#the audacity of all actors not being in period films
Text
Blood, Sweat, and Chrome
In less than five days I devoured Kyle Buchanan's 500-page oral history of how my most favorite film of all time, Mad Max: Fury Road, was made.
The Movie and I
I never saw the original trilogy. Frankly, I have no intention to. Fury Road for me stands alone. Fury Road is not just my favorite action movie of all time, or my favorite female-led movie, or even my favorite Tom Hardy movie. It is quite simply my Favorite Movie. Period.
2015 was a brilliant year for American films. A lot of my personal faves came out that year - Spotlight, Ex Machina, The Big Short, to name a few. But nothing has changed my perspective on what movies can achieve, let alone what action films could be, like Fury Road.
It was 2015. I was in the cinema, excited mainly to see Tom Hardy post-Inception, clueless about how this film took as long as I had lived up until that point to make it onto the silver screen.
My feminism was just about formed at that age. I had experienced the peak of the exhausting "anti-SJW" phenomenon online, clashed with people irl over my increasingly progressive philosophies, and carried all the baggage of a sociology undergrad who was shedding their traumatizing, extremely conservative Christian upbringing.
All that to say, I was wholly unprepared for the elegance with which Fury Road executed its message and how much I would resonate with it.
I thought I was just going to see a fun action movie starring my then-new favorite British boy. Instead, I left the cinema, overwhelmed and unable to process how much it meant to see Furiosa, and The Wives, and The Vuvalini defeat a patriarch that symbolized violence, inequality, and degradation. I was stunned at the face of something new. It would take a few of years for me to realize that Fury Road now held a special place in my heart.
At the risk of being overly sentimental, writing about my experience with this movie does make me misty-eyed. I never thought something like Fury Road could be possible. Not even aware yet of how much technique and energy it took to execute the film, I was primarily in awe of its audacity to exist given its story and over-arching themes.
I've always been a film nut. And as my love for movies grew, I had come to accept that the action genre (like many other genres) was never going to be interested in catering to someone like me, even if I did enjoy the best movies of its kind.
But in 2015, Fury Road came out, put Charlize Theron front and center (with a shaved head and amputated arm), and told me, "Fuck them. This is for you."
I was 20 years old, sat in the cinema, and I couldn't breathe.
The Book and I
It's 2022 now. My love for films has only grown. I now follow not just the careers of actors, directors, and screenwriters, but also trade publications, production companies, and culture reporters.
I was familiar with Kyle Buchanan through Twitter and thus his work for the NYT. I am also a fan of his peers, Hunter Harris and E. Alex Jung who write incredibly sharp profiles on people in the industry as well as film reviews.
When Buchanan announced his book, I was excited. I knew some of the drama that went down in the making of Fury Road, but obviously, there was no way for outsiders to know the depth of the journey to make the entire thing possible.
I am floored by Buchanan's work. A novice reader may just see this 500+ page book as a compilation of quotes from interviews of various people. But those who know how oral histories are made understand how difficult it is to create something like this. One needs the expertise and sharpness to know when to cut a quote, when to move on to a different speaker, which statements to put next to each other and in what order, when to insert narration, and ultimately how to weave multiple stories across dozens and dozens of interviews into one coherent, deeply affecting message. This is painstaking work. And all of it during a pandemic.
For me, reading this oral history was much like watching a documentary series. Blood, Sweat, & Chrome puts you among the people involved, immersed in every detail they shared. It presents a cohesive 20-year journey, with ups and downs, with moments of poignant stillness and moments of high-octane adrenaline. The fact that this book delivers a final product so dense yet so clear, without the need of a single authorial voice and instead uses the voices of so many people, it's amazing literary work.
Much like the film it was studying, Blood, Sweat, & Chrome pulls off its story with elegance - one that, honestly, I wish I could do too as someone writing nonfiction.
All that said, here are just some of my favorite moments from Blood, Sweat, and Chrome:
The movie was set to begin shooting in 2003 with Mel Gibson reprising the role lmao
Co-writer Nico Lathouris wrote a 190-page dramaturgical analysis of the film to further clarify its themes and to imbue the plot and characters with symbolism. (This man is my personal hero!)
They didn't just audition actors; they auditioned CAMERA CREW.
Speaking of auditions, all the auditions were... avant-garde. Actors weren't given scripts. They were asked to show up to workshops. It was like an hours-long vibe check. Only Charlize Theron (Furiosa) and Hugh Keays-Byrne (Immortan Joe) did not audition and were instead offered the parts.
Heath Ledger was Miller's ideal choice for Max
Tom Hardy, in character, spat at Armie Hammer during an audition
The fact that it rained in Broken Hill for the first time in 15 years just as they were about to shoot in the desert
The art department having the time of their lives making cars and weapons out of junk!
Whatever the fuck Nadia Townsend made the stunt men do when they workshopped the War Boys. Alternatively, all the stunt men sharing what it feels like to do character work for the first time.
Speaking of stunts, GUY NORRIS and CHRIS PATTON.
So many people fell in love on set...
Zoe Kravitz teasing Josh Helman and Nicholas Hoult for being nerds because they were having tea in their hotel room
Charlize Theron enthusiastically giving Nicholas Hoult a YES after he asked permission if Nux could spit back at Furiosa
GEORGE MILLER BRINGING IN THE EVE FUCKING ENSLER TO HOLD A WORKSHOP FOR THE WIVES (Ensler is the writer of the feminist play The Vagina Monologues).
Antoinette Kellerman and Charlize Theron speaking in Afrikaans on set
It was Charlize's idea to shoot the now-iconic scene of Furiosa screaming in the sand
Everyone giving the Vuvalini the respect their due as older female actors in the industry
EVERYTHING ABOUT SHYAM 'TOAST' YADAV
Charlize Theron (justifiably) yelling at Tom Hardy for being incredibly difficult on set. Nicholas Hoult explaining that being in the War Rig with the two leads was like being on a road trip with your parents who are fighting.
George Miller saying he found his movie to be PG-13. Lmao.
Legendary cinematographer John Seale mentioning that between him and George, there is 150 years of experience. Bless.
Charlize Theron being a class act throughout the entire book, honestly.
The crew sneaking out to shoot scenes even when Warner Bros did not want them to.
Warner Bros having the audacity to do their own cut of the film and then having said cut bomb at the test screenings. Vindication.
The entire crew each explaining what it was like at the Oscars
Academy Award winning editor Margaret Sixel. Icon.
#film stuff#i#mad max fury road#blood sweat and chrome#charlize theron#tom hardy#george miller#kyle buchanan#blood sweat & chrome
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
'Critics have given positive reviews to Oppenheimer, Christopher Nolan's sweeping new biographical thriller about the "father of the atomic bomb".
The film features an all-star ensemble cast led by Cillian Murphy as the US physicist, J Robert Oppenheimer.
The Independent called the "clever, imaginative" film Nolan "at his best", while the Telegraph said actor Murphy "dazzles as the destroyer of worlds".
The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw deemed the movie "flawed, but extraordinary".
Inspired by the Pulitzer Prize-winning book American Prometheus: The Triumph And Tragedy Of J Robert Oppenheimer, the film tells the story of the enigmatic Manhattan Project scientist, who had a leading role in developing the atomic bomb, changing the course of World War II.
He "gave us the power to destroy ourselves and that had never happened before", director Nolan told BBC Culture editor Katie Razzall.
Commissioned by the US Government, who saw themselves in a nuclear race with the Nazis, in 1945 scientists in New Mexico detonated a test bomb, codenamed Trinity.
Their invention was later used, controversially, to end the war, when an atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to devastating effect.
The Telegraph's Robbie Collin awarded five stars, saying: "Nolan's portrait of the father of the nuclear bomb is a triumph, like witnessing history itself being split open."
"Oppenheimer is a film that works simultaneously on the most intimate and cosmic scales," he wrote.
"It's at once a speeding rollercoaster and a skin-tingling spiritual portrait; an often, classically-minded period piece that only Nolan could have made, and only now, after a quarter-century's run-up."
He added: "Playing Oppenheimer from his early 20s to late 50s, the 47-year-old Murphy gives the performance of his life, imbuing Oppenheimer's body with an enthralling nervous eroticism and his voice with a noirish musicality that reminds you of [Humphrey] Bogart."
In another five-star review, Empire Magazine's Dan Jolin called Murphy "compelling throughout".
"A masterfully constructed character study from a great director operating on a whole new level. A film that you don't merely watch, but must reckon with."
In a four-star review in the Guardian, Bradshaw said the film "captures the most agonising of success stories".
"This is the big bang, and no one could have made it bigger or more overwhelming than Nolan," he wrote.
"He does this without simply turning it into an action stunt - although this movie, for all its audacity and ambition, never quite solves the problem of its own obtuseness: filling the drama at such length with the torment of genius-functionary Oppenheimer at the expense of showing the Japanese experience and the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
He described Murphy as "an eerily close lookalike for Oppenheimer… very good at capturing his sense of solitude and emotional imprisonment".
Writing in the Times, critic Ed Potton, who also awarded the film four stars, hailed Murphy's performance as "explosive in a breathtaking movie".
The Evening Standard's Charlotte Sullivan agreed that the "dark, immersive epic gives Cillian Murphy the role of his career".
Speaking ahead of the film's release, the Irish star told journalists the role had taken "a toll" on him "but in a brilliant way".
"It was the biggest, most exhilarating challenge," he said.
Co-star Matt Damon revealed he had told his wife he would take a break from acting, unless "Chris Nolan called".
