Oscar Night: A Recap

So the 83rd Annual Academy Awards came to a close just a few minutes ago and I was generally pleased. It would have been nice to have some surprises, as all the nominees who were expected to win did. But that also meant that my statistics were really high this year (18 correct predictions out of 21 categories considered) so I was happy with that. The show moved along at a nice, fluid pace. The acceptance speeches were gracious and, for the most part, eloquent. Even the musical performances, which are usually the most boring part of it for me, were tolerable. The Oscars were really about “The Movies” this year and it respected the generations of film goers and filmmakers that preceded this one.

One speech stood out as particularly honest and telling of the true meaning and power film can have. When David Seidler won the Oscar for his work in writing the screenplay for The King’s Speech, he thanked the Academy for the award on behalf of all of the stutters and said, “We have a voice and we have been heard.” That film was about empowerment in the face of adversity and overcoming a great personal hardship and it is also an allegory for anyone struggling with something they don't think they can overcome. Film has a long history of enlightening viewers about issues that otherwise might go unnoticed – be it in the documentary or narrative traditions. Seidler’s speech was moving both because he spoke about both his own personal struggles and because it showed how the medium of film could have such a lasting and important effect on those who have similar struggles, be it stuttering or whatever else they need a voice for.

My one complaint about the show, and it’s a big one, was the insipid and vapid hosts. In an attempt to attract a younger television audience, the show’s producers hired Anne Hathaway and (already overexposed) James Franco to take on the roles as host. Let’s start with Franco. He could not have looked more bored and uninterested in his latest gig. Maybe it’s just his general affect, but between all of his other projects – PhD student, film acting, soap opera “performance art,” etcetera, etcetera – this just seemed to be at the very bottom of his list of what he wanted to be doing at that moment. His most enthusiastic moment was when a fellow NYU film school graduate won the Oscar for best short live action film and gave NYU a shout-out. When the cameras were back on Franco he yelled, “Yeah NYU!” I mean, yes it’s cool to show school pride and all, but really? Should that be the only thing that animates the host of the Academy Awards during the telecast? His lack of fervor for this gig came across as a certain form of snobbery and general "over it"ness. Further, while watching him tonight I couldn’t help but think he was laughing at all of us watching at home and buying into the hype of Hollywood, that he was better than and above it all.

Hathaway, on the other hand, was just the opposite. She spent the night as an over enthusiastic sycophantic “Woo-girl” (see: How I Met Your Mother). Her inability to contain whatever it was -- nerves, excitement – came off as unprofessional and just plain annoying. To be fair, she did have to have the enthusiasm of two hosts as clearly Franco had no interest of being there. She stood by his side and nudged him on to show signs of life, which must have been a huge pain for her to do. But she could have toned it down a little for the rest of the show. Hathaway nearly passed out on stage and was unable to contain her excitement when Kirk Douglas told her she was beautiful, and every time she or James announced another presenter she could be heard loudly “woo-ing” into the microphone. During the inevitable lulls was she so desperate for material that she felt she had to do the twist (in her own, admittedly personal moment) to show us that her dress had fringe? How about a shred of professionalism? When she introduced Billy Crystal I found myself saying out loud, “Please stay and take over the show from here.” But alas, my wish did not come true.

Despite the shortcomings of the hosts, I, as usual, enjoyed the show tremendously. From keeping score on my personal ballot, to the catharsis of the "In Memoriam" segment, from honoring the year’s best films to admiring or hating the fashion choices, Oscar night lived up to my expectations. Now, only 12 months till the next one!

Some Pre-Oscar thoughts

So I’m sitting here watching ABC’s pre-Oscar show, something which honestly I don’t always do. And to be perfectly honest it’s making me very upset. I love Hollywood and all the glitz and glam that it’s famous for. I love to get excited for this show and get all wrapped up in the history, glamour and beauty of it and celebrate some of the best filmmaking. Perhaps I’m feeling a bit of nostalgia for a bygone era of Hollywood where the stars embraced their place popular culture.

So much has now changed and I’m not sure what to make of it. Natalie Portman just declared how while people at home wish they could be all glammed out and dressed up for a big night out while the actresses there actually wish they could be in sweats, without makeup and with messy hair. I mean please, how about a little bit of gratitude, Nat? She has gotten some of the best press and accolades for her body of work and to make that declaration makes her seem like such a spoiled brat. I agree that the hosts of these preshows often come across as vapid, shallow and awkward when interviewing these stars. But the stars should not stoop to those levels and pander to the ridiculous questions that they are asked.

