The first post of course being about Lost. The finale of that show of course being the only highlight of 2010. The major suckage of that year has come back for vengeance in the form of last night's winners. Well, some of them. Truthfully, this is one of the very best selections of Best Picture nominees ever (since 1968 anyway). And it's feasible that I've seen more BP nominees through the years than the voters, no joke. I highly enjoyed most of these films but I am once again upset with the Academy. First off, that they'd favor a "feel-good movie" in tough economic times rather than what is artistically the best. Second off, that they're so high on themselves to think that anyone with no job and several kids would actually feel better about their lives because some British people got a golden statue of a dude with no face. In case you hadn't already guessed it, this post will be extra loooooooooooooooong with 10 nominees that I feel passionate about so grab some refreshments and prepare for the mother of all Oscar posts.
We start things off with one of my top films of the year, Black Swan. What an outstanding and disturbing picture. It's one of the few movies I've seen in recent years (and by that I mean since 2001 or so) that actually shocked me and freaked me out a little. Part of that comes from the major emotional investment you feel toward the movie almost immediately. And that is almost entirely due to Natalie Portman's incredible performance which rightfully netted her Best Actress last night. The amount of emotional depth she displayed with her facial expressions alone should have guaranteed it. There's one scene in particular where she's calling her mother to tell her she got the lead role in "Swan Lake" and all at once her face is frightened, excited, anxious, fulfilled, and in short: conflicted. She's overjoyed that she got the role she's been working toward for her entire life but she's worried she'll screw it up and disappoint her obsessive mother (who brings all new meanings to the phrase "living vicariously through your children"). That scene alone was enough to convince me that if she didn't win I'd have to Hulk out on the Academy. But I should also point out that Darren Aronofsky, a disgustingly overlooked director, does his best work in this film. Both he and Portman do the "normal person slowly going crazy" better than I've ever seen it. Because her transformation is so subtle that you almost don't notice it happening. The easiest way to pinpoint it is her changing wardrobe: early on in the movie she wears white, then she wears gray for a little bit, and then black near the end. Add to that Clint Mansell's score, a backward and disturbed version of the "Swan Lake" music, and you've got a highly impressive piece of filmmaking. It's not for the queasy or the prude but if you can sit through it without getting nightmares you'll be blown away. Even if you're probably also a little depressed.
A film I'm almost completely unenthusiastic about is The Fighter. I don't think it's a bad movie at all. I just don't think it's very good either. It's pretty much every boxing movie ever except the boxer isn't persevering for reasons you can really root for. The reasons are: "my brother was supposed to be the boxer but he's a crack addict and my mother was shrill and Boston-y enough when she yelled at me repeatedly that I need to be a fighter just to shut her up and get in Amy Adams' pants." For the record, that last bit is a totally legitimate reason for training to be a boxer. But the rest of it is in reference to the two Supporting performance winners of this year. One very deserving and the other not so much. Christian Bale steals the whole movie as the brother who went wrong, Dick Eklund. He's not in it enough (I thought) and after a whole lot of films through the years that he's completely absorbed into himself, I'm glad he was finally rewarded. But Melissa Leo basically just gets up and shrieks. The real Oscar should go to whoever used makeup and costumes to turn that gorgeous woman into a scary mother of half of Boston. You'd barely recognize her. She gave a good performance but if I hadn't been watching the movie with her nomination in mind, I wouldn't have walked away from the movie remembering her. And they completely overlooked Mark Wahlberg who was just as good as anybody else in the movie (except Bale of course) and that's saying something since Mark is usually kinda meh. Not to say the performance was worthy of recognition but neither was Adams' or Leo's. And I normally love Amy Adams but in this movie she was just annoying. So I guess you could say it was impressive that adorable and lovable Amy Adams transformed into somewhat-skanky bar chick, but then you might as well give an Oscar to most college girls. So to sum it up: take your standard boxing movie, make it slightly more realistic and a whole lot more boring and uninteresting and you've got this film.
On the other hand, in a perfect world the Best Picture would be Inception. And I know you might be thinking that I'm only saying that because I'm a total sci-fi dork, and that's somewhat true. But I'm also saying it as a person who (as you can see on the sidebar) has seen a freaking lot of movies, including a freaking lot of Oscar nominees. This film is an incredible juggling act between tons of genres, multiple storylines, and various "meanings" that it holds as a film. All the while simply being a personal story about a father who wants to see his kids again and is trying to deal with the death of his wife. I'll try not to go into too much of this, lest you venture into several dream levels yourself. To begin, let me address a criticism of the film. That being the fact that it only focuses on developing Leo's character and not the others. That's true, and it does it very well. And how is this different from a ton of other movies? How many characters are truly developed in Slumdog Millionaire? Mostly just the main guy, and to a lesser extent his brother. Even an all-time great like The Godfather mostly focuses on the development of Michael. He's the only one that really changes during the movie. And there's nothing wrong with that! As long as you believe a character can be real and that they would do what they're doing, it's fine. I think people were intrigued by the characters in Inception due to the intriguing nature of the film and simply wanted to see more of everything. Right then, let's get to it. This movie is almost perfectly paced. It doesn't waste a single scene. Every scene is giving you information and doing it in a natural way. People talk about how confusing it was but I think most people come away from it understanding it. And considering how stupid a lot of filmgoers are (some people asked me if Natalie Portman actually turned into a giant swan, no joke), I think that's saying something. It exhilirates you with every scene like an action movie does, without having needless action. Ironically, if you removed the action from the movie it might have been a contender for BP. The more gunfire a movie has, the farther down its chances go. I'm convinced that if Casino Royale was the same exact movie but without the extended chase sequences and fight scenes, it would've gotten nominated. Because all that would remain is character study. Well the character study is still there! It shouldn't be devalued by the excitement. Same goes for this movie. In addition to the pacing, the script is genius and Hans Zimmer's score is amazing. I'm really starting to ramble here, but that's just how much is packed into the movie. Don't get me started on how much Nolan was snubbed by not even being nominated, and his snubbing at not winning Screenplay. So that's all I'll say on that. Because after crafting a sci-fi/action/character study/psychological thriller that's also a movie about the nature of making movies and how we as audiences have ideas planted in our minds by the fictional things we consume on a daily basis in much the same way and also a movie that visualizes our inner emotional baggage and how it can consume our waking and working lives while also somehow including a fight scene in zero gravity you'd think A BROTHER COULD GET A NOMINATION. So that's all I'll say on that. So Academy: don't make Nolan the next Hitchcock. Because he's already getting there talent-wise, and he doesn't need the award-snubbing part. But if you take nothing else away, take this: Ellen Page is totally hot sporting the pantsuit, not sure why.
As my adrenaline levels lower I will tell you about The Kids Are All Right. I had mixed feelings about this movie. On one hand I was pleasantly surprised by this movie and sweet lordy is this only the fourth movie on the list? I've lost five pounds writing this. Anyway, on the other hand it's still a little bit too much of a stereotypical Indie picture. My good friend Kyle described another film as "trying too hard to be quirky" and that's what I'd say about this movie. It's about (married? Domestic partnered?) lesbians who each gave birth to a child from the same sperm donor. Those kids are grown up and want to meet their father so they seek him out and it's Mark Ruffalo. You can't get much quirkier than that. And so I enjoy that aspect of it, and I thought the dialogue was especially good, but then it gets kind of dark. Or perhaps I should say emotional. The one lesbian starts banging Mark Ruffalo for whatever reason and then everybody hates poor Mark. So they seeked him out and essentially forced him into their lives and then they forced him out at the end because he was "wanted to feel like a father too badly and it was needy." Umm...he didn't go looking for you. So I feel like it took what was essentially a really fun concept and what it became was a quirky Indie film inside of a serious Indie film and that doesn't flow. And where were all the whiners saying it was portraying lesbians as dysfunctional and bi-curious? I guess they were happy enough that a movie would portray a lesbian couple at all, who didn't try to kill each other or anyone else, and just went with it. Or maybe since it also has the rarity of being co-written and directed by a woman that they really didn't want to taint that. Anyway, it's an interesting film and I certainly enjoyed it for the most part but at the end of the day I'm not sure it was about much of anything other than to say "lesbians can be dysfunctional and have adventures too."
A movie that should be differently placed in an alphabetical list but Wikipedia feels like being weird is 127 Hours. Now this is a pretty great movie. And James Franco quite literally carries almost the entire thing by himself. Most of its 94 minutes are spent with him pinned to a rock but its somehow enthralling. And I love Colin Firth but this was the Best Actor of the year. And I don't love Tom Hooper but this is how you make a movie with few set pieces and characters interesting as a director. Although I didn't totally love Danny Boyle's directing in this movie it's still very good. Some of the colors are a little distracting at times but overall it's very well-shot. I had a very interesting experience watching the movie in that the whole time I was thinking, "well James Franco is doing a great job but...meh. I already know he cuts his arm off so...meh." And then at the moment when his soon-to-be-rescuers are walking away from him and he uses what's left of his energy to cry out for help, I just lost it. I loved the whole rest of the movie because of that scene and how it transformed everything you'd just been through. Because his character (who is also a real person of course) has to regain the will to live throughout the film. It probably occurred to him way earlier to cut off his arm, but he kind of wanted to die. He had lived his life as a daredevil because he wanted to feel something but he never did. Then he realized everything his life could be and that he was in a prison of his own making (both emotionally and physically) so he wanted to cut out the part of him that was holding him back and keep the rest. So when he cries out for help at the end, it was so emotional because he was proclaiming to the world that he wanted to live. He was acknowledging his own weakness and mortality. And ever since then he's been living his life to the fullest, with every cliché that entails. But they never put it in those words. They show it to you. That's the difference between crap filmmakers/screenwriters and great ones. It's certainly not a movie for the faint and definitely not for the claustrophobic but if you can stomach it then you'll have a pretty great experience.
The movie that I thought could prevent the crowning of the King is The Social Network. Easily my second favorite of the nominees (tied with Black Swan) this film is an outstanding example of how to balance current relevance with lasting relevance. Because on its surface it's about Facebook. Something that will either A) fly too close to the sun and destroy itself in a few years or B) become so ingrained in the culture that it will no longer fascinate people. It's probably already at that second point, so if it was simply "the story of the founding of Facebook" then it'd be mildly entertaining. But the script is incredible, even by Aaron Sorkin's high standards, and mercifully won Adapted Screenplay. As soon as the opening scene started up, I became depressed. Because I can't write like that. No human being should be able to write that well. It's funny, it's sad, and it sets up the main character perfectly. What follows is an entire movie's worth of amazing dialogue and sadly overlooked directing from David Fincher. Even the British gave their award to David Fincher! When the British ignore the British director of the British movie about the British King and give an award to David Fincher that's when you know the Academy dropped the freaking ball. But anyway, what elevates this movie to the level of "lasting relevance" is the subtext. This is how you successfully fictionalize reality. Making real people into characters without going overboard. Because even though Mark Zuckerberg is portrayed as a genius who's also a jerk, at the end of the day he's just a guy who had his heart broken and wanted to feel relevant. His intelligence made him an outcast and so he invented a website that made everyone part of something. But he can never get his girlfriend back, so none of that really matters. Then there are the twins whose idea he "stole." Mark himself articulates the fact that they're really just upset that after a lifetime of having everything go their way they had finally hit a snag. When they decide to sue him they don't say "let's get our idea back" or even "let's get the money we deserve" they say "let's gut the nerd." They're upset because they're jocks (albeit rowing jocks) and they've been upstaged by the very type of person they'd been taking advantage of since kindergarten. Suddenly the source of their self-worth was gone. Perhaps the most tragic character of the piece though is Mark's best friend Eduardo. It was his money and his emotional support that made Facebook possible. For all intents and purposes, their relationship is like an abusive couple. Eduardo gives Mark everything and puts up with his crap and Mark just uses him. Andrew Garfield's excellent and sadly un-nominated performance as Eduardo is the emotional core of the movie. With all of the big business storylines and tort law flying about, he reminds us that the driving force of the film is a toxic friendship. Something that far too many of us can recognize. And yet with all that subtext and all that zeitgeist and all that dialogue I guess there weren't enough disabled people or World War outbreaks to get the film anywhere.
The only thing that made me cry more than last night's results was Toy Story 3. One of only three (that I can think of) final installments of a trilogy to be nominated for Best Picture. And it's in good company. Along with the first two movies, this once again proves the power and potential of the animated film. I long for the day when an animated movie wins Best Picture. Because it'll be when people realize that it takes just as much, if not more, of the exact same skills to put together a movie of this magnitude. And lumping all animated films together into one is completely unfair. Would you put Pearl Harbor and Inglourious Basterds in the same league because they're both about World War II? If you answered yes then please keep it to yourself. Toys dealing with their increasing irrelevancy is just as relatable as people dealing with it. The first movie was about Andy's god-like relationship toward his toys and Woody's questions of irrelevancy. The second movie establishes the question of what will happen to the toys when their owner grows up. And the third movie finally delivers on all of that buildup. All three have very striking stories and imagery, even disturbing at times. The villains are also pretty messed up. The first villain was a foil for Andy: an evil boy named Sid who tortured his toys. That's pretty messed up. If the toys are sentient then Sid basically did Nazi experiments on his toys. The second villain was a toy who had been rejected by his owners and became bitter. He believed that their gods didn't really love them and that they had to take hold of their own destiny. The third villain is a similar story, but he's reached the end of the line. He's a verifiable mob boss who runs the show at a daycare center. There's a lot of interesting afterlife imagery in the third installment of the series. Some toys get to go play with the kids that treat them well and some are tortured and slobbered on by destructive toddlers. In describing the villain, Milton's quote that "it's better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" comes to mind. Of course, the movie is also really funny and really charming and has Flamenco Buzz Lightyear. And in addition to the afterlife overtones, it's also a prison escape movie in a lot of ways. Our heroes have hit rock bottom and it's their last chance to see their owner again. So there's way more emotional pull than most movies with real people. And the main villain's story is truly tragic. He even has a bit of a Vader-y turnaround at one point. All of this builds up to a sad but hopeful ending where the toys discover that even though Andy has moved on from playing with them, it doesn't mean he never loved them. I'm getting choked up just writing about it. I still haven't re-watched it even though I own it, because it'll turn me into an emotional mess. This is some serious stuff, so I'm glad the "genre" is rising in legitimacy.
On the other side of things, I was kind of underwhelmed by True Grit. I really liked it and I'll probably buy it. But it's not among the best Coen brothers movies, and not among the best Westerns either. When I was watching it I felt like it was interesting and definitely enjoyable and well-done but it didn't really do anything new. But none of this is really an insult, I'm simply surprised by how overwhelming the praise was when it came out. So I wish I had watched it before it got the rave reviews. The dialogue was really good, as per the Coens' usual standard, and the acting was also great. Hailee Steinfeld was especially amazing, and should've taken home the Supporting Actress award. Imagine if you're 13 years old and your first big acting job is in a Coen brothers movie and you're acting alongside Jeff Bridges (fresh off an Oscar win), Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin. That's pretty freaking intimidating. But she must be every bit as feisty and confident as her character because she totally nailed it. Anybody holding their own against Jeff Bridges deserves recognition, especially a 13-year-old girl in her first real role. But I guess the Academy figured she has plenty of years left to win. Which means that she, along with Nolan and James Franco, will probably win for something crappy when they're in their 60s to apologize for when they didn't win. On that note, this is sacrilege but I think Jeff Bridges was better than John Wayne. DISCLAIMER: I have not seen the original movie in its entirety. But anybody will tell you that Wayne's win that year was a bit of a "lifetime achievement" award. And Wayne was a larger-than-life type of guy, but the story is a little more on the funny side and I don't find John Wayne that funny. Mostly because I think John Wayne never found anything funny. He was a serious dude and he totally owned that. But for comedy I feel like it was almost demeaning because Wayne wasn't a comedic actor. Anyway, I recommend either film but I'd say that the new one is just a bit better. I'll have a more legit opinion when I watch the original in its entirety.
