January 26th, 2007 at 20:46 (Oscars, Film)

Now when the Oscar nominations have been announced, I will officially kick off my second annual Oscar Race. I managed to see quite a few of the ‘important’ nominees before last year’s ceremony, but I’m still hoping to beat that number this year. Considering the fact that some films (e.g. Blood Diamond) won’t reach Sweden until soon after the ceremony, I won’t be able to see all the films I want to see, nor will I have the time, but I’ll do my best. Since I’m planning to make a trip soon - not sure where yet - I just might be able to see one or two of those not-yet-arrived-here films then. I know I probably shouldn’t even bother, and I normally hate awards shows (except for the MTV ones, which used to be kinda fun, but lately they’ve all sucked, which makes perfect sense since MTV itself sucks), but I’ve always liked the Oscars for some reason. It’s a fun show, and it’s even more fun when you’ve seen most of the big films and get all those puns. By the way, I have no idea who’s the host this year. Someone new again?

Here are this year’s nominees, listed in alphabetical order. The ones I’ve already seen have titles in bold and are followed by my rating. As for the rest, I’m going to prioritise watching films with nominations in the heavier categories first. This post will remain my one Oscar Race entry, so the list below will be updated as I see more films. I will also comment on the films in separate entries though.

After the Wedding (3)
Apocalypto
Babel (4)
The Black Dahlia
Blood Diamond (3 ½)
Borat
Cars (3)
Children of Men (4)
Click (2)
Curse of the Golden Flower
The Departed (2 ½)
The Devil Wears Prada (2 ½)
Dreamgirls
Flags of Our Fathers
The Good German
The Good Shepherd
Half Nelson (4)
Happy Feet (2)
The Illusionist
Indigènes (Days of Glory) (4)
The Last King of Scotland (3 ½)
Letters From Iwo Jima
Little Children (2 ½)
Little Miss Sunshine (4)
The Lives of Others (4 ½)
Marie Antoinette
Monster House (3 ½)
Notes on a Scandal
Pan’s Labyrinth (5)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (3)
Poseidon (1)
The Prestige (3)
The Pursuit of Happyness (3)
The Queen (4)
Superman Returns (2)
United 93
Venus (1)
Volver (3)
Water

Documentaries:
Deliver Us From Evil
An Inconvenient Truth
Iraq in Fragments
Jesus Camp
My Country, My Country

Last updated: 25 Feb 2007

January 15th, 2007 at 6:12 (Film)

I don’t really believe in reviewing documentaries, so this post is more of a personal discussion of the subject matter of this film. Now, you’d think a person living in Sweden wouldn’t care much about how films are rated in the US, but to tell you the truth, I’ve been annoyed with this for quite some time. I’ll explain why later on, but first I’d like to say something about the things Kirby Dick brings up in his documentary.

As the film makes clear, the MPAA has some serious issues regarding sex and sexuality. This is hardly a surprise, considering the general taboo surrounding this subject in American media and society, but what’s really interesting is how they distinguish between different aspects and forms of sexuality. It’s painfully obvious that the MPAA not only is uncomfortable with homosexuality, but with female sexuality in general. A fully clothed girl masturbating caused a film to be rated NC-17, while American Pie, which came out just before and featured the main character fucking an apple pie on the kitchen table, his naked ass fully visible, received the lower R rating. Doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Kimberly Peirce, the director of Boys Don’t Cry, explains how her film received an NC-17 rating not because of the scene where Brandon is shot in the head and blood sprays on the wall, but because of an orally induced female orgasm lasting too long (camera strictly on face), Hilary Swank wiping her mouth afterwards, and an anal rape scene. Ok for the rape scene, but the others? No reasons were ever given, other than the scenes being “offensive”. Offensive to whom, I wonder. And that’s just the thing; the MPAA refuses to reveal the identities of their rating board members. Thanks to the private investigator Dick hired to lurk outside the MPAA building, though, we now know that they’re not at all who they’re supposed to be. Jack Valenti, creator of the rating system, has claimed that all the board members are parents of children between the ages of 5 to 17, but as it turns out, that description only fits a couple of the board members. Why is this relevant? Well, one might wonder why a bunch of old, filthy rich Republicans should be the only ones deciding what’s appropriate for today’s kids to watch.

