Oscar Predictions / Those Who Deserve And Those Who Get: 2010 Edition

The Academy Awards, which will recognize quality in films from 2010, are only a couple of days away. And as always, there will be a disconnect between those who deserve to win and those who do win. The granddaddy of film awards has always been political, and how can it not. So, there isn't much point in getting in a huff about those that made the cut, and those that go on to win. Yes we all have our favorites, and yes a win can mean a lot for a Hollywood career. But after a point, it seems silly to get worked up about the awards; there are more critical things in the world to lose sleep over. So using minimal ink, and following a tradition from last year, here are my predictions for the wins this year in the major categories. 

BEST PICTURE
Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception

The Kids Are All Right

The King’s Speech

127 Hours

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Winter’s Bone

At year’s end, it appeared that there was only one dog in this fight, as The Social Network was lapping up the top prize in one award ceremony after another. And then the inevitable fatigue set in, and in the past few weeks, The King’s Speech got the tail-wind to forge ahead and has been sweeping the awards shows. The conventional wisdom therefore is that The King’s Speech will win the top Oscar. But like in the remarkably similar race from last year (remember the see-sawing between Avatar and The Hurt Locker) I have a suspicion that staunch defenders of The Social Network (I am not one of them) may come out en masse to show their support for their film. So this category is not a done deal yet in my books.

Who should win: 127 Hours

Who will win: The King’s Speech

BEST DIRECTING
Black Swan, Darren Aronofsky

The Fighter, David O. Russell

The King’s Speech, Tom Hooper

The Social Network, David Fincher

True Grit, Joel and Ethan Coen

The Coens have been recognized in this category too recently. The Fighter and Black Swan just do not have that much support in the big (Best Film, Best Director) categories. Suspecting that The King’s Speech will clean out most of the categories, I have a feeling voters will want to grant an acknowledgment for the other film that was leading up until now. And I suspect this will translate to a win for David Fincher.

Who will win: David Fincher, The Social Network

Who should win: Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech

BEST ACTOR, LEADING ROLE, MALE
Javier Bardem, Biutiful

Jeff Bridges, True Grit

Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network

Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

James Franco, 127 Hours

To win the trophy in the Leading Role category, it appears that two conditions need to be met. One needs to be nominated for doing a good job that year. And more importantly one needs to have reached that undefinable critical mass in public opinion, when it is generally acknowledged that it is time for the person to win the award. Sometimes this happens relatively quickly in a career (Halle Berry, Adrien Brody) and sometimes it takes decades (Jeff Bridges). Be that the situation, nobody can deny that Colin Forth has gained that elusive critical mass. He was nominated for his wonderfully restrained performance in A Single Man last year. And here he is again, with a high level of difficulty role in The King’s Speech. The others just don’t have the right alignment of recognition and critical mass to pull off this win.

Who will win: Colin Firth

Who should win: Colin Firth (with a tip of the hat to James Franco. Of course if it were up to me, Ryan Reynolds or Ryan Gosling would be taking home the prize, but don’t get me started)

BEST ACTOR, LEADING ROLE, FEMALE

Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right

Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole

Jennifer Lawrence, Winter’s Bone

Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine

Bening did the best job of these five in my books, and has been denied the prize in the past despite multiple nominations. It would seem unusually cruel to not hand the award to her yet again. But Natalie Portman has that elusive critical mass right now, where everyone just believes that its her time to win. And win she will.

Who will win: Natalie Portman

Who should win: Annette Bening (with a shout out to Michelle Williams).

BEST ACTOR, SUPPORTING ROLE, MALE

Christian Bale, The Fighter

John Hawkes, Winter’s Bone

Jeremy Renner, The Town

Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right

Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech

The Supporting Role categories are refreshingly free from the critical mass requirement, and hence we often see surprise winners in this category (because nobody expects the winners in this category to have consistently paid their dues over a long period of time). The fight here, and it is a tight one, will be between Christian Bale and Geoffrey Rush. I have to concede that both have put in frankly amazing performances. Many expect Geoffrey Rush to pull through to the podium on the heels of general goodwill for The King’s Speech. But I would not put it past Bale to finally get recognition from Hollywood. This is the closest race amongst all the categories.

Who will win: Geoffrey Rush

Who should win: Mark Ruffalo

BEST ACTOR, SUPPORTING ROLE, FEMALE

Amy Adams, The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech

Melissa Leo, The Fighter

Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit

Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom

This is the one category that has the most uncertainty. Melissa Leo had an early lead, but got bad press of late due to some goofy ads she placed on behalf of herself in contention for this prize. Jacki Weaver is too unknown. And Helena Bonham Carter and Amy Adams, while putting in solid performances, just did not have that show-stopper moment in either of their films. Hence, overall I believe this prize may actually fall in the very young, (but not undeserving) hands of Hailee Steinfeld.

