Academy Awards Analysis

So the Oscars have been and gone without any real surprises. Slumdog Millionaire exceeded far beyond even what the most optimistic fan would have guessed at with 8 awards and Kate Winslet finally nailed her flag to the Oscar mast.

Firstly, to go over my predictions from before the event in last week’s blog entries – I decided to make the evening a bit more interesting my a succession of bets on the results. The trouble was that nearly all the awards were odds-on certs so it was difficult to make any money. Certainly getting 10p back for every £1 on Slumdog was poor value.

The trick is to sign up for a new account somewhere (I did at bluesq.com) and get a free £25 bet if you bet a similar amount on something. I staked my own money on Penelope Cruz at 2/3 on and the free bet on Kate Winslet at 1/3. For fun I also put ten £1 bets on all the rest of my predictions and preferred choices (if I’d put £25 on Sean Penn rather than a quid I would have made a killing). Overall, I got just under £60 back from my £35 stake – not bad for a bet with little genuine risk.

Sean Penn, then - the only real surprise of the night with the award previously looking destined to be dedicated to Mickey Rourke’s deceased dog. In reality, it wasn’t that much of a surprise – the acting awards are voted for by actors and Penn had already been rewarded by the Screen Actors Guild (which makes up the majority of the Oscar voters).

Ultimately, I think that Oscar voters were put off by the unpredictability of a Rourke acceptance speech. The whole show is the biggest and best advert that Hollywood has each year and the image is paramount. They weren’t willing to take the risk that primetime TV would be taken up by Rourke swearing or embarrassingly talking about Marisa Tomei’s figure. Sean Penn is the easy choice and fortunately for the Academy, the right one – although I doubt that really played much of a part.

Obviously it wouldn’t be an Oscars story without talking about Slumdog in more detail. While I’m still unconvinced by the film, it made for a great night for British film and all of the winners gave fantastic speeches – especially Danny Boyle who is perhaps the most likeable man in the industry. You couldn’t help but be pleased for everyone involved in the picture and at FilmFour who backed it, now rightly receiving plaudits for the amazing job that they do to get film projects to the big screen.

And Kate won too! I was pleased for her because she deserves the acknowledgment that I don’t think anyone realised was so important to her. I would rather that Kate have been rewarded for Revolutionary Road instead of The Reader or for one of her previously deserving works as I still stand by my opinion that Anne Hathaway was the best out of the five performances.

Similarly, I would have loved In Bruges to beat Milk in the Original Screenplay category and it was disappointing that the Academy chose to ignore the controversial Israeli film Waltz With Bashir in the Foreign Language category, but then every year they make a mess of that category.

The show itself was a sharp improvement on previous years of the likeable but ultimately not very glamorous Jon Stewart. Hugh Jackman made an excellent host, albeit one who was on screen for seemingly less time than it took Will Smith to present four technical awards. The song and dance numbers were vintage Hollywood, recession-busted good family entertainment. It's still a shame that it takes four hours to get through (I can't believe I stayed up until nearly half five in the morning) but it had enough about it to

Oscar Predictions (part two)

The acting awards at recent Oscar ceremonies have been largely predictable and somewhat of a precession. This is mainly because there is an overwhelming sense that this year’s ceremony (and the past few) will be more a celebration of timing than performance. Three of the acting categories will be won by someone because the timing is right; i.e. if they don’t give the award now they might not get another chance to.

Obviously this is quite obvious with Heath Ledger, now sadly deceased, but similarly Mickey Rourke will probably hit these actor heights again. If you want to recognise either of these two, it simply has to be now. There will not be another chance. Kate Winslet is in the same vein but although you imagine that she will continue to rack up nominations for as long as she’s in the game, if they don’t hand one to her soon then they run the risk of becoming a laughing stock.

Anyway over to the categories themselves and my thoughts and predictions:

Best Actor
This is very much a two horse race between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn and one that the former is likely to muscle his way to victory. Out of the two, I would favour Penn for a performance well outside of his comfort zone, in a role that was as challenging to play gay as it was to achieve the kind of gravitas needed to become the USA’s first openly gay government official.

