23.9.09
My Oscar Picks 2008
I found this in my drafts, finished. I wish I had posted it, but it's kind of funny that I am now, 10 months late, just because I'm a little bored.
MY OSCAR PICKS
I believe the Best Picture Award should go toward a film that brings new cultural understanding, breaks taboos and adds cinematic value to American culture. For example, between There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, No Country deserves the win, no contest, because while Blood was commentary on oil dependency and human corruption, No Country was a unique version of what could be a cliché story, told with metaphor, symbolism and tragedy (it also mused on human corruption; no one in either Blood or No Country were good guys, not really).
But the Oscars suck. They rarely pick movies that do bring cultural significance. For example, 2006 was between The Departed and Children of Men, both incredible movies. Departed won, yet Children was the obvious pick. It was an example of cinematic excellence, with its masterful tracking shots and immersion in a world gone mad. It's story was a commentary on the Bush administration's fearful scare tactics, America's racism and totalitarianism. The best example, is the scene in the prison camps. In the background, you can barely make out a man wearing all black, arms out stretched and attached to electrical wires. Yes, the movie was saying, America, this is you.
That, of course, is why it didn't win. I really don't think there's a point in making "Oscar Picks" because it's a stupid organization that doesn't bring anything to the table, except on accident.
That said, here are my Oscar picks for this year.
FROST / NIXON
Didn't actually see it, but I know the story, a bit. This film acts as a thin veil for the lynching of W. Someone tried to prosecute Nixon for crimes, which should remind people that Bush committed war crimes and he should also be tried. But that's too bad, because anyone knows Bush won't and if he does, they should also execute Obama and any other senators that approved the legislation allowing W. to commit those acts of inhumanity. BUT THAT'LL NEVER HAPPEN. So this movie's entire point is lost and does not deserve an Oscar. Which brings me to . . .
W.
Does the W stand for WASTE, as in "waste of time"? This was the first film I ever snuck into, and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. It's terribly long, irrelevant to actual truth about the bastard elect and comes so late in the administration it's ineffectual. Occasionally, the movie tries to be objective, but it comes across as contrived. There's only one motivation for this film and that is to tarnish the reputation of Bush, only it won't do that. It won't do anything. Speaking of which:
MILK
Yet another blatantly motivated political film. Yay. This one is wedged between Obama, MLK and the gay rights movement up in arms over Prop. 8 and Prop 102.
Great, I agree, give the gays rights, but this movie? Seriously? Melodramatic (like when Milk's boy toy commits suicide), sappy and irresponsible. Historically accurate, yes, but that exposes how Milk was a corrupt, power hungry beast. What he did for gays he only did for himself, and he did it by bending the law, making slimy deals with another crooked politician, the guy who eventually killed him. Ha ha ha. Irony.
But this film doesn't matter, it doesn't impact the gay rights movement and it doesn't make any politician a saint. A film for our time it's not.
CADILLAC RECORDS
Speaking of minorities, here's another of those nearly-all black films. See also: Dreamgirls, and all those Tyler Perry films. The problem with this film is its historical accuracy; it barely has any. It takes too long a period of time, speeds it up and tries to view it too easily. Like a bullet train tour through Chicago, you don't see anything.
The music is great, the acting is great, but the story isn't an impact on society.
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
A smooth mix of cool, exciting and dramatic. It opens a brand new world, the spectacular country of India. It has a tale of hope, desperation and a gentle perspective on a very negative issue, namely poverty. As India rises as a world power, many Americans despise the competition, but this film shows our neighbors are human and just want what we have.
THE WRESTLER
Didn't see it, but damn, I wish I had. I don't think it has a chance, however, but wouldn't mind if it did win something. At least best actor. From what I can decipher from trailers, this is a Rocky of our time. Speaking of Rocky, it won best picture in 1976, pushing out Network, which was another terrible Oscar snub. Fuck Rocky, it's a terrible film, especially the sequels.
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Clearly the most beautiful, poignant film since Requiem for a Dream in terms of existensial angst. I cried, a lot and I'm not embarassed by that. It's a film that has a message for me: embrace life, embrace it hard and do the best with it. My personal favorite film of the year, but I'm still not sure it's "The Big One".
CHANGELING
I think Angelina Jolie should win something for being the most anorexic housewife of the twenties. But seriously, her acting was something else. The rest of the film, however, just isn't up to standards of significance.
THE DARK KNIGHT
Just kidding. This isn't nominated, although perhaps it should be, so I don't think I should mention anything, except this: one dead actor is not enough to make an entire blockbuster film worthy of social impact. At least, not in this case. If Robert Downey, Jr. dies before the making of Iron Man 2: The Subpar Sequel that won't make the film Oscar gold.
WALL•E
*snort*.