Another new element introduced into the show, in an effort to be more “relevant” to the young viewers is link to facebook and twitter and allow fans to post their own questions to be asked to their favorite stars. All of these, to me, take away from the façade of glamour of Hollywood and the superstars that we watch. Let’s remember and embrace what Hollywood really means -- the Potemkin Village of glamour and beauty and untouchable stars who are shallow but love what they do and are happy to be the face of unruffled beauty who would never even consider admitting to relaxing in sweatpants. In our current culture of over exposure and information sharing, how about we leave some things to our imaginations – the illusion of Hollywood. After all, isn’t that what “the movies” are all about anyway?

Oscar Picks!!

Every year I take on the challenge of predicting the Oscars and every year I face the same conundrum. I have separate categories -- one for who I think will win, and who I think should win. I'll do my best this year to make accurate predictions and we'll see how I do. I've chosen, for the sake of time, to only list my predictions for the top 5 categories. I'll post my full list of results after the show!

Best Picture

First up, we have our Best Picture nominated movies. Every year I struggle with how I would vote for this movie. What makes a best picture? Is it the overall acting? Direction? Writing? Ultimately, I believe that for a film to win Best Picture it has to have a cohesive and smooth synergy of all filmmaking aspects, and in addition, there should be a grounding in cultural relevance. A film which wins the best picture has to have a message of sorts for the audience. Many of this years' films had messages and that's one reason why not only is it a hard race for the nominees, but also why I won't be disappointed if any of the nominated films walk away with the statue. I saw all of the nominated films this year except for 127 Hours, I just couldn't bring myself to see it -- the trailers alone made me anxious and woozy as it was, I didn't think going to see the movie would be a wise decision. They were all strong films, but one has stood out in my mind the most and one which I believe should take home Oscar tomorrow night.

If you listen to the clamor this year, it seems as though everyone thinks the race is between The King's Speech or The Social Network. I personally thought Black Swan was a more interesting film. Academy voters take a lot into consideration when deciding which film gets their vote. While no one's giving me an official ballot (yet!), I tend to gravitate towards the films that stay with me the longest. Film as an art form has the power to take a story and tell it in a way that is visually interesting and this film plays with the audience's sense of narrative structure and toys with any notion of what they might expect a film to be able to do. However, based on that approach, maybe Inception would also have a fighting chance. I did love Inception and was really taken by the complete distruction of any sense of linear narration. But, that being said, while visually spectacular, the film was not conveying a concrete message. But more importantly, it's not a so-called Oscar film. Blockbuster movies have not traditionally had a lot of luck at the Academy Awards, and those which have tended to be the last in a series (think: Lord of the Rings) and The Academy is congratulating the filmmakers on a series well done. Not to mention Christopher Nolan was not nominated for a directing award. I often find it odd to nominate a film as being the best of the year but not the person who put it all together, (and now with the 10 nominated films and 5 nominated directors there are bound be key directors left off the list, but that's a discussion for another day). Another movie which I would be happy to see walk away with the statue is The Kids are Alright. The acting, direction, writing and overall story and is spot on and I believe it was an important message to tell the world, especially in our current heated political climate when it comes to (most things, but especially) issues of Gay Rights, especially Gay Marriage. The Social Network has a decent chance of winning, but as a film in its entirety doesn't hold up as much as some of the others. The acting's ok, the writing was excellent and the editing was interesting, but on a whole I wasn't overly wowed, and, personally, was a little turned off by its assertion as the film that defines a generation. Maybe that's the fault of the marketers, but it turned me off of the film because of it.

Do I, though, think that either of my two top pics will actually take home the statue? Nope. I think that it will ultimately go to The King's Speech. Voters love British period films, and this is one about beloved leaders to boot. Another Oscar fave that this film embodies is triumph over adversity. Who cares that it's about a royal who has all the money in the world? He had to overcome a real personal struggle and had to rely on his family and friends to do so. Not to mention the film on a whole was excellent from the acting to the direction to the costuming. So that's my prediction of who should win (Black Swan) and who will win (The King's Speech).

