One of the presenters on Sunday evening said (and I paraphrase) that the mission of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is to promote excellence in filmmaking. Not to be glib but…really? In the decade that I have been writing this yearly list of reviews, takedowns, and potshots at Baz Luhrman, I can’t remember the Academy ever having been so disconnected from both the moviegoing audience and the critical community.
Now it is certainly no secret that the Academy does not include film critics or see eye to eye with that ill-defined group of bloggers, journalists, and broadcasters. But this year, despite nominating NINE (Seriously, how did they get that number? To go over 5 nominees under the new system, I’m pretty sure a film needs to be on at least 5% of the ballots cast and be in the top-10 in total votes. So at least 1 out of every 20 members of the Academy liked Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close…a lot) movies for Best Picture, only one of the nominees was in the top-10 of the Village Voice Critics Poll and only two graced the top-10 of the Indiewire Critics Poll. On its own, this wouldn’t be entirely shocking except that this year’s nominees weren’t even popular. Per Box Office Mojo, the highest grossing Best Picture Nominee (The Help) was only the 13th highest grossing picture of 2011 and you have to go all the way down to number 41 to find the next nominee (War Horse). In all, the 2011 Best Picture nominees averaged just over $60M in domestic box office.
Based on the numbers, it is clear that the nominees are, by and large, not popular with critics or moviegoers. So, why the hell are they being honored and how do they somehow represent “excellence in filmmaking? Sadly, the mission of the Academy is not (and, arguably, has never been) to reward excellence but rather to express the tastes of the predominantly old, white guys who run the industry. While the “groundbreaking” research done by LA Times (click the link!) does not exactly constitute an earth shattering revelation, it does shed some light on whose opinions of excellence are reflected in the Academy Awards. Now, I am not saying the Academy is racist (or ageist or sexist or any other “–ist”) but it is undeniable that the rather undifferentiated demographic makeup of its voting membership has a strong influence on which films are recognized by the Oscars. Moreover, I think it is safe to say that, unless something changes (or some of these old dudes die off), this Leonian Divide will only grow, giving us an even clearer differentiation between the Good, the Popular, and the Oscar.
But enough about the Oscar process…on to the Paulies!
This year, since the Academy did me the favor of nominating the worst movie of the year and all of the most overrated movies of the year for Best Picture, I have eliminated those awards categories and, instead, briefly reviewed each Best Picture nominee (except War Horse). But don’t worry…I think the “winners” of these legacy awards are pretty clear. As always, I didn’t get to everything. Some notable films that I missed this year are: War Horse, Beginners, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, My Week With Marilyn, Weekend, Coriolanus, The Skin I live In, and The Mysteries of Lisbon.
Top-10
1. Certified Copy: In today’s world where most things are easily and endlessly duplicated, the question of what is “real” (and whether it matters) is increasingly difficult to answer. It is that question, as it applies to art, relationships, and life itself that concerns Abbas Kiarastomi throughout Certified Copy. The two leads (Juliette Binoche and William Shimell) meet at a lecture Shimell is giving on his book about authenticity and fakery in art (based, of course, on his book “Certified Copy”), after which Binoche’s gallery owner invites him out to the Italian countryside for the afternoon. As the movie unfolds, the two ostensible strangers begin to act like a married couple, riffing off of each other in a series of intricate conversations that eventually reveal a (questionably) shared past. It is an intriguing puzzle that only grows denser throughout the film and the precise nature of their relationship remains in doubt even beyond the final scene. But the combination of Kiarostami’s direction and the masterful lead performances of Binoche and Shimell keep Certified Copy from becoming a purely intellectual exercise, retaining its potent emotional core from the first frame to the last.
2. Melancholia: As anyone who has had the misfortune of listening to me rant about Dogville knows, I don’t always dig the films of Lars Von Trier. But, with Melancholia, he eases back a bit on his trademark formalism to make the most personal, and perhaps best, movie of his career. Melancholia is, at its core, a riveting portrayal of the crippling effects of clinical depression (which Von Trier himself suffers from) in two parts. In the first half of the movie, Kirsten Dunst “ruins” her own bourgeoisie wedding with her depressive antics, much to the consternation of her fiancé, her family, and the wedding guests. In the second a new planet named Melancholia hurtles towards earth on a collision course (subtlety has never been a hallmark of Von Trier’s work). The impending disaster reverses the roles, with the previously “normal” characters becoming increasingly unhinged and Dunst finding peace as her vision of the true state of the world is ultimately confirmed. I think it tells you all you need to know about Von Trier’s own worldview when he states, without apparent irony, that Melancholia is his only movie with a happy ending (Spoiler: everybody dies).
