Category Archives: Film

(Siffest has often proved itself to be a festival of surprises, and in terms of films, that refers to many things that may go beyond expectation of any expected feeling. Confused? Read on!)

One of the advantages of attending screenings during a film festival is that a rare chance of meeting creative minds behind a film, be them directors, actors, producers, screenwriters or cinematographers. The latter may apply if they carry household names like Christopher Doyle or Anne V. Coates, for example.

How do you feel when you get to see those remarkably talented people in the screening of their films that we’re about to see?
Anxious?
Curious?
Surprised?
Or simply indifferent?

Whatever our feeling that may reflect our perception towards the film itself, be thankful for this rare chance we may not likely often encounter in the first place. And wouldn’t it be cool if the director himself said something like,

“Relax. If you fall asleep during the film, please do so!”

Oh! Can anything get any greater than that?

So I salute you, Hou Hsiao Hsien.

First, for being what you are, a respected, honored director. May your recent The Best of Times will bring its best at Cannes this year.

Second, for being humble and honest in seeing your own works objectively. You even persuaded us to be ourselves on how to treat your film, Cafe Lumiere.

And I did what you had, erm, suggested, Maestro.

I fell asleep throughout the entire film.

No, no, no. Of course not the entire per se, but apparently, closing your senses in some parts of the film means losing the core essence of the film. So, no matter that I managed to wake up and tried to decipher the series of images appearing on the screen, I lost the main thread of the story.

And so I lost the film.

Too bad.

But then, it’s worth a second viewing. 😉

(Siffest has its own ability to lure everyone, or rather, some serious film-afficionado like me, to cash out their piggybanks in this annual pilgrimage. Hey, haven’t we heard this before? Oh c’mon, I can’t think of any “proper” introduction).

Or rather, juggling your work and doing something that has become your main source of feeling alive has never been easy. That leads to having tremenduous lack of time to indulge in our interests, and in this case, doing breadwinning work, watching films and review them has surely taken up most of my time.

Sacrifice is Freakingly Fabulous! That’s how SIFF should stand for.

And for the faithful followers of this so-called journey, you may notice how I’d to sacrifice some confirmed populist films on the list of the fest this year.

Resting time may be substituted, financial constraints can be solved by worshipping loan shark, but meeting your old friends and current ones who are not into films crazily like us is something worth doing, eventhough *deep sigh* we may have to be taken aback when people say something like,

“Hey, I love Garin Nugroho’s Rindu Kami Pada-Mu!”
“Really? I missed that :(“

But gladly, despite the hectic social hopping here and there, I decided not to miss another fabulous film which is more than qualified to be considered as another hidden treasure in the fest.
I was blown away, literally hopeful in fact, to the Far Side of the Moon.

So much so that it never fails to drift my attention away despite its cosmic subject playfully treated to become comical, yet touching.
On top of that, in a rare achievement of artistry, Robert Lepage manages to spread his artistic comandeering evenly, making the film a pleasant journey of viewing without any hints of watching a work of egoism.

As a director, he turns this film into one imaginative film that still sets its foot deep down to the earth.

As a screenwriter, he turns his own play into a series of quirky and witty utterances that invite genuine laughter.

As an actor, he slips into the dual roles easily, believing contrast characters among the sibling.

As a moviegoer myself, this is a film worth repeated viewings which deserve greater number of audience.

However, the same feeling is hardly the same as when I went to catch a documentary flick on Monday nite.
Common assumption sets that the fest is the best time when we can cram as many genres as possible. Therefore, a fest will not be complete without diversity of genres, and how can one resist new emergences of watchable documentaries?

But this time, as the title itself suggests, I was kidnapped by the terror haunting me when I watched Guerrilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst.

Arguably one of the most controversial kidnappings in the ’70s happening at the height of mass hysteria over Vietnam war that leads to rebellious movements from some underground organizations, which contrasted with the lives of the rich, the film presents the fact as is, without taking bravery on making its own opinion.

Whereas such action might be seen as an objective move, the film itself becomes lack of emotional attachment to the audience. Robert Stone presents the film in a straight-forward narrative structure, outlining the story in an organized manner of daily-come-weekly-come-monthly basis, as if to make us feel like observing the whole events as news, and nothing more than that.

Yet, the constructed structure takes its blow when the film abrupts its ending by presenting a footage of Patty Hearst a few years later transforming herself as a celebrity. As if to make an ironic comparison to her younger days being with the the Symbionese Liberation Army (that infamous SLA), the footage does not give any weight to the story as it blatantly is presented there for the sake of continuation of the story, to make it as chronological as possible.

And chronologically, this festival journey should continue, despite hiccups and bumpy roads here and there.

(Siffest means that we won’t hear usual buzz of mobile’s ringtones like what we may usually experience in any other cinemas for any other screenings. Thanks to who? Us. Audience. C’mon, give a credit to ourselves, shall we?)

Indeed, so niche the market for Siffest is that we tend to see the same people patronizing Shaw Towers’ cinemas over and over again. Considering that these cinephiles would be willing to spend their piggy bank savings to lure themselves into film-indulgence session like this, chances are that we may see them again in any other festivals, be it the country-themed festivals in Singapore, or even within region. After all, my Bangkok Film Festival journey that I did a few months back wouldn’t be fruitful had Zefri been not around.

Yet, tonight I missed my chance to politely scrutinize the faces of audience, thanks to my stressed-out day I had had at work earlier. This means that I would crave for a nice, not necessarily healthy dinner, and that would take quite significant amount of time as a dinner would not be complete without chatterings with people that you care for.

But then, this is not Psycho or any Hitchcock’s films where you can’t afford losing the first few minutes. The film that slightly suffered from my unapologetic lateness happens to be a straight-forward drama from Argentina, and it’s about one Live-In Maid in Buenos Aires.

Now, we’ve often decided to watch a film because of its actor in the film, right?

Exactly. The main reason why the film got selected in my list, not to mention that I bought the ticket at a very last minute, was simply because of one name: Norma Aleandro.

I fell in love with her immediately after seeing her performance in Son of the Bride as an amnesiac woman who was introduced to experience love at first sight again to her husband of 40 years. Looking at her tiny figure in that film, I was taken by surprise to see her voluptuous hair style that transformed her as a demanding matriarch at the brink of bankruptcy in Live-In Maid. She dominates every scene she is in with her sharp facial expression that does not require any words to tell what her character is thinking of.

Her uncanny portrayal of a woman basking in good old days of her height to be crashed with current harsh reality of aging life seems to steal the spotlight from the main actress herself who carries the title role, Norma Argentina as Dora, the maid. Even if Argentina has to share the screentime equally with the more popular Aleandro, yet together they form a duet of class-act performance that elevates the already smart script to be a film so enjoyable, that eclipses the disturbing rough look of digital format the film reels in.

And now, if only I could’ve finished my dinner any sooner …

(Siffest is the time when you’ve got to make sacrifice of your social life. Provided that your cliques are not film-buff like you. But if they are? Be prepared to get bored! You see them every day, you bump into them on every screenings, c’est la vie.)

Seriously I don’t feel like updating today, for some reason that is non-SIFFest related.

So, you notice that my shoutmix box is gone, and there was my brief history of life. But come to think of it, change is good, change is refreshing, so I welcome shouthuns, thanks to the rotten, outdated blog of my housemate.

Anyway, back to business.

