Jason Reitman has an appealing flair for making films that touch upon serious issues, but with a comical twist. He has accomplished this in 2007’s Juno, 2009’s Up in the Air and most recently in Young Adult. These films allow viewers to share a few laughs while also putting some serious thought in the overall message of the story. Think of him as a provider of “the best of both worlds.”
Juno could be placed in either comedy or drama category. The film’s comedic factors derive from the titular character’s smart alec, teenage mannerisms and hip, snappy dialogue, brought to us by the always reliably clever and funny Diablo Cody. The script’s highly memorable lines also come at us from Juno’s inappropriate best friend Leah (Olivia Thirlby) and her strict but loving parents, played by Allison Janney and J.K. Simmons.
The dramatic side of the film has to do with Juno’s pregnancy. Throughout the film, we are thinking if she will decide to keep her baby for herself and raise it with her boyfriend (Michael Cera), or give it up to adoptive parents (Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman) so she could live a normal life. Juno desperately wants to fit in at school, but can’t when her life takes a left turn that could make her a social pariah.
Compared to dreadful MTV reality shows, such as 16 and Pregnant, the characters and situations in Juno come closer to real life, especially since the filmmaker doesn’t try to sensationalize Juno’s predicament like MTV does with its teen-pregnancy show. Diablo Cody’s story is simple in its telling of a difficult subject.
Up in the Air could be labeled as Reitman’s film that is a true drama. It was released about a year after the beginning of the recession. The script was co-written by the director and Sheldon Turner, which was based on the 2001 novel of the same name. The two still manage to put a humorous twist on the matter at large, but it still keeps the story in a serious perspective.
The film stars George Clooney as Ryan Bingham, a corporate downsizer from the Career Transitions Corporation who flies around to different companies to fire people because their bosses are apprehensive to do so. He is told to mentor a new college graduate named Natalie Keener (played by a spunky Anna Kendrick), and bring her along on his travels to show her the ropes. Clooney and Kendrick carry much of the film’s lightheartedness with their witty interplay of how each of them thinks the job should be done, with old views versus new views. He also gets involved in a relationship with a fellow traveler named Alex (Vera Farmiga). Their time together is spent with late-night trysts in their hotel rooms, followed by whipping out their laptops to see when their flight paths will cross again.
The film’s most heartrending moments come at the beginning as Ryan fires a succession of people, with a few more firings placed throughout the rest of the movie. Except for a couple of fired individuals played by well-known actors, such as J.K. Simmons and Zach Galifianakis, most of them were extras who were fired from their jobs fairly recently prior to the film’s release. Reitman asked them to either respond to their firing as they did when they were fired in real life, or as they wished they had responded. Judging by what you see in the film, many of the extras responded in the way that truly expressed their feelings. Despite Up in the Air’s humorous undertone, this opening sequence grounds the film in a setting that’s very real to what we’re going through now.
Reitman’s latest film, Young Adult, is much like Juno in its more prominent blend of dramatic and comedic elements. The story follows Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron), who is a washed-up writer of young-adult novels. She gets invited back to her hometown to attend a party for her high school boyfriend’s (Patrick Wilson) and his wife’s (Elizabeth Reaser) newborn baby. While on her visit, Mavis intends to win back her old flame at all costs.
During the film, Mavis is seen as a cold, amusing portrait of someone who refuses to grow up. Although we laugh at her one-liners, we can’t help but have an unsympathetic view of her as she goes through pathetic attempts to win back her past boyfriend. She’s almost impossible to like or feel sorry for, which is fine, because that’s how screenwriter Diablo Cody wanted us to view her. It isn’t until the party that Mavis makes the reasons behind her behavior known, and our feelings for her immediately get switched to the other side of the coin as she makes this devastating confession. Her tirade is prompted by spilt red wine on her shirt, resembling a splotch of blood as she opens up this emotional wound.
Jason Reitman has recently become one of my favorite directors for his skill in mixing the funny and the serious. His depiction of real life issues has done an admirable job with strengthening the comedy-drama genre of film. Reitman’s films have come close to resembling what life is about, with all of its ups and downs, laughs and tears.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Backpacks, lunch bags, guns and badges
High school is a time that someone would either jump at the chance to live through once again or place aside without further contemplation. It's a society filled with boundless opportunities that will help shape the person you will become. It's a four-year period of living in the moment and embracing your youth. But every high school class has its own defining differences, and those distinctions become more eye-opening as years go by.
This is what Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) quickly realize in the high school comedy-cop comedy hybrid 21 Jump Street, which is based on the 1987 television series of the same name. Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, it's a modernization of the show that satirically pairs the perspectives of how much high school has changed since the show's original airing and of how much it has changed from how the film's two inept heroes remember it.
In 2005, Schmidt was never the popular student in high school, and he can't seem to ask a girl out to the prom without stammering. Jenko was the thick-headed jock that didn't dismiss a chance to humiliate him. Now, they are both older and are enrolled in the same police academy, where they become friends as Jenko offers to make Schmidt more physically fit, and Schmidt offers to help Jenko pass his police exams. Once they graduate, the police life isn't at all what they had hoped. They are stuck riding police bikes as they patrol a park. When an attempted arrest goes wrong, the two are sent to a covert division on 21 Jump Street, which sends young cops who, because of their youthful appearances, are sent into high schools to take down crime. Schmidt and Jenko are sent back to their old high school with the orders to investigate a new synthetic drug that is being circulated. They are told to make friends with the dealers and identify the suppliers. But with high school being different since they experienced it, there are some challenges and dangers brewing.
The pairing of Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum is a confirmation that the opposites-attract dynamic of buddy movies is still very vivacious in this brains-and-brawn duo. When you first see the two together in high school, their places in the high school social order are so far apart from each other, that it's hilariously bewildering when you think that their characters will end up as a pair of crime-fighters. The opening scene shows the two as high school students. We see Jonah Hill walk through the hall as an Eminem-wannabe with bleached blonde hair and braces, while the rapper's "The Real Slim Shaddy" plays in the background. He fully encapsulates the spirit of an awkward teenager.
As for Hill's dimwitted, law-enforcing other half, Tatum brings one of the biggest surprises of the film as he establishes that he has a capability for comedic deliverance. Everything from his I-don't-get-it facial expressions and his quotable dialogue, such as the way he pronounces the "AP" in "AP Chemistry" as "app," bring huge laughs to his comically dense character.
Hill's and Tatum's roles aren't just limited to this. Before they infiltrate the school, they are given undercover names and class schedules. Schmidt is supposed to blend in with the nerds in his AP classes and Jenko is supposed to get in with the popular crowd. When Jenko accidentally mixes up their identities, they are forced to go into the opposite groups. This offers a role-reversal for the two of them, and they are able to go through what the other experienced in high school. This gives room for their characters to become more developed as their mission continues.
