson, recent Golden Globe winner for Room. The Academy put lead actress Rooney Mara into the Supporting Actress category for Carol, as they did with lead Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl. So that takes those two completely out of this race. In a year of excellent performance with none that towers over the others, there are other considerations. Cate Blanchett (Carol) already has two Oscars, so she’s out. Jennifer Lawrence’s nomination for Joy is her sign of respect, with no hope of a win. Charlotte Rampling’s nomination for 45 Years is a sign of respect for a solid career and a great performance. No win here, either. It seems to come down to two young women—Larson for Room and Saoirse Ronan for Brooklyn. I would be happy with either, but Ronan is a few years younger and is a rather sure thing for a future Oscar, and her performance was woven in so tightly into the fabric of Brooklyn that it doesn’t quite call attention to itself as much as some Oscar-winning performances do. My early call: Larson.

Best Supporting Actor

The big question here is not who is the best. The question is whether or not the Academy is going to go sentimental and give it to Rocky, I mean Sylvester Stallone, for Creed. This is the best performance of Stallone’s career, in a well-made culmination of a franchise with lots of feel-good history. The other players in this category are excellent actors, but they don’t stand out as much as the Sentimental Favorite does. My personal favorite is Tom Hardy from The Revenant. But my guess is that the other four performances will cancel one another out, as they are all good work from good-to-great actors. I think sentiment reigns in this category.

Best Supporting Actress

Having taken two leads and put them in this category, things are a little shaky. Kate Winslet won the Golden Globe for Steve Jobs, to her obvious complete surprise. Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight) may win as a sign of respect for this performance and her career. Alicia Vikander may well win for The Danish Girl for her work. This one has me wondering at this point….

Best Foreign Language Film

Hungary’s Son of Saul has gotten great buzz. Great reviews. First film from this country to be so nominated. And it’s about the Holocaust! It’s got all the signs of a winner.

Best Visual Effects

This technical category is exciting only because of the variety of effects, and how they are used, in these films. The nominated films use effects to create dystopia, life on Mars, frighteningly realistic bear attacks, and aliens. Star Wars: The Force Awakens may get the nod here as an award for helping make the year a fiscally successful one.

Best Animated Feature Film

I thought that Inside Out had it wrapped up, but then Anomalisa opened to great reviews. But now that the buzz for that has subsided, the money is on Inside Out again.

Ho, Hum

First of all, let me repeat that these awards are SUPPOSED to be about what people in the various guilds of the industry think is best in their respective categories. Social experiments occur in and around Hollywood, as they should. But striving for some kind of “diversity” in nominations is, how do I say this gently?—ludicrous.

Of course there is racism in the industry, as there is anywhere humans are present. #OscarsSoWhite is the latest harrumph from some corners of the world, as only The Revenant’s Iñárritu, as a Mexican, meets the proper criteria for being considered diverse. It’s true that Michael B. Jordan could have been nominated for Creed, but he got a lot of attention for it, and it didn’t necessarily belong in the top 5. He has a great career ahead of him, nomination or not. Idris Elba’s lack of a nomination for Beasts of No Nation was something of a surprise, as there was a great deal of energy invested in getting him one.

But instead of griping about the lack of diversity, why don’t we look at who got the nominations and the quality of their work? Maybe, just maybe, these were the best five in terms of quality. True racism (whether we call it reverse racism or not) would be to nominate someone because there were black, or Asian, or transgender, or whatever. Let’s just look at the work, shall we?

It could easily be argued that in 2002, when Halle Berry won for Monster’s Ball and Denzel won for Training Day, that this was because they were black, and the Academy wanted to grab the moment for social significance (and the self-patting on the back that accompanies such moves) rather than sheer quality. Hers was an excellent performance, but was it really better than Judi Dench as Iris or Sissy Spacek for In the Bedroom. And surely Denzel wasn’t the best actor that year. Sean Penn’s I Am Sam, and Russell Crowe’s A Beautiful Mind were as good, if not better. (Crowe, in fact, was just a phone’s throw away from getting his second Oscar for this film.) And is the Academy racist for not voting for Will Smith as Ali that year (see how ridiculous this can get?)

There is racism galore in this world, in our country, and in this industry. But we have to look more deeply into the whys of the lack of “diversity” in the nominations than in the nominations themselves. But those thoughts are for another time entirely! For now, let’s enjoy the “race” as it plays out.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Revenant

Posted on January 11, 2016 by Mark DuPré

Cold. Beautiful. Brutal. Fierce. Intense. Stunning. Violent.

And that’s just Tom Hardy’s performance.

But seriously, The Revenant (recent winner of the Golden Globe for Best Picture/Drama) is a far-reaching work of art that is worth seeing while falling just short of greatness.

