I must admit that I have surprised even myself with some recent posts and some recent offline conversations (wow: remember those?) about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill nightmare in the Gulf of Mexico. Even before I was a vegetarian I never self-identified as an "environmentalist." Sure, I knew that humans had a responsibility to care for the planet, I probably will always be an animal lover and be passionate about zoology (especially paleobiology, primate evolution, and marine biology), but I guess I still had "Child of the 70s" presuppositions that environmentalists were all hippies worshipping Gaia (even though I considered myself a supporter of the "Save The Whales" movement).
Over the weekend I discovered another happy privilege of the iPad: watching movies and causing serious catch-up damage on my ever-increasing Netflix queue. So I watched several documentaries on that DVD/TV-like portable device. And I found myself several times this weekend thinking back to another documentary I have mentioned before: "The Corporation." Seriously: everyone must watch that one.
But the two most recent ones for me were "Crude" and "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price." "Crude" documents the ongoing class action lawsuit trying to get some reparations from Chevron/Texaco for the massive damage alleged by indigenous people in Ecuador for what some have called "The Amazon Chernobyl." A glimpse of the future that massive oil spills and environmental pollution disasters hold for all of us? Yes. Also a scathing indictment of corporate greed and a failure for individual leaders to accept any sort of shared responsibility not only for actions but also for human protection of a shared planet. The concept of greed is the focus of the second movie, "Wal-Mart" that is full of frightening facts and includes eyewitness testimony from former/current employees that document how greed becomes injustice in every sense of the word. Truly eye-opening and made me swear off ever shopping at Wal-Mart (or Sam's Club) ever (not that I ever did). Now I understand why communities have protested Wal-Mart coming into their communities, large and small. Reading facts like Wal-Mart employees contributing $5M one year to help their peer employees experiencing financial hardship when the executive family contributed only $6K of their vast fortunes for the same emergency fund just sickened me. (The Wal-Mart family routinely contributes something like 1% of their profits to charitable causes; Bill Gates gives away 56% of his. Bravo to him; Boo on Wal-Mart.)
So this brought me back to the current oil spill that is nowhere close to being solved. I decided it;s not enough to just throw up my hands and say, well, what can we do? Corporations are in for the money, I still drive a gasoline-powered car, engineers can't possibly solve every mechanical problem in the world especially one that is one mile below the surface of the ocean, etc. I decided instead that this is all about individual responsibility: the individual responsibility we each have to conserve the planet's resources, to honor the privileges of our lifestyles by giving back what we can when we can, to use political and social action to promote justice for all people (and all living things), to steward the health of our societies for future generations, and to never just sit back and accept the "fate" of "accidents." We're each capable of much more than that. At the very least we can all continue to examine multiple sides to each story and stay as educated as possible.
I hope you'll do that too, iPad/documentary movies or not.
For more (eye-opening and mind-expanding) information:
"Crude"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1326204/
"Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473107/
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Tme (Movie Review)
Summer Fluff In A Sandstorm
I had low expectations for this movie, knowing it was a Disney-produced action movie, but it was lackluster even by summer adventure blockbuster standards. The effects were OK, the action sequences were all too familiar, there was no real plot or romance, and some of the best sequences seemed lifted right out of an "Indiana Jones" movie. There were a few clever lines that the adult chaperones in the audience would appreciate (allusions to the U.S. in the Middle East and no weapons of mass destruction - that sort of thing), but overall, it was just a nice easy way to kick off the summer movie season with two hours of nothing serious. Unfortunately, that includes nothing seriously memorable: not even Jake Gyllenhaal's obviously worked out shoulders and arms. It's OK if you pass on this one: I'm sure some semblance of it will appear in a Disney theme park (or parade) near you soon.
I had low expectations for this movie, knowing it was a Disney-produced action movie, but it was lackluster even by summer adventure blockbuster standards. The effects were OK, the action sequences were all too familiar, there was no real plot or romance, and some of the best sequences seemed lifted right out of an "Indiana Jones" movie. There were a few clever lines that the adult chaperones in the audience would appreciate (allusions to the U.S. in the Middle East and no weapons of mass destruction - that sort of thing), but overall, it was just a nice easy way to kick off the summer movie season with two hours of nothing serious. Unfortunately, that includes nothing seriously memorable: not even Jake Gyllenhaal's obviously worked out shoulders and arms. It's OK if you pass on this one: I'm sure some semblance of it will appear in a Disney theme park (or parade) near you soon.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Earthlings
I think I had nightmares last night after forcing myself to watch the documentary, "Earthlings." A few friends had mentioned it to me, and I guess I've been an eco-documentary mood lately. Unlike "The Cove" or "Food Inc." the images in this movie were more graphic. The disclaimer at the start of the film states that the images in the movie are not isolated cases but industry standards and then proceeds to document how humans act out of the privilege of "speciesism." I found some of the narration to be misleading (or altogether inaccurate or wrong - like calling Pfiesteria a virus that attacks fish and that poses a health risk to humans somewhere in between HIV and Ebola) and some of the segments were pedantic and heavy-handed (like the prelude that explained speciesism to racism and sexism - point made, but it seemed to go on a bit too long and showing black and white historical photos of the Ku Klux Klan and pioneering suffragettes in the United States might not have been the most effective illustrations of those two cultural ills). But the film did an admirable job of looking at the relationship/orientation we humans have to all other animal species: as pets, as food, for clothing and goods, for entertainment (and sport), and for experimentation/science/medicine. I knew about some of the content, of course: the chicken coops, the dog breeding "puppy mills," the slaughterhouses, the bullfights, the circus animals, the fur seal slaughters, and the hunting of whales and dolphins. Some of the more extremely disturbing stuff was new (or maybe I had denied it and blocked it out of my memory): the failed Kosher beef killings, wolves that are skinned alive for their fur, pigs that cannibalize each other in overcrowded pens, animal shelters that euthanize animals in "gas chambers," wild animals kept captive to the point that they develop "cage madness" until they are killed for their fur (with two words that need no further explanation: "anal electrocution"), leather and dolphins that are killed not with by slitting their throats but with machetes that practically behead them leaving them to die slowly by aspirating on their own blood. Yes, this movie presents a strong argument for animal rights and for vegetarianism and for the elimination of leather/fur products. But at its core message (the one that really stuck with me) was this: humans are the only living beings on the planet that are capable of inflicting pain on each other and on other species, knowing that they are causing pain. (At least as far as we can tell.) That made me think very carefully about how much I am informed about my actions and their consequences, and about how much responsibility I take for anything or everything.
