War Horse (2011)
Film #21: War Horse (2011)
For the past half-decade, Steven Spielberg has been much busier producing films than directing them. Since 2005′s Munich, the only film he directed before 2011 was the regrettable Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in 2008. Perhaps to make up for that dearth of direction, last year saw the release of two Spielberg-directed films: The Adventures of Tintin and War Horse. While the former was released to much acclaim – even taking home the Oscar for Best Animated Feature – the latter had more of Spielberg’s ‘epic blockbuster’ feel to it. War Horse received plenty of accolades itself, nominated for six Academy Awards including Best Picture, but its sentimental tale set during World War I didn’t quite win over everyone. After watching it myself, I’m not surprised.
The Descendants (2011)
Film #20: The Descendants (2011)
George Clooney starred in two films last year: The Ides of March and The Descendants. While the former has a special place in my heart since it was filmed in Ann Arbor while I was at school there, the latter received far more critical attention. In director Alexander Payne’s film, Clooney plays Matt King, a lawyer in Honolulu who is the sole trustee of a large plot of land on the island of Kaua’i. He and his huge network of cousins are on the verge of selling the land to a native Hawaiian for development, but his life becomes complicated when his wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) has a boating accident that puts her in a coma. All of a sudden, “the back-up parent”, as he calls himself, is in charge of their two daughters, 10-year-old Scottie (Amara Miller) and 17-year-old Alex (Shailene Woodley). As if things weren’t complicated enough, Alex tells Matt that Elizabeth had been cheating on him.
Midnight in Paris (2011)
Film #19: Midnight in Paris (2011)
Midnight in Paris is, impressively enough, Woody Allen’s 41st film. A three-and-a-half minute opening montage of Paris leads the viewer to believe that this film will be a heartfelt dedication to the City of Love, similar to how Allen’s 1979 classic Manhatten was a love letter to New York. Although the film does make a point that Paris is a magical place, and although protagonist Gil (played by Owen Wilson as Woody Allen’s proxy) is, indeed, infatuated with the city, Midnight‘s sentimental story has more commentary on the concept of nostalgia than anything else, along with Allen’s ever-present self-awareness of art and the artist.
Live Blogging the 2012 Oscars
Final tallies:
- The Artist: 10 nominations, 5 wins (Best Costume Design, Best Original Score, Best Actor [Jean Dujardin], Best Director [Michel Hazanavicius], and Best Picture)
- Hugo: 11 nominations, 5 wins (Best Visual Effects, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing)
- The Iron Lady: 2 nominations and 2 wins (Best Makeup and Best Actress [Meryl Streep])
- Nobody else won more than one award! Egalitarianism ftw!
Thanks for joining my buzzed ass for these awards! Tons of fun was had, hope to be back next year!!
11:36pm: The Artist takes best picture, folks. And Uggie’s there to celebrate, decked out in a bowtie and everything.
11:33pm: TIME FOR THE BIG ONE! LET’S GO…. uh… I actually don’t feel too strongly about any one movie in this category, but The Artist is probably going to win?
11:29pm: And the best actress (period) gets the Best Actress Oscar. Meryl Streep wins for The Iron Lady, because it always pays to play a historical figure… and it always pays to be fucking Meryl Streep.
11:25pm: Best Actress might be the closest competition out of all the awards. I’m rooting for Rooney just because I have a biased love affair with GWTDT, but all of them are amazing.
11:22pm: Haha, that latest Roman-era J.C. Penney’s commercial with Ellen is the best one yet! Fuck off, One Million Moms!
11:20pm: I’m doubling down on my happiness for Jean Duhardin after that fucking acceptance speech. Just so much happiness!
11:14pm: Natalie Portman presents the Best Actor award this year. I love all the nominees, but I’m happy with Jean Dujardin winning. Gary Oldman, you still deserve one soon, man.
10:59pm: Aw, only three awards left – Best Picture and the two Best Acting awards. Thought this was supposed to go until midnight. Kinda glad it’s not.
10:57pm: That footage of James Earl Jones recording Mustafa’s voice is some awesome shit.
10:53pm: Michel Hazanavicius wins Best Director for The Artist, and makes me want to learn the French language. Also, Uggie reference! Drink!
10:48pm: All the little guy awards have been handed out. Time for the big wigs. The fat cats. The Charleston Chews.
10:44pm: Did Ellie Kemper (Erin from The Office) just present an award? I think she did. It was Best Animated Short, which went to Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
10:42pm: Best Documentary Short goes to Saving Face.
10:41pm: Yeah! They’re playing too!
10:40pm: Best Live Action Short goes to The Shore.
10:39pm: I haven’t seen ANY shorts, so I shall report on the winnings without comment.
10:38pm: Man, The Tree of Life isn’t going to win Best Director or Best Picture, so it’s not going to win anything tonight. That angers me. HOW DID IT NOT WIN BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY?! THAT MOVIE WAS CINEMATOGRAPHY!
10:36pm: How’s everyone doing? With the drinking? 5 beers in? Cause that’s where I’m at.
10:30pm: Woody Allen wins for Best Original Screenplay for Midnight in Paris. Allen wasn’t present at the ceremony – despite all of his nominations, he’s only been present once, in 2002, to tell Hollywood to keep making movies after 9/11.
10:29pm: Dude, what’s wrong with Angelina Jolie’s arms?! WHERE ARE THE REST OF THEM?!
10:27pm: YES! DEAN PELTON HAS AN OSCAR UP IN THIS BITCH! (The Descendants wins for “Best Adapted Screenplay”)
10:24pm: Billy Crystal is like “we’re all rich as hell.”
10:18pm: Yes!! Bret! I’m so happy for you! A little awkward that the camera cut to Jason Segel and Bret didn’t thank him, but whatever! Flight of the Conchords!
10:16pm: I can dig on Ludovic Bource. He has a lot of love to give.
10:13pm: I’ve heard a LOT of great scores this year. I loved Hugo‘s, but I’m hoping The Artist takes it… but, full disclosure, I’ve yet to see Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy or Tin Tin. OH BUT THE ARTIST takes it!!!
10:10pm: First bit of Uggie. I’m surprised he hasn’t been running around all over the god damn stage tonight.
10:06pm: Only 5 little guy awards left to present, and I just learned that one of them (Best Original Song) could go to Bret from Flight of the Conchords! Yeah! Get it, Bret!
10:03pm: Plummer’s speech went on for a while, but are you going to play Christopher Plummer off the stage? No, you’re god damn not.
10:01pm: And at 82 years old, Christopher Plummer becomes the oldest actor ever to win an Oscar for his role in Beginners, which I’ve yet to see. And apparently he’s only 2 years younger than the Oscars themselves. Glad he could get this recognition, very classy acceptance speech.
9:58pm: Haha, the two people I’m with tonight were both at my Oscarfest last year, and one of them is reminiscing about how Melissa Leo’s drink put her over the edge.
9:56pm: I was expecting Rise of the Planet of the Apes to get Best Visual Effects, but I should have known: Hugo takes home its fifth Oscar tonight.
9:53pm: That’s another pair of presenters where the woman is taller than the man (Emma Stone/Ben Stiller right now, Gwyneth Paltrow/RDJ earlier). No like… comment to make about that. Just an observation.
9:50pm: Hey this live blogging this is going all right, right? Right! Also there’s a ton of drinking ahead still.
9:47pm: Chris Rock was hilarious presenting the Best Animated Feature award, which ends up going to Rango. Some Johnny Depp love up in hur.
9:43pm: Undefeated wins Best Documentary. Any uh… any idea what that is? Awww, and first use of the “play these people off” music. Full on lights dimmed and everything.
9:39pm: Has anyone seen my balls? Because they just got blown to pieces by Cirque Du Soleil.
9:34pm: Muppets! Drink twice! Even if Kermit is sounding ehhhh.
9:31pm: I’m down with all these Ellen commercials. Also, just remembered that Jim Rash (Dean Pelton from Community) is nominated for a writing Oscar for The Descendants, and that makes me so excited.
9:28pm: And another one! Hugo with its fourth win tonight, for Sound Mixing… which I totally don’t remember how is different than Sound Editing right now. Also that sentence isn’t good. Also, drink! They said “Scorsese”! (of course)
9:26pm: Hugo picks up its third Oscar, this time for Sound Editing. The recipient just dropped “indefatigable”, also, which is one of the coolest words ever.
9:23pm: And now it’s time for Best Film Editing, the award that gets the least amount of the credit that it deserves. And it goes to Girl With the Dragon Tattoo! Excellent! Loved that movie, and it’s cool that these chaps won two years in a row (winning last year for The Social Network)
9:20pm: Eugene Levy and Fred Willard are exactly the type of people who would be in an Oscars video segment. But this Wizard of Oz focus group segment’s pretty funny. Probably because of them. Also one of the people I’m with thought Fred Willard was Red Forman (or whoever the actor is who plays Red).
9:12pm: Props to Miz Spencer, her performance in The Help definitely deserved the Best Supporting Actress award, no matter how smitten I was with Bérénice Bejo and Jessica Chastain. I’d also say she has the best acceptance speech so far, though Asghar Farhadi’s was heartfelt as well.
9:08pm: Iran just won Best Foreign Picture for A Separation. It’s Hollywood’s way of trying to smooth over this whole nuclear research thing.
8:58pm: The Iron Lady wins Best Make-Up. I’m gonna take that to mean that the Academy thinks Glenn Close already looka like a man.
8:56pm: Just call The Artist the trust-buster. It takes Best Costume Design.
8:49pm: First commercial break, giving my beer hand a rest. All these Hugo wins are really milking that “Scorsese” rule. Also I’ve abandoned making that line between each update.
8:45pm: Wanted Midnight in Paris to win for Production Design for its time traveling set design, but Hugo’s 2/2 now.
8:44pm: Nooo! Pissed that Tree of Life lost the cinematography , even if Gandalf Jesus did a great job with Hugo
8:42pm: Hanks is talking about the old guy that I mistook for Mickey Rooney earlier.
8:36pm: Aw, I felt like that opening segment was pretty weak. Let’s hope Crystal ups his game.
8:30pm: Oh shit here we go!
8:15pm: But for real. Why are we giving a damn about the clothes these people are wearing?
7:36pm: All right, what’s up? I’ve never done this live-blogging stuff before. But we’re gonna do it tonight. Hoo rah.
For the record, I’ve seen all 9 Best Picture nominees and only a few other movies. I don’t yet have reviews for those nine movies up on this site, but I do have reviews of six of them:
- The Artist (8/10)
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (7/10)
- The Help (7/10)
- Hugo (7.5/10)
- Moneyball (9/10)
- The Tree of Life (9/10)
So you can go read what I thought of those movies there. Or just wait for me to talk about them as they come up tonight.
Hope you’ve got your alcoholic drink of choice so that you can participate in the drinking game I created for the show. As you can see, I have mine. As you can also see, I’m dead effing tired. So we’ll see how well my body manages the alcohol as the night progresses.
- This JAJ is a tired JAJ.
Just an hour until show time! I’m probably going to avoid the red carpet stuff. Because I really don’t care. Cheers!
Dude, what’s wrong with Angelina Jolie’s arms?! WHERE ARE THE REST OF THEM?!
Hugo (2011)
Film #18: Hugo (2011)
Hugo is unusual fare for director Martin Scorsese, whose films usually revolve around violent crimes or troubled psyches (or, in the case of Cape Fear, both). Instead, Scorsese’s latest work is an about-face, a family mystery film following its 12 year-old title character in 1931 Paris. Hugo lives within the walls of a large railway station, a drab existence resulting from an accident that killed his father (Jude Law) and the negligence of his drunken uncle (Ray Winstone). Before his father, a clockmaker, died, he infected Hugo with the wonders of machinery, especially in the case of an old broken automaton. Hoping to find some sort of message from his late father, Hugo sets to work fixing the machine with the help of Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), the god daughter of an angry shopkeeper (Ben Kingsley) who resents Hugo for his thievery.
