I'd like to spank the Academy

Archive for March, 2015

The 75th Academy Awards: My Verdict

75th-annual-academy-awardsThe 2002 best picture nominees are really a mixed bag. We’ve got a musical about murderesses, a drama about women reading a classic novel, a fantasy flick about short heroes, a Holocaust picture, and a non-musical West Side Story. It was all over the map. But they did have one thing in common: they were all based on/inspired by other works. Nothing was very original. Gangs of New York, being inspired by a nonfiction book about gangs in New York, did have to make up a story to tie all the things about gangs together, but still. I found it interesting that a bunch of not-so-fabulous movies were all based on something else. Is that why they were all not-so-fabulous? People were trying to tell other people’s stories instead of their own?

As I have looked at past winners and nominees, I have noticed a couple of trends. The Academy likes World War II/Holocaust movies (Schindler’s List, Life is Beautiful, Saving Private Ryan, Casablanca) and movies about show business (All About Eve, The Artist, even this year’s winner Birdman). In 2002, they had to make a choice between a show business movie and a Holocaust movie, and apparently, the Academy prefers show business over the Holocaust. It’s not terribly surprising, I suppose, because everyone likes movies they can relate to. People also like to feel like their lives are important enough to make movies about, so show business movies make show business people feel validated, I suppose. But really, how did Chicago win, considering its lack of meaning? I think there is a song from that musical that explains it:

Give ’em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle ’em
Show ’em the first rate sorcerer you are
Long as you keep ’em way off balance
How can they spot you’ve got no talents?
Razzle dazzle ’em
And they’ll make you a star!

Chicago was a dazzling movie. It was big and loud and fun and there were lots of flashy costumes and it had Richard Gere tap dancing. Richard Gere! It made people excited, and they didn’t notice what was lacking. The Pianist, on the other hand, wasn’t exactly flashy, and it definitely wasn’t fun. It was heartbreaking and hard to watch. But I think it was the better movie. Roman Polanski knew what he wanted to say with his story, while Rob Marshall presented a beautiful package filled with nothing.

How do I rank the nominees?

5.Gangs of New York
4.The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
3.Chicago
2.The Hours
1.The Pianist

Join me next week for a bunch of movies that are always overshadowed by Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz!

Category:

Academy Awards, Best Picture, Oscars

Tagged with:

Chicago (2002)

chicagoDirected by Rob Marshall

This is the one of the movies (the other is Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner) that inspired me to watch all of the movies nominated for best picture. When I saw Chicago for the first time, I was not impressed; it made me wonder how bad the other nominees were for this movie to have won best picture.

So what’s the story? In 1920s Chicago, vaudeville star Velma Kelly murders her husband and sister when she finds them sleeping together. Actress wannabe Roxie Hart kills her lover when he decides to break off their relationship and reveals that he never had the connections to make her a star. Both women are represented by Billy Flynn, a defense attorney who has never lost a case. Will his defense be enough to save them from the hangman’s rope?

The Good: Catherine Zeta-Jones. She is amazing as Velma Kelly. She not only sings and dances, but she acts while she’s doing it. In the scene where she’s trying to convince Roxie to be her partner in a new act (the song “I Can’t Do It Alone”), you can see the desperation written on her face. She’s a proud woman begging for help, and it hurts her, but she does what she has to do. She completely deserved her Oscar for best supporting actress.

The musical numbers were fantastic. I don’t automatically like movie musicals. If the songs don’t add something either to the plot or to the development of character, they feel like a waste of time to me. But I loved the songs in Chicago. “Cell Block Tango” is my favorite. I liked the symbolism of “We Both Reached for the Gun” and Richard Gere’s tap dance. All of the musical numbers added to the movie.

I did like the trope of having the musical numbers be inside Roxie’s head. That was a good way to make a musical believable, because people don’t normally break into song in a courtroom. That meant the editing had to be good, and it was. The movie cut beautifully between what was happening in the real world and what was being sung in Roxie’s mind. Having Taye Diggs as the announcer to tie it all together was a smart choice, too.

The Bad: Renèe Zellweger is not a dancer, nor does she have a voice of the same caliber of Catherine Zeta-Jones’s or Queen Latifah’s. She wasn’t horrible, but when you put someone great next to someone merely good, it makes you cringe. That last dance number is particularly bad. Catherine Zeta-Jones looked like dancing is as natural to her as walking, which makes Renèe Zellweger look stiff. It’s just not good.

The Ugly: This movie has no heart or soul. The theme of the movie is that you can get away with anything if you are famous enough. While that might be true, I don’t feel like it’s something to celebrate.

