Bette Davis knocks it outta the park in ‘Jezebel’

The definition of “jezebel” per dictionary.com is: a wicked, shameless, scheming woman. I didn’t know that going in, which made the movie of the same name starring Bette Davis all the more alluring. Had I’d known, my experience would have lacked.

In 1938, Davis won her second and (amazingly) last Academy award for her role as tempestuous schemer from the south, Julie Marsden in “Jezebel.” (She would have 8 other Oscar nominations in her career.) The film was based off of a play and was written with Davis in mind, and after watching it, I know why.

JEZEBEL MOVIE POSTER

Davis in many ways paralled her character in that they both aimed to challenge authority and tradition. The film is set in 1856, where unmarried women were expected to always wear white. (I imagine to symbolize their virginity.) Davis’ character creates a scandal when she orders a brazen scarlet gown to wear to the Olympus Ball. You can guess where it goes from there.

“Jezebel” was released in 1938, and two years earlier, Davis was involved in a lawsuit brought on by the big wigs at Warner Bros. Back then, actors were signed to 7-year contracts, which meant exclusivity with that studio and suspension if they declined roles. Davis felt accepting mediocre parts was damaging her career. She was one of the first female actresses to fight to choose which parts to play. The lawsuit didn’t end in her favor, but it paved the way for the 1940′s, where Olivia de Havilland (her co-star in “Hush … Hush, sweet Charlotte) fought and won. It was a major breakthrough for Hollywood.

During the lawsuit, Davis was portrayed by the media as ungrateful and greedy; she underwent much scrutiny but stuck to her guns — just like her character in “Jezebel.” At one moment, Julie Marsden is plotting catastrophe, the next, she is remorseful and yearning for redemption. Davis portrayed this with such acute grace and skill.

BETTE DAVIS

(Spoiler alert:) In “Jezebel,” Davis’ character martyrs herself as a way to atone for her indiscretions (i.e. manipulating a man to his death, attempting to seduce another married man). She uses her will to fight as fuel to seal her fate on an island overrun with lepers and an epidemic of yellow fever. As she’s driven away on a carriage of those nearly dead, she seems to finally be at peace — confident and comforted by her decision. (Eerie.)

With all that Bette Davis and Julie Marsden share in common, it was as if, Davis harbored her own regrets, and it was only through her craft of acting that she could or would allow herself to let them float to the surface.

Pride in self-sacrifice. Never in life for Bette Davis, but she had the will and skill to knock it outta the park in the realm which she ruled: acting. If you want to see one of Hollywood’s greatest in one of her most acclaimed roles, “Jezebel” is well-worth your time.

Click here to watch the trailer.

Rest in peace, Elizabeth Taylor

ELIZABETH TAYLOR

Hollywood lost an icon today.

Elizabeth Taylor passed away at age 79 from congestive heart failure. I remember her in  BUTTERFIELD 8 and WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, which happen to be the two films for which she received Oscars for Best Actress in a Leading Role. (She was nominated for CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF; SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER; and RAINTREE COUNTY.)

These two performances showcase her true versatility. In BUTTERFIELD 8, she plays a flawed, vulnerable call-girl who meets a tragic end and in VIRGINIA WOOLF, she gives a tour-de-force as the violent half of a seemingly doomed marriage.

As the Associated Press reported:

Her defining role, one that lasted long past her moviemaking days, was “Elizabeth Taylor,” ever marrying and divorcing, in and out of hospitals, gaining and losing weight, standing by Michael Jackson, Rock Hudson and other troubled friends, acquiring a jewelry collection that seemed to rival Tiffany’s.

She was also known for her humanitarian work. In 1993, she received the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award from the Academy. Click here to read AP’s full obituary on Elizabeth Taylor.

There may never be another woman in Hollywood like Elizabeth Taylor. We all lost a legend today.

Click here to read an article on Elizabeth Taylor’s renowned beauty.

OSCARS: One opinion on best supporting nominations

Christian Bale and Melissa Leo have a fighting
chance at supporting-actor Oscars

By Rafer Guzman
Newsday

Where’s Justin Timberlake?

In “The Social Network,” he had the small but crucial role of a slick-talking dot-commer who walked away with a slice of the Facebook pie. Critics were impressed, but when Oscar nods were announced, Timberlake’s name was not called. In the meantime, Timberlake will surely be graciously cheering for his colleagues in this year’s best supporting actor category. Here are the contenders:

  • Jeremy Renner, “The Town.” Renner followed up his reckless Army bomb defuser in 2009’s “The Hurt Locker” with a trigger-happy bank robber in this crime drama from Ben Affleck. Renner again drew fine notices, but his rising star hasn’t yet hit the firmament.
  • Mark Ruffalo, “The Kids Are All Right.” Call him the straight man in this comedy-drama about a lesbian couple. Though widely considered a top-notch actor, Ruffalo has a natural, deceptively easy style, which may explain why he had never before gotten an Oscar nomination.
  • John Hawkes, “Winter’s Bone.” John who? Think of him as a male Melissa Leo. After years of hard work in the bit-part trenches, he lands a major role in this gritty indie drama and now, at 51, finds himself in need of an Oscar-night tuxedo. He won’t win, but he’s worth rooting for.
  • Geoffrey Rush, “The King’s Speech.” In any other year, Rush would win for his terrific portrayal of real-life eccentric vocal coach Lionel Logue. The movie will likely win many awards, just not this one.
  • Christian Bale, “The Fighter.” And in this corner, it’s not the movie’s star, Mark Wahlberg, but Bale who seems destined for an Oscar knockout. Bale dropped 30 pounds to play a crack-addicted former boxer, and his performance has made him the heavyweight in this fight.

Best Supporting Actress

The winner seems already decided, but this year’s list of supporting actress Oscar nominees is still full of surprises.

One is Jacki Weaver, an Australian few Americans had heard of until she earned a nod for playing a crime-family matriarch in the thriller “Animal Kingdom.” Another is young Hailee Steinfeld, who plays a little girl gunning for rough justice in “True Grit,” the Coen brothers Western that has done unexpectedly well at the Oscars with 10 nominations, second only to “The King’s Speech” with 12.

There’s also the Melissa Leo question. The front-runner’s unorthodox Oscar campaign, in which she took out her own ads in trade publications, has raised enough eyebrows that a last-minute win for Helena Bonham Carter (“The King’s Speech”) almost seems possible.

Leo remains the front-runner, but the mini-scandal has at least helped spice up this particular race. Here are the ladies in waiting:

  • Amy Adams, “The Fighter.” As a no-nonsense bartender, Adams delivered one of this film’s best performances. But just as Mark Wahlberg paled next to Christian Bale, Adams has been outshone by Leo.
  • Hailee Steinfeld, “True Grit.” The bad news: She won’t win. The good news: She’s now an Oscar-nominated 14-year-old whose first major role came in a Coen brothers film alongside Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon and Josh Brolin.
  • Jacki Weaver, “Animal Kingdom.” This film has earned just over $1 million in ticket sales, according to BoxOfficeMojo, which means few people have even seen it. Luckily for Weaver, academy voters were among them.
  • Helena Bonham Carter, “The King’s Speech.” After a long stretch of cartoony roles in the “Harry Potter” films and partner Tim Burton’s 2010 version of “Alice in Wonderland,” Bonham returned to classical form as the young Queen Mother. The contrarian view says this could be her year.
  • Melissa Leo, “The Fighter.” As the chain-smoking mother of a crack addict, Leo delivered such a spot-on performance that this race seems hers to lose. And could she, given her rogue Oscar campaign? Either way, let’s hope for a close-up when the winner is announced.

The best (and worst) supporting Oscars hosts

By Steven Rea
McClatchy News

Will James Franco pull a poem out of his tux, or read an excerpt from one of his short stories? Will Anne Hathaway break into song?

FRANCO

Will the two of them, virgin cohosts of the 83d Academy Awards, dazzle the Kodak Theatre crowd Sunday night — and more important, dazzle the millions of viewers around the globe? Or will the untested duo drown in a pool of commingled flop sweat?

Franco, 32, and Hathaway, 28, are joining a small club of men and women who have hosted the Academy Awards ceremony since its inception in 1929, when the first Oscar ceremony — untelevised, obviously, but also un-radioized — took place at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel.

