Kinematoscope

Ironic that I am about to defend a movie which contains a trial.

I am a huge fan of The Reader. I saw it multiple times. I purchased the soundtrack. I read the book – though that was before the movie came out. I think it deserves any accolades it receives, I feel that it should have received more Academy Award nominations, and I feel that it will be rewarded on Oscar Night. I thought so well of it, I placed it in the two spot on my top ten of the year.

However, The Reader has been met with much criticism and tends to divide people into “love it” or “hate it” categories. While it is understandable that people will not have the same reaction to a film, has a film in recent memory been so polarizing? Why do people take great issue with the film?

More...

One issue that I discussed is the ambiguity that exists in the film and how it makes Germans seem less culpable for their crimes during World War II. Ron Rosenbaum and Rob Lurie saw that film is a “revisionist” (Rosenbaum, 2009) account of Germany during and post-World War II. Rosenbaum critiques Hanna as being overly “sympathetic” (Rosenbaum, 2009) and chastises Daldry’s depiction of nudity in the film.

Rosenbaum goes on to call The Reader “the worst Holocaust film ever made” (Rosenbaum, 2009). His concern about a New York Times article depicting Hanna as someone who overcomes a disability is not without merit because of a poorly constructed page layout by the Times.

I found Rosenbaum’s treatment of The Reader to be overly harsh. He does not like the film, which is fine with me. I wholly understand that every film is not going to be enjoyed by all. I understand that Mr. Rosenbaum read the film much differently than I did. However, what I find hurtful and negligent on his behalf is the use of hyperbole – he called The Boys in the Striped Pajamas “the worst Holocaust film ever made” earlier this year and he called Life Is Beautiful “disgusting” upon its release ten years ago – and the fact that he does not mention countering viewpoints in his article. That is his editorial decision, but I find the argument poorly constructed because he also proclaims that Hanna’s character would not be able to exist because SS Propaganda was distributed through Der Stϋrmer, making it impossible for Hanna to be illiterate (Rosenbaum, 2009). His argument is undermined by Rob Lurie who acknowledges that there might have been circumstances allowing for a few Hannas to be illiterate and function in the SS (Lurie, 2009).

A few days after Rosenbaum’s article, Rob Lurie wrote an article for The Huffington Post where he takes issue with The Reader. Lurie’s article works much better because he engages opposing viewpoints and makes some concessions. Lurie acknowledges the film as “well made” (Lurie, 2009) and finds Winslet and Kross’ performances “nuanced” and “well developed” (Lurie, 2009).

Lurie’s concern was that film would give “ammunition to Holocaust nay-sayers” (Lurie, 2009) and the omission of the “postwar awareness” (Lurie, 2009) affects the outcome of the film.

While I disagree with Lurie’s initial concern about The Reader becoming a flag-bearer for Holocaust doubters, I find his concern about the film’s omission of Hanna reading Holocaust Literature – as her character does in the novel – compelling.

I find the omission acceptable. The film is attempting to get away from the novel in some respects for thematic purposes. Perhaps it was best summarized by Erica Abeel of IndieWire. In an interview with Stephen Daldry regarding the film, she states: “Rather than viewing it as inferior or equal to its source material, it deserves to be viewed simply as a freestanding creation: provocative and likely to divide viewers, affecting, and exquisitely filmed in hues that capture the quality of memory.” (Abeel, 2009) This statement coincides with the concept that Daldry, David Hare, and Bernard Schlink were going for. Schlink said that, “voiceovers are a cop out” (Abeel, 2009) and worked extensively with Daldry in Hare in creating the film.

Though there was a disagreement, the omission of Hanna reading the works of Primo Levi and other Holocaust survivors (more on this later), Schlink is happy with the end product and has been on tour promoting the film. If the author of the book is content with the changing of the message – which took persuading from Daldry and Hare based on the notion that the viewer will arrive in the same location of the reader of his book – then why is the audience allowed to take issue with it? The author ultimately gave his blessing, allowing for the omission of Holocaust literature because the book and film are not actually Holocaust works.