Oscars Won: Best picture; best actress in a supporting role (Catherine Zeta-Jones); best art direction – set direction; best costume design; best film editing; best sound.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best actress in a leading role (Renèe Zellweger); best actor in a supporting role (John C. Reilly); best actress in a supporting role (Queen Latifah); best director; best writing, adapted screenplay; best cinematography; best music, original song (“I Move On”).

Category:

Best Picture, Historical, Musicals

Tagged with:

The Pianist (2002)

the-pianistDirected by Roman Polanski

When I was ten or so, I got interested in Holocaust literature. I think it’s because my teacher read us Daniel’s Story in class. Anyway, from that time on, I read lots of books written for children and teenagers about the Holocaust. I even read some written for adults. But that all stopped when I was sixteen. That year, my history teacher showed us footage of the liberation of the concentration camps. Reading all those books hadn’t prepared me for what the Holocaust really was. I hadn’t understood what it really meant, what it looked like when people were slowly being starved to death and being killed indiscriminately. But now I do, and now Holocaust movies are hard for me to watch. I don’t want to believe that people could treat other people that way. At the same time, even though they can be so terrible, movies about the Holocaust can also be testaments to human goodness and resilience.

So what’s the story? Wladyslaw Szpilman is a young pianist living and working in Warsaw in 1939. After Germany invades the country, Szpilman, who is Jewish, lives through the horrors of the Warsaw ghetto.

The Good: Adrien Brody. His performance is heartbreaking. His transformation from a carefree young musician to a starving, terrified shadow of a man is amazing. I cried as I watched him trying to open his can of food. Incredible.

I loved the costume design. It helped to tell the story in way I haven’t often seen. Wladyslaw starts out wearing fashionable suits, but as his life gets harder and harder, his clothes change, too. The contrasting clothing of the people in the ghetto also highlights the differences of the people. Some were dressed poorly; others had furs. Each of those people in the ghetto had a different story before they were forced together, and their clothes remind us of that. They aren’t just faceless people or numbers, but people with various pasts who faced a tragic future together.

The production design made me sad not just for the Jewish people, but for the Poles, also. Their capital was destroyed; many people died. I’m not sure how they were able to show such widespread destruction, but it was devastating to see a city in rubble.

The Bad: I know I’m not supposed to say this, especially about a Holocaust movie, but there are a couple of boring stretches in this movie. From the time Wladyslaw is separated from his family until he stops living in empty apartments, it’s not the most exciting movie. I suppose it really must have been boring trying to live silently in an apartment that is supposed to be empty, but it doesn’t make for thrilling cinema.

The Ugly: Roman Polanski was a Holocaust survivor who escaped from the Krakow ghetto, and he witnessed some horrific things. He doesn’t pull his punches in this movie, and so there is some very graphic and shocking violence. I don’t feel like it’s gratuitous in any way; it’s what happened. But that means there are some parts that are very difficult to watch.

Oscars Won: Best actor in a leading role (Adrien Brody); best director; best writing, adapted screenplay.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best cinematography; best costume design; best film editing.

Category:

Drama, Historical, War

Tagged with:

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

The_two_towerDirected by Peter Jackson

I knew when I started this project that I would have to watch some movies that I didn’t want to watch. I was thinking about movies like Taxi Driver, with its rough subject matter, and Raging Bull, with its graphic violence. I had forgotten that I would have to watch The Lord of the Rings. You see, I love the book. A lot. I’ve read it several times, and I have a very clear picture in my mind of what everyone and everything looks like. I saw The Fellowship of the Ring when it first came out, and I wasn’t impressed with what Peter Jackson had done with Tolkien’s masterpiece. I had no desire to see the other two, especially since the Ents are my favorite race. I didn’t want Jackson to ruin them for me. But I love writing this blog, so I made the sacrifice and watched The Two Towers. (And I was right. The Ents sucked.) I am going to try very, very hard to judge this film based on its own merits and not compare it to the book, but I may not succeed. Please just bear with me.

So what’s the story? This isn’t a stand-alone movie. It’s hours three through six of a nine-hour movie, so it’s a little hard to recap. But Frodo and Sam are making their journey into Mordor to destroy the ring. Merry and Pippin have been kidnapped by Orcs, and Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are on their trail. Merry and Pippin meet the Ents, a race of tree-people, while Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli meet the Riders of Rohan, a tribe of Men. Saruman is growing bolder, sending out his armies to destroy both Rohan and Gondor. Confused? Yeah, don’t watch these movies out of order. There is no recap from one to the next, so you will be lost if you don’t already know the story. You might be lost even if you do know the story, because the movie and the book are rather different.

The Good: Sean Astin is wonderful as Sam, Frodo’s loyal friend and servant. His complete devotion to Frodo and their cause shines out of his faces. It’s great to see. I do rather like Ian McKellen as Gandalf. He manages to appear both grave and kind, both serious and cheerful. Good stuff.