Nolan is best known for his Dark Knight trilogy, as well as films including Inception, Dunkirk and Tenet. He makes history with Oppenheimer - which also features Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh and Robert Downey Jr - as the first film with sequences shot on black and white IMAX film.
The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney called the movie a "scorching depiction of America's ability to create and destroy its heroes."
While the four-act structure "asks a lot of the film's audience", he commented "our patience and concentration are amply rewarded".
Handing the film four stars, the Independent's Clarisse Loughrey called Oppenheimer "Nolan's best and most revealing work".
"It's a profoundly unnerving story told with a traditionalist's eye towards craftsmanship and muscular, cinematic imagination."
She praised its non-linear structure - a common feature of Nolan films - and its "beautifully lensed" cinematography, but added: "It's a little too conscious of itself, and the ways cinema crafts its own reality."
Christopher Nolan's other films include the Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception and Dunkirk
Rolling Stone reviewer David Fear said the movie is "big, loud, and a must-see", describing it as "thrilling and wonky, brilliant and overstuffed, too much and not enough".
Speaking after this week's New York premiere, Paul Schrader, who wrote the Martin Scorsese-directed Taxi Driver, hailed Oppenheimer as "the best, most important film of this century".
"If you see one film in cinemas this year it should be Oppenheimer", Schrader wrote on Facebook, making his views on the Barbenheimer battle clear.
"I'm not a Nolan groupie but this one blows the door off the hinges."
Oppenheimer is in cinemas from Friday 21 July.'
#Oppenheimer#Cillian Murphy#Paul Schrader#Taxi Driver#The Independent#The Telegraph#The Guardian#Empire#The Times#The Hollywood Reporter#The Dark Knight Trilogy#Inception#Dunkirk#Rolling Stone
0 notes
Text
Film history: The Hays code 🎞 ✄
For more than thirty years, an ironclad system of regulation of cinematographic content put the professionals of the moment at the limit of their ingenuity in order to prevent their films from falling prey to censorship.
Despite being an undoubted period of repression, this need to avoid the scissors, brought out a whole series of resources, double entendres, veiled references. In certain cases and in genres such as comedy, it gave rise to the suggestive ability of not showing or not saying openly what was obvious. The Hays code was a well-known regulation that was in effect from 1934 to 1968 and was conceived by William H. Hays, a member of the Republican Party and the first president of the Film Producers and Distributors Association of America –MPPDA–.
The cinema, like all artistic expression, did not take long to generate controversy. In the midst of the twenties, to the controversial arguments that could appear on the screen, the scandals of actors and directors outside of it were added. The tabloid press of the time was abuzz with all its explosive tribulations, riddled with murder, drugs, or death.
The movie mecca was depicted as nothing less than a scene of depravity and immorality. Among the most notorious events, we find the alleged rape and subsequent death of the unknown aspiring actress Virginia Rappe at the hands of the comedian Roscoe Arbuckle. Also widely publicized was the divorce of the then famous Mary Pickford, from her first husband Owen Moore, while she was having an affair with Douglas Fairbanks.
With the purpose of avoiding government intervention and favoring self-regulation, the heads of the cinematographic studios decided to create in 1922 the MPPDA, later called the MPAA –with the end of World War II– or the Cinematographic Association of the United States. William H. Hays was named its president and given the mission of restoring the good image of Hollywood and, at the same time, dictating the morality of its films.
In 1929, with the help of the Catholic publisher Martin Quigley and the Jesuit priest Daniel A. Lord, the code of norms was developed and, after being revised by the study leaders, it was finally adopted by the MPPDA in 1930. At first this was called The Production Code and was later renamed for posterity as The Hays Code. In addition to some general sobering precepts, focused on preserving the morale of the films, a huge list of vigilance guidelines was drawn up that targeted sex, especially violence or blasphemy.
In this way, the scenes of passion were reduced to the minimum expression. Manifestations such as kisses and hugs should eliminate any trace of lust and, of course, any explicit scene. In particular the kisses became so chaste that they were even timed, they could only last a few seconds. Marriage as an institution also had to be protected, a sign of the moralising nature of the norms.
On-screen crimes had to be shown without showing all their brutality and the use of weapons was reduced to the bare minimum. The irreverent use of language, especially if it was perceived as an offense to religion, was eliminated. These are some examples of the restrictions that the code marked and that forced the filmmakers to avoid any obvious reference.
Other rules were also the most bizarre, especially the most curious have to do with the nude. In this sense, the woman, her dress or the lack of it; they were closely supervised.
Transparencies or fabrics that excessively emphasise the shape of the female body were not allowed and the navel should not be shown under any circumstances. Men were also a cause for censure, as it was considered lewd to show the hair on the torso and it was not advisable to expose it. These observations have to do with the more inflexible nature of the censors, but even though they were exaggerated, they left a long trail of puritanism that is still felt in American cinema today.
During its first years of validity, the code was observed with some permissiveness and this favored certain productions that managed to avoid its guidelines. In the midst of the Great Depression, studios couldn't afford any more losses, so they were initially reluctant to adopt a series of measures that directly affected popular genres, such as gangster movies or comedies. However, the threats of boycott by the Catholic sector of American society and the withdrawal of funds by some influential investors, forced the studios to abide by the code in force from 1934. These years were known as the Pre- Code Hollywood.
Some of the films that somehow circumvented censorship in these years were, among others, ‘The Blue Angel‘ (‘Der blaue Engel, Josef Von Sternberg, 1930) with a sensual Marlene Dietrich. Other examples include the movie (‘Baby face’, Alfred E. Green, 1933), with Barbara Stanwych openly using her charms to advance socially; or 'The Sign of the Cross' ('The Sign of the Cross', Cecil B. DeMille, 1932), centered on the time of Emperor Nero, played by Charles Laughton, shows its excesses in an overt way.
Several of these Pre-Code films suffered the burden of censorship after 1934. An example is the film 'A Farewell to Arms' ('A Farewell to Arms', Frank Borzage, 1932), starring Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes, it was shortened later on so that only its censored version remains. Other professionals affected by the code were the Marx brothers - known for the audacity of their dialogues - or some actresses, such as Jean Harlow or Joan Blondell, especially the latter was vetoed on numerous occasions.
However, some creators found somehow even within the severe surveillance of the code, an incentive to challenge their ingenuity. On many occasions, difficulties are a stimulus for those unwilling to yield before them.
That is why masters such as Ernst Lubitsch or Alfred Hitchcock knew how to circumvent censorship with their inimitable talent. His fantastic dialogues or the actions behind a closed door are two of the landmarks of Lubitsch's magic.
The famous sequence of the long interrupted kiss is also particularly insurmountable - remember that kisses could only last three seconds -, in which Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman offer us one of the most intimate scenes of Hitchcock's filmography in the marvellous 'Notorious' ('Notorious', Alfred Hitchcock, 1946).
Ultimately, the demand for more realistic plots and the evolution of American society, dictated the disappearance of the Hays code in the late 1960s. This conclusion gave way to the age classification system that is preserved to this day. In addition to observing this stage in the history of cinema as a markedly restrictive time in many respects, I believe that it should also be appreciated with admiration for the talent of so many filmmakers who made their misdirection manoeuvres unrepeatable.
@siobhanlovesfilm @mad-prophet-of-the-airwaves @purecinema @vastness-and-sorrow @klaineharmony @idasessions
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ten People From Horror Movies That I Want to Kill With My Bare Hands (plus reasons cause I know y'all are gonna ask)
Trigger Warnings: mentions of attempted rape, incest, and abuse
1. Chucky (Child's Play series)
He doesn't deserve Tiffany. This fine ass woman waited for him for ten years and he has the gall to laugh in her face when she thought that the ring he left was because he wanted to propose and then proceeded to trap her the same way he was trapped. Not to mention the first thing he says to her after being gone for ten years is literally "I thought you were gonna let yourself go" oh my GOD Tiffany please love yourself. He's a little bitch and Tiffany needs to raise her standards. Also, he tries to kill a child for like three movies straight? While I love the Chucky movies, I get no greater satisfaction then from watching him die at the end of all of them. (The exception being Cult of Chucky)
2. Frank Cotton (Hellraiser)
Steals his brother's wife and then tries to force himself onto his niece. Knowingly opened the puzzle box because he's a literal dumbass and then gets upset when he gets sent to hell. Kills his brother and wears his skin. Come here you skinless freak I'm gonna send you back to the Cenobites myself.
3. Alex Le Domas (Ready or Not)
The fact that homeboy was even willing to chance having Grace pull the card proves that he's a bitch. Why don't you try being honest with the woman you supposedly love and tell her about your family's weird curse? I'm pretty fucking sure that'll get her to stop asking to tie the knot if she knows there's a chance she's gonna pull a card and all of her in-laws are gonna proceed to try to kill her. And the fact that this man had the audacity to chance sides and try to kill his WIFE??? Sorry, but I hope you enjoy being in hell get fucked Alex
4. Max (The Lost Boys)
This man saw that his son was dead and just went "haha guess he misbehaved" and I'm not exaggerating that was literally the dialogue. He also tells a woman, Lucy, how to parent her kids and tries to manipulate her into becoming a vampire instead of just, maybe, I don't know? Getting to know her, building a solid foundation for a relationship, and being honest about it? Instead of basically holding her children hostage by turning them into vampires and using her love for them against her. Basically I would kill this man with my bare hands for both his sons and Lucy and that's on that.
5. Guy Woodhouse (RoseMarys Baby)
This man can catch these hands any day of the week. He lets SATAN r*** his goddamn WIFE, and then proceeds to gaslight her for nine fucking MONTHS about how her pregnancy is totally normal and how she's not carrying the actual anti-christ even when it seems she's inches from actual and literal death. Just so he can be an actor. I'm going to beat his ass all the way to hell, Satan come get your man
6. Christian Hughes (Midsommar)
This cheating, lying piece of shit. The movie starts with how he plans on breaking up with his girlfriend but refuses to because he's too chicken shit and then he proceeds to make plans to leave for a month (?) without telling said girlfriend and is never honest with her. THEN, he fucking steals his friends thesis before finally cheating on his girlfriend. I hate, hate, HATE this man, and I'm not saying he deserved to get put into a bear skin and then set on fire, but he definitely deserved something
7. Chris Hargensen (Carrie)
It's no wonder Carrie had a nervous fucking breakdown when this is her school bully. Chris traumatizes Carrie when she gets her first period, and refuses to accept that she was in the wrong??? And instead blames Carrie for her and her friends detention/suspension from prom when they were the ones that literally threw tampons and pads at a girl who thought she was dying all while chanting "plug it up"? And, to top it off, she gets a girl who's been ostracized her entire life elected prom queen just to pour pigs blood on her in front of the entire senior class. Chris Hargensen can rot in hell and I can only think about fighting her every time I watch it.
8. Jack Torrance (The Shining)
The scene where he specifically yells at Wendy when she comes into his study and you can see the way her face falls really solidified my hatred for this man. Jack is the only other adult around for Wendy to talk to and he shames her for wanting human connection and a conversation from her fucking husband. Not only that, but he once broke the arm of his child and this was pre-hotel. So, basically, the hotel turning him insane or not, Jack was always a piece of shit and I'm glad Danny was able to later confront his feelings about his father in Doctor Sleep.
9. Charley Brewster (Fright Night)
Within the first five minutes of the film, we literally see him ignoring his girlfriend's lack of consent and pressuring her into having sex with him. Then, he stalks and obsesses over his neighbor and just so happens to find out that his neighbor is a vampire. Since he has absolutely no survival instincts, he makes this unfortunately clear that he knows and even denies the chance to pretend that he didn't see anything when Jerry confronts him. All I'm saying is that Charley really shouldn't have been surprised that Jerry was going to try to kill him and that all of the decisions that Charley made were bad ones. Especially the ones that lead to Ed (his bestfriend) dying and Amy (his girlfriend) almost being turned into a vampire. 10/10 would stake
10. Michael "Mike" Williams (the Blair Witch Project)
As someone who used to camp regularly and has experience in survivalist training, Mike is a prime example of what NOT to do during a survival situation. He is the FIRST to panic, the first to point fingers, and he fucking throws away the map. He. Fucking. Throws. Away. The. Map. All of his decisions are made on impulse and he never even tries to be logical in this entire situation. His character makes my blood boil because even if there wasn't a witch keeping them trapped there someone like that will end up making chances of survival slim anyways. Go stand in the corner and think about what you've done.
#charles lee ray#chucky#frank cotton#hellraiser#alex le domas#ready or not#max the lost boys#the lost boys#the lost boys 1987#guy woodhouse#rosemary's baby#christian hughes#midsommar#chris hargensen#carrie#carrie 1976#jack torrance#the shining#mike the blair witch project#the blair witch project#charley brewster#fright night#the ten series
210 notes
·
View notes
Photo
JOJO RABBIT, 2019
synopsis: a young boy in hitler's army finds out his mother is hiding a jewish girl in their home.
director: taika waititi
writers: taika waititi
stars: roman griffin davis, thomasin mckenzie, scarlett johansson, taika waititi
genres: comedy | drama | war
country: new zealand, usa, czech republic
language: english, german
filming locations: czech republic
runtime: 108mins
---
overall opinion:
oh lord. ohhhhh lordy. this one. I know what you think… a comedy / satire about world war II??? that sounds terrible and disrespectful, no?
yep, that’s kind of what I thought. so I went into «jojo rabbit» with skeptical thoughts, as did a lot of people I think, simply because a comedy about world war II, how funny can it actually be without being tasteless? but I love taika waititi and I knew both he and scarlett have jewish roots so that kind of told me it couldn’t be bad.
and oh boy am I glad I watched this.
this movie made me laugh until it had me bawling like a baby.
okay, first. this movie was nominated for 6 oscars: best picture, best supporting actress (scarlett johansson), best production design, best costume design, best film editing, and best adapted screenplay for which it won. I wish it would have won more (best picture and best supporting actress, come on). it’s such a unique movie in that it portrays one of the worst periods in human history in such a fun, light-hearted and at the same time sobering and poignant way. you laugh, then you’re shocked, then you smile, then you cry, ... this movie is an absolute rollercoaster. it has so much soul and the characters are phenomenal (rosie just captured my heart). I fell in love with all of the characters instantly.
the story follows johannes «jojo» betzler (roman griffin davis), a 10 year old boy living in nazi germany, who’s a proud member of the hitler youth. throughout the movie, his imaginary friend adolf (taika waititi) guides him and tries to influence him (as in, jojo tries to convince himself that he’s doing the right thing as a nazi). at some point he finds out that his mother rosie (scarlett johansson) who is secretly anti-nazi is hiding a young jewish girl (thomasin mckenzie) in their house. for safety reasons, jojo and the girl, elsa, decide not to tell rosie that they have met, and instead meet up in secret while rosie is at work. jojo can’t believe he «caught a jew», and tries to find out all kinds of information to then tell the other nazis to give them an advantage in the war. except everything turns into a completely different direction.
man, what a ride. honestly, I think this is a movie everyone should watch. all the actors are phenomenal, especially roman griffin davis (this was his first movie ever) as jojo, taika waititi as hilarious satire-hitler, and scarlett johansson as jojo’s mother rosie. every single one of them deserved an oscar for their performance. it was simply beautiful to watch.
the cinematography and the colours were also amazing. the movie looked stunning, despite the sad topic it covered. I love how taika decided to use vibrant colours and stylish costumes to contrast the dark matter of the film. it works beautifully and gives it a very human touch – like there was more to life than just the war, even during this time.
---
SPOILERS AHEAD, I would invite you to watch the movie first and then come back for the rest if it’s something that interests you. :)
---
out of all the perfect characters I think rosie was my favourite. she is anti-nazi and handing out little notes against the regime, which you know from the beginning is a death-sentence. at home, whenever she is with her son, she is this happy-go-sunshine person, ever dancing, making jokes, pretending everything is fine, all to protect her son and the girl she so selflessly invited into her home, knowing it would kill her if they found out. I had to actually PAUSE the movie and recover for a few minutes when jojo walked past those shoes hanging in the air. I CRIED. she was such a loving character. one of my favourites, ever. in any movie or book. simply beautifully created. I want to be rosie when I grow up.
but in the end, I fell in love with all of them. jojo, who was just so sweet in his ways, how he was convinced hitler was doing the right thing and he was proud to be helping them, but in the end realised that «those jews» are just normal people. the bond he develops with elsa over the course of the movie is so sweet and touching. the way he writes those letters to her «from her boyfriend» who he didn’t know had died. he was trying so hard to make her feel safe and happy even though she was «the enemy». that said a lot about him and roman brings him across so well.
and elsa, the jewish girl, played by thomasin mckenzie, wasn’t just intent on playing the victim. she was funny, sarcastic and clever, giving the most absurd answers to jojo’s questions on his quest to figure out more about jews. it made me laugh even though the situation wasn’t funny at all. it took some of the weight from the topic which I thought was great.
honestly, this film has it all. a great story, great morals, phenomenal acting, funny moments, heartbreaking moments, beautiful cinematography, and it will definitely leave you thinking after the end credits.
---
why it stayed with me:
the whole movie is such an emotional rollercoaster. it’s funny, it’s really sad, really intense, but then in the end… there is so much hope.
the way taika waititi managed to tell a gruesome story in such a poignant way, you just can’t help but love what he’s done. I hate slapstick usually, especially about sensitive topics (like, I would rather die than watch borat which I turned off 15mins into the film), but this was done so well and with so much heart and soul.
---
favourite scene / moment:
the dinner scene with jojo and rosie. iconic. (39:40–44:00)
and when elsa and jojo are staring out the window at night and having a really sweet conversation.
---
what I didn’t like:
nothing. it was perfect. although I HATED the fact that rosie died but I guess it was bound to happen.
---
interesting trivia / fun facts:
both taika waititi and scarlett johansson have jewish roots. when taika, who is maori/jewish, was asked about why he chose to play the role of adolf hitler, he said «the answer's simple, what better 'fuck you' to the guy?»
one of taika’s reasons for making the film was the realisation that after world war II people cried that «we should never forget» but given the behaviour of «certain people in certain parts of the world», it felt to him like we are forgetting.
even though the spoken dialogue is all in english, all written or printed text in the movie is in german.
«I don't like the idea of seeing people hang,» taika waititi said, and that's what led in part to the reveal of rosie's death without showing her face. he added that seeing your dead loved one is an intimate thing, and that we didn't «have permission» to see what jojo saw.
in the scene where the boys burn books at the camp, tom waits’ «I don’t wanna grow up» is playing in the background. in 2009, scarlett johansson recorded an album with tom waits covers, which also features that same song. the album is called «anywhere I lay my head» and is available on spotify.
---
favourite quotes:
[rosie and jojo come upon six people hanging from the gallows in the town square]
jojo: what did they do?
rosie: what they could.