Who will win: Hailee Steinfeld

Who should win: I don’t particularly have a dog in this race (amongst those nominated), but if I was forced to choose, I would go with Melissa Leo.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

How To Train Your Dragon

The Illusionist

Toy Story 3

I am not going to belabor my minority opinion that How To Train Your Dragon was a superior film than Toy Story 3. And I have not yet seen The Illusionist. But this is the one sure lock amongst all categories: the Pixar folks are going home happy on Oscar night

Who will win: Toy Story 3

Who should win: How To Train Your Dragon (unless The Illusionist wows me even more)

BEST WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)

127 Hours

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Winter’s Bone

All of the nominated films had amazing writing, no question about it. But I believe the academy will not drop the ball on this one, and will nominate the one script that has had people talking for months: Aaron Sorkin for his fast, smart and incisive script for The Social Network. This prize is Sorkin’s to lose.

Who will win: The Social Network

Who should win: The Social Network

BEST WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

Another Year

The Fighter

Inception

The Kids Are All Right

The King’s Speech

This is a tough one to predict. If The King’s Speech pulls a complete sweep, then it is likely it will grab the prize here too (and I would not be one to begrudge it). I am wondering though if those riled by Christopher Nolan being denied a directing nomination, may choose to award his film with a prize here instead. I am going to go on a whim here and predict that Inception will pull an upset win.

Who will win: Inception

Who should win: The Kids Are All Right, with a pat on the back to Another Year. 

Best of 2010: Performances

Here are film actors who made their mark in 2010, and then some. The ones in bold are those that knocked my socks off; the rest are listed alphabetically.

Actor, Male

Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

Ryan Reynolds, Buried

Jim Carrey, I Love You, Phillip Morris

James Franco, 127 Hours

Ryan Gosling, Blue Valentine

Actor, Female

Julianne Moore, The Kids Are All Right

Naomi Watts, Mother and Child

Annette Bening, Mother and Child

Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right

Lesley Manville, Another Year

Naomi Watts, Fair Game

Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine

Supporting Actor, Male

Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech

Christian Bale, The Fighter
Jeff Bridges, True Grit

Andrew Garfield, The Social Network

Sean Penn, Fair Game

Supporting Actor, Female

Mila Kunis, Black Swan

Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech

Rebecca Hall, The Town

Emily Mortimer, City Island

Ruth Sheen, Another Year

Best of 2010: Oddities

Best opening credits: 127 Hours

Best ending: Buried

Best remake: Let Me In (based on Let The Right One In)

Worst remake: Clash of The Titans

Most sorry to see end: City Island
Most happy to see end: Hot Tub Time Machine

Best film seen by no one: Buried

Best film poster: The Social Network, Buried

Best comic book adaptation: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Worst comic book adaption: The Last Airbender

Most unexpectedly good: Unstoppable

Most unexpectedly awful: The Tourist

Most overcooked: Shutter Island
Most original: Dogtooth

Most universally reviled: Sex and The City-2

Most universally adored/overrated: The Social Network

Glen Beck's worst nightmare: I Love You Phillip Morris


Most ink spent on a film: Inception

For shame, Hollywood: Skyline

Best Clueless homage: Easy A

Most judicious use of nudity: Mother and Child

Least judicious use of nudity (or You look great naked, now go put on some clothes please): Love and Other Drugs

Most surprising lack of nudity: Black Swan

Sexiest sexagenarian: Helen Mirren in Red

Didn't I Just See You? (or Most hardworking actor): Matt Damon in Green Zone, Hereafter, Inside Job, 30 Rock, and True Grit

Most wasted talent, female: Diane Keaton in Morning Glory

Most wasted talent, male: Morgan Freeman in Red

Biggest snub, actor, male, at the Oscars: the two Ryans - Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine and Ryan Reynolds in Buried

Biggest snub, actor, female, at the Oscars: Julianne Moore in The Kids Are All Right, Leslie Manville in Another Year

Include immediately in Acting School curriculum: Michelle Williams/Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine

Yeah okay, the camera loves you: Angelina Jolie in Salt

Give this man some respect please: Ben Affleck for directing The Town            

Best of 2010: Movies

Here is my completely biased list of the ten best films of the year. I had a simple criterion for the inclusion of a film on this list. It should have, simply, moved me. 

Endeared me. Provoked me. Amazed me with recognition of my own life's stumbles. Made tears escape my eyes in spite of myself. The movies on this list are those that have, in some manner, reached out and turned on some switch within me. By this yardstick then, some films fell away. So Inception is not on the list; it blew my mind but did nothing for the heart - I could not have cared less for the characters in the film. Likewise, The Social Network had better writing than any movie this year, and was sophisticated and slick, but alas, it failed to evoke what Roger Ebert calls 'elevation', that feeling when you completely connect with a film. I did with the ten films below.

1. 127 Hours  Most movies would like to think that they have earned their euphoric ending; few actually do. When the protagonist in 127 Hours stumbles out of his personal hell in the last act of the film, I was shaking in my cinema chair with so much uncontrolled exhilaration. When a movie produces such a visceral, physical reaction, one has to bow to it. If you already know the premise of this film, and think you lack the nerve to see it, do not let that stop you. For a film about a man stuck in a canyon for 127 hours who finally begins to introspect his life, the movie is remarkably kinetic, made that much more frenetic by Danny Boyle's direction. Like the best films, it reflects the universe through the experience of a single person. 

