[on the oscars, and why i'm still rooting for atonement]
So I just watched No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood back to back, both for the first time. Anyone who has seen both of these movies is no doubt currently going Are you mad?! like Beckett's evil sidekick Creepy O'Lurk in the third Pirates movie when Jones is sailing into the maelstrom. I am probably not really all that sane, but it was still quite a feat. How did I do it, you ask? I'll tell you how: thanks to Hef I was forwarned, and thus, between the two, I aquired a MILKSHAKE!
Also, after I post this, I plan to go hide under my bed from Javier Bardem.
Anyway, beware of some spoilers here (mostly for No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, and Atonement), but I think they're pretty minimal all around.
BEST PICTURE:
Having now seen what are considered to be the three major contendors, it's nice to know I'd be okay with any of them winning, because any of those three would deserve a Best Picture award. Probably the most solid in terms of pulling everything together toward masterpiece is No Country for Old Men, because of the solid puzzle-fitting job the Coen brothers pulled off. There Will Be Blood was not quite as tight, although to me more visual, and No Country for Old Men, despite the wonderful preformances in it, doesn't have the powerhouse of a lead. It's like comparing Bill Gates to da Vinci. With the right role Day-Lewis could carry an entire movie to Oscar-worthy, and this is a/the right role. And he does.
That said? I'm still gunning for Atonement. And it's not because the book is one of my great loves, or because I think it particularly deserves to win over the other two movies I named above. It's not because I love the leads so much or the fact that I think the director did something very special in terms of absolutely marrying story and style. All of these things are true (except perhaps the deserving part), but they aren't why.
No, I'm rooting for Atonement because of the WGA strike.
Yes, I know it's over. I wish I'd written this before it had been, but what can you do. But because so many people thought the writers were asking for more just for the sake of asking for more, they were just pissed that their shows would be interrupted. And what was perhaps most special about this movie is that it threw it in everyone's face - what words, what even one word, could do.
One of the main complaints I heard/read about Atonement was that there was little character development past the fateful day that takes up the first half of the movie. After that lie. And because I had already read the book, it was kind of hard to argue that - the book is 90% introspection from the three leads (most especially from Briony and Robbie) so by the time that event comes into play you know the characters backwards and forwards. But what I realized is true in both the book and the movie - although in a way it's hard to sense the parallel right away - is that after the event, in both instances, all three leads are completely defined by the lie. In the first half of the movie, the character of each is made to be very very clear. In the second, everything comes back to that one thing. That one word read by a 13-year-old girl.
Kinda makes me laugh at the fact that they wanted to take it out and Joe Wright, the director, apparently uttered the immortal phrase: "THE 'CUNT' STAYS IN THE PICTURE!"
In its most basic form, Atonement is a story of stories - and a story of storytellers. How when words can and do destroy everything, they are the last recourse for one step toward redemption. Briony was never redeemed, but it was the only form of redemption that could ever have tied itself to her identity. It was her confession, her cleansing. No one but Vanessa Redgrave could have carried that penance, that guilt moving upwards towards peace after so many years. Stories do, in fact, have as much power in that regard. But accidental destruction is much more blatent than accidental blessing, and rarely accredited as such.
Except, of course, when it reaches an audience as a bestseller or an Oscar-nominated film.
As for the other two? Michael Clayton, I haven't seen. Juno I have. And I enjoyed it, it's a cute movie, it's a funny movie. But it is NOT a Best Picture movie. It's this year's Little Indie Movie That Could. Last year it was Little Miss Sunshine. The great irony is that I enjoyed LMS less, I think, but I feel it was far more deserving. While I expected Juno to be far better and far funnier than I turned out to feel that it was, my great disappointment came from the fact that while it was good and it was funny, it was never really more than it appeared to be. The characters never seemed to really grow at all. The only change in perspective towards them was in regard to the adoptive couple, and you could see that coming a mile away. The title character's personal revelation may have opened her eyes, but it didn't open mine at all. The movie was good, in and of itself, but it was nothing more than a good movie. It couldn't go any further than the four corners of the screen, which the other three I've seen all did.