Schlink himself has said the novel is about “German guilt” (Rotten Tomatoes, 2009) and Brad Brevet eloquently explains that “The Reader is not a Holocaust movie” (Brevet, 2009). The film is about moral dilemmas that must be resolved between people and within people.

The film is about two people who cannot identify with who they are, come to terms with who they are, and are adversely affected by it. Hanna’s illiteracy is not solely lacking the ability to read. Abeel and Brevet stated in their articles that her illiteracy is compounded by her inability to express herself and that she is “emotionally illiterate” (Abeel, 2009) as well. This internal confusion and fear that resides within Hanna is superbly drawn out by Winslet’s haunting performance.

However, Winslet is not the only character with issues. Michael lacks the maturity in the first two acts of the film and the emotional capacity in the last act to define himself. Early on in the film, Michael loves Hanna after merely three weeks. Yet, that love is actually reciprocated by Hanna, and not just through sexual means. Michael gives a teary speech where he says, “I can’t live without you. The thought of you leaving kills me. Do you love me?” It was not until the second time that I noticed it, but Hanna nods. Again, she is crippled by her inability to come to terms with her emotions, yet Michael’s are so manic because of his lack of worldly experience.

The middle act shows Hanna again being unable to cope with the internal conflict that resides inside of her. She cannot face having the world know she is illiterate. While Rosenbaum was quick to equivocate, “She would rather go to prison for murdering 300 people than admitting she cannot read” (Rosenbaum, 2009). Brevet points out that Rosenbaum’s article is “filled with such snarky, passivity, and deep seeded hatred” (Brevet, 2009) that he is not watching the film and attempting to judge it on its merits. The message the film conveys is not as blunt or trivial as Rosenbaum would have the reader believe, but about “German guilt” (Rotten Tomatoes, 2009) as Daldry, Hare, and Schlink have stated.

To summarize it, The Reader is truly not meant to be viewed as a Holocaust film. If someone views it as such, the film will fail her or him.

Roger Ebert pondered,

“Is The Reader a Holocaust movie? No. In terms of its two central characters, it is a movie about lacking the courage to speak when we should. That’s something I think we all can identify with.” (Ebert, 2009)

Mr. Ebert, who I have a tumultuous relationship/understanding with, put it simply what the movie is meant to be about.

I think the movie is technologically sound and well-crafted. The cinematography, art direction, and costumes are top notch. I felt Nico Muhly’s score was egregiously overlooked during the nomination process because it is the most beautiful score of 2008. I feel that Daldry’s direction is purposeful, method, and has achieves a grand level of success. More over, I feel that Winslet’s performance was nothing short of stellar.

Claudia Puig of USAToday wrote in her review of The Reader that “a tale of eroticism, secrecy, and guilt is bound to stir discussion” (Puig, 2009). The filmmakers have achieved this by the praise and criticism the film has received.

My concern is that people are too often looking for the superficial when it comes to a film because they want to escape. Like Lena Olin says in The Reader “if you seek catharsis, go to the theatre.” However, most people want to be entertained. I will admit The Reader will not have the same thrills as The Dark Knight. It will not have the feel good story that Slumdog Millionaire has. The Reader offers an exploration into human emotion: how we connect, disconnect, lie, do not do the right thing, feel guilty, and feel remorseless. Sometimes that can be more profound than anything else, the identification with another on film because that may be how we feel too.

I am not trying to equivocate all this in direct comparison with the Holocaust because, again, The Reader is not about the Holocaust. I am not trivializing the “greatest trauma of the 20th century” (Spiegelman, 1998) by making it seem simple. I speak about the content of a book and film and how the two central characters in it can be made people that an audience can identify with.

In the end, The Reader does leave the viewer with a lot of questions, but they are the types of questions that have a great affect on the viewer.

Part One of a Five part series on the Best Picture Nominees.

I didn't like The Reader. I was impatient for it to be over when I saw it, I cared little for any of the characters, as a result I looked for little to love in any of the aesthetic presentation. In a somewhat stunning difference of opinion here on Kinematoscope, Dave listed The Reader as the number two film of the year and gave it nine hypothetical Oscar Nominations, while I listed it nowhere and gave it none.  (In the spirit of this, Dave will be writing a rebuttal to this post.)

I will say this- I'm probably short-changing the work of many technicians and film professionals for their superb work in putting The Reader together because I have inherent problems with the storytelling. But that's the way it is- you get biased, it's hard to shake. But why did I dislike it in the first place?

Click for More...

For starters, I hated it before I saw it. First, the Weinsteins created a fuss by rushing it to theaters, telegraphing their intention to Oscar-bait to the world and angering producer Scott Rudin- they also, by way of the Dimension branch of the company, delayed the release of The Road, a film I couldn't be more excited to see, to focus on promoting just the one. 

And then, nearly every preseason indicator seemed to imply that The Dark Knight, my favorite film of 2008, was a lock for a Best Picture nomination, while The Reader hardly got any awards notice. But The Reader appeared in place of The Dark Knight, breaking up a group of five seemingly unstoppable films, making a direct comparison between the merits of the two films inevitable.

As Dave said, I should be equally incensed by The Dark Knight also being passed over for a bowl of cinematic oatmeal in Frost/Nixon, but the damage was done.

Now, with The Reader being nonsensically buzzed about as a potential spoiler to the Slumdog Millionaire juggernaut (don't kid yourself, Entertainment Weekly), I'm trying to reconcile the acclaim with the queasy feeling it gives me in my stomach.

Here's my question: who is/are "the reader" that the title refers to? (Lots of spoilers from here on, by the way). The central character of the film is allegedly a character named Michael, who reads to Hannah Schmitz as a teen and later as an adult, by cassette tape.

But The Academy has roundly rejected the attempt by the studio to market Kate Winslet's Hannah as a secondary character- she is nominated for and likely to win leading actress. Is she "the reader"? Her character eventually overcomes illiteracy while in prison, and learns to read.

Then I found out that the German title of the Bernhard Schlink novel on which the film is based is "Der Vorleser." This translates to "The One Who Reads Aloud." ALOUD! The Reader is not supposed to be about Hannah- Michael reads aloud to her, and it is his complex desire to both understand her and condemn her, which he finds to be impossible, that makes the heart of the story.

The novel is narrated by Michael in the first person, inherently limiting the perspective to his character. By contrast, The Reader the film revels in Winslet at every opportunity- her naked flesh, closeups of her face during the trial (Michael can mostly see the back of her head), and pained looks of conflict on her face at her job, where Michael is not present at all. It elevates her presence to a flesh and blood character, which is why I both agree with the acclaim for Winslet's performance but am starting to understand why I find the film revolting. Bear with me.

This is a holocaust film. And not a traditional one- it's set in post WWII Germany, and it attempts to grapple with the younger generation of Germans facing the impossibility of coming to grips with the atrocities committed by the older generation. The novel does this by having Hannah appear as a frustrating enigma, a relic of the Holocaust- she shows no remorse, but deep shame at being illiterate. She claims to not think about the past, but in the end commits suicide and wills her meager savings to survivors of the Holocaust.

That's fine for a secondary character in a novel that we see only in the recollection of another. It's downright ludicrous for a character brought to life by the best actress of her generation.

For example- in the novel, Michael abruptly says "Next morning, Hannah was dead." The enigma vanishes as abruptly as she appeared. In The Reader, we get to SEE Hannah preparing to hang herself. Writing the letter. Piling books on the table. We are being told by the eye of the camera that witnessing this is important, that we should care about this in a profound way. The score swells.

And that's where The Reader loses me. Hannah as a character I find ludicrous- she objectively weighs illiteracy and the primary responsibility for the burning death of 300 people, and decides that illiteracy is worse. I suppose that's a value judgment, but I really don't need to spend another hour and a half with any person or character that makes that decision.

And that would be fine, if I were following Michael around watching him debate going to see Hannah in prison, but deciding against it. No, we get to see Hannah anxiously looking up, wondering who her mysterious visitor is. But Michael turns around- we see her realize no one is coming. Poor Hannah... wait, why should we care, The Reader? Who is this movie about?

It's what has plenty of historians troubled as well, about both the novel and the film. In both stories Hannah signed up for the SS because she was offered a promotion at another job where her illiteracy would be made clear. But she would have known, people argue, exactly what she was signing on for. That's where the accusations of revisionist history come from- The Reader seems like it's absolving the wider part of Germany for knowing what was going on, portraying them as a high minded rabble that roundly condemned the atrocities as soon as they found out, after the Holocaust was over.

To sum up by asking random rhetorical questions: Is portraying a character as human portraying them sympathetically? Is the eye of the camera inherently the eye of the story? Is it cheap and emotionally manipulative to trade on the narrative weight of the Holocaust without showing it? In the same way, is it manipulative to show us the vulnerable naked flesh, shameful illiteracy, and suicide of a Nazi war criminal without showing us her crimes?

I'm sure a lot of people differ from my responses to the above questions, clearly very greatly. But I think there's a big difference between "raising complex moral questions without easy answers" and having nothing to actually say. Der Vorleser, the novel, I think had plenty to say. But The Reader translated the title wrong, and lost the message in the Oscar campaign.

But to be fair, without the nomination it's doubtful I would've seen it, and without its upsetting inclusion over other films I cared about, it's doubtful I could find the energy to be so critical.

Today, dear readers, we will decide what the Oscar nominations should have been. Who says 6,000 minds are better than one? First up, the 2008 Oscar Nominations Dave would've liked to see.

We decided to stick to official Academy eligibility rules, and we have no basis to predict the three short films, best documentary, or best foreign language. But the other nineteen are right in our wheelhouse.

Best Sound:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Quantum of Solace
Wall-E
Wanted

LOUD NOISES!

Best Sound Editing:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Quantum of Solace
Wall-E
Wanted

I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE YELLING ABOUT!

More...

Best Special Effects:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Iron Man

The Dark Knight gets rewarded for it’s amazing practical effects, while Iron Man gets nominated for its clean and crisp CGI designs. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button gets the last spot because of the digital wizardry incorporated on Brad Pitt.

Best Make Up:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army

I would call this a category of obvious choices.

Best Art Direction:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Milk
The Reader
Revolutionary Road

Movies that catch my attention here usually have something very unique to them or they have a grand scale. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, and Revolutionary Road fall into the grand scale idea for me. The Dark Knight’s new Batcave and The Reader’s apartments and prison cell are the unique ones here.

Best Costume Design:

Australia
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
The Duchess
Revolutionary Road

Decadence (Australia, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Duchess, and Revolutionary Road) rules this category, but I also have to give credit for ingenuity (The Dark Knight).

Best Animated Feature:

Bolt
Kung Fu Panda
Wall-E

Thanks for playing, Bolt and Kung Fu Panda.

Best Song:

“Down to Earth” – Wall-E
“Dracula’s Lament” – Forgetting Sarah Marshall
“Gran Torino” – Gran Torino
“Jai Ho” – Slumdog Millionaire
“The Wrestler” – The Wrestler

“Down to Earth” and “Jai Ho” are the perennial favorites. How did Springsteen’s “The Wrestler” not secure a nomination? I have not a single clue in the world. “Gran Torino”’s appearance is primarily on pedigree.
If Jason Segel got the chance to perform “Dracula’s Lament” at the Oscars – with puppets to boot – it would be legendary.

Best Score:

Alexandre Desplat – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Nico Muhly – The Reader
Thomas Newman – Revolutionary Road
Thomas Newman – Wall-E
Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard – The Dark Knight

Desplat’s simple, haunting score echoes throughout the film and is readily accessible listening to it separately. Newman gets rewarded twice for his efforts this year because they were both touching and eloquent.

Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard are rewarded for this brash, innovative score that helps set the tone for the film.

Nico Muhly is to The Reader this year what Jonny Greenwood was to There Will Be Blood last year. Bold statement? Yes. However, a 28 year old who can compose a score like this, having no previous film experience – like Greenwood – and deliver a heartbreaking score gets credit where credit is due.

Best Editing:

Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson – Quantum of Solace
Elliot Graham - Milk
Claire Simpson – The Reader
Lee Smith – The Dark Knight
Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Again, sometimes the scale of the work – Milk, The Dark Knight, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – get you rewarded. Other times, stellar sequences – like in The Reader and Quantum of Solace – get you just desserts. It also surprises how come more action/suspense movies do not receive nominations here because the editing can be those type of film’s best friend.

