My Oscar Predictions - Too Hot for The Cento!

Evening, all.

As you may know, the 83rd Annual Academy Awards Ceremony is this Sunday night. I've had many people ask me my predictions, and I've held back to give first dibs to The Cento. A couple weeks ago, a reporter from that distinguished publication approached me for an interview. Imagine my shock to see the interview excised from the latest issue (yet with space enough for professors' liquor cabinets). The reporter, Caroline Curry, has graciously allowed me to post the text of that interview on this blog; many thanks, Caroline!

What follows is Caroline's text of the interview. Thanks, and I'll see you at the movies (or the Oscars).

In light of the upcoming Oscar Awards on the 27th, I sat down with senior Marc Bentley, known around campus for his knowledge of film both past and present. Bentley had some interesting things to say about the best films from this past year, and hopes that credit will be given where credit is due.

First off, what was your favorite film of this year?

I loved Winter's Bone with John Hawkes and Jennifer Lawrence. The story was excellent and Lawrence's portrayal was astounding; I wish that she would win Best Actress, but I don't think she will.

Who do you think will win Best Supporting Actress?

This is one of those categories that is still up in the air right now. For one thing, as great as Hailee Steinfeld is in True Grit she does not belong in this category because her role is very much a leading role. They usually put child actors in the best supporting category, which is totally unfair because she is everywhere in this movie. It is much more her film than it is Rooster Cogburn's. That said, I think the award will go to Melissa Leo for The Fighter. I like The Fighter; I think it is the best-acted film of the year, but Melissa Leo...that role is fierce, and she does a great job. She has done character roles for many years and is a well-liked actress; The Academy really likes the film, and they really like Melissa Leo.

Do you think Christian Bale will win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Fighter?

For supporting actor, it almost has to be Christian Bale. It is his first nomination ever, and he’s been acting for years. He turns himself inside for his role; he is a very intense actor. As much as I love John Hawkes, I do think that Bale should and will win for this category. I’ve been hearing lots of good things about Geoffrey Rush, but he already has an Oscar for his role in Shine in 1996, so I don’t think they’ll give him another so soon, especially when they’ve got someone like Christian Bale who has won the SAG award, the Golden Globe, the Critic’s Choice, so he’s doing quite well. But it is sad that Mark Wahlberg isn’t nominated; his role is very quiet, not a flashy role, but he did a very good job with it.

Jennifer Lawrence was nominated for Best Actress, but you don't think she'll win?

I would love to see her win for Winter’s Bone; her character has to deal with so much, and you know from the first frame that the outcome for her is not going to be positive. But in spite of that I think it is going to go to Natalie Portman for Black Swan. Right now she’s hot, and though I have heard Annette Benning did a wonderful job in The Kids Are All Right, it is a fact that most of the Oscar voters are old white men who generally vote for women who are younger. In the past ten to fifteen years they may have given the award to two women over the age of forty; Sandra Bullock, who is still very attractive, and Helen Mirren for The Queen. But Natalie Portman has charm; people like her right now, and this is her time. And of course she does a fantastic job in Black Swan; very intense. Right now I would say it is between Portman and Annette Benning, but it will probably go to Natalie Portman.

What about Best Actor?

Jeff Bridges did great in True Grit, but he won last year for Crazy Heart, so I don't think they'll give it to him this year. Eisenberg; it's his first nomination, he's a young actor with a good career ahead of him; Franco the same way...and he's one of the hosts of the awards this year. This year is definitely Colin Firth's for The King's Speech.

Speaking of Jesse Eisenberg, what did you think of The Social Network?

"The Fighter" - Who's in Your Corner?

The Fighter, David O. Russell’s depiction of boxer Micky Ward’s climb to the pugilistic top, is truly a mixed bag.  The acting is dead-on strong, but other cinematic elements, like the screenplay and cinematography,  do not stand up to the challenge.

Ward (Mark Whalberg) is an aging boxer living in the shadow of older brother Dicky’s (Christian Bale) successful fight with Sugar Ray Leonard.  His mother (Melissa Leo) manages his career with an iron-clad fist, until new girlfriend Charlene (Amy Adams) encourages the titular fighter to break free of his family’s grasp.  Contrasted with the younger brother’s rise is the elder’s drug use, incarceration, and redemption, all neatly told in less than two hours.

