Predictions for the 85th Annual Academy Awards (Part 1)

by

Julien Faddoul

Predicting the Academy Awards is an annual obsession of mine. I have been doing it for 14 years and I can undoubtedly say that it is a difficult and fine art. This race has turned out to be one of the most exciting in years, with many fields wickedly wide open. So with out further ado, here are my final predictions for The 85^th Annual Academy Awards in 21 categories. Nominees are listed in order of certainty:

(BLUE = Lock)

BEST PICTURE

Not since 2007 has a Best Picture race been so evasively problematic. In fact this year is harder due to the rule change that occurred last year where, in needing a certain number of no. 1 votes, anywhere from 5 to 10 pictures could be nominated indefinitely.

I feel that five are safe.

Lincoln and Argo are in lead, with unanimous love.

Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty and LesMiserables, despite all hiking through bumpy roads to get here, are all locked.

Even though it has appeared in all the precursors (except SAG), Life of Pi is not locked, but I will be very surprised if it misses.

My 7^th spot goes to Django Unchained, a pick I make with little confidence. But I still feel buzz around it is concrete, where I don’t with the others below it.

The magic number I’m going with is 7. Most people seem to be predicting 7 or 8. What most people aren’t doing is leaving off Beasts of the Southern Wild. I am obviously not a fan of the film, but that has nothing to do with it. Fox Searchlight’s campaign has been surprisingly dry and the DIY aspect of the film that so many critics respect is something that I don’t think will resonate with academy voters. Skyfall has turned out to be one of the most beloved movies of the year, but it’s still James Bond, a series the academy has ignored constantly. Moonrise Kingdom, Amour and The Master all have outside chances and their inclusions wouldn’t shock me. Anything else is a fool’s errand.

Predictions:

1.      Lincoln

2.      Argo

3.      Silver Linings Playbook

4.      Zero Dark Thirty

5.      Les Miserables

6.      Life of Pi

7.      Django Unchained

Alternates:

8.      Beasts of the Southern Wild

9.      Skyfall

10.  Moonrise Kingdom

11.  Amour

12.  The Master

BEST DIRECTOR

The DGA went with Spielberg, Affleck, Bigelow, Lee and Hooper. I still think Hooper will miss in favour of Russell. In the last two years, Christopher Nolan (Inception) and David Fincher (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) both missed after their DGA noms. There’s usually one that misses.

Predictions:

1.      Steven Spielberg (Lincoln)

2.      Ben Affleck (Argo)

3.      Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty)

4.      Ang Lee (Life of Pi)

5.      David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)

Alternates:

6.      Tom Hooper (Les Miserables)

7.      Quentin Tarantino (Django Unchained)

8.      Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

9.      Michal Haneke (Amour)

BEST ACTOR

Day-Lewis’ nomination is in the bag. The other six could be thrown up in the air and come down in any way. I predict Trintignant misses because of the foreign tongue and Phoenix misses because of the impish tongue.

Predictions:

1.      Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)

2.      Denzel Washington (Flight)

3.      Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook)

4.      John Hawkes (The Sessions)

5.      Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables)

Alternates:

6.      Joaquin Phoenix (The Master)

7.      Jean-Louis Trintignant (Amour)

BEST ACTRESS

Will the actor’s branch nominate the 9-year-old girl? I don’t think so. Will they nominate the 85-year-old woman? I don’t think so either. Although not for those reasons. I’ve decided to go with the most boring line-up here.

Predictions:

1.      Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty)

2.      Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)

3.      Naomi Watts (The Impossible)

4.      Helen Mirren (Hitchcock)

5.      Marion Cotillard (Rust and Bone)

Alternates:

6.      Emmanuelle Riva (Amour)

7.      Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

8.      Rachel Weisz (The Deep Blue Sea)

9.      Judi Dench (The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

De Niro, Hoffman, Arkin and especially Jones are all safe, it’s that 5^th spot that’s a killer.

Predictions:

1.      Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln)

2.      Robert De Niro (Silver Linings Playbook)

3.      Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master)

4.      Alan Arkin (Argo)

5.      Leonardo DiCaprio (Django Unchained)

Alternates:

6.      Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained)

7.      Matthew McConaughey (Magic Mike)

8.      Javier Bardem (Skyfall)

9.      Dwight Henry (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

The least interesting category this year and, because of that, I hope something unexpected happens.

Predictions:

1.      Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables)

2.      Sally Field (Lincoln)

3.      Helen Hunt (The Sessions)

4.      Ann Dowd (Compliance)

5.      Maggie Smith (The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel)

Alternates:

6.      Amy Adams (The Master)

7.      Judi Dench (Skyfall)

8.      Nicole Kidman (The Paperboy)

BEST ANIMATED FILM

Nothing is locked here, personally. I predict a foreign-film will make it in.

Predictions:

1.      Frankenweenie

2.      Wreck-it-Ralph

3.      Brave

4.      ParaNorman

5.      Le Tableau

Alternates:

6.      Rise of the Guardians

7.      The Rabbi’s Cat

8.      From Up on Poppy Hill

9.      Hotel Transylvania

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Predictions:

1.      Mark Boal (Zero Dark Thirty)

2.      Michael Haneke (Amour)

3.      Paul Thomas Anderson (The Master)

4.      Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola (Moonrise Kingdom)

5.      Quentin Tarantino (Django Unchained)

Alternates:

6.      Rian Johnson (Looper)

7.      John Gatins (Flight)

8.      Martin McDonagh (Seven Psychopaths)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Predictions:

1.      Tony Kushner (Lincoln)

2.      David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)

3.      Chris Terrio (Argo)

4.      Ben Lewin (The Sessions)

5.      Stephen Chbosky (The Perks of Being Wallflower)

Alternates:

6.      Benh Zeitlin, Lucy Alibar (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

7.      David Magee (Life of Pi)

8.      Tom Stoppard (Anna Karenina)

9.      William Nicholson (Les Miserables)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012/US/New Zealand)

by

Julien Faddoul

*   (1 Star)

d - Peter Jackson

w - Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo Del Toro   (Based on the Novel by J.R.R. Tolkien)

ph - Andrew Lesnie

pd - Dan Hennah

m - Howard Shore

ed - Jabez Olssen

cos - Bob Buck, Ann Maskrey, Richard Taylor

p - Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham, Zane Weiner

Cast: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, James Nesbitt, Ken Stott, Cate Blanchett, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, Elijah Wood, Andy Serkis, Barry Humphries, Lee Pace, Sylvester McCoy

When I was a child, my father let me stay up one night to watch television with him. His favourite late night program was The Late Show with David Letterman. That evening, Mr Letterman’s guests were Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. I had never heard of either. Apparently, they were film critics – the world’s most successful film critics, in fact. And on that show Mr Ebert said something that shook the child me to the bone and I have never forgotten it. Mr Letterman was complaining that a recent movie he saw, which he other-wise enjoyed, was too long. Mr Ebert’s response was “Dave, no good movie is too long. No bad movie is short enough.”

Isn’t it funny how most of us can accept an epigram wholeheartedly yet secretly be guilty of feeling its opposing point? I guess that’s why one should never live by the epigram, out of caution of being destroyed by it. That’s a young person’s problem anyway. But when an incident in one's life reveals it to be true.....that's quite a moment.

There is no two ways about it, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first installment of Peter Jackson’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s much beloved novel, is, at 169 minutes, far too long. And I would like to, in all seriousness, see how anyone could earnestly and eloquently argue with that. The novel itself is relatively slim, and when it was announced earlier this year that Mr Jackson would not be releasing two, but three!, cinematic installments of this novel, I must admit that I felt a little faint. His previous Tolkien adaptation, The Lord of the Rings, a complete and utter cinematic and artistic success, was a series of three films based on three books. So the obvious question that half the world asked back in July was “Why base three movies on one, shorter book?” and I’m sorry to say it but everything we all feared might happen, has happened.

The film begins, after a expository and visually striking prologue, as Gandalf (Ian McKellen) recruits the fastidious homebody Hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) for a journey, with the goal to eventually slay the dragon Smaug. They are accompanied by a band of Dwarves, who, before departure, engage in a spontaneous feast and eat Bilbo out of house and home. 

That last paragraph consisted of 60 words in total. It most likely took you less than a minute to read. But in Mr Jackson’s hands, all of that was the first 45 minutes of this movie. And this is before Bilbo, Gandalf and the gaggle of Dwarves have even left The Shire. There’s nothing wrong with that per se if the screenplay by Mr Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Guillermo Del Toro establishes Bilbo’s character, Gandalf’s motives or the Dwarves’ emotional stake in the upcoming journey. It doesn’t. In fact, it’s not even remotely palpable as to why Bilbo, who was at first reluctant, calls an audible and runs after the group the following morning. Instead Mr Jackson gives us 45 minutes of Dwarves farcically throwing plates around, eating food by the handfuls, cracking corny one-liners and, for some strange reason, performing two on-screen musical numbers – one comic, one serious. Why Mr Jackson decided to spend such a long and tedious amount of time on a Tolkien karaoke party is mind-boggling.

Not only is it hard to differentiate the Dwarves themselves, but their humor itself is disappointingly trite. “Wouldn’t you like a cheese knife?” says Bilbo upon seeing a Dwarf remove five wheels of cheese from his pantry, to which another Dwarf replies “No, no. He eats it by the block.” It’s almost as if Mr Jackson superciliously feels that his previous films set in this world were so successful that he needn’t bother with setting any stakes.

However, there is one other reason Mr Jackson might have deciced to have this section of the film go on so long. Many screenings of the film will be shown not only in 3-D, but in a new super-high-definition format called 48fps, which unrolls at a frame rate double that of the average movie: Rather than seeing 24 frames of film each second, you’re seeing 48. It’s entirely probable that this technology will one day progress into a utensil that enhances our experience of movies. I found it jarring – the brightness of the shading, the jitteriness of the movement, the high-definition close-ups of the actors that reveal every layer of foundation that has been applied on their faces – it took a lot of getting-used-to from me. It felt like watching a fantasy segment of The Young and the Restless. Eventually I was able to get used to it, and I suspect that Mr Jackson predicted that might happen and cunningly protracted that first section in order for the audience to settle in. I don’t see why this way of making movies is necessary. It may be hyper-realism, but it’s a less cinematic image.

The rest of the picture follows an episodic structure not unlike The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, which includes encounters with Trolls, Goblins, Orcs, Stone-Giants, a fellow Wizard, and the Elves of Rivendell. Some of these encounters (particulary the one with Radagast the Brown) are risibly dreary, but most are agreeable and fun. Only in the last act, however, does a scene on the level of LOTR occur. And it’s thanks to the appearance of an old friend. The famous Game of Riddles sequence that Bilbo has with Gollum in the book is, on film, a triumph. A triumph of mood, pace, visual effects and, of course, Andy Serkis’ performance. Staring into those sad and savage blue eyes once again reminds one of the dramatic majesty of the previous films.

The visual effects overall are striking from the first frame to last. They surpass The Lord of the Rings in stability and splendor. But that’s not the problem here. The problem is characterization. It was never a dilemma dealing with the large quantity of characters in the previous film because every single one was given their dutiful heft. Here, Bilbo is a pale, elusive bore – and try as he might with his flickered eye-lids, exaggerated double takes and theatrical clownish movements, Mr Freeman adds nothing but dead air. The Viggo Mortensen slot in this film is filled by Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the Dwarf prince and leader of the mission. He, as well, spends most of his time staring intently into nothingness with zero to add dramatically.

If I sound harsh, forgive me. I am damaged and weakened not only by the movie, but mostly from the fact that I (and most likely everyone else) will have to sit through six more hours of a story that could have been done in two and a half. But no good movie is too long, right? This still to me feels like Peter Jackson's The Phantom Menace, but I guess I will remain optimistic. I mean, it can’t get any worse can it?

Les Miserables (UK/2012)

by

Julien Faddoul

(0 stars)

d – Tom Hooper

w – William Nicholson, Alain Boubil, Claude-Michel Schonberg   (Based on the Novel by Victor Hugo)

ph – Danny Cohen

pd – Eve Stewart

ed – Chris Dickens, Melanie Ann Oliver

cos – Paco Delgado

p – Cameron Mackintosh, Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Eddie Redmayne, Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks, Colm Wilkinson, Isabelle Allen

One of the greatest of all films is Carl Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928). It recently was placed at number nine on 2012’s instalment of the Sight and Sound’s Greatest Movies of All Time. Dreyer once wrote, “Nothing in the world can be compared to the human face. It is a land one can never tire of exploring.” He was a filmmaker known for his use of intense facial close-ups (not a very popular stratagem during the silent era) and it reached its apogee on that film, where his camera assiduously explores Joan’s anguish and the malevolence of her accusers. It is a brilliant film. If you haven’t seen it, do. My life changed forever and so might yours.

Although I obviously do not know this for sure, I can’t help but feel that Tom Hooper must have seen (and loved) this film as well. There is a clear influence from one director to another. Mr Hooper, in all his films, loves keeping his camera a nose away from his actors. Never has he done it more so than in his latest, the big-screen adaptation of Cameron Mackintosh’s Les Miserables, based on the Broadway musical…..based on the London libretto by Herbert Kretzmer..…based on the French production by Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schonberg…..based on the novel by Victor Hugo. Whew! Suffice it to say that after all those incarnations, a movie was surely on its way. And fans have certainly been waiting.

In case you’re the one in one thousandth who doesn’t know the plot, here it is: Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a convict who has served 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and trying to escape and, upon his release, redeems himself under a new identity as a wealthy factory owner and socially liberal, god-fearing mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer. But his former prison guard Javert (Russell Crowe), now a police inspector, finds him out and mercilessly hounds him until their day of reckoning on the barricades in Paris during the uprising of June 1832. Throughout those years Valjean has been raising an employee of his, Fantine (Anne Hathaway)’s daughter Cosette (Isabelle Allen as a child, Amanda Seyfried as a woman) after her death. As a girl she was raised by two cruel and crass innkeepers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter). Cosette has a star-crossed romance with Marius (Eddie Redmayne), a wealthy lad turned idealistic revolutionary; his comrades-in-arms are Enjolras (Aaron Tveit) and the unsophisticated Eponine (Samantha Barks), who mournfully admits that her treasured Marius is smitten by Cosette.

The stage musical itself is far from a great work of art. Like all of Mackintosh’s musicals, it never knew how to disguise any kind of flaw. But of all those British musicals of the 1980’s, Les Miserables was certainly the best. In translating the musical from stage to screen, Mr Hooper has brought every flaw along with it and then some. The easiest flaw to objectify quickly is the mood of the piece. The musical has never, not in any incarnation, understood what the mood of Victor Hugo’s book was about. The one exclusion is Claude Lelouch’s 1995 adaptation. Everything here from the acting to the costumes to the photography is meant to evoke sadness and misery. But it doesn’t, or ever does. Everyone is instead merely doing misery, whatever that’s supposed to be; as if everyone involved had stopped reading the book after the title. Many people would asses that musicals can only do the action and never truly evoke anything. They are wrong. Miserably wrong. And Victor Hugo, a poetic idealist, wrote about something much, much more.

The difference between this film and The Passion of Joan of Arc – and the reason why this will be the last time Mr Hooper is ever compared to the great Mr Dreyer – is that the close-ups in Les Miserables feel like just another directorial tactic in a movie full of tactics. Mr Hooper films a great deal of it in eyebrow-to-lower-lip close-up. And when he isn’t doing that, he is cutting like a maniac in Ken Russell/Ridley Scott fashion. And when he isn’t doing that, he is shaking the camera hysterically between crowds of screeching extras. Each individual set piece is shaped as a blur of racket and chaos. There's no breathing room in his approach, visually or otherwise.

Another unbearably visible tactic is the decision to have all the performers sing the score live. This was done to give the performers more control of their process and, in turn, the capturing of spontaneous moments. I felt this idea (which has actually been done many times before) was successful in achieving that. But the method of the experiment never left the conscience air, once again constantly reminding me that I was seeing performers doing misery and singing live with their hearts on their sleeves. I still see Mr Hooper’s tactical effort.

I hesitate to say anything about the cast because there is really no need. They are all adequate. No more, no less. Mr Jackman, Mr Crowe, Ms Hathaway, Ms Barks and Mr Redmayne all have deeply emotional numbers to belt out – and all of them, once again, are shot by Mr Hooper (and cinematographer Danny Cohen) as if they are filming Maria Falconetti herself – and in every instance the result was deflation, not elation. Ms Hathaway’s song is the musical’s most famous number “I Dreamed a Dream” and thus is getting a lot of attention for her 3 minute close-up. I found her merely sufficient, as I did all the performers for the entire almost 3-hour running time.

But it’s not their fault. Nor is it Mr Cohen’s or Eve Stewart’s production design (a beacon of artificiality) or Chris Dickens and Melanie Ann Oliver’s editing (the “Master of the House” number contains some of the most atrocious editing of the year). I’m afraid the blame lies with the auteur behind the camera, a man who is clearly more interested in shovelling directorial decisions in your face instead of making a movie about anything in particular. I have yet to be wholly convinced by a Tom Hooper film, despite his undeserved Academy Award, but I felt this being his biggest undertaking I would at least experience an interesting experimentation instead of what it was: interminable agony.