Nominated For Best Animated Short. This is my choice.

Nominated for Best Short Animation

10 Days to Oscar: Up in the Where?

The OHS Film Institute was polarized by Ryan Bingham. Walter Kirn's character by way of director Jason Reitman's (Juno) adaptation is a corporate axeman. A lone-wolf first class flyer who is obsessed with attaining the holy grail of accumulated airline miles: 10,000,000 to be exact. In the meantime, he successfully detaches himself from any lingering human contact. He is a self-proclaimed empty backpack. A shark with no possible means of forging a meaningful relationship.

Some of our students saw him as childish and self-absorbed. Some sympathized with his disillusion and referenced possible tragic causes. Still some others (read: scruffaluffagus) saw him as a disgusting illustration of everything that's wrong with America (read: capitalism).

We spent an entire class period debating the methodology and inspiration that drives a character like this.

Reitman, in the horrible ABC film clip with Peter Travers (who incidentally, I love in print but acts like a total boob on camera) that is linked below, succintly puts an end to the argument.

Start watching at 6:29...the rest is garbage, but Reitman lays down Bingham's essence succintly. It becomes obvious that Reitman also adapted the script, because he speaks with a writer's affection for character rather than a director's affection for aesthetic. This comes through in the film and makes it a gem for viewers.

I agree with everything Reitman says, and want to leave him with the last word. At the end, he describes his role as a director much in the same way I would describe my role as a teacher.

Grab video here.

Now, for relevance to the BIG SHOUE! Up in the Air isn't the Picture of the year, but it is certainly the year's most enjoyable.

Reitman deserves Best Director for a beautifully spun tale that only uses Kirn's so-so novel as a springboard (yes, this may be one of those feeeew cases that the movie is better than the book). He also creates a zeitgeist film. Reitman used real professionals who had been recently laid off instead of using actors [for the most part, as someone in class pointed out, Zach Galifinakis and JK Simmons (possibly the most under-rated character actor of the past five years?) are doing well professionally]. This creates the movie's most memorable and crushing moments. This sobering backdrop is vital to the film's tension and believability. He also taped the wedding scene, the film's most emotionally engaging, by simply allowing a wedding to unfold.

I am so psyched about Reitman. He has all the makings and resume of a master. He will come to define film through the next ten years. And, from what I can see, if this unfolds as planned, we will be treated to a delightful array of touching, funny, character dramas. I cannot wait for him to continue to swallow Hollywood whole. Hopefully, he doesn't become singularly obsessed with one actor and one social event for the rest of his career (Spielberg = Hanks = WWII, or wait, am I getting confused with Mr. Cervi?)

The movie is Oscar's most celebrated from an acting standpoint (three total nominees). Anna Kendrick's faux-cold professional-come-determined school girl really trying to impress the old boys puts forth the film's best and most important performance. She is the only true protagonist, and her search for truth in Bingham's world mimics the audience's relationship with him. Like us, she is both strangely attracted to and repulsed by the Bingham lifestyle. She allows Clooney to be subtly charming while not abandoning Bingham's ridiculous, empty rituals and value system.

Vera Farmiga leveled me. She is every stone-stared, strong and sexy professional woman I have ever known. And I have known at least three of them.

Would I be beaten up if I were to say this is not George Clooney's best performance? Hypothetically? Is it ok to say that I think he is too likable? Could a less charming actor have delivered an edgier, more transgressive Ryan Bingham? And  would that have, possibly, added a depth to the film? Not that I'm saying that. Just asking.

Oscar breathes down my neck, and Redbox will be able to mortgage my home soon because I can't bring myself to watch District 9. An alien Holocaust film? Ugh. Four movies to go, ten days to watch!

Avatar, I'm coming for you!

Charlie Rose Talks Oscars

He is the best....another PBS joint...shut up, Em Rheault....

Kathyrn Bigelow

George Clooney

Tarantino: This is excellent advice on all writing...for all writing

17 Days to Oscar: My Locker Still Hurts

When I was a student teacher, a frumpy, but well-meaning classroom veteran who worked across the hall passed me every morning with the same greeting:

"Just get through the day!"

New day, same greeting.  

"Just get through the day!"

If I were standing still, he would walk right up and place both of his meaty hands on my shoulders. Punctuating his words with light, but awkward shakes. 

"Just get through the day!"

If I were walking, he would bound beside me. A relentless Baloo to my slightly creeped out Mowgli.

"Just get through the day!"

His words became a mainstay of my student teaching experience. They echoed through the halls. They rang through my planning efforts. They hummed in my head whenever a room was deafened by student confusion. They buzzed in the students' blank stares and weary expressions. They shot me between the eyes when once, during a reading of what I thought was a profound and relevant article about Matthew Shepard, the University of Wyoming student who was tortured and killed in 1998 after "coming out" to friends, a young man rose to his feet, raised one puffy coated arm into the air and exclaimed. "If a (sic) told me he liked me, I'd shoot his ass too."

"Just get through the day!"

I rode that line. Dissected it, and then let it carry me right out of the teaching profession and into corporate America.

"Just get through the day!"

This notion resurfaced as I watched the tenser moments of Kathyrn Bigelow's Best Picture nominated, Iraq War thriller, The Hurt Locker.

Please understand, I am by no means comparing public high school teaching to defusing bombs. Well, actually, now that I look at it on paper, maybe the two do have a bit in common. Today, with a renewed understanding and genuine love of teaching, I realize that defusing potentially explosive situations is a large part of that job. And if done carelessly, people DO get hurt. At the end of tough days, it is easy to feel like a teacher fights an impossibly uphill battle. That the culmination is often as pyrrhic as war itself.

This is not meant to trivialize the heroics of our servicemen. Warzone bomb squads do a breath-taking, staggeringly heroic job. Our gratitude, while endless and pure, could never repay the debt.

The common thread is futility. Locker succeeds most profoundly as a war film during the moments in which the highest tension is punctuated by the deepest feelings of hopelessness. Day after day, Delta Company, the military bomb squad that the  film follows, faces an endless parade of horrifying scenarios. Each day, they draw closer to their goal: the end of their tour. Each day it seems more and more impossible for them to survive their dangerous duties. Each day, the war seems more and more out of control and beyond their reach. Sgt. Sanborn and Spc. Owens, played respectively by Oscar-snubbed actors Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty, just want to survive. They want to go home. Their plans are derailed when their team leader dies during a diffusion and Sgt. James takes over. Played with brillant nuance and believability by Best Actor nominee Jeremy Renner, James has other plans. He is a renegade cowboy whose hero complex puts the entire company in reckless, risky situations.

Sgt. James' appeal is a credit to Renner's performance. He channels Jack Palance's bad boy smile, John Wayne's swagger and rolls them up into a modern, Kid Rock of a soldier. Despite his "devil may care" death wish, James is likable and carries a genuine passion for helping the Iraqi people. This makes his ineffably pig-headed, self-absorbed, disregaridng actions harder to stomach.

As an audience, we share the conflict. Should we follow James and proclaim him a true patriot? Or do we despise his Superman complex and crucify him for his carelessness? In a way, this ethical conflict is the heart of the Iraq War itself. By examining the duality of Sgt. James, we, in turn, assess our own feelings toward this war. Patriots or war mongers? This uncertainty drives The Hurt Locker over action film cliche and into Oscar's realm.

The seminal scene occurs when Spc. Eldridge is being medi-vaced away. The usual war film heroics and thumbs up give way to a gut-wretching display of profanity, insecurity, hopelessness and resentment. Bigelow's brushstroke drips with realism and the futility of war.

Much has been made of the film's opening line: "War is a drug." For many critics, it stands as a testament to the perceived theme of Bigelow's film: that war is about adrenaline. But adrenaline and highs are only one side of addiction, the other side is hopeless and futility, and this is Locker's essence.

So where does it go wrong? I was hampered by the search for a plot. The movie was bomb diffusion after bomb diffusion. Literally, thrill after thrill, I found myself inventing sub-plots. Could it be that the film's plotlessness was calculated? A symbol of a war that is similarly plotless? 

Either way, Renner is amazing, and easily my pick for Best Actor. He infuses ambiguous charms into a transgressive hero. In all other Academy races, Locker falls to the middle of the pack. Remember though that Oscar is a sucker for a story-line like Bigelow vs. Cameron. Read: popular but marginally proftiable indie screen Queen slays Blockbuster Ex-Hubby! Well, I'm biting that, and so will all of America! Bigelow Best Director would be exciting and long overdue homage to female film makers.

