The BAH!scars #7: Getting Some Direction

Time for me to finish off my predictions and ranting. Well, sort of. I have a few more crazy things in store for the BAH!scars before the big night...but before I get to those, time to do my good duty as a blogger and weigh in on the rest of the big categories.

Best Direction
“Avatar” — James Cameron
“The Hurt Locker” — Kathryn Bigelow
“Inglourious Basterds” — Quentin Tarantino
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Lee Daniels
“Up in the Air” — Jason Reitman

I'm a tad ambivalent about Lee Daniels's job as director of Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire. I found some of the techniques interesting and effective at conveying what I imagine to be the feel of Sapphire’s prose. I appreciated how the camera really changed its style to fit each scene. However, the whole time, I was being irritatingly reminded that this was all just a trope on a much better director and a much better movie: Darren Aronofsky and his masterpiece, Requiem for a Dream. Lee Daniels does well because he has chosen the right guy to copy. Furthermore, I cannot help but be vexed by the fact that Aronofsky has directed three better films than this (I have to reevaluate Pi), but has not gotten a single nomination. Daniels of course gets it by making a movie that is almost textbook Academic.

About Jason Reitman, I barely have anything to say since I found Up in the Air’s direction unimpressive. As for feel, I’ve reiterated on numerous occasions how he went the completely wrong direction (see: Devin likes screwball comedies). As for camera, with the exception of two scenes, it conveyed the idea that Reitman would be more comfortable just directing a play with an innumerable amount of sets. The two scenes are the opening credits, which were horrendously obnoxious, and first scene of George Clooney making his way to his plane, which might have been a bit too flashy, but was just good enough to work.

James Cameron clearly accomplished what he set out to do in Avatar, but I’m not sure where to draw the line between director and visual effects and I’m pretty sure it veers towards the latter.

The Hurt Locker is a director’s movie. It’s a good, but not great script, that is buoyed by a phenomenal camera and well-done performances. Bigelow perfectly captures the right feel, where you are nervous even after you would be in a typical narrative (like when the bomb is already diffused). She does shaky cam right which nowadays almost seems worthy of some laurels in and of itself.



Finally, there’s Inglourious Basterds. Like I’ve said earlier, I think this might be one of the best films of the decade. As you may have guessed, Tarantino’s direction is definitely responsible for a good chunk of that. But, like Best Picture, this is ultimately a race between Bigelow and Cameron – the gritty vs. the pretty. While Best Picture seems tougher to call, I can say that Bigelow has a more noticeable lead here. Not so much that Cameron taking it from her is unthinkable, but as I see it, either the Academy will split the vote or give director and picture to the same film (okay, that’s a bit of a tautology). If they give it to the same film, it’ll be more on quality and therefore The Hurt Locker will get both. If they split it, they’ll do so to appease more people. They’ll give Avatar the big prize to really appease the masses and give Bigelow the slightly less important Best Director to appease the film geeks.

Who will will: Kathryn Bigelow
Who should win: Quentin Tarantino, though I’m quite fine with Bigelow



Writing (Original Screenplay)
“The Hurt Locker” — Written by Mark Boal
“Inglourious Basterds” — Written by Quentin Tarantino
“The Messenger” — Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
“A Serious Man” — Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
“Up” — Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy

Aside from A Serious Man, I would not be too upset over any of these choices. The Hurt Locker in my opinion is a bit weaker in the script department than acting or direction, but not so much that I would find its winning a grave injustice. The Messenger is probably in a similar category but I would simply be amused by the oddness of such a small, not-known independent film winning over 4 Best Picture nominations. Up would be a perfectly suitable winner, though the Academy’s anti-animation prejudice is far reaching. Finally, there’s Inglourious Basterds. This movie will probably not take home too many awards in March (aside from Waltz’s), but it has a strong likelihood of winning this award. Despite bouts of extreme violence, this movie is all about dialogues between characters in the way that only Tarantino can deliver it (along with some great mini-monologues). The Academy may tend to lean towards a sweep (as is their habit) and go with Hurt Locker, but they might also try to throw Tarantino his bone. Ultimately, this is probably one of the closest races of the year, and I myself go back and forth on who will win day after day.

