films – Page 25 – Ripple Effects

Smart People (2008)

Smart people is about ordinary people. But unlike the movie Ordinary People, it doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s also about dysfunctional families, but then again, a look around us can testify that the term “dysfunctional’ has more or less become a cliché, or the norm even. So, the story line and characters in Smart People may well be the story about many of us. We can relate to their situations, or maybe know someone that’s in similar predicament, smart or dumb.

Smart People

The title is an apparent sarcasm. Coincidentally, in my last post I wrote a review on A Room With A View (2007)…imagine the highly-educated but socially inapt Cecil Vyse now a modern day academic, 30 years older, scruffy, paunchy, and ever grumpier… that’s the main character in this movie, professor Lawrence Wetherhold, vividly portrayed by Dennis Quaid. Wetherhold teaches at Carnegie Mellon University, an expert in Victorian literature. Like Cecil Vyse, he is smart with ideas, but utterly unfit for human relationships. Or, maybe a more accurate way of looking at it is, he has given up being a nice person. He’s self-absorbed, overbearing, and maybe himself a victim too, let us not judge so harshly, for he is a widower drenched in self-pity, who leaves his wife’s whole wardrobe untouched some years after her passing.

Living with such a character is his teen-aged daughter Vanessa, played by Ellen Page. Repeating her impressive performance as in Juno, Page portrays an over-achieving high school senior, who aims at nothing less than a perfect SAT score. Little does she know that underneath her pragmatic and vigorous academic pursuit and Republican stance are her youthful curiosity and desires. So, when Chuck (Thomas Haden Church), the wayward adopted brother of her father’s veers into their lives, she is whirled into a pool of confusion. Adding to the complexity of the family relationship is Vanessa’s older brother James (Ashton Holmes), who aspires to be a poet but his Dad doesn’t even know it. James lives on campus where Wetherhold teaches. Despite the physical proximity, father and son could never be more alienated and distanced.

Thomas Haden Church and Ellen Page

All of their lives begin to take a turn when Wetherhold’s car is impounded for illegal parking and he tries to climb over a fence to retrieve his brief case in the car. His toneless middle-aged physique is no match for the 10-foot wire fence, and so he ends up in the ER with a ‘trauma induced seizure’ after he falls over. That’s where he meets Dr. Janet Hartigan (Sarah Jessica Parker). A former student of his, Janet had a crush on him while a student, but due to his harsh marking and pompous air, decided to change her major from literature to biology. Now years later, Janet has the chance to forge a real and meaningful relationship with Wetherfold, a task she soon finds to be too formidable and senseless for anyone in her right mind.

Dennis Quaid and Sarah Jessica Parker

But isn’t it true…we’re matched up with impossible people at work, deal with obnoxious clients whom we have to serve, live with incompatible housemates, and stuck with eccentric and embarrassing family members… Smart People’s smart screenplay offers us the chance to laugh at ourselves, and empathize with other’s deficiencies and shortfalls. By learning to put up with them, we might just be learning to live with ourselves. And in the process, as the movie happily winds up, the characters gain a new perspective on themselves and come out as changed persons.

Screened at Sundance earlier this year, the film is teamed up by the relatively new screen writer Mark Poirier and director Noam Murro. It is rated R in the U. S. and 14A in Canada. Certain scenes may be objectionable to some. But with watching any movie or reading literature, for that matter, they have to be taken in context, and the overall spirit considered.

And, for those looking for smart aleck humor, or fast-paced sequences and an intriguing plot are bound to be disappointed. However, I have precisely appreciated (Professor Wetherhold would be quick to correct me, it should be “appreciated precisely” he’d say) the slower paced story lines that are well-developed along the main characters. The witty dialogues and superb acting from the stellar cast are enjoyable and engaging. A delightful 95 minutes of quiet and intelligent entertainment.

~ ~ ~ Ripples

Nim’s Island (2008)

I don’t want to miss any Jodie Foster movies. She’s one of my all time favorites. I’m also eager to watch Abigail Breslin again after her Little Miss Sunshine. Further, after reading Annie Dillard’s novel, I just need something light and mindless. Coincidentally, between these two, I only have to change lenses, for the view is more or less the same: the beauty and wonder of nature.

Nim’s Island is a mixture of Swiss Family Robinson, Home Alone, Stranger Than Fiction, and Mr. Brooks. Based on the popular children’s book of the same name by Wendy Orr, it’s about a girl called Nim who lives an idyllic life on a pristine island with her scientist dad Jack. The island’s rich natural resources and wildlife are the sources of Jack’s research and Nim’s pleasure. Her friends are Selkie the sea lion, Fred the iguana, Galileo the frigate bird, and the giant sea turtle…what’s his name? … Anyway, it’s a zoo out there on Nim’s island, but Nim and Jack keep it real organized, educational, and fun.

One of Nim’s favorite past time is reading the stories of her adventure hero Alex Rover (Gerard Butler, P.S. I Love You, 2007). So, when a huge tropical storm hits the island, and her dad hasn’t come home for a few days collecting protozoa samples out in the open sea, she calls to Alex Rover for help. Actually, it is the creator of Alex Rover that emails Nim first, asking about information to write the next novel, mistakenly thinking Nim is Jack’s research assistant.

Far from being an adventure hero, Alexandra Rover, the author, is a recluse suffering from agoraphobia, whose best friend is her Purell hand sanitizer. She hasn’t been out of her San Francisco apartment for months. But knowing Nim is all alone on an island needing help, and prodded by her own adventure hero, she ventures out against her fears. So there’s the interesting set up of the plot, the rest of the story is the adventures of Alex Rover the writer heading to the island to help out Nim, the real heroine.

The film suffers from some scenes and dialogues that appear to be banal and trite. With its interesting storyline I think it can be done better with more creativity and imagination. Having said that, I must say that the movie is beautifully shot on location in Queensland, Australia. In a day and age when kids, and parents, for that matter, find it impossible to have fun outside of video games and electronic gadgets, this movie and the book can offer a wholesome alternative.

There is a new edition of the book that’s a movie tie-in, including 8 pages of color pictures from the film. It is illustrated whimsically by Kerry Millard. A fun read. And for all the budding biologists, zoologists, oceanographers, and for that matter, environmentalists in your home, this is a must-read.

The intended age group I feel should be a bit lower for both the movie and the book. I’d say a target audience and reader Age 6 – 10 would be more appropriate than the now 9 – 12.

The best combination: Go see the movie and then to the bookstore.

Now with that combination, I’ll have to give it

~ ~ ~ Ripples

Sense and Sensibility (2008 TV): Part 2

Even though the last kiss in the movie goes to Elinor and Edward, I feel this second part of Sense and Sensibility belongs to Marianne and Colonel Brandon. Indeed, David Morrissey’s Colonel Brandon has been the leading man and Charity Wakefield’s Marianne shines. Their lines even bring back some epic images of a past Austen adaptation. Just dwell on them again:

Marianne: My feelings for him has changed so much…I love him.

Elinor: Then I am happy for you.

Words of endearment reminiscent of Davis’ adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (1995)…flashback to Lizzy’s response to Darcy’s second proposal, and as she explains to her unbelieving father of her accepting it, and of course, Mr. Bennet’s loving consent upon hearing her declaration of love for Darcy. As for the imaginary scene of the fencing duel? Isn’t that just reminds us of Darcy’s own struggle? Further … isn’t it true that such an improvised addition could work just as well with Darcy and Wickham too?

I think we have seen enough Davis adaptations to not be surprised by his interpretive visions…not authentically out of Austen’s book, but effective just the same … and we forgive him yet again.

Indeed, not only the fencing duel, which is nicely shot, mesmerizing and dream-like, but all the scenes we see in this new version that are Davis’ own imagination are all quite effective, thanks also to the excellent camerawork and cinematography. Scenes such as Brandon’s gentle touch of Marianne’s hand as she lay ill in her bed, the invitation to his own library and leaving Marianne to the privacy of her own enjoyment of the pianoforte, to the taming of the falcon, all vividly depict Brandon’s patient and quiet yearning for her. And Marianne, even though by nature a free-spirited creature like the falcon, would eventually fly back and rest on the arm of the one who beckons her with his steadfast love. Davis’ imaginary scenes are most effective in portraying Marianne’s turnaround.

