Category: Nominees – 2010s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Room – 2015

This was a movie that I wasn’t too sure about.  I watched it and found myself wondering why it had been nominated for Best Picture.  On the surface, there didn’t seem to be a good reason.  It had a plot that reminded me of a Lifetime Movie-Of-The-Week.  But the fact is, it stuck with me, and had me thinking about it for a while after the credits were done rolling.  Not only have I been considering the story structure, but also the cast, the acting, the set design, the social significance, and the film’s emotional resonance.  Because, really, it had all those things.

The movie had a very simple plot that can be summed up pretty quickly.  A young girl is abducted when she is seventeen by a man who locks her in a shed and habitually rapes her.  After two years, she gives birth to a son who lives in captivity with her.  When the boy is five, the girl devises a plan to escape, which is successful.  The girl rejoins society, and the boy, who barely believes that a world exists outside the shed, must learn to live in his new environment.  Both the girl and her son have severe psychological and emotional difficulties to overcome.  But in the end, human beings are highly adaptable, and the two learn to rebuild their lives in the wake of the horrible tragedy.

First of all, I have to comment on the social relevance of the movie.  It came out in 2015, and I am put in mind of the horrific 2013 story of Ariel Castro and his abduction of three women whom he beat and raped for up to eleven years.  And that is just one of many similar stories that I was able to easily find on the internet.  It is sick and tragic, but it is also an unfortunate sign of the times.  This kind of thing actually happens.  Socially significant?  You better believe it.

Actress Brie Larson played the victim, Joy Newsome, referred to in the credits as Ma.  Her son Jack, played by child actor Jacob Tremblay, is the biological offspring of the perpetrator, known as Old Nick, played by Sean Bridgers.  Ma and her son are imprisoned in a backyard shed, that has become their entire existence.  In severe contrast to the real Castro case, Ma and Jack are furnished with the basics of living.  In their tiny shed, they have a working toilet, a stove, dishes, a table, chairs, a bed, a bathtub, clothing, and most of the comforts of a normal life.  They seem to have everything except freedom.  Jack has a number of toys, and they even have a television.

While watching the film, I thought this was pretty horrible.  But after reading about the Castro case, I can see how this film REALLY softened the narrative.  In other words, compared to the real victims I have mentioned, Ma and Jack were living in the lap of luxury.  This isn’t a problem with the film, but someone watching Room should know that their lives could have been a hundred times worse.  They could have been chained to the walls like animals, left alone in a dark room, beaten and raped on a regular basis, fed once a day, and allowed to bathe a few times a week… for over eleven years.

The first half of the movie chronicled their captivity.  It is Jack’s lack of experience that makes most of it interesting.  He doesn’t believe that there is anything beyond the door.  He doesn’t understand that the images on the TV are of real things.  He doesn’t know the difference between the reality of live actors and cartoons.  Life inside the tiny room is all he knows.  And he doesn’t believe Ma when she tries to explain these things to him.

But eventually, Ma conceives of a daring escape plan, one that, with a lot of luck, sounds like it might work in a real life situation. Ma tricks Old Nick into taking Jack out of the shed, where he is able to get help.  Old Nick is arrested and Ma is rescued.  The second half of the movie follows Ma and Jack as they begin to recover and rejoin the world.  Ma returns to her parents, who have gotten a divorce.  Joan Allen played her mother, Nancy, and William H. Macy played her father, Robert.  Returning to the house in which she was raised, Ma meets her mother’s partner Leo, played by Tom McCamus.  The heart-wrenching story of the aftermath of their ordeal was well-handled.  The point is also made that yes, Ma was the victim, but hers was not the only life that was damaged by her disappearance.  Her parents were both devastated as well.  Fortunately, in the end, the movie makes the point that even in these kinds of extreme circumstances, healing is possible.

Larson did a fantastic job in her role.  She played the average, ordinary girl in a frighteningly real, and all too believable situation.  Understandably, she took home the Oscar for Best Actress for the part.  She really turned in a great performance in both halves of the movie.  Tremblay also did a pretty good job, and I liked both Allen and Macy as well.  And I also have to give special props to Lenny Abrahamson for his sensitive direction, and Ethan Tobman for his smart and detail oriented set design.  But all that being said, should it have been nominated for Best Picture?  Honestly, I don’t know.  Maybe.  I’m on the fence about this one.  Yes, it was good, but it still felt a little too much like a made for TV Lifetime Movie-Of-The-Week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Revenant – 2015

This is one of those movies that I have really been looking forward to seeing.  The previews, the big names, the poster, and the buzz just made it look like it was going to be a big thrill ride in the days of the trappers and traders that explored the new lands of America and Canada.  I had visions of rugged men, Indians, beautiful and unspoiled nature, and intense drama.  And I certainly got all I was expecting and more. 

Based on true events, The Revenant stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Hugh Glass, a hired guide for a group of trappers.  Glass is a true frontiersman, a man who knows how to survive on his own in the wilderness.  He is friend to the friendly Pawnee Indians, and knows which violent tribes to avoid.  In fact, he has a half-Pawnee son named Hawk, played by Forrest Goodluck, whose mother was killed by some military force attacking the Pawnee.  Also, the savage Arikara Indians are constantly attacking trappers and traders, bringing in the sub-plot of the Chief’s search for his abducted daughter, Powaka.

There’s the background.  The real meat of the story begins after the trappers are decimated by an Arikara attack.  The few survivors flee into the wilderness, Among them are Glass, Hawk, Captain Henry, played by Domhnall Gleason, the young Jim Bridger, played by Will Poulter, and the dishonest, self-serving opportunist, John Fitzgerald, played by Tom Hardy.  When Glass is horribly mauled by a grizzly bear, the rest do their best to care for him and get him back to civilization.  But eventually, as the snows of winter grow deeper and deeper, they realize that they cannot survive, themselves, while trying to save his life.  Captain Henry asks for three volunteers to stay behind with Glass, wait until he is dead, and bury him.

Hawk, Bridger, and Fitzgerald volunteer, the latter only doing so when he is offered money for the task.  However, after the main party leaves, Fitzgerald attempts to murder Glass, but ends up murdering Hawk in front of Glass instead.  He then convinces Bridger to leave Glass for dead and the two strike off into the wild to catch up with Captain Henry.  But Glass survives, and most of the rest of the two and a half hour movie follows Glass as he fights to stay alive in the untamed wilderness.  On the surface, it seems that it is only his desire for revenge against Fitzgerald that keeps him going, but I don’t believe that is accurate.

You see, a running theme in the film is that as long as you have breath within you, you fight to survive.  As much as his revenge motivates him to punish the evil Fitzgerald, he survives simply because he doesn’t know how to give up living.  The movie’s ending confirms this.  Even after he gets his revenge, as I always knew he would, and he is wounded, bleeding, and directionless, the film’s director, Alejandro González Iñárritu, makes a point of letting us know that he is still breathing.  In fact, as the credits begin to scroll up the screen, and the music starts to play, we can still hear his labored breathing.  Clearly, Glass means to continue fighting for that next breath.

The scene of the bear attack was amazing.  Violent and horrific, it was very believable.  As I was watching the movie, and Glass came within sight of the two innocent cubs, I immediately thought, “Why aren’t you running in the opposite direction already?”  Of course, the bear was all CGI, but DiCaprio had a difficult shoot as he was tossed around on wires, and had to vigorously wrestle with stunt men representing the bear, all the while on location in the woods.  It is also reported that it was raining that day during filming.  The scene is powerful and shocking in its savagery.

Now, as I usually do after watching a movie that is based on true events, I did a little reading to find out how much of the fictional plot was historically accurate.  In this case, I’d say about half.  For example, was there a fur trader named Hugh Glass who was mauled by a bear and left for dead?  Yes.  Did he have a murdered Pawnee wife and a half-breed son?  No.  Well, that blows the rest of the revenge plot out of the water.  Did Glass survive and track down a man named John Fitzgerald?  Yes, but only to retrieve his rifle.  When the real Glass finally caught up with Fitzgerald, the man had joined the army, so killing him would have gotten Glass arrested.  However, he did get his gun back from a reluctant Fitzgerald.

Finally, I have to mention how, once again, DiCaprio did a fantastic job.  He was amazing.  He has been quoted as saying, “I can name 30 or 40 sequences that were some of the most difficult things I’ve ever had to do. Whether it’s going in and out of frozen rivers, or sleeping in animal carcasses, or what I ate on set. I was enduring freezing cold and possible hypothermia constantly.”  Of the film’s twelve Oscar nominations and three wins, DiCaprio took home one of them for Best Actor.  He had been nominated for Best Supporting Actor once and Best Actor three other times, and I think his first win for The Revenant was very well-deserved.  Well done, once again, Leo!  The more I see, the more I want to see!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Martian – 2015

I really liked this movie, and for the same reason I liked the 2009 Best Picture nominee, Gravity.  They made a real effort to pay attention to the science which gave the movie an innate realism that many science fiction films lack.  I mean, sure, when making a sci-fi movie, you can generally make up your own rules as long as you adhere to what you make up.  But it is the movies that are grounded in reality that are the most fascinating because you know that the film is a step closer to reality.

The Martian is about Mark Watney, played by Matt Damon, an astronaut on a manned mission to Mars.  As he and his team are doing surface surveys, a Martian storm arises and proceeds to batter the scientists with dust, dirt, and scientific equipment.  Mark is hit by debris and gets lost in the storm.  Thinking him dead, his crewmates abort their mission, leave the planet’s surface, and start their long voyage back to Earth.  Meanwhile, Mark has survived the ordeal, and must now struggle to survive alone on the alien world until the next mission to Mars arrives. 

OK, lets pause here for a moment to do a little backtracking.  I know I just got done praising the movie for its adherence to actual science, but even as I watched the movie, I knew enough about the Martian environment to know that the storm was a complete fabrication that could never have happened on Mars.  You see, the Martian atmosphere is so thin, about 1% as dense as that of Earth, that even a wind that moved at 120 miles per hour would have a weak force.  The wind would have to be moving at least 40 miles per to even lift dust from the planet’s surface.  I realize that the whole premise of the movie is based on Mark being left behind.  The only way this would actually happen is if he was separated from the group and presumed dead.  Without that impossible storm, there wouldn’t have been a movie.  But alright, nearly everything else was scientifically factual.

The movie follows Mark’s efforts to stay alive.  He must learn hos to grow food, create water, generate heat, find a way to communicate with Earth, and stay sane in his isolation.  All of this, he does through resourcefulness, hard work, and an incredible intellect.  The roll seemed physically demanding and Damon did a fine job.  I have always liked him as an actor and I was not disappointed here.  Ever since I first noticed him in 1997’s Good Will Hunting, I have always thought his face has a ready look of intelligence, along with a healthy dose of natural charm, both of which are qualities that served his character well.

But the movie also follows two other stories, those of the crew of the Aries III who left him behind, and the NASA scientists who learn he is still alive and attempt to rescue him.  The five other astronauts are Commander Lewis, the Captain, Major Martinez, the pilot, Beth Johansen, the Systems Operator, Dr. Beck, the Flight Surgeon, and Dr. Vogel, the Navigator, played by Jessica Chastain, Michael Peña, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, and Askel Hennie, respectively.  On the ground, there were various NASA administrators, scientists, and politicians, played by Jeff Daniels, Kristin Wigg, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean, Mackenzie Davis, Donald Glover, and Benedict Wong.

Of the three stories, Watney’s was the most interesting, of course.  His ingenuity led him to use the human feces of the departed crew to fertilize the Martian soil, created water using left over rocket fuel, and a few freeze dried potatoes to create a garden inside an empty habitat structure.  He uses a previous mission’s discarded probe to communicate with Earth.  He learns to ration his supplies and survive in the harsh environment.  Scientists agree that aside from that pesky impossible dust storm, the film is firmly grounded in reality.

Beyond Damon, the actors who stood out to me as a cut above the rest were Chastain, Ejiofor, and Daniels.  Commander Lewis is the one who made the decision to leave the planet in order to save the whole crew, not knowing whether Watney was alive or dead.  The guilt she felt when she learned that he was still alive was well handled by the actress.  There was a constant struggle between Teddy Sanders, the Director of NASA, played by Daniels, and Vincent Kapoor, the Director of Mars Missions, as they try to decide how to handle the situation and mount a rescue attempt.  The two almost seemed to be rivals, but they played off of each other well.

I also have to mention the movie’s very cool ending, because it turned the narrative from a tale of survival to a bit of an action sequence.  The final rescue was exciting and fraught with danger.  The crew does a slingshot around Earth to pick up supplies and speed to return to Mars.  They plan an orbital rendezvous with Watney in which he has to rocket himself into space in a pod which he has torn apart to reduce its weight.  I mean, I knew the rescue was going to be successful, but I was still cheering when they finally got him into the Aries III.  And even in this thrilling climax, the science was still realistic.  Director Ridley Scott really did his research to make the whole movie as realistic as possible, and I have to say, he got everything right… well, almost. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mad Max: Fury Road – 2015

Holy dear God… What did I just watch?  This has got to be the most bizarre movie that has ever been nominated for the Best Picture award.  Everything was so over-the-top, so strange, so… I’m having a hard time finding the right adjectives to describe this one.  The movie was about sixty percent action, thirty percent story, five percent drama, and five percent insanity.  Most of it was incredibly confusing.  It took me about twenty minutes to even understand what was happening.  So, where do I even begin?

Let’s start with the plot.  In a post-apocalyptic desert where everyone suffers from radiation sickness, bad guy, Immortan Joe, played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, is a monstrous tyrant who controls all the fresh water in the land, a harem of wives, and an army of bald young men called the War Boys.  Imperator Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron, goes on a mission in an armored semi-truck to get gasoline.  But she is really betraying Joe by fleeing across the desert with his five wives, taking them to a mythical green place of peace and freedom.  In the meantime, the tough wanderer, Max Rockatansky, played by Tom Hardy, is captured by the War Boys and is forced to be a constant blood donor Nux, played by Nicholas Hoult.  When Joe learns that Furiosa has betrayed him, he sends out the War Boys to bring back his women.  Nux joins the pursuit with Max strapped to the front of his vehicle.

Fast chases!  Cars being overturned!  Things blowing up!  Guns!  Men getting killed!  An awesome mutant with an electric guitar riding on the front of the big-rig war vehicle, totally shredding it through all the death and carnage!  Wait… what???  Yeah, but he has flames shooting out of the top of his guitar!!  Oh, well I guess that makes sense, then.  Nope.  No, it doesn’t.  Anyway, they get away, forcing Joe himself, along with his son, Rictus Erectus, played by Nathan Jones, to go after them.  More explosions!  More car chases!  Guitar!!

Max gets free from Nux who changes sides and begins helping the fugitives because he believes he has failed in his duty, and thus not worthy to enter War Boy heaven.  Also, Joe’s very pregnant wife, The Splendid Angharad, played by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley sacrifices her life to save everyone.  When Furiosa finally reaches the land that is supposed to be green and peaceful, she finds that it no longer exists.  What they find is a group of elderly women who still kick butt with the best of them.  They make a plan to return to Joe’s lair and take it over for themselves. 

More car chases!  More action!  More explosions!  More guns!  More death! More… yeah, more heavy metal guitar.  The good guys kill all the bad guys, Furiosa almost dies, and Max saves her with a blood transfusion.  Finally, they arrive back where they started and give water to everyone.  Furiosa smiles and watches as Max disappears into the crowd to continue his eternal wandering.  The end.

This movie barely took a moment to slow down.  It was ridiculously fast-paced from beginning to end.  Does that mean that I didn’t like it?  That it wasn’t a good movie?  No, but it wasn’t the kind of film that the Academy normally nominates for the top prize, which is all for the better.  I would love to see the Academy open its considerations to include more than just dramas and romances.  Would I have nominated this particular movie?  Probably not, but I have to applaud the Academy for being so daring.

In my research, I have learned that many critics call this film a feminist movie.  I’m not sure if it was or not.  True, the film is the fourth installment in the Mad Max franchise, and it is the first one in which Max shares his status as the protagonist with someone else.  And true, that character is a female character, the hard-as-nails road warrior, Furiosa, who is able to hold her own against any man she encounters.  But does that make this movie a feminist film?

So, as I often do, I have to ask, what was it about this film that earned it its Best Picture nomination?  Was it the spectacular special effects, many of which were practical effects, as opposed to CGI effects?  And make no mistake, the action sequences and visuals were hugely phenomenal and wildly awesome.  Was it the miniscule bits of drama that centered around Furiosa’s past as she had been abducted from her home as a child, and Max whose family had been killed, and he was forever searching for a way to go on living without going crazy?  Or was it that feminist angle that showed a powerful woman saving a group of oppressed women and defeating their male enemies… with the help of two men?

No, I think it must have been the idiot with the guitar.  Seriously, I can’t figure out why he was there.  Just think about how impractical his presence on the front of a battle truck would have been.  Was he like a bugler in a cavalry charge?  And if fuel was so precious, why was it being wasted to make flames shoot out of his instrument?  Maybe he was some surrealistic form of comic relief.  If that was the case, it worked because I laughed every time he was on the screen, though I don’t think I was supposed to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brooklyn – 2015

I just finished watching this Best Picture nominee.  I’m still listening to the beautiful music as the credits scroll up the screen.  I have a lot to say about the film, but at the same time, I have very little.  First, I’ll say that the film’s entire conflict could have been avoided by one simple act: telling the truth.  Yes, a lie of omission was the source of the entire emotional substance of this little Indi film.

The movie starred the beautiful young Irish actress, Saorise Ronan, playing the part of the beautiful young Irish girl, Ellis (pronounced Ay-lish) Lacey.  Her story is a simple one.  She starts out in Ireland in 1951, but hasn’t many prospects for a suitable life.  So arrangements are made for her to move to America while her sister Rose, played by Fiona Glascott, stays to take care of their aging mother, played by Jane Brennan.  Ellis is homesick for the first year, but suffers through it, whereupon she meets the perfect man in Tony Fiorello, played by Emory Cohen.  He is kind, honorable, hard-working, and loves her with a pure and honest love.

When Rose dies unexpectedly, Ellis must return to Ireland for a time.  Tony convinces her to marry him before she goes, and the two consummate the marriage.  Ellis promises to return.  Then she arrives in Ireland, and the lie begins.  She tells nobody of her marriage.  Everybody manipulates her into staying longer than she had intended.  They set her up with a nice young man named Jim Farrell, played by Domhnall Gleeson, who is in need of a wife.  They force her into a job and she begins to see how her life could be happy in Ireland, something she had never seen before going to America.

She begins to fall in love with Jim and considers abandoning her marriage to Tony.  But when her secret is discovered by the town’s evil witch of a shopkeeper, Miss Kelly, played by Brid Brennan, Ellis is brought to her senses.  She comes clean with her mother and books passage back to Brooklyn where her husband is waiting with open arms.  The end.

OK, I’ll say it.  I have no idea why this was nominated for Best Picture.  It was too small, too simple.  The drama wasn’t very deep, the pacing was too slow, and the story was one that we’ve seen before.  Sure, Ronan did a really great job, but that only goes so far.  It wasn’t a bad movie, by any means.  It was just sweet and charming, nothing more.  I didn’t see anything that stood out to me as unique or gripping.  And I know, those things don’t necessarily disqualify a movie from being recognized by the Academy, but I don’t understand why this movie was honored in a category which is supposed to contain films that were somehow better than all the other movies that were released for the year.

So while I don’t have any negative comments about the film, I have to examine what was good about it, and hope that what I come up with will be able to justify the Best Picture nomination.  As I mentioned, Ronan was really good in the lead and was nominated for Best Actress, though she didn’t win.  She has a natural air of innocence and goodness about her that is utterly charming.  I also really liked Cohen as Tony.  He played the kind of guy anyone would like to know.  And the two of them had a really good on-screen chemistry.  I also liked the 1950s aesthetic of the film.  All the costumes and sets were spot-on.  There is a kind of charm when it comes to the 50s that this movie reflected with an ease that was a delight to watch.

And actually, all that being said, I found myself caring enough to want Ellis to return to Brooklyn to honor her wedding vows.  In my mind, all she had to do was tell people in Ireland about her husband and all her problems would be solved.  Nobody would be manipulating her to try to get her to stay in Ireland.  She wouldn’t be in danger of hurting her mother or poor Jim.  And she would have no problems returning to the man she loved in Brooklyn.  And if she was worried about her mother spending her remaining years alone, what was to prevent her from moving to America to be with her daughter?

But without those little complications, I guess there wouldn’t have been much of a movie.  At least there were a few recognizable actors in the film to pique my interest.  Jim Broadbent played Father Flood, the kindly priest who helps bring Ellis to America.  And then there was Julie Walters, the good Christian Irish woman who ran the boarding house where Ellis lives in Brooklyn.

The plot was treated almost as a kind of fairy tale.  We never saw any seedy realism to mar the sweet and innocent nature of the narrative.  And believe it or not, I found that refreshing since most movies today like to portray the harsh, dark sides of real life.  Here, everything was clean and bright, the characters were all mostly good, and the most difficult decision our young Irish lass has to face is which perfect man will she end up with.  And maybe that was it.  Maybe it was that easy feeling of innocence and purity that caught the Academy’s attention, especially compared to all the dark and gritty films that have become the norm in Hollywood these days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridge of Spies – 2015

When I was coming up to this film, I knew it would be a good movie for two reasons.  It starred Tom Hanks and was directed by Stephen Spielberg.  How could it be a bad film?  Those two don’t put out sub-par work.  I have never seen a bad film in which either of them have been involved.  Bridge of Spies was no exception.

It was a film that was based on the true events of the Cold War between 1957 and 1962, during which a New York City insurance lawyer named James Donovan, played by Hanks, is hired to defend suspected soviet spy, Rudolph Able, played by Mark Rylance.  Donovan is told before the trial that the man is guilty, and that he will be convicted, but that they wanted to show the world that the United States gives every man, citizen or not, a fair trial.  But the CIA got more than they bargained for in Donovan.  He defends Able so well, he convinces the judge to forego the death sentence in favor of thirty years imprisonment.  Visiting the judge privately, Donovan uses the argument that if the Russians ever captured an American spy, Able could be used in a prisoner exchange.

Several years after the sham of a trial, an American top-secret spy plane is shot down over the USSR.  The pilot, Gary Powers, played by Austin Stowell is supposed to commit suicide rather than allow himself to be captured.  But when his plane is shot down, he parachutes to the ground and is taken into custody by the Russians.  The CIA hires Donovan to negotiate a prisoner exchange, Able for Powers, who is being held by the Soviets.  Around the same time, and as the Berlin Wall is being built, an American medical student named Frederick Pryor, played by Will Rogers, is arrested in East Berlin by the German Democratic Republic, or GDR.  Donovan, still in the capacity of an unofficial representative of the United States, decides to negotiate the exchange for not only Powers, but Pryor as well, even though his CIA bosses make it clear that Powers is the target, and Pryor doesn’t matter.

While the first third of the film focuses on Abel’s initial trial and conviction, the second third focuses on the fallout from Donovan’s efforts in the case.  The final third is all about Donovan’s time in East Berlin, negotiating the prisoner exchanges.  Hanks did his usual great job, though this roll was more understated than other parts I have seen him play.  The script didn’t call for anything over the top or deep, but Hanks is such a skilled actor, he gave the character an emotional depth that went beyond the script.  He just played Donovan as such a likeable guy.

I also really liked Mark Rylance’s portrayal of Rudolph Able.  Though he was a soviet spy, he was also a patriot who had a job to do for his country, and though he was on “their” side, he carried out his duties in an honorable way.  Rylance played him as calm and mild-mannered, a man who, in other circumstances, might have been a nice man to know.  By the end of the film we even see him as a sympathetic character, almost a tragic hero.  In fact, Rylance took home the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his efforts.

But a lot of this had to do with the excellent script, which was written by Matt Charman and the famous directing duo, Ethan and Joel Coen.  Bridge of Spies, among other nominations at the Academy Awards, a total of six to be exact, was nominated for Best Original Screenplay.  The script was smart and engaging, easy to follow, and sprinkled with just the right amount of light humor to keep things from getting too bogged down in self-importance.  The film had great pacing.  It had a bit of intensity, especially in the climax, in which Donovan manages to get both Powers and Pryor back.  Not knowing the historical details, I wasn’t sure if the prisoner exchange would happen without a hitch or not.  I kept expecting either the Soviet or the American snipers present at the exchange site to get trigger happy and shoot one of the prisoners or Donovan, but that didn’t happen.

Other notable actors in the movie who also played their parts well were Alan Alda, playing Thomas Watters, Donovan’s boss at the insurance company, Amy Ryan, playing Donovan’s wife, Mary, and Scott Shepherd as CIA Agent Hoffman.  I also really liked Mikhail Gorevoy, the Soviet agent, Ivan Shishkin, and  Sebastian Koch as the GDR agent, Mr. Vogel. Of course, everyone did a fine job.

As I usually do when researching a movie based on true events, I did a little reading and found the film was mostly accurate in the details, though there were a few minor changes made for dramatic effect.  For example, there was the fabricated scene in which someone fires gunshots at Donovan’s home because he defended the “Commie” spy, or the scene in which Donovan is mugged in East Berlin and his overcoat is stolen.  But these things are minor. 

But a fact that I found incredibly interesting actually appeared as text on the screen at the end of the movie to tell what happened to the characters. Donovan’s epilogue said that he was later hired by the JFK Administration to negotiate the release of 1,113 prisoners of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.  By the time he was done, he had secured the release of 9,703 men women and children from Cuban detention.  I’d say that’s pretty darn impressive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Big Short – 2015

I’m honestly on the fence about this one.  I’m having trouble deciding if I liked this movie or not.  It is based on a true story, and though Hollywood has a habit of distorting reality to create drama, The Big Short apparently did not.  Director Adam McKay was pretty innovative in the way in which he told his story.  There was a lot of fourth wall breaking by multiple characters, telling the audience things like, “This actually happened,” or , “We’re not making this up.”  And on the flip side, there was even a moment when they said, “This isn’t actually the way it happened.  It really happened like this.”

There were also a number of times in the film, when they are discussing subjects that most average people wouldn’t understand, they took aside moments to have celebrities, playing themselves, explaining things in simplistic ways, using metaphors so the everyday layperson could comprehend the complex subject of the United States housing market in the late 2000s.  They did their best to truthfully explain the confusing subject of the film: the financial crisis of 2007 – 2008, which was caused by the U.S. Housing Bubble.  They also touched a little bit on how this was ultimately a major contributing factor in the global financial crisis that followed.

The movie has an innate tension already built into the plot, because we already know what happened.  So, it wasn’t a question of “if.”  It was a question of “how,” and what did the few people who saw it coming do?  The film follows three different groups who figured out what was really happening and did what they could to cash in on the tragedy.  They didn’t do what they could to stop it or warn people, but they made millions of dollars from the terrible events that made millions of people jobless and homeless.  To the film’s credit, this moral dilemma was not ignored.

In the first group, we have Christian Bale playing Michael Burry.  He is the eccentric operator of Scion Capital, the first man to discover the Housing Bubble.  Without asking the permission of his investors, he buys over $1.3 billion in credit default swaps, predicting the economic crisis.  Everyone thinks he is crazy and he restricts withdrawing when his investors demand their money back.  Even when they start to sue him, he refuses to reverse his position, knowing he is right.  Even after watching the movie, I still don’t pretend to understand the intricacies of what the Housing Bubble actually was or what caused it.  Sufficed to say, buying default swaps from the banks meant that he would eventually have returns of $2.69 billion.

The second group is made up of Deutsche Bank salesman, Jared Vennett, played by Ryan Gosling, Mark Baum, played by Steve Carell, the head of Front Point Partners, and his staff, Porter, Danny, and Vinny, played by Hamish Linklater, Rafe Spall, and Jeremy Strong.  Vennett looks at Burry’s analysis of the housing market, and seeks out buyers.  He finds Baum and his team, and they do some field investigating.  They determine that it is all true and begin buying as much as they can.  Also, along with this story line, Marissa Tomei plays Cynthia, Mark’s wife.

The third group has John Magaro and Finn Whittrock playing Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley, co-owners of the Brownfield Fund, a small-time business they two men started from scratch.  The stumble across a prospectus written by Vennett, and seek the aid of Ben Rickert, played by Brad Pitt, a reclusive germaphobe who hates the financial world, but agrees to enter it again as a favor to Charlie and Jamie.  The three of them nearly bankrupt themselves buying credit default swaps.

Like I said, the actual details of the Housing Market crisis were very confusing, but it was ok because when something critical to the viewers understanding of the subject needed to be explained, a celebrity would be introduced to spell it out.  For example, when we needed to know about Mortgage-backed securities and Subprime loans, a naked Margot Robbie in a bubble bath, sipping on a glass of champagne, appeared on the screen to tell us about them.  When collateralized debt obligations (or CODs) became important, world famous chef Anthony Bourdain appeared to fill us in.  And when the subject of synthetic CODs became the topic, Richard Thaler and Selina Gomez gave us the low-down. 

In the end, they took a confusing subject and were able to explain it in an innovative and entertaining way.  If anyone really stood out to me, it would be Steve Carell.  He was the one who figured out what the collapse of the housing market would really mean on a global scale, and what it would mean to the millions of unsuspecting families across the nation.  He actually felt guilty about profiting from their loss.  Carell played it well.  To the movie’s credit, critics say that the film was uncannily accurate.  At the end, the depressing figures were displayed on the screen.  “When the dust settled from the collapse, $5 trillion in pension money, real estate value, and 401k savings had disappeared.  8 million people had lost their jobs, 6 million lost their homes.  And that was just in the USA.”  A depressing thought, but it is now history, and this movie did what it could to pay tribute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whiplash – 2014

Whiplash is a film about a monster and his victim, or maybe that’s the other way around.  I hated watching it.  But in this case, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  The filmmakers were able to do something that a good movie is supposed to do.  It made me feel something.  True, the emotions I felt were anger, incredulity, and maybe even a little disgust, but I get the feeling that I was supposed to feel those things.  When looked at through that lens, the film did its job, and it did it well.

The movie’s main protagonist was Andrew Neiman, played by Miles Teller.  He is a nineteen-year-old drumming student, playing at a prestigious music conservatory in New York.  Of course, he is a drumming prodigy, and has the ambition to become one of the greats, on par with the likes of Buddy Rich.  He is chosen to play with the school’s studio band by their director, Terrance Fletcher, played by J. K. Simmons, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his intense performance.  Other supporting actors included Paul Reiser playing Andrew’s dad, and Melissa Benoist playing his failed relationship, Nicole.  Though they played their parts well, their plot-lines were almost negligible compared to the main story.

The problem is that Fletcher believes two things.  First, that greatness is only achieved by devoting every ounce of your soul to your craft.  Hmmm… Black Swan?  Anyway, I might not agree with that, but that, in itself, isn’t so bad.  The second thing he believes is that, as a teacher, the only way to push your students to true greatness is to hurl as much physical, mental, and emotional abuse on them as possible, until their spirit is broken and they practice themselves to death.  Wrong! 

This is why I had such a difficult time watching this movie.  It is also why the movie was so effective in evoking emotion.  It is not easy to see such criminally abhorrent behavior, and not be affected.  The character of Fletcher shouted, cursed, belittled, and berated his students.  He called them horrible names, used racial slurs, and even resorted to hitting them in front of other students.  He brought students to tears on a regular basis.  In any normal school, this kind of behavior from a faculty member would never be tolerated.  But it was all played off as a, “Well, he’s the best at what he does because he gets such great results.”  Wrong!  I don’t care how good you are, you don’t treat anyone that way for any reason.  But, I get it.  This isn’t a movie about a nice guy.  If it were, it would be a boring movie.

The abusive relationship that developed between Neiman and Fletcher was incredibly intense.  It was a wonder that Neiman put up with it, except that, in his own way, he was just as crazy as Fletcher.  His drive to be the best was so overwhelming that he actually bought into the emotional abuse.  He began to believe that if he practiced so hard that his fingers bled, he would be able to please Fletcher and be the greatest drummer ever.  He pushed himself so hard that even when he was nearly killed in a car accident on the way to a jazz band competition, he got up, ran to the competition, injured and bleeding all over, and tried to play the drums.  Of course, he makes a mess of everything, and Fletcher stops the performance to fire him.  Neiman loses control of his frayed emotions and attacks Fletcher, for which he is expelled from the music school.

Alright, I have to pause here.  This part was a bit unrealistic.  First, if your drummer walks in covered with blood and has an open head wound, you don’t let him play.  You call an ambulance.  Second, part of being in an ensemble is supporting the group.  Neiman’s ambition was so great that he forgot about that truth and tried to make it all about himself.  But maybe the point of that was to show just how mentally unstable Fletcher’s abuse had made him.  Third, walking away from the scene of an accident is a crime.  He just left his smashed and overturned rental car in the middle of the street and ran to the performance.  Nope. 

But then the movie almost had me on board when we learn that a former student of Fletcher’s had committed suicide because of the years of abuse he had suffered under his tutelage.  A lawyer talks to Neiman and gets him to testify against the horrible man, who is subsequently fired from the prestigious conservatory.  I thought, “Good.  A man like that doesn’t deserve to be teaching anyone.”  But then the movie dropped the ball and vindicated him and his abusive ways.

In the end, Fletcher cons Neiman into playing with him in a high-profile JVC Jazz Festival performance.  Knowing that it had been Neiman’s testimony which had gotten him fired, he opens the set with a piece Neiman doesn’t know.  Neiman tries to play along but embarrasses himself.  But instead of walking away in defeat, he begins playing one of the hardest pieces he learned as Fletcher’s pupil, and he does it so well, he impresses Fletcher.  The film ends as the two share a smile, indicating that all the terrible and horrific abuse, the mental torture, and emotional suffering was worth it because it pushed Neiman to true greatness.  I’m sorry, but that left me with the wrong message, and while that might have been director, Damien Chazelle’s goal, it didn’t make the movie particularly enjoyable to watch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Theory of Everything – 2014

This was a good movie, but it is one of those films that was not as good as it thinks it is.  It starred Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, with supporting roles by Charlie Cox, David Thewlis, Simon McBurney, Emily Watson, and Maxine Peake.  The cast all did a great job, especially the leads.  Aside from its Best Picture nomination, the film received nominations for Best Actor, which Redmayne won, Best Actress for Jones, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Score.

It was the story of the world renowned physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, and his relationship with his first wife, Jane.  It is important to note that distinction.  It was not a movie about Professor Hawking’s career.  It was the story of a relationship, set against the backdrop of his brilliant work.  But even so, some critics complained about the fact that the film didn’t delve deeper into Stephen’s actual theories or explain why he is such a giant in his field.  However,  if you consider the source material, the movie’s focus makes perfect sense. 

The script was not based on any of Stephen’s writings.  Instead, it was based on the memoirs of Jane Hawking, entitled Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen.  Still, although I understand this point, I think the narrative might have been a little more engaging if Stephen’s career had been given more importance.  That being said, it is important to note that the film’s director, James Marsh, and the screenwriter, Anthony McCarten, made a point of keeping the difficult theoretical science to a minimum for audiences who would probably not be able to understand most of it anyway.

Redmayne played Stephen Hawking, and he played the part so well, he took home the Oscar for Best Actor.  It is easy to compare his performance to Daniel Day-Lewis in the wonderful movie My Left Foot, and while I think they both did some fantastic work, I have to say that Day-Lewis was better.  But to give credit where credit is due, I must acknowledge that there was a fundamental difference between the two performances.  In My Left Foot, Day-Lewis was a man who was born with a debilitating disease.  In the Theory of Everything, Redmayne’s performance had to show the progression of a debilitating disease.  This must have had its own difficulties, like filming scenes out of sequence and keeping track of the disease’s different stages.

The movie follows Stephen and Jane’s relationship from the day they met to their marriage, from their children to their infidelities, from their break-up to their reconciliation.  It was a sweet and inspirational tale that was able to touch the heart in unexpected ways, though I have read that some of that was doctored up a little from what really happened.  For example, in the movie, after both Stephen and Jane cheated on each other, the couple part tearfully but easily, and on good terms.  In reality, Jane did not physically cheat on her husband before they were divorced.  Also, as their marriage fell apart, there were screaming arguments and a letter from Stephen to his wife, telling her that he was leaving her for his new nursemaid, Elaine Mason, played in the film by Maxine Peake, with whom he had fallen in love.

Redmayne did a great job, and it was remarkable how much he looked like the real Stephen Hawking.  He clearly deserved his win at the Oscars.  But I also thought Jones did a fantastic job.  I also really liked Charlie Cox’s portrayal of Jonathan Jones, the family friend who did his best to deny his feelings for Jane, until rumors about an affair that had not yet happened caused him to walk away. 

As an interesting side note, I’d also like to make mention of the character of Dennis Sciama, Stephen Hawking’s doctoral supervisor, played by David Thewlis.  Apparently, physicist Alan Melott, one of Sciama’s former students, strongly criticized Thewlis’s portrayal of Professor Sciama.  While I do not have access to the full article that explains why, I was able to read some of what Melott wrote.  He basically objected to the fact the movie minimized his character, saying, “Dennis was much more than that portrayal suggests: he was a superb mentor who brought out the best from his students.”  Ok, settle down, Melott.  It is clear that you have great respect for the man, but the movie wasn’t about Dennis Sciama.

All in all, it was a good movie, and though I’m glad I watched it, it’s not one I’ll be rushing out to see again any time soon.  There were some incredibly good performances and an interesting romance of sorts, but the drama wasn’t terribly deep, and the romance wasn’t overly poignant.  Still, it was pleasant enough and had an almost feel-good ending, despite the overall slightly slow pace. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Selma – 2014

This was a very good movie.  It was well-made, superbly acted, wonderfully powerful, and incredibly inspirational.  It is a historical drama about the civil rights activist and politician, Martin Luther King Jr. and his efforts to obtain unencumbered voting rights for African American citizens, particularly in the south.

The film’s beginning was shocking and very intense.  After a short scene introducing David Oyelowo playing Martin Luther King Jr. and Carmen Ejogo playing his wife, Coretta Scott King, we transition to a Baptist church in Birmingham.  It is quiet and peaceful.  Several young black girls are walking down the stairs chatting about how much they admire a woman’s hair.  It was a picture of complete innocence.  The lighting was like that of a magical golden afternoon.  But one of the beautiful young girls is cut off in mid-sentence as a bomb explodes from out of nowhere, killing all the children.  Right from the start, my emotions were rattled.

Now, knowing only that the film was going to be about King, I assumed that the plot was going to cover his “I Have a Dream” speech and maybe end with his assassination.  I was wrong on both counts.  This was the story of how he did two things.  First, he went to the White House and negotiated with President Lyndon Banes Johnson, played by Tom Wilkinson, trying to get him to enact laws that would enable blacks to vote unencumbered.  That word, unencumbered, is the key word, because black people could already vote under the law.  But in reality the racist white people in power like Alabama’s governor, George Wallace, played by Tim Roth, and Sheriff Jim Clark, played by Stan Houston, refuse to allow them to vote.  When civil rights activist Annie Lee Cooper, played by Oprah Winfrey, tries to legally register, she is asked ridiculous questions by the white registrar that nobody would be able to answer, and is subsequently denied.

The second thing the film focuses on is the three marches from Selma to Montgomery, a fifty-four mile journey.  The first march was cut short when the peaceful protesters were attacked with billy clubs and tear gas.  One marcher, Jimmy Lee Jackson, played by Lakeith Stanfield, was even shot and killed as he tried to protect his grandfather, Cager Lee, played by Henry G. Sanders.  The second march, with activists from all over the country participating, successfully made it over the Edmund Pettus Bridge.  When Sheriff Clark and his troops stood aside, King took a moment to pray, and then turned the marchers around, trying to keep the protestors safe.  The third march took place only after Judge Frank Minis Johnson, played by Martin Sheen, declared the peaceful protest legal in court.

After LBJ speaks to Congress, asking for the swift passage of a bill to eliminate voting restrictions, and praising King and the protesters for their courage and perseverance, King led his followers to the Montgomery courthouse.  Of course, he gives an impassioned speech, and this is where the movie ends.  Little bits of text are shown at the bottom of the screen to explain what happened to the key players in the drama.  We learn that some of King’s closest aids in Selma like Andrew Young, played by Andre Holland, became a Congressman and later a U.N. Ambassador, and later still, Mayor of or Atlanta, or John Lewis, played by Stephan James, who was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Apparently the film was incredibly historically accurate, with one exception.  The character of President Johnson was portrayed as King’s political rival.  The two were mostly shown arguing with each other, King making demands, and Johnson making excuses as to why they had to be denied.  According to the movie, Johnson was reluctant to help King’s efforts, and only made his plea to Congress after King and his marches had backed him into a political corner.  Apparently this is a misrepresentation.  From what I have read, Johnson and King were able to work together quite well, and there was very little political tension between the two men.

In fact, the film’s director, Ava DuVernay, was criticized for making a film that rewrote history to portray her own political agenda.  And her response to the accusation was perfect.  She said that the movie is “not a documentary.  I’m not a historian.  I’m a storyteller.”  I couldn’t agree more.  In fact, the real John Lewis said, “We do not demand completeness of other historical dramas, so why is it required of this film?”  He is absolutely right.  Suffice to say, the film was mostly historically accurate, which I think went a long way to making the film as good as it is.  I enjoyed watching it.  This is one of those movies that is important to watch.  It really did a great job of showing off Dr. King’s ideals, his peaceful intentions, and his dream of racial equality.  It is a story that is as relevant today as it was when the real events took place in 1965.

And as a last thought, I have to mention how incredibly phenomenal David Oyelowo was in the lead role.  He was handsome, charismatic, intense, and completely engaging.  He played the part like nobody else could have, and he made it look easy.  It must have been difficult to portray such a famous and iconic character, but I believe he really did the roll justice.  Well done!