Discussion time, 3.5 readers.
Are the Oscars racist?
And….go! Talk amongst yourselves, I’m a little verclempt.
Discussion time, 3.5 readers.
Are the Oscars racist?
And….go! Talk amongst yourselves, I’m a little verclempt.
BEST ACTOR
NOMINEES:
Bryan Cranston – Trumbo
Leonardo DiCaprio – The Revenant
Matt Damon – The Martian
Michael Fassbender – Steve Jobs
Eddie Redmayne – The Danish Girl
WHO WILL WIN: Leonardo DiCaprio for The Revenant
WHO SHOULD WIN: Leonard DiCaprio. He’s young and still has plenty of time to win an Oscar ahead of him, but he also started his career young and has been working on Oscar worthy pictures for what seems like forever now.
Bryan Cranston is great and his Breaking Bad shot to super stardom late in life is a great Little Engine That Could story. We all feel time’s hand on our shoulders, reminding us that we’re not here forever and if there’s something we want to do, we’d better do it. Thus, we love Cranston because he reminds us its still always possible. BUT – no one saw Trumbo.
Matt Damon was great but he’s already got an Oscar. Even if its for screenwriting and he’d like one for acting, precedence should go to the guy who doesn’t have one yet, i.e. Leo.
Michael Fassbender – He’s great. I didn’t see Steve Jobs but…how many Steve Jobs movies have there been now? He’ll have his chance.
Eddie Redmayne – I didn’t see the Danish Girl but…he won last year.
BEST ACTRESS
I’m going to skip this one because I didn’t see any of the movies they were nominated for. I’ll just go with fan favorite Jennifer Lawrence for Joy until I get around to seeing the others’ movies.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale – The Big Short
Mark Rylance – The Bridge of Spies
Tom Hardy – The Revenant
Sylvester Stallone – Creed
Mark Ruffalo – Spotlight
WHO WILL WIN AND WHO SHOULD WIN – Sylvester Stallone for Creed. He’s 70 years old. His Rocky movies have been fan favorites since the 1970’s, entertaining one generation after the next. They’re all pretty much have the same message – life’s attempts to knock you down are unavoidable. It’s not about whether or not you’ll get knocked down because you will. It’s about whether you get up and keep going or lie down for the count that matters.
The original Rocky won best picture and Stallone’s been big in the movie business for years, though mostly as an action hero and we all know what the Academy thinks about action. Its now or never and the Academy will reward him here.
Plus, I’ve seen Creed and given Rocky’s still the same old Rocky as always, its still not a bad movie.
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Totally not intentional, but I don’t know much about the movies and/or performances by the supporting actresses either.
I’m going to root for Jennifer Jason Leigh for Hateful Eight as we haven’t seen her in anything for awhile, but she was great back in the day. I want to see Hateful Eight but haven’t gotten around to it. She looks great in the previews though.
BEST ANIMATED FILM
I’ll go with Inside Out because I didn’t see the others and it was good. Did anyone see Peanuts? Was it any good? I’m surprised that one didn’t get a nomination.
BEST DIRECTOR
I’m going to go with George Miller for Mad Max: Fury Road. His original Mad Max films are sci-fi classics and he pretty much invented the post-apocalyptic genre. All these movies and TV shows about people wandering around in drab, post-society wastelands are thanks to him. (Or, maybe thanks for giving us depression about the future, as the case may be.)
Plus, it couldn’t have been easy directing all those people in leather speedos jumping around willy nilly.
Which brings me to…
BEST PICTURE
NOMINEES
The Big Short – Haven’t seen it.
Bridge of Spies – Saw it.
Brooklyn – Haven’t seen it.
Mad Max: Fury Road – Saw it.
The Martian – Saw it.
The Revenant – Saw it.
Room – Haven’t seen it.
Spotlight – Haven’t seen it.
WHICH MOVIE WILL WIN – The smart money seems to be on Spotlight, a film about the Boston Globe investigative journalism team that uncovered child abuse allegations in the Boston area Catholic Church, which had major ramifications worldwide. Critics seem to like it and it casts light on how journalists are the last resort to protect the public when government and social institutions fail.
If the Revenant won, I would not be surprised. I liked it and it did have the feel of an Oscar winner.
WHICH MOVIE SHOULD WIN – Mad Max, Mad Max, and Mad Max. I went into it thinking, “Oh boy, Hollywood’s cashing in on a remake of an old movie yet again.” But it was so much more than that. Messages about the future, how people interact with one another, mans’ primal instincts, women standing up for themselves (it’s called Mad Max but he’s pretty much Furiosa’s sidekick in this movie).
Great writing in that the story is told in many parts where no words are even spoken. Amazing action, stunningly awesome special effects – a really great visually pleasing movie that overcomes a drab desert landscape.
But it won’t win. It won’t win because the Oscars have always been to boost movies that Hollywood makes to get a message across or discuss a difficult subject. Spotlight might be great but more people lined up on Saturday nights in December to watch lightsabers get swung around in Star Wars. Not as many people lined up to watch actors pretend to be journalists in the middle of discussions as to how expose priests for wrongdoing. (Not that that wasn’t important, but if we’re talking about what entertains people on a Saturday night…)
In other words, big blockbuster movies already got their reward in the form of a payday. Lesser known but important message movies need the nominations and awards to get publicity so more people will see them and the studios make their money back so they can keep making less popular important message films.
That, and its action. And sci-fi. Action movies and sci-fi movies don’t get Oscars. At least not for best picture. They’ll never let something so comic book-ish win. They’ll worry it will open the floodgates for every damn Avengers movie to sweep the Oscars in the future. They can’t have that.
I could see some of these other movies and change my mind but IMO, of the ones I saw, Mad Max was the best, and not just on action but in story as well.
The Martian was also great. If that won, I wouldn’t mind but hey, it was nominated.
Let that be an inspiration for you, 3.5 self publishing readers.
The Old West. Beautiful landscapes. Bitter cold. Dangerous animals…
…and men wearing various hollowed out animal carcasses as hats and coats.
BQB here with a view of the Oscar frontrunner, The Revenant.
Be forewarned there are SPOILERS ahead, so don’t come after me for revenge if you read on and the movie’s ruined for you.
You know, 3.5 readers, I’m not sure the average person grasps the concept of time.
To think, two hundred years ago, men were trudging through the frozen wilderness, fighting for their lives just to skin some beasts and sell their fur for a few measly bucks.
You’ve got it pretty good today in comparison now, don’t you? Yeah. Think about that the next time you start yelling at Siri for giving one of her bullshit answers to your clearly pronounced question.
Our story begins with a band of fur traders. Domhnall Gleeson plays their boss, Captain Andrew Henry. Leonardo DiCaprio is the company’s scout, Hugh Glass and Tom Hardy? He’s Fitzgerald, the villainous douche of the film.
Tom may be stuck playing villainous douches forever because he plays them so well, just as he did with Batman’s Baine. Oh wait, then again, he did play Mad Max, so I stand corrected.
I won’t spoil the details so….yadda yadda yadda…long story short, Glass has the ever loving shit mauled out of him by a bear, Fitzgerald, villainous douche that he is, leaves Glass behind and Glass hauls his horribly wounded body across the wilderness to seek his revenge.
There’s a bit more to it than that, but I don’t want to spoil it, even though I warned you about spoilers.
Great use of a CGI bear. I’ve had mixed feelings about CGI for awhile now. It can provide amazing effects, or it can make a movie look cartoonish and silly, depending on how it was use.
Here, it was used in such a way that I really believed that a damn Grizzly bear was beating the shit out of a Hollywood leading man.
Great performances all around. Hardy, as Fitzgerald, is a douche, but you’re also left with an understanding of how horrible the frontier was. Would you have done the things that Fitzgerald did to survive or is there a limit to the depravity you’d take part in just to save your skin? Fitzgerald didn’t have a limit and none of us will ever really know unless we’re put in a life or death situation. Let’s hope we’re never put in one.
Domhnall Gleeson had a banner 2015. Ex Machina. Brooklyn. Shit, he’s even friggin General Hux in Star Wars. And now The Revenant. And before all this he was what? Ronald Weasley’s brother in those Harry Potter movies???
Holy Crap, someone get me that guy’s agent.
Finally, let me just say as an avid movie buff, it’s been a pleasure to see Leonardo DiCaprio grow up on screen over the years. He was the extra add on cute kid in the Growing Pains when all the other Seaver children started getting older. Then he was Jack in Titanic. Then his career could of gone anywhere but he put on some muscle, started getting movies like Blood Diamond and so on.
I think the best role he ever had was as Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street. That scene where he takes too many drugs and his body ends up like a pile of useless jello but he tries to move around at the same time…hilarious and horribly tragic at the same time.
He deserved an Oscar for that but that wasn’t his year. Hopefully, this one will be.
I mean, not that his life is lacking or anything. He probably sticks his head out the front door every morning and gets mauled by a hundred hot chicks but still. He’s overdue for an award.
A thumbs up from BQB and consider seeing it on the big screen, just so you can get a full view of the mountains and scenery and nature and shit.
The movie itself is also worthy of winning Best Picture. It’ll be great to see a deserving film take home the prize after that pile of crap Birdman walked away with it.
STATUS: Shelf worthy.
Steve Carrell. Channing Tatum. Mark Ruffalo.
