The Academy Cheapen Their Most Sought After Category

So yesterday it was announced that the Academy Awards will now widen the competition for the Best Picture award from five to ten nominations. To most people, this will mean next to nothing. But to people such as myself, who love movies, love the oscars, and love to debate after the fact, this is a bit of a shocker. Why would the Academy do such a thing?

There are several reasons. One is that for years and years there have always been, at the very least one movie that was left out of the competition that deserved to be there. I really thought that the film Wall-E had a shot at being the second animated film to be nominated for best picture last year (the first was Beauty and the Beast). But alas, the Academy nominated The Reader (a good film but not the best of the year). One thing that opening up the competition could do is allow for more films that often get overlooked such as animated films and foreign films. One could say that these films already have their own category in the first place. But what happens in Wall-E's case where the film was easily better than the majority of the films that were out there by a long-shot.

However, my gripe is this. I love Pixar's films. But I don't want them to get a Best Picture nomination because the Academy decided to widen the field. I want them to get a nomination because they make damn good movies. Their films are easily in the top 10 each year. I want the Academy to put them up there with the Steven Spielberg films and the Peter Jackson films. Because in my eyes they are just as good, and in some cases better.

The other reason the academy is doing this is for a reason that makes a little bit more sense and sounds a little bit more like Hollywood with a capital H--money. If they can nominate more movies then more stars have the chance to walk the red carpet, which makes the event more "glamorous."

This is crap if you ask me. These awards ceremonies are not about the stars or the amount of glitz and glamour. These ceremonies are supposed to celebrate an art form and congratulate filmmakers on creating works that further our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us.

Are we forgetting why people love movies in the first place. It's because art has the ability to affect us and change us. Art has the ability to make us better people, to challenge our thoughts and our beliefs. These award ceremonies are supposed to celebrate the films that do this to the best of their ability. They are NOT supposed to be about the latest headline in Perez Hilton's blog.

I was all for a bit of a shake up in the way these award ceremonies were done because of the simple fact that phenomenal films like Wall-E get left out of the mix, but doubling the size of the race is not the answer. In my opinion, all that you had to do was add one or two more slots to the race and it should work fine. You wouldn't have snubs such as Wall-E, The Diving Bell and The Butterfly, or Children of Men.

Also, part of the fun of the Academy Awards is arguing until your face turns blue that your favorite film didn't make the cut. And what happens when there aren't ten stand-out films in a year (something that happens more than you think)? Will the Academy stoop to nominating films like Transformers 2 simply because they made a ton of money?

After hearing the news yesterday I don't think I'd be surprised.

Another Must-Read Friedman Article

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=405169

Friedman is honestly one of the most interesting mids writing in politics today.

I like him.

In Transition

So we have Iranian protests over an obviously fraudulent election, a governor from South Carolina who decided to spend Father's Day in Argentina to "get away" without telling anyone--including his wife and kids--and a prominent football coach in Idaho died after being shot in the weight room of his school.

These are the headlines of the day.

I'm sitting here watching my dogs play in my new townhouse, waiting for my new job to start. It's a shitty job--waiting tables at a Macaroni Grill--but it's a job no less and in today's economic climate one can't really complain. But still, sitting here waiting for a job to start feels pretty pathetic, especially when people are silently protesting for the voting rights to be reinstated in Teheran.

Boredom can eat at ones soul. That may seem melodramatic, especially considering that there are thousands of people in school or work that would kill for just one day to absolutely nothing, but I'll be the first to say it--to many days of doing nothing can slowly make one look at these four walls and wonder how they would look with soft white padding.

Anyways, enough with feeling sorry for myself, there have been positive aspects of being stuck with nothing to do. I've recently been reading a lot more, something I always wished I had more time to do. I also realized that I was one of those people who bought a lot of books at one time, but usually only had the time to read one or two. As I now look over at my bookshelf I'm realizing that there are a few books that haven't even had their precious spines cracked yet.

One other thing that I've found is that I've become even more fascinated with the way our world has become more socially connected through digital means. First you has the election of President Barack Obama which started the whole political fascination with online networking, but now Twitter--an online networking tool that has become the butt-end of most jokes due to it's unfortunate name--has become one of the most important and widely used weapons in the Iranian conflict.

Our world is changing and I'm sitting here watching MSNBC and reading a Che Guevara biography. I will admit that I am happier with where my life is going today than I ever have been. I know that is a pretty vague statement but I don't know any straighter way to put it. I'm ready to get things started.

One thing is for sure though: life in a transition can be rough but there sure is a lot to look at.

Che: A Unique Experience

So I finally saw it. It's taken almost 6 months but I finally got around to catching Steven Soderbergh's epic, 4-and-a-half-hour long biopic about the revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. All I can say is that I was floored by the ambitious effort and that it should not be missed by anyone who is interested in this sort of project.

This film is certainly not for everybody, and those who are not interested in a movie about Guevara will probably not be as enthusiastic about the film as I am. What is interesting about this film is that it is not a romantic film that holds Guevara and his politics up on a pedastal. The film does not try to sway anybody's feelings on the revolutionary. If you are sympathetic to Guevara's cause then the film will probably speak on a different level to you than it would on those who think less of him.

What the film does is take a historical account (almost in a documentary style) of the revolutions that Che led. The first part of the film details the Cuban Revolution, where Guevara and Castro led a grassroots movement--which started with a mere 80 men--and inspired the people to overthrow the Batista dictatorship. The film inter-splices black and white scenes depicting Guevara's controversial visit to the UN. The second part details Che's failed campaign in Bolivia, as he attempted to bring the revolution to all of Latin America. Still using a documentary-style of storytelling the second part gives the film it's arc. The rise and fall of Che.

Shedding light on a man that most Americans don't really take the time to understand, the film succeeds in showing what life was life as a revolutionary, and how--for the majority of the time--it wasn't as glamorous as people think. What these men did was hard, and the film is a testament to them as well as their leader, Che.

Benicio Del Toro stated that controversy always comes with people "who have truly lived." I have always been inspired by Che, not just on his politics, but his loyalty to his beliefs as well. He never compromised his beliefs for anyone, leaving a position of leadership in Cuba in order to bring what he saw as freedom to Latin America. Che unapologetically "truly lived." He lived to bring prosperity to people who were suffering around the world. There is no question why he is loved and looked at as a hero by many around the world. But as Del Toro stated, controversy always comes with people "who have truly lived."

Bruce on The Daily Show

http://www.hulu.com/watch/63572/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-mar-19-2009

I imagine I would act similarly to that of Jon Stewart.

Female Directors: The Ghosts of Cinema?

Finding well-known female directors is a very difficult task. I consider myself to be somewhat of a film-buff, yet I was unable to think of more than two or three female directors off the top of my head. The two that did stick out to me, I’m ashamed to say, did not stick out just because of their work, but people tied to their work.  The first would be Sophia Coppola, the daughter of Francis Ford Coppola, has made only a few films, yet all of them have been unique and stylish. The other director is Nora Ephron. The only reason I know of her is because my girlfriend is a big fan of Sleepless in Seattle (1993). While these directors may not be the most well known names (or at least their first names aren’t) their work has certainly given cinema something you might call a “woman’s touch.”

            Sophia Coppola is either known as three different things: Francis Ford Coppola’s daughter, the reason Godfather III (1990) was less than what was expected, or the director of such ground-breaking visual films as Lost in Translation (2003) and Marie Antoinette (2006). The fact that her last name is Coppola really is a shame as Sophia may never be able to get out of the enormous shadow that her father casts. Yet it is not for lack of trying. With Lost in Translation she became one of three women ever to be nominated for the Best Directing Oscar. Her style is of her own, each film having a dreamlike quality with its images and cinematography. The existentialism within Lost in Translation is unique and charming. Coppola explores themes as deep as the meaning of life, yet doesn’t dumb down the audience by trying to answer these questions. She let’s us ponder our own answers while we watch Scarlett johannsen drive around a beautiful downtown Tokyo at night, listening to the song “Sometimes” by My Bloody Valentine. There is no doubt that Coppola is talented.The question is would she where she is today if it weren’t for her father. We can only guess, but I’d assume the answer would be “no.” Then again there are several female directors in the world, it’s just that not all of them have their Dads as one of cinema’s most well-known, well-respected directors. Coppola’s father no doubt helped get her where she is today, but it is Coppola’s vision, and her vision alone that is on the screen, and we are lucky to have it.

            Perhaps one of the best writers as well as directors of romantic-comedy films would be Nora Ephron. Ephron’s trademark however sets her romantic-comediesaside from others. They are often critiques on the differences between men and women. The prime example being Sleepless in Seattle. In the film the difference between men and women and each of their separate ideas on what love “should” be is examined and, of course, hilarity often ensues. Yet, not without Ephron’s biting satire. When being consoled about venturing into the world of dating again, Tom Hanks’ character “Sam” states that he could never let a woman pay for half of a date. His friend Jay, played by Rob Reiner replies “They’ll throw a parade in your honor.” Ephron’s depiction of the decay of the “perfect man” is done not in an insulting way, but one that makes us, or at least me, think twice about how we are seen to women. Why did we ever stop caring? Or, perhaps the question should be when did we ever stop caring. Perhaps this is the reason that few men will list Sleepless in Seattle as one of their favorite movies. The women of Ephron’s films demand respect not only in the work-place, but in the world of romance as well. Her criticism of the differencs between men and women continue in You’ve Got Mail (1998). In this film romance has gone digital, yet the themes are the same. Men are a bit different from women, but does that mean that they deserve any less respect? Of course not. What is original about this film is the way the man of the movie, again played by Hanks, is the owner of the big  money-hungry book corporation “Fox Books” while Meg Ryan owns the sweet, honest, childrens’ book store names “The Store Around the Corner.” As most independent store owners are, Ryan's character genuinely cares about the people she is selling her products to, while Hanks works with only dollar signs in his eyes. But alas, men (or at least Tom Hanks) are not that shallow and Ephron knows it. Ephron’s satirical writing is always sharp, witty, yet warm and comforting. They say good artists listen, and Nora Ephron has had a close ear to us all.

            Female directors are few and far between in Hollywood. However, as long as there are directors like Sophia Coppola and Nora Ephron, a path will be paved for things to change. Hopefully permanently.

My Favorite Movies of 2008

Note that these are not in any order. Each of these films have their own merits that need to be dealt with separately. Overall a good year for movies. However, the runaway four for me this year were Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, WALL-E and Revolutionary Road.

Burn After Reading

A hilarious follow-up to No Country for Old Men from the Coens. Both Brad Pitt and John Malkovich turn in hilarious performances making this one of the best comedies of 2008.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

A bit of a different type of Woody Allen film, yet his presence is still (quite obviously at times) there. Penelope Cruz also is gives her best performance to date. A study on the complexities of love in two different settings--Spain and The US--Vicky Cristina Barcelona is a very sophisticated and entertaining piece of filmmaking.

The Visitor

The movie from nowhere. What a beautiful film that covers so many issues. Immigration, loneliness, the power of music. Richard Jenkins gives a beautifully subdued performance finally earning him the recognition he deserves. Hopefully now he will get more leading roles like he should!

The Dark Knight

The best comic book adaptation ever made. Period. The film ends up being more of a psychological crime-drama in the vein of Heat than anything else. Heath Ledger was nothing short of breath-taking. We will all miss him dearly.

The Wrestler

Darren Aronofsky gets personal...and it's a success. Perhaps one of the most human and realistic stories of the year. The film is only improved upon with Mickey Rourke's portrayal of a broken-down man, who goes down a road of loss that only celluloid has the ability to capture.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

A beautiful study of aging and all that goes along with it, including death, love, and loss. This movie will be remembered for years to come, not only for it's innovative use of technology, but for it's deeply potent story as well.

WALL-E

Perhaps one of the most socially important family-oriented films ever made. The film's strong point lies in it's writing, in which it's critique on contemporary society is beautifully woven into one of the sweetest love stories of the decade.

Revolutionary Road

A sharply written, painful, yet altogether beautiful commentary on the complexities of marriage. The simplicity of the story is what makes this film so powerful. Sam Mendes lets the camera quietly capture both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet's best performances to date. A film that sticks with you for days after you leave the theatre.


Milk

Released in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8, Milk is one of the boldest, and most important films to be made in years. Sean Penn plays Harvey Milk with such ease that he disappears into the character. Strong acting across the board makes this the best acted film of the year. A extremely devastating drama about the power one person can have to change the world around him.

Slumdog Millionaire


The stand-up-and-cheer movie of the year. My favorite film of the year. See my last post to read what I really think about this one.


Have yet to see: Frost/Nixon or Waltz with Bashir...both of which seem pretty promising

The Difference Between Best and Favorite: Slumdog Millionaire

Never before have I been so emotionally affected by a film.

By the end of this heart-warming, fresh, under-dog fantasy tale I wanted nothing more than to get back in line, purchase another ticket, and experience it again. And I indeed would have, had I not had to work an hour after the film got out.

I spoke to my girlfriend on the phone shortly after ranting and raving about the film.



"But was it better than 'Benjamin Button'?" she asked.

My reply went along the lines of something like this. That I didn't even think of the film as better or worse. I simply loved it and was filled to the brim with joy for having seen it. I told her that it may be my favorite film I have ever seen.

I've always loved to make that kind of distinction. the difference between your favorite film and what you think is the best film. For instance I would love to watch "Slumdog Millionaire" over and over again because of how it affected me and how it made me feel. "The Godfather", which indeed is one of my favorites as well as what I consider one of the best films ever made, could not stand up to this test. It's simply too exhausting. I have seen "The Godfather" countless times and know just about every word to the three hour long epic. However the reasons I would watch "The Godfather" are a bit different than what I would watch "Slumdog Millionaire" for. I would watch "Slumdog Millionaire" simply to make me happy.

Now this does not mean that "Slumdog" is not a technical masterpiece. In my eyes it is. The bright, beautiful cinematography is matched with hip, frenetic editing. The shots are all from exciting, interesting angles, that never cease to make this film a wonder to look at. And the music. My God the music pulses with life that keeps you entranced with everything that is going on in the screen.

All of this fantastic technical work would all go to waste if the film had lost grip on the one thing that gives it its heart.

Its story.

The story is a fantasy tale with a romance wrapped in that gave me a yearning feeling in my heart throughout its entire duration. The actors embrace who they are with such heart that to not be able to feel for them is almost impossible. The story, to put it simply, made me look at everything with more love and more empathy. This film made me want to get out of my seat and cheer on a number of occasions.

One reviewer hit the nail on the head when he called the film a "buoyant hymn to life". Never have I heard a reviewer perfectly describe the movie in such few words. However to understand what these four words mean you must see this film.

You must see this film!

"Slumdog Millionaire" deserves every award that it is nominated for. But if it doesn't win, I won't mind. The film has already done it's job to me and so many other viewers. I couldn't see anyone asking for more.