There are some very moving moments for Elinor too. Desperately seeking solitude in her silent suffering, Elinor finds shelter in a cave by the seaside. The camera’s point of view from inside the cave looking out, framing her silhouette against a tumultuous ocean, a stunning vision. Or, when she sits on a bench, again alone, facing the wide open sea, waiting, doubting, or just plain accepting… Our hearts pour out to her, and yet, it is Elinor’s perseverance that has won us over, not sentimentality. Now that is authentic Austen.

At the end, as Edward enters the Dashwood cottage to propose to Elinor, the slightly shaky camerawork is most effective in depicting the agitated anticipation of both lovers, for Edward, the nervous uncertainty of his reception, and for Elinor, the restless suspense and later unpredictable euphoria….kudos to the screenwriter, director, and cinematographer.

The Welsh filmmaker Peter Greenaway once made a controversial remark criticising film versions of literary work as mere “illustrated books”. Regarding Jane Austen’s work, he said:

“Cinema is predicated on the 19th century novel. We’re still illustrating Jane Austen novels–there are 41 films of Jane Austen novels in the world. What a waste of time.”

(Click here for the Wales news article containing the above quote.)

To which I respond: The visual can powerfully bring out the essence of the literary. A good film adaptation is more than illustration of printed words, but an inspiring visual narrative. At best, it can offer an interpretive vision and a new perspective to a timeless piece of writing.

The present adaptation is a vivid example.

******

Click here to go back to Sense and Sensibility Part 1.

Don’t forget to vote in the Poll on the sidebar, Which Austen heroine do you think Jane was most like?

******

Sense and Sensibility (2008 TV): Part 1

What can I say after watching just half of a movie? But First Impressions last, and the notion has multi-layered meaning.

First off, I can’t help but compare this Andrew Davis version with the 1995 Emma Thompson’s screenplay. And secondly, I’m eager to watch Part 2 next week to see how some of my feelings from Part 1 hold out, of course, to also quench my Austenian thirst. PBS sure has underestimated the patience of Janeites who, I think, would not mind spending three hours to watch the whole movie in one sitting.

The two adaptations play out exactly as the story does. Emma Thompson’s screenplay is an almost literal and reserved view of the novel, while Andrew Davis’ is an imaginative and free-spirited rendition. The two versions are very much a parallel image of Elinor versus Marianne, sense contrasted with sensibility, or should I say, sense and sensuality? The perfect scenario, of course, is a balance of the two. And last night, while appreciating the fresh angle Davis has led me to look at the novel, I also long for a more literal, more authentic representation.

Davis has taken the liberty to create scenes intended to appeal to (what he thinks is the expectation of) modern day viewers, a much more erotic and sensual rendition than the Austen novel. Not authentic, but I admit, some of those scenes are quite effective. Not that I think Jane Austen needs that kind of help though.

I have particularly enjoyed the set design and cinematography. The sumptuous Norland Park, the elegant costume, and the picturesque natural scenery, the almost Gothic billowing seaside of the Dashwood new home. Barton cottage by the cliff? Again, not authentic, but quite effective. The howling winds and crashing waves are sharp contrast to the once quiet and comfortable life of Norland Park. They also signify the turmoils in the hearts of the characters, betraying their calm composure. There is a beautiful shot when Elinor runs up the windy mountain, the camera follows her wind-swept hair and fluttering dress. As she stops at the edge of the cliff, looking down onto the rising waves, she opens the book Edward has given her as a parting gift, slowly caressing the words he left in there. That is one moving scene.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the camera work. Like an omniscient narrator, it captures not only the macro views, but by its silent pan and close-up shots, reveal the inner emotions and deeper characterization. The blurry shots of the wind-charm hanging outside the cottage, strung up sea shells Margaret has collected by the craggy shore, slowly dancing in the quiet breeze, a metaphor for the passing of time, or the changing of scenes…very effective indeed.

This adaptation features a younger cast. Hattie Morahan as Elinor, Charity Wakefield as Marianne, as well as Dan Stevens and Dominic Cooper as Edward Ferris and Willoughby are much more compatible in age to the story’s requirement than the 1995 movie. However, I feel the contrast between the sisters are more proficiently acted by Thompson and Winslet….so far in this Part I anyway. The younger cast brings in a fresh perspective, but I miss the maturity and talent in the previous version. I like Lucy Boynton’s Margaret (Miss Potter, 2006), a very clever performance and lucky girl…she has some of the best lines in the movie. Another favorite character of mine in just watching this first part is Janet McTeer as Mrs. Dashwood, her performance almost overshadows her daughters.

David Morrissey’s Colonel Brandon is portrayed as a more lofty and noble character than an emotionally tormented soul, a role Alan Rickman has mastered. In the present version, Brandon meeting with Willoughby is an obvious reminiscence of a previous Andrew Davis adaptation, yes, the first, chance encounter of Darcy and Wickham in Meryton. The cold and awkward expression on their faces are brought back here. Morrissey’s tall and stately stature sharply contrasts with the much shorter, scoundrel-looking Willoughby, obviously contrasting not just a difference in physical appearance but in character. However, this is not what Austen intended. The Willoughby she has described has all the social charm, height and good looks so to bring young girls under his grasp. A deceitful character masked by a handsome appearance. Again, not authentic here, but as to effects, it depends on how much an Austen purist you are. Nonetheless, I feel the Darcy and Wickham allusion is apparent.

Overall, I have enjoyed this first part of the new Sense and Sensibility. The cinematography and camera work has done a great service to enhance a very elegant adaptation. I anticipate eagerly to see how my First Impressions will play out in the concluding part coming up next week.

…if only I can just watch it now.

Update: Click here to go directly to my review of Part 2 and Conclusion of Sense and Sensibility (2008).

And… Don’t forget to cast your vote on the sidebar, Which Austen Heroine Was Jane Most Like?

******

Enchanted (2007, DVD)

I consider myself a rational person. As an armchair critic, you have to, right? Analytical, critical, not easily moved… But when it comes to humor, I just can’t resist. I have to admit, I tried to control myself from laughing out loud many times, and not embarrass myself among all the preschool kids and their parents in that matinee show, even though it was dark there in the theatre.

Note to myself: get the DVD when it’s out. And so I did.

Why am I enchanted? First of all the movie. It’s loaded with smart dialogues, humorous parodies, seamless fusion of animation and real characters, and an old-fashioned and yet still wise message for today. And the cast, sure looks like they are having the time of their life making the movie. And the Oscar nominated songs by Menken and Schwartz, with the huge conglomeration of dancers, a delightful revival of the old musicals of the heydays.

Enchanted is a classic fairy tale: An evil queen, afraid of being dethroned, tries in all her power to prevent her stepson from marrying his true love by banishing her to the real world of modern day New York City, where there are no “happily ever afters”, a punishment indeed. While there, the fairytale maiden meets her real life prince…and so on and so forth…But, what’s not typical is that it’s being handled intelligently, thanks to an excellent script, and the talented technical support it receives.

Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, James Marsden, and Timothy Spall all deliver lively and very gratifying performances. Also, Susan Sarandon as the wicked Queen Narissa…I say, she’s in character. And the then 8-year-old Rachel Covey, the cutest child star I’ve seen in movies these years. This is only her second movie, but she’s a natural, that is, she doesn’t need to act. She can just stand there and be adored.

The DVD is packed full of fun and information. We have a Carrie Underwood music video “Ever Ever After”, an additional animated story, bloopers, and director Kevin Lima commenting on the deleted scenes. I’m most fascinated by the behind the scene look at how the songs and the musical scenes are produced. It’s fascinating to watch how choreographers have to coordinate hundreds of performers involving gymnastic troops, stilt walkers, eclectic groups of dancers and multicultural musicians in the “That’s How You Know” scene in Central Park. I’m most impressed to find a few of them are veteran dancers who had appeared in the classic movie West Side Story (1961) and one was a chimney sweeper in Mary Poppins (1964)! I’m thinking…Can I even get out of my bed when I’m at their age?

Great family entertainment for the Easter break coming up. In a world of dysfunctional relationships, no wonder I am enchanted by a movie painting couples reconciled, yes right in the divorce lawyer office, and lovers united after swashbuckling adventures in the hustle and bustle of New York City.

Just don’t remind me it’s only a fairy tale.

~ ~ ~ Ripples

In Praise of Austen: Emma Thompson’s Acceptance Speech

I’ve a video tape of Sense and Sensibility (1995) for a long time. A few days ago I bought the DVD of the movie, and was pleasantly surprised to see the ‘Extra Features’ includes Emma Thompson’s acceptance speech at her Golden Globe win for Best Screenplay.

And for all these years I’ve missed this one!

That the Taiwanese director Ang Lee would take on such a project is evidence of the universal appeal of Austen’s work. But it is Emma Thompson who stands out as the well-deserved winner of both an Oscar and a Golden Globe for her writing of the adapted screenplay of Sense and Sensibility (1995).

Here’s Emma Thompson’s acceptance speech at the 1996 Golden Globes Awards ceremony. It is an ingenious and imaginary rendition of what Jane Austen would have written about that night. A speech of true Austenian style, a must-see for all Janeites and Emma Thompson fans. Of course, those who own the DVD must have seen it numerous times, I’m just twelve years too late:

August Rush (2007)

Autust Rush

In a fairy tale, you could throw all the right ingredients up in the air, and everything will fall in place into a gourmet feast right in front of you eyes. Of course, the table will be set in fancy, with candlelights and all that jazz (you know, just like the “Be my guest” scene in Beauty and the Beast). But moving-making is no fairy tales, even when you’re shooting one.

A modern version of Dickens’ Oliver Twist, August Rush is a contemporary fairy tale set right in the realistic and metropolitan New York City: great setting. A boy growing up in a boys’ home heading out to search for his birth parents merely by following the music in his heart: good story line. That music has the power to unite souls and connect lost relations: magical idea. And the title ‘August Rush’: how cool is that?

Well, August Rush has all the right ingredients… but it lacks the quintessential elements: a good recipe and a good cook. Without a good script that delivers intelligent and engaging dialogues, and quality directing to bring it to fruition, the characters remain banal, the story and scenes contrived and the intended magic is simply a concoction in saccharine. It might still please, but not gratify.

Mind you, I wanted to see the film work. I’d appreciated the music. I was enthralled by the ingenious scores juxtaposing classical orchestral work with jamming guitars and raucous rock bands. I’m also a fan of Keri Russell, have thoroughly enjoyed her performance in The Upside of Anger (2005), in particular. But her great effort here in August Rush just can’t compensate for her lack of chemistry with Jonathan Rhys Meyers, who, I’m afraid, may be a miscast. I also feel that Freddie Highmore’s character August Rush needs a bit more depth (and less smile), and the overacting of Robin Williams may have done more harm than good…but of course, we need a villain in a fairy tale, don’t we.

Keri Russell plays a young cellist Lyla who is rising to fame in NYC. She gets pregnant by rock band lead singer Louis (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) in a one-night stand. The next morning Lyla’s father abruptly stops their relationship before it can even get started. Louis goes back to England, and both give up their musical career. Months later, Lyla gets in a car accident and gives birth to a son but is told by her father that the baby didn’t survive. The boy grows up in an orphanage. Compelled by the music he has been hearing in his heart, he runs away to NYC to look for his birth parents. He soon befriended a young busker who leads him to the Wizard, a modern day Fagin (Robin Williams). The Wizard manages a group of young street musicians, squatters in a shabby abandoned building. Seeing the potential gains from his new found talent, the Wizard takes the prodigy under his controlling wings, until the boy breaks free and follows his inner music that ultimately leads him to the end of his search.

I’m all for wholesome, uplifting and inspiring films, and strongly believe in the power of music, but all good intentions cannot catapult August Rush to reach its lofty goals.

~ ~ ½ Ripples

Jane Making The List of Best Movies Ever Made

With January to April being Jane Austen Season on PBS where The Complete Jane Austen is being aired on Masterpiece, it’s just refreshing to know that three Austen movies made it to the list of 1,000 Best Movies mentioned in my last post. I’m sure Janeites do not need anybody’s approval, but it’s good to have it just the same.

Again, here’s the link to New York Times’ The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made. It should be noted that the list is based on the second edition of the book The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made which was published in 2004. The New York Times on-line edition still have the icon and link for readers to click even as recent as March 3, 2008, apparently they have not updated the list since the publication of the book.

The following are the three Jane Austen movie adaptations that made the list.

Persuasion (1995) with Amanda Root as Anne Elliot and Ciaran Hinds as Captain Wentworth. Here’s a little excerpt from the NY Times:

“Of course, Austen’s protagonists are never dumb, but Anne, being somewhat older, is also a good deal wiser, and the characters around her accordingly take on greater dimension and subtlety. Naturally, this being an Austen story, all ends well, but the path is somewhat less straightforward than in other films adapted from her work.“

*****

Pride and Prejudice (1940) with Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet and Laurence Olivier as Mr. Darcy. The New York Times had this tidbit about the classic adaptation:

“Though Austen’s novel was set in 1813, the year of its publication, the film version takes place in 1835, reportedly so as to take advantage of the more attractive costume designs of that period.“

*****

Sense and Sensibility (1995) with Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant and Alan Rickman. New York Times critic Janet Maslin summed it up:

“We need no further proof that this material is ageless.“

************

It’s interesting to note that a modern version of Emma also gets a nod from the critics. Thus begins the review of Clueless (1995) on the NY Times:

“Jane Austen might never have imagined that her 1816 novel Emma could be turned into a fresh and satirical look at ultra-rich teenagers in a Beverly Hills high school.”

Clueless (1995)

Jane Austen’s novels are indeed timeless.

New York Times: Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made

Here’s the link to the list of 1,000 Best Movies Ever Made according to New York Times movie critics. The list is based on the book The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made, second edition, published 2004.

Do you find your favorites here? If not, which movies do you think should be on the list? Which should not be? A list of 1,000 movies spanning almost a century, you might think there should be a lot of choices, right?

My view:

I agree maybe Bambi (1942) should be there, but no Out of Africa (1985) or Shawshank Redemption (1994)?

Ok, so Bull Durham (1988 ) is in, but where are Field of Dreams (1989) and Dances With Wolves (1990)?

I regret to see The Last Temptation of Christ (1988 ) is on the list but not The Passion of the Christ (2004).

So they have The Pianist (2002) but ignore Sophie’s Choice (1982) and Life is Beautiful (1997).

I see that Chicken Run (2000) gets to rub shoulders with Ben-Hur (1959)….ookay….and, if Working Girl (1988 ) can get a nod, then where’s my Bridget Jones’ Diary?

… and so on and so forth…

Your view?

The Oscar Results 2008

Kodak Theater L.A.

CLICK HERE for Oscar Results 2010

CLICK HERE for the 2009 Oscar Results.

Well I didn’t get to see my favorites winning an Oscar, as expected. But it was exciting seeing them walk down the red carpet and seated in the Kodak Theatre as nominees. For a full list of Oscar winners, you can go to the official Oscars website.

I’m glad to see Juno’s Diablo Cody getting the Best Original Screenplay, and Atonement receiving a nod for Best Original Score. As predicated by many, this year’s Oscars belong to those that portray the killer instinct, with No Country for Old Men grabbing the major ones: Best Picture, Best Director(s), Best Supporting Actor, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Daniel Day-Lewis winning the Best Actor Oscar for There Will Be Blood. The Bourne Ultimatum getting three golds, that’s a little surprise.

I’ve enjoyed the E Talk pre-Oscar show with Ben Mulroney interviewing stars on the red carpet. I just love 65 year-old Julie Christie’s answer to the question about the age disparity in her friendship with Sarah Polley, the 29 year old director of Away From Her: “She’s the old one, I’m the juvenile.” The lady sure has some wit.

What impress me most are the credits and tributes many of these Hollywood celebrities give to their mother and father for their achievement. My admiration goes out to them for that. Here are a few that I’m really fond of:

It’s heart-warming to see Javier Bardem honoring his mother and thanking her in Spanish during his acceptance speech.

Another one is Daniel Day-Lewis, acknowledging his grandfather, father, and his sons. How sweet is that?

While still on the red carpet, Jason Reitman, director of Juno, gives the ultimate credit to his mom and dad, acknowledging that everything he is today he owes it to his parents, and getting a kiss from dad Ivan Reitman for that.

And Diablo Cody, screenwriter for Juno, thanking her parents for accepting her the way she is…

These are just some examples I remember, and I’ll remember them for a while.

The Independent Spirit Awards

Some pleasant results from the Independent Spirit Awards held in Santa Monica today (Feb. 23). This is the dressed-down film awards ceremony honoring low-budget indie films, which takes place in a tent, and has gone green, completely environmental friendly according to host Rainn Wilson. For a full list of winners, click here. Some results I’m happy to see:

Cate Blanchett and Ellen Page

Juno: Winning Best Feature, Best Actress Ellen Page, and Best First Screenplay Diablo Cody. Ellen Page’s awestruck face and shaky voice as she gave the acceptance speech is the icing on the cake…sweet.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: Best Director Julian Schnabel, Best Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski.

Also, there are some very pleasant moments seeing:

A very pregnant Cate Blanchett winning Best Supporting Female for I’m Not There.
A still attractive Marisa Tomei, nominee for Best Supporting Female in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.
And last but not least, Darcy in jeans, yes, Colin Firth, the man himself, presenting the Best Screenplay Award.

Great momentum, great spirit, all charged up for the grand movie award of the year, tomorrow’s Oscars Ceremony. And, Colin, we’re ready just the same to watch Pride and Prejudice after that, for the…ooh…I’ve lost count how many times.

(Photo Sources: Cate Blanchett and Ellen Page from Gossip Girls, Colin Firth from Wikimedia.)

The 80th Academy Awards

Just a few days to the Oscars and I still haven’t written my take on the grand event of the year. Let me catch up.

I’ve been asked about my view on the nominees. Having seen all of the movies in the Best Picture category, I’ve to admit my opinion may very well differ from other critics’. Case in point is No Country For Old Men, one of the two favorites to grab the Best Picture Oscar. I may well be ostracized for saying this, but I feel that the movie is way overrated. In this already dysfunctional and desensitized world of ours, why would we still need a 2-hour movie showing the dark and evil side of human by graphically depicting the deepest hell evil can raise through a psychotic killer let loose, introducing new ways of killing and getting away with it, on and on with no end in sight? I admit I haven’t read Cormac McCarthy’s book, maybe he’s more well-meaning than the film adaptation, having chosen William Butler Yeat’s line for his title.

Call me ‘traditional’ or ‘moralistic’, when I go to see a movie, I still look for something ‘wholesome’. Yes, I’ve long passed that stage when, as a child watching a movie, I would constantly be asking whether a character is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But now as a meaning-seeking adult, I still yearn for the ‘point’ of the film. Despite the chaotic world we’re so used to nowadays, I believe there still remains in us a vacuum that can be filled only by ideals transcendent and relationships meaningful. And film, being a visual form of communication, can be a powerful medium to express this kind of human quest. And that is one of my main criteria of a worthwhile piece of entertainment.

Ok, so here’s Arti’s take on the major categories. Who will win and who I’d like to see winning can be very different.

Best Picture: Even though No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are the critics’ favorites, I prefer Atonement.

Best Actor: While I haven’t seen Johnny Depp’s performance in Sweeney Todd, I think Daniel Day-Lewis has done an impressive job in There Will Be Blood and may well get to take home the golden statuette.

Best Actress: I’d love to see Julie Christie win another Oscars. The last time was more than 40 years ago, which I didn’t get to see. I think she well deserves another one with her performance in Away From Her.

Best Director: Although the favorite is the Coen Brothers for NCFOM, I’d like to see Julian Schnabel receiving it for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

Best Adapted Screenplay: I have 3 favorites here, Atonement, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and Away From Her. If I must choose one, I’d just wish to see lovely Sarah Polley winning it for Away From Her.

As much as I’ve enjoyed the movie Atonement, I don’t think it’ll grab the hearts of the voting members of the Academy. I can see it winning a couple in the minor categories like Best Costume, Best Art Direction, Best Music (Score), and hopefully Best Cinematography.

And, with all the rave Canada is making about Juno, and I’m glad to see it receive 4 major nominations, Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay, I’ve a feeling that the ‘Little Miss Sunshine episode’ may not be repeated this year. And, if I’m right, let’s just say getting these 4 Oscar nods is already phenomenal for so young an ensemble.

Click on ‘Movies Reviewed’ above to read my reviews on some of this year’s Oscar Nominees.

And…let’s occupy ourselves with meaningful endeavors to pass these three long days of anticipation…