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
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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment