R.I.P. Heath Ledger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

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.

(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

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

"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.