2. The Kids Are All Right  When I was not beaming from cheek to cheek while watching this movie, I was marveling at how precisely tuned the film was to the realities of all families. The movie makes it irrelevant that the kids in the film had two mothers (instead of a mother and a father). Because it reveals how all families are the same in their universal struggles: in the way that only family members can hurt us (because who else knows us well enough to do that) and also accept us despite our considerable faults. Featuring a bravura set of performances from its five lead actors: Julianne Moore, Annette Bening, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson, this movie has a big enough heart to find compassion for all of them. Witty, heart-breaking, sexy and clever, as far as I am concerned this film gets everything right - from start to beautifully understated finish. 

3.  Buried: This is the year’s best film that nobody saw. Just when you think that in the hundred plus year history of cinema, everything that can possibly be done on camera has already been done, along comes a movie that shatters that perception. Do you think that someone can make an engaging full length film that features only one individual and which never ventures out of the tight inner space of a coffin? Ladies and gentlemen, this has just been done. This film, about a man (Ryan Reynolds, in a cracker-jack performance) trapped alive in a small underground space who has to use limited resources to try and engineer his rescue, will make you forget to breathe. It takes a singular concept that is almost deceptively simple, and builds on it cleverly layer upon oppressive layer until it gets to a feverishly unbearable pitch. You are depriving yourself of one of the better cinematic experiences in quite some time by not urgently seeking out this film. This is work of breathless beauty.

4. The Town In another year, this film would have easily topped this list; it is that good. A fast-paced, tightly plotted heist movie, it has ambitions of being what few films aspire to: grand. And grand it is. In its scope, in its execution and in its emotionality. In case this sounds too high-minded, let me also say that this is the best action film of the year, featuring three amazing bank robberies that tether a wildly twisting storyline bouncing off one terrific episode after another, including an amazing piece late in the film set in the underbelly of Boston’s Wrigley stadium. And the film also makes a strong case for Ben Affleck to spend the rest of his film career behind the camera; as a director Affleck is the real thing. Underrated now, I suspect that in years to come this film will be regarded as one of the great heist films of all time. 

5. How To Train Your Dragon: This film had more heart than any other this year. And I realize that I am in a singular minority when I say this, but as fine as Toy Story 3 was, the best animated film of the year was How To Train Your Dragon. For years in a row, the Pixar annual release has made it into my year end list; but not in 2010. Examine how Dragon brings home its messages (of unflinching tolerance, of giving a fair chance to a long considered enemy, of the possibility for anyone to rise to exceptional grace under pressure) with tremendous emotional clarity. The film also features the most amazing depictions of diving through the skies; the movie one-ups Avatar in this regard by utilizing likely a tenth of the budget. This film just spoke to me, at every level. And the delirious sense of joy it left me with has stuck with me more than six months after seeing the movie.

6. Hereafter  This film is not on anybody’s list of best movies, but I found it a deeply moving meditation. On finding closure from traumatizing events. And of the very human need to connect with others. Clint Eastwood can do no wrong as far as I am concerned; his string of fully realized and successfully executed films of mind-boggling diversity (in tone, in subject matter, in style) from the past six years, continues unabated. Eastwood chooses an uncharacteristically tempered (but ultimately right) pacing to tell the story of three geographically separated characters, each trying to deal with a personal affliction - and delivers something surprisingly complex. That this film dares to not provide all the answers is its greatest strength. There is a scene late in the film, of the interaction between two of the three principal characters that broke me down into spontaneous tears. Confirming again, Roger Ebert’s conviction that what moves us most in films is not the terribly tragic, but it is people doing good under impossible circumstances.

7. The King’s Speech  This is not your father’s stuffy James-Ivory British period piece. What it is though is an instant classic. I suspect people will be watching this movie five, ten, twenty years from now. The story of the relationship between an unwilling British monarch who stutters and his unconventional Speech Therapist hardly inspires must-see ardor. But like the best narratives in any medium, this one leaves you wondering afterward as to why nobody ever thought to tell this story before. From the get go, there are little treasures to be discovered in almost every scene of this movie - when you smile in admiration at what has been achieved with just solid, hard-working, filmmaking skills. Those who find this movie conventional are really missing the point: when you have a film this good, being unconventional seems irrelevant.

8. Black Swan  Like a tropical fruit left on the vine too long, this movie is gloriously, unapologetically pulpy. And what an overripe mango this is. That the film fails to fit comfortably in any genre (is it an All About Eve style ode to women clawing their way to the top?  is it a psychological thriller? is it a Rocky-like celebration of the underdog?  Or is it a flat out horror film even?) is its greatest asset. This movie may be a lot of things (indulgent, frustratingly non-committal, sleazy, manipulative), but one thing it is not is predictable; I loved how this film trumped my expectations at every corner, and took me on a wild ride. This is the story of a (physically and emotionally) fragile ballet dancer who after winning the highly coveted lead role in a new production of 'Swan Lake' is unable to handle the pressure of playing the dual role of the innocent white swan as well as (and particularly) the uninhibited, malevolent black swan. As she starts losing her grip on reality, so too the film starts to come unhinged. This is not for everyone, but for those seeking a trippy cinematic experience, you are in for a treat.

9. Band, Baaja, Baarat (Band! Drums! Wedding Procession!)  This 2010 Indian film is a minor miracle. Disguised as a thoroughly conventional entertainer (the quintessential masala film), it subversively drives a knife through the heart of one tired convention after another. And by doing so it joins the extraordinary new wave of movies that are bringing maturity to Indian cinema. When most Indian films are so fraught with insecurity that they feel compelled to cram as much content as possible into the three hour running time, this movie aspires to be only about one thing. About the relationship between two individuals fumbling on the path to a love they are unprepared to acknowledge or handle. And what the film does with these two characters is altogether revolutionary: it allows them to be real and flawed. It allows their character arcs to get complicatedly unpredictable, growing in directions contrary to their personalities. How else to explain the highly cynical female lead with a lifelong contempt of corny, exhausted concepts of love who finds to her horror that she may have to rethink her stand. Or the male lead who has always carried a torch for the girl, but after an unexpected night of intimacy with her, cannot reconcile his feelings toward her and starts to inch away. That an Indian film even dares to consider, as a plot device, the repercussions from a relationship that unexpectedly turns physical, is cause for celebration. And what glorious alignment of brilliant writing, acting and directing. Welcome, little movie, you can walk side by side with the few others in their march toward intelligent filmmaking from the Indian subcontinent. 

10. Waiting For Superman  There were many fine documentaries released this year, but none that carried a stronger emotional wallop for me than this one. While making a damning case for fixing a broken educational system in America (which includes a frighteningly imbalanced wielding of power by the Teachers' Union), the movie also wisely weaves its political stand with the real life stories of five kids struggling to buck the system by winning one of a few coveted slots in better schools - available through a lottery system. That one has to rely on lottery at all for better education speaks to how far we have come from the implicitly assumed right of every American child to a good education. And the suspense the film generates from the reveal of the eventual fate of each of these kids far exceeds anything in a fictional film this year; after all only the future lives of these kids is at stake. Like the best documentaries, this one has the ability to change our world. 

Honorable mention: What a great year for cinema that any of the following films could have just as easily stood proudly on best of the year lists: Blue Valentine, Fair Game, Mother and Child, City Island, Let Me In, Inside Job, Ghost Writer, Easy A, Ishqiya and True Grit.

But where's the heart, Mr Nolan?

Inception is a house of cards. A dazzling house of cards, to be sure. But still, at any given moment, only a breath away from collapsing under its own terrible weight. I admired the craft in this film, I am in awe of its technical achievements and I genuflect in reverence to the originality and sheer ambition of this movie. But I have been moved more by a twenty second life-insurance commercial on television. And more intellectually engaged by the crystalline clarity of a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip. 

Inception arrived in theaters this summer already canonized as the most important thing to happen to cinema this year.

At a time when every film steps within our perimeter of awareness with disclosure of every detail of its plot, Inception arrived on the scene with resolute opaqueness. They were not going to tell you what the film was about, and if that was going to ruin its marketing prospects, then so be it. The secrecy around the film became its marketing. I for one, was thrilled to bits. We are told by folks who create film trailers these days that people like to know exactly what they are going to see in a movie. It is the reason behind the longevity of McDonald's we are informed: people like the comfort of going to eat something whose taste is precisely known to them. This has always seemed to me like a barrel of steaming horse manure. How many times at the theater have I watched a trailer in which the entire premise of the movie, seemingly through the last act, is laid out in front of me, and I have remarked "Why don't they just screen the entire damn film while they are at it". So I was silly giddy to hear that Christopher Nolan was not putting up with any of that, and that the smallest detail of his latest film was being guarded with Fort Knox-like security. On this basis alone, I was already in awe of this film, because it seemed to have pulled off the unthinkable: creating excitement about a film, by not telling anything about it! Inception had me at hello. 

I remember that only a few days before its official release, the studio allowed their marketing campaign to let it be known to the general public that the main character of the film is able to enter into the dreams of others. And even hearing about that little piece sounded to me like a violation, like being allowed to watch somebody's personal home video. Why did they have to do that, I wondered. 

And then I saw the film, and the unbearable irony of it depressed me: they should have never bothered. Even if Nolan had released the full script of the film on his Facebook page a year ahead of the release, he needn't have worried: nobody would have understood it. And I say that only half-jokingly. In fact, more than a month after the film's release, there is still rampant discourse on what the various parts of the film exactly mean, and what the end signifies. 

During my viewing, as I tried to keep up with the film, it appeared at many points as if I was myself grasping hands around the film to keep it from crashing down into a thousand little pieces. What lofty ambitions this script has. The sort that you know someone has spent a lifetime fine-tuning, going back to it again and again, at different points, and layering on more. The sort of master-script that has been somebody's obsession their whole life. And as my brain was trying to process it all together, the unwieldiness of it all finally got exhausting. Where the movie should have soared, taking off from what it had built so far, it instead got sticky and tangled, unable to take flight from the excessive details of the very world it had created. 

