Verdict: Oscar Nominations 2013

I'm annoyed for many reasons right now. The first, most obvious, is to do with my disgust at a lot of the nominations this year, which I'll come onto. But secondly, and most personally, because my first post of 2013 has to be a bitter, angry one about why the Academy has let me down this year, so much so that I'm not even going to watch the ceremony because I just don't care about any of them.

The Academy has in recent years descended into somewhat of a farce, becoming predictable and sterile and celebrating only a certain selection of films rather than diversifying a bit more. In other words, they're playing it safe, and it's boring.

So many films and performances have been overlooked this year it's unbelievable. Major unexpected snubs were Ben Affleck's work on Argo, who was omitted from both Acting and Directing awards despite the film itself being up for the big one.

On the other hand, people were unnecessarily surprised about some of the categories, expecting films to be included that weren't. Mostly I'm talking about Skyfall, which I never even entertained as to get a nomination in any of the major categories. For one thing, the Academy are probably too scared to do something as "out there" as put a Bond film up for major Oscars. But also, the BAFTA nominations were announced the day before, and if Skyfall was not up for Best Film at the BRITISH film awards then why would the American film awards include it? The same goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig for Best Director and Actor respectively.

Two of my favourite films starring two of my favourite people should have been up. I can't believe that On The Road isn't up for any acting nominations. I know that the film in general divided critics so I wasn't hopeful that it would get any major nods, but whatever you thought about the film, the performances were brilliant. The main trio of Sam Riley, Garrett Hedlund and Kristen Stewart deserve recognition, as well as Viggo Mortensen and Kirsten Dunst. It's ridiculous that it was overlooked. Also the cinematography was stunning and that should have been up for something too.

And also Cosmopolis should have been up for, in my opinion, Best Actor for Robert Pattinson, Best Director for David Cronenberg, Best Supporting Actor for Paul Giamatti, Best Supporting Actress fr Sarah Gadon, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Original Score. The fact that this film was so overlooked not just in awards season but throughout the whole year makes me unspeakably sad, because it was genuinely incredible, one of the most intelligent, complex films of this year. I should actually do my own awards this year just to honour it, because I can't actually give it enough praise.

I was also quite surprised at the lack of recognition for Hitchcock, which I thought would be mingling up there with the rest of them. This isn't just the Academy, I admit - there's nothing at the BAFTAs either and hardly anything at the Golden Globes - but from what I've heard it's meant to be very good. I thought Helen Mirren would get a Best Actress nod, and maybe the film itself. The same goes for The Sessions, which did in fact get Helen Hunt a nomination but I thought would have got more, but that's probably because it wasn't prolific enough. And also The Hunt, which got rave reception at Cannes this year and I thought was a real contender for nods at the Oscars, but apparently they're ignoring most films that aren't major Hollywood blockbusters. I would have liked real recognition for Mads Mikkelsen who I think is brilliant, and also I think it would have done The Academy a favour to acknowledge a film with such sensitive material. The Master wasn't up for nearly as much as I thought it would be, with exclusions on the Best Director (Paul Thomas Anderson) and Best Film lists, which was again surprising from the amount of buzz around it and the rave reviews it got from critics.

Anyway, I'll crack on with discussing the major awards and pointing out why they're wrong and spoiling the ceremony by revealing the the obvious winners for you all.

Best Film

It will go to either Les Miserables or Zero Dark Thirty because they are the obvious choice. Les Mis is the sort of stylish tragic story the Academy love, though admittedly they haven't held favour with musicals for quite some time. Zero Dark Thirty is the gritty, real-life drama they also appreciate, and you can't overlook the similarities the film has to The Hurt Locker, which of course was also directed by Kathryn Bigelow and about recent wars. However, recent controversy surrounding the film may put it out of favour with the voters, so we'll have to see. I have yet to see any of the nominees (but I plan on seeing Les Mis, Django and Lincoln in the next couple of weeks so look out for reviews of them!) but at the moment I'm just really disappointed at the shortlist.

 

Best Actor

Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) seems to be the best bet at the moment, with the closest contender probably Joaquin Phoenix for The Master based on the rave reviews he got (but again, the Academy may be a bit peeved with him after his recent comments about them - he basically told them to shove their egotistic ceremony). The curveball here was probably including Denzel Washington (Flight) where one might have expected Jamie Foxx (Django), Mads Mikkelsen (The Hunt) or Ben Affleck (Argo).

Best Actress

Jennifer. Bloody. Lawrence. People need to stop going crazy about her. The inclusion of her on this list made me so angry the other day I had a massive rant on Twitter for about 8 hours. I like The Hunger Games, okay? I just don't like her, and I think she's a massively overrated actress. If she wins, I'll never watch the Oscars again and the Academy will have lost all respect from me. I would like to see Jessica Chastain get it for Zero Dark Thirty, but we'll have to see. It's pretty much between those two, though. Well done too to Emmanuelle Riva (Amour) and Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild) for being the oldest and youngest nominees respectively in this category, that's quite an achievement. Wallis especially makes me question what I've done with my life if she's nine and has been nominated for an Oscar.

Best Director

Affleck. Bigelow. Tarantino. Hooper. Where are they on this list? I understand that with five to ten Best Film nominees and only five Director slots, some people are going to miss out, but really, the wrong ones did. I don't understand this at all. David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook), really? I can't even say anything else because I'm so surprised and annoyed about the inclusions and exclusions on this list. Affleck has just won a Golden Globe! I would have put money on Bigelow and Tarantino being up. And Tom Hooper has famously been revolutionary with Les Mis by making his cast sing live, apparently with good results. The outcome of this strange list is harder to call than some other categories this year, but I'll go for Spielberg (Lincoln) or Michael Haneke (Amour).

Best Supporting Actor

I do like the line-up in this category (I know, I'm giving praise!) and I also like the fact that every nominee has already won this award. I don't know why, since maybe some newcomers should have been included, but anyway. The smart money is on Phillip Seymour Hoffman (The Master) but I wouldn't rule any of the contenders out this year. I was expecting Leo DiCaprio to be nominated over Christoph Waltz if one of them was going to be up from Django, but I'll have to reserve judgement on that until I see it. I also personally think Garrett Hedlund should be up for On The Road, or Paul Giamatti for Cosmopolis, but hey, apparently the Academy and I are not on the same wavelength here.

Best Supporting Actress

It will go to Anne Hathaway. It's the most obvious result in recent Oscar memory, I don't even know why they bothered to nominate anyone else when they're all going to get overlooked anyway. It's another classic Academy view that actresses should suffer for their work (if losing weight and cutting off your hair is "suffering") and that they like tragic stories more than anything else. At least now maybe Hathaway will stop being so unbelievably desperate for recognition. And hey, maybe it will make her more interesting, because right now I find her to be the human equivalent of beige, i.e. so incredibly dull it makes me want to hurt myself to not look at or listen to her. Apparently, it should go to Amy Adams for The Master (but I'm just parroting what other people are saying, I haven't actually seen for myself), but really it's irrelevant, because it's not going to happen.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Not too sure about this one, because it depends what the Academy members are thinking when they're voting. It could go to Lincoln if they're feeling patriotic, or Life of Pi, which was the supposedly "unfilmable film", or Silver Linings Playbook because apparently they're in love with that. I don't think Argo is in with a chance because they seem to be ignoring this, sadly. Personally I think Perks of Being a Wallflower should be there, because I did not see a better page-to-screen adaptation this year. I think the problem with both screenplay awards is that they forget it's about the script and focus on the finished movie, which really kind of rejects a lot of films which may actually have better scripts than those nominated.

