Oscar Night: A Review

I return from my week and a half vacation to bring you a review of last night's Academy Awards. It was a night full over very few surprises: Slumdog Millionaire took home Best Picture and Director, Heath Ledger got Best Supporting Actor, Kate Winslet finally got her Oscar, and Wall-E walked away with Best Animated Feature. The only bone I have to pick with the awards themselves is that Wall-E should have received an award in at least one of the sound categories; the first half of the film has almost no dialogue, and the robots have a unique language of whistles and boops that was impressively brought to life, and Wall-E should have been recognized for that.

But what of the show itself? Like the winners, there were few surprises, and overall, it was a lackluster performance. Hugh Jackman did what he could to keep the night moving, dancing and singing the night away, an experience I would have enjoyed more if I didn't feel that it was utterly pointless. The opening number was to be expected, to help people get into the mood and welcome viewers to the Oscars, but was there a real need for the tribute to the musicals routine? Likewise, the montages of animated features, romances, comedies, and action flicks felt pointless, particularly the animated feature montage, as there were no more than five films to take clips from. Such things should be done away with, as it only serves to drag on the show, not heighten any excitement. The one montage I feel they should keep is "In Memoriam" which I always find a touching tribute to those in the profession who have passed away, from cinematographers to actors to screenwriters.

I did like the concept of arranging the awards in the order they come in the production of a film. I honestly can't remember if this just happens to be the way they are always handed out, but even if that is so, attention was drawn to the fact this year, and it was a neat way to help the audience connect with the movie-making process. The idea of having five actresses/actors present the acting awards, however, was an idea that may have looked good on paper but didn't seem to work on screen. Having someone stand on stage and give a lengthy speech about why you should care about a particular performance was not very interesting or inspiring and again lengthened the show more than necessary.

All in all, the Oscars were particularly lackluster, despite attempts to shake things up. Unimaginative montages and slow pacing are sure to have driven many to reach for their remotes, especially since there were few big name films to keep them interested. Ratings were up, however, which indicates that there were those who were interested to see how the Oscars had changed, or perhaps that last year's record lows had more to do with the writer's strike than the programming. The Oscars still have a way to go to connect with audiences, and there's a long road ahead.

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.

Revolutionary Road: The Oscar Performance that Wasn't

When the Oscar nominees came out, there was a great deal of shock at the snubbing of The Dark Knight which failed to edge its way into the race for Best Picture or Director. But among all the hubbub, there was another film that failed to make the list in a category it should have: Revolutionary Road should have gotten Kate Winslet nominated for Best Actress. This is old news by now, but as I have just had a chance to see the film, I wanted to throw in my two cents. Now, I know that Winslet did get a Best Actress nod this year for her film The Reader. From what I hear, however, her performance was at the most, a supporting one, and while still good, not as good as her role in Road. After seeing the film, I'm still stunned that the Academy did not follow suit with the Golden Globes and nominate Winslet for Best Actress in Road and Supporting Actress in Reader. Her performance as trapped housewife April was heart-breaking. In the last fifteen minutes of the film, you can see that she has become emotionally broken, that the life has snuffed out of her. All her glow and vibrancy is gone. It takes skill to portray an empty character that isn't over the top; anyone can stare blankly around, but a real actress can make her character go through the motions of normality and convey that beneath the calm, banal exterior, something is dreadfully wrong.

While Kate Winslet's performance was Oscar-worthy, the rest of the film was lacking, explaining its inability to nab a Best Picture nomination. The transition between naive young lovers and a suppressed young couple in the American dream was literally split second; there was no watching Di Caprio (who also makes a fine performance as a man struggling to choose between a life of comfort and a life of adventure) and Winslet evolve into the people they vowed they never be. The contrast was too abrupt for me to be able to get my bearings with any ease, and I kept feeling like I had missed a scene somewhere along the way. A smaller detail that made things feel a bit off was the continuing absence of the children in the film. Although introduced early on as part of the kit and kaboodle of the American Dream, they only minorly figured into the plot and were conviently never around during the parents multiple arguments. They were there more as props then as characters.