Douglas Fairbanks and William C. deMille worked the room that night. Lionel Barrymore, Will Rogers and director Frank Capra were among those who took turns in those early years. And in 1940, the ski-nosed comic actor Bob Hope hosted for the first time (“Gone With the Wind” won best picture).

HATHAWAY

Hope, of course, went on to front 17 more Oscarfests, ending his marathon run in 1978 (“Annie Hall” took home the best picture prize). His signature shtick was to bemoan the academy’s complete lack of recognition when it came to his own screen performances.

“Welcome to the Academy Awards, or as it’s known at my house, Passover!” Hope quipped at the opening of the 1969 show.

“Hosting the Oscars is a very difficult job, because everybody sees you,” says Gil Cates, who produced a record 14 Academy Award telecasts — and handpicked Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, David Letterman, Steve Martin, Chris Rock and Jon Stewart to preside over those Hollywood lovefests. “It’s not like making a lousy movie, where it just dies. Not only do your colleagues see you, but the agents, the elevator man in your building, the guy who parks your car — everyone sees you.

You need a really strong constitution to be an Oscar host, Cates said. And because of that, Cates says, he has found that standup comedians — folks who have spent years in the field, dodging rotten fruit, overcoming assorted humiliations, thinking fast on their feet — are the breed best suited.

“They are used to the unexpected, they’re used to carrying the weight of a show on their shoulders, and they really know how to play a room. … They feel comfortable in that job.”

Johnny Carson, who hosted five times in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, demonstrated particular cool.

“His timing was so impeccable, and he was a Hollywood insider, and yet he was a man of the people, too,” says Mary Murphy, a senior lecturer at University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism.

Billy Crystal, an eight-timer, had his share of inspired moments, in addition to introducing, and inserting himself into, the best-picture parody clips.

Not that there haven’t been successful hosts who weren’t professional joke-slingers. David Niven, the dapper British actor (and Oscar winner, in 1958, for “Separate Tables”), proved his mettle in 1974 when — as he was about to introduce the presenter for the best-picture prize at the 46th Academy Awards — a stark-naked guy trotted across the stage.

Missing barely a beat, Niven responded to the streaker by noting to the audience, “Isn’t it fascinating to think that probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings?”

But there have been hosts who have died out there, too. Jerry Lewis, cohosting the 31st Oscars in 1959, found himself in the unexpected position of having too much time on his hands. Thanks to overzealous scheduling by producer Jerry Wald, the show came up almost 20 minutes short. The rubber-faced comic started ad-libbing, pulling celebs out of the seats, taking a baton to the orchestra, and even tooting on a trumpet. The network eventually gave the comedian the proverbial heave-ho, finishing the evening with a rerun of a sports show.

And politics can sour the mood, too. When Marlon Brando dispatched Sacheen Littlefeather, an Apache, to speak about American Indian rights on his behalf when he won the best-actor Oscar in 1973, many, including that year’s cohost Charlton Heston, found the move unfitting.

Heston (whose late arrival that night forced Clint Eastwood to read Heston’s jokes from the cue cards) described the absent-Brando stunt as childish.

“The American Indian needs better friends than that,” he observed, post-telecast.

USC’s Murphy, also a contributor to Entertainment Tonight, notes that “every Oscar host I’ve ever interviewed has said it is just the most nerve-racking job that they have ever had. It takes months and months of preparation … and even for the best people on TV, it is a really hard gig. …”

And it helps to be an industry insider, she says. Neither Letterman nor Stewart went down especially well with the betuxed and begowned A-listers when the New York-based (and New York-acerbic) talk-show guys made their respective bows on the Oscar stage.

“Some of the edgier hosts, like Jon Stewart or David Letterman, did not get well-received by people in the room,” says Matt McDaniel, managing editor of Yahoo Movies. “Even though I personally, as a viewer, really enjoyed both of them, it seemed like they were playing to hostile crowds sometimes, because they didn’t seem deferential.”

That shouldn’t be a problem for Franco — nominated, by the way, for best actor for his role in “127 Hours” — or for Hathaway. After all, they’re working actors, and they’d like to work again. Dissing the big-time producers and directors in the audience isn’t going to help.