BEST ACTOR:
Although I am royally pissed that James McAvoy did not get a nomination, it isn't because I think he deserves to win. I believe that he did a brilliant job and deserves some acknowledgement, but let's face it - the only reason I'd go to the Oscars if I was nommed in this catagory (which I wouldn't be, since I can't act and also am, y'know, female) would be the food, the clothes, and to shake Daniel Day-Lewis's hand in congratulations and then run away very fast because he would not only drink my milkshake, he would flavor it with my melted pancreas.
Every actor who got nominated did deserve that nomination, despite my bitterness in regard to McAvoy having to sit this one out (mark my words - he'll be back.) Depp, especially - he's kind of a hit-or-miss actor, always brilliant but only sometimes consumed by the role, and this time he was. But Day-Lewis deserves his pretty (gold statuette, that is). And its little milkshake, too.
BEST ACTRESS:
I'm bitter about this catagory, and it's all Ellen Page's fault.
Well, not really. It's whoever nominated her. I have nothing against the girl personally - she's a pretty good actress, and downright adorable (does anybody else want to pinch her cheeks despite never being the cheek-pinching type, or is that just me?) but like the movie itself as a Best Picture, she doesn't deserve to be here. Not next to people like Julie Christie and Marion Cotillard and Laura Linney and Cate Blanchett. You want a troubled pregnant chick from a cute little indie flick, you should have given it to Keri fucking Russell. Or maybe Amy Adams, for her hilarious turn in Enchanted (although lord knows that didn't deserve to have 3 out of 5 nominations for Best Original Song.) Maybe I just find it hard to believe that it was that hard for a decent actress of a teen to play that role. I mean seriously, playing a teen but getting someone else to provide your witty repartee? I wish someone had done that for me in high school. Although I could do without the belly. But weirdly enough, if anyone deserved an acting nod in that movie it was Jen Garner (now THERE'S something I never thought I'd say) but again, the characters (and as such, the actors) were ill-served in my mind by never being anything more than what we saw from the start.
But anyway. I'm flexible here. I'd root for Julie Christie, probably, on principle - my grandfather has Alzheimer's, and he does not recognize me. But I haven't actually seen most of them yet, and I'm not a diehard fan of any of them, so I'm not too invested in the outcome.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Bed, hiding, under. Don't tell the nice psycho with his air compressor. WHY DID HE NOT DIE? Now I'm just going to have to be afraid of everything forever.
Despite the fact that the characters are nothing alike, one of my friends mentioned a comparison between Javier Bardem's character and Hannibal Lector. Both of them are psychopaths who kill people, but Hannibal has a fascination with humanity and a world. Javier Bardem's character (which I continue to call him because Anton was my grandfather's name and it creeps me out, okay?) lives, thrives, on death. And it's not graphic mutilation; Hannibal makes a spectacle of it but with JBC it's just that one instant - that tiny little breath of air. Nothing else seems to matter to him, really, not even the money itself no matter how much trouble he goes to after it. Every moment he was on the screen, I wasn't breathing, just waiting for the next blast. The terror was so absolute that it made you care about characters you wouldn't have, like the gas station attendant with the coin he'll never know the true luck of. It makes you think about what's wrong with most horror movies these days. I can't remember the last time visual media had my heart going that fast.
Nonetheless, I am also compelled to point out Casey Affleck. People have wondered why he was nominated for best supporting actor in a movie where he seemed to be the lead. The answer is, of course, that they couldn't put him up for lead actor (since the five nominees are all such powerful contenders, despite the fact that one is clearly the most impressive in this regard) and they wanted to give him a nod anyway.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
I'm not sure why, but Cate Blanchett, no matter how good she is, doesn't move me. Maybe part of that is due to never having seen Elizabeth, but still. Maybe she deserves it; maybe she doesn't. But I'm not particularly invested in her winning. My vote, predictably, is for Saoirse Ronan, because she plays Briony as the accidentally-on-purpose villain with such power and wide-eyed wonder. You hate the kid, but damnit, she does capture your attention every moment she's on screen. If anyone from that movie deserved acting kudos more than McAvoy, it's Ronan. I love Knightley and all, but it's still Ronan. If Ronan can't nab it, my vote's for Amy Ryan.
BEST DIRECTOR:
Two people spring to mind here as seriously gypped. The first, predictably, is Joe Wright for Atonement. I mean seriously, people, are you BLIND? I don't care if you didn't like the story or if you hate the actors or whatever, but seriously. Stylistically that movie was gold and should have been recognized. The other is Ben Affleck. Yeah, him. Remember when his career was a joke? The man has gone through one of the most impressive transformations in Hollywood - where once you're down you're usually out - and he climbed back up and managed to make it to the top of the mountain. Gone Baby Gone was representative of that. Represent, people.
Still, it'll probably go to the Coen brothers, and I'm more than happy with that. Under anyone else's hand, No Country for Old Men would have felt drawn-out, with people just waiting for the big moments and skimming the rest. But every moment of that movie was tight as a drum and there's more subtlety to that particular art than people like to think.
BEST SCORE:
I have absolutely no guilt and no personal bias in thinking that Atonement deserves this one. I cried listening to that soundtrack before I'd even seen the freaking movie. Beat that.
My second choice would be the horror and/or oddly Hitchcockian-esque score of There Will Be Blood. Sound editing should go to that movie, too, if it's even nominated.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:
Three words: Dunkirk tracking shot.
Again, no guilt. Because even without that tracking shot I'd be rooting for this movie on visual style alone. If nothing else (and there was, as it turned out, a lot else) it was so fucking pretty. It conveyed the tone and even identity of the movie so perfectly, with such sinister beauty, like an alligator lurking just below the surface of a waterlily-dappled pond.
If it doesn't go to Atonement, my vote would again be for There Will Be Blood. Their use of light and dark in that movie was fantastic, as well as the angular following and examination of character movement and identity. This was especially markable for me about an hour into the movie, when the oil tower was burning. Day-Lewis's face was red - even his eyes - surrounded by black. A little less than subtle, I'll grant you, but chillingly effective all the same.
BEST SCREENPLAY:
Ironically - especially ironically, considering why I'm rooting for Atonement in the first place - I don't care. Well, I don't think Juno deserves it. Which Jessica will kill me for, but...again, it didn't take me any further with the characters than what I saw all along. It was funny in places, but no more so than plenty of other movies. By that standard, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang should have gotten one too. I mean, seriously. But the point is, most of the nominees - both for adapted and for original - were so well done that I'll be happy for whoever wins.
Also, after I post this, I plan to go hide under my bed from Javier Bardem.
Anyway, beware of some spoilers here (mostly for No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, and Atonement), but I think they're pretty minimal all around.
BEST PICTURE:
Having now seen what are considered to be the three major contendors, it's nice to know I'd be okay with any of them winning, because any of those three would deserve a Best Picture award. Probably the most solid in terms of pulling everything together toward masterpiece is No Country for Old Men, because of the solid puzzle-fitting job the Coen brothers pulled off. There Will Be Blood was not quite as tight, although to me more visual, and No Country for Old Men, despite the wonderful preformances in it, doesn't have the powerhouse of a lead. It's like comparing Bill Gates to da Vinci. With the right role Day-Lewis could carry an entire movie to Oscar-worthy, and this is a/the right role. And he does.
That said? I'm still gunning for Atonement. And it's not because the book is one of my great loves, or because I think it particularly deserves to win over the other two movies I named above. It's not because I love the leads so much or the fact that I think the director did something very special in terms of absolutely marrying story and style. All of these things are true (except perhaps the deserving part), but they aren't why.
No, I'm rooting for Atonement because of the WGA strike.
Yes, I know it's over. I wish I'd written this before it had been, but what can you do. But because so many people thought the writers were asking for more just for the sake of asking for more, they were just pissed that their shows would be interrupted. And what was perhaps most special about this movie is that it threw it in everyone's face - what words, what even one word, could do.
One of the main complaints I heard/read about Atonement was that there was little character development past the fateful day that takes up the first half of the movie. After that lie. And because I had already read the book, it was kind of hard to argue that - the book is 90% introspection from the three leads (most especially from Briony and Robbie) so by the time that event comes into play you know the characters backwards and forwards. But what I realized is true in both the book and the movie - although in a way it's hard to sense the parallel right away - is that after the event, in both instances, all three leads are completely defined by the lie. In the first half of the movie, the character of each is made to be very very clear. In the second, everything comes back to that one thing. That one word read by a 13-year-old girl.
Kinda makes me laugh at the fact that they wanted to take it out and Joe Wright, the director, apparently uttered the immortal phrase: "THE 'CUNT' STAYS IN THE PICTURE!"
In its most basic form, Atonement is a story of stories - and a story of storytellers. How when words can and do destroy everything, they are the last recourse for one step toward redemption. Briony was never redeemed, but it was the only form of redemption that could ever have tied itself to her identity. It was her confession, her cleansing. No one but Vanessa Redgrave could have carried that penance, that guilt moving upwards towards peace after so many years. Stories do, in fact, have as much power in that regard. But accidental destruction is much more blatent than accidental blessing, and rarely accredited as such.
Except, of course, when it reaches an audience as a bestseller or an Oscar-nominated film.
As for the other two? Michael Clayton, I haven't seen. Juno I have. And I enjoyed it, it's a cute movie, it's a funny movie. But it is NOT a Best Picture movie. It's this year's Little Indie Movie That Could. Last year it was Little Miss Sunshine. The great irony is that I enjoyed LMS less, I think, but I feel it was far more deserving. While I expected Juno to be far better and far funnier than I turned out to feel that it was, my great disappointment came from the fact that while it was good and it was funny, it was never really more than it appeared to be. The characters never seemed to really grow at all. The only change in perspective towards them was in regard to the adoptive couple, and you could see that coming a mile away. The title character's personal revelation may have opened her eyes, but it didn't open mine at all. The movie was good, in and of itself, but it was nothing more than a good movie. It couldn't go any further than the four corners of the screen, which the other three I've seen all did.
BEST ACTOR:
Although I am royally pissed that James McAvoy did not get a nomination, it isn't because I think he deserves to win. I believe that he did a brilliant job and deserves some acknowledgement, but let's face it - the only reason I'd go to the Oscars if I was nommed in this catagory (which I wouldn't be, since I can't act and also am, y'know, female) would be the food, the clothes, and to shake Daniel Day-Lewis's hand in congratulations and then run away very fast because he would not only drink my milkshake, he would flavor it with my melted pancreas.
Every actor who got nominated did deserve that nomination, despite my bitterness in regard to McAvoy having to sit this one out (mark my words - he'll be back.) Depp, especially - he's kind of a hit-or-miss actor, always brilliant but only sometimes consumed by the role, and this time he was. But Day-Lewis deserves his pretty (gold statuette, that is). And its little milkshake, too.
BEST ACTRESS:
I'm bitter about this catagory, and it's all Ellen Page's fault.
Well, not really. It's whoever nominated her. I have nothing against the girl personally - she's a pretty good actress, and downright adorable (does anybody else want to pinch her cheeks despite never being the cheek-pinching type, or is that just me?) but like the movie itself as a Best Picture, she doesn't deserve to be here. Not next to people like Julie Christie and Marion Cotillard and Laura Linney and Cate Blanchett. You want a troubled pregnant chick from a cute little indie flick, you should have given it to Keri fucking Russell. Or maybe Amy Adams, for her hilarious turn in Enchanted (although lord knows that didn't deserve to have 3 out of 5 nominations for Best Original Song.) Maybe I just find it hard to believe that it was that hard for a decent actress of a teen to play that role. I mean seriously, playing a teen but getting someone else to provide your witty repartee? I wish someone had done that for me in high school. Although I could do without the belly. But weirdly enough, if anyone deserved an acting nod in that movie it was Jen Garner (now THERE'S something I never thought I'd say) but again, the characters (and as such, the actors) were ill-served in my mind by never being anything more than what we saw from the start.
But anyway. I'm flexible here. I'd root for Julie Christie, probably, on principle - my grandfather has Alzheimer's, and he does not recognize me. But I haven't actually seen most of them yet, and I'm not a diehard fan of any of them, so I'm not too invested in the outcome.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Bed, hiding, under. Don't tell the nice psycho with his air compressor. WHY DID HE NOT DIE? Now I'm just going to have to be afraid of everything forever.
