Long Overdue Sound Advice Comes From Clint Eastwood

On Jokes About Races

Clint Eastwood just became my personal hero.

In a recent interview with Der Spiegel magazine, veteran actor/director declared that "We're all spending too much time and energy trying to be politically correct about everything" while nostalgically recounting the years when they "constantly made jokes about different races" without excessively worrying about being labeled a 'racist'. He wisely understands that the road to fully integrating any racial minority to any society they belong to, goes through being able to joke about them as freely and conveniently as one can about anyone else. The idea that these minorities are as 'normal' and 'natural' as others who are lucky enough to fall within the boundaries of social norms, and the stance that bootlessly yet fiercely defends political correctness in every aspect of life, cannot be the implications of the same mindset - in fact, they are vastly different. Needless to say, the same statement goes for non-heterosexual orientations, disabilities, gender, political opinions and any other comparatively  marginal notions that we face today.

Eastwood continues:

People have lost their sense of humour [...] In former times we constantly made jokes about different races. You can only tell them today with one hand over your mouth otherwise you will be insulted as a racist. I find that ridiculous. In those earlier days every friendly clique had a "Sam the Jew" or "Jose the Mexican" - but we didn't think anything of it or have a racist thought. It was normal that we made jokes based on our nationality or ethnicity. That was never a problem.

I'm sure Spike Lee, along with others, will be spitting venom all over this statement, and accuse him of racism even because of it. Lee's efforts for the good of the black community in United States is definitely to be admired, yet he fails to realize that such relentless protection only serves to further alienate these people (like the case of an overprotective parent), constantly emphasizing their 'otherness' and the need to approach and treat them differently. As an accurate enough example, imagine someone coming up with the black version of the popular blog Stuff White People Like; and how the overall response towards this hypothetical website would be like. I guess my point is, I don't see much meaning in the term 'equality' as long as its implications are conditional. If I have to restrain myself from acting naturally around a group of people just because of certain traits they possess, I will fail to fully integrate them to my life in any conceivable way. It is for this reason that I see little difference between political correctness and positive discrimination in a broad sense.

Oops. Being the closeted racist I am, I uttered the term 'black'. I should've known better and used 'African-Americans' or 'people of African descent' instead; both of which, by the way, might be the most demeaning pair of terms I've heard that are being used to categorize and distinguish minorities ("Hey, don't you ever forget you have roots in Africa; and that you are not really one of us!")

There is another celebrity who opposes this trend more slyly and hilariously, and that is the acclaimed comedian/actor/director/producer/author/screenwriter Ricky Gervais (so much for the titles). While certain stereotypes are often cheaply used for corny stand-up punchlines, the way Gervais delivers them has a lot of intrinsic substance and therefore is infinitely funnier. Without doubt, some circles at the top of certain ivory towers find his jokes about physical disabilities, sexual orientations, political opinions, religion or even the Holocaust itself rather 'tasteless' and maybe even 'disturbing'; but their importance in implicitly advising us to "loosen up and stop being hung up on labels" is undeniable. Trying to maintain an excessively formal attitude towards things we deem sensitive definitely fattens up the elephant in the room to such an extent that it becomes uncomfortable and irritating for both parties. Being the comedic genius he is, he's able to satirize all this without crossing the line of disrespect that would've brought him quicker fame but a less durable one.

In the meantime, Reuters reported that Eastwood recently won a Palme d'Or for a lifetime of achievements, which was previously given only once to Ingmar Bergman in 1997. Among the living directors let alone the ones that passed away since then, he is definitely far from being the number one candidate for the award; but I am willing to overlook this single instance because of his important message for the future of humanity (if I had not, I'm sure I would've caused a great deal of turmoil). He is also maybe the oldest living director who also is significantly prolific (along with Woody Allen) so at least his reputation probably lives up to the standards and the meaning of this award. In any case, I will take this opportunity to congratulate both of Eastwood and Gervais for their meaningful stance regarding the subject at hand, which I'm sure will make both of them childishly happy.

We will continue with more reviews and articles about both the upcoming films and the most recent ones, as previously promised.

Oscars 2008 - Who Should Win Tonight?

And A Brief Oscar Commentary

Let me be the first to acknowledge that I couldn't write about this year's frequently nominated films or the awards ceremonies themselves as much as I would be happy to have written. If you look back at my post where I declare that I would be doing some more article series every year during awards season, you will see that the sheer enthusiasm reflected from those paragraphs is not even closely matched by the amount of work I was able to produce. Nevertheless, January 2009 has been the most productive month of my one year-old blog and I was able to cover most of the films with major nominations so it's still not that bad.

I would also like to announce that I have merely postponed, not canceled, the articles I had promised. There are still some major nominees expecting a review (Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Slumdog Millionaire and Doubt) and I know I have skipped 'Who Should've Won In This Year's Golden Globes' article. While I have a good enough excuse for the latter (some of the films were too hard to find and I didn't want to guess when declaring who were the deserving winners) I have absolutely nothing for the movies I missed reviewing, other than the utter lack of time for such things lately in my life (Life never disappoints as a strong excuse for not writing, reading or watching enough). Still, I am planning to take the lack of good films coming out at this time of the year to catch up until I feel ready to declare my top 10 favorite films of the year.

So, what do we have here today? The promised Oscar commentary, however predictable and brief it may be, as well as who really should win tonight at the Oscars. Very interesting indeed, so please read on.


Whoever Wins, We Lose

I was beginning to regain my confidence and appreciation of the Academy as well as the Oscar winners when The Departed and No Country for Old Men were announced to be the grand winners of 2006 and 2007; they certainly helped relieve the pain caused by a bunch of disastrous choices in the recent past, which climaxed when Crash (often dubbed 'Trash' by people who were as much upset as I was) became the 'Best Picture' of 2005 after one of the most memorable and unexpected turn of events in the biggest Oscar category. I wasn't rooting for Brokeback Mountain or anything, nor I accused the Academy of homophobia (which was a cheap way of attacking back, really; Brokeback was good but not that great). Their only real crime was simply lack of taste in movies (which is actually worse). I talked about some other infamous upsets in my previous article about why 'Best Original Screenplay' category is more important than you think, which include but are not limited to Million Dollar Baby, A Beautiful Mind, Shakespeare in Love, Titanic and The English Patient.

The last two winners of the grand prize were indeed a welcome change after all this; but this year, Academy went back to its golden years of ignorance, narrowmindedness and, yes, tastelessness. Especially in a year which was comperatively weaker in terms of overall movie quality, the absence of certain great films in the 'Best Picture' category is utterly incomprehensible at best (you all know which movies I'm talking about). Although I thought it should at least have been nominated for some technical stuff like 'Art Direction' or 'Costume Design', the fact that The Fall, my favorite film of the year, was overlooked does not surprise me at all; for it was ignored by everyone as if there was a secret, evil pact among people to not give this film the attention and praise it deserved. The novelty and excellence of In Bruges was above Academy's capacity to comprehend and that we're very much used to as well. What really surprised me was the second big scandal in a row for 'Foreign Language Film' category - after last year's omission of 4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days and Persepolis, this year the category showed no sign of love towards Let The Right One In, which was one of this year's best for reasons stated here. Did they not even see it because it was a 'vampire movie'? I guess we'll never know.

Also, where the hell is Ralph Fiennes? After such a memorable year with two career-defining performances and one more that was good enough (you guess which is which), the only people who were wise enough to even nominate him for something was Hollywood Foreign Press Association. His work in The Duchess was so refined and high-end that it should be taught in acting schools across the country. Also missing from the acting categories are Sally Hawkins of Happy-Go-Lucky and Kristin Scott Thomas of Il y a longtemps que je t'aime (I've Loved You So Long) both of which were equally impressive performances from the opposite ends of the emotional spectrum. A nominee list involving these names would satisfy, even before crowning a winner.