3. Tree of Life: On the other end of the spectrum from Melancholia (this really was the unavoidable film dork conversation of the year) was this gorgeous, meditative – and also deeply personal - film from the elusive Terrence Malick. With TOL, Malick attempted to wrap the entire history of the universe, life, and the afterlife into the narrative structure of a single film centered on a fictionalized version of his own childhood in Texas. It was ballsy, almost to a fault, but somehow Malick made it work (and he was probably the only one who could have). In fact, in many ways TOL, may be the culmination of everything Malick has been working towards for the past 30+years, fusing his trademark style with more personal themes than his prior efforts. I won’t lie and say that it’s a perfect film but the degree of difficulty was so high that even a 90% success far outpaces a lightweight mediocrity like, say, The Artist. And besides, any movie that compels a theater to put up this sign deserves serious props.
4. A Separation: As I write this, Asghar Farhadi is walking up to the stage to accept his Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. Kudos to the Academy (or rather the few members who vote in this category – since you have to certify that you have actually seen all of the nominees) for getting one right. By turns a courtroom drama, a saga of a disintegrating marriage, and a rumination on the ongoing social changes sweeping Iran, A Separation was mesmerizing from beginning to end. Farhadi’s script weaves intricate dialogue and disparate plot threads together with the care of a master craftsman, controlling the flow of information, and forcing the audience to view the events of the film from the shifting points of view of each character. Indeed, of the films on this list, I think this is the one that will probably reward repeat viewings the most (with the possible exception of Certified Copy).
5. A Dangerous Method: With A Dangerous Method, David Cronenberg steps away from his usual work of employing the Freud’s theories to deconstruct film genres, to examine the moment in history that birthed those theories in the first place. Unlike Cronenberg’s more visceral work, the film, much like the “talk therapy” pioneered by Freud, relies almost exclusively on conversation - both the dialogue and the spaces between - as the characters attempt to rationalize their own actions and indiscretions to each other. The subject matter has clearly influenced Cronenberg throughout his career and it shows in the skillful way he directs his exemplary cast (headed by Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley, and, of course, Viggo Mortensen) who are all at the top of their respective games.
6. Martha Marcy May Marlene: If I were to invent an award for “least reliable narrator” it would certainly go to Elizabeth Olson in MMMM. Her debut performance as a profoundly damaged young woman freshly escaped from an abusive commune and attempting to adjust to a “normal” life was one of the most welcome surprises of the year. Throughout the film, the audience is compelled to view both Olson’s current life at her wealthy sister’s lake house and her memories of the commune, only through the warped lens of her perception. As a result, the viewer is left as unbalanced and confused as the narrator herself, at times unable to discern dreams from waking and fact from fiction. It is a disconcerting journey that does a very effective job of communicating the unique, and sometimes terrifying, worldview of its protagonist even if it leaves the audience with more questions than answers.
7. Drive: A slick, supremely stylish neo-noir that breaks down the essential elements of the action/crime genre (gangsters, car chases, gunfights, etc.) down to their most pure form. The characters are archetypes, embodying they style and form of every gangster, damsel in distress, and stoic hero that has gone before and they inhabit a Los Angeles that is more the cinematic Form of “Los Angeles,” than the city itself. It exists oddly out of time and space, a place that could only take form in the movies, and Nicholas Winding Refn makes it his beautiful (and frequently gruesome) playground. While at times the style of the movie at times threatens to overwhelm its substance, when the style is this rich, it hardly matters.
8. Hugo: As a general matter, I am not a fan of 3D. It is usually deployed simply to wrest a few extra dollars from movie goers as payment for Captain Eo style “gotcha” moments and a washed out color palette. However, just like any other technique, it can be amazing when it is used correctly by a talented director – and, clearly, Martin Scorsese is one of the all-time greats. With Hugo, Scorsese had his sights set not solely on flights of fancy, but on introducing and updating the early history of the movies themselves and validating the very technology he used to make his film. While the story is charming and the performances are uniformly good, it is Scorsese’s breathtaking use of 3D itself to tie this current filmmaking revolution back to the early films of George Melies that is the real point of the film. Indeed, what starts as the story of a boy and a broken automaton ends up as no less than a validation of 3D itself from one of the greatest directors to have ever stepped behind a camera. Hopefully, with more movies like Hugo (and documentaries like Pina and Cave of Forgotten Dreams), 3D will continue its ascent from the “blockbuster” ghetto and be seen as more of a filmmaking tool than a marketing ploy (Ha).
