The montage linking the nominees to thematically similar earlier films is cool -- despite the summer stock quality set, half-hearted choreography, insanely bad idea to have previous winners introduce this year's nominees, the ceremony has had some very nice touches.
And, of course, it ends as expected, with the coronation of Slumdog Millionaire. I actually quite liked the film although I don't think it's Boyle's best or that it would have stood a chance last year, which gave us one legitimately great film -- There Will Be Blood -- one challenging if troubled (not troubling) film -- No Country for Old Men -- one quite good film -- Atonement -- and one that would have competed with it for indie cred -- Juno.
That said, Slumdog is a film that deserves its inspirational reputation. Boyle is working in genre these days, and he isn't as interested in subversion or deconstruction as the Coens are, hence some of the critiques of Sunshine that it was little more than a riff on Alien or Slumdog that it romanticizes its impoverished characters (who speak perfect English which indicates a middle class upbringing). But Boyle uses these conventions to explore his interest in the power of faith, a belief in the potential for us all to do good, to put higher ideals above our individual interests. Fate in effect writes the questions that reflect Jamal's troubled upbringing. In Sunshine, the astronauts always act to finish the mission (even if those decisions turn out to be bad in the short term) and unquestioningly sacrifice themselves to further this goal. Jamal's joyous trust that his final answer is correct and the final dance at the end is a more populist version of the universe showing itself to Capa at the end of Sunshine.
Anyway, I liked Slumdog and am glad to see that it won over Oscar bait like Benjamin Button (which I actually liked) and The Reader.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Does anyone remember when De Niro was publicity shy?
Now he'll appear anytime anywhere. And why did Adrien Brody come out looking like De Niro as Rodrigo Mendoza in The Mission?
This doesn't seem so much like group therapy as it does a meeting about which pledges should get to join the coolest fraternity. Or maybe I'm just being sexist.
And here we have the night's first big surprise -- Mickey Rourke was considered the favorite but the Oscar goes to Sean Penn. It's good to see him rewarded for taking on such a charged role -- given the still backwards political climate in which much of our national operates -- but I am truly sad not to get to see Mickey thank his dogs, especially the recently departed Loki.
This doesn't seem so much like group therapy as it does a meeting about which pledges should get to join the coolest fraternity. Or maybe I'm just being sexist.
And here we have the night's first big surprise -- Mickey Rourke was considered the favorite but the Oscar goes to Sean Penn. It's good to see him rewarded for taking on such a charged role -- given the still backwards political climate in which much of our national operates -- but I am truly sad not to get to see Mickey thank his dogs, especially the recently departed Loki.
Best Actor (Female)
Again, five previous winners in the category come out to offer testimonials to the nominees. On the one hand, the group therapy scheme makes sense: Actors are usually inclined towards narcissism, after all. But it also replaces the clips of their performances -- it's almost like the actors are being rewarded not because of their work but because these five people have decided to get up and speak about five others. And it's not helping that Anne Hathaway behaved like a preteen at a Beatles concert ca. 1964 when Shirley MacClaine came out to sponsor her.
I wonder how Sam Mendes feels that he wasn't the one to direct Kate Winslet in her Oscar-winning role. The cynic in me wonders how much longer that marriage is going to last, given Winslet's and Mendes's opposing career arcs. (And good heavens does anyone still think American Beauty deserved its awards? Is that really his high point? On the other hand, maybe it's not -- recall Kevin Spacey "accidentally" naming Alan Ball as the film's director: "Sometimes it felt that way, the script seemed to direct itself.")
I wonder how Sam Mendes feels that he wasn't the one to direct Kate Winslet in her Oscar-winning role. The cynic in me wonders how much longer that marriage is going to last, given Winslet's and Mendes's opposing career arcs. (And good heavens does anyone still think American Beauty deserved its awards? Is that really his high point? On the other hand, maybe it's not -- recall Kevin Spacey "accidentally" naming Alan Ball as the film's director: "Sometimes it felt that way, the script seemed to direct itself.")
What a nice, nice man
Danny Boyle keeps the nice guy act up -- the Tigger joke was nice and sums up the polite joy with which Boyle has behaved all awards season. When SM wins Best Picture I post some ideas about it....
