2004: The Year that Peter Pan Toured Wine Country and Went Blind

So I'm thinking about changing the name of this blog from "The Internal Workings of the Greatest Mind Alive Today (Excluding Fictional Characters)" to "The Adventures of the Greatest Mind Alive Today as He Journeys Deep into the Academy's Heart of Darkness (and Through Time)." I figure that after the 27 years it takes me to finish the Best Picture nominees, I'll change it back. Also, if all goes well this blog entry will go up on the same day as my 2005 one, so maybe people will ignore the 2005 one and not stone me to death. Which, of course, makes people go look at it. Kind of like how I wanted to write a book on how to write an A paper on a novel without reading the novel, but then I realized that my target audience wouldn't read my book.

2004 was awesome. There's nary a film in the bunch that I don't like. So this will probably be boring, because ripping on stuff is more fun (just wait for 2003, that Bill Murray movie will be shown no mercy). But let's start things off with The Aviator. I actually haven't seen this movie since it came out, which is unfortunate because I feel like I'd get a lot more out of it now. It was, in fact, my first Scorsese movie. Which is a bit odd because it's probably the least Scorsese-y (please don't say that out loud, it's even more ridiculous. People are staring at me) of all of his movies. In that no one gets shot, punched, etc. There's more of a musical score (composed by the excellent Howard Shore of LOTR fame) than most of his movies, and some of the filmmaking techniques are very unlike him in a really good way. For instance, aspects of the film itself reflect films in general for the time periods depicted. Wow, that sounded confusing. Let me try again: as time goes on in the movie, films evolved, and the way the movie is made evolves with them. So at one point in the movie, peas appear blue instead of green. This is accurate to the film stock of the time. The general atmosphere and tone of the conversations within the film also reflect the films of the time. This is part of what helps to take the film above being just a character study. As some may recall, my complaints pertaining to The Queen and Capote were that the films were good only because of the lead performance. But this movie isn't like that at all, the directing, writing, and supporting cast are all quite excellent. The fact that I remember so much about the movie having seen it only once 5 years ago, is a real testament to how good it is. And unlike other biopics, it doesn't leave you with any particular hope for the future. Most movies would end it on a positive note and then have a caption that says: "Howard Hughes eventually fell back into his reclusive lifestyle and then died that way in 19xx." And you go: "hmm that's sad. But what a good movie!" This film doesn't do that at all, it ends with him repeating "the way of the future" in front of the mirror over and over again, and you know just from the way it ends that things weren't going to go well for him. I don't think it's a better movie than the film that won, but it's definitely a close second.

Another movie I haven't seen since I saw it over five years ago (I am getting old) is Finding Neverland. It's not in the same caliber as some of the other nominees, but it's really good. It's a sweet, uplifting movie. It deals with somewhat heavy issues, but it's more about redemption and acceptance than dwelling on said issues. The film is another biopic of sorts (there were 3 of them nominated in this year) but much like the first one I mentioned it's filmed and treated more like a fictional story than a biopic. Which is appropriate because it centers around J.M. Barry, who created Peter Pan. The movie is more than just a biopic, it explores the effect that fiction has on people. Within the film, Neverland isn't just a place that he created for a story, it's a place that he escapes to in his mind to get away from the troubles of real life. And this world becomes the only solace for some children whose mother is dying. The movie is cleverly directed, well-written, and certainly well-acted by Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet (as though they've ever not done a good job in their lives). There's not really any deeper meaning to the film, nor does there need to be, but it's very well-delivered and enjoyable. And even though I like intense, depressing movies because they're often the most interesting and powerful, it's very refreshing to see a movie nominated that is sweet and nice and rated PG. And I'm being completely serious when I say that, because a movie shouldn't have to be sad to be good. And by means of an entertaining side note, I saw this movie with my Creative Writing teacher and we had quite a good time (any talent I might accidentally have is because of her and some other teachers I had through the years). And at one point in the movie when Johnny Depp's wife is shown sleeping separately from him, my teacher leaned over to me and said, "is she crazy? That's Johnny Depp!" It was pretty much the greatest thing ever. I added this anecdote after writing the next paragraph so the segue that once existed is now dead.

