First of all though, I do want to talk a little about the movies, but more specifically, the Oscars. Don't worry, no Christian Bale-style rants ahead, just some looong, long-overdue thoughts on this year's nominees that I've been meaning to write down for, oh, the last three weeks or so ...
To start, congrats to Slumdog Millionaire for all of its nominations, including Best Picture. Personally, I really don't get whatever backlash exists towards this movie. The worst is that so many people talk down the movie who haven't even seen it. I completely understand the fatigue that comes with so much hype around a given film, but I also hate when people dismiss something based on hype alone. Slumdog deserves to win Best Picture this year, and I also think that Danny Boyle deserves a Best Director nod. Adapted screenplay is another category where I've got to go with Slumdog as well. It's for that reason that I can't get *too* worked up about some of this year's snubs, because Slumdog would probably have been my overall pick in a number of categories anyways ... So, if we're talking about Dark Knight ... part of me does wish that DK was nominated, and part of me says "well, it wasn't going to win anyways, so ...". And then, with Dark Knight, I don't know ... Was it one of my absolute favorite movies of 2008, and the undisputed king of comic book adaptations? Yes indeed. But, from a purely objective standpoint, are there things about it that dont' exactly hold up to intense scrutiny? Unfortunately, yes there are. An at-times awkward script, some messy editing, and an anticlimactic ending all take points away in my book from Dark Knight's overall Oscar viability. To me, the one area where the movie absoultely HAD to get a nom was for Heath Ledger's iconic turn as The Joker. Since Ledger did in fact get nominated, I do believe that the movie's biggest strength was in fact acknowledged. Now, if only there was a Best Cameo award, I'd give it to William Fichtner in a heartbeat.
Now, that said, the question arises ... are movies like The Reader, Benjamin Button, and Frost/Nixon really so much better than The Dark Knight, that *they* should get Best Picture recognition? I haven't seen The Reader, but I will say that I am a bit puzzled by a movie like Frost/Nixon being in that elite category, and even more so by Button, which to me was a solid B+ but not in the A-range that to me is necessary to be a serious Oscar contender. If I had to pick one film that really got a Best Picture snub though, it would have to be The Wrestler. I mean, come on, The Wrestler is the complete package. Not only should it have gotten a Best Picture nomination, but man, Darren Aranofsky should really have gotten a Best Director nom as well for his gritty, understated work behind the camera. Not to mention that The Wrestler's screenplay was easily one of the year's best -- I wa honestly shocked not to see it nominated.
I was not really shocked to see a lack of noms for Gran Torino, as I loved it, but it's sort of a B-movie. But ... I don't see how Gran Torino got no Oscar love while Clint Eastwood's other directorial effort of '08, Changeling, did. I really wasn't crazy about Angelina's melodramatic acting in that one - in fact, I'd go so far as to say that she was actually better and more memorable in Wanted. Similarly, I thought Robert Downey Jr. was hilarious in Tropic Thunder, but at the same time, it just seems wrong that he wa nominated for his role there as opposed to Iron Man ...
I also was kind of annoyed at Wall-E's lack of nominations ... again, as with Dark Knight, I wasn't that surprised that Wall-E got snubbed for Best Picture, but at the same time, I couldn't help but feel some frustration. Because Wall-E may have been Pixar's best film yet, and you have to wonder - if the venerable Pixar's best film can't get a Best Picture nomination, isn't that kind of pathetic?
Finally, I have to wonder how Burn After Reading was completely snubbed. Are you kidding me? It's funny too, because I actually think that Bradd Pitt was better in Burn than in Button. As was Tilda Swindon. And Frances McDorman and John Malkovich surely deserved some recognition as well. Overall, it just annoys me that when the Coen Brothers put out a great drama like No Country For Old Men, critics unanimously praise it, and yet when they do a great comedy, it feels like people are afraid to give it the kudos it deserves.
But really, other than these couple of gripes, I don't know if I'm in the camp of being quite as angry with the Oscar picks as some other seem to be. I mean, it's not like The Oscars have ever really represented what's cool, buzzworthy, or cutting edge. It almost seems not worth it to complain about how Son of Rambow got no noms, or American Teen, or how the outdated Foreign Language rules prevented Let The Right One In from even being nominated.
But on the plus side, you get a great little movie like In Bruges that has a screenplay nomination. You get Mickey Rourke in the mix for best actor, Heath Ledger a favorite for Supporting, and an overall amazing movie like Slumdog that looks poised to sweep a number of categories. As long as the end results reward the best of the best, you can't complain all that much about the ins and outs of the nominations.
I'll be back soon with my actual picks and predictions, but for now, those are my Oscar thoughts ... dammit all.
- Okay, I have a ton of movies I need to specifically talk about, but I'll start with one that I actually saw a couple of weeks back that I've been meaning to review. So without further ado ...
WALTZ WITH BASHIR Review:
- Waltz With Bashir is a wholly unique movie that I would definitely recommend checking out -- it's not always the easiest film to watch, but it is undoubtedly powerful. More than anything else, it really is a pretty powerful anti-war film. Personally, I was fascinated by its subject matter. Having just come back from Israel, you can't help but visit that country and come away with a huge sense of Israeli pride and patriotism. But - there is a flipside - that being that for all of that pride and patriotism, you can't just ignore the fact that, in the conflicts that Israelis find themselves in, a lot of bad things do happen. Innocent people die, young soldiers are prematurely aged, hatreds are reinforced. No matter how noble the cause, war is ugly and horrible. And even when your intentions are the well-meaning, in war there is always, always the potential for things to go awry, with tragic results. Waltz With Bashir deals with this very issue - detailing the struggle of its filmmaker, Ari Folman, to come to grips with his time as a soldier in the Israeli army during the Lebanon War in the 1980's.
Despite it being relatively recent history, the now middle-aged Folman has a mental block when it comes to the events of the Lebanon War. He has hazy memories of the time, and has trouble piecing together where he was during some of the key events of the war. Most notably, he can't quite figure out what if any role he played during the notorious Sabra massacre that occured during the war, in which numerous innocent Palestinian civilians were executed by extremists, as Israeli forces failed to act in time to stop the slaughter.
Waltz With Bashir employs a unique animation style that is realistic, but stylized - not simply rotoscoped a la Waking Life or A Scanner Darkly. The Flash animation really works well in the context of the story, reinforcing the dreamlike nature of the various flashbacks to Ari's time in the army. Essentially, the movie follows Ari around in the present-day, as he seeks out old army compatriots, asking them for their accounts of their days fighting in Lebanon. Ari is searching for any hint, any account, that jogs his memory and in turn puts a top to his recurring nightmares about that time. To that end, a lot of the movie is comprised of these various accounts, narrated by the actual witnesses in documentary-like fashion. And here's where the movie is unique -- its structure and real-life subjects make it essentially a documentary, but its animated style allows the movie to veer into all kinds of surreal territory. Even as we hear the first-hand accounts of our various subjects, the visuals on-screen paint a stylized and often abstract picture of their stories. The effect is that of an autobiographical graphic novel on screen.
And to be honest, my favorite moments of the film were easily those that were the most far-removed from what you'd see in a traditional documentary. There are chill-inducing rock n' roll montages, scenes of surreal imagery, and nightmarish warzones, that really wowed me. The music as a whole in the movie is awesome - with songs that evoke the era, set the tone of the movie, and just plain rock.
Honestly, the main time the movie drags is when it simply presents a sort of animated documentary. When it's just talking heads and fairly static images, the pace begins to slow and you get a bit taken out of the movie. Because so many of the scenes are wholly enveloping and immersive, it's harder to concentrate during the slow points.
But still, I will be rooting for WALTZ WITH BASHIR come Oscar time. It's a story that reveals the inner-conflicts of Israel, the price of war, and the strange nature of time and memory. It frames one man's life as dream and nightmare, as one cog in the wheel of a larger drama. It's unique visual style, structure, and use of music are all completely unique as compared to so much of what is out there. Certainly a movie I'd urge people to check out if it's playing near you.
My Grade: A-
- Alright, back soon with updates on Lost, 24, and reviews of Taken, Fanboys, and Coraline.
No comments:
Post a Comment