But good stuff happens too; weren't you relieved when Academy finally put a stop to the nonsense of double-nominations Kate Winslet had been getting with two leading roles? I can't say I'm against the idea for an actor to be nominated for the same category more than once, but The Weinstein Company was essentially mocking everyone by unreservedly trying to disguise her role in The Reader as a supporting one; hoping to both increase her chances (supporting category apparently faces less competition, a claim that I disagree with) and to get her name typed up twice in Oscar nomination lists. The fact that they were unmasked at the end of the road gives me endless joy.

Talking about good things, seeing the name Richard Jenkins among 'Best Actor' nominees is also pleasing, although it's quite obvious that it's as good as it gets for him. Heath Ledger's soon-to-be-crowned nomination might seem to have been inevitable now but ignorance knows no limits and dismissal of his remarkable work was also in the realm of possibilities a couple of months ago. Last but not the least, despite once again trying to clinch some Oscars with two bare claws films (as is his habit), Clint Eastwood finally was shown no unconditional love for his unremarkable work; nor terribly pathetic Bill Maher's even more terribly pathetic documentary Religulous (think about this, I fall in the category of people who would tend to agree with its statements yet the film couldn't even win me over). In short, there are still reasons to be hopeful about tomorrow (or maybe Academy members are predominantly religious racists, who knows?)

Without further ado, let's move on to the names that most deserve to come out of the envelopes tomorrow. Please keep in mind that I have merely selected one from the nominees and that the year's real deserving winners (regardless of who got nominated) will be announced in a seperate article.


Best Motion Picture of the Year

Nominees:

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Frost/Nixon
• Milk
• The Reader
• Slumdog Millionaire

Definitely Slumdog Millionaire. While I wasn't head over heels for Boyle's film like the majority of the moviegoing audience out there, the other nominees are so unremarkable that it definitely shines among them. Milk and Frost/Nixon were nothing more than ordinary entertainment pieces, The Reader was good but hugely flawed and don't even get me started on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which is the weakest link among these five, no doubt.


Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role

Nominees:

• The Visitor (Richard Jenkins)
• Frost/Nixon (Frank Langhella)
• Milk (Sean Penn)
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt)
• The Wrestler (Mickey Rourke)

I still have to go through my list of films I've seen this year but Richard Jenkins in The Visitor might very well be my favorite for the best male performance of 2008, even without these nominations. Rourke also was impressive, Penn was fun and good enough and nothing more, Langhella couldn't even get the impersonation part right let alone the whole, multi-layered personality or the power dynamics between the two characters during the interviews. I am a huge fan of Brad Pitt but as Benjamin Button, he was mostly indistinct and was irritatingly overdoing his New Orleans accent.


Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role

Nominees:

• Rachel Getting Married (Anne Hathaway)
• Changeling (Angelina Jolie)
• Frozen River (Melissa Leo)
• Doubt (Meryl Streep)
• The Reader (Kate Winslet)

Since the year's real two best female performances were left out, I am forced to choose Kate Winslet, closely followed by Anne Hathaway and Angelina Jolie. Leo was nothing special and Meryl Streep was overacting like mad.


Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role

Nominees:

• Milk (Josh Brolin)
• Tropic Thunder (Robert Downey Jr.)
• Doubt (Philip Seymour Hoffman)
• The Dark Knight (Heath Ledger)
• Revolutionary Road (Michael Shannon)

Heath Ledger shines, especially among these nominees - the presence of Ralph Fiennes for either of his great performances would've made a worthy competition but it's not hard to choose among these five. Hoffman's work was Hoffman quality but comperatively more ordinary and Josh Brolin was ok. Robert Downey Jr. was not acting but was merely being a clown (in a bad way, not like one of those classy French ones who went to the school for this and everything) while Michael Shannon was laughable and desperate - he misfired all of his lines.


Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

Nominees:

• Doubt (Amy Adams)
• Vicky Cristina Barcelona (Penelope Cruz)
• Doubt (Viola Davis)
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Taraji P. Henson)
• The Wrestler (Marisa Tomei)

When declaring my favorite in this one, I am in doubt (ha. ha.), for all these performances are actually very good. Amy Adams and Viola Davis were more impressive that the film's leading actors, Taraji Henson was the only performance that is worth something in Benjamin Button and Marisa Tomei carried The Wrestler on her shoulders (no pun intended). But it was Penelope Cruz who stole my heart more than others, with her impulsive, whimsical and dangerous lover in Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona.


Best Achievement in Directing

Nominees:

• Slumdog Millionaire (Danny Boyle)
• The Reader (Stephen Daldry)
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (David Fincher)
• Frost/Nixon (Ron Howard)
• Milk (Gus Van Sant)

Actually, I should embrace David Fincher in this category over the others for two reasons: 1) I loved all his previous works and his name rings a bell of admiration for me. 2) His directing was outstanding in Benjamin Button. Seriously, given that screenplay, could anybody else have come up with a better film? But I am holding myself back, because the film itself is mostly a failure and also Fincher is partly responsible for the terrible performances of the terrific actors involved in this project (Cate Blanchett is the best of Hollywood as far as actresses are concerned, in my humble opinion). I have always believed that half the acting in a film is the director's job so I guess Fincher's work was flawed too. Daldry, Howard and Van Sant were all ok but nothing too exciting while Danny Boyle's film turned out to be able to tolerate a terrible screenplay more than Fincher's; so however boring it may be, I am going with Slumdog Millionaire in this category.


Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly For Screen

Nominees:

• Frozen River (Courtney Hunt)
• Happy-Go-Lucky (Mike Leigh)
  
• In Bruges (Martin McDonagh)
• Milk (Dustin Lance Black)
• Wall-E (Stanton, Docter, Reardon)

Don't you think this is more like what the 'Best Picture' category should've looked like? I have written ehaustively about this category and this year's nominees in my contribution to the LAMB Devours the Oscars series this year so follow the link for further reading. It goes without saying that In Bruges is still infinitely superior to the other four.


Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published

Nominees:

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Eric Roth, Robin Swicord)
• Doubt (John Patrick Shanley)
• Frost/Nixon (Peter Morgan)
• The Reader (David Hare)
• Slumdog Millionaire (Simon Beaufoy)
  

All the respect you've developed for Academy-member writers in the previous category, you can lose here. Two films which suffer only because their screenplays are terrible, and three other ordinary works. This is not the line-up for the weekend assignment of a creative writing workshop - this is the industry's most prestigious awards we're talking about here. Under these circumstances, I can't help but be boring again: Slumdog Millionaire.


Best Achievement in Cinematography

Nominees:

• Changeling (Tom Stern)
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Claudio Miranda)
• The Dark Knight (Wally Pfister)
• The Reader (Roger Deakins, Chris Menges)
• Slumdog Millionaire (Anthony Dod Mantle)

I was torn between Slumdog and The Dark Knight in this one, primarily because The Dark Knight was visually breathtaking at times but there was also a completely amateur side to Pfister's work. Nolan's film is not a very good example for visual storytelling, not all the time that is. But eventually I decided the good parts outweigh the bad ones and the nominees weren't that impressive anyway. Therefore I acknowledge Slumdog Millionaire as a close second and Changeling as the third. The Reader is only there because Deakins made it and while Benjamin Button was pretty, brown-stained, melancholic and everything, there was little substance to make all that style significant to anything else in the film so it all comes off merely decorative.


Best Achievement in Editing

Nominees:

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Angus Wall, Kirk Baxter)
• The Dark Knight (Lee Smith)
  
• Frost/Nixon (Daniel P. Hanley, Mike Hill)
• Milk (Elliott Graham)
• Slumdog Millionaire (Chris Dickens)

When we came out of the film after seeing it for the first time, my friend declared that "The Dark Knight" had no editing. He didn't make it sound like a flaw at the time, but it's a huge flaw indeed. It's ironic to see it nominated here and not in any other, I repeat, any other category where it didn't secure a nomination because Lee Smith's work should be taught in editing classes all over the country as the kind of work you shouldn't be responsible of. For me, the competition here is between Frost/Nixon (where quality editing was the biggest contributor to the film's feeling of suspense) and Slumdog Millionaire (where the most typical of love stories was told in a clever way by conscious editors). But Frost/Nixon was flawed, even purely from the perspective of editing, and Slumdog Millionaire seems to be all about editing - how the flashback sequences are timed and how the whole story is incorporated into a single episode of 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' etc. So the award should go to Chris Dickens.


Best Achievement in Art Direction

Nominees:

• Changeling (Murakami, Fettis)
  
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Burt, Zolfo)
• The Dark Knight (Crowley, Lando)
• The Duchess (Carlin, Alleway)
• Revolutionary Road (Zea, Schutt)

The most typical winner in these categories is a swanky period piece, but I guess once you start handing out awards for art direction, it tends to be in the nature of the award. I've had a careful look at all the other nominees before declaring The Duchess as my preference here but none of the other nominees seem to have any comparable significance.


Best Achievement in Costume Design

Nominees:

• Australia (Catherine Martin)
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Jacqueline West)
• The Duchess (Michael O'Connor)
• Milk (Danny Glicker)
• Revolutionary Road (Albert Wolsky)

Some of the awards authorities (I think it was the costume designers guild) decided at some point that it's best to hand out costume design awards seperately for period pieces and contemporary films just because the former tend to outweigh the latter in most of the cases, due to the very nature. This year is no exception, while all the nominees reflect considered choices by the costume designers of the Academy, The Duchess definitely has an edge and should win (this comes from a guy who constantly complains about films with corsets and Keira Knightley).


Best Achievement in Makeup

Nominees:

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Greg Cannom)
• The Dark Knight (John Caglione Jr., Conor O'Sullivan)
• Hellboy II: The Golden Army (Mike Elizalde, Thomas Floutz)

If I was told Harvey Dent's burnt face in this one was make up, I would root for The Dark Knight. But Joker's scruffy face-paint is not enough for me to give up the excellent work done in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to play with human age as if it was a toy. All the golden armies in hell would not change that fact. (See? Even if I don't care for it, I am able to properly assess the good parts of a given film)


Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score

Nominees:

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Alexandre Desplat)
• Defiance (James Newton Howard)
• Milk (Danny Elfman)
• Slumdog Millionaire (A.R. Rahman)
• Wall-E (Thomas Newman)

I honestly don't know; all five seem equally insignificant. I guess when forced, I would name Defiance, but I have no serious reason to back that decision up.


Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song

Nominees:

• Slumdog Millionaire (Rahman, Gulzar - "Jai Ho")
• Slumdog Millionaire (Rahman, Arulpragasam - "O Saya")
• Wall-E (Gabriel, Newman - "Down to Earth")

This is where it becomes all personal - I have never been a fan of Indian pop music in my life, so there is no way on earth I can choose one of them and say that it deserves an Oscar. That is the only reason that pushes me towards "Down to Earth" of Wall-E, which is a safe choice anyway because user-friendly music is a common Pixar trait.


Best Achievement in Sound

Nominees:

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Parker, Semanick, Klyce, Weingarten)
• The Dark Knight (Novick, Hirschberg, Rizzo)
• Slumdog Millionaire (Tapp, Pryke, Pookutty)
• Wall-E (Myers, Semanick, Burtt)
• Wanted (Jenkins, Montano, Forejt)

Certainly Wall-E. A film that is appealing both for adults and for children, the first hour lacks speech and it delivers - is it possible for this film to not have a great sound work? Among all the nominees and maybe even in the history of nominees in this category, Wall-E is the film where sound forms the most significant part of the its expressive power; therefore there is no real competition here. Wanted deserves a mention, The Dark Knight was obligatorily good but not that special and the rest is just... ok.


Best Achievement in Sound Editing

Nominees:

• The Dark Knight (Richard King)
• Iron Man (Frank Eulner, Christopher Boyes)
• Slumdog Millionaire (Tom Sayers)
• Wall-E (Ben Burtt, Matthew Wood)
• Wanted (Wylie Statemen)

If you cannot distinguish this award from the previous one, think of it like this: the previous one is the best picture award and this is the best editing award. For similar reasons I've given for the previous one, Wall-E is the deserving winner here as well, Wanted still a formidable opponent. Iron Man was also remarkable, so was The Dark Knight and... Slumdog? I don't know, I think after one point, no one could stop nominating the film for more categories.


Best Achievement in Visual Effects

Nominees:

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Barba, Preeg, Dalton, Barron)
• The Dark Knight (Davis, Corbould, Webber, Franklin)
• Iron Man (Nelson, Snow, Sudick, Mahan)

I hated the film but this is where I should give them some credit: Iron Man deserves to win over The Dark Knight and Benjamin Button. It was more, both in quality and quantity. But whatever happened to Indiana Jones?


Best Animated Feature Film of the Year

Nominees:

• Bolt (Chris Williams, Byron Howard)
• Kung Fu Panda (John Stevenson, Mark Osborne)
• Wall-E (Andrew Stanton)

The omission of Vals im Bashir (Waltz with Bashir) is bad judgement but its nomination wouldn't change the fact that Wall-E deserves this award most; although other nominees are more remarkable than usual this year.


Best Foreign Language Film of the Year

Nominees:

• Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (The Baader Meinhof Complex - Germany)
• Entre Les Murs (The Class - France)
• Revanche (Revanche - Austria)
• Okuribito (Departures - Japan)
• Vals im Bashir (Waltz with Bashir - Israel)

I honestly don't know. I couldn't catch Revanche and Okuribito and while the former doesn't look better than Israel's submission, Japanese film looks gorgeous and might turn out to be a serious opponent. Among the ones I've seen, I'll go ahead and say Waltz with Bashir, which was truly remarkable, followed second by Golden Palm winner Entre les Murs.


Best Documentary, Features

Nominees:

• The Betrayal - Nerakhoon (Kuras, Phrasavath)
• Encounters at the End of the World (Herzog, Kaiser)
• The Garden (Kennedy)
• Man on Wire (Marsh, Chinn)
• Trouble the Water (Lessin, Deal)

Man on Wire was the best documentary I have ever seen, so this one is an easy pick for me. While Herzog's Encounters was most interesting, it goes nowhere near the sheer perfection and the poetic beauty of Philippe Petit's performance art. The rest cannot even compete with these two.


Best Documentary, Short Subjects

Nominees:

• The Conscience of Nhem En (Okazaki)
• The Final Inch (Brodsky, Grant)
• Pinki (Mylan)
• The Witness from the Balcony of Room 306 (Pertofski, Hyde)

This one is like not knowing a single word of English and taking the GRE exam. No fucking clue.


Best Short Film, Animated

Nominees:

• La Maison En Petits Cubes (Kato)
• Ubornoya Istoriya, Iyubovnaya Istoriya (Bronzit)
• Oktapodi (Mokhberi, Marchand)
• Presto (Sweetland)
• This Way Up (Smith, Foulkes)

Presto is an easy favorite for many, but the real deal in this year's nominees (which are much better than they normally are) is La Maison En Petit Cubes, the moving story of an old man who keeps building his house upwards on small cubes as a solution to the ever-increasing water level. Then one day he drops his pipe and with that incident begins the semi-allegorical journey underwater, among age-old memories which are remembered wistfully, not regretfully. It's about inevitable loneliness brought along by old age - in order not to be drowned by memories that are enough to fill a lifetime, you should keep building until you can't. This is the short counterpart of Les Triplettes de Belleville (Triplets of Belleville) in its wordless beauty and poetic charm. While Presto is also an amazing short, this one is slightly superior and definitely is my pick. The rest, while also good (especially the quirky graveyard comedy This Way Up) they represent a secondary level in short animations.


Best Short Film, Live Action

Nominees:

• Auf Der Strecke (Caffi)
• Manon Sur Le Bitume (Marre, Pont)
• New Boy (Green, Anghie)
• Grisen (Magnusson, Hogh)
• Spielzeugland (Freydank)

Again, no clue - they should better distribute these things. I will say one thing though: the sheer multiculturalism in these short film categories is mesmerizing.


Before leaving you, let's have a brief look at the final scoreboard:

• Slumdog Millionaire: 4 (major ones too)
  
• Wall-E : 4
• The Duchess: 2
• The Dark Knight: 2
• The Reader: 1
• Vicky Cristina Barcelona: 1
• In Bruges: 1
• Curious Case of Benjamin Button: 1
• Defiance: 1
• Man on Wire: 1
• Iron Man: 1
• Waltz With Bashir: 1
• La Maison En Petit Cubes: 1 (as if a second was even remotely possible)

So it's pretty much shared. Let's see how many of them the Academy gets right tonight.

A Closer Look At The Past and Present Of 'Best Original Screenplay' Category

Note: Originally, I have written this article for the LAMB Devours the Oscars, which is a 24-part article series brought to you by Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB has been published for a couple of weeks now (I am the last one before 'Best Picture), each covering a different category of the Oscars. It's definitely worth a peak!

It's a well-known fact that when it comes to the Best Picture category, Academy's hand is rather shy at making brave choices. Being 'brave' here means to be able to choose the movie which holds higher artistic significance and predictably will have a bigger impact to the future of filmmaking, instead of the one that sways popular opinion of that day. It's favoring low-budget indies over studio mammoths, if they actually are better. It's awarding 'excellence' more than marketing. The examples to the years in the Oscar history where this was not the case are many, and those instances are way overemphasized already by cinephiles of all shapes and sizes (including myself) and in all possible platforms (including this blog). Beginning from internet's first days of widespread usage, such public outcries have avalanched out of control and today you have the luxury of being able to read why the Academy sucks from hundreds of different blogs, each stating many different reasons. Regardless, let me keep beating the dead dog for the sake of refreshing your memories:

• 1941: How Green Was My Alley won over Citizen Kane
• 1944: Going My Way won over Double Indemnity
• 1951: An American in Paris won over A Streetcar Named Desire
• 1964: My Fair Lady won over Dr. Strangelove
• 1971: The French Connection won over A Clockwork Orange
• 1973: The Sting won over The Exorcist
• 1976: Rocky won over Taxi Driver
• 1979: Kramer vs Kramer won over Apocalypse Now
• 1980: Ordinary People won over Raging Bull
• 1990: Dances with Wolves won over Goodfellas
• 1994: Forrest Gump won over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption
• 1996: The English Patient won over Fargo
• 1997: Titanic won over L.A. Confidential and Good Will Hunting
• 1998: Shakespeare in Love won over The Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan
• 2001: A Beautiful Mind won over Gosford Park, Moulin Rouge and The Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Ring
• 2004: Million Dollar Baby won over Sideways
• 2005: Crash won over Good Night and Good Luck

You can add to or remove from this list some films according to your own tastes but there's no question that Academy often misfires. That's ok, I'm not making a big deal out of it - after all no real or hypothetical awards authority can always get it right; especially if the definition and meaning of the term 'right' is as subjective as it is in movie business. Over the years, I have learned well to stop complaining about overlooked films that obviously fall outside the context of the Academy Awards and accept the phenomenon for what it really is. After its 81 years of existence, it should be well established by now that yes, independent films are underrepresented, comedies are almost non-existent, foreign films merely have a single category for themselves and almost everything nominated is epic, expensive dramas equipped with exquisite crowd-pleasing qualities. That does not change the fact that cornerstones in the American film history are exhaustively represented among Oscar winners in several categories, nor the fact that this event is no less significant than any other (A plausible assertion would condemn the whole process of handing out self-congratulatory awards rather than a single one - only then all these complaints would find a reasonable basis)

The reason why I listed a fragment of an all-too-familiar list above is because I want to start looking at the 'Best Original Screenplay' Oscar from quite a broad perspective. After all, we are talking about the category which underwent the most whimsical evolutionary period over the years and therefore one that deserves no less. But before moving on to that, here is a very brief summary of that journey, which begins in the fateful year of 1927:

1927-1928 Period

Categories:

• Writing (Adaptation)
• Writing (Original Story)
• Writing (Title Writing)

This is back when the Academy was not a gigantic monster of an institution with load of rules and regulations but merely a group of people who wanted to award excellence in film but didn't know what the best way to do that was. That's why the third category makes absolutely no sense. I am as clueless as you are when it comes to what 'Title Writing' means exactly; all I know is that it's an award that is not associated with a specific film title. Imagine the writing version of the honorary award where you could also have nominees.

Edit: I have been informed later on that 'Title Writing' refers to the titles in silent films that appear between scenes to inform us of either what's going on or what the characters have just spoken about. Not really a major writing effort if you ask me, but there you go.

1928-1930 Period

Categories:

• Writing

Clean and simple and how it should've stayed if you ask me. Is 'adapting' as opposed to writing an original one a vastly distinct art form? Why don't we have the same two categories for directors and producers as well then? Their jobs must be just as much detached.

1930-1935 Period

Categories:

• Writing (Adaptation)
• Writing (Original Story)

First roots of the categories that we have today. First signs of the assumption that doing these two require different set of talents.

1935-1940 Period

Categories:

• Writing (Screenplay)
• Writing (Original Story)

So screenplays cannot consist of original stories? I guess 'screenplay' is another word whose meaning eroded with old age.

1940-1948 Period

Categories:

• Writing (Screenplay)
• Writing (Original Screenplay)
• Writing (Original Motion Picture Story)

This is where the whole thing turns into a David Lynch film. I've tried but honestly, I cannot distinguish these three from each other in any way. The only explanation I can come up with for these puzzling 8 years is that Writer's Guild went on a strike for a third category and the Academy had no chance but to comply.

1948-1949 Period

Categories:

• Writing (Motion Picture Story)
• Writing (Screenplay)

A sinister attempt at reducing the number back to 2 but...


1949-1956 Period

Categories:

• Writing (Motion Picture Story)
• Writing (Screenplay)
• Writing (Story and Screenplay)

...the Writer's Guild is will not be made fool of. Here is another ridiculous and incomprehensible trio. I am looking at these names as an alien from 50 years ahead and the third one definitely looks like to grand writing prize to me. Apparently, the first guy wrote a great story, the second guy did a good job with the screenplay but it was only the third who was able to get both of them right. I guess you wouldn't be that happy if you won one of the first two; they make you face your failures as well as your triumphs. Very constructive actually.

1956-Present

Categories:

• Writing (Original Screenplay)
• Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

Despite changing names fairly frequently during the 50-something years, what the categories meant did not show any significant difference so I have grouped all of them under the same title.

Unlike its long history, the way 'Best Original Screenplay' Oscars have been handed out for the last few decades follows a very simple pattern. Looking at it from a broad perspective (as I've promised couple of paragraphs above) yields two predominant rules which define this pattern quite accurately:

1) If one of the nominees is a lock or at least a heavy favorite in the 'Best Picture' category, it's highly probable that 'Best Original Screenplay' will also go to the same film. Statistics from the last 52 years (so that we don't go back to a weird period that I don't know how to handle) show that among the 'Best Picture' winners who were also nominated for 'Best Original Screenplay', 67% of them won the writing award as well. In fact this is true for both of the writing categories; the ratio of films who won best picture without any writing awards is only 31%. Nick of Random Ramblings of a Demented Doorknob recently addressed in his article for LAMB Devours The Oscars the age-old question that had been haunting the 'Best Director' category for eternity: "Should the director of the 'Best Picture' not be named 'Best Director'?" In other words, do we really need to have two seperate categories to be able to award the producers? My personal response to this question obviously should be saved for another article, but let me point out that the same question is also valid for the writing categories. The statistics I've given above show that most of the time, the Academy finds the question meaningful and supports the notion that 'Best Picture' is also the best-written film of the year.

2) If either the 'Best Picture' had an adapted screenplay, or it failed to secure a nomination or a win in 'Best Original Screenplay', other parameters come into equation. In this case, the winner is almost always one of two things:

i) A film not as good/important as the 'Best Picture' winner but one that definitely deserved and needed recognition and special mention from the Academy. Here are some examples:

• 2007: Juno (Best Picture: No Country for Old Men)
• 2003: Lost in Translation (Best Picture: The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King)
• 2002: Talk To Her (Best Picture: Chicago)
• 2000: Almost Famous (Best Picture: Gladiator)
• 1993: The Piano (Best Picture: Schindler's List)
• 1991: Thelma % Louise (Best Picture: Silence of the Lambs)
• 1986: Hannah and Her Sisters (Best Picture: Platoon)

ii) A film that is vastly superior to the 'Best Picture' winner and therefore a soothing effect on our feelings of unrest caused by the laughable choices examplified by the list I've given at the beginning of this article. If writers and not the whole academy voted for 'Best Picture', or if we all of a sudden stopped acting like that 'Best Picture' is the most important Oscar and place a greater importance on 'Best Original Screenplay', following films would've replaced the current winners in the history of the Academy Awards:

• 2006: Little Miss Sunshine (Replacing: The Departed)
• 2005: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Replacing: Million Dollar Baby)
• 2001: Gosford Park (Replacing: A Beautiful Mind)
• 1997: Good Will Hunting (Replacing: Titanic)
• 1996: Fargo (Replacing: The English Patient)
• 1995: The Usual Suspects (Replacing: Braveheart)
• 1994: Pulp Fiction (Replacing: Forrest Gump)
• 1989: Dead Poets Society (Replacing: Driving Miss Daisy)
• 1976: Network (Replacing: Rocky)

Oh it would be such a wonderful world indeed...

One should notice the obvious shift from simple and popular towards complex and artistically pleasing introduced with these 'new' choices. It's also obvious both of the rules imply that 'Best Original Screenplay' category functions as an alternative/secondary 'Best Picture' award above all else. Now, I am not suggesting that this is a part of the collective minds of the Academy-member writers - I acknowledge that something as temperamental and arbitrary as any collective mind is impossible to formulize. Yet assuming the role of a statistician, the category makes much more sense from this perspective than as one that awards excellence in writing. Deliberate or not, the only consistency 'Best Original Screenplay' has had, is nothing more than this.

To me, this also means that this category is the second most important one in this awards show, for obvious reasons.

Going for a typical way to end this article, let me conclude (like many of my other friends in LAMB did) by a brief analysis of this year's nominees (the parantheses show which of the two rules described above the given film will qualify for if it wins this year):

1. Frozen River (Rule #2i)

This is the little indie that managed to impress Academy members this year and to snatch two nominations from the iron claws of bigger studio productions (and of course from those of the vicious Harvey Weinstein). I have written about this one previously so my dissatisfaction with the film is quite clear. In any case, this is Academy's way of honoring Courtney Hunt for all her efforts and, of course, for being a woman in this man-infested industry. It is one of those films for which the nomination is a win and it's clear there is no next step. I would be unpleasantly surprised if this one goes on to win the award among the other four nominees.

2. Happy-Go-Lucky (Rule #2i)

You can't go wrong with Mike Leigh. With his latest film that puts Amelie to shame in its optimism and would make Tarantino envious with the beautiful flow of the dialogue, Leigh analyzes the eccentric in all of us and its unexpected consequences. In the title role that is easily this year's most interesting, Sally Hawkins shines and it's a shame someone else stole her nomination this year. An win in this category might compensate for all that (and purely from the writing perspective, the film would definitely deserve it) but success here still seems like a distant possibility. In a weaker year, it would've had a lot more chance.

3. In Bruges (Rule #2ii)

One of the films that left me speechless last year, so much that I couldn't get myself to write a review for it. With such perfection in both writing and direction, what is left to say on the film anyway? Martin McDonagh's debut In Bruges is one of those films that would be spoilt by explanation - the sheer impact of the whole experience should best be left undisturbed. Among not only these nominees but all the films came out this year, this one deserves to win 'Best Original Screenplay' more than any other - and since it was recognized in no other category (and with the help of the screenplay's absolute perfection) it becomes an automatic frontrunner.

4. Milk (Rule #1)

If In Bruges loses this sunday, it will lose to this one. If fire rains from the heavens and the world turns upside down and Slumdog doesn't score a 'Best Picture' win, it will be Milk which replaces Boyle's film in that category. While that is almost completely impossible, that kind of buzz gives any screenplay nominee an edge over others (for reasons discussed above). Dustin Lance Black's screenplay is mostly unimpressive and merely an entertainment piece but award-handers of all types have been begging to differ. Bad news is, they might go so far as to crown Milk with a screenplay award since it's going to miss out on all the other major ones (excluding 'Best Actor' - Penn is the frontrunner in that race).

5. Wall-E (Rule #2ii)

A lot of people, including me, were upset and angry to see that Wall-E was not nominated for 'Best Picture', especially in a year where the films replacing it are so weak (same argument is valid for The Dark Knight as well). A pinnacle in animation technologies and a daring example in visual storytelling, Wall-E is a film that has something for all minds of all ages. I can't see the Academy bending its unwritten rules to hand out a screenplay award to an animation so chances are slim for this writing trio. Nevertheless, it's both refreshing and exciting to see this one as a nominee in this category - the writers are once again on the right track.

Lat Den Ratte Komma In / Let The Right One In (2008)

A Film To Remember

Best horror films do not scare you as much in your seat as they do afterwards. But more importantly, they are not lamentably hollow at their core - they have other reasons to exist than, say, startling people in the darkness or maybe giving shy new lovers an excuse to get physically closer. That's why, above all else, it's this writer's humble opinion that Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is without doubt the best horror film ever made to this day. In an age where horror film genre forgot how to haunt people's minds, their dreams and their subconscious minds just as intensely as the two hours spent in the theater, Let The Right One In is indeed a revitalizing experience.

But this is only one of the reasons why god decided to send this little Swedish film our way this year (little in terms of budget, not importance). The other reason, in case you're wondering, was to enable people like myself to better argue why a lot of films that were lucky enough to enjoy popularity and/or critical acclaim in recent years were actually complete trash (or, rephrasing that statement so that some don't find me unnecessarily offensive, 'not as good as people thought them to be'). You thought Frozen River was somewhere close to the upper limit in terms of low-budget realist filmmaking? You believed that Twilight was the best way to tell a teenage love story with vampires? Was either Teeth or The Grudge the best possible depiction of a monster trapped in the body of an innocent underage female? Compared to this one, did they even remotely resemble satisfying stories? Or, let's go one layer above the recently-released films: Did you think German expressionists at the beginning of the previous century were destined to reign as a small collection of people most capable of telling fantasy/horror stories? Would gore always be a pointless exercise in filmmaking as it is in Hostel or Saw series? Should we give up and embrace all the sound effect-induced moments in random gloomy frames as today's newly-emerging horror style?

Would the genre be as powerful again as it once used to be?

The conditions are rather premature to jump to the statement that after this little film, certain shortcomings that are well-known to be common among recently-released horror films are no longer the extensions of a particular trend. Even as Let The Right One In was being shown to the American audiences for the first time, a deal for its Hollywood remake was already sealed (the release date seems to be 2010, in case you were wondering). I don't particularly fancy deprecating prejudgments, but I think we all possess certain prophetic capabilities when looking into the future and trying to estimate how good that remake will be. Regardless of Let The Right One In or its remake, we will continue to sit through (or more preferably hear only the news of) a lot more mediocre-at-best horror films, maybe with the ever-increasing expectation of something different and original. We'll be sorely disappointed a lot of times; but at least now, we have more reasons now to be hopeful.

When I was inviting some of my friends to come see the movie with me in a special midnight screening, I saw their faces go sour when I used the term 'Swedish vampire film' as a tag. Only after watching Alfredson's film it became apparent to me that calling Let The Right One In a 'vampire film' is actually almost as ludicrous as calling The Reader a 'Holocaust film' (almost, not as much). I'm not advocating that it transcends the genre or anything, but clearly, a huge chunk of the film is about anything but vampires. It is unfortunate that in this century, we seem to be pathetically hung up on titles and labels and summaries more than ever before - our desperate need for as much simplicity as we can get our hands on to make our lives easier has reached unsettling proportions. Everything is always rushed; we have to judge quickly, categorize and move on so that our busy little brains will not have one more severe burden to ponder about. We have to see more, write more and do more. We basically need to produce, more than others do. In such a summer hustle, a film like Eyes Wide Shut was mostly dismissed as 'tedious and pretentious crap'; therefore it should come as no surprise that Let The Right One In was also overlooked this year, save for the top 10 lists of a handful of respectable critics. We don't like to think, but what's worse is we don't like to be reminded that we don't.

(On a brief note: I heard about this film for the first time through several of such top 10 lists. If you are among the flock of people who despise the very idea those lists, I recommend you to think twice.)

So what do we have here then? When it comes to an extremely ambitious and equally successful project like this one (which, by the way, is 'No Country For Old Men of 2008' to me) the answers should be evaluated just as meticulously. This is the story two young, isolated and blood-lusting souls. Take this statement literally for the girl (Eli) and metaphorically for the boy (Oskar). Her need is obviously physical while his is emotional, but it's hard to determine whose is greater. Eli is much much older and has seen things, so she should help Oskar one grow up and grow strong. On one level, it's the most touching coming-of-age story of a mentor-tutor relationship in which the idea of 'love' and 'devotion' is integrated so subtly that it's almost subliminal. Let The Right One In avoids making bold statements about things that are better left unsaid for it doesn't take brains to deduce them anyway (Mr. Eastwood, some precious lessons for you here). It skips the entire foreplay about the past; about how the girl became a vampire, how she met the older man (Hakan) and what happened to the father of the boy. The characters speak when they actually 'say' something and things 'happen' only if there is enough reason to make us to witness them. At its running time of almost two hours, the film is incredibly compact and complete.

'Revenge' was another term that was thrown in by many critics. While I concur that it was indeed a part of the story, it's nowhere near being the thematic centerfold of the film. Not like, say, how Tarantino elaborated on the same idea in Kill Bill or Sergio Leone did in his masterpiece Once Upon A Time In The West. In this case, the concept is more in the background, breathing life into the boy's character and making credible his motivations as well as his emotional 'defects' (if you want to call them that). It's the base that this extraordinary relationship is built upon, but the building itself is a completely different matter.

Not that the film is only about the Oskar and Eli; all the supporting characters are also given amazing complexities and depths, as if everything that the this year's Oscar-nominated films were lacking in terms of character development were channeled into this film. Certainly the most significant and dramatic example is the loving yet abusive relationship between Eli and Hakan, who seems to be responsible for making 'things' easier for her. He is a character which defies all expectations and quick judgments, even though it becomes obvious from early on in the film that she's the one pulling the strings in this 'family', that she's the parent and he's the kid or maybe she's the oppressive lover and he merely complies. It's both heartbreaking and chilling to the bone when the old man asks the girl not to see the young boy again. Not on that day at least, not when he is doing 'things' for her that is so hard to digest that he lost all sense of emotion and reality. The girl is wiser though. A pat on the cheek and that's it. He should understand. Lucky for her, he does.

There is every reason to believe that he was Oskar's predecessor; an obvious detail that I thought was lost to many critics that I've been reading lately. In fact, it's due to this fact that the anti-climactic ending of the film resonates so well. Though the use of Hakan, the film incapsulates both the past and the future of any relationship Eli would keep on having with mortals. It's both sad and horrifying. The hopeless, cyclical nature of this vampire's life, in which there'll be many more lover/servant/friends coming in and going out periodically, is depicted most poignantly. The hopes and excitements at every new corner (such as young Oskar) is accompanied by the presence of long-accumulated frustration. The calm, familiar sense of loneliness and despair. For Eli, it's fate at its most relentless form.

Alfredson should also be praised for making best possible use of the landscape of Stockholm suburbia to paint a portrait of confinement and desolation. There are countless scenes where he introduces new dimensions to cinematic visuality. It's realism at its most beautiful form. In fact, everything happening in this film looks and feels so real that you feel things could jump out of the screen any moment. As far as locations are concerned, it could be your house and your neighborhood. It could be your kid's school. If vampires were real, a documentary about their hunting, feeding and mating habits would've looked like this. The camera is always distant and restrained, almost scared. Yes, this means there was gore but nothing is excessive. Like the genius first half of Jaws or the genius both halves of Psycho, all you see is what you need to see. No fangs, for instance, no overtly-long and dark suspense scenes. No time to lose on such trivial things - there is a whole story to tell.

With Let The Right One In, Tomas Alfredson tells a powerful visual story using minimal literary narrative accompanied by just as minimal camera movements, with an expertise that elevates him well above the Turkish auteur Nuri Bilge Ceylan, who pays attention to merely the technical aspect of this style yet somehow still manages to impress the European critical circles with each film he makes. Let The Right One In is something else; it's a miracle that will remind you 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days or Silent Light or maybe no less than Tarkovski himself. It will remind you the best examples of Bergman. As a horror film, on the other hand, it's comparable to The Shining and almost nothing else. Films like this are why we love movies.

10/10

Revolutionary Road (2008)

An Intelligent Premise Gone Bad

Revolutionary Road is a film where men last less than 30 seconds and women would be content with even 3 because they always have more pressing issues. For most of them it's the daily humdrum of suburban life while for April Wheeler, it's the continuous effort to find a way to start living the life she had envisioned for herself when she fell in love and got married. For this cause, she is even willing to work herself, take the responsibility to look after the family and give her husband, Frank, the time he needs to figure out what he really wants to do with his life. All she wants is to abandon their current lifestyle for good. Being a salesman at Knox and taking the train to work every morning like dozens of other men in suits and fedora hats (visualized beautifully in one of the film's most worthwhile scenes), Frank shares April's aspiration for a better, but more importantly, an exciting life that to them seems possible only beyond American suburbia. He is more than happy to cooperate. For a while at least.

This is a married couple who have pinned all their hopes and ambitions to Paris for no apparent reason, save for the rumor that they paid crazy amounts for secretarial jobs in government agencies in Europe; a rumor which they conveniently never question. For all we know, they might be choosing that specific city over dozens of others just because its name radiates a romantic and adventurous feel. When their exasperation is so extreme, there is no time for reasoning. They are so busy trying to get out that they have no time to plan where to get in once they do.

The fact that 'things' get in the way of all their plans is probably both favorable and not. It's good because once faced with the impossible amount of complications brought along, they wake up from their dreams of a blind date with Paris. But it's also a misfortune because everything happens after this point further accentuates their dysfunction as a couple. One of the film's rare accomplishments is to show us, at this point, that none of the parties in this family is solely responsible from everything they go through - they are simply not right for each other, as is most often the case in real life.

It's the lighthearted feel-bad movie of the year where dreams are made impossible by life itself. It becomes apparent with this film that director Sam Mendes of American Beauty is not at all done with American suburbia, whether it be the one we witness today or the one that our parents did years ago. This is fine, but the problem is, there are countless other films (Little Children, Edward Scissorhands, The Stepford Wives and its remake) and TV Shows (Weeds, Desperate Housewives) that address the same issue, either through parody or critique. Needless to say, all of the examples I have listed do an excellent job, both intellectually and aesthetically (except for later seasons of Desperate Housewives) and if one wants to tackle the same subject again, he/she must be able to top them. Or at least should hit a different note and provide us with something that hasn't already been done numerous times before. In this aspect, Revolutionary Road has nothing to offer.

Substantial problems in details further sink Revolutionary Road. First of such flaws is the fact that the film is drowned in overtly theatrical and disturbingly descriptive monologues; mostly reserved for Kate Winslet to make her appear more Oscar-worthy (but hey, it worked for the Golden Globes). Throughout these monologues, the whole point of the film (which I believe I was able to summarize quite exhaustively in the few paragraphs above) is repeated over and over again to a point that it loses its meaning and significance. Here is one of such monologues to refresh your memory:

No Frank, this is what's unrealistic. It's unrealistic for a man with a fine mind to go on working, year after year, at a job he can't stand; coming home to a place he can't stand; to a wife who is equally unable to stand the same things. Do you want to know the worst part? Our whole existence here is based on this great premise that we're... special and superior to the whole thing. But we're not! We're just like everyone else! Look at us; we've bought into the same ridiculous delusion; this idea that you have to resign from life and settle down the moment you have children. And we've been punishing each other for it.

Here is another jewel of a monologue about truth:

Why not? I don't need everything we have here; I don't care where we live. I mean, who made these rules anyway? Look, the only reason we moved out here was because I got pregnant. Then we had another child to prove the first one wasn't a mistake. I mean, how long does it go on?! Frank? Do you actually want another child? Well do you? Come on, tell me. Tell me the truth Frank! Remember that? We used to live by it. And you know what's so good about the truth? Everyone knows what it is, however long they've lived without it. No one forgets the truth Frank, they just get better at lying. So tell me, do you really want another child?

Come to think of it, this was the exact scene shown to the audience when Winslet's name was announced as a nominee in tonight's SAG awards. So I guess the fish bit the hook in this one.

If you are going to tell word by word what the movie is all about, then it is my humble opinion that you don't need to make the movie itself. If I'm going to be treated like a little kid in an elementary school, if the writer is so obsessed in making me understand his subject matter that he makes his characters describe themselves to the audience and if an inanimate object can draw the same conclusions from the movie as I do, than that movie is nothing more than a waste of two precious hours from one's life.

Not only the monologues but everything else in the film, every discussion, every argument, every single excitement and tension boils down to the same theme of 'living the life one wants' as opposed to what he/she is forced to. It's a powerful theme but the best way to cultivate it would be either to expand it (like Little Children did) or deepen it (like American Beauty) as opposed to keep repeating a single tagline. It is for this reason that I believe Revolutionary Road would've worked a lot better as a 15-minute short film and -needless to say- this is never a good sign for a full-length motion picture.

Another flaw I can think on the top of my head is the overtly theatrical lines/moments which distract the audience from the intensity of this could-be-real story. Here is an example...

(Frank discovers the rubber tubes and explodes)

Frank: Listen to me, you do this April, you do this and I swear to god...
April: What? You'll leave me? Is that a threat or a promise?

... and another one:

(John Givings, played by Oscar-nominated Michael Shannon, drops by with his mother Helen and father Howard to meet the Wheelers. Helen, who is obviously at unease with her son's extreme inquisitiveness and inappropriate questions, walks up to the window and tries changing the subject)

John: See, I've got a good many questions to ask and I'm willing to pay for the answers. Now I don't need to be told that a man who goes after his mother with a coffee table is putting himself in a weak position legally, that's obvious.
Helen: John, come have a look out this fabulous picture window!
John: If he hits her with it and kills her, that's a criminal case.
Helen: Oh look, the sun is coming out!
John: If all he does is break the coffee table and give her a certain amount of aggravation and she decides to go to court over it, that's a civil case.
Helen: Maybe we'll have a rainbow! John, come have a look!

Theatricalities like these work for certain films but certain films only. Revolutionary Road is not one of them.

While we are on the subject of John Givings, allow me to say that both his character and his performance is the most pathetic way to try to appear smart, unexpected and interesting. The mentally challenged ex math doctor is the least expected person to understand the complexity of the given situation yet -big surprise- it's no one but him who puts his finger on what's fundamentally wrong with the Wheeler family! In the 'look how smartly written and brilliantly acted this character is and be impressed by him' dinner sequence towards the end, he misfires even when delivering the powerful line: "I'm glad I'm not gonna be that kid". Yet it's the Academy this time to take the bait and before you know it, he is nominated for an Oscar in the supporting actor category which, by the way, has no sign of Ralph Fiennes's career-defining performance in The Duchess. It's one of those many instances when one tends to believe that AMPAS has no credibility left at all (But that's such a typical to say nowadays, isn't it?)

As for other performances, I can easily say that Winslet does her best with the lines she is given but Leonardo DiCaprio, whose ambitious transformation from a teenage heartthrob into a serious actor I had been admiring for a while, is completely lost in his role as the loving yet tenacious, aggressive and predictable husband who is constantly fighting for dominance and control. Not that there is anything significant that he's doing wrong but his presence is faint and insubstantial. Some roles are not good for certain actors and I guess this was one of such roles for Leo. The rest of the cast is just the way they're supposed to be - decent enough.

All in all, Revolutionary Road is built on a admirable premise but is a wasted opportunity merely because of the BAFTA-nominated screenplay. The fundamental flaws in its execution makes me unable to fully absorb a lot of its strengths, such as the incredibly intense and nerve-shattering breakfast sequence at the end where you immediately sense that something is terribly wrong but can't put your finger on it. It's the deep breath before the plunge. And it is one of those moments where the extent of Kate Winslet's talents become most apparent. To find the perfect balance between greatly disturbing and perfectly normal is not a job everybody can pull off.

4/10

Note: This article is a part of the 2008 awards season review series which will be the primary feature of The Long Take until the Oscar Night. The information below will be updated as listed awards are handed out and more nominations are announced.

Nominated For:

• Best Achievement in Art Direction (Kristi Zea & Debra Schutt) - Academy Awards
  
• Best Achievement in Costume Design (Albert Wolsky) - Academy Awards
  
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role (Michael Shannon) - Academy Awards

• Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Theatrical Releases (Roger Deakins) - American Society of Cinematographers

• Best Costume Design (Albert Wolsky) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Leading Actress (Kate Winslet) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Production Design (Kristi Zea & Debra Schutt) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Adapted Screenplay (Justin Haythe) - BAFTA Awards

• Best Supporting Actor (Michael Shannon) - Chicago Film Critics Association

• Excellence in Costume Design for Film (Albert Wolsky) - Costume Designers Guild Awards

• Best Director, Motion Picture (Sam Mandes) - Golden Globes
  
• Best Motion Picture, Drama - Golden Globes
  
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama (Leonardo DiCaprio) - Golden Globes

• Actress of the Year (Kate Winslet) - London Critics Circle Film Awards
  
• British Actress of the Year (Kate Winslet) - London Critics Circle Film Awards

• Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role (Kate Winslet) - Screen Actors Guild Awards
  

Won:

• Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture, Drama (Kate Winslet) - Golden Globes

• Best Actress (Kate Winslet) - Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards

Who Should've Won, Who Should Win & Who Deserved

More Featured Articles For The Awards Season

I have been doing not so bad with the awards season film reviews that I had promised would be the primary feature on The Long Take until the end of Oscar Night, if you don't mind me saying that. I look back and see I have posted 7 reviews that is relevant and 10 posts in total this month and this is way above my average. I will take this chance to congratulate myself for learning how to fulfill my promises.

So far I have been posting reviews of films only because this is the time of the year when I spend the most time watching movies and I barely have enough time and energy to keep writing reviews for them as I go. I am still behind schedule as I am yet to review a few of the year's most talked about films (a.k.a. the ones with most nominations); but I am aware that in order to make this feature more complete, I need to write some higher-level articles that analyze what's going on in the awards circles at this time of the year. In line with this notion, I have pinned down what additional features that this article series need most; and I would like to share them with you, as always.

1. In all my arrogance, I have decided to inform you about who I think should've won in the Golden Globes, who should win in the upcoming Oscars and the films/people that really deserved to win in the categories specified by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). They might appear slightly confusing at first glance, so let me clarify:

• Who should've won in the Golden Globes is a post where I proudly declare my choices for deserving winners among the nominees presented by Hollywood Foreign Press Association. In years to come, this post will always come after the winners are announced because, frankly, I never have enough time to be able to see all the nominated films before the Golden Globe night and I don't want to make up my mind based on my prejudices and preconceptions.
  
• Who should win in the Oscars is a post where I write about my picks among the nominees presented by AMPAS. I should be able to post this before the Oscar Night because after that, the excitement for the whole thing dies down and awards season comes to an end.
  
• The year's real deserving winners is where I freely choose the should-be-winners for almost every Oscar category according to my own criteria - therefore the nominees are of no interest at this point. This one should come sometime after the Oscar Night because I want it to be more conclusive than tension-heightening.
  

For all these three post, I will also analyze, hopefully every year, what percentage that the awards organizations were able to get the winners right. Yes, I am that full of myself. On the other hand I think it makes more sense than trying to guess the winners, unless you are gambling on them (which I also did in the past) so at least I have good reason to be.

Due to the sheer number of categories, the commentary on each one needs to be short so don't expect anything epic.

2. Year's Oscar Commentary will be an article, where I will elaborate on notable aspects of the year's Oscar nominations. Although Stephanie Zacharek commented recently that this stuff was too unimaginative to be interesting, I still think I can see certain patterns in the way the Academy behaves and those should be of interest. Besides, every year there is a little bit of surprise here and there so it's not an entirely pointless effort.

I predict that it will be in the nature of this article to be kind of repetitive; you might see in it what hundreds of others have already said but every now and then I might catch something original so I'm hoping it'll be a worthy read. Obviously, I will not steal from people without giving credit but I don't read that much so I can't guarantee 100% originality. After all, a surprise is a surprise for everyone, not just me.

3. Conclusive Article of The Year will be an annual wrap-up of things and will include:

• Best 10 Movies of The Year: It's the tradition that everybody abides so why shouldn't I? There is no big suspense here as you can always track the latest situation with my best 10 list on the left bar. I will try to have a review for all the films in that list so that the list itself will consist only of links to my original articles and maybe a few sentences for each entry.
  
• Worst 3 Movies of The Year: Similar to the one above, I will celebrate the people who were able to come up with the most unpleasant things we have seen on the silver screen in the given year.
  
• Conclusive Commentary: A little bit of blabber about the year in general in terms of movies. Notable details, things to be remembered in the future and whatever else that I see fit.

The awards season period in The Long Take will come to an end with this wrap-up post so it will be the latest among all these.

So... More features means more promises - I can only hope I will be able to keep up. Until then, stay tuned.

Ghost Town (2008)

A Film By David Koepp The Talent Neutralizer

Before we go into the latest film that was privileged to star Ricky Gervais in it (of which there are only a handful), let's pause for a moment to pay our respects to the career of writer/director David Koepp, who has been ruining, with mesmerizing skill and determination, a high variety of promising projects for a couple of years now. I am aware that he co-wrote Jurassic Park, which happens to be one of my favorite films, but I have strong faith in Michael Crichton's positive influence in that one. Carlito's Way was good enough but after that came a number of other utterly unremarkable projects (which include but are not limited to The Trigger Effect, The Paper and The Shadow). He joined forces with Brian de Palma and Mission: Impossible became his first film to have posters where the name 'Tom Cruise' would be advertised in bigger fonts than the actual title of the film. This was closely followed by a second round with Steven Spielberg for a Jurassic Park sequel. I would have a couple of mean things to say about these two films, but I will save my breath for the really catastrophic part.

This brings me to David Fincher, whom I have always thought of as an extremely talented director. He does wonders as long as he does not team up with a guy who insists on telling the story of Forrest Gump over and over again; or with a guy who, in the best case scenario, will have hard time going beyond the ordinary. Thanks to the latter, an A-list director who had films like Fight Club, Se7en and The Game to his name until then, became responsible from something like Panic Room.

Koepp then found someone very much like himself in the talent department and adapted Spider-Man, which was a huge commercial success and did considerably good with critics. I didn't think it was a particularly bad film as well - it was nice in a TV movie sort of way. You know, the ones you forget after approximately a couple of minutes after watching. Not more than two years after that something incomprehensible happened and a project with the names Johnny Depp, John Turturro and Stephen King attached to it turned out to be even worse than Spidey. Before we could think what went wrong where, Steven Spielberg realized -in the hard way- that third time was not really a charm; Koepp wrote arguably his worst film that is known to mankind today and needless to say, it was a traumatic experience for everyone. For some reason though, Spielberg persisted the cooperation (because of box office numbers maybe?) until this time he ruined a whole franchise that had been sweeping a whole generation for years; alienating fan base so hardcore that until then was believed to have been impossible to turn away.

And now he takes one of the world's most beloved comedians and reduces him to Hugh Grant. In my book, that's a dead-serious atrocity.

Yes, I do believe that Ricky Gervais is one of the most talented of his generation. He is a real comedic genius and terrific performer; his collection of stand-ups (i.e. Animals, Politics and Fame) is a must-see, but the real extent of his talent is quantified by The Office (British version, obviously), Extras and his short, mostly-improvised gigs in the awards ceremonies. I loved his cameo-like appearance in Stardust and seeing him act against Robert de Niro was like a dream come true. That's why I was quite excited to see Ghost Town where he got to play a comedic lead, even though the whole thing looked like just another reprehensible romantic comedy.

With Koepp, I should've known better.

This is basically the story of a man who, after a bizarre set of events, is able to see dead people but more importantly, they are able to see that he sees them; the dead people in this case being the ones whose death left an unfinished business behind. And as semi-ghosts tend to do in cases like this, everybody has a small request from him so that they will be done with all the earthly matters and their souls will find eternal peace. Bertram Pincus (played by Gervais) though is a bitter asshole who couldn't care less. That is, until he strikes a deal with Frank (played by Greg Kinnear) who is good at convincing people to do things because that used to be his job before he kicked the bucket. The rules of the game are clear: Pincus will help Frank with his unfinished business and in exchange, Frank will convince everybody else to leave Pincus alone.

The rest is a melodramatic story of personal awakenings and -as always- the real meaning of life, spiced up with occasional funny moments. It is Sixth Sense and Ghost cooked in the same pot and finished with a heavy cream of romantic comedy conventions. I will not go so far as to say that Ghost Town is not enjoyable; it definitely has its moments and depending on how much you can tolerate movie cliches, you might even find it satisfying as a whole. As for me, I am used to watching trite films and not caring about them, even to write a review; but in this case my pain is to see Ricky Gervais being wasted in one of them.

5/10