2006

Winner:

The Departed was a beautifully done and original movie in which the line between good and evil is blurred, good guys are often bad, and bad guys are sometimes good. A cop goes undercover in the mob to smoke out a mobster who has gone undercover in the police, and everyone seems to live in the dark shadows. The crime story was intriguing and complex, gritty and intense from the beginning with an excellent sense of place (Boston). It won the Academy Award for adapted screenplay, based on a 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs (which might actually be the better film), and also loosely based on the Winter Hill Gang in Boston. The story is not perfect, at times seeming like there is one too many twist. You have to stop and say, “Wait, what?” It’s not that the film is hard to follow, but some of the twists seem unnecessary. In the end, however, there is brutal justice, as a story such as this should have. The production was good, unless you consider other similar films which seem a little edgier or grander, even when dealing with subjects not grand. It surprisingly didn’t receive a lot of technical nominations but Martin Scorsese won Best Director and the film won for editing. The acting was exceptional, or some of it was. I did not particularly care for Jack Nicholson in the movie. He played a fictionalized version of mobster Whitey Bulger. In general, he plays an asshole well, but not a gangster. All of the other actors stood toe to toe with him, including Matt Damon, the quintessential good guy who makes you hate him in this film. Mark Wahlberg is excellent as well, and was the only actor nominated for an Oscar, but Leonardo DiCaprio makes the film. He plays an excellent paranoid man, just barely hanging on to a situation spiraling out of control. Why he was nominated this year for Blood Diamond, and not this film, is baffling to me. The Departed is not a classic movie, especially when you compare it to some of its peers of critically acclaimed gangster films. In a more solid year, the award might have passed over Martin Scorsese once again, but this was an off year and he got a much deserved win. Otherwise it would have just been a very good choice for nomination.

Nominees:

It’s hard to argue that Babel is not a well-constructed film from one of the preeminent directors of this millennium, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. It’s an achievement from a technical point of view. The story is also told very well and I appreciate the concept of interconnectivity around the world. It takes solid editing to achieve that kind of synchronicity across storylines, though often such cutting and pasting makes a film appear deeper than it is. The problem is that the stories are only so interesting and none of them could have stood on their own. The reason for this, as with the director’s entire Trilogy of Death (which also includes Amores perros and 21 Grams), is that there is little to make you care about the characters, as they are purposefully created to be neutral instead of sympathetic. They are all unhappy and you see them only in times of crisis, having little chance to get attached to them prior. The stories are all tension without development, as you are thrust in the middle of the interconnected crises. I understand what he was trying to do by putting the concept above the people or story, but if you don’t care much about the characters, it takes a much more compelling plot or concept to make the movie interesting. To be fair, it’s interesting enough and occasionally beautiful and tender, though I don’t think it did enough to merit a nomination for the screenplay. The ending is empty, seemingly all bleak with no hope, unless you consider the idea we’re all connected in this madness together. While I do not have to be fascinated with the plot of every film I see, it helps if a movie wants a claim to Best Picture. The production was good enough to warrant a Best Picture nomination, especially when you consider specific elements like the soundtrack, which won the award in its category. It also received nominations for directing and editing. The acting is superb too, at least from the supporting characters, most of whom were not Hollywood stars. It was refreshing to see two unknown, non-American actresses be nominated for the supporting roles (Adriana Barraza and Rinko Kikuchi). In the end, it’s good enough for a nomination but little else.

Letters From Iwo Jima was a different kind of war movie, and a companion to Flags of Our Fathers. Clint Eastwood directed the films back to back. They tell the story of the Battle of Iwo Jima from different points of view. Flags of Our Fathers tells the American perspective and Letters from Iwo Jima the Japanese point of view. Nominated for the original screenplay, the result is a much more nuanced story that is different than the typical celebration of American exceptionality in World War II. Good and evil and everything in between are not relegated to opposing sides on the battlefield. Nothing about it felt like a caricature, which is rare for war movies. The film was well received in Japan, for not portraying the Japanese soldiers as caricatures, and also because Eastwood used mainly Japanese actors who spoke flawless Japanese instead of just a general Asian cast like most directors, not caring if the cast speaks a language all over the place. Eastwood took the time to get so many things right about the film. It was a very human and often beautiful war movie. The acting is superb though no one was nominated for their performance. It’s a shame because Ken Watanabe is a superb actor and gave a solid performance. I imagine the oversight was due to the fact the film was almost entirely not in English. Eastwood was nominated for Best Director and I’m surprised the film didn’t receive more technical nominations. It did win for sound editing though, for what it’s worth. It’s easily the better of the two companion films. If it had been twenty minutes shorter it might have been more gripping and truly excellent. As it is, it was well deserving of the nomination but not consideration for a win, except for the fact it is not absurd to argue it was the actual best film of the year, at least among the nominees.

Little Miss Sunshine is an independent film that tells the story of an unlikely child beauty pageant contestant and her family. I miss the dark humor of this era. It seems like humor is now more focused on feeling good. I could be wrong, and by the time you read this the tide may have turned once more, but I watch a lot of films and dark humor seems to be fading from popularity. At its best, the dark humor in Little Miss Sunshine was hilarious. The story was truly original, as reflected in its win for original screenplay. The characters were original too, which is probably why their quirkiness works so well together, and they were brought to life with stellar performances. Alan Arkin was super in his award winning role but Abigail Breslin stole the show with her sweet performance. She was nominated for her supporting role and would grow up to prove she was much more than just a sweet child actress and give great performances in many movies. The film was this year’s independent darling, made by two first time film directors (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, a husband and wife team who have since made a couple more quirky films worth seeing but nothing that remotely sniffed an Oscar nomination). The film received no technical nominations and that’s not a surprise, though using DeVotchKa for the score was a wonderful touch and often set a perfect tone. It was shown at the Sundance Film Festival where it captured hearts all the way to the Oscar ceremony. I saw it with high expectations but found it to be an overhyped independent movie, and I generally like independent films. It was cute at times with much potential, but it left me wondering what the ruckus was about. Though I appreciated the darker, quirky humor and the cast, it felt underwhelming and a little slow. For a feel good film it doesn’t often feel good, and the ending could have been more triumphant or inspirational. The movie was sweet in the end, but I fail to see how it is as good as similar independent movies or its more mainstream competition. It’s a film well worth seeing, and at times is superb, but it would have just missed my cut.

The Queen was a wonderfully constructed and produced movie revolving around the death of Princess Diana. The frequent use of archival footage was a wise choice, and often the film feels almost like a documentary. It’s almost strongest in those moments, making things such as the press’s maddening hounding of Diana feel real. It was directed by Stephen Frears, who has had three films nominated for Best Picture in three different decades (Dangerous Liaisons and Philomena are the others). He was nominated for his directing and the film was also nominated for costume design and score. The acting is as regal and impeccable as the subjects seemingly are, though the royal family is presented as far from flawless. In fact, no one looks particularly flattering except for Tony Blair and, only in the end, the Queen. Mrs. Blair comes across as particularly hateful. That doesn’t mean the acting wasn’t good. Helen Mirren deserved her award for the lead role, and Michael Sheen might have been given more consideration for his performance. Many of the smaller roles are subtly great, and the corgis are cute. The fact that few people come across as particularly flattering speaks to the nuances of the story which is, at one level, about how the royal family handled the death of Diana, but at a deeper level about old versus new, or tradition versus modernization. The Queen had to navigate through a new era and was not always happy about the changes. Though the story is often compelling, and especially as it ends, the problem is that if you’re not particularly interested in the British royalty, it is not a particularly interesting movie. This is not to say that you cannot make a movie that grips even those not interested in the subject. This just isn’t one of them, although it is far from boring. It’s a very good movie about a story that sporadically pulls you in, though I don’t see how the nomination for the screenplay was merited. What would have made it better? It feels like a very stiff series of negotiations between the Queen and Tony Blair. What is missing is the human element. Perhaps it was purposefully trying to make the British feel as stoic as their reputation suggest. But at one point, the Queen mentions her family is grieving in its own way. Completely absent, for example, are the princes, who would have lent a more human feel to the film. As it is, the film misses the humanity that often separates great films from good ones. It likely deserves a nomination but little actual consideration for Best Picture.

Other notable films - Children of Men is a wonderful dystopian concept and a solid film. I wouldn’t say it’s Best Picture material except that it’s better than some of the nominees. / Once again, another foreign language film, the one that won, was better than the best picture. The Lives of Other People won the award for Best Foreign Language Film. It’s a hypnotic spy drama about the secret police in Cold War East Germany which renders you incapable of looking away (I wrote that before I looked up who directed it so there is no pun intended). The story is superb and the way it unfolds both in the script and production is even better. The acting is stellar as well. It’s hard to believe it was a directorial debut, and that it’s only one of three by the director (a mediocre English one soon after and then the brilliant Never Look Away a decade later). It’s easily one of the best films of the year, and of the decade. / Once again, I thought the actual Best Picture was not an American film. Pan’s Labyrinth was a remarkable and complex tale and intriguing production. It was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, thought it did not win. / This Is England is a subtly great film and better than some of the nominees.

Top Five: Pan’s Labyrinth, The Lives of Other People ,The Departed, Letters from Iwo Jima, This Is England