As we touched on earlier with Avatar, one of the biggest themes over the last five years has been the reintroduction of 3D to the modern cinema audience. Although not every film fully utilised the medium those that did have to be admired for employing modern technology in such an impressive manner.
One of the films that successfully used 3D to its advantage was Ang Lee's Life of Pi, based on the so-thought unfilmable novel by Yann Martel. The Pi of the title is an Indian native living in Canada who narrates his story to a character known as 'the author' who in fact turns out to be Mantel himself. Although Pi tells Martel several stories from his youth, where he grew up in a zoo, the majority of the film's narrative is based around the journey his family took from India to Canada. During their time at sea, the boat they were on sunk and Pi got free alongside several of the animals. Lee's fantastic visual effects team perfectly captured these scenes, which in other people's hand could've felt quite trite. I feel it's also a testament to Lee as a director that he made the scenes of Pi at sea as engaging as they were. A good hour or so of the film is dedicated to Pi's journey back to land and the problems he had sharing a boat with the zoo's tiger who had been named Richard Parker. Although I never saw the film at the cinema myself, it's fair to say that those that did were treated to some fantastical 3D. Scenes of the night sky lit up by fireflies and an island inhabited by a thousand meerkats were just two of the highlights throughout the course of Life of Pi. The final scenes brought the film back to reality to an extent as Pi told Martel a shorter story about what realistically could've happened to him instead. Here the animals become people from the ship where Pi himself embodies the characteristics of Richard Parker, however there's a final little twist that apparently didn't appear in the book.
This was my second time watching Life of Pi and on both viewings I had the same sort of response. Visually the film is perfection and therefore I'm not surprised that the film was nominated in all of the technical categories at the Oscars. Lee's helming of the project earned him his second Best Director Oscar and I believe that this is more than well-deserved. Anybody who can make a film that contains an hour of nothing but a teenage boy, a tiger and a boat has to be applauded. The fact that this film is one of the most visually engaging in recent memory is just a testament to Lee's artistic vision. At the same time the narrative in Life of Pi is very slight and therefore at times it's hard to give it your full concentration. The majority of the story is packed into the first third of the film in which Pi narrates stories of his early life to Martel. After the shipwreck, Life of Pi becomes more of a survival film albeit one narrated by the protagonist himself. Of the cast I felt that Irrfan Khan did a great job at anchoring the piece as the adult Pi whilst Gerard Depardieu put in a memorable cameo as the ship's cook. However it was relative newcomer Suraj Sharma who deserves the most recognition as he gave a mesmerising turn as the teenage Pi. The fact that Sharma would've been working against a green screen for the majority of the production just proves to you what an accomplished performer he is. Ultimately Life of Pi exploits the visual medium of cinema for all its worth leaving you with many memorable scenes most notably those including the film's infamous tiger. However, I can't say I was gripped throughout the course of the film and could've done with a little more narrative meat to complement Life of Pi's outstanding ascetic charm.
Next time we look at two films that were nominated in the same year that dealt with the growing pains of two very different teenage girls.
Wednesday, 13 May 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 448-449: The Coen Continuation
Oscar's relationship with Joel and Ethan Coen has been an odd one to say the least. The past two decades have seen the brothers garner one Best Picture nod for Fargo and a win for No Country for Old Men. However, with the Best Picture category opening up to ten, the Coens found themselves with back to back nominations in the first two ceremonies of the 2010s.
I've talked recently about how changing the number of nominations from five meant the Academy made some questionable choices and I would say one of those picks applied to the first film in this post. A Serious Man was the Coens' second film after No Country For Old Men, the first being the overtly comic Burn After Reading. While those two films fit neatly into specific genres, I couldn't quite tell you what A Serious Man wanted to be. At times I found it was too clever for its own good especially seeing as it contained an opening sequence that bore no relevance to the rest of the film. The movie's protagonist is Larry Gopnik, a physics professor who leaves what he believes to be a quiet life. The film sees Larry's life fall apart firstly when his wife reveals she's leaving him and then when she kicks him out of the house in favour of her new lover. Additionally Larry is having to support his brother, who participates in several illegal gambling endeavours, and deal with the fact that a student is attempting to bribe him in order to get a passing grade on his course. Aside from the story of Larry, the Coens appear to be filling time by including a subplot involving Larry's son Danny's addiction to pot and how it effects his upcoming bar mitzvah. I have to say that Danny's story is especially weak and only partially plays into the ambiguous ending. I feel the point of the film is to feel sorry for Larry as he experiences problem after problem even owing money to a record club that he never joined in the first place. However it's very hard to sympathise with a man who's attempts to let life pass him buy have finally caught up with him.
More than anything else I found A Serious Man to be a rather annoying film and there wasn't one character that I particularly warmed to. Although Larry seemed like a nice enough fellow, I think the Coens repeated the same formula too many times especially in reference to the character's constant outburst of 'I didn't do anything'. At times it feels as if A Serious Man is attempting to be a comedy and I will admit that I did laugh twice during the film. However, A Serious Man elicited little emotion in me as it progressed and it just left me cold. On the plus side, I do feel the casting of unrecognisable faces helped to add a realistic tone to the film. Particular praise must go to Michael Stuhlbarg for his portrayal of the intelligent but not wholly perceptive Larry. To his credit, Stuhlbarg tries to make the audience root for his character, but I couldn't help but think that a lot of his problems were caused by his apathy. Possibly the most recognisable member of A Serious Man's ensemble is Richard Kind as Larry's needy brother Arthur. As I know Kind primarily as a comedy actor his larger-than-life persona was too much for the downbeat tone of the film. Of all the performances I felt that Fred Melamed probably did best as the slightly sleazy Si Ableman, who's attempts to plot Larry's downfall were quite transparent. Overall I really didn't know what to make of A Serious Man, a film that doesn't really show its hand and one that I never felt I could properly relax into. I was surprised to learn that the film came from the usually reliable Coens who obviously felt like they could deliver a movie which worked for them if not for a wider audience. I can't explain why exactly A Serious Man received an Oscar nomination but I do feel that, had there been less than ten nominees, then it wouldn't have featured in the Best Picture race at all.
Thankfully the Coens were back to their best a year later with their adaptation of True Grit, a novel that had previously been turned into a film back in 1969. That film was most famous for John Wayne's performance as Rooster Cogburn, a part for which he won his only Oscar. Here Cogburn is played by Jeff Bridges, who puts in a suitably gruff turn as the self-serving US Marshall. However I think the film's main strength is the then thirteen-year-old Hailee Steinfeld's performance as the formidable Mattie Ross. For those unfamiliar with the story, it concerns Mattie's quest to track down Tom Chaney, a former employee of her family's who had shot and killed her father. After much persuasion, Mattie convinces Rooster to lead a manhunt for Chaney promising him a handsome reward if he was successful in his mission. Joining Mattie and Rooster on their hunt is Texas Ranger LaBouef; a man who is presented as the opposite to the Marshall in almost every way. It's clear that, unlike the 1969 film, the Coens wanted to put Mattie front and centre as she appears in almost every scene. The odd couple trio of Mattie, Rooster and LaBouef is what makes the film work for me as we see the teenager lose her innocence as she witnesses several murders during the trek. Unlike with A Serious Man, the Coens make you engage with all three of the lead characters meaning that you care about them in the final third of the film when they find themselves in deadly peril. The scene in which Mattie was attacked by a snake was a particular edge-of-your-seat moment for yours truly and I think that demonstrated just how much I'd grown to care about the youngster throughout the course of the film. One issue I did have is that the Coens didn't seem to know how to finish the film and the epilogue involving the older incarnation of Mattie felt a little flat after what had come before.
