I'm usually reserving my blog entries in February for Oscars :). Why am I doing this ? Well, the reason is not just because the Academy Awards are well-known as the most important cinema awards, but because I actually think they are the most important along with the BAFTAs. This is due to the voting process the movies go through until getting an Oscar, process which involves thousands of members, in comparison for example with Cannes (where are around 10 jury members) or Golden Globes (where I don't know exactly but I think the number is between 50 and 100). Therefore on the Oscars the result should be more objective (at least in theory ...). But after all, it's not actually the award that matters that much. What's important is that you have the occasion to find out about some good movies you've probably missed otherwise. So, the nominees for 2011 are ...
That's pretty much of it. I hope I put the correct links. Well, I have no idea about how many categories I will have time to comment this year, but the first one will be next week :) ...
If it's not already obvious, since a couple of weeks I started writing about movies that in theory should have some potential in this year's Oscar nominations. More exactly I try to optimize the usual time for one movie watched/week allocated ratio ( well .. this week I doubled it :) ) in order to cover more until the end of next month. The idea is that every year during this time, after the Academy Awards nominations are announced I'm trying to write as many entries as I can (depending also on what I've seen) related with the categories. And unlike last year, the current one I actually have enough reasons, given the level difference between the movies from 2010 and the ones released in 2009. So to make it short, today I've chosen "The Fighter" which already got two Globes for actors.
What can I say. The reasons for I've watched the movie are actually one and it is the one above - potential nominations + the grade on IMDb. I wasn't expecting to see any masterpiece and I can say from start that I didn't. The film is not weak, but ... Let's think a bit to 2004 (to be gentle .. I might get even more back in time). What was the most successful title considering the awards? "Million Dollar Baby" - four Oscars. In 2005 we continue the line of boxing stories - "Cinderella Man" (which I really liked a lot at that time). 2006 - "Rocky Balboa" (aka Reloaded aka Rocky VI aka Yet Another Box Story). 2008 - "The Wrestler" (okay, okay, taking a break from boxing .. but not too far). In 2007 and 2009 I don't remember any major title (but I can't resist not to say two from before 2004 - "Hurricane" and "Ali"). All the films mentioned are ok. None of them is exceptional, but more than that - many might actually be quite overrated I might say. I think that the problem is obvious. It seems that Americans have an acute preference for boxers dramas (+ a wrestler) ended more or less happy, and adapted more or less from real facts. So acute that two years can't pass without a title that brings enough money to continue the line. Well, we have different stories, but the summary is the same - "Life is hard, you have to fight (literally) to get through it" and for me that line it's already old and overused...
"The Fighter" is no exception. It is based on a real case about a guy who managed to win a world title on the junior welterweight in 2000. It wasn't even a very important title - WBU version. There are four major versions of which I know for world champion = WBA, WBO, IBF and WBC - that's for not thinking that I have something against boxing (from time to time I'm watching a match). Obviously winning that it's not the main idea of the movie but a pretext for the story of an Irishman from a poor neighborhood, with a brother addicted to drugs, family problems and everything. The classic "going down and struggle to come to light somewhere". Nothing wrong here, but ... As I said, it's too often put on the screen, and in the same context of a boxing/fighter story.
Leaving aside the subject, I think the main attraction of the film is the cast. Mark Wahlberg has the title role, but the landscape is generally stolen by Christian Bale in a part that is probably better than all of the Batmans he acted in or will act from now on. Clear and indisputable this is the best role of his career (and yes, I've seen "The Machinist" he is better than there). The distribution is completed by Amy Adams and Melissa Leo (who has already taken a Globe for the role). Besides casting what can I say ... Directing probably worth mentioning for it doesn't let you fall asleep. I don't know what else to point out, perhaps after the Oscar nominations are announced I may have a revelation for what I've missed (though I don't really think so) ...
The movie is watchable after all, with all the feeling of a reheated soup it has. It doesn't need to like boxing, you just must be in the mood for a good life drama - which you'll actually see. The problem is that it's highly probable that you've already seen it before ...
A man, a place, a problem, everything in a (almost) fixed state for 127 hours. How do you make a normal length movie out of this? This is the question I asked myself when I heard about this title. And certainly not because the 127 hours would be too much for 90 minutes but on the contrary, insignificant in this context.
So, what's the context? The film is based on a real case happened in 2003 when an American climber was trapped for the mentioned time length somewhere in a canyon having his right arm caught under a boulder. What happened after 127 hours ? I'll just let the movie show it to you (or Wikipedia / IMDb / etc for the most curious ones) because I already said pretty much everything about the subject/action in the phrase before, and from here onwards I'll just go straight to the movie making part. Well, once again, how do you make a movie about that? Yes, you have a catchy story (if you can call it a story ...) with apologies about this appreciation, since after all it's quite a tragic one. But still ... how do you manage not to bore the viewer since you basically have an actor who is caught with a hand under a rock in what should be the only main scene/action throughout the whole movie. Well ... you have the intro until that situation is reached, and a conclusion. Let's say you pull 30 minutes max out of those (I honestly don't know if it's that long in the movie ...). And further? How different attempts to "escape" can be tried given the context even in 127 hours, which is quite long ? As a light spoiler, obviously not too many. So ? ...
Well then, that's what I think it's the main point to appreciate in "127 Hours". If you watch it, you won't even feel the "problem" presented above. None of it. How is it solved? Obviously - you won't have non-stop on the screen the same scene with different frames of that guy trapped under the rock. I shouldn't say more not to spoil anything. Anyway the idea is based on the directing / editing and scriptwriting, all of these somehow managing to pull the movie out a little from the static scenery, yet without changing the ... action. I have no idea how much is the script actually connected with reality, which could just be as simplistic as can be = do not know ... maybe the guy just had a deep dreamless sleep for 95% of the 127 hours, or .. it could be just like in the movie. Because it's credible (and obviously it should be, we have restrictions of reality here). And besides that it is watchable. From my point of view, responsible for this is mainly Danny Boyle - directing + script. I didn't think, I don't remember how many years ago, when I saw "The Beach", that it will come a day when I will appreciate this guy as a director (I actually don't even think I have given a thought about who directed that thing). But following, were the "28 Days Later", "Sunshine" and "Slumdog Millionaire". Speaking of the last, here we have almost the same team - excellent cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle/Enrique Chediak (again, think at the static setting and about how many types of scene framing you'll need, especially given that the static setting is a kind of a pit between two rocks). And there's also the sound - probably A.R. Rahman would have been stuck at Bollywood lalalala "genre" if there wasn't for Slumdog Millionaire, but fortunately he didn't. Just see (actually hear) the most harsh scene in the movie, and how much does the sound increase the tension (well, also the mixing engineer would have a merit here). I'll end with the actor who basically played all the film alone - James Franco - just shortly saying that an Oscar nomination is 99.99% guaranteed.
So ... after all a movie can be done on this topic. And actually a good one.
Perhaps if it would be somebody to check out (in detail) every entry of my blog - implying here the older ones from the Ro version too ( case that I might find very weird, considering my "outputs" value due to the time and speed of writing :) ), that reader would probably think that I really like the western genre. And this is quite far from the truth. Somehow however I managed to see pretty much all of the major western titles that were released during the last years. I have no idea how this happened - because like I said I'm not into westerns, but in the current topic's title case I really felt that I should give it some time and try to write an entry about it. Anyway, western is only half of the current entry - "True Grit". The other half - "Winter's Bone" is a drama with a touch of thriller. It happened to see one movie quite close after the other, but obviously that's not the main reason for the "double topic" entry. Honestly I don't know if "vs". from the title has any meaning in this case, but it sounds better than "and", so ... :). The idea is that although the films have different genres they also do have pretty much in common. I could even change the classification above considering that "Winter's Bone" could pass as a western without the "west" part as location and being placed in the present time, and "True Grit" as a drama + thriller (which eventually can be found more or less in any western). Ok ... I already have a double intro part ( and I'll fall asleep myself if I go on with it :) ) so I'll cut it short and get on the movie subjects ...
"True Grit" is the latest Coen brothers movie ("A Serious Man", "Burn After Reading", "No Country for Old Men", "The Big Lebowski", "Fargo", "Barton Fink", etc.). In short, the idea it's a fairly simple revenge story. A guy who went to complete a sale on some horses is killed by the man he hired to help him. The daughter, aged only 14, wants justice and offers a reward for the killer's head. For this she hires an apparently all-time drunk federal marshall, also without an eye and with a reputation as a "kill first ask later" type of guy (character played flawlessly by Jeff Bridges). And because the man really seems to offer an "absolute guarantee" for the payed money between the fumes of alcohol, the girl is strongly decided to join him in pursuit of the fugitive. The group is completed by a Texas ranger (again an ok played character - Matt Damon) who has another reward to collect, also placed on the killer's head. As I said, the idea seems simple in the start. But what can be seen on screen in the action evolution is definitely more complex.
One of the first things to mention is how the main characters are constructed/developed. This is something that I didn't see such carefully built and approached in such detail very often (referring to somebody's entire filmography - not just one movie). I guess it depends on the fact that the director and the screenwriter are one and the same, and the Coen Brothers and Tarantino for example fit on this criteria. And of course, character building is just a small part of the script - which is written in that way it catches you and keeps you staring at the screen despite the fact that the story is quite simple. Actually I think that the script is in general the best part (or at least the point of attraction) from the Coen brothers movies. In this case however is not an original script, as it also wasn't in "No Country for Old Men" (besides that, the movie is actually a remake - there is a "True Grit" with John Wayne released somewhere in '60 - '70 which I have not seen) . Anyway, unlike "No Country for Old Men", the novel which is put on screen in the current case has a more simple mainline that doesn't want to seem so .. "philosophical". The result is that the main action point in the script itself is the simple fugitive chase. But .. a simple chase can bring up all sorts of lateral idea paths, witty dialogues, and finally (more finally than the final, as a light spoiler) a little twist that you probably won't anticipate .. well, unless you've read the book. Besides that, the film is nice to watch from the cinematography point of view - to say so :) (Roger Deakins is the image director - who I slowly begin to like, though until recently I pretty much considered his work as overrated as it was in "No Country for Old Men"). Also the editing worth mentioning (by Coen brothers, as in all their major titles I think; they actually seem to "go" with the idea of an directing-script-editing triplet in what they do). And one more thing. Something that adds a certain "air" that you're not quite sure of at first, but you're certain in the end. The soundtrack - Carter Burwell (I actually did not appreciate the guy until now besides "Bella's Lullaby" from "Twilight", but just as a musical piece, not as a soundtrack related to the movie - which I didn't see). And speaking of that certain air/atmosphere it gives .. it's a bit hard now to find a very clear description. Let's say it's something like a romance drama "air" - although you won't find anything like that in the film. In any case it gives a "warm feeling" in the end, and to give something as comparison now, probably one example would be the feeling you get on watching "Legends of the Fall" even if the movies have totally different subjects.
Ok, I've written enough about the first piece of today's topic, so I'll get to the second one before giving a clearer explanation about why I put them side by side. A few posts ago I wrote about "Balibo" as perhaps one of the most difficult to watch war movies that I've seen. "Winter's Bone" is pretty much the same thing I think for dramas or thrillers. The film is an indie movie = not very large budget, having been awarded the highest distinction at Sundance in 2010 (the most important festival in terms of Independent Cinema in the US). It has a subject that is somehow close to the main idea of "True Grit", but still different. Somewhere in a community from a mountain area of the US, a 17 years old girl receives a visit from the local sheriff who gives a notice that her father, released on bail, disappeared. The problem is that the house where the girl lives and the land also were offered as collateral guarantees on bailing him out. The problem becomes even more troublesome given the context of the daughter who is struggling to raise her brother and younger sister + her mentally ill mother. At this point the film seems to resemble a bit with "Frozen River" as a general feeling, as an info for those who have seen it (another Sundance-winning indie a year or two ago .. they seem to have a preference for social dramas).
After establishing the plot as described, the action is concentrated on the girl's search, struggling to find the whereabouts of her father just to avoid seeing her family thrown into the street (or more exactly, in the woods). The story gets more complicated as it's progressing, the community of which the girl is part of being actually formed from more close or distant relatives - the main character falling apparently in the second category, most of these people being involved in some not very legal activities. To summarize, the whole community resembles a classic image of a family / mafia clan but placed in a rural area in the woods (placement which is actually suitable for growing + refining various weeds - and not that kind you're using to make a tea). As a spoiler, the girl slowly realizes that her father permanently disappeared, but this doesn't clear off also the house losing problem, so the process of seeking to send him to the trial is switched on seeking a proof to send his body to the morgue. No matter how harsh or chilly the previous phrase sounds, that's not nearly at the same level as the movie. It's exactly what I said above when I mentioned that it's hard to watch. It's probably one of the best made pieces of cinema I've seen in managing to create an literally oppressive and also scary feeling without resorting to extreme violence (although this isn't entirely missing). It's a feeling that I also had when I've watched "Training Day" for the first time long long ago. I remember that when I left the cinema, I actually had a slight feeling of insecurity on the street on the way home = something like we live in a world with some bad bad people maybe just around the corner. And the interesting part is that the tension is created at the level of interaction between characters, attitude, etc., rather than through the action sequences, which aren't generally very credible in an action movie. And I must say for that fact that "Training Day" looks like a kids movie comparing to "Winter's Bone". Here "the chill factor" grows up as the end of the search approaches, being topped by the title related sequence = that one actually requires a bit of stomach to watch it, although if you take it out of the context and you place it in a "normal" thriller / horror / action it would probably look like a normal scene for that type of movie. And yet ( to give another light spoiler:) ) the movie doesn't stop there. Because it would end overly harsh. It lets you relax a bit after, fading out in a note that still wants to be somehow positive, and for how "dark" the story is probably it actually is positive enough. For all this - the plot, climax, end - and how the movie takes you through them I would give credit particularly to the direction - Debra Granik - about whom I'm hearing for the first time. She's actually co-authoring the scenario too, but like I said I think that the directing is the main part from the movie making worth mentioning and I'll probably keep an eye on future movies of her.
I'll end this already way too long entry :) with why I placed these two movies together in the same topic. There is one first reason, less important, and it actually might sound a little weird :). I'm not a fan of Romanian literature and I don't remember too much of what I read in school, but one of the literary pieces that were the subject of study was "Hatchet" by M. Sadoveanu ... ( Ya, I know, sounds weird already :)) ) The action is placed in some rural mountain area, around the beginning of the 20th century I think. The basic idea in the book is that a shepherd's wife gets worried about her husband missing for too long after he went to make some deals by selling or buying sheep (if I recall correctly). Well .. she takes her son, and following the path her husband took, starts her own investigation. After some time she finds the remnants of the dead (which she actually expects to find from some point onwards..), scene which was very grim in the novel. After that, she eventually manages to find out also the assassin, who is finally killed with a hatchet (the initial murder weapon) by the victim's son ( ya, well .. Romanian classic literature can be quite violent sometimes :) ). The idea is that I thought the two movies discussed complement one each other rather odd in a relatively close manner to the book I mentioned, and not just related to the subject but also the feeling. So, for somebody really really interested reading it may give a clear idea about how the two movies might feel as a whole ( although I have no idea if that book was ever translated in English :) ). Anyway, leaving this apart the main reason why I thought on writing this overly long post as a 2 in 1 :) would be as I said, that we have basically the same type of character - a lonely girl, minor, and very stubborn :) and pretty much the same path of action as an overview idea - she wants to solve a problem way tougher/harder than it should be "allowed" for her age. Although the movies are from different genres, you can still make some interesting comparisons between a big budget film intended to be a blockbuster (and because of that may seem a little to light/commercial sometimes) and an indie movie that aims more at film festivals (and it seems so close to reality at a point that you don't know if you'll ever want to see it again). Eventually you might reach the conclusion that both of them are pretty much at the same level as value ;).
Rating: 4 out of 5 (For both - you have something a bit too extreme in each when you see them one after another :), if it was to take them separately I would probably give a 5)
Posts