The Artist (2011)
Film #17: The Artist (2011)
When was the last time a silent movie came out? I certainly couldn’t tell you, and I have a degree in film studies – but after this year, any casual film fan will be able to tell you. The Artist, a French film directed by Michel Hazanavicius, is a silent film emulative of the earliest popular Hollywood era, even choosing the classic 4:3 aspect ratio instead of modern-day widescreen. It’s also set during that time period, between 1927 and 1932, and in a very Singin’ in the Rain-esque story, examines the impact that talking pictures had on the industry’s original silent stars. The Artist made a huge splash when it came out late last year, and it’s nominated for no less than ten Academy Awards at this year’s Oscars. Is it possible that all this acclaim stems from the film’s harkening back to a glamorized past of the industry? Probably a bit, but that doesn’t mean The Artist isn’t a great movie in and of itself – it most certainly is.
The Tree of Life (2011)
Film #16: The Tree of Life (2011)
The Tree of Life is probably the most controversial film nominated for an Oscar this year. It’s not controversial because of any graphic violence. It’s not controversial because of any sexual imagery. Rather, it’s controversial because some people have complained that it’s too “artsy”. Too “experimental”. People have literally walked out of theaters during the film. They’ve even demanded refunds, apparently because they didn’t “get it”. I’ve gone through the IMDb message boards for this movie, and it’s riddled with posts asking “what’s the point?”. I knew all of this before sitting down for Terrence Malick’s latest endeavor (his first since 2005′s The New World), and, as such, I was prepared for some real Stan Brakhage-type craziness.
Instead, I got a quiet, philosophical, and admittedly ambitious film that is among the most beautiful I’ve ever seen.
2012 Oscar Plans and Drinking Game
EDIT: For a quick infographic with the Official JAJ 2012 Oscars Drinking Game, go here.
I’ve never posted anything besides a review on this blog, but I’m more than just an amateur film critic, dear reader – I’m a human being, too. I have dreams and desires. And plans. Plans for the Academy Awards this Sunday!
Although I’m not an indiscriminate fan of the film industry – I’ve got problems with the MPAA and the current trend for films to be painfully unoriginal, to name a few – I do make it a habit to watch the Oscars every year. It’s kind of my Super Bowl, not being into sports and all.
I usually have a few people over and we play an Oscars drinking game. Every year since I started doing this (2008), I’ve managed to catch at least all of the Best Picture nominees prior to the awards show (the exception being last year when I missed three of them – The Kids Are All Right, True Grit, and Winter’s Bone).
This year, all of those traditions were in jeopardy. I no longer live at my own place, I’ve yet to see four of the Best Picture noms, and, much to my surprise, Google couldn’t provide me with a single Oscars drinking game for the show this year.
But James A. Janisse, Analytic Critic, is no quitter. No siree.
I made accommodations as far as my living arrangements go so that I can still have some peeps over, I’m devoting the next four days to catching up on Oscar fare, and I’ve decided that I’m experienced enough in this whole “Oscar Drinking Game” situation that I can make my own.
So come here on Sunday and join me as I live-blog the Oscars. The live-blogging will get progressively more awesome as I continuously succumb to the first-ever Official JAJ Oscars Drinking Game (2012). I’m posting my unGodly creation below so that you can join me in this inebriating affair. See you on Sunday!
The Official JAJ Oscars Drinking Game (2012)
- Take 1 drink any time…
- …someone mentions Uggy the dog.
- …someone makes a (liberal) political statement.
- …someone mentions Whitney Houston.
- …someone says “Wow” during their acceptance speech (1 drink per “wow”)
- …the camera cuts to Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie
- Take 2 drinks any time…
- …someone thanks God in their acceptance speech.
- …someone says “Scorsese”.
- …someone says something that gets censored.
- …a muppet appears onscreen.
- …Billy Crystal makes reference to his hosting experiences in the past.
- Take 3 drinks any time…
- …someone’s acceptance speech gets interrupted by the orchestra playing them off.
- …someone makes a (conservative) political statement.
- …someone makes a reference to The Tree of Life being weird, experimental, pretentious, etc.
- …there’s a mention of Michael Fassbender getting screwed over in these awards.
- …there’s a reference to Twilight.
And the part of the game that will really test your resilience:
For every award being given, before the winner is announced, say:
1.) Which nominee you want to win
and
2.) Which nominee you expect to win
- If the winner is the nominee you want to win, congratulations! Take 1 drink!
- If the winner is the nominee you expect to win, you’re so smart! Take 2 drinks!
- If the winner is a nominee you neither wanted or expected to win, learn from your mistakes! Take 3 drinks!
- If the winner is the nominee that you both wanted and expected to win, nice job! GIVE 3 drinks out to someone else! (suggestion by Reddit user ajcfood)
Good luck on Sunday to all the Oscar nominees, and good luck to all of our livers!
–James A. Janisse
Fatal Attraction (1987)
Fatal Attraction was a huge deal when it was released in 1987. Not only was it the highest grossing film of the year, it also gained 6 Oscar nods, including Best Picture. Somehow I managed to remain relatively unaware of the film until recently, when I was able to experience it in all of its infamy.
Fatal Attraction looks at the repercussions of extramarital affairs, especially when said affairs are with a psychotic woman. This particular psychotic woman is Alex Forrest, played by Glenn Close. Alex appears to suffer from a violent form of borderline personality disorder, prone to emotional reversals and manipulative behavior. Alex becomes obsessed with the man she knows is married. Michael Douglass plays the cheating husband, Anne Archer the hapless wife.
Close is clearly the highlight of the film. Sometimes she is frighteningly manic, and other times overbearingly sweet – both modes equally disturbing. One of the more terrifying things about Alex Forrest is her intelligence compared to her emotional maturity. She is clever in all the ways she gets around Douglass’s avoidance, but also cries and cuts herself when she doesn’t get her way. She’s like an intelligent, violent toddler that Douglass can’t get rid of. Glen Close gives a performance that may very well end up in your nightmares.