Rourke is fantastic as the down on his luck Wrestler, not knowing where to go now the glory days are gone. This is Mickey himself; this is his life since he went off the rails. It is not a breakout performance, it is something that was very much in his power and although he is terrific, an award for him would be as much for Rourke the person as the character he portrays.

The other nominees are all of high standard although highly unlikely to win. Frank Langella makes a superb Richard Nixon, all of those close-ups on his destroyed face as it all goes south make for fantastic viewing. Out of them all, Brad Pitt remains my least favourite performance, in a film that I actually quite liked. Fortunately, he has as much chance as his wife of winning (more on that in a moment).

Best Actress
Similar to the Actor category, this seems to be very much Kate’s award to lose, with the only competition coming from another highly decorated previous Oscar winner, Meryl Streep. Despite being nominated an astonishing number of times, it should be said that she hasn’t won for a while and it is unlikely that Doubt would be the one to break the habit. It is a pantomime performance that seems too hysterical and daft and I fear that if it hadn’t been Meryl, it wouldn’t have got a nomination.

My favourite performance was Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married, where she plays a drug addict who is on leave from rehab to attend her sisters wedding. As the emotional, mixed up, self-obsessed and difficult to watch Kim she is a revelation. Moments such as her speech at the meal on the eve of the wedding were so real and horrifically cringe-worthy that I almost couldn’t watch. A fantastic performance, albeit one that a nomination will likely be the sum of its glory.

A quick word on Angelina Jolie in the Changeling – if she didn’t win for crying a lot and being generally hysterical in A Mighty Heart, which was a better film, then she ain’t gonna win this time for crying a lot and being generally hysterical. Decent actress though she is, for her to be admitted into the special club of double award winners over someone like Winslet would be a travesty.

So, to Kate. She is nailed on to win for The Reader and that is probably fair considering we don’t want to end up in Peter O’Toole territory (13 nominations without victory for one of the finest actors of the 20th century). Kate does deserve one, as much this year for the fact that she is superb in both this film and Revolutionary Road, and so it shall be.

Best Supporting Actor
Not the best year for Supporting Actor performances, not that it would make much difference anyway as the late Heath Ledger is more certain to win this than he is to be dead on Sunday night. By voting for Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker, the Academy is fulfilling two aims: first, they are correcting the fact that they didn’t give it to him when he was alive and secondly, they are honouring the Dark Knight as a film without having to nominate it in the big category. All of Hollywood is grateful for the Dark Knight’s massive box-office takings last summer, it galvanised the entire industry and helped to get people back into cinemas again. Giving the dead guy the Oscar is the perfect way to hit both marks.

Personally, I flit between Philip Seymour Hoffman and Josh Brolin for this category and would probably argue that Hoffman’s was a stronger performance but that isn’t really saying much new. He is always that good (similar to Meryl Streep in that fashion) and ultimately, like Streep, Doubt isn’t good enough a film to take this home. So – I’m going for Brolin, although I doubt that he’ll have the last laugh…

Best Supporting Actress
This is my favourite category because it doesn’t seem quite so nailed on. By a long way my pick would be the delightful Penelope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona, a performance that enlivened the whole movie. Playing the crazed Marie Elena, she brought an overtly comic performance to the film which neatly paradoxes the subtlety of the other characters. Her Spanish screaming, crazed expressions and permanent looks of despair was a little locket of perfection in a joyous and entertaining movie.

Cruz does seem to be winning the battle against Marisa Tomei from The Wrestler, who I originally thought would win when I saw the nominations. The build up hasn’t been especially kind to her though and she’s lost momentum in previous award ceremonies. Her character is perhaps the most important in the Wrestler (even more so Rourke’s lead) to pin everything together and it’s a shame, as in another year she would have been a worthy winner. The two Doubt performances were decent too, although I preferred the virtuous Amy Adams to the single scene dramatics of Viola Davis.

Best Director
This is a bit of a wasteful category really, as it is seldom split from the Best Picture award winner. If Slumdog Millionaire wins the big one, expect it to win Danny Boyle a statuette too. Judged on its merits, I think Slumdog probably is the best-directed film on the shortlist so that isn’t a bad shout.