Who will win: The Hurt Locker or Inglourious Basterds – too close to call. If forced at gunpoint, I’d choose Basterds, if only because that’s what I want.
Who should win: Inglourious Basterds

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
“District 9” — Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
“An Education” — Screenplay by Nick Hornby
“In the Loop” — Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
“Up in the Air” — Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

The great irony here is that the surprise nomination (and the one that has not the slightest hope of winning) is clearly the best of the five screenplays. In fact, it may be one of the best of the ten. But sadly, In the Loop is too clever, too rude, and far too problematic to dream of ever taking home a little gold man. After seeing the film, I was even surprised that the Academy deemed to nominate it.

Also, little aside: I keep going back and forth on whether or not this script deserves to be in the Adapted category. While the scenario is based on a television show and one of the characters comes from that show, the story, dialogue, and majority of the characters are original. So yes, while this is not 100% from nothing…how could this be Adapted when Milk last year was under original screenplay?

An Education is the only other film I would be reasonably fine with seeing win this award. The dialogue is great, dramatic (and at times melodramatic) without losing itself (it constantly remains aware that the characters are prone to overreacting) and at other times just hilarious. Nowhere near as good as In the Loop’s, but very few screenplays this year are.

I’ve already gone into depth about my hated of District 9’s script and my warm to lukewarm about Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire. As for Up in the Air, I still do not get the love for this film’s “cleverness” or “wit” or “originality” or what-have-you. I mean, all of that love makes this the clear frontrunner and has guaranteed this film at least one prize…I just don’t see from where the love grows.

Who will win: Up in the Air.
Who should win: In the Loop.

Animated Feature Film
“Coraline”
“Fantastic Mr. Fox”
“The Princess and the Frog”
“The Secret of Kells”
“Up”

Neither The Secret of Kells or Coraline stand a chance. This is a symbolic race, between computer, stop-motion, and cell-animation. The Secret of Kells winning will mean nothing since nobody has seen it (including yours truly) and Coraline is not as emblematic (or good) an entry as Fantastic Mr. Fox when it comes to stop-motion animation. Yeah, I did not really like Coraline all that much. It was…good, but that was about it. I imagine how I felt about its style is akin to how many felt upon watching (and disliking) Juno with all its hipster affections. I love Nightmare Before Christmas, but all the Hot-Topic-Girl’s-Jerk-off Fantasy, semi-Tim-Burton-esque, mainstream-alternative style of Coraline bothered me. It wasn’t quirky or disturbing or whatever the designers were going for, but instead felt like a computer’s reaction if you fed it the past two decades of designs that met that description and asked it to make one itself. It felt artificial and forced and a bit bland and ultimately quite irritating. All of this is also an apt description for the character of Coraline. I’m sorry to all of you who felt that a girl who moves into a new town where she just doesn’t fit in and her parents don’t understand was such a breath of fresh air in the canon of cinema. The second half did a decent job with the final execution…but all that did was make me give it three stars on Netflix instead of a damnable two.



Now for the big three. If The Princess and the Frog wins, it will win purely because the Academy wants to see more 2-D animation. While the story was good and cute, the problem is that the mere evocation of the Disney movies of the late 80s and early 90s (as the trailer did try to summon up) only serve to highlight that while the story was good and cute (and Shadow Man was a fun villain), this movie is nowhere near the caliber of Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin. It’s a standard-good entry into the world of cell animation. In 1991, it would be pretty forgettable. Now, it’s Oscar-nominated.

Finally, it’s Up vs. Fantastic Mr. Fox. Now, we all know my adoration of Up. I think it was the second or third best film of the year. It’s a better movie than Mr. Fox. But, I would be completely fine if Fantastic Mr. Fox won. The fact that of the five nominees, only one is computer animated is refreshing enough. To see such a wonderful showcase of stop-motion animation and all its quirks and differences from real life win would be a lovely boost of energy for animation as a medium. It might even help stop the onslaught of Despicable Me and similarly subpar, mass-produced 3-D animated films. Granted, the chance of that happening is as small as the chance of Mr. Fox winning. Up has the award in the bag like it’s Lock, Shock, and Barrel and the gold statue is Sandy Claws. And if there is any upset, symbolic win, it’ll be The Princess and the Frog.

Who will win: Up
Who should win: Up

The BAH!scars #5: Best Picture?

