OVP: Original Song (2011)

OVP: Best Original Song

The Nominees Were...

"Man or Muppet," The Muppets, Music and Lyrics by Bret McKenzie

"Real in Rio," from Rio, Music by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown, Lyrics by Siedah Garrett

My Thoughts: I was about to check out for the night, and then I recalled the travesty that happened in last year's Oscars in the Original Song category-just two songs received Academy Award nominations, despite new songs from P!nk, Mary J. Blige, Bruno Mars, and Elton John, amongst many others, being eligible.  So I figured I could do a quick one before I go to bed.  

Thankfully, the Academy revamped the rules for this category so this year will be an anomaly rather than routine.  I truly enjoy this category (anyone who doesn't should remind themselves of how many great movie moments happen with original songs), so I want it to succeed, and with five nominations nearly guaranteed in 2012, we should be in better shakes (though they also need to eliminate the 2-song limit so that original musicals, when someone has the guts to make one, get their due, like this past year).

For, in both of our nominated films, we got that rarest of birds-a pair of original musicals.  And oddly enough (that metaphor was intentional), one of the films is about two rare birds.  Rio, an animated film that somehow got left off of the Animated Feature list, despite being nominated in a non-animated category (something none of the actual nominees pulled off), is about two Spix's macaws, and how they find love during Carnaval while being chased by poachers and a devilishly funny cockatoo (voiced by Jermaine Clement).  The song actually is played twice in the film-at the very beginning and the very ending.  It's a rousing samba which I found myself humming for an hour or two after I saw the film, though it clearly didn't stick, as I had to re-listen to the tune just before I wrote this piece.

The second nominated song is a bit groan-inducing to include, considering the bevy of choices that Oscar had within the movie, but it's still quite amusing, if for nothing else than the sight gags.  The song is "Man or Muppet?" and is performed by Jason Segal, Peter Linz, Jim Parsons, and Bill Barretta within the film, and shows the characters of Gary and Walter at a crossroads, trying to decide whether they are men or muppets.  It's a cute identity crisis, but considering this is the film franchise that brought us the tear-inducing melody of individuality "The Rainbow Connection," and that this is the third best original song in this movie alone, it seems a shame that it was for this song that Oscar decided to honor the franchise.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Golden Globes had an entirely different lineup (as they oftentimes do) filled with famous names (as they oftentimes do).  Selections from Albert Nobbs, Gnomeo and Juliet, Machine Gun Preacher, The Help, and W.E. (the ultimate winner), meant that Glenn Close, Elton John, Chris Cornell, Mary J. Blige, and Madonna were in attendance there.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Where to begin?  I suppose that Oscar should be at least given a little bit of a break in that this was not a strong year for Best Original Song.  That being said, they at least could have picked the best songs in these two movies-"Pretty Bird" from Rio would have been a better choice, as it's smarter lyrically (and would have meant that the two stars of Flight of the Conchords would have competed against each other-a great story).  And "Man of Muppet" cannot hold a candle to the very Muppets-esque "Life's a Happy Song" (complete with celebrity cameos!) or the sad lament "Pictures in My Head."  

Oscar's Choice: Oscar made the obvious choice, and went with The Muppets, the first Oscar for their franchise.

My Choice: Honestly, this is a close race for me-on the surface, it makes more sense to go with The Muppets, but this isn't a cumulative award, and what could have been an easy score with one of the other songs is a close match.  However, it's still a match that they win, and Bret McKenzie also gets my Oscar.

And now, of course, I welcome you to discuss in the comments-of the two films, what movie deserved the trophy?  What films should have been nominated?  And of all films in 2011, which had truly the best Original Song?

Also in 2011: Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, 2011 Recap

OVP: Art Direction (2011)

OVP: Best Art Direction

The Nominees Were...

Laurence Bennett (Production) and Robert Gould (Set), The Artist

Stuart Craig (Production) and Stephanie McMillan (Set), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

Dante Ferretti (Production) and Francesca Lo Schiavo (Set), Hugo

Anne Seibel (Production) and Helene Dubreuil (Set), Midnight in Paris

Rick Carter (Production) and Lee Sandales (Set), War Horse

My Thoughts: We are a finishing up the last of the visual categories for the Oscars-next will be the four sound/music categories.  But first, we must tackle art direction.  While my favorite tech category is Cinematography, I suspect that a number of people like this one the best, and why wouldn't they?  This is the category that celebrates one of the most astonishing aspects of cinema-the worlds that are created (sometimes based on history, sometimes by imagination) in front of us on the shining silver screen.  And with destinations like Paris in multiple decades, Old Hollywood, the countryside farms of France and Great Britain, and the Harvard of wizarding schools, I won't make us wait any longer to make the journey.  Let's dive in!

The striking thing about this category is how much time we spend in France.  While I don't recall Harry Potter making it to Paris (though I'd have to re-view the film to confirm we never get there), we have three films that spend all or part of the film in France, and The Artist has two French leads!  The French certainly were taking over this category, and most impressively with Hugo.  Ferretti/Lo Schiavo are old pro's in this category-they've got three Oscars a piece between them, and have created worlds for Mel Gibson, Tim Burton, and most frequently, Martin Scorsese.  Here they show their true heights with the beautiful world of France in 1931.

What makes this special isn't just that it's a captivating place-and-time, it's the way that it gives the audience a whirl of details, while never appearing gaudy.  Occasionally, in films like, say The Grinch, this category goes for quantity over quality, letting the film fall into a "let's throw a bunch of additional crap onto the screen" sort of pitfall.  With Hugo, though, we get quantity and quality-the Train Station, the many levers and ticks of the clocks, the sets that make up Melies flashbacks-they all lend themselves marvelously to the world that Scorsese wants us to enter.  Scorsese's films always aspire for atmosphere-that they are people who could live and walk amongst us, and even in a film that strays fairly far from the "real," Scorsese still gets that atmosphere-fluffy, snow-covered, and filled with discovery.  I wanted to go back to this world, and I felt like I could, and that's a sign that the art director is doing his job.

Take that and compare it, with, say, Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris.  Now, Woody rarely gets technical accolades for his films, and I think that's a crime.  In what stretch of the imagination, for example, do Diane Keaton's outfits in Annie Hall deserve less Academy recognition than those worn in Airport '77?  And the apartments in his New York City movies mean Manhattan for most of America-intellectual chic, with books and magazines littered amongst the potted ferns (for the record, if you're moving to Manhattan, either come armed with a winning lottery ticket or don't expect your apartment to look like that).  So it's disappointing that when he finally grabs a nod in a technical category, it's for something as run as the mill as his Paris.

It's not that Midnight's sets and production is bad, it's just not worthy to be gifted with an Oscar nomination.  The best parts are when they descend back into the Belle Epoque and enter Maxim's-the reds and browns of the set scream forward, and it's so romantically lit.  Paris (give or take my beloved New York) is the most intoxicating city in the world, and is never lacking in ambience, but unlike Scorsese's film, we don't ever get the full effect, and I feel like while we may get some upper-middle class realism in most scenes, we aren't treated to anything award-worthy.

Now that I've had to speak ill of Woody Allen (something I never like to do, even when he may deserve it-did anyone see his latest movie?), let's get the Spielberg (another of my beloveds) question mark out of the way as well.  Spielberg's film is also an oddity in this race.  In a year that wasn't lacking period films (Oscar tends to favor them in this category, though not to the extent he does in Best Costume), I was surprised they picked a film that takes place mostly on the battlefield and outdoors, two things that require minimalist work in this category.  The bunkers of World War I are very realistic, and the war field is quite marvelous (Joey running across the field is a spectacle), but otherwise there's nothing truly special about this film either-the interiors are fine, and again, obviously accurate, but it's not the lived-in marvelous accuracy that a film like Children of Men achieved to near perfect effect in this category.

And while we're in the countryside of Britain, we must make it to its mythical counterpart, the truly spellbinding world of Harry Potter.  Like I've mentioned in other categories, Deathly Hallows is handicapped by being one of eight, but there's more than enough to be wowed about in this film to justify this nomination.  The castle in particular we get to see in its cavernous glory-going into until now unforeseen dungeons and rooms, and we get a fuller appreciation of the entire Hogwarts grounds.  The Art Direction has always been the series' best technical aspect, and it doesn't disappoint in this film.

Finally, we're going to return once more to The Artist (for the record, I don't think I ever truly appreciated the magnitude of winning multiple nominations until I started writing this recap-Hugo and The Artist sure did clean up, didn't they?).  Again, and I say this with a lot of admiration for what the filmmakers were trying to do, but I don't see this as being truly extraordinary in the way that Hugo and Harry Potter are.  Sure, there is a lot of greatness in the set-the staircase and the dressing rooms are both splendid additions, but that's really it in my mind-the entire film looks less like a lived-in world than a set on a movie lot.  That, I know, is possibly what they're going for, but it then becomes homage and mimicry, but not necessarily greatness.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Art Directors Guild cited an almost entirely different lineup.  While Hugo (their eventual winner) and The Artist both stuck around, the Shakespearean world of Anonymous, the Southern homes of The Help, and the cluttered offices of "the Circus" of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy were all nominated instead.  The BAFTA's matched up almost identically with Oscar (and also gave the award to Hugo), with only Midnight in Paris being dumped in favor of Tinker Tailor.

Films I Would Have Nominated: You know how above I talked about that lived-in, transformative quality that a number of the films were missing?  It's a shame that one of them didn't get out of the way for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, easily the best of this category (it even outdoes Hugo and Harry Potter).  The spy headquarters look exactly like you'd expect them to be-disorganized, sheltered, with clear touches of government money (beautiful conference rooms) juxtaposed with the wear of people toiling through a constant work schedule.

Oscar's Choice: Yet another win for Hugo, probably the Oscar it most deserved of the ones that it took.

My Choice: This would be an easy choice if I had the world of George Smiley to choose.  It'd also be easy if I was able to recognize Stuart Craig's work on the Harry Potter series as a whole.  And it's also easy to rank the final three films (The Artist, War Horse, and Midnight in Paris, for the record).  But after hemming and hawing, I'm going to give this to the magical Scorsese Paris.  It's a tough decision, but if I'm being truly in a bubble only looking at this five films and their quality (the goal of this project), I have to say it's the slight superior, even if that means that Stuart Craig never gets honored for one of the most impressive achievements in the history of the field (his other two nominations are against even stronger competition) due to his work being a fragment in a series rather than a whole.  So congrats to Dante and Francesca, my by-a-hair winners!

And now, of course, I welcome you to discuss in the comments-of the five films, what movie deserved the trophy?  What films should have been nominated?  And of all films in 2011, which had truly the best Art Direction?

Also in 2011: Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, 2011 Recap

OVP: Cinematography (2011)

OVP: Best Cinematography

The Nominees Were...

Guillaume Schiffman, The Artist

Jeff Cronenweth, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Robert Richardson, Hugo

Emmanuel Lubezki, The Tree of Life

Janusz Kaminski, War Horse

My Thoughts: More than any other technical aspect of a film, Cinematography is the category that most speaks to me, and is easily my favorite of the non-"Big 6" categories at the Oscars.  I think it's because it most addresses what I love about the cinema-the beautiful lights and sights of the big screen, and the way the camera helps to reinvent how we see the world.  Suffice it to say, then that I take the film that I'm giving this trophy to very seriously, and so it seems appropriate to start out with a film that took itself very seriously, though not quite in the way one would hope.

Jeff Cronenweth, just one year after his splendid work in The Social Network, managed to gain his second nomination for re-teaming with Fincher in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  Say what you will about the film (and lord knows I have), but the movie has atmosphere, due to Cronenweth's sharp angles and minimalist color palette.  He relies heavily on washed-out imagery, taking the romance out of a movie about a serial killer (don't give me that look-you know Hollywood likes to glamorize murderers on-screen), and making both Mara's Lisbeth and Craig's Mikael seem even more destitute and remote.  If, as I mentioned earlier, the editors are not Mara's friends, Cronenweth is, framing her gaunt body and wide, round eyes to maximum effect throughout the movie.  It's impressive work, even if the warmer lit indoor scenes seem a bit run-of-the-mill, and in particular, the film's last twenty minutes forgo the artistry previously on-display for a more SVU-sort of feel.

Guillaume Schiffman gets the advantage of working in black-and-white, so crisp and wonderful, and full of nice, fun light with which to play.  While almost everything else in the film is better in the first half, I'd wager that the cinematography and the most memorable scenes (visually) are in the second half of the movie.  See the above photo of Jean Dujardin for proof of the sense of melancholy and whimsy that Schiffman is able to bring.  Even better is the camera work in the suicide scene.  All of this is to say, though, that while lovely, there's not a lot to lend itself to the first half-nothing truly out-of-the-ordinary is happening that hasn't been done far better in a film like Good Night, and Good Luck.

Janusz Kaminski knows his way around a camera, what with the epic feast for the eyes he keeps serving up in many a Steven Spielberg film.  Spielberg, with one exception (A.I.) tends to favor the "handsome" to the "pretty"since he switched to more serious films in the mid-1980's, so Kaminski has to work overtime to highlight a color palette that doesn't rely too heavily on browns and blues.  He does this here by highlighting the natural lights of the morning and in particular moonlight, done better here than any of his four competitors.  The camera clearly knows that a focus on nature's beauty is key here, and that early focus on the loveliness of our hero Joey, as well as the stark contrast between daylight and moonlight across the English and French countryside shows that this is a lesson that it takes most seriously.  Additionally, that spectacular eye shot above is one of those images that you know will be celebrated in film clip reels for years to come.

Robert Richardson earned his seventh Oscar nomination for Hugo, and it's quite easy to see why.  Richardson's love of wide shots, generously including the nooks and crannies at the corners of lavishly detailed scenes is evident in nearly every scene.  We see a Paris of great detail and the City of Lights is always bathed in a twinkle-whether it's from the stars or from the reflection in the omnipresent snow.  Richardson's work, unlike Kaminski's, doesn't spend much time in trying to accurately frame the "light of night," instead giving a white glow even in the nighttime scenes, but that doesn't mean that what he's doing isn't excellent.

Finally, we have Emmanuel Lubezki, who has the enviable task of working with Terrence Malick.  Malick's films are always bounteous in their visuals, and Lubezki gets a treasure trove here-the creation of the universe scenes alone are like a NOVA documentary as shaped by Mark Rothko-haunting splashes of color and shape fill the screen.  We are given the angelic and imposing O'Brien family-Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain are oftentimes shown as towering over young Hunter McCracken, even when full of virtue.  There isn't a frame in the film that rings false-there are many open questions within the plot and the meaning of the film, but there is no question that we are watching a maestro at work-someone who is interested in exploring the planet, and in turn, one family, from all of its angles-both beautiful and disturbing.  Oh, and the dinosaur scene rocks.

Other Precursor Contenders: The ASC Awards skipped War Horse in favor of the muted greys and browns of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (with The Tree of Life victorious).  The BFCA gave The Tree of Life and War Horse their prizes in a tie, and ditched The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in favor of the bleakness of Drive.  And BAFTA, while giving their trophy to Schiffman, made the unforgivable error of skipping The Tree of Life-even for a candidate as worthy as Tinker Tailor, that's a crime.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I spent a good deal of time discussing moonlight in War Horse, but you know a film even better to capture that moonlight, and just night in general?  Melancholia.  The film's preoccupation with the night sky and with this gaudy, excessive, isolated house give Manuel Alberto Claro much room to roam, and indeed he does, casting out rich greens and blues that bounce from light sources as diverse as the rainbow.

Oscar's Choice: Oscar continued his love affair with Marty Scorsese's childhood fairy tale, giving Robert Richardson his third trophy.  One suspects that both Schiffman and Lubezki were in the running.

My Choice: Emmanuel Lubezki.  While Kaminski, followed by Richardson, Schiffman, and Cronenweth, all have their merits, what Lubezki does is beyond them.  Lubezki is one of my favorite cinematographers of all-time, but that doesn't mean that this isn't his best work.  The Tree of Life, which I maintain is a film that will grow in stature and reputation in years to come, would not be the high peak of filmdom that it is without Lubezki's strong, observant hand on the camera.