---
rating: 10/10.
this movie broke my goddamn heart and it had the audacity to do so while I was having a really fun time watching it!
simply a must-see.
#jojo rabbit#movies#drama#comedy#war#2019#scarlett johansson#taika waititi#tays2cents#world war 2#war movies
25 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why ‘The Oklahoma City Dolls’ is the best sports film of all time
A huddle in Oklahoma City Dolls (1981). | Oklahoma City Dolls/Sony Pictures Television
Clichés get new weight when they’re about equality.
The best sports film of all time is a 1981 made-for-TV movie called The Oklahoma City Dolls.
This is not an assertion made lightly. Sports have inspired countless memorable films, and I, for one, certainly can’t profess to have seen them all. Nevertheless, it’s hard to imagine that any of the others tell as smart — and as progressive — a story as the mostly-forgotten Dolls, which you can only currently watch via YouTube bootlegs.
Name another movie that articulates class struggle via a group of blue-collar women fighting to form their own football team, complete with thoughtful, but not forced, discussions of gender politics and labor rights. In that light, Waylon Jennings’ on-screen debut as the befuddled love interest is just the icing on the cake.
Photo by Walt Disney Television via Getty Images
“It held up better than we would have thought,” says Susan Blakely, 71, who starred as Sally Jo Purkey — a disgruntled factory worker turned quarterback. She and her 76-year-old husband Steve Jaffe, who was among the film’s producers, watched the movie for the first time in almost 40 years before speaking with me. The couple had done Dolls as part of a three-picture deal Blakely had signed with ABC after the success of miniseries Rich Man, Poor Man (for which Blakely won a Golden Globe). “They gave us a bunch of scripts, and I thought this one was just terrific,” she adds.
The movie, which was written by Ann Beckett, is loosely based on a real team. The Oklahoma City Dolls were a semi-pro team that played for three years in the late 1970s, as part of a larger vogue for women’s football during that period. Though the Hollywood version, produced in part by an all-women company called Godmother Productions, is heavily fictionalized, the liberties taken make the Dolls’ story more — not less — controversial. The team’s battle to get on the field serves as both a broad metaphor for equality and an allusion to a specific, timely fight.
“I was very political,” Blakely says. “That was what attracted me to the script.” She’s been outspoken since her days as a model in the early ‘70s, when she organized the “Models for McGovern” group — “Ford [Models] was furious,” she says, laughing — and had a particular interest in women’s rights. “I was definitely a feminist,” she adds, in case you couldn’t tell as much from the picture of her onstage alongside Gloria Steinem.
A 1978 clip from the Ithaca Journal.
Blakely had spent much of the late 1970s pushing for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment — a period that coincided with her greatest visibility thanks to Rich Man, Poor Man. When Cosmo asked her, “What’s your worst fear?” in 1980, she quipped, “That the Equal Rights Amendment will pass and we’ll elect our first woman president and vice president: Phyllis Schalafly and Anita Bryant.” Oklahoma City Dolls was filmed that same year, when the bill’s passage before the revised 1982 deadline was looking less and less possible.
An ad that appeared in TV Guide for the movie.
The movie begins with Purkey, a single mother working the line at a valve factory (they filmed in a real factory) for $40 a week, goofing around with her female coworkers. Where are the men? Well, they’re out playing for the company football team — which they get time off to do, while the women have to “pick up the slack” back at the factory with no extra pay. “You know what I’ve always said about you?” the middle manager tells Purkey when she has the audacity to have a conversation with a colleague. “You’ve got no company loyalty.”
As it turns out, her lack of loyalty should be the least of his concerns. Purkey files a complaint about the unequal conditions with the EEOC, and because the company is a potential government contractor, the agency takes it seriously. An official shows up and tells the boss they’ll have to give the women equal time off.
The boss, Mr. Hines, thinks he’s got it all figured out when he tells the women on the factory line that the only way they can get time off is if they play football, too. The trouble starts (for him, at least) when they take him up on that offer.
It’s not an easy road for the women, but you can probably guess where it ends. The strength of the dialogue, though, turns what might have easily been trite into a piece that’s quite powerful. After their first attempt at a practice, for example, the women are discouraged: it’s hard, and they’re already facing resistance from the men in their lives. “I’m afraid Ray’s going to kill me if he finds out,” the most promising wide receiver says quietly.
But Purkey’s response to the general dismay isn’t just a pep talk — it’s practically a consciousness-raising.
“The problem ain’t in our muscles, it’s in our heads!” she shouts, clutching her own in her hands. “There’s no reason on this Earth that a bunch of women can’t learn to run a ball back and forth between four goal posts just as easily as a bunch of men! Heck, I used to play football when I was a kid and I was pretty good too! Baseball, basketball, kickball — you name it! I loved all that stuff, until one day some adult told me it wasn’t feminine. That a woman has to act like a lady, flouncing around.
“Seems to me now that giving birth to babies ain’t particularly ladylike,” she continues, to chuckles around the room. “And making love ain’t necessarily ladylike,” Purkey adds as the women whoop.
“So what’s wrong with a little football, eh?”
Oklahoma City Dolls/Sony Pictures Television
Sally Jo (Susan Blakely) tells it like it is in Oklahoma City Dolls.
That scene was one Blakely says she tweaked to better reflect her own experience. When they were just a week or so into filming, the Screen Actors Guild went on strike — so she had six weeks to work on both her football prowess with the assistance of Jaffe, who had played in high school, and to revise some of her scenes.
“That was a scene that I worked on the most of any of them,” she recalls of the “ladylike” monologue. “I played a lot of sports as a kid — I was a gymnast, a runner, a swimmer, a tennis player, a golfer. I did try and play a little football with my older brother, but he was like, 6’10 when he was 13, and he would only play tackle. Anytime I’d get the ball, my brother would come right at me.
“But my father would always say, ‘You don’t have to win all the time when you’re playing against the guys. I would be like, ‘Well, then why are you even telling me to get better at it at all?’”
Blakely translated that feeling — the acute sense of unfairness women and girls face in sports, and beyond — into the scene, and most of the movie. Even though she says regrets coming off “a little too angry,” she’s just as frustrated now by the fact the injustices shown in the film haven’t been resolved. “We’re still dealing with women getting less money for the same jobs,” she points out. The Equal Rights Amendment still hasn’t been passed.
During the six-week strike, Blakely found herself mirroring Sally Jo: The women who had been cast as football players were crammed in hotels near the Columbia backlot where they were filming, seemingly six to a room as Blakely recalls it, with no cars. “I wouldn’t go on shooting until they got them two to a room, and cars,” she says. “I became like my character. Persona non grata at Columbia but …”
Oklahoma City Dolls/Sony Pictures Television
Sally Jo (Blakely) steps back to pass in Oklahoma City Dolls.
She and the other actors had to learn football, although a male stunt double handled Purkey’s play in the game scenes. The stunt coordinator, Allan Graf, was himself a retired football player — he started on USC’s undefeated 1972 team, and briefly signed with the Rams. He would go on to manage stunts for just about every memorable football movie, including Any Given Sunday, The Waterboy, The Replacements, Jerry Maguire and Friday Night Lights.
Jaffe himself had toyed with the idea of doubling Blakely on the field just to get a chance to play again, but ultimately decided against it. Like Blakely, though, he has fond memories of his time on set. “The idea that I would watch two full-fledged women’s teams playing against each other was phenomenal,” he says now — offering nearly the opposite perspective to Jennings’ character in the movie, whose skepticism compels Purkey to direct one of her signature barbs his way: “If you can’t hack being a quarterback’s boyfriend,” she tells him on a date, “I suggest you go find some frilly little thing who stands around in the kitchen all day and doesn’t embarrass you. I hope she bores you to death.”
“Having my wife be the quarterback was really wonderful to watch,” Jaffe adds. “To see her blossom as a real quarterback … We would throw the ball around in the backyard, and she got better and better at pinpointing her shots.
“One time she actually ran me right out of the backyard and into our Jacuzzi,” he recalls, and they both dissolve into laughter.
The warmth with which they remember Dolls’ filming is echoed on screen, populated almost exclusively by women who find enormous camaraderie in solidarity — and sports. It’s a story about plucky underdogs triumphing on the field, yes, but with bold and very nearly intersectional takes on all the unfairness happening off it. By the end of the film, a neighbor woman has named her newborn baby Sally Jo, and frankly, it’s easy to understand why.
0 notes
Text
New from Every Movie Has a Lesson by Don Shanahan: MOVIE REVIEW: Joker
(Photo Credit: Niko Tavernise for Warner Bros.)
JOKER— 5 STARS
A pungent plethora of hot-button words are being branded into the film flesh of Todd Phillips’ Joker. Be them complementary or damning, they seemingly cannot be rubbed away. An interesting debate to have is classifying which of those fiery adjectives actually talk about the film and not some external controversy, projection, trigger, or angle being spun before Joker even hits public screens. Not to be undone, this writer will give you readers a self-appointed definitive word, one that he’s never used in a review in nine years and change. The word is gall.
LESSON #1: THE DEFINITION OF “GALL” — According to Dictionary.com, the four possible meanings of the noun span impudence, severity, bitterness of spirit, and rancor. To saunter a little cruder, which is fitting for the movie in play, the Urban Dictionary defines the word as audacity, balls, or something risky. Hot damn, Joker is each one of those descriptors from both sources and then some.
Joker has the gall to go an R-rated level of violence. The performers have the gall to attempt generating sympathy for a villain and show those connective actions in all of their uncomfortable cruelty. Joker has the gall to shove away the sunny glibness of what comic book movies have become today at their peak popularity. The writers have the gall to blaze a maze of social commentary trails and not borrow from any comic source. The director and studio have the gall to do all of this on the competitive film festival circuit rising to the biggest platform of release. And that all is just its general existence.
Between the credits, every fleck and pore of Joker is drenched in gall as well. From an opening scene that begins with a slippery tear temporarily erasing a small streak of makeup to the final one of a fade-out coda set to Frank Sinatra’s “That’s Life” that trades tears for bloody smears, the insolence escalates in a drastic manner and you cannot take your eyes off of it all. Joker is a twisted pair of narrative vines, one descending into evil and the other rising in motivated malice.
The twitchiest man in Hollywood, Joaquin Phoenix, plays Arthur Fleck, a lonely Gotham City weakling living with his mother Penny (Frances Conroy from American Horror Story anthologies) and holding down the pitiful job of being a clown-for-hire. Arthur dreams of better by journaling to become a stand-up comedian bringing laughter to the masses much like his television idol, late night talk show host Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro, switching shoes and feet from his old Scorsese entry The King of Comedy). The gaunt sad sack plods through a 1980s urban landscape of scum and social hatred. Joaquin’s first line of dialogue, an ignored question, says it all: “Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?”
LESSON #2: BE MINDFUL OF THE GESTURES YOU GIVE AND HOW PEOPLE TAKE THEM — Though not assigned or identified by name in the movies, the former mental patient is a card-carrying sufferer of Pseudobulbar affect (PBA). Arthur’s miswired emotional incontinence has cackling replacing crying when his feelings overcome his faculties. Too often, this is the wrong way for something like Arthur to get noticed. He lacks many social graces and allows spoonfed optimism to talk him down.
This Gotham environment also eats Arthur alive, one peck and one setback at a time. His mother’s advice of “smile and put on a happy face” doesn’t cut it and Arthur discovers the gun as a great equalizer of empowerment. When the wannabe entertainer uses it and takes lives, the act of murder liberates instead of rattles him. Beyond Arthur, his vigilante crime inspires anti-rich sentiments and protests throughout the city. Anarchy becomes what makes him smile and the tremors of which explode when the movement finds its poster boy and mouthpiece.
LESSON #3: WHEN ALL YOU HAVE ARE NEGATIVE THOUGHTS — Thoughts should stop at thoughts if they are harmful. By the dynamite third acat, the barrier of consideration of safety is gone with Joker. You in the audience will reach a point where you cannot assign sympathy here anymore. That’s precisely the point. Rooting for this movie doesn’t condone the character or make you a cheerleader. It makes you recognize and respect all that gall splattered all over the place that makes him evil to the core and the movie brave for even going down this path.
Director Todd Phillips and company put Joker in the capable hands of Joaquin Phoenix and he creates an iteration of the iconic villain all his own. For anyone who has seen any period on Joaquin’s resume, fidgets are his specialty. Rage is in Phoenix’s regular range and flips it on like a lightswitch when necessary. On paper, this is not a big stretch. This could have been as easy as Phillips getting his frequent cinematography collaborator Lawrence Sher to have the camera on when he tells Joaquin “just be weird.”
However, believing it is that simple would be shortchanging the performer who methodically channels straight and convincing madness with every drag from a lit cigarette to every mood-changing and entrancing dance move. Midway through the movie, Arthur writes down a poetic nugget in his diary that reads “People expect you to behave as if you don’t.” That’s a pure and blunt parallel between the character and the actor. Watching Joaquin’s poisonous performance is maniacally mesmerizing.
Joker’s artistically seedy aesthetic for moral decline and unchecked depravity creates the proper cesspool for energizing the corrupt title character. If Beale Street Could Talk production designer Mark Friedberg and The Greatest Showman art director Laura Ballinger empower the flickering fluorescent bulbs and walls of graffiti to reflect inner and outer ugliness. The complete atmosphere is made scarier by the ominous musical score from composer and Sicario series cellist Hildur Guðnadóttir. The production value rumbles all senses. Again, this too is gall.
Even without drawing from a specified comic canon source, the most important question of Joker is whether director Todd Phillips and company got this character right. It is possible to be too divergent to really fly. That’s where smart audiences can skip Nicholson, Ledger, Leto, and Romero to ask what’s the core. The essence is the unfathomable enigma. We may very well have an unreliable narrator from Phillips and his screenwriting partner Scott Silver, an Oscar nominee for The Fighter. Combine the twists and turns with the balletically bizarre lead and you have the oozing mystery that fits the urban myth preserved by the graphic novels.
So, how does one take a movie like Joker and all the frenzy surrounding it? Fortunately or unfortunately, that’s up to each viewer. Since the works of Martin Scorsese are correctly being sourced (or bastardized in some opinions) for homage, Robert De Niro rub and all, I’ll submit Roger Ebert’s words be neutral reasoning. The old film critic master said the following about The King of Comedy 36 years ago:
“Scorsese doesn’t want laughs in this movie, and he also doesn’t want release. The whole movie is about the inability of the characters to get any kind of a positive response to their bids for recognition. It is not, you may already have guessed, a fun movie. It is also not a bad movie. It is frustrating to watch, unpleasant to remember, and, in its own way, quite effective.”
Todd Phillips has the very same prickly and problematic brilliance on his hands. Let the polarization begin.
Permalink
from REVIEW BLOG – Every Movie Has a Lesson https://ift.tt/2nRYExt
via IFTTT
from WordPress https://ift.tt/2n6iNzd
via IFTTT
0 notes
Text
“Romeo and Juliet” director Franco Zeffirelli dies at 96
Italian director Franco Zeffirelli, who delighted audiences around the world with his romantic vision and often extravagant productions, most famously captured in his cinematic “Romeo and Juliet,” has died in Rome at 96.
While Zeffirelli was most popularly known for his films, his name was also inextricably linked to the theater and opera. Showing great flexibility, he produced classics for the world’s most famous opera houses, from Milan’s venerable La Scala to the Metropolitan in New York, and plays for London and Italian stages.
Zeffirelli’s son Luciano said his father died at home on Saturday.
“He had suffered for a while, but he left in a peaceful way,” he said.
Zeffirelli made it his mission to make culture accessible to the masses, often seeking inspiration in Shakespeare and other literary greats for his films, and producing operas aimed at TV audiences.
Claiming no favorites, Zeffirelli once likened himself to a sultan with a harem of three: film, theater and opera.
“I am not a film director. I am a director who uses different instruments to express his dreams and his stories – to make people dream,” Zeffirelli told The Associated Press in a 2006 interview.
From his out-of-wedlock birth on the outskirts of Florence on Feb. 12, 1923, Zeffirelli rose to be one of Italy’s most prolific directors, working with such opera greats as Luciano Pavarotti, Placido Domingo and his beloved Maria Callas, as well Hollywood stars including Elizabeth Taylor, Mel Gibson, Cher and Judi Dench.
Throughout his career, Zeffirelli took risks — and his audacity paid off at the box office. His screen success in America was a rarity among Italian filmmakers, and he prided himself on knowing the tastes of modern moviegoers.
He was one of the few Italian directors close to the Vatican, and the church turned to Zeffirelli’s theatrical touch for live telecasts of the 1978 papal installation and the 1983 Holy Year opening ceremonies in St. Peter’s Basilica. Former Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi also tapped him to direct a few high-profile events.
But Zeffirelli was best known outside Italy for his colorful, softly-focused romantic films. His 1968 “Romeo and Juliet” brought Shakespeare”s story to a new and appreciative generation, and his “Brother Sun, Sister Moon,” told the life of St. Francis in parables involving modern and 13th-century youth.
“Romeo and Juliet” set box-office records in the United States, though it was made with two unknown actors, Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey. The film, which cost $1.5 million, grossed $52 million and became the most successful Shakespearian movie ever.
In the 1970s, Zeffirelli’s focus shifted from the romantic to the spiritual. His 1977 made-for-television “Life of Jesus” became an instant classic with its portrayal of a Christ who seemed authentic and relevant. Shown around the world, the film earned more than $300 million.
Where Zeffirelli worked, however, controversy was never far away. In 1978, he threatened to leave Italy for good because of harsh attacks against him and his art by leftist groups in his country, who saw Zeffirelli as an exponent of Hollywood.
On the other hand, piqued by American criticism of his 1981 movie “Endless Love,” starring Brooke Shields, Zeffirelli said he might never make another film in the U.S. The movie, as he predicted, was a box office success.
Zeffirelli wrote about the then-scandalous circumstances of his birth in his 2006 autobiography, recounting how his mother attended her husband’s funeral pregnant with another man’s child. Unable to give the baby either her or his father’s names, she intended to name him Zeffiretti, after an aria in Mozart’s “Cosi fan Tutti,” but a typographical error made it Zeffirelli, making him “the only person in the world with Zeffirelli as a name, thanks to my mother’s folly.”
His mother died of tuberculosis when he was 6, and Zeffirelli went to live with his father’s cousin, whom he affectionately called Zia (Aunt) Lide.
It was during this period of his childhood, living in Zia Lide’s house with weekly visits from his father, that Zeffirelli developed passions that would shape his life. The first was for opera, after seeing Wagner’s “Walkuere” at age 8 or 9 in Florence. The second was a love of English culture and literature, after his father started him on thrice weekly English lessons with a British expatriate living in Florence.
His experiences with the British expatriate community under fascism, and their staunch disbelief that they would be victimized by Benito Mussolini’s regime, were at the heart of the semi-autobiographical 1991 film “Tea with Mussolini.”
He remained ever an Anglophile, and was particularly proud when Britain conferred on him an honorary knighthood in 2004 — the only Italian citizen to have received the honor.
As a youth, Zeffirelli served with the partisans during World War II. He later acted as an interpreter for British troops.
The lifelong bachelor turned from architecture to acting at the age of 20 when he joined an experimental troupe in his native city.
After a short-lived acting career, Zeffirelli worked with Luchino Visconti’s theatrical company in Rome, where he showed a flair for dramatic staging techniques in “A Streetcar Named Desire” and “Troilus and Cressida.” He later served as assistant director under Italian film masters Michelangelo Antonioni and Vittorio De Sica.
In 1950, he began a long and fruitful association with lyric theater, working as a director, set designer and costumist, and bringing new life to works by his personal favorites — Mozart, Rossini, Donizetti and Verdi.
Over the next decade, he staged dozens of operas, romantic melodramas and contemporary works in Italian and other European theaters, eventually earning a reputation as one of the world’s best directors of musical theater.
Both La Scala and New York’s Metropolitan Opera later played host to Zeffirelli’s classic staging of “La Boheme,” which was shown nationally on American television in 1982.
Zeffirelli returned to prose theater in 1961 with an innovative interpretation of “Romeo and Juliet” at London’s Old Vic. British critics immediately termed it “revolutionary,” and the director used it as the basis of frequent later productions and the 1968 film.
His first film effort in 1958, a comedy he wrote called “Camping,” had limited success. But eight years later, he directed Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew,” and made his distinctive mark on world cinema.
When Zeffirelli decided to do “La Traviata” on film, he had already worked his stage version of the opera into a classic, performed at Milan’s La Scala with soprano Maria Callas. He had been planning the film since 1950, he said.
“In the last 30 years, I’ve done everything a lyric theater artist can do,” Zeffirelli wrote in an article for Italy’s Corriere della Sera as the film was released in 1983. “This work is the one that crowns all my hopes and gratifies all my ambitions.”
The film, with Teresa Stratas and Placido Domingo in the lead roles, found near-unanimous critical acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic — a rarity for Zeffirelli — and received Oscar nominations for costuming, scenography and artistic direction.
Zeffirelli worked on a new staging of La Traviata as his last project, which will open the 2019 Opera Festival on June 21 at the Verona Arena. “We’ll pay him a final tribute with one of his most loved operas,” said artistic director Cecilia Gasdia. “He’ll be with us.”
Zeffirelli often turned his talents toward his native city. In 1983, he wrote a historical portrait of Florence during the 15th and 16th centuries, what he called the “political utopia.” During the disastrous 1966 Florence floods, Zeffirelli produced a well-received documentary on the damage done to the city and its art.
“I feel more like a Florentine than an Italian,” Zeffirelli once said. “A citizen of a Florence that was once the capital of Western civilization.”
Accused by some of heavy-handedness in his staging techniques, Zeffirelli fought frequent verbal battles with others in Italian theater.
“Zeffirelli doesn’t realize that an empty stage can be more dramatic than a stage full of junk,” Carmelo Bene, an avant-garde Italian director and actor and frequent Zeffirelli critic, once said.
It was a criticism that some reserved for his lavish production of “Aida” to open La Scala’s 2006-7 season — his first return to the Milan opera house in a dozen years and the fifth “Aida” of his career. The production was a popular success, but may be remembered more for the turbulent exit of the lead tenor, Roberto Alagna, after being booed from the loggia.
“I’m 83 and I’ve really been working like mad since I was a kid. I’ve done everything, but I never really feel that I have said everything I have to say,” Zeffirelli told The Associated Press shortly before the opening of “Aida.”
Zeffirelli had trouble with his balance after contracting a life-threatening infection during hip surgery in 1999, but didn’t let that slow him down. “I always have to cling on this or that to walk … but the mind is absolutely intact,” he said in the AP interview.
———
Giada Zampano contributed from Rome.
Sahred From Source link Entertainment
from WordPress http://bit.ly/2MR1zSB
via IFTTT
0 notes
Text
Post T. Creative Investigation first Draft
Essay Draft
My hypothesis going into the creative investigation was that director Hal Ashby, was and still is an auteur, investigation this through three subtopics:
Can Hal Ashby be considered an influence during the 70’s New Wave Cinema and beyond?
Ashby considered himself a collaborator, how did collaboration influence his most successful film?
How does Ashby represent class in his films?
Hal Ashby and his films are all to often overlooked in the grand scheme of successful filmmaking history, perhaps because he had a relatively small filmography.
“Ashby did not direct his first film until the age of 40, so the body of his work as a director is relatively small. But the films that he made show a remarkable visual sense of black humour and irony, a consistency of theme and characterization, and an innovative use of music and editing.”
”Indeed, Hal Ashby produced an extraordinary group of films over a short period of time and his status as a pre-eminent director during the 1970s should be acknowledged and the fine films that he made during this period remembered.”[1]
In this essay I am going to investigate how Ashby influenced cinema during the 1970’s, The Hollywood New Wave, and what part his work has played in contemporary directors. Authorship will also be questioned, in terms of how and whom Ashby collaborated (with.) Focusing specifically on my three focal films I will analyse theme, bringing to the forefront of my investigation, the representation of class.
Can Hal Ashby be considered an influence during the 70’s New Wave Cinema and beyond?
From late 1960’s to early 80’s a new generation of filmmakers and their films were emerging, films like, The Graduate and Bonnie and Clyde were in the vanguard of American cinema, and it was at this time that Ashby made his mark on cinema history. Ashby’s most successful and inspiring films, including my three focal films, Harold and Maude, Being There and The Last Detail, overlap the 1970’s, the time period were Hollywood focused on more complex, challenging and unique films than previously. Writers and directors alike became more daring with their ideas. Director of an upcoming Hal Ashby documentary commented, “His rise as a director coincided with the brief but glorious period in American cinema when difficult, complex films were actually supported and encouraged by studios.”[2] An example of this from my focal films is undeniably Harold and Maude, Diablo Cody, writer of Juno, understood the unusualness of they storyline and how it was presented; “To see the character of Maude, who was the love interest she was the female lead and she was in her eighties and she sparkled and was presented with such affection.”[3]
Harold and Maude, caused controversy because of the romance between the pair, however Ashby frames this romance as appropriate and something that helped the characters Harold and Maude, discover themselves and a better life. One scene in particular conveys this, the scene in Maude’s caravan, where she sings to Harold, Ashby manages to achieve romance, humour and a sense of surrealism, perhaps making the idea of their relationship more ‘palatable’ for an unsure audience. Mise en Scene is used in the scene to communicate surrealism, a distorted image of Maude is seen through a strange pane of glass, Harold going to her presented as this swirled image, could represent the dream and freedom Harold sees in Maude. This links with my subtopic as Ashby presents the strange story in affectionate and tasteful way as to not cause disturbance in the viewer.
“You can’t imagine a director more perfectly suited to the project: a middle-aged man who’d fully embraced the swinging Sixties, a humanist whose films never shied from the darker side of life, the film’s central characters feel like Ashby’s been split into two different figures. He didn’t write it, but it’s the film we’ll always associate most closely with the director.”[4] This quote from Hal Ashby: A Retrospective, emphasises the reputation Ashby built up as he tackled unconventional films, this quote focuses on Harold and Maude, and although critics often didn’t appreciate his films in their writing; “After all, while Harold and Maude had alienated the majority of critics and cinemagoers, it had also sent out a message that Ashby was an accomplished filmmaker with a light touch willing to take risks and push boundaries.”[5] They attracted the quirkiest and perhaps the best kind of filmmaker, those willing to explore the unknown. The quote also expresses that it was almost as if Ashby put himself in his characters, attributes being shown in Maude as well as Harold, the undeniably contributes to the argument that Ashby was an auteur, the film is associated with the director, and people can see Ashby in the characters. In relation to my hypothesis, that Hal Ashby can be considered an auteur, I feel that his influence on the new wave of cinema is a key factor in recognising his authorship over his films. Film critic Grant, argues that it’s the director that gives a film “any distinctive qualities it may have.” In Harold and Maude, the distinctive qualities are the characters, and although this could be argued that the actors portrayed and presented the characters this way, the director, in the words of films critics, the director teases out the actor’s performance. Now this may not be the case for Ashby but I do know he worked closely with Bud Cort, who plays Harold, mentoring the young actor, preparing him for the role. The previous quote implies that Ashby put himself in the characters, ‘like Ashby’s been split into two figures’ and if the characters are they ‘distinctive quality’ to the film surely this put the director at the heart, personalising the authorship, as Syd Mead said “the director is God.”
Hal Ashby broke directing conventions in his films and his social life, moving from wife to wife almost in synchronisation to his films, he smoked weed, he was a ‘hippie’ and he employed hippies to crew on his films. Signifying the ‘new wave’ of cinema.Aclaimed film critic, Andrew Sarris belived that the second premise of auter theory is the distinguishable personality of t he director as a criterion value. Ashby definalty had personality, this quote from Being Hal Ashby by Nick Dawson shows the extent that Ashby went to do things perosally; “He spent his days meeting actresses and his nights partying with staff from paramount’s Uk office.”[6]
“Hal Ashby personifies, better than any other director, Hollywood’s Film Renaissance of the 1970s: its moral ambivalence and political rage, its stylistic audacity and deeply human voice.” [7] This quote from Darren Hughes, from Senses of Cinema, supports that Ashby was a influence during and after the 70’s film renaissance, it also pin points aspects of his work that directors before hand hadn’t paired when producing a film, my other focal film Being There, circulates around the motif of political debate and corruption, sometimes clearly other more subtlety. It addresses this topic with audacity, portraying the idea that a simple man, protagonist Chance, can have a huge influence and input into the U.S government by simply talking about gardening.
“Younger filmmakers like Wes Anderson, Judd Apatow, Noah Baumbach, Alexander Payne, David O. Russell and many more not only absorbed his influence, but vocally championed the director as an important impactor on their work.”[8]
“But watching the film will reveal its influence over modern moviemaking as being much broader (Wes Anderson in particular did some heavy plundering here, borrowing the films center-of-frame compositions, deadpan humour”[9]
After the Hollywood New Wave to contemporary cinema, it is clear, after investigation that Ashby is still a strong influence now, supporting the idea that he is an auter (theory) researching into modern successful filmmakers influence, such as Wes Anderson, Seth Rogan and Cameron Crowe:
“All off those song are so well known, but Hal’s work is so personal, that the songs feel that they were written for Hal’s movie”[10] this quote from Crowe actually addresses Coming Home, another of Ashby’s successful films, but I think it can be applied to Harold and Maude as well, as Cat Stevens produced the whole soundtrack to Harold and Maude. This collaboration is elaborated on further in they next section.
Ashby considered himself a collaborator, how did collaboration influence his most successful film?
Hal Ashby, throughout his career rejected the auteur label, he consistently vocalised his reliance on collaboration and the contributions his cast and crew had on the authorship of his films. He was huge on collaboration, giving young actors and editors such as Bud Cort, Randy Quaid and William A. Sawyer a chance to act and crew on his films. It wasn’t until after Ashby’s death that he was even considered to be an auteur, although this idea may seem to contradict my hypothesis it is understood that collaboration was and still very much is an unavoidable part of filmmaking, even for ‘auteurs.’ The authorship label often follows a director’s death, as was the case with ultimate auteur, Alfred Hitchcock. ”Ashby’s quiet, compassionate and funny humanist dramas, and his gentle approach to directing which endeared him to everyone he worked with, didn’t ever receive its due until years after his death.” [11] Perhaps this recognition came with the ability to truly reflect on his films, on the controversial topics he covered and the short time he made so many successful ones in. Ashby started as an editor working closely with Norman Jewison, and so editing influence continued throughout his directing career, often firing editors and doing the edit himself.In my focal film The Last Detail, especially my key scene, editing has a huge influence on the mood and conveyance of the scene and the acting.
In my focal film key sequence notes I investigated:
“The wipes and fades, makes the scene stand out amongst the rest of the film, the fade between shots show the reaction of the Buddusky, especially when Mulhall is shouting/ speaking to him. These transitions make the scene smooth and continuous, touching on character expression and reaction as well as the surroundings of the train and landscape. Focusing on the transitions at this point, I realise that, although Ashby had influence, this would have been up to the editors to decide on the transitions. Although this doesn’t help with the argument of Ashby being an auteur, it does in fact emphasis the position of character, camera movement and shot type.”
However after my creative investigation and reading Being Hal Ashby: Life of a Hollywood Rebel by Nick Dawson I now realise that Ashby couldn’t help himself in the edit and almost always helped in the edit, “he again found that he couldn’t stay away from the cutting room. He desperately wanted to be rid of the responsibility but couldn’t trust anybody completely with his film, All the editing was now being done at his house.”[12] This shows that although he did collaborate and put emphasis on this he had influence many of the really important processes that make a film successful, like editing.
One part of the important creative processes that he didn’t really have was the writing and the screenplay, for example on my focal film Being There, Jerzy Kosinski, wrote the original novel, and the adaptation based upon it. In terms of authorship, David Kipen argues that the writer is responsible for creating the world of the movie and is therefore the author. This contrasts my hypothesis, implying that Kosinski is the true auteur of Being There, taking away authorship from Ashby.
Ashby did not build strong or loyal relationships with producers or production companies often arguing and feuding, as Ashby wasn’t in it for the money, Ashby wanted things done his way. “His hands seemed to have been bound creatively by the money guys that he made those later films with — which was a really crippling process for an artist like Hal.”[13] This perhaps prevented Ashby from truly making his authorship mark on his films, for example, Paramount would not approve Harold and Maude unless hal cut a love scene between the two main characters. Ashby has been named an artist many a time, Sarris talked about artistic authorship, and that auteur theory served to gives films value as works of art, Ashby, arguably being an artist makes work of art.
“Cort and Ashby grew close over the production. After filming, says Cort, Paramount took control of the edit from Ashby, so Cort went to a publicity meeting with the studio and told them he’d refuse to promote the film unless they gave control back to a devastated Ashby, which they did.”[14] This opposes the argument that Ashby is an auteur as his collaborator, Cort, had influence over the film and its publicly, it could be argued that Ashby relied on Cort in this situation, Cort holding responsibility for the end result of the film, as if Ashby himself hadn’t had main input on editing, the film may have been totally different, a tale of friendship instead of romance between the unlikely pair, as the production company wanted.
How does Ashby represent class in his films?
The representation of class is a less obvious pattern that appears throughput Ashby’s films, but it is one that I have noticed and through his 1970’s new wave films, the motif is prominent, especially in Harold and Maude and Being There.
Being There is centred around a political motif, it portrays the U.S political system and hierarchy as corrupt and whimsical, as protagonist Chance, moves swiftly and easily up the political ladder by simply talking about gardening, now often these are beautiful metaphors for political movements but mostly the politicians take everything Chance says literally, and putting him at the forefront of the U.S government. By representing these political issues in this film, he also addresses the representation of class, especially by including the contrast of poor and rich and Chances indifference to the split, perhaps conveying Ashby’s own thoughts on the class divide.
After being asked what he thinks Being There is about, Peter Sellers, who plays protagonist, Chance responded “I think it’s Jerzy Kosiński’s comment on power and corruption and the triumph of the innocent man” Actor Peter Sellers had undeniable influence over Being there, perhaps making more people go see it in cinema and that his acting as Chance was labelled ‘his best yet.’ However he also understood the meaning behind the film, a shout of corruption and class, interwoven with humour and metaphors. He also described it as “The triumph of the simple man over power, over wealth, over corruption.”[15] With wealth comes class and through Being There Ashby has managed to present an interwoven message that with higher class comes arrogance and manipulation, but subtly, and not too controversially.
In Harold and Maude, Harold and his mother are upper class, his mother stereotypical, looking down on ‘lower class’ cars and people, whereas Harold breaks the conventions and finds freedom from the class restrictions in the free spirit of Maude, a working class woman who lives in a caravan. An example of this conflict between class could be Harold rebellious and transforming the posh, expensive car that his mother got him into a hearse style, a symbol of death and mourning, completely reversing the original, smart style his mum gave it to him in. This could represent Harold’s rebel against the class conventions that his mother poses upon him.
In conclusion, my hypothesis, that Ashby is an auteur, his been both supported and contradicted. His influence, during the 1970’s is clear, he made unusual films on unusual topics, changing film goers expectations and experiences, his films are art, and with this comes artistic authorship over his films. However Ashby collaborates openly and repeatedly, often working with the same people, such as Nick Jewison, he does manage to retain a distinct styel and pattern in the narratives he represents through the films he makes. Such as the theme of class.
[1] J.A. Davidson, The films and career of Hal Ashby, 1998, http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue08/features/halashby/halashby-nf.htm
[2] A.Scott, Filmmaker Magazine, 26 May 2014, http://filmmakermagazine.com/86085-director-amy-scott-on-her-upcoming-doc-once-i-was-the-hal-ashby-story/
[3] D.Cody, in interview for An Academy salute to Hal Ashby, 20 March 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK5THYZuvXM
[4] O.Lyttelton, The Filmsof Hal Ashby: A Retrospective, may 2011 http://www.indiewire.com/2011/05/the-films-of-hal-ashby-a-retrospective-118773/
[5] N.Dawson, Being Hal Ashby: Life of a Hollywood Rebel, October 2017
[6] N.Dawson, Being Hal Ashby: Life of a Hollywood Rebel, October 2017
[7] D.Hughes, Senses Of Cinema, http://sensesofcinema.com/2004/great-directors/ashby/
[8] O.Lyttelton, The Filmsof Hal Ashby: A Retrospective, may 2011 http://www.indiewire.com/2011/05/the-films-of-hal-ashby-a-retrospective-118773/
[9] O.Lyttelton, The Filmsof Hal Ashby: A Retrospective, may 2011 http://www.indiewire.com/2011/05/the-films-of-hal-ashby-a-retrospective-118773/
[10] C. Crowe, An Academy salute to Hal Ashby, March 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_cdMSh6LJI
[11] O.Lyttelton, The Films of Hal Ashby: A Retrospective, may 2011 http://www.indiewire.com/2011/05/the-films-of-hal-ashby-a-retrospective-118773/
[12] N.Dawson, Being Hal Ashby: Life of a Hollywood Rebel, October 2017
[13] A.Scott, Filmmaker Magazine, 26 May 2014, http://filmmakermagazine.com/86085-director-amy-scott-on-her-upcoming-doc-once-i-was-the-hal-ashby-story/
[14] A.Godfrey, The Guardian, Bud Cort: ‘Harold and Maude was a blessing and a curse,’ July 2014
[15] FilMagicians, Peter Sellers interview about Dr. Strangelove, Pink Panther, Being There & more, April 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x-5_4NBpkQ
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Harold Gross: The 5a.m. Critic
New Post has been published on http://literaryends.com/hgblog/oscars-2017-final-call/
Oscars 2017 (final call)
So, it’s time to put all the cards on the table and make my final bets. The end of awards season has definitely clarified some of the potentials, but there are always surprises. 538’s ongoing statistical analysis was interesting, but felt somewhat flawed for a while. By the end, I was pretty much aligned with the stats which clarified as the post SAG awards season crept onward. Best Actress and Best Picture initially had the biggest gaps due to late arrivals of some films and the lack of eligibility of others to all the awards used as guidance.
I didn’t quite manage to get to all the films again… some just weren’t available to me. But I did get to most… Reminder this is about predicting winners, not necessarily who I think should win. And with that disclaimer, here we go…
THE MAJORS
Best supporting actress
Viola Davis (Fences)
Naomie Harris (Moonlight)
Nicole Kidman (Lion)
Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures)
Michelle Williams (Manchester by the Sea)
Viola Davis still has the edge here after a long awards season. I couldn’t argue with her win, but I think Spencer’s performance was more controlled and subtle.
Winner: Viola Davis
Best supporting actor
Mahershala Ali (Moonlight)
Jeff Bridges (Hell or High Water)
Lucas Hedges (Manchester by the Sea)
Dev Patel (Lion)
Michael Shannon (Nocturnal Animals)
Mahershala Ali continued to dominate the season. It is possible he could still lose it, but not particularly likely.
Winner: Mahershala Ali
Best actress
Isabelle Huppert (Elle)
Ruth Negga (Loving)
Natalie Portman (Jackie)
Emma Stone (La La Land)
Meryl Streep (Florence Foster Jenkins)
This one of the categories that could surprise. Stone has been the favorite and La La Land is dominating all the awards ceremonies. But Huppert wasn’t even eligible for a number of the same awards, so we’ve not seen the play-off of the two. And Huppert has been doing well in foreign awards. I still bemoan the snub of Amy Adams for Arrival, but what can you do? Given the tidal wave of love for La La Land, I think it will carry this award away with it as well.
Winner: Emma Stone
Best actor
Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea)
Andrew Garfield (Hacksaw Ridge)
Ryan Gosling (La La Land)
Viggo Mortenson (Captain Fantastic)
Denzel Washington (Fences)
I’ve been surprised to see Affleck’s star still ascendant in this category, but Washington was very late to the season. There really is no comparison, to my mind, in ability. Washington’s performance is much more compelling. Gosling is great in La La Land, but the role doesn’t have the depth to compete here despite the juggernaut of a musical behind him.
Winner: Denzel Washington
Best director
Denis Villeneuve (Arrival)
Mel Gibson (Hacksaw Ridge)
Damien Chazelle (La La Land)
Kenneth Lonergan (Manchester by the Sea)
Barry Jenkins (Moonlight)
Chazelle is still the likely winner here, especially after his DGA win. My preference is still Villenueuve. Arrival is beautifully and mindfully directed and structured. It isn’t as easy a movie as La La Land, but it is much better crafted.
Winner: Damien Chazelle
Best foreign language film
A Man Called Ove (Sweden)
Land of Mine (Denmark)
The Salesman (Iran)
Tanna (Australia)
Toni Erdmann (Germany)
Winner: Toni Erdmann
A Man Called Ove is gaining some late momentum, but I think Erdmann’s momentum was stronger early, when a lot of votes probably were logged.
Best picture
Arrival
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell or High Water
Hidden Figures
La La Land
Lion
Manchester by the Sea
Moonlight
My personal pick for best in this field is still Arrival. It accomplished some very difficult feats and left the audience with some very interesting ideas and did it all honestly, while managing to let you trick yourself. Hidden Figures managed to deliver a powerful, but personal story. Either are solid choices for the win.
However, La La Land, which I also enjoyed a great deal, has the Hollywood and Broadway inside track and massive momentum (not to mention 14 new nominations).
Winnner: La La Land
THE MINORS
Best adapted screenplay
Eric Heisserer (Arrival)
August Wilson (Fences)
Allison Schroeder and Theodore Melfi (Hidden Figures)
Luke Davies (Lion)
Barry Jenkins and Alvin McCraney (Moonlight)
Arrival. Period. It even improved on the award-winning original story it was based upon. But, honestly, likely to be Moonlight. This gets harder to predict due to Moonlight being here rather than in Original (as it was for BAFTA and WGA where it won).
Winner: Moonlight
Best original screenplay
Taylor Sheridan (Hell or High Water)
Damien Chazelle (La La Land)
Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthimis Filippou (The Lobster)
Kenneth Lonergan (Manchester by the Sea)
Mike Mills (20th Century Women)
This is a bone that may get thrown to someone other than La La Land. While Lobster is quite unique, it just isn’t that great a script/story at the end of it all. Manchester, as well, fell flat for me. The strength it has is really the performances, not its words or story, but it has been gaining momentum due to its BAFTA win. Given the political tides, it could end up Hell or High Water, but think it released too long ago to capture the votes. Admittedly, after WGA, where Manchester lost to Moonlight (which is in the Adapted category here), it is even less clear. Given the continued groundswell for La La Land, I’m going with them to break the musicals curse (An American in Paris was the last time a musical won original script, back in 1951, with Gigi getting adapted in 1958).
Winner: La La Land
Best animated feature
Kubo and the Two Strings
Moana
My Life as a Zucchini
The Red Turtle
Zootopia
Kubo and Two Strings came back into the running after BAFTA, despite the Anie going to Zootopia. But the momentum is clearly with Zootopia, despite all its weaknesses and flaws.
That said, I’m sticking to my guns on on this one for the right choice rather than the likely. It’s Kubo for the statuette because if it doesn’t win I will scream at the reveal.
Winner: Kubo and the Two Strings
Best documentary feature
Fire At Sea
I Am Not Your Negro
Life, Animated
OJ: Made in America
13th
Winner: OJ: Made in America
It is possible that 13th still takes this category, but the general winds suggest not.
Best original song
La La Land – Audition (The Fools Who Dream) by Justin Hurwitz, Benj Pasek and Justin Paul
La La Land – City of Stars by Justin Hurwitz, Benj Pasek and Justin Paul
Moana – How Far I’ll Go by Lin-Manuel Miranda
Trolls – Can’t Stop the Feeling by Justin Timberlake, Max Martin and Karl Johan Schuster
Jim: The James Foley Story – The Empty Chair by J Ralph and Sting
Winner: Fools Who Dream (or City of Stars… but La La either way unless they split the vote)
Honestly, I have a strong feeling that Miranda will take this to promote him to that rare PEGOT category. But the support for a La La sweep is pretty strong and How Far I’ll Go just isn’t as good as the other options.
Best original score
Jackie by Mica Levi
La La Land by Justin Hurwitz
Lion by Dustin O’Halloran and Hauschka
Moonlight by Nicholas Britell
Passengers by Thomas Newton
Winner: La La Land
Really, is there any doubt on this one?
Best live action short
Ennemis Interieurs
La Femme et le TGV
Silent Nights
Sing
Timecode
As usual, throw a dart and pick one.
Winner: Sing
Best documentary short
4.1 Miles
Extremis
Joe’s Violin
Watani: My Homeland
The White Helmets
Winner: The White Helmets
No particularly good reason for this pick other than its topical nature.
Best animated short
Blind Vaysha
Borrowed Time
Pear Cider and Cigarettes
Pearl
Piper
For its pure audacity, going with the new tech.
Winner: Pearl
THE TECHNICAL
Best costume design
Allied
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Florence Foster Jenkins
Jackie
La La Land
Winner: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Best make-up and hairstyling
A Man Called Ove
Star Trek Beyond
Suicide Squad
Both Suicide Squad and Star Trek received awards from their peer awards ceremony, but since the whole Academy votes here, I think it is Suicide Squad hands-down.
Winner: Suicide Squad
Best production design
Arrival
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Hail, Caesar!
La La Land
Passengers
Winner: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Passengers impressed me more, but the broad scope of Beasts and its popularity will probably take the night.
Best cinematography
Arrival
La La Land
Lion
Moonlight
Silence
Winner: La La Land
I don’t think it was the best, but I think it will get caught up in the tsunami that has been building for the movie.
Best film editing
Arrival
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell or High Water
La La Land
Moonlight
Winner: Arrival
The editing made Arrival. No other nominee can claim that integral a role for its success. I know Hacksaw took BAFTA, but however adept, the story didn’t change based on the editing. I’m being stubborn here, I realize.
Best sound editing
Arrival
Deepwater Horizon
Hacksaw Ridge
La La Land
Sully
Winner: La La Land
Hacksaw has a real chance here. The work during the battle is pretty amazing.
Best sound mixing
Arrival
Hacksaw Ridge
La La Land
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
I’ve made this mistake in the past by going for the big action flicks like Rogue One… keeping any dialogue intelligible over all that racket took some serious effort. But given that the CAS award went to La La Land, I’m going to believe the professionals since they get to vote on it again for Oscar night.
Winner: La La Land
Best visual effects
Deepwater Horizon
Doctor Strange
The Jungle Book
Kubo and the Two Strings
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Winner: Jungle Book
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
otadori
Japan,Drifting and Anime
4-gabe
➶ 📷🌿👞 ➶
shadowthorne
ShadowThorne
horoscopegod2
Horoscope God
