Kinematoscope

I thought I might, on the eve of the Oscars, try and explicate why. The Fall is a film about an injured early-twentieth-century stuntman in a hospital, telling a fairy-tale adventure story to a little girl who's broken her arm. The story, about six exotic travelers seeking revenge upon a villain named Governor Odious, is depicted in a series of lavishly stylish visions.

Now, personally, that decription was enough to buy a ticket- I was intrigued by director Tarsem (Singh)'s visual flair in The Cell, even if I found the film itself a little ridiculous, and I love fairy-tales, Lee Pace (the stuntman, and the star of Pushing Daisies) and the silent-movie era. And I was dissapointed on none of those counts.

But The Fall is much, much more than just pretty to look at.

Read More...



Every now and then there are certain films that hit you in the right mood, or the right moment in your life to affect you in a certain way, and The Fall is one of those films. I wasn't immediately overwhelmed after I say it in late May 2008- I liked it alot, but it develops slowly, and some of the little girl's lines are hard to catch (Catinca Untaru is from Romania, and The Fall is her first film).

It wasn't until the second and third times through, on DVD, that I really started to love it. The interplay of the real world and the fantasy are brilliantly subtle- the six heroes of the story all appear in the real world, but not in a sort of Wizard Of Oz "And you were there!" sort of way. The ordlerly wearing protective gear to go in the X-Ray room becomes a model for Odious's evil henchmen, a toy elephant become the way for the adventurers to get off an island (after no ship appears, because Alexandria, the girl, decides she doesn't want to hear a pirate story).

It's not only a great story, it becomes a film about the reasons we tell stories and the things they about the storyteller. Roy (Pace) didn't exactly botch a stunt, it turns out- he was attempting to commit suicide after his girlfriend, an actress, left him for the star of the film he was working on. The twist is that he tells the story to Alexandria to trick her into getting him morphine to finish what he started.

Eventually the entire deception comes to a head, and the end of the story turns into a macabre descent into depression, that of course only the little girl can save him from. It sounds a bit trite, but damn it, I choke up every time, mostly thanks to Pace's fine work near the films conclusion.

Also, the more I watch it, the more I love the subtle motif of falling, and the meaning of the title- fortunately, none of the levels the title works on are biblical, however. It's more about personal falls and rises, the reality of the immigrant class (Alexandria fell helping her mother pick oranges), and a sort of ode to early cinema stunt people for risking their lives before trick photography and CGI.

Speaking of which, Tarsem has insisted that there is not a single CGI environment or landscape in The Fall, which makes the film all the more impressive. Filmed in over 26 locations in 18 countries, the film is a travelogue to the exotic and majestic, well more than most of us could visit ourselves in a lifetime.

The only special effects I can definitely point to are a few bravura transitions between the real world or between fantastic locations in the story: a butterly pinned in a case slowly because an island at sea, the stony glare of an evil priest abruptly becomes the harsh desert landscape, or spilled coffee in the real world become the blood-soaked shroud of the Masked Bandit's brother (The Masked Bandit is the story within the story's main protagonist, and he begins as Alexandria's father, but later becomes Roy himself).

It's these sort of shots that really make The Fall a wonder. I like to fancy myself something of a storyteller, and nothing makes me smile like the way that Roy's story begins:

ROY: Okay, close your eyes. What do you see?

ALEXANDRIA: (after a pause) Nothing.

ROY: Rub them. (she does) Can you see the stars?

And the film immediately cuts to a starry filled sky, over a white island on a calm sea.

Okay, do me a favor- watch the very beginning here:



Does that not look awesome? Need more? Okay, go here and watch the introduction of one of Roy's adventurers- a fictionalized version of English Naturalist Charles Darwin, but watch the whole thing because it has the awesome butterfly/island transition. If those two clips don't make you want to see The Fall, I can't do anything for you.

But trust me: rent it from Netflix. Buy it from Amazon.

Actually? F*ck it!- go to Bittorrent.com, download and install the Bittorrent program, then go here and click Download this Torrent! If you leave your computer online for a while, you'll have The Fall for free, in an .AVI file that will play in Windows Media Player or its equivalent.  (if your conscience is troubled, after it downloads you can easily got to Start> Programs> Bittorrent> Uninstall and no one will ever know).

That's right, I am literally advocating breaking the law so you can see this film (or if you know me personally, ask me to borrow the DVD)- chances are a high percentage of anyone who does that will want to buy it for real money eventually, or at least tell other people about it.

Because it's that awesome. Or at least, I love it that much. That is all.

Part Five of a Five Part series previewing the Best Picture nominees.

I have a love-hate relationship with Roger Ebert’s work. It is really more hate than love, but he does make some statements that I completely agree with. Pulp Fiction was the Best Picture of 1994? Agreed. However, he does make some ridiculous ones as well that leave me shaking my head in disbelief. When I read Ebert’s proclamation that "Slumdog Millionaire was the Best Picture of the year and will undoubtedly receive a lot of attention come Oscar time." I found myself skeptical and weary of that statement, especially after reading a synopsis of the film.

So, the expectations were very high when I saw the film on rather crowded opening night at the Downer Theatre on Milwaukee's east side.

After seeing the film, I walked away from Slumdog Millionaire looking for greatness. As a stand alone movie it is good, but it was not great. The intangibles that make so many movies great – a fantastic performance, the dialogue, music, whatever – were not present. How could this movie fail to live up to the hype even though it had received near universal acclaim?