The film excels in thrills and suspense, and even dips into the horror genre for its memorable finale. Director Adrian Lyne spins the story out with a very effective touch. There are a number of scenes with great intercutting, including Close catatonicaly turning a light on and off, and the infamous boiling bunny sequence. Other scenes are brilliant in tone, like the claustrophobic library where Douglass confides in a colleague amidst heavy breathing and tall book cases.
The suspense builds steadily as Close goes further and further with her infatuation, and the movie keeps up pace. I’m pretty sure the sound of the phone ringing gets increasingly louder. By the last act, the phone’s ring sounded more terrifying than any big budget sound effect – all it took was simple conditioning. Well played, Mr. Lyne.
My only issue with the film is that it seems somewhat unlikely for Douglass and Close to end up having an affair in the first place. Douglass slips into bed with her very casually, making it seem like he’s done this frequently before. If that’s the case, then I don’t feel as much pity for him, even if he is get stalked. As for Close’s character, it seems dubious that she should have so steady a job with an affliction so serious, but maybe she was fine before old cheatin’ Douglass came around and messed up her world.
Fatal Attraction may have been made in the 80s, but the only thing that seems dated is the attire. It’s still an effective thriller that maintains constant suspense, and Glen Close delivers one of the best female antagonist performances I’ve ever seen. This is easily one of the greatest thrillers ever made. It should not be missed.
Final rating: 9/10
–James A. Janisse
The Blind Side (2009)
The commercial success of The Blind Side last year was unexpected; its nomination for Best Picture may have been even more so. Starring Sandra Bullock in an Oscar-winning role, and based on a true story of rags-to-riches football player Michael Oher, many people have professed their love for this sentimental film. Not being a fan of over-wrought emotionality, I was expecting not to enjoy this film at all. Surprisingly, when I finished it, I felt good about it and admittedly liked it more than I would have predicted. But it was not an excellent movie, and by no means did it ever even begin to deserve its nomination for Best Picture.
The Blind Side tells the story of the wealthy Tuohy family taking in a homeless and underprivileged black student. He was effectively bartered into the school by the coach, who hopes to use him for athletics. However, the academics prove far too difficult for Oher – until Leigh Anne Tuohy (Bullock) takes him in and improves his life.
The film opens with an interesting narration by Bullock explaining some aspects of football and the position that Oher plays. Apparently, it’s full of inaccuracies, especially regarding relative wages of positions. This is the first time that writer/director John Lee Hancock chooses a polish for his story instead of realism or consistent details, but unfortunately, they plague the entire film.
For instance, though Oher, played by Quinton Aaron, shows great proficiency with a basketball in one of the first scenes, later he approaches football like he’s never scene it in his life. This is a story angle that I know was fabricated, and was one of the more difficult-to-swallow aspects of the film. Tie into that the fact that the coach is less apt to teach the game than Bullock with a snappy analogy, and you can see the kind of set-up that the story rolls with – one in which all stops are pulled to gain a few more “awww”s from the audience, even if it means changing the story the film is based on and forcing some things to not make any sense.
There are tons of other signs of a story more intent on sentiments than being fully fleshed out (the boy Oher gets into the school with is dropped until needed at the end for a kind of “could-have-been” comparison, for instance), but I’ll avoid listing them all and try to move on. I’d like to address the varying claims of racism being lobbied at the film.
The fact that it’s based on a true story causes problems for any assertion that the film is trying to say that black people need white people’s help to make their lives better (or any variance on that claim). After all, this actually happened, so how can a story based on truth have a racist intent? However, upon more critical examination, you realize that the film could have done a lot more to avoid these allegations.
After all, the story very clearly focuses on Bullock, not on Aaron’s Oher, who finds himself lost in a new world where he’s the only one of his kind. He isn’t given much dialogue, and as I mentioned, has been dumbed down to an almost lobotomized passivity. Where are his thoughts and worries? Where is his effort lauded and applauded? Instead, all attention goes to Bullock and the relatively minor problems she faces from taking in another mouth to feed. I don’t know how the real Oher feels about this film, his story having been relegated to the sidelines. I’d be quite displeased.
In her defense, Bullock does do an Oscar-worthy performance. Before seeing this I was cemented in my position that Meryl Streep deserved the Oscar for Best Actress; this film showed Bullock doing a comparable performance (though I later would wish that Gabourey Sidibe had beaten both of them). Bullock makes the role of Leigh Anne her own, bringing great confidence and sharpness to the character. There is a lack of evolution to Miz Tuohy, but that doesn’t make Bullock’s performance any less enjoyable.
I wasn’t a fan of Aaron, who fell back on the “look up and slowly smile” move far too often, but again, his character was given little to nothing to work with. One irritating standout was child actor Jae Head as Bullock’s son SJ. I never knew scenery could be chewed so loudly and completely. The other child of the Tuohy family, Collins (played coincidentally enough by Lily Collins), is also hard to evaluate – her character is another casualty of the script that is more interested in a back-and-forth karaoke between SJ and Oher that goes on for FAR too long than in any meaningful relationship that may have developed between Oher and the Tuohy’s daughter.
The script for the film is a gripe I simply can’t forgive. It’s so weak and worn that any sentimentality gained in the moment will quickly vanish with a critical reflection. Most of the problems that Oher and his surrogate family face are solved as quickly as they arise (particularly a car crash that, because of this, becomes entirely unnecessary). It’s really just a vehicle for Sandra Bullock to do some respectable acting, and Hancock should rejoice that he succeeded in that field.
I know many people liked the film and that I’ll be stepping on a great deal of toes, but a film that uses gimmicks such as Oher’s behavior during a football game (and subsequent cheesy line) and entirely superfluous flashbacks (in desperate attempts to ring out more sentimentality) simply isn’t a good film. For a feel-good family film, it may stand with its head above the crowd, simply due to its amazing lead performance and bits of humor that keep it light even at a 2 hour runtime. But compared to a canon of respectable cinema, or even against the other nine entries for Best Picture of 2009, it simply doesn’t compare. Though the end credits wisely choose to display real pictures of the Tuohys and Oher, garnering some last-minute tears that it may have missed during the film, my final analysis is that this is a movie that is overwhelmingly overrated by many film viewers.
Final rating: 6.5/10
–James A. Janisse
The White Ribbon (2009)
Michael Haneke’s The White Ribbon is nominated for Best Foreign Picture at the 82nd Academy Awards. Perhaps no other film released in 2009 better reinforces the perceived dichotomy between art films and entertainment. While The White Ribbon is gaining critical praise, the average movie-goer is unlikely to find enjoyment in it. For one, the film is in black and white. Though cinematographer Christian Berger presents the grayscale image (originally filmed in color) beautifully, lack of color in a film has become a dispelling asset to modern film-goers.
The fact that the picture is in German, requiring the audience member to read subtitles during the entirety of the film, will also stifle the modern media consumer’s desire to see this film. However, more important than any technical aspect of the film is Haneke’s refusal to give the audience member special privileges in his film. In the age of Avatar, movie goers seem to praise action and excitement over all else, and certainly desire an informed position while they watch. This is not the position that Haneke permits.
Instead, when the characters in The White Ribbon go behind closed doors to discuss something, we do not get to accompany them. We are left waiting for them to exit, and must infer what their conversation consisted of. Though the narration provided by Ernst Jacobi tells us about plenty of incidents, we rarely see them – we are no more informed than recipients of village gossip. Haneke does not show us favor, and in an era where such treatment is rare, perhaps we should be grateful for that.
We should be grateful that Haneke trusts us to be intelligent consumers. The White Ribbon never gets frantic, and instead maintains a very deliberate pace as it looks at the denizens of an early 20th century German village. The children here are the focal point; they sometimes seem like they’re from Village of the Damned, but see how the 4 year old doesn’t understand death. He’s still just a child, but perhaps not for long. His father explains death to him, and it may very well be the end of his innocence. The children examined in this film will grow up to be adults during the Third Reich, and Haneke certainly implies that most if not all of them will participate in Hitler’s regime. Thus, The White Ribbon is a look at where such evilness begins. Certainly we’ve all wondered how Nazis came into their own; Haneke attempts to explain it.
His answer appears to lay blame on restrictive adults that instill great guilt into children for natural masturbation, or who appear on the outset to be fine individuals only to show in private how abusive and parochial they are. I’m not sure how well this argument should be taken, as any film attempting to explain the origins of the most destructive era in human history will certainly be controversial. At the very least, though, Haneke has crafted a wonderfully compelling story that raises plenty of questions for discussion.
The entire movie has an ominous feel to it, from its bleak title cards to certain masking that Haneke employs. We’re not really given someone to identify with – the closest thing to a hero is the schoolteacher played by Christian Friedel, but even he is less than entirely admirable. The aforementioned cinematography is fantastic, and makes the entire movie feel like it came from an ancient photo album. The performances are great all around, including talented children actors, something that is always hard to find.
The White Ribbon is not a movie for everyone. It is slow-paced and ambiguous, leaving the audience in the dark much more than most viewers are accustomed to. However, it is also a superbly told story that looks at a deceptively simple time in world history, and creates great suspense as it meanders around its well constructed setting. Anyone who wishes that more movies made them think would be remiss to overlook Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Final rating: 7/10
–James A. Janisse
Boogie Nights (1997)
Boogie Nights is Paul Thomas Anderson’s second feature film, but his first, Hard Eight, is also probably his least-watched. Establishing many stylistic and thematic elements that would pervade his successive three films, Boogie Nights is Anderson’s first exercise as auteur. The result is a fantastic film that is nearly flawless.
Boogie Nights follows a troupe of characters in the porn industry, beginning with the employment of Eddie Adams, soon to be Dirk Diggler (played by Mark Wahlberg). The story is expansive and covers most of the characters from 1977 to 1983, a span that featured many cultural and technological changes. One of the highlights of the film is Anderson’s ability to show how these changes affected individuals from a business that suffered the most because of them.
Of the ensemble cast, Wahlberg’s character still manages to be focal, which sits fine by me. Wahlberg is at his finest as Dirk Diggler, whether he has to play a 17 year old busboy who’s going nowhere in life or a young adult whose egotism and habits have exacerbated the problems of his fall from stardom. He’s able to handle the many emotions and tragedies that Diggler endures as he rises and falls. The movie actually ends up being very reminiscent of Goodfellas, with Diggler subbing for Henry Hill (and, of course, porn subbing for crime) – we see one man work his way up from nothing, achieve peak success, then fall apart under the pressure.
Luckily, Boogie Nights is not content to just this storyline. Featuring a phenomenal ensemble cast would have been worthless without an exploration of each well-acted character, and Anderson knows this. Thus, the film’s two-and-a-half hours are a welcome length to learn about and watch the plethora of interesting characters.
Burt Reynolds serves as a patriarchal pornmaker who yearns for his films to be erotic art. As a stern and powerful, but genial, father figure, Reynolds is one of the most enjoyable of the cast, never betraying us for rooting for him. Julianne Moore puts in a terrific somber performance as an aging female porn star of Reynolds’ films. His other actors include John C. Reilly at his thinnest, providing an excellent buddy character to accompany Wahlberg in his life’s tragic ordeals, and Don Cheadle, whose life in the latter half of the film is endlessly marred by his participation in the porn industry.
Reynolds’ crew includes Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a repressed gay character in love with Wahlberg, and William H. Macy in perhaps one of the most pitiful and sympathetic roles of recent cinema. Heather Graham is as cute as always and is frankly the only one in danger of being underused as high-school drop out Rollergirl, and I’d be remiss not to mention Alfred Molina’s fantastic addition as a crazed drug dealer.
Anderson interweaves these stories expertly, always including coalesced instances that include long flowing shots, showing us each character in a single setting without any cuts. It only serves to reinforce the sense of surrogacy that Reynolds builds around his coworkers that lends to the film a funny kind of family feel at times.