The point of the ratings is to serve as guidelines to parents regarding what’s appropriate for their children to see. Now, can somebody please tell me why it’s more damaging for a kid to see a woman’s pubic hair for a fraction of a second and hear some foul language (as in what forced The Cooler to be re-edited to avoid the NC-17 rating) than it is to see a bunch of people getting brutally tortured and murdered (as in R rated horror films like Hostel)? If you think that films can influence your kids’ behaviour, what would be the worst scenario; that they have sex or that they kill somebody? Kevin Smith makes an excellent point, as well, when he argues that the kind of realistic violence seen in films such as Saving Private Ryan should be rated lower than the bloodless, no-consequences violence from most action films - not the other way around, as is the case today.

The documentary also points out some interesting (and scary) things about war movies and the way they are likely to have shaped public opinion in the US throughout the past half-century. It was certainly news to me that in order to allow use of military assets for such films, the Pentagon demands to read the scripts and takes out anything that could possibly make the military look bad. A representative of the Pentagon is also present during the production to make sure everything is done the way they agreed. No wonder all American war films are so intolerably patriotic. The critical ones are never made, because they’re not allowed to be.

So, finally, why do I care about all this? Well, it’s pretty obvious that these ratings often affect the content of the films being released, and I’m not amused by the way they interact with economic interests. In order to have the biggest potential audience, a film should have a PG-13 rating, so many films are edited down to be suitable for young teens, or, which is worse, they’re made with this in mind from the beginning, thus leaving out anything potentially challenging. The result is that we end up with most big films being unnecessarily bland and uninteresting. Moreover, since the MPAA doesn’t like “deviant sexual behaviour”, the only gay characters young audiences ever get to see are either asexual or being made fun of. What exactly is it about Brokeback Mountain that warrants an R rating? For the sake of comparison, the recommended age to see this film in Sweden is seven (or any age when accompanied by a parent).

Not only do the ratings influence what films look like, they can also decide what kinds of films are made in the first place. I bet it happens every day that studios reject good scripts merely for concerns about marketability. In the documentary, Ms Pierce claims that the studio wouldn’t release Boys Don’t Cry with an NC-17 rating, so she was forced to re-edit it in order for it to be released at all. For us over here in small European countries with a more limited number of cinemas, a high rating can indirectly decide whether or not a film makes its way here. A high rating means it’s harder to market and gets a narrower release, resulting in it being more likely to be overlooked by foreign distributors. Nowadays, these films usually appear as straight-to-DVD releases after a while, but most of them pass by pretty much unnoticed. I can only wonder how many good independent films I’ve missed over the years because of this. Because it’s always the independent films that get the worst treatment by the MPAA, the reason for which is pretty obvious when it’s revealed who the secret members of the appeals board are.

Now, I should better finish this long and probably tedious rant here. If you’re the least bit interested in film, I’d highly recommend you watch this documentary. And if you’ve seen it already, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Perhaps you disagree with all this?

Comments

April 1st, 2006 at 23:22 (Film)

Just because the Oscar race is over doesn’t mean I have stopped watching films. Here are some short reviews of a few of the films I’ve seen over the past couple of weeks. I have also set up a Film Review Archive, where you can see what I thought of some this year’s Oscar winners and nominees. Mostly only ratings there so far, but that should change as I add reviews for the new films I see.

Paradise Now

This film deals with the topic of suicide bombings without asking you to sympathise with one particular side. Yes, it humanizes suicide bombers, but the feeling it evokes towards the main characters is not sympathy, but pity, and it delivers a fair share of criticisism to everyone involved in the ongoing conflict. A surprisingly intriguing story which had me captivated all the way to the end.