Best Actor

My vote for both who should and who will win goes to Colin Firth. Jeff Bridges got his award last year more, my guess, for his long and illustrious career than his performance in Crazy Heart. He was good in True Grit, but nothing spectacular and not a performance that is unlike anything ever seen in a Western. Jesse Eisenberg is another actor who is getting a lot of attention this year for The Social Network, but if you've seen him off screen being interviewed, he seems like he was just playing himself. Firth created a character that at times could be dispicable yet sympathetic, noble yet humble and strong yet vulnerable. And he did all this while putting on a very believable stutter. My vote is for Firth to take home Oscar.

Best Actress

I'm going to go with Natalie Portman on this one again, for both metrics, in Black Swan. She has swept most major awards (her biggest competition being Annette Benning) and deservingly so. Until this film I had never been overly impressed with her. When I was watching Black Swan I spent the first half of the movie just thinking, ok here we go again with another performance of Portman being Portman. It wasn't until her character's descent into madness that I realized the depth of this actress' ability to transform herself into her character. Nina Sayers had to be uninteresting at the beginning of the movie for the role to work and for ultimate demise there had to be a clear break in the character's personality. Portman played both sides of this character with ease and it wasn't until the end of the film did this become clear. My second choice for Best Actress would be Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine. In this heartbreaking film Williams plays a woman stuck in a marriage that probably shouldn't have happened in the first place and now she finds herself out of love with her husband and struggling to find her place in a world she wishes she wasn't in. Her raw and honest performance was painful to watch, but definitely deserving of this award. However, it's unlikely that she'll get it as the film did not garner the type of attention Oscar films hope to. Benning, as mentioned, is one of the biggest threats to Portman's awards domination. And while I loved The Kids are Alright, I didn't think she was the strongest or most interesting thing about it. I would have chosen Julianne Moore over Benning, for the nomination. As for Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole, I must just say that I find it ironic that she has chosen a career that is all about expression yet has pumped her face so full of poisonous botox and pulled it so far back that her affect is completely nonexistent. She claims to have given it up, so hopefully we can see her act in the next film and not just recite words from the script. Jennifer Lawrence is the newcomer on the scene and was good in Winter's Bone, but given the strong competition probably doesn't have much of a chance.

Best Supporting Actor

This one has got to go to Christian Bale for his part in The Fighter. One of the most prolific and daring actors in our generation, and it seems almost criminal that this is only his first acting nomination. He was great in The Fighter, and even perfectly grasped the Boston accent, which is award-worthy alone! He's definitely got my vote. Geoffrey Rush is also very deserving of this award for his performance in The King's Speech. As speech therapist to the King he was both lovable and driven. He's an accomplished actor with one Oscar already at home and while very deserving of this second one, my money's still on Bale. Jeremy Renner also turned in strong performances for The Town and his nomination is interesting as the film was not met with much other adulation (but I'll admit to being biased towards any film set in Boston). Mark Ruffalo was lukewarm in The Kids are Alright, but I'm generally not taken by his acting. John Hawkes was nominated in the category for his role as Tear Drop in Winter's Bone. I did not love this film, nor did I think this performance was anything special. Aside from the fact that he was hard to understand for most of the film, I found this role to be cliche and didn't bring anything special to the landscape.


Best Supporting Actress

This is a tough category for me as I thought all of the performances were excellent (although I cannot comment on Animal Kingdom as I haven't seen it...) I think the real fight is between Amy Adams and Melissa Leo, both for The Fighter. Their two characters were in direct opposition for much of the movie so it makes sense that they'd duke it out for the award too. Leo as the tough stage mom for her boxer sons and Adams for the tough but supportive girlfriend to boxer Micky Ward. Both women embodied their characters so fully and turned in such honest performances both would be deserving of the award. Leo will probably get it as she has been racking up the awards so far, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hailee Steinfeld pulled it in for the upset. Her performance in True Grit was impressive and as not only a newcomer, but the only major female role in the film she handled herself well in the company of such established and prominent actors. Helena Bonham Carter was also excellent in her role as the Queen Mum in The King's Speech. Her turn as the sympathetic yet strong queen-to-be who supported her husband and pushed him to be the great king she knew he could be was such a departure from her normal eccentric roles that it was surprising to see her so subdued. My pick, however, in this category will be Melissa Leo for the win she is both deserving and the likely winner.

