Farewell, Oprah

Today, Beyonce, Diane Sawyer, Michael Jordan, Tom Cruise, Madonna and a crowd of 13,000 helped say goodbye to Oprah Winfrey during the double-episode farewell taping of her TV show, which will air at the end of the month.

Oprah announced in 2009 that she’d retired her show this year, and the date is set for May 25. I’m among the many who have been moved to tears by her talk show or cracked open a paperback touting the “Oprah’s book club” stamp. Oprah’s been at it since before I was born, and the end of the show marks the end of an era.

OPRAH, WELL-WISHERS

Looking through today’s photos, I wish I’d won one of the lottery tickets Harpo Enterprises gave away to attend. Tom Hanks emceed, Aretha Franklin sang “Amazing Grace,” Beyonce danced it out, Usher did his thing, Steve Wonder rocked the piano, Kristin Chenoweth Broadway-ed the audience with a song from “Wicked,”  and those are only the a few of the entertainment acts. Seeing all of these celebrities and reading about the huge turnout in attendance, it’s clear her farewell is an event in itself.

Many people might have mixed emotions about Oprah leaving, but I share the same opinion as this woman:

Bessie Carroll, 70, of Chicago came to the show with her daughter. “I think we’ve gotten everything we could have and more than we should have from her,” Carroll said. “If she feels it’s time to go, we have to release her and let her enjoy her life.”

Reading up on Oprah, I’m reminded that she’s a force of nature, and a woman like that knows when to say goodbye.

The farewell episodes will air May 23-24. Click here to read the full Herald article and here to read more about Oprah Winfrey.

Writers Conference showcases some great films this year

UND’s 42nd annual Writers Conference begins today with the theme, “Inter(national) Affairs.” I’m thrilled to see what’s planned as well as this year’s movie list, which includes CASABLANCA, THE LIVES OF OTHERS and THE VISITOR.  Here’s a preview of the conference and a schedule.

CASABLANCA

The first film of the week is CASABLANCA, a classic starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid. I’d seen it years ago, but recently re-watched it on the big screen at the Empire Arts Center. What struck me the second time around was the writing: the dialogue was so well-developed as well as the story. It won Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay at the Oscars in 1942. CASABLANCA will be shown at 6 tonight in the Memorial Union Lecture Bowl. If you haven’t seen it, here’s the trailer. They just don’t make ‘em like they used to, but this year’s conference features two exceptions.

THE VISITOR

THE VISITOR stars Richard Jenkins (the dad from HBO’s SIX FEET UNDER). It’s written and directed by Thomas McCarthy, (whose new film, WIN WIN with Paul Giamatti and Amy Ryan *should* be in GF theaters soon). It’s about a professor who arrives at his New York apartment to find two illegal immigrants living there. This encounter changes him, filling his life with priceless lessons of hope and hardship. (It’s so good!) THE VISITOR will be shown at 6 p.m. Thursday in the Memorial Union Lecture Bowl. Here’s the trailer.

THE LIVES OF OTHERS

This last film I’ll preview won’t be shown until Friday, but it’s so worth seeing. THE LIVES OF OTHERS won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language film in 2007. It’s set in East Berlin, five years before the Wall fell, and focuses on a member of the Stasi (the Ministry for State Security). An author’s allegiance is questioned by the higher-ups, and a top interrogator is put on special assignment to survey him. I don’t want to say too much, but watching this opens your eyes to a different type of tyranny that took place in Germany.  This movie has an ending that is so powerful in its simplicity, I cry every time I watch it. I think anyone who sees this will walk away a little more aware of past international hardship and a little more hopeful in the effects art can have on the human spirit. (That sounds like a wide range, I sound a bit lame, but this movie is profound.) If you don’t make it Friday, I’ll loan you my DVD. THE LIVES OF OTHERS will be shown at 1:30 p.m. Friday. Here’s the trailer.

I haven’t seen the other films featured during the Writers Conference this year, but if they’re anything like these three, I look forward to seeing ‘em.

Here’s a list of the films. All will be shown in the Memorial Union Lecture Bowl. Hope to see you there or at any of the other many events during this year’s conference.

TODAY
*6 p.m.: Film, “Casablanca.”

