Biutiful

Alejandro González Iñárritu's latest Biutiful tackles difficult themes of mortality and finding peace with one's self before moving on to an afterlife. The film opens and closes with some fascinating sequences. It's just everything in between, however, that is problematic.

The film is anchored by a very humane performance given by Javier Bardem, in spite of the challenge of his character's supernatural sensibilities. His Uxbal is a family man, a business man, and an ex-husband nearing the end of his life. Bardem nails each aspect of the role with a general concern for people he feels responsible for. The audience's spirit deteriorates with his as the film labors on and we watch him inch closer to the end, where he'll be reunited with the dead he'd always been able to communicate with during his life.

If the film had managed to stay more focused on his storyline, the film could potentially have turned out a very emotionally affecting piece. But in true Iñárritu fashion, he can't help but try to dilute this storyline with other interweaving character narratives that have worked so well for his films in the past. Uxbal's brother, Tito (Eduard Fernàndez), getting ready to buy their father, has sexual flings on the side with Uxbal's bipolar ex-wife Marambra (Maricel Àlvarez) who is desperate to see more of her children. Apart from Uxbal's personal troubles, his professional affairs are in a delicate state between the Chinese manufacturers he goes to for supplies of counterfeit purses, the Senegalese immigrants who sell those purses on the streets and the police force Uxbal often bribes growing impatient of these street vendors working on illegal streets.

The subplots of the Senegalese street vendors' struggling family lives and the Chinese factory owners with a labor force of illegal immigrants don't only distract from the power of the central themes, but are indicative of a larger tone of self-seriousness the film suffers from. Several shots like that of a dead owl in the snow, a pigeon walking over a lifeless homeless man, or birds en masse flying in formation over a sunset-lit sky seem perfectly poetic on their own accord, but in context often seem out of place and trying much too hard. The revelation of the two Chinese factory owners being gay is so overt and unintentionally hilarious that it trivializes their sexuality, and the screenplay's attempt of emotional manipulation falls flat on the audience. The film often deals with the question of exploitation, whether between the factory owners and their laborers or Uxbal trying to profit from their work. The film asks, "who's exploiting who?" It would seem to me that, most of all, it's the film itself.

The film has been described as "unconventional," which will be used to explain much of the negative reaction that will come from it. Fact of the matter is that that's not what's wrong with it. I found promise in the unconventional premise, and was hoping to find an unappreciated gem in this film. And there are good points to it. The larger ensemble work is strong, sudden cuts show the spirits of the dead hanging off ceilings in a deliciously creepy fashion, the camerawork is well lit and shot. All in all, though, the film is greatly uneven. The editing, usually strong in Iñárritu's work, attracts attention to how awful it is at some points including split seconds of random shots unnecessary in setting the scene. The score comes blaring in oafishly at the most bizarre moments where you’d least expect it. Many emotional tensions set up at certain points are relieved unsatisfactorily and awkwardly, and it drags on for far too long. The film is simply a mess, and a disappointingly missed opportunity.

Grade: C Read more!

MOB: How bout dem leads?

The lead categories are quickly crowding themselves, and many great performance will probably be left to the wayside. Who can make the cut, and who has the best chance of winning?

We'll start with lead actor, which I suspect will be lined up with Best Picture contenders.

1. Colin Firth - The King's Speech
2. James Franco - 127 Hours
3. Jesse Eisenberg - The Social Network
4. Jeff Bridges - True Grit
5. Ryan Gosling - Blue Valentine
6. Robert Duvall - Get Low
7. Javier Bardem - Biutiful
8. Michael Douglas - Solitary Man

The difference here is whether their films will get seen or not, and that's why the first four slots are filled by performances in probable Picture contenders that will be seen, with the last slot being the remaining film with the most chances to be seen. Colin Firth has the appearance of an easy frontrunner, being in a film jockeying for the whole win and coming fresh off of a snub of a brilliant performance last year in A Single Man to an overdue performance — ironic in two ways. 1) Somehow their mistake in not giving him the win then makes him overdue now and 2) He's likely to face the man he lost to last year again.
That's what separates him from James Franco, who won a critics poll of the best actor in show at the Toronto Film Festival. He might face similar success in his one man act with the critics awards this season, and if his film really takes off would be serious competition to Mr. Firth.
Jesse Eisenberg's another young ingenue in the mix this year, like Franco, going for his first nomination this year. As the face, soul, and carrier of this generational "event" of a film, I do think he will be hard to forget and will carry a formidable number of critics awards on his own a la Jeremy Renner last year for The Hurt Locker. Winning, though, would be difficult.
Then we have Jeff Bridges, blah blah blah, leftover admiration from last year in a major Picture contender. Then, call me crazy, I just made the decision to keep Gosling in a predicted five. Why? Well, many people saw Blue Valentine's chances as deflating with many other films stealing its spotlight and taking attention away from it, until it came roaring back in the conversation recently with a harsh NC-17. Derek Cianfrance refuses to make cuts to it. Now it's chances must be dead for sure, right? Wrong. This is exactly what it needs. Everyone knows the rating on it is bullshit, but it peaks a curiosity factor nonetheless. Particularly among the actors, who will need to see just how realistic Gosling and Williams made their sex scenes that pushed this film over the MPAA's edge. And that's exactly who needs to see it for the actors and the film itself to see any success. As we speak, Harvey is working to appeal the rating to the MPAA — wise, and safe, decision. Best case scenario is that the rating gets overturned and is allowed to be released in more markets with an R rating in conjunction with the talk it generated with an initial NC-17. But, if not, Harvey can milk the hell out of that NC-17 rating and turn this into an opportunity to bring back the NC-17 rating to artistic credibility.
That will get it more seen than Biutiful, anyways. The film is divisive but generated talk among Academy-liked Bardem after his Cannes win this past year, and is said to be in the conversation for this year's Foreign Language Film category (though it might be a bit stranger for the average Foreign-voting member). Get Low has already been seen, and that perhaps may lie its problem. Though it's not out of the question that AMPAS is bombarded with screeners bearing the star's name — ROBERT DUVALL. And then, of course, we have the potential sympathy vote with Michael Douglas with a performance in Solitary Man that I've already seen testimonials of by Academy members who loved it.

Note: All 5-8 have a reasonable chance at that last slot.



As for lead actress, things are especially competitive this year.

1. Natalie Portman - Black Swan
2. Annette Bening - The Kids Are All Right
3. Lesley Manville - Another Year
4. Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole
5. Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine
6. Julianne Moore - The Kids Are All Right
7. Jennifer Lawrence - Winter's Bone
8. Sally Hawkins - Made in Dagenham

It's looking, though, as if people will want to shape this fascinating year into a Portman vs. Bening showdown. Both should easily be able to claim respective Golden Globes (Portman for Drama and Bening for Comedy/Musical) making this super old school. There are those, however, that suggest that Black Swan simply will not get the necessary love to put Portman in contention for the win (notably the podcast earlier today from InContention). I think not, though. The narrative seems perfect: Natalie Portman is completely respected in Hollywood, at a perfectly ripe age that they love to reward in this category in a role considered baity and brilliantly executed. It will have passionate and enthusiastic fans that I think will push it into other categories, leaving this the only probable one with a remote chance of rewarding the film itself with. But, admittedly, that last reason is shakier considering just how out of the ordinary this film might seem to the Academy.
Which would leave the next battle option between Annette Bening and Lesley Manville, which the InContention folks seemed to consider a much more viable option. Both similar in hearing cries from Oscar watchers who think that they should instead be campaigned in a much weaker Supporting category where they'd be much more likely to be nominated and perhaps even win. However, they do seem pretty safe and much of a reason why this lead category is so crowded, and possibly two of the frontrunners for the win itself. Bening benefits from seeming overdue (thought of as a runner-up for both American Beauty and Being Julia, both of which she lost out to Hilary Swank) and being in a more "seen" film. However, people genuinely love Manville's performance. Arguably it's been received more kindly by the critics, and in many ways would be the opportunity to reward the 60-something year old Mike Leigh. Even if it's not specifically giving him an Oscar in the form of director or screenplay, which would be difficult for him this year but not out of the question, the Academy could decide for the first time that they want to recognize the achievements of one of his actors in recognition of his very actor-centric process of extreme improvisation in approaching his films.



Not to mention, the film will play very well to older members of the Academy. I think it will also see much British love, considering its a weepier Mike Leigh film than something like Happy-Go-Lucky passed over two years ago. This could often be the deciding factor in close races, as with Marion Cotillard's BAFTA-supported performances three years ago or Tilda Swinton's that same year. Her character is a tragic one, one whose found herself in desperately lonely circumstances that leaves her with little other option other than to seem pathetic. She sculpts a character from the ground up from the start of the film, appearing to the audience in just her character's facade in her drunken comfort. Slowly she unravels, though, revealing personal traumas of her past and a clingy dependence on her friend Gerri (played marvelously by Ruth Sheen). By the very last frame of the very last shot of the very last scene, however, our hearts are simply torn apart as it seems that the only way Mary can feel any semblance of love from this family that she needs in her life she needs to butt out of the actual family dynamic of Gerri's, and continue to repress her actual personality and self, which probably leaves her feelings of unloved loneliness inevitably strong.

Well, perhaps you know who I'm championing.

I also see a slot for Nicole Kidman's comeback role in Rabbit Hole, though this already Oscar winner isn't in conversation for the win. I keep Michelle Williams in my top five for Blue Valentine the same way and largely for the same reasons that Ryan Gosling remains in my lineup.

I do hope Julianne Moore, my personal preference between her in Bening in their film, is able to be given at least a chance. She is arguably more overdue for more roles and going tete-a-tete in scenes with Bening, she wins. Her delivery of lines like "just listen to me" seem to blunt any impact Bening has against her, despite her being very strong in her individual scenes. I'm not even that big of a fan of hers, compared to those who think she deserved wins in Short Cuts, Boogie Nights, The Big Lebowski, Magnolia, The End of the Affair, The Hours and Far From Heaven. But I think she deserves at least as much attention as her co-star.

Jennifer Lawrence seems to be a quaint name in such a big year, but with the aid of critics help (Winter's Bone remaining one of the best reviewed of the year), DVD screeners being shoveled to Academy voters' doors and at least a SAG nomination (to make her this year's Melissa Leo), she could sneak in a slot of her own.

And then I include Sally Hawkins for Made in Dagenham, a film that many see playing well to Academy members and seeing Hawkins, also wonderfully warm in Never Let Me Go, as a sure-thing standout. With attention to co-star Miranda Richardson's chances in Supporting, Hawkins' film has a chance to be seen and perhaps loved enough to see her get a nomination to make up for her monstrosity of a snub for Happy-Go-Lucky. Read more!

MOB: Let's talk Supporting

Usually around this time, the Supporting races don't look none too crowded. This year's especially exciting (or quiet, however you want to look at it) considering that this is the first year in a while without a heavy frontrunner (Waltz/Mo'Nique, Ledger/Cruz, Bardem, etc.).

Let's start with actress, just to do things a little differently.



Get ready to see a lot more of that eyebrow raise. Sony Picture Classics have ensured that Animal Kingdom is the first major FYC screener to be sent out to the doorsteps of Academy members so that they will have ample time to see it. I suspect that Jacki Weaver, pictured above, will perform one of the only critics sweeps (NY/LA/NSFC) of this season with this performance in the 96% rated flick and pushing her way to an easy nomination like Amy Adams in the past for the critically-aided Junebug. The film is small, however, and is not all that seen (no matter how much SPC wishes to change that). I see her getting in, but a win would be difficult.

1. Miranda Richardson - Made in Dagenham
2. Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom
3. Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech
4. Dianne Wiest - Rabbit Hole
5. Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit
6. Barbara Hershey - Black Swan
7. Kimberly Elise and/or Thandie Newton - For Colored Girls
8. Melissa Leo - The Fighter

I think Richardson, a two-time nominee, is someone that most Academy members will be old enough to remember and perhaps want to finally recognize for her strong film career. In a weak-ass year and an Academy-friendly film in the politically uplifting Made in Dagenham, this might just be a good opportunity to do so.
There is, of course, also Helena Bonham Carter, in probable frontrunner The King's Speech. She should ride a wave of love from the film and recognition from her name to a nomination, but reviews have never been all that strong for her compared to her co-stars and she's not likely to be in contention for the whole shebang.
Dianne Wiest is a respected character actress in a juicy role from a Tony/Pulitzer prize winning play. She's gotten good reviews and already has two Oscars to show for the industry's admiration of her (although, unlike those other two, this is not a Woody Allen movie). Hailee Steinfeld will need a bit of obvious category fraud to get into this category, but little girls can generally get away with it especially if the film is advertised as a Bridges vehicle, since there's no chance for her in a lead category. But she looks impressive enough in a very impressive trailer, and I think with [i]The King's Speech[/i] this film could be another three-nominee film (with Bridges and Damon).
Here's where we move into the 6-8 tier that I have a harder time seeing make it. Black Swan is very well reviewed and I believe it will have ecstatic supporters on its side. It has supporting actresses to offer in a weak race. However, the reviews for the supporting ladies, specifically, have not been as strong as say the film itself or Portman's performance. Between the two I think comeback veteran Barbara Hershey would have the best chance at a nomination for her "evil mother" performance a la Mo'Nique. But for someone with as little buzz as either her or Kunis (despite her prize at Venice), I think the film would need more support for either of them to make it in the way Helena Bonham Carter will be aided by her film's general enthusiasm. There are two other films that potentially have Supporting duos to offer in nominations that are big question marks right now. For Colored Girls and The Fighter both appear to be Oscar bait, both by filmmakers who are almost rather reviled in Hollywood. Tyler Perry tries his hand at the Oscar game after seeing the kind of urban fare the Academy could go for with last year's success of Precious, he adapts a very challenging play into a film with an all-star black cast. David O. Russell takes on the often-nominated boxing drama — filled with strippers, drug addicts, and bitchy moms (Melissa Leo's part being the one I find more likely than Amy Adams' stripper) in every attempt to almost punch its Oscar radar. The most we have at this point from either of them are trailers, in my opinion with For Colored Girls looking far stronger (though perhaps melodramatic) compared to the schmaltz and desperation The Fighter's trailer reeks of.



As for Supporting Actor, we have a field that looks more crowded but is still just as unsure how it's going to play out.

Here's how I'd rank the field of 8 likely contenders:
1. Geoffrey Rush - The King's Speech
2. Andrew Garfield - The Social Network
3. Mark Ruffalo - The Kids Are All Right
4. Christian Bale - The Fighter
5. Matt Damon - True Grit
6. Sam Rockwell - Conviction
7. Ed Harris - The Way Back
8. Justin Timberlake - The Social Network

Not much to say, here. Geoffrey Rush is considered just as good if not better than Colin Firth in their Best Picture hopeful, but we'll see if the Academy is eager to throw another Oscar at his feet (to me he seems esteemed enough to end his career boasting more Oscars than the one he already has). I'm championing Andrew Garfield but I'm not alone; the kid's turned into something of a superstar after The Social Network and he seems to be a big part of why people are beginning to anticipate the new Spider-Man movie he'll headline. But he's just starting to become recognizable to people, and many might see it as a bit too soon. Mark Ruffalo is a respected actor, yet to be nominated, in a film that won't win Best Picture but is likely to be nominated for one. Recap: so far we have one Oscar winner who probably doesn't need another win, an unnominated actor who doesn't need a win yet and then an unnominated actor that people just want to see damn nominated. We'll see how it goes but so far I'd say that all three are in fair contention to win it all.
Then we get to murkier territory. As I said, we're very unsure about The Fighter unlike the men of the first three films I've ranked, but even if it falls in flames I do think people are eager to give Christian Bale his first Oscar nomination seeing as though this is his first chance since people started caring about him to get an Oscar nomination. He plays a drug addict and looks really over the top in the trailer (I'm just not a big fan of his, sorry), and though he has a reputation in Hollywood I do think he's just populist enough to have enough #1 votes for a nomination. Win? Right now I wouldn't say so, but there are enough precursor opportunities that I can see him taking (starting with the NBR) that would put him in conversation for it.
Matt Damon has the benefit of having two films that will have some fans, though I think True Grit will be far less divisive than Hereafter is proving to be (despite having some vocal fans). Plus, his futile lead campaign for the latter would help him in a general sense of obligation to throw him one this year (like last year when his Invictus mention seemed also helped by his lead performance in The Informant!
Sam Rockwell has a feeling of being due similar to Bale and Ruffalo, but he's not yet as well known as they are, and his films' reviews are rather flat (though his generally sing praises). He's definitely in conversation for it, though, especially if the Academy buys its sap more than critics have been.
The last two options are very different on the surface level but face similar problems. Ed Harris is a well respected veteran character actor who has four unsuccessful Oscar nominations. He's in a film that may or may not get Academy love but he faces internal competition from other actors in his film, some (Colin Farrell) even receiving stronger notices in the few reviews there are for the film. Justin Timberlake is not a professional actor whatsoever, though a superstar in his own right (more than Harris, anyways). Some feel like he steals the show in his likelier Best Picture contender, The Social Network, but he faces heavy internal competition from a more sympathetic Andrew Garfield and a fascinating performance by Armie Hammer (also being campaigned in this race). Read more!

MOB: let's talk Director

We're in the midst of October, and already it seems like we're getting a clearer sense of the contenders before the first precursors come our way in a month and a half. Don't fret, though, the year will stay exciting with a bulk of December hopefuls left (with plenty of room for some, but there are so many and the release is relatively late so they will drop like flies).

Here, I've assembled various long lists. 8 for the acting categories and director, 15 for picture. This will make all you amateur gurus' jobs easier by giving you a shortlist of what I feel stretch the biggest eligibility of candidates from which to choose for your predictions. I think per day, perhaps, possibly, I'll make a post focused on one of each category. Let's start with directing, which will often inform Picture which often informs many of the acting categories:

Best Director (alphabetical, by film)
Danny Boyle, 127 Hours
Mike Leigh, Another Year
Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
Christopher Nolan, Inception
Tom Hooper, The King's Speech
David Fincher, The Social Network
Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, True Grit
Peter Weir, The Way Back

The Director's branch has never been afraid to accept new members into their groups, so this is a relatively heavy hitting group of directing superstars that I objectively think would be in contention for the nomination. Even Tom Hooper, director of John Adams, is someone I'd consider a heavy hitter amongst TV directors at least and one who is recognizable enough to have at least a shot at the DGA win (he has been nominated before...). That being said, and with The King's Speech recent win of the Audience Award at the Hamptons Film Festival, to keep company with its Toronto prize (arguably an increasingly important prize leading into the Oscars season), it shows heavy support among actual Academy voters like those who would be attempting the Hamptons festival. The Festival circuit seems to have been a wise decision for Weinstein's campaign of this film, and nevertheless I think it's as safe a bet for Picture as it is here. Of course, taking the festival route, it distinguishes itself from The Social Network appropriately hitting the mainstream. Two weekend box office victories in a row for this film premised around a popular website with only one star in it (who's hardly an actor) and artistic pedigree to the crew. That's an enormous achievement, and as we speak it still seems to be dominating the popular discourse which is essential in attaining buzz. It's in an unfortunate position that makes it ripe to peak too soon, and I think thus far we've seen more evidence of widespread Academy support for The King's Speech, but Fincher probably even maintains a frontrunner status in this category for the win regardless of how the film fares in Picture. I think he's safe.

Those two are in the top tier. From there it gets slightly murkier. The Coen brothers and Danny Boyle are both recent winners, neither of which I can imagine won't benefit from leftover love from '07 and '08, respectively, and relatively big names in the business with probable Best Picture nominees on their hands. There could be room for one of them, or both of them.

The third tier has more of a foreign flavor. Mike Leigh, from the UK, has no less than six Academy Award nominations; two for directing. Peter Weir, approximately the same age as Leigh, hails from Australia. He, too, holds six Academy Award nominations to his name without a win. Difference being, they're all for directing. They both boast baity ensemble pieces this year, though on vastly different scales, that run the risk of being underseen. Both Picture candidates, of course, but not safe. The Way Back announced a qualifying run for the end of December very recently by a distribution company that doesn't seem very resourced to get the film out there. But then again, Weir's been nominated for Best Director six times; the Academy's directing branch is clearly enamored. I'd say the branch gives him so much support that they alone can get his film into Picture. But the film itself hasn't found ecstatic support among its few reviews, with the exception perhaps of Kris Tapley from InContention. Mike Leigh's film is seen as more likely to get into Picture with better reviews, a more able-bodied distribution company in Sony Pictures Classics and likely precursor support in the critics awards. It's very tough to say, but my guess is that one of the two gets in. Both, though not impossible, would be difficult.

Then the next, and final, tier we see Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky. The similarities can be spotted from a mile away. They have a similar reputation among young film fans as mainstream visionaries whose work has yet to be significantly rewarded by major bodies this time of year. Both came close in 2008 with The Dark Knight and The Wrestler. This year doesn't look all that different. Inception is a major summer smash that's seen as an opportunity to finally throw Nolan a nomination while Black Swan is a Venice festival breakout hit with heavy critical acclaim but potential divide amongst its viewers. Inception will have a DVD release to remind voters of how necessary it will be portrayed to give kudos to this major Hollywood studio production. Black Swan, though it might not find consensus love in the Academy, will almost surely have enough passionate supporters in the block to throw #1 votes its way.

How will this all play out? I think the logical thing to do might be to include both from the first tier, and then one each from the following. So a standard good prediction might look like David Fincher, Tom Hooper, Danny Boyle, Peter Weir and Christopher Nolan.
Of course, though, I'm not very logical. My line of thinking is more along the lines of ranking the piers of possibility. Here's how I see the chances for these contenders playing out:

1. David Fincher, The Social Network
2. Tom Hooper, The King's Speech
3. Danny Boyle, 127 Hours
4. Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, True Grit
5. Peter Weir, The Way Back (hell, at this point he could be a lone nominee that we otherwise saw as impossible in 10 nominee-years)
6. Mike Leigh, Another Year
7. Christopher Nolan, Inception
8. Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan

But, I include all 8 since those are who I see as the candidates as of right now. Read more!

NYFF Diaries: The end

Lesley Manville as Mary
Photo by Simon Mein (c) Thin Man Films Ltd., Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

2010's New York Film Festival wraps up, and I have four more films seen: Inside Job, Certified Copy, Aurora and Another Year. For lack of time, the reviews haven't been posted yet, but I think I'll do another larger MOB segment on Another Year and its chances the same way I did for The Social Network in my last post.





Eliot Spitzer
Governor, New York State (2007-2008); Attorney General, New York State (1999-2007)
Photo by Representational Pictures, Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

Inside Job is an infuriating look at the breakdown of successful regulations upon our financial system starting with Ronald Reagan and continuing even today with President Obama following the ensuing financial meltdown. Effective in its arguments with very strong interviews, the film presents the facts in a manner that's very comprehensible to more people than just those who profit off of the system's manipulation as many who were interviewed for the project did. Made by a liberal, but even the most ardent Obama supporter will leave the film reflecting upon how criminal it seems that Obama appointed the type of people who fed into the system's downfall even after the fact. The film takes no prisoners, and our country could benefit from more average people being educated by the film enough to hold our nation's leaders more responsible for their economic actions.

Grade: B

Celebrated Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami marks a new chapter in his long career with Certified Copy, making a film outside of his home country for the first time. The naturally sunny Tuscan cinematography keeps the film floating light on its feet as Kiarostami's trademark ponderous dialogue and themes unfold. English Opera singer William Shimmell and heavily decorated French actress Juliette Binoche play characters that, at first glance, seem to be meeting for the first time but then brilliantly evolve their dynamic into a couple that may or may not have been married for fifteen years. The common insecurities, grievances, and worries of both of their respective married lives slowly unfurl throughout the film. Shimmell's tonal sensibilities make for a solid film debut, but it's Binoche, under the baggage of fifteen years of the character's single motherhood, who steals the show. To me, probably the best (and certainly most accessible) film of Kiarostami's yet.

Grade: A-

Aurora is the latest offering of Romania's booming new wave film scene, perhaps jumpstarted by director Cristi Puiu's film The Death of Mr. Lazarescu several yeas ago. His latest, which he both directs and stars in, is a dreadful test of your patience and movie watching ability. Throughout its three hour lifespan, perhaps four brief events in between seem to advance a plot in any way and two of those might hold your slightest interest. Puiu himself gives a very soulful performance as a very average man who goes on a killing spree against several people associated with his ex-wife. But again, the action is few and far between the tedious display of his everyday life and encounters that stretches the film to its length. The only slight payoff of the whole thing is an amusing conversation with investigators at the very end.

Grade: D



Lesley Manville as Mary
Photo by Simon Mein (c) Thin Man Films Ltd., Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

Another Year is the latest offering from Mike Leigh and among the most emotionally affecting films of the year. The film, among other things, studies age and its various consequences and connotations. Among his illustrious string of performance pieces, Another Year offers the very best performances in any Leigh film thus far and adds Lesley Manville's role as Mary to a competitive list of cinema's very best drunkard performances. The other two central performances of Jim Broadbent's Tom and Ruth Sheen's Gerri give off a magnificent parental warmth and naturally convinces you of their forty years together. But it's Manville, especially at the end, who ends up shattering your heart. It's also among the most visually sophisticated and cinematic of Leigh's films, showing each of the four seasons with a different tone and feel appropriate to that time of the year. Another Year is magnificent.

Grade: A+
Read more!

MOB: The Social Network

This early morning's post will consist of a conversation about The Social Network, both of its own cinematic merits and its narrative this upcoming awards season.

Generally, people are trying to frame many of the major categories as if it's already over. The Social Nework, David Fincher, Colin Firth, Natalie Portman, and Aaron Sorkin. I do think it'd be an awful shame if that were the case, but I do think one thing is obvious: two films stand ahead of the pack to go vis-à-vis each other as it stands now for the top prize, and those are The Social Network and The King's Speech.

Numbers-wise, I posted the other day that The King's Speech had the numbers and pedigree to give it the edge between the two films. It didn't take long soon after to realize that, surface level, yes, it does seem hard to debate. But here's the thing it doesn't really have: the narrative. The Social Network has been framed as a generational event. Essential viewing. Speaks to a young generation as well as to that of all basic human instincts. Critics who aren't Armond White have monumentally supported the film with a tremendous 98 score on metacritic, zooming past Toy Story 3 as the best reviewed of the year.

Plus, it's not as if The Social Network doesn't have a leg to stand on in the Academy demographics. In fact, it has more than enough to win. Fincher's name will inspire more out of the directors than Tom Hooper. If there's any lock in the major categories its Aaron Sorkin for his complex, interweaving out-of-sequential order screenplay. It seems like a heavy favorite to take the SAG Ensemble Award and will probably come out of it with 1-3 acting nominations (most sure is Andrew Garfield, though Eisenberg and Timberlake have a considerable shot as well). So it's got the biggest demographics: the actors (though would still have to catch up to The King's Speech safe 3 acting nominations as of right now).

It's got the major bases covered. Out of techs, a few things seem to be pretty sure: that Roger Deakins will finally win his long overdue Cinematography statuette for True Grit (a kickass trailer included in the previews for The Social Network), heavy leanings in costumes and art direction for The King's Speech, and The Social Network's editing prize. It's as baity in editing as techs get, not only weaving together three simultaneous storylines but jumping back and forth between present and past. It could probably ride a wave of love over to a cinematography nomination as well with its various blurs and cold tones that keeps the viewer on their feet. It is very likely to see love out of the sound categories in both mixing and editing, and perhaps even Dave Navarro for Best Original Score. And, who knows, could even get visual effects with Fincher's usually subtle touches of CGI.

That itself could take it well beyond double-digit nominations, but the most important touch of all is the narrative that has already been set and put into play. It should be populist enough in a year that seems to be dominated by big Hollywood, tracking very well for this weekend with enough good word-of-mouth to sustain strong legs throughout the entire awards season only fueled by the more awards it will win. It has the critics on their side and could sweep the three majors (NY/LA/NSFC). But it's the way people are talking about it.

There have been doubts, however, that not all Academy members will respond well to it. It's a little too "fresh," little too "hip." They're referring to the ever large segment of older Academy voters, for whom the film is certainly not made for. But I would say that's one aspect equal in importance to all the others mentioned where The Social Network seems destined to ace in and dominate, and more than capable of overcoming that obstacle. It looks like its Fincher's turn to win this year, Sorkin's in the lead to win, its editing is in the lead to win, and Andrew Garfield looks like he may very well be able to stand on his own against long time heavy weights like Christian Bale, Sam Rockwell, Mark Ruffalo and Geoffrey Rush.

Can he win? At this point in doesn't seem all that likely with reviews not seeming to single him out more than any other member of the cast, but as far as I can tell, I won't see a better performance in the category this year. In a film brimming with mechanized characters rendered more robotically distant and cold due to technology and online social networks, he's the only one who brings a semblance of humanity. Written very sympathetically, you ache as he remains a loyal and faithful loving friend to Mark — at one time, each other's only close friend. The tension in his performance builds up throughout to the point where it boils over and is released at the climax of this already breakneck-paced film that he takes complete control over. Never histrionic, only real.

It's not as if he doesn't have a chance to win. Geoffrey Rush seems poised to be very friendly with critics this year. Christian Bale and Sam Rockwell will be pushed to get their first acting nominations in the categories but Rockwell's film doesn't quite have the reviews to keep it a very widely seen film nor widely recognized in other categories. I don't think The Fighter will, either. I think Garfield's age might be holding him back but he'll just need a Golden Globe to keep his name in the game, or even one of the major critics prizes (and not just the "breakthrough awards" that he'll be fighting for against Jennifer Lawrence).

Besides, leaving the film, the only thing anyone around me on all sides were talking about exiting the theater was his performance. They checked the credits to check his name — "Andrew Garfield...he was amaaaaazing!" He's a crowd favorite, for sure. And in a film billed as a once-in-a-generation event, being that much of a standout that he dominates the conversation about the film to many afterward is a very good sign that many seeing the film in Hollywood will feel the same way. Besides, he's an attractive young man (see: above). It will soon be revealed to people through interviews that he is, in fact, English (adding to his appeal and how much he impresses people with his undetectable accent in the film). He will also be shown to be absolutely adorable if not slightly geeky (see: his rendition of The Gregory Brothers' "Bed Intrusion Song"). People are looking forward to his reboot of Spider-Man. The kid's a star. That's the fact of the matter. And, very likely, he'll end up winning an Oscar one day. This very bloody well could be and, likely, should be the year.

So, there's that. He has a chance for the win, and if I have anything to do with it, then he will win. Read more!