Best Screenplay
Two of this year’s real under the radar gems are featured in the Original Screenplay categories, with In Bruges and Happy-Go-Lucky fighting it out with Milk, Wall-E and Frozen River for the gong. I would love to see In Bruges win this award, as it was one of my favourite films from the entire year mainly because of the razor sharp writing and fantastic dialogue. I was also happy to see Mike Leigh’s Happy-Go-Lucky nominated, although to win a writing award would be wrong considering the improvised way that he and his cast work. Either way, I imagine Milk is more likely to win it and similarly, with Adapted Screenplay, I suspect Slumdog Millionaire will be victorious although personally I would give it to Frost/Nixon.

Best Animated Feature
Wall-E. Will win, should win. I think there’s a significant argument that this should have been included in the Best Film category also.

My choice of award winners:
Best Actor: Sean Penn - Milk
Best Actress: Anne Hathaway – Rachel Getting Married
Best Supporting Actor: Josh Brolin – Milk
Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Best Director: Danny Boyle – Slumdog Millionaire
Best Foreign Language Film: Waltz With Bashir (Israel)
Best Animated Feature: Wall E

Best Original Screenplay: Martin McDonagh - In Bruges

Best Adapted Screenplay: Peter Morgan - Frost/Nixon

Who I think will win:
Best Actor: Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler
Best Actress: Kate Winslet – The Reader
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight
Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Best Director: Danny Boyle – Slumdog Millionaire
Best Foreign Language Film: Waltz With Bashir (Israel)

Best Animated Feature: Wall E

Best Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black - Milk

Best Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy - Slumdog Millionaire

Oscar Predictions (part one)

With the Academy Awards just over a week away and the culmination of months of hard work by film studios and publicists about to be announced. It is not necessarily a celebration of great cinema but the art of self-publicity in the glamorous world of Hollywood.

This years five Best Film nominees are all good pictures, if not necessarily great. It is this fact that has resulted in Slumdog Millionaire becoming the odds-on favourite for victory as it has all the key requirements for an Oscar winner. Has it taken a lot of money? Check. Did it come from nowhere? Check. Does it vaguely fit some kind of cultural or forward-thinking maxim that Hollywood would like to be seen as embracing? Check.

One recurring theme across all of the films this year is how each of them seems to be told via flashbacks and using framing techniques and frustrating voiceovers. Benjamin Button has perhaps the worst version (Dying woman on deathbed with daughter reflecting on her life) with The Reader using a similar device with the grown up protagonist. Milk isn’t a lot better (lead character makes a tape in his kitchen reflecting on his life, just in case he gets killed) and the talking heads in Frost/Nixon was my only problem with the whole movie. The only film that feels inventive with its structure is Slumdog Millionaire, the only one where the flashbacks feel integral to the story, rather than a lazy way of telling it.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the five films up for glory on Sunday week:

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button
I have been slightly surprised by the amount of scathing criticism of this film from most areas of the media. It certainly isn’t a bad film as has been suggested (The Guardian gave it a one star review) and I think the key factor is that it isn’t as good as it probably should’ve been. Performance wise, all of the actors put in a decent shift and the technology deployed to make Brad Pitt age backwards is quite superb.

There were some areas that I didn’t like – as mentioned earlier I hated the structure with Cate Blanchett on her deathbed; it would have been possible to tell the story without having this to frame it. It was also too long, although I wasn’t bored at any real point – unlike a lot of other reviewers. That said, compress it down by 45 minutes and it would have made the same points without losing any depth of feeling.

I came out of the cinema feeling melancholic, although perhaps without having taken the emotional punch that I possibly could have. It is certainly not a bad film and wouldn’t be as diabolical a winner as you might think.

Milk
The great thing about Milk is that it is a brilliant story in its own right. Watch the recently released documentary about Harvey Milk’s life and the story is enthralling enough, even without Sean Penn pretending to be gay. Gus Van Sant’s direction is very steady – there is nothing flashy to this film, the focus remains purely on the story. Because of this, Sean Penn’s performance works to drives the film along - he really is superb as America’s first openly gay elected official.

It was exceptionally well written from start to finish. I was particularly impressed by the way that it attacked any gay prejudices in the first ten minutes by jumping straight into the uncomfortable scenes of Penn kissing another man. It acts as a desensitising moment, instantly humanising the characters and paving the way for the film to fight its cause without the audience focusing on their own personal prejudices. This it does with grace, style and more than a little entertainment.

