I Have Doubts!

Doubt was one of the last big films from this past Oscar season that I hadn't seen. But, with five nominations, it remained on my list long after February passed, and I finally managed to rent it. Overall, it was one of the most incredibly acted films I may have ever seen, in the classical sense of the word "acting." Sure, it didn't show the quirkiness of Jack Sparrow or ingenuity of Forrest Gump, but in general, Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymore Hoffman, and Amy Adams filled their roles so effortlessly that it was quite amazing to watch.

The film shows every mark of being adapted from a play. You can almost see the distinct sets, feel the scene changes, and watch the actors enter and exit the stage. Still, it was marvelously filmed. The cinematography, particularly the coloring, did wonders to enhance the colorless world in which the story is set. And the closeups on the individual actors added to the performances in which plays would surely miss out on.

In simple terms, Doubt tells of events at a Catholic school in the 1960s. When a priest is suspected of abusing one of the children, the principal nun of the school stands up against him with little to no proof, but a great deal of certainty. All the while, it's hard to tell who to trust or believe in. For the most part, the main characters, Streep's Aloysius, Adams' Sister James, and Seymore-Hoffman's Father Flynn along with Viola Davies' mother character, carry the movie. In many ways, the plot is quite simple, and the movie is fairly short, but the intensity of the characters and the performances adds incredible depth.

Streep's strict character, guided solely by her certainty that Father Flynn did something wrong, proves what I have long known: that Meryl Streep is one of the most stunning and versitile actresses currently in the business. She rivals Tom Hanks in her ability to totally inhabit a character, to become that person. From the little touches like the way she moves her mouth, to the riveting speeches she delivers with all the intensity she can muster, to the final defeated line she utters, "I have doubts!"... her performance was truly a gift to watch.

It's easy to understand why the film got so many acting nominations, but that's about where my appreciation for the movie ends. The grand dramatic plot comes to a limited conclusion. It's not bad, just not outstanding. I've had fun debating whether or not other people who have seen the film think Father Flynn was by default guilty, or whether that's just something the audience is meant to not know. I lean with the side that he would not have quit had he not had something to hide, but could easily play devil's advocate in a different direction. Additionally, does the "I have doubts" line that brings the film to a close take away from the power of Streep's character, or add to it? I, personally, thinks it adds to the performance - it's such a classic human trait to be unable to attain 100% certainty, there is always room for doubts to eat away at you.

So, this is a rather short and simple blog post from me, but with all the reviewing I did last winter, I wanted to round out the Oscar season with Doubt. It was a film I enjoyed and would recommend, but not one that made a life-changing impression on me.

Jai Ho! Cheers for Oscar 81!

I'm going to join in the chorus of voices clamoring to discuss last night's Oscar Ceremony not because I have anything particularly original to say, but because, for myself, I want to remember last night in the years to come.

I firmly believe last night's Oscars were the best I had ever seen. Now, I can't speak to the first, oh, approximately 70 years of ceremonies, but I've been watching for a few years now, and nothing even compares. I'll break it down, but overall, bravo!

Overall, this was a particularly exciting year for me because I had seen so many of the nominated films - I had seen all of the Best Picture noms, most of the acting nominees, a great deal of the technical categories' films, one of the documentaries, and even some of the short and animate short films. So, not only could I root for the films I liked, I could do so with conviction and my own personal opinions backing it up.

92,000! The Ceremony Itself:
Some Oscar Ceremonies have just not worked. Take, for example, the year when they thought they'd try moving some of the awards around - putting some of the smaller categories back in the audience, and so forth. That didn't work. Some years have been simply blah... They drag on, go way over the 3 1/2 hour marker, or just don't stand out in particular. Some years have had outstanding moments - Will Ferrel and Jack Black singing the "You're Boring" song particularly stays in my head... but I don't think I've ever seen a year like this one, where everything just worked.

Let me start with the stage, the set, the host - the basics of the show. Few stages will stay in my mind - from the Oscars, or any other show, for that matter - like this one. Check out the design art:I could see some crazy internet Blogger banging away on their keyboard right now, screaming overdone! boring! too glitzy! But, you know what, they're wrong. The 92,000 Swarovski crystals employed to glisten away all night long were absolutely stunning. The patterned floor which changed lighting with the lights hung above was beautiful. The inspiring ideas of moving the orchestra out of the pit, and sticking the audience up nice and close was brilliant.