The film's impeccable casting must be duly noted, as this movie, for the most part, is a thespian's dream.  As the two women in Ward’s life, Leo and Adams are both forces to be reckoned with.  As the manager/mother, Leo is fierce, frightening, and a terrible mother.  Each line on her face belies the intense determination and unwavering will that has made her the strong woman she is, while also making her momentary breakdown believable and touching.  Her motives are often extremely questionable, and her allegiance is closer to Dicky than to Micky, but she’s never a flat character.  Charlene, on the other hand, is just as strong-willed as Micky’s mother, though more closely aligned to him.  She is the love of his life, picks him up from his lowest point, and pushes him away from his family, which is desperately needed in this occasion.  She is the fresh take Micky needs at this point.

Whalberg is good as Micky, though not as noticeable as some others in the cast.  The role is not as meaty as one would suppose, and it feels as if the supporting players received the juicer roles.  Micky is taciturn, almost introspective, though not intellectual (the filmmakers overemphasize his “average Joe” state by shot of a needless, mood-breaking snooze during a foreign language film).  His religion is boxing, his cathedral is the ring.  For him, redemption lies in a championship belt.  Whalberg anchors us in film’s world through his performance, sacrificing flashiness for emotion.  He may not win an Oscar, but he has done his duty.

The standout performance is Bale’s; his Dicky is simultaneously goofy and haunted (as well as haunting).   Despite his marquee history, his gaunt, skeletal physique forces all remembrances of his Batman away, leaving only this broken shell of a man behind.  He craves attention, the glory he thought he once had; a scene between him and the wildly successful Sugar Ray Leonard is heartbreaking.  Bale uses every glance, every cartoonish guffaw to delve into this complicated man, and the moment where he sees, via a documentary account of his addiction, the powerful impact his dim-witted screw-ups have created is powerful.  We despise Dicky because he has held Micky back, while at the same time caring about his redemption.  That’s not an easy trick, and Bale deftly navigates his way through this performance.  He is absolutely, heart-rending astonishing.

The film’s failures, though, lie behind the camera.  The screenplay, while admirably getting the raw language of the streets, feels clichéd; yes, the film’s based on a true story, and these events probably transpired in a similar fashion, but we have seen boxing films like this before.   While the extensive use of hand-held cameras does create an almost documentary feel, it begins to lose its luster after Dicky’s arrest.  On a similar note, the grainy cinematography lends a level of authenticity to the film, yet Russell inexplicably switches to a higher gloss style during the fight scenes, as if to replicate a more television-like quality in those scenes, as if we were watching the events on our own sets.  In this instance, what sounded good in paper does not cinematic art create.  By now, the comparison may be tired, but what makes the fight scenes in Raging Bull great is how Scorsese utilizes them to reflect the main character’s psychological state from his perspective.  In contrast, the fight scenes in this film are disjointed from the narrative, and offer little insight into Micky’s mind.  Russell misses several golden opportunities to delve into this character, and wastes them each and every time.  Here, the occasional voice-over and/or freeze-frame is far from enough; take us into the character’s mind, let us see though his eyes.

The Fighter, despite its flaws, should be seen and appreciated, not as a “sports film,” but as a tale of brotherly love and mutual redemption.  It’s a film about ordinary people, reaching out of the misery of everyday life, yearning for greatness; all the genre trappings are in place, but, buoyed by great acting, are elevated to the place of art.  While a good film, this could have been a truly great film, had Russell and the other filmmakers been in The Fighter's corner.  

The Answer's in "the Wind" (Part One)

So, friend, another day has come and gone, with it's own particular stresses, dangers (snow), and joys (such as everything that happened between 1 and 4 p.m., as well as 7-9 p.m.)

As I related last night, we began our "Classic American Films" course with Vic Fleming's 1939 masterpiece The Wizard of Oz; well, today we viewed Fleming's other masterpiece from the same year, Gone With the Wind.  I owe so much to this film: it's the film that "changed my life," in the sense that I never saw movies the same after GWTW; I loved it so much when I was younger, I was Rhett Butler for Halloween the last year I went trick-o-treating.   Yet, today was the first time in a good, long while I had seen the film (the first half, at least); I would say that it must have been at least since the 2007 DVD release.  Needless to say, this was the first time I had seen GWTW with more a more mature perception on films and film-making. 

