Best Pictures #64: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards: My Pick for Best Picture

by A.J.

Best Pictures #64

The 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards

History was made at the 92nd Academy Awards for films released in 2019. The South Korean film Parasite won Oscars for Original Screenplay, International Film, Director, and, in a historic first, Best Picture. In 1933, The Private Life of Henry VIII became the first non-Hollywood film to be nominated for Best Picture and win an Academy Award (Charles Laughton for Best Actor). In 1938, Grand Illusion made history by becoming the first foreign language film to earn a nomination for Best Picture. A total of 11 foreign language films (or 12 if you include 2006's Babel, which has some scenes in English), including Parasite, over an 80 year time span would earn Best Picture nominations. A foreign film earning a Best Picture nomination is no easy feat, even in the expanded "up to 10 nominees" era, but the contention of these films is usually not taken seriously; that film would win Best Foreign Language Film (now called International Film), and that was that. Until February 9th, 2020. 

The British World War I action thriller 1917 was released at the very tail end of 2019 and quickly earned precursor awards (Golden Globes, BAFTAs). 1917 and and its director, Sam Mendes, took frontrunner status and seemed like locks for the Academy Awards. Parasite was a lock to win the newly renamed International Film category, and Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won became favorites to win in the Original Screenplay category (and indeed they did). 

Bong Joon-ho's win for Best Director and Parasite's win for Best Picture were the most pleasing upsets in recent Oscar history. In his acceptance speech for Best Director, Bong Joon-ho honored fellow nominees Scorsese and Tarantino and asked for a "Texas chainsaw" to split the Oscar statue. The audience at the Academy Awards (judging from what I saw on TV) matched my own and doubtless many others: initial shock followed by total delight. The cast and crew of Parasite were noticeably thrilled (it's always great to see people that are actually happy to win an award). Not only was Parasite's win a landmark moment for international cinema and Academy Awards history and film history, but it encapsulated everything that the Oscars could and should be. A brilliantly crafted, superb film that uses every aspect of filmmaking to the fullest was singled out for its achievements drawing even more attention it, and, hopefully, new audiences. And for viewers at home, the ceremony had an actual sense of excitement, as opposed to being a parade of preordained winners from start to finish (though there were some of those too).

 

Overall, the the 9 Best Picture nominees of 2019 were an interesting group. They included period pictures, war films, satires, a literary adaptation, a comic book movie, a crime drama, a divorce drama, and, of course, a foreign film. Except for Joker, they were all strong, entertaining films that I would recommend. I'm glad that a movie that I never would have seen, Ford v Ferrari, picked up a Best Picture nomination (it ended up with well deserved wins for Sound Editing and Film Editing) so that I had to watch it and got to be thoroughly entertained and thrilled by its quality filmmmaking. I am extremely happy that Parasite won as many Oscars as it did, especially Best Picture. The reaction on social media was that the actual best picture of 2019 won Best Picture. Parasite is a superb, one-of-a-kind film. Everything about it works in harmony to excellent results: the screenplay, production design, cinematography, editing, score, performances, and direction. It is timely in its themes but it is never for a moment didactic or pandering. It is a compelling satire and thriller that challenges the audience and genre conventions. It entertains at every moment but also causes us to reflect on our society. That is cinema. That is art. That's the movies at their best. 

As excited and delighted as I am that Parasite won Best Picture and made history, were I a voting member of the Academy I would still have to cast my vote for my favorite film of 2019.

My Pick for Best Picture of 2019: I Heard You Paint Houses (The Irishman)

The great critic and filmmaker Francois Truffaut said (I'm paraphrasing) it is impossible to make an anti-war film because to put anything on film is to ennoble it. Roger Ebert believed that if Truffaut had lived to see Oliver Stone's Vietnam film Platoon (1986) he would have changed his mind. While watching I Heard You Paint Houses (The Irishman) I thought, surely if Truffaut were alive today he would agree that The Irishman in no way ennobles the criminal or the criminal life. Scorsese has been accused of glamorizing the gangsters in his crime movies (Goodfellas, Casino, and, if you count it as a crime movie, which I do, The Wolf of Wall Street), which he does to a point to show the appeal of that life to a certain kind of young person or outsider. Though the main character lives to be an old man (and not in prison), this film feels like a great tragedy from its opening moments. The elderly Frank Sheeran recalls his life, not just his crimes, like it is a confession. Anna Paquin as Frank's adult daughter, Peggy, has only a few scenes and even fewer lines but what she does with those scenes says everything about the kind of person she knows Frank actually is. Paquin does more with a cold, accusing stare than most actors or actresses could do with entire monologues. Joe Pesci was my personal pick for Best Supporting Actor. His performance steals the whole movie. That he came out of retirement for it, and likely will go back into retirement, makes it all the more notable. This film spans an adult life but also history. In the background are major events, like the Bay of Pigs invasion and Watergate break-in, covered in other films like Oliver Stone's JFK and Nixon. 

Yes, this is a very long movie; some of the best films are. I don't think any of The Irishman's effect would be lost by watching it over separate viewings. Being the story of a life over the course of 30 years, it has an episodic feel which would lend it to being watched in parts. Currently, The Irishman is only available for streaming through Netflix, but it was recently announced that the Criterion Collection will be releasing on DVD/Blu-ray later in 2020. I can't wait to actually own this movie. Everything I've said about this film makes it sound like a depressing movie, but I stress that while what happens in the film is depressing, watching the film is not. The Irishman is a masterful achievement that ranks among Martin Scorsese's best films. 

Best Pictures #63: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: The Irishman (I Heard You Paint Houses)

by A.J.

Best Pictures #63 
2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

The Irishman (I HeardYou Paint Houses)

“It’s what it is.”

Things aren’t stated directly in the mafia. They use codes and euphemisms but everyone involved understands clearly. So, when mob hitman Frank Sheeran is told by his boss and longtime friend, Russell Bufalino, “It’s what it is” about Frank’s other longtime friend and mentor, Jimmy Hoffa, his heart crumbles.  Those words signal a point of no return for everyone involved and set into motion the final hour of Martin Scorsese’s I Heard You Paint Houses, or, The Irishman. It is also the most poignant and compelling hour of filmmaking of any film I saw from 2019. The proceeding two and a half hours, also excellently done, bring the total runtime to 3hours 29minutes. This is Scorsese’s longest film, and, also, one of the best films in the career of one of, if not the, greatest living film directors.

We learn from an elderly Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro), narrating his life story from a nursing home, that a “house painter” is mafia code for a hit man. De Niro’s narration is quiet and full of reflection and regret. He isn’t narrating so much as confessing. He tells an unseen listener about a road trip he and Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci) took with their wives to attend a wedding, but the real reason for the road trip was “business.” The story of the road trip acts a spring board to flashback to the 1950’s when Frank went from a union truck driver looking to make extra money to a “house painter” to bodyguard and friend of Teamsters Union president, Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino).

The screenplay, adapted by Steve Zaillian from the book I Heard You Paint Houses by Charles Brandt, allows the characters to build their personalities and inner lives through small moments like conversations in cars or restaurants. The back and forth between the actors bring the characters and the movie to life. There are several scenes that are as tense as they are entertaining, especially Hoffa’s meeting with a rival in the teamsters, who arrives late and wearing shorts. It’s the kind of scene that Scorsese specializes in.

De Niro gives one of his best and most “Robert DeNiro” performances. Narration aside, he says as little as he can with as few words as he can, even then stammering over phrases. Emotion is just below the surface of a quiet, stony exterior. Joe Pesci comes out of retirement to give one of his best and most unexpected performances. Unlike the hot head tough guy characters he is most famous for, Pesci as Bufalino is a calm tough guy. He never has an outburst or raises his voice but his aura is no less intimidating. Here, Pesci tries to mediates potentially violent situations. He asks an agitated Hoffa if there’s “another reason” for his actions in such a calm and inoffensive tone you get the feeling that Pesci’s version of Bufalino would have been a good therapist or marriage counselor. Al Pacino is over the top as Jimmy Hoffa but his acting style works because the real-life Hoffa was an outspoken, flamboyant, larger than life personality (Jack Nicholson’s performance as Hoffa in Danny DeVito’s film, Hoffa, is among his most ostentatious). Harvey Keitel, who starred in Scorsese’s first film has a small part as the mafia boss, Angelo Bruno. He sits like a king in his restaurant booth exuding a cool but threatening presence.

The digital de-aging of the actors to make them look up to 30 years younger than their actual ages works well enough; it helps that their ages are never specified. As an effect, the de-aging is far from convincing but not very distracting, except for one shot where young Joe Pesci’s face appears to be floating over his body. The overall effect, however, is no different than dying their hair darker. However, the performances do feel richer for having the same actors in the same roles throughout the film.

Films like Mean Streets, Goodfellas, and Casino (featuring Harvey Keitel, Robert De Niro, and Joe Pesci) have made Scorsese synonymous with the modern gangster picture. Each of those films glamorized the criminal life to a certain extent to show its insidious appeal. There is not a bit of glamour to be found in The Irishman. There is no luxury or appeal to Frank’s lifestyle. When not carrying out hits or driving a truck across the country, he acts as a go-between for Hoffa and the mob bosses trying to diffuse potentially dangerous situations.

The Irishman is an epic film. It sprawls not over picturesque landscapes but a life in crime. It feels episodic, any complete life story would, but it flows smoothly. The doo-wop song “In the Still of the Night” by The Five Satins opens the film and plays more like a dirge than a pop song. It sets the tone for the film perfectly. The brilliant score by Robbie Robertson feels like it grew out of the film’s contemplative, somber tone. This story explores what it means to survive a life of crime and what it leaves a person with. Frank entered the criminal world to make more money to take care of his family, but there are tellingly few scenes of Frank with his family. What was it all for?

This is a long movie and it feels like a long movie—I won’t argue that—but it is also thoroughly engrossing. I was completely immersed in these lives and this world without ever wanting to be a part of them. The first two-thirds of the film builds up emotions so subtly that you are taken by surprise and overwhelmed when those emotions come into play in the final act. When Frank and Bufalino go to prison, the film doesn’t jump over their sentence, we stay with them. Scorsese knows that the real power of this story is to stay with Frank as an old man instead of using a montage or epilogue cards. This biopic of Frank Sheeren is a sad, tragic movie, but it is so well executed cinematically and emotionally that it is a joy to watch. I was reminded of a quote from the great critic Roger Ebert, “No great movie is depressing. All bad movies are depressing”

Nominees: Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Jane Rosenthal, Emma Tillinger Koskoff

Director: Martin Scorsese

Screenplay: Steven Zaillian, based on the book I Heard You Paint Houses by Charles Brandt

Cast: Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci

Production Companies: TriBeCa Productions, Sikelia Productions, Winkler Films

Distributor: Netflix

Release Date: November 1^st, 2019

Total Nominations:10, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Director-Martin Scorsese; Supporting Actor-Al Pacino; Supporting Actor-Joe Pesci; Adapted Screenplay-Steven Zaillian; Cinematography-Rodrigo Prieto; Costume Design-Christopher Peterson, Sandy Powell; Production Design-Bob Shaw, Regina Graves; Film Editing-Thelma Schoonmaker; Visual Effects-Pablo Helman, Leandro Estebecorena, Nelson Sepulveda, Stephane Grabli

Best Pictures #62: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Jojo Rabbit

by A.J.

Best Pictures #62 
2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Jojo Rabbit

“You're not a Nazi, Jojo. You're a ten-year-old kid who likes dressing up in a funny uniform and wants to be part of a club.”

A good movie lets you know what you’re in for right away. A great movie surpasses those expectations. You’ll know within the first ten minutes of Jojo Rabbit whether this film is for you or not. It opens with real footage of crowds roaring ecstatically for Adolf Hitler while a German version of “I Want to Hold Your Hand” plays over the titles. This is how 10-year-old Johannes sees Hitler. In fact, his goofy, encouraging imaginary best friend is none other than Adolf. Any comedy set in Nazi Germany is going to be tricky to say the least, even for a talented filmmaker like writer-director Taika Waititi. In previous films, Waititi has tackled broad, dark comedy (the vampire comedy What We Do In The Shadows) and mixed comedy and sentimental drama (the wonderful Huntfor the Wilderpeople). In Jojo Rabbit, Waititi combines sharp satire, broad comedy, devastating drama, and sincere sentiment with incredible results. Movies like Jojo Rabbit don’t come along too often. This is without a doubt one of the best movies of 2019.

Roman Griffin Davis plays Johannes who is young enough that he believes all of the most awful and absurd antisemitic Nazi propaganda. He wants to be the best Nazi he can be, but doesn’t measure up. Older members of the Hitler Youth nickname him Jojo Rabbit after he can’t bring himself to kill a rabbit. His mother, Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is raising is him alone—his soldier father is presumed dead, or possibly a deserter—and trying to counteract the hateful propaganda Jojo has been absorbing. She is also secretly sheltering a Jewish girl, Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie), in an upstairs crawlspace. When Jojo discovers Elsa, he knows he can’t turn her in without getting his mother in trouble, so he decides question her about being Jewish to write a book. His initial shock and fright turn to confusion: she has no horns and doesn’t sleep upside down. In fact, she appears to be a normal girl and he develops a crush on her.

Waititi walks a fine line both as a filmmaker, maintaining the film’s dark comic tone, and as an actor, playing the imaginary Adolf. His performance is broad and over the top but it matches what 10-year-old Jojo would conjure up. Scarlett Johansson has earned a Supporting Actress nomination for her role as Jojo’s mother and I think it’s well deserved. Her portrayal of a someone doing all she can to be a good parent and a good person is compelling. Sam Rockwell turns in another good performance as a washed-up Nazi officer that may actually be hiding a sense of decency. In a small but chilling role Stephen Merchant plays a Gestapo officer that comes to investigate Jojo’s house; his thin but imposing 6’7” figure is used for unease and intimidation. Archie Yates as Yorki, Jojo’s only friend in real life, is a natural born scene stealer.  

This film is not meant to be an actual representation of life under Hitler’s Third Reich. This is a fable about a how a young boy experiences the horrors of the Nazi regime and is able to survive not just with his life but with his heart and soul. The screenplay, adapted by Waititi from the novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunen, believes that fanatism is absurd, so everything presented on screen follows that principal. Nazis are presented as ridiculous because their whole belief system is based on the hateful absurdity that a certain group of people are superior to others. The comedy in this movie is audacious and even uncomfortable but it never mocks or minimizes the horrific actions of the Nazis. When one Nazi gives a Hitler Youth child a live grenade and tells him to run and hug an American soldier, it’s not remotely funny.

