OVP: Supporting Actor (2006)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2006)

The Nominees Were...

Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine

Jackie Earle Haley, Little Children

Djimon Hounsou, Blood Diamond

Eddie Murphy, Dreamgirls

Mark Wahlberg, The Departed

My Thoughts: We have three weeks left of 2006, after which we'll head into a new year (I'll hold off for now which year we're going to walk into, but know that I've got our next contest all queued up & ready to go in terms of viewings!).  First, though, we'll do our acting races, and here we have one of the weirdest Supporting Actor contests in eons.  As you'll see when we discuss the precursor awards, there was very little collective thought on this race.  2006 is the last year where Oscar picked only Globe & SAG nominees for its acting lineups, and most of that can be attributed to this race, since simply so many names were listed in the contenders.  Before we get into all of the also-rans, though, let's talk about the nominees themselves.

Eddie Murphy is, to date, one of only six Saturday Night Live cast members who have been nominated for an Oscar (the others, for the curious are Kristin Wiig, Dan Ackroyd, Joan Cusack, Bill Murray, & Robert Downey, Jr.), and was surely the closest to actually winning the trophy.  At the time, Murphy was the frontrunner until the late-breaking Norbit reminded Academy members of all of the dreck he'd made in his career, stopping his momentum & giving them room to pick the more conventional Alan Arkin (a similar scenario happened a decade later with Sylvester Stallone/Mark Rylance where the Academy wasn't willing to overlook a career filled with a lot of garbage).

Murphy, though, is pretty good in Dreamgirls.  I like the ease he brings to Jimmy, a man with his own personal demons which are also exacerbated by a racist music industry who wants to put an unconventional man into his own trappings.  Murphy totally sells this with his late number "Jimmy's Got Soul" as he breaks into a number that will totally throw apart his career (but is true to who he is).  I don't know if he totally sells the first-half of the movie well enough, particularly his romance with Anika Noni Rose, and he doesn't have the vocals of a Jennifer Hudson, but this is a good performance-Murphy brings a unique perspective as a then-fading global superstar that fits this character.

The same can be said for Alan Arkin, his Oscar rival, that he's giving a good performance.  Arkin's curmudgeonly ways run throughout his career, even before he was really old enough to be a "curmudgeon," and like Murphy, feels a bit typecast in this role, and like Murphy, there are times when it feels somewhat phoned in, waiting for the big moments.  But that doesn't mean that the big moments aren't there, particularly giving a wonderful chemistry to then-newcomer Abigail Breslin (they both owe a lot to each other when it comes to collecting these nominations).  He is a solid glue on this film.

Jackie Earle Haley was, like Murphy, in desperate need of a comeback with Little Children, though he'd never really been the star that Murphy was in his prime.  Haley has the trickiest role in this lineup, playing a pedophile who has been released from jail, and is trying to acclimate to society.  Haley does an excellent job of bringing layers to a character that would easy to play either as a straight-up monster or to sentimentalize too severely.  His late scenes, particularly when his most aggressive taunter causes Haley's mother (the only character he really cares about) to have a heart attack, are excellent work.  The ending doesn't quite work for me, perhaps because Haley's character hasn't been woven well enough into the actual story itself, but Haley earns this Oscar nod.

I've learned from Film Twitter that Mark Wahlberg's performance in The Departed and his sole nomination are divisive, and not just because the actor has a history of problematic (particularly when it comes to race) public comments.  While Wahlberg is not the most visible actor in the film, I think he's great here.  There's not a lot of depth to this character, but there honestly doesn't need to be-he needs to be on the sides, presenting a humorous counterpoint to Martin Sheen's tenured cop, and Wahlberg plays him like a live wire.  Plus, this role is littered with great one-liners that feel authentic to a Boston cop's daily dialogue.  I honestly think he's great in this role-it's an unusual role for Oscar, and certainly if Scorsese made it today the character might not be celebrated in the same way (romanticizing police officers in general is a problem in 2021), but I think this is Wahlberg's best performance, give or take Boogie Nights.

Djimon Hounsou, on the other hand, is not living up to his potential here.  This is, for my money, one of the worst performances we've profiled for an acting race so far.  There is nothing given to him by the writers to flesh out this character, whose sole purpose seems to be to yell at/around/with his costars, and Hounsou doesn't give us more than what the script is hinting at, some sort of inner life that this character possesses.  I have a lot of problems with Blood Diamond, but it's weird that from a movie with three relatively decent stars the biggest issue I have is with the acting-Hounsou doesn't register within the film, and this feels like a "famous name in a big movie" nomination more than anything else as it's certainly not based on performance.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes picked Eddie Murphy as their victor, beating out Wahlberg, Jack Nicholson (The Departed), Ben Affleck (Hollywoodland), & Brad Pitt (Babel).  SAG also went with Murphy, here over Arkin, Haley, Hounsou, and Leonardo DiCaprio (The Departed), one of the bigger cases of category fraud I've seen in a long while.  And the BAFTA's went with Arkin, beating out Nicholson, James McAvoy (The Last King of Scotland), Leslie Phillips (Venus), & Michael Sheen (The Queen).  As you can see, between the three precursors a total of twelve names here, so sixth place is a challenge.  I would assume it's Jack Nicholson, whose lack of a nomination is genuinely shocking given he's an Academy favorite and is giving the best performance in The Departed, but Sheen or Pitt aren't totally out of reason given that they managed to hit the Best Picture race & their costars were cited.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: Well, for starters, I'd throw Jack into this race.  It also feels a pity that Stanley Tucci (The Devil Wears Prada) didn't get this nomination, as then the Academy wouldn't have felt guilty over skipping him & years later give him a career nod for one of his worst performances in The Lovely Bones.

Oscar’s Choice: Norbit cost Murphy the Oscar-in what had to have been a very close race, Alan Arkin & the sentiment behind his Best Picture nominee beat Murphy (and his lack of a Best Picture nominee) in one of the bigger upsets of the 2000's.

My Choice: I think the best performance of this bunch was Mark Wahlberg, followed by Haley, Murphy, Arkin, & Hounsou, in that order.  If I'd had an actual ballot, I likely would have voted for Haley given Wahlberg's past comments about race (I wouldn't have been comfortable voting for him in a real world setting), and because I genuinely think Arkin/Murphy, for how different their performances are, are neck-and-neck in terms of who should've won (and voting for Haley would've meant I wouldn't have had to decide...also I do genuinely like his work better than the two men who were clearly actually in the running for the trophy).  But in terms of the OVP, which is solely supposed to be based on performance within the given field and not overall career or an artist's personal life, Wahlberg gets the title.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with the Academy in sticking with Arkin or you waffling over with me between Wahlberg & Haley?  If Norbit had waited just a few more months would Eddie Murphy have won (and then would Alan Arkin have taken the trophy for Argo six years later...cause that's what I think would've happened)?  And how did Jack miss in this race, which will almost certainly be the final race that he ever had a shot at?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2006: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2006

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019 

OVP: All the Money in the World (2017)

Film: All the Money in the World (2017)
Stars: Michelle Williams, Christopher Plummer, Mark Wahlberg, Romain Duris, Charlie Plummer
Director: Ridley Scott
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Supporting Actor-Christopher Plummer)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The curiosity factor may have been the biggest draw for me by the time that All the Money in the World finally saw the light of day.  After all, I cannot remember the last time that a movie was able to have quite the hook of watching one Oscar-winning actor being replaced by another Oscar-winning actor mere weeks before the actual film came out.  After watching the film, it does appear that they made the right choice in getting the film out for the Oscar season-Plummer is good (perhaps on course to a third nomination), and other than some unfortunate CGI scenes with Plummer as a middle-aged man (though his age cannot be disguised in these scenes the way they surely would have been able to do with Kevin Spacey), they largely were able to reshoot without too much issue.  The film at the end of this is predictable and occasionally a little washed-out, but still entertaining thanks in large part to Michelle Williams continuing her streak as one of our best introverted actresses.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film's plot is largely known to anyone who is a student of history, but for those who aren't, in 1973 the richest man in the world was J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), an oil magnate and a notorious miser.  His grandson "Little Paul" (Charlie Plummer, with whom his closeness is debated (Getty's only real love in life was his money, as is illustrated through his callousness in the film, though Plummer plays him as someone who doesn't like to family mostly because it's "his")), was kidnapped and became a major tabloid sensation.  The kidnapping's most notorious moment happened several months later, when Little Paul had his ear cut off to prove to his grandfather that he meant business.  In the film and in real-life, Little Paul was returned after the elder Getty paid his ransom, but the reputation of Getty as a heartless miser was confirmed for history, and his grandson would be haunted by the moment for decades, dying tragically in 2011 after years of substance abuse and illness.

The film itself pays little attention to the younger Paul, perhaps the picture's most fatal flaw.  In doing so, they sort of commodify Little Paul in the same way that Getty does-the younger Plummer (man it's confusing that they both have the same name/real-life last name when it comes to writing a review!) doesn't add many layers to his relatively brief screen-time, and so the only thing we know is what other people claim to bring to their relationship with Little Paul.  This results in him just being "a blood Getty," in a way that from some angles justifies the elder Getty's attitude toward him.

The film is at its best, therefore, when it's exploring the complicated relationship the elder Getty and his daughter-in-law Gail (Williams) have toward money.  As played by Plummer, Getty's interest in money and procuring more of it seems pathological, a personality disorder of sorts that will never be quenched without mental health.  He talks about money troubles as if he's a moment away from becoming a pauper, and seems intent on only investing in things with a tangible return, like artwork and real estate, not even a grandson who is moments away from death.  The film doesn't underline his claimed rationale for waiting so long to pay the ransom (that he didn't want to encourage copycat kidnappers and that he "did not negotiate with terrorists"), perhaps because director Ridley Scott didn't buy it (neither do I).  Instead, it seems to focus on his insane dependency on keeping wealth at all costs.  Plummer's performance probably could have used a bit more baking, but he does well in scenes where he's playing Getty as a man with a warped sense-of-right.  There's a terrific scene in the middle of the picture where he plays off of Mark Wahlberg's Fletcher Chase (a former CIA operative who works for Getty and is trying to procure Little Paul for him at a minimal cost) with protestations that he's "never been more financially vulnerable" despite having more money than any person in history.  It's got great insight from Plummer as an actor, watching him believe things no rational person ever could, perhaps because that's the only way Getty could justify the actions of a sociopath.

Williams is the best part of the film, though.  She's so good so often these days it's taken for granted, but I love the way that she adds little touches to this character.  For example, watch the way that she uses the Getty name when it's to her advantage or is clearly influenced by money even though she doesn't have any (living with even the estranged son of a billionaire will inevitably give you a warped sense of proximity to that wealth).  I loved the way she also struggles with her relationship with her son and her own emotions, with her unable to play for the cameras when they demand tears.  This is a woman who has lived with a drug-addicted playboy, and she's been the good wife/mother that whole time, and the entire world still wants to turn her into a villain because she's "rich" but doesn't actually have money.  Williams brings nuance to a role that could have just been tragic.  Unlike her costar Wahlberg (who feels like he's just on an action-film auto pilot, and whose status as an Oscar nominee becomes increasingly unfortunate every time he can't connect to yet another character), she finds shades in her Gail.  The film itself occasionally is too predictable in its story beats and it's hard not to wish that Plummer would have had more time with Getty to see what else he could ring out of a (not small) part, but Williams work is very good, and this is still an exciting ride in the theater thanks in large part to she and Plummer.

OVP: Deepwater Horizon (2016)

Film: Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Stars: Mark Wahlberg, Kurt Russell, John Malkovich, Gina Rodriguez, Dylan O'Brien, Kate Hudson
Director: Peter Berg
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Sound Editing, Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

One of the crucial aspects of an action movie is that you root for the main character.  The film can't really function without it, in fact.  The whole point is you are out there, cheering on the men or women (but too often just men) that are trying to prevent the city/planet/solar system from being destroyed.  Then when they do, or don't, you have a vested interest in their success or defeat.  Normally, even in movies I don't like, I don't struggle with this, but Deepwater Horizon was different.  I am not naive about where my oil comes from, but I also am not going to sit around and celebrate literally anyone involved with this disaster, and so I struggled to get through this picture without yelling vigorously at the television like I did when the initial catastrophe happened.

(Spoilers Ahead) The reality is that offshore drilling should be a last-ditch resort to get oil (and we need to be doing more to get electric cars and non-petrochemical solutions to our energy needs), so I'm already at a disadvantage because I don't view these sorts of positions with the same sort of esteem you'd expect for, say, the military or the police or firefighters or any other profession that Mark Wahlberg decides to play onscreen (he used to be such an interesting actor, and then he turned into Clint Eastwood without the occasional artistry, which is such a disappointment because his movies are too big of hits for me not to end up seeing them time-and-again).  There is little forgiveness to be had here, and knowing that everyone was at fault here-not just the crew, but BP and Transocean were cutting corners to meet deadlines that ultimately polluted the entire Gulf of Mexico, killing marine life (and wiping out populations that could take decades to recuperate), as well as harm the well-being and livelihoods of people living in coastal Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Louisiana.

I will admit, therefore, that no amount of Michael Bay-esque blame on John Malkovich is going to allow me to forgive anyone involved here.  Everyone should have been shouting "NO!" at the top of their lungs, and the rest of the film I checked out of what was happening.  It never approaches the level of propaganda that 13 Hours achieved, but I still checked out every time I remembered this was a real story, and the overall acting in the movie is too wooden.  I am hesitant to name a "best of" in the cast, since it was probably no one (I'm a big fan of Russell and Rodriguez in general, so it'd surely be one of them but not really based on their work here but general adoration), but I have to say Kate Hudson's role in this makes me once again question how she won an Oscar nomination, and Malkovich at some point has to try again and not just play yet another version of the same creepy-John-Malkovich style character.

The film won two Oscar nominations, and this feels okay.  The sound work is a combination of loud and louder, but doesn't have the precision of something like Wahlberg's Lone Survivor a few years back, and feels like it was nominated because Sound Editing is a sucker for underwater work.  It's fun to see a movie with practical special effects nominated here, as I actually like that they mix it up (there's an enormous amount of skill required to succeed on that front today, and it shows onscreen).  I don't know that there's a lot of differentiation in the special effects, with the biggest moment being Rodriguez's giant jump with Wahlberg (which is the only action moment in the film I was truly impressed by, but I didn't love the idea of Wahlberg having to help rescue the only woman on the rig like we're in an Errol Flynn picture), but when they are creating CGI for the film, it doesn't blend well and I think this is more a nod to the technical achievement of undertaking the film than whether or not it actually succeeded in looking believable.

We're going to leave it there because there isn't much more to say about Deepwater Horizon.  For those of you who saw it (which is probably a lot of you-Wahlberg movies tend to make bank), what were your thoughts?  Were you like me where you couldn't put your real-life opinions behind you and invest in these characters, or were you rooting for Wahlberg the whole time?  And what do you think of the film's two Oscar nominations-deserved, undeserved, or perhaps you're still mad that it lost?  Share below!

