2008

Winner:

Slumdog Millionaire is the electric story of a young Indian man who goes on a game show with the chance to turn around the fortunes of his life, and in the process explores his past growing up under dire economic conditions. It’s something of a Dickens tale set in Mumbai. It was the little engine that could at Oscar time, coming out of nowhere it seemed, and gaining more and more momentum until it won Best Picture and a host of other awards. Cultural phenomenons in cinema are rarer and rarer as our viewership and society are increasingly fragmented, but this was a film everyone was talking about and most of that chatter was adoration for something that was a pleasant surprise coming seemingly out of nowhere, though if anyone had been familiar with Danny Boyle directed films they wouldn’t have been so shocked. There are a handful of directors who make films very much worth watching even if the story is a little weak. Danny Boyle is among them. His films are full of an energy few directors can match and sometimes it feels like you must catch your breath when watching them. His films are visual delights and even when the story is thin, as in 127 Hours, the film is still compelling. Slumdog Millionaire does not have that problem. It would be a delightful story even if it was not a visual feast. It was so full of emotion that it needed little else, though it had much more to offer. Granted, it felt a little fantastical at times, but it never claims to be a film grounded in reality. There was certainly a measure of magical realism in it, and perhaps there was too in the original Indian novel on which it was based. It easily won the award for screenplay. Danny Boyle also won Best Director and the film won for cinematography, editing, score, and sound editing, also being nominated for original song and sound editing. It was not nominated for any acting awards, which is too bad, While the film revolved around Dev Patel’s character and he was brilliant, it was also his film debut so that likely explains why he was overlooked. He certainly became a force as an actor soon after. It wasn’t a film without criticism, and some of those pointed out it felt a little fantastical or that if you thought too deeply on the matter it didn’t hold up. True, but when was that ever necessary for movie magic? While there was another serious contender this year, it was clearly the best of the films actually nominated. It found the right audience at the right time.

Nominees:

When I first saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, long before I ever considered seeing a movie based on anything besides what I thought I might like, I remarked that it almost felt like a Forrest Gump lite. By that I mean it is a sweeping glimpse of a person living through a lot of important history. This time they have the life lived in reverse. The premise is that a clockmaker constructed a clock to work in reverse to commemorate his son and others lost in World War I. The film is based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I have never read the story, though I am a fan of his writing. It was nominated for the screenplay but did not win. Obviously the timeline has changed from the Fitzgerald story, since the film narrative is framed by Hurricane Katrina (a nice touch, though a stronger narrative voice as well might have helped) and Fitzgerald died in 1940. But it does cover a lifetime of American change, much like Forrest Gump. It takes roughly as long to tell the story, though this one could have been trimmed. It wants to touch your heart and sometimes does. It’s a beautiful approach to exploring the meaning of life, but it falls short of being as heartwarming and great. It’s ambitious, but the premise promises more than it delivers. The directing is solid, though it seems a change of pace for David Fincher, who typically does more manic work like Seven, Fight Club, The Social Network, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. This film is much more subdued. David Fincher was nominated for Best Director and the film was nominated for a boatload of technical awards. It won for art direction, makeup, and visual effects, and was also nominated for cinematography, costume design, editing, score, and sound. The acting is certainly there too. Brad Pitt was nominated for Best Actor, and Taraji P. Henson was nominated for her supporting role. It’s also worth seeing for a very young Mahershala Ali in his first widely released film. It’s generally worth seeing if any of the elements appeal to you, but rightfully has not become a classic.

The point of Frost/Nixon is to expose Richard Nixon and make him look bad, which isn’t hard to do. From the beginning, the quotes used in the opening make him look horrible, but then again, he said them. “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal,” he says at the climax of the interviews. That pretty much says it all. Even when he is defending himself in the interviews, he comes across as angry and argumentative. To expose Richard Nixon for who he is, all you have to do is get him to talk, just like David Frost did. Which brings me to the topic of dramatic license. Sure, in cases where you have no idea precisely what was said behind closed doors, you must improvise in the spirit of telling a story as factually accurate as possible. The one historical inaccuracy in the film with which I strenuously object is the drunk and angry late night call Nixon made to Frost in the film, which never happened. Sure, Nixon was known to have fuzzy memories of phone calls the next morning due to alcohol consumption, but this is not one of those times. I still wouldn’t mind, except some critical moments of the film hinge on this scene. I would also take issue with the fact the film makes the interviews seem much more important than they were, but it’s still an interesting enough piece of American history and worth telling the story, provided it is told well. And it was. At times Frost/Nixon is an excellent movie. The story is tense in many moments, though the tension might have been ratcheted up in other moments for it to be throughly compelling. The film was nominated for the screenplay but did not win, which is about where it belongs critically. The acting is the strength of the movie. Sometimes you watch an actor or actress hitting full stride and it is a beautiful thing. This is one of those cases, for both leads, at least for most of the time. The last portions of the film feature some intense and thoughtful acting, in which the chemistry is superb and Frank Langella seems to embody the character of Nixon even if they aren’t a close match in appearance. Langella was the only actor to be nominated for an Academy Award but the cast works well together, even some of the more minor players. The production is superb, as you would expect from a Ron Howard film. Like most Howard films, the directing is solid but nothing about the film is technically superb. He was nominated for Best Director but the only other technical Oscar nomination was for editing. The archival footage mixed with the actors providing staged archival footage gives the film a documentary feel. While it works well and helps set the context, especially in the beginning, on the other hand, it interrupts the flow a few times once the movie does get going. When I say that it is an excellent movie at times, that means at other times it is not. While it is never a bad film, at times it is only mildly interesting. While Nixon is a fascinating subject, his interviews with Frost are only marginally so. If they could have picked up the pace in the middle, it would have helped. While it is not a particularly obvious nominee, it’s still a very good film and I don’t argue with the selection.

