So Apparently The Oscar Nominations Were Announced...

Posted by Rachael

In recent years, my wide eyed enthusiasm for the Oscars has dampened a bit. I can basically trace the moment back to 2006, when Crash beat Brokeback Mountain, and I learned that (despite what I've learned from thousands of Hollywood movies) the most deserving film doesn't always win. Big shocker, I know. When The Dark Knight failed to even garner so much as a nomination, I pretty much gave up caring. And since then my passion for what I once described as "my Super Bowl" has dwindled. Last year I could barely muster up any enthusiasm for the crop of idiosyncratic nominees.

But I'm actually pretty okay with this year's crops of nominees. Sure there are some glaring omissions (really, no Danny Boyle for best director for 127 Hours? That entire movie was crafted out of the blood, sweat and tears of James Franco and the ridiculously kinetic movie making style of Danny Boyle, even when trapped in one very tiny space. And the decision to honor Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine but not her partner in domestic lack-of-bliss Ryan Gosling was somewhat disconcerting), but by and large I'm pretty happy with a crop of nominees that really spans the spectrum between crowd pleasing blockbusters and weird indie films. On top of that, I'm sort of strangely optimistic for the hosting duo of Anne Hathaway and James Franco, an optimism that is only increased when I listen to interviews of James Franco who claims he found out about his nomination only minutes before attending a Keats class at Yale.

Without further ado, my none-too-scientific response to the Oscar nominations and predictions of who should win (I'd say who would win, but I am notoriously bad at Oscar predictions, having pathetically lost at the past seven years' Oscar ballots).

Best Picture -- And The Nominees Are...

• “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"
• REACTION: I've seen all but one of these films (Winter's Bone), and frankly enjoyed most of them. There's not a single film on this list that seems glaringly undeserving, and I like that it spans genres (from horror to kids films). While I'm not entirely sold on the whole 10 Nominees thing, I do think it gives a chance for the Academy to include movies that aren't just the typical flow. I'd have loved to see a surprise nomination for the under-recognized-despite-critical-acclaim The Town and maybe some additional love for the challenging Blue Valentine, but I'm excited to see The Kids Are All Right and 127 Hours on here. Basically, this category comes down to a three way competition for me between Black Swan, The Social Network and The King's Speech. If you'd told me this summer that I wouldn't even be considering Inception, I'd have called you crazy, but I really loved these three movies.
• PREDICTION: The Social Network. I loved Black Swan, and thought the King's Speech a moving piece of classic cinema. But The Social Network is infinitely timeless, a modern day tale of hubris and loneliness that rivals anything produced throughout time and produced with infinite talent and personal expression.

• Actor in a Leading Role -- And the Nominees Are...

  • Javier Bardem in “Biutiful”
  • Jeff Bridges in “True Grit”
  • Jesse Eisenberg in “The Social Network”
  • Colin Firth in “The King's Speech”
  • James Franco in “127 Hours”
  REACTION: Besides my aforementioned disgust at the fact that Ryan Gosling wasn't recognized for his fantastic turn in Blue Valentine, I can definitely see most of these nominees. And it basically comes down to a two way race for me, between the cool, collected-to-the-point-of-nearly-psychopathic turn by Jesse Eisenberg in "The Social Network" and the one man show that is James Franco in "127 Hours."
  PREDICTION: And it's Franco, by a nose. Eisenberg's turn is nothing short of revelatory in The Social Network, but he's a part of an amazing ensemble. Franco is a tour-de-force in the film and it's entirely his performance that makes the movie.

  Actress in a Leading Role -- And The Nominees Are...

  • Annette Bening in “The Kids Are All Right”
  • Nicole Kidman in “Rabbit Hole”
  • Jennifer Lawrence in “Winter's Bone”
  • Natalie Portman in “Black Swan”
  • Michelle Williams in “Blue Valentine”

  RESPONSE: To start with, I haven't seen Rabbit Hole, but I've heard Kidman's amazing. And both The Kids Are All Right, Black Swan, and Blue Valentine were all actorly paradises that allowed their lead actresses to truly shine. In a year that seemed kind of weak on female performances in retrospect, it's still striking just HOW strong these performances are.
  PREDICTION: I'm going with Natalie for this one. She had to completely transform her own public image along with her body, and she did it in a way that not only felt real amongst a horror-pastiche of magical realism but also managed to anchor the story in a true emotional core.

  Animated Feature Film -- And The Nominees Are...

