Oscar Nominations 2014: Part I

BEST PICTURE:

What will win: 12 Years a Slave

What should win: Her

Great nominees for 2014!  I can say I at least liked all of the Best Picture nominees for this year, and I loved a good number of them. 

I think it is safe to say that 12 Years a Slave will be winning Best Picture this year.  Out of the nine films, it is the one that embraces American history the most, and films that are nominated for Best Picture and have that element of our past have more of a chance of winning.

I loved the film, and no part of me will be disappointed when it receives the Oscar. However, I have a different opinion on what the best film of the year was.

Her was one of the most vibrant, new, and exciting films I have seen in a long time.  I loved each and every minute of it.  Spike Jonze, with such refinement and gracefulness, creates a near-future world that challenges the concept of technology and love.  The film is inventive and unique, and it is a near-perfect story that isn’t influenced by being a remake or a superhero comic. 

Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore, a lonely LA resident who writes compassionate notes for his clients through a company called Beautiful Handwritten Letters.  He falls in love with his Siri-like Operating System, Samantha (voiced by Scarlet Johannson).  For such a strange concept for a film, Jonze manages to make it deeply moving and observant to emotional relationships, as he does for every single one of his films.

I was disappointed to see that Joaquin Phoenix was not up for Best Actor this year.  He has dropped his weird, bearded, eccentric act and has again embraced his talent of being quietly valiant as an actor, such as he was in Walk the Line.  He has such a way of taking a simplistic character and making him sophisticated and multi-dimensional.  He does all of this playing his character Theodore.  Theodore is that guy that everyone knows: lonely, slightly awkward, but sweet.  And Phoenix has a way of creating an entire background for him: we see his inner demons, we hear of his insecurities, and thus, we learn to understand how he could fall for Samantha.

I truly loved everything about this film: the acting, visuals, score, story, and direction.  And while I wish I could say that that is enough for it to win Best Picture, I do not think it will.  Nevertheless, Spike Jonze has managed to take a strange, almost comical concept, and turn it into a warm and touching story that almost anyone can empathize with.

BEST ACTRESS:

Who will win: Cate Blanchett

Who should win: Meryl Streep

There has been a lot of buzz surrounding Cate Blanchett in her role in Woody Allen’s Blue Jasmine.  Although she had a stellar performance, and I would not be upset if she won, I think my lack of excitement for the film as a whole is hindering my opinion on her being the best actress of the year. 

Quite honestly, out of the actor nominations this year, the category of Best Actress is my least favorite.  Of course, each nominee is very talented and dedicated in her role, but the majority of the actresses didn’t blow me out of the water.

Before seeing August: Osage County, I found myself annoyed that, once again, Meryl Streep was nominated for an Oscar.  And before everyone starts hating on me, I would like to explain myself.  I love Meryl Streep.  I think she is one of the best actresses in the world.  With that said, I find it (to a certain degree) offensive that it has become almost a running joke to nominate her every year for every single role she chooses to play.  She deserves to be nominated when she is one of the absolute best of the year, and for her to be nominated for her roles in The Devil Wears Prada or Julie & Julia takes away from her truly magnificent performances in films like Kramer vs. Kramer or Doubt. 

Again, I rolled my eyes when I found out that she was up for Best Actress this year.  However, that was before I saw August: Osage County.

Out of all of the nominees for this category, Meryl Streep had the best performance.  And this is good and bad.  It’s good, for obvious reasons, because it proves that, once again, she is a dynamic and unwavering actress, and she completely gives all of herself for these roles.  It’s bad because the possibility of her winning is low because she won Best Actress only two years ago.  Now, I say this because this is how the Oscars work.  There is a clear formula with this event, and how it turns out and who ends up winning is influenced almost entirely by outside opinion, meaning the media and the popularity of each film.   But—the Academy likes shaking things up with the occasional surprise.  In fact, Streep winning for The Iron Lady two years ago was said to be an upset because many predicted that Viola Davis would win for her performance in The Help.  Who’s to say that Meryl Streep couldn’t sweep in again, with all her fabulousness and elegance, and take the title for Best Actress of this year?  In my opinion, she should.

Streep took on the manipulative, monstrous matriarch, Violet Weston, who spends over two hours belittling every member of her family with harsh criticisms, all the while downing painkillers and smoking cigarettes (with mouth cancer, I might add).  And she murders the performance.

Even when she takes the back seat in certain scenes of the film, Streep is still the one to watch.  She chimes in, her Southern debauchery flaring, with such grace and fluidity that it truly feels like I am watching Violet Weston; not Meryl Streep playing Violet Weston.  It is difficult to take your eyes off her, even when another character is supposed to be the focus of the scene.

Although Meryl Streep may not win for this year’s Oscars, this performance stands as another example of how flawless of an actress she is, and that is an award in it of itself.  All I ask of the Academy is to nominate her when she truly deserves it; that way, it gives other “underdog” actors a chance to flourish under the spotlight.  And then, it will be just that much better when Streep is nominated for a role where she is clearly one of the best of the year.  

        

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Who will win: Lupita Nyong’o

Who should win: Lupita Nyong’o

The nominees for Best Supporting Actress all did a fabulous job in their respective roles.  I can sincerely say that I enjoyed all of their performances.  With that said, the buzz surrounding this category has picked out two frontrunners: Lupita Nyong’o from 12 Years a Slave and Jennifer Lawrence from American Hustle.

Now, I love Jennifer Lawrence.  I think she is a great actress, and I also really want to be her best friend.  But I have to say that she has recently been casted for too old of roles.  I was very happy when she won Best Actress last year for Silver Linings Playbook, but even for that role and especially for her role in American Hustle, she was cast for characters that are far much older than she is.

That was really what took away from her performance for me.  I thought she was really dedicated towards her character and took on the alcoholic, floozy wife well, but…she’s my age!  I was watching her the whole time, thinking, “Wow, she’s such a great actress,” but then I would remember that she was supposed to be a wife to Christian Bale’s character, with whom she has a 7-year-old child.  This is not Lawrence’s fault in the slightest, and for being cast in such a mature role, she did a fantastic job.  But this casting choice makes it easier for me to root for Lupita Nyong’o.

Nyong’o plays Patsey, a young slave of Master Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), who becomes an object of desire and sexual abuse for Epps and physical abuse for his jealous wife.  Patsey bonds and makes friends with Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), another slave on the plantation, and, at one point, even heartbreakingly begs him to end her life to escape the hell she’s living through.

This was the first film Nyong’o was cast in, and she will be asked to star in many more after this incredible performance.  Her character, Patsey, is hardworking and determined; we see that in her ability to pick over 500 pounds of cotton each day, which is much more so than any of the male slaves on the plantation.  She is also exposed and helpless; we see that in her submission into the sexual and physical abuse she encounters with Mr. and Mrs. Epps.  Nyong’o is very present in her role.  This was necessary because her character must always be on her toes, whether that’s to avoid punishment for not providing a sufficient workload, or in case Master Epps comes looking for her.

There is one scene in the film that is breathtaking, and it is the scene that everyone in the theater talks about when the lights come on.  Lupita Nyong’o’s performance in that scene is what made it captivating, traumatizing, and chilling.  To give a theater full of people that reaction is enough to award her the Oscar.  But she somehow managed to hold onto that star factor throughout the entirety of the film.  She remained refined on a plantation filled with coarseness, and she held onto her morality during such an immoral time.  I am looking forward to seeing more performances by Lupita Nyong’o in the future.          

BEST ACTOR:

Who will win: Matthew McConaughey

Who should win: Leonardo DiCaprio

Again, so much talent in this category, it’s hard to pick a favorite.  I do think Matthew McConaughey will win for his role in Dallas Buyers Club.  We all know the Oscars love it when there is extreme weight gain or loss for a certain character role.  (Seriously, just look over the past couple of years: Anne Hathaway in Les Miserables, Natalie Portman in Black Swan, and Charlize Theron putting on the pounds for Monster.)  But even putting that aside, McConaughey gave a fantastic performance as the AIDS sufferer, Ron Woodruff.  I will not be disappointed if he wins because, in various parts of the film, he brought me close to tears.  His character was, without a doubt, the most dynamic of all the Best Actor nominees, and it is hard for that to go unnoticed.

With that said, I am going to be a little biased for this category.  Isn’t it about freaking time that Leo wins an Oscar?!  I still think that he was snubbed for Best Supporting Actor for his role in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?  And the fact that he wasn’t even nominated for Revolutionary Road is downright bogus.  If Meryl Streep can be nominated for every role she’s in, why can’t Leo?

Even with my partial choice, I really do think that DiCaprio did an amazing job as the stockbroker Jordan Belfort in Wolf of Wall Street.  He was absolutely mesmerizing, and I cannot picture another lead actor in that role.  To keep me hooked, curious, and absolutely disgusted with his character for an entire 180 minutes requires talent, and DiCaprio has that. 

Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor has a charisma and leading man attitude that one cannot learn; it comes so natural to him, and it shows in every one of his performances.  I am impressed with how he was able to uphold all of the chaos and hectic activities he and his supporting man, Jonah Hill, went through in the film and did so with confidence and the utmost devotion to his character. 