I don't care who wins best foreign film
Gomorrah from Italy got robbed. And I say that having not seen it. But it's Italian and I've had three fourths of a bottle of pinot grigio so I don't care.
This might be the night's only surprise so far -- Waltzing with Bashir had been considered the favorite. Takita's speech was sweet, too -- I got the impression that those sentences might have been the extent of the English he knows, and he perfectly summed up what everyone else is thinking: I'm here because I love movies, and I hope to be back.
This might be the night's only surprise so far -- Waltzing with Bashir had been considered the favorite. Takita's speech was sweet, too -- I got the impression that those sentences might have been the extent of the English he knows, and he perfectly summed up what everyone else is thinking: I'm here because I love movies, and I hope to be back.
Another sign of economic peril: The Academy could afford to nominate only 3 songs for Best Song
The Slumdog music is much more powerful than the song from Wall E, but that song is much closer to what the Academy usually awards.
The duelling songs idea is kind of cool, actually -- and they fit together fairly well.
I am a bit surprised that "Jai Ho" won -- pleasantly surprised, but surprised all the same.
The duelling songs idea is kind of cool, actually -- and they fit together fairly well.
I am a bit surprised that "Jai Ho" won -- pleasantly surprised, but surprised all the same.
Slumdog Millionaire is the best edited film of the year...
better than DK or Benjamin Button. I can see it -- the film's structure requires deft editing to make the transitions in time (including a flashback that incorporates a montage to flash forward). Of course, it might be only the editors (and perhaps directors) in the Academy who would recognize that. Is the rest of the Academy voting body just checking off Slumdog wherever they see it?
Wow -- the Special Effects award is making clear why
Brad Pitt doesn't deserve a Best Actor nomination for Benjamin Button -- actors use more than just their faces but for a good swatch of BB all he had was his face.
Lori said, "Oh good lord... what the fuck is he doing here?"
I agree: the last person I want to see hand out a documentary is Bill Maher. He's like Christopher Hitchens without the insight or eloquence. He's a baked ass, even if he is a baked ass on the left.
OK, time to watch Werner Herzog get screwed by the Academy again....
OK, time to watch Werner Herzog get screwed by the Academy again....
Disappointed but not
Well, I was disappointed that the Academy missed the obvious move and didn't have Walken pay tribute to Heath Ledger but I'm glad the award went to Heath Ledger. For one, it's nice to see at least some recognition that the film transcended the expectations of the comic-book-movie genre. And I think it was easily one of the best performances of the year -- the equal of Bardem's last year.
Best Supporting Actor
Again with the group therapy approach to the Supporting Actor category (male this time). I hope Christopher Walken introduces Heath Ledger. And it's good to see Cuba Gooding Jr. get some work!
This medley raises an interesting question:
Will Julie Andrews, Olivia Newton John and Agnetha Falkstag join Etta James in threatening to kick Beyonce's ass?
If the musical is back, why were so many of the songs not from musicals?
And now I have another reason to hate Baz Luhrman.
If the musical is back, why were so many of the songs not from musicals?
And now I have another reason to hate Baz Luhrman.
Dammit, this is not the Tonys!
Dammit this is not the Tonys!
And dammit, this is not the Tonys!
Although it has always been a dream of mine to see Hugh Jackman and Beyonce duet on a "You're the One That I Want"/"The Trouble with Maria"/"Lady Marmalade" medley.
And dammit, this is not the Tonys!
Although it has always been a dream of mine to see Hugh Jackman and Beyonce duet on a "You're the One That I Want"/"The Trouble with Maria"/"Lady Marmalade" medley.
What does it say about the Oscars
has been James Franco mispronouncing the title of the best short live action film? Maybe he and Rogan had been smoking whatever they had at the MTV Awards.
What's up with the strip club curtains surrounding the stage?
What's up with the strip club curtains surrounding the stage?
Jessica Biel's dress looks like it has a tumor.
I often find myself asking, "Who is Ed Cantinal? And I have I spelled his name correctly?"
This isn't bad either
Ben Stiller gives good mentally ill Joaquin Phoenix.
Why is Frank Langella wandering around during an award bestowal?
Another win for Slumdog. I liked the cinematography in Dark Knight better but apparently I liked DK a lot more than the Academy did anyway.
Danny Boyle looks so happy every time I see him. Of course when you luck into releasing a very good film in a year when pretty much everything else sucks donkey balls, you have good reason to smile.