V for Vendetta

Think Nineteen Eighty-Four with a hint of The Phantom of the Opera and The Scarlet Pimpernel and you should have a pretty good idea of what this film is about. I sincerely hope that the Wachowski-haters out there don’t write this off as another The Matrix, because V for Vendetta is very different from that franchise. There are no overly long fight scenes here, and on top of being a visual masterpiece it also has a skilfully told story and a highly relevant political message. The film’s anarchic undertones may be uncomfortable to some, but it brings up some difficult issues in a thoughtful and provocative way. I’m not at all familiar with the graphic novel by Alan Moore, but as a fan of dystopian fiction à la Orwell and Huxley, I loved every minute of this film.

Keane

The best portrayal of mental illness I’ve seen in a long time. Even though we are never told what the protagonist, a man named William Keane, suffers from, it seems to me that he’s a paranoid schizophrenic. The story follows Keane as he desperately tries to function in the world, and as he searches for his missing daughter. Whether or not she is real, we don’t know. Damian Lewis does an excellent job in the leading role. His face is on camera most of the time throughout the film, and since there is no music present, the suspense relies entirely on the viewer being able to read Lewis’ gestures and facial expressions. Writer and director Lodge Kerrigan seems to like this type of story-telling, as his previous two films, Clean, Shaven (which also deals with schizophrenia) and Claire Dolan, also feature characters who won’t let us know what they’re thinking, forcing us to pay attention and decide for ourselves. It’s a style probably not appreciated by everybody, but I like it.

Comments

March 6th, 2006 at 23:59 (Oscars, Film)

Well, no big surprises this year. I was right in 10 out of 13 predictions, and I didn’t make any very bold picks. I didn’t expect Clooney to win the supporting actor award, but it did make sense when he got up there. I should have expected that they wouldn’t let him leave empty-handed after being nominated in several categories, and that was the one he was most likely to win. I know, I’m being somewhat cynical, but I was right about Ang Lee and Crash, wasn’t I?

Jon Stewart was a good host. As a fan of The Daily Show I had no doubts about his ability, but I didn’t trust the audience to respond that well to his comedy. Sure, he may have been a little too ‘nice’ and he could probably have challenged them (and us) a little more, but I still think he was as funny as one could expect from an Oscar host.

Kudos to Kanal 5 for realising that most Swedes have no idea who Jon Stewart is. The decision to air an episode of The Daily Show (the one from Feb 23 with Roger Ebert; a good choice in itself) right before the awards show was a smart one. The channel deserves credit just for picking up the Oscars in a year when the public service network decided they couldn’t afford it because “this is such a big sports year”.

Robert Altman received some special honours, and deservedly so, but when did the Lifetime Achievement Award become “Honorary Oscar”? Or is that something else entirely?

All in all, it was quite an entertaining show. Probably the best one in years. I especially enjoyed the fact that no film got to dominate by winning several big awards. Four acting awards spread out over four films, and the best picture didn’t also win best directing. Now, we can only hope that this year’s unusual lot of low-grossing winners and nominees will inspire the big Hollywood studios to make more quality films in the future.

Comments

March 5th, 2006 at 18:32 (Oscars, Film)

Tonight’s Academy Awards show is special for two reasons. First, it is being hosted by Jon Stewart, who I’m sure will do a terrific job but may not be appreciated by everyone at an event such as this (just look at David Letterman; I thought he was fine, but it seems that most people thought he sucked). The other reason is that this year, for the first time, I’ve actually made an effort to see as many of the nominated films as possible before the awards are given out. I got nowhere close to seeing all of them of course, but at least I got to see plenty more than I usually do. Many of the films haven’t even reached Sweden yet, and some of them probably won’t ever get a theatrical release here unless they win something big tonight.

Anyway, here are my predictions. The films I’ve seen are written in bold letters.

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE:

Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard - Hustle and Flow
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line
David Strathairn - Good Night and Good Luck

As much as I’d love Joaquin Phoenix to win, I can’t see this Oscar going to anybody but Philip Seymour Hoffman. He’s the one everybody’s talking about. Heath Ledger might have a chance, but only if Brokeback Mountain is having one of those nights.