The film has its amusing squad of supporting characters that occupies the school and police department. It includes Chris Parnell as a peculiar drama teacher, Rob Riggle as an immature gym instructor, a dainty Ellie Kemper who can't seem to keep her hands or mind off of Channing Tatum, and Dave Franco as a drug-dealing and eco-friendly student. Ice Cube is a scene-stealer as the loud, in-your-face captain of the 21 Jump Street crew who has the attitude of a hard-nosed drill sergeant and hilariously advises his young cops to embrace their stereotypes. There are also a few surprising cameos from the television show's original cast.
Michael Bacall's screenplay and Phil Lord and Chris Miller's direction are an exuberant mix of the high school and action film subgenres. For the scenes in the school, one of the best is when Schmidt and Jenko are on the first day of their new assignment. They begin to walk across the parking lot and make several observations comparing the appearances of the students and how they present themselves. What they witness is so different from what they lived through that it's close to a culture shock for them. There is also a memorable drug-induced sequence where the two friends take the mysterious drug themselves and undergo its various effects. We see their weird hallucinations and the ruckus they cause to a band room and a track meet.
21 Jump Street has a blazingly fun dose of action, especially for a comedy. There is a car/motorcycle chase with a menacing biker gang, and there's a little bit of grand theft auto involved. Also, on a prom night unlike any other, there is a showdown in a hotel suite and a three-limo chase, both of which come out with bullets flying.
Underneath all of the excitement is a story about two individuals who use not only their common crime-fighting to take down illegal activity in the high school setting, but also use it as a second chance to accomplish what they never did back when they were in school together the first time around. It does get a tad sappy at times when Schmidt and Jenko begin to realize the friendship that is forming between them, but it doesn't become overbearing. The story regards how Schmidt and Jenko relive high school from two new perspectives: one from the aspect of the difference in the high school cultures between the two main characters and the other students, and another from Schmidt and Jenko being placed in different cliques than they were once used to. As a trip back to high school for the audience, 21 Jump Street is a wild homecoming.
Final grade: A-
This is what Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) quickly realize in the high school comedy-cop comedy hybrid 21 Jump Street, which is based on the 1987 television series of the same name. Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, it's a modernization of the show that satirically pairs the perspectives of how much high school has changed since the show's original airing and of how much it has changed from how the film's two inept heroes remember it.
In 2005, Schmidt was never the popular student in high school, and he can't seem to ask a girl out to the prom without stammering. Jenko was the thick-headed jock that didn't dismiss a chance to humiliate him. Now, they are both older and are enrolled in the same police academy, where they become friends as Jenko offers to make Schmidt more physically fit, and Schmidt offers to help Jenko pass his police exams. Once they graduate, the police life isn't at all what they had hoped. They are stuck riding police bikes as they patrol a park. When an attempted arrest goes wrong, the two are sent to a covert division on 21 Jump Street, which sends young cops who, because of their youthful appearances, are sent into high schools to take down crime. Schmidt and Jenko are sent back to their old high school with the orders to investigate a new synthetic drug that is being circulated. They are told to make friends with the dealers and identify the suppliers. But with high school being different since they experienced it, there are some challenges and dangers brewing.
The pairing of Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum is a confirmation that the opposites-attract dynamic of buddy movies is still very vivacious in this brains-and-brawn duo. When you first see the two together in high school, their places in the high school social order are so far apart from each other, that it's hilariously bewildering when you think that their characters will end up as a pair of crime-fighters. The opening scene shows the two as high school students. We see Jonah Hill walk through the hall as an Eminem-wannabe with bleached blonde hair and braces, while the rapper's "The Real Slim Shaddy" plays in the background. He fully encapsulates the spirit of an awkward teenager.
As for Hill's dimwitted, law-enforcing other half, Tatum brings one of the biggest surprises of the film as he establishes that he has a capability for comedic deliverance. Everything from his I-don't-get-it facial expressions and his quotable dialogue, such as the way he pronounces the "AP" in "AP Chemistry" as "app," bring huge laughs to his comically dense character.
Hill's and Tatum's roles aren't just limited to this. Before they infiltrate the school, they are given undercover names and class schedules. Schmidt is supposed to blend in with the nerds in his AP classes and Jenko is supposed to get in with the popular crowd. When Jenko accidentally mixes up their identities, they are forced to go into the opposite groups. This offers a role-reversal for the two of them, and they are able to go through what the other experienced in high school. This gives room for their characters to become more developed as their mission continues.
The film has its amusing squad of supporting characters that occupies the school and police department. It includes Chris Parnell as a peculiar drama teacher, Rob Riggle as an immature gym instructor, a dainty Ellie Kemper who can't seem to keep her hands or mind off of Channing Tatum, and Dave Franco as a drug-dealing and eco-friendly student. Ice Cube is a scene-stealer as the loud, in-your-face captain of the 21 Jump Street crew who has the attitude of a hard-nosed drill sergeant and hilariously advises his young cops to embrace their stereotypes. There are also a few surprising cameos from the television show's original cast.
Michael Bacall's screenplay and Phil Lord and Chris Miller's direction are an exuberant mix of the high school and action film subgenres. For the scenes in the school, one of the best is when Schmidt and Jenko are on the first day of their new assignment. They begin to walk across the parking lot and make several observations comparing the appearances of the students and how they present themselves. What they witness is so different from what they lived through that it's close to a culture shock for them. There is also a memorable drug-induced sequence where the two friends take the mysterious drug themselves and undergo its various effects. We see their weird hallucinations and the ruckus they cause to a band room and a track meet.
21 Jump Street has a blazingly fun dose of action, especially for a comedy. There is a car/motorcycle chase with a menacing biker gang, and there's a little bit of grand theft auto involved. Also, on a prom night unlike any other, there is a showdown in a hotel suite and a three-limo chase, both of which come out with bullets flying.
Underneath all of the excitement is a story about two individuals who use not only their common crime-fighting to take down illegal activity in the high school setting, but also use it as a second chance to accomplish what they never did back when they were in school together the first time around. It does get a tad sappy at times when Schmidt and Jenko begin to realize the friendship that is forming between them, but it doesn't become overbearing. The story regards how Schmidt and Jenko relive high school from two new perspectives: one from the aspect of the difference in the high school cultures between the two main characters and the other students, and another from Schmidt and Jenko being placed in different cliques than they were once used to. As a trip back to high school for the audience, 21 Jump Street is a wild homecoming.
Final grade: A-
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Don't bother running out the front door, it's locked
The recent successes of 2011’s Insidious and the Paranormal Activity franchise (2009-2011) have proved that audiences still have the urge to embrace their fears and venture into a haunted house. When done right, a haunted-house film can make you tremor as you wait to see what’s around the corner, instead of having you laugh or groan at the clichés. In order to be frightened and impressed, we have to be given something that’s inventive.
Silent House, the new spook-fest from directors Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, which is based on the 2010 Uruguayan film La Casa Muda by Gustavo Hernandez, has the shocking events unravel in one continuous shot that lasts the duration of the film. Coming from someone who loves the technique of using long takes to tell a story, this film was an on-the-spot interest-grabber.
Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) travels to her family’s lakeside house with her father (Adam Trese) and uncle (Eric Sheffer Stevens) to help them fix it up before selling it. As the afternoon goes into the evening, Sarah begins to be plagued by household horrors. With the windows boarded-up and the doors locked, escape is nearly impossible. As the danger grows in the time that’s quickly running out, Sarah must figure out why she’s being terrorized and find a way out of the house.
Elizabeth Olson doesn’t short-change the audience by giving a hackneyed performance that is all too common in most of today’s horror films. Because the camera follows her throughout the long take, in what is meant to appear as actual time, Olson takes us with her as she both extracts her inner scream queen and carries the film with much competence. We see every bit of her fear and vulnerability as she goes from a girl who simply goes to investigate a strange noise in an attic, to a victim who is as helpless as a rodent clutched in the talons of a hawk. Most of her dialogue is spoken when she’s with her father or uncle, and since she is alone for a majority of the film, Olson relies on her facial expressions, heavy breathing and shrieks to demonstrate her panicked terror and defenselessness. Her realistic performance makes it easy for the audience to sink into her dread as we navigate with her through every ominous hallway and room of the house.
Besides Olson’s commendable performance, Silent House’s foremost attraction is the use of a long take that goes on for the entire film. This is the work of cinematographer Igor Martinovic. This long take is all shot with the shaky-cam method, making it simple for the camera to move anywhere, and does a fine job in creating a disorienting feel as it chases Olson through the house. At one point in particular, the camera follows her as she runs in fright through a field. The camera seems to lose control of its movement as it tries to keep her in the frame, and this institutes a potent sense of alarm and urgency. Given how much the camera is always in motion and possesses a documentary quality, Silent House is almost like a found-footage film. Thankfully, the filmmakers didn’t take the easy way out to deliver their story on that tired approach that has been popping up too often in horror films.
Laura Lau’s screenplay is very much like her directing partner’s 2003 film Open Water, which Chris Kentis wrote and directed and Lau produced. The latter film and Silent House both use small casts but very different settings. While Silent House is confined to a piece of real estate, Open Water takes place in the vast ocean. Both films carry two striking similarities. One of which is that the main characters in both films are stuck in one place. Elizabeth Olson is caught in the grips of the house, and the two divers from Open Water are stranded in the middle of the ocean and float in one place with the fear of attracting sharks if they move too much. The second similarity is that both movies deal with the terror of isolation in life-threatening circumstances. After viewing both films, it's apparent that Kentis and Lau have a talent for making horror films that are limited in both setting and characters.
The film’s final twist is the one thing that almost damages the experience of Silent House. I won’t go into specifics, but odds are you have seen a twist like this before in other movies. Although the big reveal isn’t the ending that the film deserved, it does serve as a clever metaphor for the main character’s repressed memories. The result is that Olson’s performance and the technical ambitions outweigh the overall story. However, with the shortage of new horror films that truly deserves to be placed in the genre, just put the key in the lock and enter this haunted house. At least it’s trying to be something different.
Final grade: B
Silent House, the new spook-fest from directors Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, which is based on the 2010 Uruguayan film La Casa Muda by Gustavo Hernandez, has the shocking events unravel in one continuous shot that lasts the duration of the film. Coming from someone who loves the technique of using long takes to tell a story, this film was an on-the-spot interest-grabber.
Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) travels to her family’s lakeside house with her father (Adam Trese) and uncle (Eric Sheffer Stevens) to help them fix it up before selling it. As the afternoon goes into the evening, Sarah begins to be plagued by household horrors. With the windows boarded-up and the doors locked, escape is nearly impossible. As the danger grows in the time that’s quickly running out, Sarah must figure out why she’s being terrorized and find a way out of the house.
Elizabeth Olson doesn’t short-change the audience by giving a hackneyed performance that is all too common in most of today’s horror films. Because the camera follows her throughout the long take, in what is meant to appear as actual time, Olson takes us with her as she both extracts her inner scream queen and carries the film with much competence. We see every bit of her fear and vulnerability as she goes from a girl who simply goes to investigate a strange noise in an attic, to a victim who is as helpless as a rodent clutched in the talons of a hawk. Most of her dialogue is spoken when she’s with her father or uncle, and since she is alone for a majority of the film, Olson relies on her facial expressions, heavy breathing and shrieks to demonstrate her panicked terror and defenselessness. Her realistic performance makes it easy for the audience to sink into her dread as we navigate with her through every ominous hallway and room of the house.
Besides Olson’s commendable performance, Silent House’s foremost attraction is the use of a long take that goes on for the entire film. This is the work of cinematographer Igor Martinovic. This long take is all shot with the shaky-cam method, making it simple for the camera to move anywhere, and does a fine job in creating a disorienting feel as it chases Olson through the house. At one point in particular, the camera follows her as she runs in fright through a field. The camera seems to lose control of its movement as it tries to keep her in the frame, and this institutes a potent sense of alarm and urgency. Given how much the camera is always in motion and possesses a documentary quality, Silent House is almost like a found-footage film. Thankfully, the filmmakers didn’t take the easy way out to deliver their story on that tired approach that has been popping up too often in horror films.
Laura Lau’s screenplay is very much like her directing partner’s 2003 film Open Water, which Chris Kentis wrote and directed and Lau produced. The latter film and Silent House both use small casts but very different settings. While Silent House is confined to a piece of real estate, Open Water takes place in the vast ocean. Both films carry two striking similarities. One of which is that the main characters in both films are stuck in one place. Elizabeth Olson is caught in the grips of the house, and the two divers from Open Water are stranded in the middle of the ocean and float in one place with the fear of attracting sharks if they move too much. The second similarity is that both movies deal with the terror of isolation in life-threatening circumstances. After viewing both films, it's apparent that Kentis and Lau have a talent for making horror films that are limited in both setting and characters.
The film’s final twist is the one thing that almost damages the experience of Silent House. I won’t go into specifics, but odds are you have seen a twist like this before in other movies. Although the big reveal isn’t the ending that the film deserved, it does serve as a clever metaphor for the main character’s repressed memories. The result is that Olson’s performance and the technical ambitions outweigh the overall story. However, with the shortage of new horror films that truly deserves to be placed in the genre, just put the key in the lock and enter this haunted house. At least it’s trying to be something different.
Final grade: B
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Celluloid of 1962 and Some Cinematic Touches of Today
Rider’s Spring 2012 Film Symposium was a wonderfully stimulating way to learn about film outside of the classroom. Since the theme was “1962 at the Movies,” it gave me the opportunity to discover some facts that I hadn’t known before about that era of film. The 1962 theme was a way to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the School of Liberal Arts.
But the symposium wasn’t just dedicated to 1962 cinema. Guest speakers participated to discuss matters such as film criticism, some students shared their academic work, and others screened their student films. There was a lot to witness at this semester’s symposium.
The first event I attended was one given by international film critic and scholar, Gerald Perry, who presented us with his experience with going from film viewer to filmmaker, when he showed audiences his film For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism. The film delved deeper into the history of film criticism than I had expected, which was what made the viewing a lot of fun. I had originally anticipated that Mr. Perry’s film would just cover the last couple of decades in film criticism. But it was a treat to see the history of criticism from the very beginning and to see the changes that had occurred in this writing form over the years.
One of the most rewarding parts about the film was Perry’s use of interviews with various film critics. It provided the audience with a window into what these critics experience when they view films, attend festivals and write reviews. I liked the few minutes of the film where the narrator mentioned how when critics attended screenings, you weren’t able to decipher who in the audience was a critic. I found this to be an accurate and appropriate description of a critic, because yes, there are the professional critics in the audience, and then there are the regular viewers. But in a sense, everyone is a critic, because we all go into a movie, watch it, and then emerge from the theater and discuss it with our friends and family. So it’s rather appropriate that the critics blend in with the rest of the crowd.
Another event that I enjoyed was the one presided over by CUNY Professor Joe McElhaney, who gave the lecture “Purely Geographical: Politics as Space and Movement in Advise and Consent,” a film that I first watched in my Seminar in Cinema Studies class a few weeks ago. I’ll admit, it was a little slow for my taste, partly because I don’t get too excited for political films, except on a few occasions, like back in October when I saw The Ides of March, which I loved. Although Advise and Consent couldn’t grab my full attention on some parts, it did have other scenes that were punctuated with intrigue and mystery.
What I enjoyed the most about Mr. McElhaney’s presentation was when he talked about the camerawork for the film. He used one of the earlier scenes in the Senate to describe some of his points. I agreed with his view on the clever use of positioning of characters and the way how they would either appear or disappear out of the frame at unpredictable times. Although I had a hard time getting through most of Advise and Consent, watching some scenes again during the presentation with Mr. McElhaney’s commentary gave me the urge to give the film another chance, now that I have some new views on it.
Another event I attended was the Student Paper Panel on Film Form and Subjectivity. Being a Harry Potter fan, I listened to Sarah Sassone’s paper on the adaptation of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Having read the books and seen the movies, I agreed with much of what she was talking about, mostly with her information on how important it was for this film’s story to be told in a way that would properly set up the two-part finale. Having seen her present this paper in my Film Adaptation class last semester, this panel gave her a less time-sensitive opportunity to let her get more of her opinions and facts out to the audience than it did in the classroom.
I attended one event at the film symposium in my freshman year, which was dedicated to the horror genre, but didn’t have the chance to attend any events at last year’s symposium, which was dedicated to independent film. This year, I was fortunate enough to have a little more flexibility in my schedule to attend more events. Hopefully I have that time in my schedule next year to see what the following symposium has on screen.
But the symposium wasn’t just dedicated to 1962 cinema. Guest speakers participated to discuss matters such as film criticism, some students shared their academic work, and others screened their student films. There was a lot to witness at this semester’s symposium.
The first event I attended was one given by international film critic and scholar, Gerald Perry, who presented us with his experience with going from film viewer to filmmaker, when he showed audiences his film For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism. The film delved deeper into the history of film criticism than I had expected, which was what made the viewing a lot of fun. I had originally anticipated that Mr. Perry’s film would just cover the last couple of decades in film criticism. But it was a treat to see the history of criticism from the very beginning and to see the changes that had occurred in this writing form over the years.
One of the most rewarding parts about the film was Perry’s use of interviews with various film critics. It provided the audience with a window into what these critics experience when they view films, attend festivals and write reviews. I liked the few minutes of the film where the narrator mentioned how when critics attended screenings, you weren’t able to decipher who in the audience was a critic. I found this to be an accurate and appropriate description of a critic, because yes, there are the professional critics in the audience, and then there are the regular viewers. But in a sense, everyone is a critic, because we all go into a movie, watch it, and then emerge from the theater and discuss it with our friends and family. So it’s rather appropriate that the critics blend in with the rest of the crowd.
Another event that I enjoyed was the one presided over by CUNY Professor Joe McElhaney, who gave the lecture “Purely Geographical: Politics as Space and Movement in Advise and Consent,” a film that I first watched in my Seminar in Cinema Studies class a few weeks ago. I’ll admit, it was a little slow for my taste, partly because I don’t get too excited for political films, except on a few occasions, like back in October when I saw The Ides of March, which I loved. Although Advise and Consent couldn’t grab my full attention on some parts, it did have other scenes that were punctuated with intrigue and mystery.
What I enjoyed the most about Mr. McElhaney’s presentation was when he talked about the camerawork for the film. He used one of the earlier scenes in the Senate to describe some of his points. I agreed with his view on the clever use of positioning of characters and the way how they would either appear or disappear out of the frame at unpredictable times. Although I had a hard time getting through most of Advise and Consent, watching some scenes again during the presentation with Mr. McElhaney’s commentary gave me the urge to give the film another chance, now that I have some new views on it.
Another event I attended was the Student Paper Panel on Film Form and Subjectivity. Being a Harry Potter fan, I listened to Sarah Sassone’s paper on the adaptation of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Having read the books and seen the movies, I agreed with much of what she was talking about, mostly with her information on how important it was for this film’s story to be told in a way that would properly set up the two-part finale. Having seen her present this paper in my Film Adaptation class last semester, this panel gave her a less time-sensitive opportunity to let her get more of her opinions and facts out to the audience than it did in the classroom.
I attended one event at the film symposium in my freshman year, which was dedicated to the horror genre, but didn’t have the chance to attend any events at last year’s symposium, which was dedicated to independent film. This year, I was fortunate enough to have a little more flexibility in my schedule to attend more events. Hopefully I have that time in my schedule next year to see what the following symposium has on screen.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Replacing tights and capes with jeans and hoodies
"If you could have any super power, what would it be?" That's a question we have all been asked at some point in our lives. With a host of possibilities, including invisibility, super strength and the ability to fly, it's difficult to limit yourself to just one or to keep your answer the same over the years. Nonetheless, having any kind of new power granted to you would feel like a dream finally fulfilled. We all remember what Uncle Ben told his nephew, Peter Parker: "With great power, comes great responsibility." While that couldn't be truer, there's another side to that: With great power, can come the thirst for more power.
We're used to watching movies about ordinary people acquiring super powers; but in director Josh Trank's superhero film, Chronicle, he brings a level of authenticity to this proverbial story. The enhanced sense of realism offered by using the found-footage technique allows the film to answer the question, "What would you do if you had a super power?" to a higher degree than the more traditional entries in the superhero genre.
Andrew (Dan DeHaan) is an outcast at his high school. He barely has any friends and is constantly picked-on. At home, it's not much better. Andrew's father is a violent drunk and his mother is dying from cancer. One night, while reluctantly attending a party with his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), the two of them and the school's popular quarterback Steve (Michael B. Jordan) discover a hole in the ground. As they travel down below to see where the path leads to, they find a giant, glowing, crystalline mass of mysterious origins, and are suddenly exposed to its energy. The next day, the trio realizes that after being in contact with the strange object, they have obtained superhuman abilities. The three agree to keep their powers under control; but after suffering for so long, Andrew has his own malevolent plans for how to use them.