But then again, there's that lovable Jason Reitman...you'll just have to read on for that.

For now, "just get through the day."

2 things:

1. When did this become 'The Falcon Film Files'?

2. http://filmexperience.blogspot.com/ <---- is a link to a film blog that has some cool trivia. For those of us who think we're real film buffs, I assure his questions really get you..

*don't worry he posts the answers at the end of the post :)

He has some posts dedicated to the Academy Awards, check it.

The Door - Best Live Action Short Film

Here.

Granny O'Grim Animated Short Nominee #2

Here.

French Roast Short Animated Nominee 2010

Here.

Soldier Reaction to Hurt Locker

Here.

25 Days to Oscar: Remember the Titan!

2010 is a historic year for the Academy Awards, because The Blind Side may be the worst film ever nominated for Best Picture.

It slipped in because the Best Picture field was senselessly widened to ten. This was done as phase 235 of an on-going, nation-wide campaign to make all facets of American culture more accesible to the incredibly stupid. Phase One was "No Child Left Behind." Phase 233 was Snookie from "The Jersey Shore."

Like the American highway system, the Academy widen its field to attract more traffic to the broadcast. While The Blind Side's inclusion is a result of filling 10 spots, it shouldn't be an excuse. In the years between 1932 (when the Academy started really structuring the category, then called Outstanding Production) and 1944, there were at least ten films, sometimes as many as thirteen, nominated. In 1939, the 10th and least likely nominee was probably Leo McCrary's A Love Affair. Never heard of it? You have. Unless you never heard of An Affari to Remember or Sleepless in Seattle. This film launched a million rom-coms, and somewhere, Reese Witherspoon and Edward Cullen are probably signed on to develop another. There are dozens of other examples of at least important, if not great, films rounding out the top ten.

Yet, The Blind Side is a cliched, over-produced, two hour foree into white benevolence (and there's no white benevolence like Southern white benevolence). It tells the real-life story of The Tuohey family, who find find, rescue and finance the "it takes a village" adoption and rearing of current Baltimore Ravens tackle Michael Oher. The film has almost no redeeming quality. Least of which is Sandra Bullock's Best Actress nominated portryal of Leigh Anne Tuohey. And, holy Gwenyth Paltrow, Bullock is the favorite. Her performance isn't even in the same ball park as fellow nominees, a pack touting, among others, Meryll Streep's spellbinding transformation into Julia Child, as well as newcomer Carey Mulligan's heart-breaking portrayal of lost youth in An Education.

I am unfamiliar with the real Leigh Anne Tuohey, and I understand that films must simplify characters. But, in Bullock's hands, Tuohey is a card-board cut out of out-of-touch white America. She's a sass talking, "in your face," putting you "in your place," no-nonsense, platitiude-spewing ("don't you lie to me"), Taco Bell product placing protagonist who takes in one Supreme-sized Gordita Crunch. She's pushy, strong and successful, but you guessed it, under her rough exterior is a heart of gold. And, guess what, the homeless boy helps her even more than she helps him.

Sigh.

Tuohey defends her black son with venom, occassionally heading over to "the other side of the tracks" to visit with crackhead moms and beguiling gang bangers. Here, we meet other black people, the only other ones in the film. All are messed up in some way. All are caricatures. All exist to make the rich white people seem superior in their benevolence. Oh, if only there were more like the Tuoheys.

More what? Football obsessed white people? In one particularly unbearable scene, Bullock marches onto the football field, and, armed with the knowledge that, while flunking math, science and language arts, Michael scored in the 98th percentile on a protective instincts test (Huh? What? Protective Instincts exam? Is this a Tennessee thing, because I have never heard of such a test. How is it administered? Do the proctors speak threateningly to koala bears? Hand students crying infants and leave? Incidentally, Michael also scored high in the Interpreting Bodily Urges and Sense of Direction exams). She explains that the "team is your family, Michael." Viola! He's great at football. Makes one wonder why she chose football and not quantum physics. "These telescopes are your family, Michael!"

Along the way, the movie provides the garden variety "something for everyone"-ness that comes standard with a holiday blockbuster. Bullock's dialogue borrows liberally from the Phillip Drummond guide to "stern looks and condescending combacks" Meanwhile, Quinton Aaron, as Michael, responds with dough-eyed, blinking insignificance. He is given no personality whatsoever and is singularly defined by his size and race. But that's the point, isn't it? The Tuoheys themselves are motivated by what Michael can become, not by what he is. If you want to watch a football meaning with something meaningful to say about racial inequality and social justice, rent Remember the Titans.  

Otherwise, my blind side was safe. I saw this one coming a mile away.

***NOTES***

Does Kathy Bates have a gambling problem? Because she has landed in some crap movies lately. This may be one of her worst.

Surprise! Tim McGraw is likable and poised as Bullock's laid back husband.

34 Days to Go: Precariously Precious/Mo'Nique = Oscar

(NOTE: Sorry I got this posted late...kids, snow, ya know. And yes, I am aware of the apostrophe, but come on!)

Yes, the longest journey begins with a single step. It's the day after Oscar nominations, and I begin my annual pilgrimage to watch, and write about, the Academy Award nominees. All of them. And this year, oh joy, all 10 of them! 

We begin with Precious.

True to Paul Brower's (my little Precious) critique below, it seems that another villain is heading toward Oscar gold.

Paul went on a diatribe about villains, claiming that not only are they easier to portray than protagonists, but also that the depth of evil within them is more vital to a film than heroism or strength. 

He calls upon a few Oscar-caliber baddies. Yet, Bardem's murderous Dutch Boy in No Country and Ledger's new-age, peeling painted Joker (I have yet to see Basterds, so I cannot comment on Walz's stone-cold Nazi) have one thing in common: a resume of destruction so consummate, it is otherwordly, almost cartoonish. Bardem played a ruthless, stoic predator. Ledger played a lunatic who also dressed the part. Their reign of terror is so encompassing that the protagonists, as well as the audience, can only cower and pray. The hero's job is to stop an insanity so wicked that Susan Powter would leave town.  

As a film, Precious, fell short of my expectations. Meandering and filled with generalities, it failed to stand or deliver (ahem). Though admittedly, Paula Patton is much, much, much easier on the eyes than James Edward Olmos. It also seemed to perpetuate some of the stereotypes it aimed to expose. The nurse, the teacher, the professionals...all light-skinned. The abused, the abuser, the accessories to abuse...all dark skinned. One African American critic, acknowledging this disparity in skin tone, hailed that the movie was: "a set back in cinematic portrayals of blacks." He even compared it to Birth of a Nation, a film in which the Ku Klux Klan (literally) marches in and runs out the "sex-starved darkies." Yikes.

While my assessment is less historically scathing, I found the casting for the film to be both curious and unforgivable. Was it an oversight? Or is Daniel's making some sort of indictment of color? Was he hoping we'd notice. Either way, I couldn't get over it. It eclipsed the film's theme. It even eclipsed the fact that Mariah Carey, everyone's favorite public drunk and cleavage purveyor, actually delivered a solid performance as a haggard social worker.

The film is saved from racially-charged cliche by two factors.

One: Lee Daniel's inspired "fantasy" scenes that occur in Precious' imagination. Precious escapes, as we all do, in daydreams of glamour and celebrity. She escapes, as I do, to a soundtrack of early 90s hip-pop (word to Bobby B and Heavy D, the overweight lover MC). These fanatasies provide a ying to the brutual yang of Precious' reality. Bad news accumulates on Precious faster than a Cape May County blizzard. Without these scenes, it would definitely be too much for most viewers to stomach. With them, it is probably too much for most viewers to stomach.

Two: a movingly powerful performance by MoNique. Her welfare mom is a vicous villain on the level with any of Brower's allusions, even Bardem and Ledger. She's a vile and reprehensible woman. She chucks infants. She chucks televisions. She chucks pots and pans. And, she dances to disco with hairy armpits. She hurts everyone in her wake. She hurts animals, kids and old people. Her selfishness and misguidance knows no bounds. Yet, when she cries, during the climatic, final confrontation with her wayward daughter, the effects are crushing. MoNique breathes both evil and humanity into this portrait of destitution and creates a character that will haunt audiences way after the film fades. The product is a masterpiece of acting. MoNique anchors the anguish in Precious, not only the character, but also the film. MoNique deserves and likely will become only the fourth African American woman to win a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Hopefully, this truth about race and color will prevail where the truth of Precious failed.

The Villain Always Wins

Well with both The Golden Globes and the SAGs behind us, the BAFTAs and Oscars are looming over the many award winning films which will receive nominations. While I'd love to nick pick over who should and should not win, there is a category that I feel has already been decided. The supporting actor award has practically been won already by German actor, Christoph Waltz. Having won literally every award for his portrayal of Col. Hans Landa, he has even won the Golden Globe and SAG award for supporting actor.

This is where it gets interesting. IF Christoph Waltz wins the Oscar, this will be the third year in a row that the Supporting Actor award has been received by an actor in a villainous role. For those who do not remember Heath Ledger nabbed a posthumous Oscar for his role as The Joker last year and Javier Bardem won for his role as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men the year prior. While this sets a trend, not all villains win. William Hurt in 2006 lost with his role as Richie Cusack in A History of Violence. The real question is what sets villains apart from heart warming old men (Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild) and possible pedophile priests (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt).

First and foremost roles of these nature allow the actor to over act. Was the Joker really a seamless blend of reality and villainy? No! He was a character. Character acting is one of the best ways to get people to notice your skills as an actor, without having to break down crying in front of the camera. Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Petter Lorre and many other funny little men have made a living with character roles. While Javier Bardem's role might not come off as overacting, the little smile he gives the gas station clerk pushes a barrier that cannot be seen. Actors are allowed to act inhuman, unethical, and unruly all while they smile. It also allows the audience to escape into a mind set they will never embody or create something to absolutely hate. This reaction from the audience is what film in essence is about. Film is about reactions- crying, laughing, fear, etc.

Take a movie like It's a Wonderful Life. Jimmy Stewart is given continuous praise for his new cynical acting style which he embodied after his run in WWII. While Stewart is extraordinary, Lionel Barrymore as Mr. Potter is probably the most successful of all the roles. He makes you hate him and by doing so we can easily side with Stewart even with his feelings for Mary (He loathes her because she represents him never getting out of the grubby little town). Taking this idea of the villain allowing the viewer to like the lead, look at films like The Dark Knight or No Country for Old Men. While there is no doubt in my mind that Josh Brolin and Christian Bale are two of the greatest actors to grace the silver screen, their characters are not the most lovable or praise worthy. The reason an audience member screamed "HELL YEAH BATMAN!" after Batman took out the 18 wheeler, is because Heath Ledger has laid down the unsettling road to which we side with the Batman.

With actors becoming so unsettling and the perfect outline for what a villain should be, audience members can end up siding with them. More people undoubtedly dressed as the Joker for Halloween, rather then the Batman. In this case the villain has become so successful he outshines the hero. Unlike The Dark Knight which is about the black and white and grey areas of morality, Inglourious Basterds is about showing that all of the characters are in the grey or black. When Christoph Waltz outshines Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, and Diane Kruger, it is alright because they all are cruel characters. There really is no good or bad, just bad and worse.

The villainous role has slowly left the realm of Snidley Whiplash and moved towards Professor Moriarty or even Sherlock Holmes on a bad day. This transformation has undoubtedly improved cinema, just as leaving the Dudley Do-Right characters in the past and making leads multilayered emotional anchors. It is because the villainous role as started to truly mature so much we are siding with them, actors are receiving more nominations for such roles.

The 'bagger Returns

T'is the season...oscars season that is. We take this time of year very seriously here at the OFI, so one of the key players in the formation of the Academy Award season is the NY Times' Carpetbagger journalist, who reports on Oscar buzz right up until the Big Night!

Bookmark him or buzz him up or follow him on twitter, here's a link

The Happy Go Lucky Reader

If you have taken my class, you know I am a huge Kate Winslet fan. Obsessed. Period. No other way to say it. Even as the doomed April Wheeler, the embodiment of love soured as fully as Finn's sippy cup left in the car all day...I found her appealing and attractive. Even as a headstrong Nazi death camp guard...loved her. Genocide? Bad. But those eyes? Dreamy. Unibrowed and old...I would have taken her back if I were Liam Neeson. Then again, Liam Neeson saved all those other refuges from the camps, so...wait....I definitely confused my holocaust movies again.