The first thing that really surprised me was how quick-paced the film is; for some reason, I remember the film, especially the scenes up to the Atlanta sections, to feel slow.  Now, the whole first half seemed to be very well paced and flowed extremely quickly.

My views on the Vivian Leigh's "Scarlett" and Clark Gable's "Rhett" haven't changed; I've always been enamored with Scarlett, and I've always found the character's vivaciousness and spunk to be admirable qualities in a woman, while I've always wanted to BE Rhett Butler, and Gable still seems to be the perfect choice for Rhett.

However, I must admit, I cringed when Leslie Howard appeared on the screen as "Ashley;" Howard does not feel like a Southern gentleman, yet he is intended to represent the Old South.  While it's true Gable doesn't have that southern drawl (which Leigh perfectly emulated within her performance), Howard doesn't even sound like an American, much less a southerner.  I'll have to reflect on this more, see how his performance in the other half strikes me, but so far, not so good...

The biggest shift in my perception of the film's performances must be in Olivia de  Havilland's "Melanie."  During this viewing, her character felt so warm, so real; I was completely thrown by de Havilland's work here, as it seems so timeless, yet so grounded.  According to the actress, Fleming took her aside at an early scene, reminding de Havilland that "Melanie means everything she says," which the actress credits as the "key" to her performance.  Out of everything in the film, I cannot wait to see de Havilland's performance completed tomorrow afternoon.

Of course, I'm in awe over the extensive use of excellent character actors, all of whom are at the top of their game:  Hattie McDaniel, in her Oscar-winning role as "Mammy," who exudes homespun intelligence and wisdom, Butterfly McQueen as Prissy, Thomas Mitchell as Gerald O'Hara, Harry Davenport as Dr. Meade, Jane Darwell, and on and on....each of them brings their own sensibilities to their roles and each brings a certain stability to their parts.

It's getting late, so I'll save my remarks on the crafts for this weekend.  However, tonight, Professor Sragow gave an excellent talk on "What Does a Director Do," using Vic Fleming as his case study.  While the material wasn't too new for me, after reading Professor Sragow's excellent book on Victor Fleming this summer, I did learn some new insights on the role of the director in a film's production, and it was great to see clips from Fleming's films.

Well, good night all!  I'll let you know how the Wind goes tomorrow!


Your Errant Viewer  Pupil

Big News!!!

First off, Happy New Year everyone! Forgive my silence, but I didn't go to the cinemas while in France, so I've missed Zombieland, The Blind Side, and any other film that was released between September and mid-December, up until Avatar (which I might review should anyone request one).

However, here is the biggest news of all:

For the next three weeks, until January 26th, I will be studying "Classic American Films" under Michael Sragow, film critic for The Baltimore Sun and author of Victor Fleming: An American Movie Master, about the director of Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz (both 1939), among many other films. I had a chance to read Sragow's book this summer and was highly impressed with not only the life of this forgotten giant, but with the author's storytelling capabilities. Fleming's life is so overwhelmingly epic, one comes away from the book wondering why, out of the recent spate of the "bio-pic" genre, we haven't seen a Vic Fleming film (Imagine my delight upon discovering part of the class' readings are from his book; a good book is even better a second time through!)

I'll do my best to keep everyone up to date on this course, which began yesterday, the 5th, but allow me first to bring this description up to date. First of all, I am extremely grateful that Michael Sragow is incredibly down-to-earth; he's not a film snob in the slightest, but a man who enjoys a great film. He laughs and smiles very frequently and seems to really enjoy going down this path with us, opening American classics to our dazzled eyes. I haven't detected a bit of bombast or a pompous attitude of any kind, and I fully believe we were highly lucky in snagging Professor Sragow (as I'll refer to him hereafter) for this Centre Term.

Over our break, we were asked to read L. Frank Baum's Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which I found quite (and surprisingly) flat; on our first day of class, we were given our syllabus, discussed how film was intended originally as an extroverted, group experience and were expected to be distributed for a brief amount of time (Margaret Hamilton, who plays the Wicked Witch in Oz, balked at the notion the film would be seen in two or three years). We learned about the "Golden Ratio," the size of film screens at the time, which is supposedly the perfect ratio to concentrate one's attention for roughly 90 minutes. Professor Sragow challenged us to not view film as a passive experience, but one of give and take between the final product and the viewer.

We discussed several differences in the book and film versions of Oz, such as the dream structure the farmhands and Professor Marvel, who correspond to figures in Oz, neither of which are found in the book, and theorized on why these changes were made. We finished class by viewing Oz in Valkamp Theater; Professor Sragow offered to discuss the film after it ended with anyone who wished to talk to him. I was the only one to take him up on his offer, and I had one of the most enriching times of my life. I can't recall exactly what was said due to an exhausting couple of days and shaking, quaking nerves, but I did my best to think of questions to ask. The best thing about watching a movie with another film aficionado is the conversation you have after the film's conclusion; one is forced to make conclusions about the film, express them, defend them, and deepen them. Heck, it's just fun to talk about movies with another guy who loves movies (which is why I think it'd be a blast to talk to Quentin Tarantino)!

Today's class (that is, the 6th) was a bit more discussion based, as we reflected on Oz after a fresh viewing and after reading the chapter on the making of the film from Professor Sragow's book; we watched a short documentary on the life of Fleming (who died 61 years ago to the day) and viewed the first hour or so of Walter Mirsch's 1985 sequel Return to Oz (which is tonally a world away from Fleming's film).

Tomorrow (the 7th), we're to have read the Gone With the Wind chapter in Professor Sragow's book, because we are watching the first half of Gone With the Wind, which is a film of extreme personal importance to me. I never truly began to watch movies until I saw this film, and I still date my movie life as "before GWTW" and "after GWTW." While I no longer consider it the best film I've seen, it's still close to my heart. It's sad, though, that we cannot watch the full film at one time, as it was intended, but I still consider myself lucky and blessed to be in this class, where we can watch and discuss great American films.

So, to everyone, good night and sweet dreams

The Errant Viewer

Best Picture Redux

Morning all!

I know this is very old news, but I've been asked by several persons my thoughts on the recent announcement by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the group that holds the annual Academy Awards, on allowing an additional five films to be nominated for Best Picture, thus bringing the total number of Best Picture nominees to ten. I've determined that this blog would be the best forum for me to express my opinion.

When I first heard this news, I was genuinely surprised; the Academy is not known for being ahead of the curve or willing to change in any fashion. I became excited about the Oscars (I'm always excited about the Oscars, but rarely this passionately this early), and I'm still looking forward to this awards season, though I'll be looking at most of it from across the pond.

Personally, I'm excited for this change; some freshness is needed in the ceremony, and I'm sure other film lovers (at least those who don't loathe the Oscars) are excited as well. I think more people within the general public will pay attention to this year's race due to the "newness" of circumstances; that is, attention not only in terms of ratings, but in curiosity on how the new nomination practices will work out. If this change doesn't work, the Academy Board of Governors can always change the format back to the way we knew it for sixty-five years.

I am worried about a few things, though. While many critics and bloggers are worried about blockbusters being undeservedly nominated, I'm more worried about a trend that popped up in the 1930's, when the Academy still had ten Best Picture nominees: films that garner one nomination, Best Picture. In fact, Grand Hotel (1932) still holds the dubious honor of being the only Best Picture winner to be nominated for that award and none other. True, more categories exist now than did in the 30's, but there is still a chance a shrewd campaign can get a nomination for Best Picture without any other nominations.

The most noteworthy (and probable) example from recent past is the film Bobby; this film got a Best Motion Picture Drama nomination from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and a Best Cast in a Motion Picture nomination from the Screen Actors Guild, yet on nomination day, it received no nominations, not even a Best Original Song nomination. I fully believe based on two such nominations from a guild and a critics association, Bobby would have been nominated for Best Picture had the ten nominee system been in existence. Nothing can guarantee that more nominees will be a success, but time will tell.

