Translate

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Oscars preview

How did the Academy flub the Oscar nominations?  Let me count the ways....actually, I don't need to do it because a very thorough poll and discussion on one of the top websites, imdb.com, has done it for me.  The poll's author is diplomatic and calls the items "surprises", but most (not all) are screw-ups.

To be fair--momentarily--to "the Academy", let me stipulate that 2014 was an excellent year for film, with many valid claimants for consideration.  So, those who lament the absence of a nomination for X film for Y category need to back that up by making the case that X is better in Y dimension than Z film that was nominated.  With two exceptions:  Best Picture can now have up to 10 nominations, and only eight were nominated, so there is room to make the claim for  a couple of other films that should have been nominated, and the Makeup category nominators showed restraint, with only three nominations.

I will try to follow my own directive when I can, but as always, I must beg indulgence:  I am just an ordinary filmgoer, not able to attend the Film Festivals, not given special Academy screen access or distributions of courtesy copies.  I have done my best, but I still have a fairly lengthy list of feature-length movies relevant to the awards season that I want to see and have not yet seen:  Wild, The Theory of Everything, Selma, Whiplash, A Most Violent Year, Still Alice (if that can be found anywhere) and American Sniper (more on that later).

I'm not going to make predictions on the winners this year.  It should be a very difficult year to make the picks, but there is too much Twitter, interviewing, even polls of members, so the trends are all too apparent, and they are presented well in the current edition of Entertainment Weekly--I can't improve on their graphical presentation of the probabilities of winners for the principal categories.  (Note: The website has some of the articles from that issue, but not the preview:  they are wising up. Get the issue, not the subscription.).  There should be more suspense than there is at this point, in a year that should be a wide-open competition.  ,

So, Where Are the Beefs?
Best Picture - The scuttlebutt is that this category is coming down to a battle between Birdman and Boyhood.  This doesn't bother me too much, as each is an exceptional achievement in film-making, but I would say that duel is more appropriately for Best Direction, and the race for Best Picture is, or should be, broader.  In particular, I would suggest The Imitation Game as a film that is fully worthy of winning Best Picture in most years--well-produced, acted, hugely important in its content--it's a movie that does more than just entertain.

In terms of the nominations, I would add three:  Interstellar and Unbroken are two films which I was surprised were not nominated, and not pleasantly surprised at that, though each has significant flaws.  Then, I would add The Lego Movie!  I am not so much arguing that  it deserves to win the Oscar for Best Picture, but it is as deserving of nomination as others--for example, The Grand Budapest Hotel, which was an amusing, well-made ball of fluff.  "Lego" was the comedy of the year.

The one I would remove?  American Sniper.  I am unapologetic about not having seen it--it was released to the public January 15; it is a 2015 movie release.   I will get around to seeing it, after I have seen the 2014 movies that rate my viewing sooner--the ones that deigned to present themselves to me last year. Same goes for A Most Violent Year, but that one, loved by the critics, did not rate any nominations.  I have not yet heard anything which tells me "Sniper" is different from, better than, or somehow needed after the success of The Hurt Locker--as much as I have loved some Clint Eastwood-directed films, that in itself does not distinguish it.   In fact, I am afraid a feel-good patriotic rush may end up carrying it to the Best Picture Oscar in Argo-esque fashion.

Best Supporting Actress, Jessica Chastain - I am not sure whether the problem is that she is in too many movies, splitting the votes among her admirers, or that the members are jealous of her incredible screen presence.  This year, she was deserving for her role in Interstellar; I hear she also gave a huge performance in A Most Violent Year.   Now, I will admit it is not easy to identify the one who she should replace, as the field in that category is very strong (stronger than for the Best Actress category, in fact)--Laura Dern in Wild, maybe?  Foregoing the inevitable Meryl Streep nomination, for once?  I would agree with the prevailing wisdom that Patricia Arquette is the big favorite, with Emma Stone's amazing Birdman performance the main alternative.

Best Animated Movie, The Lego Movie - I think my feelings on this are already sufficiently clear--it should win this category, going away, but cannot, as it was not nominated.  Which to remove?  All of them, but let's start with "How to Train Your Dragon - 2".  Please.  