There will come a day during your journey when you can’t help feeling a little bit exhausted, yet the quest has to go on, simply because we already paid a good fortune for it.
Or it could be that you’re just too tired after a day’s work, and this one goes out to 9-to-6 desk-bound office slave who happens to be cinephiles, like me. We just can’t help yawning, and no matter how good the film is, tiredness remains. Add the breezing, comforting sound of air conditioner and darkened hall of cinema, chances of us dozing off is still high.

There’s no film to blame, for the film like Whisky deserves more attention from audience, worldwide perhaps.

After all, the film does its reminiscence of human behavior at its best. You see, some of us here might lead a life with usual, boring routine, like we go to work in the morning, waiting for the owner of the factory to open the door, do routine check among employees, go home at night to find an empty bed. Or worse, empty house.
Throw in a surprise visit of our relatives whom we haven’t seen for quite some time, then we’ve got the urge to present the best in us, no matter how we’ve got to create fakeness in the life we’ve comfortably had.

The result? Unexpectedly subtle.

Through the silence, we can feel the two main characters’ chemistry that is about to burst anytime. Their understanding, or rather misunderstanding, is so beautifully constructed through their detailed, delicate gesture that takes our utmost concentration to see.
They might not do much, but what is not spoken reveals much of their longingness and loneliness.

And what is not spoken tells me that I should get enough of proper rest, so as to not fall asleep during the screening again.

(Siffest means abundance of hidden treasure awaiting to be discovered upon going to the cinemas and watch them yourself. Post-watching feelings, which can range from being satisfied to dumbfounded, is subject to our own’s perception, and pretty much our current state of mind.)
And to think that Siffest never attempts to be glossy and glitzy is pretty much justified by this conversation:

Jer : “Sorry for not returning your call last time. What’s up?”
Nov : “Huh? When?”
J : “Think it was Saturday lor …”
N : “Ooohhh! Oh! Yes, yes! It was over anyway. Got this extra ticket for one screening last Saturday. Eastern Sugar.”
J : “Aiyah, I couldn’t make it anyway. I’m not gonna watch any films in Siffest this year.”
N : (puzzled) “Whhhyyyy?”
J : “The film selections are sucks, man! What a crap! Don’t feel like watching any. Not as good as last year’s one, rite?”
N : “Eerrr .. Not really, though. You’ve got to keep on digging to find out the good ones.” *grin*
J : “Haiyah, dunno leh. How’s the attendance, not as many as last year’s, rite?”
N : “Surprisingly some shows are still sold-out, mah. Just now also.” (gue tau Bahasa Inggris gue ancur dah dari 5 taun yang lalu, stralah!)
J : “…”
N : “…”

There goes Jeremy, another F-buddy of mine who bid his much-regretted goodbye at this year’s fest.
And he’s not the only one.
I myself couldn’t stop questioning this year’s fest committee over their choices of films. As if adding salt to the wound, the rise of the ticket price heightened the curiosity on the matter.

However, at the end of the day, film fest experience is like an adventure to an uncharted territory. You might be taken aback at what the map shows you for its full of uncertainties. Surely Godard is the master of avant-garde cinema, but is he still up to the hype? Garin Nugroho goes mainstream this time, is it any good?
Dare to make choices, that’s the key to lure yourself into the free-falling experience of film festival.
You may dismiss Mike Figgis’s Hotel last time, or you may joy over Since Otar Left, perhaps. Whatever your mixed-feelings tells you, you will not just experience either side of emotional state upon completing your whole journey.

It might be too early to tell, but tonight, I had the best of both extremes.

Let’s start from the low-side, being dumbfounded and puzzled in confusion, thanks to Primer.

The first glance of its sephia-tone look revokes the memory of watching 70’s B-grade thriller, yet the premise turns in an unexpected way. The film tells about two engineers who work on (something) that will enable (the thing) to achieve (another thing).
The thing, that’s something I wasn’t able to figure out.

Yet, for a smart, slick thriller that is filled with too many scientific jargons, it is surprising to see how the film manages to keep its audience glued to the seat from the beginning to the very end. One or two old folks walked out, but that’s about it, and the rest of the audience, sadly that includes me, tried too hard to decipher the content of the film. Yet, in the end, I could only remember the look of the film, but nothing much. And that’s too much for an indie flick generating good buzz anywhere.

There’s nothing wrong with good buzz, though. Certainly the other film is worth every penny of good buzz it has currently enjoyed, and the enjoyment of this film (and in this film) is surely something that the whole audience will flock to see it over and over again.

Ladies and gentleman, the first film from the fest worth all the praises: Millions.

Imagine a colorful film filled with sharp-cutting editing, resulting in rich images similar to those you usually find in pop-up books.

Imagine a story drawn from the innocent child’s point of view, told with sincerity and honesty at their fullest.

Imagine a fairytale where imaginary characters come true in real life.

Imagine that being good in cynical world is still possible and rewarding.

And imagine.

The wholesome cuteness is a brain result from the direction of Danny Boyle who did, ahem, Trainspotting and 28 Days Later …, and the magical writing of Frank Cottrell Boyce who penned, ahem, 24 Hour Party People.

No matter how imaginative Millions might be, its charm appeals widely and strikes us, adults, who can’t help but crying in joyful over the lost innocence we have left long time ago.

Imagine, a film that leaves you feeling rich, as rich as Millions itself.

Imagine that such a treasured grace is found here in the dreary land of SIFFest.

(Siffest means perfection, where lateness in the screening time does not happen and abrupt electrical failure is a big no-no during the screening.)

Oh really?

Tonite marked the rare occurence of sudden interruption due to the technical failure that happened exactly in the middle of the screening. Whereas such disturbance usually takes place in the beginning, luckily this jolt did not interrupt our viewing digestion.

You know exactly if this kind of thing is felt, then the film is surely something special to talk about.

Or perhaps we should personify this film as it carries the name that speaks of beauty and fragility.

Her name is Yasmin.

She is a Pakistani (Paki) woman, living a working-class life in UK whose self-esteem life was shaken to the core due to the unfortunate event of 9’11”. Her family is torn apart, her shelter of love life shatters, her breadwinning job dismisses her, and she begins questioning the faith she believes in.

So much of paranoia is shown vividly throughout the entire film, some might be a good dose of humor, at times turning this film to a dark comedy territory.
Yet, most of the time, the film speaks to the hearts of minorities everywhere, what it’s like to be seen and treated differently while what you’ve got, is only yourself to stand up tall and straight.

Simon Beaufoy‘s tight script allows the film to move flawlessly for us to see what it’s like to be a part of society being the object of hatred from the bigger cliques.
Kenneth Glenaan‘s marvellous direction swifts nicely for us to feel like being inside the film.
And carrying the titular role, Archie Panjabi couldn’t be more believable in portraying her well-drawn character.

The way she whisks her husband to obey her.

The way she surrenders to reality.

The way she laughs at hedonism.

Finally, a film that is worth standing ovation for its bravery and independent spirit in showing the real world as it is.

But, what about that failure disruption?

Well, what failure disruption?

(Siffest is annual pilgrimage for film-enthusiasts in Singapore where suddenly Shaw Towers building feels alive, thanks to the flock of people who seem to have lack of choices except to roam around the almost-dead building while waiting for their screenings.)

It may be best to get yourself feeling full, but not bloated, after taking lunch, for it helps you survive through the afternoon-session of film screenings, be them for 2 pm or 4 pm show.

In fact, heavy lunch will not knock you down to sleep, you’ve got enough energy to sustain and to keep you awake throughout art-y flicks which are initially made solely based on ideas, without any intention for the makers to put themselves in audience’s shoes. Any audience intended, and that means their own group of niche market.

Yet, there is still quite a number of audience who are willing to take the risk of bracing themselves in fronting these self-ego work of arts. The ocean of 12 people in Singapore History Museum this afternoon who gathered to see Faozan Rizal‘s labor of love film, Aries, is the pool of people with different background united in the spirit of Zen: peacefulness.

Which translates nicely into dozing off.

Whether these audience had a big lunch like what I had had is beyond my knowledge, but their ability to stay throughout the real surrealist film amazed me, eventhough it had to be paid off with missing a few scenes, thanks to the sleep.

On the other hand, having too much of your meal for dinner did not serve well if you watch Notre Musique afterwards. The latest from one of the icons in French New-Wave movement, Jean-Luc Godard, the film starts with horrifying images of living in the world as one helluva hell on earth. Move forward, we begin to unravel the film as interrogative proclamation on bridging endless philosophic question of life/death, hell/heaven, and subtly, freedom/restriction.

Gone was the signatural off-beat and hip style of Godard, certainly the major reason among most of the audience why they chose to attend this screening instead of more popular Tarnation. Depending on how one sees this part-documentary, part-narrative film, I find Godard sings his film a little off-key, and the false note might be a little too much for some audience who decided to walk out when the film has not even reached its half point.

Just like one’s feeling after eating what he craves for, so much of the anticipation yet you don’t get enough satisfaction.

(Siffest stands for Singapore International Film Festival which turns 18 this year. A little above being under-age, but can’t be considered mature enough. Nice!)

This year supposed to be my, what, fifth or sixth year of experiencing Siffest? Yet there’s one thing keeps being repeated every year and you may accuse me of being ignorant or never learned from the past mistake:

extra rest or enough sleep for the next day’s 11 am show.

Because staying up late the night before would only result in waking up late the next day, and you’ve got to rush to the inaccessible Shaw Towers which takes about 30-45 minutes to reach from your place of stay. Add the mulling of Aki’s inability to find anyone up to the extra ticket he had, an anxiety over being late, the unforgivably dark cinema hall of Jade 2 that made us have to head almost blindly in searching for our seats, my first film of the fest this year turned out to be quite a mediocre, not as bad as last year’s bumpy start of Little Men though, if we talk about ‘watchable’.

Eastern Sugar (Szezon), the entry from Hungary, is being placed under time schedule that surely left its intended audience scratching their heads. An R21 (only 21 years old and above are permitted) film shown at the hour when most adults are still on the bed having hangover from the euphoria of Friday nite’s out? And the question is justified by the presence of its impossibly gorgeous cast of actors that seem to be taken out directly from any porn films.
Yet, those quality prevail in making people still turn their head and glued to the film until the end, although the film may have nothing much to boast about, except the overtly done homo-erotic tones which overlaps its half-baked story.

On the other hand, a film with quite an apparent corny title like When Beckham Met Owen made a delightful passing time activity.
Shot in digital format, the film presents an unpolished look of suburban life in Hong Kong, and this time it centers around rite passage of manhood from two school boys who embark on the quest of figuring out their sexual orientation, effortlessly.
Throw in the usual element of a girl in between the two, harsh life of lower-middle class neighborhood, the film has its charms as shown through many inside jokes that never fail to crack the audiences up. Too many of the jokes may seem to fill in the screntime of the film, leaving a forgettable abrupt ending that does not serve to be in synch with the comic potential of the film.

Still a great start after all, a fabulous encounter with an old friend who is truly a survivor of the region’s film festivals, and he’s none other than Zefri, my F-buddy whom I’m sure we’ll get to see each other more often the next days onwards.

That’s just one, more to come.

It’s the time of the year again.

Film enthusiasts (notice how I seldom use ‘buff’ after film, after all, most of film freaks are not, sadly, buffed!) in Singapore embrace the long-month of April with one clear intention in mind which, as sacred as pilgrimage, has become some kind of routine that will defy any other daily activities, at least they will be put on hold for two weeks. Hey, it ain’t that bad! Two weeks of nothing but films unlikely getting theatrical releases, or if they will, surely scissors of censorship would be happily butchering them into some, well, butchered flicks.

Welcome to the 18th Singapore International Film Festival, 14-30 April 2005.

As years pass by, as the number increases, so are the “guides”, and here’s 18 ways to behave, to adapt, to not be yourself, to transform, to survive, and most of all, to enjoy the whirlwind experience throughout the festive season:

1. Set your dates free
Surely you don’t want to be interrupted with late-nite work or unannounced visit of your friends or relatives who do not know your antics being a film-maniac. This will include using up your annual leave days, and do it in style: if you have to catch a 7 pm-film and your workplace is quite a distant from the cinemas (note: it’s the cinemas that are not accessible, folks!), get a half-day leave! Honey, Michael Douglas may say “Greed is Good” and won an Oscar for it, but greediness for watching films? Get a life!

2. Complains!
Oh oh oh! Flood the forums in SGFilm or the SIFFest website itself with your complains! Surely no SIFFest would properly start without hearing any complains on a) the choice of films that lacks of mass-appeal, b) increase steep of ticket price, c) clash-schedule of latest Godard’s work vs. some new indie director whose film sweeps many awards, d) neglected cinemas, e) inefficiency of SIFFest team (hey, give them a break! They’re running on a cash-strapped management!), and the list goes on and on. Oh, did I mention about increasing number of banned films?

3. Do not stay up late on weekends!
Why?
Chances are that you will be watching more than two films on weekends when the schedule on both days start as early as 11 am, and lasts until the usual 9 pm-schedule. What I’m trying to say is that you’ve got to keep your stamina when you watch 4 films in a row (!!!), and certainly having sex the nite before that lasts until dawn is not recommended.

4. Or go clubbing, partying, c’mon, give them a rest for a while. Don’t be afraid they’ll close down soon like Centro or Embassy, they’ll be fine if we’re absent for a little time.

5. Get yourself familiarized with the route!
Most of the screenings you’re gonna attend will be shown in Shaw Tower, Bugis, which is inconveniently located exactly between Bugis MRT and City Hall MRT. Which one? Not both of them! It’s time to get used to taking bus, and kindly refer to SBS website for the bus information. Hey, not every information I’ve got in hand!

6. And getting handy with meals would be another challenging thing!
Let’s see if you can survive on Burger King for those two weeks! And no matter how you claim that Subway is healthier, it doesn’t help if you put way too much mustard on it. The solution? Try out some outlets in the food court only when you have morning shows on weekends as most of them are closed by 7 pm., so by the time you are catching 9 pm-show, you’ll be starving. And believe me, there can be no greater pleasure in bringing your own food, after all …

7. Oooppss! Have you extra money to spare?
This event is surely the most money-draining activity for any underpaid breadwinner, and things do not look good within horizon if the rumors that they’re going to increase the ticket (again!) by next year does come true. The increase in this year itself already forms to be a burden, moreover with SISTIC handling the ticketing system, God knows what kind of cursing has been uttered.
Oh well, rob the bank, break kindergarten pupils’ piggy-banks, ask for loan, guess we all should learn from those junkies on how they survive, don’t we? Hmmm…

8. No popcorn! No latecomers!
Erm, no easily-forgotten Hollywood trash is shown here, and anyone walking inside a theater with a bucket of popcorn would be met with a lot of eyebrows raising. No eating please, this is the time when everybody gets seriously pretending to be serious, so it’s all a hush-hush affair.
And that also explains why you can’t afford to come late, not only it will disrupt the people sitting next to you or basically anyone in the theater, but those cinemas in Shaw Tower belong to some of the darkest cinemas here. No flashing sign of rows and seat number, and my oh my, you have no idea how you may get lost in Prince 1 with 1,000-plus seats! Which brings me to something else …

9. Get your tickets early!
A one-time showing to feed a country in which its cinema-attendance is one of the highest in the world? Be kiasu or be left behind! Even if the film is shown in that Prince 1 theatre, No Man’s Land was a box-office hit some time back, and even Uzak for last year.

10. You get to know the crowd, which is fairly predictable. Arisan! was flooded with Indonesians, so was Bridal Shower with Filipinos, and Lan Yu was jam-packed with gays, the fact goes on and on …

11. It’s wonderful!

12. It’s marvelous!

13. It’s superb!

14. It’s great!

15. It’s a life-changing experience!

16. It thrills!

17. It’s gorgeous!

18. It’s the festive season which you surely will indulge. What else can I say, except to ENJOY, have fun and if you get hooked up with fellow cinephiles, you know who to thank 😉

Yeah, lucky you!

What if you have a boss that is half your age, and your boss is dating your daughter?

What kind of question is this?

For sure I can’t relate myself to the first question, but given the assumption that if such a thing does happen in an opposite point of view, then the boss should be around my age, and I can see where this judgment would be based on: the view of twenty-something yuppies whom every envied adults would like to say, “The time’s on your side, have fun!”

Indeed, Chris Weitz had a blast in mis-matching the unlikely pair of Dennis Quaid as the sacked ad salesman with Topher Grace as his ambitious younger (much younger) boss who passionately driven to achieve nothing but figures while neglecting his employees to suffer, something that Quaid’s Dan Foreman actually excels in. Add in to their bitter, jittery relationship is Scarlett Johansson’s Alex, Dan’s eldest daughter who is smitten by Grace’s Carter Dureya with all his kookiness and hidden charm. All three perform a ménage-a-trois relationship in clean slate manner enough to garner the film a PG rating although I deem Johansson’s presence is a bit overtly sexual for her character as an 18-year old fresh college student, yet the way she cuddles around Quaid proves to be a lovable look of how a father-daughter closeness should be.

However, if there’s a film whereby the performance of its one relatively-new star overwhelms the film itself, then the credit goes to Topher Grace. Having hidden for too long under the shadow of That 70’s Show ensemble, Grace gracefully embraces his role in a suave, charming manner yet enough to reveal his character’s multi-layered behaviors very well, which surely paved his way to be one reliable actor in the future. Of course, playing a character of the same age does add his effortless way to slip into the shoes of Carter Dureya’s charismatic presence, yet Grace manages to tower over Quaid’s steady-like figure and Johansson’s uneasy performance.

What if Topher Grace becomes the next leading man?

Stick to exploring his sensitivity first, please.

Final Verdict : One would surely be ‘In Good Company’ when watching this enjoyable flick, thanks to believable, eclectic performance from its cast, particularly Topher Grace in his star-making role.

Grade : B

Nauval’s note:
-scattered words- series is a series of scattered files in the form of Notepad or Microsoft Word files that are found on my computer and were made long time ago, when blogging was never heard of, when publishing my thoughts to residents of virtual world never came across to my mind. Alas, you will see the progress in how I have evolved, to some extent, and particularly in this case, when the notes below were written sometime back in 2003, when I already started paying attention to film-review, sort of. Save your accusations for later cause, just read if you want to, no harms were done to the people working on dvd-rental stores as I always returned the dvds on time, or to the ushers of cinema halls as I politely woke up by myself after drooling on my sleeps upon watching some horrible films that were best left dreaming. Enjoy!

———————————————–

MOVIES SEEN BUT NOT MADE TO MY LIST :

(not in any particular order)

1. DAYS OF BEING WILD
reason: Wong Kar Wai at his absurdness! While it portrays Leslie Cheung and Maggie Cheung applaudable performances well, and stealing scenes from Rebecca Pan, one can’t help wondering, what Andy Lau’s character has got to do with the whole storyline? (and I suspect the same case happens to Jacky Cheung’s appearance in “Chungking Express”?)

(present reflection: Oh how Ben‘s gonna bash me for this! Hahahaha! My deep apology to all WKW’s fan, it took me a little longer to finally appreciate WKW’s gorgeousness of self-indulgent cinematic experience in which arts melts into pieces of scenes in which every angle would scream “grandeur!”, and not to mention understanding his masterful grasp of underlaying emotions of the characters through subtext of his powerful cinematographic films. Call it pretentious or overtly-stylized, yet WKW stands tall as one of the most respectable directors the modern cinema would shamelessly bow to his greatness.)

2. SOLYARIS (Solaris) (1971)
reason: Intolerably tedious w/ unnecessary scenes go lengthy! Even me and Pei Chin had to take turn sleeping (me at the end of the first part, and she at the beginning)! If you are claustrophobic, definitely this film is something I won’t recommend to you as a cure.

(present reflection: I wholeheartedly stick to my point above, despite getting enough exposure on Andrei Tarkovsky from some articles found in Sights & Sounds earlier this month. It doesn’t mean that I’m not gonna go for his other movies though, but I guess for anyone to make a 4-hour film in a slow-pace movement depicting about the life inside a space shuttle, audience may choose to go for suicidal thoughts happily rather than sacrificing themselves to be tortured mentally. Yet, some scenes in the film linger on my mind until now, particularly the traffic scene in which Andrei chose to show the image of street lights forming into linear pattern, an image impossibly made in the era when the film was made, yet the result strikes as familiar to modern audience.)

3. LA FAUSSE SUIVANTE (The False Servant)
reason: While the concept of transforming a play into a (low budget) film never works any better than this, I can’t help thinking that the lines are uttered plainly, a la French do their talking, maybe? Don’t blame me for falling asleep in the middle of crucial part, but after all, the screenplay puts a nice touch to the characterization of the roles.

(present reflection: Have you ever had an experience that you dislike a certain film so much, yet the film sticks on your memory after it has long gone? This is what I feel towards the film until now, for I can still recall the vivid “staging” the film is made, in which the whole story about the ship-wreck is staged in an entire theatre hall, and the director made it obvious! Perhaps an experiment of a not-properly-tested breakthrough, the main draw of this film lies on Isabelle Huppert’s dignified presence, yet I should’ve known that if I wanted to go for this, I would’ve chosen her other far more superb works.)

4. TO CATCH A THIEF
reason: Surely the film’s breathtaking cinematography match the catch-me-if-you-can
thriller Hitchcock is best known as in 1950’s, it’s just a matter of time I took when I watched this film. A lesson learned: NEVER watch any thrillers in midday! Definitely one of those films I’m gonna watch again.

(present reflection: Blame it on a heaty afternoon that made me lose my concentration in watching this enjoyable flick which is not supposedly requiring any particular attention in the first place! There you go, figure it out yourself, this is Hitchcock’s at his relaxed, playful direction like the way he did in The Trouble with Harry or even Notorious. Considering the pairing of Grace Kelly and Cary Grant is something worth watching itself, I may have to watch this film one more time before I can give my fair judgment.)

One, that includes me, can’t help making this kind of classification unfairly given to Indonesian films in general, that is, the film either belongs to commercial market, or whether they are made (and marketed) as an art-y film, which usually associated with being screened on film festivals, locally and globally. Such treatment may not come from the opinionated-public itself, to some extent it is derived from the films themselves, which later on will prove to be some kind of major hindrance in analyzing and understanding the films, in complete.

Watching Banyu Biru is simply unable to escape the notion above.

Just like looking at its misleading poster that suggests a lightweight comedy with the use of plainly bright blue color and showing Tora Sudiro with a supposedly thoughtful, confused look around his face while holding a floating boat that turns to be merely bland innocent look, and the useless effort of maximizing general public interest by putting the name Dian Sastro right below Tora’s, the film seems to be ready to enter the market of commercial films intended to generate greater audience’s interest to flock on cinemas and making some philosophical film a hit.
Yet, the premise, metaphorically associated to the boat in the poster, only manages to float on the surface, drifting along seamlessly and leaving me wondering, what’s the film is all about?

The journey we are about to embark on watching this film refers to Banyu’s journey (Tora Sudiro) in finding his intended direction on life. Having separated from his estranged father (Slamet Rahardjo) ever since he was in high school after going through painful bringing up, now Banyu, being a lonesome depressed man of a big city pinched down to survive, determines to find out the missing link in his life that he thinks leads him to his current state of being. Along the way, he encounters different characters who help shaping his way of thinking, which eventually would lead to his relief. Or is it?

The story of how one finds the truth about his own life may be told for numerous times, yet Teddy Soeriaatmaja, the director, failed to bring out a fresh look of this overused theme. It started strongly though, with the sequence of a couple dancing along the song ‘Juwita Malam’, which later would be played throughout the film in many different versions, and a young boy peeks at the couple who turns out to be his parents as the story progresses. The sweet scene done in soft-tone color evokes our sense of nostalgia, and as if Teddy would not want to let the sweetness go away, he seems to be trapped in gorgeous cinematography rather than concentrating on the pillar of a narrative fiction film: good storytelling. Quite a number of beautiful shots taken from unusual angles of point of view are drained to replace the exhaustiveness from the lack of coherent storytelling.
A good defense of these imagery showcases would be to make the film as surrealist as it can be. Some scenes heavily suggest this intention, the strongest would be the dancing scene in the middle of a boring meeting at Banyu’s workplace. Like a rip-off from Bjork’s music video “It’s Oh So Quiet” when all the actors suddenly breakout into dancing moves with no particular expression on their faces, the scene marks as the most relieving part of the film. Yet, this continuity of dream-like quality in the film has to be butchered when the rest of the following scenes force themselves to be filled with un-communicative words, jump directly at intended meaning instead of regular talks that may bring out the purpose of having those talks better. By then, audience’s freedom to interpret and perceive the film is annoyingly disturbed with these meaningless words.
Which also would leave the actors at their dreadfulness, trying hard to interpret the story in unconvincing ways. By any means, Teddy is the most enviable director at the moment for his ability in assembling talented cast comprises of Slamet Rahardjo, Dian Sastro, Didi Petet, HIM Damsyik, Didi Petet, Rima Melati, but surely he would be the unfortunate one who is unable to capitalize their talents. In fact, the surprise of this film is derived from one scene-stealer whose skillful acting presence lingers on my mind long after the film ends: Oscar Lawalata.

You may accuse him of merely playing as himself for the character, coincidental or not, resembles to Oscar’s own character, I believe. However, as the film clearly states at the end-credit that the whole film is fictional and no matter what the background of the actor is, Oscar does the best of all the rest of the actors here. Playing as Arif, a neglected childhood friend of Banyu, Oscar is often put under the silhouette, hiding most of his recognizable signatural feature. Yet, as good as any caliber actors can be in marking his presence without even showing, Oscar does the same through his carefully enunciated words that he delivers with superb, contented delivery, leaving Tora scratching his head for he needs to learn from this scene-stealer.

But as Oscar only does scene-stealing, moreover only one scene which surely is not enough to help the film from going downhill afterwards, what might be able to redeem is the breathtaking beauty of the film’s setting and melodious score that will surely be granted at least a nomination for this year’s Indonesian Film Festival. Too early to predict, but at least the film is saved by these two elements that surely captivated one of the reporters sitting next to me in watching the film who, after the end-credit finishes, immediately blurted out the words to the film’s publicist:
“Pemandangan alamnya bagus ya, mbak!”

I can imagine Teddy smirking.

Final Verdict: Banyu Biru works like a floating surrealism that only drifts around the surface without attempting to go deeper into the core of the story. It escapes the pretentiousness, thanks to commercially-bankable actors who play the roles of the characters here.

Grade: C+

This year’s Oscar, contrary to everyone’s complaining about its boredom, proved to be like the suspense of its Best Picture winner. It started at a moderately slow pace with a cloud of worries hanging above my mind whether this time Academy Awards would make another disappointing blow by rewarding a big-bang epic as the flick started strongly in collecting the prizes. Yet, as the time gradually progressed, fists and clinches were punched, a little defense here and there, disappointment and mild surprises arose, and the ending was relieving.

The Oscars at this year’s 77th Academy Awards went to:

Best Costume Design: The Aviator – Sandy Powell
(I thought that her win in Shakespeare in Love last time would prevent her to champ again this time, but, being a respectable costume designer on her own whose work I often admire, she deserved the award. However, Edna Mode stole the show!)

Best Make-up: Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events – Valli O’Reilly, Bill Corso
(got it right this time, and nice acceptance speech! “Lemony Snicket’s corrupting our youth”?!)

Best Animated Feature: The Incredibles
(Brad Bird went very polite)

Best Supporting Actor: Morgan Freeman – Million Dollar Baby
(was it technical glitch that the camera kept showing Clive Owen’s face when the winner was about to be announced? the first sentimental award of the nite)

Best Art Direction: The Aviator – Dante Ferretti, Francesca LoSchiavo
(as expected, began to suspect strong Italian-connection in every Scorsese’s film)

Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett – The Aviator
(finally! her acceptance speech was plainly ‘standard’, yet it ended with a punch: “Thank you Scorsese, I hope my son will marry your daughter”! nice ad-lib!)

Best Documentary: Born Into Brothels
(worth of applause)

Best Editing: The Aviator – Thelma Schoonmaker
(and Scorsese shed a tear)

Best Adapted Screenplay: Sideways – Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor
(they deserve this award than any other nominees, and Payne has all the potential to be a good light-comic actor himself)

Best Visual Effects: Spider-Man 2 – John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara, John Frazier
(“thank God no Lord of the Rings this year”?! another nice punch!)

Best Short Film, Live Action: Wasp
(missed)

Best Short Film, Animated: Ryan
(huh?)

Best Cinematography: The Aviator – Robert Richardson
(I began to worry if the film would walk away with the Best Picture award!)

Best Sound: Ray – Greg Orloff, Bob Beemer, Steve Cantamessa, Scott Millan
(thank God for the surprise!)

Best Sound Editing: The Incredibles – Michael Silvers, Randy Thom
(the ‘toon flick deserved more than just one award, and it got the right one)

Best Documentary Short: Mighty Times — The Children’s March
(I was just plain lucky)

Best Original Score: Finding Neverland – Jan A.P. Kaczmarek
(I may have a strong personal relation to the film and the score itself, but such a fleeting, breathtaking beauty of melody and harmony would surely have to be rewarded after all)

Best Original Song: The Motorcyle Diaries – “Al Otro Lado Del Rio” by Jorge Drexler
(surely he was pissed off for not given a chance to perfrom the song himself, and Banderas did not do the job well, yet Drexler got the revenge and he pulled it off just nicely!)

Best Leading Actress: Hilary Swank – Million Dollar Baby
(Staunton looked calm and still, Moreno was just happy to be nominated, Winslet smiled widely as usual, Bening remained seated, and me? brokenhearted.)

Best Foreign Language Film: The Sea Inside (Spain)
(Alejandro Almenabar! Alejandro Almenabar! finally getting the recognition for his consistenly good works!)

Best Original Screenplay: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind – Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry, Pierre Bismuth
(he was robbed for Being John Malkovich and Adaptation., Kaufman richly deserved to be applauded with standing ovation!)

Best Leading Actor: Jamie Foxx – Ray
(everyone’s lock)

Best Director: Clint Eastwood – Million Dollar Baby
(what can I say, Marty?)

and finally,

Best Picture: Million Dollar Baby
(just exactly when Babs said, “I’m so happy to give it to you again, Clint”, I screamed hysterically out loud in joy, for finally Oscar got it right this time, for finally Oscar played its suspense element very well until the very end of the whole show!)

There it was, the Oscar ceremony which I never thought Johnny Depp and Sean Penn would attend, which I might have to ban Beyonce for showing-off way too much, which I felt glad for Million Dollar Baby.

Special credit would go to Yo-Yo Ma, the show stealer who gave a hearty, touching performance that would be forever noted as the best ‘In Memoriam’ piece Academy Award has ever made.

So long!

(A little unimportant note serving as ‘epilogue’ of this writing is simply the fact that actually I did make a draft of what’s supposedly to be my final prediction, yet, being too ecstatic of the upcoming day-off on Monday excited me way too much to the effect that I did f-o-r-g-e-t to bring that file home! Well, I managed to compose an email from my work’s email ID that was meant to contain an attachment of this file, yet, again, I did f-o-r-g-e-t to attach the file. Hooray! Here I am, stranded on my yellow chair, trying to get myself brainwashed with Norah Jones’s songs prior to her concert in two days, and recalling what I wrote throughout this afternoon. Oh for goodness sake! Just let the red carpet roll on and here we are …)

The time of the year of has come again.

The time of indulging in one’s triumph and another’s loss.

The time when work of merits is questioned and often set-aside by sympathy, empathy, and popularity.
After all, how can one explain Grace Kelly’s winning over Judy Garland? Or the fact that Bette Davis did not clinch the award for her Margot Channing’s turn in All About Eve? And how can Nicole Kidman be in Best Actress in a Leading Role while she shared the equal screen time and character’s connection to the story as the other two actresses?

Welcome to the Academy Awards, an annual event of glitz, glamour, dirty, tricky campaigns, where everything merges into one popularity contest.
Not that being popular means being un-worthy, after all, Al Pacino’s convincing portrayal as a blind veteran deserve to win, but Paul Newman’s repetition of character in The Color of Money?
So much that it takes to recognize sentimentality that is covered under the word of ‘overdue’. Apparently, this year’s race is all about overdue recognition for thespians who, with or without Oscar, we will always recognize their talents and invaluable contribution to the cinematic history.

Take a look.

BEST PICTURE:
– The Aviator
– Finding Neverland
– Million Dollar Baby
– Ray
– Sideways

Nauval says:
In the tradition of big-scale epic Hollywood used to reel on, The Aviator has everything: a dashing leading man, a woman or two on his side, terrifying action scenes, manipulative villains, yet it also includes complicated and misconstrue story that, well, leave the plane stuck to the ground. The meticulous technical aspect may make-up for those losses, yet if the film gets chosen to grab the coveted prize, it’d only label Academy Awards to be pretentious, rewarding a film that seems grand on the surface yet leaving many loopholes inside.

On the other hand, Million Dollar Baby, that seemed to smoothly slip under the radar throughout the entire pre-awards season, soars high on its simplicity, low-key theme of simple ambitions radically turning to an unexpected change. Slowly the film builds up and grabs our attention, leaves us thinking of the emotional impact Clint Eastwood cleverly inserts throughout. Yet, the controversy over its ending may slightly disrupt the momentum the film has gained so far.

Which is not the case for Finding Neverland and Ray, two nominees that relatively play on the ‘comfort zone’. Neverland has an abundance of charm and sweetness that seem to be an oasis on the desert of cynicism in real life, or adulthood to be precise if related to the object of this film. Ray itself is made to be a major tribute to the legendary Ray Charles, and it manages to avoid clichés being one of numerous made-for-TV biopics, thanks to the cutting edge style chosen by Taylor Hackford to deliver the story.

Yet, I can’t stop thinking of this ad I stumbled on Variety magazine that stated: “Rarely does a good comedy come along that needs to be taken seriously” (more or less so). Obviously, the advertisement refers to Sideways on its campaign to be recognized more widely by voters. You may think that being already showered with many critical notions is more than enough? So many theories or hypothesis to answer the question, yet we can say that comedy is often under-appreciated when it comes to Oscars, as voters prefer to reward high-minded brows, or worse, brainless epic.

Why do I root for Sideways here? Because to reward a deeply moving and contented film like Sideways, is to reward the life itself.

Will win:
Million Dollar Baby

Should win:
Sideways

Should have been nominated:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Incredibles, Kinsey, Closer, Dogville

BEST DIRECTOR:
– Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby)
– Taylor Hackford (Ray)
– Mike Leigh (Vera Drake)
– Alexander Payne (Sideways)
– Martin Scorsese (The Aviator)

Nauval says:
One of the regrets from BIFF ’05 is to miss Vera Drake, and that causes my inability in commenting about the film and its 3 nominations here. However, should Mike Leigh maintain his skillful direction he showed in his previous works like Secrets & Lies or All or Nothing, then he would stand a chance to make an upset here. After all, one slot for non-Best Picture nominee’s director here would always be reserved for outstanding direction that at times even eclipse the work of this winner’s category.
And by saying that, I am intending to question the motivation of Academy shall they choose to give the award to Scorsese. If he wins, surely sentimentality plays a major role here, although it is hard to justify one’s career-long achievement by rewarding his least personal film.

On the other hand, the same case does not apply to Eastwood. His maturity in understanding human characters goes even deeper in Million, and the way he presents the somber film in intriguing direction strengthens his triumphant in excellent filmmaking, after all, boxing may not be his cup of tea, yet he made the film as the meatiest one he ever made.

Whereas Hackford and Payne have done some commendable job in delivering cutting-edge films that do freshen up the competition, they will have to remain as long-shots here.

Will win:
Martin Scorsese

Should win:
Clint Eastwood

Should have been nominated:
Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), Michael Mann (Collateral), Zhang Yimou (Hero/House of Flying Daggers), Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill Vol. 2), Mel Gibson (Passion of the Christ)

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE:
– Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda)
– Johnny Depp (Finding Neverland)
– Leonardo DiCaprio (The Aviator)
– Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby)
– Jamie Foxx (Ray)

Nauval says:
I may overtly-praise Eastwood’s being listed in Best Director nomination, but seriously, what does he do here? His place here has shamefully taken the lives of many other deserving nominee, particularly Paul Giamatti in his sensitive portrayal as a middle-aged man in Sideways who might put the stiffest threat in this category.
Yet, even Giamatti’s submission would not even be able to encounter or to hijack the magical presence of one man that will go down as one of the few names in the history of Oscar to really deserve the award:

Jamie Foxx.

His uncanny resemblance to Ray Charles in this film not merely caused by the makeup, but more than that, Foxx has imbued and injected his own believability in playing the role, enriching the already-rich persona to the extent that we do see Ray himself on the screen.
With such an over-the-top performance, he will face no difficulty in walking away with the coveted prize. A possible upset may come from Cheadle who surprisingly gives a three-dimensional performance in Hotel Rwanda. His accent is impeccable, his gesture shows that it comes from the instinct instead of merely acting, and being hidden under the shadows of more famous stars all this time would surely boost his chance to be more recognized.

I am quite disappointed with DiCaprio’s blocked-performance resulted from being and trying too hard to look serious in the film. On the other hand, Depp’s understated performance seems to be next-to-nothing whenever he appears with Kate Winslet on the film, Finding Neverland.

Will win:
Jamie Foxx

Should win:
Jamie Foxx

Should have been nominated:
Paul Giamatti (Sideways) – I do not mind if he wins!, Gael Garcia Bernal (Bad Education), Liam Neeson (Kinsey), Javier Bardem (The Sea Inside), Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

BEST ACTRESS:
– Annette Bening (Being Julia)
– Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full Of Grace)
– Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake)
– Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby)
– Kate Winslet (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Nauval says:
Again, one nomination from Vera Drake.
And this time it even heightens my curiosity as Staunton did a remarkable sweep in earlier pre-awards season, although later on her name seems to be drowned by the more popular ones. However, given the fact that Staunton plays such a demanding role would help her getting an edge on this category.

Yet, the same edge would not be applicable to Moreno and Winslet, although their names submitted here do give the category a refresh look and credibility to Academy to be brave in rewarding off-beat performances, breaking out tradition of women playing ‘typical’ safe roles.

And what are those ‘typical’ roles, you may ask?

Either you hate or love it, but Academy loves to see women de-glamorizing themselves to play woman at her utmost un-appealing look of dreadfulness, sorrow and grievances. Halle Berry in Monster’s Ball, Nicole Kidman in The Hours, Charlize Theron in Monster, they have shown what it takes to win in this category. What a male-chauvinist pig Academy has been!
One name that suits the criteria is, obviously, Hilary Swank in her role as down-to-luck waitress-cum-boxer in Million Dollar Baby, and interestingly, she did the same de-glam effect to more extreme extent when she won five years ago in Boys Don’t Cry. Swank does add the meat to the heavily-weighted somberness in Million, and no matter how I plea for Academy to spread its wealth to the rest of the nominees, I can’t help seeing that Swank’s performance indeed deserves to be rewarded.

However, wouldn’t it be nicer if Bening wins? Surely she’s been overdue, she may not be able to capture the same chance again considering her advanced age, but beyond that, the role she plays as an aging, demanding diva Julia Lambert is a reminiscence of Hollywood’s golden days when women were often portrayed as a quick-wit, manipulative and pure human being in control of her surroundings. In other words, Bening’s winning in this category would be a nice tribute and gesture of apology from Academy to other diva-roles that never got rewarded in the past: Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard, Bette Davis in All About Eve, Judy Garland in A Star is Born …

Will win:
Hilary Swank

Should win:
Annette Bening

Should have been nominated:
Julie Delpy (Before Sunset), Uma Thurman (Kill Bill Vol. 2), Nicole Kidman (Dogville), Kate Winslet (Finding Neverland)

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
– Alan Alda (The Aviator)
– Thomas Haden Church (Sideways)
– Jamie Foxx (Collateral)
– Morgan Freeman (Million Dollar Baby)
– Clive Owen (Closer)

Nauval says:
It’s all about sentimentalism here!
The sudden hype on Alda’s performance derives from the fact that he was often neglected in the past, and the submission of Foxx’s name here rides high from his buzz on Ray.

Certainly the favor is in Freeman, being passed for three times and now in his fourth nomination, he was acknowledged by his peers in Screen Actors Guild recently, and considering the major role SAG has in determining acting-branch winner, Freeman stands a good chance here, although personally I don’t think his role here is as bravura as his turn in Driving Miss Daisy or The Shawshank Redemption.

For Church to play well is simply to play himself. No one has understood Jack’s character as a washed-out soap opera star better than Church, a has-been actor himself who used to be regulars on “Wings” and “Ned and Stacey”. However, being the only actor with a comical role in this category would surely enhance and strengthen his position here.

Yet, if I’d be able to vote, my pick falls on Owen’s grand presence in Closer. Seamlessly shifting and drifting between being charismatic and menacing at times, some people may find his character’s cold-heartedness as purely antagonistic character, yet Owen injects his own charm that makes even an antagonist can be perfectly emphatized by the most sinister of critics and audience.

Will win:
Morgan Freeman

Should win:
Clive Owen

Should have been nominated:
David Carradine (Kill Bill Vol. 2), Peter Sarsgaard (Kinsey), Freddie Highmore (Finding Neverland), Rodrigo De la Serna (The Motorcyle Diaries), Paul Bettany (Dogville)

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
– Cate Blanchett (The Aviator)
– Laura Linney (Kinsey)
– Virginia Madsen (Sideways)
– Sophie Okonedo (Hotel Rwanda)
– Natalie Portman (Closer)

Nauval says:
Personally, this is my favorite category of all in this year’s race, as all of them deserve to be nominated, and to this date, it’s still pretty much open race to all of them.

Linney dominates the screen time in Kinsey and her remarkable journey from young Mrs. Kinsey to the older one is a true testament of her in-depth understanding in carrying the role vividly, towering herself above her male companions.

Okonedo defines the term ‘supporting’ itself, her presence there boosts Cheadle’s performance and by choosing not to steal the spotlight from him, we get drawn to whenever Okonedo appears on the screen.

Portman gives a surprisingly good performance in her first adult role, slips into her role convincingly, complete with her fragility and innocence look that makes her character notable even more.

Madsen, the critics’ darling, while given the least screen time compared to anyone else here, captured every single second and frame of her performance, even when she is only heard, we are taken to believe that she indeed is an inseparable part of Sideways’ deepest core of the story.

However, only one award is given out, and this time, let it be Blanchett’s.

Shamelessly I say that she’s the best actress around who consistently giving out her best no matter what kind of films she’s starring in (remember Pushing Tin? The Gift?), and no matter you may call me being sentimental, but she deserves to be rewarded, for already being unfairly passed in Elizabeth, should have got nominated for Bandits and Talented Mr. Ripley, and now, with her majestic performance in The Aviator playing the screen goddess of all time, Katharine Hepburn, this is Blanchett’s glorious night.
Blanchett’s take as Hepburn is terrifyingly real despite not covering herself with prosthetic make-up, more than that, Blanchett digs the inner persona of Hepburn to create a dignified presence of Hepburn like we’ve never seen before. Refreshing and believable, Blanchett’s majestic performance is the only thing that kept me glued to the seat throughout the entire duration of the film.

Will win:
Cate Blanchett

Should win:
Cate Blanchett

(but really, whoever wins in this category, I’m just plainly happy! J)

Should have been nominated:
Meryl Streep (The Manchurian Candidate), Sharon Warren (Ray), Regina King/Kerry Washington (Ray), Irma P. Hall (The Ladykillers), Isabella Rossellini (The Saddest Music in the World)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
– Richard Linklater, Kim Krizan, Ethan Hawke & Julie Delpy (Before Sunset)
– David Magee (Finding Neverland)
– Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby)
– Jose Rivera (The Motorcycle Diaries)
– Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor (Sideways)

Nauval says:
How I wish Before Sunset to win!
One of the best sequels ever made, one of the purest love stories ever created, Sunset defines romance and love in such an unbelievably intelligent manner that leaves us feeling longing for similar chemistry to happen in this ordinary life.
Yet, the moment certainly belongs to Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor here. This is the only category where they can be confident, highly confident as a matter of fact, to grab the award. They more than deserve it.

Will win:
Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor (Sideways)

Should win:
Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor (Sideways) / Richard Linklater, Kim Krizan, Ethan Hawke & Julie Delpy (Before Sunset)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
– John Logan (The Aviator)
– Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry & Pierre Bismuth (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
– Keir Pierson & Terry George (Hotel Rwanda)
– Brad Bird (The Incredibles)
– Mike Leigh (Vera Drake)

Nauval says:
Alritey, enough about the hype on The Aviator, apparently the script has undergone some butchering process and what you see on the screen, well, I shall not prompt further.
This category has Charlie Kaufman words all over the place, and still faithful to his eccentric, original style of writing, Eternal Sunshine proves to be the most appealing of his works, at least to Academy members who might not comprehend the depth of Being John Malkovich and Adaptation..
Possible upset may come from Mike Leigh, or … Brad Bird? If it is so, what a jolly good surprise then!

Will win:
Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry & Pierre Bismuth (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Should win:
Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry & Pierre Bismuth (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:
– The Incredibles
– Shark Tale
– Shrek 2

Nauval says:
Need we debate over this?
But seriously, Shark Tale instead of The Polar Express?

Will win:
The Incredibles

Should win:
The Incredibles

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:
– The Sea Inside (Spain)
– The Chorus (France)
– Yesterday (South Africa)
– Downfall (Germany)
– As It is in Heaven (Sweden)

Nauval says:
Only saw two out of five here, The Sea Inside and The Chorus, the former does uplift audience’s spirit and the latter falls into cliché of tearjerker film. Alejandro Almenabar and Javier Bardem will walk up to the stage collecting the award.

Will win:
The Sea Inside

Should win:
The Sea Inside

Should have been nominated (so many good films being passed over!):
Maria Full of Grace, Bad Education, The Motorcycle Diaries, A Very Long Engagement, House of Flying Daggers, Facing Window, I Not Scared.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

There you go, the ten nominations that I give my comments on. The rest of my prediction will come below:

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:
Super Size Me
(what a slap if it really happens!)

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:
Finding Neverland – Jan A.P. Kaczmarek
(seriously, don’t you get tired folks in listening to formulaic scores of John Williams? And what does James Newton Howard do in the almost-silent The Village?)

BEST ORIGINAL SONG:
“Look To Your Path (Vois Sur Ton Chemin)” – The Choir (France) – Bruno Coulais, Christophe Barratier
(where’s Mike Jagger and Dave Stewart whenever they’re needed? And “Believe” from Phantom of the Opera does not sound anywhere near being opera-ic)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:
A Very Long Engagement – Bruno Delbonnel
(visually captivating, Jean Pierre Jeunet’s rich direction needs to be rewarded in one way or another)

BEST COSTUME DESIGN:
Lemony Snicket’s Series of Unfortunate Events – Colleen Atwood
(fantasy film shall prevail)

BEST ART DIRECTION:
The Aviator – Francesca Lo Schiavo (Art) & Dante Ferretti (set)
(love Ferretti’s works ever since The Age of Innocence, although it is still possible that Lemony’s team may hijack this category)

BEST MAKEUP:
Lemony Snicket’s Series of Unfortunate Events – Valli O’Reilly & Bill Corso
(putting on make-up for multi-faces of Jim Carrey in multiple characters is surely a hard work to do)

BEST SOUND MIXING:
The Aviator – Tom Fleischman & Petur Hliddal
(the airplane-crash scenes do justify this)

BEST FILM EDITING:
The Aviator – Thelma Schoonmaker
(although Collateral’s winning would be welcome as well)

BEST SOUND EDITING:
Spider-Man 2 – Paul N.J. Ottosson
(otherwise those fighting scenes would not be believable)

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:
Spider-Man 2 – John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara, John Frazier
(otherwise the comic elements would not come up well)

Final note:
Set aside the sentimental feeling, the sentiments over the overdue-s, this is Oscar! Have a blast, people!

Being the last on the list of that top five pictures I’ve got to see, there was this overtly ridiculous anxiety on how this film that I was about to indulge myself into is gonna be. Not to help soothing and calming down my jolt was the constant reminder from fellow film enthusiasts like Rio or Ve who kept bugging me to watch this film for the sake of their forecast on one eagerly-awaited event on Monday.
So there I was, not being late as usual, nicely sat on a side-seat near the passage way to drive myself over SIDEWAYS.

Little did I know that the road trip I was about to ride on is going to be the most thrilling film-watching experiences one has ever taken in his life.

Sideways focuses its story on a wine-tasting trip taken by Miles, an aspiring writer and a struggling English teacher who decides to throw this trip a week prior to his buddy’s wedding, Jack, a has-been soap opera actor forced to do commercial voice-over work. Not merely being a wine-tasting, scenery-viewing road trip, it has emerged into a journey of their lifetime with several encounters that would change their perspective on lives, particularly from the presence of Maya and Stephanie, two women differ in a great stark of contrast from one another, who both contribute possible changes of turn in their seemingly-destined bleak future. Of course, the choice lies on both men’s hands then to opt for the change, or heading straight to the planned ones.

Now you must be tickled: where’s the humor, pal?

Now I can only ask back: do we need to intentionally create one? For the fabricated ones would only evoke silliness?

Surely one or two slapstick scenes are made to enlighten this already-enjoyable film, but the rest of the comedy part is scattered evenly throughout the entire 120-minute, balanced nicely with some touching scenes that, well, seem ordinary to some extent. Just like our lives itself, there are times we may be laughing over-the-top over other people’s misfortunate and within seconds we can turn in bedazzlement to sympathize with it, and times when we feel completely being nothing next to other people’s well-headed lives.

Just like me, and mostly, everybody else.

Therefore I salute Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor for consistently uplifting our egoistical mood through their off-beat works that strike our chord to appreciate and embrace the life. From the hilarious Citizen Ruth to Reese Witherspoon’s innocent ambitions of taking part in a high school’s Election to divinely somber About Schmidt, here are two filmmakers riding high on the spirit of true story-telling a la 70’s films. Naivety is the forbidden word never to be applied here, just plainly real and never be deceiving or degrading or even insulting.

Even more, those stated effect is successfully achieved through the top-notch class acts from this group of underdog actors who, like it or not, always get overlooked and under appreciated. After all, in the world of Botox-perfected faces, who would’ve thought that Paul Giamatti could fit into description of the leading man who can carry a film on his shoulder? Or the already-a-has-been Thomas Haden Church who seems to be playing himself in the character Jack, so much so that the act itself gives me a jittery feeling? Or Virginia Madsen, best remembered for her forgettable turn in Candyman? Or Sandra Oh, always-second-rated actress who almost hijacks Under the Tuscan Sun completely from Diane Lane?
Together this foursome created chemistry unlike any other buddy-themed films ever made or even attempted to. Led by Giamatti as Miles, the model, picture perfect of depressive man heading towards directionless ambition who has to surrender to the cruelty of life, who simply yearn to be recognized for his talent, yet never dares himself to plunge and take the risk, which may lead to success. Every single smirk, smile, change of expression shown in Giamatti’s face that often got close-up in this film will reveal the truest character of this role.

If what you read all above will mostly strike your chord, worry not. Or even if you still find those words are plain and ordinary, worry not either. For its warmth and tender humor derived from life experience, for its believable performances from superb cast ensemble, for scores and music that never alienate the scenes the music is supposed to accompany with, for the most humane story of any films recently released, for a clear direction that inspires, I present my whole-hearted vote for Best Picture:

SIDEWAYS.