OVP: Lone Survivor (2013)

Film: Lone Survivor (2013)
Stars: Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Ben Foster, Emile Hirsch, Eric Bana, Alexander Ludwig
Director: Peter Berg
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Sound Mixing and Sound Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

You know one of the best parts of February?  No, it's not the Valentine's Day festivities (anyone else celebrate that day while watching horror films and eating cookie dough straight from the tub, salmonella be damned?), it's the 31 Days of Oscar!  That's right-for the next 31 days, Turner Classic Movies will be airing wall-to-wall Oscar nominated films.  Since I love Turner Classic Movies something fierce, I figured that for the next 31 days, I can try and match them, so here's my goal: for the next 31 days (neatly coinciding with the day after the big ceremony), every single day on this blog, I will commit to at least one Oscar related article.  It may be reviews, OVP write-ups, commentary, or just some good old fashioned predictions, but there will be something gold and shiny to look forward to every day.  We'll start off with one of this year's nominees, Lone Survivor.

(Real life doesn't have spoilers) Mark Wahlberg is an odd conundrum in my book as far as a movie star.  His off-screen persona kind of jars with me (as is the case of a lot of conservative celebrities, fairly or unfairly...though for some reason even I cannot explain my fondness for Elisabeth Hasselbeck), his movies are regularly hit-and-miss, and yet he's definitely an artist who has vision.  Whether it's in performances like The Departed (such a terrific choice by the Academy to nominate him for that) or his producing credits (it may have gone downhill later on, but I was enthralled with the first season of Boardwalk Empire), he clearly is one of those actors who does well in front of and behind the camera, and occasionally I find myself rooting for one of his films despite myself.

This movie happened to be the case-I'm never a sucker for real-life dramas, nor am I big on the "rah-rah" sorts of war dramas (I prefer my Hollywood war films to be more in the mold of Apocalypse Now, and my real life wars to be limited and few).  However, I couldn't help myself with being absolutely engrossed in this movie.

The film doesn't start out with as much promise as I'm giving it-the hyper-macho, best-of-the-best attitude of the onscreen Navy Seals (all six of the men listed in the star lineup) is something that's been done before, many times, and while it may be accurate, it hardly makes for gripping cinema. The banter between each actor, and particularly their attitude to Alexander Ludwig (who may be a brick house, but cannot act worth a damn which is more than evident when you're standing next to Wahlberg, Foster, and Hirsch) is so brimming with cliche that I started to shift uneasily in my chair, knowing I may have to sit through 120 minutes of this.

However, once the four men (Foster, Wahlberg, Hirsch, and Kitsch) all head out onto their mission, the movie really picks up steam and eventually becomes downright heart-stopping.  Peter Berg had an odious task when it comes to the film-how do you keep a movie about four men interesting when the title gives away that only one is coming back...and that one is revealed in the film's opening scene?  The answer is through some really terrific editing decisions, particularly the extended sequences in the second hour of the film.  The four men, after being discovered by the Taliban, stage an epic shootout in near real-time, and we see slowly as they deteriorate in body but rarely in spirit.

Again, this isn't the sort of cinema that I usually latch onto (I like a more "shades of grey" approach), but the actors, and particularly the editors/sound team sell the shit out of this sequence.  Wahlberg and in particular Emile Hirsch both know how to have that fear lurking beneath the surface, being kept down by overcompensating bravado.  The sequences are so compelling and consistently raw that you forget that only one will come back, and you start to pray that by some twist of fate more will survive.  Oscar could have found room for the editors, in my opinion (so many films deserved that nomination over Dallas Buyers Club, Lone Survivor included), but I'm glad that it recognized the superb sound work, which at its best is giving even Gravity a run for its money.

The film is not Grade-A entertainment, of course.  The movie, aside from miscasting Ludwig and to some extent Kitsch, has to sacrifice some key plot by giving us that truly spectacular battle sequence.  Principally, I could have done without the reassurance that Ben Foster's Axe gives Wahlberg's Marcus late in the film, assuring him that they did the right thing by letting three civilians who led to their deaths go.  I have true trouble believing that, in the heat of battle, Axe (who had been against letting them go in the first place) would have said this (or, more accurately, believed it), and Foster's conviction seems to imply both.  This exchange takes away quite a bit from the final fifteen minutes of the film (which seem to come out of nowhere, with Marcus inexplicably rescued by villagers).  Again, both these things may well have happened, but it's the principle reason that I don't like true stories or completely accurate depictions of a story onscreen: movies are about crafting the best possible story, and neither of these  things help the film's narrative.

But overall, I'm in the positive camp here.  The film's action sequences are more than worth the price of admission, and brava to the OVP for getting me out to a movie I would have normally skipped.  What were your thoughts on Lone Survivor?  Where do you think it should rank in its two Oscar categories?  Share in the comments!

Will This Movie Make the OVP?

Every year around this time, my life turns to chaos.  I am trying to hop from holiday event to holiday event, buying presents and I'm generally working a few extra hours.  I am trying to fight the holiday pounds and reading through a half dozen books.  And then there are the movies-Oscar season is really just a six-week sprint at this point, and I'm balancing time and money in order to hit what's in the theaters both for my own personal awards as well as my hope to clear out most of the OVP before the ceremony.  You see, I try as hard as I can to see all of the nominees before the nominations come out and definitely before the Oscar ceremony.  This is always an exercise in futility (I've never hit them all before the Oscars thanks to odd release dates), but I always try.

However, in attempting to get this clean sweep while realizing that I have a finite amount of money and time, I run into the "will it be nominated" quandary, typically in the tech, music, and foreign language categories.  Some movies are obvious that they'll compete (American Hustle and Nebraska are going to be viewed post haste, and The Great Gatsby is at the top of the Netflix queue).  Other movies I just want to see regardless before I pick my own awards (Frances Ha looks delightful).  Below, though, I have listed a Top 10 films I wouldn't normally see, were it not for the fact that I'm thinking they could score with Oscar, in descending order of my descending interest.  Tell me your guesses and which ones I should be lining up for in the comments!

10. The Great Beauty
Contender In: Foreign Language Film
Why I'm Not Really Interested: Listen, I get to see a lot of foreign language film nominees, and my no reading the summary of a film before it comes out rule may be skewing me a bit here, but this looks like a late-in-life-crisis for an Italian man who is surrounded by overly tanned women in bikinis.  Sexism yawn.
Redeeming Factor: Foreign Language Film nominees are usually interesting at least, and the reviews are solid.
Will I See It: It's only in my market for another few days, so if I'm feeling really bored this weekend, probably-otherwise it will be a Netflix entry (if it's nominated).

9. The Invisible Woman
Contender In: Best Costume Design
Why I'm Not Really Interested: Biopics have never been my thing, and if this film was better, wouldn't it be opening a tad bit earlier and with more pomp-it stars two Oscar nominees and an up-and-coming actress.
Redeeming Factor: The English Patient is my favorite film of the past fifty years, and a reunion of that film is a great selling point.
Will I See It: Probably-The English Patient stars are usually enough to get me to almost any film, though I don't know if it will get to this market before the nominations are announced.

8. Rush
Contender In: Best Picture, Supporting Actor, Film Editing, and the Sound Categories
Why I'm Not Really Interested: Sports films aren't really my thing, neither is Ron Howard, and this film was poorly-reviewed by my most trusted film reviewers.
Redeeming Factor: ...Chris Hemsworth is a babe, right?
Will I See It: Considering the new life that the HFPA breathed into it this morning, this is a guarantee regardless of the OVP, though it will be after the nominations (I missed it in theaters and the DVD release date is later than that, I believe).

7. Oblivion
Contender In: Visual Effects
Why I'm Not Really Interested: I was honestly very interested in this film early on in the cycle, and it's actually in my Netflix queue free-of-a-push, but there are so many films to see and an unimpressive Tom Cruise picture seems like a disappointment.
Redeeming Factor: While I think he may be personally crazy, I still rather enjoy Tom Cruise on-screen.
Will I See It: The question isn't whether I will see it (I will), but is it worth one of the pivotal pre-Oscar nominations slots?  My gut says yes, but the comments section is there to sway me!

6. Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom
Contender In: Actor, Score, Song
Why I'm Not Really Interested: Idris Elba is a stud, but I haven't yet had the performance that convinces me he's a great actor yet (and I suspect Luther is a better bet).  Biopics are really not my thing, and ones that are only on the fringes of the Oscars make me nervous.
Redeeming Factor: Did I mention Idris Elba is a stud?
Will I See It: If I'm stuck with no other options for a Christmas movie and this manages to make it to the part of the country where I spend that holiday, then yes.  Otherwise, this is a wait-until-it's-nominated sort of flick.

5. Epic
Contender In: Animated Feature
Why I'm Not Really Interested: Animated features this year have been full of disappointment for me, and those were the ones that made gazillions of dollars.
Redeeming Factor: I had to double check, but it did (barely) clear a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so there's that.
Will I See It: I'm on the fence-it's not a film I would normally see, and part of me is guessing that it will be the first Netflix viewing post-Oscar morning in a similar fashion to Pirates: Band of Misfits last year.

4. Lone Survivor
Contender In: Sound Categories
Why I'm Not Really Interested: Mark Wahlberg is occasionally a very talented actor, but his films are hot-and-cold for me, and this movie just doesn't get me going at all-it recalls too much Act of Valor, another film that I was right on the fence about seeing last year due to its proximity to Oscar.
Redeeming Factor: Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Ben Foster, Emile Hirsch, Eric Bana, Alexander Ludwig...where's a Dustin Lance Black script when you need one?
Will I See It: It'll still be in theaters if and win it scores a Sound nomination-I'll see it then, but not before I get the go-ahead.

3. The Lone Ranger
Contender In: Makeup, Visual Effects
Why I'm No Really Interested: The reviews, the previews, Johnny Depp's makeup...did anyone want this movie?
Redeeming Factor: While I think the boat has kind of sailed on Armie Hammer being a movie star (he just doesn't have the charisma even if he looks like one), I have actually heard this film isn't as bad as it seemed, particularly some of the action sequences.
Will I See It: Not without an Oscar nomination.

2. One Chance
Contender In: Best Original Song
Why I'm Not Really Interested: It's an uplifting biopic whose main plot point is reality television.  Everything about that sentence makes me want to vomit.
Redeeming Factor: I'm actually okay with Taylor Swift this year (I liked a couple of songs off of Red), and while I don't want her to get an Oscar nomination, I also won't throw something at the television if it happens.  Also, James Corden is so charming.
Will I See It: In the vein of the previous article, I don't have to worry about this one-it will be Oscar-blessed or denied by the time it comes out in the states on February 7th.

1. Bad Grandpa
Contender In: Makeup
Why I'm Not Really Interested: Do I need to explain?  There's a reason a film like One Chance, which I would normally not touch with a ten-foot pole, is in second place.  And for those of you who scoff at this idea, In Contention has Bad Grandpa in fourth on their Oscar predictions for Makeup and Indiewire has it in eighth.  Also, Click, Life, and Norbit are all Oscar-nominated because of this branch.
Redeeming Factor: None.  The OVP enters a dark chapter if I have to see this film.
Will I See It: I am a Type-A completist, so if it sticks the landing on an Oscar nomination (we haven't seen the bake-off for this branch yet, but I think we're going to see it on the shortlist at least), I will see it.  But will I see it before it's Oscar-blessed.  Hell to the no.

Those are my films-which one do you think I'm most off-base on and should catch (if one of these movies is genuinely good, I want to see it for sure)?  Which one are you in total agreement and think that Oscar should give the "next" to?  Share in the comments!

OVP: Picture (2010)

OVP: Best Picture (2010)

The Nominees Were...

Mike Medavoy, Brian Oliver, and Scott Franklin, Black Swan

David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, and Mark Wahlberg, The Fighter

Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan, Inception

Gary Gilbert, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte, and Celine Rattray, The Kids Are All Right

Iain Canning, Emile Sherman, and Garet Unwin, The King's Speech

Christian Colson, Danny Boyle, and John Smithson, 127 Hours

Scott Rudin, Dana Brunetti, Michael de Luca, and Cean Chaffin, The Social Network

Darla K. Anderson, Toy Story 3

Scott Rudin, Ethan Coen, and Joel Coen, True Grit

Anne Rosellini and Alix Madigan-Yorkin, Winter's Bone

My Thoughts: Looking at the above photos, you'd almost be forgiven for thinking this was a great lineup of Best Picture nominees.  Put together, when you see the iconic images of movie stars, soon-to-be classic scenes, and your favorites mixed amongst the ones you were relatively indifferent toward, you think "wow, what a year for pictures."  But 2010 was just an okay year for Best Pictures, in my opinion, and some of the best films of the year got overlooked (as always happens) in favor of some of the fine or mediocre.  

With 2011, the punching bag that I felt the worst about was The Artist, primarily because it's not a film I wanted to persistently rag upon-it's just that I didn't think any of its nominations were really justified.  This year's Artist easily became True Grit, a film that is better than I've been saying it is, but has to surpass a higher bar when it comes down to being counted amongst the year's ten best films, which it doesn't really do outside of its cinematography.  With ten nominations, I've discussed the film from almost every angle, but the reality is the film just doesn't have enough going for it.  Even films like Inception, which try hard and fail on plot execution, at least shot for great and fell.  True Grit doesn't even get to that point.  This is fine for just being a movie-not every film can be (or should be) No Country for Old Men, and there's something for keeping the tradition of the western (as I get older, one of my favorite genres) alive, but the Duke's films are largely interchangeable with some rare exceptions, and this movie proves that that doesn't alter when you cast Jeff Bridges.

Winter's Bone is the film that has grown on me the most since I've seen it of these ten.  Some of these movies I instantly loved, some I disliked fairly strongly when I first saw them, but Winter's Bone is the one film that I have gained a lot more appreciation for the more distance I gain from it.  I think it may be the nuances of Lawrence's performance come into a different light the more you think about the people surrounding her.  I love the complicated relationships that develop with Dale Dickey and John Hawkes throughout the film, how we never really get to understand their actions properly, but we get a hint of why they are the way they are.  Movies like Winter's Bone run a tight line between giving the audience too much (killing some of the remaining mystery of the film) and being too ambiguous (therefore leaving us alienated).  It helps that Granik keeps the focus almost entirely on Ree (I'm trying to remember if there's a scene she's not in, and I don't believe there is), therefore making her eyes our eyes, and giving us only what she would know as a character.  This helps keep the chill real, since we have our doppelganger on-screen, and have to rely on her for our journey through the movie.

Toy Story 3, as I've mentioned before, is a film that relies heavily on its predecessors, and I don't recall where I read it (if you know who you are, take your credit), but I remember a critic saying that if they ever make a Toy Story 4 they should just take back all of the awards given to this film, and I 100% agree.  This film only works as the closing of a chapter.  The film would lose something if we saw more of the toys journey without Andy, because he is the anchor of this film.  The movies are all about getting older, growing up, and finding that you cannot stay the person you used to be.  It's a message that resonates with everyone, because as you get older, you either have to close doors or realize that some doors aren't open anymore (I've been going through this crisis a bit as my thirties come charging out at me like a gun and I'm not ready to give up my twenties quite yet, and this is proof that this story hearkens to all ages).  If we get to restart, it takes away the linear aspects of the film, and makes it less relatable-the movie works because we are Andy, and have to say goodbye in the end.  The toys get to stay the same age forever, but we do not.  There's a lot more to the film (some great action sequences, terrific vocal work from Ned Beatty, Tom Hanks, and Michael Keaton), but it's the final scene that clinches the entire movie-after fifteen years, we are forced to say goodbye to these characters, and if Pixar understands what makes them special, it will be a permanent goodbye.

Since we've already tackled True Grit, it makes sense to also throw out the other film that took a (slightly less intense) beating throughout these proceedings, The King's Speech.  I've carped on and on about how this feels like a TV movie, and I don't want to mean that as an insult.  Television, and even TV movies, can hit emotional heights that only the finest of art can go toward.  I know I spend most of my television time on this blog focusing on the shows of Ryan Murphy, but I do love shows that are less divisive and ones I can defend more universally.  Lost, Mad Men, Game of Thrones-I would put these up against almost any films of the past ten years in terms of grandeur and content.

The reality is though that television and movies are very different things.  Television, when it's meant to be artistic and not some soul-sucking drivel like Two and a Half Men or 99.9% of cable reality shows, is about developing characters over time.  It's about forming a long-term bond with a character and over the years letting them into your life in a personal way.  Look at a show like Lost-you cheer on John Locke in a way that you could never cheer on a movie character, because you've spent years with him, and like it or not, when you truly love a show, you truly cheer on a character in the same way you'd cheer on a real-life friend (and let's be honest, with our favorite shows, we spend as much time with these characters as we do with our actual friends).

Film, on the other hand, is supposed to tell a finite, short tale, and is supposed to be a compact story, and should therefore find a shorter, higher arc.  The King's Speech would work better as a miniseries or a short series because it tends to gloss over too many of the scenes.  We take for granted Bertie's struggle, how difficult it is for him to ask for help, and Hooper gives us history as a crutch, but it's missing the big arcs you want from a movie, and needs more time to grow with us as an audience (think of the montages they use to keep the film a-pace).  Hooper understands television, obviously, as that is where he has been most successful, but with a film he's better off with something finite like Les Miserables, a play that has already compressed what he needs to present, rather than something larger that could go the way of television or a movie.

You can compare The King's Speech to The Kids Are All Right in this regard to get a sense of a movie that also could have worked as a television series, but clearly doesn't because the director knows completely what medium she's working in and has the good sense not to lose focus on that.  In a television series, we'd get to know a lot more about Paul, and in a TV series, quite frankly, the ending wouldn't work-we'd have spent too much time with these character not to see a happy ending for all of them (yes, spoiler alerts should be issued, but I suspect you've seen this movie by now, and would have skipped the paragraph if you hadn't).  Cholodenko knows to keep the focus on the affair, and the turmoil that invades Nic and Jules stagnant marriage, and not meander or try to gloss through certain scenes because there's a time limit.  In the end, when Paul is evicted from their lives, we realize that not everyone was required a happy ending here, and the focus was truly on the core family, and not the guy who was thrown into it.

Inception was one of the biggest movies of 2010, and probably the most-discussed film, and was a bit of the inverse of Winter's Bone for me.  I remember adoring it the first time I saw it, impressed by the beautiful visuals and the insane amount of twists and turns.  It, however, doesn't hold up as sturdily on second viewing, and is instead an artful, but flawed summer film.  Without a great performance like Heath Ledger's to anchor the movie, Nolan becomes a bit too in love with his concepts, and while they work on some levels (the entire entering your dream aspect is a doozy), the concept is too big and too full of holes to hold up when you take a closer examination of it.  Nolan would have gained from trimming a bit of the fat (cutting a couple of twists), and spending more time on, say, Mar, who is the most fascinating character in the film.  In fact, in a land of a thousand sequels, it might have made more sense to have the Mar story told beforehand, as it's a bit more intriguing than the remaining film.  The movie is still impressive, and this isn't the screenplay category, so I have to not just base my vote on the plot but also on the visual effects, the cinematography, and how they valuably contribute to the end result, but that's not enough to save it and get it Best Picture.

Danny Boyle's adventures in filmmaking are not without their risks, and I will say that this isn't my least favorite of his films (let's all brace ourselves for the shellacking Slumdog Millionaire is going to take in 2008).  The film is ambitious, I'll give it that, but it just doesn't work for me.  High concept movies should be applauded, but they should be celebrated when they actually succeed, which this one largely doesn't.  The film lives and dies on whether we want to stare at James Franco for two hours, which works (this would have been downright terrible without a star as intriguing as Franco at the helm), but the film seems more intent on us thinking about how we'd react in a scene than how the character is reacting.  It says something that the hipster Franco has so much growing to do, when in reality he seemed relatively enlightened at the beginning of the film, and the guy who randomly helps two girls in the desert without a second thought doesn't meld with the guy who didn't tell anyone where he was going.  Again, I really want to like this movie, but the stylistic choices (why does he have to do those odd Slumdog closeups in a film that's so different from it) and lack of proper character development don't add up to anything I can get behind.

If Winter's Bone is the film that grew on me the most and Inception the one that waned after a while, Black Swan is the film I forgot how much I loved.  Looking through my many awards notes from that year and leading up to writing the OVP entries, I realized how highly I had rated the film, and after re-watching scenes from the movie, I recalled how tightly wound this film was, and how it ended up in my personal Top 10 for the year.  The thing people forget about the film is that it's so much more than Portman's girly, mad-hatter performance.  People see that Best Actress trophy, and forget about the great deal of symbolism and easter eggs throughout the taut script and the "is she insane or is she being destroyed" aspects of the plot.  Think of how brilliant Winona Ryder and Barbara Hershey are in their short, tortured roles, and how we slowly begin to question if everything in Nina's world is illusion or just a twisted version of her reality.  This is a movie that stands up years later because it doesn't rely on the "twist ending" aspect as much as it relies on genuine, psychological scares and the fear of what we don't know.

David O. Russell's film I actually recalled liking better than most people, and it was due to two things, both of which we've discussed at length, but for the completist in me, I've got to recount again.  The first, as I've mentioned are the fight sequences.  I've been trying to pinpoint the reasons for this, and the biggest thing for me is that I honestly didn't know how this was going to end (despite it being a true story).  The film has the atmosphere of being about a family who just happen to love boxing, and not focused solely on the actual fighting.  Of course, they wouldn't have made the movie if he wasn't somewhat successful, but the boxing is secondary, and after a while, you feel that it could be that Mickey's dream is about to be crushed, and that he had a brief date with fame but failed.  That's an interesting story, and one intriguing enough to be made into a movie, and therefore the suspense works.

The second aspect is of course the brilliant work by Melissa Leo.  While I've discussed why Bale doesn't work for me, Leo just soars in every scene she's in in the movie.  Great films don't always house great performances, but they do know when they have one, and with Leo, they just let her attack the scenes, focusing solely on her despite her lack of star stature.  I loved the way that she moves through all of her children-that she doesn't react to her daughters as a giant set of SAG extras, but instead has different reactions for all of them and clearly knows what motivates her, and who her favorites are.  It's a great piece of work that bared mention again as we close out our discussion of this movie.

The final film is of course The King's Speech's chief rival, The Social Network.  After spending at least two hours yesterday in a social media spiral (by the end of the weekend I'll have my LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, and Tumblr's all up-to-date, and I'll wonder what the hell I did that for when I could have cleaned my apartment or jumped on the treadmill), I can tell you that this film captured a slice of our lives.  The primary reason that it didn't succeed in winning the Best Picture is that it spoke (surface-level) to a very young subset of our culture.  The film resonated with Gen Y audiences in a way that it likely didn't for other audiences because of its tech pop culture references and the way that Facebook unfolded for those born between 1982-1987.

But the film is universal in the bulk of its messages, which is why the lack of knowledge about the technology is acknowledged, but not forgiven if you dismissed this movie out-of-hand.  The tale of a man who goes from having a simple life to throwing away his friends, his morals, his humanity all in the pursuit of an ambition that he's not even sure he desires is a tale that can speak to all of us.  Mark, Eduardo, and Sean may represent real people, but they show a universal message of how wealth can corrupt some and enhance others, and we only know what we want when we reflect and realize what we missed.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Golden Globes, as always, split their trophies between Drama and Comedy, and as eight of the Best Picture nominees are Dramas, there wasn't room for 127 Hours, Winter's Bone, and True Grit (in proof that the HFPA doesn't always predict the Oscars, The Social Network emerged victorious).  Toy Story 3 missed in the Comedy category (are animated films even eligible here anymore since they have their own category?), but The Kids Are All Right emerged victorious over Red, The Tourist, Burlesque, and Alice in Wonderland.  The Producers Guild Awards gave their trophy to The King's Speech, and with ten contenders, they only cut Winter's Bone for the clear eleventh place The Town.  And the BAFTA's, in a five-wide field, gave their trophy to The King's Speech, having it beat out Black Swan, True Grit, Inception, and The Social Network

Films I Would Have Nominated: If there's nothing else that you should realize from these write-ups, it's that if you haven't already seen it, it's time to go out and rent Scott Pilgrim.  The film, three years later, seems as fresh as possible, and will likely enjoy midnight movie showings for decades, but it doesn't lose anything by being watched at home and cheering on either Scott or your favorite evil ex.  Blue Valentine also plays beautifully years later, and I love the way that Gosling's fame since the film has only enhanced his sullen, broken man in the movie.  Both of these films could have toppled all but two of the nominees and I would have been fine with it.

Oscar's Choice: Much to the chagrin of the blogosphere, The King's Speech, the far more traditional choice for Best Picture, triumphed over second place The Social Network and likely third place True Grit.

My Choice: I will admit that at the time, it was a much more difficult choice for me between Toy Story 3 and The Social Network, but upon reflection it's an easy win for The Social Network, followed by Pixar.  Rounding out the contenders are Black Swan, Inception, Winter's Bone, The Kids Are All Right, The Fighter, The King's Speech, True Grit, and 127 Hours.

And we've now reached the end of 2010 and our OVP countdown.  I only have two films left in 2012 and six left in 2009, so we'll be encountering both rather soon, but I wanted to know your thoughts on the movies-what'd you think of the Best Picture lineup of 2010?  Were you in The King's Speech or The Social Network camp (or were you cheering for one of the remaining eight and wondering why your film wasn't being discussed)?  And what did you favor as the true best film of 2010?

Also in 2010: Director, Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Film, Animated Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2010

Past Best Picture Contests: 2011