Tag Archives: Academy Awards

ACADEMY AWARDS: HEAD OVER HEELS WINS 2013 ANNIE AWARD

Head Over Heels animated short 2013

Academy Award-nominated animated short, “Head Over Heels” has won a 2013 Annie Award, the most prestigious animation award in the world, and could very well be on its way to an Oscar. The story about a most unusual old married couple is decidedly original and twisted good fun. It is a major achievement for its director, Timothy Reckart. See the trailer here. This is a student film that has made a spectacular debut onto the entertainment scene. Learn more about the National Film and Television School here.

Press release follows:

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under animation, Oscars

Review: ZERO DARK THIRTY

zero-dark-dirty-cinema-2013
Hollywood welcomes sending a message to the world. That is why “Zero Dark Thirty” is a formidable contender for Best Picture. But, the night I went to see it, I had a man next to me perpetually munching on popcorn, even during the waterboarding scene. How do you munch your way through popcorn during something like that? You have to wonder if that may say something about our collective confusion over 9/11 and its aftermath. Anything can be turned into entertainment. “Zero Dark Thirty,” despite boorish popcorn munchers, is a different kind of entertainment. It is the kind of activist entertainment intended to spur action and thought, in the same spirit as “All The President’s Men.”

Director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal are up to the task of presenting to the world the hunt for al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and what happened along the way to finding and killing him. Just as they captured the sense of what was going on in the U.S. invasion of Iraq with “The Hurt Locker,” Bigelow and Boal again give shape to recent history with the powerful medium of cinema.

Zero Dark Thirty 2013 Best Picture

In order to make better sense of a complex issue, the film focuses on two CIA officers that represent the Central Intelligence Agency through this process. There is Dan, played by Jason Clarke, who vigorously pursues “enhanced interrogation techniques,” in other words, torture, to gain information. And then there is Maya, played by Jessica Chastain, who transitions from torture to a better way, in other words, persistent detective work. The film has its share of controversy. Complaints have come from U.S. senators and the CIA, that the film inaccurately shows torture as resulting in useful information towards finding Osama bin Laden. Perhaps the CIA felt that torture had its place.

The fact is that this film objectively shows Dan and Maya essentially failing with the torture route. If it coughed up any information, it was insignificant. It’s enough to make a red meat true believer like Dan decide it’s time to quit. “You don’t want to be the last one holding the dog collar when the oversight committee comes,” he advises Maya. Maybe to hedge its bet, the film implies that any specs of info that Maya gleaned off the backs of detainees may have helped to narrow down her search for the legendary mystery man, the infamous “Abu Ahmed,” the trusted courier of Osama bin Laden. But, more to the point, the film gives human error its own title card for playing the role of inadvertently suppressing vital information, information that could have been found without any torture in the first place.

If there is too much of an air of ambiguity for the first part of this film, you could hear a pin drop and not one munch of popcorn when we get down to crunch time. We reach zero hour about two thirds in once bin Laden’s compound in Abbotabad is confirmed: the skeptics at the White House are satisfied, special super secret choppers are untethered at Area 51, and SEAL Team 6 is assembled, locked, and loaded. The definition of “zero dark thirty” is a military term describing a time between midnight and dawn. While it is a unspecified time, it inspires certainty and resolve. The good guys are moving at a sure pace under the cover of dark. The chopper will, at first, fail, as we all know. There will be casualties. But, on that fateful night in Pakistan, despite the Pakistani air force ready to fire in retaliation, the United States regained much lost ground and turned a page of history. It’s enough, for that moment, to keep the popcorn untouched.

Leave a comment

Filed under Movie Reviews, movies

Movie Review: LINCOLN

Tad Lincoln
It was on a bright day in January in 1865 that the United States, despite feverish opposition, passed the 13th Amendment and abolished slavery in the land. The fight to outlaw slavery, once and for all, is the focus of Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln.” Even if the final outcome is already known to the audience, the full story will likely be new. Remarkably, this film, with its familiar director and familiar subject, feels new too. This is a 21st Century Lincoln led by Daniel Day-Lewis’s brilliant interpretation of a man of his time with a keen sense for the timeless.

Mr. Spielberg uses his Lincoln capital wisely as we begin this film. After some scenes of bloody fighting, we cut to a close-up of two African American infantrymen. They are being interviewed about the Civil War. One man seems content. The other lists the injustices suffered by his people. The interviewer is Pres. Lincoln. We then float up to a dreamworld and there’s the tall and lonely figure in a stovepipe hat standing on the bow of a vast ship. Restraint. Elegant restraint. “Lincoln” proves to have the elegant restraint to make such a movie.

After all the hype, and there’s more to come, “Lincoln,” proves to be a very engaging film. It is not a Frank Capra treatment of our 16th president and that is an understandable concern. As we now know, Daniel Day-Lewis turned down more than one screenplay for this film. The one that finally won him over is based on the book, “Team of Rivals,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin and adapted for the screen by Tony Kushner. It provided a way to maintain that elegant restraint that Mr. Day-Lewis knew was essential.

With the sense of urgency clearly stated, we see a president determined to use all his political capital to steer the country in the right direction. In short order, he means to legitimize his Emancipation Proclamation. The only way to end slavery in the United States is to pass a Constitutional Amendment and the only way to do that is to act immediately. For political junkies, the ensuing dramatization is nirvana. You can almost hear Doris Kearns Goodwin reciting from her popular book in the background. However, this film does offer much more. There is a special urgency you feel in the filmmaking. When Lincoln speaks, everyone listens. We see a jaw drop a bit when the president exercises his distinctive skill to make a point. We feel history being made in a refreshing way as all the players are allowed to live and breathe.

At one point in the film, we see Mr. Day-Lewis in an scene where he ponders over Euclid, the ancient Greek mathematician. It is during a pivotal moment in the war that Lincoln thinks out loud with a couple of young staffers. One of them says he’s an engineer by profession. This sparks Lincoln to quote some Euclidean geometry, “Any two sides that are equal to the whole are equal to each other. Euclid, three thousand years before, stated that this was self-evident.” It is a delightfully low-key moment, one of many, that Mr. Day-Lewis plays masterfully.

In keeping with the restrained vibe in this film, we follow the journey of radical Republican, Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones. At first, we don’t seem to know which side he’s on or whether he can be relied upon to check his ego at the door when he needs to. It’s a great performance. One particularly good scene is when he’s confronted by the First Lady, played by Sally Field. She is greeting visitors at a reception and seizes the opportunity to put Stevens in his place. Coming across as a Hillary Clinton complaining over Whitewater investigations, she chides Stevens for his investigating her overseeing renovation of The White House. We see that Stevens can take a good chiding and take it to heart.

The Spielbergian touch is most evident in what we see from a child’s point of view in this film. There was a little boy who lived in the White House, the President’s son, Tad Lincoln. He’s there so often in the film as to be its anchor, conscience, and sense of innocence. When Lincoln and his men gather for a war meeting, the war map is found to have suffered a burn at one corner. Tad Lincoln was there. When Lincoln is patiently awaiting the final vote of the 13th Amendment, he is entertained by Tad Lincoln building a monument from various books and legal briefs. When Lincoln needs to keep up his sense of purpose, all he needs to do is observe the photographs of slaves that Tad Lincoln has been observing. And, when the President is shot, it is Tad Lincoln’s sorrow we focus upon. This is not Doris Kearns Goodwin’s or Daniel Day-Lewis’s doing. This is Steven Spielberg’s.

1 Comment

Filed under American Civil War, Golden Globes, History, Movie Reviews, movies, Oscars, Steven Spielberg

THE MASTER Review: The Master and His Dog

If you’re looking for a time travel theme in an unexpected place, you’ll find some of that in “The Master.” It’s not going to bring in everyone who went to see “Looper,”  the artful crowd pleaser, but it would surprise that demographic. While a serious film dealing with a heavy subject, “The Master” is anything but dull. This film is written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, who is known for riveting films like, “There Will Be Blood.”  At its core, it is a story about trying to find one’s way in the world and about those who prey on lost souls.

Joaquin Phoenix plays the role of the lost soul, Freddie. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the role of Lancaster Dodd, the leader of a cult, who takes on Freddie has his special project. It doesn’t take much observation to conclude that Freddie has little to offer and is going to be very high maintenance once he’s found as a stowaway aboard a vessel that Dodd is currently using. Freddie remains a pretty messed up case a few years out of his time in the Navy during World War II. He has a libido and a thirst for alcohol that are both insatiable and have kept him a train wreck. He isn’t even trying to charm his way into Dodd’s life but, despite it all, Dodd finds him amusing and spots his talent, his ability to concoct highly intoxicating drinks. Dodd doesn’t press Freddie to reveal his ingredients, which include paint thinner. Freddie, in turn, accepts Dodd at face value.

Both Dodd and Freddie are con men and liars. Freddie, to his credit, is more honest about it. His criminality is written on his face and is primitive and, maybe even pure. Dodd’s variety of crime is sophisticated up to a point. It is when someone carefully listens to what Dodd is saying that his limitations are revealed. His own son confides in Freddie that Dodd is a fraud. His lectures and workshops on self-improvement are made up as he goes along, like his assertions that cancer can be cured by time travel. It’s pretty loopy stuff that even Freddie realizes is outrageous.

Freddie proves to be Dodd’s perfect pet, his lap dog. He is welcome to stay for as long as he wants, just as long as he doesn’t, in a manner of speaking, shit in the house. Freddie tries to go one better and acts as Dodd’s fiercely loyal guard dog which is not exactly in anyone’s best interest. This is all fascinating stuff. Dodd appears to hold a privileged status while attempting to stay one step ahead of the law. Freddie appears to be a buffoon while he also seems to have a Rasputin-like power over Dodd and his cult.

It is said time and again that movies are not novels or plays and a film does well not to aspire to the texture and substance of a book. That is, unless a film makes it work. You will see more finely nuanced acting, more extended passages of solid storytelling in “The Master” than you typically see in films, or at least in a major motion picture and it works. While it is easy for some to say that they’d edit a half hour out of this or that movie that is currently touted as excellent, it is another thing for that same smart aleck to say what it is that needs to be cut. With a running time of two and a half hours, “The Master” is one of those films that is vulnerable to those type of snarky remarks. What remains, long after the reviews and the Oscars, will be intriguing entertainment like, “The Master.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Entertainment, Movie Reviews