But the big one of the night is Best Picture. I have seen all eight, but one of them I only saw because it was nominated and frankly I wish I hadn't. So lets go through them alphabetically, and I will try very, very, very hard not to write a 10 page essay about just how awful and reductive American Sniper is.
American Sniper
If you haven't seen American Sniper yet, don't. Instead, track down the Adam Curtis documentary Bitter Lake that was recently on the BBC (might still be on iPlayer).Bitter Lake examines 50 years of history of Helmand and foreign intervention in Afghanistan. But one of its key points is how western Governments created simple narratives of good vs evil, one side or the other, that didn't take into account the reality on the ground and how that led to disaster. This reductive, damaging narrative seems to reach its nadir, at least on an 'entertainment' front in American Sniper. This is a film where all American soldiers are heroes just by dint of being an American soldier, and any Iraqi who is where the protagonist thinks they shouldn't be, is automatically evil and deserving of any fate. It is that simplistic, racist and offensive. The film is supposed to be about the damage done to a soldier in that situation without being political. Well it's view of war is very political (in a way that The Hurt Locker managed not to be) and the central character so repugnant in his views that it is hard to care about what happens to him. I would like to go into more about just what is wrong with this film, as I know I've been incredibly simplistic, but then this is a film that doesn't bother with any kind of depth or complexity and I'm not sure it deserves any more than this.
Birdman
I am so glad I went to see Birdman a second time (the afternoon after a Hogmanay party was not the best time). The single tracking shot is an interesting and fun conceit but there is so much more to it than that. It is entertaining and funny, dramatic and heartfelt. The performances are great, and there is such flair in the direction that you can't help but get swept up in it. It was a properly inventive movie that sucks you in straight away and then whirls you around. It goes off in flights of fancy but never becomes ridiculous. And it is just so fun and enjoyable without being overshadowed by technical achievement. Although there are other movies nominated that I would prefer to win, it is good to see the major contenders trying to do something different and unconventional.
Boyhood
And as a film making experiments go, there are few taking more of a risk in conception than Boyhood. It is pulled off brilliantly, so humanly, so convincingly, so involvingly. There is no deliberate defined story line, it just evolves in the way life does. The most incredible thing about it might have been in the casting of Ellar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater who give fantastic, realistic performances (that maybe couldn't have predicted when they were so young - they surely couldn't have known how much Coltrane would have looked like Ethan Hawke by the time he grew up!). Although essentially gentle and natural, it includes so many of the highs and lows of family, relationships and growing up in a moving and utterly convincing way. Boyhood is the favourite to win, and although it isn't my absolute favourite of the films nominated, it probably is the most deserving.
The Imitation Game
This was a very good, very solid movie, if not particularly spectacular or told in a particularly original way, which means I'm somewhat surprised as to how the director got a nomination. It has an excellent ensemble cast, and a compelling pair of central performances. It's an important story, told competently, that is moving and tense and interesting. But it's not quite in the league of some of the films on this list, vastly superior to American Sniper but for me, a little below the others. Whether it has been slightly sanitised through the Weinstein process or whether it could have done with a director with a little more vision, I'm not sure. Having said that, there were so many memorable parts to this film, from the terrific young actor playing school age Alan, to the heart stopping dilemma after they finally crack Enigma, that just about weave together for an excellent film.
The Grand Budapest Hotel.
Noone would be surprised to learn that this was my overall film. To me, this was film heaven. Inventive, beautiful, creative detail that is scarcely believable, a magnificent cast and a funny, dramatic and moving story. The script is wonderful and Ralph Fiennes performance is out of this world, unexpected and thoroughly brilliant, every line reading done to perfection. It is precise without being fussy, alternatively dark and light, sometimes at the same time. It is surely nailed on to win the production design awards, perhaps original screenplay but Best Picture may be a step further than the Academy is ready for. This is a movie I will probably watch 100 times in my life and never get tired of.
Selma
Selma is a stunning film, that gripped me throughout and frequently had me in tears. From David Oyelowo onwards, it is stock full of stunning performances, but his is just brilliant. He is commanding, heroic, but then also uncertain and human. You can't take your eyes of him and he reveals so much about the tension between being a living legend, a leader and a private person. The film does so many things brilliant. The scenes of violence are devastating and unforgettable. But the way it shows you want non-violent protest actually meant is one of its crowning achievements. How this was not a passive thing, and not an easy choice at all. It brings home just how hard it was to resist retaliating and the incredible sacrifices that were made. But even though moral right is all on one side, the film also shows the limits to that, how the right thing is not always obvious - sometimes people have to come before the movement and message, and sometimes the other ways round. This is such a complicated, intelligent and compelling film and it is such a shame it has been overlooked in so many other categories where it deserved to be.
The Theory of Everything
Of the two British genius biopics, this was my favourite. It is such a enthralling portrayal of a relationship under pressure, as well as brilliantly bringing out the all encompassing effects of a devastating illness. The two leads are spectacular and perfectly complement each other. It is an emotional and moving film but often in the ways you wouldn't expect. It doesn't play it too safe but is prepared to look at their relationship in an honest and unflinching way. It feels like a film that will stand the test of time more than The Imitation Game, and although I would maybe put it 6th out if 8, it is only by the tiniest margin.
Whiplash
I would never have thought a movie about drumming could have had me gasping and shaking at the end - the same emotional response that I had to Gravity or Captain Phillips. Whiplash is a stunning movie, shot through with the most incredible tension and acted with a conviction and intensity that you rarely see. The physical commitment of Miles Teller is the perfect complement to the barnstorming roof raising brilliance of JK Simmons. It is fantastically edited and directed and I cannot wait to see what Damien Chazelle does next. This is a film that literally took my breath away, and it may not have the long lasting emotional impact of Boyhood, but I have rarely been gripped so much in the cinema.
And finally, honourable mentions for Mr Turner, Nightcrawler and 2 Days 1 Night, all of which I wish had been found a place in the nominations. I can only assume that quite a lot of voters don't watch many movies and American Sniper was the only film that a lot of people saw this year as I do not understand how it won a nomination over these and many, many more.
Monday, 23 February 2015
Sunday, 22 February 2015
It's Oscar time 2015, but who cares what the Academy thinks, here's what SHOULD win....
Well as usual, I have decided that, since I've seen all the films ever, (ok maybe not, but nearly all the major award nominees), I should stop gibbering on at everyone who mentions "Oscar" within earshot and tell the world here.
So I'm going to start with the acting nominees. And as you would expect, this may include several insults about Bradley Cooper's acting abilities (or lack thereof...). It's an annual tradition now!
Supporting Actor:
I'm not sure it's even worth discussing this one. I know JK Simmons is going to win, you know JK Simmons is going to win, aliens in far flung galaxies picking up their first transmissions from Earth know JK Simmons is going to win (which is impressive, because the transmissions are probably from the 60s or something, but I digress).
And I'd be quite happy with that, it is an immense performance in a fantastic film (and I wonder if they considered submitting him for Lead Actor, given the amount he dominates it). He manages to unleash a monster without ever becoming a caricature, bringing an incredible combination of energy, intensity and believability.
In other years, we might have been talking about a show down between Ethan Hawke and Edward Norton, two very different performances that are also probably the best they have been in years. It is now six or seven months since I saw Boyhood but for me the thing that struck me most about Ethan Hawke (and the other performances) was that here was a character who developed, changed, evolved but still felt very much like the same person. Now given the nature of how the film was made, that maybe seems obvious. But to actually go back to that person, who floats in and out of the film, between doing other parts, and using those small moments to fill in, round out and fully create someone who felt a real person is quite an achievement.
