Participatory Documentary

Over the years, the Western world, particularly the world of Hollywood, adopted a mode of documentary that is highly observational and conflict-centered. The popularity of the Western Observational Documentary is evident in the Oscar winners of recent years. Amy, CitizenFour, 20 Feet From Stardom, Inside Job to name a few over the most recent years. However, Inside Job began a breaking of the fourth wall in the interview setting - partly out of necessity.

In this scene from Inside Job, filmmaker Charles H. Ferguson inserts himself into the documentary through his questioning. This participation, I believe, is out of necessity, since the man isn't answering the question, rather than the purpose of referencing the filmmaker. When a documentary film becomes participatory, the film becomes a narrative of interactions between the filmmaker and the subjects of the film, rather than a report on a topic. As VICE gains in popularity, this mode of filmmaking becomes more popular in an online forum.

In Screwed in Houston, the filmmaker is integrated into the story. His demographics become increasingly apparent as he interacts with the Houston hip-hop community. These moments of interaction are a part of the story, rather than something that is off-screen. In my opinion, this creates a more honest depiction of the community as well as builds the filmmaker as an author of this history in a particular moment, not an expert or objective observer.

Beginners

     Beginners is a movie that hides comedy in a multi-layered drama. Starring Ewan McGregor as Oliver, the film begins with a voice over about Oliver's father Hal. The monologue mentions the death of Oliver's mother and the announcement that Hal is gay. Also Hal has cancer.

    Hal is portrayed by Christopher Plummer, a role he won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The movie talks deeply about the relationship between an adult man and his father and paints a realistic picture of both men who struggle with Hal's identity. This is not what the movie is about. The movie is about Oliver and Anna.

     The movie mostly focuses on Oliver's resurgence into the world via dating Anna. They meet at a costume party Oliver is reluctant to attend until he meets Anna. Their relationship grows organically from the moment she asks him:

                                           

     Oliver is an artist and Anna is an actor and their creative sadness drives them together. It is moments like these, that romanticize creative depression that are turn offs to me. However, these moments come few and far between. This is a movie that is full of hope, showcased by its eccentric directing style. This film brought Mike Mills into the spotlight. The story relies heavily on narration and fun elements, such as Baxter the dog.

Mills uses elements like Baxter, or a repeating shot of Christopher Plummer in different outfits. To weave the nonlinear storylines of Oliver and Hal, and Hal's new lover, and the story of Oliver and Anna. This postmodernist technique create a full character that is only full realized through past experiences. 

     Beginners is a drama with a lot of comedy elements. Baxter the dog being subtitled is funny in its surprise and uniqueness. But it is the dark sense of emotion that comes with complex characters that really makes this film work. Despite the cheesy artist language.

        

Oscar Predictions:

This Sunday marks the 88th Academy Awards. It's the time of year when everyone argues what film was the best of the previous year and why is should win/have been nominated. For this week's blog post I thought I would give my predictions for what should and what probably will win in a few categories at the Oscars this Sunday.

No they won't all be Mad Max, a lot will, but not all of them,

BEST PICTURE

NOMINEES

-Bridge of Spies

-Mad Max: Fury Road

-The Big Short

-The Revenant

-The Martian

-Spotlight

-Room

-Brooklyn

WILL WIN: The Revenant.  While for a while it looked like Spotlight has this one in the bag, it seems that Inarritu's film about Hugh Glass will triumph, making him the second person to win consecutive best picture trophies. 

SHOULD WIN: Mad Max: Fury Road. As the subject of an earlier blog post, Fury Road was a near perfect film in every aspect. It's high octane action, beautiful cinematography, and feminist message, Fury Road excels in every aspect of the craft of filmmaking. One may sight the hardships of the lead actor and the crew as reason to sight the film's deserving to win the award but it's important to not confuse good filmmaking with a good film. 

BEST LEAD ACTOR/ACTRESS 

Leo and Brie Larson will take home the trophies for their respective categories.

BEST DIRECTOR

NOMINEES

-Mad Max: Fury Road

-Room

-The Revenant

-Big Short

-Spotlight

Will Win: In all likelihood this one will go to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu for The Revenant. Shooting chronologically using almost entirely natural lighting is certainly deserving of recognition. However there is a chance that George Miller will win this one for Fury Road. To make a two hour chaotic car chase work and be comprehensible makes Miller more than deserving to win this award. 

Should Win: Fury Road. See Above.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

NOMINEES

-Big Short

-Steve Jobs

-Carol

-The Martian

-Trumbo

Will Win/Should Win. 

It looks like this is Adam McKay's award to lose. Based off the novel of the same name surrounding the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Any film that makes a confusing event and makes everything that happened clear deserves the win.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

NOMINEES

-Carol

-Hateful Eight

-Mad Max

-The Revenant

-Sicario

Will Win. It strongly looks like Lubezki will win for the third year in the row for The Revenant. Chock full of his signature tracking shots and shot using natural lighting, The Revenant is a gorgeous movie that will give Lubezki his well deserved third award.

Should Win: Fury Road. John Seale went against the typical ways of shooting a post apocalyptic and made his film explosively colorful instead of the usual grays that plague the genre. This causes the film to pop off the screen and make an already explosive film that much more impressive.

The Popularity Contest

The Oscars are coming up as most of us know. There are some amazing films nominated this year, especially documentaries. The Look of Silence is a disturbing look into mind of killers who took part in the Indonesian genocide, Winter On Fire follows the Ukrainian uprising day by day, and Cartel Land is a thrilling story about those who fight back against the cartel. 

All thrilling and important documentaries. Also nominated is Amy, a bio-doc on the singer who died at the age of 27. I must admit I have not seen it like I have the other documentaries but I hope this year does not go the same as 2014.

That year, the best documentary I have ever seen, The Act of Killing, was beat by a feel good show business doc, 20 Feet from Stardom. I could go on forever about how important of a film The Act of Killing was, both socially and artistically. It was the perfect documentary. But unfortunately, the Oscars are a popularity contest. It is likely Amy will win over the other films, but I hope it doesn't.

Cartel Land

Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably know that the Oscars will air this Sunday. As a mixed girl and sociology minor, I want to boycott this major night on television (#OscarsSoWhite), yet the film student in me will probably win out and I can pretty much guarantee I'll be watching. 

This past week I was looking for inspiration for the documentary I'm working on in class, and decided I may as well check out one of the docs nominated for the Academy Award this year. Since I had heard about it around school, I decided to check out Cartel Land. As I sat in the hall between classes watching the film, my mouth continuously dropped in amazement. How did Matthew Heineman get access to all the characters in the film?? How in the world did he convince people to let him film at a meth lab?? How could he possibly have so many documentary appeals AND amazing cinematography???? After watching the documentary I felt simultaneously inspired and terrible; this is the type of documentary that seems nearly impossible to achieve, so why not give up now?

But alas, I am not a quitter. So, I took some notes and figured out how I could implement some of Heineman's techniques into my own film. One of the main aspects of the film that I felt could benefit my own was how he used the audio from news reports under his own footage. I was feeling very conflicted earlier that day, because I wanted to use news reports while editing, but I also felt like it was a cliché technique. However, I soon realized that just by simply pulling the visuals out and only using the audio, it gave a fresh feel to what I was trying to edit. 

After I finished watching Cartel Land, I decided that Heineman must be super-human and I needed to know his secrets. After reading through several interviews, I found exactly the inspiration I needed to make my thesis film. It turns out that Heineman is just a regular guy who had the patience to capture such an incredible story (he didn't even go to film school!). I realized that if he could make such an incredible film, then one day I can too. 

Now, to end this rant about the amazingness that is Cartel Land, I would like to share the biggest piece of inspiration I found while reading and watching Heineman's interviews, a quote by Albert Maysles: "If you end up with the story you started with, then you weren't listening along the way."

Amy and Nina

My two favorite jazz singers of all time, Amy Winehouse and Nina Simone, just so happened to be in two of my favorite documentaries of this year (which just so happened to be nominated for Oscars). What a mouth-full.

These two films tell two tragic tales. Neither of these lives were easy. Both films take on a similar aesthetic in the singers tell their own stories through found footage, audio and photographs. However, What Happened, Miss Simone? takes on an even larger task of telling the history of the civil rights movement through her lived experiences. Amy remains self indulgent through a riveting tale, but one without huge depth.

Of course, the music really tells the stories of these women's lives. The lyrics are carefully embedded into the story, often with no introduction. However, I was surprised Feeling Good, one of her most noteworthy songs, was not featured in Nina's story. Instead, the film introduced hidden gems in her line of work. Either way, I highly recommend both films.

What A Lovely Day: Why Fury Road should win Best Picture.

Look, Spotlight is a great movie. With fantastic performances from a stellar cast and a compelling story, it's almost certain to win Best Picture at the Oscars this year. However, there was another film released in 2015 that has stuck with me more than any other movie in a long time. If you read the title of this blog post you'll know that that movie is Mad Max: Fury Road.

Fury Road summarized in one image.

Mad Max: Fury Road is the fourth film in director George Miller's post apocalyptic saga. It was released 30 years after the previous film in the series Beyond Thunderdome, came into theatres. To briefly summarize the movie for those who haven't seen it, Fury Road follows the titular Max (Tom Hardy replacing Mel Gibson) who joins a woman named Furiosa (played by Charlize Theron), in transporting the slave wives of a warlord to safety all while being pursued by the Warlord. To someone who hasn't seen the movie, the plot can sound like a somewhat generic action movie. However, Mad Max: Fury Road is anything but. The movie excels in countless ways and becomes in this writer's opinion, a perfect action movie that should, even though it will lose to Spotlight, win best picture. Let's examine a few reasons why.

1. Editing.

One of the biggest faults the modern action movie suffers from is the editing. The movies are so concerned with action that the become nearly impossible to watch or even understand what is going on. 

Looking at you Michael Bay.

Just take a look at the gif above, or at this 20 minute video of all the fight scenes in Transformers. The action is all over the place and quickly becomes very hard to follow. The shaky camerawork and near constant explosions make taking in the action an overwhelming and difficult task that quickly becomes an eyesore. I'm just picking on Bay for this post but it happens with a lot of actions movies. However this is where Miller excels. Actually, I should say this is where Margaret Sixel excels, as she is the one who edited this movie. What makes the editing of Fury Road so interesting is that it isn't edited like an action movie. In fact, Sixel, who is Miller's wife, had never edited an action film before Mad Max: Fury Road. Miller, when asked why he selected Sixel to edit the film said that had it been edited by "the usual kind of guys, it would look like every other action movie we see" The result of Margaret Sixel's editing is high octane action scenes that are easy to follow.  

Look at this gif to the left. Important points are kept in the center so the audience doesn't have to search for them. Shot shots, while short, are long enough that we are able to see what is occurring in each one before the next shot comes along. Also notice how while there is slight directional movement with the camera, it is still steady enough for us to be enthralled by the action but not made motion sick by the blair witch level shakiness.

While this edited works great for these action sequences, it also improves the films watching as a whole. Film being a visual medium, and actions films doubly so, it is important that you can tell your film well with minimal use of dialogue to expose what is occurring on screen. Check out this video of several action films 12 times their normal speed. As many of the other films becomes a hard to follow muddled mess, more or less you can still tell what's going on in Mad Max: Fury Road. You could easily take all the sound out of Fury Road and besides missing an awesome score by Junkie XL you would still be able to understand the story and could pretty easily explain the major plot points of the film.  

2. Practical Effects

With CGI, almost anything is possible and for considerably less than it would cost to actually do it. think about it; If you were making a movie like Mad Max: Fury Road, you wouldn't spend all that time to actually build all those cars and then actually go out in the desert and film all those dangerous stunts full speed and end up destroying those cars, when you could do almost all of that with CGI right? Well George Miller did. Almost every single car in the film is a real, fully functioning vehicle. 

That includes this one.

This one

This one, which you may remember having a man playing a flame-throwing guitar which was also real, on top of it.

And countless other ridiculously awesome post-apocalyptic vehicles. All of these were actually built, functioned, and for most of them, destroyed in one of the final car chase climaxes ever. Miller did use CGI, but only to enhance. This is how CGI should be used, to enhance scenes, not to completely replace what could be made practically. 

Check out this great video which shows many of the CGI shots in the film before and after it was added. Notice how for the most part, things are done practically, when important. Scenes where shooting inside a moving vehicle would not have worked are done on green screen, but almost anything else is done with good old practical destruction.  

Here are a few other pre and post CGI/VFX shots from Fury Road.

3. Story/Feminist Action

Perhaps one of the most interesting parts of Mad Max is that Max is not the protagonist of the film, in fact, the story of Fury Road is not Max's. That honor goes to Furiosa.

Hands down biggest badass of 2015.

Furiosa's journey is what drives (see what I did there) the plot. Max is simply along for the ride. (see that I did there) The entire film has a strong feminist message. Furiosa is never a damsel in distress and is never seen as inferior to Max. In fact, she saves Max's ass a few times. Her character is given depth and important backstory which the plot gives proper attention to. She is not oversexualised or just made to be an object of male gaze. She is smart, independent, and very resourceful. What works well with the film is the mutual respect she and Max have for eachother. Max never assumes she is unable to perform a task, he is simply weary of her at first. Furiosa however is not the only female character in the film. Joining her are Immortan Joe's fives wives, also referred to as breeders, used to bring Immortan healthy sons. Each of the wives in the film stands out in their own way and is unique from the others. Again giving character development to them. They too are able to hold their own in a fight. the film easily passes both the Bechdel_test and the Mako Mori test. The film does such a good job with its female characters that a group of Men's Rights Activists, which is sadly a real thing, protested the film calling in feminist propaganda. I'm not going to give the link to the article, but if you can find it pretty easily. The story as a whole improves the film. Despite these many complex characters, the overall plot is simple. This benefits the film and allows the visual aspect and action to do the rest of the storytelling. There is no need for any subplots or things that go nowhere, the film simply tells one story and focuses entirely on that. 

In Conclusion

Mad Max: Fury Road excels in almost every aspect. It's beautiful to look at, has great characters who you wanna root for, and is fun as hell. The film is clearly made by someone who dearly loves film. One can even see multiple subtle references to the older Mad Max films, but we won't go into that now. Filmmaking is a craft, and the craft that went to making Mad Max is truly remarkable. Each aspect is equally important to the film working out. If it failed, the whole film would have too. From the editing to the script, to the practical effects, the utmost care was put into every detail of the movie. This is not to say that the other nominees are not deserving they are, and in Spotlight's case, they will succeed. None of the films however, accomplish what Mad Max: Fury Road did. For that Fury Road shall ride enteral, shiny and chrome.  

"The Revenant" might change the way movies are made, but at what cost?

Make no mistake, guys: I'm excited for The Revenant. It's got everything that I need in a movie right now, including camera work by my boy Emmanuel Lubezki, lots of people running around in bear-skin clothing, actual BEARS, and Leonardo DiCaprio in another intense role that he probably won't win an Oscar for, even though he completely deserves it. It's got Tom Hardy. It's got action, revenge, old-timey guns. I mean hell, it's got this trailer.

But it's also got Alejandro Inarritu. And yes, oddly enough, that might just be a bad thing.

Inarritu got a lot of recognition really quickly earlier this year when his little film "Birdman" won best original screenplay, best director, and best film at the 2015 Oscars. It was also, coincidentally, one of my favorite films of the years. Accolades aside, though (because let's be honest, awards mean nothing in the scheme of things) it was a really impressive film, both technically and in terms of the performances strangled out of its actors. The cinematography was just delightful to watch, and no other movie has made me said "woah, yeah, ok, Emma Stone can really act." It was great.

Fast forward one year and here we are, with another Inarritu film garnering buzz just as awards season lumbers towards us. This one is based on "actual events," and centers around the fur trapper Hugh Glass (played by DiCaprio) after he is mauled by a bear, robbed by his friends, and left to die. You had me at "actual events."

One of the big selling points for the movie, for film nerds at least, is that the whole thing has reportedly been shot using only natural lighting. A second look at the trailer shows that this just might be the case. Lubezki has also been utilizing more of the long takes that he so enjoyed in Birdman and Children of Men, so combined with the lighting, this movie seems like it was probably an ungodly pain in the ass to make... And that's the problem.

Reports from the set have literally called it "a living hell." And who could blame them. If even half of the stories coming off the set of the Revenant are to be believed, then it's time Inarritu stops, takes a deep breath, looks at himself in a mirror and says "what the fuck is the point of it all." The full report from the Hollywood Reporter is right here in all it's glory, but reports include: asking actors to go without hats and glove in -40 degree weather because it was supposed to be autumn in the film, dragging a naked character along the ground with debatable safety precautions, and cutting holes in the necks of wetsuits so that characters in water looked like were actually submerged.

A lot of blame has been thrown around, but it ultimately comes back to Inarritu and producer Jim Skotchdopole. Other issues with the film included scheduling dates (Hardy was forced to drop out of Suicide Six due to an elongated Revenant schedule), weather problems, and miscommunication. All of this leads me to ask: ultimately, at what cost are you willing to make a good movie? Right now, I'm sacrificing sleep and possible good grades in other classes so that I can do an extra bit of location scouting. I'm kind of sick, but whatever, I'll deal with it. But if we're to believe some of these reports, the crew of the Revenant were more than just a little uncomfortable or chilly: they were potentially in danger.

I've said this in past blog posts too, but I'll say it again; it's so incredibly important to put things in perspective. Yes, the Revenant may revolutionize the way movies are shot, and yes, maybe it'll end up being my absolute favorite film of the year. Maybe of all time. Maybe it'll finally get Leo that Oscar. But you can never forget, through it all, the things that really matter. Nobody in the film industry benefits from reports like these. Art is great, yeah, but never outstay your welcome.

Prince of Egypt

In the spirit of Passover, I watched the award-winning animated film The Prince of Egypt, a Dreamworks production released in 1998. The premise of the film is in Ancient Egyptian time when Hebrews were enslaved under Pharoah's rule. The story follows the biblical figure Moses, a Hebrew who is adopted as an Egyptian prince when the Pharaoh Seti orders all the Hebrew male babies to be executed. According the the book of Exodus, baby Moses's mother places him in a basket and sends him down the Nile River in the hopes that a non-Hebrew family will find and take care of him. In the film, Pharoah's wife adopts Moses, who then becomes a brother to older Rameses, who is next in line to be Pharaoh. Fast-forward to when they are adults, Moses learns that he is a Hebrew and defends one of the slaves while they are whipped, and accidentally kills a guard.
He flees Egypt to Midian, where God "speaks" to him via a burning bush, telling him to return to Egypt to free the Hebrew slaves. He does so and Rameses refuses, so he unleashes ten plagues on all of Egypt. Rameses refuses every time until after the last plague, death of the first born. He angrily tells Moses they can all go, and that is when Moses and all the Hebrews cross the Red Sea. Rameses changes his mind and chases after them with the guards but the Red Sea crashes down on them. The film ends with them making it to the Holy Land, getting the commandments, and celebrating! Overall, the movie is pretty accurate to the biblical story of Exodus, and does not stray too far to make the story interesting.

Moses marrying Tzipporah, his wife.

Animation is only half of what goes into this film- the film so high quality because the actors' voices fit the characters so well. It features a star-studded cast of talented actors such as Val Kilmer (Moses/God), Ralph Fiennes (Rameses, who becomes Pharaoh) Michelle Pfeiffer (Tzipporah, a Midian woman whom Moses marries) and Sandra Bullock (Miriam, Moses' sister). Other prominent actors include Jeff Goldblum, Danny Glover, Patrick Stewart, Helen Mirren, Steve Martin, and Martin Short.

Prince of Egypt is wonderful for a variety of reasons. There are a number of really lovely songs, including "When You Believe", which earned the movie an Oscar for best original song.

I also really enjoy this film because it is overall very artistic; each frame is very detailed and colorful!

Moses' mother places him in a basket to be sent down the nile while Aaron and Miriam look on in the background. Very nice depth of field, and nice use of colors.

Pharaoh reprimands Moses and Rameses. The large statue head is a reflection of Pharaoh's extreme power over Egypt.

Interesting frame composition; Moses leading the Hebrews through the two statues symbolizes his pride for being a Hebrew coming between his relationship with his brother Rameses.

The scene where Moses sends the plagues onto Egypt is especially good; the lighting is very dramatic, and there is a lot of screen area movement that shows the entire landscape. The song is also very ominous and scary, so the element of sound really enhances the fear depicted in the scene. This scene is where Pharaoh's stubbornness is shown most because his people are suffering so but he won't let the Hebrew slaves go. It is a turning point in the film, and very effective. Watch the clip below to see what I mean!

Prince of Egypt is streaming on Netflix, check it out!

Leonardo DiCaprio and the elusive Oscar

       Leonardo DiCaprio is considered one of the best-known actors of not only our generation but of all time. He started on the screen as a child actor over twenty years ago on the television show Growing Pains and still continues to wow audiences to present day. But even though Leonardo DiCaprio is arguably at the utmost highest caliber of actors he still does not possess an Oscar. The Oscar is considered the universally standard recognition of top quality performance in the American cinema industry, especially for acting, and yet it still has evaded DiCaprio’s grasp. Though he has been nominated five times already for an Oscar, once as a producer, once as best supporting actor, and three times for the best actor category he just never ends up on top.  

        It is true that Leonardo Dicaprio’s movies are brilliantly written but most times it is his enlightened acting that shines as the most prominent strength of the film. It is DiCaprio’s acting that for the large part makes the film memorable, which is why directors haven chosen him in their films. Some of DiCaprio's greatest films are: 

Titanic(1997)

Inception (2010)

Shutter Island (2010)

The Departed (2006)

Aviator (2004)

Gangs of New York (2002)

       A highly debated argument on why Leonardo DiCaprio has not won an Oscar is he is not that “type” of actor, as in contemporary rather than traditional. There are certain actors who are considered “cool” actors, ones who are successful and talented but they aren’t traditional actors or method actors. Actors similar to DiCaprio such as Samuel L. Jackson, Brad Pitt or Jonny Depp, who play thoroughly entertaining characters more centered toward teens and mid-20s audiences. 

       The unofficial standard for this coolness is the Pitt-Hanks spectrum, this predicts the likelihood of an actor to win an Oscar, the closer to “cool” Pitt the less likely to win. Actors who play characters who are perceived as weaker, or closer to a relatable person are the ones more likely to win. There are many issues with this ideology of cool actors not winning; it severely hinders actors experimenting with roles that don’t qualify as “Oscar worthy.” Although it is set that a certain character will win should indicate that actors should strive toward those characters is pretty intuitive, that should not be the basis of the win.        
       
