2005 Oscar Roundup

[Qwertz]

[NB: Sorry so late. Illness in the family. All okay now. Also, noticing that I’m posting these after the Awards have been handed out. I’m not going to go through and add individual notes to each review regarding the outcome of the Awards, but I will say that I am overall pleased with the outcome of the awards in that they were what I expected. I will also say that, while ‘pleased’ is not the right word (and neither really is ‘relieved’) to apply to my feelings about Crash winning Best Picture (as against Brokeback Mountian), I am satisfied, since Oscar did not grant the award to my choice of Best Picture for the wrong reasons. It’s well understood that Best Picture from AMPAS means something entirely different than ‘the best picture.’ Enjoy.]

It’s that time of year again. The tension, the excitement, the thrill of competition. Who will win? Who will lose? Who will wear whom and who wore it last year and didn’t tell anyone? Watched and wagered upon by millions the nation over, the Academy Awards are the most anticipated television event of the new year. Well, except for that one, other television event in Winter.

And so I present to you my annual Oscar Roundup, wherein I review all the nominees for Best Picture (and any others I think I should weigh in on), for, as it were, your consideration.

And the nominees for Best Picture of 2005 are:

Brokeback Mountain – Alberta Filmworks, Focus Features, River Road Entertainment, et al (Diana Ossana, James Schamus & Murray Ord)

This film is also nominated in the following categories: Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actor (Jake Gyllenhaal), Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams), Best Adapted Screenplay (Larry McMurty & Diana Ossana), Best Cinematography (Rodrigo Prieto) and Best Original Score (Gustavo Santaolalla).

Capote – United Artists, Infinity Media, A-Line Pictures, et al (Caroline Baron, Michael Ohoven & William Vince)

This film is also nominated in the following categories: Best Director (Bennett Miller), Best Actor (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), Best Supporting Actress (Catherine Keener) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Dan Futterman).

Crash – Bull’s Eye Entertainment, DEJ Productions & ApolloProScreen GmhB & Co. FPKG (Don Cheadle, Paul Haggis, Mark R. Harris, Robert Moresco, Cathy Schulman & Bob Yari)

This film is also nominated in the following categories: Best Director (Paul Haggis), Best Supporting Actor (Matt Dillon), Best Original Screenplay (Paul Haggis), Best Film Editing (Hughes Winborne) and Best Original Song (“In The Deep”).

Good Night and Good Luck – Warner Independent Pictures, 2929 Productions, Participant Productions, et al (Grant Heslov)

This film is also nominated in the following categories: Best Director (George Clooney), Best Actor (David Strathairn), Best Original Screenplay (George Clooney & Grant Heslov), Best Cinematography (Robert Elswit) and Best Production Design (James D. Bissell).

Munich – Dreamworks SKG, Universal Pictures, Amblin Entertainment, et al (Kathleen Kennedy, Barry Mendel, Steven Spielberg & Colin Wilson)

This film is also nominated in the following categories: Best Director (Steven Spielberg), Best Adapted Screenplay (Tony Kushner & Eric Roth), Best Film Editing (Michael Kahn) and Best Original Score (John Williams).

Not nominated for Best Picture, but also (briefly) reviewed below:

Batman Begins – Warner Brothers, Syncopy, DC Comics, Legendary Pictures & Patalex III Productions Ltd. (Larry Franco, Charles Roven & Emma Thomas)

This film is nominated in the following categories: Best Cinematography (Wally Pfister).

The Constant Gardener – Potboiler Productions, Epsilon Motion Pictures, Scion Films Ltd. & UK Film Council (Simon Channing-Williams)

This film is nominated in the following categories: Best Supporting Actress (Rachel Weisz), Best Adapted Screenplay (Jeffrey Caine), Best Film Editing (Claire Simpson) and Best Original Score (Alberto Iglesias).

A History of Violence – New Line, Benderspink (Chris Bender, David Cronenberg, J.C. Spink)

This film is nominated in the following categories: Best Supporting Actor (William Hurt) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Josh Olson).

King Kong – Universal, Wingnut & Big Primate Pictures (Jan Belkin, Carolynne Cunningham, Peter Jackson & Fran Walsh)

This film is nominated in the following categories: Best Production Design (Grant Major), Best Sound Mixing (Christopher Boyes, Michael Hedges, Tom Johnson & Michael Semanick), Best Visual Effects (Scott E. Anderson, Joe Letteri, George Murphy, Ben Snow & Marc Varisco) and Best Sound Effects Editing (Mel Graham, Mike Hopkins &Ethan Van der Ryn).

Memoirs of a Geisha – Columbia, Dreamworks SKG, Spyglass, Amblin & Red Wagon (Lucy Fisher, Steven Spielberg & Douglas Wick)

This film is nominated in the following categories: Best Cinematography (Dion Beebe), Best Production Design (John Myhre), Best Costume Design (Colleen Atwood), Best Original Score (John Williams), Best Sound Mixing (Rick Kline, Kevin O’Connell, John Pritchett & Greg P. Russell) & Best Sound Effects Editing (Joe Schiff).

Walk the Line – Fox 2000 Pictures, Tree Line Films, Konrad Pictures & Catfish Productions (James Keach & Cathy Konrad)

This film is nominated in the following categories: Best Actor (Joaquin Phoenix), Best Actress (Reese Witherspoon), Best Costume Design (Arianne Phillips), Best Film Editing (Michael McClusker) and Best Sound Mixing (Paul Massey).

War of the Worlds – Paramount, Dreamworks SKG, Amblin & Cruse/Wagner Productions (Kathleen Kennedy & Colin Wilson)

This film is nominated in the following categories: Best Sound Mixing (Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson & Elliot Tyson), Best Visual Effects (Pablo Helman) and Best Sound Effects Editing (Michael Babcock, Richard King, Michael W. Mitchell, Piero Mura, Hamilton Sterling & Addison Teague).

Please be advised that the following reviews may do contain spoilers. Obligatory spoiler space follows.

"Obligatory Spoiler Space"

Brokeback Mountain – This film is perhaps the most vehemently anti-gay film capable of being distributed by a major or minor distributor in America today. It is not about society forcing two people into hiding, nor is it about two people who deny their true natures. It is not about ‘gay cowboys,’ it is not about homophobia, it is most certainly not a ‘depiction of reality as seen by the new Left’ or ‘egalitarian propaganda’ or ‘Naturalistic’ or ‘Communist’ as it has been described in the thread on this subject. It is not about how ‘seeking one’s happiness will come at the expense of others.’ What is unfortunate is that Focus has decided to go exactly in these directions in marketing the film, and that AMPAS is likely to honor a deserving film for entirely the wrong reasons. And for people who wish to evaluate this or any other film without first having seen it or on the basis of advertising alone, I have only two words: shut up.

Enough about what this film isn’t about. Two migrant ranch hands, Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal), meet while herding sheep on a remote mountainside in Wyoming in 1963. Over the months, they become friends and confidants and eventually develop a romance. They leave the mountain at the end of the season and return to their previous lives. Four years later, despite both having married and fathered children, they begin a twenty year relationship, sneaking off with each other several times a year, whenever they can, trying to recapture the passion of Brokeback Mountain. The film is faithfully adapted from (and makes several improvements on) a short story by Annie Proulx, who previously wrote Western stories under the moniker “E. A. Proulx” in order to disguise her gender from her predominantly male readers. [Correction: faithfully, with several good improvements and one not so good. More on that later.]

Director Ang Lee commands delicate and highly-refined performances from his central cast, including the two male leads as well as Michelle Williams in the role of Ennis’ wife Alma, and Anne Hathaway as Jack’s wife Lureen. The remainder of the characters are, with the notable exceptions of Jack’s parents, flat and consciously backgrounded. The camera is noticeably detached for most of the film (with important exceptions), providing an observational, non-judgmental view in which the events unfold. During the first act of the film, the landscape of Brokeback Mountain is not so much characterized as incorporated into the characters of Jack and Ennis. The noticeable lack of any similar incorporation of the setting into later acts is vital to the understanding of the film. The core theme of the film (and of nearly all of Lee’s previous work) is regret: one unalterable moment in a character’s past when he wishes he had had more information, or had acted differently. While all four central characters have such a moment of regret, the movie is about Ennis’ moment of regret. Most importantly, all four central characters maintain their individuality, make their own decisions, good or bad, and reap the consequences thereof. No one forces any other into any course of action, they make decisions based on what information they have, and only come to regret those decisions when they discover their information to be incomplete or erroneous. The film is, by means of these discoveries, a masterfully executed indictment of collectivist thinking and a real slap in the face to the more liberal factions of Hollywood disguised as the first explicitly gay Western. Oscar’s attention on this one is interesting, because it is being applauded as everything it isn’t. Without a doubt it is the most masterfully constructed film of the five nominees for Best Picture (of which at least three others are also of excellent quality), and it deserves recognition as such, but I honestly do not know if that recognition should be given for all the wrong reasons.

