I succumbed to the rampant Facebook meme. So here are 25 things you may or may not know about me.
1. The sport I think I am best at is ice skating. (Unfortunate given that I am Singaporean)
2. I am not actually a 12 year ACS boy. I spent Primary 1 studying in Canada where I lived for five years.
3. I tend to like people very quickly, though I have come to realize that falling into like is not falling into love.
4. I wanted to be a Paleontologist and dig up Dinosaur bones when I was 5 years old.
5. I applied to Trinity College in Oxford after going on a school trip to the UK and visiting Oxford on one of those perfect summer days (of which I realized there are only 10 every year). Trinity was recommended by the person showing us around because his girlfriend went there and he said it had nice lawns.
6. I vacillate over making important decisions but I ultimately finally make my call mainly based on my gut instinct (and not reason).
7. I am a terrible procrastinator, and I often like the randomness of doing something at the spur of the moment.
8. When I travel, I prefer to backpack and I prefer to do so on my own. (Though I am on the lookout for good travel companions!)
9. I am probably one of the only people to shed a tear during the sequence where Gene Kelly dances and sings in the rain in Singin' in the Rain, which is one of the most joyous scenes in cinema. (Why? Ask me and I might tell you)
10. I like staying up late, and I am not a morning person by nature or inclination.
11. I still haven't learned how to drive a car.
12. I think that more guys than girls tried to hit on me when I was at University.
13. I have appeared on 4 televised quiz shows in my lifetime, and competed for my University in quizzing. (Yes, there is such a thing as quizzing tournaments!)
14. I sometimes wonder if coming back to Singapore was the right decision and if I should have stayed in the UK. In many ways, Oxford will always have my heart.
15. My dream jobs include writing for the Economist, becoming the film critic of the New York Times, a professorship at a top US University though I would settle for winning $20 million dollars and then being able to do what I want.
16. The first crush I remember having (other than a really sweet and quiet girl whom I always wanted to sit next to when I was five) was when I saw Natalie Portman in Leon (The Professional) when I was 13.
17. I probably have more than 2,o00 books in my bedroom. If a fire were to start, I would be in deep trouble.
18. Caleb actually means "dog" in Hebrew though it also means "Brave one". And I am born in the Chinese year of the dog.
19. I loved waterfalls when I was younger. Visiting Iguazu Falls (in South America) and Victoria Falls (in Africa) remain lifelong dreams. My family visited Niagara Falls a half dozen times when we were in Canada.
20. I attended an American high school for 3 months when I was 13.
21. Reading Science Fiction and Fantasy is one of my guilty pleasures which I picked up when I read Dune and The Lord of the Rings respectively when I was 14.
22. I think it would be wonderful to own a bookshop, a pub, or a cafe, or why not all three
23. I am inherently less competitive now than I was when I was younger, but I still dislike losing.
24. I once met the Sultan of Trengganu's wife in person (a sultana, I have been informed) when I accompanied a close friend on a holiday there. His family knew the Royals personally, apparently.
25. I am a closet romantic at heart despite my somewhat harder more cynical exterior. I call this being an M&M (hard on the outside, soft and gooey inside).
27 February 2009
26 February 2009
National Myth Making
I finally decided it was high time I visited the new national museum, given that I had not done so since its re-opening three years ago. I had been to the new wing for theater and movie performances, but hadn't had a chance to view the new Singapore history section, which forms the core of the museum.
History itself is not immutable, and Singaporean history itself, the way it is presented and taught in schools, is very much subject to the overriding grand narrative that the government wishes to portray. Not that the manipulation is as blatant as the continued disavowal of wartime atrocities by the Japanese, specifically the massacre of Chinese civilians, the subjugation of Korean and Chinese women into forced prostitution as 'comfort women' and also the use of prisoners as human guinea pigs for the testing of biological and chemical agents. Still, my encounters with the way Singapore history is taught, and to compulsory 'National Education' campaigns, have made me wary of the specific grand narrative and subtexts that pervade the presentation of Singapore history.
This was evident right from the beginning. The start of the exhibition proper constituted a scene of a village in flames. The helpful tour guide told us that this was Singapore in the past, a prosperous fishing village (Temasek) that had been attacked and destroyed by enemies in Java or Sumatra who were jealous of her prosperity. This scene was played out across a wall that greeted the visitors upon immediately entering the exhibition space, little kampong houses surrounded by coconut and palm trees engulfed in a rictus of computer projected orange and yellow flames, complete with ominous sounding crackles.
Reading in between the lines, it is not hard to see this applying to a more modern context. Singaporean leaders have always seen the world in a hard-edged, realist, perhaps even Manichean way, with Singapore seen as inherently vulnerable, a majority Chinese ethnic enclave surrounded by much larger Malay Muslim neighbours. The message is clear - Singapore's independence must never be taken for granted. These neighbours may grow jealous of our success and seek to destroy us - it has happened before, it can happen again.
It was also unsurprising to see that the initial portions of Singapore history dealing with the lead up to independence was rather selectively dealt with. The usual exhibits outlining the grave communist threats and the communal riots were followed immediately by a picture of Lee Kuan Yew in 1958, returning from Whitehall having achieved self-government for Singapore. David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock, and their roles in the early days of Singapore politics were conveniently airbrushed, not to mention the PAP's early association with the far left trade unions. Self-government was immediately followed by a small series of exhibits showing the advance of such consumer technologies as television sets. Thus subliminally, the PAP government's wisdom led to technology progress and material wealth.
In a recent book by two Australian academics - Constructing Singapore - they contended that the PAP had been so successful in monopolizing the national narrative and implementing their version of the 'Singapore Story' that the younger generation could conceive of no other narrative thread to understanding Singapore's past, present and even future. That is debatable, though probably more true that I would care to admit. However, it should be evident that even, or perhaps because of the pernicious attempts by the government to force 'national education' down our throats, we at the very least view their master narrative with general suspicion and with a studied cynicism.
History itself is not immutable, and Singaporean history itself, the way it is presented and taught in schools, is very much subject to the overriding grand narrative that the government wishes to portray. Not that the manipulation is as blatant as the continued disavowal of wartime atrocities by the Japanese, specifically the massacre of Chinese civilians, the subjugation of Korean and Chinese women into forced prostitution as 'comfort women' and also the use of prisoners as human guinea pigs for the testing of biological and chemical agents. Still, my encounters with the way Singapore history is taught, and to compulsory 'National Education' campaigns, have made me wary of the specific grand narrative and subtexts that pervade the presentation of Singapore history.
This was evident right from the beginning. The start of the exhibition proper constituted a scene of a village in flames. The helpful tour guide told us that this was Singapore in the past, a prosperous fishing village (Temasek) that had been attacked and destroyed by enemies in Java or Sumatra who were jealous of her prosperity. This scene was played out across a wall that greeted the visitors upon immediately entering the exhibition space, little kampong houses surrounded by coconut and palm trees engulfed in a rictus of computer projected orange and yellow flames, complete with ominous sounding crackles.
Reading in between the lines, it is not hard to see this applying to a more modern context. Singaporean leaders have always seen the world in a hard-edged, realist, perhaps even Manichean way, with Singapore seen as inherently vulnerable, a majority Chinese ethnic enclave surrounded by much larger Malay Muslim neighbours. The message is clear - Singapore's independence must never be taken for granted. These neighbours may grow jealous of our success and seek to destroy us - it has happened before, it can happen again.
It was also unsurprising to see that the initial portions of Singapore history dealing with the lead up to independence was rather selectively dealt with. The usual exhibits outlining the grave communist threats and the communal riots were followed immediately by a picture of Lee Kuan Yew in 1958, returning from Whitehall having achieved self-government for Singapore. David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock, and their roles in the early days of Singapore politics were conveniently airbrushed, not to mention the PAP's early association with the far left trade unions. Self-government was immediately followed by a small series of exhibits showing the advance of such consumer technologies as television sets. Thus subliminally, the PAP government's wisdom led to technology progress and material wealth.
In a recent book by two Australian academics - Constructing Singapore - they contended that the PAP had been so successful in monopolizing the national narrative and implementing their version of the 'Singapore Story' that the younger generation could conceive of no other narrative thread to understanding Singapore's past, present and even future. That is debatable, though probably more true that I would care to admit. However, it should be evident that even, or perhaps because of the pernicious attempts by the government to force 'national education' down our throats, we at the very least view their master narrative with general suspicion and with a studied cynicism.
25 February 2009
Oscar Best Picture Nominees - To Watch
In yet another bit of procrastination, I have compiled a list of Best Picture nominees from the last twenty years which I have yet to see:
2008 - Frost/Nixon
2007 - None
2006 - None
2005 - None
2004 - Ray
2003 - Mystic River
2002 - None
2001 - In the Bedroom
2000 - Traffic, Erin Brockovich, Chocolat
1999 - None
1998 - The Thin Red Line
1997 - The Full Monty
1996 - Secrets and Lies
1995 - Sense and Sensability
1994 - Quiz Show
1993 - None
1992 - Unforgiven, The Crying Game, Howard's End
1991 - Prince of Tides, Bugsy
1990 - Ghost, Awakenings, The Godfather Part III
1989 - Driving Miss Daisy, Field of Dreams
So I have seen a total of 78 of the 100 Best Picture nominees during that period which is not a bad totally, actually. I have also seen all five nominees (making me able to fully judge whether the Best Picture award was given deservedly) on 6 Occasions: '93, '99, '02, '05, '06, '07. I have also seen 18 out of the 20 Best Picture Winners, the exceptions being Unforgiven (1992) and Driving Miss Daisy (1989).
Among the remaining nominees over the last twenty years, I will soon be watching Frost/Nixon (in late March '09) when it opens in Singapore. Of the remaining few, I am only really keen to watch Mystic River and Unforgiven (both Clint Eastwood), Quiz Show, Sense and Sensibility, Howard's End and the Godfather Part III (if only to see where Coppola went wrong). I would conceivably watch Driving Miss Daisy (since it won Best Picture), In the Bedroom (because it had an excellent cast). The rest of them don't really entice me that much, perhaps proof, if any were needed, that the Academy can often go very wrong.
Update: 05 Feb 2011 - I realize, rather coincidentally that this list can in a sense stand alone, for from 2009 onwards the Academy began shortlisting 10 films for Best Picture. Since this post I have gone on to watch Frost/Nixon as mentioned, Howard's End and Sense and Sensibility. The Eastwoods have thus far still escaped me. To add to the list, I guess I should watch Ghost, given its cult status, and in honour of Patrick Swayze who died in 2010.
2008 - Frost/Nixon
2007 - None
2006 - None
2005 - None
2004 - Ray
2003 - Mystic River
2002 - None
2001 - In the Bedroom
2000 - Traffic, Erin Brockovich, Chocolat
1999 - None
1998 - The Thin Red Line
1997 - The Full Monty
1996 - Secrets and Lies
1995 - Sense and Sensability
1994 - Quiz Show
1993 - None
1992 - Unforgiven, The Crying Game, Howard's End
1991 - Prince of Tides, Bugsy
1990 - Ghost, Awakenings, The Godfather Part III
1989 - Driving Miss Daisy, Field of Dreams
So I have seen a total of 78 of the 100 Best Picture nominees during that period which is not a bad totally, actually. I have also seen all five nominees (making me able to fully judge whether the Best Picture award was given deservedly) on 6 Occasions: '93, '99, '02, '05, '06, '07. I have also seen 18 out of the 20 Best Picture Winners, the exceptions being Unforgiven (1992) and Driving Miss Daisy (1989).
Among the remaining nominees over the last twenty years, I will soon be watching Frost/Nixon (in late March '09) when it opens in Singapore. Of the remaining few, I am only really keen to watch Mystic River and Unforgiven (both Clint Eastwood), Quiz Show, Sense and Sensibility, Howard's End and the Godfather Part III (if only to see where Coppola went wrong). I would conceivably watch Driving Miss Daisy (since it won Best Picture), In the Bedroom (because it had an excellent cast). The rest of them don't really entice me that much, perhaps proof, if any were needed, that the Academy can often go very wrong.
Update: 05 Feb 2011 - I realize, rather coincidentally that this list can in a sense stand alone, for from 2009 onwards the Academy began shortlisting 10 films for Best Picture. Since this post I have gone on to watch Frost/Nixon as mentioned, Howard's End and Sense and Sensibility. The Eastwoods have thus far still escaped me. To add to the list, I guess I should watch Ghost, given its cult status, and in honour of Patrick Swayze who died in 2010.
24 February 2009
Oscars: The Hits and the Misses
So the 81st Academy Awards is now over, and we will have to wait another year for another glimpse of the glitz and glamour of the Hollywood elite. In the meantime, we might as well dwell on what was good about the ceremony this year - from the host, to the fashion, to the presenters and the speeches.
The Host: Hugh Jackman was chosen because he was deemed to be charming, with style and elegance in spades, and he could sing to boot. He showed his class by successfully hosting the Tony Awards though the Oscars is a much bigger kettle of fish. The singing ability was definitely on show with two musical numbers - an opening pastiche poking fun at the Best Picture nominees (in the tradition of Billy Crystal) and a later spectacular tribute to movie musicals. Apart from a five minute opening spell, he was largely anonymous. It seems like the Oscar producers, wary of misfiring wisecracks from past Hosts (David Letterman, and Jon Stewart spring to mind), limited the role of the Host this year. This is a great shame - the witty one-liners from the host (misfiring or not) and the repartee were an integral part of the fun of the Oscars. Jackman did thrown in a few funny one-liners quipping that due to downsizing he would soon be starring in a film titled New Zealand and telling Meryl Streep that 15 nominations that makes you think of only one thing - steroids alluding to the recent scandals in baseball. Let's hope they will invite him back and give him more screen time next year.
The Presenters: The producers were keen to cut down the running time so presenters were largely formal and multiple awards were given out. Will Smith alone presented four, quipping that Hugh Jackman was in the back taking a nap. The one major change was in presenting the acting awards. This involved having five previous winners step forward and give a short speech praising each nominee in turn (effectively a hagiography of their performance). It was a nice gesture and it was genuinely touching (at the very least for the nominee), but I felt myself torn about it at the end of the day because it was also somewhat cloying and seemed just a touch self-congratulatory. Still, I would vote for keeping this format, if only to have a chance to see past luminaries again.
The Acceptance Speeches: The speeches have been getting more and more dull, with viewers often subjected to a rattling off of a long list of names in as short a time as possible. I understand the need for the one and a half minute time limit (imagine how long the show would be otherwise!) but it certainly stifles originality, humour and personal style. Mickey Rourke's acceptance speech at the Independent Spirit Awards and The BAFTAs is an example of what an Oscar acceptance speech no longer is. This year wasn't terrible. Kate Winslett didn't break down and cry and even managed a quip about making the speech as a nine year old in the bathroom with a shampoo bottle standing in as an Oscar. Sean Penn jokingly called everyone god-damned homo-loving sons of bitches, and acknowledged how "difficult I sometime make it for you to appreciate me", before calling for equal rights for everyone and predicting the great shame future generations will feel at those rejecting gay marriage. Danny Boyle did a tigger impersonation. But oh how I was wishing that Mickey had won the Oscar and gone on stage and uttered a few obscenities just to spice things up.
The Fashion: There weren't quite any fashion disasters on the scale of Bjork's infamous Swan outfit this year, but there were still a couple of questionable choices. Natalie Portman (who presented award) came in bubble-gum pink that was oh so girlie-girl though the strapless design was admittedly rather stylish. Sarah Jessica Parker is usually quite the fashionista but her 'barley mint' tightly corseted full length dress, with massive buckled belt could barely contain her cleavage and was strange to say the least. The biggest disaster would probably have to go to Whoopi Goldberg, who presented an award in a full leopard print patterned dress. Animals are so out!
On to the fashion successes. Heidi Klum will always be eye-turning and it takes a gutsy girl to wears full-blooded red on the red carpet, but her dress was a wonderfully intricate creation with origami like folds. Anne Hathaway is one of those stars that can look elegant in just about anything but she was dazzling in her bead and jewel encrusted strapless grayish-white gown. While the trend has been towards the strapless or one-shoulder bared look, I applaud Tilda Swinton for showing that covering it all up can be classy, stylish and beautiful yet edgy as well. Her black/beige combination was a stunner in my mind. Other standouts: Frida Pinto (of Slumdog Millionaire) in her midnight blue lace number, Miley Cyrus in her scalloped shaped glitter trimmed gown, and Marisa Tomei looked stunning in her pearl grey pleated gown (but then she would look stunning wearing practically anything - or in fact nothing at all as the Wrestler amply proved!)
The Host: Hugh Jackman was chosen because he was deemed to be charming, with style and elegance in spades, and he could sing to boot. He showed his class by successfully hosting the Tony Awards though the Oscars is a much bigger kettle of fish. The singing ability was definitely on show with two musical numbers - an opening pastiche poking fun at the Best Picture nominees (in the tradition of Billy Crystal) and a later spectacular tribute to movie musicals. Apart from a five minute opening spell, he was largely anonymous. It seems like the Oscar producers, wary of misfiring wisecracks from past Hosts (David Letterman, and Jon Stewart spring to mind), limited the role of the Host this year. This is a great shame - the witty one-liners from the host (misfiring or not) and the repartee were an integral part of the fun of the Oscars. Jackman did thrown in a few funny one-liners quipping that due to downsizing he would soon be starring in a film titled New Zealand and telling Meryl Streep that 15 nominations that makes you think of only one thing - steroids alluding to the recent scandals in baseball. Let's hope they will invite him back and give him more screen time next year.
The Presenters: The producers were keen to cut down the running time so presenters were largely formal and multiple awards were given out. Will Smith alone presented four, quipping that Hugh Jackman was in the back taking a nap. The one major change was in presenting the acting awards. This involved having five previous winners step forward and give a short speech praising each nominee in turn (effectively a hagiography of their performance). It was a nice gesture and it was genuinely touching (at the very least for the nominee), but I felt myself torn about it at the end of the day because it was also somewhat cloying and seemed just a touch self-congratulatory. Still, I would vote for keeping this format, if only to have a chance to see past luminaries again.
The Acceptance Speeches: The speeches have been getting more and more dull, with viewers often subjected to a rattling off of a long list of names in as short a time as possible. I understand the need for the one and a half minute time limit (imagine how long the show would be otherwise!) but it certainly stifles originality, humour and personal style. Mickey Rourke's acceptance speech at the Independent Spirit Awards and The BAFTAs is an example of what an Oscar acceptance speech no longer is. This year wasn't terrible. Kate Winslett didn't break down and cry and even managed a quip about making the speech as a nine year old in the bathroom with a shampoo bottle standing in as an Oscar. Sean Penn jokingly called everyone god-damned homo-loving sons of bitches, and acknowledged how "difficult I sometime make it for you to appreciate me", before calling for equal rights for everyone and predicting the great shame future generations will feel at those rejecting gay marriage. Danny Boyle did a tigger impersonation. But oh how I was wishing that Mickey had won the Oscar and gone on stage and uttered a few obscenities just to spice things up.
The Fashion: There weren't quite any fashion disasters on the scale of Bjork's infamous Swan outfit this year, but there were still a couple of questionable choices. Natalie Portman (who presented award) came in bubble-gum pink that was oh so girlie-girl though the strapless design was admittedly rather stylish. Sarah Jessica Parker is usually quite the fashionista but her 'barley mint' tightly corseted full length dress, with massive buckled belt could barely contain her cleavage and was strange to say the least. The biggest disaster would probably have to go to Whoopi Goldberg, who presented an award in a full leopard print patterned dress. Animals are so out!
On to the fashion successes. Heidi Klum will always be eye-turning and it takes a gutsy girl to wears full-blooded red on the red carpet, but her dress was a wonderfully intricate creation with origami like folds. Anne Hathaway is one of those stars that can look elegant in just about anything but she was dazzling in her bead and jewel encrusted strapless grayish-white gown. While the trend has been towards the strapless or one-shoulder bared look, I applaud Tilda Swinton for showing that covering it all up can be classy, stylish and beautiful yet edgy as well. Her black/beige combination was a stunner in my mind. Other standouts: Frida Pinto (of Slumdog Millionaire) in her midnight blue lace number, Miley Cyrus in her scalloped shaped glitter trimmed gown, and Marisa Tomei looked stunning in her pearl grey pleated gown (but then she would look stunning wearing practically anything - or in fact nothing at all as the Wrestler amply proved!)
20 February 2009
Oscar Predictions 2009
The movie awards season is culminating with the Academy Awards. Amidst all the hoopla, I have decided to give my take on who will win. It is necessarily a myopic one, given that I have not seen all the nomination films/performances, but here is my two cents worth nonetheless.
Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Milk, Frost/Nixon.
Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Milk
The critical consensus is that this was a weak year in terms of Best Picture nominations. What we do have are five very different films. It is clear that the popular sentiment and the momentum is with Slumdog Millionaire. People love an underdog rags to riches story, and that Slumdog has in spades, though it has enough of an emotional heft to make it more than a lightweight. Slumdog will win mainly because it is the movie with the fewest detractors and because of its happy Hollywood feel good ending. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a superbly made film, but some found it overlong and not really engaging. The Reader was even more divisive - some thoroughly disliked it, though it has the holocaust theme going for it and a fine performance by Kate Winslett. Milk for all its great acting, is too controversial for many of the Academy voters. The two main contenders are Slumdog and Benjamin Button, but expect Slumdog to ride on a wave of sentiment and good feeling to take the award.
Among this year's contenders, I actually liked the two front-runners the least. Slumdog was a well-made film, but it tugged too obviously at the emotional heart-strings for me, and its Hollywood nature seemed just a little bit contrived despite the weightiness and grimness of the setting and the subject matter. Benjamin Button will win lots of technical awards (art direction, visual effects and make-up) and it features excellent direction and technical elements. But the movie was overlong, sometimes slow and seemed oddly detached. I thought The Reader was a movie that was very thought provoking and raised many difficult questions. It was an excellent adaptation. It didn't quite completely cohere though. Milk for me was a superb biopic of a specific time and a place, not just a person, with a knockout performance by Sean Penn. It also featured, for me, one of the most moving scenes in cinemas this year with the candlelit march at the end. It certainly tugged at the heartstrings, but the movie had earned it by then.
Best Actor: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler; Sean Penn, Milk; Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Frank Langhella, Frost/Nixon; Richard Jenkins, The Visitor
Will Win: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
Should Win: Sean Penn, Milk
This is going to be a toss-up between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn. Jenkins' nomination was reward enough for constantly being overlooked, Pitt was decent enough but didn't even appear on camera for the first 40 minutes of the film, which in many ways was the more compelling portion of it. The strong sentimental favourite is Rourke who puts in a great performance as an ageing Wrestler whose life is on the ropes and headed for a three count. It was a role made for him, and the way it mirrors his own personal decline will win him huge sympathy. If the academy votes with its gut instead of its head, as it usually does, this is Rourke's award to lose.
Sean Penn was simply superb as Harvery Milk. He gave a performance that was so nuanced, so true to character and so real, that he practically lit up the screen throughout the movie. It was a virtuoso performance of technical acting ability that deserves the Oscar. They say that biopics do well in the acting categories which should mean Penn is a lock but Milk's character and the openly gay nature of the role will have drawbacks at the Academy. That is not to say I didn't like Rourke's performance, which given the gritty realism of the role could just as well be a fictional biopic. It was a tough call for me but I will have to go with Sean Penn.
Best Actress: Kate Winslett, The Reader; Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married; Meryl Streep, Doubt; Angelina Jolie, Changeling; Melissa Leo, Frozen River.
Will Win: Kate Winslett, The Reader
Should Win: Kate Winslett, The Reader
The only real contenders here are Kate and Meryl with Angelina as a strong dark horse. Anne Hathaway is still young, and though she showed real acting chops as the attention seeking guilt ridden younger sister the Academy will feel she still has the advantage of time. If she continues to take on edgier, deeper roles, she may well win an Oscar in the future. Angelina was good in Changeling and it was a wonderfully written role in yet another great Eastwood vehicle that has proven successful at spawning acting Oscars in the past (Tim Robbins, Sean Penn - Mystic River, Gene Hackman - Unforgiven, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman - Million Dollar Baby). But Eastwood was largely overlooked this year, and Jolie thought she was good, didn't do enough independent of the role to warrant a second Oscar.
Meryl Streep was nominated yet again. Some say she was brilliant, some say she was doing yet another version of the typical Meryl turn, but this goes for any movie she has made in the past decade. I thought she did a wonderfully good job as a nun full of righteous indignation who is determined to hold on to what she believes is the truth. A fifteenth nomination is deserved, but the Academy has shown its reluctance to reward her with another statuette and this will not change.
This will be Kate Winslett's year. Six nominations shows her range, diversity and an ability to really embody a character. She put in a bravura performance, in a truly difficult role - enabling us to empathize with a Nazi holocaust camp guard and feel for her at a human level. Besides, the old dictum holds - Holocaust movies always win Oscars (it certainly did the trick for Adrian Brody in The Pianist).
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight; Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road; Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt; Josh Brolin, Milk; Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder
Will Win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
Should Win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
This award is a virtual certainty, but it is more than just a sympathy vote given in celebration of Heath Ledger's life and achievements. His turn in The Dark Knight was truly frightening. He made the role of the Joker his own, embuing it with a frightening malevolence, manic glee and perverse delight that was equally disturbing and enthralling to watch. His was the performance that held a superb movie together. The other nominees all turned in notable performances - Brolin providing excellent support to Penn, and Hoffman performing with his usual excellence as the priest at the center of the allegations in Doubt. I was happy that a comedic role was recognized (fewer and fewer such roles seem to get the Academy's attention) and Downey's turn in Tropic Thunder as an Australian method actor playing a Black was truly delicious. That said, as good as the rest of them were, they pale in comparison to Heath.
Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona; Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler; Amy Adams, Doubt; Viola Davis, Doubt; Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Will Win: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Should Win: Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler
Penelope Cruz puts in a wonderfully turn as a deranged, suicidal and fatally unbalanced ex-lover of Javier Bardem in Woody Allen's latest offering. This is Cruz in her element, darkly fun (and funny) - unlike a number of her recent roles where she was miscast as the smoldering Spanish flame which really doesn't suit her style. Woody Allen vehicles are good for acting Oscars for females (Mira Sorvino, Mighty Aphrodite; Dianne Wiest, Bullets Over Broadway and Hannah and her Sisters; Diane Keaton, Annie Hall) and Cruz is odds on to join the list.
Her closest challenger is Marisa Tomei, who complements Mickey Rourke superbly in The Wrestler as a stripper who is also his sometime love interest. Tomei is as utterly convincing as a stripper as Rourke is as a Wrestler, with both understanding that their occupations are performances of sorts. She gives us a character at once jaded and cynical while also showing a more human side as a single mother, creating a vulnerability that is never forced. She and Rourke hold the movie together, and her performance was a real standout. And I might also add here (though it obviously has absolutely no bearing on my choice) that Tomei is an absolute stunner and a knock out, even post-40.
Amy Adams is pleasant enough as the innocent nun torn between Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman but is very much the third leg in the acting trio. Viola Davis puts in a shattering and heartfelt 10 minute mucus strewn turn as the mother of the boy who may or may not have been sexually abused, but her lack of screen time doesn't give her the depth necessary to win (that is barring another Judi Dench). The academy will feel Taraji Henson's time might come, but it won't be for her role as Brad Pitt's mother.
Best Director: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire; David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Gus Van Sant, Milk; Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon; Stephen Daldry, The Reader
Will Win: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Gus Van Sant, Milk
I initially thought that this might be one of those year's where there would be a Best Picture/Best Director split: Slumdog taking Best Picture, David Fincher recognized for lending Benjamin Button the artistic and technical mastery that it has. But I finally succumbed to the Slumdog onslaught. Despite Boyle being much more of a Hollywood outsider than Fincher (in fact that applied to just about everyone who worked on Slumdog), the rags to riches story set in the Mumbai slums has won the hearts of everyone.
Pity then to Gus Van Sant, who has a varied and interesting body of work and does an excellent job putting together Milk. From the choice use of archival footage which was subtle and well chosen (rather than egregious and attention grabbing like Forrest Gump) to enabling us to wholly inhabit San Francisco in the late 1960s, it was a superb achievement which will, sadly, go unrecognized.
Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire; Eric Roth, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; John Patrick Shanley, Doubt; Peter Morgan, Frost/Nixon; David Hare, The Reader
Will Win: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: David Hare, The Reader
Eric Roth's adaptation of Benjamin Button is not so much an adaptation as a re-write, not to mention a large scale plagiarism of Forrest Gump. If he wins, it will be a travesty. Beaufoy did a good job of cutting down large portions of Swarup's novel while staying true to its spirit but I thought Hare's work on The Reader was very compelling, giving us a superbly nuanced piece which was though provoking yet moving.
Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black, Milk; Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Peter Doctor, Wall-E; Martin McDonagh, In Bruges; Courtney Hunt, Frozen River; Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky
Will Win: Dustin Lance Black, Milk
Should Win: Dustin Lance Black, Milk
My ability to judge this category is compromised by the fact that I have only seen Milk and Wall-E. There is usually a strong correlation between Best Picture and Best Original or Adapted Screenplay. As Milk is the only Best Picture nominee that is nominated here, it should be a shoo-in. Dustin Lance Black has written an excellent, personal and very heartfelt script, and from what I can tell, he deserves it. (It would be interesting to see In Bruges, which has been touted as a highly original script and film though)
Technical Awards Predictions (Should Wins in Brackets):
Best Cinematography: Slumdog Millionaire (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Best Music: Slumdog Millionaire (Wall-E)
Best Song: Slumdog Millionaire, Jai Ho (Slumdog Millonaire, Jai Ho) but it really should be The Wrestler by Bruce Springsteen which was not even nominated
Best Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (The Dark Knight)
Best Costume Design: The Duchess (The Duchess)
Best Make-Up: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Film Editing: Slumdog Millionaire (Slumdog Millionaire)
Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Milk, Frost/Nixon.
Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Milk
The critical consensus is that this was a weak year in terms of Best Picture nominations. What we do have are five very different films. It is clear that the popular sentiment and the momentum is with Slumdog Millionaire. People love an underdog rags to riches story, and that Slumdog has in spades, though it has enough of an emotional heft to make it more than a lightweight. Slumdog will win mainly because it is the movie with the fewest detractors and because of its happy Hollywood feel good ending. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a superbly made film, but some found it overlong and not really engaging. The Reader was even more divisive - some thoroughly disliked it, though it has the holocaust theme going for it and a fine performance by Kate Winslett. Milk for all its great acting, is too controversial for many of the Academy voters. The two main contenders are Slumdog and Benjamin Button, but expect Slumdog to ride on a wave of sentiment and good feeling to take the award.
Among this year's contenders, I actually liked the two front-runners the least. Slumdog was a well-made film, but it tugged too obviously at the emotional heart-strings for me, and its Hollywood nature seemed just a little bit contrived despite the weightiness and grimness of the setting and the subject matter. Benjamin Button will win lots of technical awards (art direction, visual effects and make-up) and it features excellent direction and technical elements. But the movie was overlong, sometimes slow and seemed oddly detached. I thought The Reader was a movie that was very thought provoking and raised many difficult questions. It was an excellent adaptation. It didn't quite completely cohere though. Milk for me was a superb biopic of a specific time and a place, not just a person, with a knockout performance by Sean Penn. It also featured, for me, one of the most moving scenes in cinemas this year with the candlelit march at the end. It certainly tugged at the heartstrings, but the movie had earned it by then.
Best Actor: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler; Sean Penn, Milk; Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Frank Langhella, Frost/Nixon; Richard Jenkins, The Visitor
Will Win: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
Should Win: Sean Penn, Milk
This is going to be a toss-up between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn. Jenkins' nomination was reward enough for constantly being overlooked, Pitt was decent enough but didn't even appear on camera for the first 40 minutes of the film, which in many ways was the more compelling portion of it. The strong sentimental favourite is Rourke who puts in a great performance as an ageing Wrestler whose life is on the ropes and headed for a three count. It was a role made for him, and the way it mirrors his own personal decline will win him huge sympathy. If the academy votes with its gut instead of its head, as it usually does, this is Rourke's award to lose.
Sean Penn was simply superb as Harvery Milk. He gave a performance that was so nuanced, so true to character and so real, that he practically lit up the screen throughout the movie. It was a virtuoso performance of technical acting ability that deserves the Oscar. They say that biopics do well in the acting categories which should mean Penn is a lock but Milk's character and the openly gay nature of the role will have drawbacks at the Academy. That is not to say I didn't like Rourke's performance, which given the gritty realism of the role could just as well be a fictional biopic. It was a tough call for me but I will have to go with Sean Penn.
Best Actress: Kate Winslett, The Reader; Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married; Meryl Streep, Doubt; Angelina Jolie, Changeling; Melissa Leo, Frozen River.
Will Win: Kate Winslett, The Reader
Should Win: Kate Winslett, The Reader
The only real contenders here are Kate and Meryl with Angelina as a strong dark horse. Anne Hathaway is still young, and though she showed real acting chops as the attention seeking guilt ridden younger sister the Academy will feel she still has the advantage of time. If she continues to take on edgier, deeper roles, she may well win an Oscar in the future. Angelina was good in Changeling and it was a wonderfully written role in yet another great Eastwood vehicle that has proven successful at spawning acting Oscars in the past (Tim Robbins, Sean Penn - Mystic River, Gene Hackman - Unforgiven, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman - Million Dollar Baby). But Eastwood was largely overlooked this year, and Jolie thought she was good, didn't do enough independent of the role to warrant a second Oscar.
Meryl Streep was nominated yet again. Some say she was brilliant, some say she was doing yet another version of the typical Meryl turn, but this goes for any movie she has made in the past decade. I thought she did a wonderfully good job as a nun full of righteous indignation who is determined to hold on to what she believes is the truth. A fifteenth nomination is deserved, but the Academy has shown its reluctance to reward her with another statuette and this will not change.
This will be Kate Winslett's year. Six nominations shows her range, diversity and an ability to really embody a character. She put in a bravura performance, in a truly difficult role - enabling us to empathize with a Nazi holocaust camp guard and feel for her at a human level. Besides, the old dictum holds - Holocaust movies always win Oscars (it certainly did the trick for Adrian Brody in The Pianist).
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight; Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road; Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt; Josh Brolin, Milk; Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder
Will Win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
Should Win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
This award is a virtual certainty, but it is more than just a sympathy vote given in celebration of Heath Ledger's life and achievements. His turn in The Dark Knight was truly frightening. He made the role of the Joker his own, embuing it with a frightening malevolence, manic glee and perverse delight that was equally disturbing and enthralling to watch. His was the performance that held a superb movie together. The other nominees all turned in notable performances - Brolin providing excellent support to Penn, and Hoffman performing with his usual excellence as the priest at the center of the allegations in Doubt. I was happy that a comedic role was recognized (fewer and fewer such roles seem to get the Academy's attention) and Downey's turn in Tropic Thunder as an Australian method actor playing a Black was truly delicious. That said, as good as the rest of them were, they pale in comparison to Heath.
Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona; Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler; Amy Adams, Doubt; Viola Davis, Doubt; Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Will Win: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Should Win: Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler
Penelope Cruz puts in a wonderfully turn as a deranged, suicidal and fatally unbalanced ex-lover of Javier Bardem in Woody Allen's latest offering. This is Cruz in her element, darkly fun (and funny) - unlike a number of her recent roles where she was miscast as the smoldering Spanish flame which really doesn't suit her style. Woody Allen vehicles are good for acting Oscars for females (Mira Sorvino, Mighty Aphrodite; Dianne Wiest, Bullets Over Broadway and Hannah and her Sisters; Diane Keaton, Annie Hall) and Cruz is odds on to join the list.
Her closest challenger is Marisa Tomei, who complements Mickey Rourke superbly in The Wrestler as a stripper who is also his sometime love interest. Tomei is as utterly convincing as a stripper as Rourke is as a Wrestler, with both understanding that their occupations are performances of sorts. She gives us a character at once jaded and cynical while also showing a more human side as a single mother, creating a vulnerability that is never forced. She and Rourke hold the movie together, and her performance was a real standout. And I might also add here (though it obviously has absolutely no bearing on my choice) that Tomei is an absolute stunner and a knock out, even post-40.
Amy Adams is pleasant enough as the innocent nun torn between Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman but is very much the third leg in the acting trio. Viola Davis puts in a shattering and heartfelt 10 minute mucus strewn turn as the mother of the boy who may or may not have been sexually abused, but her lack of screen time doesn't give her the depth necessary to win (that is barring another Judi Dench). The academy will feel Taraji Henson's time might come, but it won't be for her role as Brad Pitt's mother.
Best Director: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire; David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Gus Van Sant, Milk; Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon; Stephen Daldry, The Reader
Will Win: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Gus Van Sant, Milk
I initially thought that this might be one of those year's where there would be a Best Picture/Best Director split: Slumdog taking Best Picture, David Fincher recognized for lending Benjamin Button the artistic and technical mastery that it has. But I finally succumbed to the Slumdog onslaught. Despite Boyle being much more of a Hollywood outsider than Fincher (in fact that applied to just about everyone who worked on Slumdog), the rags to riches story set in the Mumbai slums has won the hearts of everyone.
Pity then to Gus Van Sant, who has a varied and interesting body of work and does an excellent job putting together Milk. From the choice use of archival footage which was subtle and well chosen (rather than egregious and attention grabbing like Forrest Gump) to enabling us to wholly inhabit San Francisco in the late 1960s, it was a superb achievement which will, sadly, go unrecognized.
Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire; Eric Roth, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; John Patrick Shanley, Doubt; Peter Morgan, Frost/Nixon; David Hare, The Reader
Will Win: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: David Hare, The Reader
Eric Roth's adaptation of Benjamin Button is not so much an adaptation as a re-write, not to mention a large scale plagiarism of Forrest Gump. If he wins, it will be a travesty. Beaufoy did a good job of cutting down large portions of Swarup's novel while staying true to its spirit but I thought Hare's work on The Reader was very compelling, giving us a superbly nuanced piece which was though provoking yet moving.
Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black, Milk; Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Peter Doctor, Wall-E; Martin McDonagh, In Bruges; Courtney Hunt, Frozen River; Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky
Will Win: Dustin Lance Black, Milk
Should Win: Dustin Lance Black, Milk
My ability to judge this category is compromised by the fact that I have only seen Milk and Wall-E. There is usually a strong correlation between Best Picture and Best Original or Adapted Screenplay. As Milk is the only Best Picture nominee that is nominated here, it should be a shoo-in. Dustin Lance Black has written an excellent, personal and very heartfelt script, and from what I can tell, he deserves it. (It would be interesting to see In Bruges, which has been touted as a highly original script and film though)
Technical Awards Predictions (Should Wins in Brackets):
Best Cinematography: Slumdog Millionaire (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Best Music: Slumdog Millionaire (Wall-E)
Best Song: Slumdog Millionaire, Jai Ho (Slumdog Millonaire, Jai Ho) but it really should be The Wrestler by Bruce Springsteen which was not even nominated
Best Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (The Dark Knight)
Best Costume Design: The Duchess (The Duchess)
Best Make-Up: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Film Editing: Slumdog Millionaire (Slumdog Millionaire)
12 February 2009
What the Butler Saw
British humour has always appealed to me. I love the dry wit, the sometimes outrageous farce that is so much a part of everything from Oscar Wilde to Monty Python. So when a local theater group announced a production of What the Butler Saw by Joe Orton, I leapt at the chance to see it.
People often underestimate how difficult and skilled one must be to act effectively in a comedic farce. Because it often involves exaggeration and isn't the most subtle of genres, it is easy to think that farce isn't all that challenging. It is quite a fine balancing act between exaggerating and going completely over the top, especially in terms of the physical comedic elements. At its best, farce is unbridled and uninhibited fun. The actors in this piece did a good enough job without completely hamming it up, with former DJ Vernetta Lopez doing a rather deliciously outrageous turn.
Farce does have the benefit of universality. Mr. Bean is Britain's most famous comedic export (with apologies to Monty Python and Ali G.) because the physical nature of the comedy was able to cross almost every cultural and linguistic barrier. However, Orton's play while, a comedic farce at its core, was rooted in 1960s Britain, and there were elements of irony, and a thinly veiled cynicism at society that earned his comedies the sobriquet Ortonesque.
That made the decision by the director to adapt it for the local audience - to Singaporeanize it, if you will - one that was misguided and one that ultimately misfired. Some aspects of the attempt to Singaporeanize did work well, and was funny, particularly turning a typically British bobby into a localized khaki uniformed, bermuda wearing, grammatically challenged Police Sergaent. Though even the initial laughs wore off as the novelty of the accent and mannerisms wore a bit thin.
More unsuccessful were the repeated attempts to alter dialogue in the play to suit the local setting. A statue of Churchill became one of Sir Stamford Raffles, which only left one wondering about a reference to a certain portion of the anatomy being "cigar shaped". I have never read the original play, but I couldn't help but get the feeling that a plethora of veiled references and black humour was irreparably lost by the decision to meddle with the script. While I understand that the average Joe wouldn't get many of the British turn of phrases, or the cultural references, rewriting the script ripped if not the heart out of the play, then at least the intestines.
It didn't help that some of the rewriting was truly cringe worthy. Lame references to the National Trade Union Congress, to Members of Parliament was well and truly supplanted by a piece of National Education propaganda that was well and truly nauseating. In true Wildean fashion, the true relationship between two of the characters in the play was revealed when they had separate halves of a pendant. That the pendant was in the form of the Singapore crest was kitsch enough. For that to be followed by a two minute exposition explaining the significance behind it - five stars and a crescent moon etc. - was in exceptionally bad taste. Some of the localized references were simply thrown in willy-nilly and seemed rather superfluous (or in the case of what the play attempted to do, it ended up quite rojak and somewhat quite extra).
It was a shame really, because the farce itself was well performed, the play (in the original) was probably superbly written, and on the whole it was still a relatively enjoyable experience. Still, the perils and pitfalls (not to mention the sacrilege) of messing about with an original piece of art were put on rather vivid display here. Overall, it ended up a mis-mash and pastiche, rather like the repeated cross-dressing that took place within the play itself. Sometimes, it is better to leave well alone.
People often underestimate how difficult and skilled one must be to act effectively in a comedic farce. Because it often involves exaggeration and isn't the most subtle of genres, it is easy to think that farce isn't all that challenging. It is quite a fine balancing act between exaggerating and going completely over the top, especially in terms of the physical comedic elements. At its best, farce is unbridled and uninhibited fun. The actors in this piece did a good enough job without completely hamming it up, with former DJ Vernetta Lopez doing a rather deliciously outrageous turn.
Farce does have the benefit of universality. Mr. Bean is Britain's most famous comedic export (with apologies to Monty Python and Ali G.) because the physical nature of the comedy was able to cross almost every cultural and linguistic barrier. However, Orton's play while, a comedic farce at its core, was rooted in 1960s Britain, and there were elements of irony, and a thinly veiled cynicism at society that earned his comedies the sobriquet Ortonesque.
That made the decision by the director to adapt it for the local audience - to Singaporeanize it, if you will - one that was misguided and one that ultimately misfired. Some aspects of the attempt to Singaporeanize did work well, and was funny, particularly turning a typically British bobby into a localized khaki uniformed, bermuda wearing, grammatically challenged Police Sergaent. Though even the initial laughs wore off as the novelty of the accent and mannerisms wore a bit thin.
More unsuccessful were the repeated attempts to alter dialogue in the play to suit the local setting. A statue of Churchill became one of Sir Stamford Raffles, which only left one wondering about a reference to a certain portion of the anatomy being "cigar shaped". I have never read the original play, but I couldn't help but get the feeling that a plethora of veiled references and black humour was irreparably lost by the decision to meddle with the script. While I understand that the average Joe wouldn't get many of the British turn of phrases, or the cultural references, rewriting the script ripped if not the heart out of the play, then at least the intestines.
It didn't help that some of the rewriting was truly cringe worthy. Lame references to the National Trade Union Congress, to Members of Parliament was well and truly supplanted by a piece of National Education propaganda that was well and truly nauseating. In true Wildean fashion, the true relationship between two of the characters in the play was revealed when they had separate halves of a pendant. That the pendant was in the form of the Singapore crest was kitsch enough. For that to be followed by a two minute exposition explaining the significance behind it - five stars and a crescent moon etc. - was in exceptionally bad taste. Some of the localized references were simply thrown in willy-nilly and seemed rather superfluous (or in the case of what the play attempted to do, it ended up quite rojak and somewhat quite extra).
It was a shame really, because the farce itself was well performed, the play (in the original) was probably superbly written, and on the whole it was still a relatively enjoyable experience. Still, the perils and pitfalls (not to mention the sacrilege) of messing about with an original piece of art were put on rather vivid display here. Overall, it ended up a mis-mash and pastiche, rather like the repeated cross-dressing that took place within the play itself. Sometimes, it is better to leave well alone.
4 February 2009
Seen On the Big Screen So Far
Australia - rather long and self indulgent in spots especially over the second half, but Lurhmann's paean to his homeland is good, wild, rollicking fun for the most part. Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman were likeable enough leads but the child actor who play the young half aborigine boy steals the show. A perfect showcase for the marvelous scenery in the outback though the movie was never subtle and could have done with a fair bit of editing.
The Duchess - An interesting portrait of an era through an effervescent young aristocrat ahead of her time. Keira Knightley puts in another sparkling and high spirited performance as the title character the Duchess of Devonshire. Ralph Fiennes does a fine job portraying the everyday odiousness of the Duke, while enabling us to gain a richer understanding of the constraints of class, tradition and society into which he and Georgina are both bound. Somewhat slow at spots but good acting and clear idea of what the film sets out to accomplish makes it worth watching.
Rachel Getting Married - Hollywood loves films about dysfunctional families, and weddings often make the setting of popular runaway hits (think My Big Fat Greek Wedding). Rachel Getting Married succeeds because it avoids the minefield of cliches and gives us a group of characters who are multifaceted and richly written. Anne Hathaway puts in a standout performance as the sister in rehab who struggles with a drug habit, her own need to constantly be at the centre of attention and guilt for her responsibility in a family tragedy. The acting is good all-round here as is the script which creates real meaningful and nuanced individuals. The documentary feel of the movies and hand-held cinematography adds depth. Only beef - wedding sequence at the end of the movie was slightly overlong and removed some of the emotional heft.
Ponyo on a Cliff by the Sea - Miyazaki's latest offering hearkens back to his more whimsical, child-like work from his earlier days, like Kiki's Delivery Service. The animation, as to be expected, is truly superb. The story itself however is rather simple, as is the movie on the whole. Still, a joy for the animation itself.
Changeling - Clint Eastwood seems to just get better and better with age. You run the gamut of emotions throughout this movie from serene happiness, to shock, despair, outrage, horror and then hope. Angelina Jolie takes a superb role and runs with it, though the standout performance is by Jason Harner who manages to ooze charm and odiousness in equal measure in a unhinged manner that is truly frightening. The movies is excellently produced and directed. It does have to follow the turn of the events (it is based on a true story) which leads to a sudden switch in the middle of the film, and a slightly long conclusion where some of the emotional force is lost. But overall very good indeed.
Inkheart - what was an interesting concept - the ability to read characters into life - is ultimately wasted in this movie, which manages to be wearying. The plot begins to make less and less sense as it goes along. The chief crime is that it lacks a sense of fun, which should have been inherent in any movie involving escaped fairytale characters.
The Reader - a wonderfully compelling, deep, thoughtful movie. The elements of guilt and shame are explored through the past of Hanna Schmidt who was a former guard at Auschwitz, though the film, at its core is about the guilt of Michael, the sixteen year old boy she has an affair with. A film which can only be appreciated when thought about deeply. Kate Winslett is very good and will be a front-runner come the awards season.
The Duchess - An interesting portrait of an era through an effervescent young aristocrat ahead of her time. Keira Knightley puts in another sparkling and high spirited performance as the title character the Duchess of Devonshire. Ralph Fiennes does a fine job portraying the everyday odiousness of the Duke, while enabling us to gain a richer understanding of the constraints of class, tradition and society into which he and Georgina are both bound. Somewhat slow at spots but good acting and clear idea of what the film sets out to accomplish makes it worth watching.
Rachel Getting Married - Hollywood loves films about dysfunctional families, and weddings often make the setting of popular runaway hits (think My Big Fat Greek Wedding). Rachel Getting Married succeeds because it avoids the minefield of cliches and gives us a group of characters who are multifaceted and richly written. Anne Hathaway puts in a standout performance as the sister in rehab who struggles with a drug habit, her own need to constantly be at the centre of attention and guilt for her responsibility in a family tragedy. The acting is good all-round here as is the script which creates real meaningful and nuanced individuals. The documentary feel of the movies and hand-held cinematography adds depth. Only beef - wedding sequence at the end of the movie was slightly overlong and removed some of the emotional heft.
Ponyo on a Cliff by the Sea - Miyazaki's latest offering hearkens back to his more whimsical, child-like work from his earlier days, like Kiki's Delivery Service. The animation, as to be expected, is truly superb. The story itself however is rather simple, as is the movie on the whole. Still, a joy for the animation itself.
Changeling - Clint Eastwood seems to just get better and better with age. You run the gamut of emotions throughout this movie from serene happiness, to shock, despair, outrage, horror and then hope. Angelina Jolie takes a superb role and runs with it, though the standout performance is by Jason Harner who manages to ooze charm and odiousness in equal measure in a unhinged manner that is truly frightening. The movies is excellently produced and directed. It does have to follow the turn of the events (it is based on a true story) which leads to a sudden switch in the middle of the film, and a slightly long conclusion where some of the emotional force is lost. But overall very good indeed.
Inkheart - what was an interesting concept - the ability to read characters into life - is ultimately wasted in this movie, which manages to be wearying. The plot begins to make less and less sense as it goes along. The chief crime is that it lacks a sense of fun, which should have been inherent in any movie involving escaped fairytale characters.
The Reader - a wonderfully compelling, deep, thoughtful movie. The elements of guilt and shame are explored through the past of Hanna Schmidt who was a former guard at Auschwitz, though the film, at its core is about the guilt of Michael, the sixteen year old boy she has an affair with. A film which can only be appreciated when thought about deeply. Kate Winslett is very good and will be a front-runner come the awards season.
2 February 2009
'Extreme' British Weather
It is so typical of the British that an "extreme weather warning" was issued after the Southeast of the United Kingdom suffered 15cm of snow in 24 hours. The snowfall led to London buses being pulled off the roads, schools in Essex being closed, and lorries blocking major highways. My initial reaction was to laugh heartily and point out that many parts of Canada, and the Northern United States suffer 15cm of snow in 24 hours as a matter of course.
It was Bill Bryson who commented that the British fascination with the weather was perplexing because the UK had so little weather that was truly exciting. The Americans have tornadoes that can flatten towns, earthquakes that have affected major cities, hurricanes that have swept away large regions of the coast, heavy snowstorms that have knocked out power in entire states. Even one of the most active volcanic areas in the world (Hawaii). The British have rain that kind of piddles down (not even proper rainstorms) and not much else.
Of course, to snicker at the current snow 'storms' in the UK is to miss the point. Such weather is rather extreme for a country which hardly ever gets any wonderful snow to compensate for the miserably cold and wet winter months. If anything, I would view the recent extreme weather as a wonderful occurrence to get outside, build a snowman and have general fun. Just don't expect it to last. I can only wish that such bountiful snowfall had happened while I was still there.
It was Bill Bryson who commented that the British fascination with the weather was perplexing because the UK had so little weather that was truly exciting. The Americans have tornadoes that can flatten towns, earthquakes that have affected major cities, hurricanes that have swept away large regions of the coast, heavy snowstorms that have knocked out power in entire states. Even one of the most active volcanic areas in the world (Hawaii). The British have rain that kind of piddles down (not even proper rainstorms) and not much else.
Of course, to snicker at the current snow 'storms' in the UK is to miss the point. Such weather is rather extreme for a country which hardly ever gets any wonderful snow to compensate for the miserably cold and wet winter months. If anything, I would view the recent extreme weather as a wonderful occurrence to get outside, build a snowman and have general fun. Just don't expect it to last. I can only wish that such bountiful snowfall had happened while I was still there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