I hope and expect that guilt about this nomination failure will lead the Academy to vote an Oscar for its Altogether Awesome Original Song, but I have two worries on that score (not to be confused with Original Score--we'll get to that momentarily):  one is that a similar guilt trip about Selma (nominated only for Best Picture, for which it has no hope, and for Original Song) will get it for "Glory", and the other is the dark-horse candidate song by Glen Campbell, a formidable sympathy play (he is suffering from Alzheimer's).

I have just read a very interesting piece about the nominations--how many voters there are, and the processes to nominate in the different categories.  Please check out this link; I think then you will see that the process for selecting Animated Film nominees is urgently in need of reform.  What appears clear to me from that description is that, unlike most of the categories in which a small number of passionate supporters can get a film nominated in a category, in this one a small number of passionate opponents can block it.  Clearly, there was some snobbish, "this isn't what I call animation" kind of viewpoint among some which caused the snub.

Best Actor - David Oyelowo, Selma - Others, perhaps more qualified, have opined on the excessive Uniformity of Whiteness among the 20 acting nominees.  Oyelowo is everywhere these days, Jessica Chastain-like, and the bits I have seen suggest his portrayal of MLK was both accurate and brave.   Who to remove?  I would say Michael Keaton for Birdman, but that's just me.  Probably, the same could be said of the next one I would suggest to remove, Bradley Cooper in American Sniper--and I like Cooper's acting (sometimes)--see above.  I would hope this category will come down to Eddie Redmayne or Benedict Cumberbatch, but I have seen this kind of race go to Keaton-like comeback efforts too many times (see Mickey Rourke).

Since I nominated two to remove, I can suggest another who should be added:  Ralph Fiennes, for the surprisingly over-nominated Grand Budapest Hotel.  (Surprising because it's a comedy, and because it was released so early in the year.) The production, the sets, costumes, etc. were all good, but I would gladly take away the writing and Directing nominations and put him in the actor nominations:  it was his performance that made the movie.

Best Documentary Feature - Life Itself - The biopic of Roger Ebert.  As self-obsessed as Hollywood is, I am very surprised this will not win the category, let alone get a nomination.  Maybe he offended too many, with the hate expressed by Keaton's character to the drama critic in Birdman being operative?

Supporting Actor--Bill Murray, St. Vincent -  The only question is whether he should be considered a supporting actor, as his was the key role of the film.   Take out the inevitable Robert Duvall nomination--he really doesn't need another, and the movie was a dud.  I guess the favorite is J.K. Simmons' scenery-chewing jazz teacher from Whiplash, but I would like to speak up for Ethan Hawke, whose performance in Boyhood I rate nearly as highly as I do Patricia Arquette's.

Best Actress - Amy Adams, Big Eyes - As always, a standout performance from Amy.  I suppose the movie could be said to have major flaws, though I think as a story it was quite fascinating.  I can't suggest who to remove, as the only nominee I have seen is Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, and while I didn't like the movie--at all--her performance was remarkable.  I will repeat myself and say that I'd like to see the performance of the award favorite, Julianne Moore, if I can find it.


More Omissions, and The Wrap: On Gone Girl, Birdman, Boyhood
Best Musical Score, Trent Reznor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Gone Girl - Speaking of GG, I think the music and the dialogue were both terrific.  I just hated the movie's subject and treatment:  these are just the kind of bogus, prurient, voyeuristic stories that do predominate in our culture, and this presentation--critical though it was--implicitly bought into their significance, instead of dismissing them.

Take out one of the Alexandre Desplat nominations for Musical Score--it can only hurt his chances, let him pick the one to take out, or the one that got less votes--and for Adapted Screenplay, take out any of them except Inherent Vice.  I think it's also appropriate here to mention the use of the drum track (and drummer, drum set) in Birdman--I have never seen better use of such a device to drive the emotional level of the film.

The two screenplay categories are hard to handicap, but for Original Screenplay, I'd be extremely surprised if anything besides Birdman wins.  (Once again, the rival would appear to be Boyhood.) In sum, while its drab premise--washed up superhero actor tries a dramatic comeback--was indeed fully borne out as being unworthy of such superb treatment, I have very little else to criticize about the movie (OK, I still don't like Michael Keaton, pretty much in anything he has done.)  Five minutes into the movie, I realized I had been caught unaware by something special--yes, in my case it was indeed "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance".   For me, it was above all social satire: biting commentary on our society's narcissism, especially that of the entertainment fields, but also highly humorous.

Still, I will be pulling for the early-season indie on Oscar night, though due to my personal circumstances, I doubt I will be watching.  Boyhood is a one-of-a-kind film that deserves all the recognition it can get,  Director Richard Linklater in particular, but also his two big stars, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette.  It's a film with something for anyone who sees it, and there is a really important statement, on the importance of parenting regardless of family circumstances and on the resilience of some children as they develop, despite unfavorable circumstances but assisted by parental love.  I am sure Linklater will come away with something, and I will be pulling for Hawke and Arquette, as well.

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Political Drama 2016: Act I, Scene 1

Republican Kabuki
If it were a TV show, the 2016 election would begin with a spasm of violence (something like what occurred in Paris yesterday--see below), then cut to a commercial.  That is the principle of the hook.

Make no mistake, the story of the 2016 elections has now begun, but it begins with drama that is, at best, fake--it's more like mundane events setting the scene.  There is nothing wrong with that; Shakespeare's plays often began in like manner; the big events, if there are to be such, will come later.  This week, we get the Kabuki play of John Boehner's (tearful, of course) election as Speaker, despite a handful of self-promoting fools who mistakenly believe their Congressional service will be enhanced by rebelling against their party caucus' decisions.   At least their actions will identify themselves as people not to be counted on for key votes by the party's Majority Whip, Steven Scalise.

Speaking of Scalise, he had his own fake drama this week.  An enterprising reporter dug up the gem that Scalise had spoken to a white supremacist group in his state of Louisiana headed by the famous racist politician David Duke--twelve years ago.   It was not scandalous behavior then, because Scalise was a no-name state legislator looking for support wherever he could find it.  It may be scandalous now, but it hardly qualifies as news:  Scalise was fairly open at the time that his politics were like Duke's "without the baggage"; now he has the baggage and it is Duke.   Beyond being "pro-white", Duke is also big on the global Jewish conspiracy topic--that is the one that Scalise will have to throw over convincingly, if he wants to remain in the party's House leadership.  Not to please his party's caucus, which lost its only Jewish member when his predecessor, Eric Cantor, lost his seat last summer in a primary against an obscure tea-bagger, but to keep from alienating Sheldon Adelson, one of the party's super-rich backers--and a major backer of Israel and Netanyahu--who must be placated.

The most dramatic move to date in the budding 2016 electoral story has been made by Jeb Bush, who opted for the early headline move in positioning himself to run.  The early move has worked in the past---notably, for Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama--but is no guarantee of success (just look at Rick Perry, who preceded Jeb this time around but seems to be making no traction at all, in spite of trying to adopt a more intellectual persona).  Jeb's move has worked well, though, putting the pressure on other potential party Establishment figures to either get in or give up:  in particular, Chris Christie is on the spot, Mitt Romney's camera-shy wife now has a good reason to tell her husband the country does not, after all, need him to run again, and Marco Rubio is in a tough bind.  I think all three will end up being pre-empted by Bush's move; though they may still decide to run, they will find it a tough row to hoe.  In particular, if Bush has put to rest the thoughts of another Romney candidacy, he has achieved a major tactical success:  the Republicans, especially the Establishment ones, like hierarchy and an orderly succession, and Romney's willingness to take on the incumbent President is endearing to them (though not to the right wing, which insists on the strange argument that he and John McCain only lost because they weren't "conservative" enough).

I don't think Bush's move prompted Mike Huckabee's withdrawal as a Fox News paid commentator; instead, he has listened to his advisers and stepped forward early, in order to try to build a structured campaign--something he failed to do in 2008, preventing him from capitalizing on his unexpected victory in the Iowa caucuses.  He may be able to pull that Iowa trick off again, as he has a solid core of support that could emerge from a crowded field of right-wingers. But will he have his lines prepared for Act I, Scenes 2 and 3?   If he can survive New Hampshire and make a good showing in the always-critical South Carolina Republican primary, he, rather than Ted Cruz, could be the survivor on the right-wing to make the final group of serious contenders for the nomination (as I said before, I think the other two will be Bush and Rand Paul).  I have underestimated Huck before; I will try not to do it this time.

Je Suis Triste Pour Charlie
I am a big fan of political satire.  For me, it is the highest form of literary art, and I hope that someday I may have the time and ability to write a decent satirical work.  Dealing with the powers that be in a less than respectful manner, it is also an art which takes great risk.

We are accustomed to think that the forms of attack on press freedom come from the government: trying to get journalists to reveal their sources, pressing them when they disclose secrets, targeting them in civil wars (as has happened in Syria).  Government also provides the press a safe harbor in some respects, in the form of special protection against slander and libel suits.  The notion that private individuals can cripple press freedom and effectiveness of political satire through acts of violence is, in this day, a new and scary proposition.

I hope you will not think it churlish, and it may relate to my weakness with the French language, but what I have to say about the satire I have seen from the satirical periodical Charlie Hebdo that was attacked yesterday in brutal, terroristic fashion is that it doesn't seem very funny to me.  Brave, defiant, irreverent, yes, but not so humorous. I have always insisted that sense of humor is subjective:  I hate it when people try to get me to agree with them, contrary to what my senses and emotion tell me, that "That's funny" or "That's not funny"--so I will limit my comment to that subjective observation, but that is the reason that I am not quite in the "Je suis Charlie" camp.

I am sad for those involved (especially the policemen who had the difficult and dangerous task of trying to defend the newspaper from the attack); I am angry at those who did it (and those who may have put them up to it); I will raise my pen (or my mouse), if that form of protest makes some kind of difference.   Finally, I will express my full solidarity with the French people:  we Americans may find them hard to deal with (that cursed independence! I joke), but they are, in fact, our oldest and most reliable allies in the world.  We have never fought a war against them (as Americans), and our alliance goes back even farther than our nationhood.

One piece on the subject that I found especially interesting was written by Daniel Burke, CNN's Religion Editor.  Burke discusses the history and practice of this prohibition on the publishing of images of Mohammed.  First, I found it interesting that this is never mentioned in the Quran; second, that the practice is not consistent across all of Islam (he observes that images of Mohammed--with faces--are found in the cultures of Turkey and Iran, but not often in Sunni mosques, and very rarely if ever in the Arabian peninsula).  Finally, he comments on the irony that this fetish about not having the image produced comes from a directive to avoid creating idols, that Mohammed wanted Islam to treat him as an ordinary man, not a god to be worshipped.  In today's society, it is a fact that the depiction of real-life heroes tends to make them more human; therefore, it would make sense for the practice of Islam to relax this prohibition, to make the religion more approachable.  Certainly it should be shouted from all the minarets that the depiction of Mohammed is not a capital offense.

Is there a tie-in from this episode in Paris to the 2016 election?  Not really--only this:  as we saw also in the terror attack at the Boston Marathon (case finally going to trial), the threat in today's Western countries takes the form of small cells of committed fanatics with unlikely targets far removed from the centers of power and commerce.  It was my fervent desire that GWOT (Global War on Terror) would end in these post-Bushite years (we may not even be post-Bushite yet--we shall see), but I recognize that the threat of terror is not completely gone, and the challenge of suppressing it is more global than ever.   We are in a new phase, in which our counterterrorism must have multiple strategies, multiple tactics, flexibility, but also consistent resolve.  It will be interesting to see if any of our Presidential candidates can grasp this subtlety in the electoral marathon to come.

Mario Cuomo
The three-term governor of New York died last week.  In his prime (early to mid 1980's), I was a big fan of Cuomo, and I hoped he would run for President.  He never did, and after he pulled back from the campaign in 1991-92 (I will never know why, maybe), his star faded and he fell, somewhat shockingly, to Republican George Pataki in 1994.

Cuomo is the man who is credited with the quote that "campaigning is poetry; governing is prose".  I have to say that his administration of New York was very prosaic. He always argued for the causes of the poor and downtrodden, but during his terms New York enforced the draconian sentencing and harsh drug laws previously enacted, causing prison populations to grow enormously.  He did hold out courageously against the law'n'order types who wanted to burn more criminals (which may have caused his ultimate political defeat in '94), and he maintained his principles, his willingness for political combat, and his pride throughout; however, I felt somewhat disappointed at the time that he did not succeed in doing more.  In that sense, I think he helped me learn a lesson about how hard it is to accomplish progressive change in this country, even in the states where progress is possible.  This has allowed me to moderate my expectations for the current national Presidential administration, which has kept me from joining the ranks of those who (from a progressive viewpoint) only criticize Obama and fail to recognize his successes.

With regard to the political career of his son Andrew, I am an agnostic:  I don't see the same eloquence, though I do see a similar political combativeness.  I have not lived in New York during his administration, so my view is from the outside only. I think his time to step onto the national stage is likely to come in 2020, and I will try to keep my mind open about him until then.