This should have been a silent film. The first several minutes acted that way, but then it turned into this boring, melodramatic moral tale. Soulless machines telling us how to run the planet and condemning consumerism? And then having Disney place Wall•e's ugly mug on every cereal box, dinette set and condom dispenser? That's not irony, kids. That's hypocrisy. All this film teaches is to be blind to actual issues and whine like a bitch.
MAN ON WIRE
An indie documentary about a man who did a trapeze act between the Two Towers, creating the single most incredible art crime in history. The film was inspiring and riveting (I can't think of better words) and it didn't once mention the 9/11 attacks, which was an interesting touch. It doesn't deserve best picture, but best documentary or something.
CONCLUSION
So, I've filtered it down between SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, BENJAMIN BUTTON and THE WRESTLER. I can't pick one, because I haven't seen the Wrestler and I have a personal bias for Button (If you can guess why, I'll give you a dollar). I actually don't think any of those will win. It'll probably be something lame. Anyone want to place bets?
MY OSCAR PICKS
I believe the Best Picture Award should go toward a film that brings new cultural understanding, breaks taboos and adds cinematic value to American culture. For example, between There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, No Country deserves the win, no contest, because while Blood was commentary on oil dependency and human corruption, No Country was a unique version of what could be a cliché story, told with metaphor, symbolism and tragedy (it also mused on human corruption; no one in either Blood or No Country were good guys, not really).
But the Oscars suck. They rarely pick movies that do bring cultural significance. For example, 2006 was between The Departed and Children of Men, both incredible movies. Departed won, yet Children was the obvious pick. It was an example of cinematic excellence, with its masterful tracking shots and immersion in a world gone mad. It's story was a commentary on the Bush administration's fearful scare tactics, America's racism and totalitarianism. The best example, is the scene in the prison camps. In the background, you can barely make out a man wearing all black, arms out stretched and attached to electrical wires. Yes, the movie was saying, America, this is you.
That, of course, is why it didn't win. I really don't think there's a point in making "Oscar Picks" because it's a stupid organization that doesn't bring anything to the table, except on accident.
That said, here are my Oscar picks for this year.
FROST / NIXON
Didn't actually see it, but I know the story, a bit. This film acts as a thin veil for the lynching of W. Someone tried to prosecute Nixon for crimes, which should remind people that Bush committed war crimes and he should also be tried. But that's too bad, because anyone knows Bush won't and if he does, they should also execute Obama and any other senators that approved the legislation allowing W. to commit those acts of inhumanity. BUT THAT'LL NEVER HAPPEN. So this movie's entire point is lost and does not deserve an Oscar. Which brings me to . . .
W.
Does the W stand for WASTE, as in "waste of time"? This was the first film I ever snuck into, and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. It's terribly long, irrelevant to actual truth about the bastard elect and comes so late in the administration it's ineffectual. Occasionally, the movie tries to be objective, but it comes across as contrived. There's only one motivation for this film and that is to tarnish the reputation of Bush, only it won't do that. It won't do anything. Speaking of which:
MILK
Yet another blatantly motivated political film. Yay. This one is wedged between Obama, MLK and the gay rights movement up in arms over Prop. 8 and Prop 102.
Great, I agree, give the gays rights, but this movie? Seriously? Melodramatic (like when Milk's boy toy commits suicide), sappy and irresponsible. Historically accurate, yes, but that exposes how Milk was a corrupt, power hungry beast. What he did for gays he only did for himself, and he did it by bending the law, making slimy deals with another crooked politician, the guy who eventually killed him. Ha ha ha. Irony.
But this film doesn't matter, it doesn't impact the gay rights movement and it doesn't make any politician a saint. A film for our time it's not.
CADILLAC RECORDS
Speaking of minorities, here's another of those nearly-all black films. See also: Dreamgirls, and all those Tyler Perry films. The problem with this film is its historical accuracy; it barely has any. It takes too long a period of time, speeds it up and tries to view it too easily. Like a bullet train tour through Chicago, you don't see anything.
The music is great, the acting is great, but the story isn't an impact on society.
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
A smooth mix of cool, exciting and dramatic. It opens a brand new world, the spectacular country of India. It has a tale of hope, desperation and a gentle perspective on a very negative issue, namely poverty. As India rises as a world power, many Americans despise the competition, but this film shows our neighbors are human and just want what we have.
THE WRESTLER
Didn't see it, but damn, I wish I had. I don't think it has a chance, however, but wouldn't mind if it did win something. At least best actor. From what I can decipher from trailers, this is a Rocky of our time. Speaking of Rocky, it won best picture in 1976, pushing out Network, which was another terrible Oscar snub. Fuck Rocky, it's a terrible film, especially the sequels.
