Oscar Watch: Doubt

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

Today's review deals with multiple-Oscar-hopeful Doubt, an intriguing drama about a nun who is steadfast in her belief that the priest at her church has committed a dreadful sin and must be brought to justice, even if no one else believes her. Starring a strong cast of Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Viola Davis, the film has had every one of its top-billed performers nominated for acting Oscar: Streep for Best Actress and the rest of the cast in the supporting acting categories. The film has also been nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.

The thing that I loved about this film is its ambiguity. There is no clear cut black and white in this film; the audience mainly has to rely on hearsay to piece together what might have happened, and in the end, you are not really sure who was right and who has wrong. It's designed to make the audience think: only by thinking can you get any satsifaction from the film. Is it right to stand fast in your conviction if there is no evidence? How far should one go to bring a person to "justice"? Who decides what "justice" is? Is a tiny suspicion enough of a reason to accuse someone of a crime? The big questions come in the last minute of the film, when Streep breaks down to Adams and says (I'm paraphrasing) "Sometimes you have to go away from God to catch wrong-doers. But there is a price to pay. Sister James, I have such doubts!" What are these doubts? Does she fear that perhaps she was wrong about Hoffman's priest? Or by straying from God, has she opened her eyes to things that have shaken her beliefs? Doubt is an open-ended text that can be debated 'round in circles without ever getting to a resolution, short of asking the writer himself for a straightforward answer. That's what the film is about: based on what little you know, can you really make decide Hoffman's fate?

The film is an adapted stage play, and it shows in the pacing of film, which is roughly broken down into several long scenes between two or three actors. This does not detract from the film; indeed, it allows the actors a good chance to get into the material and lets the audience sit back and watch some of the best in the trade do what they excel at. Will this translate to Oscar success? Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep have been fighting back and forth for Best Actress in several different critic pools and other awards, and there is a good probability that the award will go to one of these two fine ladies. Hoffman is unfortunately competing against Heath Ledger for Supporting Actor, so his chances of winning are not particularly good at the moment, though he did give a fine performance. Adams and Davis will go head to head against each other in the Supporting Actress category. This category I'm the least certain about; in my mind it really could go anyway. For outside opinion, Gold Derby blogger Tom O'Neil has an interesting analysis of Adams's chances that is worth a read.

Doubt's Oscar chances may be slim, but that does nothing to detract from a solid film which will have you ruminating as you leave the theatre.

Oscar Watch: Slumdog Millionaire Review

Last week I began my quest to track down and watch Oscar nominated pictures that I had not gotten around to seeing, in order to be more fully informed in my Oscar commentary. On Sunday I took a step forward and watched Slumdog Millionaire, the odds-down favorite to win Best Picture this year. The film is being touted on posters as "The feel-good movie of the year," a phrase I initially took issue with in the first few hours after seeing the picture. In order to get to the "feel-good" part of the plot, one has to sit through scene after scene of depressing trials and tribulations. But the more I recounted the plot, the more I remembered little moments that had made me chuckle. Slumdog is like watching the sun trying to peak through the clouds: fort he most part, it's dark and unfriendly, but the longer you wait, the brighter the rays get. And as the film is about life in the slums of India, I perhaps should have braced myself a little more for the brutality that awaited me.

What of its Oscar chances? Very good. According to IMDb, the film currently has 42 wins and 36 nominations from other awards handed out around the world. Most notably, Slumdog won Best Motion Picture- Drama at the recent Golden Globes. That doesn't make a Best Picture Oscar a done deal however; last year Atonement won at the Globes while No Country for Old Men walked away with the Academy Award. But given how well Slumdog is doing racking up awards, there should be little problem (then again, The Dark Knight seemed like a forgone conclusion for a Best Picture nod, and we all know how that turned out).

Awards aside, Slumdog seems to have the right ingredients for Best Picture. The camera work is certainly not run of the mill, using hand-held movement and rapid cutting to capture the confusion of slum life, which at times was a bit too disorienting for me. The film exposes societal problems in India which are sure to pull at the conscientious heart strings of Academy voters (but has caused a backlash of criticism by people who say the film is exploiting the impoverished setting in order to make some easy dough). The structuring of the film becomes a bit dull after a while, however. The flashbacks are structured around hero Jamal explaining how he knows the answer to a particular "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" question; once the novelty of looking for the answer in the flashback wears off, you are left with the repetition of waiting for the next inevitable clue to pop up in the plot.

