
Please allow me to humor myself for the extent of this post. Then I promise, back to the usual high-standard of journalistic excellence!
I'm in a race against time. I am desperately trying to complete this post prior to tonight's Academy Awards telecast, which means I have... 29 minutes and counting, current time. And just why am I trying so furiously to get a this post up by a certain time when I've seemed so exceedingly negligent in the past of putting up any post in any sort of timely fashion? What a great question, I'm so glad I asked it (and chose to phrase it in the form of a run-on sentence). To answer the question, for the FIRST time in my life, I have seen EVERY movie nominated for Best Picture. That's right, all five! I know that's a seemingly trivial and insignificant feat, especially considering that best picture nominees should, by all accounts, be great endeavors in cinema and therefore hardly be a chore to watch, let me remind you, The Thin Red Line was, in its time, nominated for this award.
I endured Benjamin Button. The case may have been more curious had it not taken approximately 17 hours (that's a rough estimate) to tell the story. It doesn't exactly leave much to the imagination, or left to question. What I found most curious is how they turned a 15 page short story into an interminable epic. Jokes aside, it's beautiful to watch - really gorgeously shot. But it just didn't captivate me, exemplified when I fell asleep during the ship scene (which, from conversations with others, seems to be a common occurrence). Gimme Pulp Fiction, Se7en, Zodiac (which was FANTASTIC, everyone should see it). Most years I'd be first in line for a Fincher pic. But this once falls a little short...
I drank in Milk, but it didn't go down smooth. Biopics never do for me. Maybe they're prisoners of their genre. Trying to tell someone's story in such a constrictive amount of time is difficult. I always leave unsatisfied - even in Ali (which I think approached four hours. I would have stayed for at least 3 more). As interesting as Harvey Milk is, and as inspiring as Penn's performance is, I just didn't love it as a film. I learned a lot, but not everything I wanted to (why did he move to SF from NY in the first place? What drove him to that point?) And there just seemed to be a lot of blanks. And as much as I hate to say it, especially since I agree with most if not all of the messages presented, it felt a little forced, and just a tad agenda-pushing (not unlike this blog post!)...
I attended Frost/Nixon less than 24 hours ago - the final piece in my Best Pic puzzle. I was initially pumped for this, then became discouraged from negative reviews. If anything I learned to pay less attention to reviews. I loved this film. I don't care if Frank Langella doesn't look like Nixon. I don't even care if this is based in reality or not. This film stands completely on its own, driven by superb dialogue and incredibly well crafted dramatic tension between the two main characters. Furthermore, it does what Milk fails to do. For all of Milk's successes, I think its biggest failure is that it seemed to concerned with its place in reality. Had I no interest in learning about Harvey Milk, I would have no interest, nor would I have enjoyed, that film. On the other hand, I firmly believe I could have gone into Frost/Nixon knowing nothing about the characters, nothing about the historical relevance, and still would have been riveted. That, in my opinion, is great film making (and let me remind you, I have a film certificate from a make-shift film sub-department at a public university)...
Slumdog Millionaire hardly felt like slumming. In fact, it's probably my favorite movie of the year. Danny Boyle cements himself as one of my favorite directors, making bold choices despite urging to the contrary (e.g. - extensive use of subtitles, which is not only not in the least bit distracting but significantly enhances the feeling of authenticity the film possesses), and the performances from the relatively unknown cast are all dynamite. Also, I walked out smiling. There's something to be said for that...
This might be the closest all five candidates have been in years. All of these films have a strong case for best picture. But the one that will win it, in my opinion, is The Reader. I saw this film accidentally - I was actually intending to see Slumdog. Had it not been sold out, I'm not sure I would have. Thank you to New York City and its eight million residents for making everything worth doing difficult! Had it not been for you, I may have missed the best film of the year. Kate Winslet is remarkable. David Kross (no not that one, the other one) is outstanding. Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as always. This film had me from start to finish. I think I left a firm outline of my ass and back in the seat when I left, because I don't think I shifted my weight, crossed my legs, or deviated in anyway from my initial position once. This movie is THAT good (and that's coming from someone with sciatica issues).
So there you have it. Now the two of you who read this blog who have already probably heard my neverending-rant triumphing The Reader can be reassured, it's not a put-on. I leave it here for public record, for ridicule if it loses, and modest pride if it wins.
And no matter what, we can be certain of one thing: This post is surely riddled with grammatical errors and sentence-structure problems. Hooray for being united on something.
DONE! And just in the nick of time.
Enjoy the show.