A good start to the "good movie" season

[dirac]

The last shot is brilliant.

And I don't think we've seen an ending like that from Spielberg before.

[canbelto]

The SAGs are supposed to be a good predictor of the Oscars, so I found the results pretty heartwarming.

Best Picture:

Brokeback Mountain (which I'm seeing tomorrow)

Capote

Crash (great movie that no one saw)

Good Night and Good Luck (whee! everybody's favorite indie getting such accolades)

Hustle and Flow (huh?)

Best Actor: (what a strong field this one is)

Heath Ledger (BM), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Capote), David Straitharn (GN&GL), Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line), and Russell Crowe (Cinderella Man).

I think Crowe is way out of contention, but it'll be a racehorse between the other four.

Best Actress: (such a weak field, it's pathetic)

Judi Dench ("Mrs. Henderson Presents"), Felicity Huffman ("Transamerica"), Charlize Theron ("North Country"), Reese Witherspoon ("Walk the Line") and Ziyi Zhang ("Memoirs of a Geisha").

I'd have to vote for Reese.

Best Supporting Actor: (very strong field)

Don Cheadle ("Crash"), George Clooney ("Syriana"), Matt Dillon ("Crash"), Paul Giamatti ("Cinderella Man") and Jake Gyllenhaal (BM).

I hope Dillon takes it for Crash, personally. He did the impossible and made us care about a bigoted cop. But I think either Clooney or Gyllenhaal will get it.

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams ("Junebug"), Catherine Keener ("Capote"), Frances McDormand ("North Country"), Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener") and Michelle Williams (BM).

I think from all the buzz that Williams has this one wrapped up.

Some surprises: the complete shut-out of Munich. Kiera Knightley not getting a nomination, but Zhang getting one. (I love Zhang to death but thought she was very weak in Memoirs.)

[Helene]

I'm glad SAG recognized Crash. Except for the too angelic locksmith, it was the roughest movie I've seen in many years.

[dirac]

Crash gave opportunities to many good performers, but I’m afraid I could find little else to say for it, and I was hoping to like it. It’s nice to see the actors recognized for their good work, although I’m sorry Thandie Newton was not among them.

Capote is my personal nomination for most overrated picture of the year. I do not mean to say that it was bad – it was very good – just not that good.

[Anthony_NYC]

Wow! Very happy to see that all the nominations are for serious films aimed at adults. Even King Kong was passed over. (No judgement, I haven't seen it yet.)

[Helene]

Jon Stewart will host the Oscars this year:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6010502427.html

I suspect the SAG award show will be more grown up.

[dirac]

It’s wandering a little off topic, but Stewart is an interesting choice. Many of the recent Oscar hosts have had connections with the movie industry, and Stewart has less than even Johnny Carson, I think. However, Carson hosted successfully for several years and Stewart, if he can get in a comfortable groove, could be a fine host also. The Oscars have actually gotten quite stodgy, compared to the flamboyant outbursts of bad taste one used to see and enjoy. Now it’s more mature, understated bad taste and not nearly as fun.

Canbelto, did you see Brokeback the other night? Let us know what you thought.

Anthony_NYC, you’re quite right, but then Hollywood tends to sit up straight and prepare to eat its spinach when awards time rolls around. It is interesting, though, that a number of award-laden pictures from decades past have not stood the test of time as well as movies intended as comedy, adventure, or light entertainment. The original King Kong, for example, retains much of its original cinematic and emotional power. The Best Picture of that year, a film version of Noel Coward’s patriotic play Cavalcade, is not awful, but it's hopelessly stiff and stagebound, with a bunch of imported actors being so British it hurts.......

[canbelto]

I finally saw this film today, and my face is now smudged with mascara. So many movies are about love, but so few films really describe what it's like to be in love. Off the top of my head, Casablanca, GWTW, The Lady Eve, Notorious, Vertigo, and I'm sure there are others, but you can add Brokeback Mountain to that very short list. Initially I thought Heath Ledger was annoying -- he seemed to express himself solely by grunts and ventriloquism. But as the movie progressed I felt his quiet heartbreak, and it broke my heart too. I'm surprised Jake Gyllenhaal is being awarded as a "supporting actor" because his role was as important as Ennis's. I suspect it's so both Gyllenhaal and Ledger can take home statuettes (that they deserve). Michelle Williams was wonderful, and I loved the contrast between the two wives. Anne Hathaway reacts by becoming cold and artificial, Michelle Williams becomes angry and resentful.

I didn't start to cry in earnest until the final shot (and line) of the movie.

It's wonderful that a movie like this is getting so much recognition and accolades, because it deserves all the praise it's getting. What a great movie season.

[Anthony_NYC]

I'm so glad you enjoyed it, canbelto. There seems to be a strong pattern in how it affects people (including me), a kind of delayed reaction. It has to sink in, scenes replay in your mind, and patterns and meanings come through that weren't immediately apparent while watching. I went back to see it a second time, and was even more impressed and moved. On the surface it seems so plain, so quiet and deliberately paced--but the closer you observe and give yourself over to it, the more you find in it and feel it. Part of this is due to the fact that so much is left deliberately ambiguous--it forces you the viewer to participate in it emotionally. The sheer craft of it is just incredible.

A friend directed me to some remarkable discussions about Brokeback that are happening on the Internet. I don't know if I'm allowed to post a link like this, but here, for example, is a thread on IMDB.

For those who haven't seen the movie yet, I would strongly discourage you from reading it, though! Or the short story, for that matter. Just go to enjoy a great love story, beautifully told--and bring some Kleenex!

[canbelto]

SPOILERS: DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

Hi Anthony. you are so right. After the initial tears, I started to think and replay so many scenes. One that stood out in particular: when Ennis says that because of Jack he's 'nothing' and it jolted me, because all along, my sympathies had been with Jack. He was the more overtly affectionate and open character. But when Ennis pointed out that out, I realized he was right -- Jack still had the sham marriage and the cushy job, along with the sidetrips to Mexico, while Ennis was divorced, hardly ever saw his kids, had no friends, and refused to even begin a relationship with another woman. My sympathies at that point became evenly spread between Jack and Ennis, as I realized that both characters, in their own way, were trying to remain 'faithful' to each other. And when Ennis broke down crying after that, I started to cry too, it was so hard to see two characters in so much pain.

The other scene that REALLY hit me was when Ennis lovingly caressed the coat and shirt, rearranged the postcard, and said, "Jack, I swear." What I loved was the sparseness of it -- no Titanic-like lovesong (Love can touch you once and last for a lifetime). Come to think of it, Leo was also named Jack in Titanic! But anyway, at that moment I was a puddle of tears but I also felt strangely uplifted, because I felt like I witnessed true love onscreen, and that's always so beautiful. It reminded me of what Woody Allen said about 'City Lights' -- that it showed so much about love, and being in love, without saying a single word.

This movie also really hit home with the idea that sometimes, you just bond with people totally unexpectedly, and they are not necessarily the people you are 'supposed' to be close to. And it's usually always painful to 'do the right thing' and extricate yourself from these relationships. Few movies depict that as well as Brokeback Mountain, IMO.

[chrisk217]

I saw Pride and Prejudice yesterday & I respectfully disagree with the general opinion. Beware. If what you appreciate in Austen is the unsparing irony (sharpest at P&P) and the lack of sentimentality, you may not like this movie. The tone is shifted from detached and subtly ironic to warmly romantic and occasionally melodramatic.

Elizabeth, perhaps the most spirited & well drawn Austen character, is here squeezed to fit the romantic lead mold. Keira Knightly attempts to portray wit and intelligence mainly by giggling and being radiant. Understandably, she does not succeed. Darcy's big secret is given away instantly (when he sees Elizabeth, he starts!) Individual characters (for example Whickham) are tolerated by the film-makers as long as they do not oppose the predominant romantic theme.

This is the kind of movie where people don't generally greet other people, they blurt whatever they have to say without as much as a "Hello" - so urgent is their need for communication. Horses gallop furiously. Storms pour violently. Strangers knock on doors in the middle of the night. Every cliche comes out of the box to pound us on the head with its bathetic predictability. Overall, there is a lack of moderation so completely alien to the emotional climate of Austen's books, as, say, McMillan is to Bournonville.

The above are all the more incongruous because P&P is not a "sarcasm-and-detachment-optional" territory. From the narrator's voice to the main characters themselves, much of P&P either presents or comments on these very qualities.

I asked around my friends, and most who have read the book in English disliked the adaptation. But, amazingly, it seems to appeal very much to men. The guy I went with almost wept at the end and men around us in the cinema laughed appreciatively throughout the movie. Which probably means that it's an entertaining movie and one of the better romantic comedies. But Jane Austen, it's not!

[Anthony_NYC]

Anthony_NYC, you’re quite right, but then Hollywood tends to sit up straight and prepare to eat its spinach when awards time rolls around.  It is interesting, though, that a number of award-laden pictures from decades past have not stood the test of time as well as movies intended as comedy, adventure, or light entertainment.  The original King Kong, for example, retains much of its original cinematic and emotional power.  The Best Picture of that year, a film version of Noel Coward’s patriotic play Cavalcade, is not awful, but it's hopelessly stiff and stagebound, with a bunch of imported actors being so British it hurts.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, you're right. The old "King Kong" is a great movie. I guess I'm just thinking of all the TV and movie remakes that always seem to be on the box office charts nowadays. I've also had my fill of the fantasy films--"Star Wars," "Harry Potter," "Lord of the Rings"--where it's always Good vs. Evil, one CGI-filled battle after another. Everything starts to seem like an exploded TV sitcom or cartoon. Give me some character development and adult dialogue, please!

[dirac]

Overall, there is a lack of moderation so completely alien to the emotional climate of Austen's books, as, say, McMillan is to Bournonville.

chrisk217, you’re not alone in those thoughts about the new P&P. I’m hors de combat because I didn’t go out of my way to see it, but I suspect I’d agree with you. There are romantic (and melodramatic) elements in Pride & Prejudice, which can be played up, but to emphasize them is to turn Austen’s story into the kind of romantic hooey at which she usually poked fun. On the other hand, I suppose filmmakers do need to try different things, even if they don't always work out -- sometimes they can even shed new light.

Everything starts to seem like an exploded TV sitcom or cartoon. Give me some character development and adult dialogue, please!

Amen to that.

[bart]

Chrisk217, I was struck by your statement: "But, amazingly, it seems to appeal very much to men."

That certainly got me thinking, because I and several other men I've talked to did indeed like it very much -- better than the last versions to appear (the one with Colin Firth, or the subsequent BBC version on TV) -- and (in retrospect) for many of the reasons you mention.

For example: I registered and very much liked Darcy's slightly startled reaction to Elizabeth when he first sees her, though I realize it is not consistent with the way the character is presented (gradually revealed) in the novel. Is it really possible to maintain suspense or mystery about Darcy's feelings, almost two hundred years after the publication of the novel and after numerous other dramatizations?

Like your male companion -- I felt slightly teary at the end as well, which has not happened in any of the previous versions -- or, indeed, while reading the novel.

Here are a couple of ckhrisk217's excellent points, all of which have helped me undestand my own involved and positive emotional response to the film, and made me reconsider them:

The tone is shifted from detached and subtly ironic to warmly romantic and occasionally melodramatic.

Overall, there is a lack of moderation so completely alien to the emotional climate of Austen's books, as, say, McMillan is to Bournonville. 

This got me thinking about the country dance at the beginning of the film. It's quite different from the kind of dancing you usually see in period films -- as is the camera work, which moves in and out and captures fleetingly many images of background people experiencing delight, conflusion, exhaustion, exhilleration. I really do think it captures the spirit that a longed-for country "ball" might produce in a sleepy provincial town. More Mark Morris in spirit than Kenneth MacMillan, I would have thought. And much more than Austen chose to present.

I've read Austin's novel several times and love it. I don't, however, think that a film can or should attempt to replicate the kind of nuance one finds in the much slower, much more intimate experience of reading. For one thing, you can pause and reflect while reading. You can re-read, which allows savoring, second thoughts, and new discoveries. In reading, the reader dictates the pace. Not so with film.

Perhaps this film is to the novel in the same way that MacMillan's Rome and Juliet is to the play. There are cuts, changes in tone, a speed up of pacing, etc. But there is also much that is faithful to the original work. This is the first film version of P&P which actually led me to revisit the novel almost as soon as I left the theater.

[dirac]

Is it really possible to maintain suspense or mystery about Darcy's feelings, almost two hundred years after the publication of the novel and after numerous other dramatizations?

Good point. No, there wouldn't be a way to create suspense for anyone who's familiar with the book or who's seen an earlier dramatization, but creating suspense wouldn't necessarily be the primary goal. You'd be trying to stay close to the character as conceived by Austen.

[Helene]

Good point. No, there wouldn't be a way to create suspense for anyone who's familiar with the book or who's seen an earlier dramatization, but creating suspense wouldn't necessarily be the primary goal.  You'd be trying to stay close to the character as conceived by Austen.

I think that Firth was convincingly arrogant and non-committal in the BBC version. Even knowing what the ending was going to be, I found that he kept the persona until the very end.

I think giving up Darcy from the beginning is a mistake, the same one that Jeremy Northam made -- or was directed to make -- in the Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow.

[bart]

This discussion is fascinating, because I find myself saying to myself: "I just don't get it." I personally found Colin Firth rather dull and uninteresting until he came around to Lizzie near the end. (And I generally admire Firth's acting.) And I enjoyed the current Darcy much more, finding him a more complex character than usually presented. I admit he's less broody and more within the ordinary range of character acting.

Is this possibly, as chrisk217 suggests, a male-female thing? Females responding to the ambiguity and mystery; with us males needing something more like a semaphore or even a sledgehammer? (In films, at least -- though, I would argue, not in literature.)

___________________________________

P.S. As an aside, I think Ang's P&P is the clear winner (as compared to the most recent two versions) in the following areas: casting, art direction, costume, observation of the local people and settings, and the choice the scriptwriter makes in including and cutting out various portions of the book

I preferred Keira Knightly to the woman in the Firth version. I adored many of the minor figures, especially Mr. and Mrs. Bennett and the very beautiful Jane. I thought Tom Hollander's Collins was the best ever, and I rather liked the prominence (quite at odds with the book) given to Lizzie's friend who marries him. Judi Dench is the first lady Catherine given a house -- and a manner -- that justifies the awe with which she is treated by those around (and below her).

And I thought the last lines -- the repeated, formal and quite erotic "Mrs. Darcy. Mrs. Darcy Mrs. Darcy" -- suggest the depth of Darcy's love in a way that is totally in tune with the value system of both Austen and her society, and are therefore doubly moving.

[chrisk217]

bart, what's Ang's P&P? Do you mean Sense & Sensibility?

to emphasize them is to turn Austen’s story into the kind of romantic hooey at which she usually poked fun

dirac, I was thinking the exact same thing. And, come to think of it, wasn't much of Sense and Sensibility an exposision of what Austen perceives as the dangers of untempered sentimentality? What does Marriane get for wandering out on the hills while the rain romantically pours? At first she gets Whilloughby, who goes from dashing romantic hero to callous in about a 100 pages. And then she gets pneumonia and almost dies. By the final chapter, she has learned to moderate her romantic notions and has accepted Colonel Brandon, the somewhat romantically challenged suitor.

As for P&P, the Ehle/Firth version was and remains my favorite. The pace may be slow but the cast is pitch perfect, especially Elizabeth, Darcy, Lydia, Jane and the father. Ehle shows the sparkling wit and unusual personality of Elizabeth and you really understand why this haughty man can't get her out of his mind. As for Firth, his secret I think is that, on his slightly blank, brooding face one can project whatever one likes: great depths of feeling, sexual frustration, a tortured past, a poetically dark nature, whatever works

Nevertheless, this latest P&P is a pleasant movie. I just wanted to warn the Austenites not to expect to find much of Austen's irony when they go to see it. I might have liked it, had I been forewarned.

[bart]

bart, what's Ang's P&P? Do you mean Sense & Sensibility?

Sorry, I got the directors mixed up. I meant "Wright's."

I've been thinking of your and other's criticisms -- and even turned to some online reviews, several of which take the same position. And I still can't figure while -- though I admire the Ehle/Firth version -- I LIKED and responded emotionally to this one more.

I'm still wondering about the possibility of a man/woman -- or at least a Janeite/non-Janite -- divide.

[dirac]

I've been thinking of your and other's criticisms -- and even turned to some online reviews, several of which take the same position. And I still can't figure while -- though I admire the Ehle/Firth version -- I LIKED and responded emotionally to this one more.

Bart, several female acquaintances have described their reaction to the movie in very similar terms to me, and while it was hardly a scientific sampling of the population, my hunch is that you responded more emotionally and, um, erotically to this version because that’s how you were intended to respond – it’s those elements in the story that this production brings out. (I guess I’m going to have to break down and see the movie in order to see for myself.)

This kind of re-interpretation is common in today’s theatre. (And I’m not necessarily agin it – I would be prepared, for example, to mount a defense of Patricia Rozema’s “Mansfield Park.”) The difference is that a high profile feature film reaches millions and may become the Pride & Prejudice for many people. The television versions reach a lot of people, too, but a TV series doesn’t have the same authority as a successful movie, although it looks as if Firth’s Darcy is becoming the new Darcy template. I really have no problem with an interpretation that steams up viewers’ spectacles – sexual attraction is central (in a sense, in a sense) to the story, after all. Just as long as somebody notes somewhere that Austen had other things on her mind.

My impression is that the new P&P is a good movie worth seeing even if you don’t agree with it, and I probably would have checked it out long ago were it not for my reluctance, earlier expressed, to see yet another Austen adaptation......

I'm still wondering about the possibility of a man/woman -- or at least a Janeite/non-Janite -- divide.

You may be right, but in the past I’ve noted it in regard to Emma – women seem to like the novel more intensely than men.

[dirac]

This thread is becoming top-heavy, and so I'm shutting it down, but please feel free to comment in the new one. Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion.