The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

[domino harvey]

Thanks for my cue, guys!

1975
Barry Lyndon This is another banner year for the Academy. While not as good as the next year, where every film nominated for Best Picture is legitimately "great," all nommed this year are at least good-- a miracle by any other name... That said, to steal a phrase from Godard, Kubrick's film is the "least good." Not quite as antiseptic as reputed, this period piece is ironically often more engaging on a narrative levels than many of the costume dramas that often find themselves in this category, quite an achievement given the film's intentionally distant formal aesthetic!

Dog Day Afternoon Iconic performances and quotes abound but this classic of the bank robbery genre is also a product of the sexual politics of the era and often quite fascinating for reasons beyond the machinations of the crime being committed. It's a film of defeat, as many films from this era are, but with an exasperation of futile effort that affords the whole affair a wonderful defeatism.

Jaws Removed from its legacy on how American films would function for the next, oh, forever, Spielberg's film still holds up as one of the classier monster movies. Iconic set pieces and music cues abound, but going back I found myself most charmed by Richard Dreyfuss' reference-level work in the role of smart-ass comic relief. Looking like he aged a good fifteen years since the Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, Dreyfuss gives the blueprint embodiment of the supporting perf that's become as much a part of the film's blockbuster equation as anything else.

Nashville For all the meandering disasters that Hollywood's laissez-faire cinema style unleashed on the decade, all is forgiven for films like Robert Altman's country-western masterpiece. This is a film with much to praise-- the music, the acting, and the direction, particularly Altman's ability to juggle dozens of primary characters within the long but not long enough running time. There are no weak links when it comes to the actors, but it's still surprising only two made the cut: I understand Ronee Blakley's nomination, but Lily Tomlin doesn't do anything special to merit hers, especially considering that Gwen Welles, who has the best role in a film full of best roles, was overlooked. Welles' Sueleen Gay is in many ways a prescient embodiment of not just every horror story one hears about show biz, but the willful self-delusion that places young starlets into these scenarios to begin with. But Altman doesn't give us the cliches the role could easily allow. Rather, he provides vivid telegraphs of small moments that sell the whole, such as the agonizing scene when Welles, forced into striptease, incorporates the rolled-up socks which stuffed her bra into her brisk burlesque. It's a detail that is exactly right. This is the kind of movie you nod along to, not just in rhythm to the music but in acknowledgement of how keenly observed its details are.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Jack Nicholson is the kind of non-manufactured star that just happens, like a flower pushing through concrete, becoming famous and well-liked by sheer on-screen willpower. If anyone ever needs to explain his appeal to future generations, you could do worse than screening Milos Foreman's much-beloved film. Rebuffing the tendencies of films like this to either glamorize institutionalization or demonize it, the film presents a mental institution as a somewhat clumsy stand-in for society in general. Don't conform, &c. It's a message that's of a piece with the era, and while it doesn't get my vote, it's win makes sense in context.

My Vote: Nashville

[knives]

Should 2012 (and so on once it comes) be included on this thread with the title ending in present rather than 2011? It's just an idea, but one I think makes sense.

[domino harvey]

It's mfunk's call but I agree. Even if it's not officially sanctioned people will use this thread for that purpose, so might as well make it legit

[mfunk9786]

My thought is that new years could be added when we're a year away from that Oscars, but that's fine. I'll add 2012 in a bit.

[zedz]

Nashville For all the meandering disasters that Hollywood's laissez-faire cinema style unleashed on the decade, all is forgiven for films like Robert Altman's country-western masterpiece. This is a film with much to praise-- the music, the acting, and the direction, particularly Altman's ability to juggle dozens of primary characters within the long but not long enough running time. There are no weak links when it comes to the actors, but it's still surprising only two made the cut: I understand Ronee Blakley's nomination, but Lily Tomlin doesn't do anything special to merit hers, especially considering that Gwen Welles, who has the best role in a film full of best roles, was overlooked. Welles' Sueleen Gay is in many ways a prescient embodiment of not just every horror story one hears about show biz, but the willful self-delusion that places young starlets into these scenarios to begin with. But Altman doesn't give us the cliches the role could easily allow. Rather, he provides vivid telegraphs of small moments that sell the whole, such as the agonizing scene when Welles, forced into striptease, incorporates the rolled-up socks which stuffed her bra into her brisk burlesque. It's a detail that is exactly right. This is the kind of movie you nod along to, not just in rhythm to the music but in acknowledgement of how keenly observed its details are.

My Vote: Nashville

My god, that's another film we agree on, right down to the details. There's a clique of critics who insist that Altman is sneering at everybody in the movie, but it seems to me they're really not paying attention. As for Tomlin, I like her in the movie, but agree that she's just one of the many small, perfectly cast and played roles. Maybe it's just that her character is one of the few unambiguously good people in the film, or maybe it's - as is normal for the Oscars - residual goodwill from something else entirely.

[dustybooks]

Funny, Tomlin is one of my favorite things about Nashville; something about the gravity and sadness of her performance seems unusually real to me. It's possibly relevant that I like but don't exactly love the film, though (with the caveat that I watch the scene with Blakley singing "Dues" about eight times a week).

[zedz]

Actually, that's another Academy head-scratcher: you have a film with 'Dues' in it and 'I'm Easy' gets nominated (and wins)?

[knives]

If I can take some of the spotlight away from our Oscarmeister.

1972
Cabaret
On the extras to Maniac Joe Spinell in praise of The Godfather asks how it could win BP and not director as those two qualities are synonymous and I agree though in the reverse towards this masterpiece. Just everything is perfect from the music, use of colour, to the way it tackles its very difficult themes without punking out. Its fantastic in a way that I don't even blame it for the horrible influence it has had on the movie musical.

Deliverance
Before going in I had known about the pig squealing scene, but not the overall plot so I was expecting a classier I Spit on Your Grave so I was very happy when it turned out to be more the forefather to films like River's Edge. By this point Boorman could pretty much accomplish anything perfectly so it almost comes as a disappointment for how small this is especially compared to the efforts it is squashed between which are some of the greatest acid trips ever committed to the screen. As far as grimy realism though the film works and is probably as great as it could ever be.