Best Original Screenplay

I thought for sure this was going to Zero Dark Thirty, but now based on all the incoming reviews and the fact that it won the Golden Globe last Sunday, I'd have to say now it's going to Django Unchained. Which I'm happy about, because any nod for Tarantino is a bonus in my eyes. He is the best writer/director of his generation and I'm glad he's still getting credit where it's due. Again though, a lot of these I can't comment on because I haven't actually seen them, but since the Academy seem to be celebrating the prolific films this year, I think Django's got this.

Danny Leigh of  BBC Film 2013 basically summed up the main points here, give him a watch. His hatred of Silver Linings Playbook is particularly apparent and he makes an interesting point about Kathryn Bigelow too. Also what he says about the inclusion of foreign and indie films is completely true. Ranting starts around the 13:25 mark (he's just wrapping up talking about The Sessions):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pz82d/Film_2013_Episode_2/

So the question is, will you be tuning in? I know I certainly won't be staying up to watch something I really don't care that much about. If there's a highlight show I might flick over to that but honestly, this "hooray for Hollywood" attitude they have going on right now is getting on my nerves too much to tolerate.

Happy Hunger Games!

The anticipation for this film was ridiculous, with people making statements that it was the new must-see teen franchise. Already having a wide fanbase due to the popularity of the books, the film had a lot to live up to, and it's safe to say it more than met expectations.

In a futuristic, post-apocalyptic world, the nation of Panem, the remains of North America, is divided up into twelve districts who each offer to the controlling Capitol city one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in the annual Hunger Games, a reminder of the Capitol's dictatorial control over the nation after a rebellion by the districts. In these Games, the twenty-four "tributes" are placed into an arena to fight to the death, until one victor remains. It's the 74th Games, and Katniss Everdeen of the poverty-stricken District 12 has volunteered to take the place of her sister. Despite being a skilled hunter (that girl is mighty handy with a bow and arrow), she must fight bloodthirsty teenagers and the Capitol, whilst also battling with her feelings for fellow competitor Peeta.

Firstly, I do apologise for the delay in publishing this post; I was busy reading the last book and then I had work to do, so... yeah, anyway. It also gave me time to go and see it for a second time, which I think always helps before properly forming an opinion about a film. Anyway, I commence.

I've openly discussed my disdain at Jennifer Lawrence; although I haven't seen her in her Oscar nominated role in Winter's Bone she did not impress me in X-Men: First Class and I've never understood the hype about her. When I first read the book I was outraged that she had been cast, but I take back every bad thing I've said about her casting in this because really she was brilliant. I overlook the fact that she's really too old to be playing 16 year old Katniss, because I couldn't imagine anyone embodying the character better really.

As for the other of the three young leads, I can't say I was hugely impressed with their casting either, but they both made the most of their roles. Josh Hutcherson, despite looking gormless for the first third of the film because of his gaping mouth, redeems himself with being unbelievably sweet as Peeta. I quite like the fact he's shorter than Lawrence (even if it does make me laugh a little) because it's true that the traditional role of boy-saves-girl is reversed in this, and it's nice to have a strong female lead;  the differences in their stature really only emphasise this. Liam Hemsworth's Gale doesn't play a huge part in this film (though his role is expanded in the future) but his chemistry with Lawrence makes me think he'll have promise for the future.

The supporting cast was also really incredible; all the older cast members were so perfect for their roles: Donald Sutherland as the sinister President Snow was so inspired the character could have been written with him in mind. The same goes for Woody Harrelson's alcoholic mentor, Haymitch (who I would have liked to see more of), Stanley Tucci's Hunger Games host, Caeser Flickerman, and Elizabeth Banks as Katniss and Peeta's escort, Effie Trinket; the latter two in particular should be applauded because they play their characters in such an extreme way that they are very nearly going overboard, but just stopping short of that so they are just perfectly eccentric. I also want Katniss' stylist Cinna, played by Lenny Kravitz, to be my friend and just dress me all the time; he was wonderful, and refreshing as seemingly the only normal person from the Capitol. I have to say though, I don't really understand why Toby Jones' co-commentator Claudius Templesmith was there, considering he had about four words in the entire film; I suppose he was just there to make Stanley Tucci seem as though he's not talking to himself. Harsh, but true.

In terms of being a film adaptation, it's superb. It IS the book, almost exactly as it's written; the parts that are taken out or changed are so miniscule that really it doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the film. It does help, I suppose, that Suzanne Collins (author of the books) wrote the screenplay; it will be a challenge to continue the brilliance if she doesn't write for the sequels. It is one of the best ever book adaptations I've seen, which is really saying something considering how many there are to choose from. It's challenging, both to reality television, corrupt governments and to teenage violence; it is a violent film, but that's the point: the shock of seeing children killing each other is at the heart of the story, and creates the events for the next two films.

Into my technical opinion of the film, I have to say that the production design on this film is beautiful. From poverty-stricken District 12's ramshackle houses and dilapidated Hob (the black market where Katniss gets her iconic Mockingjay pin towards the start of the film), to the weird and wonderful excessive luxury of the Capitol, every set is perfect. The costumes are brilliant, especially those of the Capitol's residents who dress so eccentrically and brightly that it's almost painful to look at; because they are so strange and colourful we share Katniss' feelings of being in a completely different world. The score also fits the film very well; James Newton Howard gets the mood just right in each scene. It's nice as well that not every scene has music in, as this really emphasises certain moments and often creates the tension needed in the arena.

One thing I don't understand is all the comparisons to The Twilight Saga - as Danny Leigh of Film 2012 said, the comparison just doesn't hold. Aside from the fact there's a developing love-triangle and it's aimed at the teen market, there are no other similarities. It doesn't even really have the same audience - everyone knows that Twilight's audience is over 80% female, but the people in my first viewing of this film were very mixed, from elderly ladies to groups of young guys; I was expecting mainly girls there, but it was refreshing to see such a varied audience. Yes, Twilight is a massive franchise with an overly-devout fanbase, and I feel that The Hunger Games is going to go the same way, but really the supposed "rivalry" between them is nonsense; as if either of them cares how the other does? They are both major money spinners, they don't need to ramp up rivalry for publicity. And believe it or not, people can like both! I do! It's one of the biggest irritants to me, when people say that you can only really like one or the other, or that you're "betraying" one by liking the other. There was the same issue with Harry Potter and Twilight, where fans of one were slating fans of the other - it's not illegal to be a fan of both! Please, people, stop this. Let them both stand on their own and be individually successful, as they obviously will be.

Another thing that has confused me is the major backlash about the supposed extreme levels of gore and violence in the film. I don't really understand the big fuss about cutting out seven seconds of footage and digitally removing gore from the film to keep to its 12A rating; it could have been quite a bit worse before it became questionable. The warnings are sufficient enough, and if parents don't look at them properly before allowing younger children to go and see it then that's their fault, not the film's. Lord knows what they're going to do in the future films, which, if they stick well to the book, will only become more violent and gory. But I like that; to take that away would take away the brutality of the situation, which is essentially what the story is about. I really pray that the filmmakers don't make any stupid decisions with how they make the films just to gain a bigger audience.

Verdict: the most perfect adaptation of the book possible. Even if you aren't a fan of the books (why the hell aren't you?!), it would still be an extremely enjoyable film even if there may be some slightly confusing parts. I definitely recommend everyone sees it immediately. The sequel cannot come quick enough, and since the film broke box office records on its opening weekend (it brought in $155 million in America alone - the third biggest opening for a film ever behind The Dark Knight and Deathly Hallows part 2, and biggest opening for a non-sequel film), be assured that a sequel will indeed happen. As Humphrey Bogart said, "this could be the start of a beautiful franchise." Or something like that.

*****