M.C. Escher, Relativity, 1953

Is that world, sticky and all, impressive? Yes, of course. Would I recommend this film? In a heart-beat. Because this film has, purely from a visual and aesthetic perspective, scenes that are plainly unlike anything we have seen before on celluloid. Scenes that will make your jaw drop in amazement. The extended version of the scene shown in every preview of the film - of the street in Paris that begins to seemingly fold upon itself and then perfectly clasp (like ouroborus, the serpent swallowing its own tail) is a thing of wonderment. There is a portion in the last third of the film where things escape the laws of gravity altogether, and the choreography of the actors and objects in those scenes approaches the operatic in its grandeur. The film creates its own universe and its own language, and its own strange detached rhythm. No stranger to playing with the scale of time (since his debut film, Memento), Nolan again experiments with the spooling of time, not just linearly backward and forward, but this time also in multiple separate dimensions. There is a scene (clearly inspired by Escher's paintings that contradict rules of visual perception) of a staircase going around itself endlessly that must have been a pain to create. How can a person watch this and not be impressed? 

But all this, to what avail? I am unashamed of my love of cerebral cinema. But even so, the excesses of Inception wore my mind into a state of apathy. Amidst all the mind-blowing extraordariness of the film, I found a coldness underneath, something that prevented me from caring about these characters and their brain-melting predicaments. Unable to engage my mind, or connect with my heart, the film became toward the end, grating. 

And it seems a bit of a lost opportunity. Based on what I had observed in the early part of the film, I was hoping that the second half would be about endlessly clever puzzles that would need to be solved. The promise of the earlier Escherian scene of the infinitely looping staircase, had me poised to experience the sort of labyrinthine puzzles, both visual and mental, that would elevate the cleverness of the film to another level. Instead what does the last half-hour of the film entail? A standard issue chase in a snow-bound landscape in which the bad guys with guns are running after the good guys. This is the natural evolution of a film that starts with almost incomprehensible cleverness? 

The cast of the film is beyond blame. After the success of The Dark Knight, when Christopher Nolan calls, most actors will drop whatever they are doing and line up to be in his film. How else to explain the three scenes in which Michael Caine shows up. Leonardo di Caprio works hard and is expectedly reliable in a role that is unsettlingly similar to his character in Shutter Island his other movie release this year. Marion Cotillard does her best to blunt the shrillness built into the part she portrays; this is after all a character given the terribly literal name of  'Mal' (as one reviewer inquired, was 'Crazy Woman' taken?). Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon Levitt, and Cillian Murphy do not have much to chew on, but are more than capable. And Tom Hardy steps out with a career-making role. These are all actors of strong marrow. 

The best analogy I can provide to my experience with Inception is a family trip I took a few years ago to visit, for the first time, the State Parks in Utah and Arizona. Upon arrival, with much anticipation, at the Grand Canyon, I was distressed to find it strangely underwhelming. Yes, it was impressive and almost unimaginably huge, but at the end of the day, only a very large pit. Certainly I could appreciate it, but as much as I tried, it failed to speak to me. Compare that to Zion National Park, our next stop, where the rock formations were so majestic, I could have heard angels singing. I am not one to routinely seek spirituality in the outdoors, but Zion, to my utter surprise became close to a religious experience. I had a similar experience with Bryce Canyon that is only a fraction of the size of the Grand Canyon. Who knows what moves us in life, what trips up hidden circuits within us to light up. But when it happens, it is one of the best things about being human. I love the movies because more than any other art form, they have a higher rate of enabling this connection within one's self that triggers a lighting up. 

I realize this is lofty, but this is what I was reminded of while watching Inception. I was impressed, but left cold. Christopher Nolan, obviously one of the more talented film-makers working today, has been successful in the past with making films that have a strong emotional undertow. His last film, The Dark Knight, based on a static comic-book source (Batman) had audiences deeply invested in the outcome of as artificial a character as the Joker. That film, has scenes of crushing emotional weight; the one where the protagonist is forced to choose between saving the life of Gordon (his friend) or Rachel (his girlfriend) stings even now. It is not easy to take comic book characters and invest in them the sort of emotional ballast that devastates audiences. So this time around, why did Nolan fail to invest any emotional heft to the characters in Inception? If he had spent a portion of the energy he did on the script, to granting some sense of dimension to the characters, this would have been a stellar film. As it is, it is more than a little odd that the characters in Inception are surprisingly sporting in accepting the stunningly bizarre things happening to - and - around them. They seem to move on with the next strange twist in the plot with barely a casual shrug of the shoulders. 

As Pixar has been teaching us for the past several years in a row, it is not what we see, but rather what we feel, that ultimately matters most in a film.  Inception could use a pointer. 

When Does An Actor Go Too Far?

Have you ever watched a movie where you actually felt sorry for an actor? Not because they had the misfortune to be in a dreadful film. But because they have committed so much to their role, that they have crossed an imaginary line. It is difficult to define this line, but you know it when you see it. You know it, when you say to yourself during a film, "no matter how immersed they are in their role, no actor should have to go through this" or "no person should have to do this on camera". All good actors go the distance, giving themselves emotionally and physically to the demands of a film.  But is there some such thing as going too far?

