Oscar Predix ’10

Well, I never finished the final part of my VIFF ’09 film wrap-up last fall, and didn’t even do my annual Victoria Filmfest Daytrip report last month (other intended but missing posts: last year’s post-Oscars recap, SIFF trip (third of notes still lost in limbo), year-end picks for 2009 (and 2008), and on it goes…)  But now it’s time for my annual pre-Oscars post.  Tho’ have been keeping up with the brevity-challenging Twitter, kinda looked forward to the freedom of space in which to ramble on about my Oscar predix, which I always mean to list briefly, but it never turns out that way.

And so, a few references on hand — think there was a special Entertainment Weekly Oscar thing I missed but have last week’s Depp-covered predix issue, the usual IMDb and Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences sites, plus some bookmarked webpages come across in recent weeks (a favourite discovery: Steve Pond’s The Odds column) — and a goodly amount of viewing experience behind me, here we go…

Haven’t been following much on the leading-up-to-the-big-night hype (eg. producer Adam Shankman’s Twitter feed), but know that after the amusing opening in 2006 when past hosts declined a reprise (eg. Letterman wants to spend more time with Steve Martin’s kids, so they don’t turn out weird) and we were “stuck” with Jon Stewart (of the classic quip, “Scorsese: zero Oscars; Three 6 Mafia: one”), that there’s been no “who’s gonna host?” worrying on that front for a while.  In fact, they’ve got double the hosts this year, pairing past Oscar nominee and current TV star Alec Baldwin with man-of-many-arts and past Oscars host Steve Martin (just in time to promote the DVD release of It’s Complicated?)  There’ve been multiple hosts before, tho’ not since the ’70s and ’80s.

But the big change to the 82nd edition of the awards (known since last June) is the Academy’s decision to double the nominations in the Best Picture category to 10 (it’s been 5 since 1943’s 16th) — to get some higher-grossing mass-appeal titles in there to boost broadcast viewership (after all, making money’s about quantity, even when prizes are meant to honour quality?)  If it does go up, it’ll be hard to prove it was because of this expansion, as Avatar likely would’ve impressed filmmakers enough to’ve nominated it in the top 5 regardless of its smashing box office records (due to repeat admissions, as with “regular” action/fantasy blockbusters appealing to young males, plus the increased ticket sales from 3D premium pricing — till a coupla weeks ago, think I was about the only moviegoer who hadn’t seen it.)  And I’d say Sandra Bullock’s Best Actress nomination is a bigger draw to The Blind Side‘s audience who wouldn’t’ve tuned in otherwise than the Best Pic nod is (don’t need a Best Pic nom to win for acting.)

(By the way, The Blind Side is the only major nominee I haven’t seen.  Saw the trailer a couple times at Tinseltown and reckoned it was a maybe-I’ll-see-it-second-run-if-it’s-double-billed-with-something-I-want-to-see.  Since it’s not second run yet (in typical Warner Bros. fashion (did the same with long-outta-first-run Michael Clayton after it got Oscar noms) it was pulled from the Norm’s already-announced line-up and the Hollywood wasn’t allowed to have it till after the Oscars, so the distributor can get their box office percentage off a higher-priced ticket) and I had better late show options than going up to the Dunbar for a 9:30 this week, I just let it go.  I did almost go to a Parents-with-Babies screening at the Rio at noon on Wednesday (wouldn’t go to a screening likely to have noise if I really cared about seeing the movie) but my parent-with-baby friend had a scheduling conflict so we’re just gonna meet up for Scrabble another time instead.)

Based on other major nominations like director and screenplay, and considering there’s now a separate Animated Feature category (wasn’t when Beauty and The Beast was the first (and only, till now) to break into the top category in ’91), if there had been only 5 Best Pic noms this year, I think it’s safe to say they’d’ve been: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious and Up in the Air.  So good on the extra 5 for their recognition, but won’t 10 just make it a longer show? (or is that the idea? — 3 1/2 hours isn’t long enough to fit in all the commercials they wanna sell?)

The other big change this year is the voting procedure for this expanded category is now preferential on the final ballot.  (Apparently preferential voting has been used to determine the nominee list in various categories for years, but not for the final vote on Best Picture since 1945 — when there were only 5 nominees, tho’ previously it had been used when there were up to 12.)  So voters rank the nominated films in order of preference, from their favourite to least.  Unless one film gets more than 50% of the votes up front (unlikely with a field of 10), there will be elimination rounds till there is a clear winner.  In the first round of counting, the film getting the least #1 votes is eliminated.  The ballots that had that film noted as #1 then have their #2 votes count as their top preference, and so on down the line.  Which means that a movie with the most #1 votes to start won’t necessarily win in the end.

Okay, enough pre-amble — onto my picks!  Actually, the voting procedure talk leads nicely into…

Picture
With the race seeming to be between the big-budget blockbuster Avatar and the big winner at pre-Oscar peer-review awards (including Producers Guild) The Hurt Locker, it comes down to how strongly voters feel for or against one or the other, and what voters choosing one of the other 8 pictures as their favourite choose as their 2nd and 3rd.  (If I were voting, I’d rank the tension-filled visceral experience of The Hurt Locker at the top, probably followed by the sci-fi entertainment of District 9 and human questioning of A Serious Man, before even considering James Cameron’s gazillion-dollar computer-generated world.  Yes, I was impressed by the look of Avatar, and appreciate the environment/indigenous peoples issues it brings up, and the way he draws us in right away through the disabled protagonist (like the characters and romance in Titanic get you to care before the disaster kicks in) — but it’s all pretty formula.  Sure, District 9 used special effects, but it felt more original in its storytelling.  And Up was more emotionally affecting.)  Both Avatar and Locker have strong “fan bases” behind them, as does Basterds.  So the question is, how polarising is special-effects-laden spectacle Avatar to supporters of the other nominees?  Does the majority see it as an exciting future for movies?  Or do actors, the largest member group within the Academy, see it as a threat to “real acting” and their livelihoods?  With big category groups (whose membership crosses with that of the Academy) of producers, directors, writers and editors all awarding The Hurt Locker, I’m giving that one the edge.
Best Motion Picture: The Hurt Locker

Directing, Editing
Tho’ not so much in recent years, these awards usually go hand-in-hand (‘cept a couple years ago The Bourne Ultimatum did take Editing over No Country for Old Men — guess it moved faster and had more noticeable editing.)  I’m going with the swell behind The Hurt Locker‘s Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director — 55 out of 61 years the Directors Guild winner (which she is) has gone on to win the Oscar, she did a great job with way less time and money than her ex-husband had to make Avatar, and, let’s face it, this is Hollywood’s chance to recognise a woman in this category for the first time (previous chance: Jane Campion for 1993’s The Piano, which probably would’ve won both top ones that year if veteran Steven Spielberg hadn’t been in the field with a holocaust picture; there was also Sofia Coppola in there (they gave her screenplay instead, cos it had to be sweep for the third LOTR) and the first female director nominated was Lina Wertmuller for Seven Beauties in 1976.)  And then Editing will match up.  The American Cinema Editors (who didn’t even nominate Avatar) gave their top honours to The Hurt Locker, which has a lot of edge-of-your-seat suspense general Academy voters will equate with editing.
Achievement in Directing: Kathryn Bigelow – The Hurt Locker
Achievement in Film Editing: Bob Murawski, Chris Innis – The Hurt Locker

Writing
Screenplay category winners usually match up with Best Picture nominations, but with 10 Best Pic noms now, that probably gets narrowed down to what gets Best Pic.  Even if Avatar does take the top prize, it’s not nominated for writing, so going with Writers Guild winner Locker over Basterds for Original and Up in the Air over Precious for Adapted.  Like Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways and Lost in Transation, writing cats are where they can award the “little picture” that’s nominated for Best Picture but won’t get it.  Since Precious is gonna get an acting award, this is Up in the Air‘s big category (and only) win.  Also, Jason Reitman is better known in Hollywood than the other Adapted noms.  But I’d be thrilled if District 9 got it! (tho’ hey, how ’bout that ****ing brilliant In the Loop ***k of a surprise nomination, eh?)
Original Screenplay: Mark Boal – The Hurt Locker
Adapted Screenplay: Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner – Up in the Air

Acting
Okay, I won’t harp on about how much I love Jeff Bridges and feel he’s been under-rated for too long (or how disappointed I was my Dude bobblehead ordered in early January from the cool folks at Lebowski Fest didn’t arrive in time to bring to Oscar Night — emailed a few weeks ago and turned out they had my address as Vancouver, AB (don’t postal codes mean anything?) but even so, shouldn’t it’ve gotten here by now?)  But for once the “it’s his turn” career award will be for a truly deserving turn (unlike, say, a mannered “hoo-ha!” perf like Pacino’s.)  Also pretty much a lock is multilingual Christoph Waltz and single-monikered Mo’Nique (last one to win: Cher), who’ve picked up just about every respective supporting acting award there is.  But is it really gonna be Sandra Bullock for Best Actress?  ‘Fraid it looks that way.  I didn’t even know she was on the radar for anything till she won a Golden Globe (for drama — Meryl Streep won on the comedy side, where Bullock was also nominated for The Proposal.)  Not that I think a group of 80 foreign reporters based in Hollywood that separates dramatic and comedic performances should be a predictor for an industry association of over 5,000 that doesn’t, but I know it gets attention.  (Something else getting attention tonight — Bullock just won the Razzie for worst performance in All About Steve.  Kudos to her for being a good sport and one of the few stars to’ve actually been present to claim the embarrassing prize — if she wins the Oscar, she’ll be the first to ever win both prizes in the same weekend.)  Then she won the SAG award, up against the same noms as Oscars — think that’s the clincher.  Unlike my thinking Streep’d finally get a third (first in over 20 years) for Doubt (I changed by predictive vote at the bar last year, by the way, so counted the Winslet win on my score), Julie & Julia is a comedy, and they just don’t give these golden guys for leads in comedies (supporting, occasionally — right, Alan Arkin and Kevin Kline?)  Other noms for Best Actress are an unknown, a near-unknown foreigner (who didn’t channel Edith Piaf), and a foreigner with a previous win.  Bullock’s now a producer too, right?  And well-liked in Hollywood.  And this role was a change from the romantic comedies she’s known for — don’t they like to reward a stretch? (eg. Julia Roberts in a good drama, Denzel Washington playing a bad guy.)
Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role: Jeff Bridges – Crazy Heart
Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role: Sandra Bullock – The Blind Side
Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role: Christoph Waltz – Inglourious Basterds
Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role: Mo’Nique – Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire

Cinematography, Art Direction
The American Society of Cinematographers went with the beautifully chilling B&W photography of The White Ribbon over colourful Avatar and gritty The Hurt Locker, but a foreign language film (also nominated in that category) is probably unlikely to win over Best Picture nominees with the wider voting group.  I’m guessing they’ll go with “real” cinematography over computerised spectacle and choose docu-like Locker over old-style Basterds.  I’d use the same reasoning against Avatar for art direction, but then which of the other noms would have the weight?  Going by number of other-category noms, Nine has the most with 4 (that many?), followed by The Young Victoria with 3.  If the latter gets Costumes, they could give the razzle-dazzle musical something here.  Nah, Cinematography will go to real cameras over computers, but voters will accept the technology in creating the amazing look of Avatar.
Achievement in Cinematography: Barry Ackroyd – The Hurt Locker
Achievement in Art Direction: Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg (Art Direction), Kim Sinclair (Set Decoration) – Avatar

Costumes, Makeup
All period or fantasy pieces in these cats (or possibly both, in the case of Nine‘s costumes.)  Tho’ Coco Before Chanel is partially about creating fashion and Sandy Powell’s already won twice, think more-nominated and bigger-skirted The Young Victoria and Powell’s name will triumph.  In makeup, I’d guess Il Divo (which I haven’t seen) covers more years and therefore requires aging makeup more than The Young Victoria, but it’s foreign so who’s seen it, and up against Avatar in 3 other tech categories, this’ll be where Star Trek can get something (I didn’t even recognise Eric Bana in that movie.)  In recent years, sci-fi/fantasy gets the makeup award too — tho’ exceptions have been (uh, like the other noms this year) period biopics (La Vie en Rose and Frida.)
Achievement in Costume Design: Sandy Powell – The Young Victoria
Achievement in Makeup: Barney Burman, Mindy Hall, Joel Harlow – Star Trek

Foreign Language Film
When I initially learned of the nominations for Best Foreign Language Film, I thought Michael Haneke, one of my favourite directors, would be the obvious winner (think I even assumed that since reading about his latest at VIFF and when it opened this winter.)  The White Ribbon also has another nomination outside of the foreign cat, which you’d think would bode well for it (Cinematography — tho’ recent Foreign nom Pan’s Labyrinth also had multiple noms (even taking Cinematography) and didn’t win.)  But after seeing it, I wondered if it might be too coldly Hanekeish for American voters compared to the Godfather-like (protagonist reluctantly drawn into the mafia) Un Prophète.  The former won the Palm d’Or at Cannes, the latter the Grand Prix.  In America, the German production won the Golden Globe but the French was also in the news for playing Sundance.  Both have North American distribution from Sony Pictures.  As does a third nominee (tho’ it isn’t out yet) — the Argentinian El Secreto de Sus Ojos (The Secret in Their Eyes).  Last year I debated between Waltz With Bashir and The Class, and then the Japanese Departures won — probably cos the other “known” ones split the vote.  Argentinian film is hot now.  The director, Juan José Campanella, has done a lot of American TV, so many voters probably know him (including, according to the IMDb, an Oscar host on 30 Rock.)  Even EW says to look for an upset by the decades-spanning crime drama.  Gah, do I go with it too?
Best Foreign Language Film: El Secreto de Sus Ojos (Argentina)

Documentary, Animated Features
I’ve actually seen 4 out of 5 noms in both these categories, but don’t think you have to’ve seen any this year to predict the winners.  I’d say The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers is the best of the feature docs, but The Cove had controversy surrounding its filming and getting it screened in Japan and with that, press, (the corn growers’ campaign against Food, Inc. has come too late) and has won everything else so far, including Producers, Directors, Writers, Editors groups.  Plus it used a lot of Hollywood technology to get filmed, has a name producer (Fisher Stevens) and featured a guy who worked on Flipper and has done other acting (ie. familiar with voters.)  And in the Animated Feature category — Up also has a Best Picture nom.  Need I say more?  (By the way, Mary and Max was missing from the nominees list.)
Best Documentary Feature: The Cove
Best Animated Feature Film: Up