But then again, they might be able to get away with stuff that Letterman and Stewart could not.

“By having actors — movie stars, really — in the roles of host, the crowd might be a little more forgiving,” says McDaniel. “Because, if they poke fun at the Oscars, they are insiders. They’re part of the community.”

OSCARS: Toy Story 3 up for Best Picture

Toy Story 3 tugged at my heart strings like it did for most viewers. If you haven’t seen it, prepare for spoilers. It hit so many themes that adults can relate to: feeling obsolete due to layoffs, saying farewell to their childhood or any other phase of their lives, recalling simpler times when the economy and finances didn’t matter and the imagination took precedence. These only name a few. Facing their doom, Woody, Buzz and the gang embrace ‘the end’ with such dignity, it was inspiring. And this is a film that’s marketed for children, and was fully entertaining and appropriate for young audiences.

I saw “Toy Story 3″ in theaters with an 8-year-old, trying desperately to hide my tears because the cause was complex. I think the theme of this film is hope, and having lived through hard economic times, American adults can take a small bit of unexpected solace in this family film. I didn’t necessarily think it should win best picture tonight at the Oscars, but having given it more thought, perhaps it should.

Here’s an NPR interview on Toy Story 3 and a look at one movie reviewer’s opinion.

Why Toy Story 3 should win best picture

By Christopher Kelly
McClatchy Newspapers


I started crying about 10 minutes before the end of “Toy Story 3,” and the tears did not relent until well after the closing credits had finished rolling.
Buzz Lightyear, Woody and Jesse had escaped the clutches of Lotso, “an evil bear who smells of strawberries,” the head of a band of abandoned toys at a daycare center. They make their way home, only to end up back at square one: Their beloved friend Andy is leaving for college and only plans to take Woody with him. The rest of the toys are going to have to spend the rest of their days in a dark, musty attic.
As these tender, patient final scenes played out, and Andy found a way to give his toys a new life, my tears turned into quietly heaving sobs. Perhaps it was because I had made my own journey with the toys of “Toy Story,” from youth into adulthood (the first film in the trilogy opened in 1995 when I was in college), and I wasn’t quite ready to bid them farewell.
Perhaps I was just being my nostalgic for the toys of my own youth — and all of the innocence and hopefulness they symbolize. Based on the nose blowing and heavy sighing around me, I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the only one having such an overwhelming reaction to the film.

Toy Story 3

Eight months later, “Toy Story 3” is deservedly in the mix for the Best Picture Oscar, which will be handed out at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood Sunday night. Yet much like 2009’s equally heartbreaking “Up,” also by the animation studio Pixar, the film is almost certain to lose the top prize and instead be handed a consolation award, the Best Animated Film Oscar. Meanwhile, this year’s Oscar race has come down to two titles — “The Social Network” and “The King’s Speech” — that hardly approach the depth of feeling, the complexity of themes and the sheer entertainment value of “Toy Story 3.”
The arguments against Woody, Buzz and company — that “Toy Story 3” is just a kid’s movie; that it’s conjured up entirely inside of a computer — simply no longer hold water. If this is not the year to honor the Pixar Animation Studio, which has pulled off this astonishing hat trick before, with “Up,” “Wall-E,” “Ratatouille,” “The Incredibles” and “Finding Nemo,” then when?
How many Best Animated Film Oscars can Pixar win before the Academy stops ghettoizing its truly universal, for-all-ages achievements?
None of this is to diminish the achievements of David Fincher’s “The Social Network,” a fast-paced, razor-sharp anatomy of the founding of Facebook, and Tom Hooper’s “The King’s Speech,” a warm-hearted, quietly inspiring biopic about Britain’s King George VI and his struggles with a speech impediment.

Lotso hugging bear gives new toys a tour.

But they are familiar movies, and fundamentally safe ones. “The Social Network” tells a story of megalomania and greed in the pursuit of a new American business ideal — the latest in a long line of titles that includes “Citizen Kane,” “Giant” and “There Will Be Blood.” “The King’s Speech,” meanwhile, capitalizes on our collective yearning for steady moral leadership in uncertain times, and the age-old pleasure of watching an unlikely hero triumph over insurmountable odds.
Both have much to say about the nature of friendship and loyalty, and what it means to be honorable when you’re surrounded by scoundrels. But “Toy Story” covers many of these same themes, with wit and economy and charm. And more than any of the other nine films nominated for Best Picture, including the quicksilver nature epic “127 Hours,” the progressive family values comedy-drama “The Kids Are All Right,” and the ballet horror flick “Black Swan,” it pushes the art form into a brave new direction.

Certainly no one could have imagined, just 15 or 20 years ago, that animated filmmaking would become the dominant new art form of the 21st century. Or that movies ostensibly made for children would speak so poignantly and intelligently to adult viewers.
Part of what’s going on here, of course, can be chalked up to a wrongheaded bias among so many adults who think works that traffic in simple language and accessible themes can’t possibly be “serious” or “important.” In 1998, the Modern Library famously conducted a poll of critics and scholars about the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century. The list was cluttered with dense, difficult works like “Ulysses,” “Lolita” and “The Sound and the Fury.” Astonishingly, Harper Lee’s classic “To Kill a Mockingbird” — a plainspoken, deeply resonant coming-of-age story that you can’t escape the eighth grade without reading — didn’t even earn a mention.

Short-sightedness?

Academy voters are more egregiously guilty of this short-sightedness. In 1940, “The Wizard of Oz” won only two Oscars, for Best Song and Best Score. (It was even bested in the Best Visual Effects category, by the long-forgotten “The Rains Came.”) In 1983, Steven Spielberg’s “E.T.” — for my money, the greatest children’s movie ever made, one that encapsulates all of our childhood fantasies of the unknown and all of our anxieties about growing up — was beaten out for Best Picture by Richard Attenborough’s starched, proper and mostly interminable biopic “Gandhi.”
The bigger issue at work against “Toy Story 3,” though, is the animated factor — and the unavoidable truth that most actors (who make up the largest portion of the Academy) simply don’t want to face. Whether they like it or not, the future of cinema is going to be digital; the true innovations and surprises are going to happen inside of a computer.
Sure, there’s no replacing the pure shock waves that can be set off by an unexpected, unforgettable performance by a flesh-and-blood performer — Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men, for instance, or Natalie Portman this year in “Black Swan.” But we also need to pay heed to the achievements of animators and digital effects artists, and the sheer elasticity and invention of what they’ve been putting on screen in recent years.
(And lest you think the prejudice just centers on kiddie flicks: Arguably this year’s biggest Oscar snub was Christopher Nolan’s failutre to earn a Best Director nomination for “Inception.” On some level, Academy voters seem to fear movies in which the effects are bigger stars than Leonardo DiCaprio or Marion Cottillard.)
The greatest irony of all this: In terms of pure storytelling, “Toy Story 3” may be the most old-fashioned movie up for the big prize. Indeed, even more than the final 10 minutes, the sequence that sticks with me most in the film is the one where we learn the dark and tortured back story of Lotso (ingeniously voiced by Ned Beatty). This ruthless heavy was once a very literal softie, until his owner accidentally left him behind at a rest stop and then thoughtlessly replaced him with another Lotso bear.

Ardnt and the Pixar team
My guess is that the Oscar-nominated screenwriter, Michael Arndt, has gobbled up his fair share of Victorian novels, with their late-breaking revelations about seemingly one-dimensional villains. He employs some of the oldest tricks in the screenwriter handbook, but by placing those narrative tropes in the service of a group of animated toys — and then investing the toys with unabashedly deep emotion — Arndt and the Pixar team make it all feel completely new and original.
The result is something that no other American film achieved as fully in 2010. To borrow the title of another youth-oriented, effects-driven movie that never got the Oscar love it deserved, “Toy Story 3” perfected the art of taking us back to the future.

