It's a pirate's life for me
Me Own Island
  • Home
  • The World According to P
    • Academic >
      • The Grimm's Christian Cinderella
      • The School of Athens: An Analysis
      • Food and Slavery
      • Lincoln Assassination Trial: Judicial Theater
    • Humor >
      • Restroom Rant
    • Film >
      • Legend Analysis
      • Theater Etiquette
      • Double Indemnity
  • Movie Stuff
    • Alphabetical Index
    • My Fav Movie Quotes
    • Oscar Blog
    • Hidden Treasures >
      • Classic Art Parodies
      • Futuristic Timeline
      • Her?
      • Movie Trilogy Chart
      • Sandworm Size Chart
      • Theater Etiquette
      • Top Movies Set in Each State
      • Un-Christmas Movies

2014

6/2/2015

2 Comments

 
The nominees:          
                    12 Years a Slave
                    American Hustle
                    Captain Phillips
                    Dallas Buyers Club
                    Gravity
                    Her
                    Nebraska
                    Philomena
                    The Wolf of Wall Street

What won: 12 Years a Slave
What should have won: 12 Years a Slave
My favorite: American Hustle
 
Why my pick should have won
I think this year, the academy was right on. 12 Years a Slave was a tough watch, but it confronts the darkest attribute of America’s infancy in a powerful way.

         This movie was thought-provoking without becoming preachy. Steve McQueen made a great movie that should have facilitated constructive discussion about race relations and been a positive backdrop for progressing toward a more racially compassionate, egalitarian America. Not only was the plot thought-provoking, but 12 Years a Slave became the first film directed and produced by a black filmmaker (Steve McQueen) as well as the first to be written by an African-American (John Ridley) to win the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture of the Year. For now, all I will say is this: Instead of praising the triumph of a powerful achievement in film and using it as a springboard to scrutinize race relations, the catalyst was instead a tragedy underscoring conflict (Ferguson), perpetuated by the media in order to satiate the need for high ratings. Progress be damned.
         12 Years a Slave is the most faithful exploration of American slavery in a feature film to date. That’s not to say there haven’t been other “good” movies that portray slavery – only that this one was better than the rest. Just a year earlier Tarantino’s Django Unchained (2012) tackled slavery, but in a satirical, sometimes frivolous manner. Gone with the Wind (1939) was good enough to win Best Picture, but it is riddled with inaccuracies. The silent epic The Birth of a Nation (1915) is often celebrated as a landmark in filmmaking, but it is entirely fiction and so intensely racist it borders on propaganda. I really, really like Amistad (1997), but it also suffers from factual mistakes, and is a film about slavery featuring a primarily white cast. The beauty of 12 Years a Slave is also the horror. The film was relatively simple – it didn’t need exaggeration, misrepresentation, or condescension to manifest a powerful message.
         Building on that line of thinking, while slavery is not the most pleasant topic (or perhaps because of it), the horrors of American slavery have not always been properly painted by Hollywood. Thankfully, 12 Years a Slave is steeped in historical fact, something filmmakers all too often forsake because the entertainment industry is not as concerned with scholarship as it is dollar-ship (see what I did there?). Whether it’s a slight anachronism or an entire genre sprouting from myth (i.e., the classic Western), Hollywood hasn’t much cared for truth in the message; the business model doesn’t lend itself to such ideals. Typically, a broad appeal to a large audience will trump any facts, regardless of how glaring the discrepancy with reality may be. Authenticity doesn’t stand a chance when millions are on the line. 
         My hope is that this movie will give future films a standard for factual storytelling in historical dramas. Either way, there is little doubt in my mind that 12 Years a Slave will eventually be considered a classic, and it will have the added bonus of factual integrity. Unfortunately, if Selma (2014) is any indication, my hopes have already been dashed. Even more disappointing is the fact that a movie as significant as 12 Years a Slave only grossed 4.2 million dollars more in the U.S. than Tyler Perry’s A Medea Christmas (2013), which came out two months later ($56.6 versus $52.4 million).
         Finally, looking at the other nominees, 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle, and Dallas Buyers Club are the only three that should have been seriously considered, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter two split some votes. Take Tom Hanks out of Captain Phillips and it doesn’t get a nomination; wasn’t that good. Her made an interesting point, but at the same time, it was too weird. I liked Gravity, but it was a lot of spectacle and more of an achievement in the filmmaking process than it was a well-rounded film. Philomena and Nebraska were nice little movies, but that’s about it. The Wolf of Wall Street was a complete farce and seemed to try to be a caricature of itself, which didn't work. I honestly thought it was a disappointing year for Oscar-caliber films in general, with 12 Years a Slave and Dallas Buyers Club outrunning the rest of the pack.

Why I loved American Hustle
         Let me begin by getting the pessimistic thoughts out of the way. As “achievement in filmmaking” goes, I didn’t feel like American Hustle had anything special that would put it in the same category as 12 Years a Slave or Dallas Buyers Club. I really don't say that for the purpose of taking away from American Hustle, but instead as a criticism of what the academy has been looking for in a best picture contender over recent years. Lately, movies like this one and Argo (2012) are getting nominated (Argo actually won). Don't misunderstand me, these are good, entertaining movies, but that's all; I feel like the bar for greatness has been lowered. American Hustle was a good-not-great film with a lot of big names that helped generate a healthy box office. I enjoyed watching it more than the rest of this year’s field of nominees, and I appreciate it as a story. Still, the overall film wasn’t as great as the performances given by the cast. So if you watch it, expect less artistry or social consciousness and more star power and entertainment value.
         Now onto the positive: I really like American Hustle. It is fun, and I don't feel like it takes itself too seriously. If it did, the comedy may have fallen by the wayside. Every character is so self-absorbed that their pathetic behavior is actually a source of humor rather than disgust, even though these really are pretty despicable characters. I love the ensemble cast – each actor carrying his or her weight on screen. Having said that, I believe Jennifer Lawrence and Christian Bale in particular deserve especial praise.
         For my money, Jennifer Lawrence steals the movie. I was worried her role as Katniss in the The Hunger Games franchise would make her comfortable and keep her from pushing herself. Her performance as Rosalyn in American Hustle allayed my fears. I hope she continues to invent likable yet flawed characters for many years to come.
         Once again Christian Bale radically changed his appearance for a role. He gained 40 pounds for this film when it would have been far easier (and much healthier) to strap on a fat-suit. He got down to 91 pounds for The Machinist (2004), then bulked up for Batman Begins (2005), then slimmed down again for The Fighter (2010). What he’s doing to his body to create authentic characters is literally dangerous. By the way, who knew he could be funny?
         Each movie nominated this year has some entertainment value. Each movie is at least a good movie. However, American Hustle had the best mix of drama and comedy to compliment the story. What it lacks in being "important" it makes up for in likability. It's what The Wolf of Wall Street could have been if it had stayed within itself and attempted any redeeming quality, rather than being a total money-grab. Anyway, all-star cast, good music, fun story ... it was my favorite movie from the best picture candidates this year.

2 Comments

2015

5/1/2015

0 Comments

 
The nominees:    
                    American Sniper
                    Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
                    Boyhood
                    The Grand Budapest Hotel
                    The Imitation Game
                    Selma
                    The Theory of Everything
                    Whiplash

What won: Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
What should have won: Boyhood
My favorite: Whiplash

Why my pick should have won
I’m not going to say the academy got this one wrong, but what separates Birdman and Boyhood for me is the scope of the projects and how each one tackles similar concepts.

        I truly believe Boyhood was the more impressive of the two films. What makes Boyhood so unique is that it wasn’t just a bold undertaking for 2014; it was the most ambitious project from 2001 to 2014.  The scope of the production was so immense it’s a wonder it ever even got finished. Films that are in production for over a decade either don’t get completed or aren’t any good. When they do reach a theater there is usually evidence of production problems that show up in the film (disgruntled actors, budgeting concerns, location availability, the forces of nature, etc.). Need proof? Check it out:


           
-Cleopatra (1963) with Liz Taylor as the titular character (long, over budget, and not a
            great movie)

            -Tim Burton's Superman Lives (circa 1996), which would have starred Nic Cage as
            Superman
(never materialized)

            -The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) starring a particularly WTF?-ish Marlon Brando (this
            movie was horrid and there were scheduling conflicts with the principal actors)

            -Terry Gilliam’s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote – a film so doomed that its

            misfortune became a 2002 stand-alone documentary/cautionary tale (That said, it
            is currently listed as being in pre-production on IMDb.com.).



The point is that Boyhood beat the odds and delivered a compelling, coherent, and contemplative masterpiece.

            Boyhood was every bit as compelling a story as Birdman. But for me, what really separates Birdman and Boyhood in terms of a statement is the fact that, while they both approach the idea of family dynamics and getting older, Boyhood has a more universal quality. In fact, it would seem to me that the general viewing audience would have related more to raising children and growing up than a story about a has-been action-movie star attempting a comeback on Broadway. I’m all for escapism in entertainment, but there is also a lot to be said for connecting with characters.
            Boyhood also had a time capsule quality to it. Perhaps the most enduring quality of this film will be the American Left’s sentiment during the first decade of the new millennium rather than the cars we drove, the clothes we wore, or the music we played.  I applaud Linklater for making a point of capturing the political climate and fads of the decade as they arrived and faded. The way the movie was shot allowed for a much more organic political statement than much of what the public is force-fed from liberal Hollywood. I guess what I’m saying is as a history student I can appreciate the historicity without stumbling over the politics.
        I will concede that the acting in Birdman was the better of the two films, but let’s consider a couple of things. First, there was good (or great) acting in Boyhood, as evidenced by Ethan Hawke’s nomination and Patricia Arquette’s win for Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress, respectively. Admittedly, Ellar Coltrane left something to be desired as the lead in Boyhood, but come on – that’s what happens when you take a chance on a six year-old kid. Richard Linklater and Beth Sepko rolled the dice on Coltrane, and, while he doesn’t appear to be the second coming of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, he could have been much, much worse. Remember when George Lucas gave us Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker?

Why I loved Whiplash
            Whiplash was awesome. First of all, JK Simmons is perfect in this movie. Every decision he made for creating his character (Fletcher) worked – you can’t second guess or take anything away from a single frame of film on which he’s featured. Simmons, in a supporting role, carries the movie, which says a ton because it’s not like Miles Teller (Andrew) phoned it in. Simmons was genuinely scary; a drill sergeant’s expectations for his players with an ear that would make an owl jealous, yet a cordial, inviting façade for his audience – a sort of act within the film. By trying to be completely, totally in control of every note of the music, Fletcher lost control of the people behind the instruments. You never see Fletcher pull back (being forced to leave the school is not pulling back), so you can’t honestly know how far that character would go. You only get to see what it does to the other musicians. Brilliantly, the audience is left guessing what he will do next, right down to the last scene.
            Second, the music was great. No epic John Williams or Klaus Badelt score, but also no bubble gum pop garbage or the hip-hop so many Gen-Xers and millennials have embraced (the characters in the film are musicians who actually play instruments!) – just catchy jazz tunes. Such music may not be for everyone all the time, but that wasn’t really ever the point. The music in this film was an omnipresent character used as a catalyst to initiate the conflict (and eventually the resolution) between Andrew and Fletcher.
            Finally, I like how this story showed what greatness can often look like. Genius and brilliance of ten manifest in people who are ostracized, either by others or by themselves. Teller’s character sacrifices his time, his body, his mind, and relationships (or at least potential relationships) in order to tap into and fulfill his potential. Really, the only solid relationship he has – even within his own family – is with his father. I mean, the scene at the dinner table was incredibly uncomfortable. Luckily for us, the audience, we had the luxury of immediately cutting to the next scene instead of enduring awkward goodbyes. What hit home for me especially was the fact that he threw away any chance he had with Nicole (Melissa Benoist) so that he could free himself of any “distraction” that might hold him back. The breakup scene in the diner is so cringe-worthy it makes the aforementioned dinner scene seems pleasant by comparison. You want to jump into the film and interrupt him. Or slap him in the ear and give him the “what-the-hell-bro?” look.
            Okay, so enough technical dissection – this was a fun movie to watch and it went by too quickly. I also like the open-ended nature of the story. Did Andrew go on to be one of the all-time greats? Did he appreciate the push from Fletcher? Did the two go on to reestablish a relationship? This movie is hardly a feel-good account from start to finish, but we are left with a lot of hope as the credits role. I doubt this film will come to feel tired with subsequent viewings.

 

0 Comments

    Archives

    June 2015
    May 2015

    Author

    On a quest to watch every movie nominated for best picture. Agree or disagree with my assessments? Leave a comment and let's banter!

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly