... FOR "'THE IMITATION GAME,' 'A BEAUTIFUL MIND,' AND THE PERILS OF HISTORY VERSUS HOLLYWOOD"

A couple of months ago, a friend messaged me on Facebook, asking me for a recommendation on which film he should see on the big screen for the weekend. Browsing the showtimes for local theaters, I told him to avoid Taken 3 at all costs (the big release for that Friday, and, let's face it, a ripoff of The Fugitive, with bigger explosions and less logic) and heartily recommended The Imitation Game instead, starting Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley. "Oh, yeah," my friend wrote back, "[that] reminded me of A Beautiful Mind a little. I'm sure it's very different, but the decrypting idea was similar."

Immediately I jumped to the new movie's defense. "Except the encryption stuff in The Imitation Game actually happened," I snapped, and instantly regretted it. First of all, who was I to say that the film shouldn't remind him of A Beautiful Mind? Both are period pieces. They're both shot in the same drab monochromatic browns. Both feature eccentric actors at the height of their star power. And yes, if you watch the trailers for both, they each seem to center around code-breaking and high-stakes government intrigue. But the simpler truth is that Biopics have always been known for futzing the truth when it comes to their larger-than-life historical subjects. What makes The Imitation Game any different? Though the film doesn't shy away from the fact that Alan Turing was homosexual, the events leading up to his arrest for "gross indecency" in 1952 Britain (among other things) differ greatly from how they're presented on-screen. Details about the codebreakers' work ethic have been glossed over, characters have been left out completely or invented for dramatic purposes, and it's even suggested that Turing suffered from Asperger Syndrome (he didn't) to make his actions seem more heroic. And yet we're meant to accept all this as gospel truth!

... FOR "HOLLYWOOD'S BIGGEST NIGHT" (aka "OSCARS 2015") - UPDATED!

UPDATE: Well, it seems Cracked was absolutely right. In a move that should surprise absolutely no one in retrospect, Oscar bestowed Eddie Redmayne and Julianne Moore with Best Actor/Actress honors at last night's 87th Annual Academy Awards, for playing disease-ridden screen characters and/or historical figures. Moore's win is especially grating, not because she didn't deserve it, but because she's already given at least a half dozen worthwhile performances, and since this year she happened to play a Columbia University professor suffering from Alzheimer's, the Academy finally decided to give her her due. (Like Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady, Moore was awarded for a film people respected but didn't particularly enjoy.)

As for the rest, I guess I really shouldn't be too upset that Birdman took home top honors for Best Picture, Director and Original Screenplay. It is, after all, a terrific entertaiment, with stellar performances and knockout cinematography. But its meta-tale of artists under pressure is as old as Fellini's 8½, and the illusion that it's all shot in one long, uninterrupted camera take has been pulled off before, in Sokurov's Russian Ark and Hitchcock's Rope. I'm convinced more than ever that every film today is a copy of something else, and that the only thing "original" about them is the way their stories are told.

So why didn't Boyhood win the Oscar for Best Picture? As far as I'm concerned, it was the only film released last year that broke ground in any way, this 12-year odyssey, shot with the same actors, of a boy growing up and the "moments" that make up his life. The movie may seem uneventful to the average viewer, but then again that isn't the point. (The point is: What do you do with the moments that make up your life? Do the curve balls steer you in the right direction or hold you back?) Boyhood was a labor of love for its director and actors and everyone else involved, and no other film aimed higher or accomplished more by saying so little. And that will be cherished and remembered decades from now while everything else fades into oblivion.

As for the show itself, we were attending a family function so I really didn't get to see much of it. But I managed to stick around long enough to hear host Neil Patrick Harris say of the Oscars, "Or, as I like to call them, the Dependent Spirit Awards." That pretty much summed it all up for me.

A (relatively) short one today, since you've no doubt already formed an opinion of what the Academy Awards do or do not mean to you at this point. To sum up the blog's annual stance on the subject, the Oscars a) are really nothing more than a glorified high school popularity contest, b) pride themselves on celebrating that old "independent spirit," c) sometimes rally around a unified theme, d) try to seem "edgy" and "of the moment" only to revel in time-worn clichés in the end, and e) celebrate everything that's mediocre about American film. And yet, without fail, something will compel me to tune in, at least for a bit, to see if all the tried-and-true traditions still hold. If you can resist the temptation to check out even a part of the telecast for yourself (and, let's be honest, who couldn't use a little Neil Patrick Harris fix every now and then?), then congratulations, you're a better person than I am.

... FOR "HOLLYWOOD'S BIGGEST NIGHT" (aka "OSCARS 2014") - UPDATED!

UPDATED: Well, that's it. Another Oscar show, another 365 days at the movies come and gone. While last night's telecast had its surprises (12 Years A Slave for Best Picture? Did anyone but the politically correct-minded see that one coming?) as well as its foregone conclusions (Frozen for Best Animated Feature and Best Song, plus Alfonso Cuarón nabbing Best Director honors for Gravity), Oscar 2014 will likely go down as the most social media-centric ceremony in the history of ever, with host Ellen DeGeneres' star-studded "selfie" breaking records as Twitter's most retweeted photo of all time. (My favorites: Kevin Spacey and resident sour-puss Angelina Jolie joining in on the fun, or Brad Pitt and Benedict Cumberbatch photobombing Best Actor hopeful Chiwetel Ejiofor mere seconds later.)

From what I watched, the show was every bit as random and rambling as it has been in previous years, with pompous tributes (how, exactly, did The Wizard Of Oz earn a special remembrance for its 75th anniversary, while other classics like Gone With The Wind and Stagecoach did not?) and pointless attempts at grandiosity dominating the night (dedicating the ceremony to "heroes" in film, animated and otherwise, only to show endless clip montages populated mostly by men? Dudes, your women must be so proud!). All this, plus John Travolta hilariously mispronouncing Idina Menzel's name during her otherwise top-notch rendition of "Let It Go"? Oh, the humanity!

Winners have been bolded (with an asterisk) at the end of this post. For anyone who stuck through to the end, what are your thoughts, reminisces, complaints? Did any acceptance speech or musical performance rub you the wrong way? What winner took you most by surprise/had you rolling your eyes? Is anyone else fully on board the McConaissance like I am? Please post your responses below!

 
Oscar, Oscar, what could you possibly be thinking? 

Each year, we're subjected to our share of cop-outs and controversies surrounding the Academy Awards. Often, these range from the obsessively petty (How did that person even get nominated?) to the borderline offensive (celebs who mistake their time at the podium as an opportunity for political grandstanding). Other times, Oscar seems to have an agenda all its own (the 69th Annual Academy Awards, for example, for which The English Patient took home the coveted prize for Best Picture, might have been dubbed The Year of The Independent Film; in 2004, Oscar was all about The Lord of The Rings: The Return Of The King, winning every award for which it was nominated; two years ago, I argued that the nominees for Best Picture at the 84th Academy Awards were steeped in nostalgia for times gone by).

... FOR "MOVIE COINCIDENCE OF THE DAY #3"

In which we take a look at a series of odd movie coincidences - scenes, jokes, dialogue, even specific camera shots shared between two seemingly unrelated films. Anyone who's sat through a particular scene in a movie and thought, "Gee, haven't I seen someone do this somewhere before?" will know exactly what I'm talking about.

My apologies for the (literal) bathroom humor. But this one's worth a leak look. Needless to say, the following clips are definitely PG-rated:

A League Of Their Own (Penny Marshall, 1992)

The Naked Gun (David Zucker, 1988)

__________

Interested in more Movie Coincidences of the Day? Click here for our introductory article. Then click here for Part 2.

... FOR "CINEMA STAPLES AND THE PECULIAR POSITIONING OF NAMES ON MOVIE POSTERS"

While we're stuck on a movie poster kick, I happened to catch a 10-minute featurette on Ridley Scott's The Counselor the other day, which, among clips and talking-head interviews and the like, also featured red-carpet footage from the movie's October 3rd UK premiere. As they questioned star Michael Fassbender for the camera, I couldn't help but notice a peculiar poster for the film in the background (note: this photo is obviously from an Entertainment Tonight report from the very same event, and not, obviously, from the featurette I watched on the TV the other night, since I couldn't find a photo from that):

It's nothing special as far as posters go, just your typical mishmash of the actors' profiles to let you know who's actually in the movie, except for one particular problem: their names don't line up with their faces! And it took my brain a moment to process it (Why, that isn't Fassbender - that's Cameron Diaz! And that isn't Cameron Diaz - it's Brad Pitt!). Here's a closer look, so you can see what I'm talking about:

... FOR "CARTOON/CELEBRITY DOPPELGÄNGERS"

Been on an animation kick as of late, what with ABC Family and The Disney Channel showing Peter Pan, Tarzan and Lilo & Stitch at all hours of the day, plus the kids' incessant playing of Wreck-It Ralph on DVD. It always impresses me how the best cartoon features still have the power to entrance us, even after all these years, with animation every bit as supple as their storytelling.

Even so, we skipped seeing Ralph in theaters - sometimes, it's hard to tell what will and what won't be worth the $40 family trip to the movies - but I imagine it plays just as well at home as it did on the big screen. Disney's 52nd Animated Classic basically does for video games what Toy Story did for toys, with clever cameos and in-jokes for old-school and hardcore gamers alike, and a sugar-sweet story at its center. What I like most about it, though, are the vocal performances - namely from its two main stars, whom you wouldn't normally associate with kid-friendly fare.

... FOR "HOLLYWOOD'S BIGGEST NIGHT" (aka "OSCARS 2013") - UPDATED! WITH WINNERS AND (BRIEF) COMMENTARY!

UPDATE: Another year, another Oscar celebration. And though it was still technically anyone's game, the results were pretty much as expected, with Argo, Les Misérables, Life Of Pi and Lincoln carrying their share of the winner's workload. (About Daniel Day-Lewis: of course he deserved to take home the Best Actor award, but if history's taught us anything, it's that actors rarely pull a same-category trifecta.) The night's biggest surprise? I'd call it a tie: First, the great Christoph Waltz scoring his second Best Supporting Actor nod (for his second starring role in a Quentin Tarantino movie, no less), and, of course, Jennifer Lawrence tripping (gracefully) onto the stage to accept her Best Actress award. The rest of the winners were respectably even across the board, with Life Of Pi winning four awards, Argo and Les Mis winning three, and Lincoln, Django Unchained, and Skyfall (yes!) each winning two. As always, the full list of winners follows below, bolded and marked with an asterisk (*).

Well, it's Oscar time again, folks! That time of year when Hollywood's best and brightest gather together at the world-renowned Dolby/Kodak/ Hollywood and Highland Center Theatre to celebrate 365 days' worth of movies and magic. That time of year when your favorite stars get dolled up in their fanciest duds to strut down that Red Carpet, put on a happy face, put their best foot forward, bask in each other's proverbial spotlight, and... and...

Oh, who am I kidding? If you're a fan at all of the blog, then you're already well aware of my general dislike for this annual Academy Award worshipping nonsense. (For those unaware, let's recap: The Oscars, more than anything, are a lot like high school, in which the Popular Kids command all the attention and respect. And yet we continue to watch, because we just can't get enough of it.) You think I'd be frothing at the mouth a bit, shouting from the rooftops to anyone and everyone who'll listen, but then a funny thing happened: Last month, when they announced the nominations for this year's telecast, my dislike turned to full-on complacency and acceptance, as if I'd finally gotten over myself long enough to see the light. The Oscars are all about the politics, always have been, always will. The fun part is seeing how those politics play out. (In other words: Just sit back and go with the flow. Resistance is futile.)

... FOR "SEQUEL-ITIS AND 'TOY STORY 3'"

So. Toy Story 3. I've been letting it sink in for the past few days now, and here's what I think: as a sequel to my favorite animated franchise, it doesn't quite soar to the same heights as its predecessors (the writing's a tad lazy on a couple of fronts), but nevertheless acts as a lovely and moving coda to the series that began Pixar's cinematic legacy.

The original Toy Story – and I believe this just as strongly now as I did when the movie was released back in 1995, the year I graduated from high school (!) – is this generation's Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs. Sure, we knew (computer) animation had been around for a while, but we didn't know it could do that. It also came as a firm announcement of the Pixar model: story first, everything else second. (Any movie can wow you with its technique, acting or special effects, but if the story's a bust there's really no point.)

... FOR "THE BEST FILMS OF THE DECADE" - PART 5

Genre:

DRAMA


Defined:

Happiness. Heartache. Man's eternal struggle to achieve one and distance himself from the other. The Dramatic film is Hollywood's favorite genre, with six out of ten Best Picture wins at the Academy Awards this past decade (Crash, The Departed, The Hurt Locker, Million Dollar Baby and Slumdog Millionaire; other winners included an Action epic, a Biopic, a Musical, and a Fantasy film, respectively). Dramas provide stars ample opportunity to show off their acting skills, and a chance to impress their peers. They also give filmmakers the chance to probe the great mysteries of the human heart. Like all great films, though, the Dramas that matter most are the ones that surprise you with their depth and emotional impact.


The Top Five:

5. Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

Typo'd title aside (it's a deliberate riff on a Z-grade Dirty Dozen rip-off from the 70s), Quentin Tarantino's latest love letter to movies features some of his most literate work to date. It's still a mishmash of genres – this time it's World War II revenge fantasy meets Nazi spy thriller with a dose of French New Wave. I include it here based on the intensity of Tarantino's extended dialogue sequences, which build and build to the point of anxiety; an opening prologue at a farmhouse and, later, a rendezvous at an underground bar are like master classes in screenwriting, with adversaries playing verbal games of cat and mouse to discover each others' secrets. The movie itself is almost gleefully anachronistic – a David Bowie ballad plays at one point, and Tarantino even re-writes the outcome of the war so that Hitler meets his end at the hand of Jewish mercenaries. Not exactly what I'd call an accurate depiction of history. Just a director at his exhilarating, visceral best.

... FOR "HOLLYWOOD'S BIGGEST NIGHT" (aka "THE OSCARS") - UPDATED!

As a diversion from the fact that you're anxiously awaiting Part 3 of our "Best Of The Decade" list (which, again, is taking too long to finish)...

So the 82nd Annual Academy Awards are tomorrow night, Sunday, March 7th. At last. I was going to write something about it, just for the sake of writing about it, but a funny thing happened: I forgot the stupid things were even on.