Jojo Rabbit shouldn’t work but it does. A large reason for that is the sweet nature of Roman Griffin Davis and his scenes with Thomasin McKenzie, also giving a great performance. Another reason is Taika Waititi’s sensibilities as a filmmaker. He knows just how far to push the comedy and how to play the drama scenes for incredible effect. Advertisements have marketed Jojo Rabbit as an “anti-hate satire” which it certainly is. It is also a story about how hope can survive even in the darkest of places and times, until one day it can step outside again and dance.  

Nominees: Carthew Neal, Taika Waititi

Director: Taika Waititi

Screenplay: Taika Waititi; based on the novel Christine Leunens

Cast: Roman Griffin Davis, Thomasin McKenzie, Scarlett Johansson

Production Companies: Fox Searchlight Pictures, TSG Entertainment, Defender Films, Piki Films

Distributor: Fox Searchlight Pictures

Release Date: October 18^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 6, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Supporting Actress-Scarlett Johansson; Adapted Screenplay-Taika Waititi; Costume Design-Mayes C. Rubeo; Production Design-Ra Vincent, Nora Sopková; Editing-Tom Eagles

Best Pictures #61: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Parasite

by A.J.

Best Pictures #61
 2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Parasite

“You know what kind of plan never fails? No plan. No plan at all. You know why? Because life cannot be planned.”

It’s rare for a foreign film to gain as much popularity with American audiences as the South Korean film Parasite has done. It’s even rarer for a foreign film to earn Academy Awards nominations for Best Foreign Language (now called International) film and Best Picture, but Parasite has managed to join this exclusive club. Director Bong Joon-ho has long been turning out top quality, intriguing work (I’m a big fan of his melancholy 2003 film Memories of Murder, about a years long hunt for a serial killer). Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won’s Oscar nominated original screenplay switches tones and even genres so abruptly and successfully, it makes Parasite a unique movie to say the least. Combined with a stellar cast, excellent cinematography, production design, and pacing, Parasite becomes a thoroughly engrossing, extraordinary experience. Movies like this in any language are rare indeed.

Parasite begins as a dark comedy and sharp satire about economic inequality and class disparity. The Kim family lives in a shabby basement apartment. The street level window provides them a view of ankles and urinating drunks. They work short term odd jobs and hunt around their apartment for a spot with Wi-Fi. A change in luck comes when a friend of their teenage son recommends him as a tutor for the daughter of a wealthy family, the Parks. The son, Ki-woo, reluctantly accepts though he is under qualified. Soon the Kim family schemes to replace each of the Park family servants with themselves though they pose under false identities. The 20-ish Kim daughter, Ki-jeong, provides the family with false credentials. Things take a fateful and irreversible turn when the Kims decide to have a night in luxury while the Parks are away for the weekend.

That plot description seems to make the title describe the Kim family. As you watch them work their way into the home of the Park family, you may find the title applies more to the Parks whose lifestyle requires people like the Kims. The differences between a family that is oblivious of their wealth and a family that schemes to get stable, working-class jobs is apparent. But then, the film reveals layers and depth that make it truly profound. When the film becomes a riveting thriller, it does not eschew its themes and substance. I cannot recall the last time I had no idea where a film was going, not because of incompetence, but because I was watching the work of a master filmmaker.

The entire ensemble is terrific. Each role is well cast and there’s a great chemistry between the members of the respective families. The stand outs for me, however are Song Kang-ho as the Kim family patriarch and Park So-dam as his clever daughter. Cho Yeo-jeong as the daffy and gullible Park matriarch is great comic relief.

What sets Parasite a step above other socially conscious films is it does not sacrifice entertainment for the sake its social commentary or vice versa. It never pontificates or pretends to have any didactic solution. It is like a classic Twilight Zone episode, up front about its themes but in such a way that doesn’t speak down to audience and feels detached and immediate simultaneously. There is not a single pandering moment in the entire film. Parasite uses the real problems and concerns of modern society to tell a compelling and universal story that causes us to reflect on our world. That can be the definition a great film and great art.

Nominees: Sin-ae Kwak, Bong Joon Ho

Director: Bong Joon-ho

Screenplay: Bong Joon-ho, Han Jin-won; story by Bong Joon-ho

Cast: Song Kang-ho, Choi Woo-shik, Park So-dam, Chang Hyae-jin, Lee Sun-kyun, Cho Yeo-jeong

Production Companies: Barunson E&A

Distributor: CJ Entertainment

Release Date: November 8^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 6, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Director-Bong Joon Ho; Original Screenplay-Bong Joon Ho, Jin Won Han; International Feature Film-South Korea; Production Design-Ha-jun Lee, Won-woo Cho; Film Editing-Jinmo Yang

Best Pictures #60: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood

by A.J.

Best Pictures #60

2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood

“I hired you to be an actor, Rick, not a TV cowboy. You’re better than that."

There are certain filmmakers that settle into their distinct style more and more with each film. Quentin Tarantino is among that group. Tarantino has also reached the same stature in the film community that Stephen King has in the literary world: for better or worse, he’s too successful to be edited down. Indeed, his latest film might also be his most “Tarantino” film since Pulp Fiction. Once Upon a in Time…in Hollywood, a sprawling but not quite epic tour through Los Angeles in 1969 that crosses paths with Bruce Lee, the Manson Family, and Sharon Tate, indulges in long, two-character conversations, pop culture references (both obvious and subtle), wall to wall pop music, flashbacks, insert shots and closeups, barefoot women, an unnecessary narrator, cameos from actors from previous films, and, of course, some bloody, bloody violence. There’s also an emotional maturity that we haven’t seen since Jackie Brown.

I left the theater uncertain whether I liked the picture or not, but by the time I got to my car I knew for sure that I had just seen the most interesting and challenging film by Tarantino in years. I also knew I had seen one of the best films of 2019. Tarantino always manages to surprise us, even when his films are set around historical events.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Rick Dalton, a former TV cowboy who can now only land roles playing the villain of the week on other shows (many of them, Green Hornet, The F.B.I, Lancer, are real shows). A Hollywood agent (Al Pacino in a small but well-played part) offers Rick a second chance as a leading man in Italian spaghetti westerns. Rick takes this as proof that he’s a has-been. DiCaprio does the best acting of his career as the washed-up TV cowboy, especially in the scenes of him on the set of the TV western, Lancer. In a wonderfully written, beautifully performed scene between Rick and a child actress DiCaprio expresses vulnerability in a way he never has with any character. 10-year-old Julia Butters proves to be a worthy scene partner for DiCaprio (which is no surprise if you’ve seen her steal every scene on the TV show American Housewife).

Brad Pitt plays Cliff Booth, Rick’s stuntman, driver, handyman, and only friend. If Rick is washed up, Cliff is un-hirable. He may, or may not, have killed his wife and gotten away with it (Tarantino shows us a brief ambiguous flashback) which, along with his irresponsible behavior on set, doesn’t endear him to stunt coordinators. Pitt’s performance is not exactly showy, but it is pronounced. Cliff is a character with no self-illusions; he has an easy confidence and Pitt is very comfortable in the role. It’s not his most challenging performance but it is one of his most memorable.

Margot Robbie plays the beautiful rising star Sharon Tate. She and her husband Roman Polanski, the hottest director in Hollywood, have just moved in next door to Rick. The few scenes that follow Tate as she goes about her day play more like distant observations that idolize her rather than moments that show us an inner life or build her up as a character. Robbie doesn’t have many lines but she still brings her enchanting screen presence to the role, which in this case is all that is required.            

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood has a fun, brilliant energy. Since you are essentially just hanging out with Rick and Cliff as they go about their days there is a slight episodic feel as the movie goes on but the pacing is smooth and steady. In each scene you’ll find Tarantino’s signature sharp dialogue and interesting, colorful characters, both fictional and fictionalized. A long scene that places Cliff at the Spahn Movie Ranch, home of the Manson Family, is the most tense and frightening scene Tarantino has ever done. It’s a Hitchcockian scene bursting with suspense. The most entertaining scene in the entire movie is a long flashback to Cliff’s fight with Bruce Lee. This scene has caused a lot of controversy (Lee’s family has called in disrespectful) because it suggests that Cliff, a stuntman with no training, could have possibly won in a fight with Bruce Lee. I don’t think the scene pokes fun at Lee; if anything, Lee getting thrown without padding into a car door so hard it leaves a crater and then just shaking it off a moment later makes this Bruce Lee look pretty badass. It’s also a delight to watch Mike Moh’s great performance as the larger than life Bruce Lee.

The Hollywood of this movie feels like a very lived-in world. Nothing feels completely brand new. The sets of TV shows are deglamorized work places. Everything from the hip and not so hip clothing to the cars to the homes feel like the people in this movie have actually been using them. Little details like radio commercials for movies, old TV commercials, movie posters, and billboards all add up to a total immersion in this time period. It’s this immersive, authentic feel that is at odds with the film’s final act, the night of the Sharon Tate and her houseguest’s murder. Tarantino, never one to let a story go where you think, does something unexpected which, honestly, I should have seen coming. It’s right there in the title, “Once Upon a Time…” Despite all of the intricate details, it seems this film is a fantasy after all. 

The final act won’t work for everyone, there’s also plenty in the rest of the movie that won’t work for everyone (like having one of the leads be a potential murderer). There have been many, many discussions and arguments about nearly everything in this movie; it’s rare that we get a film that sparks such interest and conversations. Tarantino has said that he plans to retire after his next movie. I’m skeptical of such declarations from any filmmaker. If true, his penultimate film provides great entertainment and plenty for us to ponder. It also has my expectations high for his supposed final film.

Nominees: David Heyman, Shannon McIntosh, Quentin Tarantino, producers

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie

Production Companies: Columbia Pictures, Bona Film Group, Heyday Films, Visiona Romantica

Distributor: Sony Pictures

Release Date: July 26^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 10, including Best Pictures

Other Nominations: Director-Quentin Tarantino; Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio; Supporting Actor-Brad Pitt; Original Screenplay-Quentin Tarantino; Cinematography-Robert Richardson; Costume Design-Arianne Phillips; Production Design-Barbara Ling, Nancy Haigh; Sound Mixing-Michael Minkler, Christian P. Minkler, Mark Ulano; Sound Editing-Wylie Stateman

Best Pictures #59: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Joker

by A.J.

Best Pictures #59 
2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Joker

“What kind of clown carries a fucking gun?”

The definition of bad taste is having your hero, or anti-hero in this case, who suffered severe trauma and abuse as a child, have his triumphant moment set to “Rock and Roll Part 2,” the most famous song by Gary Glitter. Of course, long before then you’ll know that Joker has no taste, no heart, and no brain. That wouldn’t be so bad if the film didn’t present itself as though it had meaningful subtext or social commentary. Instead this film thinks it is being edgy and shocking when it is actually so plainly mean and cruel and joyless that I found myself wanting to watch A Clockwork Orange as an antidote. This is a meanspirited film with no redeeming qualities, not even Joaquin Phoenix’s performance. Yes, it is a good performance, and at this point Phoenix is a lock to win the Best Actor Oscar, but, frankly, I’m not surprised that an actor willing to sacrifice his career to make a fake documentary about becoming a rap star, I'm Still Here, gives a fully committed performance. That’s just what Joaquin Phoenix does.

Todd Phillips, who previously directed comedies like Old School and The Hangover, said in an interview with Vanity Fair that he cannot make comedies like he used to because of the current “woke culture.” With that mindset he co-wrote and directed an origin story about Batman’s most formidable villain, the Joker. This supposedly standalone film tells the story of Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a working-class clown (literally) that is constantly treated poorly by everyone he encounters, humiliated, and even randomly beaten. Still, he dreams of being a comedian and meeting his idol, late night talk show host Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro). His shut-in mother, Penny (Frances Conroy) is the only warmth he experiences, but it turns out she has been hiding dark secrets from him.

In addition to being meanspirited and misguided, Joker is also totally tone deaf. People of color are well represented in this version of Gotham: Arthur is senselessly beaten by a gang of Latino youths, his black female social worker is ineffectual, another black civil service worker won’t help Arthur learn about his past, and a black woman on the bus and a black co-worker are just flat out rude to him. The one person of color kind to Arthur is his neighbor, played by Zazie Beetz, but her role is not what it seems and her fate, and the fate of her child, are left to grim implications. Of course, all of the white characters are also mean, rude, or obstacles for Arthur. The one decent person in the whole movie is Gary (Leigh Gill), a little person that works with Arthur at the clown precinct (complete with lockers and a punch card timeclock), but he is also the target of cruel jokes about his size both from other characters and the movie itself. Phillips’s gripe with “woke culture” casts an extra dark pall over all of this.

After Arthur loses his job and government funded medications for his mental illness, he reaches his breaking point when three Wall Street types beat him after menacingly singing “Send in the Clowns” at him. He shoots and kills them and the mysterious vigilante clown becomes an urban folk hero for some reason. The violent mob of “protesters” wearing clown masks he inspires consists of mostly, if not entirely, angry men. I’m not sure what to make of the one we see carrying a sign that says “RESIST” just before young Bruce Wayne’s parents are murdered in front of him. That mob, angry at the wealthy, is reminiscent of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but that’s just one example of several potentially provocative points that the movie introduces and never follows up on.

If the standup comedy/talk show element sounds familiar that’s because it is straight out of Martin Scorsese’s King of Comedy, which starred Robert De Niro as a hack wannabe comedian obsessed with a late-night talk show host. If the working-class vigilante that has had it with the scum of the city sounds familiar that’s because it is the basic plot of Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver, also starring Robert De Niro. Those movies featured anti-heroes with skewed perspectives on what they see every day, but unlike Joker those films take place in something resembling the real world. Scorsese lets us know that the world of those characters exists in a larger world to which they are not tuned in.

Joker establishes firmly that its main character is someone with a serious mental illness that is not able to get the help he needs. When this character turns violent it should feel tragic but instead it is played as though this is a justified climatic triumph. This is an irresponsible and reprehensible film to say the least. Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is perfect example of a film about an ultra-violent, mentally disturbed anti-hero that successfully presents provocative and challenging ideas about society, civility, and free will. To sum up, I’ll paraphrase the great critic Gene Siskel, which I think is only appropriate since Joker borrows so much from other films: Joker has the distinction of being one of the vilest and most contemptible films I’ve seen. This is a hateful movie. I want to hate it back but that means letting the Joker win, and as Batman said in The Dark Knight, “the Joker cannot win.”

Nominees: Todd Phillips, Bradley Cooper, Emma Tillinger Koskoff

Director: Todd Phillips

Screenplay: Todd Phillips & Scott Silver , based on characters created by Bob Kane, Bill Finger, Jerry Robinson

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert DeNiro, Zazie Beetz

Production Companies: Warner Bros. Pictures, DC Films, Joint Effort, Bron Creative, Village Roadshow Pictures

Distributor: Warner Bros Pictures

Release Date: October 4^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 11, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Director-Todd Phillips; Actor-Joaquin Phoenix; Adapted Screenplay-Todd Phillips, Scott Silver; Cinematography-Lawrence Sher; Costume Design-Mark Bridges; Makeup and Hairstyling-Nicki Ledermann, Kay Georgiou; Original Score-Hildur Guðnadóttir; Editing-Jeff Groth; Sound Mixing-Tom Oanich,Dean A. Zupancic, Tod A. Maitland; Sound Editing-Alan Robert Murray

Best Pictures #58: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: 1917

by A.J.

Best Pictures #58
 2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

1917

“Come back to us.”

There are not many films about World War I. The most well-known ones are anti-war dramas: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Grand Illusion (1938), Paths of Glory (1957), Gallipoli (1981). On the surface 1917 is a well-done, thrilling action-war movie. It is also such an immersive and intense experience that without making any overt political statement it is firmly an antiwar film. It may be a good, thrilling movie but it is never exciting in the way an adventure movie is exciting. Even in the quiet moments 1917 makes you want to be as far away from this war as possible and hope another one like it never happens.

The plot is simple and very straightforward. Two young British soldiers are selected to deliver a message to a distant regiment calling off an attack the next morning. If the attack goes forward 1,600 soldiers, including the brother of one of the messengers, will charge into a trap. The encounters Corporals Blake and Schofield (Dean-Charles Chapman and Georgy MacKay) have as they make their journey across enemy territory are what you might expect from a story about soldiers on a mission: attacks from the enemy, crossing paths with another group of soldiers, finding shelter that is actually dangerous, even stumbling across a villager trying to care for a child. 1917 isn’t a total onslaught to the senses for two hours though. There are respites here and there that allow us to get to know Blake and Schofield. There are some surprising cameos by well-known British actors along the way too (or unsurprising if you’ve seen the trailer or the cast list on IMDb). Fortunately, none of these cameos take you out of the movie (Andrew Scott and Mark Strong could slip comfortably into just about any movie).

Director Sam Mendes employs long takes and expert, precise cinematography by Roger Deakins and stealthy editing by Lee Smith to make the film look and feel as though it exists in one long unbroken shot. This gimmick works well for the movie when it is not distracting. In its successful moments the one-shot effect is largely responsible for the film’s frantic, immersive effect. The climatic sequence of Schofield running like mad across the top of a trench as a battle begins to find the colonel to call off the attack makes excellent use of the one shot effect; it had me gripping the armrests of my seat. Also, the nighttime sequence in a bombed-out village where flairs illuminate the night with a bright, eerie white light and a fire rages in the distance is surreal and terrifying. Other scenes, however, like when a group of soldiers (and the camera) climb into the back of a truck, then get out to push the truck, then climb back in again feel like they are straining to keep the shot unbroken. Though I think there’s nothing in 1917 that couldn’t have been achieved with conventional editing, I understand why Mendes chose to present his film as a single unbroken shot. It puts us right there with the two soldiers and we are as unsure as they are of what will happen next.      

There are two consequences of using the one-shot/single-take gimmick in a war film. 1) Whether intentional or not, the one-shot effect, which keeps the camera right behind, or in front of, or over the shoulder of the characters, along with the nature of the story makes the film feel like a video game at certain times. This is not really a fault against the film. It is more likely due to video games being influenced by movies and then filtering back into the culture, but the comparison comes to mind nonetheless. 2) I think all of the focus and talk surrounding the one-shot effect actually diverts attention away from the harrowing experience of the characters in the film. 1917 has already won several awards and praise as a technical achievement (which it certainly is). I just hope people can get past the film’s style to fully appreciate and experience the events on screen.

1917 only tangentially touches on the larger scale of the war. One character makes a background comment on the unimpressive patch of land they’ve been fighting the Germans over for years. Mendes chose not to focus on the politics of the war but instead tell the story of the enlisted men that fought in the trenches and in open fields. This movie is based in part on the experiences of Lance Corporal Alfred Mendes, Sam Mendes’s grandfather, to whom the film is dedicated. Mends co-wrote the screenplay, his only writing credit. For all the unrelenting action in 1917, the final shot makes this an emotional and affecting movie.

Nominees: Sam Mendes, Pippa Harris, Jayne-Ann Tenggren, Callum McDougall

Director: Sam Mendes

Screenplay: Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns

Cast: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman

Production Companies: DreamWorks Pictures, Reliance Entertainment, New Republic Pictures, Mogambo, Neal Street Productions, Amblin Partners

Distributor: Universal Pictures

Release Date: December 25^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 10, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Director-Sam Mendes; Original Screenplay- Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns; Cinematography-Roger Deakins; Makeup and Hairstyling-Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis, Rebecca Cole; Production Design-Dennis Gassner, Lee Sandales; Original Score-Thomas Newman; Visual Effects-Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler, Dominic Tuohy; Sound Mixing-Mark Taylor, Stuart Wilson; Sound Editing-Oliver Tarney, Rachael Tate

Best Pictures #57: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Little Women (2019)

by A.J.

Best Pictures #57

 2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Little Women (2019)

“I'm so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for.”

With Little Women, first published in 1868, Louisa May Alcott crafted a story so nearing perfection that not only has it become a classic, but it is difficult to mess up when retelling it. The fourth big screen adaptation Alcott’s novel, written and directed by Greta Gerwig, finds a fresh approach to the lives of the March sisters without making any major changes to the well-loved story. Gerwig uses a flashback structure, a steady and lively pace, equally lively performances, and a lovely score by Alexandre Desplat to make this period drama easily engaging to a modern audience. 

Gerwig begins her film near the end of Alcott’s story with Jo (Saoirse Ronan) living in New York trying to carve out a career as a fiction writer. Her sisters are scattered and wrapped up in their adult lives. Meg (Emma Watson) is raising a family and keeping a house while struggling with money. Amy (Florence Pugh) is learning painting in Europe. Only selfless and caring Beth (Eliza Scanlen) remains with their parents at the March family home in Massachusetts. Then the film flashes back to where to the novel and other film versions begin, with the sisters as adolescents living together under one roof with their mother, Marmie (Laura Dern, with infinite patience and warmness and wisdom). Their father is away serving with the Union army in the Civil War. It is seven years before we began with Jo living in New York.

There is real joy and emotion in the scenes of the March sisters together (that’s the appeal of watching any version of Little Women) but we get time with each of the sisters on their own. We get to know them as individuals and are privy to what is in their minds and hearts. Gerwig put together a fine ensemble but Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh have been singled out by the Academy with Oscar nominations in the Lead and Supporting categories, respectively. This is no surprise since Jo and Amy are the two showy roles.

Ronan brings just the right kind of energy to the rebellious, strong willed, sometimes abrasive, but always charming, Jo. She is full of life and personality without becoming a caricature. On the other hand, I found Florence Pugh’s performance as the youngest sister Amy (a child when the novel begins) so broad as to be distracting. Pugh plays Amy throughout the film, but the younger Amy’s behavior and actions have not been altered in any significant way. So, in the flashbacks we see an adult Florence Pugh speaking and acting like a child even though she looks like a teenager at the youngest (even with her Cindy Brady haircut). This unfortunately makes the younger Amy come off as odd and extra bratty.

Timothèe Chalamet is a perfect fit for the role of Laurie, the dreamy and charming boy next door destined to be intertwined with the March sisters. Chalamet brings a lively physicality to his performance, moving his long, slender body with a lilt that matches the energy of the movie. In smaller but no less entertaining roles are Meryl Streep and Tracy Letts. Streep plays the intimidating and acerbic Aunt March, who is rich enough to be able to speak her mind. She is full of 19^th century quips and zingers that are delivered wonderfully. Letts plays a grumpy New York publisher that is willing buy Jo’s stories if they are spicy and if Jo’s female main characters get married at the end, or die. Jo’s conversations with him are entertaining but also come right up against being too meta for the movie's own good (if you weren’t sure about Jo being a stand-in for Alcott, these scenes leave no doubt).

I have to admit that as much the jumps back and forth in time work for the overall structure of the film some of the cuts are not immediately apparent and it takes a moment to figure out where you are in the timeline. Once you get into the rhythm of the pacing, however, you’ll find yourself caught up in the film’s enthusiasm and love for its characters. Right from the start this version of Little Women lets you know that it is not a pageant, not just another recreation of a familiar story, but a new perspective on a classic story that gets to the core of what makes this story timeless. The climax of Gerwig’s adaptation, is not whether or not Jo gets married and to whom, but how she is able to stay true to herself and her dreams and her family.

Nominees: Amy Pascal, producer

Director: Greta Gerwig

Screenplay: Greta Gerwig, based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothée Chalamet

Production Companies: Columbia Pictures, Regency Enterprises, Pascal Pictures

Distributor: Sony Pictures

Release Date: December 25^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 6, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Actress-Saoirse Ronan; Supporting Actress-Florence Pugh; Adapted Screenplay-Greta Gerwig; Costume Design-Jacqueline Durran; Original Score-Alexandre Desplat