The Emigrants
I wasn't completely trusting of this movie at first with a few problems especially in regards to the almost stereotypically Swedish plot von Sydow finds himself in, but by the end of the first hour it had won me over entirely as one of the finest films possible. It loses some steam once they get on the boat which is a less personal and complex story then the why and how of emigration, but as I had gotten to really care for these characters so much by this point the rather predictable second half didn't seem as problematic as it should have. Just an amazing accomplishment.

The Godfather
You know you've got a stellar year when the safe choice is the three hour mafia homage to Visconti. Enough has been written about this amazing film that I really can't add anything new.

Sounder
I'm actually really thankful that this didn't win though I liked it just barely more than Coppola's feast as it is the sort of quiet and unassuming film that would get hated on forever if it had taken the gold. While perfectly enjoyable on its own in watching the film I had to ponder why would Ritt make this movie as he really hadn't since his debut made a social commentary to preach to the choir and then it hit me with the taking away of the father that the film was intended as an explanation to all of the idiots who might not be wearing hoods, but still didn't understand the civil rights movement that was going on at the time. A sort of 'what else do people need to be angry for'. The film still remains laid back and doesn't preach or get indignant, but this quiet approach remains all the more powerful.

My vote: Cabaret

[Matt]

I don't even blame [Cabaret] for the horrible influence it has had on the movie musical.

Please elaborate. I don't remember you mentioning that in the Musicals list thread.

[knives]

The way that the music is structured (and Anderson's great O Lucky Man! too) seems to have influenced subsequent musicals to sort of fear a classical presentation. Stuff like Chicago I think can be blamed at east partially on Cabaret.

[zedz]

Well, the link between Cabaret and Chicago is much more direct than that.

I know what you mean, but I think that's more to do with what was happening on Broadway during those decades than specifically a question of film genres. Since the 1970s, most film musicals have been adaptations of (wildly successful) Broadway musicals, for better or - largely - worse, and the self-conscious seriousness (often shading into pomposity) of those rubs off. It's a bit like all those half-embarrassed 'revisionist westerns' that are based on the misapprehension that classical Hollywood westerns were uniformly simplistic Cowboys vs. Injuns escapism. In many cases they're less sophisticated than the supposed 'fluff' they're disowning.

(And I must say, I fail to see much of an influence of O Lucky Man! on any modern genre, least of all the musical!)

[knives]

I was mentioning O Lucky Man! exclusively to illustrate the approach to music I was referring to more so than accusing it of influencing anything.

[zedz]

Oh I see. I think the difference is that the "it's not really a musical" pose of O Lucky Man! is because it really isn't a musical in any traditional sense, whereas in the other instances I think it's more a case of trying to dodge what they see as being the negative connotations of musicals (which are probably false assumptions on their part).

(And I do agree that the 'music as detached commentary' approach of O Lucky Man! is much closer to Cabaret than it is to most other musicals, new or old.)

[knives]

1973
American Graffiti
In a weird way I suppose this is Lucas' lasting achievement since so much of the film has developed into its own genre which didn't quite exist beforehand. The film itself is really great showing a sense of character and filmmaking prowess that is otherwise absent from his career. All of the stories are really great growing beyond the nostalgia that may have originated the film. Legit great.

Cries and Whispers
What a weird choice for Bergman considering how this seems to both be too weird and not weird enough for the Academy (of course also Face to Face hadn't been made yet). My feelings of where this places in the Bergman canon aside it is still '70s Bergman and therefore fantastic so who am I to complain? By itself naturally this is a great film, but in the context of the academy it just seems inappropriate.

The Exorcist
Rewatching this was pretty much the same as my previous efforts. It's absolutely terrible as a horror movie with most attempts to scare coming off as half baked (that said the candle burst and the pea soup are great jumpers). There's also a few plots too many with Cobb's cop desperately needing to be erased and the padre's storyline being some Marty type bore in most of the scenes. That said the mother daughter relationship is great and as a family drama this film is really superb and worth its ongoing relevance even if it is misplaced.

The Sting
Thank god the film mostly sidelines Redford who is especially and even more than usually dull here. Shaw and Newman are especially great with the poker scene being delightfully absurd. Even Hill's period wank is used better than I've seen him do elsewhere. Hell the ending is one of the dumbest things in the world in retrospect, but Hill does such a good job selling the heightened nature of the setting that it doesn't matter.

A Touch of Class
A truly stupendous and hilarious solo effort from Frank that is only hurt by the clear comparison to The Heartbreak Kid though this is certainly a more sentimental (in a good way) film. The performances are fantastic with the actors embodying the characters so well that within frames everything that needs to be known about them is. This might not be the greatest of the era, but it is certainly very good.

My Vote: A Touch of Class

[movielocke]

Amour -

Spoiler

Perhaps it should be Love and Hate, or maybe Love and Misogyny? We hear the wife tell her husband that he can be a monster sometime. And we see his callous, selfish disregard for her fully cognizant wish early on for an assisted suicide. We see that her love for him causes her to set aside her wishes and continue on with a life she doesn't want--for his sake. And we see that his selfishness forces her into degradation and degeneration she had feared to suffer through. And suffer she does, she suffers humiliation, she suffers degradation, she suffers degeneration of the mind; Haneke strips away her humanity bit by bit as her love for husband and his lack of reciprocation towards her grinds her away, bit by bit. And when it becomes inconvenient for him to take care of her, that's when he decides to kill her, when it suits him, not when she wanted. Perhaps he excuses it because she's no longer 'there' that she's not cognizant anymore. On the other hand, she stopped her moaning while he told her the story, he was reaching something. Not that someone as selfish and horrible as him would ever notice, he was finally ready to get rid of the inconvenience, so he did. Her love put her through a suffering he should never have asked for, what an unworthy ass he turned out to be.

Argo - a brilliant and entertaining piece of classical suspense storytelling. The Town was a very well done exercise in genre, but Argo steps it up beyond the journeyman level and might be a masterful exercise in genre. repeat viewings will see just how well it holds up, but for now one of my favorites of the year.