To conclude, Slumdog Millionaire has all the signs of this year's Best Picture winner. Although perhaps a tad overrated, the film is still quite good and shows innovativeness that the Academy is sure to reward.

And for some interesting casting news about Dev Patel, check out this recent post at the Vault.

Annie Awards Shocker: Kung Fu Panda Smacks down Wall-E

I did a double-take when I saw the headline at Slash Film: Wall-E went to the Annie Awards and came home without a statue. The 36-year-old awards ceremony, which as Peter Sciretta describes is the "Oscars of animation," is sponsored by the International Animated Film Association, and features ranging from Best Character Design, to Best Animated Feature, to Best Animated Television commercial. Wall-E was nominated in 8 categories, including Best Animated Feature, and came home with zero. That's right, none. Kung Fu Panda came home with fifteen awards. Panda was nominated in nearly twice as many categories as Wall-E, which, as Sciretta point out, didn't even earn nominations for Screenwriting, Music, or Character Design.

Someone must have mixed up the screenings for the awards voters, because they couldn't possibly have been watching the same movies. Panda is a commendable romp, but what is a more difficult task to pull off: making kids and critics enjoy a band of martial arts animals or convincing those same demographics that a robot can fall in love? Arguably, Panda is probably the more commercial friendly of the two films, as Wall-E admittedly is a slower-paced film. And I won't deny that Kung Fu Panda deserved to win some awards. But to not only shut out Wall-E, but earn twice as many nominations as well? Something's rotten in Denmark. Does this bode ill for the fate of Pixar's shot at the Best Animated Feature Oscar this year? I doubt that Panda has a shot. But then again, if you told me that it would come home with fifteen Annies, I would have laughed in your face.

At least the Annies got something right when they awarded Avatar: The Last Airbender Best Animated Television Show for Children and Best Directing for the last episode of the series "Sozin's Comet, Part Three." I've watched every episode of the show and it definitely grew out of its juvenile antics into a serious, daring, well-written show that ran headlong into a series finale that I was convinced would only disappoint me. In an ususal move for television, the finale exceeded my expectations and left me deeply satisfied, exactly what the end of a show should do. Now if only I didn't have that movie to worry about....

Oscar Watch: Frost/Nixon Review

With the Oscar nominees announced late last week, it has become apparent that I am sadly behind on my movie watching, something I hope to correct over the next few weeks. Last weekend, I took a step forward by seeing Best Picture-hopeful Frost/Nixon. The film currently has five Oscar nominations: Best Director (Ron Howard), Best Actor (Frank Langella as Richard Nixon), Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Achievement in Film Editing. The film was also nominated for five Golden Globes: Best Director, Best Actor (Frank Langella), Best Screenply, Best Picture-Drama, and Best Original Score. It failed to come home with any however, and I feel that might be the case in the upcoming Academy Awards.

Frost/Nixon is a solid film. It has great acting, particularly from Frank Langella, who rightly deserves his nomination for Best Actor for his performance of the conflicted Richard Nixon, who is convinced that his actions were right and feels unrightly persecuted, yet at the same time also seems to be struggling with guilt that he has let down the country. Whether Langella can recover from losing at the Golden Globes to Mickey Rourke's performance in The Wrestler remains to be seen, but I feel he has a fair shot. Michael Sheen is also quite capable as David Frost, the TV personality and novice-journalist who takes on the enormous task of getting Nixon to admit he was wrong on national television. The directing is fine, using a unique style of intercutting "interviews" with the characters on the events that transpire in the film, giving it a pseudo-documentary style. Since the non-interview parts are done in what can be overgeneralized as "normal" cinema style, the interviews themselves are a bit jarring as they don't quite fit in. Overall, Frost/Nixon is a fine film, commendable for a job-well done.

But is it the breath-taking wonder that stands up and screams "I am the Best Picture of 2008," the film that leaves you shaking your head in wonder at how so many elements could so perfectly align? That, I'm afraid, it is not. Aside from Frank Langella's performance which I noted earlier, the film does not seem to have the momentum to overcome the favorite in the Best Picture race, Slumdog Millionaire, a film I hope to see later this week. It is definitely worth watching, but it will probably not be raking in the gold come the awards ceremony.