Their family isn’t strong enough to withstand the changes of the 80s, however. Video technology and home cassette players develop, drastically changing the industry and seriously dampening Reynolds’ desires to make art. At the same time, the “moral majority” gained a voice with Ronald Reagan, and the crazy lifestyle of the porn industry’s players changes from glamorized to demonized.
The third act of the lengthy film confronts these problems and shows a series of increasingly intense incidents in the splintered lives of the movie’s cast. Expect a severe change in tone from the lighthearted and funtimes first act to a violent and dark third. The rise and fall of all of these characters is more than engaging enough for the admittedly exuberant length, the only possible error in Anderson’s ambitious work.
Boogie Nights is an excellent film that combines magnificent storytelling with entertaining style. The length of the film carries it across various tones, inviting the audience to partake in the same rollercoaster of fame that the superb ensemble of characters experience. There are many things in this film that Anderson would reuse, particularly most of the actors as well as a symbolic shot of the characters unknowingly passing each other in cars on the road. The movie is a must-see, and began the praise for P.T. Anderson that his later films would further justify.
Final rating: 9.5/10
–James A. Janisse
Bolt (2009)
Last year the most talked about animated film was Wall-E, and as a result that ended up being the only one I saw. I’m sad that that may have been the case for others as well, because Bolt is a solid entry into Disney’s CGI-animated film canon.
Bolt is about a dog who has been led to believe he has super powers, although in reality people are just faking everything for him and filming it for a television show. Bolt ends up across the country in a questionably short period of time, then has to make his way back with the help of an alley cat and a hyped-up hamster.
The plot is pretty generic, but the whole concept of a dog being fooled into thinking he has super powers is pretty interesting to me. I had no idea that that was the plot for this movie, so I was tricked a few times before learning what was actually going on. Although it’s not the most amazing of storylines, the plot unfolds at a very efficient pace, never lingering around in any one location for too long. It’s very economic with its material, and it’s nice to see a film that is edited efficiently.
Visually, Bolt is very pleasing. It looks very well-animated, with some impressive details to most of its characters. The designs were satisfying; they actually looked like the animals they were supposed to be, albeit with larger heads (which I suspect is to enhance cuteness). Even better, they behaved and moved accurately as well. Although I’m glad Disney tried out traditional animation with Princess and the Frog, I won’t mind their return to CGI if their future efforts look as good as Bolt.
The characters are part of the film’s appeal as well. John Travolta voices Bolt, and though Travolta is now in his 50s, his voice is gentle and curious, and fits perfectly into the part of a young but brave dog. I was initially skeptical toward the character Rhino the hamster, but he ended up being a refreshingly resourceful and endearing addition instead of the bumbling annoying sidekick I imagined. I was also worried about Miley Cyrus’ presence ruining the film for me, but her character is surprisingly absent a majority of the film, and when she’s around she actually does a decent job. There were also a bunch of different pigeons throughout the film, and all of them were a treat as well.
Above all, this movie is good at being feel-good. It’s a very uplifting and happy tale that never tries to get cheap emotion out of its audience. It’s heartfelt in addition to looking fantastic and being efficient with its plot. It’s sad that Bolt was overshadowed by Wall-E, because it’s worth taking a look at, even if it isn’t groundbreaking.
Final rating: 8/10
–James A. Janisse
Avatar (2009)
Avatar is the newest James Cameron film, and the first that he has made since the Oscar-sweeping Titanic in 1997. It’s shot in 3D, with advertisements claiming that Avatar is a new benchmark for filmmaking, impressively innovative in visual effects. While the first claim may not be met, Avatar definitely succeeds on the second. This film is quite possibly the best-looking movie I’ve ever seen, and quite easily the best 3D film of all time.
Avatar takes place in the 22nd Century, in a time when humans have apparently destroyed their own planet and are now colonizing Pandora, home to the sentient and humanoid Na’vi. The film follows Sam Worthington as a Marine whose twin was a late scientist, and he becomes the ordinary person in an extraordinary situation by having to fulfill his brother’s duties. Except I guess he’s not that ordinary, because he’s a wheelchair-bound Marine. But you get the picture.
I’ll start off by saying that the story and Worthington’s performance are what keep Avatar from truly becoming a new benchmark in all of filmmaking. The plot is exceedingly simple and straightforward. I’m not saying it takes away from the movie, because I actually enjoyed and was refreshed by its simplicity, but it’s nothing new, and its predictability can sometimes take away from the story. Worthington goes undercover and learns the Na’vi’s ways in a plan to exploit their weaknesses. You can guess immediately that a.) he’s going to fall in love with the girl who takes him around, causing him to lose his loyalty to the military program, and b.) there’s going to be a point where he reveals his longstanding deception, the girl turns away from him in disgust, and he has to win back her and the peoples’ trust to save them before destruction comes. Both of these things happen, and you can see them from a mile away. But I’ve gotta be honest, I didn’t care. I didn’t see this movie to see the next Citizen Kane. I saw it to see the next Star Wars.
And from a technological showcase standpoint, it clearly succeeds. The film’s creation of Pandora has to be unmatched in cinematic setting depth. Every inch of the map is carefully constructed, and it shows that time and creativity went into all of it. There are a number of wild species on the planet – every single one is distinct and interesting, and makes you want to see more. Even the plant life is so captivating that you wish the characters could just frolic and explore the jungle around them, so you could see what else the developers of this universe came up with.
It all looks and sounds amazing, and the 3D effects are really put to their best use in Avatar. I’ve seen a number of the new films to come out in 3D, and this is hands down the best one. I believe that this is the first film to bring a respectable non-animated film to the realm of 3D – fefore this, we had things like The Final Destination and other cheap gimmicky fare. Avatar takes this technology and blends it into its cinematography as well as widescreen or depth of focus has been adapted in the past. There are a few outstanding uses of it that purposefully jump out at you, but it’d be boring without at least a couple of indulgences in the new technology. Most of the time, however, it is used maturely and artistically, creating a very immersive and enchanting depth and feel to the film.
The film also operates on a number of other levels that I’d like to mention. It blends psychology (the biologically-based scientific psychology, not the archaic Freudian psychobabble) and spirituality to give the Na’vi a faith rooted in the world around them forming a biological network with neuron- and synapse-like connections. That’s very cool, and very appreciated in an industry where psychology is usually abused and misused constantly.
The story also touches lightly upon some philosophical issues dealing with identity. When you really think about it, operating another body as your own opens a whole case of questions and considerations, some of which have been discussed by great thinkers in the past. Avatar definitely doesn’t become some Godardian experimental film, but the fact that it brings some questions up at all is another great and rare intellectual addition to what is undeniably a blockbuster film.
The film also has a political slant to it, which ends up getting a bit overbearing by the end. People who have problems with “tree hugging liberals” may very well leave upset with the film’s message, and its almost laughably stereotypical antagonist that seems like George W. Bush on steroids. To be fair, however, the film’s story does bring in political considerations almost inherently, and considering the perspective of the film, its alignment is practically pre-chosen.
Overall, I recommend everyone see this film. See it to see that 3D isn’t the same stuff from the 50s or 80s, and that it’s matured into a respectable and entertaining technology. See it because everyone else is and you don’t want to be left out of good water cooler conversation. See it because even at its near-3 hour length, you really and truly don’t have anything better to do. I promise you that if you have even an ounce of childlike curiosity or appreciation for aesthetics, you will be entertained. If not, then movies probably aren’t really your thing anyway.
Final rating: 8/10
–James A. Janisse
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
I finally saw Lawrence of Arabia, and I feel like I’ve reached a new point in my movie-watching career. This is often referred to as the epic of all epics, and there’s no hyperbole to that claim. Lawrence of Arabia truly is one of the greatest movies ever made.
The film is also one of the longest films I’ve seen – in fact, with a moment’s more consideration, I believe it is hands down THE longest film I’ve ever seen. At a staggering 3 hours and 47 minutes, one might think that there is no way this movie, only spanning about two years of time and focusing almost exclusively on the titular character, could hold the audience’s attention for the entirety of its length. One would be wrong. The film follows Lawrence and his involvement in World War I, from his time as a Lieutenant in Cairo to his final promotion to Major after Damascus, and all of it is captivating.
There are a multitude of reasons why this movie holds up across its enormous length. First and foremost is the acting. Peter O’Toole makes his feature debut as Lawrence of Arabia, and I doubt there has ever been a better first time performance. O’Toole captures a perfect image of Lawrence, combining flamboyancy, charm, arrogance, optimism, naivete, and stubbornness all across the film. You may root for him at first as he fights for Arab independence, a cause he may or may not truly believe in. You might lose faith in him after he breaks down and succumbs to base slaughter upon a Turkish village late in the film. No matter what your feelings toward him, though, you will be interested in his journey and evolution, as he finds himself some sort of Messiah to the Arab peoples of the Middle East.
The supporting cast is just as fantastic. This is my first time seeing Alec Guiness outside the Obi-Wan Kenobi role, and I yearn for more already. He is perfectly serpentine in his role as Prince Faisel, and it’s almost a crime that a British actor can nail down an Arab role with such precision and grace. I actually wish he had been featured more, but alas, the story did not call for it and so it was not to be.
My disappointment was made extinct by the other performances, including Anthony Quinn as a hotheaded Arab tribe leader, Omar Sherif as Sherif Ali, and Arthur Kennedy as reported Jackson Bentley. Every supporting character is well-played and memorable, so even though there are plenty of them to take in, you’ll enjoy meeting and seeing them every step of the way.
There were tons of other things that I adored about this movie. The cinematography is always lauded, and deservedly so. Shot in spectacularly widescreen 70mm, Freddie Young composes absolutely beautiful scenic shots that you never might have thought possible in such an arid desert setting. There’s a lot of deep focus and panoramic visions going on, and all of them are a delight to take in. I’d probably enjoy this movie even if I had to watch it on mute, simply because the images are so breathtakingly awesome.
There are plenty of fantastic sequences throughout the film’s near-four hour run, but the beginning of the second Act most caught my heart. From the moment they begin to assault the train all the way up to Lawrence recovering and being praised as he walks atop it, I have never been so infatuated with a single cinematic scene. It was simply mesmerizing.
One of the last things I’ll note is the film’s score. There are plenty of films with memorable music, but Lawrence of Arabia has such an elegant, majestic score whose tone matches the depth and scope of the film perfectly. I sincerely applaud Marrice Jarre on one of the greatest and most suitable film scores of all time. I’m not sure if it’s available, but if the soundtrack for this film is out there, I fully intend to get it. The music is great enough to sit through the beginning, ending, and intermission just to hear it without pictures. I don’t think I could ever hear this score enough.
Lawrence of Arabia is truly a one of a kind film. If you haven’t seen it, there’s simply nothing to compare it to, and you are doing yourself a disservice as I have done to myself all these years. I highly recommend this movie for anyone who appreciates film, and strongly suggest you not let the long runtime ward you off. It will be a four hours well spent, and one that you will at least consider repeating again and again. I eagerly look forward to the next time I watch Lawrence of Arabia, one of the greatest films of all time.
Final rating: 10/10
–James A. Janisse
Cabaret (1972)
Cabaret is a musical set in 1930s Berlin. It explores a few stories, primarily one involving a cabaret dancer named Sally Bowles (Liza Minelli, for which she won an Oscar) and an English man named Brian (Michael York, who would later find his niche in the Austin Powers movies as Basil). One of the underlying themes throughout the movie is the rising power of Nazis in 1930s Germany, and it may be that historical aspect that really drives the movie home for me.
The movie is interesting among musicals because all of the songs (and dances) take place in the realm of realism. Every single song, save for one, is performed onstage at the Kit Kat Klub, and almost all of them involve the Master of Ceremonies played by Joel Grey. Grey, whose daughter Jennifer later starred in Dirty Dancing, is hands down the single greatest highlight of the film. The MC introduces the film and serves as a binding thread throughout the various different segments and tangents of the movie. Grey is energetic, charming as hell, and a fantastic host to this kind of movie. Whether he’s in drag or singing about his menage a trois, he lights up the screen and commands full attention. Grey also won an Oscar for his performance, and it is truly deserving.