Despite the fact that the characters are nothing alike, one of my friends mentioned a comparison between Javier Bardem's character and Hannibal Lector. Both of them are psychopaths who kill people, but Hannibal has a fascination with humanity and a world. Javier Bardem's character (which I continue to call him because Anton was my grandfather's name and it creeps me out, okay?) lives, thrives, on death. And it's not graphic mutilation; Hannibal makes a spectacle of it but with JBC it's just that one instant - that tiny little breath of air. Nothing else seems to matter to him, really, not even the money itself no matter how much trouble he goes to after it. Every moment he was on the screen, I wasn't breathing, just waiting for the next blast. The terror was so absolute that it made you care about characters you wouldn't have, like the gas station attendant with the coin he'll never know the true luck of. It makes you think about what's wrong with most horror movies these days. I can't remember the last time visual media had my heart going that fast.
Nonetheless, I am also compelled to point out Casey Affleck. People have wondered why he was nominated for best supporting actor in a movie where he seemed to be the lead. The answer is, of course, that they couldn't put him up for lead actor (since the five nominees are all such powerful contenders, despite the fact that one is clearly the most impressive in this regard) and they wanted to give him a nod anyway.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
I'm not sure why, but Cate Blanchett, no matter how good she is, doesn't move me. Maybe part of that is due to never having seen Elizabeth, but still. Maybe she deserves it; maybe she doesn't. But I'm not particularly invested in her winning. My vote, predictably, is for Saoirse Ronan, because she plays Briony as the accidentally-on-purpose villain with such power and wide-eyed wonder. You hate the kid, but damnit, she does capture your attention every moment she's on screen. If anyone from that movie deserved acting kudos more than McAvoy, it's Ronan. I love Knightley and all, but it's still Ronan. If Ronan can't nab it, my vote's for Amy Ryan.
BEST DIRECTOR:
Two people spring to mind here as seriously gypped. The first, predictably, is Joe Wright for Atonement. I mean seriously, people, are you BLIND? I don't care if you didn't like the story or if you hate the actors or whatever, but seriously. Stylistically that movie was gold and should have been recognized. The other is Ben Affleck. Yeah, him. Remember when his career was a joke? The man has gone through one of the most impressive transformations in Hollywood - where once you're down you're usually out - and he climbed back up and managed to make it to the top of the mountain. Gone Baby Gone was representative of that. Represent, people.
Still, it'll probably go to the Coen brothers, and I'm more than happy with that. Under anyone else's hand, No Country for Old Men would have felt drawn-out, with people just waiting for the big moments and skimming the rest. But every moment of that movie was tight as a drum and there's more subtlety to that particular art than people like to think.
BEST SCORE:
I have absolutely no guilt and no personal bias in thinking that Atonement deserves this one. I cried listening to that soundtrack before I'd even seen the freaking movie. Beat that.
My second choice would be the horror and/or oddly Hitchcockian-esque score of There Will Be Blood. Sound editing should go to that movie, too, if it's even nominated.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:
Three words: Dunkirk tracking shot.
Again, no guilt. Because even without that tracking shot I'd be rooting for this movie on visual style alone. If nothing else (and there was, as it turned out, a lot else) it was so fucking pretty. It conveyed the tone and even identity of the movie so perfectly, with such sinister beauty, like an alligator lurking just below the surface of a waterlily-dappled pond.
If it doesn't go to Atonement, my vote would again be for There Will Be Blood. Their use of light and dark in that movie was fantastic, as well as the angular following and examination of character movement and identity. This was especially markable for me about an hour into the movie, when the oil tower was burning. Day-Lewis's face was red - even his eyes - surrounded by black. A little less than subtle, I'll grant you, but chillingly effective all the same.
BEST SCREENPLAY:
Ironically - especially ironically, considering why I'm rooting for Atonement in the first place - I don't care. Well, I don't think Juno deserves it. Which Jessica will kill me for, but...again, it didn't take me any further with the characters than what I saw all along. It was funny in places, but no more so than plenty of other movies. By that standard, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang should have gotten one too. I mean, seriously. But the point is, most of the nominees - both for adapted and for original - were so well done that I'll be happy for whoever wins.