Short Films
I’ve actually seen all the Live Action Short nominations this year.  Wasn’t too impressed, actually (by the films or the DVD presentation.)  Tho’ I liked the Aussie Miracle Fish best, I’m going with The New Tenants to win, cos it has some amusing dialogue and recognisable actors (Vincent D’Onofrio, Helen Hanft.)  The evening the Animated Short noms were playing, I chose to go with my originally-planned film (which, since my initial scheduling, had garnered 11 Genie nominations) — reckoning I’d rather see Polytechnique than more muddy-looking DVD, and ‘sides, the latest Wallace & Gromit will likely win, right?  Or has Aardman gotten enough and they wanna give it to someone else for a change?  There’s buzz around Logorama, which disses corporate culture and is set in L.A. (where I imagine most Academy voters are.)  Watched a clip of it online and wonder how many of those companies whose logos are featured would sue if they knew.  Could they even show a clip of the film on the Oscars show without it being copyright infringement?  Maybe voters will wanna make a statement regarding fair use or something, but the animation isn’t as impressive as claymation.  Both sets of shorts are playing again tomorrow afternoon, but hey, I’ve gotta get my hair and nails ready for Oscar Night (even if I’m probably just gonna wear schlumpy Dude-like attire.)  As for the documentary shorts, I read good descriptions online written by someone who saw them all at the MOMA.  EW says the disabled Zimbabwean singer one will win over the last days of an Ohio GM plant.  But after the Haiti earthquake (was the Chilean one before or after voting had closed?) maybe the one about China’s would be more topical than American plant closures (Michael Moore’s Roger & Me showed the same thing in ’89.)  I know the Berlin rabbits one has a distributor and seems to be a fave of those who’ve seen all the noms, tho’ they don’t think it has a chance.  It’s a toss-up, really, isn’t it?
Best Live Action Short Film: The New Tenants
Best Animated Short Film: A Matter of Loaf and Death
Best Documentary Short Subject: The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant

Music
If the song from Crazy Heart doesn’t win, what’s the point of this category?  Then again, the song from the Mambo Kings, even more intricately a part of that movie, didn’t win (and double noms from The Bodyguard and Aladdin didn’t split — Aladdin’s “A Whole New World” won) and the world keeps on turning.  Hadn’t even heard of the French movie the one nom’s from, let alone the song (so it must be good, if unlikely to win.)  Tho’ I enjoyed The Princess and the Frog and its songs, none really stuck in my mind.  And not much of the music from Nine was truly memorable, except maybe a couple songs from the stage show heard over and over in the promos, which wouldn’t be eligible here.  So, think “The Weary Kind” is safe.  For score, I remember liking the music in the quirky Fantastic Mr. Fox and touching Up.  I reckon a Best Pic nom has a better chance.  Don’t remember music in The Hurt Locker, and Avatar‘s was typical button-pushing Horner (who’s already got 2 golden boys from Cameron’s last spectacle.)
Achievement in Music (Original Song): “The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” – Crazy Heart
Achievement in Music (Original Score): Michael Giacchino – Up

Visual Effects, Sound
And, cos it’s past my bedtime, everything else to Avatar, right?  As EW points out, the sound awards went to different films last year (tho’ as I recall, that’s cos Slumdog Millionaire was only nominated for one of them.)  This year the big two are up for both.  Sound Mixing is for a film’s overall sound (the Cinema Audio Society’s mixing award went to Locker), and Editing is for aural effects (Motion Picture Sound Editors’ gave Avatar their prize.)  Apparently the MPSE award usually lines up with the Oscar — it’s been suggested that’s cos members of the Academy’s sound branch vote as they did previously, and everyone else just skips those categories outside their expertise.  Whatever.  I’m thinking the dramatic tension and gritty reality of Iraq comes thru in The Hurt Locker‘s terrific sound, as with photography and film editing, as more impressive than the lushness of the computer-generated made-up world of Pandora.  If Director and Picture split, maybe sound could too — Mixing to Locker and Editing to Avatar? Nah, probably both to Avatar.  I mean, The Hurt Locker. Er…
Achievement in Visual Effects: Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham, Andrew R. Jones – Avatar
Achievement in Sound Mixing: Paul N.J. Ottosson, Ray Beckett – The Hurt Locker
Achievement in Sound Editing: Christopher Boyes, Gwendolyn Yates Whittle – Avatar

So what does that make my count?  6 for Locker and only 3 for Avatar.  Is that too lop-sidedly wishful thinking?  Hmm.  And only the one for Tarantino’s Basterds?  And really nothing for Haneke?  Will I change that one on my ballot at the bar?

Now all that remains is finding out who actually wins.  Meeting some friends to watch the festivities unfold.  Won’t have my Dude bobblehead (I said I wasn’t gonna harp on that — sorry) but might wear some abiding apparel.  I forget what whiskey brand Bad Blake drinks, but I’m guessing it’s cheap, so will toast his win with a White Russian.  Won’t be partaking in any blue drinks, unless it’s gin from a Blue Sapphire bottle.

Will they present the acting nominees like last year, with that sorta awkward but sorta nice past winners paying tribute to each current nominee thing?  Will they let the short film winners actually come on stage? (remember when Canadian Chris Landreth won a few years ago and he had to say his thankyous from a back aisle?)  Will the Hurt Locker producer who sent the against-the-rules email to the wrong person and was disinvited be mentioned?  Will Jack Black and Will Farrell do another hilarious musical number?  Who’ll get the most applause in the In Memorium montage? (John Hughes? Michael Jackson? former Academy head Karl Malden?)  Of the presenters selected to attract a younger audience, will I have even heard of any?  I read that presenters have been rehearsing “and the winner is…” instead of “and the Oscar goes to…” (why?!)

Guess we’ll find out soon enough.  G’night, skellybots.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’s Moustache

Okay, I often call up my own site here simply to link to other sites I know I have listed in my sidebar links (hell, why not? that’s part of why I put ’em there.)  Went to do that just now and see that, hey, there’s a moustache on the Benjamin Button poster pictured on my Oscars Predix post! (which was at the top cos I haven’t published various draft entries since — gotta get on that.) 

I’ve taken to checking Wikipedia for theatrical release movie poster images I want to include here, linking to its images that are likely to be there in months to come (and not be changed to a DVD cover image, as some movie sites do as titles come out on video), which saves me from downloading/uploading images and taking up too much of my WordPress space (I realise I have loads of space still available on my freebie account, but ya never know — I may actually get back to making regular posts and start eating into that.)  I’m pretty sure there wasn’t a moustache on it last time I checked in (yesterday? day before?) — the bottom of Wikipedia’s page on the film notes, “This page was last modified on 19 March 2009, at 03:36”, so it was probably done yesterday.  Tried a little googling but couldn’t find any other reference to it. 

Guess this is what I get for using other sites’ images for free and relying on a site any yahoo can edit.  Still, it’s kinda funny.  (Tho’ it’s not a “traditional” hastily-drawn Dali-like ‘stache you might doodle on the face in a magazine ad.)  S’pose photoshopping moustaches onto images on the internet was bound to happen.  21st century vandalism.  Virtual defacing.  Heheh.  I’ve changed my source for that image now, but assuming the Wikipedia image will be corrected by someone soon, here’s a look at the difference (plus a pic from an Us Magazine story titled, “Brad Pitt: ‘My Goal’ Is to Bring the Moustache Back in Style”, taken at the New Orleans premiere of Button December 1st — notice cleanshaven poster image in background — cos maybe Mr. Bring-the-Moustache-Back himself is somehow behind all this, heheh):

I realise there are many other poster images for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (eg. one with both stars — Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett — in a similarly starkly-lit, head-on style), but for this blog I like to use the one for the poster that was displayed at the cinema I attended, if I can find it (tho’ sometimes, I prefer other images.)

[update, March 21: see that Wikipedia’s moustachioed version has been replaced by proper one again]

Silver Screen: Odd Man Out

Odd Man Out
(Carol Reed, UK 1947, 116 min., 35mm)
Mar. 17 @ Cinémathèque (Silver Screen)

Didn’t leave early enough and arrived about five minutes late to the Cinémathèque, but as this was part of the Silver Screen series, knew there’d be a bit of an intro, so even had time to grab a gingerale on the way in and still hear a bit about director Carol Reed before the film started.  Trivia questions this time out were a bit hard if you hadn’t seen the film, but she had more on hand till there were two winners of tickets to the next event.

Kinda cool to have an Irish film to see on St. Patrick’s Day (nice programming, Cinémathèque!) and an oldie I haven’t seen.  James Mason still sounds like James Mason but with a bit of an Irish accent (other supporting characters sounded more authentically Irish.)  Still, he’s the star, and, as I learned in the part of the intro I caught, Odd Man Out was director Carol Reed’s first feature after winning a Best Documentary Oscar for a film about his wartime experiences (funny, the IMDb doesn’t list him as a winner for that, but then I see that the film, The True Glory, has him listed as director, but uncredited) so apparently he had the freedom to do whatever he wanted, make whatever film with whatever star.

As the film opens, Mason is the leader of a group doing a last review of plans for a heist they’re about to carry out to get funds for their cause.  Tho’ they don’t call it the IRA (instead, it’s referred to as “the organisation”), viewers would know what’s implied, but the film’s not political at all.  He’s been hiding out for six months after escaping prison, so you know that when things go wrong there’s all the more reason for the law to be after him.  The film tracks what the program notes aptly describe as his “downward spiral” with good tension and suspense.  And besides the rest of the gang who go out to look for him and the girl back at the safehouse who loves him and wants to join the search, there are various other characters our man-on-the-lam meets and affects along the way — a young couple, a cab driver, a pair of ladies who took nurses’ training, a priest, an opportunist and his drunken artist housemate, a pub owner, etc. — and I really enjoyed these often one-off glimpses into the lives of “regular” people, who know there are cops after this guy but may have other loyalties or concerns as well.

What I thought was allergies to a coworker’s perfume Sunday continued as sniffles yesterday and I’m afraid I’ve caught a cold, but since I had to go to work today anyway (probably where I got it — can’t afford to miss work but infect everyone else is how it usually goes, and now I’m doing it too), might as well catch the matinee on the way. Sneezed a couple times but don’t think I was disruptive, and glad I saw this one.