Slumdog Millionaire
I was left a touch under whelmed by Slumdog – it had been built up by the press a touch too much. For it to be billed as the “feel-good film of the year” is slightly off the mark too. What the film does do well is to really capture the vibrancy of India, without hitting any false notes or stereotypes; the breath-taking opening sequence illustrating this superbly. There’s no denying that it is also extremely entertaining; there’s no hint of clock-watching despite the fact that the story does seem to go round in circles more than it probably needs to.

I’ve always enjoyed Danny Boyle’s films and this was no exception. In many ways it is his best film and he would be a great Oscar winner if he were to capture the statuette. That said, I’m still not convinced of its complete success and I have no particular desire to see the film again, even though I can’t quite put my finger on why. I guess I’ve never been especially drawn to happy endings…

The Reader
Out of all the nominated films, The Reader didn’t appeal to me in the slightest beforehand. Even the prospect of Kate Winslet didn’t enthuse me but I was pleasantly surprised once I finally went to see it. The performances were exceptional and although it hammered home its points about the holocaust and adolescence a bit too strongly, it was a decent and enjoyable two hours.
What I didn’t like was some of the writing; I felt that the court scenes could have been better and also the boy character Michael didn’t have enough development for my liking. There was such a marked difference between the boy and the man that I found difficult to accept; the sunny happy-go-lucky boy becoming the broody and repressed adult was a little too extreme. On the plus side, Kate was as good as ever and it would be surprising if she doesn’t bag herself that elusive first win. Her scenes in the court-room particularly stick out as bringing the whole film up to the next level.

Frost/Nixon
This was by far and away the film I enjoyed the most out of all the contenders, although it remains as the firm outsider along with The Reader. It smoulders beautifully and although the audience largely knows the outcome of the saga, there remains a fantastic Will he/Won’t he cliffhanger right to the very end. It is perhaps the subject matter that won’t be favoured by the Academy’s voters, not known for their penchant for political drama. It also did poorly at the Box Office, particularly in the UK.

I’m not the biggest fan of director Ron Howard (his films tend to become overblown Hollywood mess) but there is no doubting that he did a good job here; retaining the great elements of the original play but without seeming stagey. It was driven through with a great sense of pace but with still enough room for the characters to expose a level of realness to two well-known real life personalities. Both principal actors did a superb job and the writing – with the exception of the total unnecessary talking head interview clips littered throughout – was equally as good. A fantastic document of one of the most historical pieces of television in the 20th century.

My final choices:Who I want to win: Frost/Nixon
Who I think will win: Slumdog Millionaire
Outside bet: Oscar breaking with tradition and splitting the Film/Director vote

Later this week: Part two will cover the performances and other awards

What constitutes Art?

Once of the most popular discussions in modern art has always been the debate of what constitutes art. When anyone seeks to break new boundaries, it is the first thing that the media latches on to - how can this be art?

Great art does two things; it reflects the society in which it was created and it also reflects the person who created it. Sometimes the first function is difficult to achieve but the main stay of all artist work is the sense of personality trodden into it, either on the outside or buried deeply below on the inside.

The best two examples that I can think of in the 20th Century to illustrate my point are Andy Warhol and Tracey Emin - two of the artists that have produced hysterical reactions about their work at the time of release.

The image of a tin of Campbell's soup remains one of the most iconic pictures of the 1960s. At the time, it provoked a widespread debate about whether or not it was art (and by the same token, worthy of the substantial price tag hanging from it) and the popular consensus at the time was that it was not.

Going back to my previous two factors, Warhol satisfies both. The Campbell’s soup tin, Brillo pad boxes or Coke cans perfectly reflect the rising commercialism and commoditisation of the 1960s, the rise of branding and youth culture. The line to the personality of Warhol is less clear, but if you read many of the accounts of his life, the relationship with his Mother is one of the strongest ties

Many eyewitnesses have detailed how from his youth right the way through to his Mother's death, she used to make him Tomato Soup for his lunch. Even in the heady times in the Factory, where sex and drugs and art constantly overlapped, Warhol's mother lived with him and fed him soup. My argument is that the painting of the soup can reflected not only the rising commoditisation of the decade, but also commoditised Warhol's painful adolescence.

Fast forward to Britain in the middle 1990s, where the heady cocktails of sex, drugs and drink were lived not only by the rich but also by ordinary people. Tracey Emin was, to all intents and purposes, an ordinary young woman of the time. She was loud, argumentative, off the rails. Living in a London beset in the aftermath of a Brit-Pop and social revolution, her work is as much a product of the times as a reflection of it.

Her two most controversial 1990s works, My Bed and Tent, were both maliciously attacked by all sides of the press for not fitting in the traditional art stereotype. Their reaction was simple: This is not art.

In reality, My Bed (pictured above) - which won her the Turner Prize in 1999 - was a filthy, horrific piece of work that beautifully summed up both her life at that point and I can't think of a better analogy of the decay of society and modern living. I really feel that in decades time this will be seen as a great portrayal of the time.

The unique selling point however was that for all it reflected a society on the brink of degradation; it was intrinsically Emin’s world that it inhabited. It's hard to imagine another artist being able to produce not only such a brilliant concept but also for it to be done as brutally or as real. Not least because there was a significant amount of Emin's bodily fluid involved.

Ultimately, art becomes art if the person creating it suggests it is; if the piece means something (either conceptually or emotionally) and the chances are, if people are talking about it then it's art. People never have this debate about things that mean nothing.

The Great Ticket Disappointment

2009 is going to be an interesting year for the music industry. Falling CD sales have been a problem for a number of years now, but rising concert ticket sales have managed to pick up the tab to cover it. If 2009, as seems to be the case, is the year when ticket sales fall sharply, could the recession take some substantial record labels out of business?

The rise over the past few years of the 360^ deal - whereby the record company receives a cut of ticket and merchandise sales - was largely seen as the way to keep the money coming in. What wasn't factored into this was the recession that we are currently feeling the pinch of.

This is not a message that is widely portrayed in the media, which still sees the way that a few key artists can sell out large venues at high prices and takes this as gospel. Unfortunately, these artists can be named on one hand. They are the likes of Take That, Oasis, Morrissey and maybe, at a push, Coldplay.

Traditionally, I don't think I would've put Morrissey on that list but for the fact that his recent tour sold out three nights at a medium sized venue in around six minutes, causing great annoyance to myself in the process. The subsequent full tour, released a week later, sold out in the majority inside 10 minutes. I managed to get two tickets at the second attempt, being charged exactly £15 in booking fees and delivery for the honour.

It’s not just my wallet that’s suffering though. New and breaking acts are struggling to make a name for themselves as before because people aren't going to as many small gigs and even chart-topping artists like Lily Allen are struggling to sell out venues that would previously have been a walk in the park.

Action is clearly needed, Gordon Brown style, to get the live market booming again. I propose the following recession busting actions to get people out listening again:

• Legislation to limit the Booking Fee that ticket providers are allowed to charge to £2.50
• Reduce ticket prices themselves for the mid-range artists. There's no way that the market can sustain bands like Razorlight charging nearly £30. A simple but basic tier system of up to £10 for emerging talent, between £10 and £20 for those that have broken through and £20 to £30 for your track-record proven bands. Only bonafide legends like Bruce Springsteen, Leonard Cohen or outdoor festival events should need to charge more than that.
• Allow venues to take more control over selling their own tickets. Too often venues won't sell you tickets themselves, meaning you have to use a ticket provider that will charge a substantial booking fee and offer you no option on where your seat is. Box Offices at the venue themselves can do this and improve the system, offering an alternative to the monopoly of Ticketmaster and See Tickets.

The whole situation is something that seriously worries me. I am going to see a folk artist named Emmy The Great (pictured above), who comes with a good reputation and underground success and I am excited about seeing. However, I am only ticket number 8 and I imagine the venue will struggle to get 50 people to see her; I've been to the same venue with less than 30 people in attendance to see the mesmeric Kate Walsh. Not only will this gig lose any sense of atmosphere but it is also heart-breaking to see quality artists playing to nobody.

Unfortunately, this will likely happen and the main reason is because of the greed at the top end of the market. The £15 in fees that I paid for my Morrissey tickets is a sad indictment of this point and without some serious changes, the future of live music could descend into a plaything for the rich and powerful.