Oscar Round Up

The Oscars, despite its overblown grandeur which everyone always complains about yet still watches devotedly, is always a worthwhile venture that can usually affirm film’s importance in our culture. It is difficult to watch, as a fan of film, and not be happy for Martin Scorsese, who finally got over the hump and was able to join his fellow directors from the "New Hollywood" of the 1970's as a recognized winner of an Oscar. When Spielberg, Coppola and Lucas, three of Scorsese's close contemporaries read his name, they were as excited as the rest of us, for their longtime friend had finally done it. He'd finally gained acceptance into the most mainstream of film academies. After all, isn't that what we all hope for? That our favorite artists are acknowledged by the general public as being visionaries, as being masters, as being the best? Deep down, even the most hardened, cynical art house fans had to love the moment.

Sure, this wasn't Scorsese’s best directing job but it was one of the best directing jobs of the year, hands down. As Patrick Goldstein so eloquently pointed out in his column today in the LA Times, Scorsese took the type of film typically ignored by the Academy and went to town, creating a piercing, sharp witted crime thriller with a sizzling script and wonderful performances. This is the type of film that normally would be overlooked by the Oscars, shot down in favor of the more politically minded and timely Babel, a film more likely to look dated 20 years from now. The Departed, on the other hand, is the type of film that tells a timeless story of good and evil, wisely updating the Warner gangster films of the 1930's to our new era. It deals with topical themes yet never overly so, slipping in sly remarks about the Patriot Act instead of drumming its meaning into our heads. This is not to dismiss Babel, which is filmmaking of the highest order, magnificently balancing its interlocking narratives and themes with stunning precision but merely to praise The Departed, which is more sly and subtle than people realize. Sure, its violence is over the top and the profanity flows eloquently but in terms of sheer entertainment, in terms of overall filmmaking, there are no scenes that don't soar, that don't feature a moment that makes an audience in the know grin. Of the nominated films, it is a great choice for the best.
Other thoughts on the night:

-Jennifer Hudson once again proved with her performance in the Dreamgirls medley that her Oscar is well deserved. Years from now, people will not be talking Mirren in The Queen as the performance of the year. It'll be Hudson's star making role that will continue to turn heads.

-Those dance numbers were cool and all but by the time midnight was rolling along, one couldn't help but feel like it was starting to become overkill. I feel like the show would have better served by placing all the numbers into one segment, leaving the end of the show solely for the awards. The major categories (Lead Actor/Actress, Director and Picture) didn't come around until the midnight hour on the East Coast. Even the presentation of the Best Picture seemed rushed and an afterthought after Marty's magical moment.

-If there is a better ambassador for film history than Martin Scorsese, I don't know who that would be. He is knowledgeable and seems genuinely excited when he speaks of films past. One needs to look no further than his expansive A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies or My Voyage to Italy to see and hear his vibrant views into what has been and what will be. The man is a genius and he finally got his due. Kudos to Marty, he's earned it.

-George Clooney is today's equivalent of Cary Grant, a personality so magnetic and charismatic that everything seems so effortless. He has an impeccable and daring taste in film and over the past 10 years (Batman and Robin excluded) has established himself as one of the greatest talents in Hollywood. Even his off the cuff joke about Al Gore was a hit. He’s the type of guy you would want to hang out/go out drinking with.

-Clint Eastwood is as gracious and humble a star as I have ever seen. He has become the industry’s finest director and his attitude doesn’t represent it in the slightest. He seems approachable, grounded and most of all, thankful for all that the industry has afforded him. Years from now, the 2000’s will be looked upon as the decade that Clint Eastwood went from superstar to bona fide genius. His legend grows with everything he does.

-Quite frankly, I find the discussion around the violent end to The Departed to be tiresome. Why go see a Scorsese crime thriller if you are so put off by violence? And why does a film being violent make it less worthy of an award? Isn’t violence, however unnecessary and unfortunate, a part of society and should it be explored like any other cultural ill?

-Forrest Whitaker seems like a great guy who has the utmost respect for his peers and his craft. His speech was eloquent and moving. Glad to see him get recognized.

-Disappointed that Jackie Earle Haley didn’t pick up a win. I feel like his speech would have been interesting seeing how this is basically the first work he’s done in years and it was phenomenal. Let’s hope his career stays resurrected.

-Few people could completely shave his head and get away with it. Jack is one of those people. At least, I think he is.

-Good to see Pan’s Labyrinth walk away with some wins, but was very surprised to see it lose Best Foreign Film. Its truly magical and demands to be watched.

-Speaking of which, The Lives of Others win for Best Foreign Film may have been the upset of the evening. I think pretty much everyone and their mother was expecting a win out of Pan’s there.

-I had forgotten how wonderful the score to Babel was and am glad that won. Its final scenes are heightened infinitely by its sweeping melodies.

-The montage of the great foreign films of the past was spectacular, reminding the American viewers of the cinemas outside our borders. Every single one of those films mentioned are worthwhile. Get those Netflix queues going and watch some of those classics. You’ll find some filmmakers that are giants of the medium. I’m ready to go watch 8 ½ again and get swept away by Fellini’s touch.

-Michael Mann’s montage of America/Americans throughout history was slightly disappointing only because he hinted at something far greater. I love how he used racial portrayals that today are deemed antiquated and ignorant. There is no point in sweeping US Cinema’s racial past under the rug. However, it didn’t seem as if those clips built towards anything, but just sort of appeared. Maybe it was the time constraints but knowing what Mann can do, especially with montage, I was hoping for more.

-I finished my blog last night by saying it was a good show and by that I meant I could agree with most of the awards: I felt like the right people were honored. Overall, the show was kind of slow and as it neared the fourth hour, even the most devoted viewer’s patience was being tried.

-Ellen was kind of blah to me, never really getting going. The crowd seemed to like her enough merely because they were never being truly made fun of.

-Will Ferrell, Jack Black and John C. Reilly killed their musical number, bringing the house down with their entertaining and sharp jabs at the ceremony. It’s always much more fun to see Hollywood have a sense of humor about themselves. I just wish Steve Carell had come on. That would have been truly amazing.

Live Oscar Blog

Hello and welcome to Oscar Night! The live blogging will start with the show but I wanted to check prior to the jump off. Please feel free to comment as much as and whenever you like. Enjoy folks!

7:52- 38 minutes to showtime.

8:25- 5 minutes to showtime.

8:27- 3 minutes to showtime. Chris Connelly seemed jacked to be walking around the Kodak. He's done pretty well for himself considering his modest start on MTV News. Now he is kissing ass on a red carpet. Way to go Chris.

8:30- The show opens with that movie guy's voice (you know, that guy) and a video montage of the nominees mocking the process. Clint lets us know that they were nominated for "Director, Picture, stuff like that", followed by the all the noms who have lost x number of times letting us know their thoughts. Jennifer Hudson is annoying. Forrest Whitake is awesome. Eddie Murphy is silent. Overall, a pretty decent start to show. Then the back patting begins by having all the noms stand up, cheering each other. Marty is grinning like a fool, gotta love his energy. Here comes Ellen...

8:36- ...And she is in a suit. I guess that first part was by Errol Morris. I thought it'd be later in the show. Now I'm alittle disappointed.

8:39- Ellen is stammering and making the audience laugh. Our room is pretty much silent. She makes it known that its the "most international Oscars ever" which I agree is worth mentioning. "Spain is representing" (Oy).

8:42- Poking fun at Abigal Breslin and Peter O' Toole. O' Toole looks like he's enjoying himself on his sixth nomination. We move onto Hudson (who still annoys me but deserves to win). She says something forgettable.

8:45- Speaking of keeping the speechs short, this whole opening monologue shtick should be cut down to like maximum of 5 minutes. A gospel choir just walked as I wrote that. Good god, lets get to Best Sound Editing.

8:47- First Category! Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig to present Best Art Direction. Both look very classy in their restrained outfits. I'm pulling for Pan's.

8:48- Pan's wins! Great film, hopefully the first of a number of wins tonight. A nice short speech.
Next Category with Maggie G. to tell about the Scientific and Technical Awards. No one outside of the industry knows a thing about this or cares. I think its kind of interesting.

8:51- Backlighting with some dancers who tumbled across the stage and formed the Oscar. The entire room just did a WTF.

8:55- Will Ferrell is singing about the Oscars with a huge fro. Guy's got a pretty good set of pipes. Here comes Jack Black! Their chemistry on the first 30 seconds is better than the entire chemistry betwene the entire cast of Crash. John C. Reilly is here too. They're bringing out the big guns! Lets go Carrell! Damn, not looking like it but thats the segment of the show. Hands down.

8:59- Best Makeup is (Let's go Pan's!)... The winner is Pan's! 2 for 2!

9:01- Will Smith's Kid and Abigal Breslin are out there being so cute. The crowd is eating it up. Best animated short is...The Danish Poet. Here comes the kids...Best Live Action Short: West Bank Story which is a musical set in the West Bank. Netflix, here I come.

9:08- Here comes Clint to highlight Letters From Iwo Jima. I love this man in a solidly man to man relationship. I would love to meet him and just sit down and talk about his life. Guy has seen a ton.

9:13- Nice commercial break. This is strenuous. Here comes the Hollywood Sound Effects Choir. They're creating sound effects with their voices. Reminds me of high school choir. Some solid clips behind them. Not a bad segment but no Ferrell/Black/Reilly.

9:16- Steve Carrell and Greg Kinnear here for Best Sound Editing. Good year for Bob Asman/Rob Murray. Letters from Iwo Jima wins.

9:19- James McAvoy and Jessica Biel for Best Sound Mixing. The winner is Dreamgirls. Seemed like an obvious choice seeing as its about "sound" as someone in the room pointed out. Don't know why I would have doubted it.

9:23- Rachel Weisz for Best Supporting Actor, one of the strongest categories of the night. Not a bad choice but I'm pulling for Haley. The winner is...Alan Arkin. The worst of the bunch. Great performance not worth a win in this category. Welcome to the Oscars. Solid speech from Arkin though. Made it almost worth while.

9:27- Ellen talks to Marty. If he doesn't win, I'm jumping out the window.

9:28- The dancers are back behind the sheet. What a waste of money. Just do clips of classic movies instead of this. Wait, they just turned into penguins. Keep 'em.

9:31- Clips from The Departed with Leo talking over them. What a movie this was. A crime classic.

9:32- James Taylor and Randy Newman to sing "Our Town". The sound is awful. Maybe if they worked on that instead of the dancers, we'd be in business. Oh wait, they turned into penguins. Get them to turn into the Tower of Babel and the rest of the show could be silent. I'm crossing my fingers. Melissa Etheridge now. This must be the medley portion of the show. Etheridge is wielding a bitching 12 string.

9:37-Leo and Al Gore. What a lineup for the Liberals. The show has gone "green". Thank goodness. Leo is spurring on Gore to announce his presidency. Gore is playing along and is here to take this opportunity to...be drowned out by the orchestra. O' Toole and Gore were loving it. Hilarity reigns...

9:44- And we're back. Jack is bald. What happened there? It better be for a role or something and not be Chemo. We can't lose Jack yet. Still too valuable to the industry.

Cameron Diaz is coming out to present Best Animated Feature. This seems like a shoe-in for Cars. We'll see. By the way, Diaz has gone downhill since The Mask. Anyway... NOT Cars! Wow, Pixar gets nothing. Very surprising there.

9:48- Nancy Meyers is here with a retrospective on screenwriting with all the expected clips. Sunset Blvd, The Philadelphia Story, Ed Wood, Shakespeare in Love, Misery, The Hours, numerous Woody Allen, Adaptation, The Shining, Get Shorty, More Sunset Blvd. As Good As It gets. Then shot of Jack writing in the audience. Good montage.

9:51- Helen Mirren and Tom Hanks here to present Best Adapted Screenplay. Borat's only choice. The winner is...William Monahan for The Departed. No surprise there. Won WGA, won this and gets cut off by the music. I'll tell ya, Tom Hanks seems to get that the Oscars are so overblown. He seems like one of the most down to earth superstars around.

9:58- The Wes Anderson AmEx commercial is on. I love this thing.

10:00- We've hit the hour left mark. Not a bad show so far. I'm really pulling for Marty.

10:01- Ellen is back with more antics with an Oscar carrier. Best Costume Design coming up from Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt. The winner (righfully so) is Marie Antoinette.

10:08- Cruise is out to give away the Humanitarian Award to Sherry Lansing. Made a lot of good movies at Paramount and did alot of good stuff. Way to be Sherry!

10:12- More antics with Clint. Clint just called Ellen darling. What a classy dude. I love 'em. No script for Clint, he's upset. Marty is lovin in. Spielbegr is going to take a pic of Clint and Ellen for her MySpace page. Clint's date is all about Ellen. Laughing her ass off. Here comes the always radiant Gwenyth Paltrow. She seems a real classical beauty. For Best Cinematography. Should be Children of Men or The Black Dahlia. The Prestige explanation was great. The winner is... Pan's Labyrinth. It's cleaning up, go see it.

10:18- The dancers are back for Little Miss Sunshine. Not as impressive as the penguins or the Oscar but still pretty cool. Still voting for keepin' 'em.

10:21- This live writing is tough. I'm exhausted.

10:22- Robert Downey Jr. and Naomi Watts. Good couple of actors. Great jab out of Downey at himself. I really like him. Best Visual Effects goes to...Pirates of the Carribbean. What a dumb win, what a dumb comment by the announcer about wanting to be a doctor.

10:25- Ken Watanabe and some women who's last name I can't spell is here to do something. Whats her face just mispronous Fellini's name. Give it over to Ken. By the way, he was phenomenal in Letters From Iwo Jima. Clips from Foreign Films. This could be good. Rashomon, Crouching Tiger, Z, La Strada, All About My Mother, Discreet Charm, Fanny and Alexander, The Bicycle Thief, 8 1/2, Cinema Paradiso, Black Orpheus, Amarcord, Nights of Cabria, Life is Beautiful, The Shope on Main Street. Wow, that killed. Such a awesome collection.

Clive Owen and Cate Blanchett here for Best Foreign Film. A good collection, I would really like to see The Lives of Others. Speaking of which, it just won. I'm going this week.

10:35- Dancers are back with Ellen and she just got eaten and then they made the logo from Snakes on a Plane. Wow, that was sweet.

10:35- George Clooney is here and he kills with a joke about drinking with Gore and how he wont be running for President. Coolest man on Earth (Clooney, not Gore). Best Supporting Actress nominees. Blanchett was really good in Notes on a Scandal, by far and away the best part of the movie. This seems like a formality. Hudson is a shoe-in. The winner is...Jennifer Hudson. Absolutely no surprise and definitely deserved. One of the most magnetic debut performances of all time. Seems actually moved. I'll retract my statement from earlier. Seems sincere where I thought she was a hot shot. Go Jen Go.

10:42- Another commercial break. I gotta use the bathroom. This is a struggle.

10:42- Clips from Babel with Inarritu, Blanchett talking over it. Just finished watching this again and its wonderful. I can understand why its divisive but I think its genius. Tremendous filmmaking.

10:43- Eva Green and Gael Garcia Bernal coming out. Bernal is awesome, up there with Clooney as one of the coolest on the planet. Here we go with Best Short Documentary. The Oscar goes to The Blood of Yingzhou District.

10:49- Jerry Seinfeld comes out and does his shtick and it never gets old. Then goes onto to introduce the nominees as five really "despressing" movies. I'm excited for Bee Movie. Should be interesting. The winner is... a shocker, An Inconvenient Truth.

10:58- Putting the finishing touches on the tribute to Ennio Morricone, one of the best composers (may be my personal favorite) of all time. Truely a musical visionary. They just left off Once Upon A Time in the West and The Battle of Algiers off of his list of movies. What the hell, those are two of his best. I guess you can't represent all 400. Well deserved. No way the guy can have an acceptance speech, he can't speak english but here he comes. Its in Italian so even Clint is standing there in confusion. Oh Wait! Clint speaks Italian! Kind of. What a guy. Ennio is cool, Clint is cooler. A great segment.

11:03- Apparently this isn't ending at 11:00. Still got like 5-6 categories to go. Ennio is still going and Quincy Jones was just shown nodding off.

11:08- P. Cruz and H. Jackman are here to weigh in on Best Original Score. Everything but Notes on a Scandal belongs. Can't complain unless its Glass. Babel wins.

11:11- Speech from Sid Ganis. Next.

11:14- Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire are here for Best Original Screenplay. I can't wait to see Pan's again. The winner is...Little Miss Sunshine. WGA nailed it. Two for Two.

11:18- The dancers are back. Eh, Make a shoe for the Devil Wears Prada. Let's keep it moving.

11:21- Commercial.

11:22- J.Lo is on the stage and is apparently a reason for HDTV. I dont know. Here comes a Dreamgirls medley. Should be good. Hudson is truly mesmerizing in this role. Tailored for her. Beyonce is on the case. The music in Dreamgirls was so so good. Its a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed but knew could be better. Can't blame any of the actors though. Really special performances. Here comes "Listen", Beyonce's show stopper. She is quite the talent. Has handled herself prefectly in her career and has no where to go but up. One of the better pop stars of today. I'll be excited to sit down again and watch it on its own terms, knowing fully what to expect. Here comes the gospel choir and its working. The music is tailored to be sung to the rafters. Cate Blanchett was just shown looking disinterested. Bill Condon is loving it. Good performance. Going into the last half hour.

11:30- Queen Latifah and John Travolta here for Best Original Song. Etheridge for her song from An Inconvenient Truth. The Academy must like the 12 string.

11:36- Clips of Little Miss Sunshine with clips of Steve Carrell. Still am unimpressed.

11:37- Will Smith coming out to give out something. Nevermind Michael Mann is doing clips. Sign me up! Clips about the American identity confronting race, religion, gender, TV, violence, the movies themselves, war, heroism, presidency. Decent montage. Mann could have gotten more out of that. Slightly disappointing.

11:42- Here is Kate Winslet to give Best Editing. She's awesome, best actress going. One of the people in our room just said being a film editor would be a fun job. I agree, difficult but worthwhile. The winner is... Thelma Schoonmaker for The Departed.