Why is Frank Langella wandering around during an award bestowal?
Another win for Slumdog. I liked the cinematography in Dark Knight better but apparently I liked DK a lot more than the Academy did anyway.
Danny Boyle looks so happy every time I see him. Of course when you luck into releasing a very good film in a year when pretty much everything else sucks donkey balls, you have good reason to smile.
Wait, what, why?
This is the third award Daniel Craig and Sarah Jessica Parker have presented! I guess the Academy really must be short on funds this year if they can't spring for the appropriate number of "it would be an honor to even be nominated at some point" celebrities to hand out the awards no one really cares about.
What on earth is The Dark Knight doing the romance montage? And The Incredible Hulk? Was love really that empty at the cineplex this year, or did someone at WBros and Universal pay to have those films included?
What on earth is The Dark Knight doing the romance montage? And The Incredible Hulk? Was love really that empty at the cineplex this year, or did someone at WBros and Universal pay to have those films included?
We have a first!
Someone referred to David Fincher as a wonderful human being! There used to be a drinking game where everyone did shots when people referred to him as a prick but all of the participants died of acute alcohol poisoning.
Art Direction
The award for Art Direction is given out on a stage decorated like some off-off Broadway play? Is this what Hugh Jackman has brought to the Oscars? If I at all gave a rat's ass about Broadway I would watch the frickin' Tonys, and would not want to see big prop reels of celluloid on stage! Goddammit, people!
I am outraged and wish I had more than one bottle of wine, because I think I might need it. And it looks like this ceremony is going to be short....
I am outraged and wish I had more than one bottle of wine, because I think I might need it. And it looks like this ceremony is going to be short....
Screenplays
Thanks to Tina Fey and Steve Martin for finally providing some humor to the proceedings. The awards pretty much went as planned. I am glad Wall E didn't win, because it's screenplay is actually pretty bad, if you ask me -- I know it was a childrens film but can explain to me why the human's ship continued sending out probes when the return-to-earth plan had already been overridden by Fred Willard?
Am I already more drunk than I think I am, or did I see both Space Chimps and Delgo in the animated movie montage? I'm sure Wall E's filmmakers are thrilled to be included in that company....
How high is Jack Black tonight, anyway?
Am I already more drunk than I think I am, or did I see both Space Chimps and Delgo in the animated movie montage? I'm sure Wall E's filmmakers are thrilled to be included in that company....
How high is Jack Black tonight, anyway?
"Thanks, fellas, thanks"
Wow... Hugh Jackman just talked to famous people like I do when I ask my students to sit down and stop talking about how much they drank the night before.
Best Supporting Actress
Five women giving the award is an interesting change to the tradition of having the previous year's Best Supporting Actor present the award. Was Javier Bardem not available? Or is it a pre-emptive move if Heath Ledger wins tonight and would thus be unavailable next year?
Actually, this seems to have been inspired by Celebrity Rehab where the addicted stars all tell one another how proud they are for overcoming drugs or whatever. The Oscars have almost literally group therapy. Though what did Anjelica Huston mean by that "we don't always know what you're saying, literally at least"?
Anyway, the Oscar went to Penelope Cruz, as expected.
Actually, this seems to have been inspired by Celebrity Rehab where the addicted stars all tell one another how proud they are for overcoming drugs or whatever. The Oscars have almost literally group therapy. Though what did Anjelica Huston mean by that "we don't always know what you're saying, literally at least"?
Anyway, the Oscar went to Penelope Cruz, as expected.
The Academy Awards as another reason to hate George W. Bush
He drives the economy into a ditch and we get an Oscars ceremony and telecast so pared down that it seems like an afterthought. The opening number seems like an outtake from a high school musical version of High School Musical. Dammit, I don't want mediocrity in my Oscar opening numbers, I want mind-numbingly awful. Although that Reader riff and the concluding song in the melody is coming close.
The speed-dating Red Carpet was sucky too. We get 15 seconds to hear banal answers to inane questions and gaze at the pretty clothes? Where was that one journalist asking Kate Winslet about doing nude scenes as we saw in 2007?
The Oscars are supposed to skirt close to being a train wreck. This just seems half-hearted. Oh well... I guess it's another reason to drink heavily tonight....
The speed-dating Red Carpet was sucky too. We get 15 seconds to hear banal answers to inane questions and gaze at the pretty clothes? Where was that one journalist asking Kate Winslet about doing nude scenes as we saw in 2007?
The Oscars are supposed to skirt close to being a train wreck. This just seems half-hearted. Oh well... I guess it's another reason to drink heavily tonight....
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Film Courses then, Film Courses now
The lighting situation in the room where I show films for my courses is unacceptable -- two lights on either side of the room (four in total) remain on at all times, creating a great deal of light pollution. I've had to explain to students what happened in scenes that take place at night or in dark rooms. Luckily, the staff here is open to remedying the situation and hopefully a new setup will happen soon.
But it occurred to me that my first experience in film courses (at Indiana University) is quite different than my experiences at other institutions as both a student and as an instructor/professor. At IU in the late 1980s/early 1990s, film courses had their screenings at night; none started before 6 pm. This meant that any room could be used for screenings because even if the sun hadn't gone down completely, the blinds could be closed to make the room dark enough. Furthermore, screenings lasted at least 3 hours and sometimes 4. I first saw Rules of the Game and Breathless back to back in one 3 1/2 hour bloc (and yes, it was an absolutely numbing experience for me). Such double features were not at all uncommon.
I haven't had on a regular basis a three hour bloc for screenings since. Screenings were incorporated into class time at UCLA so that a short lecture could precede multiple films but that depended on the class -- it was common in the German film class but (if I recall correctly) relatively uncommon in the American cinema and French film classes, although we did see more than one film a week in those courses. At Arizona, we had a two hour bloc in which to show films in the late afternoon; students were advised that they might have to stay longer on some occasions (and the university supported this) but generally speaking we had to show films of less than 120 minutes. At Auburn, I have two and a half hours but the screenings are scheduled during the day, which limits the options for where they can be shown (and complicates possible solutions to the aforementioned light problem).
This seems like a problem to me: We don't get enough time to encourage a love of film by showing films back to back. Doing so helps students see connections across time or understand how the stylistic traits of, say, German Expressionism vary across films in that period or how classic Italian neorealism is modulated in La Strada. I recognize that universities have budgeting and credit-hour considerations but it feels to me like the educational part of a film course is attenuated by shortening the time in which students come together to watch films. We should be encouraging, we should be cultivating students' cinephilia, not treating the film as another assignment reducible to the amount of time spent in class.
The problem is, I think, connected to the fact that most film students don't get to watch anything on film anymore. Although many actual prints of films were shown at UCLA, we also used DVDs and even VHS on some occasions. We used only laser discs, VHS and DVD at Arizona and I have never had the opportunity to screen an actual print in any of the classes I have taught myself (although the projectionist at LACC did tell me he could get me a battered print of Citizen Kane if need be). At IU 15 or so years ago, we had mostly films (with the occasional laser disc -- imagine seeing Amarcord for the first time and having it interrupted so the professor could flip the disc). Again, I certainly understand the budgetary reasons for this -- film prints are expensive, they require either special storage facilities or distribution services, etc. But the picture quality on a good print is still better than even that offered by BluRay discs (which still look video-y to me).
And at risk of getting too esoteric, I'd connect this to both my occasional disenchantment with film as an art form and my interest in religion as a social and cultural phenomenon. When I was younger, going to the movies felt almost as though it were a religious experience to me, and this included when I was headed to a classroom full of uncomfortable desk-chair combinations. Not being much of an A/V person (text has always been more important to me than tech) I didn't learn to thread a projector until the end of my undergraduate career so the the machine had a certain mystery about it for me: It was the source of magic (for want of a better word) in the back of the room, we could see the light and feel the heat emanating from it. The entire process felt material. Now all I do is plop a disc into the DVD tray and push a button; the digital code is transferred via cables to an ungainly box suspended from the ceiling which projects the image that feels just somehow wrong. It's cold, it's impersonal. It's not the medium I fell in love with.
My disenchantment is waning as I write, by the way. As an historian, I suppose I always have one eye on the past and those are the films that continue to inspire me. But recent films -- There Will Be Blood, Sunshine, Batman Begins and Children of Men and even films I consider flawed like No Country for Old Men, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Dark Knight and Munich -- have moments that inspire me. This is a long way of saying that I think my disenchantment might be a result of changes in technology and their impact on me as a scholar and educator. Or perhaps it's a result of my historical bent, a tendency to look into the past and see it as inherently more interesting because it's the past. In any event, lately I've been feeling more vital as a film scholar, film teacher and film fan. If only I could get more time and actual celluloid prints....
But it occurred to me that my first experience in film courses (at Indiana University) is quite different than my experiences at other institutions as both a student and as an instructor/professor. At IU in the late 1980s/early 1990s, film courses had their screenings at night; none started before 6 pm. This meant that any room could be used for screenings because even if the sun hadn't gone down completely, the blinds could be closed to make the room dark enough. Furthermore, screenings lasted at least 3 hours and sometimes 4. I first saw Rules of the Game and Breathless back to back in one 3 1/2 hour bloc (and yes, it was an absolutely numbing experience for me). Such double features were not at all uncommon.
I haven't had on a regular basis a three hour bloc for screenings since. Screenings were incorporated into class time at UCLA so that a short lecture could precede multiple films but that depended on the class -- it was common in the German film class but (if I recall correctly) relatively uncommon in the American cinema and French film classes, although we did see more than one film a week in those courses. At Arizona, we had a two hour bloc in which to show films in the late afternoon; students were advised that they might have to stay longer on some occasions (and the university supported this) but generally speaking we had to show films of less than 120 minutes. At Auburn, I have two and a half hours but the screenings are scheduled during the day, which limits the options for where they can be shown (and complicates possible solutions to the aforementioned light problem).
This seems like a problem to me: We don't get enough time to encourage a love of film by showing films back to back. Doing so helps students see connections across time or understand how the stylistic traits of, say, German Expressionism vary across films in that period or how classic Italian neorealism is modulated in La Strada. I recognize that universities have budgeting and credit-hour considerations but it feels to me like the educational part of a film course is attenuated by shortening the time in which students come together to watch films. We should be encouraging, we should be cultivating students' cinephilia, not treating the film as another assignment reducible to the amount of time spent in class.
The problem is, I think, connected to the fact that most film students don't get to watch anything on film anymore. Although many actual prints of films were shown at UCLA, we also used DVDs and even VHS on some occasions. We used only laser discs, VHS and DVD at Arizona and I have never had the opportunity to screen an actual print in any of the classes I have taught myself (although the projectionist at LACC did tell me he could get me a battered print of Citizen Kane if need be). At IU 15 or so years ago, we had mostly films (with the occasional laser disc -- imagine seeing Amarcord for the first time and having it interrupted so the professor could flip the disc). Again, I certainly understand the budgetary reasons for this -- film prints are expensive, they require either special storage facilities or distribution services, etc. But the picture quality on a good print is still better than even that offered by BluRay discs (which still look video-y to me).
And at risk of getting too esoteric, I'd connect this to both my occasional disenchantment with film as an art form and my interest in religion as a social and cultural phenomenon. When I was younger, going to the movies felt almost as though it were a religious experience to me, and this included when I was headed to a classroom full of uncomfortable desk-chair combinations. Not being much of an A/V person (text has always been more important to me than tech) I didn't learn to thread a projector until the end of my undergraduate career so the the machine had a certain mystery about it for me: It was the source of magic (for want of a better word) in the back of the room, we could see the light and feel the heat emanating from it. The entire process felt material. Now all I do is plop a disc into the DVD tray and push a button; the digital code is transferred via cables to an ungainly box suspended from the ceiling which projects the image that feels just somehow wrong. It's cold, it's impersonal. It's not the medium I fell in love with.
My disenchantment is waning as I write, by the way. As an historian, I suppose I always have one eye on the past and those are the films that continue to inspire me. But recent films -- There Will Be Blood, Sunshine, Batman Begins and Children of Men and even films I consider flawed like No Country for Old Men, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Dark Knight and Munich -- have moments that inspire me. This is a long way of saying that I think my disenchantment might be a result of changes in technology and their impact on me as a scholar and educator. Or perhaps it's a result of my historical bent, a tendency to look into the past and see it as inherently more interesting because it's the past. In any event, lately I've been feeling more vital as a film scholar, film teacher and film fan. If only I could get more time and actual celluloid prints....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