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE:

Judi Dench - Mrs Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman - Transamerica
Keira Knightley - Pride and Prejudice
Charlize Theron - North Country
Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line

Reese Witherspoon really nailed her role as June Carter, and she’s riding on a wave of success right now. Charlize Theron was good in the otherwise quite lame and occasionally pathetic North Country, but the only real competition to Reese should be Felicity Huffman.

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:

George Clooney - Syriana
Matt Dillon - Crash
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
William Hurt - A History of Violence

Jake Gyllenhaal can win only if Heath Ledger wins also. William Hurt’s performance cannot have been longer than ten minutes and left no impression on me whatsoever, so I’m going with Matt Dillon. He made an excellent racist asshole. Paul Giamatti is the outsider here, since he was overlooked for Sideways last year, but I’ve never even heard of Cinderella Man.

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:

Amy Adams - Junebug
Cathrine Keener - Capote
Frances McDormand - North Country
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain

Again, Michelle Williams could win if the academy has decided for Brokeback Mountain to have one of those nights. I’m rooting for Rachel Weisz, who finally took a role in a decent film and proved she’s a good actress. Frances McDormand obviously got nominated on old merits, as she was hardly noticeable in North Country.

BEST DIRECTING:

Brokeback Mountain - Ang Lee
Capote - Bennett Miller
Crash - Paul Haggis
Good Night and Good Luck - George Clooney
Munich - Steven Spielberg

Ang Lee should win this one. Paul Haggis would definitely be a worthy winner, but he’s a newcomer (and old TV writer) not many people have heard of before. Clooney is an outsider. Spielberg has made a Scorsese and has no chance of winning. I’m sure that doesn’t make any sense to anybody but myself, but nevermind.

BEST PICTURE:

Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Crash
Good Night and Good Luck
Munich

This is definitely a battle between Brokeback Mountain and Crash. The latter really deserves some recognition, so I’m hoping that Ang Lee’s directing Oscar (assuming my prediction holds) will open up for Crash to win this one.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

Brokeback Mountain - Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana
Capote - Dan Futterman
The Constant Gardener - Jeffrey Caine
A History of Violence - Josh Olson
Munich - Tony Kushner and Eric Roth

Brokeback Mountain, hands down.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

Crash - Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco
Good Night and Good Luck - George Clooney and Grant Heslov
Match Point - Woody Allen
The squid and the Whale - Noah Baumbach
Syriana - Stephen Gaghan

Tough call as I’ve only seen two, but no matter what a great comeback they say Woody Allen has made, I think Crash just has to win this.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:

Howl’s Moving Castle
Tim Burton’s The Corpse Bride
Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Wallace & Gromit should be a sure bet here. I have yet to see it, but everybody else loved it. Hayao Miyazaki was awarded for Spirited Away a couple of years ago, but Howl’s Moving Castle is said to not be as good. The Corpse Bride was a charming little film, but little more than that.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:

Darwin’s Nightmare
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
March of the Penguins
Murderball
A Note of Triumph: The Golden Age of Norman Corwin

The penguin film seems to be loved by the public, but Murderball has received rave reviews. Since I haven’t seen any of these, I couldn’t care less who wins this one.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

Don’t Tell (Italy)
Joyeux Noel (France)
Paradise Now (Palestina)
Sophie Scholl - The Final Days (Germany)
Tsotsi (South Africa)

Paradise Now could win because of the controversy it has caused, but if the voters have actually bothered to see any of these films, I think the Oscar will go to Tsotsi. It’s a great film deserving of a bigger audience, and an Oscar would help it get a wider distribution.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Batman Begins - Wally Pfister
Brokeback Mountain - Rodrigo Prieto
Good Night and Good Luck - Robert Elswit
Memoirs of a Geisha - Dion Beebe
The New World - Emmanuel Lubezki

Probably Brokeback Mountain, but I wouldn’t mind seeing Good Night and Good Luck getting its only Oscar in this category. The photography was probably what I enjoyed the most in that film.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
King Kong
War of the Worlds

This is one of those categories where it really doesn’t matter. The effects look great in all of them. So I’ll ‘vote’ with my heart and go with King Kong, since that’s the best film of the bunch.

2 Comments