Besides Grey, there’s still plenty to enjoy about the movie. Minelli is fantastic as Bowles, creating a character who is simultaneously enticing and frustrating through her textbook narcissistic personality disorder. York is also quietly charming, and you really feel for this guy whose life is turned upside down due to the decadence and enticement of the cabaret. The songs are memorable and catchy, and the camera work only excels the action during the various stage antics.
The movie slows down a bit when it delves deeper into the threeway relationship between Minelli, York, and a rich bisexual tempter played by Helmut Griem, but that storyline ends with a bang and not a whimper, and ends up satisfying the time spent dwelling on it in retrospect. The movie itself ends with an ominous look forward toward the future of Nazi Germany, one where Joel Grey’s MC will surely not be tolerated, and one where we can only hope the secondary Jewish characters who end up getting wed can escape and survive.
Cabaret is a fantastic musical, stringing entertaining musical numbers together with a number of interesting storylines, a glance at historical cause-and-effect, and all-around fantastic performances by the entire cast. I strongly recommend anyone and everyone see this movie.
Final rating: 9/10
–James A. Janisse
My Left Foot (1989)
Last week I watched My Left Foot for the first time, and I wish that I hadn’t. That is to say, I wish that I hadn’t seen it for the first time last week, and wish instead that I had seen it during one of the more depressing times in my life, because this movie is as uplifting as any movie about a person with crippling cerebral palsy could ever hope to be, and the best thing is that it’s all true.
My Left Foot is a biopic that revolves around Christy Brown, a boy born with cerebral palsy so severe that the only control he has over his body is his titular left foot. The movie begins with Christy showing up to some kind of ceremony, and through flashbacks we learn of his birth and upbringing in his large Irish family. His dad rejects him at first, writing him off as an invalid, but his mother cares for him regardless, and soon enough he proves to his family and community that he is intelligent in spite of his condition.
While a child, Christy Brown is played by Hugh O’Conor, who does a fantastic job in a clearly difficult role. His depiction of the affliction is believable through and through, and since he is unable to speak at that point in his life, he is forced to act and emote through pained facial expressions, which somehow end up being more expressive than half of the actors you may see today.
While an adult, Christy is played by Daniel Day-Lewis, in one of his most famous and compelling roles, and one that won him an Oscar with good reason. Had it been 1989 and I had never seen Day-Lewis previously to this, I may have very well expected him to actually have the disease. Day-Lewis is amazing as he always is, and it’s definitely his performance that the film centers around. You will never tire of watching him, even as he struggles to get full sentences out. You feel for him and his unrequited love, and cheer with him in his accomplishments, whether it be scoring a goal in a game of street soccer or painting his first picture.
Christy’s parents are also performed with excellence by Brenda Fricker and Ray McAnally. Fricker also won an Oscar, so you know that the acting in this movie is second to none. The direction is equally great, never trying too hard to infringe upon the story, but adequately portraying it and moving it along with a variety of handheld shots and shots that are so low-angle they might as well be young Christy’s point of view.
Though there may not be many cinematic aspects on which to comment, My Left Foot is exceptional for its acting and its brilliant story. Christy Brown is a man with a truly captivating history to tell, and as you watch Day-Lewis paint a picture or type some words up with the toes on his left foot, you can’t help but be awed by the fact that someone really did that without acting, that a brave man lived his life to the fullest even if it was only through the actions of his single left foot.
Final rating: 9/10
–James A. Janisse
West Side Story (1961)
Last week I watched West Side Story for my class on musicals here at U of M. I still have the mixed meter rhythm of America stuck in my head.
So I’ve never seen this movie, but of course I knew a lot about it. Somehow, I knew that it had won 10 Academy Awards, more than any other musical, yet I missed the fact that it was a rewrite of Romeo and Juliet. Oh well, I found it out soon enough, and away with this two and a half hour movie I went.
I’ll say right upfront that the length was a slight problem for me. It’s not that I don’t like long movies – some of the longer movies I’ve seen have also been some of the ones I’ve enjoyed the most. But the problem with West Side Story is that its length feels enhanced by the inclusion of a few slow and honestly boring songs that just sap the pace for me. Maybe it’s a personal distaste for slow songs, but I could have done without the three or four Tony/Maria songs (except for Tonight).
Besides that, there’s not too many bad things to say about the movie. Granted, the movie depicts gangs who do group plies while they patrol their street, but you just have to get over the fact that these are not your average Greasers. It’s like Danny Zuko and the T-Birds met up with the seven brothers with seven brides, and they all gave and took a little. No, I wouldn’t be afraid of Riff or Baby John either, but it’s a musical adapted from Broadway, so you just have to deal with it.
And once you do you can enjoy the hell out of yourself. You’ll definitely recognize at least three songs from the movie that you’d heard before but didn’t know their origins. The music in this film, done by Leonard Bernstein, is fantastic and catchy. Even the music that is just background or scored, without words, is some great jazzy riffs that really carry the film.
The story, adapted from one of the greatest storytellers of all time, is of course solid. The plethora of characters each carve out their own niche and make themselves memorable in their own way. Despite being made in the less-than-progressive year of 1961, I feel as though the film at least tries to offer a balanced view of the racial tension that makes its plot.
The direction and cinematography is what really did it for me, though. I don’t know who did more work, Robert Wise or Jerome Robbins, but the end result is a beautiful collection of shots that combine stasis and playful angles. It made the movie at least three times more enjoyable than a dull, standard shot/reverse shot fare would have provided.
I really enjoyed this movie, though it might not be for people who have a hard time watching old hokey movies or for people who don’t enjoy musicals. The length could also serve as a problem, but since the entirety of the movie is filled with fantastic music and great performances, it feels justified when you finish the film. West Side Story deserves its status as one of the greatest musicals of all time, and I feel enriched for having finally seen it.
Final rating: 8/10
–James A. Janisse
