... in jail." So says Old Man Potter (Lionel Barrymore) to a crazed with joy George Bailey (James Stewart) in It's a Wonderful Life. Mr. Potter is the heavy of the movie and we're supposed to dislike him but the thing is, Lionel Barrymore does such an exemplary job at portraying him in all of his nastiness that I kind of like him. The "jail" line, referring to George Bailey's Savings and Loan customers as a "bunch of garlic eaters" and hanging on to the money even when George Bailey comes to him in a desperate panic, knowing it will destroy Bailey and his family if he loses everything and goes to jail. Jesus, what a bastard! And yet, Mr. Potter makes me smile, that old curmudgeon. Probably because I already know everything turns out fine so I can sit back and enjoy Old Man Potter's bitterness. But a part of it also comes from the fact that at this time of the year I'm pretty much an old bitter curmudgeon myself.
Join me in my bitterness. Specifically, Oscar bitterness.
I wrote last year on this blog of the recent Oscar phenomenon of awarding the lead acting Oscars to impersonations of real life characters and the trend continues. Four of the last six Best Actor winners (Adrian Brody, Jamie Foxx, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Forest Whitaker) and a whopping five of the last six (and seven since 1999) Best Actress winners (Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron, Reese Witherspoon, Helen Mirren, Marion Cotillard) all portrayed real life characters. That's 9 to 3 in favor of impersonation. And if you don't think this is something new you're wrong. Want to know how many Best Actress winners were for portrayals of real people before 1999 (remember, seven of the last nine have been for portrayals of real people)? If you said "seven" you're right. That's right, in the Oscars handed out before 1999, the same amount were given for impersonation performances for the first seventy one Oscars as for the last nine! It could be argued that it's eight if you count Ingrid Bergman for Anastasia, loosely based on real characters and events. That's how, last year on this blog, I was able to correctly predict in December before any nominations were even out that Marion Cotillard would win Best Actress. I hadn't seen her performance or any of the others yet that would end up getting nominated and it didn't matter. She was playing a real person. I knew she'd win. This year's Best Actress hopefuls don't have any big impersonation performances to get in the way so we'll have a brief respite from it this year. But don't worry because the two front runners for Best Actor are...
Sean Penn and Frank Langella! And who do they play again? Oh yeah, real life politicians Harvey Milk and Richard Nixon. Penn already has an Oscar, Langella's been around for ages without one
(or even nomination) and someone has to finally win for playing Nixon right? Right. Go with the even money and the recent impersonation trend of the Oscars. Frank Langella gets the Golden Boy.
So why does all this make me bitter (remember, that's how all of this started)? Not because I think it's easy playing a real life character, in fact, one could argue it's more difficult because you're working against audience expectations of how the character should look and sound. On the other hand, if you get the look and sound just right (Jamie Foxx, Philip Seymour Hoffman) you can fool a lot of people into thinking you just gave a performance. Not that those two actors didn't give a performance, but the look and sound of their characters took precedence over any emotional arcs or deeper reflection. Heath Ledger gave a performance in Brokeback Mountain. He inhabited a character, made him real and filled him with loneliness and pain. Hoffman played Capote. 
Sorry, that probably sounds snide or flippant, but the two performances don't compare and the fact that the Oscars increasingly looks to see who is doing the best impersonation onscreen annoys me. But what really bothers me about is...
I can't stand biopics! Okay, that's too harsh. There are many I like actually, but on the whole, biopics bore me. I'd bet good money there are plenty of good wholly fictional stories out there in the minds of talented screenwriters that will never see the light of day because come Oscar time the studios want to put their "prestige movie money" into a biopic where everyone can "oooh" and "aah" over how much Charlize Theron looks like Aileen Wuornos! Wow! I mean, she's ugly and everything! So if only for the sake of less biopics, I hope Oscar eases away from this trend sooner rather than later.
I'm still catching up on 2008 releases so a post on Best Picture bitterness will have to wait. We've made it seven years since a biopic last won the top award (A Beautiful Mind, 2001) so we're probably due, which means, being the Oscar completest I am, I will have to see Milk and/or Frost/Nixon and even though I know I'm pre-judging here, I'd rather have my teeth drilled. But I'll do my duty and take them in soon. In fact, I'll go online right now to get my tickets. Hmmm... my teeth do feel a little sensitive right now though. No, no, I'll get the tickets. Hmmm... maybe I'm getting a cavity. Yeah, you know what, first things first. I'm making an appointment for the dentist.
76 comments:
I know how you feel, Jonathan. Biopics are usually pretty bad - they're either so inaccurate as to be an insult to the memory of the person being portrayed, or they're too cleaned up. They can also be very creepy, aka, Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman.
There are a few I like, mostly because they have singing and dancing in them - The Glenn Miller Story, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Beyond the Sea. I'll Cry Tomorrow is a great woman's film.
I haven't seen most of the recent impersonations and didn't like La Vie en Rose very much. The make-up artists for that one won the Oscar for good reason.
This is just another example of the lack of creativity in Hollywood. Why bother writing a story when you can copy one.
I've seen very few new movies this year, and, outside of The Dark Knight, I've seen none that are getting any kind of awards buzz at all. I want to see Doubt, Gran Torino and The Wrestler most of all, and I hope I can in the near future.
I'll probably do my catching up on 2008 when all these films are on DVD. I just about don't give a damn anymore for contemporary Hollywood films, even the so-called independents. I'd rather see these Golden Horse nominees, especially the new film by Sylvia Chang.
Marilyn, I never saw Beyond the Sea but I like the other biopics you mention, especially Yankee Doodle Dandy because A: I love Michael Curtiz B: I love James Cagney C: I love Walter Huston D: The over the top patriotism of it all, and the fact that FDR is content to sit and listen to George tell him his life story for two hours, just makes me giddy with delight. That is one Can Do movie.
I agree there is a lack of creativity in using these biopics as an easy "prestige movie" come awards season. Also though, I think advances in make-up and CGI technology have also contributed. Now they can make historical films where the period can be easily and accurately reproduced via computer and with make-up (and CGI) they can make the actors look, really look, like the characters from history they are portraying. I mean Cagney looks nothing like Cohan but with make-up they were able to make Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron look very similar to Virginia Woolf and Aileen Wuornos. And if you can do it, we all know you should do it, right?
Bill, I've seen a few so far that should be among the contenders but I've yet to see Doubt, Gran Torino or The Wrestler. I'll get around to them in the next couple of weeks probably and by late January be able to do a Best Picture post, once the nominees are announced.
Remember last year how it was all about No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood? There were these two really big movies that got everyone talking and this year... nothing. There are plenty of movies in contention with no one or two clear frontrunners. Reminds me more of 2005 and 2006 where there were no clear frontrunners either.
Peter - I had a chance to see Sparrow and blew it. I hope it shows up at one of the art houses in town. The others look interesting, too.
Bill - I made a list of current films I saw in 2008. Eleven in general release (four of them were documentaries), the rest film festival screenings. Thank goodness Rod is around to take care of current films on FonF.
Jonathan - Even for all the CGI, the most impressive-looking film I saw in a theatre this year was The Fall, which had no CGI at all.
Peter, you know where independent film is: the internet. That stuff at Sundance has big names and big money attached. The Independent Spirit Awards? Ha! What a joke! Last year's winner: Juno. The year before: Little Miss Sunshine, you know the movie that had all those unknown, new to the movies actors like Alan Arkin, Greg Kinnear, Steve Carrell and Toni Collette.
Independent films are ones made by filmmakers who have no Hollywood connections, no backing, a camera, maybe two, amateur actors and an idea. That's independent filmmaking and it doesn't get any recognition anymore. It's what I'm trying to do even though I know my chances for success are slim.
I remember years ago when I first started to notice that "independent" filmmaking wasn't really independant at all. Bottle Rocket was getting plenty of buzz as this new, independent little feature and I thought, "But it has James Caan in it and is co-produced by James L. Brooks." I guarantee you, nothing I am working on with my pathetic little camera has James Caan in it or James L. Brooks producing.
Marilyn (and Bill) - The Fall! That's what I've got to see. You and Rick and Bill have all talked about it and I still haven't seen it. I put movies in the queue and take forever to get to them. The stills from it are quite amazing.
Jonathan, after you get around to it, go back and read my review. There's a lot of info from the director, who attended my screening and answered questions galore.
On the subject of biopics, I enjoyed Cadillac Records, not because it was particularly well made, but because I was always curious about the story of the Chess record label. Perhaps Hollywood's recent emphasis on biopics parallels the American tendency to increasingly favor nonfiction books over fictional ones for the past fifty years? Perhaps people just don't see enough award-worthy gravitas in made-up stories anymore?
Marilyn, I love it when a director or actor is present and discusses the film. We're both really lucky to have access to showings like that. I went ahead and moved it up in the queue so that once I send back the ones I've got (including The True Meaning of Pictures) which I'm going to do a reminder post for in a couple of days for the Film Club members) I'll have it. I'll definitely read your review afterwards. Thanks.
Totally in agreement with you here Jonathan... in fact, I'm just gonna cut and paste this post and pass it off as my own when I'm having an off day!
But, for reals. I think you're on point when you talk about the impersonation performances. The imitation is what wows the audience so the actor is able to pull back on substance, nuance, or subtlety. This isn't always the case, but in the cases you mentioned - Foxx, Hoffman - I think it was. Did you ever see Toby Jones do Truman Capote in Infamous? I haven't. But I've heard - from some, not everyone - that his performance is better. In general, I really like Toby Jones, so...
