Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 474-475: 2015 Oscar Nominees Part One

As I'm somewhat of a completest I couldn't finish this blog without reviewing the eight films that were nominated for Best Picture this year. All of these reviews were written before the ceremony itself so all of the predictions are what I felt at the time. The last of these four posts will also include who I think should and will win Best Picture at the 2015 ceremony.

We start with a film that I believe will be at the bottom of my list for 2015 nominees, that being American Sniper. Directed by Clint Eastwood, American Sniper tells the story of Chris Kyle; the most deadliest marksman in U.S. military History. The film is based on the memoirs of Kyle, a sniper who had 160 of his kills confirmed by the department of defence. Jason Hall's adaptation of Kyle's book, which has been nominated for a screenplay Oscar, is a nuts and bolts affair from the offset. Although the opening shot is of Kyle in Iraq it soon flashes back to his childhood in which his father instructed him to be a sheepdog; a man who protects those weaker than him when the wolves attack. This ethos is one he carries with him during his military training and then in Iraq when we see him at work. The film also looks at Kyle's relationship with his Taya; from their first meeting to their wedding and the birth of his two children. I personally felt that the best scenes were those which featured both Chris and Taya, with the latter feeling that her husband wasn't mentally with her anymore. The scenes which looked at the impact that the war had had on Chris were definitely my favourite as it added a little context to a character who otherwise was simply a flawless American hero. Whilst former soldiers being haunted by the war is nothing new, this part of the film at least gave it an edge which it lacked elsewhere. In fact, if it didn't had this, then it would've been even more of a flag-waving endeavour which basically promotes the bible-bashing American soldiers and berates anyone who stands in their way.

One of American Sniper's key strengths is Eastwood's simplistic direction which lends itself well to the scenes in which we follow Kyle's movements in Iraq. I'm not surprised that the film picked up nods in the editing and sound categories as the use of gunfire effects is made especially effective. In fact the sound is so good that gunfire almost becomes a character in and of itself especially when the Iraqi sniper is trying to hunt down Kyle. I personally would've like to have seen more of this Iraqi sniper as it would've added an ambiguity that the single-minded American Sniper was sorely missing. Instead the Iraqis are presented as either terrorists or, in Kyle's own words, savages. One thing that did impress me in American Sniper was Bradley Cooper's Oscar-nominated turn as Kyle, primarily as he dialled down his usual manic nature. Cooper's chisel-jawed look perfectly suited the character of Kyle but he also conveyed his character's inner turmoil excellently. Sienna Miller was similarly impressive as, in the past, I've found her to be quite an inconsistent performer but here she added some heart to the movie as Chris's wife Taya. My early prediction is that American Sniper doesn't do to well at the Oscar but may pick up one of the two sound-based awards it's nominated for. Ultimately I felt that American Sniper didn't have anything new to say in terms of the horrors of war that we hadn't already seen in Coming Home, Apocalypse Now or more recently The Hurt Locker. Whilst Cooper's performance and Eastwood's direction was solid, the flag-waving patriotism was too much for me to take and I can definitely say that American Sniper isn't a film that I'll be rushing to see again in the near future.

Proving how eclectic this year's Best Picture nominees are is Birdman the latest film from Alejandro González Iñárritu. In the past, Iñárritu's films have often featured a multi-person narrative with films such as Babel and 21 Grams featuring interlocking plots. Birdman is completely different from these movies as it instead focuses on the first few performances of an adaptation of Raymond Carver's 'What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.' The performance has been funded by Riggan Thomson; an actor best known for his role as titular superhero Birdman, and someone who in recent years has fallen on hard times. The play is meant to be his comeback but he's battling with several problems not least of which is the fact that the Birdman character keeps speaking to him throughout the film. Meanwhile, his daughter Sam has just come out of rehab and isn't dealing well in her new role as his assistant. Riggan also has to deal with the fact that his co-star and girlfriend Laura may be pregnant, something he can't even comprehend at times. Elsewhere a late addition to the cast, method actor Mike, causes problems when he launches into a tirade during a performance and constantly bemoans Riggan for the lack of realism in his play. What I enjoyed about Birdman is the way it plays around with the narrative and how we start to see Riggan's sanity slip away from him as opening night commences. One of Birdman's other positive qualities is Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography especially considering the fact that the movie is almost filmed as one constant shot. This means that we don't always see things from the character's point-of-view and to me this adds to the narrative; especially during the film's final two scenes. For this reason I do believe that Birdman will most likely pick up the Cinematography award at the Oscars.

At time of writing Birdman had just won the top award at the Producer's Guild making it the firm favourite to clinch Best Picture. Although I don't think the race is as clear cut as it has been in previous years I wouldn't be opposed to Birdman winning Best Picture. The other award the film has a good chance of winning is that of Best Actor thanks to Michael Keaton's stunning portrayal of Riggan. Oscar does love a comeback performance and Keaton's turn as a faded actor best known for portraying a superhero almost correlates with his own career. Keaton's manic movements and weary facial expressions add to our understanding of the character and I felt he was equally impressive at playing the Birdman part of Riggan's personality. Keaton isn't the only member of the cast nominated for an acting award as Edward Norton and Emma Stone have been recognised in the supporting categories. Norton's turn as the shifty method-acting Mike proved what a gifted comic performer he is and his scenes opposite Keaton were a joy to watch. Meanwhile, as Sam, Stone brought a bit of soul to the film and she made you believe why her character went off the rails. I do feel that the reason that Birdman has been awarded nine nominations is due to the fact that in some respects it feels very old-fashioned. The behind-the-scenes at a theatre story has been done to death and I feel that the older Academy voters would've drawn similarities between it and 1984 nominee The Dresser. At the same time, Iñárritu has made Birdman seem awfully modern with it's commentary on the fickle nature of fame and how movie stars struggle to make the transition to the stage. Whist it didn't hold my attention throughout its too hour running time, I ultimately found Birdman to be an utterly charming film. Brilliantly acted and shot but with a rather old-fashioned story behind it, Birdman definitely deserves to be recognised by the Academy and I believe it's one of two films that can realistically win the top prize.

Next time the only two Oscar nominees I'd seen prior to writing these posts.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 443-444: Let's Get Animated

As I discussed in the last post, foreign language films are very unlikely to ever receive a nomination for Best Picture. However, one type of film that has even less chance of making its way into the Best Picture shortlist is the animated movie. Up until now only one fully animated film has made it into the Best Picture category, that being Beauty and the Beast. The Academy attempted to redress this balance by introducing a Best Animated Feature category in the early 21st century. However, by extending the Best Picture category to a potential ten nominees, animated films were finally given their dues by the Academy.

Interestingly both of the animated features nominated for the Best Picture prize came from one studio, that being the much-acclaimed Pixar. Pixar, who partnered with Disney, had delivered plenty of films that had won the Best Animated Feature prize including Ratatouille and the fantastic Wall-E. One year after Wall-E they released Up which won the Best Animated Feature prize as well as scooping a deserving Best Picture nod. I think Up is a film that is most famous for its first ten minutes in which we go through the life of Carl Fredricksen, a young wimpy kid who grows thanks to the love of his eventual wife Ellie. Director Pete Docter is responsible for plenty of tears with a five minute montage that includes Carl and Ellie's wedding, the discovery they can't have children, their planned trip to South America and her eventual death. These scenes are accompanied by Michael Giacchino's memorable score which itself went on to win an Oscar. After this emotional opening, the rest of Up looks at Carl's new adventure as he straps balloons to his house and flies away in order to avoid going into a retirement home. The problem is that Carl has taken young Adventure Scout Russell along for the ride and over the course of the film his young companion goes from unwanted nuisance to surrogate grandchild. Whilst the relationship between Carl and Ellie plays more to the adult audience, Docter makes sure there's something for the kids in the form of a colourful bird and dogs with talking collars. The more manic part of the film sees Carl attempt to protect the aforementioned bird by taking on his childhood hero; adventurer and subsequent madman Charles F. Muntz. After several madcap sequences, Up returns to its emotional core as the final scene brings home how much Russell and Carl now mean to each other.

It always amazes me just how much work goes into making a Pixar movie especially after learning that Docter started writing the script five years before Up was finally released. The lead character of Carl is an interesting one for an animation as he's not somebody who you'd particularly want to root for. But Docter makes him likeable by including that opening montage as well as adding aspects of famous film curmudgeons including Spencer Tracy and Walter Matthau. Carl is voiced brilliantly by Edward Asner who is able to bring out both his character's gruffness and kindness of spirit. Until researching this blog post, I hadn't realised that the character of Russell was an Asian American and that casting a youngster from this ethnic background garnered praise from the local community. After moaning about annoying child stars recently it was great to hear Jordan Nagai's endearing vocals as the wonderfully innocent Russell. Nagai didn't actually audition for the role but his energy was noted by Docter whilst he was waiting for a brother who was up for the role. Every single frame of the feature has been lovingly created, with some of Pixar's animators spending ages in South America to get the features of Paradise Falls completely right. Upon this viewing of Up, which must be my third or fourth, there were several problems I had with the narrative. As a more mature viewer I got a little bit bored in the sections that weren't for me and I didn't particularly care for Kevin the Bird as I found him to be a bit irritating. But with a fine beginning and end, two great voice actors and wonderful animation, Up is a modern classic that will be watched by current and future generations for centuries to come.

Despite producing many incredibly popular animated features, Pixar will always be most famous for the Toy Story films. This is primarily because Toy Story was the studio's first full feature when it was released in 1995. Four years later the sequel was released to even more acclaim but audiences were then made to wait another eleven years for the conclusion to the trilogy. Toy Story 3's main plot saw Woody, Buzz and the gang realise that seventeen-year-old Andy now didn't want to play with them particularly as he was just about to head off to college. The predicament about what to do with our childhood toys is one that all of us have gone through and seeing this through the eyes of the toys themselves is quite unique. Whilst Andy decides to take Woody to college, a choice that I still find odd to this day, the other toys are destined for the attic. However, due to some miscommunication, they end up believing they were destined for the garbage and therefore take matters into their own hands. With Woody splitting himself from the gang, they arrive at Sunnyside Daycare believing that they will find children who'll play with them properly. However, they quickly learn that Daycare is manipulated by the cute-looking but evil-minded Lotso who believes that every toy at the institution has been discarded by a child. I think that screenwriter Michael Arndt did a great job at turning the middle chunk of Toy Story 3 into a prison movie spoof. There were some great scenes in which the returning Woody learnt of the security at the centre and how he would best be able to sneak his friends out. The final scenes of the film though were the most touching, and to me rivalled anything in Up, as the toys believed they were to be incinerated and held hands to face the inevitable. This emotion lasted on to the scene in which Andy finally set a heartfelt goodbye to Woody and friends in a moment that evoked memories of the final moments of Winnie the Pooh.

I think enlisting Arndt to write the script for Toy Story 3 was a masterstroke and one that more that paid off. Arndt, who previously won an Oscar for penning Little Miss Sunshine, knew that the key to the film's charm was the relationship between the toys and therefore based the story around their closeness. The scene in the incinerator still makes me well up when I think about it and that scene where the toys link hands one-by-one is particularly poignant. I found the structure of the film allowed the old characters to shine while at the same time introducing new memorable supporting players. Obviously some of the most memorable scenes in Toy Story 3 belong to Ken, who is superbly voiced here by Michael Keaton, a character who goes from sleazy enforcer to groovy manager of the daycare thanks in part to his relationship with Barbie. Despite the film being about talking toys, Toy Story 3 is a film that feels incredibly close to real life and the fact that it touches on themes of moving on means that it resonates with every member of the audience. I think what makes the Pixar films so great is that they never insult their audience in the way other animated movies seem to. Both in Up and Toy Story 3 the stories are quite complex and contain something for every member of the family. In fact the two films I've watched for this particular post are better written than a lot of the other Oscar-nominated movies that I've talked about recently. The only minus point in Toy Story 3's favour is the fact that Pixar have now announced a fourth film which won't follow on from this classic. Instead it has been announced as a stand-alone sequel which leads me to believe that it's simply an attempt to cash in on the franchise's success. But disregarding that fact I think it's fair to say that Toy Story 3 caps off what is arguably the most consistent and well-rounded film trilogy of all time.

Next time we follow two British national treasures as they go on a trip around America.