Beasts of the Southern Wild - I think the term fevre dream is appropriate for this kind of storytelling. all the elements, particularly the amateur performances are very well accomplished, and other than the sorry effects at the end and a few off notes here and there, this is a really stellar debut film. I feel like the score, editing and cinematography have been somewhat overlooked as the film for me shone best in those fields.

Django Unchained - for a spaghetti western it's incredibly enjoyable. for history it's not so much. It's nice to have a revenge fantasy where a black man could accomplish what Fox does here but the film is problematic because it makes it so 'easy' to kick slavery's ass. Just gotta kill a few folks, no sweat. Just like how 'easy' it was to kick the Nazi's ass. Just gotta turn into barbaric, torturing, monsters (but hey it's okay but be as evil as you want because you can never be less evil than nazi's, ultimate justification for whatever you want to do being a-ok). This film never meant to really wrestle with the problems of slavery, it's meant to be a 'hell yeah' and it's a pretty damn good 'hell yeah'.

Les Miserables - I've never encountered the musical before, but I thought this was just stupendous. Other than short changing the trial, it was a wonderful adaptation. I don't think I've ever seen a filmic opera before, where every line was sung, since most musicals have dialogue the lack of dialogue was pretty unexpected to me, but impressively bold and a bit crazy to go the opera route. Wonderfully well done, better than the King's Speech imo, which I felt was very fine, but not a great film.

Life of Pi - Overall, everything about the film is top notch, but it mostly falls flat because it promises to "make you believe in God" and it does nothing of the sort. The second story is the one I'd rather see and hear, much more interesting than the cuddly bunny story of Charles Parker.

Lincoln - Spielberg back in top form, delivering a film with some of the best performances ever in a Spielberg film (I'm anxious to see his next non-action film to see if his direction of performances evolves after the experience he gained on this film). Lighting is breathtaking, the script and writing are possibly the best Spielberg has had since Jaws or Raiders of the Lost Ark. But this is really all about the performances, and damn does Day Lewis and everyone else deliver. I can't wait to see it again. My only regret is that they didn't take Team of Rivals and make a ten hour miniseries out of it with this cast and crew.

Silver Linings Playbook - I have gone back and forth on this film. At first I was extremely irritated by it, because the film goes to such extravagant lengths to prime and pump the audience for an anti-meds bandwagon. The first shot of the movie is practically him throwing away his meds, then he excitedly repeats to everyone he meets about fifty times in the next hour that he's off his meds, that meds suck, that he doesn't need meds etc etc. Having dated someone with similar mental illness, it's always a huge pet peeve of mine when cultural artifacts like a film go out of their way to reinforce the cultural mistrust of medicine for the brain. Sure there was one shot of him taking his meds halfway through, and then the movie adroitly avoids mentioning them ever again, but when the first shot of the movie is him faking taking his meds should we really trust the later shot, or just assume--as we have been primed to assume--that he spit them out that time too? and then if he is on his meds, they do nothing to reinforce the positives of getting on meds the way they repeatedly reinforced the antimeds soliloquies of the first half. But the more I talk about the movie with others, the more I think about it, the less irritated I become with the film. Yes it rubbed me the wrong way at first by triggering a pet peeve, but apparently I'm the only one who took that impression away from the film, and that suggests the problem is me: that my biases and experiences unfairly colored my viewing of the film. Perhaps. another viewing will be helpful, but the film is probably better than I gave it credit for.

Zero Dark Thirty - like in Inglorious Bastards, torture is okay if your enemy is 'evil' enough, amiright? Sure it is! Yay torture! I don't think the film is really trying to validate or justify torture, but the construction of the film sure implies that the end justified the means... or maybe it did. I remain conflicted, I think the film leaves it somewhat open ended, but if you look at the film as a whole, the torture only gained them a lead, it never developed into anything without a ton of corroborating follow up traditional police work, and ultimately the biggest break came from someone methodically going back through every piece and discovering something everyone had overlooked. It wasn't the torture that got them to the end game, but no one seems to want to talk about all the heavy lifting that took years and years to develop, it's all about whether or not the film justifies torture. The final raid on Bin Ladin's compound is utterly riveting, incredible filmmaking and for some reason it seems to make every representation of navy seals you've ever seen anywhere else to be nothing more than farcical cartoons--and that change is because they're not superheros or cartoons or magically imbued with bullet dodging prowess. It's because they execute a mission with superb precision and adaptability. a stunning sequence.

My vote: Lincoln

ranking the nine:

Lincoln
Argo
Les Miserables
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Zero Dark Thirty
Silver Linings Playbook
Life of Pi
Amour

[knives]

1974
Chinatown
This is my first time watching the film since a teacher ruined it with McKee type antics years ago and despite the reservations caused by that the damned film sucked me in again. Just fucking brilliant on every level.

The Conversation
Even without all that has been said for this film there's still something overpowering about it. I'm not sure if it is just because of how isolated the whole thing is, but there's a disturbing edge to the film that even goes beyond the paranoia that defines the lead character. Even the loneliness and sadness can be attributed to the paranoia which does make the hair stand on edge, but isn't the final push to that absolute broken feeling the film leaves. I guess it makes a new emotion.

The Godfather Part II
Goodish sequel that basically replicates the original in every way, but louder, longer, and less nuanced. If not for Cazale's great performance this whole thing would be a wash.

Lenny
Not as good as Fosse's musicals of course, but still a pretty good documentary. The plot mechanics are fairly predictable and Hoffman's performance doesn't do anything new, but the cinematography is gorgeous and alive that makes this otherwise rote film have some magic to it. It's a great film to look at if empty inside.

The Towering Inferno
This one genuinely surprised me. The characters are as much non-entities to be put into horrible situations as one should expect, but the film seems to acknowledge that and so most of the time is spent with McQueen and Newman who prove to be as likable as usual making the proceedings pretty fun. Maybe not any sort of serious good movie, but it manages to be enjoyable which is all it seems to want to be.

My Vote:The Conversation

[Siddon]

2012

Amour - At the root of the problem with this movie is do you respect a genius director who has nothing but contempt for the audience. Haneke goes out of his way to disgust you, bore you, and then screw with your notion as to what you even saw in the first place. Haneke is almost a sadist blending brilliant images, scenes, and performances with nothingness and lies. I'm happy this was nominated as it's Haneke's misanthropic message towards cinema has been legitimatized but not a best picture film.

Argo - Hollywood rewarding Hollywood two years in a row, funny how for years films that tried to touch on the art-form were summarily dismissed. I think it's a good at everything it attempts to do but it isn't extraordinary at any one of the genres it plays with. As a comedy the humor doesn't really work, all the jokes are in the trailer and telegraphs, as a spy thriller the thrills aren't really that suspenseful. And with the acting everyone is good but nobody is really outstanding. But in the end it's likely my second favorite film of this batch because while I love nothing in it I also hate nothing with it.

Beasts of the Southern Wild - A predictable but enjoyable little film. The acting and the story were both top notch and the collection of scenes had so much power. My biggest complaint though was I found the direction to be terrible. I think the entire film was short with one angle, Kevin Smith style.

Django Unchained - Tarentino style of episodic story-telling effortlessly goes into this one which while not my favorite of his films is up there. I think that what I love about this film is the duality between Django and Shultz and Candie and Stephen. I thought Samuel L Jacksons character of Stephen was one of the best, most original and memorable I've seen in years.

Les Miserables - This was just so damn ordinary, basically I figure the film got it's nominations for Anne Hathaway doing everything she could to get her Oscar. But of the four film versions of this story I've seen this was the least impressive. I never bought into Jackman and Crowe as the characters they portrayed, people knocked Prometheus for it's old age makeup but I found this to be so much worse. I liked Samatha Banks and Eddie Redmayne and I sort of wished the film would have gone with more of those sort of actors over the "stars".

Life of Pi - One part travel picture, one part thriller, one part intimate play, Life of Pi tries to tell a story that is both sweeping and intimate. Life of Pi is just as post-modern a story as Amour but does so without the contempt for the audience. The CGI is gorgeous, so much so that it's rare for a film that relies on computers so much to deserve a best cinematography Oscar but this one does. But what I think makes this a masterpiece is how it avoids sentiment yet still strives for a lyrical beauty.

Lincoln - We live in a world of Civil War re-en-actors and while the practice seems masturbatory and silly Steven Spielberg has decided to do a Civil War reenactment with character actors. And while it is fun for a while to see great bit part actors try and out do themselves while Daniel Day Lewis lords over them we then get the good old Spielberg tone changer ending that destroys the film. It goes from amusing and enlightening to manipulative in the last 7 minutes and pretty much sinks the film.

Silver Linings Playbook - I feel like this is a movie where you either buy into it's message or you don't. This is a movie about imperfect people trying to function, survive and thrive without the magic of therapy and medications. I think it's a brave idea, it's like you would never see a film about functioning alcoholic, but those people exist same thing with mental illness. And we live in a world where people do find love and life while having a mental illness. While I respect and admire Russell for telling this type of story it was to slight for me to give it a BP (or any award).

Zero Dark Thirty - Jessica Chastain is really good and helps carry the film as it goes through some fairly dark and questionable themes and ideas. I respect it's strong apolitical nature of the film while also working as a thriller. I think that what makes a war film great is when it can distance itself from any sort of propaganda or sentimentality. Theirs a big difference between All Quiet on the Western Front and Bridge on the River Kwai and Mrs. Miniver and Cavalcade and Zero Dark Thirty figures that out.

My vote - Life of Pi

[knives]

1975
Barry Lyndon
Such a wonderful way to make this film. Admittedly I'm at the disadvantage of not having read the book so I wonder how much of Kubrick's tone reflects it, but that is the best part of the movie. Whatever deficiencies might have come about (and frankly I don't think anybody would be absolutely right for Lyndon) are overcome by the mood which is just unusual enough to be striking. Though I suppose even that mood has become typical by now. I shouldn't be comparing though and this is a great testament to what works with Kubrick.

Dog Day Afternoon
Wow, what a weird experience to not just enjoy a Lumet film, but to find it genuinely great for all of the reasons I typically can't stand him for. This dedication to Hollywood realism typically makes his films loud and overly serious for me. Yet as I type this film stands as easily the best example of that whole New York method school that defined the '70s so much. Pacino does just this phenomenal job with his weird Hoffman impression and Cazale is amazing as usual. Yet I'd say its the hostages that really make that aspect of the film building a wonderful effacing tone against the smart seriousness of the story. The smaller and more basic the film gets the better until it just turns into a small conversation.

Jaws
Pretty much The Beard's best film of his early period. Yeah, it isn't deep or unique or anything like that, but it is crafted pretty excellently and loads of fun. Probably the best 'entertainment' film I've seen nominated.

Nashville
I love this film, but always forget how genius it is. Just the structure of the whole mess is dazzling. In fact I'd say everything on the surface (long, sloppily plotted, rambling, disconnected) is everything it reveals itself to be as Altman utilizes a great deal of economy in his storytelling conveying life stories in single fragments of songs for instance. Hell even in these songs he manages a pretty neat trick to avoid his film becoming some essay while still making clear points on the politics and culture he wants to speak of. It's a pretty powerful trick that I wish more filmmakers who wish to comment on events would do. He doesn't allow any of this to dangle though. Instead by combining and overlapping characters and their music things grow complicated in a way that I think more honestly reflects reality than any expose could. Within any instant the film so overloads with information that the ramble from character to the next almost acts as a breather. Otherwise I'd imagine the film itself would become a repetitive mess. Honestly I can't imagine anyone after a couple of spins not loving this film.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
I suppose this is the obvious choice to win hitting a few academy soft spots and not being so weird and that I suppose causes some hesitation as a viewer. At the same time I recognize just how good this movie is with essentially no faults. At the same time, and I am just conflicted on this, I can't gather any enthusiasm for the film. I do want to emphasize that I don't dislike the film. It is fairly enjoyable with winning performances throughout (though a few of the patients seem to be trying too hard). It just sort of flops into view and as quickly leaves. I hate to be that guy, but I actually prefer the book.