          But regardless of academy award status and not being officially recognized by the academy itself, DiCaprio realizes thats not what it means to be a good actor and has been extremely positive about it all.    

12 Years a Slave: Did not dissapoint

While anxiously awaiting my arrival into the UK for spring break, I was given the option to watch several movies on the plane. I sat next to two girls from Whales and while scrolling through what movies to watch, we all stopped at 12 Years a Slave. We all said we have never seen it before but wanted to watch it since we heard nothing but great things and I personally wanted to since it won an Oscar. At first we were not sure because we didn't really want to watch such a depressing movie. We then all looked at each other and said it is ok, we can cry together...and together we did.

12 Years a Slave imparts the cruelty of slavery with full force and tells the story of one man and his fight to stay alive. He fights for his life and is taken into the hands of a malevolent slave owner. This film is in no way shape or form an easy film to watch. In fact it is the complete opposite. The storyline is heartbreaking and violent. But the storyline is not what made this film so unbearable to the eye. What made it unbearable was the different camera techniques and editing that was used. One scene in particular was when a main character was being whipped by her own people. The way the shots were produced and the actors expressions were just brutal. I couldn't help but drop my jaw and cry. It was one of the most powerful scenes I have ever watched. Another was when he is writing a letter to his family, the extreme close up shot and the expression on his face makes the viewer feel his pain. Not only is it the way the shot is framed but it is also the duration of the shot. It is extremely long and you are just stuck there staring at his face and seeing the expression in his eyes. It happens for a few scenes. I don't want to give anything away because I strongly believe everyone should see this movie. It is painful, yet beautifully done. The cinematography, acting, directing, editing, everything was none other than brilliant and got the story across incredibly well.

I went into this movie with incredibly high expectations, and I can definitely say it lived up to them and deserved that Oscar for sure.

Fair or not?

As some of you may have heard, a fantastic film came out recently known as "Captain Phillips" featuring Tom Hanks as Captain Phillips. The film is critically acclaimed and was nominated for numerous Oscar awards. The antagonist in the film known as Samali Pirate was played by actor Barkhad Abdi. Mr. Abdi prior to who's role was a chauffeur and a mobile phone salesman prior to taking on his Oscar nominated role. The reason why I am talking about Mr. Abdi is not because of how well he played his role, but what he stood to gain from it (or not gain may be a better way of putting it). As this being the first film he ever acted in, he was payed a salary of $65,000 for his monumental role. Regardless of his current predicament, do you think it is fair that the british director Paul Greengrass who had a $55 million budget only allocated $65,000 of it to Barkhad Abdi because he could? This is a tough predicament many people in power struggle with. Do you pay someone the minimum you can or the amount that the person truly deserves? If you said what the person deserves, what do you believe Mr. Abdi should have received? Or do you feel what he received is fair?

This issue was brought to light because Mr. Abdi apparently is struggling to pay his bills after he decided to quit his job to do the film. "Captain Phillips" $106 million alone in the U.S. box office, so it really makes you think if what Mr. Abdi received is fair. As an aspiring filmmaker I believe what is produced should be based on the most profitability, but should be based on the vision that I have. Anyone involved in the version and playing a key role in it's development should be rewarded in accordance with the budget I have and the effort they put in. Whether your Tom Hanks or Barkhad Abdi, I believe that if you are playing a massive role in a multimillion dollar feature film, you deserve a larger salary then $65,000. Mr. Abdi is one of the reasons I'd loved the film so much. His amazing performance should not go unrewarded. I hope that someone from the film has it in their hearts to remedy him for his fantastic job. Maybe you Mr. Greengrass can help him out? If not, Tom, you should try to help your supporting costar out, show him that you appreciated his performance. I mean your salary was probably at leas a few hundred times his.

American Hustle

The 86th Academy Awards are in just a few days, and the movie American Hustle has been nominated for 10 awards including Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing, and Best Production Design.  Not only is the story captivating, but the acting is phenomenal.  When watching the film, you truly believe you're in the disco era.  The costuming, hair, and makeup was spot on, and accompanied by a "groovy" 70s soundtrack. The movie is built around reinvention -- a concept of the American Dream. During the 2 hours and 20 minutes the audience follows a scam-artist (played by Christian Bale) as he ambitiously pushes boundaries.  American Hustle perfectly balances comedy, tragedy, and romance.

American Hustle will be most closely competing with Gravity this year at the Oscar's...both films were nominated for 10 awards, and 12 Years a Slave follows closely behind with 9 nominations.  All 3 films are nominated for Best Directing and Best Picture.  While I can't speak for Gravity and 12 Years a Slave (I still have yet to see them), I am very optimistic that American Hustle will walk away from the Oscar's with a few awards.  I guess we just have to wait until March 2nd to find out!

The Sound of Gravity

The movie Gravity, written and directed by Alfonso Cuaron elevated the standard for how things should sound in outer space entirely. Although their have been so many brilliant films located in space, such as Star Wars, and Alien, Gravity set a more realistic version of space's ambient tone. Because in space sound cannot be transmitted throughout the atmosphere, essentially nothing can be heard. But because of brilliant audio engineers, and Cuaron's artistry the sound comes from the perspective of the actors interaction with elements. If the actor grabs or touches something the vibration will travel into their ears. For people who haven't worked on sound, or know very little about it, this means all of the sounds you hear in the movie DOES NOT come from recordings on set, it is entirely recorded separately.

If you haven't seen the movie, which I recommend you do the film is about shuttle explorer STS-157, on which Dr. Ryan Stone (played by Saundra Bullock) who is on her first mission. She is accompanied by Matt Kowalski (played by George Clooney) who is on his last expedition. During a spacewalk mission control channels the Explorer (the name of the shuttle) that there has been a Russian missile strike and the debris is headed their way. Minutes later a cloud of debris hits the shuttle and detaches Stone leaving her drifting alone throughout space.

What I find so fascinating about the movie, is because it comes from the actors perspective, who is flying around in space, the music and the sound are constantly traveling around you. Cuaron and the engineers composed the sound to surround you and pan into different speakers. What this did was it built up the emotion and fear into being lost in a completely different world, and made you feel like you were there. For sound nerds like me, the plug-in the engineers used to pan the sound and the score is called "Atmos" which is located in Pro- Tool 7. Whats so cool about this plug-in is most of the panning is automatically tuned by the program itself. According to the re-recording mixer Skip Lievsay who worked on No Country for Old Men, Fargo, and No Country For Old Men, most of the scenes were autopanned with Atmos.

The love and the passion that Cuaron puts into the cinematic experience of the movie encourages me  as I enter the beginning stages of my career. It proves that with countless hours of work, very little sleep, and a lot of drive you can create anything. I sincerely hope this movie lives up to its potential at the Oscars. For 90 minutes I was convinced I was lost along side Saundra Bullock traveling with nobody in outer space. And the music and sound had me on the edge of my seat during this terrifying situation.

District 9

When my friends told me we were going to watch District 9 I just assumed it was some spin off of the Hunger Games series.  It was of course a different and unique science fiction action packed film that I was shocked I had never seen.  Nominated for 4 academy awards, District 9 is the story about an alternate Earth where a ship full of alien invaders land in South Africa and disturb the people.  The story follows the Wikus a bureaucrat who is appointed by his father-in-law to monitor the aliens and head a project of relocation so they are further away from the main city of Johanasberg disturbing the public.  He is later infected by an alien virus and action and drama occurs.

The movie was directed by Neill Blomkamp and uses fictional stock footage, mocumentary, fake interviews, and other documentary/news like tactic to tell parts of the story.  It was a very interesting way of telling this story. One of the producers behind the film is Peter Jackson who is most famous for his work on the Lord of the Rings series and The Hobbit.  Although the movie was a success, it was a surprise since it had a very unknown cast and relatively modest budget.

What I found very interesting about the film was it's political undertones.  It often referenced and brought up the subject of gun control, government and leadership in the Africa's, as well as immigration.  I think the aliens in this movie were directly a symbol of illegal aliens within our country, as well as other countries.  It was a large debate in the movie about kicking the aliens out of Earth because they are clearly invading our space and territory.  However it was brought up later in the film that the aliens - although not the most helpful to humans - had their reasons to leave their home planet and could not go back.  This obviously brings up illegal immigrants traveling to other countries to escape persecution, and crime filled nations.

The movie was good and did lose to Biggalow's The Hurt Locker, but I wouldn't have given Distric 9 the Oscar anyway.  It was enjoyable but I don't think I would watch it again.  It was a unique way to tell such a different thought provoking story and it was effective but it was a bit boring for my taste and I did not end up liking the main character.  Although my friends really enjoyed the movie.  Maybe I'm just more of a rom-com kinda guy.

Oscar Time!!

 The biggest night in showbiz is around the corner everybody, with the 85th annual Academy Awards being this Sunday night! I am extremely excited to watch them as this year has not only seen some incredible films, but the awards are being hosted by the immensely funny Seth Macfarlane. Seth will surely bring some much needed spice to the awards this year, which is something it's severely lacked the past couple of years.

Now on to the nominees!