For such a small slice of American history, Milk is an important film. Gay rights activist and politician Harvey Milk was rightfully an important figure in American history and his story deserves to be preserved. The first openly gay man to be elected to public office in America, he’s a fascinating and inspiring figure. Regardless of how you view this history, it is a great film. The film won the Academy Award for original screenplay, and while on some occasions it feels like it’s shuffling through obligatory scenes to develop the story, it’s a beautifully conceived and constructed story. It’s a touching portrait of humanity. The opening montage of historical footage of people being arrested for their homosexuality is powerful. It’s easy to forget that not so long ago, homosexuality was criminalized. In fact, the entire film, from its message to the way the story is framed by Milk reading his will, has a solid historical feel for San Francisco in that pivotal era. They took great pains to recreate the city of that day. It’s a superb chronicle of history both large and small. Though it wanes a bit in the middle, the movie is very engrossing and overall inspirational, with subtly relentless energy throughout most of it. Director Gus Van Sant does a masterful job of telling the story, mixing in archive footage with the film and creating a sense of time and place. He was nominated for Best Director and the film was also nominated for costume design, editing, and score. Sean Penn gives a brilliant performance worthy of his Oscar win. Josh Brolin was also deservedly nominated for his supporting role and the entire cast turns in solid performances. It is almost good enough to win Best Picture in most years, definitely better than most of the weaker winners. This year, it is a solid runner up, though not enough to create a controversy.

The Reader is an exploration of the many faces and nuances of guilt. It’s an absorbing story from the start, both as a film about an illicit romance, and as a film about collective and private guilt about the Holocaust. It even explicitly says at one point it’s about the question of German guilt in the Holocaust, during the courtroom portion. “We are trying to understand,” the professor answers when one of his students wonders what they are doing. “If people like you don’t learn from what happened to people like me,” he later asks, “then what the hell is the point of anything?” It’s a slow burn and it takes a while before you know what’s going on, though it’s still intriguing in this case, partly because the story is interesting and partly because the film is good at building dramatic tension. It’s about fifteen minutes in before you start to see where it’s headed. It lulls you along and then features huge twists in the plot, and does that well. The way in which they are revealed, uncovering things that were hiding in plain sight, is often somewhat magical. The film was nominated for the adapted screenplay but it easily could have shed a minute or two here and there and been a more effective film. The last act is a little too long, and also feels like it tries to tack on a little too much. A leaner story about guilt might have been more effective, since the film loses much of its momentum and feels like it just winds down in the end. The film is directed by Stephen Daldry, who doesn’t do much, though when he does it he tends to make a splash. He was nominated for Best Director for his work. Sometimes the cinematography is splendid but it’s not often asked to be. It’s borderline deserving of the nomination for cinematography, though that was the only technical nomination it received. The acting was terrific. Kate Winslet won the award for acting, deservedly so, for her fantastically complex character that represents the collective German past. Even her facial expressions capture the complexity and weight of the issues. To be honest, I wasn’t a huge fan of Kate Winslet back then, and it may have been a hangover from the overexposure of Titanic. She was the only one nominated for acting but the rest of the cast was still good. Ralph Fiennes is the right amount of mournful and tortured for the role, as is David Kross who plays the younger version of him. Don’t get me wrong; it is very much a good movie. But when you have so much potential - a weighty subject in the Holocaust, a courtroom drama, great performances - and you fail to make a truly excellent movie, even being pretty good seems weak. It had deep and weighty potential but came up shallow, mainly by overstaying its welcome in the last third of the film. The Reader is a very good movie, and worth seeing, but it had the potential to be excellent and I remember it for what it could be, not what it is. It is perhaps, in the end, a missed opportunity. Still, it touches on quintessential Oscar themes, and in many ways is a can’t miss story for a nomination. It absolutely deserved that nomination, even if it wasn’t a serious threat to be the best film of the year, except that this was a weak year and it could be argued it was, though I would not make the case.

Other notable films - Doubt had incredible acting, and might have been worth consideration. / How was Gran Torino not nominated? I might even argue it was the Best Picture, though in the end I think it was a good runner-up. There is a small disconnect between how I see the film, and how critics see it, and I wonder why. But to be entirely snubbed? It’s in my top three for the year. / The Wrestler is a tragically beautiful film that belongs in the top five of the year, and I would have given Mickey Rourke the award for acting as it was the type of performance you only see a few times a decade.

Top Five: Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, Gran Torino, The Wrestler,