P.S.  Here’s another movie-related chickens funny, appropriate for today (tho’ Colm Meaney wasn’t in Odd Man Out, at least not as far as I could tell)…

Heheh — eerily familiar, as I once watched a coupla Meaney-starring flicks adapted from Roddy Doyle stories (possibly The Van and The Commitments?) at a Sunday movie night at the Railway Club on St. Patrick’s Day — was just thinking about Guinness at the Rail with an old friend (perhaps that same night?) cos she’s part Irish and her birthday’s on the 18th (happy birthday, S!)

Hollywood Double Bill: Coens & Cheadle

Burn After Reading
(Ethan Coen/Joel Coen, USA 2008, 96 min., 35mm)
Nov. 26 @ Hollywood

Traitor
(Jeffrey Nachmanoff, USA 2008, 114 min., 35mm)
Nov. 26 @ Hollywood

Shouldn’t’ve stayed out so late, but I wanted to see these two — latest crime comedy from the Coen Brothers, and an international terrorist thriller starring Don Cheadle — and they were double billed this week at the Hollywood.

I prefer the Coen Brothers’ dramas to their comedies — exception being The Big Lebowski, which I love — tho’ either way, their films tend to be about crimes gone wrong.  Like Soderbergh’s Ocean’s flicks, Burn After Reading‘s got a crack cast obviously having a ball with the wacky characters and convoluted plot, tho’ this being the Coens, it’s dark and quite shocking in parts, despite its being a laugh-out-loud comedy.  Tho’ perhaps “wacky” isn’t quite the right word — their foibles are pretty extreme.

John Malkovich hams it up as a bow-tied and arrogant, quick-tempered and foul-mouthed CIA analyst told in the opening scene that he’s being demoted for having a drinking problem (he decides to quit and write a memoir, exercising self-discipline in waiting till the clock strikes five before pouring himself a precisely measured drink.)  Tilda Swinton is his coldly high-strung wife (a scene showing her at work reminded me of a similarly unsettling shot revealing Jason Patric’s character’s profession in Neil LaBute’s Your Friends and Neighbours.)  She’s thinking of divorcing him cos he’s now relying on her income and she’s having an affair with George Clooney’s philandering, “I could fit in a run” government security guy, whose wife is a children’s book writer.  Then some D.C.-area gym employees are thrown into the mix when they come across a computer disc left in the ladies’ locker room that contains what appears to be classified intelligence — or, as Brad Pitt’s gum-chewing airhead trainer puts it: “raw intelligence shit”.  The always-wonderful Frances McDormand is his co-worker, obsessed with getting multiple cosmetic surgeries, and the equally always-wonderful Richard Jenkins is their manager, who wishes she would consider him instead of going on internet dating sites.  Plus there’s David Rasche and J.K. Simmons as a CIA officer and his superior trying to figure out why the gym employees have taken the disc to the Russians and bodies are showing up.  Even the bit parts are fantastic, like Jeffery DeMunn as the cosmetic surgeon reviewing potential procedures, J.R. Horne as the divorce lawyer advising pre-emptive gathering of financial information, and Raul Aranas as the gym janitor repeatedly clarifying how the disc was found (“it was just lying there.”)

The filmmakers and actors go to town with all these characters’ obsessions, flaws, quirks and catchphrases — the Coens’ screenplay is so chock full of hilarious lines, character motives and plot developments, it could fill three regular Hollywood movies.  Plus they work in commentary on the state of sex, surveillance, working out, and customer service phonelines in today’s society.  And woven within the plot are both rather sweet moments (as when McDormand’s character goes to the same movie with different internet dates and we can see which guy is better for her based on his reaction to a silly line) and suddenly shocking ones, both absurd (you couldn’t guess what Clooney’s character’s been building in his garage) and horrific (nah, no futher examples — wouldn’t want to give anything away!)

And then it all comes to an end rather suddenly.  And that’s it.  No funny see-what-happens-to-everyone epilogue, tho’ some off-screen outcomes are noted in a brief (but hilariously delivered) CIA wrap-up conversation.  (Plus I was kinda hoping for a final Dermot Mulroney cameo joke — he and Claire Danes’ mugs are on the poster of the silly-looking movie McDormand sees twice, and then he’s announced as being up next on the Seattle morning show Clooney’s wife is a guest on.)  S’pose you’re left with the usual Coens’ lesson of crime doesn’t pay, but while entertaining at the time, the CIA file folder closes and that’s it.  Still, the characters and performances are all pretty memorable, classic Coens.  (Funny credits note: in the same grouping as assistant to Brad Pitt, apparently Drew Houpt is The Walrus.)

I like Don Cheadle a great deal, I think he’s a terrific actor and I’ve enjoyed his performances in everything I’ve seen him in (previously mentioned silly Ocean’s movies excepted.)  The last couple I saw were Talk to Me and Reign Over Me — also caught second-run at the Hollywood.  I’d seen a couple trailers for Traitor but then it came and went, so was glad to be able to catch it at the ol’ Hollywood cos Cheadle’s one of those actors I’ll see anything they’re in.  I was asked in the lobby afterwards if I thought he’d get an Oscar nomination for this film, and tho’ I thought he was really good, I think he’s too understated (which is probably what makes him so good) to be considered at Oscar time.  They give Oscars to flashier performances, y’know?

So Cheadle stars in Traitor as a Sudanese-born, American-educated, practising Muslim who as a child witnessed his father’s death and is now an explosives expert involved with terrorists operating in the Middle East, Europe and the USA — tho’ I don’t think it’s giving much away to say that the info southern son-of-a-Baptist-preacher FBI agent Guy Pearce has on him is limited at first and there’s more to this man’s background and motives.  Co-starring is Saïd Taghmaoui, a French boxer-turned-actor of Moroccan descent who first came to arthouse attention in La Haine (which he co-wrote with director Mathieu Kossovitz) and Hideous Kinky (Kate Winslet’s interesting-choice follow-up to Titanic), and also played a terrorist recently in Vantage Point. I hope he doesn’t continue to get type-casted cos he’s a pretty good actor and should be considered for some colour-blind casting.  Also nice to see Archie Panjabi (the older sister in Bend It Like Beckham, also in the British East Is East and titular lead in Yasmin, in which she also plays a woman whose lover might be a terrorist — haven’t seen her more recent big-budget films) tho’ her role’s not especially big.  (I won’t get into speculations on how Muslims might feel they are portrayed in entertainments like this.  Hollywood action movie enemies used to be Nazis, then Russians and communists, and even South Africans for a while there in the ’80s.  Now, in the age of the War on Terror, there seem to be a lot of Muslim bad guys.)

Between meetings at FBI headquarters, Pearce and his less-experienced partner (the kinda scary-lookin’ Neal McDonough) rush around the world in an attempt to gather information to prevent terrorist suicide bombing plots from being carried out, and Cheadle is their best lead.  As a thriller, the tension really doesn’t let up much from the initial establishing scenes thru till the finale, tho’ the pace varies from all-out action to in-between scenes of plot development and details.  Subtitles appear more often as we move along in the story, to inform us of the latest location of the globe-trotting players — Yemen, Virginia, Madrid, Marseilles, Toronto, Los Angeles, Chicago, Halifax (which McDonough’s character refers to a “the ass-end of Canada”, which garnered both laughs and sneers from last evening’s Canadian audience — I also noticed that a crossing-the-border scene was noted as being at “Boundry Bay, British Columbia”, when it’s actually spelled “Boundary”.)

Other than Cheadle’s fine performance, there’s not a lot of character development.  Not that it’s really required in a flick like this.  Here and there (Australian) Pearce gets to say some dialogue (in a southern American accent) to reveal stuff about his character’s coming to be where he is, but anyone could’ve played that role — the movie’s focus is Cheadle.  And, of course, outsmarting the terrorists.  And there are some smart ideas here, from how to communicate by email undetected (drafts!) to a nice twist at the end.  Director/writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff’s work is solid, the script from a story by Steve Martin (yeah, he’s a writer too — think Shopgirl, L.A. Story, his delightful Cyrano adaptation Roxanne.)  Broad and specific parallels cleverly abound — from the general suspense surrounding plans for escalated bombings to well-edited sequences showing intelligence on Cheadle being shared at both an FBI briefing and within Taghmaoui’s contacts, and the countdown to the final execution of a plan for multiple simultaneous bombs — which work as both basic thriller tension and potential foreshadowing (in retrospect, the screenplay and direction is even better than I’d realised while being caught up watching.)  Yeah, it’s entertaining alright.  (And whoa, topical — woke up this morning to news of coordinated attacks in Mumbai.  Scary.)

As for the evening’s filmgoing experience, I don’t want to get into the crazy bag who, with plenty of open seats and at least a dozen aisle seats near the front from which to select, chose to question me about having my foot up on the armrest of her favourite seat — was I going to keep it there?  (Yeah, I’m more comfortable with my foot up, and I sit at the front on the side where it’s not going to affect anyone.)  Rather than get into an altercation with her (as I’m sad to say I have before — she gets you to stoop to her level and you find yourself in an argument — at one point the family running the Hollywood banned her from the theatre cos she was so rude and disruptive, but I guess she’s back), I just moved to the other side of the auditorium.  Which is actually where I usually sit, but coming out of the washroom I decided to go for one of the newer seats on the right.  The left’s better anyway — the stockroom is under the stage to the right and sometimes staff walk down the aisle and back in the middle of the show, which can be distracting.  As it was, when the film started (no trailers, about 10 minutes late — not unusual for the Hollywood) the projectionist raced down the left aisle to adjust the masking behind the screen (first feature’s in flat, second in scope, so have to change it in between.)  There were quite a few whisperers in the second show (not unusual for the Hollywood), and towards the end, outright talkers, including a couple across the way from me.  Yeah, that twist was clever, but other than a spontaneous initial reaction (a gasp, whatever) you should respect your fellow filmgoers and wait till the movie’s over to discuss it!

