2011 Oscar Predictions: June

The big news since the last set of predictions I posted was the Academy’s decision to allow any number of best picture nominees between 5 and 10. Obviously embarrassed at some of the choices they’ve made in the past two years, they decided that if they think only 7 or 8 films deserve a nomination, there’s no reason they’d round it up to 10. I disagree with them on their idea of merit often, but in general, I kind of like the change. The new rule states that any best picture nominee must at least have 5% of the number votes on all ballots to be nominated, meaning that a film like The Blind Side, something I highly, highly doubt five percent of the Academy were blind enough to put at number one won’t have a shot at a nomination anymore. (There are more twists to the new rule that are clearly explained here. A film can, under special circumstances, get nominated without five percent of number one votes, but for the ease of it, I’ll stick with that general rule in my predictions.) Of course, that makes the prediction game a lot more fun and the announcement on nomination morning a tiny bit more surprising, hopefully.

Best Picture

1- War Horse (dir. Steven Spielberg)

2- J. Edgar (dir. Clint Eastwood)

3- The Descendants (dir. Alexander Payne)

4- Tree of Life (dir. Terrence Malick)

5- Ides of March (dir. George Clooney)

6- The Artist (dir. Michel Hazanavicius)

Potential additions

A Dangerous Method (dir. David Cronenberg)

Young Adult (dir. Jason Reitman) 

Hugo Cabret (dir. Martin Scoresese)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (dir. David Fincher)

Nominees?

Having now seen Super 8 and Tree of Life, I feel confident in assuming the former doesn’t have what it takes to warrant the required votes and the latter will definitely have some devotees that will make it a nominee. Trailers for Moneyball (dir. Bennett Miller) and A Dangerous Method also premiered. Sports films have their fans but despite the trailer’s slightly unconventionally inspirational tone, this film has to be really special to get that many number one votes and I’m not gonna bet on that until I see the actual film. A Dangerous Method looked a little too twisted for their taste so I’ll leave it out for now. As for The Artist, word from Cannes says it’s a crowd-pleaser despite being almost silent and in black and white. But it’s the type of film that might generate the passionate response this voting system needs and we should also bear in mind that it has all the power of the Weinsteins behind it, given that their other pets this year don’t look like best picture contenders at all.

Best Director

1- Steven Spielberg (War Horse)

2- Alexander Payne (The Descendants)

3- George Clooney (Ides of March)

4- Terrence Malick (Tree of Life)

5- Clint Eastwood (J. Edgar)

Alternate

David Fincher (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)

Something tells me the directors’ branch will embrace Malick for his vision and the time he put into materializing his film. Eastwood may seem like the more obvious choice but he hasn’t been the Academy favourite he used to be recently, so have to see how good the film turns out to be.

He seems to be adding his usual dose of charm to this role. Will the film be a big awards player at all though?

Best Actor

1- Leonardo DiCaprio (J. Edgar)

2- George Clooney (The Descendants)

3- Woody Harrelson (Rampart)

4- Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

5- Michael Shannon (Take Shelter)

Alternate

Matt Damon (We Bought a Zoo)

I kept my predictions the same here, except for the alternate that used to be Michael Fassbender for Shame. He looked like he really owned the role in A Dangerous Method’s trailer, which is actually not going to be helpful when the voters have to choose him for either of the two films.

Best Actress

1- Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)

3- Tilda Swinton (We Need to Talk about Kevin)

4- Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)

5- Kirsten Dunst (Melancholia)

5- Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn)

Alternate

Charlize Theron (Young Adult)

Recent buzz about My Week with Marilyn indicates that the show-stealer is Kenneth Branagh rather than Williams so I moved her down a bit. Mara looks a little too high up the list to myself and I wonder if that role is going to be embraced by the older members of AMPAS. They did prematurely invite her to join their Academy though, which makes me wonder, if her The Social Network performance impressed them that much...

Plus, we all know they like women to take their clothes off, and you just need to take a look at the poster to see what we can expect.

Best Supporting Actor

1- Kenneth Branagh (My Week with Marilyn)

2- Jim Broadbent (The Iron Lady)

3- Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Ides of March)

4- Albert Brooks (Drive)

5- Viggo Mortensen (A Dangerous Method)

Alternate

Niels Arestrup (War Horse)

There is some talk here and there about Plummer’s chances for Beginners but having seen the film now, I don’t think the performance is strong enough to carry him all the way through the awards season, unless the field is really weak (always a possibility). I’ve also removed Brad Pitt from this category as again, having seen the movie now, I’m sure he’s neither a supporting character and nor gives the type of performance they like. I decided to leave Arestrup out of my top five for now, just because he isn’t a well-known face this side of the Atlantic, but the newly released teaser trailer for War Horse put a lot of emphasis on his character, so he’s likely to be in the running.

Rising star Andrea Riseborough in W.E. All we've heard so far is great words about her.

Best Supporting Actress

1- Vanessa Redgrave (Coriolanus)

2- Andrea Riseborough (W.E)

3- Carey Mulligan (Shame)

4- Emily Watson (War Horse)

5- Marisa Tomei (Ides of March)

Alternate

Elle Fanning (Super 8)

Elle Fanning was the only thing that salvaged Super 8 for me. (She did the exact same thing last year with Somewhere.) Depending on the film’s campaign, she might have a chance at a nomination but I’ve left her out this time. I’m not sure how the screen time is distributed in War Horse, but Emily Watson is a dependable actress and if the film hits the right notes for them, some acting nominations are likely to follow.

Best Original Screenplay

1- J. Edgar (Dustin Lance Black)

2- Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen)

3- Take This Waltz (Sarah Polley)

4- Take Shelter (Jeff Nichols)

5- Rampart (Oren Moverman and James Elroy)

Alternate

Win Win (Thomas McCarthy, Joe Tibani)

I’ve included Win Win as my alternative this time, on the account of “some people are bound to remember how amazingly written Win Win was”, but we won’t know if the critics’ awards will embrace it enough to give it the push it needs yet, so I’ll leave it out of my top five for now.

Best Adapted Screenplay

1- War Horse (Lee Hall and Richard Curtis)

2- The Descendants (Alexander Payne)

3- The Ides of March (George Clooney and Grant Heslov)

4- We Need to Talk About Kevin (Rory Kinnear, Lynne Ramsay)

5- Moneyball (Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zailian)

Alternate

We Bought a Zoo (Cameron Crowe and Aline Brosh McKenna)

We Need to Talk about Kevin was super popular as a book and outside of Tilda Swinton, this is the easiest place for them to reward the film. I also moved We Bought a Zoo down a notch. Who knows how that movie will turn out? 

Typically prestige work from Kaminski on a Spielberg film.

Best Cinematography

1- Tree of Life (Emmanuel Lubezki)

2- War Horse (Janusz Kaminski)

3- Hugo Cabret (Robert Richardson)

4- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Jeff Cronenweth)

5- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (Edoardo Serra)

Alternate

Moneyball (Wally Pfister)

I’ve kept my prediction mostly the same, but for the switch between the top two. If Tree of Life has one guaranteed nomination, this is it. It has everything going for it, as far as cinematography nominees usually go. I hesitated on Captain America too, but opted to leave it out for now. Once the film comes out, we’ll have a clearer idea. Something tells me a summer blockbuster can show up in this category.

Best Editing

1- War Horse (Michael Kahn)

2- J. Edgar (Joel Cox, Gary Roach)

3- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall)

4- Hugo Cabret (Thelma Schoonmaker)

5- Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol (Paul Hirsch)

Alternate

Ides of March (Stephen Mirrione)

Am I overestimating The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? It feels like I’ve included it way too many times. And best picture nominees usually fare well in this category, so maybe Ides of March is a smarter prediction. Stephen Mirrione has previously won this category for a best picture nominee (Traffic) and been nominated for another (Babel), so it could happen again.

Best Art Direction

1- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (Stuart Craig and Stephanie McMillan)

2- War Horse (Rick Carter; Lee Sandales)

3- Hugo Cabret (Dante Ferretti; Dorothée Baussan, Francesca Lo Schiavo)

4- Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (Sarah Greenwood; Alison Harvey, Katie Spencer)

5- Jane Eyre (Will Hughes-Jones; Tina Jones)

Alternate

A Dangerous Method (James McAteer; Gernot Thondel)

This is another category where I left my predictions untouched. This tentative line-up and the alternate choice include all the stuff voters in this branch really dig.

Period piece? Check! Fantasy? Check! Best picture nominees (or best picture looking film)?  Check! Harry Potter? Check!

Review: Tree of Life

Tree of Life

Director: Terrence Malick

Cast: Brad Pitt, Hunter McCracken, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn

Year: 2011

Where to begin with a film like this? Terrence Malick’s fifth feature requires much more discourse than one viewing and a blog post allows. Malick has caused more conversation than any director with such a sparse career could, mostly because of how unique his visual and storytelling style is, and yet, Tree of Life is in many ways his most Malickian film to date. This leads me to believe I should refrain from writing a “review” on the film until I can afford to give it another look, but then again, this blog is my main gateway for conversation, so I’ll sound off with a little bit of my thoughts until then.

Tree of Life tells the story of Jack, the eldest son of Mr. And Mrs. O’Brien (played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain) from his birth to his early adolescence and then with a huge leap, his middle aged life (played by Sean Penn).  That’s actually quite an understatement. Malick tells Jack’s story not from his own birth, but from the birth of all nature. In an already iconic and widely discussed sequence, and quite an indulgently long one at that, Malick uses the wizardry of the craftsmen at his service to bring his vision to the screen in the most elaborate way possible. Partly to the credit of Emmanuel Lubezki and partly to that of the visual effects supervisors, the sequence plays like a majestic beginning to the film’s main narrative, which is essentially about Jack’s complications with his family.

He is a lost soul, confused about his past, his family, his wife, and the world around him. As he grows up, we see him manifest his anger against his father in different ways. He drifts apart from his family when we see him accompany his friends on their tirade on an abandoned neighbourhood house. We see this in his eyes when he looks at his father fixing the car or when he runs along the river with his mother’s clothes in his hands. And in these eyes and their expressivity lies one of the film’s greatest strengths; that the need for any dialogue or exposition has been almost entirely removed with Malick’s expressionist direction and his actors’ immersive performances.

For me, Tree of Life defines what some critics call visual poetry. Malick doesn’t need to tell us what the plot is or what exactly is happening to inject the sensation he wants into us. Not to say that we aren’t given any explanations. We are told in the beginning that Jack’s brother died when he was nineteen and although this particular twist matters greatly in the story, Malick doesn’t concern himself with it too much as a plot point. Instead, he focuses on the reaction of the family to this tragedy. It’s the collective experience of grief we feel from watching the O’Brien’s in their grief that matter most. We don’t need to be told that Mrs. O’Brien needs to be alone after her son’s death. The agitation she feels with her relatives comes through in the subtlety of the motion of her body. We don’t need to be told that Mr. O’Brien always thought he could be a great musician; Looking at him play the organ with such spirit and passion in his eyes, through the fluid movements of Malick’s camera, we feel his sensation.  

 

Of course, aiding Malick in materializing his ambitious vision are his actors who all deliver praiseworthy work. Brad Pitt, who is slowly working his way up my list of favourite actors, creates the perfect balance between the harsh demeanour of a stern 50s Texan father and his love for his family. Jessica Chastain, whom I admit I had not seen before, completely immerses herself in Mrs. O’Brien and despite having less material to work with than Pitt, avoids the pitfalls of the “supportive mother” role while capturing the angelic beauty of her character. No less impressive is newcomer Hunter McCracken whose career now seems to have the dreamiest start any actor could wish for. Having the task of portraying the internal dilemmas of his awkward age, McCracken lives up to the expectations of the role and becomes a pitch perfect picture of the angst of preadolescent boys and the transition from childhood innocence to a more mature compassion.