Revolutionary Road is definitely a film worth seeing, even if it is a bit rough. Kate Winslet may not have gotten the Oscar nod she deserves, but hopefully she will at least walk away with a long overdue statue at the upcoming Academy Awards.

Can Oscars Pull it Together Without Household Names?

An interesting column was posted on Variety's Award Central on Friday about the potential ratings success or failure of the upcoming Academy Awards broadcast. Last year saw ratings hit an all time low (see my last post on the Oscars) and there is considerable worry that this year's ratings may plunge even lower. It's sure that the execs responsible for the show were beating their heads when they discovered that The Dark Knight was snubbed in the top categories, as popular opinion agreed that the film was guaranteed to have viewers turning in to see if the movie could walk away with some of the more prestigious awards. People may still watch to see if Heath Ledger can win posthumously, but with Best Picture restricted nearly exclusively to less well-known titles, there is considerably less interest in who wins.

Producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark are doing their best to put some spice into the show, starting off with hiring Hugh Jackman to host the Oscars. Now rumors are coming around that they are finding new ways to present the categories and trying to shake up the formula of what is announced when, in order to create some new interest. I'll admit my interest is certainly piqued, and as I've watched the past Oscars on tape-delay with my hand continuously hovering over the fast-forward button, I am intrigued to see if this supposedly new format can hold my attention longer. Admittedly, last year's show was hampered by the writer's strike, but that airing may have negatively affected the public's opinion of an already overlong extravaganza. The film gurus are desperately trying to save a sinking ship and even if they don't succeed, it should be entertaining to watch them try.

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.

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.

High Brow Nominees to Equal Low Ratings?

Ever since the nominees for the 81st Academy Awards were announced yesterday, there has been no shortage of reading material. One article that has caught my eye is a post by Steve Mason at Big Hollywood, who predicts that the lack of The Dark Knight and other popular names on the nominee roster will send Oscar Night ratings plunging down to new depths. His reasoning is that since so few of those in the race are household names, the interest level among the general public is minimal at best. To back up his argument, Mason has compiled statistics for the last ten years of Oscar Broadcasts and compares the combined box office receipts for the five contenders for Best Picture to the number of people who tuned in to see the winner announced. The results are enlightening. While the numbers don't fit perfectly into the pattern, the general trend is the higher the revenue of the nominees, the more people who watch the Academy Awards. The most obvious example is the year when Titanic was in the running; an astronomical 57.2 million people watched the film carry off 11 awards, 10.7 million more people then watched the second highest watched broadcast of the set, when American Beauty beat out The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense, The Insider, and The Cider House Rules. Titanic, incidentally was going up against L.A. Confidential, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, and As Good as it Gets, a sizable competition.

Recent years have seen a decline in Oscar viewership; while ten years ago around 45 million people watched the ceremony, that number is down to close to 30 million. What attributes for the decline? Over all, I'm inclined to agree with Mason that since no one knows who is nominated, no one cares who wins. But that doesn't help explain the Oscars of 2002, when Chicago beat out Gangs of New York, The Hours, the Pianist, and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers for Best Picture, but only gathered together 33 million people, a small wrinkle in the box office vs ratings theory. What else could explain the nosedive? There is something to be said for the overlong duration of the show, as well as the recent straying from a family-friendly format. While I remember very little about the Oscars of ten years ago, I do remember that it was something my family had turned on and watched with some interest. It seems to me at least that in recent years, the Oscars have become edgier, with more risque jokes and language; throw in the performance of Best Song nominee "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp" and one might be on to at least one reason viewers are fleeing for the hills.

The Academy is hoping to turn things around this year. Bill Condon and Larry Mark, newly engaged by the Academy to produce the show, revealed in December that they were hiring actor Hugh Jackman to play host. It was a surprising leap from the usual comedian that handles the job, but Condon and Mark pointed out that Jackman won an Emmy for hosting the Tony awards, a fact that certainly counts in his favor. But whether the new producers have a huge task ahead of them if they're to repair the reputation of the Oscars, particularly in light of the facts discussed above.

To conclude these thoughts, I leave you with a U.S.A. Today article from only a few days ago that predicted that The Dark Knight would save the Oscars from a ratings nightmare. Obviously, there's a tiny flaw in their plan.

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."