The worst part of this plan is the Academy's decision to move the honorary Oscar presentations to a separate banquet to be held this fall; I heartily disagree with this. In this regard, we are talking about persons in the cinema from various crafts who deserve this recognition (including some woefully overlooked talent, both on-screen and off); critics have noted that some of the most touching, honest, and memorable moments of each Oscar night lie in those honorary awards! It is an insult to deny these men and women their due honor.

In ten years, I may look back with either support or regret at my support of the Academy's decision; hindsight, mind you, is 20/20. I have high hopes for this, and I sincerely wish they won't be dashed come next Oscar night.

Your Errant Viewer Returns

First of all, I'd like to wish everyone a happy Independence Day; take time this weekend to relax with family and friends, but remember the document that started it all. Be sure to re-read the Declaration.

Next, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for not updating this blog more frequently. I intended to use this blog to post reviews I'd written for my college paper, The Cento; however, after two reviews, they stopped asking for my pieces and I stopped writing them. Recent films I've seen, though, have inspired me to pick up the pieces and start anew. Be prepared to see some new reviews come out soon. Your feedback and support are appreciated.

Again, have a nice weekend, and I'll see you in Movieland.

Your Errant Viewer

Chinatown - Principled Perceptions of Pernicious Persons

I have always been amazed at the impact our perceptions have on our interpersonal relationships. Our biases and blemishes can create a smokescreen of sorts that blind even the most astute observer; this is how misunderstands abound and feuds begin. Film noir, a style best seen in black and white detective films of the 1940’s and 50’s, was perfectly used to examine and challenge our perceptions: could the gorgeous temptress really be a cold-blooded murderer? What has made this trenchcoated private eye such a cynical loner?

In 1974, Roman Polanski directed a film that hearkened back to the style and character types of the old film noirs, while dealing with subject matters that couldn’t be touched in the censored Hollywood of yore. This would be a film to deal with power, greed, and murder; the men who made LA and the men who search for the truth. The film was Chinatown, which can be found in the Grace Doherty Library DVD collection.

The hard-boiled detective is a staple of film noir, but this film offers Jack Nicholson is truly the greatest actor of his generation; watching his “J.J. Gittes,” it’s hard not to notice the emotions he experiences. A lesser actor would completely flub his personal transformation, making it appear either too concrete or too sappy; Nicholson, however, keeps Gittes entirely believable and grounded in reality. In one famous scene, Gittes is held at knifepoint; Nicholson is aptly able to channel his fear of a malfunctioning prop blade into the character’s terror. Nicholson is in every scene and all the film’s events are seen through his eye; his perceptions are our perceptions, his prejudices are our prejudices. This is the closest as an audience member can get to actually diving into the character’s skin.

Every film noir has to have a femme fatale, and Faye Dunaway’s “Evelyn Mulwray” at first glance seems to fit that bill; she initially appears on the screen with the sauntering menace of the “Black Widow” of lore. Imagine our surprise when later events force us to question our perceptions of her; we are never quite sure of Evelyn’s intentions or secrets until the film’s conclusion, but Dunaway gives this character a quiet desperation that slowly seeps through her cold exterior until she makes a drastic, devastating decision in the film’s final moments that becomes a total game-changer for the film.

Every actor, from a larger-than-life John Huston to a shifty Diane Ladd in a very small part, delivers bravura performances; even characters who appear in just two or three scenes make an indelible impact on the viewer, thanks in large part to the beautiful screenplay.

As an English major, when viewing films, I tend to notice dialogue rapidly; a great script can make a film on the most dismal subject pleasurable, while a terrible script can weigh an otherwise great film down. Chinatown’s script, on the whole, was extraordinary; not a single phrase, situation, or character seemed contrived or false; screenwriter Robert Towne richly deserved the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay he won for his work here.

Jerry Goldsmith’s rich, jazzy score melds beautifully with the time and place, and serves to heighten the emotion, but never really to lead you to a set emotion.

John Alonzo’s cinematography is beautifully saturated with a light golden hue, but never so much that it feels artificial or contrived, like the lighting on The Godfather films can sometimes appear to be.

No matter how you perceive it, this is a film for the ages; you can’t forget it…It’s Chinatown.
4 flames out of 4!