And then there was Hugh. At first, I admit, I was slightly disappointed to hear there wouldn't be a funny man ala Jon Stewart, Billy Crystal hosting the Oscars. All the shows I can remember have had comedians (Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Billy Crystal x2, Chris Rock, Ellen DeGeneres, Jon Stewart x2), so when I heard Sexiest Man Alive/ Wolverine/Cowboy Hugh Jackman was hosting, there was a "huh?" moment. But, he redeemed himself fully, proved himself completely, and wowed totally last night.

It was refreshing not to have some man (or woman) in a tux scrambling out from backstage to crack jokes at every scene change; it was great to not have to worry if you were supposed to laugh or feel bad for the victim of a not-so-great joke; and it was great to have someone who was really an entertainer, not a comic, as a host.

Now, scrolling back through my twitter timeline shows quite a few people of my acquaintance not so thrilled with the night's musical numbers - which numbered two total on the part of Hugh Jackman, assisted by Anne Hathaway, then later Beyonce, Amanda Seyfried/ Dominic Cooper, and Vanessa Hudgens/Zac Efron. Now, sure, these were a bit flamboyant as far as Oscar acts go, but may I respectfully point out that, well, we're talking about frikkin Hollywood!?! And, Jackman is right - the musical is back, and it's darn well very entertaining! I thought both numbers were great.

Fa-fa-fa-fassssshion!
Okay, I gotta do it, I gotta talk about those gorgeous leading ladies. The fashion this year was very interesting... and I have to say, I was most impressed by some of Hollywood's younger stars, more than the older ones. Take a look:
(Fyi, that's Natalie Portman and Kate Winslet )
I couldn't find or photos of all my favorites - Slumdog's Freida Pinto, Anne Hathaway, and Jennifer Aniston also made my list - but for the most part, I was very much in awe this year. One thing that struck me was that everyone dressed in character - Kate was elegant, she looks like an actress from the 30s; Angelina Jolie was black and brooding, with that gorgeous jewelry; Amy Adams stood out with a statement; and Sarah Jessica Parker, Miley Cyrus, and Vanessa Hudgens (who I'm not crazy about) were either blah or ick. (I'm sorry, Miley, but your dress looked like it was a barnacle scraped off the bottom of a boat. Also, why were you at the Oscars?)

And the Oscar goes to...
Okay, the awards themselves. First of all, let me go back to the ceremony again - the format of the awards.
1. I loved the way the acting awards were presented, with five previous winners talking directly to the nominees. It was so personal, so touching, and just flat out sweet. I hope they keep this up next year.
2. The Oscars themself "told a story." Yes, we were taunted by that quote a few days before the ceremony, but I see what they mean... The presentation of the awards in the order of making a movie was brilliant. It made the whole show flow very nicely, and it was interesting to this young soon-to-be film student!
3. The presenters were great. Except for Sarah Jessica Parker and Daniel Craig, which was an odd pair, I really liked the presenters. Tina Fey and Steve Martin were hilarious ("Oh, Steve, they don't want to hear about the secret religion which we made up."); Jack Black and Jennifer Aniston were cute together; and Natalie Portman and Joaquin Pheonix - I mean Ben Stiller were mean, yes, but very funny. As for the solo acts, let me just say that Will Smith rocks.
4. They didn't play people off! For once, they didn't rudely music people off the stage, interrupting one of the biggest moments of their lives. I'm pretty sure only one pair/person got music-ed off, and I can live with that.

Okay, and now for the actual awards. While I know Oscar predictions are no longer interesting after the fact, can I just say that I did pretty darn well predicting who would win? I was so pleased to see Slumdog do so well (if you haven't see that film, shame on you!)... and I was very glad for all the acting categores - Heath's family's speech definitely made me tear up, and I was happy Sean Penn beat out Mickey Rourke. Also, while it was a bit sad that only 3 songs were nominated (they cut it down from five), I thought they did a great job with the Slumdog songs, even thought it was a bit weird to throw the Wall-E one right in the middle.

So there you have it, my blow by blow. I've probably ranted on it long enough, so, in short, I thought it was great. Can't wait for next year! =P

Going 'Bananas' in 'Barcelona'!

<--Who gave this guy a camera? Seriously!?