9. We Need to Talk About Kevin: What would you do if you knew your child was a sociopath? In We Need to Talk About Kevin, Tilda Swinton (in one of her best performances) plays the mother of the perpetrator of a horrific school massacre. The movie jumps back and forth in time, interspersing scenes of the child’s development and early years with shots from the massacre itself and Tilda’s life in the immediate aftermath. The movie is chilling and all the more horrifying since the audience knows from the start that the outcome is inevitable, we are just along for the harrowing journey. Indeed, I think my sister Amy said it best right after we left the theater: “This movie is the best birth control ever.” No doubt. [Note: I wrote this up before the tragic school shooting on Monday. While that event doesn’t change my analysis, I don’t know if you will be able to find this movie in a theater near you anytime soon.]
10. Meek’s Cutoff: Kelly Reichardt’s “revisionist western” follows a group of settlers as they try to survive the desert of Eastern Oregon and find their way to the coast. As their supplies dwindle and it becomes clear that their guide has no idea where they are going, tensions mount and eventually reach a critical breaking point. The genius of the film is in how Reichardt reaches this cathartic point. By focusing in on the excruciating details of the settlers’ day to day lives, the unchanging scenery, and the snail-like pace of the wagon train, she builds a nearly unbearably strained atmosphere around the ill-fated group. And, even after the crucial conflict, it is unclear whetehr anything has actually been resolved.
HM: Take Shelter, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, Another Earth, Warrior, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Director
1. Terrence Malick, Tree of Life: How the hell did Malick lost to that Hazanawhogivesacrap? He showcased more directorial chops during any random ten minute stretch of Tree of Life, than Hazanawowiloveweinstein showed in his whole movie. Maybe he’ll cut the voiceovers and make a silent movie next time (or, more likely, he wisely doesn’t care).
2. Lars Von Trier, Melancholia
3. Martin Scorecese, Hugo
4. Nicholas Winding Refn, Drive
5. Abbas Kiarostami, Certified Copy
Best Actor
1. Dominic Cooper, The Devil’s Double: In the Devils’ Double, Dominic Cooper plays both Uday Hussein and the Iraqi soldier that he forces to be his body double during the height of Saddam Hussein’s rule. While the film itself is seriously flawed (particularly in the third act), Cooper did a fantastic job of making these polar opposite figures compelling and believable.
2. Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
3. Michael Shannon, Take Shelter
Best Actress
1. Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin: At this point its more of a surprise when Tilda doesn’t turn in a tour de force performance than when she does. In a year filled with impressive turns by newcomers and veterans alike, this intense and nuanced performance lapped the field.
2. Elizabeth Olson, Martha Marcy May Marlene
3. Juliette Binoche, Certified Copy
Best Supporting Actress
1. Carey Mulligan, Shame: Michael Fassbender and his shlong got all the press but I thought it was Mulligan that really held Shame together and gave it real pathos and emotional heft. Her desperation and need were so much more relatable, and tragic, than the raw sexual compulsions that drove Fassbender’s character that she stole very scene she was in.
2. Charlotte Gainsbourg, Melancholia
3. Ellen Page, Super
Best Supporting Actor
1. Viggo Mortensen, A Dangerous Method: In a movie filled with amazing performances (Fassbender and Knightley just missed my top-3 in their respective categories), Viggo stood out. As Freud, he managed to be simultaneously controlled, manipulative, and egotistical while always communicating the barely repressed rage and seething jealousy of Fassbender’s Jung that lurked just beneath the surface (until of course those feelings are laid bare). And he did it without fighting naked in a Russian bathhouse.
2. John Hawkes, Martha Marcy May Marlene
3. Andy Serkis, Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Oscar Nominees for Best Picture
1. The Artist: So, The Artist won Best Picture but is anyone (well, anyone not affiliated with film or The Weinstein Company) really happy about it? The movie itself was a well crafted bit of nostalgia with solid performances and a breezy, crowd pleasing story. However, while the film was pleasant enough, it really played as more of an homage to silent movies than an attempt to comment on the importance of the movies, contemporary film culture (a la Hugo), or anything else. It was, in a word, insubstantial. Indeed, in this year of mediocre nominees, its success seemingly came from the fact that no one hated it (and, of course, the Amazing Weinstein Oscar Machine) rather than an outpouring of support from its ardent fans. It was a middlebrow consensus pick that was accepted by the press and the commentariat with a knowing shrug and the tacit acceptance that, in ten years, it will be remembered as the answer to a few trivia questions rather than its merits as a film.
2. The Descendants: I think I have an Alexander Payne problem. Every time I see one of his movies I kind of like it but I feel like I should have liked it more. Something about his pacing and camera work just pulls me out of the story. Of course it could just be that The Descendants is essentially a soap opera about rich people in Hawaii and that I didn’t care what happened to any of the characters.
3. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close: When I saw that ELIC was nominated for Best Picture, I couldn’t believe it. I had literally read nothing good about it, several of my favorite critics had roundly panned it, and its Metacritic score hovered somewhere south of 50%. But, I thought, could it really be that bad? In a word: yes. In two words: Hell yes.
Ostensibly, the story follows a kid (who is at least socially maladjusted and probably autistic) as he tries to make sense of his father’s death in the World Trade Center on 9/11. To do this, the precocious lad convinces himself that a key he finds in his father’s closet must, in fact, unlock a hidden message from his dad. So he sets off across New York City in search of this lost missive, encountering various and sundry characters on the way, each with an easily identifiable quirk. This journey apparently takes place in an alternate universe New York where a kid without basic social skills can wander through the City unmolested by dint of his magic tambourine and the natural bonhomie of the City’s denizens (the movie tries to explain this away but the “explanation” is about as satisfying as midichlorians). Did I mention that the kid also has an annoying tendency to tell everyone he meets that his dad died in the Towers and explain key plot points in random conversations (autism, or undiagnosed Asberger’s, is apparently a convenient exposition device)? Yeah, he does that. Also, Tom Hanks does quirky dad things, Sandra Bullock cries, John Goodman is occasionally on screen, and Max Von Sydow and Viola Davis try gamely to elevate the proceedings to something other than a complete disaster.
But, while the story and performances are terrible, ELIC’s main crime against filmmaking is its appalling use of the sounds and images of 9/11 imagery as cheap stand-ins for plot, character development, and emotional depth. This tactless approach is on display from the opening credits, which depict a stylized Tom Hanks falling through the air (yeah, he dies in the Towers…what a subtle and sensitive approach to the material), onwards. In essence, ELIC asks us not to connect with the actual characters and events depicted in the film but to transpose our own memories and feelings about 9/11 onto the crude template it presents us. Fuck that. At the end of the day, the only good thing I can say about ELIC is that it reminded me how much I love 25th Hour.
4. The Help: It may come as a surprise but I actually kind of liked The Help. The performances (Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, et al.) were universally good and the story, while fairly rote, had moments of genuine drama and humor. However, it is a rather lightweight treatment of a weighty subject that doesn’t seem to address the far reaching, and continuing consequences of the civil rights movement. The ending in particular was far too neat and seemingly custom tailored to let the audience disconnect itself from the segregation and racial animosity depicted in the film. I have been told that the book had this problem too…but faulty source material is no excuse for a poorly executed film.
5. Hugo: [See above]
6. Midnight in Paris: I’m starting to feel like a broken record…but I think I finally mean it when I say that I’m done with Woody Allen. I find it hard to believe that the man who gave us Annie Hall, Manhattan, Stardust Memories, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Match Point, etc. just had his biggest box office hit with this feather weight mix of nostalgia, hubristic fantasy, and ant-American propaganda. Honestly, if anyone but Woody had pitched a movie about a Francophilic American writer who gets sucked back in time to 1920s Paris for the sole purpose of learning that everyone unrealistically romanticizes the past, it wouldn’t have been made. But in Mr. Allen’s hands, it somehow became a minor hit It also served as a not so subtle vehicle for Woody to place his stand in (Owen Wilson this time) in the company of Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Picasso, et al. and make the case that he deserves to be mentioned along with those great artists.
Not only that, but he continues his recent tradition of caricaturing every American in the movie, save Wilson’s wannabe expat of course, as either: (1) a venal capitalist; (2) a boorish pseudo-intellectual; or (3) a materialistic shrew. None of these characters are ever developed beyond these surface characteristics and there is no reason (plot-related or otherwise), other than Mr. Allen’s obvious distaste for the citizens of his former home, for the brusque nastiness of these characterizations. In addition, it is almost not even worth mentioning that his female characters all exist solely to push Wilson towards his ultimate decision to move to Paris. At least I’ll always have Annie Hall.
7. Moneyball: I have to give Pitt, Bennett Miller, et al. credit for sticking with their years long attempt to turn a book about statistical analysis and identifying market inefficiencies in the market for major league baseball players into a Hollywood movie. While I enjoyed the film, it wasn’t exemplary in any way (and many of the factual inaccuracies and broad generalizations grated on me as a fan of both the sport and the source material). Overall, Moneyball managed to reduce Lewis’s complex analysis of the workings of baseball’s talent market to a rather formulaic “underdog makes good” sports movie (and it wasn’t even the best movie of that genre of 2011 – that would be Warrior). I guess it worked but I wanted more.
8. The Tree of Life: [See above]
9. War Horse: Sadly I did not see War Horse. I was so close to my second straight clean sweep but, after dragging myself to Virginia last week to witness to debacle that was Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, I lost my will to watch Best Picture nominees. Thank goodness I was almost done by then.
Thanks for reading and I’m sorry this year’s entry was so lengthy. Got a question? A comment? Leave a message on the blog or drop me an email.
No comments:
Post a Comment