Best Cinematography:

Roger Deakins – Revolutionary Road
Roger Deakins and Chris Menges – The Reader
Claudio Miranda – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Wally Pfister – The Dark Knight
Harris Savides - Milk

This category and score are my two favorite technical categories. Is it wrong to say that these seem like obvious choices?

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Simon Beaufoy – Slumdog Millionaire
David Hare – The Reader
Christopher Nolan, Johnathan Nolan, and David “I’m Just Glad to Be Here” Goyer – The Dark Knight
Eric Roth and the Woman Who Wrote Practical Magic – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
John Patrick Shanley – Doubt

Again, this seems like a pretty obvious category to me.

Best Original Screenplay:

Dustin Lance Black - Milk
Jennifer Lumet – Rachel Getting Married
Martin McDonagh – In Bruges
Robert Siegel – The Wrestler
Andrew Stanton, Peter Docter, and Jim Reardon – Wall-E

Frankly, I was surprised that the Academy overlooked Jennifer Lumet’s script because of the pedigree she has and it was, you know, actually a well-written movie highlighted by a great performance. It just seemed out that it was left out.

Black and McDonagh seem like gimmes here because of their well-crafted and touching – yet funny – scripts.

If Andrew Stanton and company were to win they should thank Brad Bird first because I think the level of story that animated movies are presenting these days is fantastic.

Siegel’s tender script was overlooked and I do not fully understand how it could have been. The Wrestler is touching, deft, and it never gets bogged down with melodramatizations or cliches.

Best Supporting Actress:

Penelope Cruz – Vicky Christina Barcelona
Viola Davis – Doubt
Taraji P. Hanson – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei – The Wrestler
Kate Winslet – The Reader

While I am aware that Kate Winlset is currently up for Best Actress for The Reader, I felt that she did deserve the double nomination this year. To remain in accordance with the Academy’s rules of eligibility, she cannot be nominated twice in the same category, which – to me – seems ridiculous. So, that is why Winslet appears here for The Reader.

Marisa Tomei’s nuanced performance in The Wrestler mirrors the fallen glory and times of Mickey Rourke’s fine performance. Taraji P. Hanson does an admirable job as Benjamin Button’s adopted mother, which was also on par with Penelope Cruz’s performance in Vicky Christina Barcelona.

The person that earned her spot her the second most – behind Winslet – is Viola Davis’ confounded mother portrayal in Doubt. I was quite impressed with her performance in the film, while dealing with an obtuse and terrifying subject matter.

Best Supporting Actor:

Ralph Fiennes – In Bruges
Brendan Gleeson – In Bruges
Phillip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt
David Kross – The Reader
Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight

I have to abide by Academy rules and regulations, therefore, I must have five nominees even though this category is a foregone conclusion.

After Ledger though, Hoffman gives the second best supporting performance of the year, which explains his presence.

So, why Fienees and Gleeson? Fiennes’ profanely insane – or insanely profane – performance was probably one of the better comedic performances of the year, more so than Robert Downey Jr.’s turn in Tropic Thunder. Gleeson’s mentoring role had the appropriateness of an awesome dad without being preachy. That subtly gives him the edge over his competition.

David Kross’ distraught performance in The Reader merits a nomination because he holds his own against Kate Winslet’s performance and under the tutelage of HITLER!

Best Actress:

Cate Blanchett – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Anne Hathaway – Rachel Getting Married
Meryl Streep – Doubt
Kristin Scott Thomas – I’ve Loved You So Long
Kate Winlset – Revolutionary Road

Hathaway, Streep, and Winslet are the frontrunners in this category and have been for since award season began. The last two spots here have alternated a bit between Angelina Jolie, Melissa Leo, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Winslet for The Reader.

I give my fourth nomination to Blanchett’s performance in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button because of the second half of the movie. The first half of the film, I found her deplorable, but the second half is where she began to shine for me, making the character respectable and sympathetic through moments of sorrow. I just wish she had declined to be a part of a framing device.