The set design is quite good. The world of Middle Earth comes to life in these movies. Although it’s not quite the same as what I envisioned, I am willing to admit that it is a wonderful vision.

There are some wonderful effects. Gollum was especially well done, which I feel is also partly due to Andy Serkis’s acting. The animation or capture or both of Gollum made him come alive with all his facets.

The Bad: There wasn’t a good balance between battle and storytelling. I feel like there was a lot of time spent on the Battle of Helm’s Deep, while some other things (like everything in the court of Rohan) were skimmed over. The Ents and their destruction of Isengard are barely shown, even though it’s a crucial part of the fight against evil. Also, what was that Arwen/Aragorn interlude? Jackson is already telling multiple stories at once; throwing in one more just bogs the whole thing down.

I didn’t like how no one in this movie but Our Heroes are willing to do what they need to do. Aragorn tries unsuccessfully to get Theoden to fight against Saruman’s masses, but Theoden thinks that hiding is a better option. Of course, when the armies come to Helm’s Deep, it’s Aragorn who gives the pep talks and plans the defenses, even though Theoden has defended Helm’s Deep before. The Ents don’t care about helping fight Saruman until Pippin reminds Treebeard of what Saruman has done: he has cut down trees that were friends of Treebeard’s. If Pippin hadn’t come, Treebeard would have melted into the forest and sat peacefully watching his friends die to feed to fires of Isengard. The only problem with that is that Theoden and Treebeard are both noble men, leaders of their people. They would have taken action without a third party telling them what to do.

The Ugly: There were some seriously cheesy moments in this movie. I groaned out loud when Legolas slid down the stairs on a shield, shooting arrows all the way. I know Legolas is good, but that’s just silly. Also, the “Aragorn being rescued by his horse” scene was a bit much. It didn’t fit in this movie. (And here is where my book-loving part comes out: There is so much in the book that had to be cut because of time constraints. Why did Peter Jackson feel like he had to make stuff up and add it in? That time could have been spent better. Anyway, that’s my rant. I tried really hard to write this review based solely on its merits as a movie and forget that it was based on an extraordinary book, so I figure I am allowed one little rant.)

Oscars Won: Best sound editing; best visual effects.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best art direction-set direction; best film editing; best sound.

Category:

Adventure, Drama, War

Tagged with:

The Hours (2002)

The_Hours_posterDirected by Stephen Daldry

When I saw the poster for this movie, my first thought was, “Wait. It says Nicole Kidman is in this movie, but none of those three women are Nicole Kidman. Why isn’t she on the poster, and why doesn’t the third lady on the poster get higher billing?” So I looked it up on IMDb and realized that the makeup people did an amazing job; they managed to make Nicole Kidman look frumpy.

So what’s the story? Three different women from three different time periods have three parallel days that are all connected by parties, mental illness, and Virginia Woolf’s novel Mrs. Dalloway. I realize that doesn’t sound terribly exciting, but it’s a hard movie to sum up.

The Good: Like I said earlier, the makeup artists were amazing. They did a good job making Nicole Kidman look like Virginia Woolf, but they also did a fabulous job of aging Julianne Moore fifty years. Apparently, they weren’t eligible for an Oscar because a little bit CGI was used to make Nicole Kidman’s false nose look flawless, but still. Major kudos to them.

Major kudos also goes to the editors. The director is telling three different stories, but he jumps around from story to story often. The editing had to make that feel seamless and show the parallels in the different stories. It was very well done.

The soundtrack was beautiful, a lovely piano score. I thought it sounded very similar to the music from The Truman Show; sure enough, Philip Glass did the scores for both. But even though it wasn’t the most original, it was so lovely that it made me want to find some sheet music and learn it.

The acting was excellent. Nicole Kidman completely inhabited Virginia Woolf. Julianne Moore played a frustrated 1950s housewife, and Meryl Streep gave a moving performance as the woman of today (or 2001. But that was today when the movie was made.). John C. Reilly played Moore’s incredibly devoted husband, and Ed Harris was a poet dying of AIDS, a former lover of Meryl Streep’s character. Miranda Richardson felt completely natural as Virginia Woolf’s sister Vanessa.

The Bad: This movie is based on a book (which I haven’t read, so I can’t compare anything), and it shows. All three main character women spend a lot of time staring into space. I’m sure that in the novel, they are having deep thoughts, but those thoughts don’t always make it across on the screen. That got annoying.

I also felt like the three stories didn’t fit together as well as they should. Meryl Streep’s character had many parallels to Mrs. Dalloway, even down to the names, and her story dovetailed neatly with Julianne Moore’s, but the only connection that Julianne Moore had to Virginia Woolf was that she was reading Mrs. Dalloway, and I wanted it to be better than that.

The Ugly: Confession time: I struggle with depression. I have been suicidal in the past. I am a woman who doesn’t quite fit in her society. And even with all that, I never felt a deep connection with this movie. Maybe it was because we couldn’t get a deep look at these women’s inner thoughts, but it felt so shallow. The only woman I really felt like we got a good, sympathetic look at was Virginia Woolf; I would have happily watched an entire Virginia Woolf biopic starring Nicole Kidman and Stephen Dillane because they were the only very well-developed characters. That shouldn’t happen in a character-driven movie.

Oscars Won: Best actress in a leading role (Nicole Kidman).

Other Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best actor in a supporting role (Ed Harris); best actress in a supporting role (Julianne Moore); best director; best writing, adapted screenplay; best costume design; best film editing; best music, original score.

Category:

Drama, Historical

Tagged with:

Gangs of New York (2002)

gangsofnyDirected by Martin Scorsese

There were two discs in the DVD case when I picked this movie up from the library, but I figured that one was the movie and one had special features like most DVDs do. Nope! I was wrong. For whatever reason, this movie is spread over two DVDs, with parts of the movie and special features on both discs. Yes, Gangs of New York is a long movie, but it’s shorter than Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line, and they each managed to be on one disc. I kind of get the feeling that whoever made that decision wanted to make the movie feel more epic, but it really just made it seem long.

So what’s the story? In New York City in 1846, two rival gangs battle it out for supremacy. Bill the Butcher, the leader of the American-born Natives, kills the Priest, leader of the Irish Dead Rabbits. Sixteen years later, Amsterdam, the son of the Priest, comes back for revenge.

The Good: The set direction was fabulous. Every little detail combined to make me feel like I had been transported back to the 1860s. I thought the costume design was good, too, but this movie made me realize that I know very little about historical clothing when it comes to the poor, so I could be wrong on this one. But I can’t imagine anyone would put men in those ridiculously ugly plaid trousers unless it was accurate.

The story was good one. Revenge plots are always exciting, and there were some good moments where Amsterdam struggled between admiration of Bill the Butcher and his desire for revenge.

The best acting in the movie was done by men in supporting roles. The standout actor was Brendan Gleeson. He didn’t have a lot of screen time in his role as an Irish mercenary unaffiliated with any gang, but he played his part so convincingly. His scenes were among the best in the movie. Jim Broadbent as real-life corrupt politician Boss Tweed was hilarious, and Gary Lewis made a very intense Irishman in the wrong gang. The only lead actor who did a very good job was Daniel Day-Lewis. His performance was sometimes over the top, but so was his gang-leader character, so it worked.

The Bad: Leonardo DiCaprio. His acting wasn’t terrible all the time, but his Irish accent came and went, especially when he narrated. Were there no actors that were actually Irish that could have played the part? It would have helped a lot.

The story followed Amsterdam as he followed his plan to get revenge on Bill the Butcher. Everything led up to that, and then the climax was actually about the New York City draft riots of 1863. Yes, the draft and the dissatisfaction of the poor people about it were touched on throughout the movie, but not enough for it to be the climax. I thought that that was kind of sloppy storytelling. Also, sixteen years after 1846 would have been 1862, not 1863, so they got their year wrong, too.

Also, what were so many Chinese people doing in New York in the 1860s? Especially Chinese women? That rang false. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Chinese immigrants on the West Coast at the time, but I don’t think there were very many in New York.

The Ugly: When I told my younger brother about my quest to watch these movies, he said he’d seen some nominees from 2002 and that Gangs of New York was a pretty good movie – except Cameron Diaz ruined it. Now that I’ve seen it, I have to agree. I feel like Amsterdam was so focused on revenge that he wouldn’t have the emotion left over to fall in love. If he did fall in love, it would have to be with someone amazing. Cameron Diaz never made me feel like Jenny Everdeane was anything special. She spent most of the movie looking either smug or confused. Maybe another actress could have done a better job, but since Cameron Diaz was chosen, that part of the story should have been left out altogether.

Speaking of leaving things out…This movie is almost three hours long, and I felt every second of it. It actually took me over four and half hours to watch because I kept falling asleep and having to find my place again. Granted, I had a cold, but still. Other three-hour movies have managed to keep my attention. Saving Private Ryan is actually a little bit longer than Gangs of New York, but I was surprised to find that out because the time flies by in Saving Private Ryan. I’m not asking for non-stop action; I like character development and plot intricacies. But this movie had too many scenes that didn’t move the action along or even really develop the characters. It needed to be cut down.

Oscars Won: None

Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best actor in a leading role (Daniel Day-Lewis); best director; best writing, original screenplay; best cinematography; best art direction – set direction; best costume design; best film editing; best sound; best music, original song (“The Hands That Built America”).

Category:

Drama, Historical

Tagged with: