So many goddamn Miramax films! That's the big thing I noticed while watching all the films for this year was just how many started out with the Miramax logo, which means the Weinsteins had a big hand in probably bribing or wining and dining voters to get their films and people nominated. I hate that aspect of the Oscars. Wish the films and performances would just be voted on for their own merits and not because someone gave them money to do so. This is definitely right around the heyday of Miramax who had a very prominent role for a few years before it died down, thankfully. On to the films, though!
2002 Best Picture
Chicago
I love musicals! But I'm having a hard time figuring out what sets Chicago apart and makes it a Best Picture winner. So what does makes it an Oscar winner? The songs are only okay, the acting is not totally great, the singing is awful, the dancing is cringe worthy and the feel of it is inauthentic. So why did this win Best Picture? Simple answer: no fucking clue. As I alluded to in my write-up of the Best Supporting Actress group, I feel like Chicago hit at the right time after Moulin Rouge! broke out the year prior and it became evident that the public's appetite for flashy musicals was still there. It does seem like a cash and Oscar grab kind of movie, somehow capturing the zeitgeist and doing extremely well. Maybe people wanted a movie that was all about fun and made them feel good after the world completely turned on it's head in 2001? The rest of the Best Picture nominees is certainly not an uplifting, feel good, let's have a great time group. Maybe it just simply appeals to the lowest common denominator? It's not a terrible movie by any means and I can absolutely see the appeal. But it never fully comes together for me. It's got the spectacle part down pat and has a great look to it especially during the song and dance numbers. I think that's easily the best part of the movie, the way it looks. But I'm not sold on the performances or the music or the dancing and all of that is pretty vital to the success of a musical. I'm glad a musical won, I just wish it was a better musical that was able to win Best Picture instead of the mediocrity we get with Chicago.
Gangs of New York
I really enjoy watching this film but confession time, prior to right now I had never watched it all the way through in one sitting. It's just under three hours long and Martin Scorsese is notorious for letting his films go on and on even when they should probably be trimmed down. One of the big complaints for Gangs of New York is just that. That it is too long and the story (and Scorsese) needed to be reigned in. On one hand I can kind of agree with that. I find the love story part between DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz is mostly dull and boring and pretty unnecessary. I also really dislike Diaz in the role of the love interest because I just don't think she's a good fit at all. Her accent is alright, I guess, but I just don't buy the love interest part. She's a little bit better at playing the tough thief/pickpocket ward of Bill the Butcher but not enough to sell me on the rest of her character. And that's the big minus for the film for me. Maybe if her part was lessened the story would be a bit more focused and not so long. But on the other hand, Scorsese has so much material to work with and it's clearly obvious he wanted to try and include as much of it as he could. I own the book this story is derived from and it is very dense with so many different names, gangs, places, and just overall information about that time period. A miniseries might have better suited the concept so as to be able to tell all the different stories about the different gangs and about the corruption and culture of that time instead of focusing on Bill the Butcher and lightly touching on the myriad of other things. Now that would have been something to see. But the film version is quite good anyway. I love the music that plays throughout and sort of personifies the different gangs or moods, just a nice touch. And the film looks amazing. Vivid colors and the set pieces look and feel lived in and not just constructed on a sound stage. It's a very real production and one that's a lot of fun to watch. The DDL versus DiCaprio storyline is insanely good because both are phenomenal actors and they throw themselves 100% into their roles. It's easily the strength of the film and I wish Scorsese had more tightly focused on them instead of shoehorning the rather lame love triangle idea.
The Hours
I didn't realize that this was a Stephen Daldry film, but it made sense after I found out. I didn't like The Reader and I wasn't a fan of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and I can't say that I really liked The Hours all that much, either. Each had different reasons but they were all too melodramatic for my tastes. The Hours, however, was also quite dull. That's the main thing that I read about in some of the more negative reviews and I'd have to agree. It's dull and for me the plot is a bit convoluted. The three stories are tangentially related but I didn't really see why or how they related to each other in any real important way. The Hours is about the depressed author Virginia Woolf who is writing a book, Mrs. Dalloway, that Moore's housewife character reads and connects with leaving her to abandon her family. Moore's son grows up to be a famous poet that's also gay and angry about the abandonment and is friends with Streep's character whose name is Clarissa like the main character of Woolf's book. It's a dour two hours and the score is relentlessly ever present, though I do enjoy Phillip Glass otherwise. The film thrives on the acting performances which are all quite good. But I think it's just too slow and somber and not nearly as interesting as it wants to be. It's definitely not the type of film I can see people going back to over and over. Watch it once and experience and that's plenty enough. Without the acting, there's just not much else to watch.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Two Towers picks up right where Fellowship of the Ring leaves off. Duh. But I do love how seamlessly they transition into one another. It's quite evident that the trilogy was filmed all at once and that was a brilliant decision by Peter Jackson. Everyone looks the same, the production values are are the same, there's no weird inconsistencies that jump out at you screaming to be noticed. You can focus on the story and become instantly immersed again. Two Towers introduces a ton more of Gollum which might be the single best use of CGI and motion capture acting ever. It's not too jarring and fits in extremely well. Gollum is a fully fleshed out character, acting and voice work included, which is a testament to Andy Serkis' acting abilities. One that carved out a career for himself and thrust motion capture acting into the Oscar discussion as a legitimate choice for nominations. One day I think we'll see a motion capture performance or one like it be nominated, all thanks to this beginning. As for the film itself, I think the major issue against Two Towers is that it is the middle film. The gang has already started their journey and it ends with them still on their journey. There are more action pieces, sure, even impressive ones. But it's easy to get bored at certain points, usually in between those action scenes. It just doesn't have the same flow as Fellowship and so, tends to drag. It's still a great film but not as great as the first one to me.
The Pianist
This was always a film that intrigued me when looking over my list of films to watch for my project. All I ever knew about this one was that it was a long, sad, Holocaust film that also had the youngest Oscar winning Best Actor performance in it. So one hand, it's kind of dreaded due to the whole depressing Holocaust thing and on the other I was anxious to see how Adrien Brody beat out 4 other heavily Oscared veteran actors. And after watching it...wow. It's definitely way better than I ever imagined it would be. It's for sure powerful, emotional, compelling, maddening, depressing, hopeful, and matter-of-fact. It has great acting from Adrien Brody as he survives and hides from Nazi capture in Warsaw, Poland. It has some imagery that should and will resonate with the viewer. Some of the atrocities committed by the Nazis on the Jews are just so matter-of-fact with no great fanfare and brutal in their bluntness that they should stick in your mind forever. How anyone could ever believe that the Holocaust was faked or that Jews deserved what they got is beyond my comprehension. It's a reprehensible part of human history and it's good that we have film to remind us that yeah, this actually happened. Roman Polanski's childhood was similar to Brody's character in that he escaped a Polish ghetto like this one and hid out until the war was over. The intensity of some of the scenes is evident and the film has a no non-sense feel to it. This isn't playing up things for shock value. It's presenting a truth in the most unashamed way. The filmmaking doesn't really celebrate or linger on things for too long. It kind of mirrors Brody's performance of starting out kinda meh or unsure but quickly finds it's voice and releases itself in such a passionate way. It does feel autobiographical at times and it just comes off as a powerful reminder that yes, this did happen and here's the cold truth. Look at it, take it in, remember it, and never forget. We certainly won't forget The Pianist.
When you really look at this group of nominees, I mean really look hard at the 5, what honestly could have won? The Two Towers is the middle film in a trilogy that's going to get it's due next year anyway. The Hours is ultimately kind of dour and depressing and doesn't really inspire anyone to clamor for a win. The Pianist is a Holocaust film that is also depressing and sad and long and, well, a Holocaust film. It was a heavy favorite at points before the ceremony having won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, BAFTA for Best Film, Cesar (French Oscars) for Best Film and many, many others. Gangs of New York is a very long, violent, aggressive, manly film that's good but also alienating. When I put it that way, Chicago actually looks like the easy, no shit choice. It's really not a surprise it won, especially with the Weinsteins behind it. It's the only truly feel good film of the bunch and coming after a difficult year in an uncertain world it makes sense. Do I agree? Nah. I just don't feel Chicago is strong enough to be a winner and Gangs of New York is pretty good though I'm not as fervent of an advocate as say when I was in high school and thought it was soooo awesome. I do think it would be a good winner, though. But right now I'd have to give it to The Pianist. I don't feel manipulated by it which is good for a Holocaust film. Present the story and let history be the background. It's just really good and even if it's sobering, it would probably make a better winner in hindsight than Chicago.
Oscar Winner: Chicago
My Winner: The Pianist
Gangs of New York
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Chicago
The Hours
No comments:
Post a Comment