11:46- In Memorium, always touching.

11:51- Down to the wire, five awards to go. Let's go Marty!

11:54-Ellen updates that we still have several awards to give out. Thanks for the update, shut your mouth, get to the awards. PS Hoffman is coming out for Best Actress. P. Cruz is radient. Judi Dench is MIA (Ellen said it was because she's getting a boob job). Helen Mirren will win. Meryl Streep was great but has won enough, next. Kate Winslet needs to win one of these times.

Helen Mirren wins. Very elegant, very tasteful, very British. She ends by holding up her trophy and saying "I give you the Queen". Odd.

11:59- We just had more dancers behind the sheet, made a gun and somehow shot something. I hope it wasn't a head. Chris Connelly is shown once again walking backstage recapping the show. Is this necessary at 12:00?

12:02- Ellen is vaccumming. I'm not kidding. Get on with it.

12:04-Reese Witherspoon to give Best Actor. Looking for Forrest Whitaker here and it is...Mr. Whitaker. Seems like a great guy, well deserving. Should be a good speech.

12:05- And it was, seems geniunely moved. I really like him and am glad to see he has gotten his due. Was not the basic thank you but a speech from the heart. Congrats Forrest, enjoy it. We look forward to seeing you again soon.

12:09- Coppola, Lucas and Spielberg are here for Best Director. I'm geniunely nervous. Come on Marty. MARTY WINS! Standing ovation. Should be an awesome. The crowd is going nuts. We're watching history. He gets the monkey off the back. Marty looks and sounds like he is going hyper-ventilate. The audience looks legitimately happy for Marty.

12:16- Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton are out for Best Picture. The Departed takes it. Decent show, good awards. Marty's win makes it all worthwhile. I'll be back tomorrow to wrap it all up. Now, I'm going to bed. Hope you enjoyed the 2007 Oscars, good night!

Factory Girl: Review

Prior to seeing George Hickenlooper’s Edie Sedgwick Biopic, Factory Girl, I had a great deal of hope that it might succeed in shining a light on what is one of the more interesting, albeit overplayed, culture scenes of the 20th century. For anyone remotely interested in modern art, Andy Warhol’s Factory was and is the definition of a cultural hotbed in which everything came together at the right time and masterpiece after masterpiece was forged in the forms of Warhol’s pop art, the snarling garage rock of The Velvet Underground. One could become a celebrity merely for being seen with Warhol and hanging out with his devoted group of supporters. It was a scene that everyone wanted a part of and for the most part, Warhol was welcoming, assuming you would allow him to film you for your screen test, of which he compiled more than 300. This is perhaps why Factory Girl is disappointing, a hollow shell of a film where a fascinating one could have existed. Rather than fully explore Sedgwick’s meteoric rise and fall, Hickenlooper’s film is an entertaining distraction, filled with a few wonderful performances but ultimately lacking a solid cohesion and emotional core that would have allowed it to be the classic it was originally envisioned as.

The true tragedy of the film is not it’s heavy handed attempts to paint Sedgwick as a figure unable to cope with her vices but rather the squandering of Sienna Miller and Guy Pearce, who put forth stellar performances, both of which are wasted with overzealous editing and color saturation. Miller, as Sedgwick, is a revelation and a bona fide star in the making. Her on screen presence is electric and she easily handles the weight of her role. If Factory Girl is to be remembered for only one thing, it may be as the film where Miller emerges into a true star, not a supporting character but an actress who can easily carry a film. Pearce, as Warhol, is incredible as well, contributing yet another fantastic performance to a resume that becoming as impressive as any in cinema today. From what video I have seen of Warhol, Pearce is spot on, a dead ringer in tone and gesture to one of the greatest American artists ever. His ability to skip from film to film, regardless of genre or role, is uncanny. He is a consummate actor that will be remembered as one of the best of his generation and this performance will certainly be discussed.
That being said, the disappointment in the film results in its lack of any feeling of cohesiveness. It wanders and jumps ahead in time, leaving the viewer disoriented at times as to when something is happening and how long has it been since the last scene. The editing is choppy and seems rushed, a case that is easy to make given the manic speed in which this film was finished in order to get it out for awards season. By some accounts, the cast and crew were still shooting as late as December 2006, a few weeks before the film premiered in Los Angeles on the 29th of the month, just days before the Academy cut off. Had the crew been given time to breathe and to edit and re-shoot the film, the final picture might have been drastically different. This might be one to pay attention to on DVD, in hopes for a director’s cut, in which subsequent footage can be inserted to give the film a better footing. As it is now, its frantic narrative reduces the power and tragedy of Sedgwick’s story and abandons some of the key moments of the scene.

Take, for example, the scenes in which The Velvet Underground is shown playing with Nico at The Factory, films being projected onto their all black outfits. Now, to any self-respecting fan of The Velvets who were never able to see the original lineup live, this image should raise goose bumps. Rather, the scenes are diminished by the lack of music by the actual group, replaced by a cheap knock off sound that the music editor must have thought could possibly be confused for The Velvets by those not in the know. To those who are, it is a discouraging moment, cheapening a moment that could have really delivered. In fact, the entire film feels like it didn’t have the approval or blessings of any of the major players. Bob Dylan flat out refused to allow the use of his name, leaving Hayden Christensen’s character to be named Quinn despite being a dead ringer for Dylan. None of the films shown are Warhol originals. Had the film been able to license those clips and include them here, it would have provided moments of postmodernist clashes of footage, something Warhol might have respected, if not enjoyed.
The film is visually appealing, a mix of vibrant colors and grainy black and white. Its use of montage is frequent, a technique that might have been utilized to try and get the film done as fast as possible. In fact, there seems to be a significant montage every few minutes, and by films end their impact has been blunted by the overuse. It is unfortunate that so many of those scenes needed to be distilled down into rapid-fire editing and disorienting camera movement. Had they been given the time to breathe, the tragic story of Sedgwick’s unfortunate fall would have been more effective. As it is, the film’s end is filled with clashes in tone, as I never truly felt bad for Miller’s Sedgwick but it is obvious that the film is doing whatever it can in the last 10 minutes to make this as tragic as possible.