Whether Jack or the family as a whole has any connection to Malick’s own history is unknown to me, but if setting the film in his hometown of Waco, Texas is any indication, then the answer might be a yes. Despite Tree of Life’s massive scale and the grandiosity of some of its elements, particularly the aforementioned “creation of the universe sequence”, this is Malick’s most personal film to date. The picture he paints on the screen is the result of his philosophical questions and his long search for the meaning behind the universe and its creator; Concerns that he’s mulled over for so many years and finally brings to the screen now; Questions that he doesn’t answer so much as he proposes. And there lies another one of the film’s strong points. That Malick never force feeds his ideas. He asks us to think differently. He makes us look at simple quotidian things differently, but never makes emphatic assertions. Even the ubiquitous religious motifs don’t seem aggressive at all. The film might be a personal one, but anyone who’s willing to delve into Malick’s dazzling vision can connect with it.

Ultimately, if anything stops me from hailing Tree of Life as a true masterpiece, it’s the scar left on the face of the film by its very long editing process. Not exactly noticeable during the film’s exploration of Jack’s earlier years – mostly due to the free-spirited and arc-free storytelling – these editing inconsistencies and Malick’s obsession with finessing his work to perfection almost fail the film in the surreal beach sequence at the end. I don’t dislike that sequence per se. I think it does work thematically, but it feels more rumpled than nuanced stylistically and unfortunately ends the film on a less than perfect note.  

Grade: A-

Final Word: As I said before, I didn’t want to write about this film until I watch it a second time. Malick’s films always require multiple viewings and sometimes several years to go by to finally sink in. Like those who watched 2001 – a film this is often compared to - when it came out, I might not have grasped the true worth of it. Or less likely, I might not like it as much once the effect of the dazzling visual treat wears off. But there’s one thing I’m certain of already. EVERYONE has to watch this film, and watch it on the big screen too. Whether you like it or not, it’s a film that is completely worth your time and deserves all the discussion about it.  

Monday's Words of Wisdom

"If you're playing the movie on a telephone, you will never in a trillion years experience the film. You'll think you've experienced it, but you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness that you think you've seen a film on your fucking telephone. Get real!"

- From the man who brought us Mulholland Dr., Lost Highway and Elephant Man

 

Short Take: X-Men: First Class

X-Men: First Class

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Cast: Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence, Kevin Bacon, January Jones, Zoe Kravitz

Year: 2011

X-Men: First Class, as the title openly describes, tells the story of the beginnings of X-Men. On the screen, this basically translates to a group of young and attractive people getting together to save the world using their overdeveloped genes. The first “few” minutes of the film are spent jumping from 1944 to 1962 and criss-crossing between different locations several times, to give us the backstory of Charles, Raven and Erik. Charles (James McAvoy) is a genius who has the power to read and control minds. Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) is a blue-skinned, yellow-eyed, red-haired mutant who can shape shift and look like anyone (and of course why not choose to look like J.Law?). Erik (Michael Fassbender) is a holocaust survivor (surviving the evil of Sebastien Shaw, played by Kevin Bacon) who has the magnetic power to control metals.

These early introductions are put together so tightly and cover so much ground – and in such indulgent amount of time – that the film starts to feel slightly confusing. Despite that, it’s not difficult to stay focused mostly because of the intermittent appearance of Rose Byrne, January Jones and Jennifer Lawrence on the screen. But for me, the film doesn’t actually get on track until it slows down a bit to explore the dynamics between these characters. The best comes when Charles and Erik finally meet and the two actors get to show their remarkable chemistry. McAvoy proves, yet again, that there’s no logical reason why he isn’t one of cinema’s biggest superstars and Fassbender proves, yet again, that there’s no logical reason why he shouldn’t be Daniel Craig’s successor as the new 007 (and one of cinema’s biggest superstars). Among the younger co-stars, Jennifer Lawrence stands head and shoulders above others, fleshing out her character into something more believable and interesting than written for her on the paper.

X-Men, unlike most of Marvel’s recent outings, isn’t a phoned-in cash grab at all. If you like the logic of X-Men, this film is one hell of a treat. The visual effects are really neat and even though they look a little too CGI at times, they serve the story well. They also win bonus points for not forcing those horrendous 3D glasses upon us! I was most impressed with the sound work on the film though, especially during Professor X’s mind reading scenes and Magneto’s “focusing” moments. I can totally see a couple of sound nominations in their bag come Oscar nomination morning.

All that said, I can’t get past that caveat myself. I don’t like the logic of X-Men. It’s a thrilling action piece, yes, and its’ really entertaining, but as hard as I try, I can’t look beyond the giant hairy blue monster riding a plane. I can’t take it seriously when a well dressed man has tornadoes coming out of his palms and I’m not at all surprised that my friend laughed out loud at Michael Fassbender looking dead serious when stuck his arms out to pull the metal satellite dish toward him. I don’t blame the filmmakers for this. The film is almost as good as it can be. I blame myself for not being the target audience for this genre. At the end of the day, the film lacks the depth required to make it more significant or memorable for me than a good two hours at the movies on a weekend.

Grade: B-

Final Word: If you’re a fan of the series or the comic books, you’ll probably have a blast in the theatre. If you’re not into the whole superhero thing, you’ll most likely enjoy the film anyway. As far as popcorn pleasure summer blockbusters go, this is one of the better ones in recent years. And there’s also a lot of eye candy. really, a LOT of it. 

*This review was from the perspective of someone who’s never watched the previous X-Men films or read the comics. Although, I am familiar enough with the series to understand the cameos!

The Blue Eyes of Moulin Rouge!

*This post is dedicated to Nathaniel’s “Hit Me With Your Best Shot” series and it’s admittedly a bit of a cheat. This isn’t my best shot so much as it is a collection of shots, but oh well...

How does one choose a favourite shot from Moulin Rouge!? It’s virtually impossible. Moulin Rouge! is the biggest visual spectacle in recent memory. Every frame is packed with so much detail, be it the colourful extravaganza of the costumes or the self-indulgent delights in the settings, there’s something to marvel at in every shot of this film. 

Take a look at the shot above for instance. Making such a finely crafted and vibrant set from the mundane elements of a backstage washroom is no easy feat. The production designers of Moulin Rouge! though gave just as much attention to this room as they did to Satine’s boudoir, the aerial shots of Paris and the elephant, and the stage of the Moulin Rouge theatre in the film's finale. These colourful details are what make Moulin Rouge! the unique visual treat that it is.

But instead of facing the challenge of choosing from this long list of fantastic shots, I opted for what I remembered best from my first experience with the film several years ago. In the abundance of busy, colourful and vivid imagery that shapes Moulin Rouge! from start to finish, Luhrmann insists on close-ups or even extreme close-ups of his actors tens of times. Whether in the film’s noisiest moments of song and dance, or in its intense hide-and-seek conversational games between the Duke and others, or in Christian’s romantic serenades for Satine, or even the few moments of quietude, Luhrmann relies on the power of their gazes for expression. Seduction, love, jealousy, hatred, anger, illness, confusion, joy, surprise, passion, grief, despair... you name it. Everything can be read in their blue eyes.

In the end, I found it too difficult to even narrow these close-ups down to one favourite, so I settled for all the ones I loved. 

P.S. On a side note, isn’t McGregor’s performance so underrated? At the time, it got no awards love – typical of awards bodies to ignore male romantic leads – but even now, nobody mentions it as one of the film’s strong suits. I’m happy for his comeback after The Ghost Writer. Hopefully he’ll get more roles of this magnitude.

The Greatest Video Ever?

As a film junkie and a huge fan of the crime genre, I have to salute the creators of this video. 

Job well done!