Holy c***! Eleven nominations, eleven Oscars? When's the last time that happened? Never. "Ben Hur" got eleven of fifteen and "Titanic" eleven of seventeen. I guess the good thing is that now "Titanic"'s thoroughly undeserved reputation will be shared with not one but two movies. And I must say that of the three "The Lord of the Rings" deserves it the most. But wait, does it count if the awards were meant for all three parts instead of just "The Return of the King"? I don't think so. It's like the Academy literally decided to wait until the epic was finally complete before opening the floodgates.
In any case, one of the better movie years in recent memory is over and all I can say is hang in there, Billy, Naomi, Johnny and Sofia!
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Saturday, February 28, 2004
And the Oscar Goes To... Tom Hanks
"Big", "Forrest Gump", "Philadelphia", "Saving Private Ryan", "Cast Away", "Road to Perdition". Wow! What a lineup. And I bet I've missed out about twenty other equally fantastic movies. Sure there has been the odd bad one ("You've Got Mail" comes to mind) but the rest of them more than make up for Tom Hanks' few digressions from a career that's otherwise solid twenty-four carat gold.
It's not just the depth he brings to each character. It's not just the incredible attention to detail. It's the sheer diversity of the roles that he's taken on. And taken on like no other actor that comes to mind. People talk about Al Pacino and Robert De Niro and the like, but they all fit into a particular niche which they made theirs for the majority of their work. That's not to say Al and Bobby and Dusty are bad actors. Nor are they single-role hams like Russell Crowe. God no! They're among the finest that Hollywood's produced. But Tommy's consistent diversity gives him that little bit extra and nudges him a level higher.
I would absolutely kill to see him and Meryl Streep do a movie together (have they already?). I think that would be the most formidable acting combination in the history of Hollywood. Meryl Streep. There's another absolute gem. I have to admit I haven't seen too many of her movies, but if "Sophie's Choice", "Death Becomes Her" and "The Hours" are anything to go by, she's easily on par with Hanks. I still can't believe they gave Nicole Kidman the Best Actress Oscar for "The Hours" and passed over Streep for Best Supporting Actress. All Kidman did for that movie was put on a prosthetic nose and look uniformly intense. She's an excellent actress, but not in the class of Streep and definitely not in that particular movie.
Let's see... who else comes to mind. Of course! Johnny Depp! From "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" to "Pirates of the Caribbean" taking in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?", "Chocolat", "Don Juan de Marco" and "Blow" along the way, Johnny's another guy that makes acting the great art form that it is (or at least should be, in its purest form). Should he win Best Actor come Sunday like a number of people seems to think he will? That I don't know. Given the people he's up against, I would go for Bill Murray (Sean Penn comes in at number two for "Mystic River"). It's hard enough getting a character across to a depressingly retarded audience. To be understated while doing it, like Murray was in "Lost in Translation", so that the audience doesn't even notice, is class.
So how much is direction a factor? Huge! For the best actors it really doesn't matter, but for the average above-average actor, a good director can make the difference between a passable performance and a great performance. Bill Murray I think is a good example of that. So is Nicole Kidman.
It's quite strange how this is being written the night before the Oscars. Completely unintentional and again serendipitous. I actually started this as a rave about Tom Hanks while watching "Forrest Gump" for oh, I don't know, the tenth time. But for what it's worth, here are my picks for tomorrow. I must throw in a couple of caveats here. One, these are the people who, in my blinkered opinion, should win, but the omnipotent Academy may not agree. And two, these are my picks from the movies that I've personally seen. There may be others that are more deserving, both among and outside the five nominations in each category.
Best Supporting Actor: Benicio Del Toro ("21 Grams")
Best Supporting Actress: Having seen only two of the five nominated roles (shame on me), I'll pass on this one, but I will say that if they could give Russell Crowe an Oscar for "Gladiator" when he really should have got one for "The Insider" then Renée Zellweger deserves one for "Cold Mountain" for being passed up in "Chicago".
Best Actor: Bill Murray ("Lost in Translation")
Best Actress: Charlize Theron ("Monster"). Naomi Watts' incredibly powerful yet subtle role in "21 Grams" ran her a really close race, but you've got to give credit to Theron's dedication.
Best Picture: Hmm... For the body of work, I'll go with "The Lord of the Rings".
I'm leaving out Best Director because I don't think I'm qualified to comment on it.
But if you want to read an opinion that I actually agree with completely, check out: And the Winner Should Be.... Not only does the author pick who ought to win, but also explains, tongue-in-cheek, who will actually hold the statuettes come Oscar night. (MSN does have some very well-written articles from time to time. Who knew?!)
There will, I feel sure, be many more such posts on movies and the like. Apparently I missed my true calling in life and should have been a movie critic. Well, maybe. I guess you could call me the antithesis of Ebert & Roeper. If they ever give any movie "two thumbs way up", I think it would be safe to say that the movie in question would get a "two thumbs way up... your ass" from me. And just by the way, I think they should trademark that phrase (the former, not the latter - that one's all mine), they use it so lavishly and in such a criminally indiscriminate manner.
It's not just the depth he brings to each character. It's not just the incredible attention to detail. It's the sheer diversity of the roles that he's taken on. And taken on like no other actor that comes to mind. People talk about Al Pacino and Robert De Niro and the like, but they all fit into a particular niche which they made theirs for the majority of their work. That's not to say Al and Bobby and Dusty are bad actors. Nor are they single-role hams like Russell Crowe. God no! They're among the finest that Hollywood's produced. But Tommy's consistent diversity gives him that little bit extra and nudges him a level higher.
I would absolutely kill to see him and Meryl Streep do a movie together (have they already?). I think that would be the most formidable acting combination in the history of Hollywood. Meryl Streep. There's another absolute gem. I have to admit I haven't seen too many of her movies, but if "Sophie's Choice", "Death Becomes Her" and "The Hours" are anything to go by, she's easily on par with Hanks. I still can't believe they gave Nicole Kidman the Best Actress Oscar for "The Hours" and passed over Streep for Best Supporting Actress. All Kidman did for that movie was put on a prosthetic nose and look uniformly intense. She's an excellent actress, but not in the class of Streep and definitely not in that particular movie.
Let's see... who else comes to mind. Of course! Johnny Depp! From "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" to "Pirates of the Caribbean" taking in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?", "Chocolat", "Don Juan de Marco" and "Blow" along the way, Johnny's another guy that makes acting the great art form that it is (or at least should be, in its purest form). Should he win Best Actor come Sunday like a number of people seems to think he will? That I don't know. Given the people he's up against, I would go for Bill Murray (Sean Penn comes in at number two for "Mystic River"). It's hard enough getting a character across to a depressingly retarded audience. To be understated while doing it, like Murray was in "Lost in Translation", so that the audience doesn't even notice, is class.
So how much is direction a factor? Huge! For the best actors it really doesn't matter, but for the average above-average actor, a good director can make the difference between a passable performance and a great performance. Bill Murray I think is a good example of that. So is Nicole Kidman.
It's quite strange how this is being written the night before the Oscars. Completely unintentional and again serendipitous. I actually started this as a rave about Tom Hanks while watching "Forrest Gump" for oh, I don't know, the tenth time. But for what it's worth, here are my picks for tomorrow. I must throw in a couple of caveats here. One, these are the people who, in my blinkered opinion, should win, but the omnipotent Academy may not agree. And two, these are my picks from the movies that I've personally seen. There may be others that are more deserving, both among and outside the five nominations in each category.
Best Supporting Actor: Benicio Del Toro ("21 Grams")
Best Supporting Actress: Having seen only two of the five nominated roles (shame on me), I'll pass on this one, but I will say that if they could give Russell Crowe an Oscar for "Gladiator" when he really should have got one for "The Insider" then Renée Zellweger deserves one for "Cold Mountain" for being passed up in "Chicago".
Best Actor: Bill Murray ("Lost in Translation")
Best Actress: Charlize Theron ("Monster"). Naomi Watts' incredibly powerful yet subtle role in "21 Grams" ran her a really close race, but you've got to give credit to Theron's dedication.
Best Picture: Hmm... For the body of work, I'll go with "The Lord of the Rings".
I'm leaving out Best Director because I don't think I'm qualified to comment on it.
But if you want to read an opinion that I actually agree with completely, check out: And the Winner Should Be.... Not only does the author pick who ought to win, but also explains, tongue-in-cheek, who will actually hold the statuettes come Oscar night. (MSN does have some very well-written articles from time to time. Who knew?!)
There will, I feel sure, be many more such posts on movies and the like. Apparently I missed my true calling in life and should have been a movie critic. Well, maybe. I guess you could call me the antithesis of Ebert & Roeper. If they ever give any movie "two thumbs way up", I think it would be safe to say that the movie in question would get a "two thumbs way up... your ass" from me. And just by the way, I think they should trademark that phrase (the former, not the latter - that one's all mine), they use it so lavishly and in such a criminally indiscriminate manner.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Raving about Rudyard
"... and the last puff of the day-wind brought from the unseen villages the scent of damp wood-smoke, hot cakes, dripping undergrowth and rotting pine-cones. That is the true smell of the Himalayas, and if once it creeps into the blood of a man, that man will at the last, forgetting all else, return to the hills to die."
-- Rudyard Kipling
True.
-- Rudyard Kipling
True.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
An Ode to Scout...
...with apologies to Pink Floyd and Queen.
"I want to ride my bi-see-cle, I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bi-see-EE-cle, I want to ride it where I like."
"I've got a bike, I can ride it if I like.
It's got a bag and a lock, and
Things to make it look good.
I'd give it to you if I could but I married it."
"I want to ride my bi-see-cle, I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bi-see-EE-cle, I want to ride it where I like."
"I've got a bike, I can ride it if I like.
It's got a bag and a lock, and
Things to make it look good.
I'd give it to you if I could but I married it."
Ranting about Rand
I just finished reading a play of Ayn Rand's called "Night of January 16th". Now I think Rand and her philosophies are absolutely ridiculous - for the most part - to begin with, and this play only heightened my dislike for her writing.
The play is set as a murder trial but it essentially pits two diametrically opposite attitudes and philosophies against each other, with the twist that the jury (who is effectively picking one or the other depending on whether they find the defendant guilty or not) is selected from members of the audience.
I think this was her attempt at finding out whether or not the average person believes in her ideas. She says she tried to make the facts of the case fairly balanced, but I'm sure you would agree that facts are not the only things that influence the jury at a trial or indeed an audience at a play.
Throughout the play I got the distinct impression that she was loading the dice in favour of her own philosophy altogether too conveniently; not in any obvious way but, for example, in her descriptions of the main characters' appearances and behaviour etc. What a hypocritical attempt to be "fair"!
Reading the introduction only made it worse. Here is a woman who claims that mankind's only goal should be personal ambition and excellence, regardless of, and if necessary, in opposition to all social norms and laws - it's about what you can and cannot do, not what you should or should not do - and then talks about how she repeatedly allowed theatre companies and Hollywood studios to massacre her play. So much for personal excellence and not bowing to popular tastes.
Which brings up an interesting point: should one practise what one preaches? Or can Rand follow her own philosophy and choose not to, simply because she can? What do you think?
The play is set as a murder trial but it essentially pits two diametrically opposite attitudes and philosophies against each other, with the twist that the jury (who is effectively picking one or the other depending on whether they find the defendant guilty or not) is selected from members of the audience.
I think this was her attempt at finding out whether or not the average person believes in her ideas. She says she tried to make the facts of the case fairly balanced, but I'm sure you would agree that facts are not the only things that influence the jury at a trial or indeed an audience at a play.
Throughout the play I got the distinct impression that she was loading the dice in favour of her own philosophy altogether too conveniently; not in any obvious way but, for example, in her descriptions of the main characters' appearances and behaviour etc. What a hypocritical attempt to be "fair"!
Reading the introduction only made it worse. Here is a woman who claims that mankind's only goal should be personal ambition and excellence, regardless of, and if necessary, in opposition to all social norms and laws - it's about what you can and cannot do, not what you should or should not do - and then talks about how she repeatedly allowed theatre companies and Hollywood studios to massacre her play. So much for personal excellence and not bowing to popular tastes.
Which brings up an interesting point: should one practise what one preaches? Or can Rand follow her own philosophy and choose not to, simply because she can? What do you think?
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Caveat Reader
BTW, arising out a conversation with a friend of mine - if anything on this blog offends, annoys or even mildly irritates anyone out there, apologies in advance. (If, on the other hand, you like what you read, more power to me.) This is meant to be my personal space for putting thoughts down on "paper" as it were. And before you ask why I don't just keep an e-diary or make this blog private, let me hasten to add that that possibility had occurred to me, but there will, I hope, be things that I have to say that I would like the world at large to know about, which is why I chose to make this public and why you'll just have to bear with me until then!
Friday, February 13, 2004
A Good Day To Be A Bad Guy
Whew. This is it. This is big. This is absotively posilutely gigantic. My own blog. And it's Friday the 13th. Phreeeeeow!
If you must know, I am mindnumbingly bored and trying to kill three hours before me and a friend go for this play called "Six Characters In Search Of An Author". It's by some dude called Luigi Pirandello and it's apparently his best work. Now I didn't know any of the above until I happened to mention the play to my dad, and he, being the walking talking Encyclopaedia that he is, enlightened me. (There will be lots of posts later about how incredibly smart and knowledgable and generally fantastic my parents are, but this is not it).
Anyway, so after I spent the last four hours checking my email about a million times I decided that something drastic needed to be done if I was to get through the rest of the day without slashing my wrists. So, inspired by a couple of friends who host blogs of their own, and by a vague general feeling that writing stuff down would be cathartic, I decided to inflict this upon you, my poor reader.
Oh, as a complete non sequitur - "Sweetest Thing" by U2 is an amazing song!
OK, so where was I? Oh yes, starting my blog. Well, by an amazingly serendepitious coincidence, today happens to be Friday the 13th. Now this most dreaded of days has special significance for me and another psycho buddy of mine because of something that we did to a mutual non-friend back in our high school days. The exact details escape me at this moment, but I do know that a "potato" figured in it :) In any case, I couldn't have asked for a better day to start another evil venture. And my joy is compounded by the knowledge that tomorrow is that other most-hated of days - St. Valentine's Day.
Now there's a hoot if there was ever was one. The sheer stereotypicality (is that a word?) of it boggles the mind. Think V-day and what are the first five things that come to mind? I'm willing to bet good money that everyone, yes everyone, will come up with the following: Pink, heart, card, chocolate, gift, flowers. (OK, so I cheated and threw in a sixth. So sue me.) Have you walked in to a store recently? Any store will do. They're all decorated in ghastly shades of pink, with heart-shaped balloons and cutouts and posters everywhere. You could go to the hardware store or that perceived bastion of rugged masculinity - a monster truck dealer - and I guarantee you it'd be the same story.
WHY???? Why are V-day and romance synonymous with feminity? Can't a normal red-blooded steak-eating beer-drinking male be a romantic without resorting to the pink heart-shaped card accompanied by the heart-shaped box of chocolates and the heart-shaped diamond pendant? Can he not, in short, be romantic without being feminine at the same time? Because if he can't then here's a newsflash: men, purely by virtue of being men, are completely, inutterably, irredeemably incapable of expressing love. In which case, and follow my reasoning closely here - Valentine's Day and all its attendant glitter are an eyewash, ladies! There is no such thing as male affection. Never was and never will be.
But that obviously isn't true. So what's going on here? One word. Hallmark. But you already knew that.
If you must know, I am mindnumbingly bored and trying to kill three hours before me and a friend go for this play called "Six Characters In Search Of An Author". It's by some dude called Luigi Pirandello and it's apparently his best work. Now I didn't know any of the above until I happened to mention the play to my dad, and he, being the walking talking Encyclopaedia that he is, enlightened me. (There will be lots of posts later about how incredibly smart and knowledgable and generally fantastic my parents are, but this is not it).
Anyway, so after I spent the last four hours checking my email about a million times I decided that something drastic needed to be done if I was to get through the rest of the day without slashing my wrists. So, inspired by a couple of friends who host blogs of their own, and by a vague general feeling that writing stuff down would be cathartic, I decided to inflict this upon you, my poor reader.
Oh, as a complete non sequitur - "Sweetest Thing" by U2 is an amazing song!
OK, so where was I? Oh yes, starting my blog. Well, by an amazingly serendepitious coincidence, today happens to be Friday the 13th. Now this most dreaded of days has special significance for me and another psycho buddy of mine because of something that we did to a mutual non-friend back in our high school days. The exact details escape me at this moment, but I do know that a "potato" figured in it :) In any case, I couldn't have asked for a better day to start another evil venture. And my joy is compounded by the knowledge that tomorrow is that other most-hated of days - St. Valentine's Day.
Now there's a hoot if there was ever was one. The sheer stereotypicality (is that a word?) of it boggles the mind. Think V-day and what are the first five things that come to mind? I'm willing to bet good money that everyone, yes everyone, will come up with the following: Pink, heart, card, chocolate, gift, flowers. (OK, so I cheated and threw in a sixth. So sue me.) Have you walked in to a store recently? Any store will do. They're all decorated in ghastly shades of pink, with heart-shaped balloons and cutouts and posters everywhere. You could go to the hardware store or that perceived bastion of rugged masculinity - a monster truck dealer - and I guarantee you it'd be the same story.
WHY???? Why are V-day and romance synonymous with feminity? Can't a normal red-blooded steak-eating beer-drinking male be a romantic without resorting to the pink heart-shaped card accompanied by the heart-shaped box of chocolates and the heart-shaped diamond pendant? Can he not, in short, be romantic without being feminine at the same time? Because if he can't then here's a newsflash: men, purely by virtue of being men, are completely, inutterably, irredeemably incapable of expressing love. In which case, and follow my reasoning closely here - Valentine's Day and all its attendant glitter are an eyewash, ladies! There is no such thing as male affection. Never was and never will be.
But that obviously isn't true. So what's going on here? One word. Hallmark. But you already knew that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)