I don’t want to make it seem like this was an awful film, just disappointing. With the subject matter at hand, there would have been no shortage of interesting material to focus on. When it succeeds, Factory Girl is sublime entertainment but those moments don’t come with enough regularity. If you have (or had) any interest in this scene, the film is worth seeing if not to make up your own mind about Hickenlooper’s treatment of Sedgwick’s story. If you know nothing about Warhol and The Factory, this could be an interesting introduction that goes down fairly easy and moves quickly (the film clocks in at under a hour and a half). It will surely incite interest in the larger subjects of Warhol and his art, a world that is difficult yet innovative and interesting and deserves to be studied. Warhol is unquestionably a visionary of popular culture, a man who altered not only the people’s lives around him (as he did with Sedgwick) but also the larger society as a whole. Sedgwick’s life is an interesting entry into those studies and Factory Girl, despite its flaws, is an interesting entry point to that life, its rise and its untimely fall.


***/*****

Quills: Review

Quills, Phillip Kaufman's 2000 drama, critically applauded upon its initial release, can now be viewed seven years after the fact as nothing more than an interesting failure. It certainly is not for a lack of trying however, as Kaufman and his cast and crew reach for brave heights but the higher that they grasp, the less assured each step becomes. What begins as an interesting examination of the power and responsibility of art and provocateurs quickly degrades into a slow bore, only to regain its power for one sequence, then lose its momentum again. It is unfortunate that the film is so uneven as some of the ideas that it puts forth are interesting and worthy of exploration. Quills buckles under the weight of its own ambition, leaving a film that could have been significant had it aimed just a tad bit lower.

As I mentioned earlier, the film successes can largely be attributed to its cast, who all latch onto the material given to them and try their hardest to make it pop. Geoffrey Rush is brilliant as the Marquis De Sade, perfectly capturing both his vulnerability and flamboyant nature with ease. He creates a character that the audience finds themselves rooting for, despite the fact that they are simultaneously repulsed by some of his actions. Michael Caine is effortlessly harsh as a strict disciplinarian that is brought in to regain control of the sanitarium that Joaquin Phoenix has lost control of and De Sade inhabits. Caine and Rush have reached a point in their careers when it’s shocking if they are ever anything other than superb. Even in blockbusters such as Batman Begins and the Pirates of the Caribbean series, they turn in exemplary performances and steal the scenes that they are in. Kate Winslet is wonderful here as well, carefully walking the line between sinful sexuality and angelic purity.

For a subject such as De Sade, it seems as if this movie is fairly tame compared to the controversy that he caused. It seems at times to be no more than a juvenile sex comedy, devoid of intelligent criticism, removed in favor of bawdy jokes. If one had wanted this type of humor, they would be much better off renting a film like American Pie, avoiding all the preaching about artistic integrity and importance and just having a good time. The fatal flaw here is that the film can never truly decide what it wants to be and as a result, its uneven nature is born. Had it stuck to a single tone, it would have been much better suited. The first half is decidedly more pleasant (and dull) to watch. The second half, on the other hand, has a dramatic change in tone, becoming deathly serious, losing all of the humor and carefree nature of the first half. Admittedly, I found the second portion of the film to be more exciting and provocative. It raises a series of interesting questions about art but the answers it seems satisfied with giving never fully materialize into a complete viewpoint. Its scattered thinking ends up hurting the film tremendously, leaving the viewer wishing that it would form a more concrete thought. The story seems too jam packed with different romantic angles to form a coherent thought. Rather, the schizophrenic nature of the film works to frustrate and confuse, instead of taking the opportunity to enlighten.

This is not to suggest that the last part of the film is completely without merit. A riot sequence at the asylum is done masterfully, layering different levels of tension that result in a shocking reveal. It is a testament to Kaufman's direction that this sequence can simultaneously feel dangerous and humorous and shows that when the film actually achieves what it aims to do, it is brilliantly realized. I imagine that De Sade himself might have found some entertainment value in this sequence with its manic energy climaxing at just the right moment, reveling in a combination of sex and violence, both disturbing and amusing the viewer with ease. When the moment ends, it leaves the viewer wanting more and unfortunately, the film then runs out of steam, desperately throwing every statement it can onto the screen, few of which actually stick.

The questions that the film raises are interesting and vast and anyone interested in art, regardless of medium will undoubtedly find them intriguing. What are the responsibilities of the artist? Should artists be socially and morally responsible? Must art provoke thought and emotion or can it just lull the viewer into a state of contentment? What, if anything, does art owe to society and vice versa? Is pornography, if it examines philosophy and moral standards, art? If not, why isn't it? These are fascinating questions and can be applied to painting, film, literature, sculpture, etc. There are literally no boundaries. In a time in which many works of art, in cinema in particular, push the boundaries with extreme violence and sexuality, these questions seem particularly timely. Take, for example, Chan-Wook Park and his revenge trilogy of Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy and Lady Vengeance, all films that are extremely violent and sexual. Many decry them due to their content but they are undoubtedly skillful creations that possess a great deal of style and substance. Do their violent natures create violent societies or do violent societies create violent films? Is art responsible for taking a moral high ground and show society how to live? Can art do that through extreme sex and violence? These are the types of questions that Quills raises but doesn't lend much thought to them. Rather, it’s willing to ask and forget. As a result, I think that the while the questions will linger, the film will fade quickly from memory, becoming merely a brief conversation starter than a truly thoughtful and exciting statement.

**/ *****

Thoughts on Best Picture

Every once in a while, a film is released to such fanfare and hype that most would consider it illogical to vote for anything but it in the Oscar race. But with both Flags of our Fathers and Dreamgirls, the two odds on favorites for Best Picture runs at the year's start, falling by the wayside, this year's race is wide open with any of the five nominees having a valid shot at taking home the prized gold statue. If last year proved anything, being the odds on favorite means nothing as the powerhouse campaign for Brokeback Mountain ultimately came up short, losing to the vastly inferior but safer, Crash. With the Oscars less than three weeks away, many both inside and outside of the industry are wondering what to make of this year's race.

If one had to guess, I would wager that most would side with The Departed as the favorite to win the big award for a number of reasons. First and foremost, is the prestige behind and in front of the camera. Of the nominated films, no other has the star power in the big positions to fight with Martin Scorsese's Boston crime drama. With arguably three of the most respected stars in the business, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon and Jack Nicholson, all turning in fine performances, the film has definite acting pedigree. Scorsese has long been thought of as the greatest director never to win an Oscar and commands respect in both the New York and Los Angeles film circles, something very few filmmakers can say. The film has an epic scope, something the Academy can never get enough of, and combines adult subject matter with a darkly humorous and thoughtful screenplay by William Monahan. However, what The Departed does not have is the necessary recognitions from the other major awards. It was largely ignored at the Golden Globes, with only Scorsese winning Best Director, and film critics circles around the country haven't awarded it with any great frequency. Besides for the obvious Boston Critics win, it doesn't have the support of the rest of the country as much as a full out favorite should.

Much like The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine doesn't have the support of many critics but has become a dark horse in the race after its recent big wins at the Producers Guild of America Awards as well as at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Prior to these upsets, Little Miss Sunshine looked like a long shot and at this point, still may but it has shown tremendous support from two huge portions of Hollywood. It has been widely adored by audiences (I, personally, found it disappointing) and has been picking up some steam. Like Crash last year, it was released in the summer but due to a phenomenal campaign, has clawed its way into the Oscar race, most likely knocking off Dreamgirls in the process. It has the quirky independent spirit rarely found in a Best Picture nominee, a quality that may end up helping it tremendously. Its underdog mentality, both in its narrative and campaign, has been enduring to many and it could end up pushing the film over the top.

Babel, the third nominated film, is something of a question mark. To many critics, it was manipulative and over the top and as a result, received the worst reviews of Inarritu's three interlocking films, Amorres Perros, 21 Grams and Babel. However, it also has received the most praise from the awards circuit. It was the most nominated film at the Golden Globes and pulled down an impressive 7 nominations, most in big categories, at the Oscars and judging from the Outsider's connections on the West Coast, is the buzz film of the moment, similar to what Crash was in the weeks leading up to its big win. Despite its number of nominations at the Globes, it only won once, albeit in the only category that really matters: Best Drama. If history tells us anything, that win is largely inconsequential, as AMPAS (Academy of Motion Picture, Arts and Sciences) often votes differently than the Hollywood Foreign Press. Yet, the momentum that the win was able to create is certainly making waves. One must also wonder if the Academy voters have grown tired of the interlocking narrative style that Babel uses after awarding Crash, which employs a similar structure, its top award last year. The Academy rarely votes for two similar films in sequential years. Look at 1998's awards with Titanic's big wins. 1999's ceremony was headlined by Shakespeare in Love's surprise win over the heavily favored epic war film Saving Private Ryan. After The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King won big in 2005, the Academy shifted to Crash in 2006, a much smaller film. Will 2007 see the Academy bucking the trend and giving their top award to two films that use similar devices two years in a row? To this writer, its highly questionable.

The fourth film to receive a nomination was The Queen, Stephen Frears' examination of the days following the death of Princess Diana. To this writer, The Queen, despite its critical adoration, is the least likely to take home the big prize on awards night. It's cast and crew was almost entirely British and its English roots show throughout the whole film. To many critics, this means nothing. To an Academy that has never awarded a foreign film its Best Picture, even a film made across the pond seems different. Despite Helen Mirren's amazing performance, which should and will win Best Actress, the film has almost no awards buzz. Its nomination wasn't the least bit surprising and its inevitable loss won't surprise many either. Disappoint sure, but surprise no. The film's strengths lie in its ability to take such a monumental event and still keep the narrative intensely personal and intimate. It never struggles with larger political issues but just the one week following the death of an ex-princess. Its lack of an epic scope could end up hurting its chances and even though Little Miss Sunshine is a small film like The Queen, LMS makes up for its intimacy with oddball dark humor and an indie spirit. The Queen's humor is dry and takes getting used to and feels like a period piece would, it’s just set 10 years ago as opposed to 200.

The fifth and final film, Letters from Iwo Jima, was probably the most surprising. Initially scheduled for release in Feb. of 2007 but rushed ahead once Flags of our Fathers, its companion piece, began to flounder, Iwo Jima was immediately lauded en masse. While the Academy has never awarded a foreign film its Best Picture, Eastwood's complex look at the pivotal battle in the Pacific could be the one to break ground. Eastwood, who has become an Academy favorite over the past 5 years, gives this film immediate recognition in America and I wouldn't be surprised if a few voters aren't swayed by the amazing combined accomplishment that is Flags of our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima. In fact, Flags could weigh heavily on voter's minds and could influence a few. Ken Watanabe, who was nominated for The Last Samurai, contributes a phenomenal performance and is becoming a recognizable face for American voters. Eastwood's pedigree can not be under estimated, and while I don’t believe he will win Best Director (which Scorsese will finally take home), he could make a serious run at Best Picture.

World Trade Center: Review

World Trade Center faced perhaps the worst odds of 2006 for being unanimously received by critics and audiences. Considering Oliver Stone's past penchant for making overblown, passionate political statements, many braced for the worst when his version of the events of 9/11 was announced. People feared that the seriousness and tragedy of the day would be lost in Stone's hyper-stylized visuals (as of Natural Born Killers) or his controversial conspiracy theories (which work very well in JFK) and as a result, the victims of those horrific attacks would not be memorialized but rather mocked. Luckily for both doubters and believers alike, Stone has crafted a restrained, somber film that, while not entirely successful, is a fitting tribute to the great courage displayed on that fateful day.

Stone keeps his visuals in check, utilizing a natural look for his film, striving for realism rather than the manic surrealism that divided so many audiences with Natural Born Killers. This is not to suggest that his visuals are bland. In fact, the film is rather visually appealing, subtlety combining actual footage from 2001 with created footage from 2006. The results are effective and tasteful, adequately capturing the horror of the day's events while never becoming over the top. Stone does not appear to be concerned with graphic imagery detailing the deaths and injuries. Instead, he has produced a visually restrained film that never gets in the way of the triumph of the two men of which the narrative is based on.