Welcome back to another installment of the BAH!scars! This entry really requires no introduction...so I'll stop now.

Level 1 – the Other 3

These were the three films that were kind of the toss-up when it came to the Best Picture nomination discussion. Obviously, they all stand an Aronofsky’s chance of winning (despite Aronofsky’s films being able to wipe the floor with these pieces of poo).

The Blind Side

The one nominee I have not yet seen and, to be perfectly frank, have no interest in seeing. Anyone who I respect and who has seen it has nothing but condemnatory words to say about it. “Glorified TV movie.” “Bullock’s just okay.” “Boring then boring then racist then boring.” What can I say? I hate schmaltz, I hate sport movies, I hate mindless Oscar feel-good-inspiration bait. And I hate Sandra Bullock. I’d be miserable every step of the way and I’m not giving into the Academy by seeing this movie just because they threw two nominations at it.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 10

Odds of winning: 1 to 1,000. This film was the surprise nominee of the year, bolstered only by the awards/reviews for Bullock, very similar to The Reader last year. In a five-picture year, the odds might be 1 to 100, but now there are nine other films to beat, all of which have more clout/support than this one does. Of course, bad Bullock movies that take a heavy-handed look at race have won before against all odds. But if it happens this time, film-nerds nationwide may have their own “Rodney King Verdict”-style riots.


District 9

Like I said in a prior entry, this movie snatched up Star Trek’s “Token Summer Movie Nomination/Let’s Keep the Plebs Happy” prize. Ironically, despite thinking Star Trek is a better movie, I am annoyed less by this selection. Possibly because at least this choice seems more in line with typical Academy thinking (Little Indie That Could, Important Issue, etc.). That being said, the fact that District 9 is a nomination for Best Picture is a complete and utter joke. The plot was incredibly cookie cutter (I dare say it may rival Avatar’s), the commentary was heavy-handed, and I really do not think I should feel so bored when watching people explode.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 9

Odds of winning: 1 to 500. Note the “Token” in its prize. This nomination was an act of diplomacy by the Academy. Diplomacy is taking a few small hits to appease the other party. It’s not committing seppuku to show you were wrong.

A Serious Man

The more I thought about A Serious Man, the more it crumbled for me. Probably initially I was temporarily blinded by what so many people were blinded by: if a movie is that depressing, boring, dense, and contains no answers, it must be great stuff. It had a strong lead performance and a few good moments with the camera (and I did love the opening scene), but aside from that…it was a shaggy dog of a movie: a lot of hair that couldn’t attach itself to anything. While there have been great movies that have broken free of traditional norms of plot and character (e.g. Bunuel’s The Phantom of Liberty), this picture did not even have a single idea upon which to hinge itself, aside from the very tired Job one.

This nomination was probably a combination the aforementioned blinding with A) “Hey! We’ve nominated and awarded the Coen’s before!” and B) a desire for more cred among the film geeks who hate the Academy as much as the cretins.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 8

Odds of winning: 1 to 150. In many’s eyes, this was a doubtful nomination. I thought it had a good chance of making it to the race of 10, but that’s about it. This movie is bland, but not Academy-Approved-Bland and will therefore not grab voters’ eyes come check-off time.

Level 2

“We’re so happy the Academy amped it up to 10!” These two were the ones that were pretty much guaranteed 2 of the 5 extra slots. They never would have gotten a real nomination, but they were also not a question when filling out the list. They have the slightest chance of winning, though a picture of that moment would have to go in the dictionary under “upset.”

Up

Oh, how I love this movie. Oh, how it’s refreshing to see the Academy’s need to nominate token films used for good instead of evil. Oh, how this movie does not have a chance of winning.

Amazing - Up is a film that delivers well-developed characters, clever humor, tears, an uplifting message about the human condition, and adventure…and because it’s computer animated, it has a pretty infinitesimal chance of taking home the gold. However, this nomination does cement what everyone already knew: that Up will win Best Animated Feature.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 2

Odds of winning: 1 to 85. This nomination is almost as much of a token as District 9. However, this injustice has the benefit of having a more vocal, consistent, and intelligent group of complainers rallying behind it. There is a miniscule possibility that the Academy will try to appease the animated lobbyists in one foul swoop before returning to their usual antics. But it’s miniscule.

An Education

This film is a solid choice. The acting is phenomenal and the dialogue is top notch. Carey Mulligan deserves the Oscar, though she won’t get it, and a few of the other actors were quite snubbed. It by no means is a “Best Picture” film either in the Academy’s eyes (Ew! Girl sleeping with older man! Ew! Quiet British film!) or mine, but this film is a welcome addition to filling out the list, be it 5 or 10 films.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 4

Odds of winning: 1 to 60. Like I said, it’s a good pick for filling out the list, but it is not flashy enough for the Academy. Only if there were an incredible vote split would it have a shot.

Level 3

We’re now on the movies that would have been the five nominees had the Academy not decided to make a desperate attempt to get more viewers and pander to the masses.

Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire

I will admit I went into this movie with some biases against it. I thought (and still think) that the title is as obnoxious as a neon yellow sweatsuit (and misuses quotations). All the trailers made it looks exploitative, predictable, and mindless Oscar-bait (let’s all think about race for two hours! Hurray for triumphing over adversity!). I did not like how certain critics/marketers were trying to guilt the American public into seeing the film by saying they were racist if they did not (when really, the American public will only see “indy”-ish film if they’re quirky and cute). And, I really did not want to see Fatty walk down the red carpet in a dress, trying to look attractive or at least not completely repulsive.

Now, little sidetrack. Sometimes, I see a movie that I expect I’m going to hate and it surpasses my expectations as to how repugnant it can be. I will then say, “Yes, it was indeed as horrible as I surmised...and then some!” and people will say that I went in prejudiced against it and did not give it a fair chance. I always argue with them that even if I go in with expectations, I still do not let those cloud my judgment. In fact, if the movie is even the slightest bit decent, it benefits from my bias. I often will think “Wow! This isn’t horrible!” and that will quickly transition to “This is quite good!” If anything, most movies find that my preconceived negative opinions ameliorate my final judgment, just as my excitement for a film has a tendency to lead to ultimate disappointment.

Upon reflection, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire is still predictable (it's only a step or two up from Avatar), a bit exploitative, and nothing all that special. But the acting is mostly strong (Fatty in fact so exceeds with what her role requires that I lament the reality that she probably will not have a career after this movie), the script is just interesting enough, and the directio – er, I’ll describe my ambivalence towards the direction in my next Oscar post – that it won my over. I approve of Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire, as a movie. It may not deserve to be in the top 5, but it’s better than a lot of other nominees.

Of course, I may not have actually seen Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire since both my ticket and the marquis for the theater only said "Precious."



Where I rank it amongst the ten: 6

Odds of winning: 1 to 25. It’s the recipient of the “Little Miss Juno” Award. Part of the deal with that award is that the recipient has not all that great of a chance of getting any award past the “Little Miss Juno” Award.

Up in the Air

Back when this movie had a very good shot at winning, Entertainment Weekly ran this piece. It simultaneously interested and bothered me. Why did it vex me so? Because Up in the Air is not a triumph of witty dialogue and plot and great characters. It only thinks it is. It half-wants to be a modern day screwball comedy (as this article belies) but cannot bring itself to abandon its seeming-sophistication and unabashedly invite in the immaturity that allows such a pleasant juxtaposition. As a result, it drags. Furthermore, I simply did not find Clooney’s character as funny, sharp, distinct, roguish, or fascinating as the film expected me to. He seemed like a partially-formed idea that never fully took route into a person, and without that, the script continued its collapse. There are moments of greatness in this film, sure, but this is not a great film or anything close. There are just briefs flashes of what could have been one.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 7

Odds of winning: 1 to 10. This movie was probably the favorite back at the turn of the year, but it has lost steam like a kettle taken off the stove. I think the problem was that people started actually seeing it and realized it really wasn’t all that special. It’s only true shot comes from the fact that it carries with it a very timely and Academic message: having loved ones >>> having money and a job.

Level 4

These are the ones that are really duking it out for Best Picture. Any other one will be some level of an upset. None of these three have a definite chance of winning and therefore there will be surprise no matter which one wins, but not too much surprise.

Inglourious Basterds

Forget about the year; I’d rank this film as one of the best of the decade. It’s a remarkably clever, incisive film masquerading as a mindless, frat-boy gorefest. Yet, it’s façade of Eli Roth controlling Quentin Tarantino like Brainiac puppeteering Lex Luthor only manages to enhance the film’s overall message and make it more brilliant (I may have to gush about this more in depth in a full-length entry). I walked away from this movie back in August not knowing what to think. I did not even know if I liked it. Repeated viewers and what probably amounts to hours of thinking and discussion have affirmed its place in film history in my mind (and probably also guaranteed that I’ll be writing a real academic essay on this at some point in the future)

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 1

Odds of winning: 1 to 4. On one hand, we have a director that has already been nominated, the SAG win, nominations in director, screenplay, editing, and cinematography, and general good buzz. On the other hand (SPOILER), we have a movie that ends with Hitler getting a machine gun to the face. The Academy may not look too favorably upon a film that exposes all other “good” WWII films for being as bloodthirsty as any slasher flick. However, this film may be able to rise above the rubble that will ensue in the Avatar/Hurt Locker brawl.



Avatar

I’ve already defended Avatar in this blog (read “Avatar’s Gross!” if you need a refresher). That being said, this movie is not Best Picture material. Too many necessary elements are lacking from the film to allow it to make the leap from “enjoyable” to “great” (by the way, I know I use the word “great” a lot when discussing films…I owe that quite a bit to Roger Ebert’s Great Movies. It’s more of a status than an adjective for me, hence why I don’t vary my vocabulary when it comes to that).

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 5

Odds of winning: 3 to 7. It will definitely eat up Technical Awards like they were white dots and it was Pac Man. And the Academy is really trying to appease the masses this year (see: ten nominations), so how better to do that than awarding the top grossing movie of all time the top prize? Hey, it worked over a decade ago! And then of course, there’s that whole Golden Globe thing and the fact that the last thing the director did was that movie where the boat sinks.

The Hurt Locker

The great paradox of the Oscars is that they make no one happy: not the masses, nor film nerds. The plebeians complain that the Oscars only choose prestigious, boring films that only a few people see. People who actually know about film bewail that the Academy only chooses films that tend to gross over $100 million and only give the illusion of being “small, independent films.” Yet, ironically, the plebs’ conception might finally be the case for a change. Up against the movie that everyone saw is the truly great film that only grossed about $10 million in its initial release in theaters.

Barely anyone saw The Hurt Locker this summer. Only a select few film nerds and friends of film nerds were lucky enough to enter the theater in July to see one of the tensest films in years and the best film about the Iraq war to come out so far. It was a film lover’s/thinking man’s action movie, one that delivered a few explosions but knew that the mere promise of an explosion is so much scarier and so much more thrilling.

While I prefer Inglourious Basterds to this movie, I will be more than happy if The Hurt Locker wins. This movie is the one that has the best chance of beating Avatar and it will be the first time in a while that I can really rally behind a Best Picture winner. Hurray for that.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 3

Odds of winning: 1 to 2. This movie not only took home a lot of critic’s year-end awards, but has been catching up pre-Oscar awards like they’re Pokemon (what is with me and videogame similes?). By all means, it should be a hands-down favorite to win. But it’s a small movie. And therefore, it’s going to be a struggle. It has a slight advantage over Avatar, but that’s about it.

3-D Redux

As some of you may know, Sony is currently considering rereleasing classics in 3-D. Granted, I do not know what exactly they mean by “classics.” This article mentions Spider-Man and Casino Royale alongside
Taxi Driver, but as someone who tutors high schoolers, I do know that there are people who consider anything pre-Juno “old.” How far back would this go? Would we see the depth to which Hans Gruber plummets as never before? Would Norma Desmond seem to pop out of the screen as she gets ready for her extreme close-up? Will we finally get to behold D.W. Griffith’s racist vision truly realized as the KKK dramatically races to save the day in three dimensions of Reconstructionist Southern Glory?

I’m going to place my money on not going any further back than Star Wars, which I always have drawn as the unofficial line between “old movies” and “new movies.” Of course, I would not be surprised if they do not even tackle anything from before this century. Well, Lucas might…anything for a few bucks after all.

The instinctive reaction is to decry “O times! O morales!” in classical Latin accent and wait for the next few harbingers of the apocalypse to arrive. But then, I have to ask, is this really all that bad?

Let’s assume that you absolutely hate 3-D. Your mother was mutilated in a freak mayhap involving a 3-D camera and your invalid cousin went blind after taking the glasses outside post-“Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” and looking directly at the sun (further proving how evil EPCOT indeed is). Thankfully, no matter what the studio bosses do to adulterate your favorite film…it still remains unadulterated in other forms! There are still DVDs, Blu-Rays, revival theaters, etc. While film executives have a grotesque dearth of scruples, they aren’t going to annihilate any pre-3-D forms of classics. Hell, even Lucas released the original trilogy on DVD, with Han shooting first and everything!

Granted, I too am someone who gets annoyed at things that really do not affect me (*cough* the Oscars *cough*). So I’ll do you one better: I’m going to extol the benefits of this new money-making scheme!

Benefit #1: Who wants to watch John McTiernan go all bad-ass on a tiny screen?

“Yippee-Kay-Yay Motherfucker” roughly translates to “I am one hardcore badass and you should really only indulge in my asskickery on a big yippee-kay-yay-motherfucking screen!” I admit, I did originally see Die Hard via Netflix Instant, but I would love to see it on a theater with surround sound and an enthusiastic audience. This past fall, I had the enjoyment of watching the first two Toy Storys again on the big screen. Why? Because they were rereleased in 3-D! Did the 3-D really matter all that much or enhance the experience? No. But was it still much more preferable to renting it on DVD and staying in my living room? Does Bo Peep want to get into Woody’s pants? This proliferation of rereleased classics really signifies of resurgence of the revival theater…right in the comfort of your own over-priced, local cinema!

Benefit #2: Hey kids! Movies from the last century!

Like I said earlier, I make a semi-living tutoring high schoolers. Most are brilliant little young adults whose cultural awareness is on the verge of blossoming into a beautiful flower of refinement. Others, however, have provided such gems as, “I’m planning to get around to watching some old movies. One of my friends lent me Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” When reminded that that film is indeed from 2004 and upon asking him if he watches actually old films, he rejoined with The Usual Suspects.

But this 3-D phenomenon provides a bit of hope to banish such ignorance. They may never go out of their way to rent an “old” flick like Aliens or a complete archaic vestige of a by-gone era such as Spartacus, but what if they were playing at a local theater in 3-D? They may go out of sheer boredom, curiosity, or just because Legion or what-have-you has sold out. Once you overcome your abhorrence at the concept of 3-Difying Kubrick, you might see that this money-making scheme is not completely devoid of merit.

Yeah, I know it’s a silly idea; Legion would never sell out.

Benefit #3: Quentin Tarantino will make you love 3-D.

If there is one director who can take any ridiculous gimmick or trick and make it into an aspect of a cinematic masterpiece, it’s Tarantino. I was thinking of movies that studios might rerelease in 3-D and when Kill Bill came up in the great rolodex of my mind, I could not help but giggle with the rush of fanboyish pleasure over such a possibility. Like one of those optical illusions that simultaneously proffer a comely maiden and a hideous crone, good ol’ Quentin delivers cinema that is both pure and utter trash, but that becomes great cinema because of that very fact. I now want nothing more than to watch the shot of adrenaline scene from Pulp Fiction while wearing a honkingly large pair of 3-D glasses.

On a similar note, we may finally get a wide-release of Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder in 3-D. For those of you who do not know, Hitch actually intended for this movie to be in 3-D and filmed it with that in mind (there are often objects between the camera and the action, to give you an extra sense of dimension...and voyeurism!). Of course, by the time he finished it and was ready to release it, the 3-D movie had begun its half-century-long dormancy. For 50 years we have been forced to watch the film in 2-D, which may be as great of a shame as watching it in black and white. Yes, I love black and white, but when something is filmed in stunning Technicolor, DAMMIT I want Technicolor!



So fear not, dear reader. The end is not nigh. The gods must more thoroughly drive us mad before they destroy us.

In fact, to those of you still bemoaning the approaching ubiquitous nature of 3-D movies, I offer you this little puzzle to calm your addled minds

The current point of 3-D is to try to boost ticket sales due to the evils of downloading cars and the like. They want to make going to the movies an experience that cannot be duplicated at home. Of course, what are theaters going to do once sales for Avatar-esque DVDs start to flounder as people realize that the experience can’t be duplicated at home and all they bought was a movie with an audaciously predictable plot (yes, the plot is predictable to the point of audacity). Granted, the people buying Avatar on DVD might take some time to catch on to this fact, but even my dog has figured out through trial and error that when he poops outside, he gets more treats than when he poops inside. This trend of 3-D, if movies become more and more geared around the 3-D technology, might ultimately defeat itself.

Avatar's Gross!

I’m beginning to fear I may have to change the name of this blog to “Pop Culture Gone Avatar.”

This past week Avatar became the highest grossing film of all time. Quite a few of my friends and acquaintances (and maybe an enemy or two) have already posted Facebook statuses, Gchat statuses and a few Twitters lamenting this fact. All I can think is, “Why?”

Now, I’m not going to hide the fact that I liked Avatar. Was it the best movie of the year? No. I don’t think it even cracked my top ten, or if so, just barely. I mean, it was a Final Fantasy game. It had pretty simple characters, a plot that was as predictable as an episode of Sailor Moon, and all the ethical complexity of a morality play (“Hmm…should I do the good thing or the bad thing? Decisions, Decisions”). But damn, that movie was fun and pretty darn beautiful! And I tend to be a guy who ain’t all that impressed just by purty CGI. The last 30 minutes were just about everything I could want from a sci-fi action scene and the rest of it wasn’t too shabby.

That being said, I can understand why people didn’t like Avatar. The simplicity is a bit exhausting and the acting leaves quite a bit to be desired. In the end, it’s a dumb visual spectacle that’s delightful to munch popcorn over. [deep breath] JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER MOVIE IN THE TOP TWENTY GROSSING FILMS!

Let’s first look at the actual story: Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time. In the end, all that really is that it beat out Titanic. How can anyone who is not a teenage girl in 1997 be annoyed about that? All this means is that overblown one piece of James Cameron eye-candy with one-dimensional lovers and a paint-by-numbers plot has usurped the spot of another. Was Titanic really that much better of a film than Avatar? No? Okay, then you can’t really be all too upset over the fact it had to cede its throne to Avatar.

Honestly, I am quite happy over the coup. I never did like Titanic. Rose and Jack always seemed extraordinarily imbecilic and completely stolid to everything going on around them (except for the occasional bout of fervent panic). I waited with baited breath to see their stars cross and for the state of their affairs to sink below the murky depths. A melodrama does not work if the characters are utterly loathsome. Jake and Neytiri may not be characters crafted by the pen of Flaubert, but they at least got my sympathy. These recent developments simply mean that a slightly better variation on the same Cameroneon theme now holds the prior’s honor.

Of course, let’s pull back a bit. Maybe people are annoyed that Avatar has even cracked the top ten or top twenty. Maybe Titanic was as much of a fluke as Avatar. Without further ado then, I present the top 20 highest grossing films of all time, as listed on Wikipedia as of January 29, 2010.
1. Avatar (2009)
2. Titanic (1997)
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003).
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006).
5. The Dark Knight (2008).
6. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001).
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007).
8. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
11. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)
12. Shrek 2 (2002)
13. Jurassic Park (1993).
14. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005).
15. Spider-Man 3 (2007).
16. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009).
17. Harry Potter and Chamber of Secrets (2002).
18. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001).
19. Finding Nemo (2003)
20. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Let me state off the bat (pardon the pun) that there is no love lost between me and Dark Knight and I’ve always found Finding Nemo to be a rather anomalous creation: a Pixar movie that was just decent. Many would argue that these are diamonds in the rough (okay, is that a term or did Jafar coin that in Aladdin?), but I place Avatar above them without hesitation.

Now for the rest, in no order. The Pirates movies I have not been able to sit through and really have never bought into the Johnny Depp love (he’s good, but that’s it) and even the most stalwart fans are cold when it comes to the third member of the trilogy. The Harry Potter movies are tapestries of prosaic teen drama only livened up by spurts of life provided by Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, the DADA teacher of the year, and the girl who plays Luna. I do not know a soul in his or her right mind who will defend the prequels to Star Wars. I’ve never seen an Ice Age movie and hope to keep it that way. Shrek 2 I don’t remember a single thing about. I’ve always felt people were more invidious to Spider-Man 3 than they should have been, but still don’t think it was anything more than dumb (and a bit fabulous) popcorn fun.

So that leaves us with Jurassic Park (which is one of those movies everyone in the world has seen but me) and The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Okay, you got me there. The Lord of the Rings films are better than Avatar. But, even they are really well done action films where most of the characters are fairly simple. You have a few more developed personalities and better acting, but still, the situation is not like Avatar knocked The Godfather and Casablanca out of the way on its crawl to the top. Well, yes, it did, but much earlier on. And you can’t really fault it for that. I wonder if there’s a film that came out in most major theaters last year that grossed less than those gems.

Settling Down in the Uncanny Valley

Unless you’ve been living under a lump of unobtainium, you’ve probably already heard more than you ever wanted to hear about Avatar and its special effects. It’s mesmerizing! It’s revolutionizing the way we look at movies just like Jay Leno failed to revolutionize television! It’s the best technological and most racist thing to happen to cinema since Al Jolson sang about his mammy from Alabammy!

It’s conquered the uncanny valley.

That’s right; everyone, even Frank from 30 Rock, was wrong about this one. The Na’vi were compelling, realistic looking, and kind of sexy at times (none of us are proud by the fact that a series of 0s and 1s on a computer database turned us on, but that’s the truth – oh, the g-strings…). CGI can now tackle humans that look, feel, and act realer than Megan Fox ever did.

But is this the ultimate goal of CGI? One of my friends suggested that CGI will finally reach its consummation when it becomes like set design or sound editing – you don’t notice it (unless it’s bad). Is that all we want? Yes, I realize I don’t really admire sound editing that much, and I only really think of great sets after seeing the movie 4 or 5 times (for example, The Rear Window). However, what about costumes? I agree that sometimes costumes are meant to blend into the scene and not draw attention away from the action. Yet, they also can be the spectacle and their flashiness and costumeness can enhance a scene or an entire movie.

Can this work with CGI though? Can we really appreciate CGI when it stands out from the rest of the film? I think so, particularly in one specific genre: horror. If you look at the diagram of the uncanny
valley on Wikipedia, you’ll notice it isn’t about CGI. It predates that. In the valley are two things of note: corpses and zombies. So, if I’m reading this correctly, George Romero’s creatures are establishing residences in roughly the same latitude and longitude as Ringo Starr in Rockband. Why not make this work for us?

You know what’s still scary? King Kong in the original 1933 film. He walks in a herky-jerky fashion, his fur moves randomly since the animators weren’t all that concerned with the between-shot continuity, and he’s just not of this world. Maybe it’s me talking from a 2010 perspective, but King Kong moves like death – like a relic from the past that has come back to haunt us. Unzombified, he is more of a walking corpse than any horror that Danny Boyle ever filmed. While I can’t speak for the 1933 audience, I would like to think that they were discerning enough to at least realize that there was a barrier between Kong and seeing a realistic looking gorilla on screen.

Why can’t we harness this bringer of fear? You want to know what was one of the most terrifying things I’ve seen recently on screen? I was channel surfing and for some reason that is lost to me, I ended up watching Alvin and the Chipmunks. Yes, the Jason Lee movie. And you wanna know what – it wasn’t terrible. It was kind of fun, in a "cheesy kids' movie" sort of way. However, there is a short moment when Dave opens his dishwasher to find a wet Alvin in it. The CGI was off and the wet chipmunk looked unnatural, disturbing, and made me jump for a moment in my seat. A mistake? Undoubtably. Certainly, this reaction was not the intended one of the film makers. But hasn’t art always been about using accidents and transfiguring the mishap into serendipity? My abjection, my unnerving was there. There’s an easy way to tap into it; this way is far easier and far more guaranteed than billions dollars worth of computer generated blood, monsters, or severed limbs…because they all just look too natural.

I leave you with this thought: think of a zombie chasing a human. Now think of the same human being chased by a zombie…except now the zombie is the festering cadaver of Andy from the first Toy Story. Inhuman, early CGI Andy. Maybe missing an arm or half a skull.

Chilling, isn’t it?