Look, I know I'm no poster child for this (or maybe any cause). It's been four years since I cut animal meat from my diet, but I still consume dairy products and eggs and I don't go around demanding everyone else around me to eat the way I eat. I still wear leather shoes and belts. I still don't like pigeons, seagulls, cats (especially feral cats). I have decided to no longer patronize marine parks or aquariums that keep marine mammals in captivity, but I did go to the Monterey Bay Aquarium within the last two years, and the last time I went to the San Francisco Zoo, I enjoyed it. But maybe there are more small things I can do to make the planet better, at least for the time I'm on it. I know that's a big task and it's impossible for me to fix it all. But in this day and age of habitat destruction, loss of species, oil spills, emerging diseases, malnourishment and lack of clean water, shouldn't we all be doing something to help? Anything?
I woke up from my bad sleep (interrupted by at least one slaughterhouse nightmare) remembering a speech that I heard a few months ago at a professional association convention. It was the closing keynote given by Sr. Helen Prejean (the woman behind the book that became the movie, "Dead Man Walking"). In her talk, she identified a link between the death penalty and war crimes of violence. She said that "death chambers are the tilling grounds of torture" - in other words: one form of humans killing other humans predisposes us to permit other acts of torture or murder; "violence begets violence" taken to its arguably ultimate logical conclusion. The film included the quote from Leo Tolstoy, "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields." In an e-mail exchange I had this week with another friend about war movies, he argued that all war movies are about right and wrong. Maybe some battlefields are about wrong and (more) wrong. I wonder if humans - intelligent and evolved enough to do so much - are capable of also ending violence. Even just a little bit?
I encourage you to watch this film, as tough as it may be. And I encourage you to keep exploring issues for all the interconnections they have to all other issues in life. It's a lot to think about, for sure. But it's rather amazing that our minds can consider such complicated narratives. I just hope we can realize an imagined happy ending to the story. It's all complex, but that doesn't have to mean life is overwhelming. After all, I did wake up from my nightmare and a new day began.
Look, I know I'm no poster child for this (or maybe any cause). It's been four years since I cut animal meat from my diet, but I still consume dairy products and eggs and I don't go around demanding everyone else around me to eat the way I eat. I still wear leather shoes and belts. I still don't like pigeons, seagulls, cats (especially feral cats). I have decided to no longer patronize marine parks or aquariums that keep marine mammals in captivity, but I did go to the Monterey Bay Aquarium within the last two years, and the last time I went to the San Francisco Zoo, I enjoyed it. But maybe there are more small things I can do to make the planet better, at least for the time I'm on it. I know that's a big task and it's impossible for me to fix it all. But in this day and age of habitat destruction, loss of species, oil spills, emerging diseases, malnourishment and lack of clean water, shouldn't we all be doing something to help? Anything?
I woke up from my bad sleep (interrupted by at least one slaughterhouse nightmare) remembering a speech that I heard a few months ago at a professional association convention. It was the closing keynote given by Sr. Helen Prejean (the woman behind the book that became the movie, "Dead Man Walking"). In her talk, she identified a link between the death penalty and war crimes of violence. She said that "death chambers are the tilling grounds of torture" - in other words: one form of humans killing other humans predisposes us to permit other acts of torture or murder; "violence begets violence" taken to its arguably ultimate logical conclusion. The film included the quote from Leo Tolstoy, "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields." In an e-mail exchange I had this week with another friend about war movies, he argued that all war movies are about right and wrong. Maybe some battlefields are about wrong and (more) wrong. I wonder if humans - intelligent and evolved enough to do so much - are capable of also ending violence. Even just a little bit?
I encourage you to watch this film, as tough as it may be. And I encourage you to keep exploring issues for all the interconnections they have to all other issues in life. It's a lot to think about, for sure. But it's rather amazing that our minds can consider such complicated narratives. I just hope we can realize an imagined happy ending to the story. It's all complex, but that doesn't have to mean life is overwhelming. After all, I did wake up from my nightmare and a new day began.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Honest Impact
This week I watched the 2009 documentary "No Impact Man" - one I had on my lost ever since I saw the trailers last year. You probably saw the movie's self-titled hero, Colin Beavan make the rounds on various morning and late-night talk shows, discussing his yearlong project to minimize or eliminate his and his family's impact on the environment. Yes, he was sometimes referred to a freak, or the kind of extremist that gave the green movement a "fringe" reputation, but I enjoyed the film's earnest message: everyone just needs to do something, and preferably as much as one can do, to not only protect the environment, but to really make the world a better place for us and for future generations. We don't all have to not buy anything new for a year, not travel, not take elevators, shop only from farmers markets, cut out electricity or switch to solar power only, eliminate television and refrigeration, or do all the other things that the movie documents he tried. But in showing that maximum extreme, the movie made a lot of other minimum steps much more easily imagined possibilities for me (and maybe other viewers too). And all that "No Impact Man" was hoping to do was to inspire thought and action, and he certainly managed that.
The next night, I watched a production of "Master Class" at the New Conservatory Theater Center. Terrence McNally's Tony Award-winning play that centers on the lessons and recollections of legendary diva Maria Callas giving a master class to some aspiring opera singers. The writing was absolutely smart and sharp, and the lead is definitely a defining role for any actress lucky enough to tackle it. I enjoyed the story, but I felt that the lead actress (who more than capably pulled off the role) was more focused on getting the lines right than really living the role. So for a play with the central message of artists who sacrifice and struggle to live their art honestly, I just missed the emotional connection to the production, which made it difficult to take the message to heart, as much as I appreciated and respected the message.
But for two nights in a row, I certainly had enough in my head to keep me musing: how do I live my life honestly, and how can I minimize my life's negative impacts while maximizing its positive impacts? There you have it: the eco-freak and La Divina - both speaking to me about living truthfully and beautifully...I hope.
The next night, I watched a production of "Master Class" at the New Conservatory Theater Center. Terrence McNally's Tony Award-winning play that centers on the lessons and recollections of legendary diva Maria Callas giving a master class to some aspiring opera singers. The writing was absolutely smart and sharp, and the lead is definitely a defining role for any actress lucky enough to tackle it. I enjoyed the story, but I felt that the lead actress (who more than capably pulled off the role) was more focused on getting the lines right than really living the role. So for a play with the central message of artists who sacrifice and struggle to live their art honestly, I just missed the emotional connection to the production, which made it difficult to take the message to heart, as much as I appreciated and respected the message.
But for two nights in a row, I certainly had enough in my head to keep me musing: how do I live my life honestly, and how can I minimize my life's negative impacts while maximizing its positive impacts? There you have it: the eco-freak and La Divina - both speaking to me about living truthfully and beautifully...I hope.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
More Vegetarian Options
Yesterday, after chopping onions and broccoli at Project Open Hand, I met up with some friends and in the course of our conversation, I surprised them when I reminded them that I have been a vegetarian for about 4 years now. I know: time has flown. One of them asked if I ever get tired of eating tofu for protein and I reminded him that there are all kids of vegetable sources for protein. Another friend said that it's also possible to take supplements like fish oil. I told her that as a BzzAgent,I got a free sample of a new vegetarian option for my Omega-3 supplements: New Harvest Vegetarian EPA (made from yeast). So now in addition to flaxseed oil capsules, there's this. It's only available at GNC stores, though, but I hope GNC and other retailers start making even more similar options available. It's all about using what we have even more smartly than we do now...saving the planet one step at a time!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Docu-Drama
Docu-drama? No, not the entertainment category. But in the past week, I have experienced incredibly good drama from watching enlightening documentaries.
Last week, the Commonwealth Club hosted a screening of the Academy Award-nominated film, "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers." The movie was an amazing testament to how inhumane any decision to go to war can be, and made non-violent protests and free speech/free press the heroes. The information about the Vietnam War based on lies and exaggeration and false reports made the military actions of the 1960s/1970s feel shockingly familiar in my post-9/11 world. And I questioned how I had managed to reach what I thought was a well-educated age of 39 without learning all the details of the deceptions that fueled that entire experience just decades ago. And I wondered why our collective human memory is so short-term that we have repeated the same poor decisions over and over again. The most important self-revelation for me came from the fact that the movie was followed by a panel discussion with Daniel Ellsberg, and the event was in the Marines Memorial Club Theater in San Francisco, so there were many active duty military, veterans, and families of both in the sold-out audience. A Marine commander on the panel reminded everyone (especially those with a limited stereotypical view of what a "military person" is supposed to be or feel or vote as) that the Marines take a singular oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the office of the President or the decisions of the Secretary of Defense. He praised Daniel Ellsberg and every newspaper that was suppressed and then vindicated by the U.S. Supreme Court for being heroes that not only ended the Vietnam War, but also "got Nixon out of office." Wow. That struck me as beyond bold. But brave, in the most principled way possible. Maybe my image of a Marine was correct after all. (The word I hear is that this movie is still in limited engagement in some theaters and will air on PBS in the early fall. Definitely a must-see.)
Then last night I watched "The End of the Line." I wouldn't say it was one of the greatest environmental documentaries ever,but it was still as educational and frightening as anything I would see on PBS. So the gist of the movie is that a few decades of our wasteful consumption of seafood and our mismanagement of the world's oceans will not only lead to new environmental disasters (like oceans full of jellyfish and algae) but a complete extinction of the world's fishes, possibly within our lifetime. Apparently, even "fish farming" is not a total repair. Fish stocks are plummeting fast and this has even been confirmed by the United Nations. So forget the "health care debate"...will there even be nourished humans left to debate how we care for each other in future generations? I mean, first the polar bears have no ice floes left, but now even fish will disappear? (And since I've been a vegetarian for about four years now, this subject wasn't even about my own diet...but it was. It's about everyone getting fed. But fed well. And fed intelligently. Maybe even "fed" intellectually through more edu-tainment). Sigh. I had to take a deep breath and ponder, "Well, how do we fix the planet?"
It's possible (so the expert taking heads in these and other documentaries will say). But it will take more than just me wondering about it. It will take action. And principles and values. Can we do it? Will it happen? I hope so. And I hope we have more than just hope.
(And spread the word and watch more documentaries, and less bad reality TV about rich people, please. How about an award for justice through entertainment? The best possible kind of docu(mentary) drama. I highly recommend both of these, by the way. In case you hadn't guessed.)
Last week, the Commonwealth Club hosted a screening of the Academy Award-nominated film, "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers." The movie was an amazing testament to how inhumane any decision to go to war can be, and made non-violent protests and free speech/free press the heroes. The information about the Vietnam War based on lies and exaggeration and false reports made the military actions of the 1960s/1970s feel shockingly familiar in my post-9/11 world. And I questioned how I had managed to reach what I thought was a well-educated age of 39 without learning all the details of the deceptions that fueled that entire experience just decades ago. And I wondered why our collective human memory is so short-term that we have repeated the same poor decisions over and over again. The most important self-revelation for me came from the fact that the movie was followed by a panel discussion with Daniel Ellsberg, and the event was in the Marines Memorial Club Theater in San Francisco, so there were many active duty military, veterans, and families of both in the sold-out audience. A Marine commander on the panel reminded everyone (especially those with a limited stereotypical view of what a "military person" is supposed to be or feel or vote as) that the Marines take a singular oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the office of the President or the decisions of the Secretary of Defense. He praised Daniel Ellsberg and every newspaper that was suppressed and then vindicated by the U.S. Supreme Court for being heroes that not only ended the Vietnam War, but also "got Nixon out of office." Wow. That struck me as beyond bold. But brave, in the most principled way possible. Maybe my image of a Marine was correct after all. (The word I hear is that this movie is still in limited engagement in some theaters and will air on PBS in the early fall. Definitely a must-see.)
Then last night I watched "The End of the Line." I wouldn't say it was one of the greatest environmental documentaries ever,but it was still as educational and frightening as anything I would see on PBS. So the gist of the movie is that a few decades of our wasteful consumption of seafood and our mismanagement of the world's oceans will not only lead to new environmental disasters (like oceans full of jellyfish and algae) but a complete extinction of the world's fishes, possibly within our lifetime. Apparently, even "fish farming" is not a total repair. Fish stocks are plummeting fast and this has even been confirmed by the United Nations. So forget the "health care debate"...will there even be nourished humans left to debate how we care for each other in future generations? I mean, first the polar bears have no ice floes left, but now even fish will disappear? (And since I've been a vegetarian for about four years now, this subject wasn't even about my own diet...but it was. It's about everyone getting fed. But fed well. And fed intelligently. Maybe even "fed" intellectually through more edu-tainment). Sigh. I had to take a deep breath and ponder, "Well, how do we fix the planet?"
It's possible (so the expert taking heads in these and other documentaries will say). But it will take more than just me wondering about it. It will take action. And principles and values. Can we do it? Will it happen? I hope so. And I hope we have more than just hope.
(And spread the word and watch more documentaries, and less bad reality TV about rich people, please. How about an award for justice through entertainment? The best possible kind of docu(mentary) drama. I highly recommend both of these, by the way. In case you hadn't guessed.)
Friday, March 5, 2010
2010 Oscar predictions
Well, I did pretty well this year and managed to see the almost all of the movies nominated in major categories for the Golden Globe Awards and the Academy Awards. So here are my predictions of who will win and who should win at the Oscars on Sunday, March 7. Is your ballot filled out yet?
Documentary Short Subject
Will Win: "China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province"
Should Win: No idea.
I didn't get to any of the festivals showing all of the "short" category nominees, so I am going by title alone.
Short Film, Live Action
Will Win: "Kavi"
Should Win: No idea.
I didn't get to any of the festivals showing all of the "short" category nominees, so I am going by title alone.
Short Film, Animated
Will Win: "Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty"
Should Win: No idea.
I didn't get to any of the festivals showing all of the "short" category nominees, so I am going by title alone.
Film Editing
Will Win: "Avatar" or "The Hurt Locker"
Should Win: "The Hurt Locker" or "Avatar"
Both of these movies had a lot of choices to make for film edits or extended shots. Both executed them well. My heart sides with "The Hurt Locker" because it's more artistically challenging to edit actual film and not pressing and ESC+Undo function on a computer.
Visual Effects
Will Win/Should Win: "Avatar"
If nothing else, this movie was all about visual spectacle, and it delivered that (in 2D, 3D IMAX, or 3D formats). I would say this is the most secure win for "Avatar."
Sound Editing
Will Win/Should Win: "The Hurt Locker"
A lot of movies used sound and sound effects well, but "The Hurt Locker" edited the widest range of sounds: the expected bomb effects, ambient sound, and (to harrowing effect) silence. The artistry of those choices should be awarded.
Sound Mixing
Will Win/Should Win: "Avatar"
This is the second technical category that should go to "Avatar." "Sound Mixing" means making the sounds for a movie. That includes making sounds that don't exist or that are hard to capture (like mixing the roar of a lion in a zoo with the sound of a train speeding on a railroad with the trumpeting of an elephant to create the "voice" of an alien monster). So for creating the sounds of an entirely imaginary world in the future, I will credit "Avatar."
Documentary Feature
Will Win/Should Win: "The Cove"
I am biased towards the two movies in this category that I saw: "The Cove" and "Food, Inc." Both are "must-see" documentaries in my book. The latter reached a wider audience and has been featured on shows like "The Martha Stewart Show" and probably has more water-cooler-talk associated with it. But the former has made me completely swear off every supporting a marine park, zoo, or aquarium that has captive whales or dolphins. And those of you who know me and my lifelong love of marine biology, especially the cetaceans, will appreciate that it takes some impressive documentary for me to give up ever seeing those animals in captivity again.
Makeup
Will Win/Should Win: "Star Trek"
"The Young Victoria" might have a shot at this because this award usually goes to the science fiction adventure or the period romance. I'm guessing that the Academy voters will throw a bone to the blockbuster hit in the Star Trek franchise.
Costume Design
Will Win: "The Young Victoria"
Should Win: "Coco Before Chanel" or "Nine"
This award also usually goes to period films, so "The Young Victoria" or "Bright Star" would be the frontrunners. Frankly, "Bright Star" bored me and seemed more visually bleak to me. So I think the more uplifting "The Young Victoria" will win it. but I thought the costumes in "Coco Before Chanel" and "Nine" were more interesting and more varied (and yes, I secretly wish that a musical movie like "Nine" would win at least one award).
Cinematography
Will Win/Should Win: "The White Ribbon"
Remember that the title of this category does not mean "lots of pretty images on the screen," even though it sometimes goes to the movie with the most sweeping vistas and aesthetically gorgeous sunsets and landscapes, which is a popular and critical error, I think. "Cinematography" means camera work: how does the camera move, what does the camera focus in on or shoot out of focus, are there long tracking shots, was everything done on handheld cameras, etc. If you consider that, a movie like "Avatar" or "The Hurt Locker" are strong contenders. But the German movie "The White Ribbon" had very powerful camera shots: sometimes fluid, sometimes angular, sometimes strange and emotionally confusing long single tracking shots, that all built up the eerie, creepy, and sinister feeling that was essential to the movie.
Art Direction
Will Win/Should Win: "Avatar"
Just like the Visual Effects award, I think the visual spectacle that is "Avatar" should win this one, even over the period art direction of "The Young Victoria" and "Sherlock Holmes" or "Nine."
Original Song
Will Win/Should Win: "The Weary Kind"
This award usually goes to the song that is bolstered by the obvious support of being sung by a reigning diva or being featured in a musical. Since the original songs added to the musical "Nine" were not even nominated here, the most musical movie left is "Crazy Heart." And it helps that this song was co-written by T Bone Burnett and performed by Jeff Bridges, both current Academy darlings. And the song works beautifully in the movie.
Original Score
Will Win: "Avatar"
Should Win: "Up"
I'm split about this one. I hope "Up" will win, but the score for "Avatar" did lend it a kind of cinematic majesty that complemented the visual effects. Academy voters may be swayed enough to give "Avatar" another win, even though the much more humble and emotionally powerful score for "Up" really deserves it.
Animated Feature
Will Win: "Up"
Should Win: "Coraline"
Another win for Pixar, and very well deserved (don't even get me started on the non-dialogue sequence of the married couple through the years near the start of the film - gets me every time!). But the PG-13 creepiness of "Coraline" and artisty involved in the mechanics and design of that stop-motion 3D gem deserved more audiences and more praise (as did the originality of "Fantastic Mr. Fox").
Foreign Language Film
Will Win/Should Win: "A Prophet"
The only movie in this category I've seen is "The White Ribbon" and it was my pick before the Golden Globe Awards (which it won, for good reasons). So I am basing this pick on some reviews, but also for the trailer of "A Prophet" which felt a bit familiar to me, but only because it reminded me (in tone and imagery) of another Oscar winner, "The Godfather." Last year, "Departures" won this category over the two movies I had seen ("The Class" and "Waltz With Bashir," which were both my picks), so I'm siding with history and predicting a win for the movie I haven't seen.
Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: "Up In The Air"
Should Win: "District 9" or "An Education"
The screenplays of my "should win" picks were bright and greatly expanded the original source material, but "Up In The Air" is a critical and popular favorite that packs the most timely emotional punch.
Original Screenplay
Will Win: "Inglorious Basterds"
Should Win: "The Hurt Locker" or "The Messenger" or "A Serious Man"
The originality of "Up" came in many components, but not necessarily in its basic premise of the grumpy old man and the wide-eyed kid. "A Serious Man" was a dark comedy that was a clever play on the complexities of spirituality set in perfectly set 1960s milieu. "The Messenger" was a brilliantly intense character study that felt like two tightly wound soldiers about to explode in a rage of emotions at any time. And of course, "The Hurt Locker" was very intelligent writing (and maybe the recent controversy of an alleged plagiarism lawsuit broke the news after the ballots were all mailed in). So this is a highly competitive prize this year. I give it to the movie that was the ultimate macabre, smart, funny, clever, farcical, revenge story: hooray for the Jews obliterating the Nazis, as only Quentin Tarantino could deliver it.
Actress in a Supporting Role
Will Win/Should Win: Mo'Nique
If ever the Golden Globes could predict an Oscar winner, this is it. I don't know how she did it, but I do know what Mo'Nique did in "Precious:" she ripped my heart out and made me so angry and sad that I cried from the inside out. This was a career-making performance (in the way Jennifer Hudson had "Dreamgirls"), and this is her time. Brava! More, please.
Actor in a Supporting Role
Will Win/Should Win: Christoph Waltz
The toughest competition for the odds-on favorite, in my opinion, is Woody Harrelson in "The Messenger" (a tough, frightening, and tortured character performance). But Christoph Waltz played smart source material brilliantly: never over-the-top caricature. Always over-the-top insanity. Fine line to tiptoe around, but he did it.
Actress in a Leading Role
Will Win: Sandra Bullock or Meryl Streep
Should Win: Meryl Streep
Yes, I know I chickened out on this call. Let me explain. Of all the "Best Picture" nominees, "The Blind Side" is the only one I have not seen. Why? Well, partly because I think it's a made-for-TV movie that made it to the big screen with a story I've seen many times before. And worse yet, that hackneyed story is also (mildly?) insulting and offensive: the rich white family (or brash Texan woman) takes in the poor Black down-and-out, who of course turns his life around with their help in the only way he can: through professional sports. Yawn. I'm sure Sandra Bullock deserves all the praise she is getting, and I can imagine she carried this movie. But as much as I like her, I'm not convinced (and neither is Sandra Bullock) that her performance was better acting than Meryl Streep, who was arguably the most enjoyable and buoyant part of "Julie & Julia." I know Meryl already has two statuettes, but she deserves more, and I think she is long overdue for #3, 12 years after "Sophie's Choice." And Sandra can wait. Isn't there a "Speed 3" sequel she could do to win another MTV Movie Award?
Actor in a Leading Role
Will Win: Jeff Bridges
Should Win: Colin Firth
Jeff Bridges has his role-of-a-lifetime in "Crazy Heart." It's an anguished, genuinely emotional performance that shows off his acting as much as his singing (for real). It has more heart and hope than "The Wrestler" but hits some of those familiar notes that had me wondering, "Should I be cheering for this guy?" And then I realized that when a performance makes me struggle to accept the character, it's probably doing everything right because that's how real-life is - we like and don't like qualities in everyone. (Colin Firth's performance in "A Single Man" is sadly overshadowed by "Crazy Heart" and no doubt has been seen by far fewer people. But it should be watched and studied by every actor for its lessons in evocative acting, in outward burst of emotion and in subtle silences - also brilliant.)
Director
Will Win/Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow
Not only is it high time that a woman win this award, but Kathryn Bigelow directed the bejeezus out of this war story: it was terrifying, gut-wrenching, emotional, real, thrilling, sad, and powerful - just as any war and every good war story should be. I give credit to James Cameron for not only directing "Avatar" but for directing all of the new technology that went into "Avatar." But his movie was all fantasy. Kathryn Bigelow worked with reality. And it was unforgettable.
Motion Picture
Will Win/Should Win: "The Hurt Locker"
There. I said it. I enjoyed watching "Avatar," don't get me wrong. But the emphasis there is that I enjoyed watching it. Come on, be serious: there's good reason why "Avatar" is not nominated for Original Screenplay. The story (what little cohesive story there was) was weak. A motion picture is supposed to tell a story, and the narrative of "The Hurt Locker" was executed with greater precision and focus than anything proposed in the year 2154 of "Avatar." "The Hurt Locker" also painfully forces us to look at the insanity of our own current wars, instead of imagining a future war on Pandora, as beautiful as it was to look at.
So there you have it. We'll see how my ballot scores. Agree or disagree or just want to comment on my predictions? Go ahead and post a comment. After all, it's just my set of opinions. (But I will be cheering on my picks for sure!)
Documentary Short Subject
Will Win: "China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province"
Should Win: No idea.
I didn't get to any of the festivals showing all of the "short" category nominees, so I am going by title alone.
Short Film, Live Action
Will Win: "Kavi"
Should Win: No idea.
I didn't get to any of the festivals showing all of the "short" category nominees, so I am going by title alone.
Short Film, Animated
Will Win: "Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty"
Should Win: No idea.
I didn't get to any of the festivals showing all of the "short" category nominees, so I am going by title alone.
Film Editing
Will Win: "Avatar" or "The Hurt Locker"
Should Win: "The Hurt Locker" or "Avatar"
Both of these movies had a lot of choices to make for film edits or extended shots. Both executed them well. My heart sides with "The Hurt Locker" because it's more artistically challenging to edit actual film and not pressing and ESC+Undo function on a computer.
Visual Effects
Will Win/Should Win: "Avatar"
If nothing else, this movie was all about visual spectacle, and it delivered that (in 2D, 3D IMAX, or 3D formats). I would say this is the most secure win for "Avatar."
Sound Editing
Will Win/Should Win: "The Hurt Locker"
A lot of movies used sound and sound effects well, but "The Hurt Locker" edited the widest range of sounds: the expected bomb effects, ambient sound, and (to harrowing effect) silence. The artistry of those choices should be awarded.
Sound Mixing
Will Win/Should Win: "Avatar"
This is the second technical category that should go to "Avatar." "Sound Mixing" means making the sounds for a movie. That includes making sounds that don't exist or that are hard to capture (like mixing the roar of a lion in a zoo with the sound of a train speeding on a railroad with the trumpeting of an elephant to create the "voice" of an alien monster). So for creating the sounds of an entirely imaginary world in the future, I will credit "Avatar."
Documentary Feature
Will Win/Should Win: "The Cove"
I am biased towards the two movies in this category that I saw: "The Cove" and "Food, Inc." Both are "must-see" documentaries in my book. The latter reached a wider audience and has been featured on shows like "The Martha Stewart Show" and probably has more water-cooler-talk associated with it. But the former has made me completely swear off every supporting a marine park, zoo, or aquarium that has captive whales or dolphins. And those of you who know me and my lifelong love of marine biology, especially the cetaceans, will appreciate that it takes some impressive documentary for me to give up ever seeing those animals in captivity again.
Makeup
Will Win/Should Win: "Star Trek"
"The Young Victoria" might have a shot at this because this award usually goes to the science fiction adventure or the period romance. I'm guessing that the Academy voters will throw a bone to the blockbuster hit in the Star Trek franchise.
Costume Design
Will Win: "The Young Victoria"
Should Win: "Coco Before Chanel" or "Nine"
This award also usually goes to period films, so "The Young Victoria" or "Bright Star" would be the frontrunners. Frankly, "Bright Star" bored me and seemed more visually bleak to me. So I think the more uplifting "The Young Victoria" will win it. but I thought the costumes in "Coco Before Chanel" and "Nine" were more interesting and more varied (and yes, I secretly wish that a musical movie like "Nine" would win at least one award).
Cinematography
Will Win/Should Win: "The White Ribbon"
Remember that the title of this category does not mean "lots of pretty images on the screen," even though it sometimes goes to the movie with the most sweeping vistas and aesthetically gorgeous sunsets and landscapes, which is a popular and critical error, I think. "Cinematography" means camera work: how does the camera move, what does the camera focus in on or shoot out of focus, are there long tracking shots, was everything done on handheld cameras, etc. If you consider that, a movie like "Avatar" or "The Hurt Locker" are strong contenders. But the German movie "The White Ribbon" had very powerful camera shots: sometimes fluid, sometimes angular, sometimes strange and emotionally confusing long single tracking shots, that all built up the eerie, creepy, and sinister feeling that was essential to the movie.
Art Direction
Will Win/Should Win: "Avatar"
Just like the Visual Effects award, I think the visual spectacle that is "Avatar" should win this one, even over the period art direction of "The Young Victoria" and "Sherlock Holmes" or "Nine."
Original Song
Will Win/Should Win: "The Weary Kind"
This award usually goes to the song that is bolstered by the obvious support of being sung by a reigning diva or being featured in a musical. Since the original songs added to the musical "Nine" were not even nominated here, the most musical movie left is "Crazy Heart." And it helps that this song was co-written by T Bone Burnett and performed by Jeff Bridges, both current Academy darlings. And the song works beautifully in the movie.
Original Score
Will Win: "Avatar"
Should Win: "Up"
I'm split about this one. I hope "Up" will win, but the score for "Avatar" did lend it a kind of cinematic majesty that complemented the visual effects. Academy voters may be swayed enough to give "Avatar" another win, even though the much more humble and emotionally powerful score for "Up" really deserves it.
Animated Feature
Will Win: "Up"
Should Win: "Coraline"
Another win for Pixar, and very well deserved (don't even get me started on the non-dialogue sequence of the married couple through the years near the start of the film - gets me every time!). But the PG-13 creepiness of "Coraline" and artisty involved in the mechanics and design of that stop-motion 3D gem deserved more audiences and more praise (as did the originality of "Fantastic Mr. Fox").
Foreign Language Film
Will Win/Should Win: "A Prophet"
The only movie in this category I've seen is "The White Ribbon" and it was my pick before the Golden Globe Awards (which it won, for good reasons). So I am basing this pick on some reviews, but also for the trailer of "A Prophet" which felt a bit familiar to me, but only because it reminded me (in tone and imagery) of another Oscar winner, "The Godfather." Last year, "Departures" won this category over the two movies I had seen ("The Class" and "Waltz With Bashir," which were both my picks), so I'm siding with history and predicting a win for the movie I haven't seen.
Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: "Up In The Air"
Should Win: "District 9" or "An Education"
The screenplays of my "should win" picks were bright and greatly expanded the original source material, but "Up In The Air" is a critical and popular favorite that packs the most timely emotional punch.
Original Screenplay
Will Win: "Inglorious Basterds"
Should Win: "The Hurt Locker" or "The Messenger" or "A Serious Man"
The originality of "Up" came in many components, but not necessarily in its basic premise of the grumpy old man and the wide-eyed kid. "A Serious Man" was a dark comedy that was a clever play on the complexities of spirituality set in perfectly set 1960s milieu. "The Messenger" was a brilliantly intense character study that felt like two tightly wound soldiers about to explode in a rage of emotions at any time. And of course, "The Hurt Locker" was very intelligent writing (and maybe the recent controversy of an alleged plagiarism lawsuit broke the news after the ballots were all mailed in). So this is a highly competitive prize this year. I give it to the movie that was the ultimate macabre, smart, funny, clever, farcical, revenge story: hooray for the Jews obliterating the Nazis, as only Quentin Tarantino could deliver it.
Actress in a Supporting Role
Will Win/Should Win: Mo'Nique
If ever the Golden Globes could predict an Oscar winner, this is it. I don't know how she did it, but I do know what Mo'Nique did in "Precious:" she ripped my heart out and made me so angry and sad that I cried from the inside out. This was a career-making performance (in the way Jennifer Hudson had "Dreamgirls"), and this is her time. Brava! More, please.
Actor in a Supporting Role
Will Win/Should Win: Christoph Waltz
The toughest competition for the odds-on favorite, in my opinion, is Woody Harrelson in "The Messenger" (a tough, frightening, and tortured character performance). But Christoph Waltz played smart source material brilliantly: never over-the-top caricature. Always over-the-top insanity. Fine line to tiptoe around, but he did it.
Actress in a Leading Role
Will Win: Sandra Bullock or Meryl Streep
Should Win: Meryl Streep
Yes, I know I chickened out on this call. Let me explain. Of all the "Best Picture" nominees, "The Blind Side" is the only one I have not seen. Why? Well, partly because I think it's a made-for-TV movie that made it to the big screen with a story I've seen many times before. And worse yet, that hackneyed story is also (mildly?) insulting and offensive: the rich white family (or brash Texan woman) takes in the poor Black down-and-out, who of course turns his life around with their help in the only way he can: through professional sports. Yawn. I'm sure Sandra Bullock deserves all the praise she is getting, and I can imagine she carried this movie. But as much as I like her, I'm not convinced (and neither is Sandra Bullock) that her performance was better acting than Meryl Streep, who was arguably the most enjoyable and buoyant part of "Julie & Julia." I know Meryl already has two statuettes, but she deserves more, and I think she is long overdue for #3, 12 years after "Sophie's Choice." And Sandra can wait. Isn't there a "Speed 3" sequel she could do to win another MTV Movie Award?
Actor in a Leading Role
Will Win: Jeff Bridges
Should Win: Colin Firth
Jeff Bridges has his role-of-a-lifetime in "Crazy Heart." It's an anguished, genuinely emotional performance that shows off his acting as much as his singing (for real). It has more heart and hope than "The Wrestler" but hits some of those familiar notes that had me wondering, "Should I be cheering for this guy?" And then I realized that when a performance makes me struggle to accept the character, it's probably doing everything right because that's how real-life is - we like and don't like qualities in everyone. (Colin Firth's performance in "A Single Man" is sadly overshadowed by "Crazy Heart" and no doubt has been seen by far fewer people. But it should be watched and studied by every actor for its lessons in evocative acting, in outward burst of emotion and in subtle silences - also brilliant.)
Director
Will Win/Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow
Not only is it high time that a woman win this award, but Kathryn Bigelow directed the bejeezus out of this war story: it was terrifying, gut-wrenching, emotional, real, thrilling, sad, and powerful - just as any war and every good war story should be. I give credit to James Cameron for not only directing "Avatar" but for directing all of the new technology that went into "Avatar." But his movie was all fantasy. Kathryn Bigelow worked with reality. And it was unforgettable.
Motion Picture
Will Win/Should Win: "The Hurt Locker"
There. I said it. I enjoyed watching "Avatar," don't get me wrong. But the emphasis there is that I enjoyed watching it. Come on, be serious: there's good reason why "Avatar" is not nominated for Original Screenplay. The story (what little cohesive story there was) was weak. A motion picture is supposed to tell a story, and the narrative of "The Hurt Locker" was executed with greater precision and focus than anything proposed in the year 2154 of "Avatar." "The Hurt Locker" also painfully forces us to look at the insanity of our own current wars, instead of imagining a future war on Pandora, as beautiful as it was to look at.
So there you have it. We'll see how my ballot scores. Agree or disagree or just want to comment on my predictions? Go ahead and post a comment. After all, it's just my set of opinions. (But I will be cheering on my picks for sure!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