That being said, these men's story is nothing short of miraculous and I applaud Stone for finding a personal story inside the larger events to track. He wisely eschews discussions of the political ramifications that followed the attacks in favor of centering on the men involved with the rescue efforts. While he is unable to completely stop himself from adding politics in (a brief moment at the film's conclusion looks at what the potential U.S. military response might be), World Trade Center never comes close to approaching the preaching of Natural Born Killers or even JFK. It is much closer in tone to Stone's Vietnam masterpiece, Platoon, in that it tells the basic story of the men involved and stays on a grounded, intimate level. However, unlike Platoon, which has aged very well, World Trade Center may become less of an achievement as time goes on and these terrible events are further removed from the public's memory. For current viewers, who have the attacks and subsequent military actions fresh in their minds, the film brings back many of the feelings of that day. Fifty years from now, viewers who did not experience 9/11 firsthand might find the film to be more emotionally manipulative than we do today.

Michael Pena and Nicholas Cage both give serviceable performances as the two Port Authority Police Officers who were stuck under the rubble of the World Trade Center for almost 15 hours. The majority of their time is spent lying under rubble, talking to each other in an effort to keep the other awake. Neither do a phenomenal job but as the previous sentence makes clear, there isn't a lot that they could do. Their respective moments of being saved are effective, largely do to their work, sufficiently bringing the audience in and making them care about these two men. It was an extraordinary struggle for survival and these men should be sufficiently congratulated. Their bravery and commitment are just one of the many stories that emerged from that morning and as Cage's narration tells us at the end of the film, these moments should be celebrated and remembered as much as the obvious show of tremendous evil that the day saw.

If I said that I thought this film was flawless, I would be lying. Rather, I found that at times, it dipped into the sensationalizing that Stone is famous for and often felt overly sentimental and emotionally manipulative. At the same time, despite the fact that I could recognize this happening while it was occurring, I realized that I quite frankly didn't mind. For someone who was aware of these events and experienced the emotional turmoil that the rest of the country felt, I have trouble distancing myself enough from these events to be fully unbiased. However, I can definitely state that Paul Greengrass' United 93 is a significantly better film and is equally as effective without ever being manipulative. Stone wants us to completely understand that these brave men are everyday people with everyday lives, going so far as to repeatedly have the film state their names, either through dialogue or visual means. Name tags are constantly visible and noticeable. Greengrass, on the other hand, just places his audience on the plane with the other passengers, never knowing their names or backgrounds. As a result, the audience learns about these characters through their actions, not their pasts or their families. I have a feeling that where United 93 will gain in stature, World Trade Center will become a lesser work in what will undoubtedly become the canon of films centered on and around the events of September 11, 2001.

****

Outsider's Opinion: Top Ten Alfred Hitchcock Films

10. The 39 Steps- Undoubtedly one of Hitchcock's best spy movies (you'll find four on this list), The 39 Steps was one of his most successful films he made in Britain prior to arriving in Hollywood in the late 1930's, a change that would forever alter the mood and landscape of American film. With The 39 Steps Hitch was able to craft an entertaining and fast paced thriller that ranks with the best of his output. Made in 1935, the film is refreshingly suspenseful, even by today's standards, and shows that even earlier in his career (a good 15 years before he would enter what most consider to be his classic period), Hitch was innovating in a genre he would go on to dominate for the next half of a century. It showcases his sly, dark humor and is one of his most purely enjoyable films, filled with one memorable sequence after another. Often times missed due to it being created in his British period, any self respecting Hitchcock fan ought to track down the beautiful Criterion Collection DVD and enjoy the espionage.