Click for More...

Is the soundtrack electrifying? Yes, one of the ten best of the year. A. R. Rahman’s score is high energy when it needs to be, somber at the right moments, and has some great songs. Danny Boyle’s love for music is evident in his willingness to let Rahman compose and perform the music.

How about the performances in the film? They left me unmoved to the point that I was glad when they finally moved from the small children to the teenagers merely because it was something new. Admittedly, I found Dev Patel’s wide-eyed, innocent performance fun, but I think it loses some value for me because he – as in Dev Patel – is experiencing through the actual experience of making a feature film. The small children? Cute at times, though I felt like the children were not being allowed to act. The teenagers? Indifferent. If you are going to have rambunctious, murdering teenagers, take a page out of the City of God playbook. I almost wanted to laugh when a teenage boy shots a man in the head during a confrontation. I just was not buying it.

The cinematography was good in the film. I felt that it does not merit a place among the best of the year, but it was very good considering the array of the color palate the film was working with.

What about Danny Boyle’s direction? Out of the five Best Picture nominees this year, this film clearly has its director’s fingerprints all over it. You can almost feel Danny Boyle’s energy on the screen. However, how much of it was really him? If he co-directed the film with a person from India, while on location in India, how much of it is really him? I want to believe that it is him – all of it – but I wonder. The DGA is usually so critical of directors who attempt to do co-directed pieces. In 2005, when Robert Rodriguez said he wanted to give Frank Miller a co-direction credit on Sin City, the DGA told him, “No.” Rodriguez ended up quitting from the guild because of the politics and rigid rules. So, how does Slumdog work its way around that?

Is there anything that I actually enjoyed, aside from the music and camerawork? I enjoyed Simon Beaufoy’s script. I think it was a good adaptation, I think that is worked to the best of its abilities.

To me, the movie fails to live up to the hype and it falls short of great. It services as a functional film that screams to the audience, “Hey! Do you know about India? No!? Well, here you go!” It focuses on the stringent caste system of India, which is enlightening, but not revelatory. Class systems have existed and still do exist, so for people to call it “searing” is a bit over the top. The movie seems mesmerized by incorporating the Taj Mahal, but then turning the rest of the country into stereotypical Asian mainland – bustling, crowded, polluted.

In ten years, people will reflect upon these Oscars. I think this award season – not the show itself, but the season – will remain in everyone’s mind for two reasons: One, the lack of The Dark Knight in consideration for Best Picture, Best Director, etc. Two, the fact that Slumdog Millionaire has not aged very well as a Best Picture winner. I feel that anyone of the other nominees, save Frost/Nixon, will have aged and matured better than Slumdog Millionaire. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, and The Reader may be remembered for their faults, their performances, and a slew of other ideas, but they will have aged better.

It is like reflecting on the 1997 Oscars. Sure, Titanic may have been the Best Picture of that year, but was it really? In hindsight, and some separation, was L.A. Confidential not the Best Picture of that year? Was the Academy just swept up on Titanic fever? Probably, but that becomes completely irrelevant once James Cameron proclaims that he is “king of the world!”

So, when Danny Boyle and Christian Colston claim the top prize on Sunday, I hope they do not make such a condemning statement. That is the only advice I can give them on their undeserved juggernaut.

And usually, the grand vistas and atmosphere of New York City will figure prominently. Allen returned to film there for the upcoming Wherever Works (which co-star Evan Rachel Wood insists "It's very classic Woody Allen but it's still different than anything he's done,” somewhat paradoxically) after a four-film jaunt to Europe. But nowhere is Allen’s pure adulation for the Big Apple more fervent than in 1979’s Manhattan, a best original screenplay nominee.

The Key Players:

Woody Allen. It was 39 films directed, by the way, which only leaves 33 more to watch until I perfect my nebbishness. (Mostly I just want to eventually see The Purple Rose Of Cairo, Sleeper, and Hannah And Her Sisters so I can cover the highlights). Allen has three Oscars out of a crazy twenty-one nominations (six for directing, one for acting, and fourteen for original screenwriting). Allen of course wrote, directed, and starred in Manhattan.

Allen’s frequent muse Diane Keaton plays the romantic lead opposite Allen, as they lead a cast featuring Mariel Hemingway, Michael Murphy, and Meryl Streep.



Click for More...

The Story:

Allen plays, in a complete shocker, a middle-aged comedy writer with women issues amidst multiple other insecurities, presently dating a 17-year-old (Hemingway), running in pretentious social circles with best friend Murphy and Murphy mistress (Keaton), all while dealing the impending tell-all book from his ex-wife turned lesbian (Streep).

Got all that? It doesn’t matter, because if you missed anything, Allen’s character will repeat it several times in the form of agonizing self-analysis. Allen and Keaton initially dislike each other, and you know what that means… eventually Murphy calls it off out of guilt over his wife, Allen dumps the heartbroken Hemingway, and Allen and Keaton enter into another of their trademark award courtships.

But is this love meant to last?

The Artisticness:

In many ways, this is exactly what I imagined a prototypical Woody Allen film would be like- equal parts self-deprecating humor, melodramatic relationships, a dash of pretension (it’s filmed in artful black and white), and plenty of reverence for New York City.