The underwhelming continues with Winter's Bone. I can't even call it underwhelming actually. Because I only use that term for movies that I still think hold merit. This movie has almost no merit. Aside from the fact that it stars Jennifer Lawrence, who does do a great job, and she's my new celebrity crush. She's also playing Mystique in X-Men: First Class, which I expect will be a sensory overload of gorgeous. January Jones as Emma Frost and Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique in the same movie? I won't be able to handle it without imbibing some sort of depressant beforehand. If it seems like I'm avoiding talking about this movie it's because I am. The entire movie could have been an interesting episode of CSI. Or an unusually well-put-together anti-drug commercial. It sounded really interesting to me when I read about it. The story revolves around a teenage girl in the Ozarks, which is apparently deep Meth lab territory, trying to find her father. She's fairly certain that he's dead but she needs to find out for sure because the court is repossessing their house due to her father skipping out on his court date. So she needs to either A) find him and force him to go to court or B) confirm he's dead and make the court date moot. Sounds pretty interesting right? A feisty and hot girl in her late teens braving the elements and staring down drug dealers for the sake of her family. Sounds like the beginning of a story that ends with, "and then Domenic prosecuted those responsible and married that girl." But it was just so...boring. "Braving the elements" actually entailed walking around town and asking, "where's my dad?" for an hour and thirty minutes. Then in the last ten minutes someone finally says, "I've been lying this whole time, I know right where he is and I'll take you to him." Umm...okay...so what was the point of all that? It wasn't like she put a legitimate push on her father's unsavory associates. She pretty much just annoyed them enough by asking ceaseless questions that they broke. I really wanted to like this movie, but I was also expecting something different. So maybe I'll re-watch it someday and see if I like it more. But for now, in a year mostly full of awesome and original films it was the year's most meh.
And now we at last reach this year's very VERY meh winner, The King's Speech. Really? Really Academy? I agreed with every single one of your last...15 winners. You were on such a good run. 15 years of excellent and original filmmaking and you give Best Picture to a freaking stage play. Don't get me wrong, if I saw this exact version on stage it'd be the best thing I've ever seen on stage in my life. Colin Firth does indeed do an excellent job, although Geoffrey Rush outdoes him I think, and it is a good movie. It really is. It's a nice little movie that's full of hope and promise and yadda yadda. But it's not about anything. He stutters and then he doesn't. That's the whole movie. Did Tom Hooper direct it about as well as it could have been directed with the script he was given? Certainly. But if we're giving out Oscars now based on "how well you do with what you have" standards then next year I want to see The Hangover II take it home. I mean, what more could you do with it? So give them an award! Oh wait, that's not what Best Director is supposed to be...and it won Screenplay too! 10 years of work on an exquisite screenplay got Nolan nothing. But apparently reading a story from a history book and giving it some dialogue is impressive. And I've always felt that screenplays based on real life should be counted as Adapted anyway. Because it's based on material already in existence. Life wrote it the first time, you're re-writing it. And Helena Bonham-Carter as the loving wife? Not that she did a bad job but when I see her I just think of the gazillion crazies that she's played. Perfect example of how someone can do a fine job but still be a bad choice for a role. Because it wasn't a demanding role so it should've been done by someone who hasn't actually baked people into pies and murdered Sirius Black. So there's nothing that's really wrong with this movie, but it gives you exactly what you expected. There were no lines where I said, "hmm that was an interesting thought." There was no scene where I was blown away by a performance or a shot choice or a piece of music. If this had come out in, say, 2005 or 2001 or something I'd say okay. But with the plethora of truly excellent films that were also nominated and bring SO much more to the table, this is just Hollywood being Hollywood. And I think people are getting sick of it. It wasn't just me who was using cynicism to predict it as the winner. Everyone else pointed out its combination of: handicapped character, biography, period piece, and World War II as being an Oscar grand slam. And an Academy that exists to reward creativity shouldn't be that predictable. So I can definitely recommend the movie, it's well done to be sure, but I am severely disappointed at the Academy. Especially over the Director nominees and winner this year. I think if they don't watch it they might find themselves on the wrong side of the daycare because we won't feel like playing with them anymore.
Well I hope you're as exhausted from reading this as I am writing it. It took me about three and a half hours, and I've spent it watching a truly absurd 1967 nominee. The whole situation is like a very unenjoyable dream. It's cloudy outside, I'm tired, I keep writing, and for some reason everyone in this movie is talking to animals. I was going to tip my hat to Inception today by watching it again but that might not be the best choice since I already feel like I'm dreaming. So I already made my snide jokes about the next blog entry, and all I know is it'll be much shorter and less exhausting than this one.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
1968: The Year that Spent Almost as Much Time in Intermission as It Did Singing
Seriously though. I could see a 3+ hour movie having an intermission but 2 hours and 18 minutes? That's when you know the source material is exhausting, but we'll get to that later. And a 2 1/2 hour movie with an intermission is pushing it too. There were literally 4 intermissions in this year. The reason I point this out is because I'm wondering if that was a thing in the 60s or if this particular year was just a fluke. When you've put up as many blog entries on this subject as I have, these are the types of inane things you start to wonder. This year had 1 good, 1 great, 1 bleh, 1 rant, and 1 mixed-meh. I'm thinking by the time I reach the end of my escapade those brief descriptions are all I'll feel like recording. Oh and on that subject, prepare for my blog entry next week on this current year's nominees! I'm waiting for the results to write it (I got caught up on all 10 weeks ago) so I can decide how pissed off to be. Anyway, get your head out of 2010 and put it in 1968.
Or I guess put it just around World War I for Funny Girl. This movie is about a million times better than Hello Dolly! and there's no superfluous exclamation point (that's a big plus). This is the other type of musical: the kind I do like. The singing is neither over-the-top nor extraneous. Nobody is singing about the sun being up or oxygen being in the air. It tells an actual story and is aided by singing flawlessly. Nothing against Gene Kelly, director of HD!, because I'm a fan of his. But his type of movie is meant for a normal film's running time (not a sword and sandals running time). The director of this movie is William Wyler, well known for directing 3 (count them: 3!) Best Picture winners and for being nominated for Best Director a record-setting 12 times. So like I said: nothing against Gene Kelly but it would seem that there was only one William Wyler. Not to say that this movie is one of his best efforts because it's not. That's not really an insult though, considering the competition. It's a charming film with some great musical numbers and (gasp!) a performance I quite enjoyed by Barbra Streisand. As I mentioned before: I dislike her. She is a prima donna like almost no other and that's usually only backed up by her outstanding voice and not her acting talent. But I give credit to those who deserve it and she certainly does for this movie. You can tell that she recognized with real-life funny girl Fanny Brice and was thus able to portray her in such a realistic way. She exemplifies the all-too-common story of the small town performer who hits the big time with questionable results. On one hand, becoming famous and making money is pretty great. It's actually really great. It's actually my life's goal. But if you keep that small town mentality then people can take advantage of you and you can forget that "all glory is fleeting." Only Patton reference in a Funny Girl review ever? I think so. Streisand keeps that wide-eyed, smoke-in-your-eyes...smoke-in-your-wide-eyes look on her face throughout most of the film. Which is pretty impressive since her ego wiped that look off of her real-life face years beforehand. You truly feel like she's having the time of her life through every bit of her career, to a point of course. I'm not sure how long the real-life Fanny Brice's career lasted, but the film ends at a point where her small town optimism is gone. And so the future of her career was really kind of irrelevant. Made that pretty depressing didn't I? Don't listen to me, it's an enjoyable movie and it's on Instant Watch so go check it out.
Something that should be depressing is The Lion in Winter, but it's really not. It is, however, fantastic. When that happens I translate "depressing" or "intense" into "powerful." It's filled to the brim with excellent actors, including premiere performances from Anthony Hopkins (who was great even at the beginning of his career) and Timothy Dalton (the most overlooked Bond of them all). Can you imagine if your first big acting gig was having to get up in Peter O'Toole's face and match his level of intensity? I'd need to be heavily medicated, perhaps not legally. But even in the midst of all of the great actors in the movie, Katharine Hepburn really steals the show as Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. She tied with Streisand that year for Best Actress, the first and only time this has happened in that category to date, and I can't say I disagree. Totally different performances but both excellent. Of course, if I had to side with anyone it would be Hepburn. Mostly because I often side with darker and more twisted performances (in case you hadn't noticed). The film is about the complicated relationship between all of the members of the Royal Family in the late 12th Century and the question of who should be next in the line of succession. Do I know anything about this period of history? Not particularly. Did I need to? Nope. That's how you do a freaking period piece! A real human drama that just happens to take place back in time. No Bachelor's Degree in History needed. The Award-winning score from John Barry doesn't hurt either. The overall plot can be described fairly briefly (check Wikipedia if you really want to) but the meat of the film is in the acting. And unlike other films where this applies: the directing, writing, etc. is up to the same standard. And while the script itself is inherently good, the actors really take it to the next level. There are lines in it that could easily be stupid if delivered differently but when Hepburn says them they are either hilarious, acerbic, or both. Usually both. By means of a similar example from a completely different movie (just because that's how I roll): when Daniel Craig survives an attempt on his life in Casino Royale and then returns to poker to say: "that last hand nearly killed me" it was totally badass. If Roger Moore had said it, it would have sucked. Timothy Dalton could have done it too (see what I did there to bring it back?) and why he didn't have more of a career than he did after his role in this movie as King Phillip is anyone's guess. Well I think I've salivated over this one enough. Forgive me, but it's been a while since I was this pleasantly surprised by a nominee.
Which must mean that I've just set up a segue to: the fact that I was unpleasantly unsurprised by Rachel, Rachel. I thought it would be stupid and it was. I'm really running out of things to say for these "character studies" that don't really go anywhere. So I'll just repeat what I've said all along: there's no point studying a character who is uninteresting. In this case the character is a thirty-something spinster with an overbearing mother whose only respite is her work. Wow, thanks for characterizing everyone's Aunt So-and-So, Cousin So-and-So, or Self So-and-S0. Everyone knows someone at least a little bit like that. So you either go the romantic comedy route and have that be a starting point for a heartwarming-yet-standard date movie, or you do what this movie did and bore everybody to tears. Here's my "tweet" of the movie: "Oh hey, it's sad to be a spinster. Oh hey, here's another thing that's sad. Oh hey, I get happy after the end credits but you can't watch." I just saved you about 100 minutes of your life, you're welcome. Of course it was the 60s and I suppose having a subplot about a closeted lesbian who is interested in the main character was socially conscious. And I suppose having an entire movie about an ordinary woman who breaks free of her humdrum life and empowers herself was a metaphor for the entire Sexual Revolution which was going on at the time. See? I get it! I just don't care. After all, I could make a movie about World War II that uses a metaphor of a supermarket with: an angry German kid stealing microwavable pierogi and Belgian waffles from the frozen foods section, doing terrible terrible things to loaves of Challah, and then finally being relocated to the parking lot by the American and British cashiers. But that wouldn't be particularly interesting. Nor would it be very funny if it was any longer than a Family Guy cutaway. Still, everything I've just described is far more interesting than whatever movie I'm supposed to be talking about.
Which brings me to the tangent to end all tangents on Romeo and Juliet. Of course, it'll really "end all tangents" about as much as either World War did for wars but whatever. First let's start with the positive: Nino Rota's score for this movie is fantastic and should have won the Oscar. It was the single high point of the movie and if I could watch it with just the music I would. The acting is good, the costumes are good, and even the choreography is good. It was adapted about as well as you could possibly adapt it. BUT all of that is based on what I feel is faulty source material. My dislike for Shakespeare in a WAY previous blog post is at least 90% hyperbole for humorous effect, but not in this case. For starters, I really don't buy the romance. The extent of his wooing of her is basically: he sees her at a party, he kisses her briefly, and now they have to be together forever. Or in the Shakespearean: "Her feet must be as tired as the sun is of setting, for she runneth through my mind all day. Henceforth, like the morning rain into mid-summer's lake: I too must tappeth that forever." They both almost immediately find out that they are from opposing families. Families that hate each other so much that several nonsensical swordfights break out between them over the course of the movie, just cuz. But so what if they spent their entire lives blindly hating each other? They can still love each other based on 3 minutes of random interaction right? I think not. It'd be like if the President of Israel's daughter saw the leader of Hezbollah's son at the market, neither knowing the other, and they fall in love because they both enjoy figs and shared a brief kiss over one. When their identities are revealed it's like: blood feud? Meh. Sounds like a pretty great dark comedy subplot actually. Which is how most of this movie/play is structured: like a comedy. And then it ends in tragedy. It'd be like having a Beverly Hills Cop movie where Eddie Murphy dies in the end. Bad example, because that'd be awesome. But I hope you see my point. I kind of feel like ole' Billy was contracted to do a starcrossed lovers story for the following weekend and this was what he came up with inbetween brothel visits. The level of quality (in my opinion anyway) between this and his other famous works is like the level of quality between Scorsese's Raging Bull and some other movie that Scorsese wouldn't even waste his time watching, let alone directing. Like Bad Boys. One qualm I do have with Zeffirelli himself (the director) and not the Bard is that he fought tooth and nail to be able to show 15-year-old Juliet's breasts in one scene. A bit of nudity that lasts about a quarter of a second. Know who fights tooth and nail to show an underage girl naked, "in the name of art," for a scene that barely even exists? Douchey arthouse directors, that's who. But I didn't get that vibe from him for the rest of the movie so we'll let it pass I guess. Plus it provides an amusing anecdote about how actress Olivia Hussey wasn't allowed to see her own movie because her own naked breasts were in it for a quarter of a second. I find that entertaining. I am being a bit unfair on purpose, but only because hating on Shakespeare is good for getting death threats and concordantly publicity. Also because my thoughts are legit and probably more common than one might think. Hopefully my escapade will lead me toward something worthwhile that I can say positive things about, like "Richard III" or "Henry V."
Which brings me at last to this year's winner: Oliver! I hate those exclamation marks, I really do. But I like this movie overall. It's kind of an amalgamation between the two types of musicals. Because though most of the songs are personal and important to the plot, there's also an overblown dancing and singing sequence that literally stems from the minor plot progression that several characters are going outside. That song and the staging of "Consider Yourself" were the only two that really bothered me. Oh, and one other one that might have been about recreational drugs. Or life contentment or something. But "Consider Yourself" has another one of my musical pet peeves in it: random people on the street singing and dancing with the main characters as though they're omnisciently aware of the main story. Not to mention the musical and lyrical delivery of said story. Musical numbers should be held to only a few people, unless it's a whole crowd of similarly minded people singing like in certain "Les Misérables" scenes. I also found it funny that Oliver was more of a side character in the movie than anything else. They would sometimes cut to him making a facial expression during another character's solo just to remind us that he was there. But that's just as well since he's not as interesting as some of the other people I suppose. Over-the-top staging or not, all of the songs are really good. And the sets are particularly amazing and far more intricate than the sets of most movies (especially today). They created almost an entire town for the movie. Well, a small town. But still! It really adds to the experience because it gives you the continuity of a set you'd see on Broadway while also retaining the size and scope of a film. I'd say more but I've tangented quite a bit today so I'll leave it there. That's my clever way of saying, "I have nothing left to say about this picture."