Best Director

For this category I think Darren Aronofsky should take home the statue for Best Director for Black Swan. The way he seemingly effortlessly weaved together this story of heartbreak and madness into a coherent and cohesive story while evoking strong performances from his actors, I believe he is most deserving of this award. The win, however, will likely go to Tom Hooper for The King's Speech. Hooper is also deserving of this award for telling a story which is both heart-wrenching and heart-warming at the same time. Joel and Ethan Coen tend to be award show darlings, and True Grit was a good movie, but I thought this movie's strength was in the performances and the writing. These auteurs often bring a certain "Coen" stamp to their films and I felt that was lacking in this one. David Fincher also has a strong chance of winning this award for The Social Network as the direction was interesting, but the writing has overshadowed this movie on a whole (and almost anything Aaron Sorkin touches does) and the direction isn't what people, academy voters in particular, have been focusing on.

So there you have it, my pics for the top six categories for the Academy Awards. Can't wait to see how it all turns out!

The King's Speech

A Voice for the Great
2/26/11

It was recently reported that Queen Elizabeth has come out in favor of awards darling, The King's Speech. Initially I was surprised that the usually fiercely private Queen made any statement at all, let alone publicly announce that a film which depicts such a personal and painful part of her parents' life. Further, as it turns out, the screenwriter, David Seidler, had asked the Queen Mum permission to turn this story into a film. Her response was, "Not in my lifetime." So after her passing in 2002, in accordance with her wishes, Seidler began putting together the screenplay. So while she might have not been completely in opposition to the story being told, she had no interest in seeing it on the screen herself.

Directed by Tom Hooper, The King's Speech is about King George VI, played by Colin Firth, who struggled with and eventually overcame a terrible stammering problem and how he reluctantly became King of England and led his country through the perils of WWII. On the outside, that is what the film is about. However, on a deeper level the film is really about both the friendship of two men coming to terms with their lots in life and a wife taking it upon herself to help her husband when he won't help himself. I particularly found The Queen Mum's character to be particularly interesting. Played by Helena Bonham Carter, she depicts a wife and mother fiercely supportive of her family, stopping at nothing until she gets what she wants. After seeing her husband struggle with this speech in particular at public speaking engagements she decided something must be done. She seeks out Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a well respected speech therapist and stops at nothing for both parties to agree to treatment. Both reluctant at first, Logue for having a patient so reluctant of his unorthodox methods of treatment and of such high status and entitlement and "Bertie" (as was his nickname) who knew since he wasn't in line for the throne did not see the need for such embarrassment in the face of his disability.

Bertie was not anticipating rising to the throne, as the second son to King George V and Queen Mary, it would be his brother who would become King. Furthermore, his father never showed much interest or support of his younger son. Bertie was happy to allow his other brother to become King, and when faced with the reality of his brother's abdication of the throne when he chose to marry a woman twice divorced, he was terrified at the prospect of becoming king.

Firth, of course, is at the center of this film. It is his performance which is getting the most attention, and probably rightly so as he painfully accurately depicts someone with a nearly debilitating stuttering problem. He portrays the reluctant King as honest and noble even when vulnerable. However, I was mostly moved by the two supporting characters: Logue and Queen Elizabeth. The eventual Queen Mum emerges from this film as a woman on a mission, a true embodiment of the phrase, "behind every great man is a great woman." It is she who pushes her husband to get the treatment he needs and it is she who is supportive of him in his times of need. Her sympathy and love for her husband is never wavering and she is the one who encourages him to step out of his comfort zone and assures him that he can in fact lead the country when he does not think he can.

I was also taken by the relationship Logue and Bertie forged. Both men dealing with a shortcoming in their lives and rather than letting it keep them down they found ways to channel it. Bertie, as mention was pushed in that direction by his wife. Logue was a failed actor who found a way to channel his exuberance into a meaningful way. As an actor he wished to bring characters to life on stage, but as a speech therapist he could bring people to life on their own stages. His support and love for his client and eventual friend is profound. His refusal to be give up on Bertie even when Bertie pushes him away and insults him Logue stands strong and encourages him to find the voice he knows he has. Despite their reluctancies, the pair form a tight friendship and Logue ultimately gives Bertie the confidence he needed to lead the country through one of Britain's most trying periods in modern history.

To me, this film was less about a King who overcame a stuttering problem and more about a man who found out the importance of having a support system around him. It's about the heights someone can reach if he has people around him who love and support him. It's also about stepping out of your comfort zone to achieve greatness, even when you don't think it's attainable because of something you perceive as a shortcoming. When thinking about the film through this lens it occurred to me that it's no wonder why the current Queen Elizabeth would have liked this film. It brings a sense of nobility back to a family dynasty which has been lacking just that in the public eye lately.

35 Movies in 2 Minutes

I came across this video and it has been distracting me ever since. It's a animated video that simplifies 35 movies into short images. The challenge is identifying all 35. I have somewhere around 20 of them -- would love to see what you can come up with!

35mm from Pascal Monaco on Vimeo.

Tangled

A Fairy Tale for the Jaded
2/14/11

A few weeks ago I went to see Disney’s latest installment of the Princess movie franchise, Tangled. I wasn’t particularly dying to go see it, but definitely had an interest in it and since I was always such a sucker for this genre as a kid, I was happy to tag along. Furthermore, as an adult I’m still waiting for my prince to come, so why not watch a movie where that catharsis is guaranteed?

The movie was cute enough, but from the eyes of this admittedly somewhat jaded movie go-er, it didn’t provide anything new to the Disney landscape. As previously mentioned, I’m a total sucker for the Disney princess musicals. I grew up watching The Little Mermaid at least twice a week (literally wearing away my VHS copy of it), dreaming of being Jasmine with those big batting eyes, wishing I could sing and dance in a spacious ballroom in a flowing golden dress, imagining one day I too would fall head over heels in love with any of the princes that my idol princesses did. Tangled seeks to hearken back to the day of those movies, providing just the right combination of rebellious and independent princess, love story, song, and cute little anthropomorphized animal side-kick. Yet, despite its best efforts, it doesn’t quite live up to its hopes. There was something lacking in it, and it could be that I've personally seen it all before on the screen, or as an adult I know things just don’t work out that way. I’m tending to lean towards it being my own prejudices that left the moving falling flat because the throngs of 7- and 8-year-olds in the theater seemed to be thoroughly enjoying it.

Tangled tells the somewhat reimagined story of Rapunzel, a princess kidnapped from her parents and locked away from the world in a tower by a woman posing as her mother. In this version, Rapunzel (voiced by Mandy Moore) has magical hair which not only brings youth but healing to whoever is in contact with it when she sings. It is to protect this magic that “The Mother” (Donna Murphy) keeps Rapunzel isolated from any human contact. One day resident thief and ladies man, Flynn Ryder (voiced by Chuck's Zachary Levi) appears in her tower hiding out from the lawmen (and horses) who are trying to capture him. Never before face to face with another human other than her “Mother,” Rapunzel is scared and unsure as to how to deal with the situation. Ultimately she decides to use him for her benefit. Itching to get out of her (literal) ivory tower and explore the outside world desperate to see, she blackmails him to bring her out on a journey to see the fire lanterns which are sent out on her birthday each year. What Rapunzel doesn’t know is that these lanterns are dispersed by her birth parents in memory of their daughter and what they hope will lead her back to them.

All of the stock characters you would expect to see in a Disney movie are present, from the rake leading man, fiercely independent but ultimately “helpless without her guy” princess, creature sidekick, and absent/dead parents, and evil step-mother. The lush landscapes, vague time period and song and dance numbers are also clear indicators that this is a Disney Princess flick. (Come to think of it, is it weird that another stock scene is a drunken bar song and dance number?) It’s for those reasons that I both enjoyed and was a tad bored by this film. I could enjoy it because I knew what to expect, it fit the mold that I’d come to know and love. However, I was slightly frustrated that there was really nothing positively nuanced about it that would set itself apart from its predecessors.

I say “positively” nuanced because I would have hoped that decades since the first princess iteration we could have evolved ourselves into idealizing a stronger female main character. Rapunzel is even needier than some who came before her, helplessly relying on her step-mother until Flynn comes along and she proves to need him to care for her. While she acts independent, ultimately she cannot save herself unless she has the support of Flynn coming to her rescue. Her most liberating moment comes at the end of the film, and without giving anything away, is not merely superficial, but also ultimately an unnecessary act. Additionally, something interesting about this film is that while Disney Mothers have always gotten a bad rap, this one is particularly haunting. The Mother is unflinchingly evil, having not even kidnapped Rapunzel due to her need for a child or for love. She kidnapped her for purely selfish reasons and needs her to stay safe for her own gain. Is that where Disney thinks women are today: either helpless victims who need men to save them, or horrible matrons who procreate for their own selfish gain?

While pondering this concept and looking around at the young girls in the theater I wondered to myself if they were reading into the film as I was and if this message was subliminally penetrating their young minds. Were they really thinking that these were their only two options? Personally, I don’t think I can point to The Little Mermaid or Aladdin as solely being responsible for formulating my wish for happily ever after. Moreover, I consider myself a strong woman despite having looked up to Ariel and Jasmine. There’s a lot of worrying about the “Disney effect” on young women and society, and the messages those films are sending. However, thinking about my past experiences growing up on these films and coming to understand the messaging as an adult I don’t know if I agree with the idea that the subliminal messages seep into the subconscious of young girls and they come to emulate their on screen heroines. If anything, it’s Hollywood on a whole that creates the idea of Happily Ever After and perpetuates the image of helpless-without-her-man female characters.

I've already said that Tangled didn’t particularly “WOW” me, but I don’t think it had to. It was meant to impress the kids in the audience. They were there to take away from it messages and themes important to them. I’m sure they got a thrill out of the 3-D (whereas I just grumbled about the higher ticket price and lack of eye-popping imagery). Too often adults judge kids’ movies based on how they see them, not by how the children their meant for see them. So what if I wasn’t enlightened by the film or found its stock characters and plot devises to be repetitive. The kids were eating it up, and for me, watching them being drawn in and awed by what was on the screen was enough for me because ultimately, that’s what reminded me of what it’s like to be a kid. As an adult who can so easily talk about how there’s nothing new in the movies anymore, to look and see how they were lapping up and being impressed by “the movies” reminded me how sometimes, especially when it comes to movies made for kids, they don’t have to be particularly nuanced, they just have to be fun and adventurous and allow kids to enjoy themselves and be, well, kids.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

Still Creepy After All These Years
2/14/11

Earlier this month TCM embarked on its annual “31 Days of Oscar” schedule where they play a month’s worth of Oscar nominated films. And I, in turn, embarked on my annual, “fill up the DVR month with olde timey movies.” The first of the films which I sat down to watch was Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. Surprisingly, after 6 years of formal film education and over 25 years of personal movie-going I have never seen this particular film. I’m the first to admit that even as a film buff and scholar there is a whole cannon of films that not only have I never seen, but have no interest in seeing. This, for a long time, was one of them. You see, scary movies are not my thing at all. Some people enjoy being frightened and find scary movies to be somewhat cathartic. Again, I do not. Scary movies stay with me and penetrate my subconscious and result in nightmares and even the inability to walk down dark hallways without my back to a wall.

Despite my reservations, I thought it was time to watch this classic film with two legends of Hollywood, so I took my chances. Plus, I thought it’s a black and white film from the early 1960s, I’m probably desensitized by modern filmmaking technology and if I can handle Psycho, I can handle this.

For those of you not familiar with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane it’s a film about two washed up Hollywood actresses Jane (Bette Davis) and Blanche Hudson (Joan Crawford, both in probably semi-ironic roles as this was one of the last major film roles for both actresses). Jane was a well known child star jealous of her older sister Blanche who’s career took off later in life after her own had cooled off. Blanche is now confined to a wheel chair and left to be cared for by Jane who has been carrying the guilt thinking it was her who injured her sister so severely. But the years of guilt and drinking lead to a descent into madness and to ease the torment Jane grows to resent her sister and ultimately abuse her.

So does this movie, called “campy” by Robert Osborne when he introduced the film on TCM, hold up? Absolutely. The themes of jealousy, betrayal, family allegiance, nostalgia for a bygone era all hold up 50 years after the film’s release. I found myself having visceral reactions to the same things that the original audiences were meant to react. Bette Davis’ psychoanalytical depiction of a washed up child star clinging onto the vestiges of her former life, dressing, speaking, and singing as she did as a child and introducing herself as “Baby Jane” to people who clearly are too young to have any clue who she might be are painfully sad. She wishes for a time where she was the object of everyone’s affection and center of attention and is unable to come to terms with the fact that her glory days are behind her. Today we can recognize our own culture as celebrity obsessed, and how that celebrity can destroy the lives of those at the center of attention. It’s interesting that while we might think that in our world where the proliferation of media and celebrity culture permeates our daily lives in unprecedented ways, we’re not all that much different from those that came before us.

Furthermore, her relationship with Blanche is a catalyst for the descent. Blanche is a beloved former actress who still receives mail from adoring fans and who, despite her sister’s abuse, still treats her with respect. It’s only when Blanche realizes that Jane is keeping her visitors at bay, stealing her money, and ultimately turning violent does she futilely fight back.

At different and distinct moments in this film I found myself cringing and turning away from the actions on screen. For instance, to torment her sister, for whom she makes lunch each day, she serves her dead pets and vermin found in the basement on the fancy silver serving-ware. I mistakenly watching this movie alone at night and had to turn it off before bed and watch a light sitcom before falling asleep, and yet woke up still feeling creeped out by it. “The Movies” have yet proven, once again, that certain images and themes of human nature are timeless and cannot be rendered obsolete by decades of newer films. I can proudly say I made it through the entire movie (the same cannot be said about all scary movies I’ve embarked on), but despite its age, Baby Jane is not dated and still holds up and is eerily accurate and left me feeling the same as a number modern day movies which are supposedly more timely.

Winter's Bone

Who's the Man?
2/10/11

Winter’s Bone was nominated for 4 Oscars this year, and they’re the big ones: 2 for acting, one for writing, and Best Picture. I’ll give it the acting noms, but I can’t say I’m in agreement with the Best Picture or Best Writing nods. I didn’t really go into this film with any great expectations, having never read the book and not really even knowing what it was about. But given the buzz that has surrounded it and its young ingénue, I was expecting to be wowed and left feeling rather under whelmed by it on a whole. It was decent, and Jennifer Lawrence in the leading role was impressive, but other than that I felt nothing particularly nuanced about this movie. Much if it is a reiteration of themes done over and over before, “country folk” are uneducated, violent, incestuous and uphold patriarchal values.

Winter’s Bone is about Ree Dolly (Lawrence) and her struggle to keep her family together in their home in the face of her father’s abandonment. 17-year-old Ree is left to care for her young siblings after her father, a well known meth addict, has gone on the lam and her mother rendered incompetent by a mental illness. When the county sheriff (Garret Dillahunt) has informed her that should her dad not appear for his court date, scheduled in a few days, Ree and her family will lose their house as he put it up as part of his bond. Facing this reality, she sets off on what turns out to be a dangerous journey to bring her father home.

It was at that point that the movie lost me. Winter’s Bone painted a vivid picture of a young girl trying to keep it together and care for her young siblings and dementia-inflicted mother. Yet, was unable to educate the viewer as to why this endeavor of tracking down her father was so dangerous and why the locals in her town, all of whom she seemed to be related to, warned her against it. Ree spends the entire film painstakingly tracking down her dad, and risks her own life to do so. The people and family members she seeks out to help her, more often than not, end up beating and threatening her. She learns to fend for herself with nearly no allies.

A reoccurring theme throughout the movie is that of family. Nearly everyone with whom Ree interacted is a cousin of sorts. Now, this might have been a comment of incest in her community, but it was often tied to issues of loyalty and protection. Initially she seeks out help from her father’s younger brother, Teardrop (played by Oscar nominated John Hawkes) who initially refuses to help her and even threatens her with violence should she continue of her search. Eventually, he decides to come to her aid and saves her from those inflicting actual harm upon her. Having her uncle on her side is going to be a good thing for Ree as people fear her uncle and know he’s not to be messed with. Unfortunately, the film is unable to articulate why he ultimately has a change of heart and the audience is just expected to sort of go with it. Furthermore, other than a few brooding moments and angry outbursts, it’s hard to understand just why this slight man with a few ominous tattoos (and a nickname which reminded me of Johnny Depp in Cry Baby) is so feared.

Tied into the family theme is that of the role of patriarchy and what that means to the family unit. This message is probably the most interesting thing about the film. Ree, this 17-year-old child who should be in school has been acting as both mother and father to her siblings: she feeds, bathes and cares for them in all ways possible. She even teaches them how to hunt and skin animals so they could one day provide for themselves. In the early scenes of the film Ree walks into her high school and observes a Home-ec class learning how to care for babies. This is almost a joke to someone who has been doing this all her life. Yet, despite her competency, she nevertheless needs to find her father to keep the house and her family in tact. In her quest to find her dad she comes across many women who claim to want to help her out, but don’t do so out of fear of their husbands’ reactions. When Ree breaks that hierarchy and tries to go to the men anyway it’s the women who turn out to inflict the most violence and who uphold this old time value almost more than their husbands.

This to me is the most powerful statement the film was making – the role of women in this staunchly patriarchal society. No matter how the men behave or how intimidating they are, or how self sustained the women seem to be, they will always protect their men. The ultimate redemption in the film only comes when some of the women who initially inflicted the most pain and upheld this order to the fullest, put that aside to bring Ree what she finally needed to survive.