The Doom That Came to Cowtown

Some thoughts on the Oscars.

First, lets go through a bunch of awards without any real discussion. Note, I haven't seen every picture, so I'm picking from the ones I have seen.

Best Adapted Screenplay: I want Glass Onion to win, but it will probably be Living or Women Talking.

Best Original Screenplay: Banshees, EEAAO and Fabelmans all deserve it. Banshees was best written, but I suspect Fabelmans will get it.

Visual Effects: Avatar 2.

Sound (Wasn't this two categories last year?): Elvis.

Production Design: Elvis.

Short Film (Live Action): No clue.

Short Film (Animated): No clue, but My Year of Dicks should win based on the title alone.

Documentary Short: No clue.

Documentary Feature: No clue.

Original Song: I heard two of them, but neither slapped.

Original Score: Fabelmans, because John Williams.

Makeup: Wakanda Forever.

International Feature Film: All Quiet on the Western Front, because it's not getting Best Picture.

Film Editing: EEAAO. Or maybe Elvis.

Costume Design: Should be Wakanda Forever, but it will Elvis.

Cinematography: Elvis.

Now on to the big ones:

Animated Feature Film. I've only seen two, The Sea Beast, and Turning Red. I think it's going to go to the latter. Mostly because I'm not sure why The Sea Beast was nominated. Oh, it was fine, but it's the weird mashup of How To Train Your Dragon and Master and Commander nobody asked for. Pinocchio might upset this - I'm sure it's good because Del Toro, but I haven't seen it yet.

Supporting Actress. Curtis and Hsu are going to split the EEAAO vote, and The Whale isn't going to win for this. That leaves Angela Bassett and Kerry Condon. I think Bassett deserves it for that performance, but superhero movies are still 2nd class films for the Oscars, so I think Condon will get it. That said, she was the best part of Banshees.

Supporting Actor. Gleeson and Keoghan will split the Banshees vote. Hirsch is in Fabelmans for five minutes, so no. That leaves Quan, who has a helluva lot of buzz around his role in EEAAO. I think he deserves it and will get it.

Leading Actress. Williams has done better in the past, and will get her Oscar eventually, but if Yeoh doesn't get it, they should set the place on fire.

Leading Actor. Man, this is tough. Butler, Farrell and Fraser all did great this year. I think it'll go to Fraser, because everyone wants it to go to him. I just wish he'd get it for a better movie than The Whale. And I'm still never going to watch it, because I don't want to slit my wrists.

Best Director. This is one of those cases where I think Best Picture and Best Director are going to different. The Academy might want to praise Spielberg some more, but probably not - Fabelmans kind of flopped before the nomination, and Hollywood is still a business. EEAAO might be too weird for them, so that leaves the Daniels out. I think McDonagh will get it because Banshees is a moody downer. For proof, look at Nomadland, Moonlight, Greenbook, Spotlight, 12 Years a Slave from the last decade.

Best Picture. I've seen five of the ten Best Picture nominees, and they were all pretty good. Maybe not all Oscar-worthy (Avatar 2, I had a great time, but no). Now the thing about Best Picture is there's a lot of nominees, and they use ranked ballots, so often a very popular but polarizing movie won't win, and the movie that was everyone's 2nd or 3rd choice sneaks in. See for example, Greenbook. The two blockbusters are polarizing so no Best Picture for Avatar 2 or Maverick. a bunch of movies had microscopic audiences (probably undeserved if they got this far), so that leaves out things like Tar, Triangle of Sadness and Women Talking. All Quiet isn't going to win here, because people don't want a repeat of Parasite. That leaves Banshees, EEAAO, Elvis, and the Fabelmans. I'm not even going to guess at which one is everyone's 2nd favourite though. I just think Everything Everywhere All At Once should win.

Anyway, the Oscars are tomorrow, and I'll be watching them.

One of my long term projects is to watch every Oscar winning film. I picked up Grand Hotel a few years ago, as part of a boxed set of MGM Oscar winners. Last night, I sat down and watched it.

I enjoyed it, but I probably won't ever watch the movie again.

This one of the first all-star cast movies, and included Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, John & Lionel Barrymore and Wallace Beery. A lot of these stars I only knew by name, and had never actually seen perform, so from that perspective, it's certainly worth watching.

However, the movie was problematic in it's plot and pacing, and I think this is just because it is a very old movie. When it was made, film makers were still working out the nuts and bolts of creating motion pictures, or editing a narrative. This felt like a filmed stage play (a fair cop - it was adopted from one). If you're looking for the tight plots and pacing of a modern movie, this will bore you to tears.

Some observations (caution, spoilers for a 77-year old film):

Garbo is in it, and she uses the "I'm so tired" line, which became associated to her so strongly that 45 years later, Madelyn Kahn could parody it in a movie and people would get the reference. I almost laughed out loud when she said it because I immediately pictured a bunch of kaiser-dressed dancing boys exclaim "Don't you know she's pooped"!

A very young Joan Crawford is in it, young enough that I didn't recognize her (having only seen her in her middle-aged/older roles). She also plays a character that I thought was dealt with in a surprisingly mature and modern way. Looking the film up, I found out that was because this was a pre-Hay's Code film. She plays a stenographer to Wallace Beery's business man. In addition to some pretty obvious flirting with John Barrymore's character in the first act (I thought they were going to have a whirlwind affair in act 2, but the plot veered away from that), she ends up being propositioned by Beery's character, and making a fairly informed decision to be a prostitute. No term for sex worker is every used, but it's a) played absolutely straight, b) anyone not hopelessly naive in the audience would have understood all of this, c) Characters who learn of it were not in the least bit judge-y. A Hays-code era film would have either not done this at all, or would have made a point of shaming the character for it.

Now possibly this is because the whole film takes place in Germany, with Germany characters (notably, only Beery attempts a German accent, the audience is simply trusted to get that they're all Germans), so the audience could think "but no good American girl will do that. Or maybe the film makers just assumed everyone was a goddamned grownup and could handle a poor (as in, not rich) girl making an informed decision when someone offers her a lot of money.

The other thing I found noteworthy was that this film had a punk ending. That's a term I've been using for years (I got it out of an old Spider Robinson book) for stories that are heading for an obvious trope-filled happy ending, then go dark with little warning. Anyway, John Barrymore's gentlemen thief character (who in act two has fallen into mutual love with Garbo) get's beaten to death by Beery's character. I wouldn't have expected that in a modern film. Having it happen in a film from 1932 was just astonishing.

It was an interesting diversion. Film buffs will appreciate it.

I went to the Rio to watch Mad Max: Fury Road - Black & Chrome edition. It was fun, and an interesting exercise, but ultimately didn't add anything to the original.



Basically, this is a black and white print of the movie. What I would have liked to see is more playing around with the techincal aspects. Increase or decrease the saturation/contrast/brightness to suit each scene. Play with the sound, maybe eliminate the dialog in place of subtitles (to make it the loudest silent movie ever, with just the explosions and music).

Another thing would be to include the occasional splash of colour - the red of blood in Max's IV. The green of the plants in the citadel. Doof Warrior's flames and some of the key explosions. Nux's eyes when he asks Capable to witness. I think this would have visually underlined key moments of the movie in a way mere black and white could not.

So I'm glad I went to see it, especially with garething at the Rio. Hell, there were Imortan Joe and Furiosa cosplayers there, which was fun.

Go see it? If you're a giant Fury Road fan. If you're thinking of buying it, and don't already have a copy, you might consider a version that includes both colour and Black & Chrome.

I'd heard about How to Plan an Orgy in a Small Town while watching the Jewel Staite Q&A at Calgary Expo last year. It sounded like a fun movie. And I've been a fan of Jewel Staite since Da Vinci's Inquest. So when I was casually browsing movies today I noticed it was doing a run at the Globe. As this is the sort of movie I never get people to go see, I went by myself.

There was less than a dozen people in the theatre - I don't think this is going to do well. That's unfortunate as it's not a bad movie. Not a great one either, but it means well and had a few genuinely laugh out loud moments.

A few observations:

Confirms my belief that small towns are hell on Earth. I'll allow my chosen family to be in my business. Every busy body and bully I've had the misfortune of knowing since grade school? Nope.

Unlike in porn, sex looks weird, awkward, and somewhat funny. Better to participate than to watch.

The main character's big secret seemed unlikely and unnecessary to the narrative. It would have been better if she was exactly what she seemed to be.

It takes a lot of iterations before the characters actually have their orgy. And the orgy is surprisingly vanilla. It's less about getting one's freak on as it is finding someone who wants to be with us, and not just a convenient set of genitals. Not exactly the most transgressive or shocking of conclusions. Still, it was nice to see at least one character call the others out on why this could be a bad idea, and another standing up for being vanilla in a way that doesn't make it the only moral option.

Watch this if you're a fan of any of the actors (Ms. Staite is the biggest name aside from a cameo by Lauren Holly), or if you want to see a lot of ass. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't something people need to drop what they're doing to see it.

About two weeks before the trip, wackynephews mentioned a charity event at Pixar Studios. Put on by the Cartoon Art museum, it was to be a day at Pixar. And it was on the Saturday I was going to be in the Bay Area!