9. Notorious- The pinnacle of Hitchcock's work with David O. Selsnick, the it Hollywood producer of the 30's and 40's, Notorious arrived on the heels of Spellbound, one of Hitchcock's most thematically and theoretically ambitious films to date. Spellbound, underrated in its own right, was Hitch's first real full foray into the psychoanalytic probing that would dominate his later, Freudian fueled films. Rather than expand on that immediately, Hitchcock turned back to espionage, creating a film concerned solely with entertaining the audience. It is wildly successful, utilizing the McGuffin to perfection, fueling Hitchcock's examination of a romance between a spy and an unsuspecting woman under the pretense for the search for missing uranium. As the story progress, the audience forgets about the initial reason for the spying and instead is completely absorbed by the romance between the two leads (Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman). Across the board, the acting is wonderful and the cinematography, borrowing from the emerging Film Noir movement, is nothing short of breathtaking. Written by Ben Hecht, one of the finest screenwriters in history, Notorious is an undisputed, complex classic.
8. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)- One of Hitch's most underrated and overlooked works from his classic period, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a terrific exercise in suspense and is a superior film to the original The Man Who Knew Too Much (also by Hitchcock, filmed in Britain in the 1930's). A globe spanning adventure film, Hitch's scope in TMWKTM is especially impressive and the final sequence in the Royal Albert Hall is wonderfully gripping, with each passing second increasing the tension to an almost unbearable level until it finally is released with a climatic cymbal crash. Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day prove why they were such huge attractions with smart, entertaining performances. Midway through his classic period (which I should probably define since I'm using it so much. From 1951 to 1963, Hitchcock created 12 films, 10 of which are widely considered to be cinematic classics. It is a period that is unrivaled in cinematic history, with perhaps only Preston Sturges' productions in the early to mid 1940's coming close), Hitchcock had fully hit his stride, innovating and entertaining at a feverish pitch. He was elevating cinema to a serious art form with each successive film elevating his status to newer heights.
7. Rope- Perhaps the most technically accomplished film of Hitchcock's career, Rope features a remarkably small number of cuts, 9 to be exact and most of those will be invisible to the mainstream audience. The result feels like a staging of a play yet still is oddly cinematic. Hitchcock wisely utilizes the devices afforded to him by the movies to make sure that it doesn't appear to be no more than a filmed play. Due to these long takes, the acting is superb, almost entirely without flaws. While many consider Hitchcock a great technical master, Rope works to prove that he was as equally adept at directing actors as camera movements. It is a testament to Hitch's skill that the film never feels dull or slow despite its lack of quick edits. Rather, it slowly builds suspense until the shocking conclusion. Rope's critics unfairly label it as nothing more than an experiment instead of the truly groundbreaking achievement it truly is. For a director to take such a risk and to pull it off so effortlessly is unique and this film, like many of his others, places Hitchcock in a realm untouched by others.
6. The Lady Vanishes- One of Hitchcock's last films in Britain, The Lady Vanishes is the best blend of humor and thrills of any Hitchcock film. It's brilliance in the blend of the two is amazing as Hitch is able to get his audience to laugh in the midst of a suspense sequence and then after breaking the tension, immediately create it again with grace and precision. His ability to virtually create tension out of thin air was and still is unmatched by any filmmaker. Even Spielberg, who is as manipulative a filmmaker as there is, needs to build suspense. For Hitchcock it instantly materializes out of thin air and is palpable to the audience. The Lady Vanishes benefits from its playful tone: the tension is never unbearable or uncomfortable as it is in some of Hitch's later works. This film, by comparison, is fairly light and airy, gracefully gliding through its 97 minute runtime, never outstaying its welcome. The pacing is pitch perfect and the characters, rare for an adventure film, are wonderfully developed and real. This is Hitchcock's best British film and like The 39 Steps, has a great Criterion Collection DVD that is the best means to watch this over 70 year old film that has aged as well as can be imagined.
5. Psycho- The film that most contribute with being the first slasher horror, which depending on who you ask is a mixed blessing, is also still its best. With two all time great sequences (the shower and the staircase), Psycho is considered by many to be one of the scariest films ever released, despite its grand old age of 46. It holds up remarkably well, as suspenseful and shocking as it must have been in 1960. It's timelessness is a testament to Hitchcock's tremendous skill as it scares even hardened, cynical modern audiences. Anthony Perkins gives the performance of a lifetime, with his ominous stare at film's end as disturbing as any other one shot in cinema history. While I personally think that its greatness pales in comparison to some of Hitchcock's other accomplishments, its importance in film cannot be understated. Its pioneering violence (all of which is off screen) and portrayal of a serial killer is startling in their freshness and its black and white cinematography adds to the creepiness of the situations. In the hands of an inferior director (Gus Van Sant), the remake sagged under its own weight, showing that it took a director of exceptional skill to sustain the film as well as Hitchcock does. Another indisputable classic.
4. Strangers on a Train- Hitchcock's most criminally underrated film, Strangers on a Train is a masterful adaptation of the Patricia Highsmith novel, brimming with suspense. Farley Granger gives a wonderful performance and Robert Walker is deliciously evil as a sociopath who tries to convince his hero, a tennis star, agree to a murder plot. This was near the start of the classic period and is overlooked due to its proximity to his other more intellectual masterpieces. However, like North By Northwest, this features some of the directors best sequences, particularly the climatic sequence at a carnival on a merry go round. The tension reaches amazing heights and for fans of thrillers, this should be required viewing. The script, penned by Raymond Chandler among others, is astounding. Chandler, my personal choice for the best crime novelist of all time in a close race with Hammett and Ellroy, shows that his work on Double Indemnity was no fluke as he is able to craft a screenplay filled with witty dialogue and wonderfully dangerous situations.
3. Vertigo- Of his classic works, Vertigo is Hitchcock's most intellectually stimulating (Rear Window is a close second) with its riveting and disturbing portrayal of a man obsessed with a dead woman. Jimmy Stewart contributes one of the best performances of his illustrious career. His work as Scottie Ferguson is remarkable in the way it plays against type. Stewart, who almost always played the moral protagonist of the film, here is a disturbed obsessive, determined to get to the bottom of an investigation. While the film starts off as supernatural, an oddity in Hitchcock's work, it quickly switches its tone back to reality, focusing on the downward spiral of Ferguson. The cinematography is stunning in its color and depth of field. The script is a wonderful adaptation of the French novel d'Entre les Morts and the supporting players are superb. The film's climax is a wonderful explanation of the films questions and leaves the viewer shaken to the core. A brave film for 1958, this was the start of a three film stretch that included North by Northwest and Psycho, an absolutely astounding run of filmmaking prowess.
2. Rear Window- Anchored by two fantastic lead performances by Jimmy Stewart and stunning Grace Kelly, Rear Window is an in depth examination of voyeurism masquerading as a simple thriller. Shot in only one room (much like Rope), its pacing are a marvelous technical achievement. The film, despite no changes of scenery, never drags or feels dull. It is exciting and suspenseful from the get go, and the films conclusion is as suspenseful as Hitch's films had ever gotten. Deceptively intelligent, it is a careful examination (like Vertigo) of obsession and voyeurism. There has been as much critical and scholarly writing on Rear Window as any other Hitchcock film and for good reason. There is a wealth of thematic and narrative material here that can be overlooked on first viewing. Its subtleties slow reveal themselves, enveloping the audience with each passing moment. Rear Window's masterful ability to act as either a thriller for the intellectual crowd or an intelligent thematic work for the thrill seekers has allowed it to stay vital and relevant, over 50 years after its initial release.
1. North By Northwest- Hitchcock's best work is a triumphant espionage thriller featuring memorable set piece after set piece, brimming with suspense, humor and fantastic performances. It is the ultimate distillation of Hitchcock's skill as a director and the peak of his creative career. Cary Grant is superb as a business man mistakenly caught up in an international spy ring who refuse to accept that he is who he says he is. What follows is a roller coaster ride through the United States with each moment revealing a clever new twist to the film's plot. The script is razor sharp, providing Grant with countless memorable lines to sink his teeth into. Don't be mistaken though, the character development is there as well, with interesting and believable arcs for each member of the cast. The famous crop duster sequence is as good as one can imagine and literally is one of the top 5 moments ever put on film. Hitchcock would work for another 15 years, but nothing would ever come close to his amazing achievement here with North By Northwest. This is the perfect starter film for a new viewer. It goes down easily and doesn't require intense thought, just a careful eye and the ability to follow a weaving plotline. Not only the best film by Hitchcock, it is undoubtedly one of the best films of all time.