the Oscars

Watched it at the O'Zee's place. Was thinking about Zee's question of whether Top Gun (1986) won anything, so I looked it up. It did: it was nominated for Best Sound Effects, Sound Editing, Visual Effects, and won (of all things) Best Original Song for Berlin's "Take My Breath Away".

---

At first, however, I mistakenly looked at 1987 Oscars (which took place in 1988) as opposed to the 1986 Oscars (which took place in 1987), and I found it much more interesting. What was most striking was the disconnect between the movies the Academy deemed "the best" and which ones have the most cultural currency today.

A trite point, I know, and the Oscars aren't necessarily about movies that will be timeless rather than capturing the zeitgeist, but it's a fun exercise nonetheless.

The "Best Picture" nominees that year were The Last Emperor, Broadcast News, Fatal Attraction, Hope and Glory, and Moonstruck. The Last Emperor won, its last of 9 wins that year. It won in every category for which it was nominated. Other movies that figured prominently in that year's Oscars included Wall Street (for which Michael Douglas picked up "Best Actor"), Ironweed (starring perennial Oscar favorites Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep, both of whom were nominated), and The Untouchables.

Of the Best Picture nominees, Fatal Attraction caused something of a scandal because it was widely thought that it was unworthy of such attention. I might have thought the same thing were I in my 30's in 1987; though I tend to root for "off-genre" movies at the Oscars, in retrospect Fatal Attraction was sickeningly chauvinistic. It is, however, far and away the most memorable of the nominees from my standpoint.

Now let's talk about some of the movies that either had only unsuccessful nominations or were wholly snubbed by the Academy that year:

• Empire of the Sun


• Raising Arizona. Holly Hunter was nominated that year, but for her role in Broadcast News


• Full Metal Jacket. Stanley Kubrick died having never won Best Director


• The Princess Bride

---

Regarding this year's ceremony, though, there were some other oddities and interesting facts worth pointing out:

1. Morgan Freeman still has never won an Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role, and only has one Supporting Nod (for Million Dollar Baby).


2. Lee Daniels (Precious) is the second African American to be nominated for Best Director -- ever. The first was John Singleton, for Boyz in the Hood.


3. This was Colin Firth's first nomination


4. This was Stanley Tucci's first nomination


5. This was Christopher Plummer's first nomination. His first movie role was in 1958


6. Sandra Bullock also "won" the Razzie for Worst Actress this year for All About Steve

My three favorite movies of the year, Star Trek, The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Where the Wild Things Are, got snubbed. Star Trek won one award on four technical nominations. Fox got two nominations. Wild Things got nothing, not even a single nomination.

Star Trek

Saw it last weekend. It was the first movie I've seen in perhaps years that I finished and wanted to walk right back into the theater to watch again. It's a great movie, and the art direction and costuming are particularly inspired. It's amazing to watch the way the movie adopts the style and clothing and geometry of the original series, yet makes slight changes here and there that suddenly make those old uniforms and ships and hair styles different and cool.

Plus, Zachary Quinto eats up the camera every time he's in the shot. He manages to add subtle undercurrents of emotion under Spock's stoic exterior (and the occasional not-so-subtle boiling over) that make him especially fun to watch. Quinto's Spock is a very different animal from Nimoy's, one whose emotions are much closer to the surface and more actively held in check. There's a particular neck pinch, for instance, where Quinto's expression seems unchanged from everywhere else in the movie, but he seems somehow... unimpressed with his victim, which adds a nice element of humor to the scene and gives Spock a hint of what we might think of as "swagger." This Spock isn't just a badass; he knows he's a badass. And he can bring some serious pain if you manage to piss him off.

Abrams had a lot of fun making this movie, and it's a hoot to watch.

my only Oscars thought

The Academy's genre bias becomes less tenable every year. It ghettoizes animated and foreign films into their own "separate, but equal" categories and banishes action films to the depths of the technical awards.

This year the momentary breakdown of one bias only highlighting the continuance of the others.

Oscar failed to deal with the plain fact that two of the best, biggest efforts (if not the two) with the most impressive production and directing and overall execution that were the most entertaining, the two crown jewels of the film industry in 2008, were an action movie based on a comic book and an animated film with virtually no speaking lines.

These two movies put together won 3 awards. Slumdog Millionaire won 8.

"Daddy's making fajitas"

This is pretty funny.

McCain commercials, as shot by 3 famous directors

Hysterical and totally nonpartisan, so your McCain supporting friends/family can enjoy these, too:

new movies and old devils

A real murderer's row coming up to a theater near you.

I dunno. I find it hard to believe such a loathsome human being could engender enough sympathy to make a good movie, at least this close to the disaster that was his presidency.

Then again, I guess one could have said the same thing about The Last King of Scotland. Plus, it did't help the first clip that the dialog was awful.

Speaking of loathsome human beings engendering just enough sympathy to make a great movie:

I was happy to find that the villain is Mathieu Amalric, the lead from The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. That is one damn talented Frenchman.

And speaking of loathsome, well, you get the idea:

I'm actually very excited about this one.

The Dark Knight

[potential spoilers in this post, read at your own peril]

Great, great movie. Pretty morally ambiguous for a superhero film, which makes it even more fascinating to watch. A buddy of mine noted how much of a post-9/11 movie this is, as it invokes some of our privacy vs. security debates and fear of terrorists blowing up buildings and whatnot. Maybe someone's already spilled barrels of ink discussing the Joker is the ultimate terrorist, playing upon all our caricatures of them. Rene makes some good observations, especially about the more technical aspects of the film.

Rene is also right about the Joker and the screenplay writer's choice not to flesh out his back story. To take it a step further, in point of fact Nolan's Joker actively mocks the audience's expectation to be provided some sort of pop psychological justification for the Joker's madness. The Joker is not some mere lunatic with an agenda like Scarecrow (or, frankly, like Tim Burton's Joker); he's a primal force, a manifestation of Chaos, the perfect counter to Batman, the embodiment of cold, rigid Order. The two of them are locked in a perpetual struggle for the soul of Gotham, both utterly unyielding in their demand that the city conform to their ethos, while everyone else is stuck being pulled in either direction, trying to navigate a survivable path between the two.

This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

Batman and the Joker share one big thing in common: both are fundamentally outsiders to the rest of humanity. The Joker lives off the grid, and has no records or Social Security number or last known address or even legal name. Batman is similarly separate from the system, even though he, at least, has an alter ego. Both are scorned by the city they are trying to change, labeled as "freaks." And, of course, both act in fundamentally deviant manners. After all, Bruce Wayne is a man whose parents were brutally murdered in front of him and who satiates his unquenchable trauma-induced rage by moonlighting as a vigilante dressed up as his childhood phobia. He is not exactly what we would consider a pinnacle of clear-eyed sanity, and no one highlights that fact as effectively as the Joker. There is a question in this movie as to which one of them is more self aware, as there should be.

This movie focuses on that struggle between these two primal forces via the battle for the soul of Harvey Dent, who is the real focus of the movie. What's interesting about it is, as those of you have seen the movie or are acquainted with the Batman universe know [spoiler alert!], the Joker wins that battle. In fact, in an ironic turn, it is the Joker's victory that prevents Batman from retiring.

For me, the most surprising casualty of The Dark Knight was actually my appreciation for Batman (1989). I'd never really realized before just how badly Tim Burton shortchanged the yin and yang rivalry between Batman and the Joker by allowing Batman a complete and total victory and carelessly tossing the Joker aside at the end of the movie. Also, seeing Heath Ledger completely disappear behind a thin, patchy coat of makeup makes the 1989 version look a little too much like Jack Nicholson playing the Joker playing Jack Nicholson. And yes, Ledger deserves an Oscar nomination for creating the best villain in any superhero movie ever.

Oh, and those of you who've been to Chicago will recognize Millenium Station, City Hall, and I believe W. Wacker Dr.

WALL-E

100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes (!), though they didn't include Stephanie Zacharek from Salon, who didn't like it (she's like Roger Ebert in that she's a brilliant critic, but will occasionally muff a painfully obvious call, so I'm guessing the chorus is right on this one). Several of the reviewers reference Chaplin in describing the quality of the humor, and many of them say it's Pixar's best film ever. A better animated movie than Finding Nemo and The Incredibles? Wow.

I'm actually pretty excited about this movie.

Jesus Camp

I actually put this movie into my Netflix queue expecting something more. It's shot well enough, and the filmmakers focused in on 2 kids, Rachael and Levi, that are at times frightening or heartbreaking, and always sympathetic. We all knew kids at some point that share Rachael's adorably frenetic way of speaking and Levi's earnest desire to please the adults in the room. Also, the focus at the end of the movie on Ted Haggard was, of course, prescient.

That being said, I think there's an element of scaremongering in the movie's billing that bothers me. The previews imply that Jesus Camp exposes the bible camps of "evangelical Christians" as places where they brainwash their kids into becoming the terrorists of the future. First of all, the movie doesn't focus just on generic "evangelical Christians”; it's a movie about Pentecostals, a pretty radical evangelical denomination. Yet they are used to represent all "evangelical Christians,” even though most evangelicals would find thing like prophecy and speaking in tongues and collapsing in church pretty bizarre. The willingness to stretch such an egregious example into a representation of the whole of evangelicalism makes me wonder to what degree the bible camp shown here is also anomalous.

Admittedly, just Pentecostals, or even just this woman, preparing kids for terrorism would be scary, but the movie doesn't deliver that, either. For all the military imagery used by the adults and kids, for all the uses of terms like "soldiers of Christ" and being prepared to die for God, the movie never establishes that these kids are willing, or taught to be willing, to do violence in the name of their religion. Anyone familiar with evangelicalism knows that the evangelical martyrdom fantasy involves not killing Muslims or bombing abortion clinics, but having a gun put to your head and being told to recant or die, and there's no evidence these people are picturing anything different. The woman running the camp even mentions at one point that she's NOT talking about violence.

What you're left with is a movie about parents with quirky religious perspectives who indoctrinate their kids with all their radical beliefs and political views without any respect for the children's freedom of thought or psychological well-being. That, however, is hardly peculiar to "evangelical Christians," and though sad, is not exactly something worth staying up at night worrying about.

for all you little Hulkamaniacs

So, if it stars Edward Norton, Tim Roth, and William Hurt, it has to be good. Right?

what is the worst movie ever?

An interesting article on a fun exercise, but I have two issues with it:

1. the qualifications upon which he insists are virtually impossible. How can a movie both start with the promise of not being awful and have a terrible reputation that precedes it... and live up to that reputation?

2. The writer's choice for Worst. Movie. Ever., the 1980 "anti-western" Heaven's Gate, may have offended the sensibilities of the fine hosers at the Toronto Film Festival, but it then moved on to Cannes... where it was nominated for the Palm d'Or. I'm not saying it's not a terrible movie (I haven't seen it so I don't know), but it sounds like it only did so much damage because it was so horrendously expensive. Plus, the director's cut received better reviews.

I'm having a hard time with a pick of my own, however. I've typically tried to avoid the worst of the worst, so I'm in no position to decide if Caligula or Battlefield Earth or Gigli is the worst ever. I did see Summer of Sam, which to this day is the only movie I've walked out of, and I also saw the third The Prophecy movie which was significantly worse than that. I never saw it, but I remember Leatherface being heralded by a reputation for suckitude so profound that our local Austin news station actually did a mocking report on it, though perhaps that was also because it's a sequel to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies.

a moment of despair for my country

I held firm in my populism after seeing the lack of reaction to the Bush v. Gore in 2000. I sucked it up 4 years later when 50% of the American people voted to re-elect a man so manifestly unfit for office that I still get the sensation of vertigo when I contemplate his finger on the nuclear button. I'm hanging tough even as Democrats argue with a straight face that independents will vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain. Hillary frakin' Clinton, people! But that's alright, I could still see how otherwise sensible people can be misguided or swayed by the promise of security sometimes.

And then Meet the Spartans took in over $18 million in box office receipts. So I need a moment to blow off some steam.

In case you weren't discerning enough to tell from the poster or the commercials that this movie was perhaps not the best choice for your $10, you also had the critics, who reacted thusly:

It's so bad even Carmen Electra should be embarrassed. -Adam Graham, Detriot News

It's mind-boggling to imagine that this witless, amateurish mess came from supposedly professional writers and directors. -Frank Lovese, Film Journal International

This was the worst movie I've ever seen, so bad that I hesitate to label it a 'movie' and thus reflect shame upon the entire medium of film. -Josh Levin, Slate

I'm moving to Europe. -Aaron Hillis, The Village Voice

To prove I'm not cherry-picking, the film got a 3% freshness rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and the top critics gave it a goose egg. That's a zero. Out of 100.