I recently saw two distinctly different Woody Allen films. The first, entitled Bananas, is one of his older projects (cerca 1971), and one which he wrote, directed, and starred in. The second was Vicky Christina Barcelona, which was just released on DVD, currently has a pending Oscar nomination, and was written and direct by Allen. Now, these are two VERY different films, but I wanted to spend a moment reflecting on each of them, and on the pictured man himself.

Bananas:
This film was shown in my history class on Wednesday for basically no reason whatsoever. It really has no educational value and only marginally relates to the subject we're currently studying (Latin American-US relations in the 20th Century)... but that doesn't matter, I found out. I suppose this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to second-semester-senior pastimes. Bananas is paraphrased wonderfully by IMDb, much more succinctly than I could manage:

When a bumbling New Yorker is dumped by his activist girlfriend, he travels to a tiny Latin American nation and becomes involved in its latest rebellion.

But, see, that doesn't even really cover it. The film is in Allen's classical "What did I just see?" style. It's funny, to be sure, but in a way that makes you wonder if Candid Cameras are filming you as you watch. Case in point: amidst a classically set up court room scene, the camera pans across the jury, passing normal suited men and women, only to glance over one man who happens to be drinking out of a fishbowl. Waa-huh? Weird, right?

Other than a few not-so-hidden message about the US government and some wonderfully dysfunctional relationship scenes (SO hilarious, by the way), the film is entertaining, but not much more. Still, it was a fun way to spend an entire block period at school! Overall, I thought it was a classic example of Allen's quirky and off-the-beaten-path style, one which I recognized from other films of his, such as Annie Hall.

Vicky Christina Barcelona:
As this film shows, Allen has really mellowed out in the last thirty years. This film, like other more recent projects (such as Match Point, Scoop, Cassandra's Dream) still has its funny moments, but is more focused on the drama. Perhaps it's because Allen is no longer starring in his own films as much (can he not get anyone to be as silly as him on camera? O.o), or perhaps he's simply found a more serious edge with age - the guy is over 70!

Vicky Christina Barcelona tells the story of two friends (named Vicky and Christina, whatddyaknow?) who travel to, you guessed it, Barcelona. There, they become - ahem - involved with a man named Juan Antonio. I'll just let IMDb explain it, because I'm already feeling myself getting wordy with a synopsis:

Two girlfriends on a summer holiday in Spain become enamored with the same painter, unaware that his ex-wife, with whom he has a tempestuous relationship, is about to re-enter the picture.

Okay, that sounds like a fine and dandy plot, but it's the actors who really made it come to life. Picture Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, Javier Bardem, and Penelope Cruz all being equal parts charming and neurotic. Now that's entertainment.

As I was sitting down under the impression that I was about to watch a charming film about people in Spain (not knowing or forgetting that it was a Woody Allen project), I was jarringly surprised as it begun. As with all his films, Allen takes the casual filmmaker, and shakes him/her awake. The film is narrated by a nasal-y bland male voice, more like an audiobook than anything else. At first, my mind was saying "wtf?" - it's not at all what I was used to in a film. But as I let myself go, telling myself, "Dude, it's Woody Allen, just see where it goes," I began to enjoy the film more and more.

The dialogue was extremely interesting. It was an odd mix of extremely fakey and a little too real. Something about the way characters would keep talking or say a bit too much was, first of all, not at all like a typical screenplay, and second, possibly more like we talk in real life? Whichever, Woody Allen seemed to be taking the age old addage "Show, don't tell," and shoving his middle finger in its face. Almost everything happened through dialogue, and the settings - despite being absolutely beautiful shots of Spain - became mere backdrops.

And then there's the content. The tagline for the film is "Life is the ultimate work of art," which, aside from being something I really like, gives you an idea of Allen's next iconic influence. It was filmed with musings and attempts to definte life, love, happiness, relationships, and any other "big idea" ideas he could possibly come up with. Unlike Bananas, this felt like a film that had a lot more in it than I could grasp in one viewing.

So, there you have it, very different films, which brings me to a few thoughts on the man himself...

Mister Woody Allen: (born as Allan Stewart Konigsberg, I just found out. *strokes beard* that's interesting...)
Though many of his films are not only "love 'em or hate 'em" but rather "Um, wtf?" I really admire Allen as a filmmaker. (Not so much as a person - the guy married his adopted daughter; that's just messed up). He's not afraid to have his own very distinct voice, and to constantly let it permeate absolutely everything he does. You never walk out of a Woody Allen film wondering who directed it. And that drive to let your true voice shows through takes gumption. So, hats off to you, sir - keep making those uniquely interesting/funny/strange/dramatic films of yours.

P.S. It's a new month - the second of the not-so-new year! I blogged 13 times in January. While that's good, I hope to keep it up and even find time for more! Thanks for reading!

-Gate, the suffix of shame

So, this time yesterday, I was walking out of a restaurant after eating dinner after walking on the mall after seeing Frost/Nixon! If I sound a bit, you know, not like myself and maybe like I'm rambling today... it's because I've been watching video upon video from the older Brotherhood 2.0 blogs from 2007 and that's kind of how they talk. (I'll talk more about B2.0 some other time.)

So, Frost/Nixon, directed by Ron Howard, starring Michael Sheen and Frank Langella, based on a play, based on the interviews that occurred between British journalist/talk-show host David Frost and First-to-Resign-the-Presidency Ex-President Nixon.

Frost/Nixon is an excellent story, just maybe not such a totally phenomenal movie. Don't get me wrong, it was a very good movie. Well made, excellent acting, and beautiful film-work... But it didn't have that total WOW effect that totally phenomenal AND well-made movies like Slumdog Millionaire have.

But back to my first point for a moment. It's an amazing story - and it's all true. Now, I didn't live during that time, so I can't speak to the emotions of dealing with Watergate and Nixon for those who did, but it was definitely a major part of our country's history. Richard Nixon seems like a fascinating history - all wit and no empathy. The movie had many great one liners, most of which leave you chuckling nervously, thinking, "did he really just say that?" (take, for example "I'd hate to be a Russian leader... They never know when they're being taped.")

I mentioned that it's a true story. I don't know how accurate it was, or how many of the lines in the movie Nixon might have actually said, but I'm guessing they captured the essence of his character. Frank Langella, the actor who portrayed Nixon, was incredible. He looked and sound like him, and really managed to highlight the situation Richard Nixon was in (particularly in the scenes following the interviews).

Additionally, the Frost that puts the Frost in "Frost/Nixon," acted by Michael Sheen, is quite an interesting character in and of himself. A popular British talk show host (though I just read today that he considers himself more of a serious journalist) and sort of playboy bighead... Frost didn't seem to be the natural "adversary" to Nixon. He couldn't get any networks behind the project, and ended up borrowing and paying out of his own pocket for the project. He basically staked everything, after losing his other job due to the media chatter about his ridiculous goal.

But I'm losing my point here, if I have one. It's a fabulous story. Nixon was so delusional, it seems to me, about what he did... That the interviews and the conversations were simply riveting.

And Ron Howard did a great job directing. I was particularly struck by the lighting, which seemed to have a story to tell in and of itself. In many of the scenes, not only were there two kinds of light (light and shadow), but sometimes there were three kinds, like light from a lamp, shadow, and moonlight (Exibhit A: the telephone conversation scene). And then, during the interviews, they were constantly changing types of light - they had certain spotlights to make the film look good, and then the lights in the room. These were slightly different "shades" of light, and aimed in different ways.

It seems to me that as light versus dark fundamentally represents black versus white that these lighting decisions might be symbolic. However, many of the scenes, as I just said, didn't have clear light versus dark... It was a mix of kinds of light and kinds of dark... Almost like there's black and white, but there's also gray. Could this be speaking to the "gray" area of Nixon's decisions, how everything around the Watergate scandel seemed wrapped in gray, instead of being simply black and white/ right and wrong? Or I've just spent too much of the day writing an analyticial paper and am now waaaay over-analyzing this.

So, those parts I liked. My only criticism (and it's not really a criticism, just an observation) is that the movie is basically a glorified documentary, and thus is not a truly masterful work of storytelling. This is true with any true story turned play turned movie, I'd imagine.

Wrap-up: I'd recommend Frost/Nixon. It's extremely well acted and will probably be showing up on the Oscar nominee list. I'm sure it would also be very powerful for anyone who had lived during the time (as I gathered from the conversations between my parents and the stranger sitting next to them and virtually any other older adult couples in the theater as the film ended).

Right, well, I feel like I had more to say about this yesterday, but didn't get around to writing before the thoughts slipped my mind, so that will have to do. Off to watch another movie! XD I'm sure I'll be back soon!