What happened to the "Pop Oscars"?: Oscar Nominees Announced

Back in October, I wrote a post responding to a New York Times article which stated "Welcome to the pop Oscars." It fussed over the Wall-E, Iron Man, and a little known film called The Dark Knight, and said that big box office is threatening to dominate the Academy Awards. I now have in my virtual hand the list of the 2009 Oscar Nominees and I now ask the New York Times: What on earth were you worried about? The Dark Knight did not receive a nomination for Best Picture OR Best Director, and although Heath Ledger did get his nod for Best Supporting Actor, the rest of the film's nominations were for the most part in the less media friendly technical categories, such as sound-mixing and editing. Wall-E, which the NYT feared was going to encroach on Best Picture territory, was kept firmly in its place in the Best Animated Feature Category. The rest of the acting, directing, and Best Picture fare went for the most part to the traditional end-of-the-year releases, such as Frost-Nixon and Golden Globe favorite Slumdog Millionaire. The only "pop-ish" nominee I could find apart from Heath Ledger's much deserved acknowledgement was Robert Downey Jr.'s Best Supporting Actor nomination for Tropic Thunder (Though I haven't seen the film, I've heard high praise for his performance).

Another analysis from across the web: Tom O'Neil of Gold Derby at the Los Angeles Times writes an article of some of the suprising snubs in the nominee list. He, too, was surprised by The Dark Knight's lack of appearence among the top two categories, but perhaps more suprised by the fact that Kate Winslet was only nominated once. Brad Brevet at Rope of Silicon is more satisfied with the nominations and makes some interesting predictions about who will win Best Picture based on who was nominated in other categories. Brevet is concerned, however, that Dark Knight lackluster showing in the top categories puts Heath Ledger's chances for a win on shakier ground. Over at Slash Film, David Chen is much more outraged with the results of the nominations. Interesting side note:, a common thread running through these articles is a suprise that Bruce Springsteen's song "The Wrestler" did not get a Best Original Song nomination. Last but not least, In Contention, which makes its living doing Oscar predictions, is completely dismayed with the nomination list, especially Dark Knight's abandoment, and the raising up of The Reader, which they see as a flash in the pan that will be forgotten in a few years.

And what of Brook Barnes who, together with co-worker Michael Cieply, was the harbringer of doom-and-gloom by announcing the coming of the "pop Oscars?" They are quietly parsing the nominee list, expressing how wonderful it is that the Oscars "have the power to catapult a niche film into the mainstream and rewrite Hollywood's pecking order." And what of Tropic Thunder's acting nomination? No mention. Wall-E's confinement to Best Animated Feature? Not a word about the category at all. And of The Dark Knight's snubs and Ledger's nomination? Very little to say at all. In fact, in the entire 1017-word article, this is the only mention of the Caped Crusader's film: "Christopher Nolan failed to gain attention for his direction of The Dark Knight." Thirteen words to sum up that perhaps the New York Times read the pulse of Hollywood wrong when they eyed The Dark Knight with such apprehension as a comic film that would dare tread on the Holy Ground of the Academy Awards.

To be fair, most pundits--including the humble writer here at the post--thought The Dark Knight was a lock for at least Best Director, if not Best Picture. But as I predicted here last year, the Academy voters aren't going to change their ways anytime soon. For now, the Oscars will remain the domain of the loftier December releases that often provoke the daring statement when mentioned to a member of the common public: "I've never heard of it."

Oscars, Oscars: Comments on Award Hype and the Status of the Awards Show

Last time at The Vault, I posed the idea that current Oscar hype is unnecessarily overwhelming. Given 24-hour news services, we are inundated with constant updates on the smallest tidbit of information that could affect who is in the lead in the race to secure an Oscar nomination. These updates are often superficial, sometimes including analysis of movies that have not even come out yet. But, as reader Teddy Riley points out in his comment on that post, not all Oscar coverage is necessarily bad. Looking at promising upcoming films is a good way to alert movie audiences of films that might otherwise slip under the radar. There is a fine line, however, between critically parsing a film's components to look for Oscar worthiness and bestowing an Oscar crown just because the plot and the lead actor sound like they fit the Oscar formula. I went out into the world wide web in hopes of finding Oscar predictions that can be examples of the better ways to handle our innate desire to choose the winner of any competition--even if the contest is still five months off. I found what I was looking for at Cinemablend.com, where Katey Rich recently wrote her thoughts about current contenders for the Oscar race in her post "Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" What sounds like another superficial post based on little more than hype is actually a thoughtful, well-put-together look at films who may be Oscar contenders, based on word from previews at film festivals and Ms. Rich's own viewing of films that have actually been released. On top of looking for decent analysis of the Oscar race, I also looked at responses to the recent announcement of who will produce the upcoming 2009 Oscars, namely Laurence Mark (right side of picture) and Bill Condon (left side), who respectively produced and directed Dreamgirls. This announcement has created a flurry of debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere on the state of the Academy Awards Ceremony itself, comments that are summed up nicely in a post entitled "Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein of The Big Picture, a blog that is featured on the Los Angeles Times's website. For ease, I have posted my comments down below, as well as the links where you can find the original article and comment.

"Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" by Katey Rich
Comment:
Ms. Rich, thank you for your detailed thoughts about the Oscar race! I particularly like that you have managed to separate yourself from the superficial hype that many pundits engage in when covering the Academy Awards and instead ground yourself in films that have already been released, either in film festivals or to the general public. After all, if the film has not been released yet (or as you mention, even completed yet!) how can one make a genuine claim about its Oscar chances? On that note, you mentioned that with so many Oscar potential films being released in December, some are bound to "get lost in the shuffle." Do you think that this will lead to a new look at marketing strategies as films try to stand out among the myriad of Oscar hopefuls? For instance, the marketing department at Warner Bros. seems to be pulling out all the stops in their attempts to get The Dark Knight recognized, re-releasing it in January and offering free Blu-ray copies of the film to Academy voters. Do you think other studios will start looking at employing similar tactics, or is this something they are already doing? On a similar note, I'm interested in your prediction that The Dark Knight will increase Oscar viewership during the upcoming Awards ceremony. Do you think there is a chance that the lengthy coverage of Heath Ledger's Oscar chances will burn out potential audience members by the time the Academy Awards rolls around in February 2009? While I agree that people are attracted to rooting for films they've actually seen, there may be a chance that some people will be numb to Ledger Oscar talk since it has been on everyone's minds since his untimely death. It will be interesting to see if The Dark Knight does indeed have the effect you predict. Given how the Oscars have become such a slow, dragged-out affair, I remain doubtful that even The Dark Knight can pull its ratings out of the mire. Many of those who root for its success may be satisfied finding updates online instead of wading through the ceremony itself.

"Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein
Comment:
This is an excellent look at the reactions to the appointment of Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon! It is helpful to have a compilation of the various views on the state of the Academy Awards so that they can be compared easily. You also have some interesting ideas about how to fix the Oscars. I am intrigued about your suggestion to split the technical awards off from the main awards ceremony. This would certainly have the benefit of shortening the main broadcast, as well as reducing it to the awards that viewers care the most about, such as Best Picture and the various Best Acting categories. But conversely, since the technical categories are the ones that people are the least interested in, is there any guarantee that anyone will watch them if they have their own awards show? True, the younger generation may be more attracted to categories having to do with special effects and the like. And, as you suggest, it might be a good place to experiment with new, more effective ways of handling the ceremony. I feel, however, that such an awards ceremony will be much less of a draw than the current incarnation of the Academy Awards and would not be a successful endeavor. Indeed, I am not sure that there is any real way to fix the Oscars. It is already a dragged-out affair. The skits, musical numbers and tributes do serve to break up the monotony from the slew of presenters handing out the awards. Unfortunately, this also lengthens the proceedings, creating the need for more distracting gimmicks, creating a vicious circle in an attempt to balance length with entertainment. The shortest way to handle the affair would be to cut the films down to just handing out the awards, but this obviously would be an extreme solution. Other than splitting the technical awards off from the show, do you have other suggestions for how to improve the Academy Awards? What changes should be made for the 2009 ceremony? Besides better-staged musical numbers, is there anything else you hope that Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon will bring to the show?