Anyway, I have fallen in love with a character so deeply and completely in Sally Hawkins' Poppy. I could not even begin to imagine the last time a female lead character so captured my heart. We discussed in class the importance and the power of characterization. Your protagonist IS your story, and Happy Go Lucky is teeming with so many sharp, vibrant characters that are so real. In the conflict between the vision of optimism and faith that is Poppy juxtaposed against the dark, bitter, paranoid anger and yearning of Scott, the racist driving instructor...the film provides characters that are both strikingly realistic, yet still captivating. They are symbolic, but not flat. Delightful film...check it out and letme know what you think or thought. Happy summer by the way, and I hope you all rock it out as you head off (or back) to college.

Short version of post: hawkins deserved Oscar this year...Kate robbed her. The Academy keeps changing the format...maybe in subsequent competitions, two starlets like these will pudding wrestle for the nod.

Be well, and know that the OFI loves ya, baby!

Delicately Campaigning for a Star now Departed

Heath Ledger R.I.P.

Nolan, "He will be eternally missed, but he will never be forgotten."

Any thoughts on the article (it was homework for those who forgot)

Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog was an awesome movie. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, IT'S A MUST! I only wanted to post this blog so I could attach this picture because the youngest Jamal is ADORABLE. !!!

Revolutionary Road Rules!

Go see this movie, especially before you get married, or before you settle down to a real life! This movie not only shows the conformity of life in the '50s, but also depicts the hidden goals and dreams of two people in a marriage who really shouldn't be married together, let alone have kids.

Everything in this film is right on - the social pressures for a man (especially in the 50s) to succeed, take care of his family and to do something worthwhile in life. It shows how women were expected to stay home and take care of the kids - which was like a jail cell door closing on them. Ladies be thankful you don't live in the 50s. Dreams deferred to responsibilities. Although it is hard for me to relate to a horrible marriage, since my own is almost perfect, Sam Mendes (American Beauty) directs this rollercoaster of a marriage toward an unpredictable ending leaving you worn out!

The America of the 50s is depicted perfectly - the conformity and loss of individuality, the constant smoking cigarettes, I could almost smell them on my clothes at the end of the film, the heavy drinking, and the men with the fedora hats. You could always tell the 50s because JFK never approved of wearing a hat and they faded after his presidency. Kate Winslet is awesome in this film, she really matures in this - her character is soulful and longs for happiness, but she keeps on hitting the wall. Little Leonardo DiCaprio is good as her husband, despite his failings he is sympathetic in the end. Make sure you see this film in a good mood, because it will certainly take a lot out of you in the end!

They're Here!

Two words- OSCARS NOMINATIONS!

With a somewhat shocking turn of events, Clint Eastwood didn't get a single nomination. I will say, this looks like it's the Golden Globes all over again but with The Dark Knight actually having a chance of getting an award other then Heath Ledger's Best Supporting Actor. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button received 13 nominations followed by Slumdog Millionaire with 10 and The Dark Knight and Milk with 8 nominations. All I have to say is the Slumdog Millionaire and The Dark Knight better tag team Button and win all the awards. How does everyone else feel about these nominations?

Atonement

Watched Atonement last night and I was ready to tout it as the best of last year's best picture nominees, until the ending...which was wretched.

So wretched in fact, that it nearly made me forget about the exceptional story of Ian McEwan or the excellent performances from James McAvoy and Keira Knightly.

My relationship with Atonement has been heavy-handed, after the NYT named it book of the year in 06., I tried to read it, twice, and neither time did I make it past the scenes from Brioney's play. I would imagine that McEwan's novel ends the same way as the film. Does anyone know for sure?

For those counting, here's how I rate last year's Best Picture nominees...a nice thought heading into this year's festivities...please comment the same if you have seen them all:

1. I would've given the Oscar to Juno

2. followed closely by Michael Clayton

3. There Will Be Blood

4. Atonement

5. No Country for Old Men (If you checked, I wouldn't be surprised to find that this is possibly the EXACT opposite of the way the films finished in the actual voting)