A very good year
A very good year
Posted 10:26pm (Mla time) Feb 21, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the February 22, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
I'VE seen the five Hollywood movies that have been nominated for Best Picture in the Oscars. Don't ask me how, Edu Manzano will not be very pleased with the answer. Those movies are "Aviator," "Finding Neverland," "Million Dollar Baby," "Ray" and "Sideways."
I read somewhere that the curious thing about these movies is that none of them has broken the $100-million dollar mark, a hallmark of many Oscar nominees and winners in the past. These are fairly quiet movies, which did not particularly cost a fortune to make. Who knows? Maybe Hollywood is growing up and improving the American taste--or at least dispelling the mania for bigness. Truly, size doesn't matter, not in this year's Oscars anyway.
It's going to be one hell of a fight in all categories. Interestingly, three of these five movies deal with real people--what we like to call "real-life movies"--which raises all sorts of intriguing questions. They are really more real than real, being interpretations of real people. They capture essences, or fleeting moments in lives. But I'll leave the matter at that rather than get embroiled in a philosophical discussion.
The three movies based on real people are "Aviator," Martin Scorsese's three-hour epic about pre-recluse, or pre-batty, Howard Hughes; "Finding Neverland," Marc Forster's re-imagining of how J.M. Barrie imagined Peter Pan; and "Ray," Taylor Hackford's paean to the late great Ray Charles. I was tempted to say, "late great bluesman," but Ray Charles always defied classification. He even sang country and, like every bit of music he did, turned it into something uniquely his own.
What can I say about the sudden preponderance of fantastic movies about fantastic persons? Truth is stranger than fiction, and fictionalized truth or reinvented life is even stranger than either of them.
It won't be easy judging these movies. Each of them has a charm of its own. "Aviator's" strength are Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio. Both do a magnificent job of telling the story of a boy who never grew up--much like that other boy, the finder of Neverland. DiCaprio's boyish charm or adolescent volatility is perfect pitch. The movie's tone is serious and humorous at the same time, not unlike its subject, who demands to be taken seriously and lightly at the same time. It's my best bet to win Best Picture, as well indeed as to give Scorsese his long overdue recognition as Best Director. It's not just because of sentimental considerations--though Oscar judges have been to make up for the collective guilt of the industry by such gestures--it's also because the movie has a depth of ambition, again not unlike its subject, and succeeds famously.
"Finding Neverland" has Johnny Depp, one of the best actors in Hollywood today, as defiant of its ways as was Marlon Brando, with whom he appeared in "Don Juan DeMarco." And it has Kate Winslet, one of my favorite actresses, and not at all for "Titanic" (I fell in love with her in "Sense and Sensibility"). Like Depp, she isn't afraid to take risks, and has come out of them a winner. She's nominated for Best Actress in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," and she's fantastic there, with a gushing spontaneity that makes you fall in love with her all over again. (That movie, by the way, is one of those curious ones people react to only in extreme ways: You either love it or you hate it. I loved it.) And "Finding Neverland" has Dustin Hoffmann in a supporting role, as Barrie's long-suffering, but devoted, producer. You will recall he was Captain Hook in Steven Spielberg's reinterpretation of "Peter Pan." Collectively, they give the movie its magic, the kind that suffuses unseen everyday life.
"Ray" may not win Best Picture, but it should make Jamie Foxx Best Actor. He leads the pack currently, for very good reason. All the hype is true: rarely has an actor gotten down pat the spirit and letter of the real person he is playing. Foxx collaborated with Charles in the making of this movie--it apparently took 10 years to prepare, unfortunately too long for Charles to be around when it finished--and it shows. The movie is a labor of love, and Foxx's performance is a work of art. You do not have to suspend disbelief for very long: Foxx is Ray Charles. Sinaniban, as we would say. He doesn't win Best Actor, I'd protest, too.
I don't know that Lynn Truss, author of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves," the best-selling book about punctuation, would approve of "Million Dollar Baby's" title. She disapproved of "Two Weeks Notice" for its lack of an apostrophe after "weeks." She might disapprove of the lack of a hyphen between "million" and "dollar." But the rest of it one can only approve of. This is easily Clint Eastwood's best movie after "Unforgiven," and the role he plays here is not unlike the one he did then. He has Morgan Freeman as his sidekick here, too, as in "Unforgiven." Freeman should win Best Supporting Actor here. His only competition, as I see it, is Thomas Haden Church in "Sideways."
"Sideways" I absolutely loved, and not just because it talks about life, love and wine, three of my favorite lifelong preoccupations, the last in its broad (formerly) and literal (currently) sense. The movie has a wonderful sensibility, funny and profound, philosophical and scatological, full of wit and ache. Frankly I can't understand why Paul Giamatti didn't get nominated for Best Actor. He essays a finely understated performance here as an ex-husband, future writer and present-day wine connoisseur. It revived my spirits about writing and made me curse gout, the one thing that prevents me from reviving my love affair with the spirits.
But enough said. It's been one very good year for movies, if not necessarily for wine.
Posted 10:26pm (Mla time) Feb 21, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the February 22, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
I'VE seen the five Hollywood movies that have been nominated for Best Picture in the Oscars. Don't ask me how, Edu Manzano will not be very pleased with the answer. Those movies are "Aviator," "Finding Neverland," "Million Dollar Baby," "Ray" and "Sideways."
I read somewhere that the curious thing about these movies is that none of them has broken the $100-million dollar mark, a hallmark of many Oscar nominees and winners in the past. These are fairly quiet movies, which did not particularly cost a fortune to make. Who knows? Maybe Hollywood is growing up and improving the American taste--or at least dispelling the mania for bigness. Truly, size doesn't matter, not in this year's Oscars anyway.
It's going to be one hell of a fight in all categories. Interestingly, three of these five movies deal with real people--what we like to call "real-life movies"--which raises all sorts of intriguing questions. They are really more real than real, being interpretations of real people. They capture essences, or fleeting moments in lives. But I'll leave the matter at that rather than get embroiled in a philosophical discussion.
The three movies based on real people are "Aviator," Martin Scorsese's three-hour epic about pre-recluse, or pre-batty, Howard Hughes; "Finding Neverland," Marc Forster's re-imagining of how J.M. Barrie imagined Peter Pan; and "Ray," Taylor Hackford's paean to the late great Ray Charles. I was tempted to say, "late great bluesman," but Ray Charles always defied classification. He even sang country and, like every bit of music he did, turned it into something uniquely his own.
What can I say about the sudden preponderance of fantastic movies about fantastic persons? Truth is stranger than fiction, and fictionalized truth or reinvented life is even stranger than either of them.
It won't be easy judging these movies. Each of them has a charm of its own. "Aviator's" strength are Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio. Both do a magnificent job of telling the story of a boy who never grew up--much like that other boy, the finder of Neverland. DiCaprio's boyish charm or adolescent volatility is perfect pitch. The movie's tone is serious and humorous at the same time, not unlike its subject, who demands to be taken seriously and lightly at the same time. It's my best bet to win Best Picture, as well indeed as to give Scorsese his long overdue recognition as Best Director. It's not just because of sentimental considerations--though Oscar judges have been to make up for the collective guilt of the industry by such gestures--it's also because the movie has a depth of ambition, again not unlike its subject, and succeeds famously.
"Finding Neverland" has Johnny Depp, one of the best actors in Hollywood today, as defiant of its ways as was Marlon Brando, with whom he appeared in "Don Juan DeMarco." And it has Kate Winslet, one of my favorite actresses, and not at all for "Titanic" (I fell in love with her in "Sense and Sensibility"). Like Depp, she isn't afraid to take risks, and has come out of them a winner. She's nominated for Best Actress in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," and she's fantastic there, with a gushing spontaneity that makes you fall in love with her all over again. (That movie, by the way, is one of those curious ones people react to only in extreme ways: You either love it or you hate it. I loved it.) And "Finding Neverland" has Dustin Hoffmann in a supporting role, as Barrie's long-suffering, but devoted, producer. You will recall he was Captain Hook in Steven Spielberg's reinterpretation of "Peter Pan." Collectively, they give the movie its magic, the kind that suffuses unseen everyday life.
"Ray" may not win Best Picture, but it should make Jamie Foxx Best Actor. He leads the pack currently, for very good reason. All the hype is true: rarely has an actor gotten down pat the spirit and letter of the real person he is playing. Foxx collaborated with Charles in the making of this movie--it apparently took 10 years to prepare, unfortunately too long for Charles to be around when it finished--and it shows. The movie is a labor of love, and Foxx's performance is a work of art. You do not have to suspend disbelief for very long: Foxx is Ray Charles. Sinaniban, as we would say. He doesn't win Best Actor, I'd protest, too.
I don't know that Lynn Truss, author of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves," the best-selling book about punctuation, would approve of "Million Dollar Baby's" title. She disapproved of "Two Weeks Notice" for its lack of an apostrophe after "weeks." She might disapprove of the lack of a hyphen between "million" and "dollar." But the rest of it one can only approve of. This is easily Clint Eastwood's best movie after "Unforgiven," and the role he plays here is not unlike the one he did then. He has Morgan Freeman as his sidekick here, too, as in "Unforgiven." Freeman should win Best Supporting Actor here. His only competition, as I see it, is Thomas Haden Church in "Sideways."
"Sideways" I absolutely loved, and not just because it talks about life, love and wine, three of my favorite lifelong preoccupations, the last in its broad (formerly) and literal (currently) sense. The movie has a wonderful sensibility, funny and profound, philosophical and scatological, full of wit and ache. Frankly I can't understand why Paul Giamatti didn't get nominated for Best Actor. He essays a finely understated performance here as an ex-husband, future writer and present-day wine connoisseur. It revived my spirits about writing and made me curse gout, the one thing that prevents me from reviving my love affair with the spirits.
But enough said. It's been one very good year for movies, if not necessarily for wine.
posted by Dante at 6:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home