And now, of course, I welcome you to discuss in the comments-of the five films, what movie deserved the trophy?  What films should have been nominated?  And of all films in 2011, which had truly the best Cinematography?

Also in 2011: Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, 2011 Recap

OVP: Costume (2011)

OVP: Best Costume Design

The Nominees Were...

Lisy Christl, Anonymous

Mark Bridges, The Artist

Sandy Powell, Hugo

Michael O'Connor, Jane Eyre

Arianne Phillips, W.E.

My Thoughts: Oscar clearly has a fondness for nostalgia, at least when it comes to what he is wearing.  The only one of these films with any sort of modern touches is W.E., and we all know that this nomination is more about the wears of Wallis and Edward than Abbie Cornish's sleepwalking turn as a former Sotheby's employee.  It's a pity, because there's more to life than corsets, but that's the lineup Oscar dealt me, and so I shall indulge him.

We might as well start out with Madonna's second (and more ambitious) directorial achievement.  The film is a nightmare-the only redeeming factor would be Andrea Riseborough's strong work as Wallis Simpson.  In particular, Abbie Cornish's work is dreadful-an actress who exhibited a wide range in her work in Bright Star, this film shows the Abbie Cornish the tabloids had us believing was the case-a Sienna Miller redux.  The film has awful pacing problems, is an editing nightmare, and overall is beyond forgettable.

But we're not here for all of that-we're here for the costume work, which I have to admit is the prime drawing point, and not a bad one at that.  The color palette is excellent across the film, and the costumes seem to merge with the art direction-whether that be the country castles that Wallis and Edward frequent or the glamorously gloomy apartment that Cornish inhabits.  Riseborough's looks capture that eternally chic allure that the real-life Wallis exuded throughout her decades in the spotlight.  The costumes may not be revolutionary, but they do give you something sexy to look at while you're being bored out of your skull by the tedium.

Michael O'Connor, on the other hand, has a brilliant film to accessorize in Jane Eyre.  Cary Fukunaga's dark tale of Britain's most famous governess may be the 697th onscreen incarnation of the love story, but he has a wicked sense of both Jane and Rochester, and manages to focus on the creepy wife in the attic (don't expect a spoiler alert on that one-the book's 150-years-old), while not abandoning the central love story.  O'Connor assists this by creating a day-to-day look of the days spent at Thornfield Hall.  His costumes never pull focus, but appear perfectly practical, lovely, and time-appropriate.  He manages to find the plainness in Jane's strong demeanor, and manages to find sturdy suits to add to Rochester's imposing nature.  Whether or not he deserved the Oscar we'll get to in a minute, though doing trouser fittings for Michael Fassbender is probably a greater reward than a dozen shiny gold men.

If we jump back a couple of centuries, we enter the world of Lisy Christl's Anonymous, and the world of Elizabeth and Shakespeare.  Whether or not one buys into the film's premise, it's difficult to call the film anything other than atrocious.  The movie is gory, bloody, and nonsensical (all in bad ways), and features wild overacting and scenery-chewing.  Even Vanessa Redgrave herself can't hold it together, and if she can't save your film, no one can.  The film's costumes, I also have to say, are elaborate, but not anything more than average in terms of quality.  This seems to be a case of a designer who swung for the rafter, no matter the scene and the reason.  The movie looks a bit like it robbed the rejects of the costume closet on Elizabeth-anything worth noting has already been done dozens of times (like those dresses worn by the elderly Elizabeth), and the rest of the frocks are run-of-the-mill.

The final two films I won't get into their overall quality, as they made it to some "higher-ranking" awards and probably because you're most familiar with them, so we'll just stick to the costumes.  For The Artist, we are given yet another era that's been done-to-death on the film screen (the flapper set of the 1920's and old Hollywood glamour), though one has to give kudos for the shades that Bridges brings to the limited black-and-white pallet on display in the film.  Still, I see beautiful dresses of this nature every single red carpet-the outfits don't have the character-developing advent of Jane Eyre or the "eye pop" of W.E.

Sandy Powell, easily the Oscar vet of this bunch, has been better than she was in Hugo, but I'm only going to be comparing the nominees from this year, not the past (more spectacular) triumphs of her previous efforts.  In that case, Powell is in my estimation the only contender that can rival what O'Connor is bringing to the screen.  Powell's designs have more razzle dazzle, but they still lend to the film's iconography.  Look at the Station Inspector and how instantly memorable his outfit is onscreen, or how the streets of Paris are filled with fashionable, yet clearly weekday wears.  Powell lends a strong aesthetic to the lovely art direction already lifting up Hugo's setting to strong levels.

Other Precursor Contenders: The BFCA dropped Anonymous and W.E. in favor of the more mainstream My Week with Marilyn and The Help (with The Artist taking the trophy).  The CDG, which separates Contemporary, Fantasy, and Period films out, cited all but Anonymous in the Period Film category (instead going for The Help, and giving the trophy to W.E.), and also found time to mention films as diverse as Bridesmaids, Drive, Melancholia, Thor, and Red Riding Hood.  Continuing the theme, the BAFTA's also dumped Anonymous, along with W.E., and instead went with My Week with Marilyn and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.  All-in-all, one has to feel for Marilyn's Jill Taylor and The Help's Sharen Davis, who were almost certainly near misses for an Oscar nomination.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Drive does what few films are able to do-create an instantly iconic look with the scorpion jacket and driving gloves.  Additionally, I'm in love with the ludicrously wealthy fashions of Melancholia, particularly anything Kirsten Dunst decided to sport onscreen.  These are "too modern" for Oscar, but add more to their respective films' plots than Anonymous could ever hope to achieve.

Oscar's Choice: Oscar probably had it down to the excess of Anonymous and the black-and-white fun of The Artist, and they wisely chose the latter.

My Choice: Obviously for me, it comes down to Hugo and Jane Eyre.  Both do their job of being arresting fashions, assisting their film's personality, and driving character.  I'm going to go with O'Connor, though, who is given more difficult characters to match with their clothing, and yet he does it seamlessly-these clothes are pleasant to the eye, and yet have a worn quality that makes them look as if they were literally pulled from their characters' closets.  A close race, but O'Connor gets the statue, with Powell, Phillips, Bridges, and Christl falling in line behind him.

And now, of course, I welcome you to discuss in the comments-of the five films, what movie deserved the trophy?  What films should have been nominated?  And of all films in 2011, which had truly the best Costume Design?

Also in 2011: Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, 2011 Recap

OVP: Film Editing (2011)

OVP: Best Film Editing (2011)

The Nominees Were...

Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

Kevin Tant, The Descendants

Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Thelma Schoonmaker, Hugo

Christopher Tellefsen, Moneyball

My Thoughts: Film Editing is the "Invisible Art" of film-making-it's difficult for a layman to decipher whether an editor was given a near perfect scene, or whether he or she had to scrub through hours of film to make any sort of sense in a wayward script.  That said, you can tell when a film is cut well, as it runs smoothly, leaves few gaps, and has a clear direction and purpose.

A film like Moneyball clearly has a purpose, and a strong sense of self.  Christopher Tellefsen certainly knows the sort of soft, worn movie that Bennett Miller is trying to bring to life.  The alternating stories of both a father/daughter and a struggling baseball franchise are told with a ready balance, so that you are not left as if either story line has been short-shifted.  I particularly enjoyed the flashback scenes, which flow in and out of the film without seeming out-of-place or as if they are being put in in a forced, mandatory way.

The opposite could be said for Pitt's buddy George Clooney's film.  Granted, I liked Moneyball better than I did than The Descendants, a preference which probably starts in the editing room.  The movie feels so disjointed-while months later I recall Moneyball as one long stream of film consciousness, I remember The Descendants as not having enough time for any of its plotlines-is it a movie about a man coming to terms with his listless life, his dying wife, his estranged (and yet oddly, not estranged) daughters (the film never decides completely on what Woodley and Clooney's relationship is), or about whether Clooney will cave to his family to destroy the paradise that his family has owned for years.  It seems as if the editing room can't make up its mind either, and we are left with "don't forget about this plot, we're going to get back to it later" reminders throughout the film.  Further proving this point is that the only character with a really strong and continuous character arch is Judy Greer's, who is the fourth or fifth billed star.

The Artist knows where it wants to go, and clearly Bion and Hazanavicius have seen every film Chaplin and Keaton put out in the late 1920's, and are fans.  That's evident in the way that they jump and skip through scene-after-scene.  The editing works, in the sense that it truly pays homage to its Silent Era brethren, but the problem is that the Silent Era largely had terrible editing.  Yes, I get that they're doing it on purpose, but just because they're doing it on purpose doesn't mean that that's the right decision.  A film like, say, Sunrise, is able to have that fluidity necessary to keep the audience from head-scratching between scenes, while still clearly a "Silent Era" film.  The suicide scene is by far the most finely-edited sequence in the movie, but to get there we have to make giant leaps of faith with Berenice Bejo's character, in particular, and the coldness that some people felt while watching the film may have been averted if they'd had some longer, character-driven scenes.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo continues to look like such a missed opportunity in hindsight-no one does serial killers like Fincher, and Wall/Baxter just a year earlier had turned in a wicked marvel of editing in The Social Network.  It's obvious that the talented Wall/Baxter aren't going to botch the film entirely-the continued use of harsh wintry vistas and the consistent showing of the distance between the family member's respective houses drives home the film's harshness far better than any of the performance's are doing.  Yet, it's those performances that are the film's undoing-Rooney Mara is far too smug and sullen, Craig too naive and generic, and editing more interplay between the two characters would have gotten us a little behind the why of those two characters and what draws them to each other.  Yes, that may be what the book is going for, and yes, Mara's character in particular is supposed to be enigmatic, but her actions being unknown hurting the film is not a complaint you could levy at, say, Anton Chigurh, Ledger's the Joker, or even Janet McTeer's Hubert, all three characters left with missing pieces.  This lack of direction lies more with Mara and her director, but that doesn't mean that snappier editing wouldn't have helped.

Hugo is one of those cases where seeing the film in theaters almost certainly would have helped its chances, rather than through a screener.  The film is solid in its progressive scenes, particularly in the Papa Georges plotline.  I have to say that I adored the beautiful flashback scene where they are introduced to some of the many films of Melies and we get an early tutorial in the birth of cinema.  The robot/dead father plotline takes a bit of a backseat to the rest of the movie, and considering its prominent placement, that's a combination of the screenwriter and editor's respective faults.

That said, what makes Schoonmaker's work far more impressive on the big screen is the use of 3-D.  No film since Avatar has so finely incorporated this advent into its movies, and that's due to Schoonmaker actually editing in 3-D.  Every scene doesn't overwhelm or hurt the eyes, but instead glides them through the streets of Paris with a sense of whimsy and adventure.  I normally hate 3-D, but it's clear that it's a tool that when used properly, can be most advantageous to getting your visual story across.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Eddie's split their nominations between comedy and drama, so all five films are cited (with The Artist and The Descendants winning), but they also found room for War Horse, My Week with Marilyn, Midnight in Paris, Young Adult, and Bridesmaids.  BAFTA was a huge fan of the documentary Senna, giving it its trophy, and honoring the wild ride in Drive and the character interplay of Tinker Tailor (they kept The Artist and Hugo in the mix).

Films I Would Have Nominated: The Tree of Life, Drive, and Weekend, three of my favorite films of 2011, all deserve mention for this category.  The Tree of Life primarily due to the way it keeps a story within a Malick film (always a challenge), Drive for the way those car races keep you glued to the screen, and Weekend for the way it slowly unfolds two characters lives in a seemingly real-time pace.  Also worth noting is the peyote-like haze that the editing team behind Martha Marcy Mae Marlene tests your patience and onscreen trust.  Looking at a film like Compliance for comparison (where they give away the ending too soon), you see that they clearly have a singular vision of the film, and that that vision is realized on-screen.

Oscar's Choice: In one of last year's biggest upsets, Baxter/Wall made it two in a row with Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, triumphing over frontrunners like The Artist and Hugo.

My Choice: As may be evident by the four films I listed should have been nominated, I'm not a huge fan of this lineup.  For me, it's really a wrestling match between Hugo and Moneyball.  On DVD, I'd give the advantage to Moneyball, the more impressive of the two without any accoutrements.  That said, I didn't see them on DVD-I saw them in theaters, and Schoonmaker's excellent use of 3-D gets her my trophy.  Advantage Hugo, followed by Moneyball, The Artist, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and The Descendants, in order.

And now, of course, I welcome you to discuss in the comments-of the five films, what movie deserved the trophy?  What films should have been nominated?  And of all films in 2011, which had truly the best Film Editing?

Also in 2011: Visual Effects, Makeup, 2011 Recap

OVP: Visual Effects (2011)

OVP: Best Visual Effects (2011)

The Nominees Were...

Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler, and John Richardson, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman, and Alex Henning, Hugo

Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Dan Taylor, and Swen Gillberg, Real Steel

Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White, and Daniel Barrett, Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew Butler, and John Frazier, Transformers: Dark of the Moon

My Thoughts: We now head into another relatively new category (at least in Oscar terms), that of Visual Effects.  I'm still a bit undecided about whether this category really needs five nominees, as opposed to the more traditional three, but considering where movies have taken us (last year every single one of the Top 10 Box Office films relied heavily on special effects), that probably seems appropriate.

I want to first discuss the films I think deserve to be here the least, and that has to start with the giant boxing robots of Real Steel.  The first question that should go through anyone's mind is who the hell greenlit a movie about giant, boxing robots?  I mean, it did make $300 million, so that person is probably doing just fine with their cushy bonus, but still-this movie made six-times as much as The Tree of Life?  This is why we can't have nice things, people.

While I will try with all of my might to separate the movie from the technical aspect on display, it's hard to deny that this movie is just. plain. stupid.  Boxing robots and a hackneyed portrait of an estranged father/son-come on!  That being said, even the effects are one-dimensional-everything that is happening in this movie was already done, and done far, far better in the Transformers movies.  It's like they took the rejected robots from that franchise, gave them a dash of dirt and mud, and suddenly we are supposed to be amazed, but I'm left unimpressed.  Unless Hugh Jackman's spectacular biceps are what we're judging (in which case, hand over the Oscar right now, because hot damn), this film doesn't deserve to be included on this list.

I also have to kibitz a bit with the Academy's choice of Hugo.  Yes, this film is far superior than Real Steel, but it's not really a step forward in the world of visual effects.  Considering that this category has honored Titanic, The Two Towers, and Avatar, it's difficult to consider Hugo a huge advance in Visual Effects.  And since it isn't a huge advancement, then it should excel in incorporating its effects seamlessly into its story and in making those effects aid its story, and even here, it isn't a huge victory.  I have to admire the 3-D work, but I feel that is more Thelma Schoonmaker's splendid editing than brilliant visual effects work-the movie feels gaudy in places, and while there are splendid sights, I felt a little cold from them toward the end of the movie.

If you're looking for advancements in Visual Effects, it's hard to look further than Rise of the Planet of the Apes and the brilliance of Andy Serkis.  At some point, an Honorary Academy Award seems appropriate for Serkis, who has become a magician when it comes to stop-motion performances.  It's hard to know whether it's Serkis or the above-mentioned team that brings Caesar to life, but that doesn't stop the entire creation from being a triumph.  In a film that had no business being this excellent, we are treated to a dizzying array of apes storming the Bay Area, and we have a superbly tight and compelling storyline to go with the film.  I think part of the reason the film lost was that it may have frightened some Academy members who are worried about visual effects replacing actors onscreen, but I think that Hollywood would be very foolish to go down that path (I think people would reject it as readily as they did the onslaught of 3-D), but an occasional foray into that field, particularly with an actor as excellent as Serkis, would be most welcome.

The effects of our last two entries have the distinct disadvantage of being worlds we are most certainly familiar with-we have made multiple trips with the Autobots and aboard the Hogwarts express.  So it is left to the films' visual artists to try and wow us once-again.  Transformers arguably had the most lavish effect of any film in 2011-the Driller is a stunningly complex work of technological savvy-it's the sort of effect that ensures that people will always want to go to a movie theater to experience movie magic-the biggest screen possible is needed to fully appreciate this marvel onscreen.  The rest of the film also has excellent effects, though few are of the same par as the Driller, and seem to rely largely on previous films, which means that they are exciting, but not exactly ground-breaking, which is a mild disappointment, especially since no one goes to the Transformers movies for the sparkling dialogue and sensical plot structure (I'd feel bad for Frances McDormand for signing on here, except she probably got a house in the Hamptons out of the whole thing).  That said-this film is damn impressive in regards to visual effects, and this isn't a nomination we should be questioning.

The final nomination went to our wizardly trio.  We've already seen Harry's makeup work in a previous entry, and I will admit that this nomination is even more deserved.  Unlike Transformers, which seems to simply be a giant special effect without an actual story to aid it, this is a film that happens to have excellent special effects, but that is clearly not driving the strong plot and characters.  That said, you are left awestruck by the effects on multiple occasions-in particular the aging dragon springing forward from Gringott's and the giant forcefield shielding Hogwarts from impending doom.  Unlike the Michael Bay series, which has been consistently excellent in this department, Harry has seen a stronger crescendo from its earliest films (remember that Troll?) and therefore has more room to grow and amaze as it fleshes out J.K. Rowling's expansive universe.

Other Precursor Contenders: Again, it's hard to find a lot of precursors for tech awards-critics groups seemed to embrace Rise of the Planet of the Apes rather readily, while the Visual Effects Society Awards saw fit to include Captain America: The First Avenger and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides for their top awards, completely skipping Real Steel (Rise and Hugo ultimately won the top prizes).  We actually got to see the shortlist for the Oscars, which obviously included the above five, as well as Captain America, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Pirates, The Tree of Life, and X-Men: First Class, and BAFTA kicked out both the transforming and boxing robots in favor of the more traditional spectacle of War Horse, as well as The Adventures of Tintin (with Potter winning the prize). 

Films I Would Have Nominated: Like I said above, this is a category that should find a balance between honoring groundbreaking works and films that use visual effects to push the narrative and structure of their story-in a perfect world (like in, say, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) it would do both.  Like Rise, The Tree of Life succeeds on both levels.  Bringing in Visual Effects genius Douglas Trumbull, Malick's creation of the universe is a stunning blend of traditional effects and high-speed photography, not just relying on the "been there, done that" nature of computer graphics.  As a result, we are left with one of the most impressive sequences to be put on film since...well, 2001, Trumbull's previous magnum opus.  Also, though the Academy doesn't quite know how to categorize The Adventures of Tintin, but however you classify it, the effects on display are fun and sublime.

Oscar's Choice: Oscar went with the magical robots and twinkling city of lights of Hugo, probably as much for the nostalgia of Melies as for overall recognition of a film the Academy clearly adored.

My Choice: With Trumbull's brilliant work out of contention, this is an easy choice for me-Rise of the Planet of the Apes manages to do that wonderful hat trick of having revolutionary effects, a brilliant story to support them, and a visual effects team that knows when to say "less is more."  In descending order, my next choices would be Harry Potter, Transformers, Hugo, and Real Steel.

And now, of course, I welcome you to discuss in the comments-of the five films, what movie deserved the trophy?  What films should have been nominated?  And of all films in 2011, which had truly the best Visual Effects?

Also in 2011: Makeup, 2011 Recap

OVP: Best Makeup (2011)

OVP: Best Makeup (2011)

The Nominees Were...

Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight, and Lisa Tomblin, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland, The Iron Lady

Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnston, and Matthew W. Mungle, Albert Nobbs

My Thoughts: I find Makeup one of the most difficult categories to judge, so don't ask me why I decided to start with this category.  My problem is that I don't always understand the difficulty behind the Makeup on-screen, and oftentimes they seem to be employing such similar techniques that it's difficult to attempt and decipher what ranks one above the other, but I'm going to try.

The most obvious chore on-screen here is that there are three iconic movie stars that are being transformed into completely different versions of themselves.  While there are goblins and creatures a-plenty alongside him in Deathly Hallows, Ralph Fiennes is by far the most impressive makeup effect to come out of the Harry Potter franchise.  While taking gorgeous leading men and transforming them into monsters is nothing new for the screen, let's not let the routine mar the difficulty.  The slanted nose, the white pallor, both create a villain instantly recognizable, not just for the franchise, but for anyone who spent hours-upon-hours welcoming themselves into the world of J.K. Rowling.  Rowling's (and here, Dudman/Knight/Tomblin's) creations are vivid and tangible, and all a marvel, though I have to dock some points in that we've been here before-this is the eighth film in the series, and while obviously still impressive, there's nothing truly new here.

There's less to rely upon for the maestros behind Albert Nobbs, however.  While the story had been onstage previously, this was its first incarnation on the big-screen, and the makeup artists do a serviceable job of recreating the looks and hairstyles of 19th Century Ireland.  However, that's not the reason they received the Oscar nomination-that was due to the heavy prosthetics that actress Glenn Close sports to transform her into a woman pretending to be a man.  While the work is to be admired, it's difficult not to see Close, with her movie star profile, easily through the makeup and therefore the entire premise of the movie, which is that no one has identified Closes's Nobbs, is made suspect to the audience.  Had they done the same transformative work they did on Janet McTeer's Hubert (who is rendered nearly unrecognizable), I would have given them more points.

That leaves the fine work of The Iron Lady, where Meryl Streep becomes both the younger and the older former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher.  Whatever your feelings of Thatcher's politics, it's difficult to deny the woman had a look that had to be perfect in order to make Streep believable onscreen.  Here, Coulier and Helland do not fail-Helland, who has done Streep's hair and makeup for thirty years, is able to make his muse a dottering old woman and a ferocious and vital leader of England.  While they're aided by having a muse to work with and not just the imagination of a reader that their competitors are saddled with, Helland and Coulier have the difficultly of transforming their lead characters (in this case Margaret and Denis Thatcher) through decades and different actors, and yet there is a strong continuous semblance between the time periods, and while I am loathe when a critic says an actor "becomes" a famous person (since strong mimicry doesn't mean strong acting), I am delighted when I can say it in regards to to their makeup and hairstyling, and in this case, I have to say that Helland and Coulier delivered.  It's fitting that in her Oscar acceptance speech, Streep thanked Helland rather than her director and writer, who were doing her little favors when she ultimately won, in comparison to her makeup team.

Other Precursor Contenders: I'm trying hard to find these (it's difficult with the techs, so feel free to mention any I missed in the comments), but the only major precursor award show I can find that consistently honors Hair and Makeup is the BAFTA Awards, which gave the top trophy to The Iron Lady, and like Oscar, nominated Harry Potter; however, they also found time for the iconic looks of Norma Jean in My Week with Marilyn, the French 1920's glamour of Hugo, and the black-and-white style of The Artist.  

Films I Would Have Nominated: I don't want to focus too much on this, for two reasons.  One, the purpose of the Oscar Viewing Project is to see what the Oscars would have looked like if I was a voter, and to see if I would have made the same mistakes/pitfalls that Oscar voters are always accused of-that doesn't work if I don't go with the same nominees that they're given. And two, I can't possibly be a completist and see all of the films from 2011, and as I move further back, it's going to be a lopsided argument favoring only the classic films and Oscar-nominated films than a true representation of all of the movies of the year.  That being said, I can't completely ignore a shout-out for the aforementioned Marilyn, as I thought the Makeup was the best element of the film, and the even better Super 8, where Makeup plays a huge part in the overall feel of the film (not working within the confines of the category, I think I would have given "Best of the Year" honors to this movie).  My third nominee would be my Oscar winner, which we'll get to in a second.

Oscar's Choice: Oscar decided to go with the iconic transformation of his favorite leading lady into Britain's Iron Lady, in a race I suspect wasn't even that close.

My Choice: As you may be able to tell from above, there's no film that truly calls out "Oscar Winner!" in bright bold letters in my mind, but if I had to choose one of them, I'd probably side with Oscar-The Iron Lady has less reliance on past hits and truly creates a transformative look for its leading lady, something Albert Nobbs simply cannot do.  So the vote (and trophy) goes to Helland Coulier, with HP7.2 getting second and Albert Nobbs getting the bronze.

And now, of course, I welcome you to discuss in the comments-of the three films, what movie deserved the trophy?  What films should have been nominated?

Also in 2011: 2011 Recap

OVP: Previously, in 2011

2011: A Look Back

So, as I just mentioned, I have officially finished the 2011 Oscar Viewing Project.  I have to admit this is a big accomplishment for me-while I still have a couple thousand films left in the project (2,232, to be exact), this is my first finished year, and though it's not a lot of films that I had to see, as we go through the categories, keep track of how many you've seen, and let me know which ones are still left on your "To View" list.

But first, it's important that we get in a 2011 "State of Mind," and so like any good-theater experience, we've got to have some previews.  So, remember back nine months ago, into 2011.  Get out your "Occupy" signs or your "Herman Cain for President" banners (depending on where you are on the political banner), remember the space launches of Juno and Curiosity, and the formal end of the Iraq War.  Get out your copy of Adele's 21 and start "Rolling in the Deep."  And also, of course, remember the movies.

Box Office

This is what the Top 10 at the (Domestic) Box Office looked like:

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon

3. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1

4. The Hangover Part II

5. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

6. Fast Five

7. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

8. Cars 2

9. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

10. Thor

As you can see, it was a very, very franchise-heavy year at the Box Office.  All but Thor were sequels, and that was part of the Avengers-brand that would tear up the Box Office the following year.  This isn't to say that that there weren't successful original films at the Box Office-female-centric plots in particular were very successful in movies like The Help (the highest-grossing Best Picture nominee) and Bridesmaids.  Rio and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo may have kicked off additional franchises as well.

Precursors

Though we'll soon be seeing what Oscar deemed most worthy (though, I suspect if you're this far into the post, you probably already remember), let's also keep track of what the precursors were discussing.  The Golden Globes were clearly huge fans of the The Artist and The Descendants, giving them their highest honors, the SAG Awards were all about The Help, Cannes was crowning The Tree of Life with its top honors, and BAFTA couldn't get enough of the silent antics of The Artist.  The NYFCC awards were agog with The Artist, while LAFCA was equally impressed with Alexander Payne's The Descendants.

The Films I Missed

While I obviously have seen every one of the OVP films, there were of course films that I missed.  Looking at the Box Office, I'd say that the biggest misses were Cars 2, Fast Five, Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, and Captain America: The First Avenger.  Since they are precursors to the Oscars themselves, I obviously did much better with the critics and the Globes, though I still missed some of their nominees, including The Guard, Carnage, Arthur Christmas, and In the Land of Blood and Honey.  Though Cars 2 and Carnage are on my "to view eventually" list, if any of these are must-sees, please call it out in the comments.

And there you have it-a brief preview of 2011.  Now, onto, Oscar!