These thoughts ran through my mind as I watched the film 'Antichrist' last weekend. The film stars Charlotte Gainsbourgh, the redoubtable French actress of hardy cinematic stock (she is the daughter of actress Jane Birkin and screenwriter Serge Gainsbourgh) who has incidentally also sold a fair number of music CDs as a singer of some merit.  And she is asked in this film to do things that are, frankly, unspeakable. To see her in this film is to realize, how deep and far into the woods an actor can go, following in step behind the director. Yes, we all know that the actor of gumption is meant to be an empty vessel, a blank slate, devoid of all vanity, all inhibition, and willing and able to enact whatever the director asks of him/her. But I ask this question again, is there room to place a limit on where an actor can or should go? When does an actor tell himself, I just cannot go to that place? Charlotte Gainsbourgh's scenes in this movie are so exhaustingly enervating, both emotionally and physically, that after one is done feeling sorry for her, one's regard for her bravery starts to gradually accumulate -  for unequivocally demonstrating that she knows no limits as an actor. When it comes to movies, I am not weak of heart, or prone to the slightest prudery, but the extreme performances of the two lead actors in this film (Gainsbourgh and Willem Dafoe) shook me. Lars von Trier, the director of 'Antichrist' has acknowledged that he made this film during a period of extreme personal depression. But does this justify what he demanded of these actors? I believe this question lies at the crux of the polarization between avid defenders of this film and those who are outraged by it.

Charlotte Gainsbourgh in a publicity still from 'Antichrist'

The history of cinema is studded with examples of performers, male and female, who have reached that elusive ether-bound realm of acting that is immediately eternal; performances that are uniformly regarded as classic. But what of those actors who dive into the deep-end, holding hands with the director, with nary a fear of whether they would make it back to the surface? Gainsbourgh (and Dafoe's) performances in 'Antichrist' (which I would score 9 out of 10 on the 'How Far Did They Go' scale) got me to thinking about other movies where I have noticed actors going far, very far, and thought I would list them here.

Speaking of Lars von Trier, Emily Watson in another film directed by Trier, 'Breaking The Waves', also created a bold, heart-breakingly raw and honest character that remains memorable for all who have seen the movie (which announced her immediately to the world as an actor to watch out for). Her portrayal is so stark, that it is altogether exempt from the audience's judgment, and this is almost impossible to do in films. A great measure of her achievement here is that it is difficult to decide if the character she portrays is someone approximating saintliness or is simply a person who is not entirely mentally sound (I would give her a 7 on the 'How Far Did They Go' scale).

Any inquiry into the limits that actors have crossed on camera would have to consider Monica Bellucci in the French film 'Irreversible' (an easy score of 9 out of 10 on the scale). Directed by Gaspar Noe, and running backwards in time, the film begins with the gruesome consequences resulting from the very real trauma faced by a young couple, and ends with the idyllic times from when the two first met. In the middle of this film is a single seemingly unbroken 9 minute shot, where Monica Bellucci's character gets accosted in a Paris subway underpass late in the night, and gets raped and brutally beaten. Unlike other movies, the camera gets unbearably close to the violence, and by making the viewer watch this event enact in real time, makes them complicit in what is occurring on screen. I had to look away from the screen through much of this because it was simply unwatchable; this movie was labeled the most walked-out film of 2003 for good reason. That someone as well regarded as Monica Bellucci would participate in this film is a measure of how fearless an actor can be. I will not pretend to understand what sort of an experience this may be for an actor, but I have wondered if it may actually be freeing to know that you are capable of doing something so emotionally and physically extreme.

Another French film that registers high on the scale (again, a 9) is 'Ma Mere' (My Mother); it stars the dauntless Isabelle Huppert and Louis Garrel, both no strangers to wandering off the beaten track when it comes to acting. I will only leave you with a brief outline of the film and have you recognize why these actors belong in this discussion. The movie, based on a controversial novel, is about a young man who (after the death of his father) begins to start spending time with his mother who holds an extremely fluid opinion of morality. As he is exposed by his mother to her hedonistic lifestyle, his relationship with her and the friends she spends her time with, takes increasingly dark turns. Huppert brings dignity to a role that calls for absolute disregard to any sense of norm, and Garrel gamely goes with this movie to places that films seldom visit.

All of this would make it seem that it is only European actors who cross the line with full abandon in the name of their craft. But many American films too have asked actors for their pound of flesh and received it in more than equal measure. Christian Bale's deliriously unhinged and guileless take on materialism in the eighties, in 'American Psycho' directed by Mary Harmon, scores high (7 out of 10). Also, Bale's physical transformation in The Machinist, unseen by me, is often brought up as an example of an actor's commitment gone wild. Tom Hanks famously went through a similar physical transformation in 'Cast Away', but while his performance was outstanding in the film - he wordlessly kept viewers riveted for more than an hour in the middle of the film - his acting was too conventional, in my opinion, to qualify for being on the list of actors who have gone too far. Robert DeNiro similarly is often cited in 'Raging Bull' for his unrecognizably effective physical transformation, but again, I am not sure that I would consider that he crossed that imaginary line into going too far in that movie. So who did actually cross the line? Definitely Harvey Keitel in the Abel Ferrara directed original 'Bad Lieutenant', in which Keitel leaps anchorless into a sea of depravity. It takes courage to play someone so loathsome; repulsive is not a trait most actors seek when looking for roles (score 5 out of 10).