The much forgotten I’ve Loved You So Long gets a nomination for its lead performance. While I have not seen the film, I also have not seen Frozen River or Changeling. I am left with the impression that Thomas’ performance is more moving than the other two’s.

Best Actor:

Leonardo Di Caprio – Revolutionary Road
Clint Eastwood – Gran Torino
Colin Farrell – In Bruges
Sean Penn – Milk
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler

To me, Penn and Rourke seem like locks for this category. Ultimately, they had the finest performances of the year.

Colin Farrell put on a display and a side of himself that audiences had yet to encounter. He was heartfelt and funny, which surprised me because this was new territory for him. I hope that he stays on this path because he will finally tap into the potential that he demonstrated in Minority Report and Tigerland.

Di Caprio’s venereal performance as a jaded suburbanite in 1950’s America was an excellent counterpoint to Kate Winslet’s idealist.

Finally, Clint Eastwood is becoming like a fine wine. The older he gets, the better his work turns out to be. The plot summary of Gran Torino is rather rudimentary, but Eastwood’s earnest performance suits the film quite well and is probably one of his top three performances.

Best Director:

Darren Arnofsky – The Wrestler
Stephen Daldry – The Reader
David Fincher – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Christopher Nolan – The Dark Knight
Gus Van Sant – Milk

In this category, Arnofsky scores his first nomination for a touching and depressing tale of a wrestler struggling to hold on to the glory days. Arnofsky lets the scenes unfold, but knows when to cut them off before they become too melodramatic or overwrought with cliches.

Stephen Daldry has been nominated for Best Director for every film he has ever made. I did not realize this until last week. His intimate and compelling touch earns him his third nomination in my book.

David Fincher seems to be the most obvious nominee here. He directed an epic film, has a constant track record, has never been nominated, and delivered in every way imaginable on a film that some questioned its ability to even be filmed.

The Dark Knight has Christopher Nolan’s fingerprints all over it. Not only did this much hyped movie meet the hype, it surpassed it. I cannot remember a film in recent memory that had such extraordinary expectations and then proceeded to blow them out of the water like The Dark Knight did.

Van Sant gets my final slot over Sam Mendes for the control and deft handling he displayed in Milk. While Mendes’ job on Revolutionary Road was good, it seemed at times that the actors were given free reign of a scene and he just stood back and admired. While that can also be a sign of a director knowing his actor’s strengths, I think Van Sant did a better job of utilizing those strengths in Milk.

Best Picture:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
In Bruges
The Reader
Wall-E

When the Academy’s nominations came out a few weeks ago, I was certain that The Dark Knight would have its Best Picture nomination. I thought the Academy may overlook Christopher Nolan, but there is no way they can pass us one of the largest box office successes.

And then it happened. No nomination.

I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was there and was perfectly accepting of that. I thought Fincher’s unusual tale of love, heartbreak, and mysticism was a wonderful film. However, seeing two of the most acclaimed movies of the year – The Dark Knight and Wall-E – get overlooked was stunning.

So, on my list, The Dark Knight and Wall-E get their respected dues.

Another film that made my Best Picture nomination section was In Bruges. Martin McDonaugh’s inaugural effort into full-length features was one of the crowning achievements of the year. It was funny, morally complex, and well executed. More over, who knew Colin Farrell could do comedy?

My final spot came down to two movies: The Reader and Milk. I guess what surprised me was that Milk, while a very good movie, was almost too conventional. However, when the real Academy nominations came out, I was holding The Reader responsible for The Dark Knight not getting in. So, I saw The Reader the weekend following nominations and thought, “Well, Kate Winslet does give a fantastic performance, I don’t see how it secured the nomination.” About a week later, I went and saw it again. I found the movie moving in its little moments, complex, and heartbreaking. While the Weinsteins may get ridiculed for their campaign tactics, I think Daldry’s efforts yielded an excellent movie and I am beginning to wonder if Frost/Nixon was the real culprit in getting The Dark Knight booted from the race. Would the four people who saw Frost/Nixon have that much sway? Only time will tell.

Totals:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 14
The Dark Knight – 13
The Reader – 9
Wall-E – 7
Milk – 6
Revolutionary Road – 6
In Bruges – 5
The Wrestler – 5
Doubt – 4
Quantum of Solace – 3
Gran Torino – 2
Rachel Getting Married – 2
Slumdog Millionaire – 2
Wanted – 2
Australia – 1
Bolt – 1
The Dutchess – 1
Forgetting Sarah Marshall – 1
Hellboy II: The Golden Army – 1
Iron Man – 1
I’ve Loved You So Long – 1
Kung Fu Panda – 1
Vicky Christina Barcelona – 1

The following lists my friend Dave's top ten films of last year. The cinematic year extends to the Oscars, so it's not too late for our lists at all. Not at all.



10. Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Too often comedy is overlooked on a critic’s top-ten list. I think comedy that is poignant, good, and actually makes you laugh should be rewarded. Jason Siegel’s script makes you laugh out loud, cringe at the awkward moments, and sympathize with the characters. The work is never over-the-top or taking itself too seriously.

Siegel’s everyman character caught up with a woman who is out of his league is something that is very relatable. I hope that he continues to develop scripts and – I know I am not alone on this – I would pay money to see Dracula as a stage musical with puppets.

9. The Wrestler

When I read the premise of Darren Arnofsky’s The Wrestler I was skeptical. I thought the film sounded like too much of a cliché and the hype around Mickey Rourke was being blown out of portion.

However, this movie ended up being one of the better surprises of the year for me. The clichés are kept to a minimum, Rourke’s performance is superb, Marisa Tomei is still showing the world that her My Cousin Vinny Oscar was no fluke, and Springsteen delivers a fantastic song for the film.

I felt the most overlooked element of this film though was Arnofsky’s direction. He deftly handles the dramatic scenes with the action scenes, while throwing in a few sequences of awkward, heartbreaking comedy. The other aspect of this film that I felt was ignored by the Academy was Robert Siegel’s compelling script about what people do to hold onto any semblance of glory they once had.

More...



8. Milk

Sean Penn’s embodiment of San Francisco politician/trailblazer Harvey Milk was an acute and stirring performance. The praise for James Franco and Josh Brolin are equally deserved in their supporting roles.

Dustin Lance Black’s script is tender and heartfelt with Gus Van Sant steering the ship do a respectable avenue.

I guess the only thing that surprised me about Milk was how conventional the film was. Duncan described the full-length theatrical trailer (above) as being “grand” in scale and I wholly agree with him. However, that audacious nature of the trailer never materialized in the film, which does not make the film a disappointment by any stretch of the imagination, but I was just expecting something a bit more.

7. Revolutionary Road

One of the grimmest movies of the year, yet I found it stirring in the performances that were delivered from Di Caprio, Winslet, and Shannon.

Yates’ tale of the destruction of the Wheeler family in 1950’s America may lack the subtly and subtext the book possessed, but Mendes is comfortable allowing his actors to take control of the scene and script.

Initially, I thought this was Winslet’s better performance – in comparison with The Reader – however, I realized that her performance is strongly tethered to Di Caprio’s converse one. Though the development of the two primary characters is kind of flat, the magic is based in the realism of the characters. People do not necessarily change and lead minute existences.

Even though I laud the performance delivered by Michael Shannon, it detracts from the overall story because his character, although overtly brash, is a more subtle presence in the novel. I know that sly elements of a book cannot be translated to the big screen sometimes, but I felt that Shannon’s character, though fascinating to watch, was a distraction from the plot at points.

6. Iron Man

The most fun at the movies in 2008. Seriously. It was not heavy entertainment, did not require too much of you, and Downey delivers a charismatic performance that was on par with Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow.

5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I agree with the sentiment that this movie possesses a lot of flaws. I do not like the framing device utilized in the movie. I found that the movie is a bit slow at certain points, but those are my two complaints. Most reviews followed up the flaw statement with the fact the movie was merely “good,” not “great.”

I disagree. I think the movie was great. I think the direction was spot on, the production value is all there on the screen, and the performances from Pitt and Blanchett are excellent.