Anyway, I think perhaps these type of nominations are a result of voter laziness and media (critical) lead-in hype.
For example, Let's say members of the Academy receive screeners of Burn After Reading in consideration of John Malkovich as Best Supporting Actor (something that I think SHOULD happen). Well, at that point, trade papers, headline critics, gossip shows, bloggers etc. have already appointed their favorites. So, is some lazy S.O.B. with two hotties in his lap really gonna take the time to watch Malkovich's perfomance, or, is he just gonna go with, say, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight?
I mean, I remember people saying - accurately - way back in March (!!)that Langella would be nominated for Best Actor. And he probably hadn't even finished filming yet!
Way it goes, I guess. Hollywood is like Washington more and more every day.
p.s. I wasn't a fan of Brokeback Mountain, but I think Ledger should have won Best Actor for it among those who were nominated. I thought both him and Michelle Williams were very good in that movie.
Perhaps people just don't see enough award-worthy gravitas in made-up stories anymore?
Filmdr, as far as awards go, they have always gone for "noble" subjects to lend themselves gravitas. And when it's got a noble subject and it's a true story they feel they're honoring the actual person or event. So a Ghandi or a Schindler's List makes them feel like they're honoring not just the movie but Indian Independence and the victims of the Holocaust. I'm not sure Frost/Nixon will give them that feeling but Milk probably will.
Did you ever see Toby Jones do Truman Capote in Infamous?
No, but I saw him do Truman Capote in The Mist. I was surprised when Capote got eaten by the giant spider, because I know he died of alcoholism in real life.
Fox - Michelle Williams was worthy of nomination in that movie for sure. I've read that you were not a big fan of it (Brokeback Mountain) and I understand but I myself thought it was excellent and did a great job of exploring Ennis' confusion and loneliness.
I didn't see Toby Jones in Infamous but he certainly looks like Capote. Of course (and I like Toby Jones) people could be having the same "Wow" effect because he does look and sound so much like him (in the clips I saw).
Burn After Reading is yet another I haven't seen from this year. I've got a lot of catching up to do.
Arbo - If only The Mist were a biopic of a real mist that everyone knows and loves maybe Toby Jones would have been nominated, had he in fact played the mist itself. Which I think he would have totally nailed! Alas, it was a fictional mist. And Toby didn't play it.
Oh, and I don't give two fucks about the Academy Awards. I'm the only one among my friends who consistently doesn't watch the broadcast or pay any attention to the Oscar "predix" and yet year after year people who did pay attention to all that shit and did watch the broadcast turn to me and ask "Who won last year for..."
And I always say "Steve Ihnat." And they give me that confused dog look.
Forget Smoochy... death to Oscar!
First of all, Steve Ihnat does nothing but play himself. He's so lazy. Second of all, I never forget an Oscar. I can name 'em all, every year. So there. Third of all, I don't throw freakin' parties or anything but I do watch the show. They've got entertaining montages and clips from the movies. In between, I can work on banners or templates or a post while someone is onstage blathering about.
And when I win my first Oscar(possibly for screenplay or short subject, to be followed by actor and director awards) YOU BETTER FREAKIN' WATCH!
Aha! Another dark hearted pessimist. I think you and I belong to the same club, Jonathan.
I'm an Oscar completist as well. Even if it kills me. Some years it almost has.
But I would have missed out on a LOT of good (even great) films and astonishing performances if it hadn't been for that little gold guy. So there are times that I am grateful for that.
As an actor, you really have to do your homework. In many respects, it is far more difficult to portray a real person, particularly if they're living now. If it's someone that people possess a deep familiarity with, you'd better get all the little details right.
But it's tricky. You have to make the audience believe that you ARE that person - embody them completely - without giving an impersonation. Doing a straight impression won't be very effective in any case.
Some people are fabulous at that. Other actors miss the mark big time. But I've seen it done incredibly well...
Being a big Doors fan, I thought that VAL KILMER was a completely convincing JIM MORRISON. They look nothing alike. But yet he captured his spirit totally. His singing was absolute perfection. If you closed your eyes and just listened you would have no difficulty believing it was Jim.
I saw CATHERINE HICKS perform a similar type of alchemy when she played MARILYN MONROE in a TV movie. The only physical similarity was that they were both blonde. Marilyn is not the easiest subject to portray. There are lots of little nuances to her: the voice, the walk, the body language. Not to mention that the screen persona was quite different from the actual woman.
But Catherine understood that. She grasped the bottomless subtext. There were moments when I was watching her that I almost believed she was Marilyn. I was pulled right in.
Well, considering the actors branch of the Academy nominates other actors, I've often wondered what the hell they do know about craft and artistry. REALLY.
They almost always nominate BIG, SHOWY, ACTORY WITH A CAPITAL A performances (when everyone with a brain knows that subtlety is much more difficult to achieve), heavy dramatic work vs. the comedic stuff (it's inevitably comedy that is almost always tougher to do) and actors in biopics.
I don't get it...
However, I have to say (from my perspective) that many of the people you mentioned in your post were exceptionally deserving.
ADRIEN BRODY was my #1 choice in his category that year. I am no fan of Jamie Foxx. But I thought he was extraordinary as Ray Charles.
PSH, to me, was enormously compelling. But I completely agree that Heath SHOULD HAVE WON. PSH was all about craft. But Heath took you to an entirely different place and broke your heart in two. What Heath did set him up on a legendary trajectory.
Yeah, even though Forest Whitaker beat PETER O'TOOLE (AND I WILL NEVER FORGIVE AMPAS FOR THAT - NOT TO MY DYING DAY), he was still excellent. BUT FOREST DIDN'T DESERVE TO WIN.
Frankly, I'm not as fond of the chicks.
Reese winning is a complete joke to me. She sang well...and what else? She was not REMOTELY like JUNE CARTER in any way, shape or form.
Same with Charlize. She packed on the pounds, got brown contact lenses, scraped off the makeup, didn't do her hair and screamed and yelled a lot. She was incredibly over the top in many of her scenes. I've seen actual film of Aileen Wuornos and Charlize didn't convince me a bit. It's the old uglification bit. They gave her a pass because she got her hands dirty. I think it's one of the most overrated performances I've EVER seen.
On the other hand, I thought that Nicole was gutsy. She took it to the wall. I couldn't even recognize her. She had the makeup, it's true. But her English accent was flawless. I've seen much of Nicole's work. Her Virginia is unlike any other of her creations.
Helen was one of the people that I was talking about that immersed herself completely in character. I was thunderstruck by her brilliance. She really WAS the Queen.
Marion was absolutely breathtaking in my estimation. I have never seen such an astonishing ballsy portrayal. Grief is a very difficult thing to put across on film. That part where her lover dies is seared into my memory. She was unbelievable. I never really believed that AMPAS would have the good taste to reward her. Once in a while they do get it right...
With all that said (ha ha), I have seen MILK - twice - and FROST/NIXON. As far as I'm concerned, they're both terrific films with wonderful acting.
I hope you won't be disappointed, Jonathan.
I wasn't.
And, as I keep hearing, I'm a hard girl to please...
Malkovich should indeed be considered for Burn After Reading. So should Brad Pitt, in truth, but Malkovich is stone-cold brilliant in that film. He's a perfect fit for the Coens and should become one of their regulars.
Yes, Jonathan, check out The Fall. Good stuff.
I saw Infamous and liked it better than Capote. I don't know if that had anything to do with my antipathy for Hoffman, though.
I don't watch the Oscars anymore. I check to winner the next day out of curiosity. Since I don't usually see the nominees in most of the categories, I'm dispassionate about the results.
I do think Milk will win next picture as an "up yours" to California for Prop 8 and a signal to the rest of the world that not all California feels that way.
Also, I don't think Adrien Brody's work in The Pianist should be lumped in with all these other biopic winners, because how many people know what the real guy was like?
Well, let's face it. Brody was playing Roman Polanski. Those experiences track pretty closely with Polanski's during the war.
But Roman Polanski already played Roman Polanski in The Tenant. And I think the version in The Tenant is probably closer to the one in The Pianist.
Speaking of which, The Tenant would be a good ...Really Important Film Club pick for somebody.
I think Bill makes a good point about Brody in The Pianist.
And Marilyn, I thought the same about Milk winning, but now it seems that all of the gusto is behind Slumdog to take it all. It's a fan AND critical fave, and it will make the Academy feel as if they are recognizing and "Indian film" for once. I think Penn is a shoo-in for Best Actor though, and I think that's mostly attributed to what Jonathan says in this post.
I actually think you are all wrong. I think the closest there is to a shoe-in right now is Mickey Rourke for Best Actor. I don't know about Best Picture, but I have a feeling the hype surrounding Slumdog Millionaire has peaked.
Fox - I don't buy it. Noble beats scrappy crowd-pleaser every day. I think S.M. will be nominated, though, to get fans to watch the broadcast.
Noble beats scrappy crowd-pleaser every day
I think the fact that there is no clear front runner, and that the "scrappy crowd-pleaser" lost the last two times may work in it's favor. It's a close race, but if you held I gun to my head I'd say it was S.M. (The hype has peaked though, a month ago I would have said it was a shoo-in)
Miranda, I too liked Kilmer and Hicks in those roles, although I didn't like the film The Doors very much. And I think the performances of most winners are good, just not always the most deserving. For instance, I don't Charlton Heston should have won for Ben Hur but for all the flack he gets as an actor, he wasn't bad. Just not something I think of as worthy of an acting award. So I agree that Foxx and Hoffman were good in their portrayals but I didn't think they were Oscar worthy performances.