  • “How to Train Your Dragon” Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois
  • “The Illusionist” Sylvain Chomet
  • “Toy Story 3” Lee Unkrich
  RESPONSE: And here's where I become a crumudgeon. For the past 3 years, I have sincerely believed that an animated film was the best of the year. And this year, three of my top ten movies were animated (Toy Story 3, Despicable Me, and Tangled). But this category is kind of bull hooey. First of all, Toy Story 3 is already nominated as one of the BEST films of the year. That means that of all genres, all movies made last year, Toy Story 3 has been recognized as one of the best. How, therefore, can it be judged against two movies that were not so nominated, and have anyone expect any movie but Toy Story 3 to win? I'm not saying that Toy Story 3 is a lock (although traditionally Best Animated Feature Film has been all Pixar all the time), I'm just saying that in an awards ceremony that doesn't distinguish by ANY other genre, it's ridiculous that animated films are treated differently than other genres, especially when animated films have consistently been some of the best films of the year.
  PREDICTION: That being said, Toy Story 3. More or less guaranteed. How To Train Your Dragon was a surprisingly effective success story, and The Illusionist is the little cartoon that could, but Toy Story 3 was a trilogy capper unparalleled in the history of trilogies. It's a truly gorgeous ending to a film saga that has literally chronicled my generation's childhood while helping older generations come to grips with the loss of their own.

  Actor in a Supporting Role -- And The Nominees Are...

  • Christian Bale in “The Fighter”
  • John Hawkes in “Winter's Bone”
  • Jeremy Renner in “The Town”
  • Mark Ruffalo in “The Kids Are All Right”
  • Geoffrey Rush in “The King's Speech”
  REACTION AND PREDICTION: I have no more on this category to say besides Christian Bale. He has consistently been the best actor of his generation (sure, snicker because of Batman, but I will stuff so much American Psycho, The Machinist, Rescue Dawn and 3:10 To Yuma down your throat), and he more than deserves this nomination for his energetic, sympathetic and above all funny turn as a washed-up boxer in "The Fighter."

  Actress in a Supporting Role -- And The Nominees Are...

  • Amy Adams in “The Fighter”
  • Helena Bonham Carter in “The King's Speech”
  • Melissa Leo in “The Fighter”
  • Hailee Steinfeld in “True Grit”
  • Jacki Weaver in “Animal Kingdom”
  PREDICTION AND REACTION: Hailee Steinfeld should be a lock for this category, mainly because she singlehandedly makes True Grit the excellent picture that it is. Adams and Leo are fine in The Fighter, Carter is her typical excellence in The King's Speech, and I haven't seen Animal Kingdom, but Steinfeld shows a grace, maturity and most of all bad-assness in True Grit that not only makes the movie, but makes me want her to be the protagonist Katniss Everdeen in my new favorite book, The Hunger Games (which check out my hunger games review if you want to know what a big deal that is for me).

  Directing -- And The Nominees Are...

  • “Black Swan” Darren Aronofsky
  • “The Fighter” David O. Russell
  • “The King's Speech” Tom Hooper
  • “The Social Network” David Fincher
  • “True Grit” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
  REACTION: If Danny Boyle were nominated, I would say he should win, hands down. I'm also surprised to see a lack of Chris Nolan here (I imagine it's a bit of Inception backlash).
• PREDICTION: Darren Aronofsky, by a nose. I think David Fincher pulled off something fantastic with The Social Network, but I think Aronofsky walked a tight rope with Black Swan that I believe he fell just on the right side of. He staged a cinematic ballet-turned-horror-story that held me captive from beginning to end. That being said, I won't be upset if it turns into the David Fincher show.

There are a few other categories that I care about (Best Adapted Screenplay should be a "Social Network" lock, Best Original Screenplay should be "Inception," and Cinematography should easily go to "True Grit"), but mostly I'm just interested in how this many talented films play against each other in the race towards the Academy Awards.

Exclusive Interview with "The Trotsky" Writer/Director Jacob Tierney

 One of the best films to come out of Canada last year (actually, just one of the best films period) was The Trotsky, a comedy about a teenage re-incarnation of the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, starring Jay Baruchel and Colm Feore. 

If you've seen the film (as all of you should have), you'll remember the lackadaisical 20-something version of Lenin who Leon tracks down at the end of the film. That's actually Jacob Tierney, the film's young writer and director. 

The Trotsky is nominated for a 2010 My Cinema Awards for Best Comedy and Jacob himself is nominated for Best Screenplay. 

Last week I got the chance to speak with the clever and amicable writer/director about The Trotsky, his writing process and current projects. 

Read on for our full interview

On The Western Front

First let me apologize for that title, it's inexcusably bad. But I had to come up with an excuse to talk about The Coen Brothers' grimy and excellent western True Grit in the same article as the melancholy story of a country western singer Country Strong, which I think is just as well executed, if not as showily artistic.

True Grit has been and will be getting lots of recognition by critics and award shows. Jeff Bridges will be nominated for things and the Coens will be invited to the Oscars- because they always are. Which is not to take anything away from their work on True Grit, it's excellent work. The only Coen film I've ever really liked, True Grit is a brilliantly composed story of a girl trying to track down her father's murderer, based on a novel by Charles Portis. The script is very well written, the film insightfully directed by the oft-lauded Coens and they deserve the awards they'll get for this one.

But I'm not sold on Bridges. Last year's Oscar winner does a fine job in the film, but his character lacks nuance, slipping into caricature at times, spitting and sprawling his way through the story. Compared to his wonderfully human performance in last year's Crazy Heart, Bridges seems to me to not be at his very best in True Grit, and I certainly don't think his character places him in the "leading actor" category, industry politics are the ones doing that.  Instead, I believe the praise should be falling where it hasn't been quite as much. Hailee Steinfeld, whose only acknowledgement so far has been a SAG nomination for supporting actress, is the heart and soul of the film. Not only is she unquestioningly a leading actress not a supporting one (it's her story), the 14 year old does a phenomenal job with an incredibly complex role. As the main character Mattie Ross, Steinfeld gives a remarkably mature performance that easily overshadows her Oscar-nominated/winning co-stars (Bridges, Matt Damon and Josh Brolin- all of whom really are very good in the film). The well-praised True Grit has somehow managed to house the most underrated performance of the year.

Country Strong, on the other hand, is getting overlooked on all counts. Here we have yet another instance of me disagreeing with the norm. With a rotten tomatoes score of only 17% and a Metascore of 44/100, consensus seems to be that Country Strong is pretty weak. But I disagree. I found it engaging. I think Gwyneth Paltrow does an exceptional job with a realistic horror show of a fallen-angel character (all-too familiar in this day and age) and the film tells an accessible, recognizable and interesting story. Supporting actors Tim McGraw, Garrett Hedlund and Leighton Meester are all excellent as well. Meester, in particular, surpasses expectations as an upstart singer. I expected her character to be a one-dimensional villain who would swoop in and push Paltrow's Kelly Cantor out of the spotlight, and possibly steal her husband along the way.

I was delighted to find that Chiles (Meester) is much more interesting than that. They all are. No one is an archetype, they're all wonderfully complexly gray. The music also fully surpasses expectations, working in 3 different styles of country music and performance and featuring extremely strong vocals from Paltrow, Meester and Hedlund. All four principal characters are equally compelling and well-executed in this well-told but simple story. Is it being overlooked because of the glittery guitar and the blond curls? Because I really think it's a truly excellent film.

Out of England

There are two distinctly British films playing in theatres right now. The King's Speech, one of Oscar's top contenders, is a formal high-art story about monarchy, duty and the pressure of expectation. Made in Dagenham is a scrappy, spirited, populist film about factory workers fighting for their rights. The former's principle plot is centered on elocution; much of the dialogue in the latter is so colloquial that it's hard to understand. Two more different accounts of the British experience are hard to imagine, but there is much more connecting them than their country of origin.

Both are technically very good films. They feature excellent performances from their leads (Colin Firth, for the second year in a row finally proving how great he's always been, and Sally Hawkins, bringing her Happy-Go-Lucky pluck to a deeper role), strong supporting players (King's Geoffrey Rush and Dagenham's Miranda Richardson, among others), solid scripts and clever direction. Both are stories of overcoming adversity, about leadership, about standing up for yourself and what's right. Both are true stories, centered on national political issues and are told somewhat cheekily. Both also suffer from some slow plotting and the occasional corny moment. But both overcome that easily.

Ultimately, The King's Speech is the better movie. The performances are pitch-perfect, the script tighter, the direction more artistic and the story more unique and therefore compelling.  It's plain and simple just a very good film and is deserving of much of the praise that's been heaped on it. I'll be annoyed if it sweeps all the major awards, but it certainly deserves some of them. In a year with tons of great films from the lofty King's Speech to the underrated Dagenham, celebrating just one seems plainly wrong.