Well that's it for 1968, a fairly jejune year as they go. But I was twice pleasantly surprised and that hardly ever happens. I have 4 movies for 1967 left to watch so it's likely that my next entry will be for 2010 instead. So that means I have no idea what I'll be writing about next! All I can say is it might include Freudian bankrobbers, a precursor to sub-par Eddie Murphy movies, and the original MILF. But it's more likely that it will include a vengeful 14-year-old girl, Spider-Man's adventures with the Internet, and that porn with "a little production value" that Michael Cera told us about.
Or I guess put it just around World War I for Funny Girl. This movie is about a million times better than Hello Dolly! and there's no superfluous exclamation point (that's a big plus). This is the other type of musical: the kind I do like. The singing is neither over-the-top nor extraneous. Nobody is singing about the sun being up or oxygen being in the air. It tells an actual story and is aided by singing flawlessly. Nothing against Gene Kelly, director of HD!, because I'm a fan of his. But his type of movie is meant for a normal film's running time (not a sword and sandals running time). The director of this movie is William Wyler, well known for directing 3 (count them: 3!) Best Picture winners and for being nominated for Best Director a record-setting 12 times. So like I said: nothing against Gene Kelly but it would seem that there was only one William Wyler. Not to say that this movie is one of his best efforts because it's not. That's not really an insult though, considering the competition. It's a charming film with some great musical numbers and (gasp!) a performance I quite enjoyed by Barbra Streisand. As I mentioned before: I dislike her. She is a prima donna like almost no other and that's usually only backed up by her outstanding voice and not her acting talent. But I give credit to those who deserve it and she certainly does for this movie. You can tell that she recognized with real-life funny girl Fanny Brice and was thus able to portray her in such a realistic way. She exemplifies the all-too-common story of the small town performer who hits the big time with questionable results. On one hand, becoming famous and making money is pretty great. It's actually really great. It's actually my life's goal. But if you keep that small town mentality then people can take advantage of you and you can forget that "all glory is fleeting." Only Patton reference in a Funny Girl review ever? I think so. Streisand keeps that wide-eyed, smoke-in-your-eyes...smoke-in-your-wide-eyes look on her face throughout most of the film. Which is pretty impressive since her ego wiped that look off of her real-life face years beforehand. You truly feel like she's having the time of her life through every bit of her career, to a point of course. I'm not sure how long the real-life Fanny Brice's career lasted, but the film ends at a point where her small town optimism is gone. And so the future of her career was really kind of irrelevant. Made that pretty depressing didn't I? Don't listen to me, it's an enjoyable movie and it's on Instant Watch so go check it out.
Something that should be depressing is The Lion in Winter, but it's really not. It is, however, fantastic. When that happens I translate "depressing" or "intense" into "powerful." It's filled to the brim with excellent actors, including premiere performances from Anthony Hopkins (who was great even at the beginning of his career) and Timothy Dalton (the most overlooked Bond of them all). Can you imagine if your first big acting gig was having to get up in Peter O'Toole's face and match his level of intensity? I'd need to be heavily medicated, perhaps not legally. But even in the midst of all of the great actors in the movie, Katharine Hepburn really steals the show as Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. She tied with Streisand that year for Best Actress, the first and only time this has happened in that category to date, and I can't say I disagree. Totally different performances but both excellent. Of course, if I had to side with anyone it would be Hepburn. Mostly because I often side with darker and more twisted performances (in case you hadn't noticed). The film is about the complicated relationship between all of the members of the Royal Family in the late 12th Century and the question of who should be next in the line of succession. Do I know anything about this period of history? Not particularly. Did I need to? Nope. That's how you do a freaking period piece! A real human drama that just happens to take place back in time. No Bachelor's Degree in History needed. The Award-winning score from John Barry doesn't hurt either. The overall plot can be described fairly briefly (check Wikipedia if you really want to) but the meat of the film is in the acting. And unlike other films where this applies: the directing, writing, etc. is up to the same standard. And while the script itself is inherently good, the actors really take it to the next level. There are lines in it that could easily be stupid if delivered differently but when Hepburn says them they are either hilarious, acerbic, or both. Usually both. By means of a similar example from a completely different movie (just because that's how I roll): when Daniel Craig survives an attempt on his life in Casino Royale and then returns to poker to say: "that last hand nearly killed me" it was totally badass. If Roger Moore had said it, it would have sucked. Timothy Dalton could have done it too (see what I did there to bring it back?) and why he didn't have more of a career than he did after his role in this movie as King Phillip is anyone's guess. Well I think I've salivated over this one enough. Forgive me, but it's been a while since I was this pleasantly surprised by a nominee.
Which must mean that I've just set up a segue to: the fact that I was unpleasantly unsurprised by Rachel, Rachel. I thought it would be stupid and it was. I'm really running out of things to say for these "character studies" that don't really go anywhere. So I'll just repeat what I've said all along: there's no point studying a character who is uninteresting. In this case the character is a thirty-something spinster with an overbearing mother whose only respite is her work. Wow, thanks for characterizing everyone's Aunt So-and-So, Cousin So-and-So, or Self So-and-S0. Everyone knows someone at least a little bit like that. So you either go the romantic comedy route and have that be a starting point for a heartwarming-yet-standard date movie, or you do what this movie did and bore everybody to tears. Here's my "tweet" of the movie: "Oh hey, it's sad to be a spinster. Oh hey, here's another thing that's sad. Oh hey, I get happy after the end credits but you can't watch." I just saved you about 100 minutes of your life, you're welcome. Of course it was the 60s and I suppose having a subplot about a closeted lesbian who is interested in the main character was socially conscious. And I suppose having an entire movie about an ordinary woman who breaks free of her humdrum life and empowers herself was a metaphor for the entire Sexual Revolution which was going on at the time. See? I get it! I just don't care. After all, I could make a movie about World War II that uses a metaphor of a supermarket with: an angry German kid stealing microwavable pierogi and Belgian waffles from the frozen foods section, doing terrible terrible things to loaves of Challah, and then finally being relocated to the parking lot by the American and British cashiers. But that wouldn't be particularly interesting. Nor would it be very funny if it was any longer than a Family Guy cutaway. Still, everything I've just described is far more interesting than whatever movie I'm supposed to be talking about.