Bill - People may not know who Brody was playing (how many knew Schindler before the movie) but they knew it was "true story" movie. I'm not saying that Oscar awards just based on impersonation but also on knowing it's a noble tale from real life. Just like Julia Roberts winning for Erin Brockavich wasn't because she did an uncanny impersonation of her but because they all knew it was "real life" tale of a noble character.
Fox, Marilyn's right. Noble always win with the Academy. I think the acting branch would want to reward Langella for decades of unrewarded acting and then vote Milk for Best Picture to send the message.
Krauthammer, you got that comment in as I was typing up mine but I think we covered the same thing. I go with Milk for Pic and Langella for Actor.
One of the exceptions for me when it comes to biopic award winners in the best actor/actress category was Marion Coutillard. I thought she brought a lot of passion to her performance that I fail see in something like Penn's Havrey Milk. To me, Penn's performance is just mimickry.
I think the most ridiculous winners of recent times were Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf and Charlize Theron as "the monster". Both brought me to laughter. In fact, for some party fun, pop in Monster with friends and heckle it all out on the couch. (This would be perfect for New Years Eve festivities tomorrow).
It took me a long time before getting around to Monster but when I did I was pretty stunned... that she had been praised so much! She wasn't bad but I found a lot of it reminiscent of overdone pantomime from the silent era, or as I like to call it when it's in a modern movie, high school acting. As an actor I know that often people don't appreciate fully how much work goes into any performance and how many people can't even manage to make simple dialogue sound natural, so I'm not trying to say "she sucked!" but it was kind of clownish at times. And really, sometimes, her facial expressions just made me laugh. I can't imagine she intended that. Nonetheless, that big-eyed angry expression of hers, well, I'm sorry but it's funny.
Monster was a very underwhelming film. And I don't see anyone rushing out to make a semi-sympathetic film out of the life of John Wayne Gacy.
I never saw Monster. I'd say that her best performance was in North Country. That was a film I really dug.
Yeah, I gotta admit, that kind of bugged me too. She's a serial killer and you got the distinct feeling we were meant to feel sorry for her, not the victims. I imagine every serial killer has some insecure, lonely fucked up reason they do what they do but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to make the victims look bad.
If they made another movie about Bundy and he was played with great sympathy while the young women were portrayed as cold, calculating cock-teasers, I don't think it would go over too well. But that's definitely the feeling I got from Monster.
Maybe it's blurred vision due to gender though. Marilyn or Miranda, did you get that from it?
Never mind Marilyn, I see from your comment that you haven't seen it.
Maybe it's blurred vision due to gender though. Marilyn or Miranda, did you get that from it?
I'm not Marilyn or Miranda, but I saw Monster and hated it, and perhaps it was the gender/sympathy thing, but all I remember was that I didn't give a damn about why she did it.
Some of the victims are portrayed with sympathy -- Scott Wilson, the old man in the woods (were they both killed? I can't remember) -- but several weren't, and how in the hell can the filmmakers get away with that? Do they know what these guys were like, or were they simply taking Wournos's word for it? If the latter -- and I don't know who else they could have talked to about what happened at the time they were killed, given that Wournos was, you know, the only survivor -- a serial killer is probably not the best source for an unbiased account of their crimes.
And that scene with Pruitt Taylor Vince...please.
Rick, thank you for informing me that you are neither Marilyn or Miranda. I suspected as much but I welcome the confirmations of my suspicions just the same.
Anyway, and for Bill too, I was reading up on the movie just now due to these comments and reading about the director, Patty Jenkins, being given all of Wuornos' letters by Wuornos herself, and then using only Wuornos point of view, it's not surprising as to the portrayals. Even at her trial, she is made out to be a hero of sorts, taking the fall alone so her lover wouldn't be convicted.
Ok, here's where I get to be the contrary one, I guess.
I thought PSH was brilliant in "Capote." And I know, I know - the voice, the look, the mannerisms- for Truman Capote, that's a big part of it. But there was a lot more to that performance. I like "Capote" as a whole much more than "Infamous." And more than "Brokeback Mountain" for that matter, but I'll agree with everyone that Heath Ledger was heartbreaking and brilliant.
But I don't understand why everyone trashes Charlize Theron for "Monster." First of all, I think we're meant to feel sorry for her initially, but as the film goes on and she becomes more and more unhinged, I think we're encouraged to see her as a truly lost, dangerous soul. And her portrayal, while certainly "big" didn't seem all that unreal to me, but I've known women from my own past (growing up in a hick/redneck sort of araa) who were that overexaggerated in their expressions, their anger and so forth, and Theron's Aileen Wournos felt like one of them to me.
My problem doesn't have much to do with Theron's performance. I don't remember much about it, honestly. My problem with Monster is that Jenkins took Wournos's word for everything. Now, my understanding is that her first victim did have a conviction of attempted rape in his past, so that portrayal is less problematic for me (although it obviously doesn't prove Wournos's account). But, if memory serves, he wasn't the only victim portrayed in a negative light, and why we're allowing the killer of these people to have the last word in their portrayal is beyond me.
Pat, you're supposed to agree with everything we say here. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ban you from the site now. Actually, I was just agreeing with Bill and Rick because they're such chauvinists, I didn't want to ruffle their feathers.
All jokes aside, or at least some, thanks for your insight into the movie. It's a good take on it and like I said, I didn't think she was bad, but I felt the performance was over-praised. But that's just my opinion. As to the movie itself, I pretty much agree with Bill on his previous comment to this one.
Bill makes a great point. It does seem reckless and irresponsible to let a serial killer have the final word on her own victims. I hadn't been aware that this film was made strictly from the killer's point of view. To be honest, I don't remember it that way, although it's been quite a while since I've seen it. What I remember is that the killings got progressively more senseless and indefensible as the film went on. But my memory can be deceptively selective.
No the killings did evolve that way Pat, you're right. It isn't completely sympathetic to Wuornos, especially the last killing, but sympathetic enough to make it feel a bit uneasy for me.
If the Oscar is going to someone playing a real person, then I say (without seeing the film yet), that the award should go to Benicio Del Toro for Che. Better yet, give him two Oscars based on the film being released in two parts.
The Doors did not work in part for me because I actually saw the real band live, twice. And the second time Manzarek and Krieger were playing in different keys. Oliver Stone made it seem like fans reacted to The Doors just like they did with The Beatles. I was there. It didn't happen.
Cool postscript: I briefly met Ray Manzarek. Manzarek came to Denver with his faux-Doors style band, Nite City, and sat next to me in the club while we saw the other band on the bill, The Ramones.
I forgot about Che. That's three possibles for "Real Life" Best Actor award now.
The movie The Doors didn't work for me on many levels and I never saw them in concert. But I did think Kilmer did a great job.
I bet The Ramones were much better than Nite City. Just a hunch. Gabba Gabba Hey!
I don't actually think Aileen Wournos was a serial killer in the truest sense of the categorization. I don't think she killed compulsively but rather impulsively, most often for money, which puts her in the company of guys like Jesse James and Billy the Kid. She was a pathetic wretch living in the belly of the kind of pathetic wretchedness engendered by ignorance, prejudice and poverty and she reacted in an extreme but hardly unexpected way to her own circumstances.
I didn't mind the sympathetic portrayal because that angle shows us how things happen the way they do. A harsher, more instantly condemning portrayal would make us all feel more comfortable and righteous but probably wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know (or think we do).
But like so many of you, Monster prompted too many reflexive snorts of derision... and I can think of none that sprayed the room quite like that angle on Aileen on her bicycle peddling away in anger from the botched job interview. That was just... bad.
I didn't mind PSH as Capote but I couldn't understand a fucking word he said and I began to imagine a (necessarily subtitled) buddy picture for Capote, Heath Ledger's mumblecore cowboy from Brokeback Mountain and Terence Howard's equally unintelligible pimp from Hustle & Flow.
Forgive the intrusion, but I just thought I should leave word that my entry in TOERIFIC this October will focus on Billy Wilder's Kiss Me. Stupid
'appy new year, all.
I didn't mind PSH as Capote but I couldn't understand a fucking word he said and I began to imagine a (necessarily subtitled) buddy picture for Capote, Heath Ledger's mumblecore cowboy from Brokeback Mountain and Terence Howard's equally unintelligible pimp from Hustle & Flow.
Presumably they would fight crime together?
I began to imagine a (necessarily subtitled) buddy picture for Capote, Heath Ledger's mumblecore cowboy from Brokeback Mountain and Terence Howard's equally unintelligible pimp from Hustle & Flow.
Oh my god yes... hilarious and brilliant idea Arbo! And if one of you guys wanst to continue your indie film dreams in this direction, I will be the first to sign up as an investor!
I can't wait for the conflict that happends when DJay tries to pimp out Ennis to make ends meet for the month.
Whoa! Bill and I just commented on the same comment at almost the exact same time. That kind of makes us... something??
Identical cheese hostesses?
Whoa! Bill and I just commented on the same comment at almost the exact same time. That kind of makes us... something??
that makes you cou-sins, identical cousins all the way ...
I like my rock and roll. And a hotdog, by the way, makes me lose control.
Greetings cheese hostesses and identical cousins. I thought Ledger and Howard were really great in those performances. I mean really, Hustle and Flow has very little going for it as a movie. If not for the language it could have easily passed for a USA Network original production. But Howard kept me watching it. I understood him fine. Maybe you're just getting old and your hearing is going.