My Vote: Dog Day Afternoon

[bdlover]

Amour: never been much of a Haneke fan, but this is one of his better efforts. The clean, inexorable form of the film perfectly framing Riva's mundanely unpleasant decline. Put me amongst those who found the ending a bit hard to swallow.

Lincoln: Speilberg's best since Munich, great writing from Kushner and a particularly outstanding ensemble cast, although I do feel the end result may have been more coherent (and less racially problematic) if they'd taken the amendment as their starting point rather than a Lincoln biopic. Btw, predicting that the beard will award the Palme d'Or to Kelly Reichardt's Night Moves - you saw it here first!

Les Mis: hadn't seen the musical before, didn't find it particularly engaging (class warfare reduced to romantic tragedy for sentimental yuppies, yay!) Hooper shoots this in exactly the same way as John Adams, ie. with no sensitivity whatsoever to the possibilites of the form, let alone the beats demanded by a good musical, the cinematic equivalent of a 'tin ear' - but, hey, if your dad is the head of Ofcom, why not?

Silver Linings Playbook: quirky rom-com about 'mental illness' - sounded like a bad idea from the start and the thing itself was no better.

Beasts of the Southern Wild: the only one I couldn't make it to the end of. Wanted to like this, but the film is so calculating (kids, animals, poverty turned into an uplifting story of 'self-sufficiency' that will delight both Republicans and Democrats check!) and so amateurishly made that I just couldn't do it sorry.

Django Unchained: loved it first time around, and this is excellent populist filmmaking. One of the very few directors left standing who can reach a wide audience, paint on a large canvas, use cinematic form in interesting ways and still make you think. Unlike Tarantino's high-watermark Jackie Brown, this didn't play so well on second viewing - too much rambling dialogue and the final act is weak. There was an interesting article with Tarantino's editor, I can't remember where, in which he described re-inserting unnecessary exposition based on test screenings because the idiots were getting confused... Ah well.

Life of Pi: Some lovely and memorable sequences, but found the wishy-washy religious trappings unbearable. From both a commercial and formal standpoint, the very slow opening 30 minutes was very poorly judged I thought, turning what would otherwise have been an excellent 90 minute kids' movie into something much more awkward. Start with a bang, focus on the boy and the tiger, get rid of all the other guff and there you go.

Argo: Run of the mill thriller that is transiently engaging yet infused with disturbing undertones. Along with Zero Dark Thirty, score two for the CIA's public relations. Like Beasts, this is a deeply cynical film, pandering to both sides of the American political debate. Whilst the housekeeper fleeing to Iraq of all places is the best scene in the film, it's impossible to shake the feeling that this (also the fleeting mention of American nefariousness in the animated introduction) was thrown in to seduce the liberals amongst all of the CIA heroism and Iran-baiting.

Zero Dark Thirty: Unlike Argo, at least this doesn't try to HIDE its fascist leanings... But, my God, in the wake of revelations about US-funded death squads in Iraq if this isn't a uniquely unpleasant piece of propaganda. The final assault on the compound has some of the power of Triumph of the Will.

Of those nominated:
Best Film & Original Screenplay: Django Unchained
Director: Haneke
Adapted Screenplay: Kushner
Actor: Phoenix (what a performance, fuck me)
Actress: Riva

[domino harvey]

2006
Babel (Over)reactionary claims of white imperialist boostering for this film both here and elsewhere are Exhibit A in the argument for right-click deleting the internet culture of pearl-clutching instant expertise. Far from its low reputation among those "in the know" about its oh-so offensive nature, this is a well-made mixed-up narrative very much apiece with 21 Grams et al, with attempts made to give a handful of global perspectives to the question of violence as the cross-cultural interconnective link. Or, it's about how great white people are because… the white person who is injured doesn't die? Has liberal/progressiveness really devolved into intentionally misreading films like this to further a "My dad can beat up your dad" argumentative path with regards to who's more right at being left?

the Departed On the whole this turned out to be a good year for Best Picture noms, but in true Oscar fashion the worst film nominated won. Scorsese does his best to derail an occasionally entertaining script of twisty double-crosses and undercover schemings with the cliched crutches that have come to encapsulate his worst attributes as a director. It's perhaps only too fitting that he'd finally win for a parade of his faults.

Letters from Iwo Jima Strong war pic from Eastwood that goes out of its way to present a multi-faceted view of the Japanese fighting experience. Surprisingly (or not, I guess) the film still functions not unlike most WWII pics from the American side (especially Wake Island, the flip side to the suicidal island defense recreation here), but there's still the occasional jarring moment of novelty, such as the sequence that finds the baker caught in the middle of a horrific chain of suicides. There's something very That's So the Academy about nominating an all-Japanese film made by an American before nominating an actual film from Japan, but at least it's a good one.

Little Miss Sunshine This also gets an unfair rep around here for reasons that always seem to be different coded translations of "Because everyone likes it." I'm not sure why there's such need to pick on the li'l indie that could, but it's a small film with small aims competently executed. The result is rare indeed: an audience pleaser that legit delivers of the promise of pleasing the audience. I'm as cynical as most of y'all but if you weren't at least smiling at the finale's public showing of familial togetherness, you are probably not much fun at parties.

the Queen Low expectations merited grand enjoyment out of this light, comic take on the Queen's response to the death of Princess Di. Far removed from any treacly prestige elements, this is a smart and wry film anchored around a justly Oscar-winning perf by Helen Mirren. This is why I love this project: I'd have never gone near this otherwise, and now I'm glad to have had the experience.

My Vote: All four non-Departed films are of about the same quality level, so my vote goes to Babel just because fuck y'all

[knives]

I had never heard that argument against Babel before. Most I've heard (and one I generally share) is about the failings in the structure and the attempts to feel important while not being so. Buitiful though is a great movie to the point where I've had to reassess all of the movies I've rewatched of his.

[colinr0380]

While I'm not too against Babel, I do still think that Amores Perros is the highpoint of that 'cycle of interconnected strangers having class conflict collisions' genre of films that got widely overused over the ensuing years, although I concede that I might just feel more affection to that particular film because of it being the first film I saw of that type.

The problem is that these kinds of films can easily fall into the trap of too facile points obscured by flashy narrative tricks (Crash's paen to racism, which amounts to 'can't we all just get along'?), or pushing characters into stupid actions not because that is their character but because they need to do so at that point in time to contrast against intercut scenes of later actions or different characters being nice to each other (what I might also term the '24' syndrome). When they're good, these kind of films can be amazing - when they're bad, or even just mediocre, they can become a chore to sit through as you have to get introduced to three times the amount of poorly sketched characters acting mysteriously for reasons that might or might not become clear/make sense/interconnect later.

I'm also slightly suspicious that just showing that all the characters are inhabiting the same world and at a certain point might meet each other shouldn't be considered the be all and end all of a drama. There's a "so what?", or perhaps more an "OK, what now?" element to this structure that can be used to illuminate an issue, yet also can run the risk of just petering out with a shrug about the mysterious interconnectedness of the world. Although to completely negate the point I've just made I should say that I'm a big fan of the ne plus ultra film of this type, Mike Figgis's Timecode! That's an example of a film where the simultaneous nature of the way the rather cliched events and interconnected relationships between the characters evolve is not exactly the main pleasure to be gained from the film but is more the chance to literally get to see time passing and a character's actions crossing into different 'spheres of action', proving that everything from the mundane to the life changing is taking place at once.

[knives]

1978
Coming Home
It's really very difficult for me to talk about this film since it, especially in it's last half hour, in the most visceral way possible captures the horrors of life after war. Part of this has to do with the script which shows an unreal sensitivity and honesty never passing judgement one way or the other upon the characters. The direction too is as fluid and sensitive as one would expect from an Ashby film. The camera really occupies the mind of the characters with some shots practically going into the bodies of characters giving us a chance to live as they do even if just for a few seconds. Oddly the most poignant of these shots (for me) is a simple one with Voight on the phone. Despite it's basic nature the shot renders the conflicting nature of his psychology bare. Not walking is becoming as natural as walking now and it's clear he's not sure how comfortable he is living comfortably. That's not even going into the performances which are so beyond what these performers have done elsewhere (even Dern who is one of the best of his generation) that's it's like encountering them for the first time. Just every scene with Dern really carries a weight and a power to choke the audience that it becomes too much to bear. I really can only watch the movie once every few years, but definitely take up the opportunity when I can.

Deer Hunter
I really don't get why these first two were set so strongly as rivals as I think in point of view there's more in common here than the bitter mewing and mawing suggests. Certainly both care deeply about the invisible wounds of the soldier and how that relates to the physical wounds. Otherwise I think I've spoken on this film enough times that my opinion is exhausted with new things to say. It's an amazing metaphor undone critically by perceptions of realism.

Heaven Can Wait
In what was not a happy year for the academy this re-watching left me happier with the film than ever before so the fact it isn't a major masterpiece doesn't matter as much in this particular sea. It's not a great film by any measure, but it's a really well made one with a bright mood and likable performances. Can't ask for much more given the circumstances (though I have no clue why the movie needed two directors).

Midnight Express
After years of Genet and Papillon this was bound to not engage me on the level that it might others, but leaving behind what came before it the film is pretty excellent and mostly free of Oliver Stone. The direction and cinematography are excellent and expressive, but almost feel meaningless as the film grows more and more a slave to the movement and sweat of the actors. In fact the more artistic and pronounced the film gets like in the neutered shower scene the less engaging it is. When the characters are left to their own devices though a slight magic is produced letting it to rise above its competitors even if it can't sustain that height. That said I think I'd love any film with Randy Quaid and John Hurt doing their things.

An Unmarried Woman
Paul Mazursky's apology for Blume in Love would probably be a mediocre amazingly shot affair if it weren't for Clayburgh's performance which is a Jill Clayburgh performance. I honestly think she may be the best actress to come out of the decade with her work here doing a severe balancing act between two aspects of the character which in lesser hands would be awful, obnoxious, and annoying. Just in the short shot of her looking in the mirror after her husband admits to his affair she does an infinitely more complex job than Jane Fonda did in the whole of Coming Home (which is not to say she did a bad job, just not as great of one). Honestly I can't figure out why they never awarded her. They certainly knew she existed.

My Vote: Coming Home


1979
All That Jazz
Maybe not my favorite Fosse, but easily his best with such an amazing visual sense and perfect performances from everyone. Even the little cameos like the fellow patient after one of the bigger musical numbers makes an incredible impression. It would have been easy for Fosse to make this all about himself and the script certainly reflects that mentality on some level, but the film pushes its own scope as it goes further down the rabbit hole resulting in an exciting contradiction.

Apocalypse Now
It seems like Fosse just couldn't catch a break next to Coppola. This is a fairer bit of competition next to last time around with Coppola pulling out all of the stops, but I think the most underrated accomplishment of the film is how it goes beyond not only its source material, but Lucas' original idea too. It's identifiable as it's material while at the same time having nothing to do with it. Almost a reversal (and equally powerful as one) of Port of Shadows' situation.

Breaking Away
Leave it to Yates to make a sentimental film about nostalgia that avoids everything associated with such terms. Just in terms of time the film does something completely different from the leagues of American Graffiti imitators. The film doesn't care for a time nor a place as special, but instead gets that the whole exciting, miserable, loving thing is because of the person and community. Being 18 is exciting not because you were in in blah blah blah during year blah, but because of how much a kick into adulthood it is. The lead as a result is a bit of a prick and the film can be too much in love with him, but the community that the film builds around him (especially Dooley's frustrated and confused father) makes sense of all of this. Perhaps the first sign of the approaching '80s, but still a powerful movie.

Kramer vs. Kramer
If I remember rightly Dom's favorite big book of Oscar characterizes Hoffman's performance as more than a little selling out to get the golden boy which seems like an appropriate assessment for this lifeless creature whether it is factual or not. The movie sleepwalks through its events in a classy way never getting its toes wet or asking for an emotional response from the audience. This undying blandness seems born out of a belief that this is painting everyone in a fair light. That's a nice idea and I suppose puts it ahead of similar movies such as Shoot the Moon, but doesn't make for a compelling movie experience. Actually I retract some of that because Parker's deliberate trashing of every adult at least makes for an emotional experience even if it doesn't work on the whole. It's also way more honest since Streep is pretty clearly a horrible person with no good qualities shown in the film. Definitely the most traditionally Oscar 'winner' of the decade.

Norma Rae
I've been thinking a lot lately of what makes Ritt such a great film maker and what made him able to outlast other similar directors while staying essentially in the same form. Between recent viewings of this and The Front I think I've figured it out. Ritt avoids dull and frustrating didactic plays by making the story about something other than what the movie is about (or is that vice versa). The movie is ostensibly about unions and their importance, yet the story leaves that to the peripheral instead focusing on a host of other topics particularly that of feminism's relationship to other prejudices. This works so beautifully at making the characters more complex and the emotional issues of the film carries more weight. This bifurcating set of interests also prevents Ritt from just shouting into the void. I think it's a mischaracterization of the film to say its light or not treating the issues seriously because the effect is closer to showing just how these issues can pile up and how impossible it is to fight just one fight at a time. If this was just about unions or women in the work force or any of those various other things the movie concerns itself with it would be a Stanley Kramer film and he never survived as a major power into the '70s. Like I said about The Black Orchid elsewhere this is an issue film (and film maker) without any issues.

My Vote: Norma Rae (though the first two are just as great in a much flashier way)

[domino harvey]

2002
Chicago Wow. I expected the worst going in but this was brassy fun from beginning to end. The key to its success is in the ingenious narrative structure. Knowing that a modern film for mass audiences is going to have to be edited to hell by studio mandate (look at something like Mamma Mia and you'll see how deadly this can be for a movie musical), Marshall and co. wrangle everything up in a fantasy-bled reality where Renee Zellweger envisions all of the numbers in her fame-fueled head. This masks how over-cut the film is (and even though it works well, it is over-cut) and more importantly allows this musical to keep its presentational staged artifice. The end result is energetic in a way that escaped the exhausting Moulin Rouge! and is that rarest of beasts: a great modern movie musical. This structure is also clever enough to be used on potentially resistant audiences as a bridge to the more everyday flights of fancy found in the musical genre, as its methodology primes a viewer on how to experience musicals. Plus, you know, the songs are catchy as hell.

Renee Zellweger is a revelation here as the bawled-out wildcat at the center, showing a real gusto and amusing emotiveness in her perf that is right at home in the genre. Though Nicole Kidman won the Oscar for a mix of "Good work dumping Tom Cruise" sentiment and that nose, Zellweger was nom'd and deserved the Best Actress trophy for her tartly comic take on the role-- anytime you can run circles around Ginger Rogers' iconic claim, you deserve real awards recognition. Also, historians will look back on 2002 as the year of John C Reilly, given that he popped up here and in two of the other Best Pic nominees. Hell, maybe he was in Lord of the Rings too, who knows-- not like anyone's gonna comb through all the film footage again to find out!

Gangs of New York Another large cinematic spectacle that never seems at peace with its scale or grandeur. The idea of a classic NYC director like Scorsese taking his usual concerns back to the contentious Civil War-era history of the city is a good one and I can see why it got funded, but the end result is as lackluster as most of Scorsese's recent output. The early passages of the film are best, when it attempts to knock the audience out with a torrent of period details and antiquated slang. Yet these early segments proved damaging, as I kept wishing the film would follow other avenues than the one it's settled on. Daniel Day-Lewis is in fine form here as the pleasingly over the top villain and I shudder to think of just how much worse this film would have been without him. I know Miramax forced Scorsese to trim a bunch of footage to get the running time down, but I wish he'd kept trimming to remove yet another filmed "Girl gets raped and likes it" scene, which the world was not lacking in. The film also disappoints on what should be priority one in that it keeps teasing and leading up to the big conscription riot of NYC, one of the biggest (the biggest?) race riots in American history and then pushes it to the background, literally.

the Hours (Deep breath) The full list of frustrating aspects of Stephen Daldry's vile film would be longer than the film's script, but chief among them is the sad reality that with this cast and the basic material, there's no reason why this film had to be so bad. But it is so bad. So very, very bad.

The least sinful of the three chronologies, that set in the present day, is a confused mishmash of all the NYC-set playwright obsessions-- Ed Harris' poet is dying of AIDS and Meryl Streep as his pre-outing girlfriend wants to throw him a party. "Does she buy the flowers herself?" Asked no one. Harris' manic dying artist perf is laughably trite and Streep's convoluted breakdown unexplorable due to the structure of the film. Characters like Claire Daines' daughter are barely explained and given just enough attributes to separate them from the furniture.

Next level of hell belongs to the Virginia Woolf sequences, which are of the Life of Emile Zola school of over-explaining literary inspiration to the point of it being unintentionally comic. Watching Nicole Kidman in a grotesque nasal apparatus muse, "She goes to buy something, but what? Flowers. She'll buy them herself" in sternly focused Jane Fonda in Julia writer cliche-mode makes one understand the desire to load pockets with stones. Kidman owes an unpayable debt to Renee Zellweger, Diane Lane, Julianne Moore, and Salma Hayek in that order for winning the Best Actress trophy for this moon-eyed, symbolism-choked, nothing performance, one of the worst to ever win an acting trophy, be it Oscar or middle school talent show or whatever.

And then there's the final circle of damnation, the fifties-set Julianne Moore piece, and I reserve my most fervent rage for this segment because it tackles a subject I have a keen interest in and thus its mishandling is particularly galling on my end. Moore looks the part of the well-primped but unfulfilled housewife and John C Reilly is by nature a perfectly affable but useless husband-- imagine if the script had respected these actors and their scenario or respected the audience or respecting someone, anyone? Instead what we get is long, furtive looks from Moore (she even outpaces Kidman, a real feat in this film) as she goes about her empty suburban life… sort of. The film has no genuine interest in the experience of the era and the many complicated elements that were in place to define a woman's role. Instead it is oversimplified to the point that Moore bluntly says something like, apropos of nothing, "I guess we owed it them for fighting the war… us," a sentiment which is not on the nose, it is the nose.

Moore struggles with making a cake for her husband's birthday, but even that is barely given screentime-- imagine a Jeanne Dielman moment where we see her work in realtime to add the ingredients and the failure of this domesticity compounding to mock her personal concept of femininity? I'm pretty sure that's what the film thinks it is doing, but the reality is the cake is given unwarranted depth and importance based on maybe fifty seconds of screentime. And in an "only in the movies… for stupid people" moment, Moore actually ices the flattened and ruined cake for no reason but to make an easy visual for her throwing it away. Why would this character behave in this manner for any reason other than to make that obvious point in a visual fashion for an audience that the filmmaker is convinced is stupid? Why not show and not tell? Though this process would be the perfect opportunity to address it, no attempt is made to engage the socioeconomic realities or anything approaching insight beyond a womanly victimhood that would make even a Lifetime movie seem progressive.

This movie has no ideas about women whatsoever other than that they've suffered and that if they'd been allowed to stick together and embrace each other, literally, they'd find the eventual solace only Streep suggests at the very end. But how backwards are those scorched earth sexual politics? The problem with a woman's unhappiness is their latent homosexual desire? That's charitable, though, as I think the film is actually suggesting that homosexual desire is explainable via unhappiness. And how about that unbelievable moment when the film suggests that it's Moore's "fault" her son is gay because she kissed a fellow bored wife on the mouth in front of him? Harris then eventually turns from the "healthy" heterosexual relationship with Streep, gets AIDS, then makes peace with heterosexuality by complementing Streep before killing himself.

But let's hold our prosthetic noses and say the film's cavalier attitude towards homosexuality is well-intended. How about its attitude towards women, period? Virginia Woolf is a fiercely fascinating figure whose work will be read and studied and admired for hundreds of years, but the film makes no attempt to engage her work other than through a Forrest Gump bookclub of neurotic tics and glassy dazes. Woolf is reduced to a disorder, the same malaise Moore crystallizes in her segments, and her unhappiness is used to bolster victimhood as the acceptable role of women in the first two chronological generations. And then of course once everyone convenes and/or dies to teach Streep the preciousness of a woman's life, everything is fine. Happiness is restored. This is beneath contempt and it is sold as feminist. Anal sex centered pornography is more sexually progressive and feminist than this film and it does one better by not pretending to be anything it's not. Of the two, the Hours is the true exploitative pornography, used for the gratification of an echo chamber by individuals who've purchased the Feminine Mystique but left it unread on a shelf, because the appearance of feminism now counts as the same as actual feminism. This film is a false and hideous thing.

the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers These films all run together-- literally, as I watched all three extended films in the trilogy back to back, so it's hard to distinguish between the parts. Overall this is a fun trifle, though that's not the kind of adjective you want thrown at a thirteen hour movie trilogy. I mildly enjoyed it as entertainment and spectacle, but I was consciously aware of the disposable and familiar nature of the proceedings. And it doesn't help that in the interim Game of Thrones has annihilated any appeal it may have held as a fantasy object. All three films get the same shrug.

the Pianist The Academy's love affair with Holocaust-set films is well-known and mocked, but this is one of the few to sneak into the top spot. I'd love to say that Roman Polanski deserved the Best Director Oscar he won and that this film should've taken Best Pic from Chicago, especially since that's what I'd long assumed having seen neither film. The simple truth is this isn't a particularly distinctive or exceptional film, even within the tired perimeters of this subgenre. Polanski, the mad visionary behind the camera, is staggeringly subdued here and the film bears none of his visual bite. Couple that with the even more shocking reality that Chicago is a great exemplar of its kind and the best film nominated, and it's not even close. Sorry, assumptions.

My Vote Chicago


2003
the Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King God it must have sucked to be nominated this year knowing with absolute certainty that you had no chance against this (CC:ed to 1993)

Lost in Translation I'm less enamored than most with this one, despite liking to some degree all of Sofia Coppola's other films before or since. I think it's her weakest film and the instant cult that formed a lasting reputation around it upon release is as beguiling now as it was then. Bill Murray doing Sad Bill Murray sure wanted that Oscar, but he didn't deserve it any more than Sean Penn did, really.

Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World Reasonably precise seafaring actioner with some mild charisma and effective moments, but I could never engage with the material and felt a bit adrift by all the goings-on. Hard to talk much about this one, really, given that nothing interested me enough one way or the other to delve deeper than "Eh."

Mystic River A film with its priorities askance. The murder "mystery" at the center of the film was solved pretty quickly on my end thanks to the unsubtle colorful details of an otherwise allegedly minor character. Once the film solves the obvious and actually arrives on material that actually compels the audience beyond the too-easy strings of molestation and guilt, as one character embraces lawlessness and a descent into wanton criminality with the apparent approval of his family and friends, the film just kinda ends... The Academy had no way of knowing Sean Penn would merit a competitive Oscar for Milk just a few years later, so I understand why they finally gave him one here, but this is not his finest hour. And Tim Robbins, one of the great unsung actor-directors, won his in typical Academy fashion, by playing the victim. They deserved to be recognized, but for a better film.

Seabiscuit No earthly idea what this is doing in the winner's circle, as even for Oscar bait this is slight stuff. Executed with all the panache of those "inspirational" early 90s Disney live action films my day camp kept renting to almost entertain a gaggle of sleepy children in the summer afternoons, this Some Horse tale is all allegedly inspirational, though your mileage will depend on how swayed you are by platitudes even Hallmark would consider played out. If only the Oscars had given this slot to Cold Mountain instead, I could have voted for a good film that the Academy otherwise liked. But no, this is why we can't have nice things.

My Vote This is one of the worst years for Best Picture noms ever in that nothing rises above mediocre. So, I guess I'll go with the Academy's choice, Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King, but whatever

[The Narrator Returns]

I've actually listened to the Soderbergh commentary for Seabiscuit more times than I've seen the actual film (which is to say I haven't seen the film without the commentary). I was greatly amused at the references to Schizopolis, which were seemingly thrown in to confuse fans of Seabiscuit who just really wanted to know the secrets of the production.