Stop Handing in Good Performances and Make me a Sandwich!

The other day, I was on one of my favorite sites Feministing, a site devoted to, you guessed it feminism. On the side, it had a video rant towards the Academy Awards. Curious, I checked it out, and all I can say is that I now see a whole new light. The video talks about gender segregation and the Oscars, something that never really seemed apparent to me. However, the video did address some important issues, especially how male and female actors are split in two. Though I will still watch the Oscars ever so devotedly, I still do feel that splitting the acting up and keeping males and females on the other side of the velvet rope. However, I have decided to issue an official response.

The Best Actor/Actress awards are intended to honor actors of both sexes which is not intended to be degrading to women or keep them away from the big boys. However, since the Oscars were established, this category has been gender segregated. This, to be is both good and bad. While it may honor the males and females that truly stood out from the rest, the actress Oscars not only are given out in the middle of the ceremony, but also, parts when it comes to males have been, shall we say better then women's parts. Feministing makes this point clear, and though it is unfair, it has been true. Men haven't been honored for playing a prostitute and men who get ugly don't get a guaranteed Oscar. Maybe because Hollywood loves to honor women who instead of playing wimpy and glamorous angels decide to look less flattering or have a drug problem, or they are a cheap prostitute. However, while women tend to get more roles where they "dirty" themselves up, women have also gotten recognized for their brave performances that show that they are strong and empowered. Jane Wyman won for her role as a deaf/mute woman who was raped, not for some wishy-washy Lifetime movie of the week material movie. She played such a brave part in 1948, not 2008.

Another thing I find fascinating is also as time goes on, more and more women are being recognized for their performances, roles that are truly roles that some would maybe consider role model material. Take Ellen Page, a spunky 21 year old who was the apple of the critic's eye in her role as a pregnant teenager in Juno. Cate Blanchett has been nominated two times as Queen Elizabeth, a queen who never married and was also a strong believer in what was best for her kingdom.

But would they win while up against male performances? The answer is probably no.

As long as the awards have been around, sexism has seeped through the glamorous and star filled Academy Awards ceremony. In the 20's, the only thing women could get recognized for doing was the Best Actress. Other then that, women would never in a million years receive an award for doing a "man's" job. Case in point, Barbara Streisand directs and acts in and produces The Prince of Tides. She is nominated for Best Picture and the film itself gets 7 important nominations. Notably absent is...Best Director! As Billy Crystal best said, "Did the film just direct itself?" Fast forward today, women are nominated for many awards that are gender neutral. 3 of the five Best Screenplay nominees were women and Diablo Cody won the award. Sofia Coppola was nominated for Best Director for her beautiful and moving Lost in Translation. But still, when it comes to acting. More men are noticed then women. So if men and women were both up to the same plate, men, as always would most like triumph.

Another noteworthy observation, the Best Actress Oscar is given out earlier in the night, right along with the boring and lesser known awards. Why exactly is that? While watching the award getting handed to Cotillard, I only noticed the earliness of it all. My comment, "If Best Actress is awarded before 10:30, the final award of next year's Oscars will most likely be Best Documentary: Short Subject." Getting the important stuff out of the way first seems like a lousy way to award those individuals who were talented.

In conclusion, I think that while it may be gender segregated, the acting awards are put for some kind of semi purpose. Men and Women each year deliver outstanding performances and should be rightfully awarded. And since you can't really award both and leave both sexes happy, then what is there to do? For now, it is just going to stay the way it is.

Blood Fued: An editorial on who deserves Best Picture of 2007

VS







Since the time I reviewed No Country for Old Men, I had mentioned that sadly, I had not seen There Will Be Blood, but I had wanted to see it. Well, seeing as it was playing within a few minutes from where I lived, I decided that Friday night I would see There Will Be Blood. Well, I have now seen both that are the main attractions for Best Picture, and frankly, from what it looks, the two that have a chance. I'm sorry to Juno, Atonement, and Michael Clayton, but from what it looks, one of these two has a good chance of winning Best Picture. But then again, everyone thought the overrated and in my humble opinion insulting movie, Brokeback Mountain would win. (My displeasure comes from the theme of infidelity, nothing to do with the tragedy of their repressed emotions.) But since I have seen both of the popular choices, I will throw my dice and predict a winner. Drum roll please...

My Choice for the 2008 Oscars for Best Picture is: No Country For Old Men.

Why No Country, you ask? Well, first let me explain:

See, I liked There Will Be Blood, don't get me wrong. I felt it was a one of a kind movie, in some parts. However, when compared to No Country I feel that it has less going for it. Parts of Blood to me felt like they dragged, especially the middle part. It seemed like nothing really happened to the characters, the action took a while to come, but still it wasn't really building up anything. When the film was ready to get back on its feet and regain my interest, they cut to a flashback! Ten years later, Plainview is rich and a total wreck, but how he comes to be is not explained. What bothers me even more is the fact that the middle part of the movie was dull, but in places still pretty good. But if a movie is dull in places, I don't always mind, but in Blood's case, it needed to tell the story, and also wrap itself up and cover enough ground. With the middle of the movie, Plainview is looking for oil, and he gets so wrapped up in it, he spirals out of control. When the end nears(Which I won't spoil) he is a corrupt and unlikable tycoon, a monster. The power he has consumed has driven him mad and now he was just at the deep end. But as I said before, how? How did he get to be this way? How did he get rich?

The fact that Anderson dives deep down into the more boring bits of the movie and less in how time will go by bothered me. The transitions were sloppily done, time would change, but why we'll never know. I'm ashamed to heavily criticize a movie I initially liked. But, in my opinion, Blood was too long and showed the wrong parts of the story.

Compared to No Country, Blood is simply a morality tale about how greed consumes us and makes us crazy. This isn't enough to really carry a movie at times. What Country does is start with an intense first five minutes that lay the ground work for the movie. It doesn't drag on too long, it doesn't fail much to deliver action, and though out the movie, we watch as a pulse pounding cat and mouse game unfolds. Though I will say that towards the end it lost a bit of momentum and the style that it had in the beginning.

Though this may be, though I might have preferred one movie to another, that still doesn't mean that my favorite will necessarily win, but in this case, it has a better shot. No Country will win because it doesn't take too long to get the story going, it doesn't have moments that are too long or boring. What might throw voters off with picking Blood is that a half an hour could have been chopped off of the movie. A good portion that stayed that didn't necessarily add much to the story, at least from what I saw. The academy will be looking for which movie has more going for it, which tells its story the best, and which one is more well liked. Since it seems that No Country applies for the majority of those, I will take a guess that come tonight, Joel and Ethan Coen will be standing on the stage, accepting the much deserved award for their haunting and brilliant movie. And if not, then whatever. Predictions aren't 100% accurate, but still, they can foreshadow the winner to come.

Worn With Age and Time

No Country for Old Men
Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
Year: 2007
Starring: Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem,
Tommy Lee Jones and Woody Harrelson.

Seeing as the Oscars are on Sunday, and I sadly have no really commented on the picks of the race, I figured I'll make due with what little time I have and share my input on one of the films that was the best of 2007. Sadly, I have not seen some of the picks(There Will Be Blood, Diving Bell...,Etc.) But anyways, let the review begin.

We open No Country For Old Men with Anton Chigurh(A fierce Javier Bardem) being whisked away by a police officer. He is taken to the station and to be locked up when he manages to escape, but not easily. Chigurh is a cold, unforgiving character, he shows no fear, no hesitation, he will kill if he has to kill. He is probably the dictionary definition of Bad Ass, if you looked it up. Not only is he a psychopath, but he also won't take no for an answer.

Fast forward to Llewelyn Moss(Josh Brolin) a simple man who is out hunting when he stumbles upon the aftermath of s shoot out. Many men are dead, there is a substantial amount of heroin among the premise, and also 2 million dollars. Somehow, Chigurh and Moss are connected. Both want the money, and both will do what it takes to keep the other from getting it. Only Chigurh is equipped with better weaponry, most notably a captive bolt pistol. The kind of weapon used on cattle before they are slaughtered. Llewelyn has a wife to care about, and he desperately wants her to be safe. However, he is very secretive about the $2 million, and also very protective of it.

Also in the mix is Ed Tom Bell(A worn Tommy Lee Jones) the man who is on both of their tails. Like the deserts of Texas, Bell is old and ready to let the wind carry him away. He is dry, but good at his game. With age comes wisdom, as the saying goes. Watching his screen presence is haunting, here we have a man who is nearing retirement, he is tired and in need of some rest, but also he wants to do the right thing and serve justice.

Despite some of its flaws, No Country is an aching movie, full of emotion and energy, and at times, pretty damn scary. Most notably one scene where the two are at a cheap hotel and see each other semi face to face. Also, the film has a few moments that are definite Coen Bros moments. And while parts might be dark and haunting, it actually has quite a few moments that are humorous or witty.

Still, one thing that is also on my mind, as well as almost everyone else who saw it is the ending. I won't give it away, but I will say that it is the kind of thing that you need to take some time to think about. Though I will admit, I was, along with many members of the audience, kind of pissed off and surprised at its abruptness. Though I wasn't one of the people who groaned or exclaimed, "What the hell?!" I could see their stance. However, according to a friend who read the book, it is a more satisfying conclusion if you've read the source material.

Again, having not seen Blood or some other popular Oscar choices, I will just say that until proven otherwise, this was one of my favorites. It was the kind of movie that was not only well done, but also a true achievement. And even though it is mostly gone from theaters and not on DVD, I'd still recommend popping Fargo into your DVD player and watching one of the best from the Coen Bros. You won't regret it.

As Real as a Doll Can Get

Lars and the Real Girl
Year: 2007
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer
and Patrica Clarkson.

Before I review Lars, let me say this:

Even though this movie may not be too new, it came out last year, so why review it now? It's not in theaters, the only thing buzzed about it is its ONE nomination. But I still can't get this movie off of my mind. It's killing me, I feel if I don't give this movie the phrase it deserves, then who will?
Lars, which if you read a synopsis may sound like the new Judd Apatow movie. Guy falls in love with a sex doll. Hilarious, right? And yes, it's very funny in places, but that's not the part about it I'll remember. What gets me, what really has brought me to review this movie is that it is a moving fable. Sure, it's not the greatest indie movie of the season, but still it's a movie that did not really come across to many audiences. It was well reviewed, but people seemed to avoid this one. I was lucky to manage to see it at my local movie theater and was able to watch such a uniquely beautiful movie.

What Lars does is show life through our main character's eyes, how what he sees is normal, while his brother sees this as him going insane. Lars never really had a mother, she died shortly after childbirth, so it was him, his father and brother, Gus. Eventually, getting sick of being surrounded by depression, Gus split and left Lars with their melancholy father. Gus constantly feels he is to blame for his brother's irregular behavior and his obsession with this doll. So to him, this doll is a normal girlfriend. What also keeps this movie great is the fact that it can have a character that is a life sized sex doll, steal the scene. What makes scenes involving Bianca, the name of the doll as picked by Lars, so funny is that she says nothing but since Lars has her alive in his mind, she is technically real.

An important point the movie brings up is what you are supposed to do with such an oddball like Lars? You could react like the following: a) Treat him like a mental patient or b) Treat his new "girlfriend" like Lars does.

So enough about the points it brings up, here's the fully story behind Lars:

When we meet Lars, he is a socially awkward boy in the body of a young man. He hasn't really grown up, he is afraid to be touched by others, he will occasionally walk away whenever his comfort level is jeopardized and he also strays away from achieving a social life. But as soon as a guy at work(More like Perverted Cubicle buddy) tells him about this Real Doll site, Lars(Played with extraordinary emotion by Ryan Gosling) soon after orders a doll. As mentioned by another reviewer, part of the story is odd because he orders the doll himself, so he kind of knows what he's in for. But still, it doesn't affect the movie at all.

As I mentioned before, his brother, Gus(Paul Schneider) and his pregnant wife, Karin(A wonderful Emily Mortimer, despite a couple slip ups with her British Accent) react differently. At first, they are completely dumbfounded. You can see it in their faces that they are disturbed not only by the fact that Lars has befriended a doll, but while sitting in her whorish clothes, Lars claims she is a missionary.

The two both come to an agreement, they send Lars to the local doctor because they want to help him become detached to this inanimate object, but they tell Lars it is because Bianca looks ill and needs to be checked up on. Through the many visits, Dr. Dagmar(One of my favorite actresses Patrica Clarkson) Lars starts to mature and grow a bit. He is less awkward, he allows people to be closer to him, he even takes up an invite to bowl with the cute girl from his office who has a mad crush on him, Margo.(An irresistible Kelli Garner) But as the movie goes on, Bianca's health worsens, but her connection with the town grows stronger. The many people who participate in loving Bianca really care for Lars, so they show this by helping Bianca get accustomed to their town and gain a social life. Who knew a doll could be elected on the School board?

What struck me the most was the final act of the movie, where Lars grows up and decides to leave his childish things behind. It's sad and ultimately hard for a man to say goodbye to a doll you spent the beginning of the movie growing fond of. The sweetest part for me was how the town loved him and stuck by him and his doll. So you can't help but feel an ounce of remorse for the central character.

The script, written by Nancy Oliver who wrote for "Six Feet Under" (My Favorite Show) is full of love and emotion and the actors show their 3-dimensionality in their behavior and their actions. Only Oliver could take a story such as this and turn it into an aching work of brilliance, how something that could be played one way goes in the opposite direction.

The scene I love most is when Margo finds one of her stuffed bears hung with cable cord by Lars' cubicle mate after his action figures were stolen by Margo. To help her, Lars begins to resuscitate and bring the bear back to life. Not because he thinks its real, but because he wants Margo to laugh. In a few minutes we learn that Lars knows what is real and what is not, and he has matured from the beginning of the movie. Now, he is growing up, and is able to both leave things behind and keeps others close to his heart. And that is what I walked away with.