Cutting Room Reviews

Fall Screening Log (Grades)

2009-10-30T10:31:00.024-04:00

The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 09) B [2nd screening; Sept 2009: A-]
Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson, 09) B
Broken Embraces (Pedro Almodovar, 09) C
The Lovely Bones (Peter Jackson, 09) F
It's Complicated (Nancy Meyers, 09) C+
Crazy Heart (Scott Cooper, 09) C
Nine (Rob Marshall, 09) C+

The Hangover (Todd Phillips, 09) C

A Single Man (Tom Ford, 09) C

Up in the Air (Jason Reitman, 09) C-
Avatar (James Cameron, 09) B-
The Young Victoria (Jean-Marc Vallée, 09) C+
The Princess and the Frog (Ron Clements, John Musker, 09) C+
Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" By Sapphire (Daniels, 09) B
Amelia (Nair, 09) C-/D+
Good Hair (Stilson, 09) C-
This is It (Ortega, 09) C
Where the Wild Things Are (Jonze, 09) B
Summer Hours (Olivier Assayas, 08) B
The September Issue (R. J. Cutler, 09) B-
Cairo Time (Ruba Nadda, 09) B
Paranormal Activity (Oren Peli, 07) C+
A Serious Man (Joel and Ethan Coen, 09) C
Bright Star (Jane Campion, 09) B
W. (Oliver Stone, 08) C+

TIFF 2009 Home

2009-09-14T09:36:00.009-04:00

I've taken notes on all screenings so far. Reviews probably won't appear until after the festival, since I'm juggling work, school and the films themselves, but at least the note-taking is a step forward. :)

Thursday, September 10th
An Education (Lone Scherfig) C
Antichrist (Lars von Trier) B+

Friday, September 11th
Eyes Wide Open (Haim Tabakman) B
Face (Tsai Ming-liang) C+
Hotel Atlantico (Suzana Amaral) w/o [first 45 min: C-]
City of Life and Death (Chuan Lu) B

Saturday, September 12th
Ahead of Time (Robert Richman) B-
Women Without Men (Shirin Neshat) C
The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke) A-
The Window (Buddhadev Dasgupta) B

Sunday, September 13th
Cleanflix (Andrew James, Joshua Ligairi) C+
A Shine of Rainbows (Vic Sarin) B-
Carmel (Amos Gitai) C

Tuesday, September 14th
The Day Will Come (Susanne Schneider) C
White Material (Claire Denis) B+
J'ai tue ma mere (Xavier Dolan) C

Wednesday, September 15th
Leslie, My Name is Evil (Reginald Harkema) C
Like You Know It All (Sang-soo Hong) C
Heiran (Shalizeh Arefpoor) B

Thursday, September 16th
The Damned United (Tom Hooper) B-
The Private Lives of Pippa Lee (Rebecca Miller) B-
A Brand New Life (Ounie Lecomte) B-
My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? (Werner Herzog) C-
Love and Other Impossible Pursuits (Don Roos) C+

Friday, September 17th
I am Love (Luca Guadagnino) A-
To Die Like a Man (Joao Pedro Rodrigues) C
Glorious 39 (Stephen Poliakoff) D+

Saturday, September 18th
Police, Adjective (Corneliu Porumboiu) B-
Soul Kitchen (Fatih Akin) B-

Desperate Times...

2009-05-25T08:35:00.007-04:00

I 've caved (sigh).

Yes, follow me on Twitter. If I can't even write 140 words about a film, then I'm really in trouble.

Oscarzzz

2009-02-20T15:13:00.009-05:00

+PICTURE: Slumdog Millionaire (Insert "it is written" tagline here. If it were up to me, I'd write down "Milk", but I can't fight with destiny - or bad taste - can I?)

+DIRECTOR: Danny Boyle, Sunshine (You know that looks better.)

+ACTRESS: Kate Winslet, The Reader (I don't think a Melissa Leo win is totally out of the question, and if there was another month of campaigning left, I feel like the actress - who's my favourite in this category - could have pulled it off. Still, Frozen River came out on DVD two seconds ago, and I'm thinking she's peaked too late. I know screeners have been floating around for a while, but I feel like more people have seen the Daldry film at this point. Along with the "Give it to Kate" issue, etc, etc.)

-ACTOR: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler (I don't know if anyone is itching for another uncomfortable, thorny Penn speech - not when Mickey can make them cringe and guffaw at the same time. Since Penn was due a SAG prize anyways, the combined forces of BAFTA + GG give Rourke the upper hand here.) [Penn wins his second Leading Actor Oscar.]

-SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Viola Davis, Doubt (Penélope Cruz may have won the BAFTA, but she wasn't up against Davis or Winslet. And I'm thinking that the "Doubt needs to win something for acting" argument actually might hold some water.) [Cruz pulls through.]

+SUPPORTING ACTOR: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight (To anyone who's predicting an upset in this category: if there was a backlash against him, it would have happened by now. A year of front-runner talk, and nothing's really changed.)

+ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire (I seriously doubt that he has any competition in this category, although David Hare should have a speech ready just in case.)

+ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Dustin Lance Black, Milk. (The only assured victory for Milk, and Wall-E has Animated Feature all locked up anyways.)

+ANIMATED FILM: Wall-E (Should just be called "The Pixar Appreciation" Category)

+DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: Man on Wire (There's no reason to believe its winning streak throughout awards season will suddenly cease here.)

-FOREIGN-LANGUAGE FILM: A three-way race between Waltz with Bashir, Departures, and The Class, and I'm betting on the humanism of the latter to emerge the victor. [The late word on Departures proved to be more than just rumour.]

+CINEMATOGRAPHY: Anthony Dod Mantle, Slumdog Millionaire (Going with the "flashiest = best" theory. Although a Dark Knight win wouldn't be surprising at all.)

+ART DIRECTION: Donald Graham Burt and Victor J. Zolfo, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Spoiler: The Duchess)

+COSTUME DESIGN: Michael O'Connor, The Duchess (Repeating my commentary from last year: bad reviews don't really matter in this category. See Marie Antoinette, Memoirs of a Geisha, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age.)

+EDITING: Chris Dickens, Slumdog Millionaire (Grrr, one of the most frustrating races of the night. I want to predict The Dark Knight here, since action films often score in this category, but this is the year of Slumdog after all.)

+MAKE-UP: Greg Cannom, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (But all the nominees are very much in the race.)

-ORIGINAL SCORE: Thomas Newman, Wall-E (I love Rahman, and I've worshipped him for years, but is there really a score to Slumdog Millionaire? My view is that there are more memorable songs in the film than actual instrumental pieces. Newman is way overdue, and animated films have a great track record here.)

+ORIGINAL SONG: A.R. Rahman and Gulzar for "Jai Ho", Slumdog Millionaire (Although "O Saya" is the clear standout here)

-SOUND MIXING: The Dark Knight [Oscar goes to Slumdog]
+SOUND EFFECTS EDITING: The Dark Knight
(Probably not the smartest move, but since The Bourne Ultimatum did it last year, why not the biggest blockbuster of last year?)

+VISUAL EFFECTS: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Should be an easy get, IMO, but it's hard to know how big the Button-backlash really is.)

MY TALLY
Slumdog Millionaire - 6
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - 3
The Dark Knight - 3
Wall-E - 2
The Class - 1
Doubt - 1
The Duchess - 1
Man on Wire - 1
Milk - 1
The Reader - 1
The Wrestler -1

16/21 = 76%

Oscar's TALLY
Slumdog Millionaire - 8
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - 3
The Dark Knight - 2
Milk - 2
Departures - 1
The Duchess - 1
Man on Wire - 1
The Reader - 1
Vicky Cristina Barcelona - 1
Wall-E - 1

Stir in the Black Chicks

2009-01-30T20:40:00.011-05:00

Is a pathetic gesture toward representation better than none at all? These seem to be the two options for women of colour in Michael Patrick King's limited, unfettered world view. Or at least, for Jennifer Hudson, who portrayed Carrie Bradshaw's assistant in that big-screen adaptation of Sex and the City last year.

In this article, King talks a little about his plans for the sequel (help us), and then touches on the issue of colour in the television show:

"It can't be called Sex and the City without a little color—it's just wrong. Women are very nice when they figure out who I am. And the only negative comment I ever got about the series was every now and then, some woman of color—whether it'd be Latina or an African-American—they'd stop and say, 'Where are the sisters?' in my ear, and I was like, 'Yeah, where are they?'

Playing assistants and enablers to spoiled egomaniacs, apparently. No thanks, Michael. If your lame inclusion of the Louise character is the best we can hope for, along with the same baggage of appalling power dynamics as in the first film, stop trying now. Your self-congratulatory pat on the back for choosing Hudson over Isla Fisher seems to be the extent of your progressiveness.

I'd rather you kept the universe of the series insular if this is what we have to look forward to ("a little color"). I'm happy that women find you "nice" and non-threatening once they meet you, but that doesn't mean they should celebrate the fact that a seemingly authoritative voice like yours finally decided to throw them a bone.

Last Minute Predix

2009-01-21T21:57:00.009-05:00

Do I care? Should I care? Maybe I'm just grumpy. Barring a not-altogether-impossible-last-minute Wrestler shockeroo, I don't really care enough about the Best Picture frontrunners (my admiration for Milk and The Dark Knight aside).

But I know I'll look back in a couple of months and kick myself for not having at least one set of predictions for the records. They're nice time capsules, and I always enjoy looking back on what was speculated versus what the Academy was actually feeling.

BEST PICTURE (4/5)

1. Slumdog Millionaire +

2. Slumdog Millionaire

3. Slumdog Millionaire

4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button +

5. Slumdog Millionaire

6. The Dark Knight -

7. Frost/Nixon +

8. Milk +

---

9. Wall-E

10. The Wrestler

Missed: The Reader

Okay, cheekiness aside, I think those "familiar five" films recycled throughout awards season are defo. our nominees. At the time votes were due, these were the only titles on everyone's minds (see the boring guilds' choices). I suppose Wall-E's entirely possible too, and I'd be excited to see such a development (I'm not crazy about the Stanton picture, but I can understand the love). Either way, if it does make the shortlist, I'm guessing that Milk surrenders its spot to the animated feature, not Frost/Nixon.

BEST DIRECTOR (3/5)

1. Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire +

2. David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button +

3. Christopher Nolan, The Dark Knight -

4. Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon +

5. Darren Aronofsky, The Wrestler -

---

6. Gus Van Sant, Milk +

7. Jonathan Demme, Rachel Getting Married

Missed: Stephen Daldry, The Reader (now 3/3 in this category. Damn.)

Again, I think Frost/Nixon is more of a player in this race than people imagine, and Van Sant is the DGA-nominated director who's in most danger of getting lost in the shuffle, not Howard. Wish it was the other way around, but I'd be thrilled to see Aronofsky get in either way.

BEST ACTRESS (3/5)

1. Meryl Streep, Doubt +

2. Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married +

3. Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky -

4. Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road -

5. Angelina Jolie, Changeling +

---

6. Kate Winslet, The Reader +

7. Melissa Leo, Frozen River +

If I do badly in the female acting categories, I blame it on Kate Winslet and her loony category fraud this year. Just like how Leonardo DiCaprio ('07) and Scarlett Johansson ('04) screwed me over in their double-bill years. Anyways, standard five here too - I can't imagine them leaving out Sally Hawkins after LAFCA and NYFCC.

BEST ACTOR (5/5)

1. Sean Penn, Milk +

2. Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler +

3. Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon +

4. Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button +

5. Richard Jenkins, The Visitor +

---

6. Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino

7. Dev Patel, Slumdog Millionaire

I just don't wanna see Gran Torino, kay?

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS (4/5)

1. Viola Davis, Doubt +

2. Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona +

3. Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler +

4. Kate Winslet, The Reader -

5. Amy Adams, Doubt +

---

6. Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button +

7. Rosemarie DeWitt, Rachel Getting Married

Go, go, go DeWitt!

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR (4/5)

1. Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight +

2. Dev Patel, Slumdog Millionaire -

3. Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder +

4. Josh Brolin, Milk +

5. Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road +

---

6. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt +

7. James Franco, Milk

I may be (v. v.) stupid to exclude Hoffman, but I think Shannon's not entirely out of the race, and could surprise in manner of Djimon Hounsou in the year of In America.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY (3/5)

1. Woody Allen, Vicky Cristina Barcelona -

2. Dustin Lance Black, Milk +

3. Andrew Stanton, Wall-E +

4. Robert D. Siegel, The Wrestler -

5. Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky +

---

6. Jenny Lumet, Rachel Getting Married

7. Martin McDonaugh, In Bruges +

Missed: Courtney Hunt, Frozen River

They're probably off of the Coen Brothers for a while, WGA nod be damned.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY (4/5)

1. Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire +

2. Peter Morgan, Frost/Nixon +

3. Eric Roth, Robin Swicord, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button +

4. Jonathan Nolan, David S. Goyer, The Dark Knight -

5. David Hare, The Reader +

---

6. John Patrick Shanley, Doubt +

7. Justin Haythe, Revolutionary Road -

...

I will leave the tech races to people who are actually good at that stuff. Good luck to you all, and I'll catch up with you after the announcement tomorrow.

Happy Nomination Day!

Not interested

2009-01-14T20:00:00.004-05:00

"That is such crap. How dare you be so fraudulently flirtatious, cowardly and dysfunctional? I am not interested in emotional fuckwittage. Goodbye."

- Bridget Jones, "Bridget Jones's Diary" by Helen Fielding

The Reader

2009-01-03T15:25:00.012-05:00

I first encountered Bernard Schlink's novel The Reader in a first-year undergraduate seminar I took about five years ago when I was eighteen, entitled "Poets and Power: Art Under the Nazis". The course examined the artistic output of the Weimar Republic, including the shifts in aesthetic and thematic ideals that emerged with the rise of the Third Reich. Schlink's novel represented a distinct break in the novels and films we studied in class, because it deals very specifically with a post-war, post-Holocaust sensibility. That is, how did (and does) Germany come to terms with such a recent, unfathomable genocide? What reparations - if any - can be made to make sense of it? And can a court of law properly judge the actions of people rooted in such a particular time and context?

The Reader - more than any of the other great texts we looked at - drew me in immediately because of these themes, and I even led a class discussion on it (not very confidently, I must add). I was, and continue to be, fascinated by the notion of a collective guilt, and how the Holocaust is constantly grappled with through art and scholarship. Moreover, is this kind of production helpful, or does it lead to some sort of cathartic change? It was an especially timely book to read in the wake of Roman Polanski's The Pianist winning several Oscars earlier that year, which sparked a discussion about whether or not depicting the Holocaust on film is possible, or even morally sound. As well, I was taken in by the book's frank depiction of a trangressive, shocking physical relationship, as well as Schlink's description of a young boy exploring his budding sexuality. Ultimately, it is a book I feel rather protective of, so when I heard about the film adaptation by director Stephen Daldry and screenwriter David Hare, I knew it would have to rise to the occasion to impress.

Unfortunately, I am not sold. To be fair, Daldry has a reputation for ambitiously choosing "unfilmable novels" to bring to the screen, between this one and Michael Cunningham's The Hours. That film, despite its transparent parallelism between the lives of three women and uneven acting by an impressive ensemble, remains a film I am enraptured by, that keeps opening up with new surprises (good and bad). For better or for worse, The Hours sparks mutual adoration and dissent, even inside my own head. On the other hand, I can't see myself retuning to The Reader in the coming years, which (for the most part) coasts on the surface from beginning to end. Employing an Atonement-like narrative conceit, with Ralph Fiennes's character Michael looking back on the happenings of his youth, it goes through the motions without really leaving any lasting impressions. Despite the subject matter, it's terrified of getting its hands dirty (even the explicit sex scenes are oh-so-tastefully-rendered, and a wordless scene set inside the current Auschwitz museum rings hollow), and the result is a prestige picture that reassures rather than one that unsettles.

(Possible Spoilers ahead) If you've read enough about the film, you've probably already discerned that the Oscar-buzzed Kate Winslet plays Hana, a mysterious thirty-something woman who has a summer fling with a teenaged boy named Michael (a terrific David Kross, the film's unquestionable standout) in the late 1950s, in a small German city. Their secret relationship, which starts off as purely physical, is also informed by connecting over literature. Michael reads, out loud, his school-assigned texts to Hana, and she listens intently to his every word. The affair is brought to a sudden end when she unceremoniously disappears, and Michael is left crushed and confused. Years later, now a serious law student, Michael is horrified to cross paths with Hana once again: she is on trial for war crimes committed during the war. The film then shows, over a period of years, how Michael is both drawn to re-enacting his former role as reader to this listener, as well as fearful of the unavoidable psychic self-damage of doing so. Divided across several timelines (Michael's teenage years, the trial, the bulk of the eighties, and "current day" 1995), The Reader examines how these two individuals remain connected by this problematic, disturbing bond and a secret neither are willing to expose.

Fascinating, powerful stuff to be sure, but these emotions are irreparably reduced due to running time constraints and Hare's unfortunate, mannered writing choices. For example, the adult Michael's enduring trauma and emotional distance are given the shorthand: a briefly-seen lover of his ponders lamely what it takes to "get inside [his] head", and an awkward reconnecting with his adult daughter Julia is largely a wash (despite an earnest Hannah Herzsprung). The same critique extends to the handling of Michael's law seminar, in which his professor (Bruno Ganz) explicitly doles out the film's Major Themes about Guilt and Intent, instead of letting the tense court scenes speak for themselves. This may extend to a greater problem of the screenplay overstating its ideas, which plagues many challenging book-to-film adaptations. Everything is tasteful and agreeable to a fault: it's proficiently acted, looks pretty, and gets the point across, but in a wholly impersonal way.

This extends to the acting as well, which, aside from the aforementioned Kross, fails to really ignite. I love Kate Winslet, but she is miscast here; while she intuits rightly to underplay Hana and convey most of her action through using her face, the threat of violence and domination in her relationship with Michael never really convinces. This was much more palpable in the book - in reality, Winslet doesn't seem like she could hurt a fly, and one wonders what a Kidman (cast when Winslet couldn't initially fit it into her schedule), a Binoche (also once considered for the part), or even High Art's unpredictable and underrated Radha Mitchell would have brought to it. It certainly doesn't help that Winslet's old-age makeup - which she wears throughout the second half of the film - is utterly ridiculous and distracting, making her resemble Gollum from Lord of the Rings. Meanwhile, Ralph Fiennes does what he can with limited time onscreen to make Michael's wistful gazes and lapses into memory seem natural as opposed to demands of the script. Lena Olin has a memorable scene towards the end of the film with Michael, as a survivor once acquainted with Hana, appropriately discerning and formidable.

It seems almost easy to sum up a review with a "the book is better", but it best reflects my feelings about the film. I don't feel Daldry, Hare, and company lend much more to the proceedings than translating Schlink's text to the screen. It's a faithful adaptation, that's for sure, but not very exciting or lasting. I can't recommend it as anything beyond that. C

Re: Synecdoche

2008-12-19T14:22:00.004-05:00

To think I almost banished this to the "wait for video" list. As Miranda Priestly would say, "Thank God somebody came to work today."

And I would thank Charlie Kaufman too, for this absolutely bewildering, difficult, hysterical, and frankly painful film about the end of life (not just main character Caden's, but the entire human race). It scared the hell out me, even when I was laughing despite my grimaces and sharp inhales of breath, two hands over my mouth.

I wonder if Kaufman has read the work of George Saunders, because this is exactly how an adaptation of that writer's work would play out. It also reminded me of Margaret Lawrence's The Stone Angel, another demanding and taxing work about the slow degradation and breakdown of the human body. For the first time (in a long time), I'm tempted to write about this one in greater detail. Stay tuned.

How are you all doing at the movies? Use the comments section.

End of the Year

2008-11-22T15:40:00.003-05:00

2008. Another year, another year of cinema. And since most of us loony critics parse our calenders by film release patterns and movie seasons, all of us know that the "holidays" aren't about Christmas or Thanksgiving or New Year's. No, they're about more important things like pouncing on the Oscar bait as soon as possible, gossiping about FYC ads, and thinking about what our top tens will look like come January. And of course, the year doesn't really end until those statuettes are handed out and everyone can let out a collective sigh and get back to their lives.

At least, that's just me.

Now, I may not be as active on here as I once was, but I still do get excited about the movies around this time of year. I still have oodles of films to see, and that's why I want to share my list of the most anticipated, as well as the titles I'm apprehensive about, and the ones I'm outright dreading.

SIGN ME UP

(i.e. I'm going because...)

1. Milk - Two words: Van Sant.

2. The Wrestler - Aronofsky intriguing, maturing.

3. Il y a long temps que je t'aime - High brow angst.

4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Fincher's opus.

5. Synecdoche, New York - Kaufman. After The Savages, PSH = a favourite.

6. Waltz with Bashir - The Persepolis of the year?

7. The Reader - Love the book; high expectations.

8. Doubt - I'm going to watch Ms. Davis; Streep a happy side attraction.

9. The Class - Dangerous territory, but I'm hopeful. Plus, as a teacher...

10. A Christmas Tale - Desplechin; interested to see his next.

I LIKED YOU UNTIL I SAW YOUR TRAILER

Revolutionary Road - I'm going for Shannon.

Australia - Kidman = robot; Jackman = porn.

Valkyrie - Does anyone even know what to think about this project anymore?

Quantum of Solace - Was on-board until the deadly word-of-mouth.

Yes Man - Carrey doing comedy, but Peyton Reed! And that supporting cast!

DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING

Gran Torino - See Clint glower and snarl and grrrr.

Frost/Nixon - Garish aesthetic; Langella loud.

Defiance - Zwick makes me sick.

The Day the Earth Stood Still - You lost me at "Keanu Reeves plays an alien..."

YOU WILL HAVE TO PROP UP MY CORPSE

Marley & Me - No, not me.

Four Christmases - One is plenty, thanks.

Seven Pounds - See Smith suffer with dignity part 2

The Four Meme

2008-11-22T10:12:00.009-05:00

It's something, however small. And these are always fun to fill out! Remember how these were all the rage in the blogging world a couple of years ago?

Four jobs you've had in your life: video store clerk, research assistant, CSR at clothing store and Academic English teacher (at present)

Four movies you could watch over and over again: That modern-day Pride and Prejudice reworking, this moony Shakespeare adaptation, a film about three witches causing trouble in Salem, and probably the ultimate comfort-food-as-film: Little Women

Four places you've lived: Toronto (and its many suburbs), Dubai, Minneapolis, and Houston

Four TV shows you love to watch: I don't have cable, so I'm kinda out of the loop lately, but I'm always spinning the DVDs of Slings & Arrows, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Arrested Development, and (of course) The Simpsons

Four places you've been on vacation: Dar-es-Salaam, New York City, Stratford, Muscat

Four websites you visit daily: Facebook, In Contention, IMDb, and (cheating here, I know!) my blog list (Nathaniel, Nick, JA, Glenn, dl, etc)

Four of your favourite foods: Dosa, Falafel (or even a hummus/pita approximation), dhal and brown rice, and injera

Four places you'd rather be right now:

1. NYC visiting my sister, my brother-in-law and my brand-new baby niece Ava!

2. At the gym, training for the marathon I'm supposedly running in the spring

3. At the movie theatre, watching Il y a longtemps que je t'aime, Synecdoche New York or Milk

4. Finished my graduate school application (which I should be working on RIGHT NOW.)

Four bloggers you're tagging (not sure if you've done this one already, but if not...): Glenn, dl, David and Sultana

TIFF Update

2008-09-13T14:26:00.006-04:00

Yaseen Ali here. In short, I am alive and watching movies, a fact the sidebar can attest to. I figured I should post something to accompany those grades, if only to push down that Sex and the City tirade posted way back in June (!). Onto better shores.

So. Another exciting TIFF event has come and gone. I enjoyed myself these last few days, even if I didn't hand over my whole life to the festival this year like usual. Juggling a busy work schedule teaching at U of T and moving downtown from the suburbs at the beginning of the month, I had intuited correctly that doing any more than twelve films would be ludicrous. And moreover, I loved the breathing room I enjoyed in between screenings.

I plan to write one or two full-length reviews (most likely for Lorna's Silence and Disgrace), but if you want to ask any specific questions, feel free to use the Comments space. It's always more fun that way, in my opinion.

Since I don't have internet at my new place, my updates will be a little erratic, but stay tuned.

Sex and the City

2008-06-20T23:24:00.034-04:00

*This review contains major spoilers. If you wish to have a "virgin" movie-watching experience, please return following your screening to read and comment*

Tellingly, I feel compelled to preface this review by stating that I am an unapologetic, die-hard fan of Sex and the City, at least in its television incarnation. I own most of the seasons on DVD and will probably wear out my discs due to compulsive watching. No doubt that this disclaimer is meant to preemptively dodge (or confront?) the allegations of sexism and hypocrisy that have been leveled at male film critics - particularly straight men - who seemingly turned a collective cold shoulder to this much-hyped film adaptation of the hit HBO series. While I agree that a degree of misogyny was certainly present in the media's response to the film, I take some offense at the implication that all male critics and writers who disliked it should automatically placed in the woman-hating camp. That's a much-too simplistic reading, because the film genuinely stinks, no matter which way you slice it. In my opinion, Sex and the City is much ado about nothing, offering no sound justification for its existence (other than the obvious fiscal reasons). By the end credits, I felt like I was back at square one. Director Michael Patrick King's screenplay is a perplexing rehash of the same old, same old - Mr. Big's commitment issues, Miranda's pessimistic view of romance, and Samantha's inability to remain monogamous. We passed the "Best Before" date, and it was years ago, folks.

Picking up four years after the season finale (in which all four gals "found" stability and romance in the form of monogamy), the happenings of Sex take place over the course of a calender year. Writer Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) is back for more adventures in the Big Apple, along with her best friends Charlotte (Kristin Davis), Samantha (Kim Cattrall), and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon). You know the drill... men enter the picture, and chaos ensues. What is perhaps most depressing (and disturbing) about Sex and the City: The Movie is how conservative and regressive it is at the core. From its repulsive insensitivity towards racial politics to its paper-thin characterizations of pretty much everyone (except the exasperating Carrie character), the film spins its wheels in the mud for two-plus hours. The writing is gutless in churning out happy endings for all involved. Charlotte is able to birth a biological child like she always wanted, and Miranda forgives Steve (David Eigenberg) for his indiscretions. Meanwhile, not only does Carrie reconcile with the man (Chris Noth's Mr. Big) who has inflicted non-stop emotional abuse for ten years, but the two of them actually decide to get hitched in spite of the disastrous results of the first attempt (some people just can't take a hint). Once again, marriage is presented as the solution to all problems, flying in the face of the counter arguments articulated from the show's very first few episodes. Samantha's final-act decision to leave her boyfriend Smith (Jason Lewis) in order to love herself is interesting and makes up for her nonsensical behaviour in the final season, but it barely registers with the other gals taking centre stage.

The less said about token African-American Louise (played by Jennifer Hudson), who serves as Carrie's personal assistant, the better. Existing pretty much only to facilitate Carrie's character arc, Louise enters well past the one-hour mark and exits after fulfilling her subservient duties. While it is refreshing to see more a little diversity reflected in this world of outrageous white privilege and displayed wealth, the status quo definitely remains the same. Sex and the City remains hopelessly ignorant of anything outside of its self-contained bubble, and this feeble attempt at inclusiveness rings totally false. The gay characters (also reduced to helpful sidekick status) are treated with even more homo-hatred than usual. Competing queens Stanford (Willie Garson) and Anthony (Mario Cantone) show up only to scurry around in the background, offering a bitchy one-liner when necessary. The worst moment involving these two occurs in a scene in which the two men - who absolutely despised one another during the course of the show - act completely out of character and make out at a New Year's Party. While my audience predictably collapsed into hysterics and hoots, I felt cheated that the filmmakers had taken the easy way out.

Ludicrous plot holes also damage the screenplay's credibility, particularly the scenes leading up to Mr. Big's bout of cold feet. Are we to believe that relationship expert Carrie - even now, after all these years - is unable to detect the reluctance in this non-committal man? Forehead-slappers like "Carrie, I need to know that it's just you and me" would be laugh-aloud funny if they weren't so ghastly when delivered in context. Even more illogical is Miranda's angry aside to Big ("You two are crazy to get married!") playing a factor in his no-show at the alter, set up to generate a future rift between her and Carrie once the the truth is revealed. The entire script is built upon lame contrivances like these, drawing out the conflicts for hours until they can be tidily dealt with and filed away in the concluding moments. The humour, on the other hand, is surprisingly juvenile; when poo jokes and colouring-as-sex euphemisms are set up to garner the big laughs, there's detectable desperation in the air. There is little-to-no sex. The puns are stale. It is a giant commercial for numerous designer labels, Mercedes-Benz, Starbucks, and the Apple Store. (Side note: was there even a budget for the costumes, since drippy name dropping shamelessly occurs throughout?) The straight male characters barely register, coming across as either selfish jerks (Big, Steve), or devoted super-husbands (Harry, portrayed by Evan Handler). It makes no sense. The list of grievances goes on and on...

The four main ladies are all exceptional actors, but Davis, Cattrall and Nixon can only do so much. Davis's interpretation of Charlotte is more of a walking caricature than ever, and her storyline is not as juicy as the other ladies'. Kim Cattrall once again delves into Samantha's aggressive sexuality, allowing herself to be covered with sushi pieces in one scene and - in a bizarre moment - called to task for gaining some weight by her insensitive gal pals. The actress continues to do brilliant work with her face, and her willingness to play clown is commendable as ever. As for the lovely Cynthia Nixon, King and editor Michael Berenbaum box Miranda into such a restrictive corner that the talented artist is unable to give a more nuanced reading. This is not the Miranda who so vibrantly stood out in the past; here, she is like a completely different personality - cold, one-dimensional and just plain petty. Unsurprisingly, Sarah Jessica Parker enjoys the bulk of screen time, and while the capable actor has grown comfortable walking in the character's Blahniks, Carrie is more unappealingly self-absorbed than ever. Jennifer Hudson is robotic, while Chris Noth can barely muster up enough energy to recite his lines with conviction.

I had my reservations about Sex and the City as a feature-length film, but I was not expecting it to be this inept. Even read as a fantasy or as a fluff piece, it still registers as deeply problematic and limiting in its view of these women's professional, professional, and sexual lives. The television show, exaggerated as it may be, still manages to deliver insightful, entertaining commentary about women dealing with ever-shifting gender roles, institutionalized inequality, and sexual politics. This film offers nothing as complex during its running time, instead focusing on inane plot twists and flashy designer pornography, ultimately settling on a farce of a finale that left more than a bitter taste in my mouth. Proceed with caution, particularly the fans - this is not the same show you once loved. D+

My Kid Could Paint That

2008-06-19T14:58:00.016-04:00

Amir Bar-Lev's My Kid Could Paint That (2007) first came to my attention after Mike D'Angelo assigned it a rare A- during last year's Sundance Film Festival. Even before reading about the film's subject matter, it was the provocative title that first caught my eye. Taunting and contemptuous, I was expecting a quirky indie comedy with eccentric parents, their exasperated children, and an all-around kooky premise. Doing a little more research, I was excited to learn that this title had been assigned to a documentary feature about then four-year-old Marla Olmstead, the controversial artist whose abstract expressionist paintings have become the objects of major scrutiny. The young girl, initially received as a genius by the art community and beyond, became a notorious personality following a 60 Minutes II segment which suggested that her parents must have played a major role in the production of these pieces. Their conclusion was made as a result of a controlled experiment in which Marla was unable to produce anything at the same level of her prior work. Let the debate begin...

The first two acts of the film are dedicated to exploring both sides of the debate, making the case for and against Marla. The first thirty minutes document the euphoric highs experienced by the family prior to that polarizing news program, and reactions from Marla's parents, supportive gallery owner Anthony Brunelli, and opinionated journalist Elizabeth Cohen (the writer who first reported on Marla's pieces). Post-60 Minutes, Bar-Lev tracks the turning tide and the effect it has upon patrons and the once-adoring media. As further videotaped painting sessions with Marla occur and more troubling evidence emerges, her genius reputation becomes less assured.

The film, ostensibly a "did-she-or-didn't-she" exposé and set up as a fall-from-grace, movingly develops into a much more complex meditation on even bigger questions about modern art. Fittingly, Marla remains a distanced, sidelined figure in this film ultimately about adults grappling with issues about representation, the "truth", and the innocence of childhood. Ultimately, Bar-Lev isn't interested in whether or not Marla actually created these pieces, but how her involvement with the contemporary art community has sparked a discussion about the very nature of how art is consumed and received. Most compelling is the question of whether or not the artist can be removed from the equation when their art is finally displayed to the public. More to the point, would these paintings have been as successful if the public was unaware that a four-year-old had painted them? Would it make a difference? (Read: How could it not?) Bar-Lev also considers the ethical matters of journalistic voyeurism into this child's life (including us viewers as a culpable audience to it), and to what extent Mark and Laura Olmstead are responsible for the onslaught of praise, criticism, and fascination that Marla will surely have to negotiate for the rest of her life.

My Kid Could Paint That particularly shines in its self-reflective segments regarding the relationship between the director and his subjects, and what each party owes the other. Bar-Lev became quite close to the Olmsteads and their children over the course of filming, and was forced to "write" himself into the piece once issues of trust and exploitation began to surface. The director handles this portion of the film with sensitivity and restraint, and the tension between his understandable guilt and his role as director is palpable. One such moment towards the conclusion involves Bar-Lev point blank asking the couple about the credibility of Marla's work. The response by the couple, especially in Mark's expressionless dodging and Laura's wrenching realization that yet another attempt to exonerate the family has failed once again, is deeply unsettling. I highly recommend watching the extra material included on the DVD, the majority of which would have benefited the film (which runs a much-too-brief eighty-two minutes).

As with any successful documentary, the fascination and questions extend far beyond the limitations of a feature-length film. Indeed, the fallout between Bar-Lev and the Olmsteads during the film's release (the parents have expressed dismay at the director's shift in perspective) adds another layer to the drama, as well as the fact that Marla's paintings continue to successfully sell and are shown at galleries despite all the mud-slinging. The speculation will surely continue as Marla grows older and, eventually, will be asked to comment on these happenings as an adult. B+

Me Actually Being a Writer Again

2008-06-17T12:19:00.006-04:00

*We interrupt this blogging dry-spell to bring you the following breaking news item*

Apparently, there is more to having a movie blog than regularly posting grades on the side column and uploading DVD screen captures. Who would have thought? Once upon a time, I was aware of this and was churning out reviews and opinion pieces weekly, but I somehow let a few months of post-graduation burnout stretch into almost years of inactivity.

Embarrassing statistic: in one calender year, I have published only thirty-one "articles" of varying length and quality. It's like I've forgotten how to do what was once second nature - watch a movie, and write about it. Soon, the whole process started to feel more like a chore than a passion (a nagging feeling I'm sure many bloggers experience at one time or another).

What has changed now? Maybe it's the fact that university courses no longer control my creative output and reading lists. For the first time in a while, I'm reading solely for pleasure (I've devoured about ten novels since classes ended, and about half of that in terms of non-fiction). And - for the first time since high school - I've become seriously fascinated with and serious about the writing process. As in, this is what I want to do with my life, in any realm (journalism, fiction, academia, curriculum planning, etc).

So.

Rather than let the blog continue to gather dust or just abandon ship, I'm staging a self-intervention to truly assess where this project is headed. I've decided to take myself a little bit less seriously - no more writing towards a lofty end goal (OFCS accreditation, a writing career, high traffic, and related delusions of grandeur) and instead start writing for myself (shocker of shocks!). I'm not promising multiple posts per day, but there will certainly be more activity on the blog, and not just film-related. That's a promise.

Growing Accustomed to a Face

2008-05-27T00:45:00.005-04:00

"Omar wished, not for the first time, that he was someone else. Someone like [his brother] Sharif, who was confident enough to be himself, and was loved and liked for being who he was. Omar felt he, by comparison, was a faker, a dissembler. He had carved out a niche for himself, created an identity for himself in reaction to Sharif. If Sharif cared nothing for books or academia, then Omar could care for nothing else. If Sharif was to be the rebel, then Omar could be the model student. Omar found it relatively easy to be a model student, in that he found it easy to be quiet, clean, attentive, punctual and rigorous in handing in well-prepared work. He discovered that being a model student meant that everybody, including his teachers, mistook him for a bright student. And yet Omar sincerely believed that he was blessed with neither superior intelligence nor original thought; he had only two abilities, the ability to read quickly, and an excellent memory that allowed him to memorize and repeat all he read.

He looked this face reflected back at him [in the mirror], blank, expressionless, pale. Even his colour was indistinct; he was neither brown nor white. It could be anyone's face, he thought to himself. It was a blank canvas. He looked at the family photos on his shelf, and imitated his mother's articulate, thoughtful expression, and then his father's handsome laugh, and then his brother's sexy smoulder. He blinked and looked at himself again. If it could be anyone's face, that meant he could become anyone, he could mould it into the face he wanted. The face of a someone, rather than an anyone; someone who was intelligent and academic."

- from Bitter Sweets, by Roopa Farooki

It's finally happened.

2008-05-25T03:06:00.004-04:00

You're so full of surprises, I'm speechless.

2008-03-27T19:08:00.003-04:00

These tears dry on their own

2008-03-16T00:51:00.019-04:00

Smack dab in the middle of my afternoon jog yesterday, I came to a sudden, significant self-realization: I have not cried outside of a movie theatre in five years. The last time I became emotional to the point of tears was after a crunch period in my first year of university; writing final three papers simultaneously one night proved to be the trigger, and I lashed out at a family member only to break down, overwhelmed with guilt and exhaustion. I feel fairly certain that this is the last time I cried with such force, in public, for reasons completely unrelated to any cinematic experience. More and more, escaping in film is becoming the means of expressing emotion for me, and I don't know if this is a good thing or bad. It's not a problem of being unable to cry: only that I can't do so in "real life".

Indeed, I can recall plenty of times that I've welled up at the plight of a character or a collage of sights and sounds with relative ease, but am hard-pressed to recall a similar reaction in any other context. I wept throughout all of Satyajit Ray's Pather Panchali, possibly my favourite film of all time. A second screening of The Fountain - a film which I found hokey and vague the first time around - hit me hard for reasons that are still unclear to me. Watching Mira Nair's adaptation of The Namesake was jarring only because it's rare to see my experiences reflected so precisely in a cinematic medium. Stories about first-generation South Asian-Americans or Canadians negotiating identity, family relations and history are, to put it mildly, not "hot" properties for film companies today. Most recently, Persepolis had me giggling through my tears, moved by Marjane Satrapi's nakedly honest reflections about her early years situated across several countries and cultures. Essentially, the cinema hall has become - for lack of a better word - my confessional, and everything I want to suppress and hide emerges in full-force. I suppose it's the only place where I feel comfortable doing so. The darkness and insularity provides a sanctuary for anonymous, private grief. And this is why it is hard to convince friends, family members and others in my life that film is more than an interest or hobby for me. It allows me to breathe, escape, and function. Without it, I don't know who I am.

Perhaps some of you may be wondering why this should be cause for concern? I suppose I am over-thinking this to some degree, but when I look back on my childhood, I am struck by how emotional I was in my early years. Even watching wedding videos of my aunts' marriages at the age of six was enough to send me over the edge, and I would have to leave the room and beg an adult to turn off the television (the sight of a bride leave her father's house is always a tremendously sad moment for Indian families.) I would collapse into sobs at the end of Robert Munsch's book Love You Forever, every time, because I had this intense fear of my mother dying and feeling powerless to protect her. Attending funerals, having heart-to-hearts with friends, thinking about those who had passed on - these all used to stimulate the waterworks. Part of growing older allows a person to feel more secure about themselves and the world around them. Of course, I don't miss being a nervous wreck all the time, but I do miss the part of myself that was able to feel so completely and unreservedly. I'm afraid I've lost that part of myself, or become closed off from expressing it in relation to other people in my life.

Obviously, powerful art has this kind of effect on all of us, and it is certainly clear why we are so absolutely invested in film. Thinking back, I've probably done this to protect myself from the ridicule and scorn of others. I was constantly criticized for being so emotional, for not being "tougher" and less sensitive. As such, most of my teenage years were spent trying to prove my "stability" and sensible nature, throwing myself into schoolwork and other activities.

... Hm. I'm clearly going to be thinking about this for weeks on end. What about the rest of you?

Movie thoughts going through my head today

2008-03-02T18:29:00.017-05:00

(Self-mantra: I will do this weekly, I will do this weekly, I will I will I will...)

1. No detailed Oscar postmortem this year (I imagine you all sighing sighs of relief); indeed, what can be gushed over, dissected, and criticized that hasn't been already? Highlights: Academy Award Winner Tilda Swinton, the Once song winners, everything Jon Stewart post-opening monologue and the voters' quality choices (minus Original Screenplay and Visual Effects.) Fashion choices were decidedly ho-hum this year, with my shout-outs going to a select few: Katherine Heigl (reminiscent, somehow, of A+ Charlize Theron in year of Cider House and my favourite out of the legion reds), Diane Lane (best fashion accessory: Josh Brolin; also works vice-versa), Jennifer Hudson (say what you will about the boobs, it was a vast improvement over last year and I like the freshness), Penelope Cruz (didn't like it much on the Red Carpet, but definitely grew on me by the time she presented Foreign Language Film) and Tilda (she has her share of detractors, and I prefer her BAFTA dress, but this midnight number still won me over.) [EDIT: And The Lovely Laura Linney of course! How could I forget?]

Major grievance: who was in charge of choosing the clips this year? Were they even watching the precursor races this season? Fact: Daniel Day-Lewis had some great moments in There Will Be Blood beyond "I've abandoned my boy!", and the Academy would have earned points if they boldly went with milkshake fun. Ditto for Ronan's "Yes, I saw him with my own eyes", Bardem's "Friend-o" and Blanchett's "I'm a hurricane or tsunami or whatever." And out of one-hundred-and-two minutes of running time, why did they have to choose the Norbit make-up clip in which Eddie Murphy plays an offensive Asian stereotype?

Finally, unless you were watching the Red Carpet arrivals on CTV, you probably missed this keeper: Ben Mulroney *totally* got burned by Julian Schnabel, but to be perfectly honest, the grating entertainment guru had it coming (the co-host of eTalk Daily and son of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, he's the equivalent of a Canadian Ryan Seacrest.) He called The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and Before Night Falls "triumph(s) of the human spirit", to which Schnabel responded curtly, "That sounds like a cliché." Mulroney countered with something along the lines of "Well, clichés can often be true!", but Schnabel, eyes rolling, had already walked away mid-interview.

2. A few of my fellow bloggers have already made closure with the year that was 2007 and have posted predictions for next year's awards season. Just skimming over these makes my head spin, but the Oscar addict within has obviously been sparked. Milk and Revolutionary Road seem like popular predictions, which surely means that one of these will falter at the finish line. Is it just me, or does Doubt look like another Proof in-the-making? Adaptations of heralded plays rarely find favor with Oscar, although I suppose that the drool-worthy cast makes a big difference. I'll agree with Streep and Adams (for now), but I'm thinking snubs in Picture/Director/Actor/Adapted Screenplay. By the way, can I just say how pleased I am that the amazing Viola Davis is returning to the big screen in two films this year? This woman can do miracles with minutes - nay, seconds - of screen-time.

I'm not going to offer extensive thoughts on this issue until September (at the earliest), but for now, let me just say that:

(a) I don't see the Heath Ledger posthumous nod for The Dark Knight happening.
(b) Kate Winslet stands a good shot of winning Best Actress this year; let's just hope that her campaigns for Revolutionary Road and The Reader don't confuse voters in a Leo DiCaprio 2006-type situation...
(c) ...unless Julianne Moore gets nominated for Blindness; then which Oscar bridesmaid will the Academy rally behind?

3. As if this past week hasn't been euphoric enough for rabid actressexuals everywhere, Nick Davis of Nick's Flick Picks has unveiled his long-in-the-making project ("The Best Actress Academy Awards") rating, ranking and celebrating Oscar's favorite Lead Women. Most people who read this blog will likely already know about this delightful development, but if this somehow comes as news to you, off you go! I have spent ~~95%~~ 40% of my weekend reading his yearly profiles, and feeling shamed about how much catching up I have to do. But I will certainly be using Nick's recommendations as a guide on where to start, and if you're feeling relatively newbie, so should you.

4. My friend Alex and I have recently established a movie-going tradition: if anything in the "step-to-rep" genre (my coinage) is released theatrically, we are all over it. Preferably on opening night, to view it with audience members who actually like this sort of thing. What began as an experiment with the god-awful Step Up has continued with classics such as Stomp the Yard and most recently Step Up 2 the Streets.

Quite honestly, I don't go into these street dance slash b-boying slash b-girling films with an agenda. I try my best to keep an open mind and seek out potentially novel ideas being articulated about race, education and class in America. Unfortunately, each one of these has been a disappointment in this regard (although I must confess that the choreography on display and watching these dancers face off has been a real pleasure to watch.) Often, these plot lines follow a familiar path (troubled at-risk teen is forced to attend a snooty prep institution against his or her will; deals with torn allegiances between their authentic street roots and the new possibilities that lie ahead; and finally discovers that dance/stepping/stomping will help them articulate their frustrations to fruitful ends.) The conventional formula aside, the characterizations and situations are regressive to the point of insulting stereotypes (a stock Asian-American character in the latest vehicle speaks with a thick accent, and is employed as a cheap joke - "I love Amelicaaa!"). The depictions of masculinity are even more clueless (the weakness of the sissy boys in dance class is constantly placed in contrast to the brawn of the male lead) and all characters of colour are reduced to easy caricatures. Here's hoping that the just-announced Step Up 3-D can marry an imaginative storyline with exciting stepping moves. C-

Lonerdom

2008-03-01T12:15:00.005-05:00

It is only natural that getting to know people should take some time. Everyday, I watch for the old man with the flowers. And I wonder... was he born here? Did he love someone here? Did he lose someone here? He doesn't seem as curious about me, but that's all right. These days, I'm something of a loner myself. I'm pretty good at staying entertained. Mostly, I like to hang out at a little bar I know, conveniently located in my backyard.

Too Good to Be True

2008-02-25T00:30:00.005-05:00

Just how happy does the image above make you? Share your elation in the comments section. I'm simply over the moon. I'm going to be talking about this for the next three months. Full Oscar postmortem coming soon...

Why not?

2008-02-24T14:28:00.024-05:00

I originally wasn't planning on posting any predictions, but I have nothing to do until the Red Carpet Specials start popping up in a couple of hours. Anyways, it's fun to look back on these posts years later and reflect on the excitement, impatience and vote-flopping indecision that precedes each telecast. Much luck to you on your picks: may all of your favourites win. Unless they aren't the same as mine. Then you're on your own.

+PICTURE: No Country for Old Men (This would be my pick, although I'd be pleased by a Michael Clayton upset.)

+DIRECTOR: Joel and Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men (Again, my pick(s). A win for Julian Schnabel isn't out of the question. Could totally happen, although I'm really hoping it won't.)

+ACTRESS: Marion Cotillard, La Vie En Rose (The BAFTA win probably came at just the right time, just over a week before AMPAS ballots were due. Don't we need a biopic performance winning somewhere in the acting races? I'm also guessing Christie's SAG acceptance speech didn't exactly charm voters. I'm a Christie supporter through-and-through, although I think Marion would be a perfectly respectable Oscar choice.)

+ACTOR: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood (Lock. My vote: I'm still torn between Tommy Lee Jones and Viggo.)

-SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Ruby Dee, American Gangster (I have no idea whose name to pencil in here, so I'm staying with my original prediction and am guessing that sentiment influences the vote. This will probably be the last chance the Academy has to honor Dee, and the others in this category will have many more chances in the future. I'll be glued to my t.v. when this category is handed out. My vote: Swinton, of course.) [The Oscar went to TILDA! Never have I been so thrilled to be wrong.]

+SUPPORTING ACTOR: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men (Lock #2, and my favorite in this category.)

-ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood (The Coens have already won a writing prize for Fargo, and with their win almost a done deal in the directing category, voters may want some fresh blood in this race. This is Anderson's third nomination for writing, and the third time may just be the trick (it worked for Charlie Kaufman, didn't it?) Plus, can the Coen Brothers really win all four categories they are nominated in? My vote: Sarah Polley, although I'd be just as happy with a No Country win here.) [The Oscar went to the Coen Bros.]

+ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: El Diablo, Juno. (Can we not talk about it, please? I'd be most happy with a win for Tony Gilroy here.)

-ANIMATED FILM: Persepolis (Risky, yes, but who saw the win for Spirited Away coming? Plus, people may feel enough is enough with Pixar forever dominating this category.) [The Oscar went to Brad Bird for Ratatouille.]

+CINEMATOGRAPHY: Robert Elswit, There Will Be Blood (I'm thinking Deakins splits his support, while Kaminski's two wins work against him. Plus, as precedent tells us, a nomination in Art Direction often helps here.)

- ART DIRECTION: Jack Fisk and co., There Will Be Blood (Spoiler: Dante Feretti and co., Sweeney Todd) [The Oscar went to Sweeney Todd.]

+COSTUME DESIGN: Alexandra Byrne, Elizabeth: The Golden Age (Bad reviews don't really matter in this category; see Marie Antoinette and Memoirs of a Geisha.)

+EDITING: Christopher Rouse, The Bourne Ultimatum (Showy, frantic cuts often impress voters here: Black Hawk Down, The Matrix, etc.)

+MAKE-UP: La Vie En Rose (A sure thing, and the team deserves the win.)

+ORIGINAL SCORE: Dario Marianelli, Atonement (It's memorable and lasting, which stands out amongst the pack here; crossing my fingers for James Newton Howard.)

+ORIGINAL SONG: Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová for "Falling Slowly", Once

-SOUND MIXING: Transformers (The press for Oscar bridesmaid Kevin O'Connell has likely paid off.) [The Oscar went to The Bourne Ultimatum.]

- SOUND EFFECTS EDITING: No Country for Old Men (The lack of a score makes the work here really stand out.) [The Oscar went to The Bourne Ultimatum.)

-VISUAL EFFECTS: Transformers (Better this than The Golden Compass. Yucky.) [The Oscar went to the fakey polar bears. Figures.]

MY TALLY
No Country for Old Men - 4
There Will Be Blood - 4
La Vie En Rose - 2
Transformers - 2
American Gangster - 1
Atonement - 1
The Bourne Ultimatum - 1
Elizabeth: The Golden Age - 1
Juno - 1
Once - 1
Persepolis - 1

OSCAR's TALLY
No Country for Old Men - 4
The Bourne Ultimatum - 3
There Will Be Blood - 2
La Vie En Rose - 2
Atonement - 1
Elizabeth: The Golden Age - 1
The Golden Compass - 1
Juno - 1
Michael Clayton - 1
Once - 1
Ratatouille - 1
Sweeney Todd - 1

12 out of 19 = 63%

I know so little about the nominees in the Documentary and Foreign Language Film races this year, so I'll abstain from predicting. I look forward to catching up with them on video though.

Happy Oscars, all!

Best Actress

2008-02-21T12:52:00.005-05:00

Hermitage Exterior

2008-02-08T22:43:00.002-05:00

Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India

2008-02-02T21:23:00.001-05:00

"The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism - colonialist elitism and bourgeois-nationalist elitism. Both these varieties of elitism share the prejudice that the making of the Indian nation and the development of the consciousness - nationalism - which informed this process were exclusively or predominantly elite achievements... [This historical writing] fails to acknowledge, far less interpret, the contribution made by the people on their own, that is, independently of the elite, to the making and development of this nationalism."

- Ranajit Guha, "On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India", Selected Subaltern Studies

Ashutosh Gowariker's Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (2001) is perhaps one of the most visible and oft-celebrated Indian films ever made, and for good reason. Even those moviegoers largely unfamiliar with cinema from South Asia can still make reference to that "long Indian movie about cricket". The film is a rare specimen in that it was able to enchant audiences and critics alike, scoring mightily at the box office in India, winning every national award in sight, and riding that ecstatic word of mouth all the way to the 2002 Oscars (it is only the third film from India to receive a Foreign Language Film nomination, alongside Mother India and Salaam Bombay.) Unabashedly steeped in the conventions of commercial Bollywood cinema (a near-four hour running time, musical dance numbers, unrepentant melodrama), the film also serves as an impressive critical intervention in South Asian historiography without ever becoming inaccessible or lofty. In fact, the temptation to simplistically (even condescendingly) frame it as a Bollywoodized "David versus Goliath" feel-good cricket fable has been so tempting that many have overlooked the significant implications made about colonial India, native resistance and the long road to Independence in 1947. For this reason, I open with Guha's tremendously influential words because they hint at the lens through Gowariker represents and gives a voice to the ignored subaltern. Call it the anti-Gandhi if you will: these agrarian farmers of Champaner resist not with swords and fists in the tradition of those mindlessly violent and easily swayed masses, but with cricket bats and a fierce determination to resist imperialist greed.

As the film's narrator (Amitabh Bachchan) informs the audience, it is 1893, and British rule is well established across South Asia. Champaner, a small village in the state of Gujurat, has been suffering through a period of crop-stunting drought for two years. This is a cause for major concern for the entire hamlet, as the villagers are obligated to hand over a third of their agricultural produce as tax ("lagaan") to their Raja (seasoned actor Kulbhushan Kharbanda). In turn, this tithe is handed over to the British, who offer the Raja military protection from neighboring feudal lords. When a cocky young farmer from Champaner named Bhuvan (played by Aamir Khan) catches the ire of snotty Captain Andrew Russell (Paul Blackthorne) from a nearby British cantonment, the stakes are raised. Russell, bored with the unadventurous status quo, makes a bet with the desperate villagers. He will forgo lagaan for three years - not only for Champaner, but for the entire province - if they are able to beat him and his seasoned teammates in a game of cricket ("gilli danda" for the villagers). If the Champaner contingent loses, they will have to pay three times lagaan to the regent, along with the rest of the accompanying villages in the region. Naturally, Bhuvan's fellow villagers are absolutely outraged at his agreement to these terms, but our hero has conviction in spades. Russell's kind-hearted sister Elizabeth (Rachel Shelley) opts to secretly help the Champaner team with learning the game, hoping to even the playing field between the two sides. The rest of the film explores how Bhuvan assembles a team of eccentrics, falls in love with the lovely village belle (a fesity Gracy Singh, making her screen debut) and negotiates oppression, prejudice and difference (in and outside of the village.)

Lest one forget, this is also a through-and-through musical, with six such interludes sprinkled throughout. However, these enchanting songs (composed by South Indian maestro A. R. Rahman) play an active role in pushing the narrative forward, and are not employed as burdensome time wasters. The stunningly choreographed "Ghanan Ghanan" is a show stopper in which the entire village celebrates in anticipation of a thirst-quenching and crop-saving rainstorm which never quite comes. In "Mitwa O Mitwa", Bhuvan sings a song of camaraderie, empowerment and hope in order to convince fellow villagers to join the gilli danda team (some choice lyrics: "Listen, O my friend, what is this fear you have? This earth is ours, and so is the sky!"). "Chale Chalo" is a rousing, percussion-heavy call-to-arms (or call-to-cricket-bats) in which the villagers prepare for the fateful game. And in my favourite song and dance sequence, "Radha Kaise Na Jale" (translated roughly as "How can Radha not be jealous?") Bhuvan and Gauri playfully act out the courtship of the goddess Radha by the Lord Krishna. She doubts his dedication due to his roaming eye for the gopis (cow-herding village girls), while he maintains that her jealousy is utterly unfounded. Of course, Gauri's invocation of Radha here is a thinly-veiled cover for her suspicion that Bhuvan has fallen in love with Elizabeth. It is not far-fetched to argue that deleting the songs for non-Indian audiences in an effort to lessen the running time (a rumour circulated during awards season of that year) would severely hurt the film. At many theatrical screenings, it was not uncommon to hear applause, cheers and whistles after each song.

While Lagaan certainly carries the baggage of a beat-all-odds "sports movie" (scenes of training for the big game, confronting obstacles from all directions, and the pre-climax threat of crippling defeat all follow in typical fashion), more fun is mined from picking up on Gowariker's sly winks at his audience: the man has obviously read his theory. True, there's something convenient about the all-inclusive policy of who can play on the Champaner gilli-danda team (Hindu men, a Muslim, a Sikh, and an untouchable are all represented), but Gowariker also understands how communal and religious tensions are informed, fueled and nurtured by colonial divide-and-rule policies, not by an a priori intolerance of difference. Moreover, Lagaan's conflict is not squarely characterized in a top-down structure (solely mustache-twirling Brits stamping on those poor, defenseless brown people), but in a Foucauldian network of power relations. The issue of caste is especially key here, and while Bhuvan's passionate plea to his fellow villagers to allow untouchable villager Kachra to integrate may seem like a stretch, the film makes an astonishing statement about the nature of modernity and how culture is fluid (not a fixed phenomenon.) Bhuvan even uses ancient Hindu scripture to bolster his argument, citing examples about how the Lord Ram once ate berries from the garden of a tribal woman, and that the boatman who ferries souls in the Afterlife lacks a varna himself. Moreover, throughout the film, Bhuvan not only faces the brunt of Russell's racism, but opposition from the Raja, his village elders, and Lakha, a conspiring jealous teammate in cahoots with Russell.

Even more fascinating are the screenplay's flirtations with Occidentalist characterizations and reverse Other constructions. While Blackthorne's sneering Captain Russell essentially embodies colonial greed and violence, his sister Elizabeth is so committed to aiding Bhuvan and the villagers that she actually fantasizes about becoming a part of their community (prancing around in full gagra choli, no less!) In one of the film's winsome musical numbers "O Rey Chori", in which Bhuvan finally confesses his true feelings to Gauri, Elizabeth imagines a happy life as Bhuvan's wife and sings:

My heart, it speaks a thousand words, I feel eternal bliss/
The roses sprout their scarlet mouths, like offering a kiss/
No drop of rain, no glowing flame, has ever been so pure/
If being in love can feel like this, then I'm in love for sure!

The scene, replete with curtains flapping in the wind, white doves and loud emotions is intentionally meant to be ridiculous (much credit goes to Rachel Shelley for being such a good sport about the lyrics.) At every single screening I attended back in 2001 (three shows in total), the predominantly South Asian-Canadian audience never failed to break into embarrassed titters, and it was clear why - goras aren't supposed to sing in these movies! Gowariker in essence reverses the direction of the Gaze here; it is the white lady who is Othered here, not the exotic Indian woman. However, the degree of Elizabeth's love and admiration for Bhuvan is not trivialized as a result - in a Bollywood musical, it is only appropriate her love is articulated in song (and in English, for that matter.) At the close of her fantasy, Elizabeth even applies a bindi to her forehead, to mark herself as a Hindu woman. Rarely has the concept of hybridity and culture-crossing been dealt with so cleverly and complexly. When she and Bhuvan part for good at the end of the film, it is difficult not to feel sorrow for this romance that could not be.

Aamir Khan has always been a captivating and winsome performer, who had appeared in many late '80s and '90s romantic blockbusters prior to Lagaan. But until this collaboration with Gowariker, the steel in his eyes and the earnesty in his voice had never been showcased to such effective ends. Bhuvan, with his faultless personality, socially-progressive ideas and ever-good intentions, is not the most exciting or textured character on paper. However, Khan makes him a magnetic force, whether staring down his opponents or raising morale in his fellow teammates. In a lesser film with a less discerning actress, Gracy Singh's Gauri probably would have been relegated completely the sidelines, only appearing for a dance number when necessary. Thankfully, she is a constant presence throughout the entire film. Her character is the first to embrace Bhuvan's ambitious project, and she insists on attending all the training sessions to lend support and input. While there may be an element of misogyny in how she repeatedly falls into fits of jealousy every time Bhuvan interacts with Elizabeth ("Tell me Bhuvan, why is that White Witch willing to help you?"), Singh is able to amazingly evade caricature. She is also an expert comedian, and her full expressive eyes are certainly her greatest asset here: consider the hysterical scenes in which she worriedly spies on Bhuvan and Elizabeth discussing cricket rules.

Rachel Shelley is compassionate and moving as a British woman struggling with her allegiance and identity as an outsider wanting in. Much credit should go to the actor for convincing us that a powerful and elevated woman of status in that period, with its norms about racial hierarchy, could fall in love with an Indian peasant farmer. Paul Blackthorne's Captain Russell is not afforded much dimension beyond hatred of all things Indian, but he sneers and condescends fittingly. A cast of established character actors round out the Champaner gilli danda team, special notice going to Raghuvir Yadav as a frazzled chicken farmer and booming Rajesh Vivek as the opinionated village seer, who provides superb comic relief. Meanwhile, Rajendranath Zutshi hints at a fascinating back story as Muslim Ismayeel with his limited screen time, and Yashpal Sharma's expressions are always priceless. Also deserving of special mention is Javed Singh as conflicted Ram Singh, a servant in the Raja's palace, who allows us to understand how Indians placed in positions of authority over their fellow countrymen face complicated realities about loyalty and kinship.

As already mentioned, A. R. Rahman's work as composer contributes a great deal of information about this land and its people, seeking inspiration from rustic folk music and the structure of the classical Hindu epics. Costume designer Bhanu Athaiya, who won an Oscar for Gandhi, could have easily recycled her work from that epic film, but is nicely attuned to how the Gujurati agrarian community is varied in terms of dress itself (distinguished village leaders versus the constituents of the village, the Raja's golden fineries versus the dhotis of the farmers, the particulars of Muslim apparel versus Hindu garb, etc.) The finery of Russell and Elizabeth's ensembles are never overstated, while the redcoats of the British army look appropriately lived-in. Anil Mehta's cinematography does amazing things with the flat, dry landscape of the Bhuj desert, a pronounced departure from the bleeding crimsons and dazzling sapphire blues in 1999's Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, which he lensed just before this film. Art director Nitin Desai (another alumnus of Sanam) and his team traveled to Bhuj four months before shooting began in order to erect an authentically period township. Editor Ballu Saluja deserves special praise for making a four-hour-long film seem like half the length; his work assembling the cricket match is especially commendable. Interesting fact: to add an additional layer of authenticity, the screenplay was written and performed in the dialect of Avadhi.

By presenting a village of peasants as political beings struggling against imperial exploitation through non-violent means, Gowariker writes back into history the voices that elitist historiography has overlooked or silenced. Nationalism then, Guha and Gowariker remind us, is not an exclusive pursuit by personalities such as Mohandas Gandhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and others who are often credited with "leading" the Indian people to Independence. As the narrator informs us at the close, "Even after this historic victory, Bhuvan's name was lost somewhere in the pages of history." What other stories of native resistance have been suffocated by master narratives over the decades? Yes, Lagaan is an endearing film about overcoming the greatest of odds, but look closer at how Gowariker has also played the conventions of commercial Hindi cinema to his advantage. Working both as a populist crowd pleaser and scholarly dissertation, Lagaan is magical Bollywood cinema at its most winsome. A

Food for thought

2008-02-02T18:28:00.001-05:00

Only twice has the Screen Actors Guild accurately predicted the acting races (4/4) at the Oscars: in 2005 (Swank/Foxx/Blanchett/Freeman), and in 1998 (Nicholson/Hunt/Basinger & Stuart/Williams). And even then, I don't think they deserve points for that last one, giving kudos to Gloria Stuart as well as eventual winner Kim Basinger.

As such, I'm not so comfortable with my predicted winners list as it stands presently. Is it really going to be Christie, Day-Lewis, Dee and Bardem yapping away at the podium on Oscar night? This thought occurred to me while submitting a comment for Adam's musings on this year's Supporting Actress race. Even in the most monotonous "locked and loaded" years, there has been slight variation between SAG and AMPAS's choices. Let's look at the facts...

Among the boys (SAG/Oscar):
- Harris/Spacey in '96
- Duvall/Coburn in '99
- Del Toro/Crowe; Finney/Del Toro in '01 (although this was more attributed to category confusion than anything else.)
- Crowe/Washington; McKellen/Broadbent in '02
- Day-Lewis/Brody; Walken/Cooper in '03
- Depp/Penn in '04
- Giamatti/Clooney in '06
- Murphy/Arkin in '07

The two voting bodies are a tad more consistent with the female actors: seven gals have won the Actor statuette without going on to grab the Oscar, in contrast to the aforementioned eleven men: Jodie Foster (Nell), Kate Winslet (Sense and Sensibility), Lauren Bacall (The Mirror Has Two Faces), Kathy Bates (Primary Colors), Annette Bening (American Beauty), Judi Dench (Chocolat), Helen Mirren (Gosford Park), and Renee Zellweger (Chicago).

Statistically speaking then, we have to have an upset in the making somewhere. Most would point a finger at the Supporting Actress race, often cited as the breeding ground for such shockeroos. But I have a hard time letting go of Dee - Blanchett has already won, Ryan is the critics' darling a la Virginia Madsen, Swinton doesn't have the heat, and the nomination's the reward for Ronan.

But if not here, then where? Actor and Supporting Actor look pretty locked up right now, and while former winner Julie Christie might be this year's Sissy Spacek, Halle Berry was still able to swing SAG in that dead heat race.

Where will it be? Where!!? Or is this going to be another 2005?

Sarah Silverman has something to confess

2008-02-01T12:38:00.001-05:00

My favourite line? (SPOILERS) "Remember when I told you I was fucking Matt Damon? I was fucking Matt Damon!"

R.I.P. Heath Ledger

2008-01-23T17:51:00.002-05:00

1979-2008

In the very few hours I've had to myself since the news broke (usually between intensive lectures, lengthy classroom observations and broken units of sleep), I've been pouring over every write-up and tribute on display. A post I keep reading is Nathaniel's first words on Ledger's passing; I had returned to Nate's blog Tuesday afternoon to chat some more about the Oscar nominations announced earlier that day. When I saw that photo and those years in closed brackets, my heart sank into my gut instantly. Although I fully knew what this meant, I didn't want it to compute. I followed the accompanying links, additionally tapping away the addresses of every familiar online news source (entertainment-related or not) in order to verify this claim. And then I went back to that original post and sat there for about ten minutes with my mouth ludicrously agape. Eventually, I had to pull myself together and attend a linguistics lecture. I was able to make light conversation with my classmates and pay attention to the professor's points, but I had that same pit in my stomach throughout.

It still hasn't gone away. The more newspaper articles, emotional reactions and pictures I seem to consume, the less I'm able to understand it. I feel so distanced from the whole thing now, and in a strange way, I feel compelled to read Nathaniel's words again and again to really come to terms with it. The sense of loss is even more acutely felt when taking into account the sudden passing of Brad Renfro just a few days earlier (I've been a fan since The Client, and yes, even Tom & Huck.)

It seems so off, so improperly timed. After Brokeback Mountain, Candy and I'm Not There, it felt like he was just getting started. And his film career aside, I had grown used to his adorably dumpy fashion sense, that goofy smile and his distinctive nervous-but-generous chortle.

I don't have much to offer here, but the blog seems like the obvious place to jot down some thoughts.

No Oscar for (Homeless) Young Men

2008-01-22T09:34:00.001-05:00

A strange morning, to say the least. In the same format as last year, here are my thoughts...

THE "I AM FEELING NEUTRAL ABOUT THIS" STUFFs
- What on earth happened to Into the Wild this morning? Did whisperings and write-ups about Sean Penn's personal life of late hurt the campaign this badly? I thought everyone in Hollywood loved this movie (see SAG.) Although that nifty Editing nomination points toward a Best Picture nod in-the-making, it appears nowhere else except in the Supporting Actor race. What of Eddie Wedder & co.'s songs? The Wild camp must be hurting badly right now. But grouchy Mr. Penn must be relieved that he won't have to sit through yet another awards ceremony this year (that is, if it even happens what with WGA and all.)
- Atonement manages to pull off a Best Picture nomination after all, indicating that the film has more fans within the Academy than I had originally figured. I thought the Joe Wright picture would be this year's Dreamgirls like many other bloggers, but I suppose one should never underestimate the British period prestige contender. Good for Wright & co. I'm not ga-ga over all of the hit-and-miss Atonement, but I do lurve that first half with Ronan as Briony.
- With Jason Reitman's surprise appearance in the directing category, does the Best Picture race now come down to No Country for Old Men versus Juno?
- Philip Seymour Hoffman's appearance in the Supporting Actor race now means I'll have to watch Charlie Wilson's War.
- The Simpsons Movie booted out of Animated Feature for Surf's Up. While I heard surprisingly good word-of-mouth regarding the latter, I totally thought those Springfeldians were a lock here simply due to the popularity and lasting power of their film.
- I'm not a fan of The Bourne Identity trilogy, but it's nice to see that it's finally made an impact this year (I accurately predicted all three of its nominations.) Ultimatum is probably my least favourite of the three though.
- Sweeney Todd missing in Makeup and Cinematography? Weird.

THE GOOD STUFFs
- I was correct in intuiting that voters had not forgotten about Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah, but dead wrong in figuring that a vote thrown his way for No Country for Old Men would suffice. This is probably my favourite nomination this morning - it's heartening to know that a seemingly forgotten performance like this one can still make it in the final five without any precursor love at all.
- (Expected) strong showings for No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood.
- Say hello to Academy-Award nominees Tilda Swinton and Viggo Mortensen. S'about time!
- Ronan! Atwood! Marianelli!
- I share Glenn's er... enthusiasm in celebrating Sarah Polley's Away From Her Adapted Screenplay mention. This is obviously a "we're sorry we couldn't nominate you in the directing category" nod, but Sarah and I will take it.
- No Country for Old Men is recognized in both the Sound Editing and Sound Mixing categories. KABLOOIE. In the same regard, I hope Transformers remains an Academy Award nominee, nothing more. (My ears!)
- Cheers for Casey Affleck, even if he is nominated in the wrong category.
- I should have known that Enchanted's most showy and memorable musical number ("Happy Working Song", in which Amy Adams frolics with a sizable number of New York City's pest population) would be remembered come voting time.
- While on the topic of Original Songs, congrats to the Once camp for "Falling Slowly" being recognized. I don't like the film very much, but I'm not so crusty as to obnoxiously poo-poo the stellar soundtrack as well. This means we'll actually get to see it performed if the ceremony goes on as planned!
- Michael Moore's flawed, funny Sicko gets a Documentary mention. Hopefully this will get more people to watch it.
- Roger Deakins thankfully gets in for both Jesse James and No Country for Old Men. But now will he lose to Janusz Kaminski's gimmicky Diving Bell aesthetics?
- James Newton Howard's Original Score nomination for Michael Clayton - that pulsing, jangling score was über-intense. Great stuff.
- Ruby Dee! Not one of my personal picks, but I certainly preferred her to Catherine Keener or Vanessa Redgrave. Slap him again Ruby!
- Tony Gilroy gets two nominations for his feature film debut. Go Team Clayton.

THE BAD STUFFs
- Jason Reitman for Juno? One of the best-directed films of the year? Ok. Not a travesty by any means, but come on people.
- Angelina Jolie, where art thou? One of the hardest snubs to swallow this morning, even if Linney managed to make it in. Speaking of Linney, love it, but I'm going to pretend that nod is for Jindabyne instead.
- The wig-wearin', hairline-raisin' Cate Blanchett - just like last year - party crashes a category that could have accommodated more deserving nominees. But we knew this was coming, right? Good for her on that I'm Not There shout-out though.
- I haven't seen any of the Foreign-Language films nominated here. Are you listening, Canadian distributors!!?
- More Pirates repeating their same adventures in the Caribbean? Thankfully the future holds no more installments of that franchise (hopefully.) I tried watching this on video, but couldn't make it past the first ten minutes.

THE DOWNRIGHT PAINFUL STUFFs
- Here's an obvious moment to further abuse Norbit, but why bother? I'm more interested to see if it can achieve that rare distinction of being both an Oscar and Razzie winner.
- The Golden Compass for Visual Effects? Ew! I thought this was one of the film's weakest elements. Those polar bears looked so fake, and the daemons fared even worse.
- WHERE IS ALEXANDRE DESPLAT???! They have now snubbed three Oscar-worthy scores of his (Birth, The Painted Veil, and now Lust, Caution.) Bad form!

THIS NOW MEANS I HAVE TO WATCH
- Charlie Wilson's War
- The Kite Runner
- Lars and the Real Girl
- 3:10 to Yuma
- Persepolis (obviously, I was going to watch this anyways.)

Oscar Predictions

2008-01-18T09:40:00.002-05:00

The blog lives! Readers who know me well can attest to this fact: if there's anything to get me out of a writing slump, it's the Oscars. I've been meaning to update for the last little while, but nothing I could assemble in my drafts seemed quite good enough to post. Most of what I wanted to say about the offerings on display during awards season have already been articulated with more wit and clarity by my peers. Hopefully, a quick capsule review run-down should show up in the next couple of days, to provide some explanation regarding those grades you've seen piling up on the side.

*** Please Note: I reserve the right to tinker with these up until Monday afternoon ***

BEST PICTURE (3/5)
1. No Country for Old Men
2. Into the Wild-
3. Michael Clayton
4. There Will Be Blood
5. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly-
---
6. Juno+
7. Atonement+
8. American Gangster

Yes, I may very well regret omitting Juno from the mix come Tuesday morning. At this point in time though - even with the rave reviews and the rising box office returns and a go-ahead from the PGA - it still doesn't look right to me in the final stretch. My (very) cool feelings towards the film aside, a part of me feels that voters will find it too fluffy and inconsequential in this year of deep and heavy American cinema. I mean, hamburger phones? "Home-skillet"? At the very least, Little Miss Sunshine (irregardless of how you feel about it) doesn't seem like an in-joke the whole way through, depending on pop culture references and quirky, artificial banter to impress. And for what it's worth, the beloved indie darling couldn't even muster up enough support to win an Ensemble nod with the SAG, what one would consider an easy get. The same goes for its bridesmaid status at the Golden Globes, as the HFPA decided to confer their honour of Best Comedy/Musical upon Sweeney Todd instead. A poster at In Contention made the good point that aside from Best Picture, the only certain nods Juno has in the bag are Actress for Ellen Page and Original Screenplay for Diablo Cody - nothing more. A Best Picture nominee with only three overall nominations? Again, many other points could be made to argue that the film is a lock at this point, but I'm just going on an instinct here.

As for Atonement, the GG win and BAFTA love occurred after AMPAS ballots were due, and the film already has a shaky reputation stateside. If the voters are truly feeling "international", I'm thinking they respectfully decline the icy, questionable advances of the Joe Wright film and go for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Granted, Schnabel is a New Yorker and the film was financed with American money, but perhaps that makes my case even more convincing. True, Pan's Labyrinth wasn't able to land a Best Picture nomination at the zenith of its popularity this time last year, but it didn't have a PGA nod. And if the film's tiny box office numbers suggest not enough voters have seen the film, I present the following: Letters from Iwo Jima.

I don't think numbers one through four really need to be explained, considering how well they've all done in the precursors. The Coen Brothers picture is a lock, while Michael Clayton is looking as stable as The Queen did last year (no major citations for the film as a whole, but considered a shoe-in all the same.) Into the Wild didn't have much support from the HFPA or BAFTA, true, but all the American voting bodies have embraced it. There Will Be Blood was looking iffy until the combined power of DGA, PGA and WGA cemented its status as a leading player. All in all, I can see any of these eight in the final five, although I'd be rather pleased if Juno and American Gangster were shut out entirely.

BEST DIRECTOR (3/5)
1. Joel and Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
2. Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
3. Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood
4. Sean Penn, Into the Wild-
5. David Cronenberg, Eastern Promises-
---
6. Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton+
7. Joe Wright, Atonement
8. Tim Burton, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Missed: Jason Reitman, Juno

First three are looking good, and I'm sure you'd agree with me. Paul Thomas Anderson has had a hit-and-miss relationship with AMPAS throughout the years, but the general feeling at the moment is that it's definitely "his time". Julian Schnabel and the Coen Brothers are safe, while Sean Penn fills that actor-turned-director spot the Academy loves to include every now and then. People really do love the film; even if the film misses out on a Best Picture nod (which I could see happening), I still think he could fill that lone director slot.

The prediction that sticks out here is Cronenberg, which I agree is a very risky one. I'm not even sure I believe it myself, but understand that this inkling is informed neither by fan-boy love or as a supporter of the film in question. I thought Eastern Promises was a shaky-if-entirely-watchable venture, and I even knew not to include him in the year of Violence (which I flat-out worship.) So why now? The directors usually have a surprise up their sleeve every now and then (Mike Leigh for Vera Drake, Fernando Meirelles for City of God, Stephen Daldry for Billy Elliot - all of them missing from the major American precursor lists and considered big shockers), so it's not completely "out there". Plus, with voters scrambling to catch Viggo's performance, I believe the directors' branch (with feelings of residual guilt from '06) will rally to support this Canadian master. Hey, let me live out the fantasy while I can, okay? But it's not that bad - I wouldn't mind if Tony Gilroy took his spot, or even Burton. Ridley Scott, however, is another story altogether.

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE (4/5)
1. Julie Christie, Away from Her
2. Marion Cottilard, La Vie En Rose
3. Ellen Page, Juno
4. Angelina Jolie, A Mighty Heart-
5. Cate Blanchett, Elizabeth: The Golden Age
---
6. Laura Linney, The Savages+
7. Amy Adams, Enchanted
8. Keira Knightley, Atonement
9. Nikki Blonsky, Hairspray

One thing is for sure: Julie, Marion, Ellen and Angelina can breathe easy and hit the snooze button early Tuesday morning. Everyone seems to agree that it's the fifth spot which presents the most trouble... who will take it? The default nominee? The critical darling? The "it" girl of the moment? The glamorous British import? Each of these women has an equal number of factors for and against her for the final slot. Practically everyone in Hollywood adores Laura Linney, and both her and co-star Philip Seymour Hoffman won rave reviews for The Savages. However, detractors feel she's mined this territory before (frustrated, complex woman deals with unsympathetic sibling) and the lack of GG, SAG and particularly ISA (!) mentions is troubling. Amy Adams had a lot of heat when Enchanted first opened, but there hasn't been much buzz since. Plus, a "breakthrough" nomination may seem repetitive for some voters, since they already handed her one for Junebug a couple of years ago. As for Keira Knightley, who was considered a shoe-in all year long, has suffered from mixed reviews and is arguably a secondary player in Atonement. Plus, voter fatigue for such a young starlet (she was a surprise nominee for Pride and Prejudice a few seasons ago - too much, too soon?) may push another contender into the spotlight.

That's why I'm thinking that Cate Blanchett will appear on the shortlist instead and cement a 5/5 SAG match. Yes, the movie sucks and most people actually seem to realize that (critics and industry folk alike.) However, in such a weak year, a performance like this (showy, real-life personality, delivered by a respected performer) may be a "safe" choice for unsure voters. Plus, she's popping up everywhere (GG, BFCA, SAG, BAFTA), so she definitely still has all of Hollywood and the rest of the world still under her spell. Behold this year's double acting nominee. (Boo.) As for me, I'm crossing my fingers for Adams (Linney and even Knightley would be okay as well.)

Additionally - it's a long shot, but could Nikki Blonsky be this year's Keisha Castle-Hughes? Hm.

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE (4/5)
1. Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
2. George Clooney, Michael Clayton
3. Johnny Depp, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
4. Viggo Mortensen, Eastern Promises
5. Emile Hirsch, Into the Wild-
---
6. Ryan Gosling, Lars and the Real Girl
7. Denzel Washington, American Gangster
8. Mathieu Amalric, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Missed: Tommy Lee Jones, In the Valley of Elah+

Day-Lewis and Clooney are definite nominees for Blood and Clayton respectively, while Johnny Depp will likely join them in the race to the gold (true, no SAG mention, but that omission was attributed to a lack of screeners sent out as opposed than a willful snub of all things Sweeney Todd.) It also seems like the perfect time for the Academy to honour the work of Viggo Mortensen, who finally picked up steam this awards season for Eastern Promises. The actor has always been well-liked, but his most popular roles (Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, Tom/Joey in A History of Violence) have also been his most understated and subtle (read: not tailor-made for winning prizes.) With Nikolai, people are finally starting to pay attention. Here's hoping he can ride these mentions to an AMPAS mention - he certainly deserves it more than, say, Washington or Depp (or even Day-Lewis for that matter, IMHO.)

Again, the last spot is interesting: Washington got Globes love, but no SAG mention, while Gosling got both. The two actors' films seem to be well-liked enough, but not wholly embraced by the rest of the industry. The beloved Into the Wild, on the other hand, is a sure bet to garner many nominations, and Emile Hirsch may very well be brought along for the ride. He pretty much carries the entire film by himself, and undergoes many physical transformations throughout his two-year journey. A bit young for this category, but he's been around for a while and has built up quite a sizable and respectable resume. But if these last three ultimately cancel one another out, it's entirely possible that Frank Langella or Mathieu Amalric could land a surprise nomination. This category is due for a shake-up.

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE (5/5)
1. Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There
2. Amy Ryan, Gone Baby Gone
3. Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton
4. Saoirse Ronan, Atonement
5. Ruby Dee, American Gangster
---
6. Catherine Keener, Into the Wild
7. Kelly MacDonald, No Country for Old Men
8. Vanessa Redgrave, Atonement

First two are no-brainers: Blanchett makes it in on the concept and buzz alone, while Amy Ryan has a billion critics' prizes under her belt (including the most powerful ones: NBR, LAFCA and NYFCC.) It's between these two for the win, but that's for another time. Tilda Swinton has FINALLY landed a film that isn't too weird or off-putting for awards attention (by Hollywood standards that is, mind you.) I'm so thrilled for my Tilda! It's only about fifteen years late, but nevermind... Meanwhile, I'm betting that Saoirse Ronan will be the only one of Atonement's much-hyped actors to actually make it through. The young actor commands the film's first stronger half and we all know that this category is very kind to young girls. She's considered the next big thing, and she already has several prestige projects in the pipeline (including The Lovely Bones, directed by Peter Jackson.)

Meanwhile, Ruby Dee's and Catherine Keener's campaigns were bolstered by SAG, but I'm betting that Dee makes it through with a career longevity nod. She has a minuscule role in the Ridley Scott picture, and the screenplay largely ignores her until that biggie confrontation scene with Denzel - and what a mark it leaves! For me, she was the only thing worth mentioning or even remembering in the dull, derivative American Gangster. That lone scene is the one that resounds most clearly in my mind after seeing it, and I'm betting voters feel the same way. I'm not really convinced that Keener will crack the top five, even if she is well-liked and esteemed by her peers. I saw Into the Wild after the SAG nominations were announced and I was shocked that such a fleeting appearance was able to score a mention. She does wonders with the role (similar to what she accomplished in Capote), but she doesn't have a real "stand-out" scene that's quite memorable like Dee. Even in the Bennett Miller film, in which her Harper Lee was very quiet and reserved, she still had that key telephone conversation with Truman that was thematically loaded. Not so here.

Kelly MacDonald is quite lovely in No Country for Old Men, and I'm betting that voters will be even more inclined to throw a vote her way if they are aware that she is Scottish. She has some excellent moments in the picture, and that final scene with Bardem is definitely lingering on the brain. I wouldn't be surprised if I heard her name called on Tuesday, but I'd definitely be jumping off the walls. Go Kelly! Meanwhile, Vanessa Redgrave seems to me the only other contender in this particular race: if voters are feeling nostalgic (her last nod was for Howards End), it's entirely possible. We know that two actresses from the same film are often nominated in this category (Almost Famous, Gosford Park, Chicago, and just last year's Babel.)

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE (4/5)
1. Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
2. Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford
3. Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
4. Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton
5. Tommy Lee Jones, No Country for Old Men-
---
6. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War+
7. Josh Brolin, No Country for Old Men
8. Max Von Sydow, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

I am going with SAG here too, even though this is where voters can give Philip Seymour Hoffman a shout-out for his triple-threat year. But with Tommy Lee Jones taking his place in the aforementioned lineup - in addition to the poor showing of Charlie Wilson's War across the guilds - he may have to sit this year out. Hoffman may have had a great year, but don't forget that Lee Jones also had In the Valley of Elah early in the season, which was considered a lock by many (including myself) when it first opened. I am sure that performance will also factor into the votes cast for this category, but it is definitely between the two of them for that last spot. I doubt we will see any major surprises here (Brolin will have his votes split between lead and supporting, while Von Sydow probably peaked too late.)

Affleck looks very safe to me; practically every actor who has won NBR in this category goes on to be nominated here and he also has support from GG/SAG/BFCA. Tom Wilkinson is in the same position as his co-stars Clooney and Swinton: not much of a threat for an actual win, but still guaranteed a position in the final five. Holbrook and Bardem are obviously locks at this point, no use in explaining why.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY (4/5)
1. Diablo Cody, Juno
2. Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton
3. Brad Bird, Ratatouille
4. Judd Apatow, Knocked Up-
5. Tamara Jenkins, The Savages
---
6. Nancy Oliver, Lars and the Real Girl+
7. Steven Zaillian, American Gangster
8. Kelly Masterson, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Commentary coming soon.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY (3/5)
1. Joel and Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
2. Sean Penn, Into the Wild-
3. Ronald Harwood, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
4. Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood
5. Aaron Sorkin, Charlie Wilson's War-
---
6. James Vanderbilt, Zodiac
7. Sarah Polley, Away from Her+
8. Christopher Hampton, Atonement+

Commentary coming soon.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM (2/5)
1. Ratatouille
2. The Simpsons Movie-
3. Persepolis
---
4. Beowulf
5. Bee Movie

Missed: Surf's Up

BEST ART DIRECTION (3/5)
1. Dante Ferretti, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
2. Sarah Greenwood, Atonement
3. Jack Fisk, There Will Be Blood
4. Stuart Craig, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix-
5. Rick Heinrichs, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End-
---
6. Guy Dyas, Elizabeth: The Golden Age
7. Patricia Norris, The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford
8. Jess Gonchor, No Country for Old Men

Missed: Arthur Max, Beth A. Rubino, American Gangster and Dennis Gasner, Anna Pinnock, The Golden Compass

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY (4/5)
1. Roger Deakins, The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford
2. Janusz Kaminski, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
3. Roger Deakins, No Country for Old Men
4. Robert Elswit, There Will Be Blood
5. Dariusz Wolski, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street-
---
6. Seamus McGarvey, Atonement+
7. Harris Savides, Zodiac
8. Rodrigo Prieto, Lust, Caution

BEST COSTUME DESIGN (3/5)
1. Jacqueline Durran, Atonement
2. Colleen Atwood, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
3. Alexandra Byrne, Elizabeth: The Golden Age
4. Patricia Norris, The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford-
5. Penny Rose, Liz Dann, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End-
--
6. Arianne Phillips, 3:10 to Yuma
7. Ruth Meyers, The Golden Compass
8. Rita Ryack, Hairspray

(They might as well just hand Durran the Oscar right now, what with all the green dress talk.)

Missed: Albert Wolsky, Across the Universe and Marit Allen, La Vie En Rose

BEST EDITING (3/5)
1. Roderick P. Janes, No Country for Old Men
2. John Gilroy, Michael Clayton-
3. Christopher Rouse, The Bourne Ultimatum
4. Jay Cassidy, Into the Wild
5. Pietro Scalia, American Gangster-
---
6. Chris Lebenzon, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
7. Juliette Welfling, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly+
8. Dylan Techinor, There Will Be Blood+

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE-FILM (4/5)
Not having seen any of or heard much about the final seven picks by the voting committee, I am fully expecting to crash and burn here.

12 (Russia)
The Counterfeiters (Austria)
Katyn (Poland)
Mongol (Kazakhstan)
The Year My Parents Went on Vacation (Brazil)-

Missed: Beaufort (Israel)

BEST MAKE-UP (1/5)
1. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street-
2. La Vie En Rose
3. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly-
---
4. Norbit+
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End+
6. 300
7. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

BEST MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE) (3/5)
1. Dario Marianelli, Atonement
2. Alexandre Desplat, Lust, Caution-
3. Alberto Iglesias, The Kite Runner
4. Howard Shore, Eastern Promises-
5. Michael Giaccino, Ratatouille
---
6. Marco Beltrami, 3:10 to Yuma+
7. Alan Silvestri, Beowulf
8. Clint Eastwood, Grace is Gone

(EDIT: Replaced Johnny Greenwood with Howard Shore, as the former's score for There Will Be Blood has been disqualified at the nth hour.)

Missed: James Newton Howard, Michael Clayton

BEST MUSIC (SONG) (2/5)
1. "Come So Far (Got So Far to Go)", Hairspray-
2. "That's How You Know", Enchanted
3. "Guaranteed", Into the Wild-
4. "Despedida", Love in the Time of Cholera-
5. "Falling Slowly", Once
---
6. "Grace is Gone", Grace is Gone
7. "Walk Hard", Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story
8. "Happy Working Song", Enchanted+

Missed: "So Close", Enchanted and "Raise it Up", August Rush

BEST SOUND-MIXING (4/5)
1. Transformers
2. Ratatouille
3. The Bourne Ultimatum
4. No Country for Old Men
5. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street-
---
6. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
7. 300
8. American Gangster

Missed: Paul Massey, David Giammarco and Jim Stuebe, 3:10 to Yuma

BEST SOUND EFFECTS EDITING (3/5)
1. Transformers
2. Ratatouille
3. 300-
4. The Bourne Ultimatum
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End-
---
6. Beowulf
7. The Golden Compass
8. Spider-Man 3

Missed: Matthew Wood, There Will Be Blood and Skip Lievsy, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff and Peter Kurland, No Country for Old Men

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS (1/5)
1. Transformers
2. Evan Almighty-
3. 300-
---
4. The Golden Compass+
5. Pirates of the Caribean: At World's End+
6. I Am Legend
7. The Bourne Ultimatum

=
OVERALL PREDICTED TALLY
No Country for Old Men - 8
Into the Wild - 7
Michael Clayton - 6
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street - 6
There Will Be Blood - 6
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - 5
Ratatouille - 5
Atonement - 4
The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford - 3
The Bourne Ultimatum - 3
Eastern Promises - 3
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - 3
Transformers - 3
300 - 2
American Gangster - 2
Elizabeth: The Golden Age - 2
Juno - 2
La Vie En Rose - 2
Away from Her - 1
Charlie Wilson's War - 1
Enchanted - 1
Evan Almighty - 1
Gone Baby Gone - 1
I'm Not There - 1
The Kite Runner - 1
Hairspray - 1
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 1
Knocked Up - 1
Love in the Time of Cholera - 1
A Mighty Heart - 1
Once - 1
Persepolis - 1
The Savages - 1

NBR Predix

2007-12-02T22:37:00.001-05:00

Best Film (2007): No Country for Old Men

Initially, I had an instinct to go for Sweeney Todd, but then I remembered that the NBR has never really embraced a Tim Burton film in full-force, even ignoring his critical hits like Ed Wood and Big Fish. Yes, Corpse Bride won the Animated Film prize back in '05, but I don't think it makes much of a difference in this race. The Coen Brothers film is fitting in that it makes for a respectable, critically approved choice (in the same vein as Goodnight and Good Luck.) Unless they decide to go really bizarro, like with Quills in '00, but they haven't done something that crazy in a long time.

The Top Ten (in alphabetical order):
American Gangster, Atonement, Charlie Wilson's War, Hairspray, Into the Wild, Juno, The Kite Runner, Knocked Up, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men.

Best Actor: Tommy Lee Jones, In the Valley of Elah and No Country for Old Men [alt. Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood]
- Depp is also a possibility here; they usually go for the obvious choices in the lead categories, saving the truly "out there" citations for the supporting races.

Best Actress: Laura Linney, The Savages [alt. Angelina Jolie, A Mighty Heart]
- The NBR doesn't really reward foreign films in the main races, relegating kudos to specialized categories, so I'm ruling Cotillard out entirely.

Best Supporting Actor: Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild [alt. Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men]

Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There [alt. Jennifer Garner, Juno]

Best Direction: Sidney Lumet, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead [alt. Sean Penn, Into the Wild]

Best Writing - Original: Diablo Cody, Juno [alt. Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton]

Best Writing - Adapted: Christopher Hampton, Atonement [alt. Eileen Chang, James Schamus, Lust, Caution]
- Re: the alternate... yes, they don't like foreign fare in these categories, but it *is* an Ang Lee film, and he's been twice rewarded in the directing category.

Breakthrough (Male): I... don't care.

Breakthrough (Female): Ugh. In a better world, Tei Wang for Lust, Caution.

Ensemble: I'm Not There or Hairspray

Foreign Language Film: 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Animated Film: Persepolis

Documentary: Sicko (they like Moore)

Debut Director: Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton

How articulate

2007-11-23T12:22:00.001-05:00

I just saw a television ad for The Namesake DVD, which is being released next week.

The following critical blurbs were highlighted during the tv spot:
"Rich!"
"Colourful!"
"Sensual!"

:S

It's just a hop, skip and jump away from "Spicy!", "Exotic!" or just plain "CULTURAL!!!" Glad to know the studio really understands the movie they're pushing.

Women in Film

2007-11-20T20:25:00.002-05:00

Capsule Reviews coming soon, I promise, but in the meantime, I only have this to say: Meryl is insane. Just insane. And I love it.

Movie thoughts going through my head today

2007-10-23T17:13:00.001-04:00

I'm thinking of making this a regular (weekly? bi-monthly?) feature on the blog, if only to provide self-motivation for posting more often. What say? The first one I did (way back in January) can be found here, and I had a lot of fun writing it. It's a way to get out a lot of disparate opinions , ideas and reactions without feeling the need to prattle on for the length of an entire blog entry.

1. Ryan Gosling out, Mark Wahlberg in. The internet is abuzz with news that just a day before principal photography began on Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones, Gosling left the project over creative differences. Wahlberg stepped in only a day after and arrived today in Pennsylvania, where he will be joining a cast comprising of Rachel Weisz, Saoirse Ronan (presently receiving Oscar buzz for Atonement), Susan Sarandon and Stanley Tucci. The news is all the more surprising considering the actor has spent months preparing for the part, presumably attempting to age himself (by gaining weight, growing a beard) in order to play a father of two young teenage girls. The headline particularly held my attention because I'm in the middle of the Alice Sebold novel right now. (BTW, it's quite good.) The casting change isn't altogether an unwelcome one for me, although I'll always wonder what Gosling would have done with the part. But Wahlberg looks to be on a career upswing right now, and this role presents a welcome change from the crusty police officers, bad ass vigilantes and all-around tough guys he's been channeling.

2. I've had this catchy, toe-tapping YouTube video on continuous repeat for the last day or so. It's a musical trailer for Aaja Nachle, the Madhuri Dixit vehicle opening next month. I figure that most readers of this blog are not very familiar with Bollywood trivia, so I'll try to give some background to bring you all up to speed. Simply put, this film arrives with a lot of hype precisely because of the presence of that woman in the lead role. Throughout the late 80s and early 90s, this actress reigned high over the industry - no one could match her in terms of popularity and acclaim. Aspiring starlets collectively sighed in relief when Dixit went into semi-retirement in 1999, deciding to settle down and raise a family with her husband Sriram Nene in Colorado. She has starred in only two films since - Lajja and Sanjay Leela Bhansali's remake of Devdas (for which she won buckets of Best Supporting Actress awards.) I was never a huge fan of the actress until I saw her performances in these last two films; unfortunately, this revelation occurred after she decided to leave the profession. It's sort of like what Nathaniel went through during the Pfeiffer dry spell, when she disappeared for a good five years.

Anyways, I will get my fix soon enough. Even if the movie stinks (which is probably will), Dixit still looks like she's having a ball dancing and emoting to the max, and that's good enough for me. Isn't she luminous? For past Dixit love on the blog, click here and scroll to the bottom-ish.

3. I caught Ang Lee's Lust, Caution a couple of days ago, and while my initial reaction was mixed at best, the film has really been appreciating in my mind since then. I'm thinking a second trip to the theatre is in order, although perhaps not until I've caught up on other titles first. What felt "off"? For starters, it's not the length that bothered me, but Lee's overly guarded and (forgive me) "cautious" direction. I suppose this approach is intentional, so that the bursts of gruesome violence and the infamously explicit sex scenes especially stand out, but they feel at odds with the material. I feel the same way about the gory Turkish bath throw down in Cronenberg's Eastern Promises; in both cases, the results are rather spectacular as standalone pieces of filmmaking, but feel like desperate shifts for shock value and attention nonetheless. Am I making sense?

Still, I've been mulling over the Lee movie nonstop ever since I walked out of the theatre. Whether it's the inconspicuous, delicate score by the always-dependable Alexandre Desplat or the spellbinding performance by Wei Tang (a star is born; someone cast her in something now, now NOW), I can't get Lust, Caution off the brain. A full review to follow (hopefully) after a second try. B- for now.

4. A question for you guys: do you take notes during screenings? Ever since I began writing reviews (first for personal reference, then for the blog), I've had inconsistent results with it. I can be dedicated for weeks at a time, and then stop altogether for months on end (even up to a year or beyond.) Do you find them helpful? To jog your memory while typing up thoughts, or even just for personal reference?

I made it a point to take notes throughout the festival, and I am glad that I did; the notes (illegible, small and barely comprehensible) came in handy when my sleep-deprived brain refused to retrieve certain threads of information. At the same time however, it's easy to become distracted - concentrating on what is happening on-screen while attempting to commit your last thought to paper is challenging, at least for this critic.

All in all, I suppose it's useful to have some tangible, accessible collection of data to use when writing reviews (formal or not.) But I also find that I must compose the entry while the film is fresh in my mind (so that the notes make sense and I can still make connections); once too much time has passed, they are more or less worthless. e.g. - "What did I mean there?", "What the hell is that word?", and so on...

Thoughts?

The Golden Age

2007-10-20T21:57:00.001-04:00

It is hard to wrap my head around the fact that a near-decade has passed since Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth (1998) won widespread art-house acclaim, grabbed seven Oscar nominations and catapulted Cate Blanchett to the A-list roster. Opulent, violent and arguably risky in the claims it made (many bristled at the suggestion that the Queen's self-conferred title of virginity was meant to be taken non-literally), the picture excited my senses as a fourteen-year-old, an impressionable and emerging cinephile and soon-to-be Oscar fanatic (yes, I spent the majority of the film open-mouthed and engaging in Cate worship like almost everyone else.) My love for the film has rightfully cooled in the years since, better able to appreciate some of the screenplay's hokey turns and spineless cultural depictions (for example, inviting the audience to share Elizabeth's ridicule of suitor Duke of Anjou for his cross dressing, orgy-participating antics - what a freak, right?!) Still, I felt immediately protective of the film from the moment I heard Kapur propose a seemingly-unecessary sequel, only a couple of years later. For one, how could one improve upon that glorious closing scene? ("Observe Lord Burghley: I am married. To England.") Blanchett too had the correct gut instinct; for years, she expressed reservations at revisiting the role that had made her a star. It's a shame Kapur and co-star Geoffrey Rush ultimately convinced her to return: not only does the sequel lack the bite of its predecessor, it resorts to the worst kind of preening Oscar-bait theatrics.

At the same time, I think that the communal dump critics are taking on The Golden Age is a smidgen over-the-top. This is not unwatchable costume-drama camp on the level of Memoirs of a Geisha for example, or even this year's demented 300, although everyone creatively involved here is undeniably guilty of preemptively buying into the film's hype (whether they are situated in front of the camera or behind it.) Kapur seems particularly stationed on cloud nine all the way through, pretty much repeating all his interesting ideas from the first installment. Not only has the man deliriously drunk the kool-aid of the queen's mythos, he's disturbingly bonkers about his lead actress, barely interested in exploring the talented actors supporting her. Meanwhile, screenwriters William Nicholson and Michael Hearst desperately milk all the religious and cultural tensions of the period all they can for the purposes of present-day commentary ("Which empire will fall and which one will rise?", Elizabeth ominously hints out loud, after being informed by a lame Nostradamus-like character that troubled times indeed lie ahead for England.) Yet in spite of all this, this critic found himself fairly tickled throughout, relishing the polished eye candy and having a laugh at Blanchett's ballsy gusto in this, her second stab at the part.

It's not at the level of what she accomplished in the first installment - not even close - but it's hardly the howling disaster some would have you believe it is. The actress rightly intuits there's room for shits and giggles at the figurehead's expense, but the part ultimately defeats her. Moreover, there isn't anything really meaty for her to explore here; Nicholson and Hearst ignore some of the most fascinating aspects of the regent (her love of the arts, her own writings, etc.) and instead resort to "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" temper tantrums and love triangle inanity. There are several scenes in which we are allowed to see the queen sans-wig and costume pomp, but these character reveals seem more forced than anything else. Even if one buys into the Elizabeth-as-drag-queen readings some are throwing about, I doubt that they are intentional on Kapur's part (how neat would that have been?) The director is obviously not interested in exploring the queen-as-performer, which would have resulted in a much more audacious and playful film than the one we have here. Moreover, Blanchett is much too young for the part. Taking place roughly thirty years or so following the first film's telling of her rise to power, the actress' porcelain visage just barely hints at the many years of bearing the weight of a crown. How neat would it have been to have Judi Dench (who acted circles around Blanchett last year in Notes on a Scandal) reprise her Oscar-winning turn from Shakespeare in Love as the troubled sovereign? Or if Kapur and company had waited at least until Blanchett had hit her early fifties before revisiting this personality? The "what ifs" in this regard are endless.

Even more frustrating than all of the above is the deterministic butt-kissing that Kapur/Nicholson/Hirst engage in, arrogantly suggesting that the Great Lord above is as smitten with this hysterical woman as everyone else is. Indeed, it is His will that seems to work through Elizabeth. In the film's outrageous climax, which depicts England's ships successfully blocking an invasion crafted by the Spain's Philip II (Jordi Mollà, pitching it to the rafters), a gust of celestial wind descends and snuffs out the flame on his candle. For you see, earlier in the film, the king had proclaimed that he is light while Elizabeth is darkness (way to show 'im, God!) In another bizarre instance, Kapur seems to suggest that divine intercession is what saves Elizabeth from an assassination attempt. Coming face-to-face with a would-be murderer in a church, the queen lifts her hands toward heaven and all obviously ends up in her favour. Kapur & co. are more about falling into uncomplicated hero(ine) worship than really looking at the figurehead through a sharper lens. Furthermore, it is difficult to know who is being elevated in the director's eyes: the queen or the celebrated actress embodying her? One of the much talked-about scenes is perhaps the most revealing about director and his muse: a nightgown-clad Blanchett stands atop a cliff following England's victory over the Spanish Armada while a heaven-sent breeze cradles her. You can't make this stuff up, and the possible insinuations to be made (whether intentionally meant or not) are just priceless.

For all this, I found The Golden Age a hoot, even when I wanted to hold my head in my hands and sigh for the missed opportunities. And for all my misgivings above, I cannot take it seriously, finding Kapur's indulgences and Blanchett's floundering in the lead engrossing. As well, the film has its minor pluses here and there that I have not touched upon; even if the cinematography (Remi Adefarasin) and art direction are overly-precious (did Elizabeth really have a map of Europe conveniently etched on the floor of her throne room?), the look is simply scrumptious throughout. In addition to Adesfarasin, most of the first film's major contributors are back for another go: Oscar-winner Jenny Shircore misses the boat on properly aging Blanchett, but otherwise does fine work (Abbie Cornish is so fresh and appropriately youthful.) Comments on Alexandra Byrne's costumes will likely focus on Blanchett's elaborate fopperies; they are great fun to look at, but the real delights are in the peripheral characters' threads. Editor Jill Bilcock keeps things moving at a fine pace, although the third act is an utter mess with the final battle depicted in fragmented, unclear pieces. The fault is perhaps not hers, but one wonders why the final showdown - built up for so long - comes across as so terribly anti-climactic and confusing. The score (jointly written by Craig Armstrong and A.R. Rahman) is bonk-you-over-the-head obvious with shrieking choirs, but I suppose that's part of the appeal. With all other production elements operating at such heightened registers, it's only fitting that the music follows suit.

Since this is Blanchett's show through-and-through, not many of the cast members get to make much of an impression; still, some are given more to do than others. Following her remarkable work in Candy last year, Cornish (as Elizabeth's most trusted lady-in-waiting Bess) continues to hint at a star in the making, while Clive Owen is dependably dashing as Raleigh. Geoffrey Rush slinks around and is given his own subplot involving a wayward brother, but nothing really compelling comes out of it. Unsurprisingly, the true revelation here is a frazzled Samantha Morton as Elizabeth's cousin Mary, who outshines everyone else with just about fifteen minutes of screen time. How much more rewarding would it have been to see these events (so overly familiar when explored through Elizabeth's perspective, especially with the recent HBO mini-series starring Helen Mirren) in the eyes of the doomed Scottish queen? Or any other character other than the English monarch? When looking at the offerings on display here, one is left to assume that the thought never occurred to anyone involved with this vanity project.

As a film: D+
As a guilty pleasure, with goodwill carrying over from Elizabeth: B
Overall: C

Best Line Reading by Naomi Watts Ever.

2007-10-09T00:49:00.000-04:00

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

2007-09-10T12:28:00.001-04:00

The year is 1987, and the setting is Romania, a mere two years before Nicolae Ceauşescu's Communist regime will be overthrown. The opening moments of Cristi Mungiu's 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days capture an elusive, detail-lacking conversation between two college roommates: jittery Gabita (Laura Vasiliu) and proactive Otilia (Anamaria Marinca), who together vaguely discuss the particulars and cost of some unspecified future event. Gabi is visibly fretful and unable to take action ("I can't handle the money part", she shudders), so the no-nonsense Otilia assumes the lion's share of the work. She then sets out on an excursion that will involve (unfruitful) attempts to book a hotel room, tracking down a mysterious stranger, and appeasing a demanding boyfriend. From the start, it is clear that Mungiu is interested in the bartering and exchange of commodities and capital between individuals. The two girls live in a co-ed college dormitory, but it seems more like an underground marketplace than anything else. Cramped bedrooms become sites of transaction as opposed to spaces dedicated to intense scholarship, some students even stocking highly sought-after British and American brand name goods (Nestle chocolate powder, for example.) And as Otilia ventures out into the streets of Bucharest, she is forced to play a public relations mastermind, making up seemingly credible stories when put on the spot, manipulating suspicious authority figures to aid her friend. It soon becomes clear that Mungiu is setting up the moment when this kind of business dealing will play out physically upon the (female) body.

*The rest of this review will contain spoilers, minor or major depending on what one has already read about the film*

Anyone who kept up with the Cannes Film Festival last spring (the film deservingly picked up the Palme d'Or) must already have read commentary that would suggest the film is ostensibly about illegal abortions. Indeed, it is Gabi that is unhappily expecting, and dutiful friend Otilia is exhausting the avenues for this procedure to take place, as soon and as inexpensively as possible. Yet the screenplay also pursues another complex politics about the human body - the demands placed upon it, the physical restriction of its movement and, of course, how it is exploited sexually. Otilia is soon unable to navigate the city as easily as she once did, and she is constantly asked questions about her whereabouts and motivations. Suspicious hotel clerks demand she submit her identification when venturing outside, so that her movement is always monitored. Even more troubling is the amount of pressure and responsibility placed upon Otilia by friends and others - Gabi expects her to make all the arrangements, while her boyfriend Adi insists she stop by his mother's birthday party later that night. Otilia is stretched thin between all these characters, all of them expecting something very specific from her.

The most powerful sequence in the film involves the arrival of the abortionist, who accompanies Otilia to the hotel room where Gabi is waiting. His name is Bebe (a frightful and commanding Vlad Ivanov), and he is not happy to learn that he has been misinformed regarding the specifics of the pregnancy (she is four months pregnant, not two, which is not a good thing.) This drastically changes the logistics and severity of the procedure, he argues, and proceeds to bully them into offering more than the agreed payment. She and Otilia uncomfortably listen on while he lectures them on the severity of the situation and what he perceives to be a lack of respect for his services. Otilia is needlessly apologetic, trying desperately to save the situation, but when she finally loses her patience and asserts herself, he lashes out - "Don't get snotty." The girls promise more cash to follow in a few days as compensation for the unexpected complications, but ultimately have to offer more than that. The girls do what they need to. The audience is mercifully spared any detailed visuals, but it is difficult to watch how he turns paternal and overly concerned following their intimate encounters. He proceeds to abort the fetus, and leaves the two girls in silence to consider what just transpired. When Gabi can only offer a weak "thanks", Otilia's stony reaction is devastating - "If you're going to lie, warn me." She further wonders: had she gone with the slightly more expensive female abortionist during the negotiation stages, would the same thing have happened?

*End Spoilers*

Anamaria Marinca's performance as Otilia is a must-see; it's the kind of turn that rips a viewer's heart out without turning to victimhood histrionics. No matter how badly things spiral out of control, Otilia must forge onwards, and Marinca achieves that conflicted determination tinged with crippling fear. What was once a confident, shrewd personality is left shattered and disillusioned by the film's closing scene. There is one sizable scene - consisting of single straightforward shot by Mungiu - that is particularly lasting in my memory. Otilia has decided to attend Adi's mother's birthday dinner after all, and she joins the guests at the dinner table. However, only her physical body is present at his moment; her thoughts are clearly with the ailing Gabi and truly digesting the horror of what transpired earlier that afternoon. The rest of the cast members receive much less screen-time in comparison, but Laura Vasiliu's work as Gabi is equally memorable. The actor accomplishes the difficult job of making us care for the character despite her total ignorance, and her constant dependence on Otilia. Vlad Ivanov is appropriately complex as Mr. Bebe, able to come across as genuinely invested in the girls' situation despite his reprehensible methods of manipulating them for his gain. And Alexandru Potocean is quite captivating as Adi in his mere two scenes opposite Marinca, conveying impatience and exasperation without making the figure a villain (the stock jerk boyfriend.)

Mungiu's work as the film's screenwriter and director is without fault; he trusts his audience enough to let them work out lapses on their own. The first twenty minutes are utterly disorienting, offering few concrete details about what Otilia is organizing, but they are exciting for that very reason. There are only a few scripting choices that feel manufactured, in order to make Otilia's actions potentially life-threatening and even more difficult to accomplish (thereby making these scene more suspenseful and potentially gasp-worthy.) For example, it is a stretch to believe that her character would leave her identification behind carelessly, considering how vital it is for her clandestine tiptoeing. This conveniently allows the hotel's front desk personnel to berate her (once again). Or that the street-smart character would walk through poorly-lit alleyways following the day's ugly and traumatic events. In the end, however, these points perhaps seem inconsequential; they do not damage the film's (considerable) successes. Brimming over with sympathetic (but not saintly) characters and a demandingly entangled (but not overstuffed) narrative, Cristi Mungiu's acclaimed film is a rarity. B+

Three out of Four? Not bad.

2007-09-08T05:09:00.001-04:00

(Note: This TIFF entry was originally posted on The Film Experience, as part of my guest blogging duties during the festival. I am reprinting it here for archival/linking purposes.)

Caffeinated products consumed today: 4
Solid food products consumed today: 0.5

So guys and gals, listen up. Not only did I get to fulfill my celebrity-sighting dream yesterday; I was able to do it twice, both times in close succession! First, I got to see the ethereal Tilda Swinton in all her statuesque glory during the introduction to The Man from London screening at 6pm. Director Bela Tarr spoke first (offering up the expected thanks and appreciation to the festival programmers for including the film and to audience members for attending), and called this effort "straight from the heart." Then... he brought Tilda up to the front. (If you must know Nathaniel, she was rather conservative this time around in a black knee-length dress with her hair swept back as usual.) She talked about how she was thrilled to do this film even though she only appears for about four minutes or so (actually, I'd say it's more like seven to nine, but more on that later.) She ended off with calling this latest project of his "medieval, but truly modern in a super-sonic way." Thought it was strange at first, but now having seen it, I couldn't have said it better myself. Oh Tilda.

She was unable to attend the Q&A session following the film, since Michael Clayton was enjoying its North American premiere at Roy Thomson Hall at roughly the same time. I happened to walk by the venue after the London screening (around 8:30-ish) and miraculously caught sight of her again inching down the red carpet and posing amidst the blinding flashes (although I had to strain considerably to do so, on account of the huuuuuuuge crowd that had gathered outside with cameras in tow.) I wish I could find a picture right now; perhaps one will be up in the next couple of hours on the TIFF website, or the in today's newspapers/on-line magazines (I'll use an older one for now.) I will be watching the Tony Gilroy film tomor-- yikes, in a matter of hours! Films that play at the RTH usually have a smaller-scale screening the next day at the Ryerson, so do you think I'll be lucky enough to see her again? Celebs usually skip early morning to noon-ish time slots on account of partying hard the night before, but Tilda is not just any other celeb, as you know. Imagine a triple-dose of the Swinton in one festival! Last year, I had that streak with James McAvoy.

So what was on the itinerary today? I spent the entire day at the Scotiabank Theatre (formerly known as the Paramount), heading outside only for coffee breaks and to stretch my ever-cramping legs.

My day began early with You, the Living by Roy Andersson; you can read my full-length review over here. You may recall that he won the Jury Prize at Cannes a couple of years ago for Songs from the Second Floor. I haven't seen that film, but I wasn't too impressed with his latest effort... the many segments (starring a cast of dozens and dozens) are entertaining enough in parts, but randomly assembled and barely hold together.

Also, my review for Barbet Schroeder's disorienting (in a good way) L'Avocat de la terreur [Terror's Advocate], a documentary about Jacques Vergès, the outspoken French lawyer who defended a host of disreputable figures, from terrorists to war criminals... why?

California Dreamin' (Endless) is on a lot of people's minds right now, not only because the attention is on Romanian cinema these days, but because of the project's tragic behind-the-scenes history. About a year ago, the film's director Cristian Nemescu died unexpectedly in a car accident (along with Andrei Toncu, sound designer, and the taxi cab driver in the driver's seat.) Thematically, the film deals with the issue of border-crossing and how this relationship between national powers is not always reciprocal and marred by unequal power dynamics and double standards (specifically between the United States and most "Third World" countries.) I will pass on writing a review (for now), only because my handwritten notes go on for yards, and there's simply too much to cover. Suffice it to say, it is a shame that this talented writer-director will not be able to follow up in the future. The length is somewhat of an issue (which will not be tampered with, since this is the cut that Nemescu left us with) , but overall I was excited to see that his critiques are subtle and well-articulated. Highly recommended, and I'll report back with more thoughts once I think it through a little more. B

Finally, my review for The Man from London should be up in a couple of hours. (Pst, it's a B as well.)

So, three out of four isn't bad at all for Day One. I've had worse starts to the festival in previously years.

Celebrity sightings of the day: Tilda Swinton, Bela Tarr and Jamie Elman (one of the leads of California Dreamin')

The Rest of the Fest:
For thoughts on Michael Clayton and Juno, click here.
For thoughts on Nothing is Private, click here.
For closing thoughts on the final set of films I watched, click here.

L'Avocat de la terreur

2007-09-08T04:23:00.001-04:00

In his documentary L'Avocat de la terreur, Barbet Schroeder (Reversal of Fortune, Murder by Numbers) sits down with controversial French lawyer Jacques Vergès, who has represented infamous figures such as Klaus Barbie, Slobodan Milošević and high-profile militant political figures throughout the course of his legal career. Staunchly anti-empire and in support of aggressive decolonization tactics, Vergès and his life achievements serve as absolutely fascinating subject matter. Equal parts exposed and elusive, he chainsmokes his thick cigars as he retraces some of the most notorious moments of his professional and personal life. Particularly when he defended prisoner Djamila Bouhired of the French-Algerian resistance (they later married) and the aforementioned Barbie in the eighties, for crimes against humanity. Even more fascinating than the much-publicized trials and roster of clients is the period in his life from 1970 to 1978 (called "The Missing Years"), when he seemingly dropped off the face of the earth. Much speculation ensues to this day about what exactly he was doing and who he was working for/with (he is smilingly tight-lipped on the subject), although he published books and pamphlets during this time period as well.

The documentary is almost paralyzingly thorough in the wealth of information it presents and the various documents employed to tell the greater narrative. Present-day interviews with Vergès and other key personalities, archival and secret government footage, photographs, audio clips, phone interviews, and newspaper clippings... With all these valuable sources in his arsenal, Schroeder is able to transcend the kind of dull history lesson lecturing most films like these fall back on. However, the fact remains that there are five potential films contained within this beast of a project. With a running time of 135 minutes (feeling quite longer), at times the piece seems over-researched to a fault. After sticking to a fairly coherent and linear time line with the Algerian struggle for independence and Vergès' increasing interest in the Palestinian cause, the film goes off on several tangents. One issue, the most fascinating for my money, is raised fleetingly and never quite explored fully - in response to criticism by a close friend for daring to defending Barbie, Vergès states that he wished to make a comparison between the Nazis' role in the Holocaust and the violent measures deployed by the French government in Algeria during the struggle for autonomy. It is a difficult question, and I wish Schroeder had paused here for longer and asked Vergès to expand a little more. As it stands, a strong B. A true wallop of a film and a lot to digest in one sitting, but well worth the head spin.

Screened on Friday, September 7th, 2007 at the Scotiabank Theatre (#3) during the Toronto International Film Festival.

You, the Living

2007-09-08T00:47:00.001-04:00

"Tomorrow is another day" is the refrain that regularly resounds throughout Swedish director Roy Andersson's You, the Living, a quirk fest populated by tuneless musicians, weepy alcoholics and all-around awkward types. A self-deprecating and existential downer about the monotony of day-to-day life in present day Stockholm, the film follows countless individuals who suffer from an array of social dysfunctions and personal crises. The frustrations on display range from dealing with mild annoyances (noisy, tone-deaf neighbours living on the floor above) to truly devastating situations (losing a parent to Alzheimer's disease.) It is soon evident that the walls between their professional and private lines frequently collapse in the most mortifying ways; during one scene, a teacher breaks down in front of her young kindergarten students because her husband called her a "hag" earlier that morning. Andersson's work is surely attention-grabbing from the start - the film never quite settles on a singular tone, instead straddling the line between poking fun at these bizarre creatures and also expressing great sympathy for their plights. And yet, the problem is not the constant oscillating wildly between these registers. It is the reliance on visual gags and one-note jokes to stitch together the wildly disparate stories that soon works to undermine the film.

For the first twenty minutes or so, You, the Living manages to coast by on amusingly irreverent material and deadpan line deliveries. Soon enough though, the approach feels outright gimmicky. For example, a character eventually breaks the fourth wall and tells the audience about a nightmare he had the night before. After unsuccessfully attempting to pull off the tablecloth trick at a dinner party, he destroys a priceless heirloom and is arrested for his destructive actions. The traumatic dream sequence is then re-created in full detail, in which he is ultimately put on trial and berated by beer-sipping judges. This sequence goes on for several minutes, strung together by a series of random one-liners. Each sentence feels as though it should be followed by a desperate rim shot or canned studio audience laughter, as if all these responses were already anticipated by the filmmakers from the get-go. Sustained over a feature-length running time, the film seems over-confident in this regard.

True, not all of the vignettes fail; in fact, some of them are genuinely inspired; take for instance a running visual motif that concerns wary commuters trying to avoid all-too-familiar vexations like crummy weather and traveling during rush hour. More highlights include recurring scenes with a tipsy, loud woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown. She constantly berates her lover, screaming at him to leave her alone before finally finally giving up and returning home with him. Also quite endearing is an unrequited love story, with a young girl pining away for a cool guitar-player named Micke. Plus, the film's visual properties are also an asset - cinematographer Gustav Danielsson drowns the actors in a sea of muted beiges and grays. One can understand how these environments must be claustrophobic and stifling for these already-disheartened individuals. Yet for all the film's successful threads, there are just as many that irritate: a culture clash gone sour between an Arab hairdresser and a prejudiced customer, or a posh dinner party turned ludicrous with guests taking turns standing on their chairs.

The need to be understood, loved and acknowledged is apparent in all these characters' struggles, and this is what largely works in You, the Living, albeit to varying degrees of success. Mostly centering on the struggles of the working class, alienated and depressed, Andersson focuses on the need to get through today. Tomorrow is, after all, another day. But as I sat through the film, I kept thinking to myself, "This could have worked much better as a short story." Either way, stick to Miranda July's indie delight Me and You and Everyone We Know for now. C-

P.S. - If you still decide to watch the film, the final shot is definitely worth sticking around for, only because the first few moments are rather bewildering (it took me several seconds to understand what I was looking at.) Getting the full picture is pretty neat, I must admit.

Screened on Friday, September 7th, 2007 at the Scotiabank Theatre (#4) during the Toronto International Film Festival.

The First of Many TIFF Entries

2007-08-30T21:16:00.002-04:00

Attending the Toronto International Film Festival (hereafter referred to as "TIFF") every September is one of the highlights of my year, an essential staple of my movie-going diet. It will be a sad day indeed should I have to leave Toronto at some point in my life (which may be a possibility in the near future.) Even if funds are low; even if school responsibilities pull me away; even if it is tremendously difficult to justify spending $300+ on a week of films, I try and find a way to make it work. True, such an extravagance may seem outrageous to casual film watchers; I've often had to justify my choices to horrified friends and family. But how can one explain it? The rush of surviving on coffee and four films a day? The joy of meeting beloved artistic personalities in person? Watching a film several months - or even a full year - before it receives an official release?

Since 2001, I've participated in some capacity, and the number of screenings have ranged from a couple to over thirty (my record is 32 in 2005, I believe.) This year, I'm "only" taking in about twenty films, and the reasons are two-fold; firstly, prices in general have shot up significantly in the last number of years (to give you an example, single-day or rush tickets will likely put you back $20+; even passes and coupon booklets aren't so wallet-friendly lately.)

The second reason may seem a bit strange, but quite frankly, I don't have it in me to go "full out" this year. In previous seasons with a thirty-film schedule, I've found that despite enjoying myself thoroughly, it takes me a long time to recover. The lack of sleep and physical exertion (running from theatre to theatre is quite a workout) catch up with you, and it's not exactly the best way to start a new semester of classes. Plus, I'll be adjusting to a completely new program with time-consuming practicums, as well as moving homes. Those of you unable to attend a major film festival like Cannes, NY, Venice, Telluride or Toronto are probably yelling, "Stop complaining, Ali! I'd give anything to be that sleep-deprived zombie in your shoes!"... and you do have a point. I don't want to suggest that I'm anything less than thrilled at the thought of attending another year - only that I'm getting a better sense of my limits. Plus, I don't like the thought of feeling obligated to watch a film the whole way through. Or not giving it my undivided attention due to crankiness and university stress - last year, I actually fell asleep during Syndromes and a Century... not because I found the film lacking in any way, only because I was exhausted and spent six hours in class earlier that day.

I was reluctant to post a tentative run-down of my selected films, only because of what happened last year (I posted a list of hopefuls, only to be shut out of half my selections.) This year, I don't think I'll have too much trouble; I'm only watching a couple of popular Oscar bait pictures, and I wouldn't be disappointed if I had to fall back on my alternates. I'm worried that I'm Not There and Margot at the Wedding will fill up quickly, but even then, at least they are guaranteed a release somewhere down the road, right?

I am in box #2 this year; think good thoughts for me, people! In case you don't know how the system works, let me clarify... the advance draw allows people who purchased advance passes and coupon booklets to put forward their primary and secondary selections. Boxes are filled with the customers' envelopes, from 1 to 40-something, depending on the demand (let's say 43.) On Friday at 1pm, the advance draw ends, and the box office staff will draw a number randomly; if the number is 26, then that will be the first box opened. Number 27 will follow, up until 43. Then they will process box 1 up to 25 (the last one); obviously, the people in boxes 15-25 would be unhappy campers. Last year, my ballot was placed in the second-last box processed - needless to say, I was cuh-rushed. (Happily, I was still able to rush several screenings like Volver and The Fountain, so it's not a lost cause - you just have to be willing to stand in line for hours and hours... and hours.)

EDIT: Friday afternoon - box number 66 was selected out of 75 total boxes, according to tiffreviews.com. Looks like I have a good shot!

My one rule this year for picking films was the following - absolutely nothing that opens in September could be considered. Therefore, I had to be strong and ignore Eastern Promises, Lust, Caution (*sob*), The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, My Kid Could Paint That and In the Valley of Elah (... if you can't tell I'm kidding about that last one, obviously you don't know me well.) I tried to be a little more adventurous this year and move towards titles I didn't know that much about, although you'll certainly see familiar ones in the mix. And my excuse for Reservation Road? I guess it's the Oscar pundit within emerging, but I love Ruffalo and also want to see what kind of acting quartet category fraud will ensue this year. What am I most excited for? Well, besides the aforementioned Haynes and Baumbach features, I'm really looking forward to seeing my idol in person (read: Mira Nair, who will be presenting several short films on AIDS in India, along with several other prominent directors like Santosh Sivan and Vishal Bharadwaj.)

Most devastated to miss out on (due to timing conflicts): Alexandra (Sokurov), Before the Rains (Sivan), Atonement (Wright), Silent Light (Reygadas), Paranoid Park (Van Sant) and The Savages (Jenkins).

I'll likely find out on Sunday which of my picks went through.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7th
You, the Living (Roy Andersson)
L'Avocat de la terreur (Barbet Schroeder)
California Dreamin' (Endless) (Cristian Nemescu)
The Man from London (Bela Tarr) - I know you hated it Glenn, but... it's Bela Tarr!

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 8th
Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy)
Mira Nair Presents: Four Views on AIDS in India (Nair, Sivan, Bharadwaj, Akhtar)
Juno (Jason Reitman)

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10th
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu)
Nothing is Private (Alan Ball)

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11th
Just Buried (Chaz Thorne)
A Jihad for Love (Parvez Sharma)
Sleuth (Kenneth Branagh)
Margot at the Wedding (Noah Baumbach)

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12th
It's a Free World (Ken Loach)
Useless (Zhang-Ke Jia)
Corroboree (Ben Hackworth)

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13th
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Julian Schnabel)

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14th
Reservation Road (Terry George)
I'm Not There (Todd Haynes)
The Last Lear (Rituparno Ghosh)

Most Anticipated Films of 2007 [Part Two]

2007-08-14T01:24:00.001-04:00

Whew! Part One can be found here.

HONOURABLE MENTIONS

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu) - Depressing Romanian cinema is certainly a hot property these days, yes? This Palme-D'Or winning film follows in the steps of The Death of Mr. Lazarescu and 12:08 East of Bucharest as a most-probable critical darling (I bet you ten bucks it will show up in the top ten on an upcoming Village Voice critics' poll.) But will it release this year? The last two films to win Best Picture at Cannes showed up the following year (L'Enfant, The Wind that Shakes the Barley.) Anyways, I'm so there whenever the distributors get their priorities straight.

Be Kind, Rewind (Michel Gondry) - Unfortunately, the only Gondry film I've seen is Eternal Sunshine..., so I don't have a strong opinion of him as a director yet. I have to admit, the premise sounded a lot better on paper than it does in this trailer released recently (but then again, how is that indicative of anything?) There are a lot of likely plot holes that I hope the screenplay is able to adequately explain (why don't they just buy the erased titles again? Is this set in the pre-DVD era? How long can one sustain a concept like this?), but I'm keeping an open mind despite my nitpicky points. Yay for Mos Def. And Mia Farrow! Looks fun, even if it ends up being overall unsatisfying

The Stone Angel (Kari Skogland) - Margaret Atwood's devastating book of the same name about regret and lost faith is a personal favourite, so the upcoming film adaptation appears here only on that basis. I have no expectations that a film version will successfully master the difficult time shifts, nor the complexity of main character Hagar's interior monologue. Still, I'm intrigued to see what it Skogland's screenplay is able to translate successfully, and Ellen Burstyn in anything is a definite plus. It's a great, great part, so she could get some awards play if the release is handled properly (as a Canadian production, a Genie nomination looks very likely. Unless Academy rules disqualify non-Canadian actors... I should look that up.)

And the others: Silk (Michael Pitt and Keira Knightley = either sensational casting, or zzzz-inducing), Lars and the Real Girl (shifty premise, but Gosling and Mortimer = good) Savage Grace (Miss Julianne doing some naughty comedy; Glenn thought it had some merit), Things We Lost in the Fire (love Susanne Bier of Brothers brilliance and Benicio; don't disappoint me Halle!), Lions for Lambs (eeehh for Redford... but Meryl!), Rob Zombie's stab at Halloween (come on, I just had to!) and Aaja Nachle (Madhuri Dixit's long-overdue comeback Bollywood vehicle; her first role since 2002's Devdas.) Plus Becoming Jane and Two Days in Paris (they've already opened here in Toronto, but I haven't been to the theatre yet.)

THE TOP FIFTEEN

15. The Assassination of Jesse James... (Andrew Dominik) - Another troubled holdover from last year's list, this one could go either way. And as far as gritty Westerns go, it could get squashed with the much more accessible-looking 3:10 to Yuma releasing a month earlier. It's launching at TIFF this year, so that could definitely help quell the negative word-of-mouth. Or just perpetuate it (see All the King's Men.) Either way, I can't wait to see Mary-Louise Parker in her first on-screen role since... forever (2004?), and although I still haven't seen Dominik's Chopper (the only other feature to his name), I've only heard good things.

14. Margot at the Wedding (Noah Baumbach) - The trailer looks icky and dull (ill-timed editing is probably more to blame than anything), but I wasn't quite convinced by the pre-release word-of-mouth for Squid either. And we know how that turned out. Nicole Kidman is tipped as an awards player again (then again, isn't she always?), and perhaps even Jennifer Jason-Leigh could get enough attention for a long-deserved career nod. I still don't think Jack Black is the perfect fit here, even though I love him, but I think Baumbach knows what he's doing. Plus, I've heard great things from an insider at TIFF (apparently the best of the lot he has seen.)

13. Fugitive Pieces (Jeremy Podeswa) - I read this Anne Michaels book for my Grade 12 English class, and it made a major impact on me (I ended up doing a presentation the dense figurative language, and it was one of the most difficult projects I worked on that year.) I highly recommend picking it up, but if you're not the most voracious reader, hopefully this adaptation starring Stephen Dillane (Leonard Woolf in The Hours) will live up to the (read: my) high expectations and do some of the work for you. It opens TIFF this year.

12. No Country for Old Men (Coen Bros.) - I go back and forth on the Coens. I like Fargo well enough, but not on the same level that its most ardent supporters do; I even like the ones that those same fans outright dislike (Intolerable Cruelty). But I'm not particularly passionate about them either way... perhaps I should catch up on their early stuff before passing judgment so readily. But back to the film - I've heard good things about the Cormac McCarthy book though; perhaps I should give it a look before the film hits the screen.

11. My Kid Could Paint That (Amir Bar-Lev) - D'Angelo loved it, and even if he didn't, this still looks pretty damn fascinating (trailer here.) And while this kind of documentary is becoming kinda stale at this point (raising more questions than solid answers... maybe she does, maybe she doesn't - oooooh), I'm a big sucker for them.

10. Nothing is Private (Alan Ball) - I no longer love American Beauty as much as I once did, but "Six Feet Under" is mostly brill, and I largely gel with Alan Ball's bleak outlook on life. Looks provocative and incendiary, but that's a good thing... isn't it? Plus Maria Bello and Toni Collette in one film? *explodes*... *explodes again*

9. This spot was originally reserved for Kimberly Peirce and her new film Stop, Loss (took her long enough!), but it's been pushed back to March 2008. So let's talk about...

The Golden Age (Shekhar Kapur) - I love Elizabeth. I love Cate Blanchett in it. She should have won the Oscar. I've been salivating at the thought of a sequel for yeeaarsss. So why is this situated at #9? Truthfully, it probably would have landed the #1 spot if it weren't for that depressing, pitched-to-the-rafters trailer. I can't even watch it the whole way through anymore. Hopefully the finished product won't be this hysterical, cheesy and bombastic (what is with that "I'm a hurricane" nonsense? I'm mean, really now.) It just doesn't sit well with me at all, even if I'm a major fan of everyone involved with this project. As much as I'm a fan of Cate, lately she's just not doing it for me. After last year's depressing output (that nomination belongs to EMILY BLUNT), I'm scared to believe, lest I am burned again. Okay, enough of my bitching. The good? Samantha Morton as Mary, Queen of Scots is brilliant casting; I can't wait to see what she does with role. I'm also excited to see how the much-hyped Abbie Cornish fares up against all these acting titans. Oh yeah, and apparently Clive Owen is in this. Okay, I'm ready. Bring it on.

8. Paranoid Park (Gus Van Sant) - Not much in the way of advance word from Cannes, where it was quietly and very politely received. If it's anything like Gerry, Elephant or Last Days (making up his stellar "Death trilogy"), I'll probably adore it. No release date yet, so I'm trying not to keep my hopes high... but IFC Films is listed as a theatrical distributor on IMDB. Maybe they're readying it for 2008 sometime?

7. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Julian Schnabel) - Best Director prize at Cannes aside, this would still appear as high on account of Schnabel's excellent Before Night Falls (perhaps best-known as the film which earned Javier Bardem an Oscar nod and featured Johnny Depp in drag... again.) And if you add these personalities to the mix: Ronald Harwood (screenwriter), Janusz Kaminski (DP), and actors Mathieu Amalric and Marie-Josée Croze = yummy. This adaptation of the memoir by Jean-Dominique Bauby (Amalric), a magazine editor who developed locked-in syndrome as a result of a paralyzing stroke, could prompt (unwarranted) comparisons to The Sea Inside, but hopefully will be considered on its own terms.

6. There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson) - Fine, I'll come right out and say it: I don't like Boogie Nights or Magnolia. I just can't get behind either of them, despite several repeat viewings. Each time, my opinion remains unchanged: both are bloated and overlong, peppered throughout with some inspired moments and bolstered by very strong ensembles. But then again, I loooove the hell out of the loony Punch-Drunk Love, which was half the length of its predecessors and twice as effective and inspired. P.T.A. now turns toward an Uptown Sinclair novel to explore oil, empire and Christianity in turn-of-the-century Texas, with Daniel Day-Lewis (!) and Paul Dano in tow. The teaser trailer looks particularly gorgeous, even if it doesn't really give a lot of plot detail away (which is probably a good thing, right?).

5. Jodhaa-Akbar (Ashutosh Gowariker) - The talented director of the Oscar-nominated Lagaan and the equally-strong Swades brings together Bollywood hotties Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan as the well-known Mughal figureheads. Not only is the hotness potential off the roof, this will serve as both history lesson and full-scale eye candy entertainer. Plus, it features a score and soundtrack composed by God (that is, A. R. Rahman.)

4. Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg) - This could not come at a better time for me. Not only does it reunite Viggo and David after their 2005 knockout (*hyperventilates*), but it conveniently opens following my Naomi Watts reappraisal, who finally lives up to the hype post-Lynch (re: last year's The Painted Veil - see it for her, among a few other pluses.) It will probably have to compete with the biggie American Gangster for mafia-related picture of the year (*shrug*); hell, it will certainly draw comparisons to A History of Violence, which itself dealt with grisly secrets and shadowy mobsters. But whatever, it's Cronenberg. How will this not be gross, stomach-turning, brilliantly acted (Viggo with a hot accent!), subversive, sexy and all those things you expect from the master?

3. Atonement (Joe Wright) - I have not read the novel by Ian McEwan, but it's supposed to be one of the better ones; I haven't heard one negative reaction by a reader so far. So we already have great source material on the table, plus a clearly-capable director and delicious cast on top of it all. And if one person can get a great performance out of Keira "I'm usually a blank slate" Knightley, it's Mr. Wright (see Pride and Prejudice), and we already know that James McAvoy is a most dependable actor.

2. Lust, Caution (Ang Lee) - I watched the trailer a couple of days ago and then died of excitement. I'm consciously not reading much about the film to keep my movie-going experience as virginal and untainted as possible. All I know it has Tony Leung and Joan Chen, which will be... I can't even finish that sentence.

1. I'm Not There (Todd Haynes) - I tried to leave substantial comments for this selection many times, but words continue to fail me. Are they even necessary at this point? How can I adequately explain why an upcoming Haynes film is always cause for celebration... Even if the film doesn't end up working in the end (which I highly doubt in the first place), you've got to give him props for being so experimental and original with his cinematic projects. If only all directors thought this "out-of-the-box". Either way, I'm excited to see what looks like a dismantling of the biopic structure (among other things), and that cast looks pretty damn fine to these eyes (Bale! Ledger! Williams!). Even my now-estranged Blanchett seems to be in top form, and when was the last time I felt that way?! One word seems apt in this case: meep!

Anyone else notice how this year's crop features a lot of directors following up on their acclaimed 2005 films? Cronenberg, Lee, Wright, Van Sant, Baumbach, Clooney, Burton, Jordan, Ridley Scott, Hood, Allen and Bier (well, Brothers was *technically* 2004, but released here the following year.) Very interesting - how will their newest projects compare? Can't wait to find out.

EDIT: The only reason Michael Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games wasn't included is that I had heard it was pushed back to April '08. Now I'm reading it's back on for a limited late October release...

What happened to the Actor Countdown?

2007-08-12T01:06:00.001-04:00

Is this a bit of a cop-out? Well, I'll write a few lines in my defense first...

I'm disclosing my final choices (#1-7) for the Top 25 Performances by a Male Actor Countdown (2000-2004) in one go. You may recall that this project was created in response to Javier's own list centering on female actors. After roughly the #7 selection, both of our countdowns kind of ran out of steam; Javier closed shop on Auteur Lust several months ago (here's hoping for that comeback soon, Javi!), while I just stopped churning out entries altogether. Although I'd love to see him finish up his list, entry by entry (to maintain the suspense), I personally have to throw in the towel. Realistically speaking, there's no way I can complete this project with the detail I originally started off with. My respect for the actors' work has not diminished; my passion for the project has.

Every few months, I try to muster up enough enthusiasm to continue, and once in a while I'll post something halfway decent. But the truth is, I've stopped caring about these entries and what they represent. After investing myself in awards season after awards season, I'm realizing the ridiculous act of judging performances and ranking them on a scale. I know this is supposed to be fun and not taken seriously in the least, but I'm having a hard time justifying placing one actor over another, thereby creating a hierarchy of what is all-around great acting work. The other reason is that if I prolonged this any longer, I'd never finish it (it's been more than a year since entry one!). I think it's better to get it over with quickly...

7. Gael Garcia Bernal, Bad Education - (I posted an entry for this a few days ago, hoping that the sight of an empty post would prompt me to fill it in. No such luck.)

6. John Cameron Mitchell, Hedwig and the Angry Inch

5. Mark Ruffalo, You Can Count on Me

4b. Ed Harris, Pollock

4a. Ralph Fiennes, Spider

3. Dan Futterman, Urbania - (This is the performance I saw last year that changed the look of the list, resulting in the tie between Harris and Fiennes.)

2. Tom Wilkinson, In the Bedroom

1. Haley Joel Osment, A.I. Artificial Intelligence

Comment, discuss, ignore. Perhaps I'll fill these out properly one day, perhaps not. Ask me about any of these if you want, and I'll provide some comments.

Blog Makeover

2007-08-11T22:09:00.001-04:00

Like the new look? Either way, it's not as if I spent much time on it - just a few clicks here and there, selecting from a list of Blogger-approved layouts. I rather like it, despite my lack of originality picking fonts and colours. I figure it's safe sticking to tried-and-true formulas, like the trusty, eye-friendly white background and black fonts. Anyways, I figure that I can update and improve over the coming months, as I grow more familiar with html nonsense. And the biggest plus side to all this? The subtle change makes me want to write again...

I guess I could give you quick details about my convocation ceremony, and the many trips I took out of town during the months of June and July (Stratford, Minneapolis, New York City), just to justify my long absence from the blog:

- June 14th: I graduated from the University of Toronto, with a Bachelor of Arts in the field of South Asian Studies. Many people ask what that entails, so I think a better way to describe what I've been studying for the last four years is "post-colonial/critical theory". The event itself was mind-numbingly boring; just the conferring of diplomas took an hour in itself. Our speaker was the Minister of Finance, and he delivered a speech I felt like I heard ten times before ("My grandfather emigrated to this country with nothing in his pockets, and an education helped him to... etc, etc.") Family stuff was fun; after picking up an award at my college, we went out for dinner at our favourite Pakistani restaurant. Of course, everything on the menu contained meat or animal products, so I had to get a special order of chana (masala chickpeas); 'twas good.

- Late June: Family wedding in Minneapolis; my second-cousin's daughter's (it took me a while to get my head around that too; the complexities of extended family relations.) Not much to report here; if you've been to an Indian-Muslim wedding before, you would know that the festivities last several days (mendhi party, mosque night, the actual wedding ceremony, reception, etc.) It's always pleasant to revisit places you once called home, only now through the eyes of an adult (I lived there until I was six, then moved to Dubai.)

- Late July: Drove down with my cousin to New York City to visit my sister (a most gracious host, thanks sis!). Stayed for about five days, and did some of the requisite tourist attractions (Times Square was insane, but exciting due to the enormity of it all.) I didn't get in any Broadway shows (my only choices through a discount ticket-seller [TKTS] were The Color Purple and The 25th Annual Putnam Spelling Bee, neither of which I was really keen on.) My favourite experience was visiting two museums: the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Museum of Modern Art (the latter of which I visited with none other than Nick.) We caught an afternoon showing of Bresson's Mouchette at the MoMA, but funnily enough, neither of us had a solid movie-going experience. The man in front of me with his giant head completely obscured the subtitles, while Nick was unable to concentrate without a cup of coffee (which we were unable to procure before the screening, and apparently Starbucks was out of the question.) Anyways, it was a pleasure meeting him in person, and it was great being able to spend time in an amazing city with someone who knows it so well. It's very easy to feel overwhelmed in NYC, especially as a Canadian. I'm already planning to go back in October.

So... back to the movies. We've hit the mid-August mark, which usually means that the summer movie season is almost at an end point (somewhat sadly marked by the release of Rush Hour 3.) I'm grateful; there is a limit to the amount of sequels and prequels one can hear about, let alone plunk down cash for and tolerate. All right, I'll admit to enjoying a couple: I have to give props to Raimi & co. for investing so wholly in Spider-Man 3's cheesy histrionics. And the latest Harry Potter flick was memorable for proving that Daniel Radcliffe can carry a film all by himself. Perhaps the biggest disappointment of the summer for me was the much-hyped Simpsons Movie, which felt stale and outdated for much of its running time. Watching South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut beforehand certainly didn't do Homer and friends any favours.

As for Part Two of the "Most Anticipated of 2007" project I had going on - I had saved a copy for editing right after completing the first part, but it somehow got deleted in the process. I've been quite lazy re-writing the entry... but I promise to have it up soon. Perhaps even tomorrow! How about that?

Hope all your summers are going well!

Most Anticipated Films of 2007 [Part One]

2007-06-25T06:11:00.001-04:00

Again, I'm quite aware that such a post is considerably "late" seeing as we are fast approaching the halfway mark of 2007, but has that ever stopped me before? Better late to the party than not attending at all. Besides, apart from Away from Her, Planet Terror, Spider-Man 3 and some festival leftovers from 2006, there was little to look forward to and celebrate within the January to April period. We all know that the good stuff is reserved for the latter part of the year more often than not, and this is around the time that I start to salivate at the promise of TIFF (the Toronto Int'l Film Festival) and its possible entries. Cannes was rather low-key this year, but that has not negatively affected my anticipation for titles such as Moore's Sicko, Van Sant's Paranoid Park and Sokurov's Alexandra. Like last year, I've organized my selections into four camps (dreading/interested in/honourable mentions/the top fifteen), so here we go...

WILL PROBABLY AVOID (DREADING):

Ocean's Thirteen (Steven Soderbergh) - Honestly, who asked for this sequel? Raise your hand, so I can physically hurt you. It's not as if the aging franchise has been super-successful of late, and I'm surprised that the filmmakers didn't take the hint from the second film's poor critical reception. 2004's dull Ocean's Twelve had its inspired moments, but I certainly didn't walk away from it desiring to spend any more time with these characters (as much as I enjoy the supporting actors like as Don Cheadle and Scott Cann.) In fact, I'd rather see a sequel that brings these sideline characters to the forefront and banishes the tiresome trinity of Clooney/Pitt/Damon to the margins. At the very least, one good thing will come out of this - everyone involved will be forced to move on. Hopefully. I pray. Ocean's Fourteen to follow? (EDIT: I wrote this entry before the film opened, so I realize my thoughts are a little dated.)

Stardust (Matthew Vaughn) - Although I was initially glad that the successful Lord of the Rings trilogy re-introduced fantasy to the public and industry suits, the current situation has me a little less gung-go about its future (see recent adaptations of The Chronicles of Narnia and Eragon, for example.) Granted, the unofficial trailer that was released recently is still a work-in-progress and features unfinished material, but the whole thing still looks extremely cheesy to me. Perhaps as the release date draws closer, I will warm up to the whole idea; that cast is certainly attractive regardless of my reservations!

Hostel Part II (Eli Roth) - I like horror quite frankly, but there's a limit to how much gore I can take in a film. It's not that the depiction of blood and guts upsets me, but I find it ungainly and lazy in this context - too easy (shock value.) The much-publicized scene in which Heather Matarazzo is hung upside town and tortured is even more worrisome to me. I don't know what lame justification Roth is offer for this, but I'm not too sure I care enough to make the trek to the theatre, or even watch it free later in the year on my movie network channel. I have better ways to spend my time that to watch young women be disemboweled for entertainment.

Rush Hour 3 (Brett Ratner) - Another story that I had (more than enough) closure with on film number one. And the less said about 2001's sequel, the better. Chris Tucker's high-pitched squawking and Jackie Chan's surprised expressions can work for only so long, and I think I've given Brett Ratner enough opportunities to impress me. Pass.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (Dennis Dugan) - A call for tolerance packaged in a buddy comedy in which gay panic is played up for laughs? Yawn.

Good Luck Chuck (Mark Helfrich) - Jessica Alba + Dane Cook = toxicity for Ali.

The Eye (David Moreau, Xavier Palud) - Jessica Alba + yet another Japanese horror film remake by Hollywood = toxicity for Ali.

Leatherheads (George Clooney) - I enjoy the Cloons in small doses, but his mug has been plastered everywhere I turn these days, and I'm quickly losing my love. Even more unnerving? Miss Zellweger plays his character's love interest (!), and I'm genuinely scared. But the inclusion of John Krasinski from the American "Office" series will be enough to get me in the theatre.

Sweeney Todd (Tim Burton) - Oh good grief, where do I even begin with this? Just as I'm having issues with the Scott-Crowe pairing (see below), Burton and Johnny Depp need to break up creatively for a little while. And Burton needs to stop casting his wife in all of his projects; it's getting seriously embarrassing for all involved. Pretty much all the actors seem miscast (minus Rickman and Spall), and the musical elements also have me worried. Will Depp and Bonham-Carter be able to pull it off? Will Burton deliver and make us forget about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/The Corpse Bride?

American Gangster (Ridley Scott) - Scott and Russell Crowe teaming up again? I like it fine when proven talents re-assemble for more projects, but there has to be some space in-between the films. Where they, you know, work with other people? Take Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet for example: enough time has passed since the Titanic hysteria that I'm really looking forward to seeing them paired up again. This team though? Not as much. I'll be seeing it for Denzel though, who thankfully is not playing a cop for the first time in a while.

SO FAR, I'M COOL ON THE FOLLOWING, BUT AM KEEPING AN OPEN MIND:

My Blueberry Nights (Wong Kar-Wai) - The director's 2046 left a bitter aftertaste, but not so much so that I can't recall the strengths of In the Mood for Love and Happy Together. I'm honestly sick to death of Jude Law (take an extended sabbatical please!), yet I'm interested in watching Norah Jones in her acting debut; plus, Rachel Weisz and Natalie Portman make appearances. Word at Cannes was divided, but I'm still keeping my fingers crossed.

Across the Universe (Julie Taymor) - I love Taymor and the passion she always brings to creating a visual experience for her viewer; still, I wish she'd pay more attention to everything else. Frida was a feast for the eyes, but rocky in scripting and even more problematic in performances (for the record: Alfred Molina deserved the nomination, not Salma Hayek.) This looks like more of the same with scrumptious eye candy and awkward... everything else.

The Other Boleyn Girl (Justin Chadwick) - Two likable but regularly uneven actresses in two extremely difficult roles. While Johansson has proved herself once before in period (Girl with a Pearl Earring), she has been... less impressive recently (The Black Dahlia), and as much as I adore Natalie, I can't say I'm a huge fan across the board. However, one casting decision I can fully get behind is Eric Bana as Henry VIII; he looks much more convincing as the figurehead than Jonathan Rhys-Meyers for sure.

Reservation Road (Terry George) - More downer dramas about accidents and post-trauma healing? Good cast with a potential comeback part for Mira Sorvino, but I feel like I've seen this film already. Five times.

The rest of them very quickly: Evening (great cast but that trailer is just a string of cringe-worthy moments), Southland Tales (I had Kelly's follow-up to Donnie Darko on my most anticipated list last year; but how will it hold up now following the disastrous Cannes reception?), The Darjeeling Limited (I enjoy Wes Anderson usually, but his last film did not click at all with me), The Golden Compass (again, too much fantasy of late, although the Kidman-Craig pairing sounds delish), The Brave One (Jodie Foster and Neil Jordan together is a tempting proposition, but the trailer all but gave us the final scene), Michael Clayton (the Cloonster again!) and The Invasion (Kidman plus Craig again, only this time with troubled production buzz... oh my.)

LOOKING FORWARD TO (INTERESTED IN):

The Kite Runner (Marc Forster) - The popular book by Khaled Hosseini provides solid source material, so that's in Forster's favour already (although Troy's David Benioff acting as screenwriter? Ugh.) This director's filmography doesn't sit well with me, but I'm interested in how he keeps defying genres and trademarks. And I keep hoping he'll make the film that actually deserves the praise everyone lavishes on him (no, not even last year's Stranger than Fiction really clicked despite good intentions.) I pray that this doesn't turn into a Memoirs of a Geisha-like disaster where exotic culture is "performed" and displayed for North American audiences though.

The Nanny Diaries (Shari Springer Bergman, Robert Pulcini) - Two words: American Splendor. Plus, the combined talents of Laura Linney and Paul Giamatti are enough to place my butt in that theatre seat.

Rendition (Gavin Hood) - Gyllenhaal and Witherspoon drama aside, look at the supporting cast: Arkin, Streep, Sarsgaard and Simmons. Plus the concept sounds pretty neat, even if it might lead to sermonizing of the "Middle Easterners are people too" variety.

The rest of them very quickly: Youth Without Youth (the return of Coppola Senior), The Savages (it's the year of La Linney), Margaret (another holdover from last year with strange word-of-mouth, but it's Lonergan!), Hairspray (I know, I know, but it still looks like a lot of fun), Cassandra's Dream (McGregor and Farrell - 'nuff said), and Charlie Wilson's War.

See Part Two here.

Zubeidaa

2007-06-05T00:41:00.001-04:00

As a historian, I often find myself attuned to the problem of narrative itself - the specificity of voice, location, and accessibility. After spending four years immersed in theory about how history is written and deployed, particularly in the South Asian context (a framework unavoidably intertwined with the rise of English empire-building), I find myself unable to look at any representation of the past and its subjects in quite the same way. Within that politics, the question of the marginalized is raised, and how one can make an attempt towards uncovering silenced voices in the ongoing construction of the past. As I try and find ways to merge my two interests - the study of history and my love for the cinema - I find myself constantly aware of these issues. Shyam Benegal's revisionist "biography" Zubeidaa: The Story of a Princess (2001) fits nicely alongside Ashutosh Gowariker's Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (2001) and Mira Nair's Vanity Fair (2004) as films that explore this issue in relation to "India" and its not-so-recent transition towards independence. In the former film, Gowariker turns his eye to a group of village peasants who revolt in their own special way against the British raj (not violently with swords, but passionately with cricket bats), while Nair ingeniously re-inserts the story of colonialism alongside Thackery's epic novel about class hierarchy and greed during the Napoleonic wars. All three films have been extremely invaluable resources for my work in exploring these themes, and I hope to present my "findings" in a scholarly/academic medium at some point in the future.

Shyam Benegal's film, penned by screenwriter Khalid Mohamed as a tribute to his late mother, is equally subversive in making an absolute claim towards authenticity. Mirroring her son Riyaz's quest to "find" his mother in tattered remnants of oral and written history, we are constantly aware that we are not seeing Zubeidaa as she really was. She has now entered the realm of myth and what person can explain on conclusive terms who this woman was? Celebrated by some as an actress and cursed by others who saw her as a traitor to her position, by the end of the film we are left with more questions than answers. Zubeidaa forms the third chapter in an unofficial trilogy created by Benegal and Mohamed that began in 1993 with Mammo. The second film, Sardari Begum (1996), has little to do with this family, but the cinematic bookends specifically chronicle Mohamed's early life growing up without a mother. Part fairy-tale, part homage, the final installment Zubeidaa draws on several sources to weave together a complex story - the woman's diary, relatives' reminiscing and even archival documents that have been confiscated as a result of a cover-up. As the title character Zubeidaa is "seen" through various perspectives, Benegal and Mohamed offer us an endless list of possibilities about who she was, and why she left behind only shame and controversy for those who knew her.

The existing "facts" known about Mohamed's mother are these few: Zubeidaa was born sometime in the 1930s into a position of great wealth and influence, the daughter of a powerful film industry mogul. After dabbling in Hindi-language cinema in small roles and a failed marriage that produced solely one son (Khalid Mohamed himself, or his stand-in "Riyaz" in the film), she quickly captured the attention of a Hindu Rajput prince. Much to the anger of her father, who consequently disowned her, the Muslim-born Zubeidaa wed the the Maharaja of Jodhpur and moved into his palace in Gujurat as his second wife (he is the ruler of Fatehpur in Utter Pradesh in the film.) Tragically, both Zubeidaa and her husband soon were killed in a mysterious air plane crash that wiped her record clean from the royal family's history books altogether. Due to her disinheritance from both her own family and her in-laws', the specifics of Zubeidaa's life have been largely rendered invisible over the decades. Consequently, Mohamed spent his formative years raised by his grandmother and thirsting for concrete knowledge about his biological mother, and the reason why she seemingly abandoned him. This film is the result of that period of research and inquiry.

Working as an investigative journalist in the early 1980s, Riyaz (played by Benegal regular Rajit Kapoor) draws upon many sources to piece together a fabric detailing his mother's life. Zubeidaa's elderly mother (character actress Surekha Sikri-Rege, another Benegal favourite) refuses to divulge any information to her grandson, while others such as Zubeidaa's dance instructor (Shakti Kapoor, in an amusing cameo) and her father's mistress Rose (Monsoon Wedding's Lillete Dubey) are not so reluctant to revisit that period in their lives. Perhaps Riyaz's most valuable source of information is provided by the prince's first wife, Mandira Devi, who retains mixed feelings about her rival-friend but may provide the key to his biggest questions. Throughout the film, Benegal's editors Avinash Walzade and Praveen Angre artfully move back and forth across concurrent timelines without any glaring hiccups in the difficult transitions, achieving moments of tapestry-like brilliance. By drawing on a several number of perspectives, the film consequently asks its audience to reconsider how we ourselves remember, filter and etch the past. The plot is not exactly Rashoman-like in its trajectory, but there is a definite sense that each character adds various textures and layers to the tale. Yet as Riyaz draws closer and closer to the cover-up regarding his mother's life and unresolved passing, there is still an open-ended element to the closing scenes. Although one suspects Mohamed has his own opinion about his mother's suspicious death, there is room to see it from many different angles. Just as every participant has a particular spin on Zubeidaa as a character, veering from outright denial of her existence to loving and fond remembrances of her fiery personality, we as the audience are encouraged to form our own conclusions.

The film is also aware of its post-colonial context; the Rajput princes are faced with a dilemma in the wake of independence from imperial England. What is their place as antiquated aristocratic rulers in a country increasingly calling for democratic principles and voting rights of the people? The Union government in Delhi is posited against the Rajput coalition of royalty, who wish to retain their status as a clan of rulers. Zubeidaa's husband, Maharaja Vijayendra "Victor" Singh, is confident in trusting his farmer subjects to support him as a representative in the new state apparatus, while his fellow kings push for the autonomy of their own states. Benegal is also quick to point out that this discussion was largely held between men in elevated positions of power; it is no convenient plot point that Zubeidaa demands to be part of the political process herself. That India's narrative of decolonization is one "written" by an elite male subjectivity is significant; agency and ability is clearly restricted a privileged few. The issue of Zubeidaa's religious background is also of particular note; it is perhaps no surprise that the prince's family was rather eager to erase her identity from the record books. That Muslim-Hindu tensions are just as pronounced today speaks to the debate over her position as Rajput Hindu royalty. Partition itself is one of the reasons for the breakdown of Zubeidaa's first marriage, as her former in-laws decide to leave India for the Muslim-majority Pakistan.

Benegal's attention to period is masterful; barring some funny anachronisms littered throughout, the film looks as though it could have been produced during Bollywood's golden age. Often in period pieces, there is more effort placed upon providing eye candy than staying true to the time and setting (see 2002's Devdas remake.) Thankfully, art/set directors Narendra Rahurikar and Ravi Chauhan expertly support the era recreation, diversely furnishing decrepit shacks and ornate palaces alike without drawing attention to their work. The costume designers' creations are divine (by Mitali Dutta and Regina Pius); every tailor-made sari is worthy of notice, and Kapoor has never looked more majestic on-screen. Rajan Kothari's cinematography is always aware of characters as well as their surroundings, avoiding the most obvious moments to capture close-ups and instead keeping a distance when necessary. The makeup team does a marvelous job contrasting youthful exuberance and the physical marks of experience that come along with age and experience. But the true standout here is the haunting musical score by A.R. Rahman; each song is memorable, despite being utilized strictly in the background (only one song - "Dheeme Dheeme", celebrating Zubeidaa's newfound romance - is played out in its entirety.) Rahman's soundtrack overall is a masterpiece in itself - it has been in continuous play on my music player over the past few years and will likely continue to be in the future. It too seems like it was written decades ago, easily comparable to the likes of Naushad, who provided the industry with standard-setting tracks from the 1940s onwards.

Karisma Kapoor, just off her searing performance the year before in Khalid Mohamed's own earnest-but-spotty directorial debut Fiza (2000), proved to the Bollywood industry once again that she had more to her than playing romantic afterthoughts in candy-floss commercial fare. As the title character, Kapoor is able to play upon the various shades each participant in the narrative has brought to light - her childish stubbornness, the heartbreak she felt at leaving behind Riyaz, and her refusal to stay within the boundaries drawn around her as a daughter, wife and princess. Although Zubeidaa features a stellar ensemble of character actors, Kapoor manages to remain the focal point of the film throughout. Coupled with her work in Fiza, the performance is Kapoor's most impressive to date; the actress soon went into semi-retirement after a highly-publicized marriage and divorce, but hopefully she will appear in a film of this caliber again in her still-young career. The film also features three excellent supporting performances by female actors, the most impressive being Surekha Sikri-Rege's. As Zubeidaa's mother Fayyazi, Sikri-Rege is sympathetic as a conflicted mother in the flashback scenes, and marvelously cantankerous as a crotchety old woman in the "present". Equally good is Lillete Dubey as an actress past her prime; the juxtaposition between her youthful years as a friend to Zubeidaa, and her fate as a sad cat lady is striking to say the least.

Rekha is appropriately evasive as Victor's first wife; the actress seems to smartly mask her true feelings behind a dedication to proper etiquette and formality. Just as Riyaz seems on edge while interviewing her about his mother, we feel equally torn about this woman's motivations and alliances. Manoj Bajpai is charming as the Maharaja; the prince is clearly devoted to Zubeidaa, but still regards her as decorative property. The actor is able to draw out both of these characteristics, sketching a three-dimensional figure as opposed to fulfilling a mere plot device. The late Amrish Puri does as expected in his portrayal of Suleiman Seth, having now carved a niche in Bollywood playing domineering, abusive fathers; however, there are a few moments where the actor hints at regret for his harmful decisions regarding Zubeidaa's life. Rajit Kapoor only appears in a few scenes as the adult Riyaz, but is entirely believable as a intuitive, intelligent young man able to see through manipulative agendas in his quest for the truth. Other bit parts are filled in by Benegal regulars such as Seema Bhargava as Riyaz's loving childhood nurse Zainab, and Ravi Jhankar as Victor's corrupt brother who round out the cast. Worthy of special mention is Farida Jalal, who briefly reprises her role from Benegal's Mammo in this film as Fayyazi's sister who attends Zubeidaa's first wedding.

This production is admittedly an anomaly of sorts; it's not quite the hard-hitting Indian "parallel cinema" Benegal is typically known and acclaimed for. And despite its musical numbers by maestro A.R. Rahman and the casting of Kapoor in the title role, it's not a full-out Bollywood production either (its poor performance at the box office is surely proof of that, despite winning a National Award for Best Picture in the Hindi language.) As such, it exists in another space altogether, which makes it one of the most exciting cinematic ventures to emerge from India in the new millennium. Although I am usually reluctant to label anything a "feminist" piece due to the multiplicity of definitions attributed to that word, it's impossible to overlook the complexity of Zubeidaa's characterization here. She is not a perfect figure; she is prone to impulsiveness, to impatience and selfishness, but she is nonetheless endearing in her flaws and shortcomings. Her demands to be seen as more than a trophy wife are quite advanced for her time, and she gives a voice to those women who refused to remain silent in an era and culture that called for their complete omission from men's dealings (politics, money, and household decision-making.)

One of the film's most devastating sequences depicts Zubeidaa's first marriage as Rahman's cheerful "Mendhi Hai Rachnewali" (a song celebrating marriage and familial harmony) ironically plays over the desperate proceedings. Despite her ongoing resistance to apply henna to her hands and agree to the match forged by her father, she is forced to go through with the alliance. As the mullah asks repeatedly for her assent as per the specifics of the Islamic marriage nikaah ceremony, she remains chillingly silent as the crowd uncomfortably looks on. Her defiant glare from beneath her beautiful gold-threaded headdress is breathtaking in its non-conformity. Her father Suleiman Seth obnoxiously accepts the proposal on her behalf, but Zubeidaa never bows down to this aggressive attempt to control her, always true to her insistence on doing things on her own terms. A

What Lies Ahead

2007-06-04T22:42:00.002-04:00

Soooo... how come no one has commented on the new banner? ;)

In many ways, it doesn't really depress me that I've only squeezed out six blog entries since my (overkill) Oscar ceremony afterthoughts way back in February. In fact, I'm rather surprised that I was able to post that many; for an example of my no-flourish composition lately, I've barely been able to write e-mails to family and friends spanning more than a paragraph or two. And only then when I've received irate lectures about my lack of responsiveness. I don't think there's any point in blaming my post-Oscar season fatigue on any one reason, although I can certainly say that the last two months of my final term were quite hectic and demanding. I really have no interest in narrating my many hours spent pulling all-nighters in the library, or popping caffeine pills every three hours. Anyways, all the time and effort I had usually reserved for film-related writing was soon redirected towards paper writing, so that's likely the main reason for my blog negligence of late (laziness and poor time management were/are also at play.) Now that school is more or less over, with grades having been entered (3.7 Cumulative GPA) and graduation pending (eep - June 14th), I really have nothing else to use as an excuse.

Thankfully, since my last exam in mid-May, I've slowly been getting back into the swing of writing and film-watching. Trips to the movie theatre have been much more frequent (although I'm not venturing out for Shrek 3, Ocean's 13 or Pirates 3 - thanks, but no thanks), and I've been spinning "catch up" DVDs in my player non-stop. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm still very committed to making this blog work. I may not be able to match the regularity, wit and passion so many of my fellow bloggers are well-known for, but I'm going to try my best. Really. At the very least, you'll see something here once or twice a week, even if it's worthless filler (only the best for my readers, the two of you that are out there.)

If you've been stopping by frequently over the last few months in hopes of activity (in vain), you'll notice that I'm putting a lot more effort into writing full-length reviews (for Notes on a Scandal and Away from Her most recently.) Short paragraphs a la capsule reviews don't really cut it anymore personally, and I often find the overall results vague and bordering on summary. I also find writing long reviews much more fulfilling, and I'm able to get out all I want to say without worrying too much about length. I enjoy the process, even if it takes me longer to think through my thoughts/critiques (which is certainly a good thing.) So expect to find more of that in the coming weeks and months...

I also haven't forgotten about my countdown of the best male performances of the first half of this decade. It's a little embarrassing to think it's almost been a year since I began that project (and had originally planned to finish it by the end of the summer!). The main issue is that the movies I had re-watched during that time have largely faded from memory, so I really need to skim through certain films before committing my thoughts to "paper". But soon!

I also want to commit a lot of time to reviewing many more films from India. After reviewing the imdb database in terms of external comments and reviews, I've found these movie pages lacking in many respects. I also hope to convert many of my readers who are not familiar with these films a chance to see that Indian cinema does not automatically equal Bollywood. I look forward to churning out a lot of reviews soon - look out for thoughts on some of my recent favourites: Zubeidaa, Dil Se.. (best known in North America for featuring the song "Chaiyya Chaiyya", used in the opening and closing credits of Spike Lee's Inside Man) and the Oscar-nominated Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India.

Other projects in the pipeline? A reappraisal of Aronofsky's The Fountain (that has been pending since my grade change in November) and some commentary on 2007's most anticipated titles...

What else has occurred recently that may be of interest? Of special note is my re-evaluation of Lynch. Another lesson learned by Ali this year - stop judging directors on the basis of two or three films. After being less than wowed with Blue Velvet, Mulholland Dr. and Wild at Heart, I had angrily written him off for good. But with the double whammy of Inland Empire and The Elephant Man combined, he's more than back in my good graces (the former film is particularly awe-inspiring) - on to Eraserhead and Lost Highway! I may even have to give Blue Velvet a second chance, especially since Nick was taken aback by my thumbs-down evaluation recently.

It may seem contradictory after expressing my need to write longer reviews, but here are some other quick notes to jot down (sans plot summary):

Peyton Reed's The Break-Up is a surprisingly uncomfortable sit, fully capturing the rapid disintegration of a once-happy relationship. For a minute, I thought Reed was doing something quite interesting with the rom-com genre (take for instance the non-showy references toward class difference), but ultimately, the film's tone turns non-committal. Soon enough, we have sitcom-y type humour trumping the biting moments that were so promising, and a wish-washy conclusion. The supporting cast is something of a dream on paper, but none of them have enough screentime to make a lasting impression minus Judy Davis. C-

It's easy to understand why D.J. Caruso's Disturbia was a late spring sleeper hit - with its merging of current tween trends (YouTube, iTunes, etc) with the Rear Window formula, the lingo and banter of these bored suburban teenagers is instantly familiar. Shia LeBeouf will never convince me that he has much range as an actor, but he definitely has a commanding presence. In that respect, the movie works best in its exploration of lazy summer days and sexual discovery, and less so in its second-act slasher film turn. I enjoyed it for what it was, but I doubt I'll remember it in a few months, or that it will hold up at all on a second viewing. I hope that the film's success will point viewers in the direction of Hitchcock's classic at the very least. C+

Although it may cost me much credibility, I have no problems in stating my utter adoration for 2003's winsome Something's Gotta Give. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Nancy Meyers' The Holiday, a Christmas turkey offered to audiences last December. Despite many friends warning me to pass it up, I plunked down the six dollars required to take in Kate Winslet's attempt at a rom-com on DVD. Happily, she's the best thing about the film, but she's unfortunately dragged down by the lines she's required to recite and the actors she's forced to work with. There's no spark here, no spontaneity - the magic of the Diane Keaton-Jack Nicholson vehicle has clearly been used up. Cameron Diaz provides a good case for her return to modeling as a career, and Jude Law seems more desperate than ever (although it's good to see him moving away from playing married liar-cheaters, even if this film sets that up as a possibility.) There's only one way I could ever consider re-watching this: if a director's cut centred solely around Winslet's Iris and re-wrote Diaz's character arc straight into a tragic plane crash en route to England. D

Away from Her

2007-05-27T00:49:00.001-04:00

First, a personal admission: us Canucks feel a strong sense of investment in the career of Sarah Polley, a talent we have (literally) witnessed grow into adulthood before our very own eyes. Transitioning from child star on the endearing "Road to Avonlea" series (loosely based upon the world created by Lucy Maud Montgomery) to aggressive political activist, Polley has continued to surprise us in her growth as an actor in terms of the richness (The Sweet Hereafter) and variety (2004's Dawn of the Dead) of her filmography. Now with Away from Her (2006), a full-length feature film based on the short fiction piece by Alice Munro ("The Bear Came Over the Mountain"), Sarah Polley amazes us once again, only this time she makes her directorial debut (she also authoured the screenplay adaptation.) As is already clear, the plot concerns the challenges and hardships that come along with the onset of Alzheimer's disease, but this is only one side to the complex story. Away from Her also deals with challenging questions regarding the stability of marriage in the long-run, whether love is synonymous with monogamy, and the murky politics of elderly health care. Yet Polley manages to sidestep any easy moralizing or preaching; what is most compelling about this film is its refusal to settle on stable conclusions. Rather, it seems to embrace the impossibility of making them at all - this is a story that one can imagine existing long after the credits have finished rolling. It is refreshing rather than frustrating to see a film understand its limitations; this is a strength as opposed to a failing.

The film's main players are Grant and Fiona, long-married partners who live a seemingly idyllic life in retired seclusion. Their comfortable routine is disturbed with Fiona's increasingly worrisome behaviour regarding her memory and sense of overall cognizance. It begins with misplaced objects here and there (a washed frying pan quietly deposited in the refrigerator) and elevates to concerns over her own safety (a cross-country skiing afternoon that suddenly results in her disappearance.) Much to Grant's deep reluctance, Fiona presses for her placement in a home care facility attuned to her special needs. Over her time at Meadowlake, her memory increasingly diminishes to a point where she no longer recognizes Grant as her husband, and instead forms a close connection with another in-care patient named Aubrey. How the disheartened Grant negotiates this unexpected turn of events is what forms the main thrust of the film's trajectory. Ultimately, Grant's priorities shift from awaiting in vain for a reawakening to realizations that are much more difficult and bittersweetly ironic. It will be spoiling nothing by suggesting that there are no "happy endings" offered in the normative sense of the term - this is not a film that offers easy, heart-warming resolutions.

Polley's approach has rightly been described as being reminiscent of the work of Atom Egoyan, who priorly directed her in The Sweet Hereafter, and also earns an executive producer credit here. Egoyan's best-received films are known for featuring evocative editing, which mostly enrich the narratives he tells as opposed to needlessly over-complicating them. In Away from Her, the first fifteen minutes or so are somewhat disorienting, which had me questioning the purpose of the time shifts and multiple cuts. However, as the story moves forward, the collapsing of linearity seems appropriate given that the film deals with the intertwining of past and present, as well as the unreliability of memory itself. My small criticisms are directed elsewhere, and are two-fold: Polley inserts several hazy and grainy "flashbacks" featuring Grant and Fiona in their early marriage years. These seemed distracting choices to me, although this may well be beneficial to other viewers wishing to grasp a fuller image of the couple's many years spent together. As well, another misgiving I have is how the practical and efficiency-focused Madeleine (Meadowlake's head figure, played by Wendy Crewson and not featured in the original text) is portrayed. She is made represent the more unfeeling aspects of elderly care, and her character mostly exists to cause further agitation for Grant's character. Indeed, my audience was quick to side with his dislike of her, even hissing whenever she made an unwelcome appearance on-screen.

As the film has made its rounds on the film festival circuit in the months prior to its North American-wide theatrical release, Julie Christie has been receiving consistent raves for her work as the slowly-deteriorating Fiona. The hype is, in a word, appropriate. There does not seem to be a moment in this performance that seems overplayed or falsely realized. Even in scenes that seem tailor-made for the Oscar telecast, Christie is frighteningly distant, stretching out moments of mental impairment so long that it actually becomes difficult to watch her. In one memorable scene, the lapse occurs during a dinner with friends; Fiona is about to serve her guests some wine when she suddenly is at a loss to comprehend why a bottle rests in her hands, and even as to what it contains within. At times, the gaps in her awareness are less evident, and Christie avoids the temptation to "fill in" the ambiguity. It is surprisingly not the film's strongest piece of acting though; that distinction is reserved for Gordon Pinsent, as Grant. Although patient and understanding for the most part, the character has a stubborn side as well; some of the film's most endearing moments are him pleading with Fiona to stay at home with him. One cannot help but feel sympathy as he returns day after day, hoping for a glimmer of recognition to surface in her eyes.

The dependable Olympia Dukakis is another player in the proceedings as Marian, Aubrey's no-nonsense wife. She has become hardened and disillusioned over time as a result of her husband's condition and her family's financial situation, yet is wanting for affection and intimacy all the same. Her early scenes with Pinsent over cups of coffee are some of the film's most thorny and unsettling, providing a sharp contrast to the affectionate words regularly shared between Grant and Fiona. Perhaps the most arresting supporting performance is turned in by Kristen Thompson, in a small role as the head nurse of the patients being cared for at Meadowlake. The turn reminded me instantly of Patricia Clarkson's in Far from Heaven; initially, her character seems like the sturdy and reassuring confidante to the film's lead player. But as she reappears over the course of the movie, it is no longer possible to take her character at face value - watch how she insensitively responds to Grant's question about co-habitation among patients. More unnerving in the scene in which she recalls an admission of infidelity on Grant's part, and takes him to task for it.

Despite the film's downer subject matter, it will perhaps surprise many to discover Away from Her's many amusing moments and its lack of histrionics. Some liners are actually laugh-aloud witty, and its ongoing refusal to exploit Fiona's illness for easy tears is truly admirable. There are undoubtedly devastating moments, but Polley is primarily interested in crafting an intricate love story as opposed to a tragedy (Alice Munro is also to be credited for providing ace source material in the first place.) Away from Her draws upon the lives of the sick, the elderly and the retired, giving their experiences of sex, romance and sadness full respect and weight. The film is compassionate and respectful towards its characters, as opposed to feeling the need to patronize and caricature them; the result is heartening to say the least. With her eye for figurative imagery and her admiration for her actors, Sarah Polley adds another feather in her swelling cap of many achievements. It is my hope - as a Canadian as well as a film lover - that this is not the last we see of her as a director. A-

Well, it certainly lived up to the hype...

2007-05-04T22:57:00.001-04:00

... and then some. Full review to follow shortly (I mean it this time.)

I've heard bad ideas before, but... this one is the worst.

2007-04-29T12:12:00.001-04:00

Julia Stiles to do 'Bell Jar'

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) -- Julia Stiles will star in and produce an adaptation of Sylvia Plath's autobiographical novel "The Bell Jar."

The actress and her representatives at Creative Artists Agency spent two years optioning rights to the coveted project from French producers StudioCanal, and closed the deal Friday.

The 1950s-era drama centers on young book editor Esther Greenwood (Stiles), who grows troubled by the social trappings of her time and slowly descends into mental illness.

Principal photography is tentatively expected to begin in early 2008. Also producing are indie firms Plum Pictures and Killer Films.

A 1979 version starred Marilyn Hassett. Since then, rights to the only novel by the Pulitzer Prize-winning poet (published around the time of her suicide in 1963) have been held by several parties. Gwyneth Paltrow starred in a 2003 biopic of Plath's life, "Sylvia."

Stiles wrote and directed the dramatic short film "Raving," produced by Plum and financed by Elle magazine based on an article in the publication. The film, starring Zooey Deschanel and Bill Irwin, will premiere this weekend at the Tribeca Film Festival and May 8 on the Sundance Channel. She was most recently in theaters with the 2006 remake of "The Omen."

Notes on a Disaster

2007-03-10T09:33:00.001-05:00

Upon first glance, the talent associated with Richard Eyre's adaptation of Zoe Heller's novel Notes on a Scandal would inspire utmost confidence in the interested viewer. On paper, the concept itself is tantalizing enough - here is a topical, controversial take on child sexual abuse within the educational system, brought to life by some of England's most valuable film personalities. Not only does the narrative etch the disturbing interplay between an irresponsible teacher and a manipulative student, but also adds another dimension in the form of an outside observer who uses the illicit affair to further complicate the already-murky moral waters of the drama. However, it is crushing to report that Notes on a Scandal is a bombastic, hysterically-pitched charade that is just as confused about its ethical stance as the flawed characters that traverse the screen. Veering wildly in tonality between art-house solemnity and sexual thriller-sleaziness, the film basically wishes to have its cake, eat it and slobber all over it too.

The first half hour, which establishes the main players and their surroundings, is agreeable enough. Patrick Marber's screenplay picks up on the snobbish musings of Barbara Covett (Judi Dench), an established teacher working at an inner-city school. Barbara's interior thoughts consist of tearing apart fellow co-workers for their social no-nos and other shortcomings, all of which are deliciously edgy. However, Barb's monologues grow increasingly needless considering Dench is so good at physically expressing the character's internalized sharp-edged criticisms and attacks. No doubt Barbara is a marvelous actor, which enables her to not only manipulate the politics of her workplace, but circumvent responsibility when matters deteriorate as well. This is all the more apparent once Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett) enters the picture; as a beautiful, young educator intent on changing the world, Barbara sees the possibility of a close friendship... and possibly more. Barbara's desperate attempts to catch Sheba's attention are disturbing and fascinating as a psychological character study. The quick journey from workplace acknowledgment to close "friendship" is attention-grabbing, and the film succeeds well in drawing its audience into the character dynamics. However, once it comes to light that Sheba has been involved in a sexual relationship with a young male student, Barb's sense of having been abandoned and lied to is overpowering. This is also the point in which the film begins to unravel into sheer preposterousness at an alarming rate.

Make no mistake: this is Dame Judi Dench's show all the way, and the picture's only plus is watching the actress reinvent herself in a manner that we have not quite seen before. In the actor's hands, Barbara never becomes the repulsive predator the homophobic film so desperately attempts to paint her as, because Dame Judi is too smart and responsible an artist to let such a basic, uninteresting reading stand on its own. To be sure, Dench's spinster is a most fearsome villain, but the actor suggests enough in her performance - outside the realms of the text - to point towards a sad and devastating youth. This all is not to say that vilifying a gay character is politically incorrect or wholly unwarranted, but to frame the woman's queer sexuality - as opposed to her mental instability - as her most threatening trait is downright irresponsible. Too often Eyre's eye, accompanied by Philip Glass's neurotic, overblown score, lingers on Barbara as a spiteful lesbian intent on destroying the stable, healthy norms represented Sheba's family unit. One scene in particular, in which Barbara attempts to share a close physical connection with Sheba, is played out so cruelly at the former character's expense that it is difficult to even watch. Barbara is far from a sympathetic character, but perhaps it can be understood why her humiliation is so pronounced.

While there is something to be said for watching Dench shout abuses at Blanchett for the better part of an hour, the game ultimately grows tiresome and stale. The affair is exposed, Sheba is forced to leave the household by her husband (Bill Nighy, in an utterly thankless role), and she moves in with - guess who? - Barb. As Notes on a Scandal barrels onward, it offers many unsatisfying conclusions, the first of which is the advantageous presence of Barbara's diary, which maps out the master plan in its entirety (akin to how a James Bond villain reveals his dastardly evil plan toward the climax.) This allows Sheba to learn of how she has been consistently jerked around by Barb's machinations, but the quibble arises: any fool would have connected the pieces earlier. It is not so much Blanchett's performance that is the problem here (although this does count as one of the actor's least accomplished attempts), but the mere idea that Sheba has been completely blinded by Barb's many conspiracies. There are only so many contrivances a viewer can swallow, and it is unfathomable as to how all this would come as a surprise to Sheba. But of course, without this convenience, the film would have no reason for a climactic sequence in which Sheba gets to smack Barb around and throw the elderly woman against a glass bookcase. Nor would the young teacher have a reason to break down and attack reporters gathered outside Barb's home (already informed about the student affair) with guttural "I'm heeere!" martyr screams.

Spoilers herein... The final two moments, the most insulting in the entire film for my money, drive home what the filmmakers are most interested in: the inherent seediness and "otherness" of lesbian sexuality. The first embraces Sheba in a state of repentance, while the other depicts how Barb continues her predatory instincts on another oblivious victim. The reactions articulated by my fellow audience members (gasps, chuckles, and chattering just a few among them) simply confirms that Notes on a Scandal serves as a horror film for straight audiences. Once again, I'm not at all opposed to seeing gay characters portrayed as villains on-screen, but the effort here is sloppy and lazy, even with Dench's considerable capabilities. The result is a film that affirms the solidness of heteronormativity while questioning the foundations of anything "other" to that arrangement of sex, gender and family. It is on these grounds that I question the aims of Notes on a Scandal's filmmakers, and ask why they needed to resort to such panicky, easy conclusions when they could have dug much deeper.

Ultimately, Judi Dench is the sole reason why this film will have any staying power or library shelf life in the years to come. Her performance represents the only work by a main player that attempts to go further than what the director and screenwriter are concerned with. The film itself is much too terrified with the shocking, scandalous elements of homosexual deviousness (not heterosexual teacher-student affairs) and therefore only scratches the surface of a really fascinating current issue. C-

2006 Top Fifteen & Awards

2007-03-05T18:46:00.001-05:00

Before I take a little bit of a blogging sabbatical, I thought I'd do this first. Rather than drag along a year-end countdown that will invariably end in April like last year, I thought we'd get it over with now. I do intend on writing more reviews for these films and others, whenever this writing block has passed.

2006 Top Fifteen (by Canadian/Toronto Release Dates)
1. Marie Antoinette [Sofia Coppola]
2. Volver [Pedro Almodóvar]
3. INLAND EMPIRE [David Lynch]
4. The Death of Mr. Lazarescu [Cristi Puiu]
5. Monster House [Gil Kenan]
6. The Sun [Aleksandr Sokurov]
7. Inside Man [Spike Lee]
8. Iron Island [Mohammad Rasoulof]
9. L'Enfant [Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne]
10. The Descent [Neil Marshall]
---
11. District B13 [Pierre Morel]
12. Half Nelson [Ryan Fleck]
13. Manderlay [Lars von Trier]
14. The Departed [Martin Scorsese]
15. When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts [Spike Lee]

Honourable Mentions: 49 Up, Casino Royale, The Queen

Unfortunate Blind Spots: Old Joy, The Good Shepherd, A Cock and Bull Story; if they make a big impact, I will edit the list accordingly.

EDIT #1 (April 12th): Moved Inside Man into the top ten at #6; everything else shifts one spot down.
EDIT #2 (May 4th): Moved INLAND EMPIRE into the top ten at #3; everything else shifts one spot down. Awards edited accordingly.

Winners indicated with multiple stars:

BEST PICTURE
The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (Mandragora Movies, Tartan)
INLAND EMPIRE (Studio Canal)
***Marie Antoinette (Columbia Pictures)***
Monster House (Columbia Pictures)
Volver (El Deseo S.A.; Sony Pictures Classics)

BEST DIRECTOR
Pedro Almodóvar, Volver
Sofia Coppola, Marie Antoinette
Spike Lee, Inside Man
David Lynch, INLAND EMPIRE
***Aleksandr Sokurov, The Sun***

Contenders: Cristi Puiu, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu; Mohammad Rasoulof, Iron Island; Pierre Morel, District B13; Martin Scorsese, The Departed; Neil Marshall, The Descent; Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, L'Enfant

BEST FEMALE ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Penelope Cruz, Volver
***Laura Dern, INLAND EMPIRE***
Luminita Gheorghiu, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu
Gretchen Mol, The Notorious Bettie Page
Naomi Watts, The Painted Veil

Contenders: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Sherrybaby; Judi Dench, Notes on a Scandal; Kate Winslet, Little Children; Shareeka Epps, Half Nelson; Helen Mirren, The Queen; Hana Laszlo, Free Zone; Kirsten Dunst, Marie Antoinette; Sook-Yin Lee, Shortbus; Emily Rios, Quinceañera

BEST MALE ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Daniel Craig, Casino Royale
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson
***Hugh Jackman, The Fountain***
Toby Jones, Infamous
Issei Ogata, The Sun

Contenders: Max Minghella, Art School Confidential; James McAvoy & Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland; Ion Fiscuteanu, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu; Jeremie Renier, L'Enfant; Leonardo DiCaprio & Matt Damon, The Departed; Paul Giamatti, Lady in the Water; Christian Bale, The Prestige

BEST FEMALE ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
***Emily Blunt, The Devil Wears Prada***
Lola Dueñas, Volver
Mia Kirshner, The Black Dahlia
Blanca Portillo, Volver
Fiona Shaw, The Black Dahlia

Contenders: Carmen Maura, Volver; Sandra Bullock, Infamous; Vera Farmiga, The Departed; Emily Watson, The Proposition; Adriana Barraza & Rinko Kikuchi, Babel; Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada

BEST MALE ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Jesse Garcia, Quinceañera
***Anthony Mackie, Half Nelson***
Kazunari Ninomiya, Letters from Iwo Jima
Michael Sheen, The Queen
Stanley Tucci, The Devil Wears Prada

Contenders: Daniel Craig, Infamous; Mark Wahlberg & Alec Baldwin, The Departed; Philip Seymour Hoffman, Mission Impossible 3

BEST ACTING BY AN ENSEMBLE
The cast of The Departed
The cast of Duck Season
The cast of Monster House
The cast of The Proposition
***The cast of Volver***

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Pedro Almodóvar, Volver
Russell Gewirtz, Inside Man
***Cristi Puiu, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu***
Mohammad Rasoulof, Iron Island
Lars von Trier, Manderlay

Contenders: Neil Marshall, The Descent; Dan Harmon, Rob Schrab, & Pamela Pettler, Monster House; Peter Morgan, The Queen

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Vishal Bharadwaj, Omkara
Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck, Half Nelson
***Sofia Coppola, Marie Antoinette***
Douglas McGrath, Infamous
William Monahan, The Departed

Contender: Stephen Colbert, Paul Dinello, Amy Sedaris et al., Strangers with Candy

BEST ART DIRECTION/PRODUCTION DESIGN
K.K. Barrett, Pierre Duboisberranger, Anne Seibel, Marie Antoinette
Simon Bowles, Jason Knox-Johnston, The Descent
***Jim Clay, Geoffrey Kirkland et al., Children of Men***
Nathan Crowley & Kevin Kavanaugh, The Prestige
Bijon Das Gupta, Umrao Jaan

Contenders: Pan's Labyrinth; The Painted Veil; Infamous; Monster House; The Fountain; The Black Dahlia

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Lance Accord, Marie Antoinette
Benoit Delhomme, Breaking and Entering
***Emmanuel Lubezki, Children of Men***
Dick Pope, The Illusionist
Vilmos Zsigmond, The Black Dahlia

Contenders: Reza Jalali, Iron Island; Wally Pfister, The Prestige; Matthieu Libothique, The Fountain; Guillermo Navarro, Pan's Labyrinth; José Luis Alcaine, Volver

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Jenny Beavan, The Black Dahlia
***Milena Canonero, Marie Antoinette***
Sharen Davis, Dreamgirls
Patricia Fields, The Devil Wears Prada
Ruth Meyers, Infamous

Contenders: Joan Bergin, The Prestige; Sabine Daigeler, Volver; Ruth Meyers, The Painted Veil

BEST EDITING
Anna Boden, Half Nelson
Marie-Hélène Dozo, L'Enfant
***Sarah Flack, Marie Antoinette***
Stéphanie Gaurier, Frédéric Thoraval, District B13
Thelma Schoonmaker, The Departed

Contenders: Jay Rabinowitz, The Fountain; David Lynch, INLAND EMPIRE; Lucia Zuchetti, The Queen; Dana Bunescu, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu; José Salcedo, Volver; Lee Smith, The Prestige

BEST MAKEUP
***The Descent***
Marie Antoinette
Pan's Labyrinth

Contenders: Infamous; The Notorious Bettie Page; The Queen; The Black Dahlia; The Proposition; INLAND EMPIRE

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
***Alexandre Desplat, The Painted Veil***
Alexandre Desplat, The Queen
Alberto Iglesias, Volver
Clint Mansell, The Fountain
Javier Navarette, Pan's Labyrinth

Contenders: Mark Isham, The Black Dahlia; Thomas Newman, Little Children

BEST SOUND MIXING
Children of Men
The Departed
Flags of Our Fathers
***INLAND EMPIRE***
Monster House

BEST SOUND EFFECTS EDITING
Monster House
Mission Impossible 3
***World Trade Center***

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Casino Royale
***The Fountain***
Pan's Labyrinth

N/A: Best Documentary Feature, Best Animated Film

OVERALL
Marie Antoinette - 4 (Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Costume Design, Editing)
---
Children of Men - 2 (Art Direction/Production Design, Cinematography)
The Fountain - 2 (Male Actor in a Leading Role, Visual Effects)
INLAND EMPIRE - 2 (Female Actor in a Leading Role, Sound Mixing)
---
The Death of Mr. Lazarescu - 1 (Original Screenplay)
The Descent - 1 (Makeup)
The Devil Wears Prada - 1 (Female Actor in a Supporting Role)
Half Nelson - 1 (Male Actor in a Supporting Role)
The Painted Veil - 1 (Original Score)
The Sun - 1 (Direction)
Volver - 1 (Ensemble Cast)
World Trade Center - 1 (Sound Effects Editing)

Comment, discuss, challenge, ignore.

In Mourning, I am.

2007-03-05T16:32:00.001-05:00

Today, I received two important pieces of mail; neither contained very good news. I was rejected from the Master's Program at U of T, and my second attempt at the LSAT resulted in only a marginally better score than last time. Posting will be light for the next couple of weeks/months (not that it was particularly consistent before.)

The Oscar entry in which I blather on incessantly...

2007-02-26T17:42:00.001-05:00

Take a bow, Ms. Laura Ziskin. You did the unthinkable, and I for one am eating my words. For those reading who are not aware of what I'm talking about, let me just point out that the last Oscar telecast with a producer's credit next to your name was the infamous four hour and twenty-something-minute elephant of 2002 (the year of A Beautiful Mind mini-sweepage, which just makes it so much worse.) I doubted that you could pull it off, but last night's 79th Academy Awards show - though surely not a contender for the shortest ceremony ever - was a total delight from start to finish... (aside from one woefully bad misstep, but let us start with the good first.) For one thing, Laura, it was actually and consistently entertaining. It was laid-back. Classy, but casual. And the bizarre inclusions of the sound effects chorus and Pilobolus (the Shadow Dancers who mimed icons from nominated films) were genius. Ellen DeG was spectacular as well, but there was also some very solid organizing going on behind-the-scenes (very snappy transitions, mostly concise presentations and succinct clip choices.) Great work.

But what of the awards themselves, what of them?!

THE GOOD
- Milena Canonero for Costume Design!!! We all knew that this category was kind of up in the air before the ceremony (especially since Dreamgirls certainly wouldn't have the sweeping power that Chicago did as a Best Picture frontrunner a couple of years ago), but I was really pleased that the voters were able to look past their (idiotic) problems with the film itself and see the brilliance in Canonero's work. And I love how she referred to the Oscar statuette as a "doll" in her speech. Hah!
- Well, The Departed is my pick for the best, the gutsiest and the most inspired Best Picture choice the Academy has made in recent years; certainly nothing comes to mind for me immediately that can compare (Return of the King is special to me, but they still chose the wrong installment, and while I do adore Shakespeare in Love, but even I admit that it was rather tailor-made for Oscar love considering the showbiz wink-winks and, well, the Weinsteins.) I mean, I'm still having trouble believing that the Best Picture Oscar went to a remake of all things, and at that a remake of an action thriller from Hong Kong! I have to say, I'm quite impressed with the Academy's general weirdness this year (can anyone remember the last time a film with so few nominations - a paltry five - was able to walk off with the major one and most of the other biggies? Even Crash had more nods last year.)
- The awesome Thelma Schoonmaker is able to win a third Oscar for the Irish mobster flick, having just unexpectedly scooped up a statuette two years ago for The Aviator. I was pretty taken aback by that, I have to admit. But once that happened, I knew that things were looking quite good for The Departed to win the Best Picture prize (if Babel couldn't pull it off in that category, then where else? I'll tell you where else, Best Original Sco-- ugh, it's infuriating... more in a second.)
- I haven't seen Happy Feet yet (really want to though), which upset Cars in the Animated Feature category, but it's quite heartening to see that Pixar doesn't have a monopoly over this category.

THE BAD AND THE UGLY
- How on earth did Children of Men's Emmanuel Lubezki lose the Oscar for Cinematography? Even as they were showing *the* scene in the car during the clip selections, I was already drooling. I suppose others are correct in suggesting that Pan's Labyrinth was much more picturesque and therefore accessible to the voters. Lubezki's work certainly wasn't attractive to the eye, but it wasn't supposed to be, and this is going down as the most shameful upset of the night. Bad form, Academy!
- And then there's Gustavo Santaolalla, who earned a consecutive trophy for his scoring duties on Babel, which is a little bit absurd considering most of the music was recycled from other sources (I read something somewhere about how only forty-five minutes was new material, but I'm not sure about that.) Still, "Deportation", one of the most chilling and effective tracks of the film, was used in Sally Potter's Yes two years ago as "Iguazu". Of Babel's nominations, this was the last place I was expecting anything to come to fruition.
- I'm not completely disgusted by this pick as much as the aforementioned oversights, but I'm still miffed that Alan Arkin was able to win for Little Miss Sunshine. I'm not a fan of the category in general, but I largely would have preferred Eddie Murphy to take this. I guess Norbit really did hurt his chances; something must have happened between SAG and now, and I can't think of anything else. Is it true that Murphy walked out after the category was called? Can anyone confirm that?
- I may have seen The Lives of Others upset coming in the Foreign Language Film category, but that doesn't mean it was deserving. I'm not big on Pan's, but out of what I've seen (Water being the other), it was the most deserving to take home the prize. Still, you can't feel bad for del Toro; his film came only second to Marty's for overall wins.

And in the tradition of last year, here are my special prizes for certain distinguished (or not) behaviour showcased on the Oscars...

Most Shocking and Deserving Winner of the Night: Milena Canonero, Marie Antoinette

Most Shocking and Undeserving Winner of the Night: Gustavo Santaolalla, Babel

Best Speech of the Night: Forest Whitaker, and this selection surprises me more than anyone, considering he's been downright incoherent all season. But he found his inner voice on that stage, which was absolutely breathtaking to witness (I admit it, I got chills: "And [God], who's given me this moment, in this lifetime, that I will hopefully carry to the end of my lifetime into the next lifetime.") I'm still not sure what it means, but I'm not sure it even matters.

Worst Presenter of the Night: Nicole Kidman, overly fussy and unprepared. Plus, doesn't she know that leading with "And the Winner Is" is a big no-no?

Most Infuriating (read: Worst) Moment of the Night: That ill-conceived montage pieced together by Michael Mann about the greatness of America with its freedom of opportunity, etc (riiiiight...) Started off interesting and with some subversive elements, but then become a Frankenstein monstrosity of sorts with clips from all sorts of movies with all sorts of tonal registers slapped together and made to seem significant. Did this rub anyone else the wrong way? It was stupid, it was unnecessary, and a waste of time (bordering on offensive.)

Most Generous Bosom: Jennifer Hudson, who I was really afraid would pop out during that Dreamgirls song presentation. Which means I was secretly wishing it would happen.

The "Why the Hell were You Invited?" Award Part II: J Lo and hubby AGAIN. Second year in a row. Seriously, why?

The Smith family just won't stop until I've professed utter love and adoration: Am I supposed to find Jaden Christopher Syre Smith cute and lovable too now? Ugh, fine. Uncle. Now please leave me alone, all three of you.

Most Cringe-Worthy Moment of the Night: Eddie Murphy's reaction when Rachel Weisz read "Alan Arkin". Eeps.

That said, biggest sourpuss of the night: Alan Arkin. Jeez, lighten up, would you? I'm talking specifically about his statements with the press backstage.

Best Line of the Night: "Look at Abigail Breslin over here. I mean, that's crazy, right? How old are you? Eight? Ten? Nine? She's a four year old girl, and just filled with joy and hope..." - Ellen DeGeneres

Most Terrified Winner of the Night: Eugenio Caballero, winning Best Art Direction for Pan's Labyrinth. He was trembling head to toe - I would know, I was watching on HD.

Most Passionate Musical Performance of the Night: No, not Melissa Etheridge, or J. Hudson. It was Jack Black actually, totally selling us on the Hollywood comedian's woes. Bonus points for pointing out how hot Helen Mirren is.

Please stop hammering it over our heads: The whole "we're so diverse/multicultural/international this year" self-congratulatory pat on the back. It's getting really unflattering. But the Steve Carell inclusion was amusing.

Most Off-putting Hero Worship: Davis Guggenheim slobbering all over Al Gore. He was two seconds away from humping the man's leg, I tell ya.

The Tom-Hanks-in-The-Da-Vinci-Code Award for Achievement in Hairstyle: Will Ferrell and his... afro. Last year's winner? Tom Hanks.

Best Improv Performance on the Fly: Meryl Streep, immediately lapsing into character in order to terrorize presenters Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt. Hilarious.

Best Moment of the Night Overall: Why, Marty clutching his Oscar of course. What else?

Moment where I totally lost it:

That picture sums it up pretty well. Also when the gun from The Departed shot a bullet (!). My friend Lauren and I were in giddy hysterics.

Best Follow-Up to that Moment: Ellen DeG emerges all disheveled from backstage and happily offers: "They're naked!"

FASHION COMMENTARY (and excessive Helen Mirren adoration)

Now to the fashion and celebrity worship. One of my favourite quips from last night wasn't featured on the actual show, but was uttered in the Lauren's living room early in the night during the arrivals:

Me (genuinely perplexed): "Why on earth is Helen Mirren on the red carpet waving a Union Jack?"
Lauren: "She's invading."

My wise friend speaks the truth. For me, for all the goodness that transpired last night Oscar-wise and fashion-wise, it was all about the über-sexy Helen Mirren, the Queen herself, swooping in and conquering (colonizing?) my heart and soul. I've always adored the woman as you might expect, but it was only yesterday that I made the complete conversion to Mirren-mania like the rest of the world lately. I think it had a lot to do with Barbara Walters' interview, and how refreshingly honest and candid Mirren was during her bit. We both loved her response to Barbara's typically schmoozing question - "Do you feel perhaps as a result of all this success that the best is yet to come?" Helen's cutting and truthful response: "No. No, I think this is probably the best... I can't wait to see what happens next."

Also great - "I never wear trousers... because I have an enoooormous bottom!" And her bashing of Americans who for some reason have a big thing for shorts. I love it.

Plus, say hello to the number one best-dressed celeb last night. The woman was freaking royalty - just look at her... Today she stopped in on Oprah (ugh, I feel dirty for watching) and showed off the luminous Christian Lacroix dress in full detail. It was pretty stunning. I'm just as shocked as anyone by this pick, because I've been really underwhelmed with Helen's choices throughout the season, but she really settled on the correct awards show to blow us all away with this stunner. I watched the telecast in HD, and whenever she appeared, she literally glittered. I'm not even joking. I'm in love.

The next best six (#2-#7), click to enlarge:

Last year, it was Jessica Alba who surprised me with a winning ensemble, and this time around, it's another Jessica who stood out - Ms. "Take Me Seriously as an Actress Already" Biel in fuchsia. I don't know what the girl's been doing lately, but she must have hired a stylist who knows the right ways. This is Oscar de la Renta I believe, and it was nice to see such a bold colour pick in a sea of metallics and soft hues (but it's the belt that makes it really stellar.) Bravo all around. But then again, that body would look good in anything, wouldn't it? My love Cate Blanchett looked other-worldly (as expected), particularly because of that awesome shoulder strap. Best in show for the guys was James McAvoy; as a short guy myself, I know how frustrating it is to find clothes that fit properly, but he was perfection (I need to remember this image when I buy a new suit this summer.) Somehow, I missed Maggie Gyllenhaal during the pre-show, but I was thrilled to see her present on stage. A real treat for the eyes, and the best part was the hair. And finally, I didn't really like Gwyneth upon first glance, but by the end of the night, I was convinced. It's weirdly constructed (particularly the top) and an interesting colour for skin tone, but Paltrow can pull off most things, can't she? (Except for that droopy boob/goth number in '02. Oy.)

Biggest surprise of the night? Cameron Diaz in Valentino Coutoure, who has made a great comeback after the strangeness that was the Globes (still, that dress had its plus points; I'm not a total hater, see?) She looked quite lovely last night, and I adored how cute her bum looks in that dress... but to be honest, the earrings are what sold me.

Runner-ups: Diane Keaton (who should be up there on the list, but I couldn't find a picture of her; still, how delightful to see her out of gloves and a top hat); Anika Noni Rose (plain hotness); Céline Dion (can't stand the woman, but I have to admit she looked together for once); Eva Green (utterly bizarre and yet oddly compelling; I like risks, and it paid off for the most part - btw, did anyone see her at the BAFTAs? Whooooa); Mark Wahlberg (but then again, how could he not look good in a tux?); Rachel Weisz fantastic in Vera Wang; Rinko Kikuchi (best she's looked all season IMO), Daniel Craig because he's Daniel Craig, and Jodie Foster... Yeah, I think that's it. Milena Canonero too (see above), for looking totally at ease in that super-elegant tux.

Now the ones I'm kind of mixed on...

Jennifer Hudson's Oscar de la Renta dress was okay (I far preferred her vavavoom! Jessica Rabbit sparking red number during the Dreamgirls song presentation), but what the hell was that metallic cape collar around her shoulders on the red carpet? Traumatizing. I ranted and raved for hours until her category came up, and then I was relieved to see that she had dropped it when she walked up the stairs. I love the Blunt, but her hair was way too stiff, which threw the whole outfit out of whack for me. Kate Winslet was... fine, but pale makeup-wise (and that dress colour thusly washed her out); I preferred her at the Globes, even with the badly chosen lipstick. Still, it's not fair to expect brilliance each time around, considering she was best in show the years of Iris and Eternal Sunshine. Biggest disappointment of the night for me was Penelope Cruz; the top half was fine, but the excessive ruffles at the bottom killed my appetite. Plus, that bun was pulled way too tight across her skull (was she taking styling tips from Leo DiCaprio?); made her look quite severe. Not a fan, sad to say. And while Reese Witherspoon looked perfectly fine, I'm kind of scared that she's turning into a life size Barbie. So on the mixed list she goes... And well, Streep was okay (she can never look bad, and the hair/face was aces), but I would have expected better of Ms. Miranda Priestly dress-wise in the year of Prada. It would have been decent if not for that giant pendant.

Worst dressed of the night?

Kirsten Dunst was a walking trainwreck, I'm sorry to say. What was she thinking? Sloppy, ill-fitting and an unflattering colour. She just looked like she didn't care. The vest-like top was poorly integrated, and the little poofs at the bottom were laughable. The hair looked like she had mounted it herself in the limo, and the bangs across the forehead are so Little Women '94. Grow up! Sheesh. BFFs Nicole Kidman and Naomi Watts looked... off. I don't know how else to put it. Nic should have learned from last year that giant bows situated on your shoulder do not work, even if you are tall and statuesque. Naomi was scary: Nathaniel already put it best re: ripping off Blanchett in '05 (very sharp eye!) Dishonourable mentions to Anne Hathaway, Jada Pinkett-Smith and Kelly Preston as well.

Well, that's all I have to offer. A special thanks to my friend Lauren and her fam for hosting my shenanigans this year. I hope you all had a Happy Oscars! Until next year...

Best. Oscars. Evar.

2007-02-26T00:35:00.001-05:00

More to come tomorrow afternoon.