One of the biggest stories at this years Oscars is the fact that Daniel Day Lewis could win his third Academy Award for Best Actor thanks to his unbelievable performance as Abraham Lincoln in "Lincoln". If Day-Lewis wins, it will mark the first time in history that an actor has won the award three times, an unprecedented achievement. I personally have no doubt that he'll succeed in doing so, as any of you who has seen Lincoln will agree with me, not to mention he's brought home every major acting award this year.

Another big story is the nomination of 9 year old Quvenzhané Wallis for Best Actress, making her the youngest nominee for the category in Oscar histroy. That's pretty damn amazing. With fellow nominees Jennifer Lawrence, Jessica Chastain, Emmanuelle Riva (who consequently is the oldest best actress nominee in history at 85) and Naomi Watts, she's up against some stiff competition. I'm rooting for her to pull off the upset though!

This years Oscar's will be one to watch, WATCH THEM. I know I am.

Argo Review

Last night, instead of seeing yet another Die Hard movie, my date and I spent Valentines day seeing one of this year's Oscar contenders, Argo.  My date despises Ben Affleck, and went into the movie not expecting to like it, where I on the other hand am a fan of Mr. Affleck and expected only to love this movie.  Surly Argo did not disappoint and brought a fascinating story that I know nothing about, to the big screen with amazing direction and a thrilling plot.  Argo has won almost every major award this season and of course is nominated for 7 Oscar nominations for next weekend's celebration.

The biggest surprise surrounding the movie; however, is Ben Affleck's snub for best director.  I could not agree more.  The directing of this movie is what I think is strongest in this film.  Although the 7 other nominations are well deserved, I think Ben Affleck's directing is brilliant, connecting such a secretive, complicated story into a 2 hour film.  The only thing I did not like about his directing was the multitude of close-up's on Affleck's face. (He also stared in the movie as Tony Mendez.)  Although Affleck is a handsome man, no one looks good in the 70's and the close ups on his face were ridiculous and unnecessary.

The plot was complicated and detailed, but this is something I can not complain about because it's not just a script it is in fact real life.  The story follows Affleck's character Mendez using a faux Hollywood movie made my Canadian filmmakers to enter Iran and help 6 hostages escape.  The story is amazing and I can not believe this is based on a real event.  It absolutely blows my mind, and the use of found footage from the time was incredibly well planned and used to the best of it's ability.  I really felt like I was in 1979 / 1980.

The film is also up for best picture at the Oscars, which is no surprise after it won best picture for the BAFTAS, Critics Choice, and Golden Globes.  However looking at the other nominees this year I would not give Argo the oscar.  I believe it is a wonderful film and Affleck should be nominated; but I don't think it can even compare to a film like Zero Dark Thirty.  Alan Arkin is also nominated for his role in the film as a big shot Hollywood producer.  His story arch is absolutely hilarious, but won't win him the award.  John Goodman, Victor Garber, Brian Craynston, and Kyle Chandler also do a phenomenal job in the film, but this was really not an acting piece.  It was all about the plot and the history and I am happy how it turned out.  They added in a story line about Affleck's character Mendez and his family, which I found extremely irrelevant to the plot and hurt it more than helped.  You did not need to humanize his character it was not a strong enough relationship with the audience that we cared about his character or his family, and if that sub-plot was eliminated I think it would have overall been a much stronger film.

However I still give it an A and loved watching it and would love to know more about the Iranian hostage situation.  Argo does not disappoint.

Django Unchained and Christoph Waltz

Over the holidays, I managed to make it to the movies three times. Two of those three times were to see the new Quentin Tarantino spaghetti western flick “Django Unchained”. Django was an absolutely brilliant film, combining all the qualities you expect from a Tarantino flick and then some. You were given the proverbial Tarantino gore, witty banter, and slew of absolute brilliantly written characters, but also saw the intertwining of an unforeseen amount of humor (the KKK scene? BRILLIANT) with a compelling love story that drove the film’s protagonist throughout this entire elaborate and entertaining plot. All while taking place in the cruel and slavery infested era that is the 1850’s south.

What made “Django Unchained” even more incredible, and what I personally loved about it, was the absolute exceptional casting and performance by the actors. While they were all brilliant, Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Shultz) was on another level as far as I’m concerned. What astounded me about Waltz’s performance was that he was not only able to portray this very intellectual character so fluidly with his unconditional charm and enunciated vocabulary, but also capture the roughness and danger that is the bounty hunter. As you know, he won the Golden Globe for best supporting actor for this performance and still awaiting to see if he can go for two for two with his Oscar nomination in the same category. Waltz won the Oscar two years ago for his role as “Hans Landa” in Inglorious Basterds. I think it’s safe to say that if Waltz should work exclusively on Tarantino films for the rest of his career, well he’d be just fine.