Now the cost was quite a bit more than I usually pay for such things - 500 dollars! However, the more I thought about it, the more I figured that this was one of those things I'd regret not doing a lot more than I'd regret spending the money. As I get older and my regrets pile up behind me, I indulge in these things more and more.

So was it worth the money? In the sense that it was for a good cause, yes. For the entertainment provided? Maybe, but only because the time of the creators who did the one hour talk in the middle was very expensive. It was like those charity dinners where people will pay thousands of dollars to hear some politician speak - the chicken dinner isn't why you spent the money.

I took BART across the bay and walked about a mile to get to the Pixar campus in Emeryville. Reaching the site I discovered I was just about the only person who walked it. Everyone else drove their expensive cars to go there. Mostly the other people there were like me - fairly affluent nerds. Some were very affluent indeed, since they forked out for multiple tickets for the whole family. This is what the Technorati do with their money.

I got a few complements on this tee-shirt. I wish I had a smoking jacket to go with it.

So what did i get for my donation? Well for two hours it was mostly wandering around a portion of the main building. I have pictures, but I'll save them for the last part of the post, since they're really not part of my narrative. The main lobby of the main building had numerous murals and statues in it. There was also a gift shop doing roaring good business. I picked up an Incredibles tee-shirt and a coffee table book.

We also got to wander about 1/3 of the way into each of the buildings two wings. No photography was allowed, which is too bad because this was where the really good art was. The east wing was assorted pre-production art for Monsters University. The west wing had assorted personal artwork from the many talented artists who work at Pixar. Most of it had little to do with animated movies. There was sculpture, paintings, a lot of portrait photography. It was fascinating stuff and, as is the usual with such things, made me feel like a fumble-fingered caveman.

One of the things advertised was "seeing Pixar staff at work". This was a misnomer - none of the people with offices in the section we had access to were at work that day. What we did have was a handful of staff doing presentations in the meeting rooms. Sadly, I missed out on those (they filled the rooms fast, and it sort of depended on you being in the vicinity when one of them started.

Next up was the main event - a talk about the tenth anniversary of my favourite Pixar movie - and favourite super hero movie, The Incredibles. The talk was with the director Brad Bird, and a half-dozen of the lead animators/creators. Some of the talk was the usual bits of how it was pitched and made and the impact it had. There was also a lot on the collaborative software that was developed for the movie. Fascinating stuff for this software geek.

Afterwards it was off to another building for drinks, hors d'oeuvres and an auction. You always want free booze at a charity auction - it loosens up the wallet. I set a rather high limit for myself for this, but my one unbreakable rule for auctions is to not bid over your maximum. If it hits that level, stop. No matter what. I followed my rule, but it was so hard. Glad I did though. The two items I wanted were a print of the Parrs in action, and a signed one-sheet of The Incredibles that was very evocative of early James Bond posters. Instead, I bought a reproduction when I got home for twenty bucks.

The whole air of the evening was that of a proper cocktail party for nerds. It felt good, even if I was my usual wall-flower self.

At this point I'd like to say that it must be nice being a dot-com-millionaire. I couldn't believe the price that some of those pieces went for. Even if I had that kind of money (I don't, despite being there), I'd feel down right guilty forking over $10K for these pieces. Were they worth it? For the talent that went into it, and being for charity, yes. And yet, I'd still feel guilty. In the end, I'd have to spend that money twice: once for the piece itself, and once again to the food bank so that I could hang it in my house without feeling like total ass.

Anyway, Pixar put on a nice fête. I quite enjoyed it, and I might consider doing it again if they celebrate the right movie. Brave (or Incredibles 2) would get me in the door. Cars, not so much.

As an aside, I've recently discovered that I effective paid more for the evening then all those rich folk. It's tax deductible, but it's not for this Canadian. Heh.

( And now, on to the pictures! )

Not quite ready for my big post on friendship or sentience yet. Instead, a few little odds and ends.

I watched Gravity today. It was really good, and the first real Oscar contender I've seen. I recommend everyone go see it.

First, this film goes by fast. It's damn near in real time (i.e. the 90 minute film almost covers a single window of 90 minutes). Not quite real time, but close. Also, the cinematography and special effects are top notch. The 3D is probably the best I've seen since Avatar. To the point where you forget you're watching a 3D movie - the 3D never drifts into Dr. Tongue mode and it's also never superfluous (as it is in a lot of after-principle-photography 3D conversions). It is simply immersive.

What really stands out though is Sandra Bullock's performance. She inhabits the role and manages to convey volumes simply with her breath or a look. Just what you want with a character that spends half the movie in a helmet.

The only real quibble is that a Kessler event as depicted in the movie might affect geosynchronous satellites or the ISS or Hubble, but it wouldn't affect all three as depicted. But hell, I read comic books, so I don't get to bitch about scientific accuracy.

Gravity is a very good movie right up until you realize that this is merely set in space, it's not about space. Then it becomes a great movie. Ultimately this story is grounded in humanity, and is therefore relevant for everyone, not just SF geeks. This is a feature it shares with Alfonso Cuarón's earlier film, Children of Men. That movie was about how hope can survive in a dystopia. Gravity is about rebirth through adversity.

I'm grateful for my friends, but I need a new movie buddy.

I'm having a spot of rum tonight before bed, mostly to loosen up the brain for writing, but also because my depression is lifting. One drink only though, because I don't want to accidentally blow this gain away by kicking myself in the brain chemistry. I think I've earned it this week. Still melancholy and nostalgic (for things that never were) though. I need to not dwell on that.

The wanderlust is affecting me again. I want to just quit my job, hit the road and see some sights. I'm not going to though. Instead I'm looking for somewhere off-continent to go see, possibly next year. 2016 will probably involve a trip to Indianapolis, so that means 2014/2015 for one of those big once-in-a-lifetime trips. I'm leaning towards Australia or New Zealand. Probably not both though, since each has more than enough to keep me occupied for a two week vacation.

Hmm. I suspect the last two paragraphs are more related than I was willing to admit.

So I just got back from watching Chronicle, which I had not even heard of until about an hour before curtain time. I saw a very brief description of the movie (Three teens gain superpowers) and the fact that it was getting much better reviews than you'd think based on that premise. I was looking at an evening in front of the television anyway, so I figured I'd just go and have a look. The worst that could have happened was wasting two hours.

Chronicle was really really good. I was worried when I saw that this was a so-called "found footage" film (like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield). I really dislike them as a story-telling medium. The footage is by one of the protagonists, who has decided to film his life, and if that was all we saw, my fears would be realised. Chronicle gets around all the things I hate about found footage films, first by introducing a secondary character who also videotapes her life, and later by using security tapes, cell phone video and all the other videography that is ubiquitous in today's world. It is probably the best filmed movie using this technique, precisely because it can use "found video" from multiple sources. Especially the extended action sequences at the end. The director and editor did a spectacular job.

Anyway go see it, you'll enjoy it a lot more than The Phantom Menace 3D.

( Now for some spoilers as well as why Chronicle affected me so deeply. )

I saw Micmacs (original French title is "Micmacs à tire-larigot" which they tell me translates directly to "Non-stop Shenanigans"), Jean-Pierre Jeunet's latest confection. It was really good, but be warned that in the set of people likely to enjoy Micmacs, I'm damn near dead center.

The best description of it I've come up with is a cross between Amelie and Ocean's Eleven. If that doesn't make sense to you, know that it is a caper movie with a cast of goofy but lovable oddballs.

It has all the usual Jeunet-isms that we've come to expect: The aforementioned goofy characters (from his stable of character actors), weird colour schemes and character angles, scenes of ugly people having fun sex. Oh and it has Marie-Julie Baup, who is one of the most adorable looking women I've ever seen.

This reminds me that I have a Jeunet movie I haven't watched yet. I should do that when I get back into Cowtown.

Another movie I saw in Vancouver was Year of the Carnivore. This was a simple, classic tale: Girl gains boy, girl loses boy, girl gains boy again after having lots and lots of really akward sex.

It's written by Sook-Yin Lee and stars Cristin Milioti as Sally Smalls, the protagonist who works through a lot of hangups during the course of the movie, mostly to positive effects, though she does get humourously-arrived-at criminal charges.

I'm predisposed to enjoying the story of poorly-socialized nerds learning to have relationships - one reason why I liked Amelie - This mostly succeeds there, but does so with a guy I don't think deserved the protagonist. He was a bit of a jerk. Oh well, they can't all be perfect. Along the way are a bunch of sexual situations that are at times funny, and at times funny-in-that-squirmy-contact-embarrassment-way.

Between the two movies, I have to admit I've got a thing for petite and nerdy brunettes. This probably isn't news to anyone who knows me well.

Would I recommend YotC? Sure, maybe not as strongly as Micmacs, but it's still good. It's just not one for the ages.

shunn writes:

I was disappointed that Anakin as a child showed no sign of any of the dark character traits—cruelty, rage, craftiness, whatever—that would later turn him into Darth Vader. That, for me, meant I felt no tension in his interactions with the other characters, and it made his eventual seduction by the Dark Side seem kind of arbitrary.

This led me to thinking about what might-have-been. What kind of story would we have if Anakin Skywalker was a sociopath from the start.

( Fairly long plot synopsis of my re-imagining of episodes 1, 2 and 3, in point form because damn it's long enough as it is... )