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Clearly the most beautiful, poignant film since Requiem for a Dream in terms of existensial angst. I cried, a lot and I'm not embarassed by that. It's a film that has a message for me: embrace life, embrace it hard and do the best with it. My personal favorite film of the year, but I'm still not sure it's "The Big One".
CHANGELING
I think Angelina Jolie should win something for being the most anorexic housewife of the twenties. But seriously, her acting was something else. The rest of the film, however, just isn't up to standards of significance.
THE DARK KNIGHT
Just kidding. This isn't nominated, although perhaps it should be, so I don't think I should mention anything, except this: one dead actor is not enough to make an entire blockbuster film worthy of social impact. At least, not in this case. If Robert Downey, Jr. dies before the making of Iron Man 2: The Subpar Sequel that won't make the film Oscar gold.
WALL•E
*snort*.
This should have been a silent film. The first several minutes acted that way, but then it turned into this boring, melodramatic moral tale. Soulless machines telling us how to run the planet and condemning consumerism? And then having Disney place Wall•e's ugly mug on every cereal box, dinette set and condom dispenser? That's not irony, kids. That's hypocrisy. All this film teaches is to be blind to actual issues and whine like a bitch.
MAN ON WIRE
An indie documentary about a man who did a trapeze act between the Two Towers, creating the single most incredible art crime in history. The film was inspiring and riveting (I can't think of better words) and it didn't once mention the 9/11 attacks, which was an interesting touch. It doesn't deserve best picture, but best documentary or something.
CONCLUSION
So, I've filtered it down between SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, BENJAMIN BUTTON and THE WRESTLER. I can't pick one, because I haven't seen the Wrestler and I have a personal bias for Button (If you can guess why, I'll give you a dollar). I actually don't think any of those will win. It'll probably be something lame. Anyone want to place bets?
7.9.09
Basterds
I've been meaning to write a review of Quentin Tarantino's latest, but don't expect a lack of spoilers. Go see the movie and come back. You won't regret it.
It was perfect. It was certainly the best movie in the last ten years (since Fight Club, obviously, exactly). A crowded theater, midnight showing, everyone cheered and groaned perfectly.
But it was awful. Awful in the literal sense, full of awe and full of what's terrible.
There are five chapters, each one built upon a beautiful scene of dialogue ending in revolting violence. Tarantino has a real muscle for language, any language, French, German, Italian, especially English. Every dripping word is spectacular, every verb builds up tension like a game of Jenga using the Sears Tower. And then it explodes. It explodes in the most horrifying, beautiful, awesome, awful way possible.
There is more symbolism than I probably caught, but it spoke deeply of the nature of man. First, the trivial, how Bridget von Hammersmark gave a gift to Wilhelm's son, a napkin, yet it ended up being the death of his father.
How, Shosanna Dreyfus, in the scene of her death, became the "Woman in the Red Dress" quite literally by betraying Fredrick Zoller.
The milk.
The meta-ness of the theater burning (for a moment, I thought Harkins was actually aflame and I should bolt for the nearest exit).
The propaganda film that twists Zoller's facts, likewise Tarantino shamelessly twists the facts of World War II, making himself the propagandist.
This alone, Tarantino has created a film that people will use a yardstick for the future of cinema. That's no small feat.
Yet, there's a moral cavity here. The greatest irony in the film is that the Jews become Nazis. They get revenge and mercilessly destroy human life, as judge, jury, executioner. It doesn't have to be right, I'm not asking for anyone to be kind, but there's something darkly eerie when a room of 300 people are applauding these sickening acts.
Does that mean we are softened? Will we be easier to draft, to be flown across the sea to kill others? What will historians think when they view our film history and discover we never had any true heroes. The protagonists in most popular films of this past decade (too many to list!) have no clean-cut morals. I prefer this, but is it right?
The whole thing, an audience clapping when a head is scalped, seems inhumane, but it instantly reminds one of the scene in Chapter Five of Hitler chuckling as Zoller executes American soldiers. I don't think Tarantino is making any solid moral statements here, but you're not exactly supposed to desire them from the man. But calling out violence in film is like spoiling fun or guilt-tripping people for nothing. Party pooper. But I'm not calling it out. I too, am not making any foundational argument here. Just noting.
On the other hand, the movie doesn't only act as a twisted revenge film; it acts as an anti-grace film. Any character that shows mercy instantly goes to Hell, such as Dreyfus pulling up the bleeding body of Zoller, such as the French dairy farmer, such as Landa who gets his skull carved into. Even Landa's murdering of Hammersmark was unneccessary, since he had already planned to betray his country at that point.
But maybe it's just war, then. Maybe there are no excuses.
In the end, adding this whole thing together, it's either the most sickening reflection of inner humanity, like shining a light down the filthy orifice to see how far it reaches. Or maybe it's the most beautiful image of depravity. I like to think it's both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)