Actually, other than the winner and The Aviator, pretty much all of the movies from this year are fairly uplifting. At least as compared to other years. The third film on the list is yet another biopic (I'm really tired of writing that word), but it's the only one I'd actually call a biopic: Ray. This movie is a classic example of a movie that gives you exactly what you're expecting, but you still really enjoy it and it's still really well done. And Jamie Foxx (who up until this and Collateral was only in crap movies) gives a truly great performance as Ray Charles. He went so far as to wear contacts that actually made him blind during filming. Now, I can't even pretend to be too familiar with the mannerisms and voice characteristics of the real Ray Charles, because I'm only moderately familiar with them. But according to my dad, Jamie Foxx had it pretty much spot on. But even aside from the performance, it's a well done movie. It has a big supporting cast, all of which do a great job, and it tells a very human story with his triumphs and defeats. And during the portions of his life that involved drug abuse and philandering, the movie doesn't really portray him in either a sympathetic or a negative way, just a very real way. It's certainly better than most biopics I've seen, and I know it was a real passion project for the director (who had the rights for like 15 years before finally getting the movie made). The movie flirts with being a performance-based situation, but overall I do think there were enough other elements at play to warrant the nomination.

A movie I wasn't planning on enjoying was Sideways. But I definitely did. From the previews, all I saw was a movie that was focused on wine (a beverage I don't enjoy) and somehow Sandra Oh was involved and she frightens me. But, the list demanded that I watch it. So I specifically chose a time to watch it when I knew I'd have to split it in two parts, because I thought it'd be painful. Instead, I ended up cursing my decision after the opening scene. The movie is quirky in all the best ways, it has some real heart and character development in between the humor (as all good comedies should), and Sandra Oh is mercifully not in it as much as I thought. But Virginia Madsen is and she's adorable. The movie really ends up being almost entirely about the characters, and how Paul Giamatti's character is living the life that Thomas Haden Church's character would like to be living and vice versa. Paul's character is recently divorced with nothing better to do with his time than drink wine and try to have his book published (to no avail). Thomas' character is getting married to a (presumably) wonderful woman and settling down, and he hates it. The result is a slightly dark buddy movie with some really great writing (the scenes involving characters describing their favorite wines as though they were describing themselves are especially good) and an uplifting ending that thankfully avoids being cheesy. So I'd like to point out that this is yet another movie I expected to dislike and liked, which means that when I tell you something is crap that I expected to be crap I'm not being facetious (well, I am. But I'm not being superfluous. Or ostentatious).

Well, the winner for this year wasn't really a buddy movie, or uplifting. Nor was it particularly inspiring...in fact it was pretty depressing. But it's really freaking good. I'm talking, of course, about Million Dollar Baby. I love Clint Eastwood as an action hero, I love him even more as a director. The man has aged better than pretty much anybody. Not in the way he looks exactly (not to insult the man of course, because I'd rather not get lucky punk'ed). I'm talking about how he's transitioned from being a young action star to being the intense and awesome old guy. He's not trying to be the same thing he was thirty years ago (Roger Moore should have learned this lesson before his seventh Bond movie, or his first really) he's adapting to his age and making it work for him. And the man can really direct. As I mentioned in my 2005 post, the film is written by Paul Haggis who does a quite excellent job. For those unaware of the controversy surrounding the film, (spoilers ahead!) it starts out as a boxing movie and becomes a film dealing with the issue of euthanasia (oh no...I'm having serious 2005 blog post flashbacks here). But instead of making it about the issue itself in a larger sense, it becomes about the characters' feelings toward it and their feelings toward each other. And the movie is largely about people who are past their prime. Her character simply wanted to die when she was still in her prime, and not continue on to, in many ways, become someone who was once great and now wipes the floors (like Morgan Freeman's character). Or even worse than that: left unmoving in a bed with naught but her memories. But the movie doesn't really put forth a political position, if you ask me. As Clint himself said, "I went around shooting people with a .44 Magnum in a lot of my movies, but I don't exactly think that should be done in real life." So I think people kind of missed the point of the film, which is a shame because I'd say it is easily one of the decade's best. And I like that it starts out as a sports movie and then changes forms. Because that allows you to be jolted in much the same way that the characters were by the turn of events. In addition to the excellent directing and writing, the cast is also outstanding and both Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman received Oscars for their performances. As a side note, I'm not sure why but the fact that Clint's character has a dark past that's never fully revealed is something else I really liked. It brings that extra sense of realism to the film. Rarely do I end up enjoying a movie far more than I thought I would, but this was the case here.

Well, that's 2004. The next year is the best of them all. And why? Because it's the year LOTR won. The year of victory. And sure some other stuff was nominated that year too, but who cares? And yes I'll talk about them too, but what's the point? Well, if all I ever did was watch stuff that was as good as LOTR then that's all I'd ever watch pretty much. So I'll give the rest of them a good write-up too, unless they don't deserve one (a clue: one of them does not. Like, at all). So by means of a preview, the next blog will include Spider-Man riding a horse, Robin Hood sailing a ship, and Black Widow nonsensically falling for one of the Ghostbusters.