Cinematic Wanking
I think I'm going to talk about movies tonight, so if you're not interested, go ahead and keep watching 24.
So the Oscar nominations are announced, and despite the fact that they are rigged, political, self-congratulatory awards, they do create a nice forum for some good discussion about films; and, as someone once said, Oscar night is the Super Bowl for geeks. If you haven't heard, the nominations for Best Picture are The Hours, Chicago, The Two Towers, The Pianist, and Gangs of New York.
For a movie to win Best Picture, it has to have some key elements: it should have an excellent story, excellent performances, and excellent visuals. No film should win because of any one of these three components; the category is Best Picture, and it should be firing on all cylinders to deserve it. I included visuals because, being artistic, I guess I'm tuned in to visuals more than other people. I don't mean special effects or even wicked, edgy cinematography; but film is primarily a visual medium, and if a movie fails to use the visual potential of film to tell its story, it is not really doing the medium justice. The extreme example of good visual style is Wes Anderson (Royal Tenenbaums) or even Baz Lurhmann: their visuals exist to serve the story. Visuals, of course, are used to some extent in every film, and are necessary in the Gus Hadorn-Robert McKee cinematic mantra "show, don't tell." Conversely, visuals don't make a film: Sleepy Hollow does great visual storytelling of a script that has some serious problems at its core. Excellent performances are evident. Story... I'm reluctant to say that a good film needs a plot. There are exceptions, but I think if you're going to go all James Joyce and make a movie with, essentially, no plot, you'd better be damn good. My favorite movies--the ones I can watch over and over-- have all 3 components going for them: The Big Chill, Raiders of the Lost Ark, North by Northwest, Rushmore, The Shawshank Redemption, To Kill A Mockingbird.
I'm explaining my stance because I want to argue why The Hours shouldn't win Best Picture. First, I want to say that the performances in that film were astounding. Nicole Kidman's performance is one of those performances that make you reconsider what you consider good acting. She does everything right... she uses her whole body and face to become the character, and she draws us in to her story. I think, also, that every movie star should start wearing a prosthetic nose of some kind to help us forget that we're watching TOM CRUISE or SALLY FIELD or, ahem, JEFF DANIELS. Because of that nose, and moreso her acting, I completely forget that I was watching Nicole Kidman. In terms of the other performances, I loved Julianne Moore. The key to her success is understatement, and there are several times where the bat of her eye or a purse of the lips indicate deep pools of her character.
I have to say, though, that I disliked Meryl Streep's segments. It's obvious that we're supposed to understand that her character avoids taking an honest look at her life and her unhappiness by busying herself with Richard, her daughter, and other "projects." Streep, however, gives me no indication in her performance that Clarissa has depth, that there's a side to her that she's suppressing. Her scene when she breaks down in front of Jeff Daniels seemed unfounded and unprecedented. The most interesting scenes were with Ed Harris (who was, do I have to use the word?, "brilliant") as Richard, because they forced a dynamicism in Clarissa that may have built to something that the movie never shows. In the end, I think her character is somewhat unresolved and, more importantly, underexplained.
Honestly, I would have rather watched a movie solely about Virginia Woolf. The relationships she had with her sister and her husband are filled with complexity and history, and I want to hear about the rest of her life story.
Ultimately, the film felt incomplete and unsatisfying to me. I'm going to say it didn't have a good story, not in the conventional way, but because the characters never really seemed to go anywhere. I felt that I needed to see some change in character. In Julianne Moore's case, they build up to the turning point in character, but they leave too much unanswered. I'm not exactly sure where she is in her transition from content to unsatisfied... has she had thoughts of homosexuality before this? Feelings of resentment for her son? Unsatisfaction with her husband? The movie leads us to believe that this is and isn't the first time she's tried to commit suicide. Is this the first step on her road to abandoning her family, or the breaking point? It was in Julianne Moore's scenes that I wished the most that I was reading the book instead of watching the movie. The same goes with Kidman's character. Streep's Clarissa is the only character that really seems to change, and I don't think I had enough of a vested interest in her to really believe it, or care.
Additionally, I don't think the visuals were used to the greatest extent. We get a hint of what they could've done at the beginning, when we see flowers playing some role in the lives of each of the three characters. I would have liked to see the three story threads connect visually as well as thematically to the characters. Instead, what we get are a lot of pretty shots having little relevance to the stories being told.
The Hours is incredibly ambitious, and it delivers a message that most filmmakers wouldn't even attempt to try to communicate. But I think the movie could've been more than great performances strung together by a theme.