Manhattan, of course, opens and closes with iconic images of the Big Apple as Gershwin music plays, and we hear Allen’s character attempting to begin a novel with loving paens to the metropolis, equating the skyscrapers with magnificence and his own characters imaginary virility. But other than serving as a backdrop for all that unfolds, Manhattan isn’t really a character in Manhattan.

Keaton and Allen keep their particular chemistry from Annie Hall, connecting primarily in an overnight montage set in the rain in Central Park, some museum, and a bench near some bridge or other famous thing. Clearly New York didn’t win me over, but I’ve been there once and I was twelve.

Hemingway, nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her role, does a credible job of playing a seventeen year old clearly more emotionally mature than Allen’s character- no one ever mentions any inappropriate thought about the relationship itself, however (I later read that it’s rumored, but denied, that this is based on a relationship Allen had in real life).

It’s a lot of talk, to be honest, and not as much straight humor as even Annie Hall had to offer, so I wouldn’t watch it when tired.

THE ENDING! WILL PEOPLE SHUT UP AND LET SPOILERS HAPPEN?

It is weird though- Allen is of course his annoying, groveling self all through his courtship with Keaton, and I found myself beginning to grow weary of him. But then, Keaton and Murphy rekindle their affair, leaving Allen in a lurch, and I suddenly felt for the guy! What?

So maybe Allen knew what he was doing after all- he attempts to reconcile with Hemingway at the film’s very end, but she’s leaving for London for six months, and he’s desperate to keep her there- it’s as if he can’t fathom a world outside of Manhattan.

The film ends with Hemingway’s reassurance that not everybody gets corrupted, and Allen’s knowing smile- cut back to the city, and we’re out.

END SPOILERS


Overall: Should It Be Higher, Lower?

I’m not sure- I can’t say I have much motivation to watch it again (I’ve seen Annie Hall once, to date)- but at the same time I’m glad to have seen it. It certainly made me feel more caught up in my Woody Allen filmography, more than say, watching an out-of-character sojourn like Scoop would, for example.

The Legacy:

Manhattan actually won the BAFTA for best film, despite going 0 for 2 at the Oscars, and it’s in the National Film Registry, on lists of “best comedies,” and so forth. It’s remembered as an exceptionally point in his growth as a filmmaker, showing the fallacy of the human condition as people pair off like molecules, and get no more mature about it with higher education.

On a different note, Allen apparently insisted that the aspect ratio be preserved for video and televison releases, making Manhattan a forerunner for widescreen releases everywhere, which is much more important to me personally.

The Best Video Of It On YouTube

The opening scene: if there’s anything more iconic of Allen than this sequence, I clearly haven’t seen it yet:



Leftover Thoughts:

Meryl Streep looks really young in this movie. That is all.

Not sure where I stand on the black and white- artful or pretentious?

Regularly-scheduled Oscar coverage resumes shortly.

Part Four of a Five Part Series previewing the Best Picture nominees.

For all of his status as an offbeat visionary, and my claim to be a film geek, I'd only seen four Gus Van Sant films before I saw Milk in December. This includes his three most conventional films: a commercial and artistic success (Good Will Hunting), a cult classic (To Die For), and a regrettable foray into the conventional (Finding Forrester). My only experience with full-on, experimental Van Sant was 2003's Elephant, a slight-to-the-point-of-insubstantiality rumination on school shootings, told out of order with long stretches where the camera does nothing but wordlessly follow students through hallways.

So it might be unfair, but Elephant made me reluctant to give Last Days or Paranoid Park my money, and clearly helped me drag my heels in catching up with Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho. I like Van Sant as a visual storyteller, but I just can't get into his cinema of aggressive paralysis- if nothing's happening, wake me up when something is. With this mentality, I understand that I'd sleep through most of Gerry.

But when I heard the premise and cast of Milk, and then saw the trailer, I found my reluctance waning- it looked like Van Sant had found a subject worthy of moviegoers patience, and he was the perfect director to put an end to cookie-cutter biopics of recent years (it's not good when Walk The Line can parody films about Ray Charles and Johnny Cash without really having to try that hard).

But did the expectations of a massive audience reign Van Sant in too far?

Click for More...

Milk certainly starts out dreamily artistic- Danny Elfman's relatively non-melodic score (for Elfman, anyway) somberly opens over a montage of police raiding gay bars and clubs in the 50s and 60s, leading eventually to the televised announcement that Harvey Milk and the Mayor of San Francisco, George Moscone, had been shot and killed.

From there, however, we're treated to a largely conventional biography- a linear story of Milk's progression into public office follows, punctuated by the occasional framing device of Milk dictating his biography and will into a tape recorder, eight days before his assassination. The usually players are there, the only exception is the all-male cast- the initially supportive spouse that can't make the entire journey (James Franco), the new young thing that turns out to be a bad idea (Diego Luna), a protege to mentor into greatness (Emile Hirsch).

It sort of leaves me torn- Milk is a great story, and it's almost refreshing to see homosexual relationships handled in a frank, straightforward way (not in too much of a say, Will and Grace way, if you know what I mean), but where was Van Sant?

Harris Savides' cinematography retains the biggest influence of Van Sant's style- loving shots of Penn and Franco pan at asymetrical angles and fade into white, one memorable shot is imposed on the side of a beating victims distress whistle, and the real life mourners of Harvey Milk carrying candles down the streets in a miles-long procession is memorably recreated.