Of course I cannot make all these bald assertions without backing them up. Short of giving you a shot-by-shot analysis (which I could do, having seen the film eight times taking copious notes), I will refrain from a truly in-depth analysis and just stick to several main points: the nature of the romance at Brokeback Mountain, Ennis’ moment of regret, the effort at recapture including Jack’s proposal, and the manner in which the relationship finally ends. Please note that dialogue quotes may not be precisely accurate: it’s hard to write in the dark.

1) The Nature of the Brokeback Mountain Relationship (or, Why This Film is Anti-Gay)

There are three distinct phases to the relationship once Jack and Ennis are alone on the mountain: tension, release, and discovery. The tension phase is emphasized through camera work (Ennis strips bare to clean his clothes in the background beyond the depth of field camera right while Jack in close-up peels potatoes, aware of Ennis’ nudity, but refusing to destroy his idealizations by sneaking a peek), through dialogue (Ennis: Exactly what is the Pentecost? I mean, my folks was Methodist. Jack: Well, the Pentecost… I don’t know. I don’t know what the Pentecost is, mama never explained it. I guess it’s when the world ends and fellas like you and me, we march off to Hell. Ennis: Speak for yourself. You may be a sinner but I ain’t yet had the opportunity. Jack: Oh?), and through scoring (the stark and simply-played acoustic guitar leaves the listener waiting on edge for the next pluck). During this phase, the friendship develops, Ennis opens up to Jack about his past, and the two become comfortable with one another, but the relationship remains unfulfilled. After a night of friendly carousal however, Ennis is unable to leave camp to sleep with the sheep on the mountain face, so he sleeps at camp by the dying fire. Tension is maintained through the scene as Ennis refuses twice to sleep in the comfort of the tent with Jack. However as night wears on, the discomfort of the cold prompts him to give in and join Jack in the tent. Some viewers then miss the point that several more hours pass before the sex, leading them to think the encounter little more than a drunken accident. This first sexual encounter is an odd, slight departure from the original story, but actually serves as an improvement in order to emphasize what later happens. On the morning after, tension reaches a bursting point as Ennis heads off to the sheep for the day. The score takes on an ominous tone, Ennis discovers a dead sheep, and Jack washes his clothes in the stream. The film appears to be heading in a ‘the wages of sin’ sort of direction (that phrase actually popped into my mind on the first viewing, and I started to get very worried about where the film was going to go after this point). But when Ennis returns, the tension is released, and the relationship is fulfilled, when both men, in the light of day, choose to fulfill it with a more conscious act of lovemaking. Setting aside your own opinion on homosexual behavior (please see here for specific definitions), or even the entire homosexual element for just a moment, what has just happened is two people have made a discovery about the nature of sex: that it is not essentially a procreative action, but an expression of romantic love. This is discovery. The discovery taken in context of the homosexual element also adds an important layer. First of all (taking the presented world of the film as the entire world of the film, as filmmakers are wont to do), there is no evidence that Jack has any conception whatsoever of homosexuality. For him, there is no evidence to suggest that what he and Ennis share could be a dangerous thing if exposed to intolerant third parties, though he is familiar with some concept of ‘queers,’ and that he is certainly not one of them. Ennis, as we later learn, has some evidence of the danger of ‘intolerance,’ but also has some concept of ‘queers.’ It is most interesting to note that both men see no correlation between their concept of ‘queer’ and themselves – they emphatically reject the connection between homosexual sex and homosexuals that they had previously maintained. They as yet have no specialized concept representative of the nature of their relationship, and actually reject any need for such a concept: in effect, they adhere to Rand’s Razor, the notion that conceptualization beyond what is essential for differentiation is unnecessary. They make no distinction between the love they feel for each other and the love a man feels for his wife, and find no such distinction necessary at this point. As the film progresses, they will question this, but ultimately this does not affect their time on Brokeback Mountain. This is also why the film is so strongly anti-gay, which is to say anti-‘the gay community.’ I find it thoroughly hysterical that the gay community – a collection of individuals who associate and define their identities on the basis of the very distinction the characters reject – has latched onto this film so tenaciously. I also find it telling. There’s a lot of guilt in the ‘gay community,’ and regret is often confused with guilt. The relationship on Brokeback Mountain is very romantic, in that it is selfishly motivated and unencumbered by outside forces. But the relationship on Brokeback Mountian ends when they come down in August, forced out by an early storm and a suspicious Joe Agguire, and never resumes.