Rabbit Hole: the movie

The new film adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize/Tony-winning play Rabbit Hole has gotten some excellent reviews. If I were watching this film as an original story, who knows, I might agree with them. But as an adaptation of the remarkable play I saw just a few months ago, the film of Rabbit Hole is but a shadow of what it could be.

At a basic level, the screenplay adaptation by playwright David Lindsay Abaire undermines the story in its attempt to broaden it to fit the new medium. Updates like the footage of Danny being on his father's phone instead of on videotape seem like good ideas for modern believability but it lessened the significance of the moment. It's not really possible to delete a video from a phone unless you view it first or go looking for it with the express purpose of deleting it. Becca's insistence that she just made a phone call makes it seem like she's lying, she deleted it on purpose. The loss of ambiguity and supposition of guilt takes away from her character.

Glimpses inside the grief support group are a good addition but should have been played a bit funnier- in keeping with the darkly comic undertones of the original play. I like the inclusion of Auggie, that's the only change I think really adds much of anything. Sandra Oh's character is interesting as a character in herself (I like the idea of a character as a possible version of Becca and Howie a few years further down the line) but the consequences of her storyline with Howie do nothing to deepen his character.

But it's the rearranging of Becca's relationship with Jason that is perhaps the most disappointing of the major script changes. One of my favourite parts of the play, the reading of Jason's letter to Becca, is understandably eliminated (letters are hard on screen), but I think it's really important to Jason's character to have him be the one to make contact, not Becca. As it plays in the film, the development of their relationship is far more clandestine than it needs to be. It seems almost inappropriate, stalker-ish. Becca's unexpected path in dealing with grief seems more wrong than different in the film when a major aspect of the play is that there is no wrong way to grieve.

But many of the original lines do remain, including my favourite speech, where Nat tells Becca that eventually the grief will become something she can live with, carry around like a brick in her pocket. And even with some undermining changes, a good story is a good story.

However, the casting of the film is truly perplexing. Miles Teller is an okay Jason and Tammy Blanchard is just fine as Izzy. Neither is particularly inspiring, which is depressing in itself, but they're not bad either. Neither is Diane Wiest as Nat. She's a bit whiny at times and perhaps too soft-spoken for an out-spoken character but she does a fine job with her pivotal speech.

What bothers me about Aaron Eckhart in the role of Howie is that as much as I convince myself that he really is a good actor, I hardly ever believe in him (other than his perfect turn as Harvey Dent). His jaw is too square, his biceps too big, his hair too perfect; he just sort of looks like a Ken doll. He plays as too perfect, too strong. The over-the-top scene in which he yells at Jason for entering their house is scary, less because he seems to be cracking his perfect demeanor and more because he evokes an army drill sergeant. Eckhart plays the more tender moments better, but overall just seems like a strange choice.

But the real heart of the piece is Becca, a terribly complex character who can be no less than admirable and no more than aggravating. She has to be a boiling pot of troubles that aren't allowed to reach a boil. She has to be defensive and over-compensating and neurotic and never anything other than deserving of pathos. But Nicole Kidman can't do that. I really just don't think she can. She always looks like she's acting, not being. And even in her best moments she seems cold, not in a distanced-person-who-suffered-a-great-loss way, in a "I'm afraid of your germs, keep your distance" way. I don't buy Nicole Kidman as a mother (which is weird because I know she is one), nor is there really any connection between her and the other characters (not even Jason, with whom Becca's inexplicable connection is a crux of the piece). I know she's an Oscar-winner and considered a great actress, but Becca's an unmistakably human, empathetic, complicated character and I just think that casting the star of Stepford Wives was a mistake. That sounded harsh. Here's the thing: Nicole Kidman is very very good at some things, this is not it. And it is predictably not it. And the casting director should have known that. And Rabbit Hole without Becca isn't much at all.

Unexpected Golden Globe Nominees

It really is a shame that The Golden Globes, one of the only major award shows that makes a point of acknowledging comedies and musicals, often does such a bad job of it. Academy pretension will most likely keep talented comedy actors like Emma Stone out of the Oscar race, so The Globes is where they are allowed to shine. But the accomplishments of such oft-overlooked achievers are degraded when voters lump them in with less deserving but bigger-name stars just to fill up the categories. E online (among others) has been swiping freely at 2 contenders in particular: The Tourist and Burlesque. One is an over-the-top, nominated-in-the-wrong-category badly executed snooze fest that clearly was nominated to get the star count up. The other isn't actually all that bad.


THE TOURIST

Oh the Mediocrity!

Golden Globe nominee Angelina Jolie walks around a lot. And pouts, she's good with the pouting. Golden Globe nominee Johnny Depp wanders aimlessly, mutters the occasional fun quip then reveals an unenlightened twist.

The setting's nice, the costumes are pretty and I like Paul Bettany (mostly out of residual love from A Beautiful Mind and A Knight's Tale), but that's it. The 2 superstars at the centre of the movie are just that, superstars, not actors. Which is particularly sad because both (especially Johnny) are quite capable of acting circles around so many others. Their complete lack of chemistry is almost alarming and to say the writing was pedantic is the biggest understatement since calling the horrifyingly obvious twist ending merely "unenlightened".

The Tourist is a big-budget, big-stars waste of time. It also in no way qualifies as either a musical or a comedy and yet somehow was nominated as one. But hey, it'll put some more famous faces on the red carpet.

BURLESQUE

The seemingly showy musical, on the other hand, lacks the self-important grandiosity of The Tourist. For all its sequins and glitter, Burlesque possesses an almost self-deprecating simplicity and is no worse off for it.

Unlike last year's glitzy musical Nine, Burlesque sports a cast of oft-mocked, remarkably talented folks instead of Oscar winners and their pal autotune. Perfectly cast, Cher's identity as a somewhat has-been but still utterly fabulous icon lends a brilliant melancholy to her character, a trod-upon diva too tough to acknowledge defeat and too passionate to back down. Her musical number "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me" is an aching anthem of "this is Cher's world, you're just watching it" diva-ness. And speaking of divas, there has never been, nor will there ever be anyone quite like Christina. Other than the aforementioned ballad, the film's songs are generally uninspired, but in the hands of the definitive beltress, they shake the floorboards. The pint-sized fireball raises the standard ingenue-with-a-dream character to new heights, not with outstanding acting, but by giving her the voice that makes her deserving of that dream.

The writing is pretty rocky, but the film is well-paced and the audience too entertained to care. The romance storyline is well-developed, aided in no small part by the crazy chemistry between Christina and Cam Gigandet (who somehow manages to come off as trustworthy despite his perfect abs and guy-liner). Stanley Tucci also adds some cred to the film with his wonderful role as Cher's best friend (but I've never not loved Tucci, including that time last year when he played a serial killer).

But it's the idea that this cast needs extra cred that I think is a problem. True, Christina is not an actress, but the role really requires a singer, and no one's better than her. Cher, however many years ago it may have been, is an Oscar-winning actress. Alan Cumming and Peter Gallagher are respected Broadway performers. Julianne Hough and Chelsea Traille are some of the brightest dancing talents in North America (and Hough's presence lends a fun irony to a tongue-in-cheek Dancing with the Stars joke). Gigandet is just plain good in the role, who cares if he was once on The OC or had a part in Twilight. The rest of the excellent cast is filled out by actors whose biggest crime is that they work predominantly in TV: the always-great Eric Dane from Grey's Anatomy, Kristen Bell (one of television's great heroines as Veronica Mars, whose been slumming it in her last few films), the charming Glee star Dianna Agron, even the lesser-known David Walton (100 Questions) makes his mark on the film. The cast of Burlesque truly is excellent, they're just not "movie stars".

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Burlesque is the greatest film of the year, I don't even think it's close. But it is underrated. It's not even close to bad. It's entertaining, decently executed and shows off some really talented people. It's a solid movie musical and deserves not to be laughed at for being nominated as such. It's at least better than Mamma Mia!, but that had bigger stars- I'm just saying.

Really, Razzies?

Normally, I find the Razzies (the annual ignominious movie awards given out to the worst movies of the year) pretty accurate. But this year, they decided to nominate The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, and I gotta call bullshit.

First off, let me clarify. Twilight: Eclipse is not great art, nor is it a fantastic movie bound to win over people who hate the series. HOWEVER, it is also not an awful, worthless movie a la most Razzie winners (or for that matter, previous Twilight installments). In fact, in terms of direction and acting, it's actually the best of the series. It's really cool to hate on Twilight because teen girls love it and teen girls are all ridiculous, hormone-ridden airheads, but that doesn't make its inclusion on this list any less baloney.

The Razzies, reacting to the counter-culture desire to hate on all things Edward Cullen, is ignoring many far more worthy contenders for their ire, like Valentine's Day (which made me chuck popcorn at the movie screen), Leap Year ( which made me audibly groan through half) and When In Rome (which came dangerously close to making me dislike Kristen Bell).