Dane DeHaan already has experience from playing a troubled teen in the second season of HBO's drama In Treatment, so he has an impressive ability to channel adolescent anger. He is hauntingly malicious as a teenager who has been victimized for too long, but then makes a shift into villainy that he can't resist. He is constantly the focal point of the high school bullies, and is continuously being physically abused by his alcoholic father. What's compelling about DeHaan's character is that he's never able to stand up for himself; and now, when he finally has the power to do that, his friends tell him they have to keep their super abilities under control. You can sense the boiling-over of his craving to take vengeance on his tormenters. He eventually defines himself as the apex predator as he uses his powers to crush a car from a few yards behind him. It's hard to decide whether to root for Andrew as he gets back at his oppressors, or to worry about what he has become. He is a superhero gone awry.
Alex Russell, as Andrew's philosophical cousin Matt, is the one who tries to keep Andrew on an understandably short leash. Matt is one of Andrew's only friends, and always looks out for him, from the beginning of the film where he tries to help Andrew make friends, to when they have their powers and Matt has to control Andrew's increasing lust for power. Matt is careful in thinking what consequences an abuse of their powers might hold, whereas Andrew is more reckless, taking any chance he can to prove that he is the dominant of the three.
Michael B. Jordan, as Steve, is the outgoing and well-liked high school football player that reaches out to Andrew in his time of need in the first 15 minutes of the film. He's a bit of a loose cannon, but is still sensible with the use of his powers. Michael Kelly is fear-inducing as Andrew's vicious father.
Many superhero films tend to take place in crime-ridden cities. Although Chronicle is set in a suburb for most of the movie, there are details to suggest that troublesome activity happens in the area, such as graffiti on public property, trash strewn across lawns and a group of drug dealers. On top of that, the way Andrew's home is designed isn't entirely welcoming, hinting that his neighborhood could be in the lower-middle class. This suburb looks like it could benefit from a superhero guardian.
With the use of the found-footage style of filming, the camera is able to follow Andrew, Matt and Steve even when they rocket through the clouds. Since they all have the power to control objects, it makes this possible. One of the best scenes shows the trio as they take to the sky and toss around a football. What happens a moment later, you'll have to see for yourself.
The screenplay, by Max Landis, isn't so much a film about heroes vs. villains, but is more of a cautionary tale. It concerns the three teenagers as they learn how to come to terms with their extraordinary gifts. One of Chronicle's strengths is its darker-than-expected nature, with the shocking fates of some of the characters and the ways in which Andrew exacts his revenge on others. The storyline of Andrew, Matt and Steve receiving their powers is cleverly placed in a high school backdrop. There, it serves as an appropriate metaphor for them going through significant changes in their lives, in respect to them getting ready to graduate, while at the same time, becoming different as they go from humans to super-humans. The only part of the story that wasn't needed was the subplot involving Matt and his new girlfriend, Casey (Ashley Hinshaw). The subplot itself wasn't bad, but it wasn't necessary.
Director Josh Trank is a young up-and-comer, and Chronicle acts an exceptional project to springboard his talent. He builds the film around the emotions of Andrew, showing us the effects of his maliciousness as it consumes him. Trank steadily leads the film into higher stakes as Andrew becomes more violent and unpredictable, and the director carefully develops his character. It all ends in an intense, friend vs. friend smack-down through the city of Seattle that has the main characters crashing through high-rising buildings and crowded streets. Josh Trank stages all of this with soaring thrills. Chronicle takes a new approach to the superhero genre, and therefore, doesn't make the found-footage technique tiresome. Now that's super.
Final grade: A-
We're used to watching movies about ordinary people acquiring super powers; but in director Josh Trank's superhero film, Chronicle, he brings a level of authenticity to this proverbial story. The enhanced sense of realism offered by using the found-footage technique allows the film to answer the question, "What would you do if you had a super power?" to a higher degree than the more traditional entries in the superhero genre.
Andrew (Dan DeHaan) is an outcast at his high school. He barely has any friends and is constantly picked-on. At home, it's not much better. Andrew's father is a violent drunk and his mother is dying from cancer. One night, while reluctantly attending a party with his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), the two of them and the school's popular quarterback Steve (Michael B. Jordan) discover a hole in the ground. As they travel down below to see where the path leads to, they find a giant, glowing, crystalline mass of mysterious origins, and are suddenly exposed to its energy. The next day, the trio realizes that after being in contact with the strange object, they have obtained superhuman abilities. The three agree to keep their powers under control; but after suffering for so long, Andrew has his own malevolent plans for how to use them.
Dane DeHaan already has experience from playing a troubled teen in the second season of HBO's drama In Treatment, so he has an impressive ability to channel adolescent anger. He is hauntingly malicious as a teenager who has been victimized for too long, but then makes a shift into villainy that he can't resist. He is constantly the focal point of the high school bullies, and is continuously being physically abused by his alcoholic father. What's compelling about DeHaan's character is that he's never able to stand up for himself; and now, when he finally has the power to do that, his friends tell him they have to keep their super abilities under control. You can sense the boiling-over of his craving to take vengeance on his tormenters. He eventually defines himself as the apex predator as he uses his powers to crush a car from a few yards behind him. It's hard to decide whether to root for Andrew as he gets back at his oppressors, or to worry about what he has become. He is a superhero gone awry.
Alex Russell, as Andrew's philosophical cousin Matt, is the one who tries to keep Andrew on an understandably short leash. Matt is one of Andrew's only friends, and always looks out for him, from the beginning of the film where he tries to help Andrew make friends, to when they have their powers and Matt has to control Andrew's increasing lust for power. Matt is careful in thinking what consequences an abuse of their powers might hold, whereas Andrew is more reckless, taking any chance he can to prove that he is the dominant of the three.
Michael B. Jordan, as Steve, is the outgoing and well-liked high school football player that reaches out to Andrew in his time of need in the first 15 minutes of the film. He's a bit of a loose cannon, but is still sensible with the use of his powers. Michael Kelly is fear-inducing as Andrew's vicious father.
Many superhero films tend to take place in crime-ridden cities. Although Chronicle is set in a suburb for most of the movie, there are details to suggest that troublesome activity happens in the area, such as graffiti on public property, trash strewn across lawns and a group of drug dealers. On top of that, the way Andrew's home is designed isn't entirely welcoming, hinting that his neighborhood could be in the lower-middle class. This suburb looks like it could benefit from a superhero guardian.
With the use of the found-footage style of filming, the camera is able to follow Andrew, Matt and Steve even when they rocket through the clouds. Since they all have the power to control objects, it makes this possible. One of the best scenes shows the trio as they take to the sky and toss around a football. What happens a moment later, you'll have to see for yourself.