And even as a storyteller, Van Sant doesn't mince facts or give in to idolatry- he doesn't decide to omit the fact that Milk lost elections several times before his victory, or the fact that that victory was over another homosexual man, eventually. And I particularly enjoyed the small focus on Milk's assassin, Dan White, a fellow supervisor that had earlier invited Milk to his child's christening.

This relationship could have been painted with much more seething antagonism than was shown, but Milk depicts the ill-fated colleagues as professionals at a loss to understand one another, and civil until things begin unraveling for White. Van Sant also resists the urge to focus on the trial, ludicrous "twinkie" defense and terrible insufficient conviction of White for manslaughter.

And of course, the director surely had a lot to do with coaching out the performances, especially of younger stars like Hirsch, Franco, and Luna who were pitch perfect in drumming up subtlety or anxiety (Luna's character) when called for. Penn and Brolin aren't exactly the smallest egos to wrangle under control either, if consummate professionals.

The whole cast, really, managed to capture a sense of togetherness that the movement engendered- it might be that the issues they fought for are still of vital importance, or the appeal of flesh and blood heroism against archival footage of villains like Anita Bryant. But you care about these people, and their victories and defeats.

Every now and then, biopic tropes chime in and interrupt the naturalism, be they true stories or not- in particular, a random call to Milk from a wheelchair bound young gay man contemplating suicide seemed a bit heavy-handed, as did his later thankful call after he escapes his unsympathetic family. Harvey Milk is inspiring enough without making him larger-than-life. Let the facts (and Sean Penn) worry about Harvey Milk, and keep the story out of the way.

When all is said and done, Milk is a moving, artfully beautiful film- if someone of no previous reputation had directed it, I doubt I'd wonder what could have been done differently. But Gus Van Sant is Gus Van Sant, and for once I had signed up to see where his wildest flights of fancy could take a moving story. I was willing to sit through Elephant-level indulgence, because it was off of Van Sant's shoulders to get me to care in the first place, for once.

It might not be fair, in the end, to think of it that way- does Milk get nominated for every guild award under the sun and Best Picture if Van Sant goes off the rails? Probably not. And it may not even have retained the small touches that set it apart without him on the project to begin with. So along with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk is one the two films that I'd be much happier to see win the Best Picture Oscar over Slumdog Millionaire, as well as the only two nominees that don't provoke my The Dark Knight exclusion anger.

Part Three of a Five Part series on the Best Picture nominees.

When The Dark Knight was regrettably left out of the Best Picture competition, it left The Curious Case of Benjamin Button as the lone crowd-pleaser among the nominees. As it turns out, Slumdog Millionaire was simply waiting for its nomination to rollout nationwide, and it will cross $100 million as well, but Button will end up with the clear lead at the box office when all is said and done.

But as crowd-pleasers go, it's certainly inspired mixed reactions: critics liked it overall, but they didn't necessarily like it to the tune of Oscar winner, settling at 71% positive on RottenTomatoes.com. Word of mouth is relatively love it or hate it- it's beautiful! It's way too long! The romance is flat! The romance is moving!

I certainly enjoyed it, enough to see it again within a week (making it and The Dark Knight (four times, one in IMAX!) the only two films I saw more than once in theaters in 2008), but certain elements did seem to wear on me a little more the second time through. But they continue to grate more with time, or will Button settle on my shelf as a flawed but grandiose piece of filmmaking?

Click for More...

Let's get my single biggest complaint out of the way- screenwriter Eric Roth, apparently motivated by the recent death of a parent, decided to have the film framed as an elderly woman, on her deathbed in a hospital amidst the chaos of Hurricane Katrina, relating her life story to her daughter by way of a mystery diary among her possessions.

So instead of the film begging in 1918 with the voice-over "My name is Benjamin, Benjamin Button," we get to spend twenty minutes trying vainly to understand a heavily accented, wheezing Cate Blanchett in old age makeup tell a random story about a backwards clock, and then ask her daughter to start reading Benjamin's diary, which transports us back with those words. Over the rest of the film, we occasionally come back to the hospital, usually serving no purpose other than pausing the story, or to hear a motivation from Blanchett that was pretty clear anyway.

Only once does any memorable element arise- (spoilers aplenty from here) the daughter turns out to be Benjamin's, and in the diary are postcards and letters written to her, but never sent. A letter, voice-overed in by Pitt, is set to a montage for a nice moment, cinematically, but the whole thing could've be worked in some other way.

The whole setup leads to plenty of logistics issues by setting a fantastic, era-spanning story in a modern, socially relevant context (not once does the daughter quibble with the whole "aging backwards" thing), plus it puts an exclamation point on the biggest criticism of the film, and my other big complaint:

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button takes place in a fairy-tale, magic New Orleans where there is no racism whatsoever, nor any race-related issues encountered by the African-American matron of an old folks home raising a white (if odd-looking) child she found on a doorstep.

In the film's defense, it would be difficult to address race during the story without it feeling like a callous footnote, though it has plenty of time to do so. But the addition of a framing device consciously set during a disaster which brought a huge focus on racial inequalities in the region, that focuses solely on the plight of two affluent white people- well. That sort of highlights the lack.

