Showing posts with label Christopher Nolan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christopher Nolan. Show all posts

Monday, January 10, 2011

2010 Directors Guild Awards -- Predictions and nominees

I think I'll do this just like I'm doin' right now: hours before the announcement's made, I'll release my predictions. And then, afterwards, I'll dip in and include the eventual selections. Yep. This is what I'm doing for my predictions for 2010's Director's Guild Awards, to be announced later on today. These are, of course, the progenitors to the Oscar nominations. 'nuff said. My predictions for today's nominations are:

Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
David Fincher, The Social Network
Tom Hooper, The King's Speech
Christopher Nolan, Inception
David O. Russell, The Fighter

And the real nominees--just announced--are...


DARREN ARONOFSKY
Black Swan
(Fox Searchlight Pictures)
Mr. Aronofsky’s Directorial Team:
· Unit Production Manager: Jennifer Roth
· First Assistant Director: Joseph Reidy
· Second Assistant Director: Amy Lauritsen
· Second Second Assistant Director: Travis Rehwaldt
· Location Manager: Ronnie Kupferwasser
This is Mr. Aronofsky’s first DGA Feature Film Award Nomination.

DAVID FINCHER
The Social Network
(Columbia Pictures)
Mr. Fincher’s Directorial Team:
· Unit Production Manager: JoAnn Perritano
· First Assistant Director: Bob Wagner
· Second Assistant Director: Allen Kupetsky
· Second Second Assistant Director: Maileen Williams
This is Mr. Fincher’s second DGA Feature Film Award nomination. He was previously nominated for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button in 2008. He previously won the DGA Commercial Award for Speed Chain (Nike), Gamebreakers (Nikegridiron.com), and Beauty for Sale (Xelibri Phones) in 2003 and was nominated in that category again in 2008.

TOM HOOPER
The King’s Speech
(The Weinstein Co.)
Mr. Hooper’s Directorial Team:
· Production Manager: Erica Bensly
· First Assistant Director: Martin Harrison
· Second Assistant Director: Chris Stoaling
This is Mr. Hooper’s first DGA Feature Film Award Nomination. He was previously nominated for the DGA Award for Movies for Television/Miniseries for John Adams in 2008.

CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
Inception
(Warner Bros. Pictures)
Mr. Nolan’s Directorial Team:
· Unit Production Manager: Jan Foster
· First Assistant Director: Nilo Otero
· Second Assistant Director: Brandon Lambdin
· Second Second Assistant Director: Greg Pawlik
· Additional Second Assistant Director: Lauren Pasternack
This is Mr. Nolan’s third DGA Feature Film Award nomination. He was previously nominated for The Dark Knight in 2008 and for Memento in 2001.

DAVID O. RUSSELL
The Fighter
(Paramount Pictures and The Weinstein Co.)
Mr. Russell’s Directorial Team:
· Unit Production Manager: Mark Kamine
· First Assistant Director: Michele Ziegler
· Second Assistant Director: Xanthus Valan
· Second Second Assistant Director: Timothy Blockburger
This is Mr. Russell’s first DGA Feature Film Award nomination.

AWRIGHT! Five for five.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Film #133: Inception

It is difficult to transmit how much stress Inception caused me--and no doubt others--before seeing it. But I'll try.


Back when The Dark Knight was vying for a Best Picture Oscar, Kristopher Tapley, of In Contention, and I had a terrible, too-nasty (I love his site) quarrel about the merits of that film, directed by Christopher Nolan. You can see my opinions of that film here. Kris and I, on his website, went round and round on the merits of the Batman sequel, and even now, I remain unconvinced of its quality (even though I have always admitted that (a) I love Heath Ledger's performance and (b) I really enjoy Batman Begins).

Our argument turned way-too-mean, and I eventually apologized to him (though he did not to me, as is his right and wont), but I was truthful in steadfastly believing that The Dark Knight would not receive a Best Picture nomination. No sequel had ever gotten such a nod without its original getting a like nomination, no matter how much the public complained, so the possibility was out of the question. And when The Reader "stole" the nomination from The Dark Knight (I maintained that it "stole" it from The Fall), I turned out to be correct.

But Kris and his fellow fans ultimately were correct. In the following year, reacting to the Dark Knight snub, the Academy decided to expand the list of Best Picture nominees--for the first time since the 1940s--to ten nominees. This, instantly, made The Dark Knight into one of the most influential movies of all time. After all, no one was crying over the fact that the superior but less-seen Wendy and Lucy or The Fall got cheated out of a nomination, not to mention any of the countless movies left out of the race beforehand. This decision was clearly arrived at because the insanely popular Dark Knight, even with eight nominations, got left out in the cold. The Academy, always looking for ratings to boost its boodle, had to respond.

And so The Dark Knight, as undeserving a film as it was (beyond a delivery device for Ledger's performance, which went on to win the movie's only Oscar), had made its mark. And this decision to expand the field, in lieu of this unjust movie, made me angry. So angry that I kept my hairy eye out for Nolan's next film, a film that was called Inception. And then, all each of us had to do was wait.


Nolan was careful. When his film was about to hit, he let only the people who loved his previous film take a look at it. What I mean by this is that he let only ONLINE critics--for now and always, a sci-fi, horror and genre-loving crowd--take a gander at it first. And, predictably, they all loved it. I was immediately suspicious, because, as a former sci-fi fan, I knew how this crowd could be. In my mind, they were going to love this thing no matter what.

So I waited. Waited for the first level-headed reviews. And David Edelstien, bless him, as wrong as he was, came first. I knew, deep down inside, that this was a movie to reckon with when his piece landed. And I felt sorry for Edelstien when he couldn't get with it. In fact, I took his review as a notation that I, myself, wouldn't able to get with it, either. I did, however, see Rex Reed's obviously mean-spirited and frankly stupid review of the film to be obvious bunk (that guy really need to retire--in fact, ouside of the NY Times' square Bosley Crowther and the New Yorker's hip Pauline Kael--a writer disliked by Kris Tapley, by the way--do movie reviewers EVER retire?).

Before I saw Inception, I read virtually no good reviews of it, and almost all middling or bad reviews of it. Frankly, in my mind, I was still battling Kris over The Dark Knight.

And when I sat my ass down in the very front rows of the Empire 25 on 42nd Street in NYC, with the 2nd week crowd crunching in on either side of me, after seeing the obviously different The Kids Are All Right and Winter's Bone, I was sure I was going to hate this movie.

And now, I can tell you. It only took five minutes, and this image:


and I was hooked. I never even questioned things later. There was something about all that water flowing in on this one man, overwhelming him--water, the stuff of life, is very important in this movie--and that's all it took. I gave myself over completely to Nolan's work, and kept on adoring it top to bottom (with Wally Phister's photography, Lee Smith's incisive editing, and Guy Dyas' gorgeous art direction in assistance).

I knew some things going in. This helped. When I saw Ken Watanabe in extreme old age makeup at the outset, I understood some things. Indeed, when I saw Leonardo DiCaprio's face first planted in the sand, I understood some things, too. With this, I knew that this is a movie that is spoiler-proof. In fact, spoilers might HELP the viewer, though I wouldn't necessarily wish them upon anyone.

Inception is a masterwork, a film of ideas, of emotion, of action and excitement, of character and believability. It is a film that left me with a feeling unlike any movie I have ever seen before,

I am a musician--a drummer--and after drumming, after practice, there is a certain sense with which your brain is buzzing. It's difficult to put into words, but it's a rapier sense that your brain has been putting mathematical equations into practical, definable, tonal use. Inception, with its insanely air-tight timing, is a film that exercises that very part of your brain. You need not be a musician to feel this; in other words, if you've ever wanted to experience what it feels like to play music, Inception is the movie for you (for sure, this is Hans Zimmer's most clever score). Now, what other movie in the history of movies has led you to feel this? It's a unique work.

I'm not going recount the plotting of Inception here. See it for yourself to get this. However, I am going to talk about other REVIEWERS' perceptions of the plot here. Here we are, almost a month after the film's debut, and even though Nolan's film has earned only a fraction of what it deserves at the box office (at this writing, about $215 million). Still, there's no need to talk about what the movie's about. If you're reading this, you already know.

Lemme take a look at David Edelstein's review primarily, because it's his that I defended BEFORE I HAD SEEN THE MOVIE. His first jab comes when he recounts some of the plot: "Why is an “inception” more difficult than an extraction? “The subject’s mind always knows the genesis of an idea. {True inspiration is impossible to fake.}” explains one character—which strikes my unoriginal and highly suggestible mind as dead wrong." However, the dialogue continues:

Cobb: That's not true.
Saito: (to Cobb) Can you do it?
Cobb: Are you offering me a choice? Because I can find my own way to square things with Kobold.
Saito: Then you do have a choice.
Cobb: Then I choose to leave, sir.

If you haven't seen the movie, then you don't know where we are. This proves that the movie is more detail-laden than your average (or, at least, this average) film review can cover. And thus it's instantly worth much more inspection than the average one-time film viewing can offer.


I'm not going to try and explain Inception here, either. Maybe I'll try that some time in the future. But, while watching it , getting all the nooks of the story takes away some of the fun you could have while watching it unfold on the big screen (which is where it NEEDS to be seen). I tried to explain what I thought Lynch meant with Mulholland Dr., and at the same time accepted what others thought the movie meant. And I refused to explain what Kubrick meant with 2001, though I know without a doubt what the movie means to me. That I lump Inception in with these two landmark films lets you know what I think of it (though, truthfully, it doesn't achieve absolute greatness to a degree matching those two cinema landmarks; let's don't go overboard, here).

Back to the bad reviews. I had absolutely no problem with the characterizations, as Edelstein did. DiCaprio gives his best, truly adult performance as Cobb (he may be dumb, or at least not very self-reflexive, but I forget the first name, unlike Mr. Edelstein; however, the first name may be important). DiCaprio has never seemed so insistant before. I have loved him in many films--and Edelstein praised him outright. However, even if you don's believe in this actor, he is indeed this work's persona.


Ellen Page delivers the film's most difficult role as the receptor of all rules with great aplomb; her wide eyes and determined delivery do it all, and always when the film most needs it. In fact, she is the film's true brain.


Tom Hardy as the Counterfeiter is funtime superb. He provides the humor that Inception has been accused of not having. How could one miss it? This is the definable sign that he is, after his indescribable show in Bronson (is this the goddamn same guy?), the Next Big Thing. He is the film's swank.


And Joseph Gordon-Levitt is absolutely perfect as the second in the story. His performance is the film's most physical, and yet he is ever-present as both a caring and an active participant in the story. If it's not a breakthrough role, then it's right near close to it. He is the film's muscle.


And here we get to Rex Reed, who said...well, fuck, I don't wanna quote his shitass review. But he didn't even know what Gordon-Levitt was doing in the elevators. He was looking for the drop, dimwit! Here, I become the one of the fanboys whom I previously slammed. Wake up, man. It's there right in front of you! You dismissed so much of what the movie had to offer! Yeah, it's a rich movie--so rich, it can withstand two, three viewings. But just because that's the case, don't give it the heave-ho, Rex. Actually, I was glad I read something about Inception before I saw it; it gave me so much more insight. I would not have felt right about reviewing it before I'd seen it twice (which I have now). This just lets you know that most movies you read something about beforehand, they're so shallow that they're blown apart because of it. Inception is not one of these movies. No amount of pre-knowledge can ruin it for you, And than includes knowledge of its final moments. (NO SPOILER ALERT: The spinning top in important.)


Then we get into another problem many reviewers had: that of the content of the dreams themselves. They noted how the dream portrayed didn't have many of the qualities that their dreams, or film dreams had. There were no strangenesses, no sexual notes, no absurdities. But why was this a problem? This was explained, too, and very lightly. These guys chasing our heroes with machine guns, they were PLANTS that were put there to upset the "normal" yarn of the dream. This seems simple to me; I don't think I would've needed previewing to understand this.


Now I think we should get into the time travel element of Inception. If you can't get this, even on a subliminal level, while watching it, I'm sorry. But I'll try and help. The meat of the film takes place in four different time positions. This is where the "music" of the movie comes into play. SPOILERS EVERYBODY!: There is the first level, where the sleeping heroes are in the falling van; there is the second level, in the hotel with the elevators; there is the third level, with the snowy climbs, and there is the fourth level, with Cobb's subconscious (and here I can praise Marion Cotillard's singular performance as Cobb's confused and dead wife; I'll never forget that pool of tears upon her eyes). She is the film's soul.


And with that, I'll finally address the most insulting exclusion of those reviewers who disliked Inception: the accusation that this is a cold, unfeeling movie. By no mean is this the case. This is a movie that is ABOUT emotion. It is about one man's inability to let go. And it is about another man's inability to let go. (Cillian Murphy, the nominal "villain," who becomes one of the heroes, may own the most moving moment of the film.) And it begins with yet ANOTHER man's inability to let go (the always reliable Watanabe). In fact, in the end, it is about the audience's inability to let go of whatever they are holding on to. It is, also, about the filmmaker's inability to let go of his past success (which I think he thinks he doesn't deserve). Inception is remarkable because it is about so many things. It really comes from the heart.


What a movie. What an experience!!! What a great gift! I hate to do this, because it can seem corny. But thank you, Mr. Nolan, for proving so many, and me, wrong, and so many fans correct. Inception is proof that genius cannot be ordered up, a la The Dark Knight. It is a quality that must be massaged.

NOTE: Inception is so multi-leveled, so superb, it deserves a more detailed review, which is forthcoming, after a few months have passed. A link will be provided here.

Monday, July 12, 2010

They're baaaaack! Nolanheads on the Rampage!!!


The Christopher Nolan fans are at it again, ready to tear established writers to shreds for not totally giving themselves over, body and soul, to the movie their man has made. And while I'm for fandom, I'm not for blind faith. Even Kubrick--whose name is being bandied about in connection with Inception--had one semi-flop with Killer's Kiss. Anyway, what I'm talking about here is the vitriol being spewed from said fans at New York magazine's David Edelstein, who had the temerity--the GALL--to write a largely negative review of the soon-to-be-released Inception, spoiling its 100% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes (this is the downside of Rotten Tomatoes; it's made film writing into a sporting event). For those who give a shit about Tomatometer readings, it's crushing. Or it least seems to be from the commentary following Edelstein's succinct, well-considered and clear review.

In the wake of Armond White's mean but slightly correct slapdown of the overpraised Toy Story 3, critics are making headlines--maybe in White's case, by design--by parting ways with the hungry hippos waiting though endless months of prep to plunk down their money and achieve that orgasm they've promised themselves. But why? What's this phenomenon all about? As I commented on the board following Edelstein's piece:

"Critics are paid to write about movies. They are not there to act as a "Consumer Reports" for the art form. In determining their worth, it's not about their opinions; the point is: are they interesting to read? And Edelstein is. Look, most of us have already made up our mind we're going to see INCEPTION (some of us did it the moment the project was announced). And, I admit, it'd be foolish to ignore the film. So, given that, why are so many of you angry about this piece? Why do you need total, or even partial, validation from the world? Why is it important to you that EVERYONE fall all over themselves in praise of Nolan's abilities? The guy's a promising director--I liked MEMENTO very much, and BATMAN BEGINS was quite good for what it was (don't get me started on the rest of his ouvre [FOLLOWING, INSOMNIA, THE PRESTIGE and the dreaded THE DARK KNIGHT]). But he ain't the Second Coming. At any rate, I thought Edelstein laid out very clearly what he liked about the film, and what he didn't like. And no, the piece wasn't overloaded with by-rote plot recounting. I eventually may agree or disagree with the author's piece (as all of the commenters will, too, since they haven't even seen the darn thing), but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the writing. That's what criticism is all about. Not consumer guiding. Not validation. Not being contrary. Criticism is about the expression of ideas and opinions in, one hopes, a provocative fashion."

Then, after five more pages of comments, mostly taking Edelstein to task for his purportedly unclear, unfair, irresponsible, goddamn near criminal review, I felt I had to tidy some things up, especially after one commenter sarcastically apologized for liking great cinema, lumping Nolan's name in with Melville, Tarantino and Kubrick (again, the movie's getting a lot of comparisons to the latter director's work, I guess because it's pretty and confusing). So I commented at length again:

"Well, Melville, Kubrick and Tarantino mostly have done monumental work that's stood time's test. Nolan's only been in the business for a decade. See, this is what I'm talking about. He's a very competent director half the time, and half the time his films are stuffed to the breaking point with questionable placements of characters in time and space (the whole last third of TDK doesn't make any sense at all---"Where is Batman now??? And who cares about this Two-Face guy?" I remember thinking), poor but loud action sequences, and twists that hope to knock us off our seat but don't. To my mind, the only truly masterful film he's done is MEMENTO (and maybe the Scarecrow scenes in BATMAN BEGINS reach brilliance). But, boy, you can't say any of THAT, can you? Not without getting some buckshot in your face. Look, Edelstein is up front about what he likes and dislikes about the movie. To wit (and be sure: I am not saying whether his review is accurate or not):

For the poster that gives the author guff about pooh-poohing the INCEPTION/2001 comparisons, read carefully. Edelstein writes that INCEPTION "manages to be clunky and confusing on four separate levels of reality." 2001 is a story that takes place on one plane of "reality." And 2001 might be confusing (especially if you're used to standard summer tripe) but it ain't clunky.

Edelstein goes on to ask, regarding a detail of the film's plot, "Why is an “inception” more difficult than an extraction? 'The subject’s mind always knows the genesis of an idea,' explains one character—which strikes my unoriginal and highly suggestible mind as dead wrong. But that’s the premise, anyway." So Edelstein finds the premise suspect, and he might be correct. Do you think, say, Kubrick or Lynch or Pollock or Dickens knew where they got all their ideas? They just come sometimes. Most artists--hell, people in general--don't question why they do what they do. They simply move on to their next action.

Edelstein continues, writing "A team of colorful specialists! Cool! So it’s, like, Mission: Impossible in the Dreamscape-Matrix!" This is sarcasm, folks. He's saying "Oh no, not this again...boooring." Again, this raises red flags with me, as does his description of Ellen Page's role as an "exposition magnet." I was afraid this movie would be packed with a lot of people explaining a lot of things. I generally despise that. Show, don't explain. First rule of film language.

The fifth and sixth paragraphs are almost entirely positive. I assume most of you fans have no problem with this, so we move on. The seventh takes the movie to task for stale dialogue and character etchings, while praising DiCaprio as his ususal "excellent" self. The eighth largely describes the film's "flat and impersonal" tone--one that differs from other, more personable movies of this type, like The Matrix. And the final graph is Edelstein's admission that he wanted to like it, but no amount of hype can make it so (and, I think, at least, that the review ends with a brilliant punchline).

Some of you are bombing the writer for noting in the review the hype he's no doubt heard. Well, goddamn, Pauline Kael did this sort of thing often, and she's arguably the greatest film writer ever. When you're in their line of work, pre-screening, one unavoidably hears people saying "Oh it's great--you're gonna love it." You don't have to read the reviews to catch the wind's direction. Edelstein's been around a while; I don't think he's the type to dump on something everybody likes because it makes him feel fizzy, and I REALLY don't think he's reading reviews before sits down to type his own. However, with the carnival-barking atmosphere these days, and with a glacially-paced lead-up to the movie's release, it would be impossible for anyone, especially Edelstein, to avoid hearing SOMETHING about INCEPTION, unless you advocate critics locking themselves in a bunker, away from humanity forever, with periodic DVD deliveries.

Sorry for the length here, and the hand-holding. But it seems like you guys didn't read or understand the review, and so I thought I'd help ya out. I'm still hoping INCEPTION is a gut-punch. But I'm going in with my expectation's low. These days, with the amount of crap out there, this is the wisest mindset to incept."

Some commenters on these reviews have suggested, as many people do (and I think this is why film writers get a bad rap), that the critics need to make a movie like whatever is in question or shut up. Well, most film writers (I hate the word "critic," which is a negative term) will freely tell you they don't have the stamina to make ANY kind of movie; writing about movies is what they chose to do. And they don't need to make one to do that (though I do hunger for a wave of critics-turned-filmmakers like the world saw in the 60s with the French and in the 70s with the Americans). Anyway, I felt I had to post this, my reaction to what is likely to be the universal, already settled-upon opinion that Inception is a masterpiece worthy of a ten Oscar sweep (and I'm thinking the fans want a make-up Oscar for this to put a Band-Aid on the non-nomination of The Dark Knight, which, of course, did win a top award for it's main attraction Heath Ledger's undeniably unforgettable Joker.

Jesus Christ, if I have to endure this sort of thing every time a Nolan movie comes out post Dark Knight, I just may go ahead and nap for eternity, film-writing-wise. But I'm sure the Nolanheads would dig that and that's why--hoping always for another genuinely great Nolan-directed picture--I'll stick around in their collective craw.

POST NOTE: Inception received disappointing notices from, among others, A.O. Scott of The New York Times, Stephen Rea of The Philadelphia Enquirer, John Anderson of The Wall Street Journal, Nick Pinkerton of The Village Voice, Todd McCarthy of IndieWire, NY Press' always dismissable Armond White, and one generally abhorrent, unfair and mean-spirited review from Rex Reed, of course (the latter two reviews are the only ones I think deserves the fan viatrol); except for White and Reed, all praised the film's look but mainly didn't care for its cold tone, heavy exposition, and convoluted plotting. But most other reviews--for instance, Roger Ebert's and those belonging to a myriad of online critics--are over the moon. In all, not a bad reception, but not a perfect scorecard. But who needs that? In my opinion, the film that splits audience reactions is the one that's a must-see, because that means it's trying to do something different that might not settle with everyone. Remember: the film that gets a 61%, say, on Rotten Tomatoes, could very well be a stone-cold masterpiece. So don't cry for Inception. It's a film that has to be seen, this is for sure. It's being talked about more than any movie in recent memory (outside of the obviously lame Avatar. And this is, also, refreshing.