[Arbo: What? What's that?]
I said MAYBE YOU'RE GETTING OLD AND YOUR HEARING IS GOING!
Seeing as I WAS asked and I just got home, I'd like to respond.
Even though Rick is certainly not me. He's a very lovely guy. He even wished me a Happy Birthday over at COOSA CREEK. But, off the net, I don't think we'd ever be mistaken for each other.
If I may...
It's been a very long time since I saw MONSTER and I'll try not to get up on my feminist soapbox, but...
Aileen Wuournos was a prostitute. But not just any pro. She was scraping the bottom of the barrel. Just about literally. There is a hierarchy to that profession, after all.
The lowest rung on that scale are women and men that work the streets. Aileen was involved in a particularly vile end of that sector. She was picking up guys off the freeway and from truck stops.
Now, any thinking person will tell you that that's an extremely dangerous way to make a living. The chances that a lot of the men that Aileen would find within that milieu to pay her for services rendered would be wack jobs and guys that were deeply disturbed.
So that was one angle that the filmmaker used. She tried to make out like Aileen was at the tail end of her sanity after a long, rough ride and just snapped.
If I recall correctly, the first man that she killed in the movie sexually abused her and then she cracked and took him out immediately after. Some of those men had it coming.
But she ended up going on a real rampage. I do recall that there was at least one decent man who meant her no harm that she killed anyway. I think there was also another guy that was sympathetic to her that she did away with. But at that point she was pretty far gone.
It was certainly implied that Aileen had suffered greatly at the hands of men. It seemed definite to me that Aileen was drawn sexually to women because a number of them had shown her kindness and compassion. I didn't get the sense that she was born gay or bisexual. But rather that she eventually considered women her only romantic option because men had repeatedly abused her and treated her like cheap trailer trash.
Like she was some kind of an inanimate object that didn't deserve respect.
Jonathan, you silly man, you can't ever ban Pat from CS.
She's an awesome girl and I like her.
So there.
Plus I'm sure when you get to be a filmmaking big shot of some repute, we'll all still bug the living hell out of you.
As all good friends should...
Miranda, thank you for that analysis of how you saw the film, which taken with Arbogasts statements give a pretty clear picture I think of how the character was intended to be presented. I'd like to say I'll see it again to see if I react any differently but I don't think that's going to happen for years to come.
And when I'm a big filmmaker of some repute I'll do my best to make movies about rampaging bloggers that show their side of the story.
I think I shall make Rick the rampaging blogger.
Bill is the naive but determined FBI agent hot on his trail.
Arbogast is the imprisoned rampaging blogger that Bill is interviewing to better understand Rick.
Marilyn is the tough and savvy FBI Director guiding Bill through the process.
Miranda is the fiance that Bill runs all his theories past.
Eventually Miranda catches the eye of Rick setting up a thrilling and emotional climax as Bill has to figure out where Rick is and stop him before he kills his beloved fiance.
In the final act, Miranda feigns interest in Rick to give Bill more time to reach her. When he does Rick surprises him and knocks him out. Now the plot is turned on its head and the FBI agent is no longer the driving force. It's Miranda, the final girl, who must bring the story to its conclusion.
But wait! The scene shifts to the prison and we realize Arbogast has escaped...
Now what?!?
Now THAT would be a movie, Jonathan!
Are you sure that your real last name isn't Demme...?
I'm warning anyone who hasn't seen it: Rachel Getting Married has the year's worst use of handheld camerawork, totally without motivation and nausea-inducing. We had to leave the theatre at the 40-minute mark.
Miranda (and sort of Arbogast) - again, my problem with Monster is this: from whom are we getting the information that forms the basic narrative of the film? From what I've heard, Wournos herself. Why should we believe her? Why does she get to paint the final picture of her victims?
Anyways...
BILL: Arbogast, when you were blogging...why did you do it? What pushed you over the edge?
ARBOGAST: Surely you can answer that question better than I can.
BILL: Why do you think so?
ARBOGAST (pause): Do you know, they sometimes give me internet access here? I was surprised. I thought, "Isn't that a little like occasionally giving an arsonist a book of matches?" Of course, I never said that to anyone, and apparently I am alone in that view. I'm not allowed to set up accounts with Blogger, Wordpress, or any of those, but I can browse. I can look at pictures of Barbara Steele and Veronica Carlson. I can keep up with all my former blogging associates. I can even check out some of the new blogs...
BILL: That's very interesting, Mr. Arbogast, but that's not why I'm...
ARBOGAST: Some of these new bloggers have some very interesting ideas, others are just sloppy. And one, you know, his writing style is very familiar to me. I wondered where I might have encountered it before. And then, last night, I was reading one of the reports you gave me, about Olson. The one you wrote...
Arbogast escapes, heads straight for internet cafe.
Arbogast [typing comment]: "Hello Marilyn. Long time. Nice review you have here. If only you knew how the movie ended Marilyn, if only you knew. Problem is you're too close to it. You've got the leads and the supporting players mixed up. You're too focused on Rick but I think Bill's stealing the show. Don't you?"
Marilyn: "What are trying to say sicko?"
Arbogast: "Ooh."
Marilyn: "Answer the question lowlife!"
Arbogast: "I'm just saying Bill's very versatile. The kind of guy who can play two roles at once, if you know what I mean. And now I have to go. I have a lunch date with an old friend. When he sees what's on the menu he'll be Lapping it up. Ta ta."
Marilyn hurriedly e-mails Jonathan but he can't be reached. She checks his blog and finds the lone post titled "Out to Lunch" with the single line below it, "Won't be back."
Camera zooms in on Marilyn's eyes as they widen. Then a close-up of her mouth as she whispers, "Arbo."
Oh, Bill...
I DO NOT disagree with you concerning the film being shown from Aileen's POV.
Considering that she was completely nuts, it's obvious that she would be a fairly unreliable witness. Even to her own personal story.
But I guess the problem was: If you wanted to make a film about this woman, you would have to go with someone's take.
I'm not sure what kind of case histories or documentation that they had on Aileen at that point. I'm sure that they could have found SOMETHING ELSE.
But the director decided to go with Aileen's perceptions of her own reality. However skewed they may be.
Actually, there was a warning about RACHEL GETTING MARRIED'S camera work (such as it is) similar to what Marilyn just described.
But having seen RGM and utterly loathing it in the extreme, I'd have to say that that's likely to be the least of its considerable problems.
Then the camera jiggles uncontrollably, and Marilyn barfs on the lens.
Just to clarify...
I mean a warning at the ticket window at one of the cineplexes where RGM was showing. They didn't want patrons puking in the aisles.
But they may have anyway. Considering the quality of the piece and all.
Sorry bout that. It's early...
I like the part where Marilyn calls me "sicko."
Rachel Getting Married sounds like the must-see movie of the year!
But on the topic of its camerawork, for my own taste I have never discovered what is so appealing about the hand-held camera for many directors. Supposedly, at its start, it was akin to verisimmilitude, but with basic camcorders now having built in steadicam functions and the human eye automatically steadying the images we see as we're moving (otherwise we always be falling and throwing up) I'm not sure what in reality it is mimicking. So now it has become a style for its own sake. When a director uses the Vertigo Zoom (that's when the camera zooms in while the lens zooms out to wide focus) as in Jaws or Do the Right Thing it's to signal the character being pulled out of their surroundings or pulled into an unexpected situation. There are plenty of styles that have been adapted over the years quite different from their original purpose (like the Vertigo Zoom) but they still have a purpose. The jiggly camera doesn't seem to have one anymore except to signal that the director is either bored and wants to do something for the sake of doing it or is utterly pretentious and thinks "Shaky Cam" equals Quality.
I like the part where Marilyn calls me "sicko."
I knew you would.
I like that part, too.
RICK and BILL are standing on a highway overpass. BILL is pointing a gun at RICK
BILL: Just give it up, Rick! There's nothing left, your blog has been reported for offensive content! It's over!
RICK (rapidly, as though he were insane: There are ways around that. I can still blog. I can go underground, off the grid. I can still blog. I'm not offensive...
BILL: I've read your blog, Rick. It would make Fox blush. Now please...I don't want to shoot you. I know how you used to be. You were kind, once. You were decent!
RICK: All the kindness and decency have been bled out of me by this crazy world! Don't you see?? That's why I started blogging in the first place! To hide my heart from a world that would destroy it!
BILL: I understand that, Rick. You know I do!
RICK: Yes, I do know. You are a very decent man yourself, Bill. And, may I say, an extraordinarily gifted blogger.
BILL: Thank you.
RICK: And that's partly why I'm doing this. To save you from yourself.
BILL: HUH!?
ARBOGAST appears
ARBOGAST: Hello William. Richard. I'm not interrupting anything, I hope?
BILL: Arbogast! How did you get out!?
ARBOGAST: I can't tell you that, William. That would be...cheating.
RICK: Leave me alone, Arbogast. This isn't about you. I'm no longer under your wing! I've gone my own way now!
ARBOGAST: Indeed?
ARBOGAST shoots RICK, who falls off the overpass
This thing writes itself. From my perspective, at least, as I haven't actually written anything.
Bill and I are currently writing a novel together and we plan to serialize it here. We'll keep you posted.
This discussion of Jonathan Lapper being a pseudonym for Jonathan Demme, the plot about rampaging bloggers . . . are you sure this is not Silence of the L.A.M.B.s?
Zing!
Post a Comment