Monthly Archives: March 2006

One sentence to describe Capote, the film, is that it is beautifully acted by its lead, Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

In a tradition of biopic films with the title directly indicating the subject, strong and believable performances are the main essential to capture the stark truth personality often hidden under the face value. Ray and Jamie Foxx are two inseparable units, when we see Foxx on the big screen marching through the decades of the famed musician’s tumultuous life, we see a live version of Ray Charles himself, retelling the story and the carrying the persona as is. Almost.

In less than a year, the benchmark is elevated by Hoffman in his stellar portrayal of the famous author who at any given time was more than willing to do anything to make him, puns intended, infamous. The first scene set on a train when he paid a porter to praise him in front of his close friend, Nelle (played with soothing manner by always reliable Catherine Keener), both shows his yearning for attention while also emphasizing his arrogance of intellect and social status. While we are taken to every single disbelieving acts of his doings, Hoffman constantly pushes himself in hardly mimicking the elusive style of Capote, but often terrify the bemused audience in wondering, if Hoffman literally gets the character he is playing under his own skin.
The toughness of the role painstakingly brings to life by Hoffman, earning our admiration and respect despite many despicable acts of Capote in exploiting his subjects, particularly to the inmates he nurtured in the book he was working on in the film, which later became his most famous work, In Cold Blood.

Thus, the class-act could not happen had it not been for the very focused script by Dan Futterman and the deft direction of Bennett Miller in bringing up the story that circles within the period of 6 years in Capote’s life of making the book. The limited time span allows further probe of a person’s life rather than condensing a span of a lifetime in limited time of 2 hours, which often unfairly cut out some essential parts in the noted life, and not to mention that specified time span will enable the actor playing the role to transform himself gradually without necessarily rushing from one make-up change to another, something that might actually endanger the film’s brilliance had it been conceptualized that other way.

For sure, some limitation enables one to focus sharply, just like what the film does, and never us as audience gets deterred througout watching the entire film. This is a brilliant biopic.

Why Tsotsi fails to amuse me?

Because he does not belong specifically to South Africa, that’s why.

Following his journey of a life-changing experience happens to be set against the backdrop of a slum area in South Africa, we begin to wonder, if the backdrop is changed to anywhere else, particularly Bronx, USA, will the story remain the same?

In this case the answer is an unfortunate yes.

Not that it will prevent tears from dropping when we see some tender scenes between Tsotsi, his stolen baby and his breast-feeding mother, but in the era of distinctive qualities of being a film made overseas (read: outside Hollywood or USA), the film lacks of any quality that makes it different from any other films made within the system of Hollywood.

As such, the film suffers greatly from the usual formula often seen in any other films, that redemption comes to end, and our hopeless anti-hero has to surrender to the system he cannot challenge. The formulaic storyline has been told many times, be them in Hollywood or not, and Tsotsi has to unfairly be put in the shadows of those similar works.

If anything else is considered a redemptive quality, it is the performance of the leading actor, Presley Chweneyagae, who carries the role, surprisingly, with often static expression that most of the time works well to convey the intended aching response we ought to have.

After all, there’s gotta be a reason why he carries the title role.

The good thing about the film is that it accurately depicts the atmosphere of thrilling political phobia often portrayed in 70’s films, thus making the film as if it was made on the era as the event it depicts seems to occur in not so distant time from my perception.

Yet, such a statement might be a backlash on itself. Having seen recent thrillers in which the stories do travel from one continent to another, as initiated by Tom Clancy’s works with the likes of Patriot Games or The Sum of All Fears, and other recent films such as both superb Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Identity, we cannot help seeing Munich belongs to this class. A very unfortunate fact indeed, considering the film has way many potentials to elevate itself in a higher position.

What distinguishes Steven Spielberg’s film to the abovementioned films lies on the pace, that we remove the clock-and-dagger heart-thumping build-up scenes, then we have Spielberg’s reliance on supposedly thoughtful action which gets tiresome by the time we fail to convince ourselves the need of Avner (Eric Bana at his uncomfortable role) and his team to murder the criminals behind the 1972 Olympic attack.