However, that's a minor niggle in a film which I found to be an utter treat from beginning to end. Although I'm not a massive fan of the western, I do have certain favourites from the genre and this remake of True Grit is the latest addition to that list. The film was primarily shot in New Mexico and the Coens utilise their vast scenery to full effect. True Grit saw the Coens' latest collaboration with Roger Deakins who was unsuccessful yet again in his quest to win the Best Cinematography Oscar. I do feel that Deakins should have won the award for a film in which his shots of the landscape really helped enhance the story of the film. Another worthy winner would've been Hailee Steinfeld who I found utterly captivating from the first moment she appeared on screen. For a first time performance, Steinfeld's turn as Mattie was an absolute joy to watch and she more than held her own against more experienced stars. Steinfeld is able to convey both Mattie's headstrong nature and the fact that at heart she is a simply a teenage girl. Not only did Oscar make one mistake in not giving her an award in made another in putting her in the Supporting rather than Leading Actress category. Why a young woman who appears in almost every scene in the film should be considered a supporting artist boggles the mind but I've long stopped trying to figure out the Academy's logic. Jeff Bridges also deserved the Best Actor award for his performance as Cogburn than he did the previous year as the washed-up singer in Crazy Heart. True Grit was nominated for ten Oscars altogether but ultimately won none thanks to the success of both The King's Speech and Inception. However I think the Coens can be proud of a film that betters the original True Grit in almost every aspect and especially in the casting of Steinfeld who was simply dazzling as Mattie Ross.
From the Wild West we turn to the mystical east for a CGI-heavy fantasy film.
I've talked recently about how changing the number of nominations from five meant the Academy made some questionable choices and I would say one of those picks applied to the first film in this post. A Serious Man was the Coens' second film after No Country For Old Men, the first being the overtly comic Burn After Reading. While those two films fit neatly into specific genres, I couldn't quite tell you what A Serious Man wanted to be. At times I found it was too clever for its own good especially seeing as it contained an opening sequence that bore no relevance to the rest of the film. The movie's protagonist is Larry Gopnik, a physics professor who leaves what he believes to be a quiet life. The film sees Larry's life fall apart firstly when his wife reveals she's leaving him and then when she kicks him out of the house in favour of her new lover. Additionally Larry is having to support his brother, who participates in several illegal gambling endeavours, and deal with the fact that a student is attempting to bribe him in order to get a passing grade on his course. Aside from the story of Larry, the Coens appear to be filling time by including a subplot involving Larry's son Danny's addiction to pot and how it effects his upcoming bar mitzvah. I have to say that Danny's story is especially weak and only partially plays into the ambiguous ending. I feel the point of the film is to feel sorry for Larry as he experiences problem after problem even owing money to a record club that he never joined in the first place. However it's very hard to sympathise with a man who's attempts to let life pass him buy have finally caught up with him.
More than anything else I found A Serious Man to be a rather annoying film and there wasn't one character that I particularly warmed to. Although Larry seemed like a nice enough fellow, I think the Coens repeated the same formula too many times especially in reference to the character's constant outburst of 'I didn't do anything'. At times it feels as if A Serious Man is attempting to be a comedy and I will admit that I did laugh twice during the film. However, A Serious Man elicited little emotion in me as it progressed and it just left me cold. On the plus side, I do feel the casting of unrecognisable faces helped to add a realistic tone to the film. Particular praise must go to Michael Stuhlbarg for his portrayal of the intelligent but not wholly perceptive Larry. To his credit, Stuhlbarg tries to make the audience root for his character, but I couldn't help but think that a lot of his problems were caused by his apathy. Possibly the most recognisable member of A Serious Man's ensemble is Richard Kind as Larry's needy brother Arthur. As I know Kind primarily as a comedy actor his larger-than-life persona was too much for the downbeat tone of the film. Of all the performances I felt that Fred Melamed probably did best as the slightly sleazy Si Ableman, who's attempts to plot Larry's downfall were quite transparent. Overall I really didn't know what to make of A Serious Man, a film that doesn't really show its hand and one that I never felt I could properly relax into. I was surprised to learn that the film came from the usually reliable Coens who obviously felt like they could deliver a movie which worked for them if not for a wider audience. I can't explain why exactly A Serious Man received an Oscar nomination but I do feel that, had there been less than ten nominees, then it wouldn't have featured in the Best Picture race at all.
Thankfully the Coens were back to their best a year later with their adaptation of True Grit, a novel that had previously been turned into a film back in 1969. That film was most famous for John Wayne's performance as Rooster Cogburn, a part for which he won his only Oscar. Here Cogburn is played by Jeff Bridges, who puts in a suitably gruff turn as the self-serving US Marshall. However I think the film's main strength is the then thirteen-year-old Hailee Steinfeld's performance as the formidable Mattie Ross. For those unfamiliar with the story, it concerns Mattie's quest to track down Tom Chaney, a former employee of her family's who had shot and killed her father. After much persuasion, Mattie convinces Rooster to lead a manhunt for Chaney promising him a handsome reward if he was successful in his mission. Joining Mattie and Rooster on their hunt is Texas Ranger LaBouef; a man who is presented as the opposite to the Marshall in almost every way. It's clear that, unlike the 1969 film, the Coens wanted to put Mattie front and centre as she appears in almost every scene. The odd couple trio of Mattie, Rooster and LaBouef is what makes the film work for me as we see the teenager lose her innocence as she witnesses several murders during the trek. Unlike with A Serious Man, the Coens make you engage with all three of the lead characters meaning that you care about them in the final third of the film when they find themselves in deadly peril. The scene in which Mattie was attacked by a snake was a particular edge-of-your-seat moment for yours truly and I think that demonstrated just how much I'd grown to care about the youngster throughout the course of the film. One issue I did have is that the Coens didn't seem to know how to finish the film and the epilogue involving the older incarnation of Mattie felt a little flat after what had come before.
However, that's a minor niggle in a film which I found to be an utter treat from beginning to end. Although I'm not a massive fan of the western, I do have certain favourites from the genre and this remake of True Grit is the latest addition to that list. The film was primarily shot in New Mexico and the Coens utilise their vast scenery to full effect. True Grit saw the Coens' latest collaboration with Roger Deakins who was unsuccessful yet again in his quest to win the Best Cinematography Oscar. I do feel that Deakins should have won the award for a film in which his shots of the landscape really helped enhance the story of the film. Another worthy winner would've been Hailee Steinfeld who I found utterly captivating from the first moment she appeared on screen. For a first time performance, Steinfeld's turn as Mattie was an absolute joy to watch and she more than held her own against more experienced stars. Steinfeld is able to convey both Mattie's headstrong nature and the fact that at heart she is a simply a teenage girl. Not only did Oscar make one mistake in not giving her an award in made another in putting her in the Supporting rather than Leading Actress category. Why a young woman who appears in almost every scene in the film should be considered a supporting artist boggles the mind but I've long stopped trying to figure out the Academy's logic. Jeff Bridges also deserved the Best Actor award for his performance as Cogburn than he did the previous year as the washed-up singer in Crazy Heart. True Grit was nominated for ten Oscars altogether but ultimately won none thanks to the success of both The King's Speech and Inception. However I think the Coens can be proud of a film that betters the original True Grit in almost every aspect and especially in the casting of Steinfeld who was simply dazzling as Mattie Ross.
From the Wild West we turn to the mystical east for a CGI-heavy fantasy film.
Sunday, 10 May 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 446-447: A Couple More Pitts
After exploring Brad Pitt's back catalogue in the early noughties it appears that the Academy's love affair with the movie star is continuing into the next decade. However, as Brad grows up, so does the films he stars in and this post deals with two very different dramas that he had a a hand in.
We commence with Moneyball, in which Pitt plays Billy Beane, the General Manager to the Oakland Athletics Baseball Team. The film follows the fortunes of Beane as he attempts to construct a new team on a small budget after the departure of his three top players. Instead of listening to his more experienced scouts, Billy decides to follow the advice of Peter Brand a young Yale graduate who he meets at one of the other clubs. Peter's philosophy involves looking at the runs that each player has acquired over a season and working out how each game should be played. As a result of Peter's theory, Billy finds a team for a budget he can afford even though each player has some major flaw whether it be a bad attitude, a lack of confidence or that they're just over-the-hill. Though Moneyball does follow the format of sports films I've watched it the past, what makes it work is its fast-paced script. Based on the book of the same name by Michael Lewis, Moneyball has been adapted by the master that is Aaron Sorkin alongside Steve Zaillian. Moneyball does include a lot of dialogue that is pure Sorkin, as Billy and Peter banter back and forth in expert style. Sorkin and Zaillian deftly weave the story of Oakland's 2002 season with Billy's back story in which we learn that he himself was a first draft pick. Unfortunately, Billy suffered from a lack of confidence and later decided that being a scout would be a better role for him than on the pitch. I feel that these flashback scenes make us sympathise more with the character of Billy and we're willing him to succeed as Oakland starts to make a comeback later in the season. If I have one qualm about the script then it's the quite clichéd relationship that Billy has with his twelve-year-old daughter which is basically a set up to the final scene in the film.
Alongside the fabulous script, Moneyball's other ace in the hole is Brad Pitt whose performance in the film is great. I believe that Moneyball ushers in a shift in the tone of Pitt's performances as he adds an extra layer of maturity to the character of Billy. This is best exemplified during the scenes in which Billy is listening to the games being played as he never attends the games mainly due to superstition. Pitt earned his second Best Actor nomination for Moneyball and I have to say that it was a lot more deserved than his previous nod for Benjamin Button. While in that film the make-up did most of the work, Moneyball's realistic feel allows Pitt to be front and centre. Also worthy of praise is Jonah Hill, who left the world of frat boy comedy behind to play the slightly nervous Peter Brand. Hill never played his role for laughs and instead his character formed an awkward relationship both with Billy and the players. Hill's Supporting Actor nomination should have been a turning point in his career but unfortunately he followed this up with the woeful comedy The Sitter. Despite him not having a major role as Oakland's manager Art, Philip Seymour Hoffman still gets to showcase his major skills in a number of scenes. I believe part of the reason Hoffman appears in the film is because it reunites him with Capote director Bennett Miller. Just like in Capote, Miller proves himself to be a solid director as he weaves an easy-to-follow narrative with some brilliant scenes of each individual game. Despite acquiring six nominations at that year's Oscar ceremony, Moneyball ultimately went home empty-handed which I feel is a shame especially for Sorkin and Zaillian. Although I have seen Moneyball before I definitely enjoyed it more this second time around and I feel that it's a solidly enjoyable drama which is bolstered by two fine performances by Hill and Pitt.
Two years later Pitt finally won his first Oscar but it was for his role as producer rather than actor. Pitt does have a small role in Steve McQueen's 12 Years a Slave but his character Samuel Bass only appears in the latter stages of the film. But it was Pitt's Plan B Production Company who financed the project that was first conceived by director McQueen and writer John Ridley. Both had wanted to create a movie about the slave trade and it was only when McQueen's partner read Solomon Northup's book of the same name. When the film begins, Northup is a free man living in proper society and making a living as a violinist. I got the impression that the film would spend more time focusing on Northup's life as a gentleman but instead he was sold into slavery quite early in the film. After being double-crossed by two men, Northup finds himself being sold to plantation owner William Ford. Ford is presented as quite a kindly man who grows fond of Northup, who now goes under the name of Platt, especially when he realises how educated he is. But Northup falls foul of Ford's overseer Tibeats and the two finally come to blows with the former almost being hung to death. The second half of the film is possibly the most memorable as Northup is sold to the tyrannical Edwin Epps, a man who views the slaves as his property. McQueen focuses on the vicious manner in which he punishes the slaves the don't pull their weight at his cotton-picking facility. Meanwhile, cinematographer Sean Bobbitt closes in on the scars that Solomon and his co-workers have following their punishment. Edwin's feelings for female slave Patsey are also described in great detail with his wife taking against her husband's desire for the girl. What follows are more brutal scenes as Edwin's wife takes out her frustrations on Patsey whilst the couple later involve Northup in their torture. It's only when Bass arrives in the final scenes that Solomon finally earns his freedom but McQueen is quick to inform us that the brutality continued for Patsey and her ilk.
In the past I've been a fan of McQueen's work and in particular his second film Shame which was perfectly shot throughout. McQueen's former career as an artist is definitely on show here as there are some brilliant sweeping shots of the New Orleans scenery. As I previously mentioned the cruelties inflicted on the slaves are captured in shocking detail and at times I found 12 Years a Slave hard to watch. The issue I have with a lot of true life tales is that you know how the story will end and that's certainly true of a movie that has the length of Solomon's hardship in its tale. The fact that the audience know that Solomon is a free man makes 12 Years a Slave a frustrating watch as our hero must fight adversity in order to get out of his predicament. As with a lot of 'issue-based' films, 12 Years a Slave occasionally feels overly preachy as McQueen and Ridley's message is a little overbearing. At the same time I think they do their best to avoid sentimentality and instead focus on a man who uses his intelligence to survive his unjust time as a slave. Part of the reason I was involved with the film as I was was due to the fantastic lead performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon. From the first time Solomon finds himself in chains, Ejiofor is fantastic at using facial expressions to convey just how much his character is suffering inside. Due to the fact that Solomon has decided to keep his head down, Ejiofor doesn't have too many lines of dialogue but tells the story via his body language, which I feel is the mark of any true actor. McQueen's regular collaborator Michael Fassbender excels as the despicable Edwin Epps and is particularly great during the film's harshest moments. Although both Ejiofor and Fassbender were nominated for Oscars it was Lupita Nyong'o who triumphed winning Best Supporting Actress for her role as Patsey. However I wasn't blown away by Nyong'o's performance and I feel that the Academy mainly honoured her due to the suffering her character experiences throughout the film. Ultimately 12 Years a Slave was artistically directed and brilliantly shot while Ejiofor gave a fantastic central turn. But at the same time I don't think I was as emotionally invested in the film as I probably should have been and as much as I respected the film I wasn't ever moved by what happened to Solomon and his fellow slaves.
Next up we continue to evaluate the work of a pair of brothers who have made a major impact at the Academy Awards.
We commence with Moneyball, in which Pitt plays Billy Beane, the General Manager to the Oakland Athletics Baseball Team. The film follows the fortunes of Beane as he attempts to construct a new team on a small budget after the departure of his three top players. Instead of listening to his more experienced scouts, Billy decides to follow the advice of Peter Brand a young Yale graduate who he meets at one of the other clubs. Peter's philosophy involves looking at the runs that each player has acquired over a season and working out how each game should be played. As a result of Peter's theory, Billy finds a team for a budget he can afford even though each player has some major flaw whether it be a bad attitude, a lack of confidence or that they're just over-the-hill. Though Moneyball does follow the format of sports films I've watched it the past, what makes it work is its fast-paced script. Based on the book of the same name by Michael Lewis, Moneyball has been adapted by the master that is Aaron Sorkin alongside Steve Zaillian. Moneyball does include a lot of dialogue that is pure Sorkin, as Billy and Peter banter back and forth in expert style. Sorkin and Zaillian deftly weave the story of Oakland's 2002 season with Billy's back story in which we learn that he himself was a first draft pick. Unfortunately, Billy suffered from a lack of confidence and later decided that being a scout would be a better role for him than on the pitch. I feel that these flashback scenes make us sympathise more with the character of Billy and we're willing him to succeed as Oakland starts to make a comeback later in the season. If I have one qualm about the script then it's the quite clichéd relationship that Billy has with his twelve-year-old daughter which is basically a set up to the final scene in the film.
Alongside the fabulous script, Moneyball's other ace in the hole is Brad Pitt whose performance in the film is great. I believe that Moneyball ushers in a shift in the tone of Pitt's performances as he adds an extra layer of maturity to the character of Billy. This is best exemplified during the scenes in which Billy is listening to the games being played as he never attends the games mainly due to superstition. Pitt earned his second Best Actor nomination for Moneyball and I have to say that it was a lot more deserved than his previous nod for Benjamin Button. While in that film the make-up did most of the work, Moneyball's realistic feel allows Pitt to be front and centre. Also worthy of praise is Jonah Hill, who left the world of frat boy comedy behind to play the slightly nervous Peter Brand. Hill never played his role for laughs and instead his character formed an awkward relationship both with Billy and the players. Hill's Supporting Actor nomination should have been a turning point in his career but unfortunately he followed this up with the woeful comedy The Sitter. Despite him not having a major role as Oakland's manager Art, Philip Seymour Hoffman still gets to showcase his major skills in a number of scenes. I believe part of the reason Hoffman appears in the film is because it reunites him with Capote director Bennett Miller. Just like in Capote, Miller proves himself to be a solid director as he weaves an easy-to-follow narrative with some brilliant scenes of each individual game. Despite acquiring six nominations at that year's Oscar ceremony, Moneyball ultimately went home empty-handed which I feel is a shame especially for Sorkin and Zaillian. Although I have seen Moneyball before I definitely enjoyed it more this second time around and I feel that it's a solidly enjoyable drama which is bolstered by two fine performances by Hill and Pitt.
Two years later Pitt finally won his first Oscar but it was for his role as producer rather than actor. Pitt does have a small role in Steve McQueen's 12 Years a Slave but his character Samuel Bass only appears in the latter stages of the film. But it was Pitt's Plan B Production Company who financed the project that was first conceived by director McQueen and writer John Ridley. Both had wanted to create a movie about the slave trade and it was only when McQueen's partner read Solomon Northup's book of the same name. When the film begins, Northup is a free man living in proper society and making a living as a violinist. I got the impression that the film would spend more time focusing on Northup's life as a gentleman but instead he was sold into slavery quite early in the film. After being double-crossed by two men, Northup finds himself being sold to plantation owner William Ford. Ford is presented as quite a kindly man who grows fond of Northup, who now goes under the name of Platt, especially when he realises how educated he is. But Northup falls foul of Ford's overseer Tibeats and the two finally come to blows with the former almost being hung to death. The second half of the film is possibly the most memorable as Northup is sold to the tyrannical Edwin Epps, a man who views the slaves as his property. McQueen focuses on the vicious manner in which he punishes the slaves the don't pull their weight at his cotton-picking facility. Meanwhile, cinematographer Sean Bobbitt closes in on the scars that Solomon and his co-workers have following their punishment. Edwin's feelings for female slave Patsey are also described in great detail with his wife taking against her husband's desire for the girl. What follows are more brutal scenes as Edwin's wife takes out her frustrations on Patsey whilst the couple later involve Northup in their torture. It's only when Bass arrives in the final scenes that Solomon finally earns his freedom but McQueen is quick to inform us that the brutality continued for Patsey and her ilk.
In the past I've been a fan of McQueen's work and in particular his second film Shame which was perfectly shot throughout. McQueen's former career as an artist is definitely on show here as there are some brilliant sweeping shots of the New Orleans scenery. As I previously mentioned the cruelties inflicted on the slaves are captured in shocking detail and at times I found 12 Years a Slave hard to watch. The issue I have with a lot of true life tales is that you know how the story will end and that's certainly true of a movie that has the length of Solomon's hardship in its tale. The fact that the audience know that Solomon is a free man makes 12 Years a Slave a frustrating watch as our hero must fight adversity in order to get out of his predicament. As with a lot of 'issue-based' films, 12 Years a Slave occasionally feels overly preachy as McQueen and Ridley's message is a little overbearing. At the same time I think they do their best to avoid sentimentality and instead focus on a man who uses his intelligence to survive his unjust time as a slave. Part of the reason I was involved with the film as I was was due to the fantastic lead performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon. From the first time Solomon finds himself in chains, Ejiofor is fantastic at using facial expressions to convey just how much his character is suffering inside. Due to the fact that Solomon has decided to keep his head down, Ejiofor doesn't have too many lines of dialogue but tells the story via his body language, which I feel is the mark of any true actor. McQueen's regular collaborator Michael Fassbender excels as the despicable Edwin Epps and is particularly great during the film's harshest moments. Although both Ejiofor and Fassbender were nominated for Oscars it was Lupita Nyong'o who triumphed winning Best Supporting Actress for her role as Patsey. However I wasn't blown away by Nyong'o's performance and I feel that the Academy mainly honoured her due to the suffering her character experiences throughout the film. Ultimately 12 Years a Slave was artistically directed and brilliantly shot while Ejiofor gave a fantastic central turn. But at the same time I don't think I was as emotionally invested in the film as I probably should have been and as much as I respected the film I wasn't ever moved by what happened to Solomon and his fellow slaves.
Next up we continue to evaluate the work of a pair of brothers who have made a major impact at the Academy Awards.
Monday, 4 May 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 445: Judi and Steve's American Road-Trip
Occasionally I find that some films are screened at the cinemas specifically for the purpose of being nominated for Oscars and other awards. For example, back when I reviewed The Queen, I noted how it seemed that the production was originally going to air on TV before Mirren's performance started to look Oscar-worthy.
The same could definitely be said for Philomena, which is based on Martin Sixsmith's book about his assistance in the search for the forcibly adopted son of an old Irish lady. Just like The Queen, Philomena is directed by Stephen Frears and to further my suspicions it has been produced by BBC Films. Meanwhile, Sixsmith's book has been adapted here by veteran TV screenwriter Jeff Pope alongside Steve Coogan; who portrays the former journalist in the film. Although Pope and Coogan's script received a nomination at the Oscars, it was Judi Dench's central turn as Philomena herself that was main draw for the Academy. Philomena saw Dench play against type, as her character is a rather vulnerable old lady who is full of regret about an event in her life that she's kept secret for fifty years. Dench so often portrays strong older women, such as M. in James Bond, that it was odd to see her play such a different character. As the film progresses, Philomena and Martin learn that her son was sold to an American couple by the nuns at the Irish convent in which the baby was born. The scenes in America are perfectly written as Philomena learns that her son had died years earlier and that Martin had actually briefly met him. The final discoveries the pair make are that Anthony, who was renamed Michael, was gay and that he'd actually visited Ireland with the purpose of trying to find his birth mother. This heartbreaking revelation leaves Martin feeling angry but at the same time demonstrates the strength of Philomena's character by allowing her the chance to forgive the nuns who wronged her.
I'm actually quite surprised that Philomena did as well in America as it did seeing as it attacks two of its favourite institutions; The Republican Party and The Catholic Church. Indeed, there had been accusations that the film was simply a ninety-minute attack of the Catholic Church but I didn't feel this was true. For example Philomena's faith is completely unwavering and in fact it allows her to forgive those who have wronged her. The trade of journalism doesn't come off too well either especially when Martin's editor forces him to stay in America just after he and Philomena had discovered that Michael had passed away. There were also criticisms of the dramatic license that Pope and Coogan took with their script even though almost every biopic does the same thing. The biggest change between the book and the film is that Philomena never went to America with Martin but I personally don't think the film would've worked if she'd have stayed in the UK. In fact one of Philomena's best qualities was the odd couple relationship between the wise Irish woman and the cynical former spin doctor. Judi Dench is fantastic in the role of a woman who isn't as stupid as everyone believes she is whilst Steve Coogan plays to his strengths utilising a mixture of comedy and drama as the sneering Sixsmith. My biggest shock about Philomena is the amount of controversy that it caused as; at the end of the day it's an enjoyable run-of-the-mill biographical drama that I found to be an easy watch. Though I didn't get as emotional watching Philomena as I did the first time, it's still a thought-provoking film to sit through even if I don't believe it would've made it on to the big screen had it not been for Dench's Oscar-nominated central turn.
Next time we concentrate on the career of an actor we previously looked in on during the first decade of the 21st century.
The same could definitely be said for Philomena, which is based on Martin Sixsmith's book about his assistance in the search for the forcibly adopted son of an old Irish lady. Just like The Queen, Philomena is directed by Stephen Frears and to further my suspicions it has been produced by BBC Films. Meanwhile, Sixsmith's book has been adapted here by veteran TV screenwriter Jeff Pope alongside Steve Coogan; who portrays the former journalist in the film. Although Pope and Coogan's script received a nomination at the Oscars, it was Judi Dench's central turn as Philomena herself that was main draw for the Academy. Philomena saw Dench play against type, as her character is a rather vulnerable old lady who is full of regret about an event in her life that she's kept secret for fifty years. Dench so often portrays strong older women, such as M. in James Bond, that it was odd to see her play such a different character. As the film progresses, Philomena and Martin learn that her son was sold to an American couple by the nuns at the Irish convent in which the baby was born. The scenes in America are perfectly written as Philomena learns that her son had died years earlier and that Martin had actually briefly met him. The final discoveries the pair make are that Anthony, who was renamed Michael, was gay and that he'd actually visited Ireland with the purpose of trying to find his birth mother. This heartbreaking revelation leaves Martin feeling angry but at the same time demonstrates the strength of Philomena's character by allowing her the chance to forgive the nuns who wronged her.
I'm actually quite surprised that Philomena did as well in America as it did seeing as it attacks two of its favourite institutions; The Republican Party and The Catholic Church. Indeed, there had been accusations that the film was simply a ninety-minute attack of the Catholic Church but I didn't feel this was true. For example Philomena's faith is completely unwavering and in fact it allows her to forgive those who have wronged her. The trade of journalism doesn't come off too well either especially when Martin's editor forces him to stay in America just after he and Philomena had discovered that Michael had passed away. There were also criticisms of the dramatic license that Pope and Coogan took with their script even though almost every biopic does the same thing. The biggest change between the book and the film is that Philomena never went to America with Martin but I personally don't think the film would've worked if she'd have stayed in the UK. In fact one of Philomena's best qualities was the odd couple relationship between the wise Irish woman and the cynical former spin doctor. Judi Dench is fantastic in the role of a woman who isn't as stupid as everyone believes she is whilst Steve Coogan plays to his strengths utilising a mixture of comedy and drama as the sneering Sixsmith. My biggest shock about Philomena is the amount of controversy that it caused as; at the end of the day it's an enjoyable run-of-the-mill biographical drama that I found to be an easy watch. Though I didn't get as emotional watching Philomena as I did the first time, it's still a thought-provoking film to sit through even if I don't believe it would've made it on to the big screen had it not been for Dench's Oscar-nominated central turn.
Next time we concentrate on the career of an actor we previously looked in on during the first decade of the 21st century.
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.
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.
Sunday, 3 May 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 442: Everlasting Love
As we've learnt, it's quite hard to secure a Best Picture nomination if you're a film in anything other than the English language. In fact being a foreign film in the Best Picture category is quite an exclusive club with the most recent member being Michael Haneke's Amour.
In some ways Amour is quite an ironic title as Haneke's film focuses on an old French couple in their eighties who experience a significant trauma. After an early scene at a concert, the rest of Amour takes place in the apartment of retired piano teachers Anne and Georges. The film's story looks at Anne's increasing reliance on Georges after quietly suffering a stroke and how he reacts to the help provided. Although Haneke spoils the end of the story by putting the final scene at the beginning, it's still interesting to see how the deterioration of this once capable couple. After Anne's stroke, Georges believes she'll recover and the film slowly follows him helping her with her exercises. Unfortunately for him, just when there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel, Anne suffers a second stroke which leaves her unable to talk. After this tragic event, things start to go downhill for Georges as he shuts almost everybody else out as he feels he can care for his wife on his own. He fires a nurse he believes has been abusing Anne and chastises his daughter when she suggests they put her mother in a nursing home. Eventually, Georges does what we know he will do but Haneke makes the moment all the more shocking by preceding it with quite a mundane story. Throughout Amour, Darius Khondji's camera focuses on Anne's expressive face and this final scene is no different. Despite what Georges does we still sympathise with him primarily as we've seen what he's been through and recognise that what happened to the film's central couple could easily happen to any one of us.
Suffice to say Amour is quite a tough watch as Haneke makes you feel like you're watching a real couple suffering through Anne and Georges' plight. This is a testament to actors Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant both of whom inhabit the character of Anne and Georges for the film's two hour running time. Riva's performance was widely-acclaimed by critics and her nomination for Best Actress saw her become the oldest woman ever to receive that particular accolade. In my mind there was no way she shouldn't have won for her performance that touched almost every individual who saw the film. From the opening scene in which Khondji's camera picks them up at the theatre, Riva is an engaging screen presence and the compelling nature of her character only continues after Anne suffers her stroke. Riva makes us suffer with her and is particularly outstanding at portraying Anne's emotions after she loses the ability to speak. Trinitignant is no less spectacular, even though his performance didn't receive as much recognition as that of his on screen wife. I feel this is because Trinitignant almost acts as the straight man of the pair as he has the job of explaining the situation to both the audience and the other characters. However I found that he played Georges' frustration perfectly and his descent into despair is perfectly played by the actor. For a film about two music teachers it's interesting that for the most part there is no background music in Amour. This is most evident when we are allowed to hear certain classical pieces, most of which have some sort of resonance to Anne's history. Heartbreaking but at that same time life affirming, Amour is definitely one of the best films I've watched over the last few years. Due to its subject matter and the fact it's in a different language, it's a surprise that it even received a Best Picture nomination. However I'm glad it did as it once again proves that the Academy are broadening their horizons and looking at well-made, thought-provoking films that might not tick all the standard Best Picture sized boxes.
Next time we lighten the mood with two films suitable for all ages.
In some ways Amour is quite an ironic title as Haneke's film focuses on an old French couple in their eighties who experience a significant trauma. After an early scene at a concert, the rest of Amour takes place in the apartment of retired piano teachers Anne and Georges. The film's story looks at Anne's increasing reliance on Georges after quietly suffering a stroke and how he reacts to the help provided. Although Haneke spoils the end of the story by putting the final scene at the beginning, it's still interesting to see how the deterioration of this once capable couple. After Anne's stroke, Georges believes she'll recover and the film slowly follows him helping her with her exercises. Unfortunately for him, just when there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel, Anne suffers a second stroke which leaves her unable to talk. After this tragic event, things start to go downhill for Georges as he shuts almost everybody else out as he feels he can care for his wife on his own. He fires a nurse he believes has been abusing Anne and chastises his daughter when she suggests they put her mother in a nursing home. Eventually, Georges does what we know he will do but Haneke makes the moment all the more shocking by preceding it with quite a mundane story. Throughout Amour, Darius Khondji's camera focuses on Anne's expressive face and this final scene is no different. Despite what Georges does we still sympathise with him primarily as we've seen what he's been through and recognise that what happened to the film's central couple could easily happen to any one of us.
Suffice to say Amour is quite a tough watch as Haneke makes you feel like you're watching a real couple suffering through Anne and Georges' plight. This is a testament to actors Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant both of whom inhabit the character of Anne and Georges for the film's two hour running time. Riva's performance was widely-acclaimed by critics and her nomination for Best Actress saw her become the oldest woman ever to receive that particular accolade. In my mind there was no way she shouldn't have won for her performance that touched almost every individual who saw the film. From the opening scene in which Khondji's camera picks them up at the theatre, Riva is an engaging screen presence and the compelling nature of her character only continues after Anne suffers her stroke. Riva makes us suffer with her and is particularly outstanding at portraying Anne's emotions after she loses the ability to speak. Trinitignant is no less spectacular, even though his performance didn't receive as much recognition as that of his on screen wife. I feel this is because Trinitignant almost acts as the straight man of the pair as he has the job of explaining the situation to both the audience and the other characters. However I found that he played Georges' frustration perfectly and his descent into despair is perfectly played by the actor. For a film about two music teachers it's interesting that for the most part there is no background music in Amour. This is most evident when we are allowed to hear certain classical pieces, most of which have some sort of resonance to Anne's history. Heartbreaking but at that same time life affirming, Amour is definitely one of the best films I've watched over the last few years. Due to its subject matter and the fact it's in a different language, it's a surprise that it even received a Best Picture nomination. However I'm glad it did as it once again proves that the Academy are broadening their horizons and looking at well-made, thought-provoking films that might not tick all the standard Best Picture sized boxes.
Next time we lighten the mood with two films suitable for all ages.
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 439-441: A Load of Bullock's
Throughout the last couple of decades Sandra Bullock was mainly seen as an actress who'd fronted a number of successful romantic comedies. That perception slightly changed when she featured in the Best Picture winning Crash and was finally altered for good when she won her only Best Actress Award to date at the 2010 ceremony.
Bullock won her award for The Blind Side, a film which saw her play the kindly but abrupt interior designer Leigh Ann Tuohy. I personally feel though that Bullock isn't the star of the film as this isn't really Leigh Ann's story but rather that of Michael Oher. We first meet 'Big Mike' when his size impresses the coach at the prestigious Wingate Christian School enough to grant him a scholarship. The problem is that Michael can't play for the school football team until his grades improve which is a shame as he doesn't seem to comprehend anything that is being taught to him. At the same time Michael finds himself out on the streets and is rescued by Leigh Ann and her family. The relationship between Leigh Ann and Michael is probably why the film struck a chord with the Academy and why Bullock ultimately received her Oscar. But at the same time I felt this part of the film was rather saccharine as getting to know Michael helped Leigh Ann to grow as a person. Instead I enjoyed watching Michael try attempt to find his place in the world and struggle with the fact that the Tuohy's intentions may not have been all they seemed. Judging from the poster alone, The Blind Side is seemingly about football but there is very little of the sport included in the film. There is only one extended football game in the movie and if you've ever seen a sporting film before you know exactly what to expect. Indeed, The Blind Side isn't very big on surprises but instead is one of those sort of films that Oscar loves to honour that being a 'feel good story'.
Whilst Bullock received all of the praised for The Blind Side I'd instead like to complement Quinton Aaron on his performance as Michael. I felt that he perfectly captured the essence of the gentle giant with Michael having the body of a giant but the mind of a child. I don't think Aaron ever made Michael into a patronising character and instead made him feel incredibly three-dimensional. That's more can be said for Bullock's Academy Award-winning turn in which she seemingly drew inspiration from previous Best Actress performances. Bullock's performance particularly evoked memories of Sally Field in Norma Rae and Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich both of whom won the Oscar for their roles. But while those two characters stood up for something they believed in, all Tuohy did was act as a Good Samaritan for a boy in need. I think my main problem with the role, and the film as a whole, is that there's not much story progression one Michael moves in with the Tuohys. Leigh Ann is definitely a one-note character meaning that Bullock was hard pushed to actually deliver a spot on performance. I believe that Bullock's win was primarily due to the fact that the Academy believed that it was her time to win one. Never mind that there were better performances from less established stars as Bullock was going to win the Oscar regardless of how good she was. The Blind Side's other Oscar-shaped surprise was the fact that it was nominated for Best Picture at all. As I've already mentioned, the 2010 ceremony saw the reintroduction of ten nominees meaning that some mediocre pictures had to be given nods. The Blind Side was one of those films which I believed was simply filling a gap and was one of the reasons that, two years later, the Academy decided to honour between five and ten films rather than a set number.
However, even this new system of picking nominees didn't stop the occasional bad movie turning up and that's just what happened when Bullock's next nominated film turned up. I still remember distinct whooping coming from the audience when Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close's Best Picture nomination was announced to the assembled crowd of press and PR people. This to me signals that one of its main intentions was to garner as many Oscar nominations as possible which is reinforced by the fact it had a limited release during the final week of 2011. The film also includes a ton of familiar faces including Bullock, Tom Hanks, Max Von Sydow, Viola Davis, John Goodman and Jeffrey Jones. Unfortunately for this talented bunch they're simply supporting players with the lead role being taken by Thomas Horn, a young man who had no prior acting experience before being cast in the film's lead role. This to me was one of the key problems with Extremely Loud as the character of Oskar Schell is a tricky one to pull off due to the fact that he suffers from some form of autism. I do feel that even a talented child actor would struggle to make Oskar seem sympathetic so in my opinion Horn was fighting a losing battle. It got to the point that occasionally during the film I just wanted to slap Oskar as Horn wasn't able to convey the fact that his character sometimes spoke out of turn without realising it. As well as including the Academy favourite of a character with a learning difficulty, Extremely Loud's other ace in the hole was that it concentrated on the events of 9/11. Oskar's father Thomas Schell, played by Hanks, was the only person who really understood him and so his son was devastated when he was killed at the World Trade Center. The film centres on Oskar's search to find the lock that fits the key that his father left for him and that had the name Black on it. Although the quest for the mysterious Black is an interesting one, I felt that director Stephen Daldry didn't do enough to make us care about Oskar's end goal.
I personally felt there were only two enjoyable parts of the film the first of which is when Max Von Sydow enters the story as a character simply known as 'The Renter'. The mystery man is renting a house with Oskar's grandmother and cannot speak leading to some interesting odd couple scenes between the pair. It's quite clear that The Renter is Oskar's grandfather as our protagonist starts to notice similarities in the mannerisms between he and his late father. Von Sydow rightfully received Extremely Loud's only nomination although he ultimately lost the Best Supporting Actor fight to Christopher Plummer. I then had to wait until the film's conclusion for something else to grab me namely Sandra Bullock's time to shine as Oskar's mother Linda. Throughout the film Linda had been somewhat of an afterthought but Bullock proved why she'd been cast in the movie during the revelation that her character had been ahead of her son the entire time. The story of Linda's meeting of all of the Blacks was more engaging than anything that Oskar had done during the entire film and it made me wish that we'd have had more of her on screen during the film. Aside from Bullock and Von Sydow everything else about Extremely Loud was felt cloying from the overblown score to the focus on subjects that the producers knew that the Academy loved. I do feel I've been spoilt a bit after watching Hugo, a film with two fine child actors, but I think that if Oskar had been cast more successfully then I would've enjoyed Extremely Loud a little more. Horn had in fact been cast after producer Scott Rudin saw him on a game show and I bet that he regretted his decision after seeing the finished product. Thankfully Horn has now returned to his studies and is putting acting on the back-burner for the time being and let's just hope that his skills have vastly improved if he ever decides to darken the big screen again.
After one film in which I felt she was over-rated and one film in which she wasn't given the chance to shine, I'm glad that Sandra Bullock's talents were finally on display during Gravity. The film is another rare example of the Academy honouring a sci-fi movie, something that still rarely happens despite the increased number of Best Picture nominees. Gravity saw Bullock nominated for her second Best Actress award for playing Mission Specialist Ryan Stone, a biomedical engineer who is currently on her first NASA Mission. The film concentrates on Ryan's predicament after her shuttle is hit with debris from a Russian satellite killing everyone but her and veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski. From there the plot of the film sees Ryan and Matt's mission to get to the International Space Station with a limited supply of oxygen between them. Gravity is very simplistic in nature with Alfonso Cuaron's script, which was co-written with his son Jonas, feeling very basic in nature. Ryan is a character who has gone into space after essentially losing everything as her daughter was killed aged just six years old. Meanwhile Matt is the classic veteran who is on his last NASA mission and is eager to return to Earth. I felt it was quite clear what was going to happen to each character but the ride to the finish line was still expertly plotted. Cuaron's Oscar winning direction was one of the main draws of Gravity due to the fact that he made every moment count. At just ninety minutes, Gravity is one of the shortest Best Picture nominees but its running time is one of its strengths as it adds to the intensity of the situation. Eventually separating herself from Matt, Ryan's endeavours continue as she's forced to go it alone and endures several life-threatening situations. The first time I watched Gravity I was literally biting my nails during the final sequence as I waited to see if Ryan would make it to Earth in one piece.
The fact that Gravity had such an emotional impact on me is a credit to all of the team involved in the film. The Academy agreed with that statement awarding Gravity with seven of the ten Oscars it was nominated for that night. Gravity became one of a number of films that won multiple awards without getting the Best Picture nod only beating Cabaret which won eight but lost out to The Godfather. Gravity's wins included two successes in the sound category which to me was one of the movie's key aspects with the silent nature of the space playing a big part throughout. I personally felt the use of sound added to the dramatic effect of the film with Ryan's voice coming slowly into the film as it began. Steven Price's Oscar-winning score was similarly moving as it echoed Ryan's struggles perfectly and added even more tension to the film's final scenes. Whilst she didn't win an award for the film, a lot of praise has to go for Sandra Bullock for being extremely captivating in a film in which she was on screen for every frame. Bullock's facial expressions were perfectly judged as she made the audience sympathise with a woman who still grieving for the daughter she'd lost. Aside from Bullock, the only other cast member with a sizeable role in Gravity was George Clooney who to me seemed to be channelling Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear. Clooney's charisma was fully exploited in the role of Matt although he came good when he had to act as a mentor to Bullock's rookie astronaut. There was a lot of confusion when Gravity took home the award for Best British Film at that year's BAFTAs especially as it's a film with two big American stars and is directed by a Mexican. However the award-winning Production Design and Visual Effects were all done in several English studios. I do believe that Gravity perfectly exemplifies the skill of the British Film Industry who worked tirelessly to recreate the zero-gravity atmosphere of the movie. I would go as far as to say that Gravity probably deserved to win the Best Picture award over that year's victor as it's an example of great film-making that contains a compelling if basic story and perfectly utilises modern day cinematic techniques.
Next time we focus on the most recent foreign language film to receive a Best Picture nomination.
Bullock won her award for The Blind Side, a film which saw her play the kindly but abrupt interior designer Leigh Ann Tuohy. I personally feel though that Bullock isn't the star of the film as this isn't really Leigh Ann's story but rather that of Michael Oher. We first meet 'Big Mike' when his size impresses the coach at the prestigious Wingate Christian School enough to grant him a scholarship. The problem is that Michael can't play for the school football team until his grades improve which is a shame as he doesn't seem to comprehend anything that is being taught to him. At the same time Michael finds himself out on the streets and is rescued by Leigh Ann and her family. The relationship between Leigh Ann and Michael is probably why the film struck a chord with the Academy and why Bullock ultimately received her Oscar. But at the same time I felt this part of the film was rather saccharine as getting to know Michael helped Leigh Ann to grow as a person. Instead I enjoyed watching Michael try attempt to find his place in the world and struggle with the fact that the Tuohy's intentions may not have been all they seemed. Judging from the poster alone, The Blind Side is seemingly about football but there is very little of the sport included in the film. There is only one extended football game in the movie and if you've ever seen a sporting film before you know exactly what to expect. Indeed, The Blind Side isn't very big on surprises but instead is one of those sort of films that Oscar loves to honour that being a 'feel good story'.
Whilst Bullock received all of the praised for The Blind Side I'd instead like to complement Quinton Aaron on his performance as Michael. I felt that he perfectly captured the essence of the gentle giant with Michael having the body of a giant but the mind of a child. I don't think Aaron ever made Michael into a patronising character and instead made him feel incredibly three-dimensional. That's more can be said for Bullock's Academy Award-winning turn in which she seemingly drew inspiration from previous Best Actress performances. Bullock's performance particularly evoked memories of Sally Field in Norma Rae and Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich both of whom won the Oscar for their roles. But while those two characters stood up for something they believed in, all Tuohy did was act as a Good Samaritan for a boy in need. I think my main problem with the role, and the film as a whole, is that there's not much story progression one Michael moves in with the Tuohys. Leigh Ann is definitely a one-note character meaning that Bullock was hard pushed to actually deliver a spot on performance. I believe that Bullock's win was primarily due to the fact that the Academy believed that it was her time to win one. Never mind that there were better performances from less established stars as Bullock was going to win the Oscar regardless of how good she was. The Blind Side's other Oscar-shaped surprise was the fact that it was nominated for Best Picture at all. As I've already mentioned, the 2010 ceremony saw the reintroduction of ten nominees meaning that some mediocre pictures had to be given nods. The Blind Side was one of those films which I believed was simply filling a gap and was one of the reasons that, two years later, the Academy decided to honour between five and ten films rather than a set number.
However, even this new system of picking nominees didn't stop the occasional bad movie turning up and that's just what happened when Bullock's next nominated film turned up. I still remember distinct whooping coming from the audience when Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close's Best Picture nomination was announced to the assembled crowd of press and PR people. This to me signals that one of its main intentions was to garner as many Oscar nominations as possible which is reinforced by the fact it had a limited release during the final week of 2011. The film also includes a ton of familiar faces including Bullock, Tom Hanks, Max Von Sydow, Viola Davis, John Goodman and Jeffrey Jones. Unfortunately for this talented bunch they're simply supporting players with the lead role being taken by Thomas Horn, a young man who had no prior acting experience before being cast in the film's lead role. This to me was one of the key problems with Extremely Loud as the character of Oskar Schell is a tricky one to pull off due to the fact that he suffers from some form of autism. I do feel that even a talented child actor would struggle to make Oskar seem sympathetic so in my opinion Horn was fighting a losing battle. It got to the point that occasionally during the film I just wanted to slap Oskar as Horn wasn't able to convey the fact that his character sometimes spoke out of turn without realising it. As well as including the Academy favourite of a character with a learning difficulty, Extremely Loud's other ace in the hole was that it concentrated on the events of 9/11. Oskar's father Thomas Schell, played by Hanks, was the only person who really understood him and so his son was devastated when he was killed at the World Trade Center. The film centres on Oskar's search to find the lock that fits the key that his father left for him and that had the name Black on it. Although the quest for the mysterious Black is an interesting one, I felt that director Stephen Daldry didn't do enough to make us care about Oskar's end goal.
I personally felt there were only two enjoyable parts of the film the first of which is when Max Von Sydow enters the story as a character simply known as 'The Renter'. The mystery man is renting a house with Oskar's grandmother and cannot speak leading to some interesting odd couple scenes between the pair. It's quite clear that The Renter is Oskar's grandfather as our protagonist starts to notice similarities in the mannerisms between he and his late father. Von Sydow rightfully received Extremely Loud's only nomination although he ultimately lost the Best Supporting Actor fight to Christopher Plummer. I then had to wait until the film's conclusion for something else to grab me namely Sandra Bullock's time to shine as Oskar's mother Linda. Throughout the film Linda had been somewhat of an afterthought but Bullock proved why she'd been cast in the movie during the revelation that her character had been ahead of her son the entire time. The story of Linda's meeting of all of the Blacks was more engaging than anything that Oskar had done during the entire film and it made me wish that we'd have had more of her on screen during the film. Aside from Bullock and Von Sydow everything else about Extremely Loud was felt cloying from the overblown score to the focus on subjects that the producers knew that the Academy loved. I do feel I've been spoilt a bit after watching Hugo, a film with two fine child actors, but I think that if Oskar had been cast more successfully then I would've enjoyed Extremely Loud a little more. Horn had in fact been cast after producer Scott Rudin saw him on a game show and I bet that he regretted his decision after seeing the finished product. Thankfully Horn has now returned to his studies and is putting acting on the back-burner for the time being and let's just hope that his skills have vastly improved if he ever decides to darken the big screen again.
After one film in which I felt she was over-rated and one film in which she wasn't given the chance to shine, I'm glad that Sandra Bullock's talents were finally on display during Gravity. The film is another rare example of the Academy honouring a sci-fi movie, something that still rarely happens despite the increased number of Best Picture nominees. Gravity saw Bullock nominated for her second Best Actress award for playing Mission Specialist Ryan Stone, a biomedical engineer who is currently on her first NASA Mission. The film concentrates on Ryan's predicament after her shuttle is hit with debris from a Russian satellite killing everyone but her and veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski. From there the plot of the film sees Ryan and Matt's mission to get to the International Space Station with a limited supply of oxygen between them. Gravity is very simplistic in nature with Alfonso Cuaron's script, which was co-written with his son Jonas, feeling very basic in nature. Ryan is a character who has gone into space after essentially losing everything as her daughter was killed aged just six years old. Meanwhile Matt is the classic veteran who is on his last NASA mission and is eager to return to Earth. I felt it was quite clear what was going to happen to each character but the ride to the finish line was still expertly plotted. Cuaron's Oscar winning direction was one of the main draws of Gravity due to the fact that he made every moment count. At just ninety minutes, Gravity is one of the shortest Best Picture nominees but its running time is one of its strengths as it adds to the intensity of the situation. Eventually separating herself from Matt, Ryan's endeavours continue as she's forced to go it alone and endures several life-threatening situations. The first time I watched Gravity I was literally biting my nails during the final sequence as I waited to see if Ryan would make it to Earth in one piece.
The fact that Gravity had such an emotional impact on me is a credit to all of the team involved in the film. The Academy agreed with that statement awarding Gravity with seven of the ten Oscars it was nominated for that night. Gravity became one of a number of films that won multiple awards without getting the Best Picture nod only beating Cabaret which won eight but lost out to The Godfather. Gravity's wins included two successes in the sound category which to me was one of the movie's key aspects with the silent nature of the space playing a big part throughout. I personally felt the use of sound added to the dramatic effect of the film with Ryan's voice coming slowly into the film as it began. Steven Price's Oscar-winning score was similarly moving as it echoed Ryan's struggles perfectly and added even more tension to the film's final scenes. Whilst she didn't win an award for the film, a lot of praise has to go for Sandra Bullock for being extremely captivating in a film in which she was on screen for every frame. Bullock's facial expressions were perfectly judged as she made the audience sympathise with a woman who still grieving for the daughter she'd lost. Aside from Bullock, the only other cast member with a sizeable role in Gravity was George Clooney who to me seemed to be channelling Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear. Clooney's charisma was fully exploited in the role of Matt although he came good when he had to act as a mentor to Bullock's rookie astronaut. There was a lot of confusion when Gravity took home the award for Best British Film at that year's BAFTAs especially as it's a film with two big American stars and is directed by a Mexican. However the award-winning Production Design and Visual Effects were all done in several English studios. I do believe that Gravity perfectly exemplifies the skill of the British Film Industry who worked tirelessly to recreate the zero-gravity atmosphere of the movie. I would go as far as to say that Gravity probably deserved to win the Best Picture award over that year's victor as it's an example of great film-making that contains a compelling if basic story and perfectly utilises modern day cinematic techniques.
Next time we focus on the most recent foreign language film to receive a Best Picture nomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)