FotM: Adam's vote goes to . . .

Look, I still don’t like the idea of 10 nominees for best picture. I never have, and probably never will. That said, choosing who I would vote for if I were a member of the Academy was surprisingly simple.

Currently, I’ve seen 7 out of the 10 nominees. There are at least 4 or 5 pretty good films in the bunch, with 2 that I’d say come the closest to being “great.” I’ll come right back to that . . .

I guess that you could say I’m an intellectual sort when it comes to films. I like films that try to tackle big themes, cover new ground, and communicate that elusive something. While I love being entertained, I don’t consider the having of a good time to be the ultimate goal of a film, or the chief sign of its quality. There have been a number of films (Fight Club, anyone?) I’ve seen that I didn’t necessarily enjoy that I consider to be examples of true craftsmanship, and I’m glad I watched them. Now, I’m certainly not suggesting that my way of looking at films is the “right” way of doing it, and that other approaches are wrong.

That would be stupid.

My point is this. I don’t normally go for the popular choice. When people were proclaiming The Dark Knight the single greatest thing since the dot got put before the com, I was one of the few pointing out what I thought were flaws. When people went nuts over Star Trek, I . . . well, you remember.

So, having said all of that, making my choice for what I would vote for as the Best Picture of 2009 was surprisingly simple.

Avatar.

Nothing I saw in 2009 equals the experience I had with James Cameron’s juggernaut. The only other film that I considered for this slot was Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, but, as great as IB is, (and it is one of the best films an already venerable filmmaker has ever made) I don’t think that anything released between 01/01/2009 and 12/31/2009 comes close to the monumental achievement that is Avatar.

I’m astounded at the fact that almost everything I saw at key points on the screen was created by a computer. Watching it for the first time, I was skeptical of the idea that the incredibly lush world of Pandora was digitally generated. I mean, come on, obviously those blue guys were fake, but what about that tree? The water in the lake? The wind from the helicopter blades moving through the grass? Surely that had to have been real. No computer can make something look that good, and that authentic. There’s no way it could have been left up to processors and microchips.

But it was, and, while it was beautiful, there was even so much more to it than that.
See, Avatar is the kind of thing that George Lucas wanted to make with his Star Wars prequel trilogy. What he didn’t seem to realize is that mere visual trickery isn’t enough to make an audience invest in something. Our brains may enjoy the sight of a superbly created digital world, but our hearts want something to hang their proverbial hats on. I was sold on this thing, man. I wanted to see the Na’Vi triumph over the invading human scum, and I wanted Jake and Neytiri to end up together so desperately.

What Cameron’s done here is truly remarkable. He didn’t just demonstrate a mastery of CGI that no one to date has equaled. He made a film in which, even as your mind is marveling at what it’s watching, you partially (even totally) forget that what you’re seeing is created by a computer. Your heart simply sees a man and a woman standing side by side in a gorgeous place that’s unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.

So, with respect to Quentin Tarantino & Kathryn Bigelow, on Sunday night, Best Picture (and for my money, Best Director) should go to James Cameron for Avatar.

FotM: It wasn't all that long ago, but it feels far, far away

I don't like to use the words "all time" very often when I'm talking about the movies. Although film as an art form hasn't been around for an awfully long time, there have been hundreds of thousands of movies that have been made since the late 1800's. This is a fact that's all too easy to forget in the rush to anoint something as one of the best such-and-suches of all time.

That said, I'm going to break with my usual practice and use those very words to describe the film from 1999 that I chose to feature.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace was, I believe, the most anticipated motion picture of all time. It would be ludicrous for me to go back and tell you the reasons for the success of the original trilogy of Star Wars films for the very simple reason that, if you are indeed a sentient being and reading this right now, you have almost assuredly seen them and could tell me just as well as I could tell you.

