Academy Award Nominations

For a full list of the 83rd Oscar Nominations, click here. The Oscars will be held on Sunday, February 27th, hosted by James Franco and Anne Hathaway.

Oh boy, Awards Season. The votes are being cast, envelopes are being sealed, and "I didn't think I'd win but I prepared a speech just in case" speeches are being written.

Oscar nominations were announced earlier this week, shortly after the Golden Globes were broadcast on January 16th. This is the second year of having 10 Best Picture nominees instead of 5, and yet again we have two hosts. I haven't seen all the nominated films this year. It's not a great year for the squeamish (between 127 Hours, Black Swan, and The Fighter, three films I still can't decide about seeing or skipping). In total, I've seen 6 of the Best Picture nominees -- and I may try to raise that number a little higher before the big night. Here's a quick rundown of who/what I'm rooting for, who I think will win a few major categories, etc...

- For best Picture, it would make me insanely happy to see Inception or even Toy Story 3 win, but I know that there's just about a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, so instead I'm being practical and rooting for The King's Speech. The Social Network got a lot of awards at the Globes, and, though it was good, I didn't think it was THAT good. I thought The King's Speech was heartwarming, funny, and interesting (historically-speaking, I learned something). It has masterful performances (I'm also rooting for it in the Actor, Collin Firth and Supporting Actor, Geoffrey Rush). I'm starting to think that I may need to see both of these films again before the big night. Additionally, for best Animated Picture, I think it's pretty much a given that Toy Story 3 will win (and I think it completely deserves it).

- For the Actress category, I'm guessing it will go to either Annette Bening or Natalie Portman, and I'd be happy to see either of them win. It seems like Bening deserves it after a long career (she has been nominated four times, but hasn't won, I believe -- kind of like Jeff Bridges last year) -- and she was quite good in The Kids Are All Right. On the flip side, though I haven't seen Black Swan, I have liked Natalie Portman for a long time, and it sounds like an incredible role for her to take on. For Supporting Actress, it'd be cool to see someone as young and talented as Hailee Steinfeld win, but she probably won't.

- For Directing, I was incredibly frustrated to see that Christopher Nolan was snubbed, wasn't even nominated. I really look up to him as a Director and so without him in the category, I don't have anyone that I'm really rooting for. For many of the creative and technical awards, I'll be rooting for Inception. That film had such incredible Visual Effects (most of them were actually done in real life -- without CGI!) and everything from the Cinematography to the Soundtrack to the film's Sound Editing was mindblowing. One further note about soundtrack -- Hans Zimmer is one of my favorite composers of all time, so it boggles my mind that he's only won an Oscar once, for The Lion King. I really hope he wins. Above all, though, I really hope Inception gets an award for Writing (Original) as it was SUCH a creative, unique, interesting screenplay. The only exception to my Inception rule is Art Direction, as I pretty much HAVE to root for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 in that category. As the HP franchise is wrapping up, I really hope it starts winning more awards (ala Lord of the Rings).

Will you be watching the Oscars? What are you rooting for? What were you surprised to see on or off the nominations list? How do you think James Franco and Anne Hathaway will be as hosts? If you've read this post and have any opinions, I'd love to hear about them in a comment.


Update! Turns out I've decided I want to do more than just talk about the few films I've seen... I want to see them all! I'm making it my goal to have seen all 10 Best Picture Nominees, plus all of the films nominated for any of the Acting categories by Oscar night. Can I do it? We'll see!

True Grit

True Grit (2010)
Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. Starring Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and Hailee Steinfeld. 

83rd Oscars - 10 nominations: Best Picture, Directing, Actor (Jeff Bridges), Actress in a Supporting Role (Hailee Steinfeld), Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Writing (Adapted Screenplay).

True Grit is about a young girl whose father has been murdered by a man named Tom Chaney. Intent on seeing Chaney (Brolin) brought to justice, 14-year-old Maddie Ross (Steinfeld) hires a US Marshall (Bridges) to pursue him. Meanwhile, they meet a Texas Ranger (Damon) who is also in pursuit of Chaney. In my opinion, the key performance in True Grit is not that of Josh Brolin's menacing baddie, Matt Damon's bumbling ranger, or Jeff Bridges' drunken Marshall... it's the "grit" of Hailee Steinfeld.

One of the first film classes I took in college was Women and Film... (additionally,  I have run the projector for this class for two semesters, so I've heard the lectures multiple times). This class really influenced me and the way I watch movies. I always keep an eye out for assessing the portrayal of women in both old and new films. Let me tell you, Hailee Steinfeld's Maddie Ross is destined to be taught in this class. With her no-nonsense, you-better-take-me-seriously attitude, she's a true force to be reckoned with... and she can hold her own against in the wild wild West.