Aside on the Traitor poster image:  The one I stuck in above of head-on Cheadle with other action-type images in the background is the one all over the internet, but the poster in the display case at the Hollywood had both Cheadle and Pearce.  Maybe that’s the one used for the Canadian release.  Sure, posters don’t always show images from the movie they’re advertising (think of all the stupid posed ones for comedies — as parodied in the cinema scenes in Burn After Reading), but I find it odd that for this one they chose a shot from the film, then replaced one of the actors in that shot with another to make it look like the two stars appeared together in a scene like that.  With Cheadle looking off to the side in that way, it’s not even an especially intriguing image, especially for a thriller.

The Burn After Reading poster, however — very cool, very Saul Bass.

Update, December 14, 2009: Cocktail moment!  Over a year after seeing Traitor and commenting on the clever only-using-drafts email communications, I was just now catching up on The Rachel Maddow Show‘s podcast, and find that on December 11, 2009, the progressive goddess did a piece (link to transcript (second-to-last story) or video) on this being the way some recently arrested terrorists stayed in touch and shared info, including interviewing “NBC News Terrorism Analyst” Evan Kohlman, who, in response to her summation — “Smart, right?  Low tech, low-fi, and now, busted.  The Punjab police just told the whole world that that was their trick.” — stated that “the old draft folders trick” is “a bit of an open secret”.  Must be if I knew about it (heheh — and y’know anything I know, I learned from watching movies, eh.)  If I’d seen it earlier, I’d’ve emailed the show about Hollywood already being aware of this, but now I’m just waiting for tonight’s episode to download to see if someone else pointed it out (iTunes estimates 12 hours remaining on that — my neighbour’s unprotected wifi connection is slow these days, hence my only getting Friday’s show downloaded today after taking my laptop to work.)

Silver Screen: Rear Window

Rear Window
(Alfred Hitchcock, USA 1954, 112 min., 35mm)
Nov. 18 @ Cinémathèque (Silver Screen)

When I saw that there was actually going to be a 35mm print showing, I marked the Cinémathèque’s bi-monthly Silver Screen series presentation of Hitchcock’s Rear Window as a definite on my calendar.  I’ve attended the occasional Silver Screen in the past, but unless it’s something I haven’t seen before, as was the case with September’s screening of the John Ford classic The Searchers, I’ve skipped it.  Despite being available for a matinee most Tuesday afternoons, I’m not a fan of DVD projection, and since the inaugural Silver Screening last March of The Third Man looked worse on the big screen than my VHS copy does on my TV screen at home, well, why bother.

I’ve seen Rear Window many times, including on the big screen at the Hollywood when Universal did a re-release in 2001 (think I have a photo of the marquee somewhere, I should dig it out to post — as the distributors not wanting to share box office with other companies often force the second-run theatres to do, it was oddly double billed with Meet the Parents that week between Christmas and New Year’s.)  I’m one of those film snobs that finds Hitchcock rather over-rated as a director, especially with his pat pop psychology in works like Psycho and Vertigo, but I still enjoy old Hollywood movies in general (especially when they star James Stewart or Cary Grant!) and this Hitch is a good one.  (Like North By Northwest, which I saw in August — when, hmm, I was told Rear Window wasn’t available on 35mm in Canada.)  And I s’pose the — yeah, okay, pat pop psychology, heheh — theme of voyeurism appeals (and applies!) to film fans like me.

The series is presented by Pacific Cinémathèque’s education department, and tho’ the new education manager gal doing the intro tends to overuse “basically” and “obviously” (even when the point being made isn’t necessarily obvious), offering a bit of background on the film and even prizes for answering trivia questions gives the event a little something extra, which is nice.  Plus, this time, the bonus of a darn good looking 35mm print.  In parts the focus was noticeably off in the centre right of the picture, and the screen masking was widened about halfway thru the movie (and still could’ve done with going a little bit wider), but just having a proper celluloid film to show was great.

Jimmy Stewart as a temporarily wheelchair-bound photographer stuck in the summer heat of his New York City apartment with nothing to do but spy on the neighbours and Thelma Ritter as the no-nonsense insurance company nurse who visits daily to provide rubdowns, sandwiches and unasked-for opinions are fun, as are society girl Grace Kelly’s glamourous high-fashion ’50s gowns in widescreen Technicolor.  Before getting into the suspenseful “It Had to Be Murder” (title of the original short story on which the film is based) plot, the movie establishes the rough-‘n’-tumble photographer’s situation with his perfectly put together fashion plate girlfriend and lingers leisurely in spied vignettes of various neighbours and their activities — the always moving-about ballet dancer, the couple dealing with the heat by sleeping outside on their balcony, their little dog that gets lowered to the garden in a basket, the composer with the catchy song, the newly-moved-in newlyweds, the hard-of-hearing sunbathing sculptress, “Miss Lonely Hearts”, the salesman with a naggy, invalid wife.  Everything the audience is shown is as the photographer witnesses it, except for one scene when he’s fallen asleep — which cleverly gives viewers information that could support another side of the story that Stewart’s character and his friends think they’ve figured out, while perhaps also leading us astray.  The characters, the details, the build up of suspense — this is indeed a classic combo.

Good ol’ Hollywood classics on the big screen (in 35mm!) — gotta love it!

P.S.  A recent Savage Chickens funny to go with this entry: