 |
|
Oscar Ballot Catch-Up
 From Milwaukee/Chicago, this is The Dope Sheet... I'm Sam Van
Hallgren.
Thanks to the dearth of compelling new releases, I was able to
use the couple of weeks since our return from Sundance to get
up-to-speed on some Oscar-nominated films:
"Notes On A Scandal"
[Actress, Supp. Actress, Adapted Screenplay, Score];
"Volver" [Actress];
and
"Blood Diamond"
[Actor, Supp. Actor, Editing, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing].
Sadly, of the five nominated documentary features, I've only seen
[the very relevant and very overrated] "An Inconvenient Truth."
Maybe 2007 will see a renewed effort on the part of Filmspotting to
see more documentaries. I hope so. [It just occurred to me what
should have been nominated instead of Gore's doc: Barbara Kopple's
Dixie Chicks documentary, "Shut Up And Sing."]
Because Adam and I will never get the chance to really debate
most of these films on the show, I thought it was worth giving them
their due here in the Dope Sheet.
Notes On A Scandal ***
With last week's Top 5 ["Top 5 That Oscar Got Right"], I spent a
lot of time looking back at Oscar nominees from the last thirty years
or so. It's incredible how quickly so many of the nominated films
have lost cultural relevancy. For whatever reason, some films - even
good ones - just seem to get caught in a kind of vortex, like the
year in which they were released stubbornly holds on to them.
["Shine" "Elizabeth" "Cider House Rules" ... do people watch these
movies anymore?]. My candidate for this year's "future multi-Oscar
nominated film that time forgot" is "Notes On A Scandal." That's not
to say that "Notes" is a bad film. It's not. I can too easily
imagine someone five or ten years from now saying, "Cate Blanchett
and Judi Dench were both nominated for this movie? I've never even
heard of it!"
That's not to say that "Notes" is a bad film. It's not. But I
can too easily imagine someone five or ten years from now saying,
"Cate Blanchett and Judi Dench were both nominated for this movie?
I've never even heard of it!"
A couple of weeks ago in The Dope Sheet, I wrote about how the
trailer for "Notes" was guilty of giving too much of it's plot away.
Now that I've seen it, I'm not sure how much difference it really
made. Once the plot gets going, it's pretty clear where the story is
going. The real pleasure of the movie is its performances. And as
quick as I have been to call Cate Blanchett the greatest actress
working today, I'll be the first to admit that Blanchett doesn't hold
a candle to Dench in this film. What makes Dench's performance even
better [if that's possible] is imagining how many actors would have
played her part as an unsympathetic, one-note wretch. Dench is, as
they say, transcendent.
One more thing: I'm 99% convinced that "Notes" screenwriter
Patrick Marber is a certified misanthrope. [The remaining 1% I leave
open to the possibility that he uses his writing to purge himself of
all that hatred and bile he carried around]. Marber also wrote
"Closer," whose characters are only slightly less hateful and
self-destructive that those in "Notes." What makes "Notes" work is
that however much loathing Marber has for his characters [and human
beings in general], director Richard Eyre [and Dench and Blanchett]
don't share Marber's misanthropic spirit. Mike Nichols, on the other
hand, and the cast of "Closer," seem to hate their characters as much
as Marber does.
Volver ****
Wow. Great film.
I really regret that fact that Adam and I didn't have time to
devote a segment of Filmspotting to Almodovar's film. It deserves it.
And yes, it deserves a Best Foreign Language nomination, too; but
the criteria for that category are so convoluted [or at least seems
so to me] that I'm not going to spend a lot of time being upset by
it. [Did Spain drop the ball by failing to nominate it, or did the
Academy just not deem it worthy of a nomination?]
The movie is so good, in fact, that Penelope Cruz's performance
is maybe the least impressive thing about it. Cruz is fine, and
certainly a lot of is demanded of her emotionally, but I think just
about everyone else in the ensemble is better [Carmen Maura as the
cancer-stricken neighbor, Irene; and Blanca Portillo as Cruz's
mother, Augustina, are particularly good]. The film itself, though,
with its sui generis combination of slapstick, melodrama,
Hitchcockian suspense and magic realism is what really impressed me.
It didn't work on me right away. For at least the first
half-hour, I found myself appreciating the movie, without being
really involved in it. I thought the pairing of pitch-black
slapstick and soap opera plotting in the film's opening scenes was
clever, but it also made me feel like I was missing something (like,
is this an homage to something I've never seen?). But once Blanca
Portilla showed up as a mother back from the dead, the emotional
stakes of the movie really kicked in for me. And at the end of the
film, a lot of things that I took for melodrama at the beginning
turned out to be full of profound emotional weight. It was like
getting hit with a time-delay bomb.
There are a couple of times when the plot goes off on odd,
seemingly unnecessary and overlong tangents (Cruz's adventures in
catering for a film crew; the family friend going on a talk show),
but these moments didn't diminish any of the film's power for me. In
fact, the more I think about the movie, the more I'm convinced that
it would have made my top 10 films of the year.
Blood Diamond
Before I share my thoughts on Leo, Djimon and Jennifer Connolly
in Ed Zwick's movie, I wanted to let a couple of Filmspotting
listeners chime in:
Elliott Levitt in Ann Arbor, MI, writes:
"What could have been "The Constant Gardener"-lite, while not
quite as good as "Gardener," is still pretty terrific. It starts out
a bit too talky, but by the second act Zwick finds a nice balance
between action and ... well ... education. And you totally forget
about Leo's accent after the first few minutes."
Elliott: I agree. Leo, as always, surprises. I thought he was
very believable as a Rhodesian "soldier of fortune." I didn't mind
the accent one bit. (Though there were a couple times when Jennifer
Connolly seemed amused by it.)
Steve Watts writes:
"Though some of the movie's foreshadowing tips its hand too early
and one could interpret it as heavy-handed, I found it to be an
interesting action movie with a sense of social awareness rarely
found in the genre, and full of great performances. The pacing felt
pitch-perfect between the moral message and the action set-pieces so
it kept me both excited and thoughtful without ever leaning towards
adrenaline-junkie or boring-dialogue level."
Elliott, Steve, I hear what you're saying, but you're completely
wrong.
I'm honestly happy to hear that you enjoyed this film. But I
hated it. Hated it. It ranks with "All The Kings Men," "Black
Dahlia" and "Running With Scissors" as one of my least favorite films
of 2006.
Can we please leave Africa alone?
"The Interpreter," "Lord Of War," "The Constant Gardener" "The
Last King Of Scotland" and now "Blood Diamond." Bad films that draw
attention to just how terrible things are in Africa. This has got to
stop.
There are a lot of things wrong with the movie, but I want to
focus on the thing that bothered me the most.
Q: Is it appropriate to stage a big-budget action-romance film in
one of the most tragic places on earth?
A: No, I don't think it is appropriate. Because when you impose
a preposterous story about a "soldier of fortune" [DiCaprio], an
"action junkie" journalist [Jennifer Connolly] and a distraught
father [Djimon Honsou] chasing down a 100-caret diamond, onto a
war-torn landscape like Sierra Leone circa 1999, you turn the real
victims of the place into props. The rules of the real world do not
apply to our "heroes" [we know they're going to survive all of the
arbitrary violence and the mindless killing]. The torture and
bloodshed and cruelty are mere decoration. A vivid backdrop for
cringe-inducing dialogue ("In America it's bling-bling; in Africa,
it's bling-bang!"), hackneyed characters and a manipulative
story.
If I were cynical, I would say that the film was made by people
who think that audiences are dumb. [Thanks for all the super preachy
lessons about the diamond trade, child soldiers and the hypocrisy of
journalism, Mr. Zwick! And so awkwardly integrated into the script!
Well done!] But I'm not cynical [though apparently I can be
sarcastic], so I'll just blame the filmmakers for making a really bad
film.
If you want to skip the film [which, obviously, I recommend] but
you still want to experience the feeling of what it was like to watch
it, just download the song that played over the movie's credits,
"Shine On 'Em" by Nas. "Looking in the dirt for that ice so blue /
then the Royal Family the ice goes to." "Everyone wants heaven, but
nobody wants dead / everybody wants diamonds without the bloodshed."
Word.
[Adam's note: One of the benefits of being the person who
actually sends out The Dope Sheet is that I get to point out little
inconsistencies like Sam calling "The Last King of Scotland" and "The
Constant Gardener" -- both movies he gave positive, 3-star reviews to
-- "bad." Sam thinks this bothers me because I still have a dirty
diaper about "Scotland." He might be right, but I'm calling it
journalistic integrity.]
|
|
|
| |
|
Vote for Filmspotting!
While Academy members are casting their votes for Martin Scorsese,
cast yours for Sam and Adam!
Vote for Filmspotting at PodcastAlley.
We appreciate your support!
|
|
|
| |
|
Dope Prizes!
 The Dope Sheet Subscription Drive is on! As you heard in this week's
podcast, all Dope Sheet subscribers will be eligible for not one but
two prizes! As a subscriber, simply NOT cancel your
subscription and you're immediately entered to win! Or for those
friends for whom Adam and Sam's witty repartee hasn't quite been
enough, well now you have a tangible incentive to offer them! The
contest runs through March 1.
The Prizes:
-- 1st Place: A blue, Filmspotting engraved iPod shuffle
-- 2nd Place: Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" DVD
These prizes have been made possible by the generosity of two
Filmspotting contributors:
Message Boards
moderator Alex Knesnik donated the iPod shuffle while Paul "Symptoms
of Majesty" (a Platinum Club donor from the UK) popped for the
"Idiocracy" DVD. Thanks guys!
The winners will be announced the week of March 5. Good luck to
everyone, and thank you for subscribing!
|
|
|
| |
|
Filmranting
From the United States, this is Filmranting... I'm Joshua Ostrander.
If there's one thing that pisses me off more than anything else,
it's the overall ignorance of the general American movie-going
audience. I recently saw "Pan's Labyrinth" and absolutely loved it,
but when I urged my friend to go see it, he flat-out refused. Not
because he didn't like Del Toro or because the plot didn't interest
him, but because it was a foreign language film.
For me, this is the stupidest reason not to see a film. Some of
the greatest movies of all-time are in foreign languages. "8 1/2",
"Seven Samurai" and "Oldboy" are all in my top ten -- not because
I'm a snob, but because I genuinely think these films are
masterpieces.
Someone recently asked me why I would ever see a subtitled film
and I answered, "because it's a good film!" This just shows the
superiority that Americans feel they need to exert over everyone
else. Everything needs to conform to the needs of Americans, and
never the other way around.
And then there are people who say, "Well, why can't they just dub
the movie so we can view it in English?" This just ruins the film.
I once watched "Oldboy" dubbed over in English and was utterly
repulsed by the horrible voice acting. Of course, there are
exceptions, such as the excellent work done by Disney in dubbing over
Miyazaki's films, and I will even admit that I like them better when
redone with American actors. But that is not because I was too lazy
and ignorant to watch it in its original form. Americans have to get
over themselves and start expanding their minds.
--
Now's not the time to be anti-American, Josh. This kind of talk
only discourages our troops. Now excuse us while we go watch good
American-made flicks like "Hannibal Rising" and "Ghost Rider,"
capped off by a dubbed version of "Day For Night." In the meantime,
please keep those rants coming:
dopesheet@filmspotting.net
|
|
|
| |
|
Dope Links
Meet The Directors
A few years ago, The Directors Guild of America began hosting a
pre-awards "Meet The Nominees" panel in which their five
DGA-nominated feature film directors would shoot the bull about what
they do and how they do it. This year's group included Stephen
Frears ("The Queen"), Bill Condon ("Dreamgirls"), Jonathan Dayton and
Valerie Faris ("Little Miss Sunshine"), Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
("Babel") and eventual-winner Martin Scorsese ("The Departed"). The
DGA doesn't provide a transcript or video of the event (rat
bastards), so this insightful Reuters coverage will have to suffice.
Where Have All the Upstarts Gone?
In the post-Tarantino 90s, a lot of new and exciting directors
made a big splash... but in the 2000s, they've barely made a peep.
What gives? The New York Times' Sharon Waxman explores the mystery.
Ben Sliney as Ben Sliney
While Sam and Adam's views on "United 93" differed, one aspect
they could agree on was Ben Sliney's engaging self-portrayal as the
Operations Manager at the FAA's command center on September 11, 2001.
One immediate question the performance raises is, "How was it for
that guy to play himself on that day?" Scott Foundas'
recent LA Weekly feature on Sliney provides the answer.
-- Jeff Huston
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