The screenplay, by Max Landis, isn't so much a film about heroes vs. villains, but is more of a cautionary tale. It concerns the three teenagers as they learn how to come to terms with their extraordinary gifts. One of Chronicle's strengths is its darker-than-expected nature, with the shocking fates of some of the characters and the ways in which Andrew exacts his revenge on others. The storyline of Andrew, Matt and Steve receiving their powers is cleverly placed in a high school backdrop. There, it serves as an appropriate metaphor for them going through significant changes in their lives, in respect to them getting ready to graduate, while at the same time, becoming different as they go from humans to super-humans. The only part of the story that wasn't needed was the subplot involving Matt and his new girlfriend, Casey (Ashley Hinshaw). The subplot itself wasn't bad, but it wasn't necessary.
Director Josh Trank is a young up-and-comer, and Chronicle acts an exceptional project to springboard his talent. He builds the film around the emotions of Andrew, showing us the effects of his maliciousness as it consumes him. Trank steadily leads the film into higher stakes as Andrew becomes more violent and unpredictable, and the director carefully develops his character. It all ends in an intense, friend vs. friend smack-down through the city of Seattle that has the main characters crashing through high-rising buildings and crowded streets. Josh Trank stages all of this with soaring thrills. Chronicle takes a new approach to the superhero genre, and therefore, doesn't make the found-footage technique tiresome. Now that's super.
Final grade: A-
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Predictions for the 84th Academy Awards
Very soon, it's going to be time to invite a man named Oscar into your house. With his presence comes the celebration of last year's achievements in motion pictures. It's the night in Hollywood that everyone in show business eagerly anticipates, and said anticipation gets amped up as those in attendance wait to hear what names will be called from the envelopes. This year, the night and excitement will be delivered by the master of ceremonies, Billy Crystal. This will be his ninth year hosting this event.
This year, the movies brought us a collection of stories that were very diverse in regards to their material. Among them, we had a return to silent film, a group of bridesmaids engaged in uproariously funny shenanigans, a young boy's adventures through a Parisian train station, an experimental look at the meaning of life and magical midnights in the City of Lights.
There are some big questions we're waiting to have answered: Can Viola Davis beat Meryl Streep for Best Actress? Will Christopher Plummer finally win an Oscar? Will French actor Jean Dujardin win Best Actor over George Clooney? And how many awards will be won by each of the two most nominated films of the year, which are Hugo with 11 nominations and The Artist with 10 nominations?
Here are my thoughts of who will win and who should win in the eight major categories.
Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants, Hugo, The Ides of March, Moneyball and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Will Win: Moneyball - This baseball drama is refreshingly barren of cliches that usually go with the sports genre. I normally find the game boring to watch, but this film easily drew me in. The film reveals that it's not always about what happens on the field, but what happens behind the scenes, concentrating on the process of scouting and the mathematical methods of picking players. Just like many screenplays by Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, Moneyball lives on intelligent and inspired dialogue to tell its story, and it's one of the film's several grand-slam aspects.
Should Win: Hugo - John Logan's screenplay is adapted from Brian Selznick's 2007 children's novel, The Invention of Hugo Cabret. Despite the intended audience for the book, the film has reached a wide range of filmgoers. The way it delves into the history of early filmmaking and mixes it with the story of an orphan boy's adventures through a Parisian train station made the film one of 2011's most cinematically magical journeys. Watching the unraveling of film history that I learned earlier in my Language of Film Analysis class was one of the highest delights I had at the movies this year. Hugo is an observance of the limitless wonder and power of movies.
Best Original Screenplay: The Artist, Bridesmaids, Margin Call, Midnight in Paris and A Separation
Will Win and Should Win: Midnight in Paris - The first few minutes of this film just consist of picturesque images of Paris. What followed was an unexpected Summer treat in the middle of big-budget blockbusters. Woody Allen's time-travel comedy follows an aspiring novelist, played by Owen Wilson, who longs to live in 1920s Paris, which he considers to be its Golden Age. That's exactly what he gets every night when the clock strikes 12. Every time Wilson's character meets one of his literary role models, we are just as excited as he is. It's a story about being influenced by past artistic achievements, while also learning to be inspired by and appreciate the beauty that your own era has to offer. The film is a festive and romantic view of a city that flourishes in its bountiful art. It also helps that Woody Allen has been nominated in this category 14 other times, and won twice. This year could be his third.
Best Supporting Actress: Berenice Bejo for The Artist, Jessica Chastain for The Help, Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids, Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs and Octavia Spencer for The Help
Will Win and Should Win: Octavia Spencer for The Help - Spencer has been winning award after award for 2011's most-talked-about breakout performance. As a maid in 1960s Georgia who isn't afraid to speak her mind or cause some trouble to send society a message, Octavia Spencer hasn't lost any steam since she started picking up awards buzz during the film's release. After receiving wins at the Critics Choice Awards, Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards, I think we can count on Octavia being called on stage on Oscar night.
Best Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn, Jonah Hill for Moneyball, Nick Nolte for Warrior, Christopher Plummer for Beginners and Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Will Win and Should Win: Christopher Plummer for Beginners - Plummer is one of today's most celebrated actors, having a marvelous talent that has resulted in a few Emmy Awards and Tony Awards. Surprisingly, this is only his second Oscar nomination in his highly impressive career. In Beginners, Plummer gives a bold performance as an elderly man who comes out as a homosexual, and Ewan McGregor is his son who tries to come to terms with this revelation. Plummer has fared very well on the awards circuit so far this Oscar season, so expect the Academy to finally give him the recognition he's long overdue for.
Best Actress: Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs, Viola Davis for The Help, Rooney Mara for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady and Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn
Will Win and Should Win: Viola Davis for The Help - So far, this has been a tight race between Davis and Streep, with each winning their share of distinguished awards. It could be an honor, and yet intimidating, to be going up against one of the greatest actresses to ever work in film. But this could very well be Viola's year, who plays a courageous and strong-minded maid in The Help. She earned a Best Supporting Actress nomination back in 2009 for her work in Doubt, where she turned her 12 minutes of screen time into a knockout performance. If Davis could manage a nomination with showing up for only one scene in Doubt, then she has a genuine shot at coming out on top in one of this year's closest races.
Best Actor: Demian Bichir for A Better Life, George Clooney for The Descendants, Jean Dujardin for The Artist, Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Brad Pitt for Moneyball
Will Win and Should Win: Jean Dujardin for The Artist - George Clooney tends to be a favorite amongst the voters at the Academy, and was the frontrunner at first. Now, Dujardin is starting to catch up, after recently winning Best Actor at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Clooney is superb in The Descendants, but there's the chance that the voters could be siding with the most surprising performance in this category. Dujardin plays a silent film actor in 1920s Hollywood, who then loses everything when he refuses to work in talkies. His performance is a dedication to the classic silent films stars, who all proved that expressions and gestures can be just as successfully communicative as talking. His performance absorbs the audience into a lost world of filmmaking that has the chance to live again after all of these decades.
Best Director: Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris, Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist, Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life, Alexander Payne for The Descendants and Martin Scorsese for Hugo
Will Win and Should Win: Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist - It's a great deal of work for a director to tell his cast and crew what to do, especially the cast members, since they are the ones who we're mainly watching. Since The Artist is a silent film, Hazanavicius has to make sure that every actor and actress has their gestures and expressions down pat, because they can't rely on dialogue to move the story forward. The director always needs his cast to follow his instructions for how to interpret what's happening on screen. Hazanavicius does such magnificent work with making that happen, and has made a silent film appeal to generations that have been without such films. That's a movie miracle.
Best Picture: The Artist, The Descendants, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, Hugo, Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, The Tree of Life and War Horse
Will Win and Should Win: The Artist - This film was a risky project from the start: a silent, black-and-white film with unfamiliar stars, except for a couple of recognizable faces in supporting roles. The most important question was, "will this find an audience?" As of now, it has earned close to $25 million domestically. While that's not enough to be considered a hit, it's still a respectable amount, given that it has only been released in around 900 theaters. It was the most nominated film at the Golden Globes, winning three of the six awards it was up for; and with 10 Oscar nominations, it's the movie to beat. It's a celebratory return to a classier time in Hollywood when the magical accomplishments in the movies were continuing to grow, and when this form of storytelling became the ultimate escapist dream. Seeing a silent film on the big screen offers an excitingly new experience for all viewers. The two leads are mesmeric and deserve the brightest of futures. The Artist is a golden example of being able to say so much with so little.
Although many of the major categories have predictable winners, there are still a few chances for a surprise here and there, like last year when The King's Speech won Best Picture over The Social Network. 2011 brought many fine films that deserve much recognition; but come Oscar night, the envelopes will reveal who are the favorites. So be sure to catch the 84th Academy Awards on Sunday February 26 at 7:00pm on ABC.
This year, the movies brought us a collection of stories that were very diverse in regards to their material. Among them, we had a return to silent film, a group of bridesmaids engaged in uproariously funny shenanigans, a young boy's adventures through a Parisian train station, an experimental look at the meaning of life and magical midnights in the City of Lights.
There are some big questions we're waiting to have answered: Can Viola Davis beat Meryl Streep for Best Actress? Will Christopher Plummer finally win an Oscar? Will French actor Jean Dujardin win Best Actor over George Clooney? And how many awards will be won by each of the two most nominated films of the year, which are Hugo with 11 nominations and The Artist with 10 nominations?
Here are my thoughts of who will win and who should win in the eight major categories.
Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants, Hugo, The Ides of March, Moneyball and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Will Win: Moneyball - This baseball drama is refreshingly barren of cliches that usually go with the sports genre. I normally find the game boring to watch, but this film easily drew me in. The film reveals that it's not always about what happens on the field, but what happens behind the scenes, concentrating on the process of scouting and the mathematical methods of picking players. Just like many screenplays by Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, Moneyball lives on intelligent and inspired dialogue to tell its story, and it's one of the film's several grand-slam aspects.
Should Win: Hugo - John Logan's screenplay is adapted from Brian Selznick's 2007 children's novel, The Invention of Hugo Cabret. Despite the intended audience for the book, the film has reached a wide range of filmgoers. The way it delves into the history of early filmmaking and mixes it with the story of an orphan boy's adventures through a Parisian train station made the film one of 2011's most cinematically magical journeys. Watching the unraveling of film history that I learned earlier in my Language of Film Analysis class was one of the highest delights I had at the movies this year. Hugo is an observance of the limitless wonder and power of movies.
Best Original Screenplay: The Artist, Bridesmaids, Margin Call, Midnight in Paris and A Separation
Will Win and Should Win: Midnight in Paris - The first few minutes of this film just consist of picturesque images of Paris. What followed was an unexpected Summer treat in the middle of big-budget blockbusters. Woody Allen's time-travel comedy follows an aspiring novelist, played by Owen Wilson, who longs to live in 1920s Paris, which he considers to be its Golden Age. That's exactly what he gets every night when the clock strikes 12. Every time Wilson's character meets one of his literary role models, we are just as excited as he is. It's a story about being influenced by past artistic achievements, while also learning to be inspired by and appreciate the beauty that your own era has to offer. The film is a festive and romantic view of a city that flourishes in its bountiful art. It also helps that Woody Allen has been nominated in this category 14 other times, and won twice. This year could be his third.
Best Supporting Actress: Berenice Bejo for The Artist, Jessica Chastain for The Help, Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids, Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs and Octavia Spencer for The Help
Will Win and Should Win: Octavia Spencer for The Help - Spencer has been winning award after award for 2011's most-talked-about breakout performance. As a maid in 1960s Georgia who isn't afraid to speak her mind or cause some trouble to send society a message, Octavia Spencer hasn't lost any steam since she started picking up awards buzz during the film's release. After receiving wins at the Critics Choice Awards, Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards, I think we can count on Octavia being called on stage on Oscar night.
Best Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn, Jonah Hill for Moneyball, Nick Nolte for Warrior, Christopher Plummer for Beginners and Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Will Win and Should Win: Christopher Plummer for Beginners - Plummer is one of today's most celebrated actors, having a marvelous talent that has resulted in a few Emmy Awards and Tony Awards. Surprisingly, this is only his second Oscar nomination in his highly impressive career. In Beginners, Plummer gives a bold performance as an elderly man who comes out as a homosexual, and Ewan McGregor is his son who tries to come to terms with this revelation. Plummer has fared very well on the awards circuit so far this Oscar season, so expect the Academy to finally give him the recognition he's long overdue for.
Best Actress: Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs, Viola Davis for The Help, Rooney Mara for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady and Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn
Will Win and Should Win: Viola Davis for The Help - So far, this has been a tight race between Davis and Streep, with each winning their share of distinguished awards. It could be an honor, and yet intimidating, to be going up against one of the greatest actresses to ever work in film. But this could very well be Viola's year, who plays a courageous and strong-minded maid in The Help. She earned a Best Supporting Actress nomination back in 2009 for her work in Doubt, where she turned her 12 minutes of screen time into a knockout performance. If Davis could manage a nomination with showing up for only one scene in Doubt, then she has a genuine shot at coming out on top in one of this year's closest races.
Best Actor: Demian Bichir for A Better Life, George Clooney for The Descendants, Jean Dujardin for The Artist, Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Brad Pitt for Moneyball
Will Win and Should Win: Jean Dujardin for The Artist - George Clooney tends to be a favorite amongst the voters at the Academy, and was the frontrunner at first. Now, Dujardin is starting to catch up, after recently winning Best Actor at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Clooney is superb in The Descendants, but there's the chance that the voters could be siding with the most surprising performance in this category. Dujardin plays a silent film actor in 1920s Hollywood, who then loses everything when he refuses to work in talkies. His performance is a dedication to the classic silent films stars, who all proved that expressions and gestures can be just as successfully communicative as talking. His performance absorbs the audience into a lost world of filmmaking that has the chance to live again after all of these decades.
Best Director: Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris, Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist, Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life, Alexander Payne for The Descendants and Martin Scorsese for Hugo
Will Win and Should Win: Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist - It's a great deal of work for a director to tell his cast and crew what to do, especially the cast members, since they are the ones who we're mainly watching. Since The Artist is a silent film, Hazanavicius has to make sure that every actor and actress has their gestures and expressions down pat, because they can't rely on dialogue to move the story forward. The director always needs his cast to follow his instructions for how to interpret what's happening on screen. Hazanavicius does such magnificent work with making that happen, and has made a silent film appeal to generations that have been without such films. That's a movie miracle.
Best Picture: The Artist, The Descendants, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, Hugo, Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, The Tree of Life and War Horse
Will Win and Should Win: The Artist - This film was a risky project from the start: a silent, black-and-white film with unfamiliar stars, except for a couple of recognizable faces in supporting roles. The most important question was, "will this find an audience?" As of now, it has earned close to $25 million domestically. While that's not enough to be considered a hit, it's still a respectable amount, given that it has only been released in around 900 theaters. It was the most nominated film at the Golden Globes, winning three of the six awards it was up for; and with 10 Oscar nominations, it's the movie to beat. It's a celebratory return to a classier time in Hollywood when the magical accomplishments in the movies were continuing to grow, and when this form of storytelling became the ultimate escapist dream. Seeing a silent film on the big screen offers an excitingly new experience for all viewers. The two leads are mesmeric and deserve the brightest of futures. The Artist is a golden example of being able to say so much with so little.
Although many of the major categories have predictable winners, there are still a few chances for a surprise here and there, like last year when The King's Speech won Best Picture over The Social Network. 2011 brought many fine films that deserve much recognition; but come Oscar night, the envelopes will reveal who are the favorites. So be sure to catch the 84th Academy Awards on Sunday February 26 at 7:00pm on ABC.
Monday, February 6, 2012
A History Lesson at the Movies
I'm Vinnie Abbatecola, a junior English and Journalism major, and hopefully a Business minor, at Rider University. I've been going to the movies ever since I was about five, and I would enjoy it. But it wasn't until I was about eight was when I started to absolutely love it.
When I began my freshman year of college, I realized I was getting closer to studying what I loved. In my Fall semester of sophomore year was when I took my first film class, and it has made my viewing experiences so much richer. I learned a considerable amount about the history and art of early filmmaking, and it has helped me to understand contemporary film a good deal more.
The early years of moviemaking have appeared in two movies this season, and they also happen to me the two most nominated films for this year's Academy Awards: Martin Scorsese's 3D drama Hugo, and Michel Hazanavicious's comedy-tribute to the silent film era The Artist. Both films possessed very different storylines, but they extracted the same response from me: they are two movies about movies that remind you why you love to go to the movies.
Hugo uses film history more in its narrative, whereas The Artist doesn't use history as much as delightfully showcases a particular era in film.
In Scorsese's film, which is based on the 2007 children's novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, the director brings the story of an orphan living in a Parisian train station, and makes his first children's film into one that can bring in the a new audience; but also, his usual fans that have seen his harder films, such as Goodfellas and The Departed.
Anyone can see that although Scorsese has made numerous acclaimed hits, Hugo can be considered his labor of love. The film and book use pioneer filmmaker Georges Melies as one of its main characters, portrayed in the movie by Ben Kingsley. Through several flashbacks, Scorsese treats his audience to scenes depicting Melies meeting the Lumiere brothers and wanting to make films himself; and then, we see him following in the footsteps of the two brothers, and making his own films.
It was when I saw Melies filming, A Trip to the Moon, that the joy I had out of watching Hugo became one of my favorite experiences at the movies in 2011. Being able to apply what I learned in Language of Film Analysis made the viewing refreshingly different from other film viewings. The love for cinema that defines Scorsese was captured in every frame of Hugo.
Michel Hazanavicious's The Artist is a black-and-white silent film that acts as an homage to the 1920s period of Hollywood. It tells the story of fictional movie-star George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) who has a chance encounter with a starlet-to-be Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). He helps her get a role in one of his films, and she soon becomes the industry's next big thing. As talkies start becoming popular, George doesn't want anything to do with them, and remains in silent films until they can't financially benefit him anymore. In the meantime, Peppy continues to star in many new talkies.
Although some people dismiss The Artist as just a gimmick, I see it as a way to bring audiences back to a place in film history that is massively different from today's moviegoing experience. With this film slowly expanding into more theaters each weekend due to its Oscar buzz, this shows that there is still an audience out there that wants to watch a silent film. It doesn't just have to be a novelty from the 1920s. It can still tell as much of a story as any film today, and still generate interest amongst cinephiles.
When I began my freshman year of college, I realized I was getting closer to studying what I loved. In my Fall semester of sophomore year was when I took my first film class, and it has made my viewing experiences so much richer. I learned a considerable amount about the history and art of early filmmaking, and it has helped me to understand contemporary film a good deal more.
The early years of moviemaking have appeared in two movies this season, and they also happen to me the two most nominated films for this year's Academy Awards: Martin Scorsese's 3D drama Hugo, and Michel Hazanavicious's comedy-tribute to the silent film era The Artist. Both films possessed very different storylines, but they extracted the same response from me: they are two movies about movies that remind you why you love to go to the movies.
Hugo uses film history more in its narrative, whereas The Artist doesn't use history as much as delightfully showcases a particular era in film.
In Scorsese's film, which is based on the 2007 children's novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, the director brings the story of an orphan living in a Parisian train station, and makes his first children's film into one that can bring in the a new audience; but also, his usual fans that have seen his harder films, such as Goodfellas and The Departed.
Anyone can see that although Scorsese has made numerous acclaimed hits, Hugo can be considered his labor of love. The film and book use pioneer filmmaker Georges Melies as one of its main characters, portrayed in the movie by Ben Kingsley. Through several flashbacks, Scorsese treats his audience to scenes depicting Melies meeting the Lumiere brothers and wanting to make films himself; and then, we see him following in the footsteps of the two brothers, and making his own films.
It was when I saw Melies filming, A Trip to the Moon, that the joy I had out of watching Hugo became one of my favorite experiences at the movies in 2011. Being able to apply what I learned in Language of Film Analysis made the viewing refreshingly different from other film viewings. The love for cinema that defines Scorsese was captured in every frame of Hugo.
Michel Hazanavicious's The Artist is a black-and-white silent film that acts as an homage to the 1920s period of Hollywood. It tells the story of fictional movie-star George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) who has a chance encounter with a starlet-to-be Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). He helps her get a role in one of his films, and she soon becomes the industry's next big thing. As talkies start becoming popular, George doesn't want anything to do with them, and remains in silent films until they can't financially benefit him anymore. In the meantime, Peppy continues to star in many new talkies.
Although some people dismiss The Artist as just a gimmick, I see it as a way to bring audiences back to a place in film history that is massively different from today's moviegoing experience. With this film slowly expanding into more theaters each weekend due to its Oscar buzz, this shows that there is still an audience out there that wants to watch a silent film. It doesn't just have to be a novelty from the 1920s. It can still tell as much of a story as any film today, and still generate interest amongst cinephiles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)