What makes me believe that DiCaprio will not win is that it is a comedic role.  At no point in the film do we have some sort of underlying emotions, moral compass, or change in Jordan’s character.  I believe, because McConaughey’s performance was so raw and dynamic, he will win over DiCaprio’s inauthentic and vulgar role.  But just keep on doing what you’re doing, Leo, and I know, your day will come soon.     

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Who will win: Jared Leto

Who should win: Jared Leto

And the Academy Award for best actor category this year goes to Best Supporting Actor!  Wow.  Just wow.  Every single actor in this category was phenomenal in his performance.  From Michael Fassbender (12 Years a Slave) being the most unlikeable character since Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Bastards; Bradley Cooper (American Hustle) being a ridiculously insatiable jerk; Jonah Hill (Wolf of Wall Street) being a coke-snorting, big-toothed sidekick; and to Barkhad Abdi (Captain Phillips), starting his acting debut as a Somali pirate just after working as a limousine driver in Minnesota, it is hard to deny that these group of men are the frontrunners of the acting categories.

Oh.  And then there’s Jared Leto.  Out of all of the actor nominations this year, Jared Leto, by far, is my favorite.  What makes Dallas Buyers Club a must-see rests on the shoulders of this beautiful man who somehow manages to pose as a much prettier woman than many.

Leto plays Rayon, a transsexual suffering from AIDS, who teams with Ron Woodruff (Matthew McConaughey), another AIDS sufferer, to sell unapproved anti-viral treatments to other AIDS patients. 

I have spoken of McConaughey’s performance but, briefly, he and Leto as a team were heartwrenching, captivating, and passionate.  Together, they brought out the best they could be as an acting duo, and their onscreen symmetry was what made the movie greater than good.  Without them, I would not have been as excited about this film. 

What made Leto’s performance amazing was his ability to show the side of him that was girly, flashy, and laughable while, at the same time, stir up the underlying feelings of pure sadness and fear that would lie with any man that knows he is dying.  He knew when to be showy, with his makeup, outfits, and wigs, which assisted in opposing McConaughey’s character’s homophobia.  And then he knew when to be restrained, like in scenes where he falls ill or when he meets up with his dissatisfied father, a scene where the audience sees Rayon in men’s clothing for the first time.

I cannot imagine how challenging this role must have been on Leto, but the fluidity with which he transitions from flirty and carefree to petrified and despondent is one that should be celebrated.  If he does not win, I’m sure the champagne glass that I will inevitably be holding will shatter in my hand.  And if he does (and he will), I’ll be tilting that glass back with a fist in the air.        

  

CINEMATOGRAPHY:

What will win: Gravity

What should win: The Grandmaster

It is extremely unlikely that anything could beat Gravity in this category.  And, don’t get me wrong, the cinematography in that film was insane, and I think Emmanuel Lubezki certainly deserves the Oscar.  The visuals for the film were inventive and, quite honestly, were ones never seen before.  However, I wanted to give a shout-out to Phillipe Le Sourd for his cinematography in the film, The Grandmaster.

The film aesthetics of The Grandmaster were unlike any I have seen in recent years.  The slow motion shots, the lighting in each different setting, and the fluidity of the fight scenes were so beautiful, that it almost made my head spin.  I cannot even imagine how difficult it must have been to film this movie and then for Le Sourd to add any finishing effects to each scene. 

Although I know that Gravity will win, I praise The Grandmaster for taking a different approach to celebrating the cinematography of a film.  Phillipe Le Sourd put in a lot of work for this film, and without the aesthetics and cinematic techniques, this movie would not have been as beautiful and/or noteworthy.        

An Unsolved Mystery: A Movie Review of Salinger

In my sophomore year of high school, I was required to read Catcher in the Rye.  I am open-minded when it comes to books.  I am not picky with genres, I am patient with slow-moving plots, and I finish each book I start, no matter how painful the process might be.  That being said, I was not a fan of Catcher in the Rye, and the legendary narrator, Holden Caulfield.  I have not read it once since then, but I remember feeling exasperated with Holden's complaints.  Each scenario he encountered seemed negligible to me, and I could not understand how so many of my close friends could find themselves connected to this whiny protagonist.  The book was insignificant to me, but to others, it was something they saw as an obligatory read to transition from boy to man (or girl to woman).

So--when I saw the trailer for Salinger, I was, at first, indifferent.  Why should I care to learn anything about J.D. Salinger, the author of a novel that stirred nothing intellectually nor emotionally within me? However, something about the trailer stayed with me as I left the theatre: mystery.  And I am a sucker for mystery.

I knew right away that this documentary would be much different than ones I have seen recently.  The director, Shane Salerno, did have a difficult task in making Salinger.  Almost the second Catcher in the Rye was published in 1951, Salinger moved to a small town in New Hampshire, to avoid media and adoring fans.  Ever since then, he was known as a recluse, refusing to do interviews and having short (to the point of being rude) interactions with fans who wanted answers.  Salinger died in 2010, so any recent photos are hard to come by. Because of this, there is almost no footage of Salinger in the film.

Since Salerno cannot rely on visuals of Salinger, he turns to interviews, reoccurring photographs of Salinger during the war, and a dramatic reenactment of the author, typing away on his typewriter.  The interviews include old friends, writers, fans, past lovers, and some big-name actors, such as Martin Sheen and Philip Seymour Hoffman.  Friends of Salinger all agreed that he was a confident man, sure that, one day, he would be a success.  Some of the interviewees go ahead and say that he was presumptuous, referring to his determined quest to be published in The New Yorker.

The biggest flaw of this film is the suggestion that Salinger's entire persona was an act. Through interviews, biographers state that Salinger was not really a recluse.  By "being out of the spotlight, he put himself in the spotlight."  At first, I listened keenly to these statements, since I really have no clue what kind of person J.D. Salinger was.  However, my opinion changed on this subject when the documentary turned to Salinger's time in the war.

Salinger wrote the majority of Catcher in the Rye during World War II.  This fact alone tells me more information about him than any of the interviews with his so-called "authorized biographers."  Undoubtedly, Salinger acquired a lot of inspiration for his character, Holden, while fighting abroad.  Salinger fought in D-Day, encountered death camps, and watched close friends of his die: all of these things would forever damage any normal human being's mind, soul, and spirit.  Interviews with family, friends, and lovers of Salinger reflect the effect the war had on him.  Entering the war self-assured and strong, Salinger left volatile and uninviting.  His relationships with many of the interviewees dissolved in a tragic and abrupt way.  After hearing this, I find it hard to believe that his life as a recluse is an act.
 
For the film to present itself as a mystery is unerring.  Most of the interviews are judgments made by estranged lovers, friends from Salinger's earlier years, and biographers that know Salinger solely by how he was presented through the media.  The film makes Salinger an enigma that any viewer would be fascinated to learn about.  However, for the film to present itself as a solved mystery is entirely incorrect.  I did learn much about the author through the film: his time in war, controversial relationships he had directly after World War II, and his undying passion for writing.  On the other hand, I still know nothing about J.D. Salinger.

"Uncover the mystery, but don't spoil the secrets" reads one of the taglines for the film.  Unless I left the room for two seconds (which I did not), or maybe I answered a phone call halfway through (I did not), the film never, not once, reveals any deep dark secrets of J.D. Salinger that couldn't be looked up on Google.

One scene of the film provides never-before-seen footage of Salinger during the war.  The shot includes him accepting flowers from a woman on the street on V-E Day.  That's it.  This shot tells us nothing about Salinger.  We can't even see his face, so anyone trying to claim that this footage makes him more human, more available, or (God forbid), not a recluse, is just trying to take up more screen time.

Don't get me wrong: Salinger did a lot of things right for me.  I found many of the interviews intriguing, and I truly find the capacity Catcher in the Rye had in celebrity shootings (John Lennon and Ronald Reagan) chilling and riveting.  That being said, Salinger falsely presents itself as a film uncovering the truth behind Salinger and his curious life.  The two-hour film relies solely on first-person accounts, which may be biased and stated to make the interviewees themselves look better.  There are far too many contradictions on Salinger's character for a viewer to keep up with.  And lastly, absolutely no secrets are revealed to the audience.

One thing Salinger did for me: I really want to read Catcher in the Rye again.  Maybe I will pick up on more of Salinger's secrets in his own words than I did from the accounts of people who were at odds with the author.  Or...maybe I won't.  And maybe that's the point.  

  


 

 

 


 

           

    

A Film Ignited: A Movie Review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The second installment of the The Hunger Games is quite like its predecessor; except it has double the chemistry, double the spectacles, and double the raw drama.  Catching Fire is as its title suggests: the film blazes as an adaptation to the thrilling and provocative novel that millions of fans have come to love.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) smoothly transitions from "The Girl on Fire" to the "Mockingjay" in this sequel.  She stands as the root of the revolution and becomes an enemy to the tyrannical party that governs over the twelve districts of future America, or as it is referred to in the film, Panem.  Katniss is, metaphorically and literally, on fire throughout the film.  Each outfit she wears is designed to be ignited, and in comparison with the last film, these graphics alone have far surpassed the expectations of fans who may still be reeling from how hokey her outfits looked in the first film.

President Snow (Donald Sutherland), the nefarious dictator of Panem, wishes to crush the hope of, not only Katniss and her loved ones, but of all of the resistors that reside in each District.  He indelicately warns Katniss at the start of the film that she and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), her fellow District 12 victor, must keep up their fake relationship in order to stray far away from impending war.  He asks Katniss to not only convince the Districts of their love; she must also convince him.

However, as Katniss and Peeta go on their Victory Tour, it is apparent that the revolution has already begun.  President Snow wishes to destroy Katniss, but must do so in a discreet way.

This leads to the 75th Hunger Games, where Snow and the new Gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), plan to have former victors from each District enter the arena once again.  Thus, Katniss and Peeta, surrounded by experienced killers, find themselves on a tropical island full of nightmares that far exceed the horrors from the first film.

Ever since I first saw Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone, I have been an adamant fan of hers.  I firmly believe she can do no wrong.  She allows herself to entirely become her character in each film she is in, and the same goes for her performances in both films of The Hunger Games.

One can never forget that Katniss is a victor: her stature suggests hardship, her face rarely reveals any emotion, and her hand is constantly steady on her bow.  Yet, at the same time, one can never forget that she loves without restraint: she makes sacrifices for her family and friends, she still sheds tears over allies from the last Games, and she fears nothing more than losing a loved one.  Lawrence combines both victor and lover flawlessly in this film.

Lawrence's counterpart, Josh Hutcherson, vastly improves in this second installment.  His performance is very much real in Catching Fire.  He is present throughout, and he perfectly matches Lawrence's charisma and emotional depth; whereas in the last film, it was easy to forget that Peeta was even there.

Together, the chemistry between Lawrence and Hutcherson is 100% stronger in this film than it was in the first.  Their relationship is believable, and there are moments where one can discern between what is an act put on for President Snow's benefit and what is a genuine connection shared between the two characters.

Catching Fire is a nearly perfect cliffhanger before the epic, two-part conclusion, Mockingjay.  Everything about this film far exceeds those from the first film, from the graphics, to the plot, the character relationships, and most importantly, to the actors' performances.  The director, Francis Lawrence, combines the penetrating storyline with his fantastic aesthetics to create an explosive film worth seeing.       

Turning a Literary Masterpiece into a Colorful Show: A Movie Review of The Great Gatsby

I have finally forced myself to watch Baz Luhrmann's theatrical and vibrant new version of The Great Gatsby, which came out in theaters almost six months ago.  The reviews I have heard for the film come from both sides of the spectrum: some say it is an exquisite representation of the novel; some say it tarnishes Fitzgerald's masterpiece altogether.  Because of these opposing arguments, I was not really sure what to think going into the film.

Many people struggle with separating the literary elements of a book from its film representation (I do myself, especially with the Harry Potter films).  With a literary piece as famous as The Great Gatsby, that can be difficult.  Despite countless critiques, Fitzgerald's novel has acted as an inside to the Roaring 20's, a standing cultural icon, and a necessity for high school English classes around the world.

With all of that said, I really came to enjoy Luhrmann's reinterpretation of Gatsby.  He never strays far from the intimate details of the novel, and he takes direct quotes from the book in many scenes of the film.  What makes this adaptation of the book different from the 1974 film is Luhrmann's over-the-top and extravagant aesthetic, bending Fitzgerald's themes into colorful and theatrical celebrations.  There was never a moment in the film where the artistic elements got in the way of the story's central plot and various themes/motifs.  In fact, it gave an even clearer picture into the era of the Roaring 20's.  In each party scene, booze flows like water; flappers do the Charleston; and infatuation and love become much more synonymous than the two would in any other circumstance.

Fitzgerald created a broad distinction between classes in his novel.  There was a clear separation between the new money on the Eastern side and the old money on the Western side.  The film recognized this difference between old money and new money through dialogue.  Gatsby declares, out loud, that he had to make money to win Daisy back.  However, one would never see the class differences in this film if it had not been noted verbally.  Luhrmann uses his colorful designs on every character, including Myrtle Wilson (Isla Fisher), the lower-class lover of Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton).

The character of Jay Gatsby, played by Leonardo DiCaprio in this interpretation, is an iconic one.  In my humble opinion, DiCaprio was a star in his performance.  He was charismatic, handsome, and had the perfect balance between confidence and diffidence all at once.  All of these attributes were shown in my favorite scene of the film: the reunion of Gatsby and Daisy.

Daisy (Carey Mulligan) stands by herself in Nick's living room, playfully touching the arranged flowers Gatsby has acquired for her.  After momentarily freaking out and running out of the house and into the rain, Gatsby returns, soaked from head to foot.  His face is one of controlled panic, yet, he smoothes down his hair, straightens his suit jacket, and steps into the room to meet Daisy for the first time in five years.

The scene is silent, with the exception of a light, instrumental version of Lana Del Rey's "Young and Beautiful" playing in the background.  Gatsby steps onscreen, and we cut to Daisy, who turns sharply at his entrance.  The two stare at each other, and we crosscut between them both, reading their expressions as the camera gets closer and closer with each shot.  Daisy looks as if she has seen a ghost, and she meekly moves towards Gatsby, her eyes wide and mouth slightly open.  Gatsby merely stands there, taking deep breaths and looking down at the floor every so often.  He is holding onto his cane for dear life, but even in this moment, he looks like the very image of a strong war veteran.  Finally, after seconds of silence, he manages a nod and a tight smile.  With this, Daisy seems to remember herself and manages to get out, "I'm certainly glad to see you again," with the perfect amount of familiarity and restraint that exists between these two characters.  Gatsby opens his mouth and breathily responds with, "I'm certainly glad to see you as well."  This scene alone tells the viewers a lot about Daisy and Gatsby's relationship, without very much dialogue.  The mood, established by the director's use of music and aesthetic elements, along with the actors' performances, creates the perfect reunion between two long-lost lovers.

Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) took on the romantic narrator that resonates as strongly through the film as he did in the novel.  Through Nick's lens, we see Gatsby as the perfect millionaire, war hero, lover, etc.  We see Daisy as the "golden girl", the spunky cousin of Nick's that could make any man fall in love with her.  Throughout the film, Nick's lens become more and more blurred, and viewers see that these images of Gatsby and Daisy are idealized, and both are far from perfect.

Underneath the 3-D images, hip-hop music, and theatrical shows, Baz Luhrmann lays down a layer of artistic sentimentality that is not afraid to plunge into melodrama.  In crucial moments of the plot, Luhrmann dims down the theatrics and allows the emotional center of the film to stand alone.  These are the scenes of the movie that feel the most authentic and that will be remembered by the majority of viewers.    

  

 

 
       

A Story of Friendship and Hope: Movie Review of The Intouchables

The Intouchables, a French drama comedy is one of the only films that can make a person cry throughout and still leave the theatre with a smile on their face.

There have been many different reviews on this film, many of them criticizing the French on how they portray race.  Before I continue my review, I have to say that I recognize that cultures other than our own have different viewpoints.  There was never a moment in the film where I felt uncomfortable with the jokes, and going by the laughter in my theatre, I do not think I was the only one.  I allowed myself to enter the French point of view, and I found myself smiling the whole time.  If anyone were to take offense to this movie, I have not heard a complaint yet from other nonprofessional viewers.

The television comedian, Omar Sy plays Driss, an ex-con who is looking to apply to every job he can in order to claim his unemployment benefit from the government.  Thus, he applies to be Phillipe's caretaker, a rich quadriplegic who was injured in a paragliding accident.  The incredible Francois Cluzet plays Phillipe, and right away, we are on his side.  He has no self-pity or anger on account of his accident, and his positive attitude gets tested right as Driss steps into his home.

However, Phillipe, who is used to interviewing straight-edged, degree-laden medical students, is intrigued by Driss' sardonic and cocky demeanor, and hires him to be his full-time caretaker.

Driss is asked to move into Phillipe's mansion, and by the way he plays with and gawks at all the elaborate decorations, we know that Driss is not used to this kind of scene.  Omar Sy is a charming actor, and even though Driss is a thief and a self-seeker, we come to root for his character as well.

Phillipe, before Driss' arrival, is cold with his staff and ashamed of his disability.  He is still grieving over the death of his wife and feels constrained over his dependency on other people.  However, when Driss enters the picture, Phillipe begins to take pleasure in the smaller things.  He enjoys Driss' selfishness and ungratefulness because it allows no time for pity.              

Quickly, yet believably, Driss and Phillipe become great friends.  Their relationship is tested by other people and small conflicts, and at times, the audience may feel a comment from Driss has gone too far, but Phillipe smiles and lets out his endearing chuckle, and all is well.  Although there are some heartwrenching moments, the film has an upbeat feel to it.  It never crosses into the "depressing" mode because Phillipe, who has lived through horror, manages to appreciate the little things in life.

Every individual story within the film has a beginning, a middle, and an end.  Some films have side stories that are never really tied up by the end.  The Intouchables, however, manages to give a happy ending to all supporting actors which adds to the enduring bubbly feeling the film gives its audiences.  Every character is initially suspicious of Driss, but by the end, everyone is won over by his charisma and carefree attitude.  Driss provides adventures and hope for Phillipe, and Phillipe provides a home and friendship to Driss.  The two end up saving each other, without either of them realizing it.

Overall, The Intouchables was one of the best movies I have seen in a while.  And when I say this, I do not mean just as a foreign film.  The entire mood of the film is contagious, and there is a unique allure to the characters that I have not seen for some time.  There are parts that take your breath away, either by the beautiful French scenery or the realness of Phillipe and Driss' conversations.  There are moments where your eyes water, either with emotion or with laughter.  And even with the negative talk on racism that has been mentioned in many critiques of this film, The Intouchables and every actor from the film overcomes these offenses with an appealing and easygoing tone.         

  

Closed-Off Intimacy: Movie Review of Shame

I recently watched Steve McQueen's 2011 film, Shame, expecting a gritty, over-sensual, too-real story, and I got just that.  However, it was strikingly intense and gripping, and the performances of the two main actors were incredibly impressive.

The mystery behind Brandon (played by Michael Fassbender) is what made this movie and its theme so intriguing.  We never truly learn anything substantial about him.  All we come to know is that he has a high-paying job, he was born in Ireland but grew up in New Jersey, and he has a little sister named, Sissy.

Right off the bat, we as the viewers are sucked into the intimacy of the film.  Brandon, a handsome successful employee of a job that we precisely never learn about, lies naked in his bed.  His face is expressionless, and he lives in a metallic block of an apartment, looking out over New York City.  From here, and what I find to be the most impressive scene of the movie, the film continues with Brandon on the subway, on what we can assume to be his daily commute. He catches the eye of an attractive red-headed woman.  As the sequence continues where the two appear to be having "eye sex", we are provided with flashbacks to the night before where Brandon fools around with a call girl.  The scene finishes in present time with Brandon following the red-head off the train, and he loses her in the crowd.  Dejected, he walks away and gets back onto the train.  We are instantly pulled into the daily rituals of a sex addict.

Carey Mulligan's performance as Sissy was spectacular.  She is actually vulnerable to what people do and say to her; the complete opposite of Brandon.  She is spirited and slightly immature, crying over the phone to her ex-boyfriend the first night she stays with Brandon.  She enters Brandon's life, leading to conflicts among them and with Brandon's addiction.  However, the two have some sort of a bond, shown through their mutual comfort at being naked in front of the other.  This bond is shown in a much more heart-warming scene where Sissy performs at a night club Brandon and his boss are drinking at.  She sings "New York, New York," and the camera gives us two shots throughout the scene: one a close-up on Sissy, looking out shyly at the audience as she sings; the other on Brandon, trying his very best not to cry.  This is the first time we see some sort of emotion out of Brandon, and we become aware just how important Sissy is to him.

Brandon's life takes a downhill plunge with Sissy's appearance.  His love for her goes unsaid, and the tension between the two causes him and his sexual urges to reach a new peak.  As she sleeps with his married boss, Brandon chooses to go on a midnight run through downtown New York, a beautiful single long take of the city that never sleeps.  He chooses to run on a stomach full of cocktails rather than listen to the quiet moans of his little sister; not because hearing it disgusts him but because he is jealous of the sex going on around him that he cannot be a part of.

One other significant relationship Brandon has in the film is with his co-worker, Marianne.  We experience their very first date, which seems to go generally well.  Again, we are closed-off from Brandon, which may add to his attractiveness from Marianne's perspective.  He has no wine preference, no food preference, and says very little about himself.  He does not even give an explanation for being late to the date.  However, we learn to like Marianne, who has a nice sense of humor, who is independent, and who is endearingly nervous.  Nevertheless, the relationship ends as the title of the film would suggest in a surprising scene.  And from there, Brandon's night takes a turn for the worst.

The end of the movie gives us a sequence of disturbing events.  Some of them include Brandon fighting with Sissy; purposefully hitting on a jealous boyfriend's girl, leading to a punch in the face; sexual relations at a gay club; and then a long scene of a three-way between Brandon and two random call girls.  Even after a major accident (I don't want to give anything away) near the end of the film, Brandon sees no change.  The movie goes full circle when the end scene has Brandon on the train, and he spots the red-headed girl from the first scene.  And again, the two undress each other with their eyes.  The rituals begin again.  Brandon is continuing his cycle of shame.

Fassbender was great as Brandon and really played the part of a sex addict courageously and realistically.  Mulligan, as the supporting actress, did her part well and gave us a sense of dependence throughout that Brandon could never learn to comprehend, even while striving to protect his little sister from the world that she feared so much.  The two were fantastic together, and after this movie, it is clear to me how versatile these two actors are.

Shame is a thought-provoking film and touches on subjects that others may be hesitant on touching on.  The images onscreen are ones that cannot go unseen, so while some may be turned off by that fact, others may be intrigued.  I wholly recommend seeing the film because the entire set-up, editing, and order of events bring us into the daily life of this closed-off man, which allows us to be the most intimate people in his schedule.  It is a very compelling film, and even if people are uninterested in the theme, it is worth it just to see Fassbender's and Mulligan's performances.     

      

Combining Sexy and Disturbing in All the Right Ways: Movie Review of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (American Version)

David Fincher has done it again!

No matter what anyone says, it is clear that Fincher is a talented and fantastic director.  With this new edition of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, he has not only brought justice to the original book, he has also provided a fresh and sleek version off of the Swedish film.  The movie is sexy, daring, disturbing, grungy, and yet, the toughness of it is at just the right caliber.

Daniel Craig, in an impressive performance, plays Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative journalist of Stockholm who is asked to solve a years-old mystery.  The man who calls him in is Henrik Vanger, who is still struggling to uncover what happened to his missing niece.  Blomkvist accepts the case hoping to bring a positive image to his name, only to uncover trails leading to horrific serial killings on a mysterious island full of anti-Semites.  Once the story takes off, Lisbeth Salander (played by Rooney Mara), becomes Blomkvist's assistant, and that is what truly triggers the movie to get to the brilliant state that it achieves.    

Everything about the movie, from the beginning credits with haunting versions of the two main characters in black liquid selves, to the ear-crunching score, and to the last ending scene, was terrific.  After seeing most of the Best Picture nominees for this year, I am honestly shocked The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was not included in the race.  Fincher does have his style, which may rub some people the wrong way, but his directing skills in this were precise and necessarily so.  It takes some time to set up the central story, in both this and the Swedish version, but once we get there, Fincher recreates a compelling version of this bestselling story.

That being said, the best part of this film was the title woman, Rooney Mara.  The film she made her debut in was Fincher's The Social Network, as Mark Zuckerberg's bitter ex-girlfriend.  In that, and in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, she shines.  And I'm not just talking about her gelled hair.  She provides a reason as to why the novel and the films are named after Lisbeth.  She is a black widow, absolutely dangerous and sexy in the strangest way.  The difference between Rooney Mara and Noomi Rapace, who plays Lisbeth in the Swedish films, is subtle, but one could sense it if they thought it through hard enough.  Mara seemed to take the character from a more confident perspective, abrasive and explicit, whereas Rapace was more reclusive and mysterious.  Rooney Mara was physically tough, from the top of her spiky black mohawk all the way down to her chained-up combat boots.  Rapace seemed to hide behind her hair more, like an emo kid in middle school.

Emotionally, Rooney Mara as Lisbeth was demanding, forcing the viewers to feel her pent-up rage from being raped and beaten by men.  This is what made her connection to Blomkvist make sense, as they both fought to destroy a misogynistic killer.  There was something bittersweet about their relationship.  It couldn't be called a normal relationship in any way, and Lisbeth's feelings for Mikael couldn't be called love.  However, Lisbeth's hate-filled self seems to melt slightly when she gives us the most revealing information about herself after making breakfast for Mikael: "I like working with you."  And Mikael says it right back, without even thinking about it.  And that's when we realize it as well: we love them working together, and we want to see more of it.

In all honestly, Mara is the driving force of the film, but even without her, the story was thrilling and exciting to watch unfold.  Audiences may find the revealing of the killer very normal, and in truth, it was.  However, that was not a hindrance.  The missing niece becomes just a scene of a three-act play, and it was a play that was simple to stay with the entire time.  For seeing the Swedish version and knowing the twist, I still found myself clenching my teeth near the end, waiting for Lisbeth to work her magic in ways the audience came to believe she was capable of.  The only part of the movie that was slightly distracting was the Nazism aspect, and Fincher seemed to struggle with presenting this grim standpoint in a more fluid way.  He had no problem with putting more difficult themes in, such as rape and murder, so that was a notable accomplishment.

With Mara's Oscar-worthy performance and the icy, European setting that combined extraordinarily well with the disturbing storyline, Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, was on fire, ignited with a fantastic cast and a genuinely horrifying mystery.