Which brings me to the tangent to end all tangents on Romeo and Juliet. Of course, it'll really "end all tangents" about as much as either World War did for wars but whatever. First let's start with the positive: Nino Rota's score for this movie is fantastic and should have won the Oscar. It was the single high point of the movie and if I could watch it with just the music I would. The acting is good, the costumes are good, and even the choreography is good. It was adapted about as well as you could possibly adapt it. BUT all of that is based on what I feel is faulty source material. My dislike for Shakespeare in a WAY previous blog post is at least 90% hyperbole for humorous effect, but not in this case. For starters, I really don't buy the romance. The extent of his wooing of her is basically: he sees her at a party, he kisses her briefly, and now they have to be together forever. Or in the Shakespearean: "Her feet must be as tired as the sun is of setting, for she runneth through my mind all day. Henceforth, like the morning rain into mid-summer's lake: I too must tappeth that forever." They both almost immediately find out that they are from opposing families. Families that hate each other so much that several nonsensical swordfights break out between them over the course of the movie, just cuz. But so what if they spent their entire lives blindly hating each other? They can still love each other based on 3 minutes of random interaction right? I think not. It'd be like if the President of Israel's daughter saw the leader of Hezbollah's son at the market, neither knowing the other, and they fall in love because they both enjoy figs and shared a brief kiss over one. When their identities are revealed it's like: blood feud? Meh. Sounds like a pretty great dark comedy subplot actually. Which is how most of this movie/play is structured: like a comedy. And then it ends in tragedy. It'd be like having a Beverly Hills Cop movie where Eddie Murphy dies in the end. Bad example, because that'd be awesome. But I hope you see my point. I kind of feel like ole' Billy was contracted to do a starcrossed lovers story for the following weekend and this was what he came up with inbetween brothel visits. The level of quality (in my opinion anyway) between this and his other famous works is like the level of quality between Scorsese's Raging Bull and some other movie that Scorsese wouldn't even waste his time watching, let alone directing. Like Bad Boys. One qualm I do have with Zeffirelli himself (the director) and not the Bard is that he fought tooth and nail to be able to show 15-year-old Juliet's breasts in one scene. A bit of nudity that lasts about a quarter of a second. Know who fights tooth and nail to show an underage girl naked, "in the name of art," for a scene that barely even exists? Douchey arthouse directors, that's who. But I didn't get that vibe from him for the rest of the movie so we'll let it pass I guess. Plus it provides an amusing anecdote about how actress Olivia Hussey wasn't allowed to see her own movie because her own naked breasts were in it for a quarter of a second. I find that entertaining. I am being a bit unfair on purpose, but only because hating on Shakespeare is good for getting death threats and concordantly publicity. Also because my thoughts are legit and probably more common than one might think. Hopefully my escapade will lead me toward something worthwhile that I can say positive things about, like "Richard III" or "Henry V."
Which brings me at last to this year's winner: Oliver! I hate those exclamation marks, I really do. But I like this movie overall. It's kind of an amalgamation between the two types of musicals. Because though most of the songs are personal and important to the plot, there's also an overblown dancing and singing sequence that literally stems from the minor plot progression that several characters are going outside. That song and the staging of "Consider Yourself" were the only two that really bothered me. Oh, and one other one that might have been about recreational drugs. Or life contentment or something. But "Consider Yourself" has another one of my musical pet peeves in it: random people on the street singing and dancing with the main characters as though they're omnisciently aware of the main story. Not to mention the musical and lyrical delivery of said story. Musical numbers should be held to only a few people, unless it's a whole crowd of similarly minded people singing like in certain "Les Misérables" scenes. I also found it funny that Oliver was more of a side character in the movie than anything else. They would sometimes cut to him making a facial expression during another character's solo just to remind us that he was there. But that's just as well since he's not as interesting as some of the other people I suppose. Over-the-top staging or not, all of the songs are really good. And the sets are particularly amazing and far more intricate than the sets of most movies (especially today). They created almost an entire town for the movie. Well, a small town. But still! It really adds to the experience because it gives you the continuity of a set you'd see on Broadway while also retaining the size and scope of a film. I'd say more but I've tangented quite a bit today so I'll leave it there. That's my clever way of saying, "I have nothing left to say about this picture."
Well that's it for 1968, a fairly jejune year as they go. But I was twice pleasantly surprised and that hardly ever happens. I have 4 movies for 1967 left to watch so it's likely that my next entry will be for 2010 instead. So that means I have no idea what I'll be writing about next! All I can say is it might include Freudian bankrobbers, a precursor to sub-par Eddie Murphy movies, and the original MILF. But it's more likely that it will include a vengeful 14-year-old girl, Spider-Man's adventures with the Internet, and that porn with "a little production value" that Michael Cera told us about.
Monday, February 7, 2011
1969: The Year that Had a Winner that Starred a Male Prostitute, You Can't Make This Stuff Up
Get it? Dirty numerical humor! I couldn't resist. Sadly that title is probably more exciting than most of this year's nominees. Not a great way to start off the 60s people. Come on now. The winner is good, one of the nominees is better, and the other 3 range from "meh" to "escapist fun meh." It also contains the only X-rated Best Picture winner ever and the shortest title of any nominee ever. I share this information so that I don't know it for nothing, just almost nothing since anyone who cares can also consult Wikipedia and IMDB.
Anyway, this first movie wasn't terrible and it wasn't great: Anne of the Thousand Days. It was pretty much about Anne Boleyn and how she got killed and yadda yadda. Obviously this wasn't the case for viewers in 1969, but for me this was like watching seasons 1 and 2 of The Tudors trimmed wayyyyyyyyyyy down. And though I can't fault them for failing to live up to a show that began airing 38 years later, I can still fault them for portraying a fascinating story from history as a boring costume drama. Oh and by the way, "costume drama" is pretty much in the same league as "period piece" in that it's code for "the only thing that separates this movie from other movies is that the costumes are spiffy and it takes place a long time ago." King Henry is just kind of there. He's not a bloodthirsty villain or a tortured leader. If anything he's just annoyed at the fact that he has to put people to death. When, in fact, it was his personal fury and jealousy that led to this. I also would have left his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, out of the film entirely. Because her story is largely underdeveloped and the main story suffers because of it. They should have mentioned Catherine for some context, maybe even shown her in flashback or something, but her "character" was a distraction. The actress who portrayed Anne was good but I didn't care for her characterization either. Not to say that she deserved what she got, because I don't think she did, but she was a harpie. She had an agenda and she lied to her husband (who also happened to be the King, not a wise choice). The movie largely portrays her as an innocent little girl who gets plucked from home to be the King's wife and then unjustly executed because the King felt like using her as a scapegoat of sorts. That's like saying that the Cherokee were a peaceful people who never did anything bad to anybody and then the without-a-semblance-of-humanity-or-gray-area white people killed them and cast them out. Is the gist of what I said true? Yeah. But it's more complicated than that. Even if a group of people or an individual person were definitely screwed over at some point in History that doesn't mean you should pretend they were better than they were. And after painting Anne as a somewhat sympathetic character (which is fine, as long as you include the flipside) they just kind of killed her at the end. No speech before the beheading or anything. On The Tudors Anne gives a very passionate speech that makes you feel pity for her after you spent a good portion of the show disliking her (while still thinking she was really hot). But in the movie it's just the execution and then the next scene is Henry saying, "off to the Seymour estate!" as he goes to find his third ill-fated wife. Kind of goofy for an ending to a fairly somber film. But whatever.
An entirely better film that I would have picked as the winner for this year is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Just going on the title, how could you not like it? Best. Cowboy names. Ever. This is an interesting movie because it simultaneously romanticizes the idea of the Old West outlaw and portrays it realistically. The outlaws meet a sticky end after some botched criminal operations, but they do it while looking good and fighting people. That's my kind of Western. Of course, the film doesn't even pretend to be based in too many facts. I'm just saying that there are aspects of the story which portray the outlaw life more realistically than most films of its type. It also includes the oddly placed but aesthetically pleasing Oscar winner "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head." It's pretty much got everything you'd want without overdoing it. It's a buddy movie, a Western, an action movie, a comedy, whatever. Of course a lot of people thought the film was too unbalanced to work. If you've seen it you might be wondering why I'm not saying that. Because I do have a history of mentioning such things (like oh, say, in the last paragraph). But it's all about both balance AND establishment early in the film. The funny scenes always have a twinge of darkness behind them and the serious scenes are never too dark. The tone is also established early on in the film; thus keeping it consistent. An example of too much comedy and not enough serious is Transformers 2 (Michael Bay sucks). An example of failure to establish coherent tone early in a film is Pirates 2 (Gore Verbinski does not suck, Disney might though). You can't have fun and enjoyable piratical nonsense right before having characters betraying each other and whatnot. You also can't spend more time on stereotypical and un-funny robots than Optimus Prime. Just saying. Anyway, this movie has one of my favorite endings as it combines all of my favorite things: gallows humor, gunfire, and going out in a blaze of glory. Great stuff. Brightest star in a meh year.
A ludicrous and overblown film that's not totally without merit is Hello Dolly! There are 2 kinds of musicals and this is the type I don't like. Instead of every song forwarding the plot or developing a character (like in Phantom of the Opera, one of my favorite things ever) every song is just an excuse to...sing. That might sound silly but I feel like they made a mediocre 100 minute romantic comedy and added 45 minutes of singing to it. I'm sure the original Broadway show was more enjoyable, because when you're there it's different and you can just have fun, but the movie is goofy. First off, Barbra Streisand frightens me. Always has. Scary-looking, not funny, bad lip-syncher. If she had dubbed her voice into someone else acting that would have been good. Because her singing voice is magnificent. The high point of the film is Walter Matthau's caricatured (and hilarious) performance as a late 19th century miser. If Ebenezer Scrooge was intended as a comical character, it would have been this guy. But the rest of it is filled to the brim with ridiculous old-timey rhetoric (holy cabooses!) and overblown synchronized dance sequences that go on for too long and are about nothing. "Hey! It's sunny outside so we should probably illustrate that with forced rhyming." The movie also includes a young Michael Crawford, the original Phantom on Broadway, which gives me an opportunity for a rant. I dislike Crawford's Phantom even though I really like him elsewhere. If you're a distorted man and you're singing then you shouldn't be singing in the same voice that you would use to belt out "New York, New York." You should sound distorted! That's why I prefer Gerard Butler's Phantom from the recent movie, his voice is clearly not even half as good but it's more appropriate for the character. You can really feel the rage and the pain in his voice. None of that really had anything to do with anything, but then again neither does most of this movie (burn!). I know I'm entering the era of musicals but I hope the rest of them are better than this. Of course, I already like two Best Picture winning musicals of the 60s and I expect to like a third, and I'm iffy on a fourth. All of those identities will be revealed in time (foreshadowing!). But for now I'll just leave it at: this movie is dumb but quasi enjoyable.
A movie that's about as interesting as its title is long is Z. No there wasn't some kind of coding error that deleted an entire word or a typo on my part. That's the title of the movie. It's tied for the record of shortest movie title ever with Fritz Lang's M, a sadly not-nominated movie which is a masterpiece and way better than this drivel. Anyway, this particular movie is a thinly veiled (more like non-existently veiled) dramatization of the right wing political takeover in 1960s Greece. I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about that real life situation at all, so maybe that didn't help. The only clever part of the film is the opening frame where it says "Any resemblance to real events, to persons living or dead, is not accidental. It is DELIBERATE." The other 126.8 minutes don't really live up. I appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to say: that History is written by the victors and censorship sometimes attempts to eliminate certain facts from the public eye. In this case: the right wing crazies who killed the president became "heroes" when theirs became the dominant regime and the men who led the investigation became "villains." I also find all of that to be tragic and you could certainly make a compelling, thought-provoking, and great film about it. This is not that film. It's boring, filmed in an uninteresting fashion, and a little too heavy-handed at times. It's also too reliant on its zeitgeist status (vocab word of the week!) to be much of a lasting film. I'm sure it meant a lot to counter-culturists at the time, especially since J. Edgar Hoover said no patriotic American would go to see it, but today it's just kind of dated. And as I said, I don't really know enough about the real story to get into it. Not because of censorship, just because I don't know anything about it. Also: a tragedy in Greece (not a Greek tragedy, it does not fit that trope) shouldn't be an opportunity for American college students to go "whooooooo! Screw Hoover!" I know people are turned on by the idea of "fighting the man" but when it's at the expense of the lives of real people, that's a bit much. I still don't like the movie though. Just saying.
This year's winner and easily second-best film is Midnight Cowboy. I was pleasantly surprised by this film because I thought it was going to be overrated nonsense. As it turned out, it was "better than I expected intentional nonsense." It also had a sad ending, which was an interesting twist on the buddy movie dynamic. In this case the "buddies" are a male prostitute (Jon Voight, who always annoys me) and a third-rate con man (Dustin Hoffman, who for once doesn't annoy me). I think Hoffman is largely underused here because his performance as Ratso Rizzo (best name ever) is basically the heart and soul of the peace. He's the hooker with the heart of gold, whereas Voight's Joe Buck is the hooker with the head of mush. Know what's a great idea when you've got a job in your hometown? Dressing up like a ridiculous cowboy gigolo and moving to New York to hustle old rich ladies (side note: this is my backup plan if employment eludes me). But whereas this could have been Rocky for male prostitutes (or a sort of "Pilgrim's Progress for Perverts") it instead ends up having a lot of heart. Buck is an old-fashioned country boy who's a bit too polite to make it in the big city doing much of anything, let alone spinsters. And whereas Ratso initially takes advantage of Joe by scamming him out of some money, he ends up forming an unlikely bond with him (even unlikely by the standard of the standard "unlikely bond"). Joe needs Ratso to help him survive in the unforgiving big city and Ratso needs Joe to remind him that somewhere there are people who aren't quite so terrible as everyone else he knows. The film is also surprisingly well-directed. Its tones are very atmospheric and not quite as dated as I thought they might be. It also uses flashbacks incredibly well by having Joe's memories shown sparsely and in a somewhat incomplete manner. I feel like if you're actually haunted by a singular occurrence in your life then you'd keep replaying the same bit of it over and over, while only remembering small pieces of the rest of it. That's how real memory works and that's how it's shown in this movie. So I was really impressed with that because it was ahead of its time in some ways. Other than that it's a fairly straightforward and enjoyable movie. It's also the only X-rated film to ever win Best Picture (although it was re-rated R a few years later). Why Showgirls didn't become the second is anyone's guess.
Well I guess that 60s could have started off worse. And some good things lay ahead so I anticipate some interesting posts ahead. I feel like the 50s won't have as much ammo for me though, just because of the style and the lack of "out there" movies. So the 60s could in some ways be my last hurrah. But I'm getting ahead of myself. All I'll think about for now is that the next year will include more costume drama, more Streisand, and another musical with a superfluously placed exclamation mark.
Anyway, this first movie wasn't terrible and it wasn't great: Anne of the Thousand Days. It was pretty much about Anne Boleyn and how she got killed and yadda yadda. Obviously this wasn't the case for viewers in 1969, but for me this was like watching seasons 1 and 2 of The Tudors trimmed wayyyyyyyyyyy down. And though I can't fault them for failing to live up to a show that began airing 38 years later, I can still fault them for portraying a fascinating story from history as a boring costume drama. Oh and by the way, "costume drama" is pretty much in the same league as "period piece" in that it's code for "the only thing that separates this movie from other movies is that the costumes are spiffy and it takes place a long time ago." King Henry is just kind of there. He's not a bloodthirsty villain or a tortured leader. If anything he's just annoyed at the fact that he has to put people to death. When, in fact, it was his personal fury and jealousy that led to this. I also would have left his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, out of the film entirely. Because her story is largely underdeveloped and the main story suffers because of it. They should have mentioned Catherine for some context, maybe even shown her in flashback or something, but her "character" was a distraction. The actress who portrayed Anne was good but I didn't care for her characterization either. Not to say that she deserved what she got, because I don't think she did, but she was a harpie. She had an agenda and she lied to her husband (who also happened to be the King, not a wise choice). The movie largely portrays her as an innocent little girl who gets plucked from home to be the King's wife and then unjustly executed because the King felt like using her as a scapegoat of sorts. That's like saying that the Cherokee were a peaceful people who never did anything bad to anybody and then the without-a-semblance-of-humanity-or-gray-area white people killed them and cast them out. Is the gist of what I said true? Yeah. But it's more complicated than that. Even if a group of people or an individual person were definitely screwed over at some point in History that doesn't mean you should pretend they were better than they were. And after painting Anne as a somewhat sympathetic character (which is fine, as long as you include the flipside) they just kind of killed her at the end. No speech before the beheading or anything. On The Tudors Anne gives a very passionate speech that makes you feel pity for her after you spent a good portion of the show disliking her (while still thinking she was really hot). But in the movie it's just the execution and then the next scene is Henry saying, "off to the Seymour estate!" as he goes to find his third ill-fated wife. Kind of goofy for an ending to a fairly somber film. But whatever.
An entirely better film that I would have picked as the winner for this year is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Just going on the title, how could you not like it? Best. Cowboy names. Ever. This is an interesting movie because it simultaneously romanticizes the idea of the Old West outlaw and portrays it realistically. The outlaws meet a sticky end after some botched criminal operations, but they do it while looking good and fighting people. That's my kind of Western. Of course, the film doesn't even pretend to be based in too many facts. I'm just saying that there are aspects of the story which portray the outlaw life more realistically than most films of its type. It also includes the oddly placed but aesthetically pleasing Oscar winner "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head." It's pretty much got everything you'd want without overdoing it. It's a buddy movie, a Western, an action movie, a comedy, whatever. Of course a lot of people thought the film was too unbalanced to work. If you've seen it you might be wondering why I'm not saying that. Because I do have a history of mentioning such things (like oh, say, in the last paragraph). But it's all about both balance AND establishment early in the film. The funny scenes always have a twinge of darkness behind them and the serious scenes are never too dark. The tone is also established early on in the film; thus keeping it consistent. An example of too much comedy and not enough serious is Transformers 2 (Michael Bay sucks). An example of failure to establish coherent tone early in a film is Pirates 2 (Gore Verbinski does not suck, Disney might though). You can't have fun and enjoyable piratical nonsense right before having characters betraying each other and whatnot. You also can't spend more time on stereotypical and un-funny robots than Optimus Prime. Just saying. Anyway, this movie has one of my favorite endings as it combines all of my favorite things: gallows humor, gunfire, and going out in a blaze of glory. Great stuff. Brightest star in a meh year.
A ludicrous and overblown film that's not totally without merit is Hello Dolly! There are 2 kinds of musicals and this is the type I don't like. Instead of every song forwarding the plot or developing a character (like in Phantom of the Opera, one of my favorite things ever) every song is just an excuse to...sing. That might sound silly but I feel like they made a mediocre 100 minute romantic comedy and added 45 minutes of singing to it. I'm sure the original Broadway show was more enjoyable, because when you're there it's different and you can just have fun, but the movie is goofy. First off, Barbra Streisand frightens me. Always has. Scary-looking, not funny, bad lip-syncher. If she had dubbed her voice into someone else acting that would have been good. Because her singing voice is magnificent. The high point of the film is Walter Matthau's caricatured (and hilarious) performance as a late 19th century miser. If Ebenezer Scrooge was intended as a comical character, it would have been this guy. But the rest of it is filled to the brim with ridiculous old-timey rhetoric (holy cabooses!) and overblown synchronized dance sequences that go on for too long and are about nothing. "Hey! It's sunny outside so we should probably illustrate that with forced rhyming." The movie also includes a young Michael Crawford, the original Phantom on Broadway, which gives me an opportunity for a rant. I dislike Crawford's Phantom even though I really like him elsewhere. If you're a distorted man and you're singing then you shouldn't be singing in the same voice that you would use to belt out "New York, New York." You should sound distorted! That's why I prefer Gerard Butler's Phantom from the recent movie, his voice is clearly not even half as good but it's more appropriate for the character. You can really feel the rage and the pain in his voice. None of that really had anything to do with anything, but then again neither does most of this movie (burn!). I know I'm entering the era of musicals but I hope the rest of them are better than this. Of course, I already like two Best Picture winning musicals of the 60s and I expect to like a third, and I'm iffy on a fourth. All of those identities will be revealed in time (foreshadowing!). But for now I'll just leave it at: this movie is dumb but quasi enjoyable.
A movie that's about as interesting as its title is long is Z. No there wasn't some kind of coding error that deleted an entire word or a typo on my part. That's the title of the movie. It's tied for the record of shortest movie title ever with Fritz Lang's M, a sadly not-nominated movie which is a masterpiece and way better than this drivel. Anyway, this particular movie is a thinly veiled (more like non-existently veiled) dramatization of the right wing political takeover in 1960s Greece. I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about that real life situation at all, so maybe that didn't help. The only clever part of the film is the opening frame where it says "Any resemblance to real events, to persons living or dead, is not accidental. It is DELIBERATE." The other 126.8 minutes don't really live up. I appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to say: that History is written by the victors and censorship sometimes attempts to eliminate certain facts from the public eye. In this case: the right wing crazies who killed the president became "heroes" when theirs became the dominant regime and the men who led the investigation became "villains." I also find all of that to be tragic and you could certainly make a compelling, thought-provoking, and great film about it. This is not that film. It's boring, filmed in an uninteresting fashion, and a little too heavy-handed at times. It's also too reliant on its zeitgeist status (vocab word of the week!) to be much of a lasting film. I'm sure it meant a lot to counter-culturists at the time, especially since J. Edgar Hoover said no patriotic American would go to see it, but today it's just kind of dated. And as I said, I don't really know enough about the real story to get into it. Not because of censorship, just because I don't know anything about it. Also: a tragedy in Greece (not a Greek tragedy, it does not fit that trope) shouldn't be an opportunity for American college students to go "whooooooo! Screw Hoover!" I know people are turned on by the idea of "fighting the man" but when it's at the expense of the lives of real people, that's a bit much. I still don't like the movie though. Just saying.
This year's winner and easily second-best film is Midnight Cowboy. I was pleasantly surprised by this film because I thought it was going to be overrated nonsense. As it turned out, it was "better than I expected intentional nonsense." It also had a sad ending, which was an interesting twist on the buddy movie dynamic. In this case the "buddies" are a male prostitute (Jon Voight, who always annoys me) and a third-rate con man (Dustin Hoffman, who for once doesn't annoy me). I think Hoffman is largely underused here because his performance as Ratso Rizzo (best name ever) is basically the heart and soul of the peace. He's the hooker with the heart of gold, whereas Voight's Joe Buck is the hooker with the head of mush. Know what's a great idea when you've got a job in your hometown? Dressing up like a ridiculous cowboy gigolo and moving to New York to hustle old rich ladies (side note: this is my backup plan if employment eludes me). But whereas this could have been Rocky for male prostitutes (or a sort of "Pilgrim's Progress for Perverts") it instead ends up having a lot of heart. Buck is an old-fashioned country boy who's a bit too polite to make it in the big city doing much of anything, let alone spinsters. And whereas Ratso initially takes advantage of Joe by scamming him out of some money, he ends up forming an unlikely bond with him (even unlikely by the standard of the standard "unlikely bond"). Joe needs Ratso to help him survive in the unforgiving big city and Ratso needs Joe to remind him that somewhere there are people who aren't quite so terrible as everyone else he knows. The film is also surprisingly well-directed. Its tones are very atmospheric and not quite as dated as I thought they might be. It also uses flashbacks incredibly well by having Joe's memories shown sparsely and in a somewhat incomplete manner. I feel like if you're actually haunted by a singular occurrence in your life then you'd keep replaying the same bit of it over and over, while only remembering small pieces of the rest of it. That's how real memory works and that's how it's shown in this movie. So I was really impressed with that because it was ahead of its time in some ways. Other than that it's a fairly straightforward and enjoyable movie. It's also the only X-rated film to ever win Best Picture (although it was re-rated R a few years later). Why Showgirls didn't become the second is anyone's guess.
Well I guess that 60s could have started off worse. And some good things lay ahead so I anticipate some interesting posts ahead. I feel like the 50s won't have as much ammo for me though, just because of the style and the lack of "out there" movies. So the 60s could in some ways be my last hurrah. But I'm getting ahead of myself. All I'll think about for now is that the next year will include more costume drama, more Streisand, and another musical with a superfluously placed exclamation mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)