Something I continue to find interesting about this film is the degree to which the Coen Brothers are insisting it is not a remake of the 1969 John Wayne True Grit, but rather a fresh adaptation of the novel by Charles Portis. This strikes me as fairly amusing as, either way, it's not an original story... and it seems to stand for the abundance of remakes/adaptations (not to mention all the prequels and sequels) that abound in Hollywood nowadays. The near-absence of originality in Hollywood is something I'm interested in researching, actually, but I digress.

In considering about whether a film can NOT be a remake of another film when it IS an adaptation from the same source material, I stumbled across something rather interesting online... an awesome little video where someone cut together a few scenes from the 1969 and the 2010 versions of True Grit. As you'll notice, the dialogue is almost word for word. Are these just the most similar scenes in the two films, or are these clips representative? I don't know, I haven't seen the full 1969 film.

Still, these scenes are very similar. Does this disprove the Coen Bros' assertion that their film is different? I don't think so. After all, look at the difference in the performances... I find the 2010 version far more compelling. Notice how the same line can be played for more humor or intensity, how Maddie Ross stands out much more, how each shot in the Coen Bros film has a greater artistic sensibility.

This leads me to another train of thought...  Does this show a general trend? Does it mean that the quality of filmmaking nowadays is far greater than that of the 60s? My answer would be, yes and no. Filmmaking technology probably has something to do with the beautiful shots in the Coen Brothers version. Acting styles have certainly improved... But my "no" comes from the fact that the 1969 True Grit was made in a time when Westerns were churned out left and right... Nowadays, they're rarities (really the only other recent one I can think of is 2007's 3:10 to Yuma -- which incidentally, was also a remake, of a 1957 film). Thus, I think there is greater artistry in newer Western films because Hollywood isn't saturated with them.

I would recommend this film as an all-around good time. It's interesting historically and is a fun adventure story. It will be interesting to see how it fairs at the Oscars.

For more on this film, I encourage you to check out this interview with the Coen Brothers.

42nd Street

42nd Street (1933)
Directed by Lloyd Bacon. Starring Warner Baxter, Bebe Daniels, George Brent, and others. Dances and Ensembles by Busby Berkeley.

Okay, add this to the list of "I saw it because I thought I should" films. I figured I should have at least one Busby Berkeley film in my "watched" list, and this was the one I picked.

To be honest, most of this film is nothing to write home about. It has a loosely strung together plot (about the process of putting on a Broadway show), a lot of actors, and it all leads up to a series of musical numbers that could never have happened on a stage in the first place.

So, nothing special, but not a waste of time by any means. This film had some great 30s actresses, an underdog to root for, a few funny lines and swinging musical numbers.

There was one scene, though, that did made me glad I took time to watch 42nd Street... because this film does have at least one CLASSIC Busby Berkeley number. Berkeley is well known for a kaleidoscopic style, where numerous dancers (most often scantily clad women) would be shot from above in such a way to make them look like this, or this. This film had a number that looked like this. (I'm sorry, I can't find a clip -- but I encourage you to look for one!) It was really quite incredible, and definitely worth seeing.

Still, this film certainly isn't something I'd recommend, past a YouTube or Google Image search to get a sense of Berkeley's truly incredible choreography style.

The Best Years of Our Lives

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Directed by William Wyler. Starring Fredrick March, Dana Andrews, Myrna Loy, and others.

This is a really interesting film, but in my opinion, more so from a historical perspective than a film perspective. Of course, the two go hand in hand. Let me explain. This film was part of my Film History course's section on Hollywood's role in World War Two. I find it really fascinating that film was declared an "essential industry" during the war -- because of its role in keeping morale high, and its potential for propaganda. I've actually learned a fair amount about this subject before (and had seen this film once already) for a course I took last Spring, on film in the 1950s and 60s. But back to my main point... Hollywood played an important role in documenting the war, and in making films about the home front -- or, in the case of Best Years, about veterans returning home.

This film is long, but interesting (so much so that I didn't mind seeing it a second time). The three men who are the main characters must deal with the adjustment of returning from the war. Throughout the course of the film, the issues of readjustment, trauma (aka PTSD, though it wasn't named thus at the time), disability, reasons for the war / start of the Cold War, home front sacrifices, 40s love and marriage, consumerism, and much more are all raised.

Interestingly, one of the characters is a man who lost both of his hands in the war, and was trained by the Navy to use hooks instead. He, his family, and his girlfriend must all learn to live with his disability. The man who played this role was a non-actor: Harold Russell, and a veteran who really did lose his hands and receive training with hooks (a photo can be seen here). This brings a whole layer of realism to the film and makes it historically important.

Artistically/aesthetically, this film is important because it had the same cinematographer as Citizen Kane, Gregg Toland. Thus, it exhibits some of the same artistic characteristics... long takes and deep-focus; both of which make this quite a beautiful film.

There is a classic scene in this film which really, to me, represents true achievement in creative filmmaking. You can watch this clip on YouTube, here. In this scene, one of the film's veterans (who was a bomber pilot) is left to reflect in a junkyard of airplanes left over from the war. This character seems to have some lasting trauma in the war, as seen in a nightmare scene earlier in the film. The clip I've linked to seems to represent his working through his trauma to some extent.

To round out my discussion of this film, I just want to add that it was very successful in its release, winning the Best Picture Academy Award (and several other categories) the year it was released and garnering a huge domestic box office for its time. It's worth seeing if anything I've said intrigues you, or if you like films that capture their moment in history effectively.

The Maltese Falcon

The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Directed by John Huston. Starring Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, and others.

This film is about a Private Investigator (Bogart) in San Francisco who gets wrapped up in a mysterious adventure with the aim of finding an ancient jeweled falcon statue. This film is generally regarded as the first in the film noir genre and is thus regarded as one of the all-time greats.

I watched this film on my own, but with my mind on my film education. There is a Film Noir class being taught this semester, but I wasn't able to take it. Still, I figured I should know what The Maltese Falcon is all about.

This film certainly exhibits many of the traits associated with film noir -- low-key lighting (think: shadowy), a femme fatale character, and it also has many unusual camera angles. It is thus similar in some ways to Citizen Kane. Note that this film is also from the same year as Kane -- (Kane was released in the spring, while The Maltese Falcon came out in the fall) -- and I find this interesting.

Something I find interesting in regards to this film and also Kane is the idea of a MacGuffin, a part of the plot that "catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot.... The major players in the story are (at least initially) willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to obtain it, regardless of what the MacGuffin actually is" (from that Wikipedia page). This idea is most commonly associated with Alfred Hitchcock. Both "Rosebud" in Kane and the falcon statuette in The Maltese Falcon can be considered MacGuffins.

While this may be an ingenious plot device, in this particular film (and, to some extent Kane... so perhaps this is the case in every film with a MacGuffin), I tend to find it a little disorienting or even unsatisfying. As someone who has a great love for adventure/quest stories, to have the object of the quest really not be meaningful at all, but instead just something to move the plot along, gives very little satisfaction at the end of a film.

Overall, I found The Maltese Falcon slightly hard-to-follow... and I think it was because the MacGuffin was TOO misleading. I was so focused on the seemingly most important plot point... that when it turned out that the falcon statuette wasn't actually key, I was confused. And I don't just think this was due to the fact that there are certainly a lot of flip-flops in the plot, since it usually takes a lot to befuddle me. Despite this aspect of the film, which didn't fully "click" with me, I did appreciate some of the artistic qualities of the film and am glad I've now seen it. I would call it a "must-see" only if you're a film buff or if you are a fan of the film noir genre.

Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane (1941)
Directed by Orson Welles. Starring Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten, and Dorothy Comingore.

Whew, only my second post, and I'm already trying to tackle what is generally regarded as the best film of all time. We watched this film in Film History II yesterday, as something to contrast with Only Angels Have Wings. Whereas that film, and Howard Hawks' work in general, were examples of Classical Hollywood, Citizen Kane is an example of a non-classical film that was somehow still made in the Hollywood studio system.

Let me back up. I had seen Citizen Kane only once before, when I was in fourth or fifth grade. Suffice it to say, I didn't get it then. I was coming into yesterday's class -- and my Film History II course in general -- with the ultimate goal of figuring out why heck this film is such a big deal. After a second time seeing it, well, I'd say I have a slightly grasp of why this film is so remarkable.

Reasons this is an all-time great film, as I understand them:

1) Orson Welles was 26 when he made this film. Let me repeat, 26 years-old when he made what is called by men the #1 film of all time. Wow. No wonder they called him the "Boy Genius." As it says in an original review of Citizen Kane from the New York Times, Welles, (who had previous staged an all-black theater production of Macbeth and a radio production of War of the Worlds that many people thought was a real alien invasion)... "moved right into the movies, grabbed the medium by the ears, and began to toss it around with the dexterity of a seasoned veteran." To top it off, in my opinion, Welles is also a great actor. His portrayal of Charles Foster Kane is oddly moving. Even as you hate the man, you feel for him... not an easy thing to achieve with such an egomaniac.

1a) Welles got extraordinary creative freedom in making this film... the kind of opportunity that was rare under the studio system. Now, this is interesting (and this is a bit of a tangent) because Welles never really got this opportunity again. In fact, if I have my information right, he never got the final cut of his films again. Why? Because Citizen Kane was actually a financial flop. That's right... the film that many call #1 lost $150,000 at the box office! But let me get back to why this film is great...

2) Quite simply, in this movie, style and technique MATTERED. And this was rare for this day and age. Considering the historical context, it's really remarkable that Orson Welles was given basically a carte blanche from RKO Studios... the chance to make the kind of film he wanted to make. He was given a kind of artistic freedom that was not really heard of in Hollywood then.

3) The film is complex, but understandable. Okay, maybe the only thing you remember is "Rosebud..." but if you were to sit down and watch this film (which you should!), you would be able to follow it. It's comprehensible despite the heavy handed artistic technique, the non-linear time, and the flashback (and even flashback-within-a-flashback) device. In a time when studios literally thought you had to repeat things multiple times for the audience to understand it (this was called the "rule of threes"), a film that walks the line between confusing and complicated must have been incredibly refreshing to viewers.

4) The film is based on a true story -- the life of William Randolph Hearst, (as well as a bit of Howard Hughes and Welles himself mixed in there) and boy, was he an interesting guy. I mean, he basically started the Spanish-American War through his yellow journalism... not to mention the fact that he actually did build a real life Xanadu in Hearst Castle, which sounds like an incredible place.

So, yes, this film is impressive. It's certainly not MY favorite film of all time, but I can see why it has been called #1 and timeless by many. And yes, I'm going to call this a "must-see"... it's just THAT classic.

Only Angels Have Wings

Only Angels Have Wings (1939).
Directed by Howard Hawks. Starring Cary Grant and Jean Arthur.

This film is about male camaraderie & teamwork, aviation & adventure, and trust & respect. It takes place in South America, where Geoff (Cary Grant) is responsible for a team of men who fly the mail to a nearby city, over a dangerous mountain pass. Bonnie (Jean Arthur), recently arrived via boat, is captivated by Geoff and his strange, callous ways. As he says again and again throughout the film, "He'll never ask a woman for anything"... or will he? Thrown into the mix is Judy (Rita Hayworth in one of her first film roles), Geoff's ex; and a number of other pilots and friends.

We watched this film on the first day of my Film History II Course as an example of Classical Hollywood Cinema, which dominated American filmmaking from roughly the 1920s-60s. This style basically includes films that focus on character psychology (often one main protagonist, although this film has a bit of an ensemble) and on narrative (over technique or style), and thus have invisible editing. Howard Hawks, the director of this film, is basically a master of this style. Over winter break, I also watched Hawks' films Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Bringing Up Baby, and His Girl Friday. Without really meaning to, I seem to be making my way through a great deal of Hawks' work. I also/still want to see To Have and Have Not and The Big Sleep.


I liked this film, though I wasn't totally blown away by it. I didn't find it as captivating as, say, Casablanca, or as funny as My Man Godfrey, two other films from this era. However, I do find this film interesting for two reasons. The first is the special effects. It goes without saying that they are primitive by today's standards, but they are remarkable for 1939. The scenes of the planes flying -- the mix of models and rear-screen projection -- made for a really cool effect. Second, I find the character of Bonnie really interesting for this era. Since I more or less got my start in film school with a class of Women and Film, I find female characters particularly interesting. Bonnie is great interesting of a Hawksian woman - feisty, independent, and (*gasp*) accepted by the men.

One final note... I must admit, I have somewhat of a crush on Cary Grant at the moment. I know I'm several decades late on this, but there's something about his voice/accent, his dimples, perfectly set hair, and of course, that chin... Let's just say I can see why he was such a star in his day and age. Along these lines, I was surprised at some of his personal history, as we learned in class -- that he was married five times and possibly bisexual/gay.

That's it from me about this film. In summary, I would recommend it for film buffs or fans of Howard Hawks or Cary Grant, but it's certainly not an absolute "must-see" from this era.

Introduction to this Blog

In 2010, I watched 125 films. I have opinions about all of them.

I am a film student at the University of Colorado, and am thus both a CU Buff, and a film buff. I have started this blog with the intent of describing and discussing the many films I see, both for my own enjoyment and for school. The films I watch range from the latest Hollywood Blockbuster to the most timeless classics.

I hope to think critically about the movies I watch, and share these thoughts here. In this sense, I will be practicing and synthesizing what I learn in school. However, more than just that, I also hope to talk about these films as I would among friends -- sharing likes and dislikes, and such.

And indeed, I do hope to talk about the films I watch with friends, so I hope that if anyone should stumble across this humble blog among the great wide interwebs, please make this a conversation and leave me a comment. Please share this with friends, if you know others who enjoy film.

This coming spring semester, my only film class will be Film History 2 -- spanning roughly from the beginning of synch sound films to the present. I will certainly be incorporating films from this class on this blog.

One quick note as I embark on this new blog on this, 1/1/11, the start of the new year -- I have talked about and even started many of what you may call "blog projects," and abandoned them, so I will set a specific (and hopefully reachable) goal for this one: I will write about at least 30 movies on this blog before I abandon the effort. Perhaps by that time, I will have had my fill of reviewing and will move on... or I will have grown used to it and will be in favor of continuing with it.