A revenge conceptualized by Golda Meir, then Israeli’s Prime Minister, who assembled her Mossad team is apparent enough on the screen, but the screenplay by Eric Roth and Tony Kushner does not justify the need of this assembly, and by the time Daniel Craig, Matthieu Kassovitz, Bana, or even Geoffrey Rush who leads the team begin to wonder why they are recruited for the assignment, we can only sigh in bedazzlement.

If the indecisiveness of Spielberg as caused by his lack of confidence in the subject, unlike the previous buoyant claim in Schindler’s List, affects many aspects in the film, one of the crucial victims is the cast themselves. Lining up many character actors, only a few of them are listed above, they were lost and taken away from carrying the film as their presence often feels condensed. By the time we begin to emphatize with Avner, a character being given a lengthy supporting plot involving his family, we hardly achieve so as the film gets busy transporting us to another continent, seeing another rmerciless actions.

Thus, the coveted role of a thing that carries the film does lie on the action scenes, which really deserve some accolades in many ways, credits to deft editing by Michael Kahn who does great job in maintaining the atmosphere of the thriller, constantly giving the film a breath of fast-paced action sequences carefully cut to sustain our interest throughout.

Thrilling as it may be, the subject which requires deeper thoughts is finally presented in a carefully-baked manner by the time Spielberg rushes to close the chapter with the historical text seen towards the closing credit, as if to avoid any further open debates.

It hardly leads to any debates though. On the contrary, it only tickles our curiosity from yearning for something more, something to convince us that a maestro will be able to go beyond the serious action, and give the audience something to think about.

If stage world with all its romps is always interesting to be brought up as a subject in the big screen, perhaps the best reason to explain it is that the stage world mirrors the glamour, glitz, and the gloomy life a film world also has, or to some extent, even longs to have. As one world connected to the other, often a film about stage life is vividly interesting, thanks to the ability of film in capturing the subject through the filter of lens, resulting in an indirect response from audience as they get blocked by the huge screen in front of them, as compared to the stage performance where the event is presented right in the very own of our sights.

From The Producers to Stage Beauty to Being Julia, these films capture what’s beneath the fabricated life of stage, and present the interpretation as carried by actors on film, doing stage acts. Isn’t it interesting how we get to appreciate the beauty of proscenium-arch stages in a flat white screen? Thus, Mrs. Henderson Presents is presented in the manner, with a satisfying result.

The satisfaction is relied heavily on the shoulders of the two leads, Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins, the latter being one of the producers as well, who ferociously exhibit their enjoyable performances, suspiciously resulting from their rigorous experience as actors, both on stage and films. Thus, seeing them behaving like children playing around in a giant field, teasing and tricking each other in some silly games, as sampled by having Hoskins doing full frontal nudity and Dench donning a giant bear costume, is a rare pleasure amidst the current serious-minded films that even branch to comedy genre.

Alas, the genre is preserved well by Frears who kept the romp jokes intact, both through verbal and visual presentation throughout the entire 120-minute duration that seems short. Even when seeing Hoskins and Dench dance the night away toward the closing act of the film, we are already taken to their world of leisure and fun, regardless the surrounding one sets his place in.

In the mind-numbing waves of disposable love stories where the presence of characters, backdrops, and more importantly, plots seem to be interchangeable to one another, Brokeback Mountain stands tall thanks to the film’s firm stand to recreate a genre on its own.

Having successfully conquered vast genres ranging from domestic themes of East (Eat Drink Man Woman) and West (The Ice Storm), or a mix of both of them (The Wedding Banquet), to literary adaptation (Sense and Sensibility), to wuxia (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) to faithful comic adaptation (Hulk),Ang Lee marvels in his attempt to redefine a genre notoriously hard and preserved to an elite class of a very few directors ever existed in the course of cinema history. The genre as associated with cowboys is called Western.

And as much as Western often goes with subtle, or rather, repressed, homoerotic subtleties, the film pushes the envelope by breaking the bound loose while surprisingly preserves the dignity of machoism in even subtler way than what we have become familiar with in any sling-and-shot cowboys flicks.

For sure we get to see Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal do what arguably the most tender making out scene in any films, but how the scenes manage to pull through without shrieking response from audience (not the least that I know), is something Lee excels in treating the subject of all his films tenderly, seriously, and carefully nuanced to be contented. As enhanced by gorgeously photographed landscape by Rodrigo Prieto imbued with melancholic score by Gustavo Santaoala, the mountain has become a landmark of testament that love and machoism work well with one another to a mind-fulfilling result.

Alas, the words of praises offer nothing new to the film that I begin to think this will be drowning to any stronger, more stellar reviews that have arisen. Yet, to be in awe by the majestic presence of a mountain and its keepers is an unforgettably heartfelt experience a filmgoer should always yearn to have.

It takes me slightly more than a day to finally come to terms with the fact that while Hollywood, or most members of AMPAS, has not released its strains in fully accepting sexual differences on a big screen, it is good to note that rewarding a film about the city where the film industry stands its feet on is something worth being given a prize as well. Especially when it brings up a certain social theme that appeals to our common senses, in which we experience it on daily basis.

So you see, in the most politically correct manner, this year’s Academy Awards is a banner year in which subtlety of gay life is matched with the harsh reality of racial slur in a city of complex lives. Which one is better? They are of equal match, or should I say, they excel differently.

Crash, by all means, with its compelling storyline told through various kind of lives that seems to be in line with the famous series of Benetton ads in 90s, is an example of ensemble film which was executed superbly, something to be dreamed of by any living scriptwriters and directors in the world. On the other hand, Brokeback Mountain with its gentle treatment proves that no other director than Ang Lee can deliver a film that provokes our mind and shoots us to think thoroughly about the existence of love through many bumpy and painful roads, as what he has shown in his previous works.

Do they deserve their awards? Yes, they do.
Do they upset one another? If you are a stubbornly die-hard fan of one of them, then it’s your call to choose. But going back to the root of films which should be considered as a work of art that subjectively appeals to each and every individual in a darkened room, then an award is merely an award that will not intrude our opinion towards the films.

As much as I highly appreciate Brokeback, not to mention my dark horse favorite Good Night, and Good Luck., to see Crash winning a Best Picture is a testament that Academy, in such a rarity, finally puts its laureate on one smart, thought-provoking film, unaffected by shameless campaigns in any kind.

Seeing George Clooney winning for his less-than-distinctive performance in Syriana is a sentimental acknowledgement as he himself admitted, and that applies to Rachel Weisz‘s victory as well, in a different way, as other deserving actors with the likes of Maria Bello or Scarlett Johansson were not even nominated.
But to see a number of people whose works are rightfully rewarded (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Reese Witherspoon, Paul Haggis, Gustavo Santaoalla) is a rewarding experience on its own.

And of course, having Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep doing arguably the best award-introduction ever is an experience unlike any other kind.

This is what I call a show, you’ll never know what you’ve got until the very end.

See ya next year!

Enough said, I am presenting these films and the stars who will go down in the history of either being robbed or being sentimentally acknowledged.

This is how a popularity show works, and make that for almost eight decades.

BEST PICTURE
Will win:
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Should win:
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
Comment:
The wave of praises is unstoppable for Brokeback Mountain, a film that breaks the barrier of traditional values, and more than that, a film that gives the Western genre a refreshing look while maintaining the genre’s dignity in a very subtle way. However, as far as relevancy to the current state of the world is greatly indebted to the presence of media, no other film can be as smart as Good Night, and Good Luck. Sleek and substantial, the film made me applauding every single speech bravely spoken out. To think that the film is set some fifty decades earlier yet its resonance is still strong as of today is a cinematic achievement unlike any other kind.
Should have been nominated:
A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

BEST DIRECTOR
Will win:
ANG LEE (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN)
Should win:
ANG LEE (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN)
Comment:
No other director is able to redefine a genre, and no other director can be fairly giving each and every character in a film their own voice equally compelling to grab and win our attention. No other director can be patiently guiding us to the lives as vastly different from one another, and no other director can be this innocent in looking at the world, thus constantly giving us films that are not judgmental, but strikes to our mind and emotion.
Should have been nominated:
FERNANDO MEIRELLES (THE CONSTANT GARDENER)
DAVID CRONENBERG (A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE)

BEST ACTOR, LEADING ROLE
Will win:
PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN (CAPOTE)
Should win: P
HILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN (CAPOTE)
Comment:
Unlike any other overdue thespians who get the accolade in some mediocre role, Hoffman triumphs in arguably his role of a lifetime. More than just donning a spectacle and delivering the lines in squeaky voice, Hoffman breathes the soul of otherwise despicable character, leaving us rooting for Capote’s arrogance and by that, we are won over.
Should have been nominated:
RUSSEL CROWE (CINDERELLA MAN)

BEST ACTRESS, LEADING ROLE
Will win:
REESE WITHERSPOON (WALK THE LINE)
Should win:
FELICITY HUFFMAN (TRANSAMERICA)
Comment:
It is interesting how Witherspoon injects much of her own persona in the character of June Carter, and by that, we know how Witherspoon hijacks the film completely from Joaquin Phoenix. Yet, as much as Witherspoon’s ability to carry both dramatic and musical quality at the same time is applaudable, no other actress could match Huffman’s believable, thus terrifying, transformation as a transvestite on the verge of her complete womanhood. A very challenging role that she carries under her skin so convincingly that we do not have problems accepting and acknowledging her full-of-life presence that beguils us for years to come.
Should have been nominated:
JOAN ALLEN (THE UPSIDE OF ANGER)

BEST ACTOR, SUPPORTING ROLE
Will win:
GEORGE CLOONEY (SYRIANA)
Should win:
JAKE GYLLENHAAL (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN)
Comment:
Two actors are vying for sentimental values here. Paul Giamatti for being snubbed two years in a row for American Splendor and Sideways, and George Clooney who stands a ghost of a chance in two other categories he’s nominated in. Clooney might walk up to the stage, thanks to his undeniable charming charisma, and add that to the fact that Hollywood loves de-glamorizing its gorgeous habitants.
However, as much as sensitivity goes, no other actor in this category has a rich character as Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in Brokeback Mountain, a film that generously showcases his character in a life journey, allowing us to see his emotional and psychological development. As a tortured and tormented cowboy, Gyllenhaal embodies this character with a tenderness that in turn, leave us in tears.
Should have been nominated:
TERRENCE HOWARD (CRASH)

BEST ACTRESS, SUPPORTING ROLE
Will win:
RACHEL WEISZ (THE CONSTANT GARDENER)
Should win:
–
Comment:
I’m sorry, but as much as I think that Rachel Weisz is an underrated actress of this decade and as much as I praise her luminuous performance in The Constant Gardener (arguably the best in the film), I do not place my faith of such a character could pull off an Oscar quality.
Yet, this is the weakest major category, as what we have here is less than stellar. Catherine Keener has to settle being shadowed by Hoffman, whereas Michelle Williams experience the same from her own hubby, Heath Ledger. The fact that the two actresses I have championed for were not nominated might pretty much affect my decision to leave this category up in the smoke.
Should have been nominated:
MARIA BELLO (A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE)
SCARLETT JOHANSSON (MATCH POINT)
GONG LI (MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Will win:
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Should win:
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Comment:
A beautiful short story that gets its justice after being translated in a screenplay that does not speak much, but tells all we need to know, including the unspoken quality of longing for love, and affection. What could possibly top that?
Should have been nominated:
(doesn’t SYRIANA actually belong in this category instead?)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Will win:
CRASH
Should win:
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
Comment:
A film about interracial slur with a strong echo of post-9/11 trauma is exactly what America needs to hear, and having lines that reflect the painful scars is indeed what made Crash an unusual, likeable subject.
However, referring to my choice on Best Picture above, it’s been a while since we have a film that overwhelms us with its stature speeches, and leaving us staring in wonder and amazement at the white screen while absorbing every single sentence to our hunger mind of a good film. Good Night, and Good Luck. does that all.
Should have been nominated:
ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Will win:
PARADISE NOW
Should win:
PARADISE NOW
Comment:
To all Tsotsi fan out there, I understand that the film’s beguiling story about low life in South Africa is one thing to notice. Yet, rip off the background of the story, and replace it with Bronx for example, will it be hardly any different from any of earlier Spike Lee’s works? The same case can not be applied to Paradise Now, as a story on jihad is distinctively owned by the country where it was produced.
Should have been nominated:
C.R.A.Z.Y. (Canada)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Will win:
WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT
Should win:
WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT
Comment:
The best selection in this category ever since it was created 4 years ago. How thankful we are that the voters are not that easily surrendered to the charm of a has-been company called Disney!

BEST DOCUMENTARY
Will win:
MARCH OF THE PENGUINS
Should win:
ENRON: THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM
Comment:
Here’s my piece on a little flick about a circle of life of that cutesy penguins: it is overrated. What appeals to me from the US version is the grand voiceover on the narration as provided by Morgan Freeman, but the subject per se is hardly related and appealing to the circle of of our own lives as the filmmakers intended, in one way or another. Thus, as the echo of last year’s snub on Fahrenheit 9/11 is still too strong to ignore, my choice falls on to Enron, a political statement that goes in tune with the year’s Oscar color.
Should have been nominated:
MAD HOT BALLROOM
RIZE

There you go once again, this year’s prediction of 11 major categories, and as much as I try not having any puns intended, I’d like to extend my heartiest greeting to all of you gearing up for Academy Awards on March 5:

Good night, and good luck. 🙂

The buzz is deafening at the time when the new rules of preventing shameless promotional campaign (Martin Scorsese in Gangs of New York, anyone?) have been applied for the past 2 years.

But for such a grandeur and prestigious event at this caliber where even the most predictable sweeps in the tradition of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King still managed to get major news coverage worldwide, is the Academy still in need of a good buzz?

Judging from the list of the nominations this year, positively I say: yes, the Academy is desperately in need of a good buzz.

Having been guilty for too many times in favoring questionably good films rather than selecting the ones daring enough to voice out certain statements, be them political, economical, cultural or even religious matters, this year’s selection is hard to escape the notion that not only Academy favors films with edgier themes, but also the fact that the films uncompromisingly make a stand of the themes they bring.

One director daringly opens up the closet subtleties of Western genre and make a whole new imagination out of the notoriously hard-to-redefine genre. Another writer shows the scar of interracial slur happening at a city where the dreams are fabricated, whereas other marvels in depicting a life of a celebrated author at his bleakest phase of lifetime. A certain storyteller responds to the current emerge of terrorism by transporting us back to the oft-forgotten merciless event three decades ago, and finally a director in his sophomore work tickles us with how we should treat a goggle box by tracing theunresolvede problem way back five decades earlier.

If the seriousness of the glamorous event is apparent, then maybe it is required to elevate the common pessimist judgment towards Oscar as a popularity show.

Thus, no more kookiness of previous hosts, as selecting Jon Stewart who is very much at ease with his political stand will guarantee some thoughtful jokes might easily be lost in conservative audiences comprising of elderly aunts and uncles championing their distant cousin or nephew in some obscure, smaller categories.

No more Top-40 song being nominated in Original Song category, or over-the-top score as the voters opt for subtle, if not unique, works that accompany those bravely political films.

Finally, there will hardly be any crowd pleasers this time.

Alas, if these eyebrows-rising affair defines and puts the word “glamour” to this event, then we’re up for it!

A dummy guide by a dummy. If it doesn’t work, I don’t know what else will.

1. Seek out what kind of a film festival it is.

There are different kind of film festivals anyone is putting up, and that pretty much depends on how those organizers wanting to get. Some established film festivals are clearly intended to launch highly publicised new films, of both arts and commercial values, and to market them to distributors worldwide. So you can expect stars to flock by, press to scrutinize the film venues, and these are how Cannes, Venice, Toronto often associated with.

Some film festivals in other countries has different kind of intention. Singapore International Film Festival always gives spotlight to films within South East Asia region, an applaudable intention considering the country being a media hub in the region. The clueless Jakarta International Film Festival has been busy defining itself as a film festival of whatever films they can chip in.

Bangkok International Film Festival? A film festival headed by a president from the nation’s tourism authority which definitely has no direct relations to the film industry. Oh wait! There’s this film festival organizing committee, but they’re based in the US, and that explains the lack of Thai presence in the whole event.

There you go, a still-failed attempt of transporting Cannes to Siam Paragon.

2. Mark out the schedule.

But wait!
How can we do this if the schedule was only released 3 days prior to the festival?
Thus, the gambling’s on.

3. Check out the venue.

Shouldn’t be a problem if the whole festival was only situated within one shopping mall.
Hold on.
A film festival in a cineplex?
A cineplex in a shopping mall only?
Be sure that you are friendly enough to the waiters/waitresses of the food court as you can only spend your meal break there. Hey, it’s a festival, what do you expect?

4. Work out your charm.

Brush your teeth every morning, noon and night, give your gorgeous smile to the festival officers or any volunteers working in a front barrier, the luck would be with you in the form of a press pass, or any pass to let you in for free.
Add that with rubbing skins or patting shoulders with fellow journalists, filmmakers, or whoever people with badges on. Striking up a conversation with some dashing film critic will turn out delightful, trust me! Especially if he remembers your name after the first lengthy conversation.

5. Be an unforgiving opportunist.

Now you’ve got your pass, you’ve got privilege to grab any films you want, better save up than feeling sorry to miss out any of them. Life’s not fair, I know, but then, whoever says it is when it comes to films?

6. Be judgmental.

Hundreds of films within the course of 10 days, that surely does look good. Let’s just say there are 150 films, that will give you an average of 15 film in a day.
Holy Mother!
What time are you gonna sleep? What time are we gonna go clubbing? What time are we heading to Chatuchak? This is Bangkok we’re talking about.
So why not settle ourselves comfortably in this decision: if a film does not impress you within one hour, leave the theatre, and nothing should prevent you from doing so. Award-winning films? Renowned actors? Directors in attendance?
How about shifting to another screening of films that satisfy your heart, mind and soul? The ones that you will clap wholeheartedly by the end of them? Now that’s what I like to have.

7. Indulge yourself.

Sitting alone in a dark room full of strangers while trying to comprehend the films takes up your mind’s work that much. Thus, if you feel someone giving you a look of appreciation, a suggestive gesture of tenderness, don’t force yourself to reject them. Take a good look, who knows you might end up having fun?
Add that to surrendering your tough principle of staying away from popcorn and sodas. Remember, watching 4-5 films in a day requires tremenduous amount of energy.

8. Act cool.

This applies to not having a starstruck if Willem Dafoe appears in front of you and looking much better in real person, or not looking drunk after continuously sipping alcoholic drinks before a ceremony begins.

9. Give yourself a day off from films.

Get a life, folks! Seriously!

10. Watch films. Appreciate them.

After all, this is what a film festival should be, a gathering for film lovers to communally watch films. Clap for them, loathe them, talk about them, curse them, praise them, whatever acts of appreciation you have for the films, this is the chance for you to show off what you have kept in store all these time.
Believe me, no more clueless people who storm into 21 cineplex watching any films the cineplex offers, or the posh-yet-brainless people often seen in a lobby of plush cinemas who can not even pronounce the title.
Film festivals are one of the reasons people like me would be more than willing to sacrifice anything to get a good film-watching experience.
From various kind of people encountered to wacky ticketing system, the package is simply hard to resist.

Alas, here’s to more!