Amongst American female actors, Jennifer Connelly's drug-fueled, free-falling descent in 'Requiem For A Dream' sticks in the memory almost a decade after the release of the film, with the last scene of the movie defining the "no actor should have to go through this" moment (score 8 out of 10). Also, Chloe Sevigny started her career portraying dangerous/creepy lapses in early teen (mis)behavior; 'Gummo' and 'The Brown Bunny' earned plenty of notoriety, but nothing she has done surpasses the gutsy abandon with which she defined the shocking moral sting at the end of 'Kids', her first film (score 6 out of 10). Bernardo Bertolucci's 1990 film, 'The Sheltering Sky' gave Debra Winger, an uninhibited actor from the start of her career, a chance to completely unravel in portraying the despair and slowly settling insanity of the character; I recall wondering as to why Winger would allow herself to come so emotionally and physically unhinged for the sake of a movie (score 6 out of 10). Amongst more contemporary female actors, Ashley Judd in 'Bug' and Anne Hathaway in 'Havoc' (score 5 out of 10, for both) have made it abundantly clear that there is not much that they will shy from in the service of the role at hand; it is obvious that they are here for the real thing, and not to serve as Hollywood wallpaper. And how about Ewan McGregor, who seems peerless amongst contemporary male actors in being almost recklessly game in complying with pretty much any and all manner of demands from the roles he takes on. His commitment to crossing every line there is, is particularly evident in Peter Greenaway's 'The Pillow Book', where his character goes through physical and emotional turmoils of unthinkable variety (score 7 out of 10). [Greenaway, by the way, has probably made more consistently outrageous demands from his actors, than any other director].

So these are the great warriors of the cinema screen, the ones who have earned the right to say that they can do anything for their craft. Viewers sometimes see this level of extreme malleability from an actor as a lack of discipline or self-respect even; I have only great admiration for them.

I am sure there are tens of other actors who deserve mention here. That is what the comments section of the blog is for; I could use some reminding of those I have missed.

Goodbye Solo ***1/2

The first scene of "Goodbye Solo" lays out the basic premise of the movie. During a routine drive, a cab driver is asked by a frequent passenger if he can book a ride ten days later to be driven to a location from which the passenger is almost assuredly planning to commit suicide.

Although there are umpteen ways that a film can be constructed from this premise (a thriller, a Hollywood weepie, or a psychological mind-bender come to mind), this movie has no interest in indulging in cinematic conventions. The film tracks the lives of these two individuals over those days, as the cab driver tries to convince the man to not go through with his plans. That is it. And while this may not make you want to rush out to rent this film (although I would urge you to), you may want to jot down the name of this movie on a piece of a paper for that day when you are in the mood for a meditative, introspective experience.

How many films have you seen where the primary relationship is between a young immigrant cabbie and a hard-lived, burnt-around-the-edges, old man? Oh, but the richness of these two characters.

This film takes an objective eye to these two individuals and does not let up. And it is the specific details which emerge that matter. The cab-driver (the titular 'Solo') is a young Senegalese man trying to make a living in small-town North Carolina. He is the sort of person who has a way with people: friendly to a fault even with strangers, guileless, alarmingly happy at all times, and capable of talking a mile a minute. As a black immigrant, if he is aware that his feet rest on the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder in America, he does not seem to mind it at all. He works his night job with honesty and humor, and is trying to support his family which includes his Mexican-American spouse and her intelligent and poised teen daughter (presumably from a prior marriage). Their first child together is on its way. Solo works in his spare time to study to qualify for becoming a flight attendant. He is pushing upward for a better life -  exhausted yes, but never without a game smile on his face. So that is the cab driver, but what of the other character? The other character is somewhat of a cipher, for the audience as well as for Solo. He is a grizzled, old, Southern man, who harbors an avid aversion to human interaction. But even then, why is he giving the appearance that he is getting ready to take his own life? Is this what draws Solo to this old man, the desire to solve the mystery of what would lead a man to contemplate suicide? Or is Solo, as involved as he is with his own life, simply forced to encroach in the world of the older man to stop him from going through with his plans. The old man is as gnarled and obstinate as might be seen in a movie; alcohol and cigarettes are the closest he has to anything he is dependent on in life. Here is a man who simply wants to be left to spend his life on his own terms. Yes, he likes to go to the movies once in a while, and succumbs to the most marginal thawing when asked to spend some time with Solo's family, but beyond that, he remains confoundingly impenetrable to Solo.

This is a movie that might frustrate a particular type of viewer as a film in which nothing happens. To others, this will be one of the most unaffected, close to the ground portraits of human behavior committed to film. We seldom see this level of fidelity to the incomprehensible aspects of human nature, including what remains resolutely blurry about it, portrayed in a movie. In how far it goes, it reminded me of Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" released a few years ago. While Eastwood's film is showier and more conventional in its treatment of the material, both movies deal with an uncommon relationship between two characters, one of whom learns to accede to a fundamental choice exercised by the other, as vehemently unacceptable as it seems.

I saw the depiction of the cab-driver in 'Goodbye Solo' and could not separate actor from character. This must be one of the more difficult roles to play; if it were not for the genuine warmth of this actor (Souleymane Sy Savane), the portrayal of an endlessly congenial man would slide a hundred ways into caricature, or just plain annoyance. And Red West who plays the older man, has an unquestionably weathered demeanor about him, and it appears as if he agreed to let someone film his own life. It is not faint praise to say that a movie has found lead actors who make a scripted film seem like documentary.

The film is written and directed by the thirty-something Ramin Bahrani [whose previous well-received films 'Man Push Cart' and 'Chop Shop' are unseen by me] and he appears to be influenced by italian neorealism. Described in Wikipedia as a style of film characterized by stories set amongst the poor and working class, filmed on location, frequently using nonprofessional actors, this definition could be another way to describe 'Goodbye Solo'. There is a rigorous commitment to austerity in the making of this film. It reminded me in its purity, of last year's "Wendy and Lucy", starring Michelle Williams and directed by Kelly Reichardt.  If you leave conventional movie-going expectations at the door, 'Goodbye Solo' will be a wholly unique, and yes, fulfilling movie-watching experience.

Roger Ebert wrote in his review of this film that "wherever you live, when this movie opens, it will be the best film in town". Who am I to argue.

Oscar Reaction

So the Oscars were handed out last night.  While acknowledging a late upswing in support of The Hurt Locker, I had predicted that Avatar would win for Best Picture. And for once in my life, I am so glad to be wrong.  I am thrilled that The Hurt Locker won for Best Movie of the year. A happy convergence of Those Who Deserve and Those Who Get. By jove, they got it right! 

So of course, there will be those who will complain about how the Oscar voters are yet again completely out of touch with general public opinion. How the voters aways reward dark independent movies that nobody has heard of, let alone seen. How the voters are ivy-tower snoots who are only willing to grant riches to elitist, high-brow movies that Joe Public would never enjoy. And so forth. To all of those people, I have only one thing to say. Please just go watch The Hurt Locker. If the experience does not change your mind, by all means protest, but I seriously doubt you will after seeing the film. 


The Hurt Locker won not because it was a war movie. Or because it was tailor-made to engage the pretentious elite. Or because there was an active movement to snub the popular vote for Avatar. It won simply because it was truly the best of the ten movies nominated this year. 


And this was not a film that was made with the explicit intention to tow the intelligentsia vote. Brooks Barnes reports in the New York Times today that that "On (The Hurt Locker's) opening weekend in two theaters in New York, screenwriter, Mark Boal — now an Oscar winner — stood on street corners with his teenage nephew handing out free tickets to passersby with the idea that if they could stack the house, perhaps the theater owners would book it for another week." It struggled for its existence, and for distribution, from the start. And in less than a year, it won 'Best Picture'. If this isn't a Cinderella story I don't know what is. This was not a prestigious art-house film that came with a built-in viewer demographic. At a time when nobody wanted to spend their hard-earned ten dollars on watching a movie about the war, this film slowly built its reputation by word of mouth. Even as there has been no precedent for a commercially successful Iraq war movie in the past several years, The Hurt Locker got made because the film-makers were passionate about their story and needed to tell it. Here is a good blog entry on this topic: http://www.desipundit.com/baradwajrangan/2010/03/08/oscar-2010/ 


What I liked about this Oscars telecast: 

• The expansion of the Best Movie nominees to ten films instead of five
• The verbal recognition of Best Lead Actor (Male and Female) nominees by their own colleagues and in their own words. In a way, this was like giving a prize to every nominee, to  provide public acknowledgment of their work by their peers. Very classy. 
• The extra time spent on all four of the acting categories which involved a return to showing film clips for each of the nominees.
• Sandra Bullock's acceptance speech. Few things are more endearing than graciousness, and she was very gracious. Also the acceptance speech by Michael Giacchino, who won for Best Score (for 'Up'); when most other winners spent precious time on endless names of people they would like to thank (even when the Academy now allows winners to do so in a separate acceptance speech for the press after their win), Giacchino took time to ask kids who were being told that what they were doing was a waste of time "to get out there and do it; it is NOT a waste of time". A truly inspiring moment in a ceremony that was often uninspired.
• Kathryn Bigelow's (what seemed like genuine) surprise at becoming the first woman to win a Best Director trophy. 

What I disliked about this Oscars telecast:

• The art deco set for the stage, which seemed to limit the possibilities for what could be done on the stage instead of enhancing them.
• That the hosts, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were merely adequate. I had hoped for comedic genius from those two, and got something that was content with being just a tad better than mediocre. In their defense, I did laugh a lot at the 'damn Helen Mirren' joke. 
• The tediously long dance montage set to the Best Musical Score nominations. Would it not have been better to spend the time instead on a short, crisp compilation of best nominated song performances?
• That Quentin Tarantino had to be content with a single win (Best Supporting Actor) for this movie, and that he did not receive the Best Original Screenplay prize.

That is enough ink spent on the Oscars, I think! There are more important things in the world to be worried about.