Meanwhile, did anyone else remember Edward Norton being that funny before Birdman? (well apart from Grand Budapest Hotel, but I keep forgetting that was him in it) He is definitely my favourite thing about the film and it was one of those performances where just know the actor is having a lot of fun and you can't help but have fun watching him. It's Norton Unchained, but also a performance where he reels things back for his more melancholy scenes with Emma Stone. Particularly the first time I saw Birdman, it felt that the film lost a tiny part of its sparkle in the final third where Norton is very much in the background.
Which all makes Mark Ruffalo feel a bit overlooked. I suspect it's just because Mark Ruffalo gives yet another of his excellent, subtle, warm and realistic performances that makes everyone forget he is actually acting. He might have been slightly disadvantaged as well by the slightly strange pacing of Foxcatcher which means he doesn't really have a story arc, despite being such a central character and at the epicentre of some of the most memorable scenes.
I didn't see The Judge so can't comment on Robert Duvall so will just assume he was pretty good and got nominated for being Robert Duvall.
Best Supporting Actress.
Those aliens in outer space can also tell you it looks pretty certain that Patricia Arquette is going to win. All the things above that apply to Ethan Hawke apply even more to Patrica Arquette. Her character is even more complicated than his, and gives the film its emotional centre of gravity. She manages to mix heartbreaking, fierce and fragile into a brilliantly convincing portrayal of a mother not always succeeding but always trying to do her best.
Emma Stone's brittle and caustic performance comes through as even smarter and more layered the second time of watching and she manages to keep Sam the right side of the self indulgent poor little troubled rich girl cliche. Keira Knightley is a nice counterpoint to Benedict Cumberbatch's performance and it is nicely judged, but good as she was, I don't remember it striking me as a particular stretch for her.
Laura Dern has some of the similar emotional punch of Patricia Arquette as a mother trying to do her best, and she does an excellent job of bringing to life a woman whose loss is so great that it derails her daughter's life. But the nature of the film means she has a little less impact than Arquette.
Meryl Streep is fine in Into the Woods, but it is hardly vintage Meryl and I guess she got nominated for being Meryl. So where on earth was Rene Russo for Nightcrawler? Oh right, the Academy found that film too disturbing so she got overlooked.
Best Actress
And this one is going to Julianne Moore. Frustratingly, Still Alice hasn't been released in the UK yet. However, since she should have won for Far from Heaven in 2002 (?), then even if it is her worst performance for some time (and it's likely that would still be up there with most other actor's best), I am quite happy for her to win.
Felicity Jones, though, was wonderful in The Theory of Everything. Absolutely heartbreaking, without huge showstopping moments that might catch the eyes of voters, and all the more credible for it. She is of the main reasons that the film is as much Jane's story as Stephen's, and is the prime reason that you want the film to focus on her as much as possible. The way you knew exactly where Jane's emotions were at any point with often only the tiniest change of expression, that we could see what she wanted to show to the people around her, but also what she was trying to suppress, was mesmerising.
I was so delighted to see Marion Cotillard be nominated (especially since she missed out for Rust and Bone the other year). The film, and Sanda's journey in it, is a complete emotional roller-coaster and Cotillard is the one that takes us through on this journey. The full emotional spectrum is gone through in this film and Cotillard is convincing throughout. There are no black and white aspects to 2 Days, 1 Night, and Cotillard brings out all the different shades and makes each interaction with each separate colleague unique and fully realised.
Reese Witherspoon is back to her best in Wild. She gains the audience's sympathy for a character who might not be automatically sympathetic, or whose emotional "journey" could become cloying or too earnest. Instead, she takes a damaged woman who is essentially a mess of her own making, albeit one fueled by grief and makes her someone you want to find her way back to her life.
Rosamund Pike is intensely frightening in Gone Girl, but she isn't quite allowed to bring the complexity or subtlety that marks the others performances also nominated. She manages to make sure the film doesn't quite fly off the wheel into total absurdity but she doesn't hold back on the dark side and is believable on how her previous experiences have impacted on her.
Best Actor
This seems to be Eddie Redmayne v Michael Keaton, and I haven't quite decided who I would rather win. I think I'm leaning Redmayne but suspect it will go to Keaton.
How Eddie Redmayne managed the physical side of his transformation, I'm not sure I'll ever get my head round. It's the gradual way he did it in, and how he brought out the smaller changes in his condition as long side the more obvious ones that blew me away. And that doesn't even include how he managed to develop the character gradually through the film, never letting the physical side overshadow what would have been an impressive performance without a physical transformation as well.
The first time I saw Birdman, it was the afternoon of New Year's Day and I was so tired I didn't really take in how good Michael Keaton was until the second time I saw it. He somehow anchors the film in reality but is also the off the wall, floating into space part of it too, and his performance has more layers than an onion. Having said that, I think the reason he might win is because people will vote for what is a complete lack of vanity and the full on self send up that is in the background of the performance. There is much more to it than that and it is a cleverly judged, perfectly executed performance.
Steve Carell definitely brings something I've never seen from him before, and he is totally mesmerising, unnerving and compelling. However, the film cuts a lot of time at the end (trying not to spoiler it, but two events that were a few years apart, appear to be a few months apart and these years are very significant for duPont) and cuts an opportunity for Carell to really take this performance to the next level.
Benedict Cumberbatch was very good in The Imitation Game (and more different from Sherlock than I know certain friends of mine thought!). But far less memorable a couple of months on that the performances above. He brings charisma and a well developed character who believably handles some horrific moral decisions. He is the best part of the film, but for whatever reason, a performance I was seriously impressed with at the time, has somewhat faded from memory, perhaps more to do with the movie's quality (good without being amazing) rather than Cumberbatch's performance. I feel like I'm being unduly harsh, but I just can't remember what it was that he particularly did well.
From one BC to another. Seriously, how does Blandly Cooper get these Oscar nominations. In the last few years, his near contemporaries such as Oscar Isaac (A Most Violent Year, Inside Llewyn Davis), Tom Hardy (Locke, The Drop), Jake Gyllenhaal (Prisoners, Enemy, Nightcrawler) and Michael Fassbender (Shame, 12 Years a Slave) have produced all those amazing performances in the brackets, all of which would be well beyond Blandly. And guess what, they total 1 nomination to Blandly's three. I just don't understand it at all. Blandly isn't awful in American Sniper, I mean I really believed when he stared intensely at a wall that he didn't like that wall. But he isn't particularly convincing either. His character is supposed to become more internally traumatised as the film goes on, but any inner emotions don't really come through and it makes the film all the more offensive for it, because we are supposed to sympathise with basically a racist psychopath because he has been damaged by war, but he doesn't bring enough through. If you want to see a film with a supposed to be all American hero going through moral dilemmas, watch Captain America for a vastly better performance (and that wasn't even Chris Evans' best performance of the year). And when you look at the people that he beat out for a nomination, it is even more ridiculous. I can only assume people though Blandly was better than David Oyelowo, Ralph Fiennes, Timothy Spall or Jake Gyllenhaal because they didn't bother to watch their movies. Actors who can bring some of the greats of history to life so that we know why they are great, yet still make them human. Actors who can create characters that you have never seen before, but still believe them as people. Yeah, don't see Blandly doing that any time soon. To be honest, Blandly had more emotional depth as a goddam raccoon in Guardians of the Galaxy.
So I'm going to start with the acting nominees. And as you would expect, this may include several insults about Bradley Cooper's acting abilities (or lack thereof...). It's an annual tradition now!
Supporting Actor:
I'm not sure it's even worth discussing this one. I know JK Simmons is going to win, you know JK Simmons is going to win, aliens in far flung galaxies picking up their first transmissions from Earth know JK Simmons is going to win (which is impressive, because the transmissions are probably from the 60s or something, but I digress).
And I'd be quite happy with that, it is an immense performance in a fantastic film (and I wonder if they considered submitting him for Lead Actor, given the amount he dominates it). He manages to unleash a monster without ever becoming a caricature, bringing an incredible combination of energy, intensity and believability.
In other years, we might have been talking about a show down between Ethan Hawke and Edward Norton, two very different performances that are also probably the best they have been in years. It is now six or seven months since I saw Boyhood but for me the thing that struck me most about Ethan Hawke (and the other performances) was that here was a character who developed, changed, evolved but still felt very much like the same person. Now given the nature of how the film was made, that maybe seems obvious. But to actually go back to that person, who floats in and out of the film, between doing other parts, and using those small moments to fill in, round out and fully create someone who felt a real person is quite an achievement.
Meanwhile, did anyone else remember Edward Norton being that funny before Birdman? (well apart from Grand Budapest Hotel, but I keep forgetting that was him in it) He is definitely my favourite thing about the film and it was one of those performances where just know the actor is having a lot of fun and you can't help but have fun watching him. It's Norton Unchained, but also a performance where he reels things back for his more melancholy scenes with Emma Stone. Particularly the first time I saw Birdman, it felt that the film lost a tiny part of its sparkle in the final third where Norton is very much in the background.
Which all makes Mark Ruffalo feel a bit overlooked. I suspect it's just because Mark Ruffalo gives yet another of his excellent, subtle, warm and realistic performances that makes everyone forget he is actually acting. He might have been slightly disadvantaged as well by the slightly strange pacing of Foxcatcher which means he doesn't really have a story arc, despite being such a central character and at the epicentre of some of the most memorable scenes.
I didn't see The Judge so can't comment on Robert Duvall so will just assume he was pretty good and got nominated for being Robert Duvall.
Best Supporting Actress.
Those aliens in outer space can also tell you it looks pretty certain that Patricia Arquette is going to win. All the things above that apply to Ethan Hawke apply even more to Patrica Arquette. Her character is even more complicated than his, and gives the film its emotional centre of gravity. She manages to mix heartbreaking, fierce and fragile into a brilliantly convincing portrayal of a mother not always succeeding but always trying to do her best.
Emma Stone's brittle and caustic performance comes through as even smarter and more layered the second time of watching and she manages to keep Sam the right side of the self indulgent poor little troubled rich girl cliche. Keira Knightley is a nice counterpoint to Benedict Cumberbatch's performance and it is nicely judged, but good as she was, I don't remember it striking me as a particular stretch for her.
Laura Dern has some of the similar emotional punch of Patricia Arquette as a mother trying to do her best, and she does an excellent job of bringing to life a woman whose loss is so great that it derails her daughter's life. But the nature of the film means she has a little less impact than Arquette.
Meryl Streep is fine in Into the Woods, but it is hardly vintage Meryl and I guess she got nominated for being Meryl. So where on earth was Rene Russo for Nightcrawler? Oh right, the Academy found that film too disturbing so she got overlooked.
Best Actress
And this one is going to Julianne Moore. Frustratingly, Still Alice hasn't been released in the UK yet. However, since she should have won for Far from Heaven in 2002 (?), then even if it is her worst performance for some time (and it's likely that would still be up there with most other actor's best), I am quite happy for her to win.
Felicity Jones, though, was wonderful in The Theory of Everything. Absolutely heartbreaking, without huge showstopping moments that might catch the eyes of voters, and all the more credible for it. She is of the main reasons that the film is as much Jane's story as Stephen's, and is the prime reason that you want the film to focus on her as much as possible. The way you knew exactly where Jane's emotions were at any point with often only the tiniest change of expression, that we could see what she wanted to show to the people around her, but also what she was trying to suppress, was mesmerising.
I was so delighted to see Marion Cotillard be nominated (especially since she missed out for Rust and Bone the other year). The film, and Sanda's journey in it, is a complete emotional roller-coaster and Cotillard is the one that takes us through on this journey. The full emotional spectrum is gone through in this film and Cotillard is convincing throughout. There are no black and white aspects to 2 Days, 1 Night, and Cotillard brings out all the different shades and makes each interaction with each separate colleague unique and fully realised.
Reese Witherspoon is back to her best in Wild. She gains the audience's sympathy for a character who might not be automatically sympathetic, or whose emotional "journey" could become cloying or too earnest. Instead, she takes a damaged woman who is essentially a mess of her own making, albeit one fueled by grief and makes her someone you want to find her way back to her life.
Rosamund Pike is intensely frightening in Gone Girl, but she isn't quite allowed to bring the complexity or subtlety that marks the others performances also nominated. She manages to make sure the film doesn't quite fly off the wheel into total absurdity but she doesn't hold back on the dark side and is believable on how her previous experiences have impacted on her.
Best Actor
This seems to be Eddie Redmayne v Michael Keaton, and I haven't quite decided who I would rather win. I think I'm leaning Redmayne but suspect it will go to Keaton.
How Eddie Redmayne managed the physical side of his transformation, I'm not sure I'll ever get my head round. It's the gradual way he did it in, and how he brought out the smaller changes in his condition as long side the more obvious ones that blew me away. And that doesn't even include how he managed to develop the character gradually through the film, never letting the physical side overshadow what would have been an impressive performance without a physical transformation as well.
The first time I saw Birdman, it was the afternoon of New Year's Day and I was so tired I didn't really take in how good Michael Keaton was until the second time I saw it. He somehow anchors the film in reality but is also the off the wall, floating into space part of it too, and his performance has more layers than an onion. Having said that, I think the reason he might win is because people will vote for what is a complete lack of vanity and the full on self send up that is in the background of the performance. There is much more to it than that and it is a cleverly judged, perfectly executed performance.
Steve Carell definitely brings something I've never seen from him before, and he is totally mesmerising, unnerving and compelling. However, the film cuts a lot of time at the end (trying not to spoiler it, but two events that were a few years apart, appear to be a few months apart and these years are very significant for duPont) and cuts an opportunity for Carell to really take this performance to the next level.
Benedict Cumberbatch was very good in The Imitation Game (and more different from Sherlock than I know certain friends of mine thought!). But far less memorable a couple of months on that the performances above. He brings charisma and a well developed character who believably handles some horrific moral decisions. He is the best part of the film, but for whatever reason, a performance I was seriously impressed with at the time, has somewhat faded from memory, perhaps more to do with the movie's quality (good without being amazing) rather than Cumberbatch's performance. I feel like I'm being unduly harsh, but I just can't remember what it was that he particularly did well.
From one BC to another. Seriously, how does Blandly Cooper get these Oscar nominations. In the last few years, his near contemporaries such as Oscar Isaac (A Most Violent Year, Inside Llewyn Davis), Tom Hardy (Locke, The Drop), Jake Gyllenhaal (Prisoners, Enemy, Nightcrawler) and Michael Fassbender (Shame, 12 Years a Slave) have produced all those amazing performances in the brackets, all of which would be well beyond Blandly. And guess what, they total 1 nomination to Blandly's three. I just don't understand it at all. Blandly isn't awful in American Sniper, I mean I really believed when he stared intensely at a wall that he didn't like that wall. But he isn't particularly convincing either. His character is supposed to become more internally traumatised as the film goes on, but any inner emotions don't really come through and it makes the film all the more offensive for it, because we are supposed to sympathise with basically a racist psychopath because he has been damaged by war, but he doesn't bring enough through. If you want to see a film with a supposed to be all American hero going through moral dilemmas, watch Captain America for a vastly better performance (and that wasn't even Chris Evans' best performance of the year). And when you look at the people that he beat out for a nomination, it is even more ridiculous. I can only assume people though Blandly was better than David Oyelowo, Ralph Fiennes, Timothy Spall or Jake Gyllenhaal because they didn't bother to watch their movies. Actors who can bring some of the greats of history to life so that we know why they are great, yet still make them human. Actors who can create characters that you have never seen before, but still believe them as people. Yeah, don't see Blandly doing that any time soon. To be honest, Blandly had more emotional depth as a goddam raccoon in Guardians of the Galaxy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)