Beyond that however, I couldn't find a single thing wrong with the film- in fact, when I'm able to fast forward the framing bits, I'll be witness to a masterpiece. It's easier to write about the flaws of a film than the strengths any day, but there's a wealth of majesty in Button that's more than deserving of 13 Oscar nominations.

Fincher, in a triumphant arrival to the truly mainstream, still lights everything in blue or orange, but works flawless technical mastery in every department, from the digital mapping of Brad Pitt onto smaller actors to the World War One battle between a tugboat and a submarine. The film moves seamlessly in design and costuming from the begginning of the twentieth century to the near-present without having to reference too many specific events to spell out signifiers for us.

I've never been one to complain about a film's length, personally- I think something basic and arithmetical in me logically assumes I got more for my $9.00 that way- and Button certainly didn't overstay its welcome, framing device aside. Journeys should feel like journeys, and we need time for two life stories to unfold.

The central romance is realized well enough for me- plenty of people have pointed out that Roth just wrote Forrest Gump again (simple southern boy meets bohemian dancer girl as a child, later they reunite but she pushes him away, finally they reconnect but it ends tragically), and that Button mirrors that film in general arc, replacing the historical reimaginings with reverse aging wizardry, but so what? Art repeats itself, and if I saw Button first, I'd like it more. In an era of film with so many pointless remakes, I think I can stomach two great films that run parallel to one another.

The melodrama is even well-punctuated by occasional levity- did I ever tell you I was struck by lightning seven times? And the theme "life is what you make it" might've been a bit less than people were expecting, given the supernatural premise, but that doesn't make it less resonant.

All in all, it would be great if Button lost the framing device and engaged with race relations in a meaningful way, but it would be greedy to ask for brilliance to fall left and right into theaters every year (2007 spoiled us, it really did). The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a testament to the cinema of spectacle, of wondrous vision and achievements not possible in other media.

I think it'll demand plenty of repeat viewings- and not just for Lightning Guy. Though he's pretty awesome.

Part Two of a Five Part series on the Best Picture Nominees.

Not that you asked, but I am nearly twenty five years old. I was born in 1984, seven years after the series of interviews of Richard Nixon by David Frost. Nixon is fully the past for me- he's a pop-culture character, he's jowls and double peace signs getting into a helicopter, he's not a crook. I understand the importance of his administration, the near-impeachment, the resignation, the Watergate scandal.

But maybe because I didn't live through it, my reaction to Frost/Nixon is: "meh." It's great that we finally get to see a fictional portrayal of Nixon admit that he made mistakes, and it's certainly nice that the real Nixon did as much in the real thing more than thirty years ago, but that doesn't really make for an outstanding film.

Ron Howard's by-the-numbers, stagy (based on a play), and laregly anticlimactic drama is certainly professional, flashy, and well-acted. But even with the inclusion in various critical lists and guild nominations, and its de facto inclusion in the final five for the Best Picture honor, it's not pulled in a single noteworthy award or top honor- it's an also-ran. Everybody seems to feel like we need to include Frost/Nixon for the same reasons that we need to teach History class in high school.

My question: do we? (Need to include Frost/Nixon in awards season, I mean. I know we need to teach History.)

Click here for More...

In an interesting moment of cultural cross-promotion, the real life David Frost has popped up on talkshows promoting the sale of a DVD containing the real life interviews that the play, Frost/Nixon, and its film adaptation were drawn from. It makes for an obvious question: why not just watch the real thing?

Or to put it another way: what does Peter Morgan's (and by extension, Ron Howard's) Frost/Nixon add to history?

The answer: not much, based on the movie.

The cast, of course, is winning: Michael Sheen and Frank Langella do very capable jobs as the intrepid interviewer seeking to prove his journalist chops and the disgraced president spinning to save any sort of legacy. (Good thing they had plenty of tape to study). Matthew Macfayden is solid as Frost's producer, Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell (Whoo! Sam Rockwell!) provide some comic relief as a pair of researchers. Kevin Bacon ably plays Nixon's loyal bodyman, and Rebecca Hall (Whoo!  Rebecca Hall!) even shows up as Frost's support and eye-candy.

Ron Howard retains the ability to build to profound moments, Hans Zimmer's score is proficiently cinematic, the story is peppered with some interviews of the minor characters, talking about the events sometime later as if they knew how important they would be...

It's certainly a solid job, all around. But why was it hard to stay awake?

Maybe because there are precious few moments that tell us anything we didn't already know. The film is torn between a desire to highlight what it clearly finds a significant moment in American history and a desire to humanize Nixon into a man neither consciously villainous nor ignorantly assured of the righteousness of his actions. Langella certainly deserves plenty of credit for embodying a man largely through personality and manner, rather than focusing on any of the quirks that we immediately think of when we hear the name.

But Frost/Nixon can't have it both ways: beyond the normal movie-clues that we're witnessing is important with a capital "I," it makes the conscious decisions to inflate them more than the original play.

My biggest complaint was those cutaway interviews: like an episode of The Office, it wasn't clear when those interviews occured, who was conducting them, or why Frost and Nixon did not appear giving them. But the supporting players were more than happy to sit down at an unspecified point (none of them appeared much older than they did in the story) and pontificate- even Rebecca Hall's character, a girlfriend that stays with Frost during his time in California but is largely not privvy to the preparations for the interviews, as far as we can see.

