"Key to the City" Short Review

Key to the City (George Sidney, 1950)

"MGM's riotous romance!", and also one of the most chaotic, sloppy narratives I've seen... hilariously inept. Most of the film is made up of elaborate setups, much like other screwball comedies, but instead of witty hijinks, we get frustrating, dragged out flops.

A conference in San Francisco has small-town mayors from all over the country convening. Gable plays the rough-and-tuble former pier worker and mayor of an industrial city, and Young plays the eloquent, educated mayor of Winona, Maine, population just over 30 000. They meet, shenanigans ensue, they fall in love, misunderstandings split them up, the reunite. Ta-dah!

The formula is simple and classic. Many enjoyable films follow the same steps, each with a different set of twists. But these twists? Oh boy.

Just one of the bizarre high-concept setups: Gable is decked out in a Little Boy Blue outfit for a costume ball, which his fire chief --Frank Morgan in his final performance-- got for him. He gets locked out of his room, searches for some staff, gets exposed, some homophobic gestures, the standard. Soon he's outside, hiding his outfit under a trench coat, but his bare legs visible. He then meets Young, dressed as a little girl complete with blonde curly wig and Madeline hat.

Yes, really.

Screwball romantic dialogue ensues. A police office then stumbles upon the two, mistaking it for "soliciting a child". Gable tries to explain that it's not what it appears to the man, who they still don't realize is actually a cop. But Young wants to be snarky, and decides to play along:

"The big man pinched me!"

And thus they end up in jail.

For the second time.

How about their take on the man-woos-hard-to-get-woman: one of the worst 'love scenes' I have come across. In pea-soup fog on a Telegraph Hill bench, Gable creepily nudges closer and closer to Young as she scuttles away. He romantically lays his head next to her and tries to woo her, as she tries to act graceful and ignorant of his approaches... while looking clearly uncomfortable. Like, actually scared. The doe-eyed music suggests romance, but with a more ominous score...

MURDER.

It really is a shame, because the basic storyline is a good one, and the paring of Gable and Young --real life lovers, remember?-- is a crackling one. They have genuine chemistry, although Gable seems to find the whole preceding a little bit silly.

Raymond Burr is his creepy self, complete with switchblade and 'stache, playing a corrupt city official. I need to see more of this guy, because I always find him just deliciously villainous. Marilyn Maxwell is quite the bombshell in her role as exotic dancer (doing the 'Atom dance', in which she dances around covered in balloons that she pops strategically), and even gets to fight with Young in a bizarre scene.

And to leave off, some good old-fashioned racial caricatures. A small Chinese boy walks around the police station, chanting "Lychee nuts! Chinese lychee nuts!" in a heavily accented voice, attempting to sell some to the Chief. And because he's Chinese, he has to be a shrewd little bugger, right? He bites down on a coin to check if it's real. He tries to swindle the Chief of some money. All while being oh-so-cute and Chinese! Awwwww!

C-

85th Academy Awards Telecast Review

Seth Macfarlane is a divisive figure, and this is exactly why he's a poor choice. His Family Guy humour delights some, drives others nuts, and flat-out offends a good chunk. So why give him the reigns over the Academy Awards? It seems that each year now the producers try to make the ceremony "younger" and "edgier", and these attempts inevitably fail. With Macfarlane, it seems that they were trying to give the show an irreverent flair, mimicking the energy that Ricky Gervais brought to the Golden Globes a few years ago. Gervais was a hit amongst audiences with his razor-sharp mockery of Hollywood back-patting, and I can see why producers would think that a similar approach would work at the Oscars.

The problem is, the Oscars are not the Globes. The Globes have always been a party, with free-flowing alcohol, large dinner tables, and half of the awards going to television and a quarter to comedy-musical film. It's a looser ceremony -- and I don't think "ceremony" is the word to describe the Globes, anyways. But the Academy Awards? It's a horse of a different colour.

I don't say this to imply that the Oscars are some sort of sacred cow that demands capital-R Respect. Bob Hope, host for many many years, had a comedic style that would often mock the celebrities attending. But it was a kind of good-natured barb, never twisting the knife too deep and still keeping some aspect of classiness to the show. Macfarlane has never been classy, nor has he been one to keep things on the side of good taste.

It seems to me that was one of the biggest problems of the show last night: Macfarlane mistakes irreverence with the tasteless, the cruel and the juvenile. Take his joke about Chris Brown and Rihanna. Is making light of spousal abuse ever within the grounds of good-natured humour? What about implying that Jennifer Aniston was a stripper? Or that Spanish People Talk Funny with his barb about Salma Hayek, who then walked out looking very self-conscious and maybe even embarrassed? Or his joke about eating disorders?

His nearly twenty minute opening sketch dragged on, and he still had the nerve to make jokes later on in the program about how long the ceremony is. Seth? Maybe the ceremony is too long because you keep insisting on having more time for your frat-boy shtick.

But Macfarlane certainly wasn't the only problem with the show last night. Oh gawd no. I think most of the blame can be placed on Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, producers of the show, as well as long-time director Don Mischer, who is somehow an acclaimed director of live television events. The show was a shapeless mess, with strange transitions, bone-headed decisions and a total lack of energy. Where to begin?

The tribute to the last ten years of movie musicals was mostly a Chicago-fest -- a film that Zadan and Meron happened to produce -- and strangely focused on only three films. Where was Hairspray, High School Musical, Sweeney Todd, Rent, Fame, Mamma Mia!, Across the Universe, Enchanted, Nine, Footloose, The Producers, Hedwig and the Angry Inch? I'm not a fan of some of these, but if you're going to have a tribute to a decade of musical film, maybe try to be representative of it.

The sets. Boring. Snore. Cheap. Thin. Jennifer Hudson sings on a basically blank stage. Catherine Zeta-Jones has a snap of a performance, but in front of blue tinsel (despite that Chicago's colour scheme is red with black). The cast of Les Misérables wanders out from three screens, standing there looking awkward in their tuxedos and gowns while trying to convey Emotion without any context for the songs they are singing. Hathaway looked torn: should she try to recreate the harrowing performance from the film, or just politely sing the main hook?

Transitions and introductions that make no sense. What did Ted and talking about orgies have anything to do with Sound Mixing or Sound Editing? Why did only some of the cast of The Avengers bicker and cut eachother off when presenting Cinematography? Why give two of the Original Song nominees big performances beforehand, then show small montages of two, and then have Norah Jones sing the final nominee? Consistency, producers! Consistency!

The sound mixing. Oh, dear Lord. Vocalists were buried in the sound mix, swamped by the orchestra (which was down the road for some reason).

Insert shots that made no sense. This is something that is a perennial problem with the Oscar telecast, and I think it may be Mischer's fault. Too often the camera would cut to someone in the audience who either had nothing to do with what was being said or done at the moment. At other times, the context would make it unintentionally hilarious: Tarantino is rambling on, and we get a shot of Jamie Foxx looking at him like he's some sort of alien, a slight glare happening. Foxx then realizes he's on camera, and quickly changes his expression. These gaffs happened all night long.

The much-buzzed 007 homage wasn't nearly as electric as it could have been. An awesome performance of "Goldfinger" from septuagenarian Bassey had the song stuck in my head for the rest of the night --not a bad thing-- but otherwise we only got Halle Barry and a flashy montage. What, couldn't get the past Bonds to appear on stage, or couldn't have a medley of Bond songs?

OH. THE JAWS PLAY-OFF. Maybe the most disgusting, disrespectful, cruel prank of the night. It may be one of the most important moments of a person's life, something they have dreamed about for years. And you try to get a cheap laugh out of it? Gag.

What else fizzled out?

Oscars Reactions

Picture: Argo
Director: Russell Lee
Actress: Lawrence
Actor: Day-Lewis
Supp. Actress: Hathaway
Supp. Actor: DeNiro Waltz
Adapted Screenplay: Argo
Original Screenplay: Zero Dark Thirty Django Unchained
Cinematography: Life of Pi
Editing: Argo
Production Design: Anna Karenina Lincoln
Costume Design: Anna Karenina
Makeup & Hairstyling: The Hobbit Les Misérables
Original Score: Life of Pi
Original Song: Skyfall
Sound Mixing: Les Misérables
Sound Editing: Zero Dark Thirty and Skyfall
Visual Effects: Life of Pi
Foreign: Amour
Animated Feature: Wreck-It Ralph Brave
Animated Short: Paperman
Documentary Feature: Searching for Sugar Man
Documentary Short: Open Heart Inocente
Live Action Short: Curfew

17/24

Not great, but I think okay for such a wide open year. None of the winners really surprised me, save for that amazing tie and Lincoln for production design. Looking throughout the winners, they all make sense, and are all things I considered possible.

My problem is that I try to predict the surprises -- which of course, never goes too well. I warned people that my prediction for Russell was a silly one, and that Lee was the most probable winner. Of course, Lee wins. Duh! I sprung for Boal's script for Zero Dark Thirty, but as soon as Waltz won for supporting actor (something that did come as a surprise, admittedly) and heard all that applause every time the film was mentioned, I knew Tarantino would win. I think I put too much emphasis on his snub a few years ago over Basterds. Alas.
Brave's win and Les Misérables for makeup were ones that I suspected, but brushed off. I'm still surprised that The Hobbit missed out on makeup. Really, Academy? Boo-urns.

And so you have it. Maybe I won another Princess gold pass! But I doubt it.

84th Annual Academy Awards Predictions

This has been one of the most interesting and exciting Oscar races in long memory. Rarely have we seen a season with so many twists, surprises, and extremely tight categories. I'm particularly excited this year to see how the ceremony will shape up: will Argo sweep? Or will Silver Linings pick up the Big Five of Picture-Director-Actor-Actress-Screenplay? What about Lincoln, who seems to be more respected than loved by voters?

Picture: Argo
Director: Russell
Actress: Lawrence
Actor: Day-Lewis
Supp. Actress: Hathaway
Supp. Actor: DeNiro
Adapted Screenplay: Argo
Original Screenplay: Zero Dark Thirty
Cinematography: Life of Pi
Editing: Argo
Production Design: Anna Karenina
Costume Design: Anna Karenina
Makeup & Hairstyling: The Hobbit
Original Score: Life of Pi
Original Song: Skyfall
Sound Mixing: Les Misérables
Sound Editing: Zero Dark Thirty
Visual Effects: Life of Pi
Foreign: Amour
Animated Feature: Wreck-It Ralph
Animated Short: Paperman
Documentary Feature: Searching for Sugar Man
Documentary Short: Open Heart
Live Action Short: Curfew

Analysis and my alternative choices after the jump.

Oscar Nominated Short Animated Films: Short Reviews

Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Daycare"
A barrage of sight gags and wisecracks. The Looney Tunes homage start as soon as the title credits roll, with Maggie's face bouncing towards us à la Bugs Bunny, but the film also plays like a contemporary silent slapstick. Even better, it has some genuine pathos in its swift narrative. It may actually be a bit too jokey-clever for its own good, but the five minutes fly by at a breathless pace. The audience loved it.





Adam and Dog
Expanding on the Adam & Eve mythology, Minkyu Lee's film asks if Man's Best Friend was also his first. It's a beautiful film --the backgrounds are rather stunning-- and the titular dog is one of the year's most memorable characters. The animation does suffer from a certain lack of flow at times (some of it is clearly under the standard 24-frame per second standard), and the animators' attempts at under-representing Adam's genitalia isn't quite effective: they've tried to do an "it's there, but not detailed!" move, but it's more distracting than not. I don't say this lightly, either, as nakedness is a major plot point in the myth and is referenced in the film. Nevertheless, it's probably my favourite of the bunch, and highly recommended.

Fresh Guacamole
A witty homage to the everyday object-surrealism of Jan Svankmajer, it's less than two minutes long (the shortest film ever nominated for an Oscar), but a delight. It's Svankmajer-lite, though, and missing the gloomy edge and subtle politics of his work... but that's a note for snobs only.

Head Over Heels
A twilight romance with a twist. The visual gag has some steam to it, and the narrative is bittersweet. I honestly don't have too much to say about the film other than it could have gone even further with its surreal premise, and that those are some damned ugly puppets.

Paperman
The frontrunner for the Oscar and an audience-pleaser, the Wreck-It Ralph companion short is a beautiful, swift romantic tale with some rather stunning animation. Too bad it's classic Disney sexist. Impossibly skinny pretty girl (with red lipstick, the only colour of the film!) is pursued by adorkable office worker.

Will Win: Paperman
Could Win: Adam and Dog
Should Win: Adam and Dog

Papabile People

So, we bid adieu to Benedict.

So long, sinners!

And who will replace him? I have a fascination with all things predicting, and a new Pope is something that only comes around once in a blue moon. So I've made myself a list of the papabile Cardinals that have been suggested. For my interests, I'm looking at who's progressive, who's ultra-conservative, who only pities the gays rather than thinks they're 'fundamentally diseased' (like Benedict thought). There are a number of betting lists out and about, and they vary slightly --some have Arinz and Schönberg listed highly-- but the two that seem to be popping up everywhere are the Ghanian Cardinal Peter Turkson and Canadian Marc Ouellet. 

Arinze and Bertone, two of the more controversial candidates

Francis Arinze (Nigerian, age 80)
-known to be friendly and progressive with inter-faith matters, particularly Islam, but otherwise a hardline conservative
-one of the principle advisors to John Paul II
-anti-gay

Tarcisio Bertone (Italian, age 78)
-speaks Italian, French, Spanish, German and Portuguese; some English, Polish, Latin, Greek and Hebrew
-current Camerlengo
-very much in the public eye, often fiercely criticized for gaffs; difficult to find flattering photos of!
-supports universal free access to AIDS drugs

Bagnasco and Hummes are both known for their workers' rights advocacy

Angelo Bagnasco (Italian, age 70)
-critical of unethical politics, publicly attacked Berlusconi
-advocate for workers' rights
-intellectual heavyweight
-two-time president of Italian bishops conference
-critical of gay marriage

Cláudio Hummes (Brazillian, age 78)
-speaks Portuguese, Spanish, German and Italian
-social justice advocate: pro labour unions; liberation theology; critical of global capitalism
-wants a review on clerical celibacy
-conservative on sexual matters and basic doctrine

Kasper and Napier are both conservative scholars

Walter Kasper (German, age 79)
-speaks German, English and Italian
-often works towards ecumenism (Christian unity)
-has become more outspokenly conservative recently, particularly about secularism

Wilfrid Napier (South African, age 71)
-hardline conservative
-abstinence-based policy on AIDS, anti-gay

The two frontrunners: Marc Ouellet and Peter Turkson

Marc Ouellet (Canadian, age 68)
-prefect of the Congregation of Bishops (third most powerful)
-uninterested in being Pope
-theologically similar to Benedict: a hardline conservative, very critical of abortion and secularization
-can be progressive: 2007 apology for Church's pre-1960 attitudes towards Jews, minorities, First Nations, women and gays

Peter Turkson (Ghanian, age 64)
-speaks Fante, English, French, Italian, German, Hebrew
-very popular in west Africa and elsewhere; friendly and personable
-can be antagonistic to Islam; anti-gay
-does not rule out condoms in prevention of AIDS

Ravasi and Rodríguez

Gianfranco Ravasi (Italian, age 70)
-known for intellect and communicative style
-never had a diocese, which is seen to be a big problem

Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga (Honduran, age 70)
-speaks Spanish, English, French, Italian, German and Portuguese
-moderate, but conservative on matters of sexuality
-fierce social justice advocate

Sandri and Scherer

Leonardo Sandri (Argentinian, age 69)
-number 2 in Vatican Secretary of State's office; former Chief of Staff
-reserved, bureaucratic; no pastoral experience

Odilo Scherer (Brazillian, age 63)
-moderate, although a conservative by Brazilian standards
-critical of Marxist orientation of  liberation theology, but otherwise a strong social rights advocate

Schönborn and Scola

Christoph Schönborn (Austrian, age 68)
-conservative on sexual matters, but critical of the Church's actions on the sex abuse scandal
-some rumours floating around say that he is known to be cruel to subordinates

Angelo Scola (Italian, age 71)
-focus on education, youth, family; work on biomedical ethics, sexuality
-known to be friendly and open, despite grumpy-looking photographs!
-wants to reform how Church plays a role in society, criticizes its inability to clearly communicate
-scholar on Christian-Islam dialogue

Favourite Films of 2012 (So Far)

1. Holy Motors (Léos Carax)

The most exhilarating time I've had at the cinema in years. Absolutely bonkers, yet at times strangely moving. Denis Levant gives the performance of a lifetime.

2. Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell)

Funny, touching, romantic, real.

3. Amour (Michael Haneke)

Beautiful and harrowing.

4. The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson)

The best shot film of the year, with a beguiling elliptical script and a game cast.

5. Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow)

Intelligent and thrilling, Boal and Bigelow up their ante, surpassing The Hurt Locker in cinematic and political spectacle.

6. Lincoln (Steven Spielberg)

A surprisingly witty script raises this historical biopic above what could have been a "rah-rah-American" patriotism-fest. Daniel-Day Lewis deserves the Oscar he'll most likely win.

7. Anna Karenina (Joe Wright)

Dazzling, lush and sweepingly romantic. Wright's modernist games and Stoppard's twisting script remain true to the core of Tolstoy's novel, while rushing it forwards to the 21st century.

8. Hitchcock (Sacha Gervasi)

My 'guilty pleasure' of the year. Mirren and Hopkins are a delight to watch, and while not all of the film's gambles work, who cares when you're having this much fun?

9. Cosmopolis (David Cronenberg)

Unabashedly highbrow, Cronenberg's film has many detractors --most of my theatre walked out-- but if you're up for an intensely cerebral time at the cinema, you may find yourself well rewarded. An incredible supporting cast, with Pattinson showing his chops.

10. Rust and Bone (Jacques Audiard)

Simultaneously chilly and romantic, with powerful performances.

Also Enjoyed: Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino), Life of Pi (Ang Lee), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Peter Jackson), Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson), Magic Mike (Steven Soderbergh)

Review: "Silver Linings Playbook"

Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell, 2012)

A friend of mine described Silver Linings in a rather denigrating light: to him, the film is a dangerous fairytale typical of Hollywood, saying that all you need to get over mental illness is just to find a hot girl.

Well, I must respectfully disagree.
As someone who happens to have been diagnosed as bipolar, the film doesn't say to me that two broken people need to find love in order to get 'better'. Instead, it's suggesting that we can find love, too. This is a rather big difference, and it's why Silver Linings was such a cathartic delight for me.

So, where to begin? (Strangely enough, as I write this, I've begun to have a hypomanic burst. How fitting!) Well, how about the film's most acclaimed piece, Jennifer Lawrence's lived-in performance as Tiffany. What struck me about Lawrence is that this seems like a better, more real version of the ever-present "manic pixie dream girl" that Hollywood 'indie' cinema loves to throw at us. She's rough,  she doesn't care what you think of her but will strike at your core with her bitter tantrums. The praise is well-deserved.
But I was particularly impressed with Cooper. The physicality of the role, with a real sense of what mania is like, struck me. Pat's mania is one that is often marked by what seems to be aggression, and the character indeed does lash out at points, but Cooper and Russell take care to not conflate the two. (Just because someone's manic doesn't mean that they're aggressive, and when someone with bipolar is aggressive or angry, it doesn't always mean they're manic.) Perhaps something that is 'missing' from the script is the lethargic periods of depression that many of us with bipolar experience. We do see Pat lounging about on his bed, yes -- but he seems to be the of the especially manic subset of bipolar. (I have met people that are "bipolar", but rarely experience the lows.) Cooper's comedic timing is also excellent, particularly with the conflicting, racing questioning sessions. I laughed out loud many times with these moments, as Cooper and Lawrence verbally spar with one another. It's a delight.
Pat's obsession with Nikki drives him forward, towards something that is magical and hopeful and impossible -- and something that we never really feel he should succeed with. Oftentimes, Cooper's Pat is too unstable for us to wish himself upon anyone else, but we feel for him so much, and his playbook so passionately followed, that we do hope that something, just something, will work out for him. This hope congeals the melodrama's tangles, and a set of coincidences should strike us as too composed to actually work. But it does. Russell's re-invention of genre avoids the ironic cynicism of most postmodern filmmakers, but instead aims for us to fall in love with the formula again. We're not fondly reminiscing as the film throws references at us, but genuinely re-living the experience.

Accurate representations of meltdowns: audial hallucinations, the quick flashes of memory, the claustrophobic extreme wide-angle shots. Russell's cinema has always been able to capture elevated emotional stages, and his experience with this (The Fighter, I Heart Huckabees, Three Kings) is used to rather spectacular effect. But what makes this spectacular is not how flashy it is, but how it's not.

Robert DeNiro's OCD is believable and effective: in his character, I saw echoes of some family members with their subtle obsessions and quirks. He shows us the vulnerability of the character like in his best roles of the past, and instead of Pat Sr. being a caricature or simple punch-line (or even worse, annoying) he's a loveable man, warts and all -- because we see just how much he really loves his family.
Jacki Weaver's role as the mother who keeps it all together may be a stock character, but she breathes in genuine pathos and a delightful Philly accent.  She cautiously believes in her son and in the possibility that he can recover, but not foolishly so. There is a struggle in her as she tries to manage the predictable unpredictability of her son and her husband's mountain of tough-guy quirks. Weaver's Dolores doesn't suffer like a saint, as some actresses or directors would choose, but simply seems like a real mother. This realness is a reoccuring motif in Silver Linings, but one that is mixed with an old-fashioned Hollywood romanticism. It's a precarious balance to strike, but somehow they've done it. How? Well, David O. Russell does have a personal relationship with mental illness and bipolar: his son has the disorder. This love and understanding of someone with the condition really comes through in Silver Linings Playbook.

So we have a family of characters that are both loveable and raw, and they manage to find a happy ending. Who doesn't feel warm and wonderful when this happens in a movie when we want it so badly to happen, and we can believe that we can find such happiness, too? Yes, even us crazies can find love.

Short Review: "Amour"

Amour (2012, Michael Haneke)

Perhaps Haneke's best film, of those that I've seen. It's very much a Haneke film: the stoic long shots and long takes, the harsh silences and amplified 'regular' sounds (the turning of pages, the running of water, the hum of a vacuum), the unsentimental and even cruel gazes. Some have said that this may be one of his most accessible films -- which is something I don't agree with. Whereas something as brutal as Funny Games or The Piano Teacher may be more overtly violent, those films have a certain sadistic, Brechtian glee that get your blood pumping. Amour does not have these moments. When the final act of love from husband to wife occurs, we gasp, but we do not get a stunned rush like with Caché's slice-and-spurt. I found myself watching this moment with a certain understanding and compassion, rather than a bewilderment that demands a chuckle of disbelief.
It is this compassion that really makes this film special in Haneke's oeuvre. But it being a Haneke film, it's not sentimentalized in any sense: the overbearing gaze of the camera really prevents such an act from occurring. As we watch Anne and Georges as they go about their day-to-day lives, I found a gentle sense of caring come over me, but one that was primarily marked with a respect. By that I mean I didn't watch and reduce them to archetypes of the elderly. They don't particularly remind me of any of my relatives. Instead I felt that these were two individuals that didn't want or need my pity, my sentimentalization. No. Anne asks Georges after her first stroke to promise her that he will never send her away ever again -- and he doesn't. This takes an incredible amount of respect for Anne's wishes, and is a sign of incredible love. He struggles greatly for the rest of the film to take care of her, and her descent is indeed... how do I say this? It's "heavy" to watch. But there are small sparks of lightness amongst all the heaviness: Georges' meandering reminiscing; Anne flipping through a photo album; small jokes and quips; an unexpected visit from a pigeon. As the body withers away, and the mind seems to have slipped, there can still be joy. But just as quickly as stopping a Schubert CD, it can cut to the silence.
Near the end of the film, there are a series of shots of landscape paintings. Apparently, these belonged to Haneke's parents, and some critics are suggesting that their only function are a direct personal stamp: nothing more. Instead, I found the paintings to be a key to the thematic weight of the film, which is one of my favourite concepts: the sublime. The paintings are all Romantic landscapes, some going into the Impressionist era, and they strike as more than simply a recreation of natural beauty. The clouds, the horizon, coming face-to-face with infinity and oblivion: Amour is a recognition of the gravitas of old age and inevitable death, but also recognizing that even during this apparent decline, love can survive --indeed, it must survive--and that two people can sit together quietly in each other's company, an aura of mutual respect, care and peace permeating the twilight. "C'est beau, la vie."


(Unedited, conversational review. I just typed and never looked back.)