The film is what you might get when you mix The Searchers with Dr. Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, Gravity, All is Lost, The Passion of the Christ, Gladiator and Old Boy. It’s a visually gorgeous epic on a grand scale, a tale of survival and revenge set against the forbidding but breathtaking mountains of Montana and South Dakota in the 1820s. In its scope and beauty, it recalls the epics of David Lean. The cinematography is both exquisite and technically impressive (sometimes too much so). The acting is top-notch, and not just from soon-to-be-Oscar winner Leonardo DiCaprio. Probably the most ambitious film of the year, it’s an instructive follow-up to last year’s Birdman or (the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (from the same director).

First, the good. See this on the big screen, as it has some of the most coldly beautiful images you’ve seen in years. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (Oscars for Gravity and Birdman) may well pick up his third Academy Award in as many years for his work here. In an era of watching movies on one’s iPhone, this may be the year’s best advertisement for seeing films in movie theaters, where such magnificent and striking images belong.

With weaker actors, the landscapes may well have overwhelmed the characters. Fortunately, that’s not the case here. If awards were given for commitment or sacrifice, DiCaprio would have won them all this year for his work here. But he goes far beyond that with a performance that holds the film together almost wordlessly at times, and with a fierce drive of a character bent on staying alive and exacting his revenge. In terms of awards, it’s his year, but well deserved for this performance. Few actors could beat the weight of a film this size.

Equally as good is Tom Hardy as the [spoiler alert] villain. Hardy so inhabits his character and blends so well into the harshness of the landscape that it may seem all of a piece, thereby hiding his artistry. But he is as good if not better than DiCaprio, and brings balance and clarity to Hugh’s (DiCaprio) struggle. Hardy is a great talent, and we can only hope for a long career of such rich work.

Making yet another appearance in an award-winning or popular film this year is the apparently ubiquitous Domhnall Gleeson, holding up his end of the film after solid performances just this year in Ex Machina, Brooklyn and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. And while there isn’t a weak performance in the bunch, it’s good to see that Will Poulter (The Maze Runner and The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader) is making a successful transition to more adult, thoughtful films.

The downsides have to do with the plot and the weaknesses of the visual style. Criticisms have included a rather weak storyline, and that’s true. To go back to David Lean, his greatest epics balanced a grand visual style with a story that resonated with “big ideas” such as war, brotherhood, historical moments, great loves, nation-building, etc. Here we have a rather thin tale of a man trying to survive, but driven largely to stay alive by revenge. Yet that is qualified and then [spoiler alert] undone by what seems a half-hearted commitment to a “Revenge is mine, says the Lord” idea.

That idea is first expressed by a passing Native American in a kind of almost throwaway line, and then is repeated with little dramatic import at the end. If this climactic thought and action were going to be something important in the plot, it needed to be more of a struggle than it appeared, and it could have added the kind of “will he or won’t he” frisson that ramped up tension in The Searchers when we wondered not only if John Wayne’s character would find his niece, but what he would when he found her. Instead, the lack of commitment to the though—the very thought that changes the climax!—undermines an already thin story.

More than that, the struggle for revenge ends with the kind of hand-to-hand combat we tend to find in second-rate action films. I suppose it’s more dramatic to have those intent on killing one another do some personal space fighting, but it comes off as more of a cliché than a climax.

Finally, the technically accomplished cinematography repeats some of the elements we found in last year’s Birdman, but to lesser effect. That film appeared to be comprised of one long take. While that aspect of Birdman was dazzling, what kept it rooted in humanity were the great expressive characters (and the talented actors playing them) and the high personal stakes of the central story—and many of the subplots as well. The style meshed perfectly with the content, and they fed each other.

Here the long takes tend to distract in the way that the bravura beach sequence in Atonement tended to. Impressive, yes, but it can take one out of the film. Same here with some sequences, especially with the attack scenes. Instead of focusing on the drama or narrative consequences of the actions, these scenes tend to come across as a bit choreographed and self-conscious. It reminded me of the visual style used by Terrence Malick in The Tree of Life, a swooping, angled approach to the film’s material that completely worked in that film, and then completely didn’t work when it was employed in his next film, To the Wonder. What was exhilarating and meaningful in Birdman was exhilarating and distracting here in The Revenant.

 

The Tree of Life, which failed in part because of dinosaurs and Sean Penn, reached high and succeeded greatly, even if it didn’t quite accomplish all its high goals. The Revenant is like that—full of ambition, drive, creativity, and brutal force—and while not quite fulfilling its potential, is the great epic of the year.

 

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Golden Globe Awards–2016

Posted on January 11, 2016 by Mark DuPré

Quote from the Golden Globes website about the members who vote:

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) is a non-profit organization, the members of which are international journalists based in Southern California. The HFPA has about members who disseminate information about movies and television to the world through their various publications throughout the world.

Host/comic/actor Ricky Gervais was right last night. The Golden Globe Awards are really not worth anything. That is, they aren’t worth anything in terms of art, and really aren’t worth much to anyone else unless folks who market films can fool some folks that they should see a film because it won a Golden Globe. Remember that there are fewer than 100 members (perhaps fewer than 90). It’s right up there with the small number of voters on the Nobel Peace Prize committee, whose awards can often be taken with the same reservations.

In truth, the Globes are not quite the complete joke they were even a few years ago, though this year’s categories raise a question or two. In years past, the relatively small group of foreign journalists could be essentially bought with parties and trinkets, and they have rather nakedly nominated some folks because it would be nice (and lucrative) to have them appear on the awards show. Case in point from distant past: Pia Zadora winning anything for 1982’s Butterfly and 2010’s three nominations (including Best Picture) for The Tourist, which happened to feature camera-friendly Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp.

This year’s entries are not quite as laughable, and will likely function best as precursors for the Oscars, which is really the Golden Globes’ true role. There is no one standout film this year, and The Revenant winning Best Picture (Drama) is as good a choice as any.—as is giving the director award to its director Alejandro Iñárritu (director of last year’s Birdman) . Leonardo DiCaprio’s win was well deserved, both in terms of this film and his career (yes, he’s been around that long, and has been doing fine but often unrecognized work for years). DiCaprio deserves the accolades, but in truth there was no other male performance that has stood out this year, so the award may well have been for a career rather than the performance itself.

As intelligent and worthwhile as these three awards were, the foolishness that is the Golden Globes surfaced in its two categories for Best Picture/Actor/Actress. In what seems like a better categorization process than that of the Oscars, the Golden Globes divide pics and acting between drama and comedy. Since comedy is often so painfully misunderstood and ignored, it seems like a good idea. But apparently the application process is often wanting. The Martian as a comedy? It’s so ludicrous a thought that it seems beyond criticism, the awards critique equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

You know how funny it was, right? Stranded on Mars, fighting for survival, many folks worried on the ground and others risking their lives in outer space—remember all those hysterical scenes? And that Matt Damon—what a card! To be honest, I’m glad the film was recognized as Best Picture (Comedy) and that Damon won something for his star turn—which was more difficult than it looked. But (pardon the irony) seriously? A comedy? Yes, many of us take the foolishness of the HFPA and the awards for granted, but following the foolishness to its obvious end—as happened here—is beyond ridiculous. But hey, it’s only the Golden Globes, right?

In terms of anything remotely affecting reality, Brie Larson’s win for Room puts her squarely in line for an Oscar, which might bring more attention to the film, and will certainly not hurt the career of this young and talented actress. Kate Winslet looked genuinely shocked at her win for Best Supporting Actress for Steve Jobs, which also picked up a screenwriting award for Hollywood favorite Aaron Sorkin. (He looked as shocked as Winslet at his win.)

Sylvester Stallone’s win for Best Supporting Actor for Creed was a sentimental gesture, to be sure, but in truth was more than that. Mark Rylance, for example, (up for Bridge of Spies in this category) is a far better actor than Stallone could ever be, but Stallone’s performance in Creed as the finest work he’d ever done. He also “stuck out,” a near-essential to winning awards in his film in a way that some of the other performances didn’t. (Rylance’s work, as it often is, was beautifully subtle). And where was The Revenant’s Tom Hardy, and why was he missing in this list?

Jennifer Lawrence winning for Joy was a yawn. She is beloved by the Hollywood Foreign Press, and the others in her category (Best Actress/Comedy) were too old and already decorated, in films that were too small, or were “out there” loud actresses that may be funny but are not the well-rounded talents that Lawrence is. As Gervais said while introducing Morgan Freeman as the most respected actor in the room—while acknowledging that “that isn’t saying much”—this category, this year, wasn’t the strongest, and Lawrence’s win isn’t much of a triumph.

Other thoughts on the winners: Inside Out won over the recently lauded Anomalisa may help its chances with the Academy Awards; the same for Son of Saul in the Foreign Film category. (It seems a truism at this point that a sure way to a win for foreign films or documentaries is to have a Holocaust drama….)

Yes, there were some fascinating and surprising choices in the television awards, but this website is not www.TV-prof.com. : )

As for the show itself, acid-tongued Gervais presented a variety of humorous, tough, and occasionally awkward moments (especially with Mel Gibson). But his overall take on the Awards—that they are worthless and that the show is ridiculous—worked well in context. He is an acquired taste, to be sure, and he can be cruelly mean-spirited at times. But his ever-growing apparent discontent with the show as it progressed was funny and a much-needed antidote to the poisonous stuffy self-congratulatory spirit of the awards (which is only a preview to the greater self-importance demonstrated at the Oscars).

All in all, the Golden Globe awards proved what an unusual year it is for films, in that there is no one film that is dominating artistically (written while Star Wars: The Force Awakens is mopping up financially). Ultimately, Gervais is not just funny but correct. These are relatively useless awards. For the marketers, winning an award might draw a few folks in. For the artists themselves, it’s a happy thing to win but the award has nowhere near the significance of an Oscar. As a bellwether for those interested in what might be coming up for the Oscars, it’s at least fodder for the 24-hour entertainment news folks. And writers like me.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment