I like a good mind-fuck movie.  Charlie Kaufman is one of my favorite authors and I’m probably one of the few people who thinks Vanilla Sky was a good movie.   So I was quite disappointed to get halfway through Inception with my mind still unmolested.  It wasn’t until there was about 30 minutes left in the film that I realized what this movie was: a solid action film with a cool premise.

It’s probably important at this point to remember what our goal here is; to pick the best picture of the year.  The bar is set higher and had I left it at its usual height, Inception would receive the go-ahead as an entertaining, visually awe-inspiring, all around well-made film.  But we are looking for the best.  Not just the best action film, but the best film, period.

Inception is the best action movie I’ve seen this year.  But when compared to films from all categories, it makes a strong argument against having ten best film nominations.  Merely a solid movie isn’t what belongs in the best picture category, we must be reaching higher than that and rarely does a year goes by when there are ten exceptional films.  Despite what you may have heard, there are fewer major motion pictures made nowadays than there were fifty years ago.  If the number of total films is decreasing, increasing the best picture nominess will introduce mediocrity to the award and drag the truly deserving films into a muddled group wherein voters are forced to spread their limited focus amongst a greater amount of films.  The idea of a nomination is to narrow focus in order to give a better opportunity to judge each subject.

The idea behind expanding the number of best picture nominees was to create more interest and viewership by including the kinds of films that are usually left out of the running.  Animated films are the most commonly used example of this.  Because of the expansion, Toy Story 3 was able to sneak in to the pool.  But this doesn’t fix what I agree is a problem within the nominating process.  Inception’s nomination only makes it very slightly more likely it will win.  The problem lies in what we define to be a great film, or that we have one at all.  Too often we see the same formula used in a best-picture-nominated films.  Familiar stories of triumph in spite of the odds and overcoming one’s personal demons have been packaged differently over the years.  But they’ve all been made with one goal in mind, to win best picture.

So why not Inception?  Am I treating it unfairly because I feel I was deceived as to what the actual nature of the film was supposed to be?  I will admit I was ready to write off the film halfway through when I realized it wasn’t what I was hoping for, but I think I rebounded quickly enough to give it a fair shake.  I also think it warrants a discussion on trailers creating false expectations, but that’s another discussion for another time.

In the end the problem is the film has no lasting power. The plot is fine and there is a great tension build-up that resolves itself well in the end.  But the acting left something to be desired, and I don’t think the characters were developed in a way that made me care about them.  Their fate is tied in with the fate of the film.  If you don’t care what happens to the characters, why the hell are you watching?

I also think the writer and director left a lot on the table in dealing with the possibilities one encounters in the dream-state.  I got the feeling the director was primarily interested in the ways the physical world could be twisted in using the in-dream premise, as if it served solely as a device for creating cool visual effects (don’t get me wrong, they were really cool).  But what it really felt like was a bunch of actors standing in front of a green screen.  They were too self-assured in their dreams.  Everything was so well defined, both visually and situationally.  There wasn’t that feeling of uncertainty and inherent fear one gets while dreaming.  It might not be possible to emulate such a sensation whilst driving the plot of the film.

Maybe that’s why the most successful dream sequences don’t enhance a story so much as they give context and insight into the subject’s frame of mind (for a great example of a dream sequence doing both, I point you to the second season finale of The Sopranos).  I give the director credit for his efforts.  Perhaps Mr. Nolan did get robbed in the best director category.  There are certainly a lot of people who disagree with my assessment.  But to me, Inception had all the feeling of a $200k Mercedes that only ever gets driven to pick up the groceries; great premise under utilized.

I’ll be back, if you’ll have me.  Next up, my life long dream of becoming a ballerina is crushed by the brutal reality of a relentless, winner-take-all blood sport.

Alouishis

True Grit lacks the quirkiness of most of the Coen Brothers’ movies, making it almost unrecognizable as an officially stamped, 100% certified, Coen Brother approved film.  But one only need look a little closer to see all the other elements of this film are what you’d expect from them.

Simply put, Coen Brothers films are more skillfully crafted than anything else you’re likely to see nowadays.  You will not see a Western made in the past 20 years that is better than True Grit.  What makes their films better is the Coens’ uncanny ability to create something authentic, and use those constraints to their advantage.  Authenticity often comes when things aren’t spelled out for the viewer.  Voice overs can come off as hokey and characters explaining a situation within the film often sound staged.  By not laying everything out for the viewer, dialogue is much more natural, adding to the overall tone of the film.  Authenticity can also breeds humor, often dark and dray; capturing those awkward moments in life that one can only truly appreciate through the narrowing scope of a camera lens.

True Grit is no exception.  Opting to draw inspiration from the original novel by Charles Portis instead of the John Wayne movie (one need only watch a few minutes of the movie to understand why), the Coens’ found a more genuine dialect between more authentic characters.  Jeff Bridges’ Rooster Cogburn is a much saltier dog in comparison to the Duke’s watered down version.  Mattie Ross is only likable because we know we will never have to deal with her personally.  In looking for someone with grit, she is really looking for a version of herself who has the physical size to act out her will.  Matt Damon’s Texas Ranger is as creepy and off-putting as any “protagonist” you will ever see ,and Tom Chaney isn’t so much a devious criminal as a homicidal buffoon.

These unique qualities add a weight to the story that would otherwise be lost when trying to mold these very human characters into something a little more traditional, a little easier on the eyes.

I am also grateful for this film because it has made me realize that Jeff Bridges is not only a likable actor, he is an exceptionally talented one as well.  His past roles have come so naturally; his portrayal of his characters always felt as if they were just different versions of himself.  Rooster Cogburn didn’t contain the inherent likability that goes with most of his characters.  That isn’t to say he wasn’t likable, it just didn’t come the same way.  Watching this film has forced me to look back and admit there is more versatility to Bridges than I ever credited him.  He is much more than the dude (though never better).

I said in my review of The Social Network that it was the only film I actually wanted to see.  I forgot about True Grit.  It is hard to choose between these two (thankfully I have a couple of weeks) and it may end up coming down to which genre I prefer, which would go to The Social Network.

I have been trying to acquire a taste for Westerns for a few years now and it is starting to take, but only a very little bit.  It is rare that I come across a Western I like this much and I doubt anyone could pull it off as well as the Coens.  Westerns are still made at a surprising rate and the romance of the Wild, Lawless West will probably capture our interest for years to come.  But like most genres that deal with a certain epoch or theme there seems to be more poorly made crap than good stuff; most likely because there’s an assumption by the film makers that people are going to see the movie for the genre, not the writing or cinematography.

It’s a testament to the Coens’ talent that they so consistently make genre films that are also unique and of exceptional quality.  They are once a once in a lifetime duo and they only seem to get better.  I think No Country For Old Men will be seen as being ahead of its time and will one day be viewed as one of the greatest films ever made.  I can’t loft such praise on True Grit, but it ain’t bad for a Western.  Next up, Leo DiCaprio is dreamy.

Alouishis

So here we go…

I’m going to review the movies in the order in which I’ve seen them, the first being The Social Network. I saw it long before I saw any of the others because it’s the only one I actually wanted to see.  This brings me to a disclaimer (not the last):  I firmly believe everything Aaron Sorkin does is brilliant.  He probably took a shit yesterday, and I bet he did it in a more clever way than anyone could even think to do it.  So I will probably end up voting for this one if only because of who wrote it.  For the purposes of this entry, I’ll just say the writing was exactly what I’d expected (brilliant!) and we can move on from there.  You have been warned.

Starting with The Social Network right after I announced my departure from dealing with reality might send mixed messages.  If there has been a driving social force of the past ten years, it’s been Facebook.  To paraphrase the movie, Facebook takes the experience of college and puts it online.  The attractive part is that one does not need to attend college to benefit (anymore).

But there have been complaints as to the accuracy of the movie, mainly that many of the details of the story, some larger than others, are fabricated. A good example: Mr. Zuckerberg has had the same girlfriend since college, a very inconvenient fact for Sorkin in light of the main theme of his story being Zuckerberg’s alienating all around him including his freshman year girlfriend whom he never got over.  That’s a big one, though there are other facts and instances that were left out of the story or changed, either because it didn’t go with the main theme of the film, or it just wasn’t necessary.

Sorkin’s script was based on a book about Zuckerberg called The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich.  Mezrich fed Sorkin chapters while he was writing it.  In an effort to gain reader interest, Mezrich wrote a glamorized version of this story about a Harvard geek who doesn’t relate well to people (how unique!).  He threw in drugs, drinking and the fucking over of best friends to make it sexier.  He consulted with Zuckerberg’s one time partner and current nemesis Eduardo Saverin (the guy who almost punched Justin Timberlake at the end) in an effort to give the book some credibility – and to their credit – some accuracy.  But Saverin cut ties to Mezrich after settling financially with Zuckerberg and Mezrich was left to write what he wanted, much of which was false.

So has Aaron Sorkin betrayed his fans and integrity?  That is for each person to decide his or herself.  For Sorkin’s part, he has readily admitted his version of the story was based on a book of questionable integrity and he has made no claims to either its, or the film’s accuracy.  But basing a story on a person, fictional or not, is a tricky situation.  Even films creating hypothetical instances around a real public figure are playing with a human life, someone who has to live with the consequences of the movie, book, song of which he or she is a subject.

And more often than not, the artist telling the story forgets how stupid and ignorant people can be.  It is easy for anyone to see a film about a celebrity and take it for fact.  Everyone knows there is no such thing as a 100% factual film (especially in Hollywood) but the viewer can too easily be seduced into the game of fact selectivity.  A conversation on a subject can go from “I know it isn’t 100% real, but…” to “and in the movie, he…and then he…and after all that, he still has the balls to…  What a prick!”

One only needs to view some of Sorkin’s work to realize that he is exactly the kind of person to have too much faith in his viewer’s ability to discern fact from fiction.  His characters are unapologetically intelligent, and the content of his stories demand the reader to think critically about subjects one doesn’t deal with in day-to-day life.  There’s a reason everyone wants President Bartlett to be their president, it’s because he lives in Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average.  If the country’s population really was as intelligent as it is in Sorkin’s world, it would surely be a better place.

So there it is.  Judge Sorkin if you will, but not for the quality of story-telling.  For all its shortcomings when compared to the real world, The Social Network soars above its competitors in most other areas.  A friend mentioned to me that perhaps the success of the story is that it doesn’t over-reach as films about social phenomena often do.  Sorkin and David Fincher (director) were not out to put their finger on the pulse of America’s youth, they were out to tell the story of the person who created this phenomenon.  Limiting the scope of the story to just Zucerkberg and those around him spare us of many clichéd scenes wherin Fincher would be forced to attempt to illustrate the impact of Facebook by rushing us through dorm rooms, living rooms and anywhere else one can update their status.  It would have added 30 useless minutes to the film and instead of weighting the impact of the website on society today, it would have deflated and undermined whatever happens when a billion people are brought together by a single entity.  One need only look around him or her to gauge the impact by Facebook on today’s society.  No film can measure something like that.

I have yet to watch all ten Best Picture nominees and I am going to keep an open mind, but I believe the bar has been set high with this film.  This is not a year of blockbusters (thank God!) and The Social Network sets a good tone for what we have coming.  Don’t think that because I chose to focus on the fact v. fiction aspect of this film that it doesn’t have everything it takes to make a great film.  I do not intend to cover every aspect of the films I review, but rather comment on whatever is interesting to me, and I will try to pick areas that aren’t being covered excessively by other reviewers.  Next up, True Grit!

Alouishis

You!  That’s right, I’m back!  It’s been a while and for those of you who have been missing my insightful, thoughtful and sometimes brave observations detailed in “Helpful Hints for Living a Happy Life,” I apologize for leaving you out in the dark for so long.  It was not what I wanted, but I’ve had to sacrifice a lot over the years to serve out my God-given mission and there was a time when the very people I love so much (you!) are those who’ve suffered most.

What have I been busy doing, you ask?  Only what I’ve always done.  I’ve been fighting the good fight, sticking up for people like you; the little people.  Also, I do have a job and I wouldn’t be setting much of an example as your humanitarian representative by ignoring my duties as a man.  It’s been a busy few years.  We’ve seen the death of the common man in the sad final days of the great G.W. Bush experiment.  When historians look back upon those eight tumultuous years when it seemed like Anything could happen, let them say it was a time when we as a nation truly did push the limits of reason, tested the tides of evolution and stood up to the great faceless voice across the seas and said, “this is America, we do things Our way.”

It was a proud time.  But we’ve moved on, and are not entirely hopeless.  In the past two years, we’ve learned that it doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, orange or female, it’s hard to run a country that has so many passionate, drive and diverse people.  When President Obama was elected we knew what he’d inherited and we knew it would take a long time to fix things.  But Jesus Christ, it’s been two years!  How long do you want?  Our patience grows thin, and will only continue to do so as unemployment remains around 9% and President Obama still insists on hanging out with the Chinese.  What a waste of time.  I don’t care what you say, I don’t trust a people who bring me a fully prepared lunch less than five minutes after I’ve ordered it.

Times are tough right now and there are few people other than me who can do anything, but I’m afraid my return to your good graces comes with some hard truths.  I am out of the civics game.  I am but merely a stander-by in this beautiful ballet we call politics.  I’ve cashed in my place at the table for a more scholarly pursuit.  I am not able to offer the inside information that I provided before so easily.  I can only deliver my unique perspective and hope that that alone is enough to get us through the next two years.

Additionally, in my time spent apart from you, my beloved and wholeheartedly devoted fans, I’ve taken up an appreciation for the fictional arts; the great stories of our time that reveal the greater truths.  It is this lens through which I plan to offer you comfort and salvation.  For starters, I’ve recently learned of an annual awards ceremony for the motion picture industry that culminates in the announcement of what it believe to be the best film made the previous year.  Surely it is here where I can once again lay claim to the zeitgeist of America, where all the hopes and dreams of this great nation are lent voice and view for one special night.  I will indeed be so bold as to say this ceremony IS America.  I will view and review each of the nominated films in the next month.  You will learn to see them in a new light and we may just learn a little bit about each other.

So come with me as we embark on another great journey through great American experiment.  We shall have great times together.

Alouishis