In this way, although Chicago is a much less ambitious film, it delivers soundly in performance, visuals, and story. I genuinely feel that Chicago deserves the Best Picture nomination. While I'd like to see a movie with more important thematic ideas on its mind, there's nothing wrong with a crowd-pleaser snagging the Oscar.
The Two Towers, I can't really critique. I have way too much vested interest in the Lord of the Rings, and I could never give an objective opinion of the movie. I know the performances are generally good; they aren't exceptional, but they serve to move and support the story, which is really what Lord of the Rings is all about. There are story flaws and character mistakes with Gimli and Legolas, among others. The wonderful thing about Peter Jackson's movies is that the passion and enthusiasm of the actors and filmmakers seems to disguise minor flaws in the story. I really don't want to see the Academy just give Return of the King an Oscar for all 3 films, especially in case it doesn't come out as good as the others. Ideally, they should give Jackson & Co. some sort of Special Achievement Award... these films will inevitably outlive most of the other nominations, anyways.
I'm very suspicious of Gangs of New York, because I can remember being extremely entertained by it in the theater, but afterwards hearing many different drawbacks that others noticed that I hadn't. I think immediately after seeing it, I was willing to give it an Oscar, but I think that seeing it a second time would convince me otherwise. I wouldn't be disappointed if it got the award, because every scene with Daniel Day-Lewis should inevitably cancel out all the bad ones.
I haven't seen the Pianist, but I'd like to try to this weekend... the premise sounds interesting, and not just because it's a Holocaust film.
Personally, one of my favorite films this year was Road to Perdition. I don't think it was a movie that really connected for everyone, but for some reason, it really connected with me. I just loved the simple story, Tom Hanks's facial expressions, Jude Law's whole performance, Thomas Newman's score, and the cinematography. It really is some of the best cinematography I've ever seen, and I'm not ashamed to admit that it captured perfectly the ambiance of the Chicago and the Midwestern countryside I love. Conrad Hall deserves the Oscar for cinematography.
Also: Kathy Bates should not get an Oscar for gettin' naked. She's done far better work.
Wow. I just wasted a lot of time.
Plus: The Grammys. No Wilco, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot? I don't think so.
I think I'm going to talk about movies tonight, so if you're not interested, go ahead and keep watching 24.
So the Oscar nominations are announced, and despite the fact that they are rigged, political, self-congratulatory awards, they do create a nice forum for some good discussion about films; and, as someone once said, Oscar night is the Super Bowl for geeks. If you haven't heard, the nominations for Best Picture are The Hours, Chicago, The Two Towers, The Pianist, and Gangs of New York.
For a movie to win Best Picture, it has to have some key elements: it should have an excellent story, excellent performances, and excellent visuals. No film should win because of any one of these three components; the category is Best Picture, and it should be firing on all cylinders to deserve it. I included visuals because, being artistic, I guess I'm tuned in to visuals more than other people. I don't mean special effects or even wicked, edgy cinematography; but film is primarily a visual medium, and if a movie fails to use the visual potential of film to tell its story, it is not really doing the medium justice. The extreme example of good visual style is Wes Anderson (Royal Tenenbaums) or even Baz Lurhmann: their visuals exist to serve the story. Visuals, of course, are used to some extent in every film, and are necessary in the Gus Hadorn-Robert McKee cinematic mantra "show, don't tell." Conversely, visuals don't make a film: Sleepy Hollow does great visual storytelling of a script that has some serious problems at its core. Excellent performances are evident. Story... I'm reluctant to say that a good film needs a plot. There are exceptions, but I think if you're going to go all James Joyce and make a movie with, essentially, no plot, you'd better be damn good. My favorite movies--the ones I can watch over and over-- have all 3 components going for them: The Big Chill, Raiders of the Lost Ark, North by Northwest, Rushmore, The Shawshank Redemption, To Kill A Mockingbird.
I'm explaining my stance because I want to argue why The Hours shouldn't win Best Picture. First, I want to say that the performances in that film were astounding. Nicole Kidman's performance is one of those performances that make you reconsider what you consider good acting. She does everything right... she uses her whole body and face to become the character, and she draws us in to her story. I think, also, that every movie star should start wearing a prosthetic nose of some kind to help us forget that we're watching TOM CRUISE or SALLY FIELD or, ahem, JEFF DANIELS. Because of that nose, and moreso her acting, I completely forget that I was watching Nicole Kidman. In terms of the other performances, I loved Julianne Moore. The key to her success is understatement, and there are several times where the bat of her eye or a purse of the lips indicate deep pools of her character.
I have to say, though, that I disliked Meryl Streep's segments. It's obvious that we're supposed to understand that her character avoids taking an honest look at her life and her unhappiness by busying herself with Richard, her daughter, and other "projects." Streep, however, gives me no indication in her performance that Clarissa has depth, that there's a side to her that she's suppressing. Her scene when she breaks down in front of Jeff Daniels seemed unfounded and unprecedented. The most interesting scenes were with Ed Harris (who was, do I have to use the word?, "brilliant") as Richard, because they forced a dynamicism in Clarissa that may have built to something that the movie never shows. In the end, I think her character is somewhat unresolved and, more importantly, underexplained.
Honestly, I would have rather watched a movie solely about Virginia Woolf. The relationships she had with her sister and her husband are filled with complexity and history, and I want to hear about the rest of her life story.
Ultimately, the film felt incomplete and unsatisfying to me. I'm going to say it didn't have a good story, not in the conventional way, but because the characters never really seemed to go anywhere. I felt that I needed to see some change in character. In Julianne Moore's case, they build up to the turning point in character, but they leave too much unanswered. I'm not exactly sure where she is in her transition from content to unsatisfied... has she had thoughts of homosexuality before this? Feelings of resentment for her son? Unsatisfaction with her husband? The movie leads us to believe that this is and isn't the first time she's tried to commit suicide. Is this the first step on her road to abandoning her family, or the breaking point? It was in Julianne Moore's scenes that I wished the most that I was reading the book instead of watching the movie. The same goes with Kidman's character. Streep's Clarissa is the only character that really seems to change, and I don't think I had enough of a vested interest in her to really believe it, or care.
Additionally, I don't think the visuals were used to the greatest extent. We get a hint of what they could've done at the beginning, when we see flowers playing some role in the lives of each of the three characters. I would have liked to see the three story threads connect visually as well as thematically to the characters. Instead, what we get are a lot of pretty shots having little relevance to the stories being told.
The Hours is incredibly ambitious, and it delivers a message that most filmmakers wouldn't even attempt to try to communicate. But I think the movie could've been more than great performances strung together by a theme.
In this way, although Chicago is a much less ambitious film, it delivers soundly in performance, visuals, and story. I genuinely feel that Chicago deserves the Best Picture nomination. While I'd like to see a movie with more important thematic ideas on its mind, there's nothing wrong with a crowd-pleaser snagging the Oscar.
The Two Towers, I can't really critique. I have way too much vested interest in the Lord of the Rings, and I could never give an objective opinion of the movie. I know the performances are generally good; they aren't exceptional, but they serve to move and support the story, which is really what Lord of the Rings is all about. There are story flaws and character mistakes with Gimli and Legolas, among others. The wonderful thing about Peter Jackson's movies is that the passion and enthusiasm of the actors and filmmakers seems to disguise minor flaws in the story. I really don't want to see the Academy just give Return of the King an Oscar for all 3 films, especially in case it doesn't come out as good as the others. Ideally, they should give Jackson & Co. some sort of Special Achievement Award... these films will inevitably outlive most of the other nominations, anyways.
I'm very suspicious of Gangs of New York, because I can remember being extremely entertained by it in the theater, but afterwards hearing many different drawbacks that others noticed that I hadn't. I think immediately after seeing it, I was willing to give it an Oscar, but I think that seeing it a second time would convince me otherwise. I wouldn't be disappointed if it got the award, because every scene with Daniel Day-Lewis should inevitably cancel out all the bad ones.
I haven't seen the Pianist, but I'd like to try to this weekend... the premise sounds interesting, and not just because it's a Holocaust film.
Personally, one of my favorite films this year was Road to Perdition. I don't think it was a movie that really connected for everyone, but for some reason, it really connected with me. I just loved the simple story, Tom Hanks's facial expressions, Jude Law's whole performance, Thomas Newman's score, and the cinematography. It really is some of the best cinematography I've ever seen, and I'm not ashamed to admit that it captured perfectly the ambiance of the Chicago and the Midwestern countryside I love. Conrad Hall deserves the Oscar for cinematography.
Also: Kathy Bates should not get an Oscar for gettin' naked. She's done far better work.
Wow. I just wasted a lot of time.
Plus: The Grammys. No Wilco, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot? I don't think so.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home