I remember hearing about the proposed prequel trilogy back in 1993/1994. Back then, the common thought was that the first film would be released in 1997, which seemed like an eternity to an 8 or 9 year old kid. 1997 actually ended up being the year that the Special Edition trilogy made its debut, which meant that we'd have to wait even LONGER to see the films. No matter. Our enthusiasm was undiminished.

Finally, we were given a release date: May 19, 1999. We were thrilled. At long last, we'd get the chance to see the story before the story and have the chance to understand how Darth Vader came to be. Seeing it opening night seemed out of the question, because everyone and their brother would most definitely already have the drop on us, so we decided that opening weekend would probably be the best we could hope for. I remember actually saying a prayer to ask God if there was any possible way he might help us get tickets for opening night.

You can only imagine our jubilation when a friend of ours scored 6 tickets. I remember being stunned, almost in shock that I would actually be there on OPENING NIGHT. Such a thought seemed to be one of the most wonderful that I could have ever conceived.

Seeing the movie with a theaterful of the Brethren was a blast. I'll never forget our collective enthusiasm, cheering as various characters were introduced for the "first" time. I tell you, there were things in this film that we'd only dreamed of. We were able to see the Jedi in action for the first time, and, let me tell you, those guys were pretty incredible! It might be hard to imagine for younger people who've grown up on hordes of Jedi fighting with the collective hum of dozens of lightsabers filling the air that there was actually a time when the extent of what we'd ever seen of a Jedi in action was Luke dispatching the minions of Jabba the Hutt in Return of the Jedi, but it's true. I will also remember forever the awe that I felt when I saw things like the entry into the Galactic Senate for the first time.

That's one of the things I miss the most from those days. In 1999, with films like The Phantom Menace and The Matrix, visual effects were just beginning to explode into their modern-day position of dominance. Then, it was still possible to go into the theater and see something that made your jaw drop, your scalp tingle, and made you think, "Wow, I've NEVER seen anything like THAT before!" There was a special sense of wonderment that I remember from those days that I don't really think is around much anymore. Now, films are full of sound and fury that signifies nothing. They know the words, but have no idea how the tune goes. I might sound old for saying this, but I miss the good old days.

Now, back to 5/19/99 . . .

After leaving the theater at the end of the credits, we found that most of the audience was out in front of the theater, talking excitedly about what they'd just seen. I remember feeling a twinge of disappointment, because, while I'd really liked the film, it wasn't quite what I'd thought it was going to be.

But how could it have been? I'd been building it up in my mind for years and there comes a point when it's nigh impossible to fulfill someone's expectations in a situation like that. Besides, I really had liked the film, and saw it twice more in the theater (a personal record) before buying it the first day it was available.

As time passed, I went to the same theater with the same group of people twice more on May 16, 2002 and May 19, 2005 to see the next two installments of the trilogy. I remember the terrible sense of disappointment that I felt after seeing Attack of the Clones, realizing that, for the first time, I felt that George Lucas had really missed the mark. I remember the redemptive sense of exhilaration that I felt after seeing Revenge of the Sith and feeling that he'd not only ended it, but ended it right.

Now, there is no doubt in my mind that there are many of you who could say all kinds of things about how and why Lucas chose to make his second Star Wars trilogy the way that he did. I have a number of things to say about that myself, but that's a subject for another article.

Does The Phantom Menace hold up as well as it could 10 years later? No, I don't think it does. However, I don't want to use this platform to major on what doesn't work with the film.

We'll talk about that some other time.

A spellbound 14 year old boy sitting in a dark theater in Irvine thought that it was pretty awesome.

FotM: The news is out all over town . . .

Last week, the Board of Governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced its decision to increase the number of nominees in the Best Picture category by 5. Yes, you heard me right. Instead of the Academy selecting 5 films to duke it out for the American film industry’s top prize, there will now be 10.

I think this is one of the most lame-brained strategic moves that an organization whose sanity is already in question often enough has made in years.

First of all, this move is extremely political. You could even say that it’s all politics. Academy President Sid Ganis has stated that the reason for the change was due to the fact that 2008 had just too many good movies to choose just 5. He also said that The Dark Knight being snubbed was a significant factor in the Board’s decision. You know what I think? That’s baloney, hogwash, el stupido reasoningo, you name it. Any time that you have a competition with that many potential nominees, there are, by necessity, going to be hard choices that have to be made.

Sure, I thought The Dark Knight was one of the year’s best films. That said, I thought The Reader was spectacular, and, while I really thought that Batman probably was going to get his first Oscar nomination in the big dance, I penciled Kate Winslet’s WWII film in as a possible upset. For my money, a really good film ends up in the top category either way. I understand that a lot of people were upset that it ended up being The Reader, but hey, that’s just the nature of competition. You can look back over the past several years and and just COUNT the snubs. City of God in 2003. Cold Mountain in 2004. Spider-Man 2 and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in 2005. Dreamgirls in 2007. Children of Men and United 93 in 2007. Into the Wild in 2008. Need I go on? The point is simple: hard choices are the just the name of the game.

Second, adding more films to the category devalues what it means to have a Best Picture nomination. Essentially, I'm concerned that the field will be chosen from a compilation of what's on the most Top 10 lists at year's end. What's more, what I really hate is that the films that are chosen may be chosen as "token" films to represent their particular genre instead of being chosen for their overall quality. For example, while I feel that dramatic films will still dominate the category, it could easily play out like this: anywhere from 4-6 films will be dramas, then throw in a comedy or two, an animated film, a low budget art house film or two, a foreign film, and at least one big-budget summer movie.

Look, I understand the complaints that have been leveled against the Academy, but is increasing the number of nominees really the answer? Are we so paranoid in this country that we are unable to tell someone, "No, what you had to offer just wasn't good enough"? Think back to the golden age of blockbuster films. Films like Jaws, Star Wars, and Raiders of the Lost Ark all had the benefit of being some of the first films that fit into the summer blockbuster mold that we know so well. Each of these films, in its own way, captured the imagination of the whole world. You know what else they have in common? They all received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture. Can you think back to the last time you saw a summer blockbuster as good as any of them? Didn't think so.

To get back to the political side of things, this decision feels like a way to boost ratings by nominating more comedic films and more big budget blockbusters, because more people would have a vested interest in watching to see if a movie they liked might win. I'm not against the possibility of more comedies getting Best Picture nominations. I'm not completely against the idea of a big summer movie getting a Best Picture nod. Heck, I welcome the idea of animated films and foreign films getting a greater percentage of Best Picture nominations. But what I want to see is all these types of films EARN their way into the top 5. Hey, I think the Academy's getting younger. It's not just made up of older, more conservative people to the degree that it has been in the past. Even Dakota Fanning is now a member. The possibility for a shift in future Oscar races already exists. If a change has to be made, why not add one more nominee to the category, making 6 the magic number? If more drastic change is required, why not adopt a similiar system to what the Hollywood Foreign Press uses with the Golden Globes by having two Best Picture categories, one for Drama and one for Musical/Comedy? Additionally, I don't like the idea of a small group of people making a major decision without consulting those they represent. I've done some perusing of the comment boards of both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, and found Academy members not just decrying the move, but upset that they hadn't been consulted.

Do you realize what's now possible? Someone on one of those comment boards made a very valid point. It's now possible for a film to get 11% of the vote and WIN Best Picture. OK. Take a moment and read that sentence again. . . finished? That's an incredible thought. Potentially, there could be a film that 89% of the Academy despised, and it would still win. That just ain't right.

FotM: Pulling Back the Curtain

I will be the first to admit that as Baz Luhrmann’s films were being released (and I was enjoying them in the theatre) I had no idea that they were related as anything more than three distinctive films by a rising director. As a fan I simply assumed that these three films were done in Luhrmann’s directorial style; little did I know that Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! were actually a trilogy – The Red Curtain Trilogy.

The Red Curtain Trilogy is not a traditional trilogy following characters through one epic story (i.e. - Star Wars or Lord of the Rings) but three films that celebrate and showcase a style of filmmaking. Due to this, defining the trilogy becomes complicated; lucky for me I am a Luhrmann geek and I’ve seen the three films so many times that picking out the patterns in the three films was much easier than it should have been – my film school education put to good use.

What attracted me to Luhrmann’s films before I knew they were a trilogy is the hyperkinetic sense about them. Everything about Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet & Moulin Rouge! is loud, colorful, and tweaked. In a way so specific to Luhrmann, reality is in his films but altered enough that it comes off as pure fantasy, yet enough of the real world is present that we are able to empathize with the characters plights, romances, and random happenstances. Luhrmann makes the kind of film that reminds me about the creative possibilities of the medium – not just the unique stories you can tell but how greatly a filmmaker can control the environment in which stories take place. For me it’s like being a kid that’s discovered the movies all over again.

Part of this uniqueness is of course the images and colors that are key to Luhrmann’s assembly of his trilogy; there are other elements that hold his trilogy together but I feel this obvious touch makes the tie between the movies the most obvious. Before Australia I assumed that the bold color choices and fast moving camera were what Luhrmann uniquely contributed to his films; I now know that while Luhrmann still composes strong images and beautiful colors, the editing, camera work and colors attributed to his first three films are indicative to the style of The Red Curtain Trilogy. This visual style was evident in Strictly Ballroom and Romeo + Juliet but I do believe it culminated in Moulin Rouge! - I still remember my younger brother telling me that he loved the film but the colors, motion, etc., made him dizzy.

Besides the crazy visuals of Luhrmann’s trilogy there is one very obvious thing that holds all three films together – the dumb thing is that even with a degree in film it was so obvious that I didn’t notice it until it was pointed out to me. Each of Luhrmann’s first three movies begins in a theatre with a red velvet curtain that must be drawn back before the audience is introduced to the story, hence the red curtain in the name of the trilogy. Looking back you might assume that this was put in the DVD releases after as a marketing ploy but I assure you it was not. Having seen both Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge when they were first released I can tell you that the curtain was always there.

One thing I feel I also must point out is the beginning of each film. I am a person that hates using exposition in films; with the exception of the Star Wars trilogy and that crawl that comes up at the beginning of each film I kind of feel like exposition in general – but especially at the beginning of a film – is a weak story telling device, it almost always seems like the writer put it there because he thought the audience was too dumb to figure it out themselves. I hate exposition. However, Luhrmann does exposition at the beginning of each Red Curtain film beautifully and it becomes another thing that ties all three films together.

At the head of each film after the red curtain opens Luhrmann has a sequence that is unlike the body of each movie and this sequence gets the audience up to speed with where the characters are at this point in their world. In Strictly Ballroom the opening is a faux documentary where everyone in Scott Hastings life laments about how he is throwing his career away; in Romeo + Juliet the opening is Shakespeare’s traditional chorus monologue told through a news reporter on a TV set which launches us into a beautiful expository faux title sequence; finally, Moulin Rouge! has the opening black & white/silent film-esque sequence where we are brought up to speed on Christian’s life that has led him to Paris. Each sequence sets the style tone for the film but is different enough from the body of the film to stand out as being visually apart from it. I do think this is something that very few filmmakers could do and make it feel natural but Luhrmann manages to pull it off which is just another reason he is one of my favorite directors.

I do have to say that The Red Curtain Trilogy is one of my favorite trilogies because it manages to inspire, thrill and entertain me without ever making me feel like I have to shut down part of my film filled brain and not think about what I am seeing in order to enjoy it. Personally, Luhrmann just has a unique way about his visuals and stories that just makes my love of film renew each time I watch one of them; just as The Red Curtain Trilogy is not a typical trilogy, Luhrmann is not a typical filmmaker and that is more than fine with me. As long as he keeps making movies I will keep seeing them opening weekend and if his four films so far are any indication I will be able to find something fresh and breathtaking in every one.