My Oscar Post

So, I guess I'm obligated to do this. So here is my Oscar post.

Slumdog Millionaire was awesome and deserves everything it got (except maybe bast song, "Jai Ho"!?). Five words: Danny Boyle is the man.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button deserved to win best special effects and it did.

Sean Penn blindsided me. I totally thought Mickey Rourke would win, even if he is kind of slimy.

Heath Ledger: nuff said.

Seth Rogan and James Franco: nuff said.

Still miffed that Bruce Springsteen's song from The Wrestler wasn't nominated.

Still mad The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for Best Picture (It wouldn't have won, but still, one the most highly reviewed movies of 2008 and grossing $1 billion at the box office deserves some recognition).

Hugh Jackman was alright. The opening musical number was amusing (Anne Hathaway stole the show), but next year, I think they should get a comedian again.

And next year, I hope they nominate some films that people actually cared about.

The Curious Case of the Special Effects

If you've seen The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, you probably sat there going, "I know that's Brad Pitt's face on that little old man, but that is not Brad Pitt's body." I was amazed and curious as to how they achieved the whole effect. Now there is a website set up by the Benjamin Button people that shows you exactly how they did it. And not only that, but you'll be amazed at the number of things that you didn't even realize were special effects. I was astounded. I thought the FX were good, but I didn't realize how far they had gone. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is truly a huge leap in the area of movie special effects, as big a leap as Jurassic Park or Forrest Gump were in the 90s.

Visit Benjamin Button FX here, and be amazed.

Video of the Week: Joaquin Pheonix on Letterman

So this is about the weirdest thing I've seen in awhile. I realize that Joaquin Phoenix has said that he is retiring from acting so that he can pursue a career in hip-hop, but it looks like he's checked out a little early. Here he is on Letterman, pretty much despondent and maybe a bit angry about something (even before Letterman mocks him). I expect this kind of thing from people who aren't used to being interviewed, but it's not like he hasn't done this before. Watch the video below and be completely dumbfounded by Phoenix's complete lack of . . . well, anything.



What did you think?

A Racist Exploitation Film up for Best Picture?

If you haven’t seen Slumdog Millionaire yet, I urge you to see it, either now at your local art house movie theater or eventually on DVD. It is a great movie by one of my favorite directors, Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Sunshine, Millions). It is one of my favorite movies of 2008 and is the favorite for winning the Academy Award for Best Picture.

That being said, since Slumdog has been nominated for Best Picture and it has received almost universal acclaim from critics nationwide, a few dissenting voices have arisen, calling the movie exploitative of India’s poor and blaming it for the perpetuation of negative Indian stereotypes in the west.

Jamal, the main character, rises from the poverty-stricken slums of Mumbai and there are depictions of police torture, child mutilation and exploitation, and Indian gangsters. Some Indian critics have accused Boyle of taking these negative images of India and using them to his advantage to play on the heart strings of a western audience, to excite their emotions improperly.

Although it is true that some of the power of the movie derives from the depiction of Jamal and his brother’s surroundings as they face a hard life of child labor, crime, and fear of Hindu violence against Muslims, it is also true that the movie focuses on Jamal’s struggle to overcome these circumstances.


Personally, I don’t see a lot of Bollywood movies. In fact, I have never seen a Bollywood movie—unless you count Bend it Like Beckham, which I don’t. As a result, I don’t know what kind of image Indian filmmakers are trying to portray to western audiences. As well, I’ve never been to India, so I can’t testify as to the truth of Boyle’s depiction of India. But I do know that Boyle has said that this movie is a “love letter to India.” And in interviews, I’ve seen he has been nothing but respectful of Indian culture. (Let me note that Boyle is British.) In fact, because India does not have the strict child labor laws that are enforced in the UK and US, Boyle decided to use western-style child labor laws while shooting the child actors in the movie, in order to avoid even the suggestion of impropriety.

When was the last time you saw an American movie that depicted a person rising above their station? A victim of child abuse or poverty who grows up to make something of him or herself? This is a very common theme in western cinema, especially American cinema (In fact it is a key American mythological archetype). Maybe part of the problem lies in the idea that Indian critics do not appreciate the archetype that resonates so well with western audiences. To back this up, I have heard that at screenings in India the movie has been perceived as boring and confusing by the general population.

I don’t know. I would like to say that the film transcends time and place because it is really about the triumph of the human spirit and the will to rise about your circumstances. It is a celebration of life (both the good and the bad) that just happens to be set in India, but could have been set anywhere. But am I being culturally insensitive when I say I don’t think the movie was exploitative of Indian society?

Come Oscar night, sitting among the bowls of dip and chips on my couch, I’ll be rooting for Slumdog Millionaire to win Best Picture, for Danny Boyle to win Best Director, and for Simon Beafoy to win Best Adapted Screenplay, because—in the end—I think Boyle’s film is a superb example of what movies should be: uplifting, unflinching, visually beautiful, well written and well acted. But a small part of me will also be wondering if I’m a perpetuating cultural ignorance. I hope this is not the case.

Trailer posted below.


Have you seen Slumdog Millionaire? What did you think?

Screenplays Galore!

We've already established that I'm a geek, right? Well here's some more geekiness to add to the case against me. I happened to hear about this website that archives movie scripts: simplyscripts.com.

Mind you, these are not synopses or plot outlines or novelizations, but the actual shooting scripts of big movies free for download in pdf. For example, the site has the complete scripts for all the Golden Globe nominated movies, and has an archive of past Oscar winners for best screenplay.

Usually these types of scripts are not available to the general public; it's not as if you can walk into your local Barnes & Noble and walk into the screenplay section. But now they are all available for free download.

Granted, I really wanted to see the script for The Fountain, one of favorite films of all time, but it was not available. So not all film scripts are in the archive, but a good portion of them are. If you get a chance, click the link above and visit the site and have fun comparing the script in your hand to the movie you see on screen (but, of course, only real film geeks do that sort of thing).

Video of the Week: The Business of Being Born

I thought I would post a movie trailer this week for a documentary that my wife and I saw recently. It's called The Business of Being Born. The documentary examines the business of birthing babies in the united states and questions our current system of OB/GYNs and hospital deliveries. It's eye opening to see that the US has the 2nd highest infant mortality rate in the developed world, it has the highest rate of C-sections, and lowest number of natural child births in the world—by a wide margin. The documentary is very obviously on the side of midwives and home births, but it presents its message in a very loving and informative way. It doesn't finger wag, or call for the eradication of OB/GYNs. And although, you may roll your eyes and think that this kind of thing is only for hippies, this movie shows you that it's not and backs up its argument with great research and interviews. It is very informative and well made, and I highly suggest watching it. (It is currently available on Netflix.) Check it out below.

Oldie but Goodie: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)

Director:
Philip Kaufman
Starring:
Donald Sutherland
Jeff Goldblum
Veronica Cartwright
Leonard Nimoy
Brooke Adams

I just saw this film for the first time a few weeks ago and I was really surprised at how well it holds up today, and how relevant it is in today’s society. This is the first Invasion movie I have seen out of the three that have been made, including the original 1556 and the 2007 remake with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. Whereas the first Invasion takes place in a small town, the 1978 version takes place in San Francisco and follows Matthew Bennell (Donald Sutherland), a department of public health worker, and his coworker Elizabeth Driscoll (Brooke Adams), as unexplainably strange things begin to happen around them, namely, that ordinary people are being replaced by alien clones.

What I found most terrifying about this movie was the characters’ inability to explain anything about the odd occurrences around them. Not only are their friends and family turning into emotionless zombies, but they are at a complete loss as to how they can communicate what is going on. Building terror in the movie, in large part, stems from the fact that those who know what is going on cannot explain it to anyone, and no one believes them. And as a viewer, you can see that something is wrong, so you feel their frustration as they try and explain to others what is going on and no one believes them. In particular, a good portion of the movie is devoted to convincing Dr. Kibner (Nimoy), a friend of Bennell’s, that something is going on that cannot be explained by psychology, but to no avail. Eventually, the small group of survivors find themselves fighting for their lives and trying to stay awake so that they are not turned into invaders themselves.

Taking place during the cold war, there are obvious themes of a silent take over and assimilation into an alien collective with no individuality. However, at the same time, there also seems to be a general distrust for authority figures, academics, and scientists. In this movie, those who are supposed to be the guardians of rationality and scientific advancement are the very same people who are trying to convince you that nothing is wrong and that there must be something wrong with you if you believe differently. It’s very scary to think that those who are supposed to make you better, both physically and mentally, are the very ones trying to turn you into a zombie “for your own good.”

Invasion of the Body Snatchers is still relevant today for some of the same reasons in struck a chord in 1978. In a post-9/11 world, we are told to fear the terrorist among us, the sleeper cells that are just waiting for the order to strike. They don’t look different than you or I, but could strike at any moment. At the same time, especially under the Bush administration, there is a fear that the government is taking over our lives, intruding into our space, eves dropping on our phone calls, all in the name of preventing an attack—in other words, “for our own good.”

But perhaps more important than any of the political of social reasons that make this movie relevant, is the fact that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is just a well made movie. It has a solid script and has some great performances from Sutherland, Cartwright, Goldblum and Nimoy—who deftly leaves Spock behind in a great nuanced performance. Overall, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a great thriller that keeps you guessing and delivers a smart story with good action and great suspense.