at our oscar gathering the consensus was that his best shot will be to make a holocaust movie about a black paraplegic who survives the camps and then single-handedly de-segregates alabama (jamie foxx wins best supporting actor as martin luther king). that or maybe a mussolini biopic.
not that any of us (at the gathering) have actually seen “the aviator”.
and oh, in your face, rwanda!
just finished watching. why did this get savaged by so many people? i thought it was pretty good. in fact until the 1 hour 10 minute mark i thought it was really, really good. then it got stupid for a while, but the last 10 minutes were pretty good again. it is a genuinely quirky film, one that comes by its quirks honestly, through asking questions it sincerely means (even if the answers don’t end up being very interesting)–unlike, say, via formal whiz-bangery like so much charlie kaufman. (actually this film reminded me of my favorite kaufman written film, “human nature”.) and some really good performances too: jason schwartzmann (looking like someone shrank luke wilson) and mark wahlberg in particular.
anyone else seen it? i recommend it.
I keep waiting for this show to stumble but 17 hours in and I’m still hooked by the unusual depth of characterization as well as the series’ ability to maintain dramatic tension and narrative ambiguity. What first seemed to be a potentially hokey amalgamation of Land of the Lost, Lord of the Flies, and Gilligan’s Island has transformed itself into a potent post-9/11 story of human redemption. With its cast of Koreans, Australians, Iraquis and Americans, a crazy French lady and some polar bears; LOST may be the best hour of network television since . . . well, Freaks and Geeks (24’s “wham bam thank you mam” aesthetics and the convoluted machinations of Alias’ Rimbaldi plot do not measure up). Will it, however, be able to sustain itself into a second and third season, or will it flame out spectacularly like Twin Peaks?
I watched Tsai Ming-liang’s 2003 release last night. Anybody into this fellow’s films (a Chinese-Malaysian filmmaker who has lived and worked in Taiwan since his early twenties)? Goodbye, Dragon Inn was stunningly frustrating yet captivating all the same. There are basically two narratives that drive the action. Set in what once was a regal now dilapidated Taipei movie palace (a concrete mausoleum full of ghosts or maybe those mysterious men in the belly of the building are simply cruising for sex, I’m not sure), the film captures the theatre’s final screening before closing its doors and jumps back and forth between the handful of audience members and staff in the cavernous theatre with the 1966 King Hu kung-fu epic Dragon Inn being projected on the screen.
On the theory that the “academy” likes to be broad-minded and internationally-inclined, I would take as longshots Don Cheadle and Sophie Okonedo from Hotel Rwanda. particularly Okonedo since it is better to be broad-minded in a major but lesser category. Nobody’s seen it, but you know when genocide’s in the air, that great ACTING can’t be far behind. At 33-1 I am taking Winslet over Swank, since all the others are….er, foreign or something. Finding Neverland is 100 to 1 for Best Picture. nice odds but the academy takes a resolute and brave position against pedophilia. will the academy heal the wound between movies and TV by granting Alan Alda a best supporting actor? tantalizing, but he would have to beat both a black man in a heart-tugging role and a “breakout” actor in a little indie hit, two formidably ideological choices for the academy. The Incredibles is a lock. If I could afford to bet $10,000, I could make a nice $700 or so. plus I have a weird crush on Elasti-Girl. The Aviator will win both best picture and best director…finally “making it up” to martin scorsese for Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Gangs of New York. the topic is “safer”–no wife-beating, greasy Italians, funny- horrific violence or people saying “tuppenny fuck” and slicing up dead pigs–and it’s an epic treatment of a hollywood figure (for extra academy “self-regard” points). I expect a cut, if you take any of my recommendations. but, of course, I had expected to make a killing off Queen Latifah in Chicago when that overstuffed couch Zeta-Jones won best supporting actress! damn her and her creepy husband Lee Majors! any side bets on “Most Embarrasing Speech” or “Nearly Dead but Acclaimed Foreign Director Who Will Win Lifetime Achievement Award after Being Snubbed for Four Decades?” Will the academy have a sense of humor and give “Best Make-Up” to Passion of the Christ? it’s interesting how the Jews killed Our Lord and founded Hollywood. Discuss.
watched this a couple of nights ago on mike’s recommendation. a strange little film. i liked it (i think sunhee did too) but i’m not entirely sure why. in many ways it is deeply conventional but it seems to also tweak those conventions (kikujiro pretty much remains an abusive cipher till the end, no one is really transformed). i would recommend it to people but i am simultaneously bemused by its winning the golden lion or hyaena or whatever at the berlin film festival, or whichever major festival it won the top award at–surely there must have been better movies that year.
mike, you should add this film to your onoging “irresponsibility” thesis.
anyone else seen this? watched it a couple of nights ago. don’t really know what to make of it, but i did enjoy it. like something todd solondz might make if he wasn’t a miserable git–skirts the lines between caricature, affectionate identification and satire, seems to cross them from time to time but never quite falls completely into any of those modes. i wish i had more interesting things to say about it.
i have now seen two movies made by people from idaho: this and “twin falls idaho”. that was a non-sequitur.
Oscars are coming up, don’t forget. Shall we take another stab at looking at the trends in this year’s nominations and discussing what folks can expect at the ceremony? Arnab started us with a few ideas. He’s under the assumption that because Scorsese has never won he’s bound to win this year. Is he using projection data? That is, is there something built into this whole process that makes it more or less predictable? Or is this a guessing game? Take, for instance, the documentary short nominee “Autism is a World.” Although I have not seen the film, I am quite confident it will win because autism has been in the news a lot lately. A cause celbre. Another example: I think Thomas Haden Church will win for best supporting actor. Although I saw “Sideways” and liked his performance very much, I am instead basing my prediction on the fact that Paul Giamatti didn’t get the nomination for best actor. The Academy likes to try and clean up after itself as much as possible by offering “concession” awards, so the nod will go to Church. Does the Academy try to distinguish itself from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association? If that’s what you think, you probably expect that Hilary Swank will not win Best Actress, and that Jamie Foxx will not win Best Actor. Any thoughts? Any timeless trends worth pointing out? Joan Rivers scares me.
Okay. A student just wrote me an impassioned defense of Eastwood’s “Million $ Baby,” deploring how its complex character study has been turned into mere politics. He makes a reasonable case, but I wrote him back a rant about disabilities on film and… well, I am curious how others might respond.
I’m too lazy to change much about my email to him, so cut/pasted:
Continue reading Million $ Dead Baby — or, Disabilities on Parade
we dogme 95’ers never use the english translation of a non-english film’s title to refer to it, no sir.
i don’t know that i understand what all the dogme criteria are but this cheery little danish film about incest, child-molestation and cake baking (can you guess which one of those it’s not really about?) is pretty damn good. i don’t want to say too much about it yet. what would be cool would be if everyone watched it and then we could discuss it–as opposed to my completely dominating your experience of the film with my superior analysis (a state of affairs that would probably violate the dogme manifesto). so watch the film first and then i’ll dominate you with my superior analysis.