And so many scantily clad dudes rolling around on the floor that I swear I caught Aunt Gertie staring at the screen just a little too longingly.
Bookshelf Q. Battler here after FINALLY having had the chance to catch last year’s Foxcatcher.
I’m loathe to use the word “SPOILERS” for a film about a horrific crime that’s nearly 20 years old but honestly, while I’d generally heard about the case, I didn’t know the specifics until I began reading about the film. If you’d like to find out on your own as you watch, you might want to rent it first and then read this review later.
Movieclips Trailers – Foxcatcher – Sony Pictures
Wealth. For some it’s a blessing. For others it’s a curse.
Throughout history, there have been people who have been born into great circumstances, their lives preordained before they even opened their eyes and took a look at the world for the first time.
Some individuals take the vast resources at their disposal and do their families proud, achieving new levels of greatness.
Others party hearty and are destined to become paparazzi fodder.
In the middle, there are folks who enjoy their riches, coast along and somehow manage to make jackasses of themselves.
Then there’s John du Pont. Heir to a massive chemical company fortune, he’s an odd duck to say the least. He’s socially awkward, almost painfully so. It’s like he knows what he wants to say but has a hard time expressing himself, assumably because he’s lived such a sheltered life.
The majority of the film takes place in the late 1980’s, when du Pont is in his late fifties. He lives on a sprawling estate which he dubs Foxcatcher Farm, fox hunting having been a popular activity for well-to-do visitors to the grounds.
The movie makes it clear – du Pont believes himself to be a great man and he wants the rest of the world to agree. He doesn’t really want to do anything to achieve that goal. He just wants to spend large sums of money and purchase the acclaim he believes he deserves.
At the heart of his need for glory? A rivalry with his mother Jean (played by one of the few remaining Old Hollywood stars Vanessa Redgrave) leaves him with a burning desire to prove his worth to her.
One gets the impression that the rivalry is one sided. Jean trains show horses on the estate and proudly displays her trophies in the family mansion. du Pont envies the horses and wants his mother’s attention. Despite being almost 60 years old, he’s like a little kid yearning for Mommy’s approval.
Meanwhile, brothers David (Mark Ruffalo) and Mark (Channing Tatum) Schultz have each won an Olympic gold medal for wrestling. Keep in mind we’re talking about real wrestling, the kind that involves knowledge of various moves and techniques, and not the scripted garbage on Monday night.
From the film, it’s clear the brothers have a deep love and admiration of one another, but while David has found happiness with a loving wife and family, Mark is alone, living on ramen noodles in a tiny house and at the start of the film, earning a twenty dollar gratuity for speaking at an elementary school (it’s made obvious that Mark needs that twenty bucks).
Mark feels that even though he’s earned his notoriety, anything he does is overshadowed by his brother. If he has success, the public attributes it to David’s mentorship of Mark and not Mark himself. Mark wants to accomplish something on his own, and to make matters worse, he needs money.
Enter du Pont with a miraculous offer for the Schultz brothers. du Pont wants them to come to his estate, select a wrestling team, train themselves to compete in the upcoming 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul and train their team mates while they’re at it. He’ll pay them and give them houses on his property to live in for free.
David, not wanting to uproot his family, isn’t interested. Mark, seeing a chance to break out of his brother’s shadow, takes the deal.
And for awhile he excels at Foxcatcher.
But alas, it is an understatement to say that du Pont is weird.
He insists that people refer to him as “America’s Golden Eagle.” He orchestrates a large awards ceremony for himself, and in a sad commentary about society, it’s well-attended by the rich and the powerful. He wants to be a wrestler too and organizes a senior citizen wrestling competition, only to pay off his geriatric competitor to take a dive.
That’s not all. du Pont purchases a tank with the ease that one might order a book from Amazon. When it arrives, he throws a fit that it doesn’t include a 50-caliber machine gun as promised and refuses to sign for the shipment.
He snorts cocaine with reckless abandon, takes his helicopter everywhere, and its not-so-subtly implied that his generosity towards the sport of wrestling might have been a front to allow him to roll around with young sweaty men.
Throughout his Pennsylvania community, du Pont is known as a gracious benefactor, a man who doles out the cash just so he can be a part of everything. The local police department practice on his shooting range and he shoots guns alongside them.
Poor and crazy? You’re crazy. Rich and crazy? You’re eccentric. Not to fault the movie, but if you perform a web search on du Pont, you’ll come up with an endless supply of allegations, many of which weren’t portrayed in the film. That’s not a knock on the film at all. It’s just that the man was so nuts that there just wasn’t enough time to capture it all on screen:
Some of the allegations I was able to find on the web that weren’t featured in the film:
Again, there wasn’t just enough time in the movie, but the film more than manages to portray the fact that the man just was not right in the head.
Steve Carrell is no stranger to playing characters who aren’t exactly grounded in reality. After all, he played the dimwitted bumbling boss Michael Scott on The Office for years. But while Scott’s antics were relatively harmless, du Pont’s instability is (and as we see later) a disaster waiting to happen.
Barely recognizable under gray hair and a large prosthetic nose, Carrell earns his Oscar nomination as he plays du Pont, capturing his overall style of a hopelessly depressed ego-maniac slash elderly man child.
If I keep going, I’ll give too much of the film away. It climaxes when du Pont, spurred on by his ongoing desire to achieve greatness (by letting others earn it for him) makes David an offer he can’t refuse to come be part of the Foxcatcher wrestling program. Mark, who’s been sucked into du Pont’s unhealthy drugging lifestyle, feels betrayed by du Pont (at one point du Pont tells Mark he understands and supports his desire to win on his own), that he’s lost his chance to win without his brother’s help, not to mention he’s under intense pressure from du Pont to succeed.
Later, Ruffalo as David makes a face as if he’s losing his soul when a documentary film maker du Pont has hired to produce a glowing film about himself asks David to say du Pont is his mentor. David is perhaps the most genuinely lovable character of the whole film, caring for his family, concerned for his brother’s well-being and at a crucial moment in the film, stands up to du Pont on Mark’s behalf.
SPOILER ALERT (Again, I hate using that term here but I have no idea what else to say.)
After losing in the 1988 Olympic games, Mark leaves the Foxcatcher program and the film ends with du Pont driving his car to David’s house.
Here’s the scary part. I’ve known for years that du Pont shot David Schultz just because it was a well-known, highly reported on crime. And I’ve been reading more about it since the movie came out.
Yet, even though I knew it was coming, I just wasn’t prepared for it and was startled anyway. While David is standing in his driveway, du Pont pulls up, asks, “Do you have a problem with me?” then shoots David.
An employee riding with du Pont who had no idea what his boss was up to tries to stop him. David’s wife comes out of the house and du Pont points his gun at her, sending her back in the house.
David struggles to crawl to safety but du Pont shoots him twice more in the back then drives back to his house to hole up.
The expressionless face, the clear lack of interest in the gravity of what he’s done…Carrell as du Pont arguably portrays a villain in that short moment that rivals Hannibal Lecter.
But while Lecter made it clear he wants to eat you, du Pont is one of those people who seems off, but no one realized just how off he was or what he was capable of until it was too late.
Accounts I’ve read online typically describe the situation in that du Pont was known throughout his community as being an oddball but his antics seemed harmless and people were happy to take advantage of the generous donations he offered, thus placating his bad behavior while failing to realize he was a ticking time bomb all along.
One can’t help but feel sorry for the Schultz brothers throughout the film. Olympic wrestlers are in a tough position. They’re paid no money to train and yet have to a) train all day in order to compete and b) still somehow find a source of income to pay their bills.
A benefactor swoops in and offers to pay them a salary and gives them houses on his estate to live in while they practice the sport they love?
Hell, be honest. You’d ignore the tank too.
If you’re interested in reading more about the case, here are two articles I found helpful:
CNN – “Foxcatcher – The Crazy du Pont Next Door” – Reporter Ann O’Neil discusses what her childhood was like living near the Foxcatcher Estate
A Millionaire Madman Murdered My Olympic Champion Brother – Jane Ridley, New York Post. Mark Schultz provides his account of the tragic loss of his brother.
Boyhood. There’s 12 years of SPOILERS ahead.
How to describe? I’m not even sure where to begin.
At the outset, when you go into it, you need to set aside traditional movie questions you’d normally ask to gauge a film’s overall effectiveness. “Was I entertained? Was I in suspense? Was I left hanging on the edge of my seat?” It’s more of an educational experience than a traditional plot based film so the typical questions don’t apply.
Growing up is painful, difficult, and has its series of ups and downs that few of us, if any, are spared from. The film begins in the early 2000’s and follows a family for 12 years. This unique idea leaves the viewer to watch the child actors grow up on screen before our very eyes. They start out as little kids and end up fully grown adult college students. And film crews shoot all of the bittersweet moments along the way.
Cultural references are crowbarred in all over the place. Music, movies, politics all serve as cues to let the viewer know how much time has passed. From the cheap clunky apple little Mason uses in the school library to the sleek apple he uses in high school, from little Sam singing Britney Spears in the beginning to Obama’s campaign, there’s a definite effort to make sure you, the viewer, are aware that time is moving on.
Director Richard Linklater took on an insurmountable task with this project. It’s hard enough to keep a normal production on track, let alone one that requires the same cast to return every once in awhile over the course of twelve years. Thus, it surprised me that he didn’t walk away with the Oscar for best director, even just for the courage to throw himself into the world of an unusual, time consuming project that from the start was destined to not become a big box office draw.
The film begins in the early 2000’s. Mason Jr. (Ellar Coltrane) and his sister, Samantha (Lorelei Linklater, thus the director could guarantee from the start that at least one cast member was going to return over the course of twelve years) are little kids living with single mom, Olivia, played by Patricia Arquette. Their biological father, Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke) is the stereotypical screw-up, driving around in a sports car, having just returned after abandoning the family, and is now making an effort to be a part of the kids’ lives.
Throughout the film, Olivia tries to improve herself. She goes back to school. She marries a professor who seems great on the surface, but as it turns out, is an abusive alcoholic. When his rage fits go out of control, Olivia packs up Mason and Sam and leaves, and the kids are sad as they’d grown attached to their step-siblings, the professor’s kids.
Time moves on. Olivia becomes a professor herself. The kids aren’t the only ones who grow up before our eyes. The adults do as well. Olivia marries a student, a man who at first, appears to be a very charming war veteran, but, and perhaps in a bit too much of a cliched manner, becomes one more angry drunk that Olivia has to dump. Honestly, how many jerks must this woman suffer through?
Sometimes we look at kids, we see them with their video games and cartoons and we think they must be happy, but as the film shows, they suffer from a lot of sadness and angst. As a society, we should be aware of that. Kids in divorced families especially have it tough. Over the course of twelve years, Mason and Sam live with their mom, see their father every other weekend, suffer through two abusive drunk stepdads and overall just live confused lives where it looks like stability is never going to be an option for them.
We see Mason, a little boy, going from the typical, silly kid who crushes his homework in his backpack and forgets to give it to his teacher, to become a young man with a dream of becoming a photographer. We watch all of his milestones, from dressing up as a boy wizard to attend a Harry Potter premiere all the way to his graduation.
We are even spectators as Mason goes through his first breakup, something that happens to all of us. If it’s never happened to you, you’re one lucky individual. We’re even left with some hope as Mason meets a new girl with similar interests, the point being that Mason has learned not to seek out just any old girl but to find one who likes him for who he is.
I do have a complaint. Throughout the film, I feel like we’re asked to cheer on Olivia as she stands up for herself time and time again against a series of lousy men. At the start of the film, Hawke’s character, Mason Sr., is painted out as the typical “I refuse to grow up” family abandoning loser. By the end of the film, he has, in a very noble manner, taken the sadness he feels about losing his family and channels it to become Mr. Super Reliable, a great husband to his second wife, and wise, all-knowing Super Dad to Mason Jr, Sam, and the newborn he has with his second wife.
That’s very admirable. People shouldn’t be punished forever for their mistakes. If, like Mason Sr., they turn their lives around, they should be rewarded. But where’s Olivia’s reward? For a brief moment, we’re hoodwinked into thinking maybe her reward is found in the soldier she marries but out of the blue he’s turned into an abusive drunk. Didn’t we already have an abusive drunk in the form of the professor? Did we need a second one?
Getting back to my complaint – at the end of the movie, Olivia is left a sad old woman in a small apartment. Mason Jr. and Sam are off at college having the time of their lives. Mason Sr. has become the Dad we all wish we had. Olivia, the most responsible person in the entire movie, is the only one left without a reward. That just seems unfair to me.
At the end, there’s an implication that she regrets not sticking with Mason Sr (Hawke). Maybe she was too hard on him when he was young. Maybe she spent too much time chasing perfection. She went for the college professor and the war veteran, two men who were adept at holding themselves out to the world as perfect, but on the inside, had their own demons.
We’re left to think “if only Olivia had been more patient with Mason Sr.” No, he wasn’t perfect, but given time, he’d of morphed from the caterpillar he was to the butterfly Olivia was looking for all along. Are we all guilty of that? Probably. We should all try to be a little more patient with our significant others because ultimately, the grass isn’t always greener. The perfect person you’re searching for isn’t out there. No one is perfect.
That may be all well and good but the Mason Sr. we’re shown at the start of the film? We can’t begrudge young Olivia for turning a cold shoulder to him. So I’m not sure why Olivia doesn’t end up with some kind of reward at the end for all her struggles.
Like this review, the movie goes on a bit too long, though it is understandable. They had a lot of footage taken over a twelve year period and wanted to use it.
Is it worth your time? Yes, but just remember, it’s more of an educational experience than an entertaining one. If that’s not something you’re looking for, you might want to pass it up.
Boo. Boo. Boo, I say. Boo.
Look, I never saw The Theory of Everything. I’m sure its great. I’m sure Eddie Redmayne did a great job.
But come on. He’s young. He has like 50 years to get one. Michael Keaton’s been around for so long and snubbed for so long. It was really his turn.
Maybe it’s wrong to think like that. The award should just go to whoever did the best job, but it’s too bad. I just think Keaton is awesome and I thought it was going to be his night.
Oh well. I suppose he had a win in that the movie sort of semi-based on his career took home best picture.
Still, I feel like this results in either Keaton never gets an Oscar, or they pull a Jack Palance/City Slickers move and give it to Keaton when he’s 70 and appears in some random role in a goofball comedy.
OK so I have failed miserably in my self-challenge to watch all 2015 Oscar nominated films. I’m sorry to drop the petals off the daffodil folks, but occasionally this humble book blogger only reaches a 99.9% rate of perfection.
Thus far, I have only seen American Sniper, Birdman, and The Imitation Game (I still owe you a review). I have Boyhood loaded into my iTunes but have yet to get around to it.
So I’m a bit handicapped having not seen everything, which begs the question:
Bookshelf Q. Battler, are you really going to opine on things you know nothing about?
Um…yeah. I do that everyday. My original title for this blog was “Opinions on Stuff I Know Nothing About.” Writing opinions on stuff I know nothing about is my God given right as an American.
Without further ado, my predictions:
BEST FILM – Birdman
All the commentary out there suggests there is a horse race going on between Boyhood and Birdman. From what I’ve heard of Boyhood, it’s basically a “meh” sort of film and without the novel idea to shoot the young boy protagonist at different stages of his life, it probably wouldn’t have made it to the Oscars.
Meanwhile, Birdman has been winning many other awards and that’s a strong sign.
I’m going to flip a coin here and say Birdman. Birdman has a lot of messages that Hollywood wants you to hear, namely a) Stop complaining we feed you so much crap when you’re the ones who are eating it b) Stop complaining we don’t make enough artsy fartsy movies when you never watch them and c) being an actor isn’t all its cracked up to be
BEST ACTOR – Michael Keaton (Birdman)
I’ve got to go with Keaton. He’s been around for so long, he’s been in many amazing movies, and well, sad to say but, time keeps a-moving on whether we want it to or not, and he may not have many more chances to appear in Oscar buzz worthy work. Carrell, Cooper, Cumberbatch, Redmayne all turned in great performances, but they still have time and haven’t been around as long. It’s Keaton’s turn.
BEST ACTRESS – Julianne Moore (Still Alice)
I really, really want Rosamund Pike to win this for Gone Girl. SPOILER ALERT – in that movie, she plays the Amy whose safety you’re very concerned about when she goes missing as well as the Amy who…well, just go watch it.
But this is the year where Hollywood settles its debts and like Keaton, Moore is also overdue. That’s not a knock on Still Alice. I’m sure it’s great. She’s certainly been in a lot of other great films and is deserving.
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE – JK Simmons (Whiplash)
The King of the Actors Long Overdue for Recognition. He’s that guy in every movie, you recognize his face as soon as you see it, but up until this nomination, you didn’t really know his name. He’s also the voice of the Yellow M and M.
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE – Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
When it comes to “long overdue” Arquette and Laura Dern (Wild) are both deserving. However, Boyhood has had more attention than Wild, so I think it’s going to go to Arquette. Emma and Keira turned in great performances, but they still have plenty of time. And Meryl? Jesus, she must be using these awards as paperweights at this point.
BEST DIRECTOR – Richard Linklater
Come on. Filming a kid at different stages of life and mixing it all into one film. Creative. Give him an award.
SNUBS
Finally, here’s my list of snubs:
Interstellar – the movie laid out a roadmap on how to get to deep space. Completely ignored! What? Who cares about outer space travel? Michael Keaton’s pretending to be a bird!
The Lego Movie – Best animated movie of the year no matter what. I assume it got turned down because it was seen by some as just a big commercial for legos but come on, most kids movies do lead to big time toy merchandising. If it was a commercial, it was a commercial with heart.
Saint Vincent – That old grumpy person you know might not actually be a jerk. He might have experienced some heinous crap that you can’t begin to comprehend. He may have earned the right to be grumpy. So cut him some slack.
The Drop/James Gandolfini – I wish James Gandolfini could have received a posthumous Best Supporting Actor nomination since, sadly, he’ll never have a chance at another one. It was a decent film and in my opinion, Gandolfini’s best performance since The Sopranos.
What are your picks? Who do you think got snubbed? Inquiring Bookshelf Battlers want to know.
Or, Hollywood is Sorry for Pushing Crap on You, But It’s Kind of Your Fault.
In 1989, Michael Keaton starred as the first Batman to not suck. That role made his career. I’d argue that it didn’t really define him though. He’s been in zany comedies and serious dramas, performing expertly in both.
Yet, as a former Batman who’s ditched the cowl to seek out more serious roles, one is left to wonder how much of Birdman is semi-autobiographical. Does Keaton identify with Riggan? Only Keaton could truly answer that.
Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, a big time actor who, twenty years ago, played a feathery comic book super hero in a series of Birdman films. They were special effects extravaganzas that made him a lot of money and were big at the box office.
Movieclips Trailers
Today, Riggan is trying to leave his past behind him and gain recognition as a serious actor. He’s broke, having sunk a fortune into a Broadway play adaptation of a work by author Raymond Carver. And true to the style of a play, the cameras follow the actors on and off stage, with very few cut scenes throughout the film.
Actors aren’t as happy as you’d think, there’s intense pressure, you can’t please everyone, and whatever you do, someone is criticizing you. You try to produce art (i.e. Raymond Carver) but alas, people just want fluff (i.e. Birdman). Even worse, once you “sell-out” and take a role like “Birdman,” the “true artist” community will shun you and refuse to consider your attempts at artistry, even if they are worthy of notoriety.
As consumers of entertainment, should we push for real, serious, dramatic art? Plays and movies where there’s all kinds of gut wrenching dialog to make you think? Or should we just have fun and watch Birdman fight bad guys?
Are purveyors of comic book movies making us all stupid? Are creators of heady dramas just too full of themselves?
These questions are asked, and never really answered, though the movie serves as a chronicle of one actor’s attempt to produce serious art only to be stymied at every turn.
Riggan’s foil, played by Ed Norton, is veteran broadway thespian Mike Shiner. Recruited for Riggan’s play, Shiner is a pretentious limelight hog and though he claims to be all about the art, he’s ultimately just as obnoxious as any movie star.
Meanwhile, Riggan has to deal with a snooty play review critic, who vows to shut Riggan’s play down before even seeing it, simply because she does not believe someone who stooped low enough to play a cartoon superhero is deserving of praise for attempting real art.
In other words, if the entertainment world is at war, then it’s a battle between the big blockbuster fluff eaters and the holier than thou tweed jacket wearers. Both think they’re the smartest people in the room. Neither is willing to meet the other half way.
Emma Stone, who plays Riggan’s daughter, Sam, earns her Oscar nomination with this speech:
TEXT OF SAM/EMMA STONE’S “RELEVANT SPEECH” FROM BIRDMAN
RIGGAN: It’s important to me! Alright? Maybe not to you, or your cynical friends whose only ambition is to go viral. But to me . . . To me . . this is — God. This is my career, this is my chance to do some work that actually means something.
SAM: Means something to who? You had a career before the third comic book movie, before people began to forget who was inside the bird costume. You’re doing a play based on a book that was written 60 years ago, for a thousand rich old white people whose only real concern is gonna be where they go to have their cake and coffee when it’s over. And let’s face it, Dad, it’s not for the sake of art. It’s because you want to feel relevant again. Well, there’s a whole world out there where people fight to be relevant every day. And you act like it doesn’t even exist! Things are happening in a place that you willfully ignore, a place that has already forgotten you. I mean, who are you? You hate bloggers. You make fun of Twitter. You don’t even have a Facebook page. You’re the one who doesn’t exist. You’re doing this because you’re scared to death, like the rest of us, that you don’t matter. And you know what? You’re right. You don’t. It’s not important. You’re not important. Get used to it.
I don’t know about you, but after I listened to Emma rant away on that one, I came close to shutting down this blog. (Obviously I didn’t, because, you know, nothing can stop me from my one a day post challenge.
Still, Sam’s right. We’re all just shouting in the wind, trying to be relevant, trying to matter. And at the end of the day, after movie goers walk out of the theater, after play watchers go out for cake, after novel readers put a book down, and after my 3.5 regular readers go on to read another blog…how relevant are we? As it turns out…not very.
Fame is fleeting and celebrities just aren’t as happy as we think.
Throughout the film, Riggan is taunted by Birdman himself – a gravelly voice that sounds more like Christian Bale’s version of Batman than Keaton’s. Birdman is the voice of commercialism, urging Riggan to abandon his efforts at serious drama and sell-out – do a reality TV show, make a Birdman comeback movie. Forget the hoity toy stuff and just rake in the dough.
And honestly, whether Birdman is right or wrong is left up to the viewer’s interpretation.
Big surprise of the film – Zach Galifianakis can actually act. He plays Riggan’s agent and rather than be that same old obliviously rude cartoon character he plays in every movie, he actually comes across as a competent, reliable professional, someone you’d actually want to represent you if you were an actor.
At one point, Shakepeare’s “Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot” speech from MacBeth is prominently featured. If you want to know more about that, you can read expert commentary from world renowned literary expert Bookshelf Q. Battler.
It’s a film that starts a dialog about what we, the entertainment consuming public, want from Hollywood. Because, as it turns out, if enough of us want it, they’ll give it to us. If we show them that high-falutin, chin-stroking, navel gazing, thought provoking dramas will make money, then Tinseltown will send them our way. Yet, if we keep buying tickets for Birdman-esque blockbusters, then we’ll get more comic book movies. It really is up to us.
And it’s also up to us to determine whether or not we should feel guilty about choosing comic book-esque movies over drama. Personally, I don’t. I’m a nerd. I love comic book movies. I love hoity toity stuff too. There’s room in the world for both. One need not cancel the other out.
And sure, the public often complains that Hollywood isn’t trying that hard, but then we pay more attention to viral videos, tweets, and gossipy nonsense than serious efforts at art. At one point in the film, Riggan’s stroll through Times Square in his underpants gets more attention through social media than his play ever does.
We all want to be relevant. We’re all clawing over each other to grab our piece of the public’s limited attention span. We’re all idiots. Can’t we all just calm down, take a deep breathe, stop crawling over each other for a few fleeting minutes of fame, and take a moment to enjoy friends, family, and the things that actually matter? At the end of the film, Riggan frets more about not spending enough time with his daughter than he does about his fizzling acting career.
Heck, had I not promised my 3.5 regular readers a year’s worth of posts, I might seriously consider packing it in myself.
Because if a guy who was paid buckets of money to dress up like a cartoon bird hero can’t be happy, then what luck do any of us have?
I predict this film will win best picture. Keaton’s had a long career and has yet to be graced with an academy award, so he’s overdue. Ironically, it’s a movie about a man trying to get past commercialism and make some serious art made by a man who’s trying to get past commercialism and make some serious art.
The Academy will no doubt love its message – “Hey, we actors aren’t as happy as you’d think, we really struggle to make you all happy!”
And finally, I’d just like to say, I think Michael Keaton is awesome. He made me laugh in movies like The Dream Team and Beetlejuice. And I remember seeing him in the first Batman and I thought, “Wow, Hollywood picked a guy that isn’t all buff and muscle-bound to play a super hero and he did an awesome job. Maybe there’s hope for us nerds.” So I hope tomorrow night is his night to walk home with a little gold man. (I mean an Oscar, not an actual little gold man).
Did you see it? What did you think? Flap your bird wings to the comment section and let me know.
I’ve been talking a lot about movies lately. You might as well start calling this blog “Movieshelf Battle.” But what can I say? I do love books. But I also have movies. And whether it is in a book or on the screen, a story is a story.
Here’s the list of this year’s 2015 Oscar Nominees:
American Sniper – Saw it. Check out my review here.
Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) – Haven’t seen it. As a former Batman, Michael Keaton plays a role he knows something about – that of an actor known for playing a superhero, and what happens to him in the film I’m not sure. But I do love superheroes and was a fan of Keaton’s 1989 Batman, so I’ll have to check it out.
Boyhood – I’ve rented it but have yet to watch it. People who have tell me that the story itself is pretty blah, but the idea of filming a child actor at different stages of his life (as opposed to having different kids play the character at different ages, which is what Hollywood usually does) is very unique and creative.
The Grand Budapest Hotel – Eh. I’ve never been a huge Wes Anderson fan. I love comedies. Sometimes I think he might try too hard. Other times I watch something like Hangover 3 and think that maybe Hollywood NEEDS to try harder when it comes to comedy. It is nice to see a comedy in the best picture list though. That rarely happens. The late 1990’s As Good As It Gets with Jack Nicholson was the last Oscar recognized comedy that I can remember.
The Imitation Game – I have seen it! I owe you a review! In fact, I’m a little disappointed in myself for reviewing The Boy Next Door before The Imitation Game.
Selma – Haven’t seen it. Been meaning to. Looks good. Lots of history. Good for the historical record for this important time in U.S. history to be recorded on film.
The Theory of Everything – I’m glad Stephen Hawking got his own biopic. He does more with a wheelchair and a keyboard than most able bodied people do all day. Yet to see it.
Whiplash – Never seen it. Has to something to do with a drummer who wants to learn to drum and receives help from a guy who is like some kind of drumming drill sergeant. I’ll try to see it.
Anyway, those are the nominees. My main complaint? I wish they’d space these out over the year, rather than come out all at the same time. But I suppose that’s the strategy – open them in a few theaters in December so they count as 2014 movie, then release them everywhere in January so people are talking about these movies come Oscar time.
I’m going to try my best to see and review them all before the Oscars. Doubt I’ll make it, but let’s see what happens. If you have reviews or comments about these movies, feel free to comment away.