In short, who cares? As you'll see in my writeup of The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, I'm quickly developing a pet peeve for stories that are weighed down by unnecessary framing devices- let at tale speak for itself, from beginning to end. At least the Button device makes it clear the way in which the story is being related to us- these cutaways in Frost/Nixon are just confusing, unexplained moments to hit us in the face with the things the movie would like us to know are dramatic: Frost's hidden funding problems, Nixon's silence on the helicopter ride after resigning.

I did sort of enjoy the most dramatic non-interview moment in the film: Nixon drunkenly places a phone call to Frost, late at night, and talks about how they both feel the desire to succeed because they come from the low class.

It's a human moment, a dramatic speech, and Langella nails it. Later, Sheen mentions the phone call in passing, and Nixon looks troubled and flustered, as if he didn't recall it. Great element, I'm thinking- it added to the story, and I'm not concerned whether it happened in real life or not.

But at the very end, in case you weren't clear that that moment was Important and Dramatic, Nixon's last question to Frost is something along the lines of "Did I really call you that night?" Thanks, Frost/Nixon. I had really forgotten that bit of the film from an hour ago. Glad you reminded me how clever you are.

In conclusion, let's let my man Sam Rockwell, speaking in one the many cutaways in which someone analyzes the events of the film for us, ironically explicate my problem with Frost/Nixon as a whole:

"You know the first and greatest sin of the deception of television is that it simplifies; it diminishes great, complex ideas, trenches of time; whole careers become reduced to a single snapshot....David [Frost] had succeeded on that final day, in getting for a fleeting moment what no investigative journalist, no state prosecutor, no judiciary committee or political enemy had managed to get; Richard Nixon's face swollen and ravaged by loneliness, self-loathing and defeat. The rest of the project and its failings would not only be forgotten, they would totally cease to exist."

Man, good thing I just watched all that unfold, if it was that important. Frost/Nixon, in the time it took from the screen to awards season, got the same treatment- its failings ceased to exist in the shadow of the subject matter (which many people in this country not born in the eighties remember personally).

So if I were ever asked for a pullquote about Frost/Nixon, I'd have to go with "Best episode of The American Experience* ever!"

*It's a documentary show on PBS. I watch a lot of PBS, and I'm proud of it, but not in an annoying, hipster, anti-establishment way.

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.

Dave and I decided to come up with our own Oscar nominations (after some oversights in the real-life Oscar nominations). We conform to the bylaws of the Academy, but reduce the voting block to one, essentially. Again, we’re not picking foreign language, documentary, or the three shorts owing to barely seeing any. I decided to make it even more fun by limiting myself to the 60 eligible 2008 films that I’ve seen to date. Here’s what I came up with. My picks are kind of oddball this year- I’m like the Manohla Dargis of blogs that nobody reads.

Best Sound Mixing:

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E
Rachel Getting Married

As I understand it, Sound Mixing is about balancing the finished soundtrack of a film- music, dialogue, and effects. Rachel Getting Married tracked a vivid, organic, and music filled atmosphere almost like a documentary. Button and The Dark Knight had epic scopes to deal with, Wall-E was an amazing expansion of Ben Burtt’s R2D2 routine into full-fledged adorable robot language, and Slumdog really knew when to crank up the soundtrack.

Best Sound Editing:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Cloverfield
Wall-E
Iron Man

Editing, meanwhile, is for the creation of specific effects (again, as far I can tell), so I’d give it to Button’s shrieking tugboats and so forth, The Dark Knight’s various explosions and crashes, the innovative nature of Cloverfield’s sound effects (the monster was mostly scary because of off-screen noises), Wall-E’s rocket launches, and Iron Man’s armored-suit vs. fighter jet chicanery.

More...

Best Special Effects:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
The Fall

Button’s digital mapping is the next evolution of Gollum and was nearly seamless. Hell, if it wasn’t Brad Pitt’s ubiquitous face they were altering, I wouldn’t even have thought about the achievement of it as I was watching. TDK gets props for flipping trucks without CGI, and the mixture of CGI, setpieces, and one bravura claymation dream sequence really set apart The Fall for me.

Quick note here: Dave and I did agree before that we were going to choose our nominees from the Academy finalists, which didn’t include The Fall in the round of fifteen or seven… but I just love The Fall so much. So sue me.

Best Make Up:

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

This is the only category I actually predicted correctly! Woo! Again, old person makeup, scary clown makeup, and crazy monster makeup. Variety is fun.

Best Art Direction:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
The Fall
Be Kind Rewind
Wall-E

I don’t understand why Wall-E can’t qualify for best art direction when it transports us to entire worlds that had to be invented, not just planned out. Button and TDK are pretty complete visions, The Fall is inventive artistry at its best, and Be Kind Rewind I think is just as complete in set design and production design as anything else- it’s just that they created a charmingly rundown Jersey town, not a fantastical world. But Gondry’s home-video aesthetic doesn’t happen on its own, people.

Best Costume Design:

The Dark Knight
The Fall
Revolutionary Road
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button
Appaloosa

Maybe it’s me, but I’m more inclined to take the name of the award literally and look for Costumes that were designed, as in, the fantastic, rather than recreated to match earlier time periods, hence The Dark Knight and The Fall. But those were the only non-period films I could think of. So I went with Revolutionary Road for blending the costumes in with the lighting scheme, nearly, Button for having to costume multiple time periods instead of just one, and Appaloosa mostly for Viggo Mortensen’s scarves.