And yet some one and a half million people looked at that movie and thought, "I can't think of anything I'd rather spend my $10 on! At least, anything that's not ether!" I don't know if this is the fault of the American education system or TV or paint-huffing-- perhaps the Power Rangers are involved somehow-- but this is an event far more foreboding than the impending recession or renewed escalation of violence in Iraq.

We can't even secure our borders from such barbarism.

Why so serious?

Apparently there is a reason to see I Am Legend.

Perhaps the best part: the closeup of Rachel Dawes reveals the sneering face not of Katie Holmes, but of Maggie Gyllenhaal. And can you believe that's Heath Ledger?

And to titillate your inner movie geek even more, it's now official: the Greatest Fantasy Book Ever Written will now become the Prequels to the Greatest Trilogy Ever Shot.

"Call it, friend-o"

As most of you no doubt know, I'm a huge fan of the Coen brothers, even of their new stuff (I don't care what anyone says, Intolerable Cruelty was a great movie). Even setting that aside, however, I don't remember the last time saw reviews this consistently stellar.

I can't wait for No Country for Old Men.

Stardust

Not bad. A little corny at times, but the characters are fairly interesting and there's some good jokey moments (there's a prince that bleeds blue, for instance). Deniro's character is priceless, too.

On a darker note, this now makes 4 movies in a row where some obnoxious a$$hole put a damper on the whole experience. This time, oddly, it was a 40-year-old couple who couldn't shut their traps once during THE ENTIRE FILM.

And there were only 8 people in the whole theater. I was sure we'd be safe from that crap this time.

Yeah, yeah, I know, "why didn't you go tell the manager?" you ask. Two reasons: 1. I hate confrontation, frankly, and I gather most people feel the same way, which is probably why 2. I always have to be the guy that does something about it, because no one else will, and that annoys me. Despite how much I hate confrontation, I sometimes feel a moral obligation to stand up to these a$$holes, because every time they get away with being obnoxious a$$holes it just perpetuates that behavior, and I'm condemning every poor bastard that has to share a theater with them in the future to the same plight. But why should I have to play the civility police every time I want to watch a movie?

I really don't think I can handle movie theaters anymore. I'm sick of being unable to enjoy a movie I paid out the nose for because I'm still fuming about a) the obnoxious a$$hole who couldn't just sit and watch, or b) the confrontation I had in the middle of the movie with the obnoxious a$$hole who answered my polite request to just sit and watch with some permutation of "go f&*k yourself."

And guess what, folks? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

I've seen all sorts of ideas for fixing the obnoxious a$$hole problem in theater: ban cell phones, put jamming technology in theaters, give movie-goers a remote control that alerts the staff, etc. I've got one, and I'm hearing other people say it, too. It's easier than banning cell phones and cheaper than installing phone jammers and buying a thousand special remotes. I call it "the Giuliani solution": put ushers in the theaters. One employee in each auditorium, with one job: boot out all the obnoxious a$$holes, consistently and publicly.

My guess is that, if a given theater boots all the obnoxious a$$holes at every movie showing, with utter consistency and right in front of all the other movie-goers, in 6 months the theater will be virtually obnoxious-a$$hole-free. The theater shouldn't worry about lost business: I bet 9 out of 10 obnoxious a$$holes will come back after they nurse their bruised egos, and this time they'll just sit and watch. Furthermore, the theater will gain a reputation as a place where people can actually watch movies in peace, and people might actually go to the movies more. Here's a thought: after you clean out the obnoxious a$$holes, advertise about that fact.

I guarantee you it would be a lot more effective than lecturing the audience during the commercials with singing frogs or a CGI fairy godmother. The problem ain't that the obnoxious a$$holes don't know it's rude. Until they actually see people (or themselves) being asked to leave, the fairy godmother's admonishment that they'll get kicked out is just an empty threat. Just like, once upon a time, the law against jumping the turnstiles in the subway was.