More over, I think David Fincher deserves a lot of credit for this movie. A movie with a difficult concept, a long script, and an enormous budget that came with enormous expectations was all packaged together by him. Truly a grand effort from Fincher.

I think that when people review the 2009 Academy Awards in ten years and see that Slumdog Millionaire won Best Picture, they will be disturbed. I feel that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will age better than Slumdog and ten years from now the debate between these two films will replace Titanic vs. L. A. Confidential.

4. In Bruges

Best original script of the year. Easily quotable, highly funny, outstandingly executed by the actors. Martin McDonagh’s first full-length feature film was a great debut that should be considered one of the best and most original debuts ever.

The acting between the three leads – Farrell, Fiennes, and Gleeson – is probably the second best triumvirate on screen this year. Who knew Farrell and Fiennes could be so funny?

3. Wall-E

When will the Academy realize that animated movies can be the best movies of the year? I think too often that people want to classify animated films as merely cartoons and the audience of these films are strictly children. However, films like Wall-E transcend those elements and achieve a higher level of recognition and appreciation because the audience is broader.

The silent robots have one of the better love stories of the year, even though they may just make sound effects at one another. It is tenderer and touching to see the dancing and love between two animated, non-carbon-based life forms than some of the other love stories movie studios expected audiences to buy into.

I think Pixar is one of the best run movie studios today and a studio – yes, a studio – has achieved a level that I tend to reserve for individuals. Pixar, whatever they produce, beyond a doubt, beyond seeing a trailer, I will sign up for and see in theatres because I know what they are going to deliver.



2. The Reader

Sometimes a movie is made by its little moments. Something that a viewer may not pick up on a first or second viewing, but after multiple viewings or recalling the film from one’s memory. The Reader is that type of film for me. It was the subtle nuances that are expressed throughout the film that make it morally confounding and utterly heartbreaking.

The initial time I saw this film, I was more than reluctant to accept it as anything beyond Oscar baiting drama. However, after the first viewing, I found Winslet’s performance as an ex-SS officer completing hypnotizing. The callousness, the coarseness, and heartbreak she exudes from scene-to-scene was astounding.

Then I became fascinated by Nico Muhly’s compelling score. I have no other parallel to draw to him except for Jonny Greenwood’s work on There Will Be Blood. For a debut score, Muhly delivered magnificently and I find it to be compulsively listenable. I went out and purchased the soundtrack and cannot stop listening to it.

I saw it again, about a week after I initial saw it and began to pick up smaller, tendered moments. The slight nods characters share with one another. The subtly of a character being abandoned. The duality of character’s actions in relation to one another. The interplay of the editing. Deakins admirable job with the camera.

I was more stunned that the movie became better for me after a second time. Usually, after I see a movie for the second time I start to take a part the nuances of a film, critique performances and elements harsher, degrade any plot holes. The Reader was only one of two films this year that I enjoyed more the second time I saw it than the first time.

1. The Dark Knight

This was the other movie that I enjoyed more the second time I saw it.

Recently, I was thinking about the term “comic book” movie and how it applied to The Dark Knight. The phrase most associated with the film is that it is being regarded as the “best comic book movie ever made.” Do we refer to The Godfather as the “best adaptation of a novel ever?” No. Do we refer to Schindler’s List as the “best Holocaust movie ever?” No. Do we refer to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly as the “best western ever?” No. Why? Because these movies transcend their respective genres to ascend to the heights reserved for the greatest movies ever.

So, why do we feel the need to continue to refer to The Dark Knight as the “best comic book movie ever?” People should just drop it and refer to it as it should be:
One of the best movies ever.

I will single out that line: One of the best movies ever.

I have seen many films over the course of my life, but I have seen only a handful that are executed so well in every aspect of the film that movie leaves you stunned. The Dark Knight was that to me this year.

To put it another way, Duncan and I were discussing how in 2007 there were a lot of fantastic movies. We each easily thought of four or five movies that we could easily give four stars to and have no qualms about it. This year, we could only think of two that would merit four stars from the both of us: Wall-E and The Dark Knight.
Entertainment Weekly should consider doing amendments to their “100 Greatest Oscar Snubs” article and place The Dark Knight on the list.