By Christopher Kelly
McClatchy Newspapers


I started crying about 10 minutes before the end of “Toy Story 3,” and the tears did not relent until well after the closing credits had finished rolling.
Buzz Lightyear, Woody and Jesse had escaped the clutches of Lotso, “an evil bear who smells of strawberries,” the head of a band of abandoned toys at a daycare center. They make their way home, only to end up back at square one: Their beloved friend Andy is leaving for college and only plans to take Woody with him. The rest of the toys are going to have to spend the rest of their days in a dark, musty attic.
As these tender, patient final scenes played out, and Andy found a way to give his toys a new life, my tears turned into quietly heaving sobs. Perhaps it was because I had made my own journey with the toys of “Toy Story,” from youth into adulthood (the first film in the trilogy opened in 1995 when I was in college), and I wasn’t quite ready to bid them farewell.
Perhaps I was just being my nostalgic for the toys of my own youth — and all of the innocence and hopefulness they symbolize. Based on the nose blowing and heavy sighing around me, I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the only one having such an overwhelming reaction to the film.

Description: http://reeltalk.areavoices.com/files/2011/02/Toy-Story-3-Photo-535x299-300x167.jpg

Toy Story 3

Eight months later, “Toy Story 3” is deservedly in the mix for the Best Picture Oscar, which will be handed out at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood Sunday night. Yet much like 2009’s equally heartbreaking “Up,” also by the animation studio Pixar, the film is almost certain to lose the top prize and instead be handed a consolation award, the Best Animated Film Oscar. Meanwhile, this year’s Oscar race has come down to two titles — “The Social Network” and “The King’s Speech” — that hardly approach the depth of feeling, the complexity of themes and the sheer entertainment value of “Toy Story 3.”
The arguments against Woody, Buzz and company — that “Toy Story 3” is just a kid’s movie; that it’s conjured up entirely inside of a computer — simply no longer hold water. If this is not the year to honor the Pixar Animation Studio, which has pulled off this astonishing hat trick before, with “Up,” “Wall-E,” “Ratatouille,” “The Incredibles” and “Finding Nemo,” then when?
How many Best Animated Film Oscars can Pixar win before the Academy stops ghettoizing its truly universal, for-all-ages achievements?
None of this is to diminish the achievements of David Fincher’s “The Social Network,” a fast-paced, razor-sharp anatomy of the founding of Facebook, and Tom Hooper’s “The King’s Speech,” a warm-hearted, quietly inspiring biopic about Britain’s King George VI and his struggles with a speech impediment.
But they are familiar movies, and fundamentally safe ones. “The Social Network” tells a story of megalomania and greed in the pursuit of a new American business ideal — the latest in a long line of titles that includes “Citizen Kane,” “Giant” and “There Will Be Blood.” “The King’s Speech,” meanwhile, capitalizes on our collective yearning for steady moral leadership in uncertain times, and the age-old pleasure of watching an unlikely hero triumph over insurmountable odds.
Both have much to say about the nature of friendship and loyalty, and what it means to be honorable when you’re surrounded by scoundrels. But “Toy Story” covers many of these same themes, with wit and economy and charm. And more than any of the other nine films nominated for Best Picture, including the quicksilver nature epic “127 Hours,” the progressive family values comedy-drama “The Kids Are All Right,” and the ballet horror flick “Black Swan,” it pushes the art form into a brave new direction.

Description: http://reeltalk.areavoices.com/files/2011/02/lotso1-300x211.jpg

Lotso hugging bear gives new toys a tour.


Certainly no one could have imagined, just 15 or 20 years ago, that animated filmmaking would become the dominant new art form of the 21st century. Or that movies ostensibly made for children would speak so poignantly and intelligently to adult viewers.
Part of what’s going on here, of course, can be chalked up to a wrongheaded bias among so many adults who think works that traffic in simple language and accessible themes can’t possibly be “serious” or “important.” In 1998, the Modern Library famously conducted a poll of critics and scholars about the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century. The list was cluttered with dense, difficult works like “Ulysses,” “Lolita” and “The Sound and the Fury.” Astonishingly, Harper Lee’s classic “To Kill a Mockingbird” — a plainspoken, deeply resonant coming-of-age story that you can’t escape the eighth grade without reading — didn’t even earn a mention.

Short-sightedness?

Academy voters are more egregiously guilty of this short-sightedness. In 1940, “The Wizard of Oz” won only two Oscars, for Best Song and Best Score. (It was even bested in the Best Visual Effects category, by the long-forgotten “The Rains Came.”) In 1983, Steven Spielberg’s “E.T.” — for my money, the greatest children’s movie ever made, one that encapsulates all of our childhood fantasies of the unknown and all of our anxieties about growing up — was beaten out for Best Picture by Richard Attenborough’s starched, proper and mostly interminable biopic “Gandhi.”
The bigger issue at work against “Toy Story 3,” though, is the animated factor — and the unavoidable truth that most actors (who make up the largest portion of the Academy) simply don’t want to face. Whether they like it or not, the future of cinema is going to be digital; the true innovations and surprises are going to happen inside of a computer.
Sure, there’s no replacing the pure shock waves that can be set off by an unexpected, unforgettable performance by a flesh-and-blood performer — Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men, for instance, or Natalie Portman this year in “Black Swan.” But we also need to pay heed to the achievements of animators and digital effects artists, and the sheer elasticity and invention of what they’ve been putting on screen in recent years.
(And lest you think the prejudice just centers on kiddie flicks: Arguably this year’s biggest Oscar snub was Christopher Nolan’s failutre to earn a Best Director nomination for “Inception.” On some level, Academy voters seem to fear movies in which the effects are bigger stars than Leonardo DiCaprio or Marion Cottillard.)
The greatest irony of all this: In terms of pure storytelling, “Toy Story 3” may be the most old-fashioned movie up for the big prize. Indeed, even more than the final 10 minutes, the sequence that sticks with me most in the film is the one where we learn the dark and tortured back story of Lotso (ingeniously voiced by Ned Beatty). This ruthless heavy was once a very literal softie, until his owner accidentally left him behind at a rest stop and then thoughtlessly replaced him with another Lotso bear.

Ardnt and the Pixar team
My guess is that the Oscar-nominated screenwriter, Michael Arndt, has gobbled up his fair share of Victorian novels, with their late-breaking revelations about seemingly one-dimensional villains. He employs some of the oldest tricks in the screenwriter handbook, but by placing those narrative tropes in the service of a group of animated toys — and then investing the toys with unabashedly deep emotion — Arndt and the Pixar team make it all feel completely new and original.
The result is something that no other American film achieved as fully in 2010. To borrow the title of another youth-oriented, effects-driven movie that never got the Oscar love it deserved, “Toy Story 3” perfected the art of taking us back to the future.

Coen brothers up for another Oscar this weekend

I’ve appreciated Joel and Ethan Coen’s films since I was a teenager. From “Blood Simple” to “No Country For Old Men.” I gave a standing ovation when they won Best Film and Best Director Oscars for the latter. But “True Grit,” their remake of the John Wayne movie up for an Academy Award on Sunday, just didn’t do it for me.

Its characters were phenomenal, Hailee Seinfeld’s performance is Oscar-worthy, but the ending was too abrupt, not to mention the seemingly low budget effects they used during Jeff Bridges’ heroic scene at the end. But these are my only criticisms, and I rarely have any when it comes to their work. I think “True Grit” is worth the Oscar nomination, but I don’t think it necessarily deserves to or will win. But I may stand corrected on Sunday.

Here’s a Q and A with the Coen brothers, if you’re as into them as I am, you might enjoy it.

Minnesota director brothers could win another Oscar

By Joe Williams
McClatchy News

Joel and Ethan Coen have written, directed and produced some of the smartest and most iconic movies of the modern era, from cult comedies such as “Raising Arizona” and “The Big Lebowski” to Oscar-winning crime thrillers such as “Fargo” and “No Country for Old Men.”

Now the Coens have the biggest hit of their careers with “True Grit,” a Western remake that is nominated for 10 Academy Awards, including three for the brothers’ disparate duties.

We recently spoke by phone with Joel (the taller and older one who is married to actress Frances McDormand) and Ethan (a poet and short-story writer) about the craft of turning words into movies.

Q: Until “O Brother, Where Art Thou,” which you cheekily co-credited to the Greek poet Homer, all of your scripts were original ideas. But then you adapted an existing story for “Intolerable Cruelty,” and “The Ladykillers” was a remake of a classic British comedy, and you won a slew of Academy Awards for “No Country for Old Men,” which was based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy. Now you’ve done “True Grit,” which is a remake of a John Wayne Western that was based on a Charles Portis novel. Why did you choose that project?

Joel Coen: We had both read the novel many years ago, when we were in college, as well as several other novels by Charles Portis. Then, a few years ago, we reread it and were really taken by the humor and by the voice of this 14-year-old girl who narrates it. We thought, “This is something we haven’t seen before.” Of course, we had seen the original movie with John Wayne when we were kids, but that seemed so distant in our memory, while the novel seemed so fresh. It’s a very lean revenge story, with three characters pursuing some interesting bad guys. The lines are very clean.

Q: Every character in “True Grit” is a kind of horse trader, from the bounty hunters to the frontier dentist to the lady who runs the boarding house and charges Mattie a nickel for a sack to carry her dead father’s gun. There’s even an actual horse trader who gets outwitted by Mattie. Is that a theme that you developed in the script?

Ethan Coen: It’s even stronger in the book. On almost every page, Mattie talks about the price of provisions or how she negotiated a deal. Everybody is pursuing their own interests. The agendas of Marshal Cogburn and Mattie and the Texas Ranger LaBoeuf are close but not identical. So there’s an interesting friction between the three of them.

Q: Even the roughest characters in “True Grit” have a distinctively colorful way of speaking, with no lazy, modern slang or contractions. Was that part of your design?

Joel Coen: That’s very much taken from the novel. According to the research that we had done, that’s probably pretty close to the way people spoke in Arkansas and Texas a century ago.

Ethan Coen: A funny thing happened on the set. Occasionally a contraction would slip by and an actor would come up to us and confess that he had said “can’t” instead of “cannot,” and we’d have to shoot the scene again. So sometimes the contraction police were nodding off.

Joel Coen: As filmmakers, you have to make some really tough stylistic choices. Sometimes you see films that take place in a foreign country, and everybody talks in what John Hurt called “the foreign chappy accent” as opposed to actually speaking the various languages. They best thing to do is a “Quest for Fire” thing or what Mel Gibson did in “The Passion of the Christ” and “Apocalypto” with those ancient languages. That helps you go into that world and creates a stronger sense of the period and the culture.

Ethan Coen: Unless you’re Mel Brooks making “A History of the World.”

Joel Coen: When the movie is “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin,” which is set in Italy during World War II, and everyone is speaking English, that’s a problem.

Ethan Coen: In “Where Eagles Dare,” Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood are Americans behind the lines in Nazi Germany, and at some point they have to switch from speaking English to speaking German _ because, of course, all clever American soldiers speak fluent German. So what they do for the benefit of the audience is speak English in a German accent!

Q: You were both born in the ‘50s in Minnesota. Where did you see movies like the original “True Grit”?

Joel Coen: Most of the movies we watched were on late-night television. But there was the Cooper Cinerama, which was built around 1962, where we saw high-end epics like “How the West Was Won.” And there were places in downtown Minneapolis like the State and the Orpheum that showed the latest Hollywood films.

Ethan Coen: That was before multiplexes, when theaters only had one screen and movies were movies.

For more on the Coens and “True Grit,” here’s an NPR interview.

Coming to a screen near you

Just around the corner is the Oscars, which is the holy grail for movie-lovers. It marks the end of the award season, and Hollywood gets dolled up to hit the red carpet. This is my SuperBowl, likely because it sparks an interest in many to talk about the contenders, winners, losers and cinema. And this is one of my favorite parts of film.

My intention for this blog is to create a space for discussion about movies, television, theater and the occasional bit of pop culture. I’m no David Bianculli or Bob Mondello (of NPR), but there’s rarely a time when I’m not quoting films or comparing real-life situations to something from a TV show (which probably makes me a bit of a freak.)

So this is a call to arms of other “freaks” like me, let’s talk about movies. I’m going to be featuring a lot of Oscars-related content this week, mainly reads that we won’t get in the Grand Forks Herald. I’ve attached a PDF of the Oscar ballot, so we can all vote Sunday during the show. And for anyone who has any tips on how to throw an Oscars party, please feel free to post them.

Here’s the pilot featuring some other “freaks” like me. Every time I hear the song, “Lady” from Styx, I think of Jason Segel awkwardly singing it in this show or The Dan Band inserting expletives in “Old School.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvdML61YKM