Best Animated Feature:

Kung Fu Panda
Wall-E
(Something Else)

I only saw two animated movies this year. It was a slow year for CGI, relatively. Really this should just be three nominations for Wall-E, though. It’s that good.

Best Song:

“Down to Earth” – Wall-E
“Another Way To Die” – Quantum Of Solace
“Little Person” – Synecdoche, New York
“The Little Things” – Wanted
“O Saya” – Slumdog Millionaire

As much as I loved “Dracula’s Lament,” it was sixth behind the above five. The Oscars would never be cool enough to nominate songs from Wanted and the new Bond movie, but damn if they don’t make me feel like a badass when they pop up on my iPod. “Down To Earth” is a great addition to the Pixar credit-song gauntlet, “O Saya” starts Slumdog off with a bang bigger than the film turns out to be worth, and “Little Person” encapsulates Charlie Kaufman’s bittersweet world better than his mess of a directorial debut even began to.

Best Score:

Carter Burwell- In Bruges
Krishna Levy- The Fall
Thomas Newman – Revolutionary Road
Thomas Newman – Wall-E
Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard – The Dark Knight

I’m not a score guy. Dave’s got a billion of them, I probably have a dozen, total. But they do sometimes leave an impression- my hands down favorite this year has to be Carter Burwell’s elegant, somber score for the tragicomedy In Bruges. A close second is TDK’s creepy build into madness, from the opening low extended violin warble to the billowing note of the title screen at the end.

I enjoyed Levy’s chiming, sweeping score to The Fall (which again, may not be properly eligible because it incorporates part of Beethoven’s 7th Symphony as a theme, but my heart would break, sorry), which takes as many turns as the story, as well as Thomas Newman’s work on both Wall-E (playful) and Revolutionary Road (somber): Newman is an absolute master at emphasizing moments in films with subtle touches instead of cliché musical swells, the American Beauty score being a prime example.

Best Editing:

Lee Smith – The Dark Knight
Robert Duffy- The Fall
Stephen Schaffer- Wall-E
Jon Gregory- In Bruges
Chris Dickens- Slumdog Millionaire

This category, I think even more than director, has a lot to do with Best Picture. How well put together a film is says a lot about how good it is. The Dark Knight lagged in the third act, but not as much as Button lagged in the entire second half, so it makes it while Button doesn’t. The Fall (unlike Button) used its framing device to perfection, though that’s sort of the point, and came in at a taught 117 minutes while still feeling epic to me. Wall-E I still say deserves a nomination when every shot, sequence, and transition has to be planned in advance. That doesn’t leave an editor much wiggle room. In Bruges expertly dealt out key flashbacks at just the right moments, and maintained a dramatic, three act structure like a play (to an effect I found much greater than two lauded films adapted from actual plays this year). And finally, Slumdog Millionaire is a well-paced and frenetic adventure- it doesn’t leave anyone enough time to scoff at it until it’s over.

Best Cinematography:

Roger Deakins – Revolutionary Road
Claudio Miranda – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Wally Pfister – The Dark Knight
Harris Savides – Milk
Colin Watkinson- The Fall

One of my favorite categories to consider. Deakins played expertly with framing and light in Road (much better than he just centered stuff in the camera in The Reader, which he apparently needed some other dude’s help for... That was probably too harsh.). Miranda and Pfister moved effortlessly through all sorts of settings to maintain the particular visions of the auteurs they work for. Milk was a light and dreamy film that subtly worked into a grim subject, with some innovative shots, the more I watch it. And can you tell I’m really a big fan of this “The Fall” that came to Milwaukee in April and no one else has ever heard of? Can you?

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Christopher Nolan, Johnathan Nolan, and David Goyer – The Dark Knight
Dan Gilroy, Nico Soultanakis, and Tarsem- The Fall
John Lindvqist- Let The Right One In
Fergus/Ostby/Marcum/Holloway- Iron Man
Eric Roth and Robin Swicord- The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

I feel like Goyer just wrote the part in TDK where Batman dramatically lands on top of a van in a parking structure, then put his feet up and let the Nolans do their thing. The Fall is apparently based on the screenplay for a 1981 film called Yo Ho Ho (?), so I’ll put it here. Because it’s awesome. I had to find somewhere to honor Let The Right One In, which is brilliant mostly for the nature of Lindqvist’s adaptation of his own novel. Four dudes I’ve never heard of made a taught, entertaining two hours out of Iron Man’s mess of a back story, and finally I’ll begrudgingly give the last spot to Button, even though it has some major problems and should really be listed as “based on the Forrest Gump screenplay.”

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

I’m gonna go with Dave on this one, for all five. Milk makes city district board politics as compelling, in a way, as the central gay rights struggle. Rachel Getting Married finds time to create an entire family of three dimensional people. In Bruges is at once complex and precisely simple (and foul-mouthed, and hilarious). The Wrestler is impressive both as a script and as a role written to bring the best out of Mickey Rourke, of all people. And Wall-E is a triumph of imagination pushing the limits of the CGI medium, as Pixar always does.

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams – Doubt
Marisa Tomei – The Wrestler
Rosmarie Dewitt- Rachel Getting Married
Debra Winger- Rachel Getting Married
Penelope Cruz- Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Not the strongest year for this category- I wasn’t really that sure about including Cruz (she mostly yells in Spanish for a while) until I couldn’t find anyone I like more for the fifth spot. I prefer Adams’ doe-eyed character in Doubt to Viola Davis, since naiveté is harder to sell than scenery chewing for about ten minutes. Tomei is a solid second fiddle in The Wrestler, with a parallel faded glory all her own. And Dewitt and Winger really make Rachel Getting Married one of the strongest ensembles of the year.

Best Supporting Actor:

Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight
Ralph Fiennes- In Bruges
Bill Irwin- Rachel Getting Married
Michael Shannon- Revolutionary Road
Phillip Seymour Hoffman- Doubt

Heath Ledger, all the way. But we need four people to smile politely for drama’s sake, so I say Fiennes’ f-bomb-dropping, cockney crime lord, Irwin’s quietly desperate father, Shannon’s truth-to-power headcase, and Hoffman’s seemingly scrupulous priest can smile and nod right before they lose out.

Best Actress:

Anne Hathaway – Rachel Getting Married
Kate Winlset – Revolutionary Road
Julianne Moore- Blindness
Michelle Williams- Wendy And Lucy
Rebecca Hall- Vicky Cristina Barcelona

I’m fully behind Hathaway’s first nomination, but the rest of the category didn’t sit right with me (Meryl Streep can scowl? That’s news?). I’d rather see Winslet win for her range and expression in Revolutionary Road, instead of the “I’ll look conflicted and you can let the Holocaust do the rest” grimacing in The Reader (I have many, many mixed emotions about that film. This will be its own post soon.) Overlooked in the mixed reception for Blindness was Moore’s strong turn as the film’s emotional center, den mother to a blind race. Williams broke out in Wendy and Lucy, but it was unfortunately only to a handful of theaters. And Rebecca Hall keeps Woody Allen’s travelogue comedy from falling apart with a sort of feminine spin on the Allen neurosis archetype (plus I might be in love with her. She was an unsung hero of The Prestige, and she looks kind of like a British Dick Van Dyke Show era Mary Tyler Moore. Sigh.).

Best Actor:

Colin Farrell – In Bruges
Sean Penn – Milk
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler
Chiwetel Ejiofor- Redbelt
Lee Pace – The Fall

I certainly can’t argue with the twin Rourke/Penn juggernauts that are taking all the awards (or decide between them for predicting purposes, for that matter). And Farrell deserves more than just a B-level Golden Globe for his role. I nearly forgot about Ejiofor in Redbelt, a perfect melding of the actor’s zen sensibility, the teachings of Jiu-Jitsu, and David Mamet’s brand of dialogue. And you don’t realize how reserved Lee Pace in The Fall is until a big moment at the very end.

Best Director:

Darren Arnofsky – The Wrestler
David Fincher – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Christopher Nolan – The Dark Knight
Tarsem- The Fall
Ben Stiller- Tropic Thunder

Before you laugh, think about Tropic Thunder for a minute. Think about the cast, crew, stunts, explosions, effects, and overall scope of that film. For a comedy, it’s pretty epically done, and I can’t think a better place to recognize it than by clearing a spot for Ben Stiller- just don’t meet any more parents, and we’ll be fine. Tarsem is a visionary director that really struck a chord with The Fall (with me, anyway), though I half-expect his next film to be insufferable. Does that make sense? The rest are three directors so dear to my heart I can hardly believer they would all be (and Fincher is, of course) first time nominees: Fincher, Nolan, and Arnofsky.

Best Picture:

The Dark Knight
Wall-E
The Fall
In Bruges
Rachel Getting Married

As you can see, I was perhaps a bit bitter when The Dark Knight was overlooked for Best Picture this year, after winning so much guild and press acclaim. In Bruges at least snuck into original screenplay, but it deserves so much more as well. The Fall is a film with mixed reviews that isn’t exactly loved by all (61% on RottenTomatoes, although that’s higher than a certain Holocaust-related movie I know of), but clearly I fell for. Rachel Getting Married I thought was more complete of a vision than people realized, and Wall-E is of course, the film that all ages can appreciate with a timeless message.

I didn’t expect my five nominees to be completely different from the Academy’s, but there you go- the more I looked at them (and I have rewatched The Fall more than once, almost to confirm I like it this much), the more I realized those five didn’t speak to me as memorable or as imaginative as others. Button was the closest call, but we don’t have room to honor everyone in the meaningless Oscars in my head, sorry.

Totals:

The Dark Knight – 13
The Fall- 10
Wall-E – 9
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 9
Rachel Getting Married – 7
In Bruges – 6
Revolutionary Road – 5
The Wrestler – 4
Milk – 3
Slumdog Millionaire – 3
Vicky Christina Barcelona – 2
Doubt – 2
Iron Man – 2
Quantum of Solace – 1
Wanted – 1
Hellboy II: The Golden Army – 1
Kung Fu Panda – 1
Cloverfield -1
Be Kind Rewind- 1
Appaloosa- 1
Synecdoche, New York- 1
Let The Right One In- 1
Tropic Thunder- 1
Wendy And Lucy- 1
Blindness- 1
Redbelt- 1
Some Other Animated Film I Didn’t See- 1

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