2) Ennis’ Moment of Regret – As the two prepare to descend the mountain, a fascinating scene takes place, in which a playful Jack approaches a pensive Ennis. Jack trips Ennis with a lasso and the two begin a playful wrestle which progresses to a violent struggle and ends in two bloody noses. Both feel the impending separation, but being ill-equipped to fully comprehend it, they reach out to one another by any means possible. I liken this violent encounter to the violence of Roark and Dominique’s first sexual encounter, or to the violent sexual relationship between Dagny and Rearden. The pain is itself a form of pleasure, in that it is a memory of the person who inflicted it. But the violence is also, in a way, a reaction to the strain placed on the relationship: be it Dominique’s fanatical desire to destroy in order to protect, or pre-apotheosis Rearden’s equation of sex with the lowest form of animal behavior. In this case, it is a reaction to the impending test their relationship must pass in order to survive. The test takes place just as they are about to go their separate ways. Jack: You gonna do this again next year? Ennis: Maybe not. Like I said, Alma and me’s getting’ married in November… Once they part, Ennis’ moment of regret is immediate, visceral, and violent, and yet he doesn’t recognize its significance until the end of the film. After Jack has driven off into the dust, Ennis is overcome with a violent wave of nausea and collapses in pain in an alleyway. It takes him the better of twenty years to figure out the meaning of this violent emotional response. Ennis made a decision, based on many things, not to pursue his supreme value as fervently as a supreme value demands to be pursued. And for that, he pays a price. He lives the next twenty years in pale imitation of what he had lost and instead accepts a mantle of familial and social responsibilities which encumber him so that he will never know the passion he had known with Jack again. Unknowingly, he summed up the situation: Ennis: It’s a one shot thing we got goin’ here. It was a one shot thing. If they ever gave it up, they would never be able to get it back. Ennis gives it up, decides not to pursue his values, because he cannot conceive of a way in which to pursue them within the framework of his (implicitly) accepted and higher-valued perceived social obligations. Only two such obligations existed, and neither were truly obligations: he was engaged to Alma, but had no real obligation to marry her if he didn’t love her or loved someone else more, and he may have had some feeling of obligation to beget children, which was common in rural areas in the 50s and early 60s and still lingers today in different forms, but which is no real obligation. Ennis chooses to value these obligations over Jack, and in so doing, makes them real.

3) The Attempt to Recapture, and Jack’s Proposal – Four years later, both have married, Ennis has two daughters and Jack an infant son. Jack sends Ennis a postcard and the two reunite and, since they still love each other, immediately try to recapture what they had on Brokeback Mountain. The facts that their first kiss in four years occurs within sight of Ennis’ wife, and their first sex in four years takes place in a sleazy motel, set the tone for what is to come: Ennis has already inflicted the fatal blow to the relationship and it will never be the same. [Aside: It is important to know that, even after they reunite, neither Jack nor Ennis ever returns to Brokeback Mountain. This is one departure the film made from the short story which made the film less effective – the short story was explicit about this: the two never returned to the place where they had shared their intense romance. The film does not explicitly say this, but does it implicitly through subtle differences in the locales where they choose to camp over the years. None of them are the original setting on the mountain.] Nevertheless, Ennis decides to make a go at rekindling some kind of ongoing relationship with Jack, a decision which is doomed to failure because he has already placed his social and family responsibilities on a higher tier than his love for Jack and the happiness it brings him. As a result, he is never able to experience happiness in his whole life as he had before – he is split in two: the ephemerally happy person he is with Jack, and the perennially unhappy person he is with his family in the ‘real world.’ His ongoing relationship with Jack is not real because he does not see it as part of the real world. As a result, both of his worlds fall apart. Jack proposes to Ennis (in the only way he knows how) by suggesting that they both take what they want for themselves, which is open and waiting and ready to be grasped. He suggests that they open a ranch together and spend the rest of their lives together, away from prying eyes and whispering mouths. But Ennis again reiterates his unfortunate decision, not strictly out of fear of being murdered, but of fear of another kind of social reprisal – that incurred by his withdrawing from the social responsibilities he perceives between him and that ideal. It is only after those perceived responsibilities remove themselves (Alma leaves him, he loses custody of his daughters, and continues to find difficulty in maintaining employment) that he comes to a revelation about himself. Unfortunately, it is too late.

4) The End of the Relationship – Ennis discovers that Jack had died in a horrible accident. He has paranoid flashes during Lureen’s recounting of the accident which suggest that he does not believe the story. Rather, Ennis believes that Jack (who had been a bit more open about his sexuality as a result of never finding fulfillment with Ennis after their first summer together) has been killed by gay-bashers. This is an unfortunate adaptation of the story. The story included this suspicion, but made it clear to the reader that this was more likely motivated by Ennis’ paranoia than a purely omniscient glimpse provided to the reader by the author to demonstrate the duplicity of the characters. It may be folly, but I prefer to believe that Jack died in precisely the manner described by Lureen. It makes more sense than Ennis’ unsubstantiated paranoid delusions. But Ennis does not come to understand his regret until he goes to visit Jack’s parents, two characters who speak volumes in very few words. Ennis ascends to Jack’s childhood room, which is sparsely occupied by the few precious things of Jack’s childhood, including a wooden carving of a horse with a rider, which looks suspiciously like the one Ennis is seen carving before they first had sex on Brokeback (though this connection is not supported by any other evidence presented in the theatrical cut of the film). Hidden in the closet Ennis finds two shirts, nested together – Jack’s and his own from their last day on Brokeback, complete with bloodstains. Mrs. Twist wordlessly gives them to him, in a form of apology for their inability to let their portion of Jack’s ashes be scattered on the mountain. But at this point, Ennis has realized that neither he nor Jack ever really returned, and never could return, to Brokeback Mountain in the fullest sense. He has realized that he lost what he loved when he let Jack drive out of his sight after their first summer, and now understands his visceral response to that separation. In the epilogue, we see Ennis with his daughter, who has come to invite him to her wedding. He decides that this is something he does want – to see his daughter marry the man she loves, not the man she feels she must, and agrees to attend without reservation. When she leaves, he opens the closet (to store his daughter’s jacket, which she has inadvertently left) and reveals a small shrine, more like a reminder, consisting of the two shirts on a hanger and a postcard of the mountain. The final line of the film is a promise and an oath. Being of few words, and a man who never swears to boot, Ennis only says the first few words: Ennis: Jack, I swear… It reminds me of an oath from Atlas Shrugged which begins with the same two words. Ennis is swearing never to live for the sake of anyone else, or any imaginary social obligations, ever again. Instead, he swears to pursue his own values and happiness for the remainder of his life. Finally, he swears never to forget the cost of failure in that pursuit.

A wholly remarkable film, and certainly the best of the nominees, but again, I must say that I’m not sure I want it to win Best Picture, since an Academy nod would basically legitimize all the misinterpretations inherent thereto.

Capote – In brief, an assault on selfishness and justice. Truman Capote (played by a talented mimic in Philip S. Hoffman) is emotionally destroyed by his ‘selfish’ pursuit of the story as well as his inability to secure mercy for Perry Smith and Richard Hickock. Whether or not Smith and Hickock deserved to die for their crime is not the issue of the film, but rather whether one man, by virtue of his desire to write a good story, or his affection for the condemned, in other words by virtue of no legitimate legal argument, has any right to affect, any responsibility to ensure, or any culpability in the failure of the execution of justice administered by a duly seated court of law. In Cold Blood was a good book and a good film, but this film is pretty unremarkable.

Crash – A panoply of talented and not so talented actors portray various people in Los Angeles who experience life-changing revelations as a result of accidents, anger and hate. Malevolent Universe Premise in extremis. There is nothing redeeming about this picture – not even a decent performance. As to why the Screen Actors’ Guild felt compelled to award this cast with a Best Ensemble prize I shall not even attempt to speculate. The characters are all overblown caricatures of racists, while racism really has nothing whatsoever to do with the story. They are only motivated by self-loathing. Watching the film, you want to smack these idiots and tell them to grow up, but when the universe, through its diabolical machinations of coincidence, conspires to teach them a lesson, they all miserably fail to learn a thing. Reminds me of Magnolia. Touted as the great race epic of our time, it’s really just one big pity party. A very vocal following has grown up around this film, and moments of stress or trauma which result in perspective-altering spiritual revelations have come to be called “Crash moments,” but these characters don’t even make any progress as decent human beings. These events don’t prompt them to reexamine their philosophical premises, but to make arbitrary decisions to behave differently in very specific areas of their lives. The car thief continues to steal cars, the DA’s wife thinks it’s “funny” that her Hispanic housekeeper is her only “friend,” and the Lebanese shopkeeper requires divine intervention to quell his homicidal rage. If the latter had known that his daughter had bought the blanks on purpose or had ever discovered that fact, he never would have had the apparent change of character he exhibited. None of the characters’ changes are motivated by rational causes, and so they are all arbitrary and, by extension, ephemeral.

Good Night and Good Luck – George Clooney’s take on Edward R. Murrow’s campaign against Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Meticulously crafted and fairly entertaining, but nothing really new here. Sub-plot involving Robert Downey and Patricia Clarkson more interesting. Also, film seems to suggest that Communism was never a real threat to America, and that the Communist Party (which is now and was then known to have required that members engage in espionage against the US) was a group of harmless people protected by the freedom to associate. While the film does not specifically rewrite history, it does shine a tinted light on it.

Munich – This one I’ve only been able to see once, unfortunately, because it clearly requires multiple viewings in order to accurately interpret it. However, several notable things stick out right away: first, the scene where the Israeli group meets their Palestinian counterparts; and second, Anver’s (and by extension the film’s) moral ambiguity with regards to the whole task.

In the scene where the Israeli and Palestinian groups meet and ‘bond,’ and where Anver (played by Eric Bana) discusses motivations with his counterpart, it is clear that Spielberg’s intent is to put the two on similar moral planes – that both are “just looking for a place to call home,” without choosing sides. This moral ambiguity carries through the film. Though Anver struggles with the immorality of using terrorism to combat terrorism, he excuses himself by placing the blame with those who hired him. Or with God. Or with Black September. He eventually refuses to take responsibility for his own actions. Spielberg has said of this film that he had to exercise great care not to portray Israel in a negative light. I don’t see why great care was necessary – if he had made a truthful film, Israel should have come out in a relatively positive light automatically (the use of inappropriate tactics of terrorism on Israel’s part aside). But Spielberg has made a film which places both Israel and Palestine on equal moral levels. Unfortunately, I haven’t had an opportunity to see this film more than once, so I can only report on these first impressions.

Batman Begins – Christian Bale stars as the caped crusader in Christopher Nolan’s take on the comic book hero’s origin story and subsequent encounter with the Scarecrow. Dark and sensuously photographed – well worth it’s Best Cinematography nomination, and my pick for the category. Moreover, lots of pro-capitalist and pro-egoist messages. Nolan goes out of his way to portray Thomas Wayne as Gotham’s benefactor, not as an altruist, but as an innovator and a wise investor, and Bruce’s Batman, not as a self-sacrificing champion of the pathetic, but a self-interested man out to reclaim his father’s city. Liam Neeson plays the anarchist Ducard – the seductive voice of unreasoning destruction – who tries to destroy Gotham as punishment for becoming a great city. Just as Bruce has Ducard finally beaten, Ducard tries to turn Bruce’s pity against him. Having struggled with the morality of playing the executioner, even for justice, through the whole film, Bruce finally resolves his internal conflict by shedding his pity for Ducard: “I won’t kill you,” Bruce says, “but I don’t have to save you.” The film remains distinct from Tim Burton’s beautifully stylized versions and recovers the franchise from the nauseating tailspin of Batman & Robin and Batman Forever. Batman as it should be done, though I could have done without the shameless sequel grab at the end.

Other memorable quotes:

Bruce to Rachel Dawes: “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.”

---

Thomas Wayne to his injured son: “And why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up.”

---

Detective Gordon to Bruce: “I never got to say thank you.”

Bruce in reply: “And you’ll never have to.”

The Constant Gardener – Ralph Feinnes plays the widower of an AIDS-drugs-in-Africa activist (Rachel Weisz) murdered for uncovering a plot to hide the side effects of an experimental tuberculosis drug. The premise, that a drug company would deliberately hide hundreds of deaths caused by their product in testing so they could then unleash the faulty drug on the world population is truly offensive. Drug companies are not out to make money at the cost of human lives; they are out to save lives and improve the quality of life for their customers, who willingly pay them in turn for the benefit they receive. Certainly if a drug manufacturer were to behave in the manner portrayed in the film, it would be reprehensible and thoroughly criminal, but the film seems to suggest that this sort of behavior is to be expected of all drug makers and we should be shocked by a company that doesn’t engage in such unscrupulous practices. Tessa (Weisz) is so irritating through the whole film that it becomes difficult to sit through. She uses Justin (Feinnes) to achieve her political ends – she marries him to have a political excuse to go to Nairobi, she keeps secrets from him so that he won’t stop her, and she would rather have him believe her to be cheating on him than to ask for his help. The fact that she ultimately wasn’t cheating on him doesn’t redeem her in the slightest. Justin is no less despicable, as he chose to marry a woman with whom he so obviously shared very few values. Early in the film, Tessa pleads with Justin to drive three young children the 40km from the hospital to their home, saying “Here are three we can help right now.” Justin (eventually, after going through several other ineffectual ones) gives her the excuse that it would be too dangerous for them to help the children. Later Justin tries to rescue a young girl from a raid in the desert, but is thwarted again by the political and physical danger to himself and others of doing so. We are supposed to sympathize with him and recognize his shift from grubby, self-interested egotist to noble, self-sacrificing altruist. Bleargh. Shortly afterward he commits suicide by murder and is lauded back home in Britain as a hero for uncovering Big Pharmaceutical’s dirty business. A major hair-puller.

Now about Weisz and this whole “Best Supporting Actress” business – she won the Golden Globe (Hollywood Foreign Press) and the Actor (Screen Actors’ Guild) in that category. She does perform the role, as despicable as it is, rather well – however, as I noted earlier, I truly think Michelle Williams’ Brokeback Mountain performance was a lot more refined, showed a broader range of emotions and a much better degree of subtlety than Weisz’ in this film. Weisz’ performance itself is very one-dimensional – the character’s subtleties are revealed through other plot devices, not through her performance. Truly I am having difficulty understanding the motivations of both organizations in giving her these awards. To some degree I can understand HFPA failing to separate the performance from the character, but I thought SAG would have been more adept at making the distinction. Perhaps I give actors too much credit. Or maybe they’re politicizing their awards.

A History of Violence – When a couple of murderous thugs threaten his peaceful way of life, Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) reacts with uncharacteristic violence and efficiency in defense of his diner’s customers. The ensuing attention reveals a past Stall would rather never saw the light of day again. Turns out Stall used to be Joey Cusack of the Philadelphia mob, and his brother (nominee William Hurt, whom Oscar just adores) has sent lackeys after him to bring him home. Despite Stall’s failure to tell his wife (Maria Bello, in a very nice performance) the truth when she asks him to, I really enjoyed this film. Stall is the very definition of a self-made man. The intentions behind his dishonesty and long-term evasion of responsibility for his previous life are at least honorable: to protect his new life and the family he loves. Stall is a man who knows what his values are and is willing to go to whatever lengths are necessary to protect them, even if it means resurrecting his past persona in order to confront his brother. But his dishonesty almost destroys the family – his wife loses the man she fell in love with and his son loses his hero. The family comes to believe that Joey Cusack is more real than Tom Stall. But after demonstrating his commitment to them, his family realizes that his distant past as Joey the mobster doesn’t affect what really matters – that he values them, in the most complete sense of the word. The movie is far too graphic for Oscar’s taste – lots of fake blood and tasteless prosthetics are de rigeur for Cronenberg – but I’m getting worried that they’re going to end up giving him one of those tacky lifetime achievement awards someday. That’s the Oscar they give you when you just can’t seem to win one on your own. Ian McKellen almost turned his down for that very reason. Anyway, this film won’t win either of the awards for which it is nominated, but Cronenberg films (and this one is no exception) usually get their props in less mainstream circles.

King Kong – King Kong is, and has always been, above all, a love story. Well, more like a ‘very deep friendship’ story. Romantic love between an outsized ape and a very very tiny Ann Darrow is not possible, no matter how much they may like each other. All the other characters, though, are completely ancillary – this is Kong and Darrow’s story. I really couldn’t care less about the whole Driscoll/Darrow thing, it’s so unremarkable. There were several rather irritating aspects of Peter Jackson’s latest money-spending extravaganza, however. For example, after the first ten minutes of Kong versus T-Rex, I had no stamina for the next ten. Or the rematch in the vines. Enough already, I don’t care. Jack Black’s Denham has the subtlety and likeability of a frying pan in the face – “It was beauty that killed the beast” made me want to scratch my ears off. The Kong/Darrow relationship is, however, done quite well – it’s not based on loneliness or pity, but on humor, laughter, protection, and the shared recognition of the beauty of a sunset. It ends in resignation to circumstance, not in sacrifice, and Kong goes out in a blaze of glory. Timeless story, though here cluttered with a bunch of excess, unnecessary junk.

Memoirs of a Geisha – Ziyi Zhang plays a poor Japanese girl sold into servitude who rises through the ranks of Geisha and eventually finds her true love. Sappy, sentimental, fatalistic drivel. A young and depressed Chiyo (before her name is changed to Sayuri) encounters the Chairman (Ken Watanabe, playing a man at least twenty years older than the girl) accompanied by two beautiful Geisha. The Chairman treats her kindly, and so she decides to dedicate her life to repaying him and standing by his side as Geisha herself. The creepy age difference and the fact that she behaves more like an obsequious debtor than an impassioned lover make this an obviously bad decision. In her battle to have what she wants, she cries out at one point, “I want a life that is mine!” A noble sentiment, but taken in context… sure the forced servitude of Geishadom is probably worse, but of what use is a life of her own if only to spend it in a self-imposed servitude? Nevertheless Sayuri battles against fate to achieve her goal and is consistently thwarted: always approaching, but never reaching her goal. In fact, it is not until she resigns herself to fate and gives up ever achieving her goal (in a cliftop scene of relinquishment I liken to the famous and gorgeous shot of Holly Hunter in The Piano as she watches her piano engulfed by the sea, but shot differently so as to emphasize the surrender instead of the furious battle against it) that fate miraculously grants it to her. Fatalism in extreme. Though the film is beautifully stylized and meticulously crafted. A shame the talents of the production designer and cinematographer were placed in the service of such an undistinguished story. I was not particularly fond of the Williams score – it seemed to do a very good job at capturing the fatalistic element.

Walk the Line – Decent if unremarkable. Reese Witherspoon gives a nice performance and is my pick for Best Actress. Nothing too objectionable in the film, but then there’s nothing really controversial in it either. Though it does contain a guy who makes a life for himself on his own terms. He has a few problems, but comes out all right in the end.

War of the Worlds – Bleargh. I guess I should back that up with something. Let’s see. Now I can’t remember how the original radio play ends, but the ending of the movie – the aliens are killed by terrestrial germs – is just bleargh. The humans are totally ineffectual, powerless, weak and at the utter mercy of malevolent, unthinking, evil. It’s not even a struggle between good and evil – it’s just total annihilation and scraping to survive. Also, miraculous survival of the son made me want to throw up. There. That’s all I have to say about War of the Worlds. And I said it without even once mentioning the whole Tom Cruise Oprah’s couch Scientology thing.

[gags]

Thanks for posting these Q. Interesting reviews that piqued my interest in a couple of the films. I appreciate your efforts.

Sometimes it's difficult for me to make it to the theater, so I'll see them on DVD.

[Qwertz]

http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1727309,00.html

Annie Proulx, author of Brokeback Mountain (the short story) wrote a scathing indictment of AMPAS in the Guardian (not that I read the Guardian that often, mind you). Though motivated from a different viewpoint, I think some of her remarks are rather insightful:

Hollywood loves mimicry, the conversion of a film actor into the spittin' image of a once-living celeb. But which takes more skill, acting a person who strolled the boulevard a few decades ago and who left behind tapes, film, photographs, voice recordings and friends with strong memories, or the construction of characters from imagination and a few cold words on the page? I don't know. The subject never comes up. Cheers to David Strathairn, Joaquin Phoenix and [Philip Seymour] Hoffman, but what about actors who start in the dark?

-Q

[softwareNerd]

Good review of "Constant Gardner". I sat through the movie yesterday. Definitely two thumbs down, despite the good acting and cinematography. There was no character in the movie of whom I could say: I like him.

The raid-scene in Sudanese desert demonstrates the problem with the story. That scene is the movie's redemption qua documentary, since one is shown that one can remove all the supposedly evil drug-companies from Africa and it won't make a bit of a difference to the quantum of evil in these people's lives. They have much bigger problems. However, by demonstrating the unimportance of the movie's plot-theme, the scene also undercuts the movie qua fiction.

Here is a question for anyone who has seen the movie: is it Naturalistic?