WEDNESDAY
2 p.m.:
Film: “Live From Bethlehem.”
6 p.m.:
Film, “Witnesses.”

THURSDAY
2 p.m.:
Film, “Bamako.”
*6 p.m.:
Film, “The Visitor.”

FRIDAY
*1:30 p.m.: Film, “The Lives of Others.”
6 p.m.: Film, “Sugar Cane Alley.”

Battle: Los Angeles, the Cloverfield wannabe of the West Coast

If you’re into alien/apocolyptic/war/action movies, BATTLE: LOS ANGELES is right up your alley. However, with all that’s going on in Japan, you might not need this. (I went to Thursday’s midnight showing and came home to news and video of the earthquake/tsunami aftermath.) But if you’re curious, here goes.

The film’s pretty simple. Aaron Eckhart debuts as an action hero, Marines never quit and aliens steal our water supply to power their ships. There were several nationalistic themes.

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES

The troops go in full force, against an enemy not yet identified, and with no idea how to defeat them. (Parallels?) The enemy turns out to be aliens (that look worse than M. Night Shyamalan’s in SIGNS) by a director with a die-hard crush on (THE HURT LOCKER’S) Kathyrn Bigelow. Poetic close-ups of rubble juxtaposed with CG alien spacecrafts, oh my!  Our soldiers discover a way to defeat them: by, you guessed it, destroying the alien mothership that is the base communication for the unmanned aerial spacecrafts.

At one point, I felt like it was the wannabe CLOVERFIELD of the West Coast with all of its many hand-held shots. This may just mean the director did his homework in regard to money-making war/alien/sci fi flicks — which seemed to do the trick. The LA times reported this movie won “the weekend count with an estimated $36 million.”

All in all, it was a very brief release from reality. I had issues with some of the plot points, dialogue and effects, but you can’t really go into a movie like this with huge expectations. It did a great job of personalizing American soldiers, for which it can’t be faulted. My heart ached for their sacrifice, and despite some of its inconsistencies, this movie made me feel pride for the U.S., and perhaps, that’s just the message the writer, director intended….or maybe I drew from it what I could. Either way, if you’re curious, it’s worth a matinee or a Netflix instant play.

Here’s the trailer.

Monday mix: Don Draper on 30 Rock

For those of us who suffer from a case of the Mondays, I’m starting a series of Monday posts that feature a clip that might brighten your day. Here’s a clip from 30 ROCK , season 4. If any of you are familiar with Jon Hamm from AMC’s MAD MEN, you’ll really appreciate this because he gets to be goofy, which is very non-Don Draper-esque. So often during MAD MEN flashbacks, I feel like Don Draper smiling is almost creepy because it seems so unnatural for his character. It’s a delight to see Jon Hamm make guest appearances on 30 ROCK because you can tell he’s having fun.

In this clip, Mad man Don Draper, does one heck of a Jamaican accent. And Jason Sudeikis, as always, is comedy gold.

Bette Davis, wowza

DAVIS

Lately, I’ve been dipping into a lot of classic movies starring Bette Davis: “Now, Voyager,” “The Letter,” “Hush … Hush Sweet Charlotte,” “The Star,” and the topper, “All About Eve,” which is tied with “Titanic” for the most Oscar nominations of all time. I’d always heard about Bette Davis and her turbulent relationship with Warner Bros. and her rivalry with Joan Crawford, but I wanted to check out her acting chops for myself … and she’s wonderful.

BACALL

One thing that amazes me about classic movie stars is their looks. Women like Davis and Lauren Bacall are so unique in their beauty. Davis’ large eyes (that inspired a pop song decades later) and Bacall’s striking eye brows and high cheek bones. They’re looks are distinctive. (I remember seeing them portrayed in old cartoons along with Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable.)

Bette Davis was sleek and intense, and she broke barriers for women in Hollywood. If you’re interested in taking a look at Oscar-worthy writing, acting and direction, check out “All About Eve.” The film takes a look at the ins, outs and  cut-throat nature of theater, and in turn, Hollywood.

I saw a lot of parallels between “Eve” and “Being Julia,” starring Annette Bening (who was nominated by the Academy for Best Actress in this role.) Both films reveal the backward deals and revenge that come with reaching the top. (Spoiler alert:) I feel “Julia” was more triumphant: the heroine gets her payback and continues to rule in her craft, but in “Eve,” the ruthless ingenue succeeds – but what awaits her is an upcoming actress, much like her former self. We never see Eve get her payback, but the vicious cycle is made clear.

If you’re feeling up for classic themes or superior acting, I would recommend either of these movies or nearly any movie by Bette Davis. Next up for me is “Jezebel,” a film where Davis won her second and final Academy Award, though she had nine nominations to boot.

Here’s Kim Carnes singing “Bette Davis Eyes.”

Charlie Sheen one-ups the Oscars

The Oscars. Most of the banter Monday was about Melissa Leo dropping the F bomb during her lengthy acceptance speech for best supporting actress in “The Fighter,” Kirk Douglas’ appearance as a presenter, and Charlie Sheen … who was not nominated for an Academy Award, but was interviewed on the Today Show Monday morning, and his outlandish behavior is upstaging Oscar talk, unfortunately.

SHEEN

To catch you up, CBS canceled Sheen’s TV show, “Two and a Half Men,” due to his recent public behavior, which included calling out the show’s creator, Chuck Lorre. Sheen is now demanding CBS publicly apologize “while licking his feet.”

When asked how long he’s been clean, Sheen simply stated “drugs tests don’t lie.” This was also his answer to the interviewer’s question: “When was the last time you did drugs?” Sheen replied: “I don’t know. I don’t care. Drug tests don’t lie. Score boards don’t lie.” It’s my understanding that recovering addicts know to the hour how long they’ve been clean, but you can make up your own mind. He seemed to be high on something, but according to Charlie Sheen, he was high on a drug called … Charlie Sheen. (Comedian Patton Oswalt posted this on Twitter: David Simon needs to do a 6th season of THE WIRE, where Marlo and his crew start selling Charlie Sheen on the corners.)

So enough about Charlie, his rant and his alleged sobriety. The Oscars were sort of ho-hum. I watched the awards show with several who loved James Franco’s dead-pan humor. It didn’t work for me, and Anne Hathaway was really endearing, cute and sweet, but that didn’t work for me either despite her many wardrobe changes. Oscar hosts should be more commanding. Let’s get Alec Baldwin back. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate these actors and look forward to their work. In fact, I wondered if Franco was drafted to play the “dumb stoner,” which is a shame because he is anything but. He’s working on his MFA at Columbia University and recently finished filming his directorial debut movie.

FIRTH

The King’s Speech swept the big Oscar categories with wins for Best Picture, Best Director (Tom Hooper) and Best Actor (Colin Firth). I wondered if the Academy didn’t tip the scales for Firth as a compensation for last year’s loss for his role in “A Single Man.” (Jeff Bridges snagged it in 2009 for playing an over-the-hill country star battling alcoholism in “Crazy Heart.” If there was a time to split the gold statuette, last year would have been one of them.)

Many were surprised at Trent Reznor’s win for Best Original Score for “The Social Network” over Hans Zimmer for “Inception.” Christian Bale plugged Dick Ecklund’s website during his acceptance speech for best supporting actor in “The Fighter.” Some boos were heard in the crowd. Natalie Portman’s fiancee, Brian Millipied, helped her up the stairs to accept the Best Actress Oscar, a sweet assistance considering she’s pregnant. Her speech started beautifully and genuine, and I almost teared when she said she’s training for her most important role, as a mother.

PALTROW

Jennifer Hudson presented the award for Best Song, and the whole time she was on stage, I wanted her to tear it up with her power-house talent, but alas, she wasn’t there to sing. Randy Newman won his Nth Oscar for Best Song.  And later, I felt tense and empathetic during Gwyneth Paltrow’s performance of “Coming Home” from her movie, “Country Strong.” What an audience to perform for.

Here’s a list of winners at the 83rd Academy Awards, and here’s a photo gallery.

Let’s talk about the show, the winners, losers, hosts. What did you think about the event?

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.”

Oscar buzz catapults relative unknowns into spotlight

By John Anderson
Newsday

Oscar night is about glitz and dresses and famous people, but every now and then, relative unknowns get a ticket to the Academy Awards sweepstakes. They don’t usually win _ just being nominated, as they say, is honor enough (sob).

But they’re in the mix, which this year includes several performers who may not be well known now but likely will be soon. Here’s a who’s who:

Jacki Weaver

(Nominated for Best Supporting Actress for “Animal Kingdom”) To find the work of this extraordinary Australian actress invading American shores, one has to go back to 1975 and Peter Weir’s “Picnic at Hanging Rock,” which hardly called for the kind of latent evil Weaver brings to the role of Janine “Smurf” Cody, the monstrous matriarch of “Animal Kingdom.”

In first-time director David Michod’s socio-psycho-crime drama, Weaver is a smiling Mama Macbeth who manipulates her criminal brood with faux-mother love, her black hole of a heart and a creepy kiss on the lips for her murderous boys. “Smurf” prompts one to look for comparisons to other roles and performances. “Mommie Dearest” would spring to mind, if Joan Crawford had actually been homicidal. But Weaver’s Janine is apt to become the bad mother by which others are measured.

Born in New South Wales, Weaver has had an erratic career. Before her reappearance in 2007, she’d been inactive for 10 years. She has worked almost exclusively in Australia, largely on television, and the Oscar nomination is just one of many recognitions for her “Animal Kingdom” performance, and a large, and largely unsung, talent.

John Hawkes

(Nominated for Best Supporting Actor for “Winter’s Bone”) Hawkes is a kind of classic case, the character actor who kicks around in smaller parts until the perfect one kicks him into the big time. His nomination for the menacing crystal-meth addict Teardrop in “Winter’s Bone” is just one of the honors the 51-year-old performer is now getting after a career spent habituating horror movies (“Scary Movie”), studio productions (“The Perfect Storm”), standout indies (“Me and You and Everyone We Know”) and television (he was in “24” and “Lost” was Sol Star in HBO’s “Deadwood”).

Originally from Minnesota, and a musician as well as an actor, Hawkes will be seen in “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” which was well-received at the recent Sundance Film Festival. Hawkes plays a Charles Manson-inspired cult leader, a role for which his rawboned look and actorly intensity seemed a perfect fit.

Jennifer Lawrence

(Nominated for Best Actress for “Winter’s Bone”) After being pitched all manner of unsuitable performers, director Deborah Granik held her ground: The actress she wanted for “Winter’s Bone” and its leading Ozarkian character, Ree Dolly, didn’t have to be an unknown, but she had to be young. She had to be able to play American. And to sound American.

“And then Jennifer walked in,” Granik said, “a complete unknown. And from Kentucky, no less.” Not only that, she could act.

Lawrence was among the breakout success stories of 2010, after only about four years doing mostly television: She played a member of the Pearson family on “The Bill Engvall Show” (2007-09), made several appearances on “Medium” and appeared opposite Charlize Theron in “The Burning Plain.” But “Winter’s Bone” is her big moment and one that, in one regard at least, she’d like to leave behind.

Since her Oscar nomination, Lawrence has appeared only in the most flattering and glamorous photo layouts, ones that accentuate her rather considerable good looks and capacity to play other-than-Ree Dolly roles. Clearly, this is one woman who’s not intending to get pigeonholed.

Hailee Steinfeld

(Nominated for Best Supporting Actress for “True Grit”) Although the 14-year-old Californian should be the freshest face in the bunch, she’s actually been working as long as Jennifer Lawrence has. Although if you missed “Summer Camp,” or the single season of TV’s “Back to You,” you probably missed her.

Steinfeld isn’t even close to being the youngest best supporting actress nominee (Tatum O’Neal was 10 when she won; Anna Paquin was 11). But the young star of “True Grit,” in which she plays the self-possessed Mattie Ross, who hires Jeff Bridges’ Rooster Cogburn to find the man who killed her father, carries more of the film than most child stars are ever called upon to carry.

She might have been nominated for best actress, but in the realities of Oscar World, no kid is going to take it away from Natalie Portman, unless that kid is named Annette Bening. For all the doubt about Oscar strategies, however, there’s little doubt about the talents of Steinfeld, whose ferociously intelligent Mattie makes a pretty valiant stab at stealing the movie from her alcoholic, one-eyed saddle pal.

From obscurity to winner

It’s not uncommon for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to recognize great performances by relatively obscure performers. What’s rare is when those nominees actually get an Oscar. The following are a few winners who defied the odds, as well as some formidable competition. (The years designate that of a film’s release.)

COTILLARD

Marion Cotillard, Best Actress, “La Vie en Rose,” 2007. Anyone who actually saw Cotillard impersonate the late, great Edith Piaf felt justice was served, but since the film was in French, and the competition consisted of Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth: The Golden Age”), Julie Christie (“Away From Her”), Laura Linney (“The Savages”) and Ellen Page (“Juno”), it was something of a coup d’statuette.

BRODY

Adrien Brody, Best Actor, “The Pianist,” 2002. Brody was easily the least known of the competition that year (Nicolas Cage, Michael Caine, Daniel Day-Lewis and Jack Nicholson), but “The Pianist” was on a roll. Roman Polanski won best director nd many said, had the film better timed, it might have won best picture (which went to “Chicago”).

BENINGI

Roberto Benigni, Best Actor, “Life Is Beautiful,” 1998. He was so delighted he climbed over chairs; Oscar voters might have hid under them. Nevertheless, Benigni pulled off one of the great Oscar upsets by topping Tom Hanks (“Saving Private Ryan”), Ian McKellen (“Gods and Monsters”), Nick Nolte (“Affliction”) and Edward Norton (“American History X”).

FRICKER

Brenda Fricker, Best Supporting Actress, “My Left Foot,” 1989. Moviegoers may have known the work of the formidable Irish actress, but maybe not as well as they knew her competition — Anjelica Huston and Lena Olin (both for “Enemies: A Love Story”), Julia Roberts (“Steel Magnolias”) and Dianne Wiest (“Parenthood”).

NGOR

Haing S. Ngor, Best Supporting Actor, “The Killing Fields,” 1984. Ngor, a Cambodian doctor and author who died in 1996, played his countryman Dith Pran in Roland Joffe’s film and won out over Adolph Caesar (“A Soldier’s Story”), John Malkovich (“Places in the Heart”), Noriyuki “Pat” Morita (“The Karate Kid”) and Ralph Richardson (“Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes”).

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.

A look at one of last year’s nominees…

“Nine,” a few points shy of a perfect 10

I just finished “Nine” starring: Daniel Day Lewis, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren and Kate Hudson. Oh and Fergie. Big cast. Big names. Lotsa Oscar winners.

I felt like Rob Marshall, the director of Oscar winning Chicago, was trying to one-up himself, and the only way he could think to do it was to overload the roster with Oscar clout and talent. This worked against the project.

There was so much talent jam-packed into the movie and so little time for these stars to shine, but that didn’t seem like the worst part. None of the performances lived up to the clout and I think the fault lies with the genre. Other than Kidman, these actors live in the spotlight of dramatic features. Singing and dancing was the forte of none.

NINE

The story was OK: a once-groundbreaking director has a lot to prove after two flops at the box office. His new movie begins shooting in 10 days and he hasn’t yet written the screenplay. Midlife crisis is splayed with his entire sexual past interweaved with shout-outs to his dead mother. (Sure blame it on mom.) Daniel Day Lewis would have been a great pick had this just been a drama, but I felt like his Guido Italiano was an impersonation. I didn’t buy it, but I don’t think that was all on him.

The truth is that these superb dramatic actors rule in their realm, but lack in musical theater. This picture would have been better with broadway performers. Of course, Rob Marshall pulled it off (casting film actors in lead roles) with Chicago, even though Renee Zellweger didn’t have the gusto to pull off the character Roxy Hart, Marshall lucked out with a better score and Catherine Zeta-Jones stealing the show. The music in “Nine” wasn’t nearly as good, and during Kate Hudson’s number, I felt like Marshall was trying to channel a white Beyonce music video. And Marion Cotillard’s number about her re-emerging sexuality: a Victoria’s Secret ad.

Overall, I think the moral of the story was good. Day-Lewis’ character is obviously a pathological liar with a 10-year-old’s attitude, and to be great at his craft, he needed to embrace it. I can respect that. I think, for me, that’s the moral of the movie in its entirety. Embrace what you are, masters of dramatic cinema, because when you don’t, it fails as Guido did. I wanna end with punny word play like David Bianculli does, but I’m stuck on “the irony is music to my ears…