2012 Best Picture Nominee #7: Argo

“This is the best worst idea we have” – Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston) summing up the Argo mission (and the movie’s plot) in a nutshell, Argo

As of this writing, January 31, 2013, Argo appears poised to win the Best Picture Award. It recently won the Producer’s Guild Award for Best Picture, the best ensemble cast at the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and the Golden Globe for Best Drama. It has topped multiple critics’ lists as the single best movie of the year. And I am a little baffled by it all.

Now don’t get me wrong – Argo is an excellent movie. It is a very good thriller with an ingenious hook (so ingenious that I wonder if we weren’t assured it was based on a true story if it would be dismissed as being too outlandish). It is very tightly plotted and despite being two hours long doesn’t seem to “waste” any film on extraneous matter. It also expertly recaptures an important moment in American history – the Iran hostage crisis – through a clever backdoor method of telling a side story of the crisis when just recreating the actual crisis might have been too on the nose.

In 1979, the American consul in Iran is overrun by angry Iranians due to long simmering rage at the U.S. for supporting and later harboring a dictator. Six employees slip out a side door and hide out in the Canadian embassy. If they are spotted, they will be captured and likely executed as spies. Back in the U.S., Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck, also the director) concocts a wild scheme as the only method to help them escape. Mendez, with the help of make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (supporting actor Alan Arkin), concoct a fake sci-fi movie (the titular Argo) as a cover to get the six out of the country (they will pose as Canadian crew on the film, e.g. director, screenwriter, production designer etc. – basically the Academy Awards people don’t care about).

The movie is really two separate parts. The first part is almost a Hollywood sendup, with lots of backbiting comments about the shallowness of the film industry (“So you want to come to Hollywood and act like a big shot without actually doing anything? You’ll fit right in!” quips Goodman). The second-half is a spy thriller as Mendez heads into Iran to attempt to pull out the six. He must repeatedly dodge government figures who (rightfully) distrust him while trying to convince the six he is trustworthy.

Now like I said, there is a lot to like about Argo. It is fast, exciting and often very funny. But it doesn’t feel like anything spectacular either. For a spy thriller, it’s pretty quiet and unassuming. As noted, it has many merits. The performances are very solid. I actually prefer John Goodman, a criminally underrated actor who has never gotten his due, to Arkin’s flashier bravura. The movie’s devotion to period authenticity is astounding, especially when you see the end credits with pictures of the real people involved, all of whom (except Affleck) look remarkably like the actors who portray them.

Look at that 70s style!

On the other hand, the actual six are all fairly underdeveloped as characters, save the one surly guy who ends up coming through for the gang when they most need him. The rest are sort of an amorphous, jittery blob who move as one. The movie however lacks a certain “bigness” that I think are usually found in Best Pictures. Even if it’s not a big story, like a boy finding God while stranded in the ocean for 200+ days, the Best Picture usually has big performances, like two head-cases learning to fight through their broken lives. I don’t think Argo is the best of any one aspect of a movie, but it handles each aspect –from the plotting to performance to the sets – very very well.

Here’s what I think people like about it beyond the actual merits of the movie. Hollywood loves to make fun of itself in ways that are essentially humble brags. Sure everybody has a few laughs about how silly Hollywood is, but in the end it’s Hollywood who bails out the country when it’s needed. It is also entirely possible Argo resonates with a generation slightly older than mine who remembers the Iran Hostage Crisis. For people my age, the Iran Hostage Crisis isn’t covered much in history class (was it covered at all?) partly I think because it was relatively recent and partly because it really doesn’t have the feel good sentiment of say World War II. But if the movie is accurate in capturing the country’s mood in 1979, and most seem to agree it is, then I can see this as a positive argument for why the movie has resonated so well. I also think people like the redemptive story of Ben Affleck, the man who tanked his career through tabloid hoopla and bomb after bomb, emerging as a director of note who makes very good-to-excellent movies. The fact he was left out of the Best Director race, rather merited or not, only adds to his underdog story and makes the story of the movie’s win all the more appealing.

Argo is not my first choice to win Best Picture, but I don’t think it’s a bad choice either. A lot of people have heaped a lot of praise on this movie and if it wins, more power to it and Mr. Affleck.

Nominations: Best Picture; Best Supporting Actor (Alan Arkin); Best Adapted Screenplay; Best Film Editing; Best Sound Editing; Best Sound Mixing; Best Original Score

2012 Best Picture Nominee #6: Les Misérables

“Life has killed the dream I dreamed.” – Fantine (Anne Hathaway) expressing just one of the many life affirming sentiments found in Les Misèrables.

Unlike the majority of Americans (or, at least, Americans I know) I had never seen the stage production of Les Misèrables and was basically unfamiliar with the plot of the beloved musical, other than it involved tuberculosis and shoplifting. Nevertheless, I feel a little weird discussing certain plot elements of the story since what happened was probably as it happened in the play, and thus it feels a little weird to criticize. I don’t usually think about that kind of thing with other adaptions I have covered (for example, Silver Linings Playbook was based on a book that, at least based on its Wikipedia description, had some fairly major changes from the movie) but in this case it still feels strange.

Les Misèrables (or Les Mis, as it’s called by people who don’t know how to put the accent mark over the e) harkens back to the big epic musicals that dominated Best Picture victories in the 50s and 60s. Musicals, despite popular belief, have fallen out of favor at the Oscars in recent times with only one musical having won Best Picture since 1970! Many of the musicals being produced today are of smaller scope than what came before, while Les Mis is much bigger than even some of your Sounds of Musics and My Fair Ladys. Conversely, those movies didn’t include prostitution and massacres as key plot points.

At the beginning of Les Misèrables, the awesomely named Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) (no one ever mentions why he was named in such an awesome way or why he is the only person in the story to have a last name) is released from 19 years of hard labor prison after stealing a loaf of bread. Branded a dangerous criminal, Valjean is forced to skip his parole and change his identity to forge a new life for himself. Eight years later, he owns and runs a successful factory. One of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway) runs afoul of coworkers and the foreman for hiding having a daughter and is cast on the street, forced to sell her body to care for her daughter. Valjean learns of her plight too late to save her but promises to care for her daughter, Cosette, even while dodging Javert (Russell Crowe), the cruel guard who recognizes the Valjean due to his amazing tendon strength (this is an absolutely true plot point) and tries to send the parole jumper back to jail.

Valjean is able to rescue Cosette from the cruel, comically criminal inn keepers who were “caring” for her and escape Javert’s clutches, disappearing into the city. Nine years later, Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) is now a full grown woman who catches the eye of Marius (Eddie Redmayne), one of the leaders of a group of immature, overly-educated punks trying to overthrow the government. When the group’s attempt at an overthrow goes badly, they become blockaded at an inn and Valjean must once again risk exposing his identity to bail out the man his daughter loves.

The presumptive Best Supporting Actress Winner

I thought Les Mis was pretty spectacular. Everything about the movie is BIG. Big sets, big performances, big musical numbers. I can’t see how this movie won’t win Best Production Design. The performances, mostly done by people with stage experience (I think?) are also handled very well. Anne Hathaway has received the most attention for her depressing turn as Fantine, which is fair because her song “I Dreamed a Dream” and the emotions she puts out there while singing it are fantastic. She also benefits because her story is so utterly tragic and depressing and because she sacrificed her hair for the part (!) things Academy voters will generally appreciate. But she is definitely deserving of the award. Hugh Jackman, who carries the majority of the movie, is also great as Valjean. I felt like the movie suffered in the middle when it starts focusing on the young revolutionaries and leaves Valjean out of the story for a while, although it gets back on track when it pulls him into the struggle. Russell Crowe, however, who actually puts on a pretty good performance in terms of straight acting as the evil Javert, is not a great singer and is probably the weakest point of the major players. I really like Amanda Seyfried in general, but her character is the least developed of any of the major players and Èponine, her competition for Marius’s heart, is a much more fleshed out character, despite having an ostensibly more minor role.

While I like musicals in general and don’t mind people randomly breaking into song, Les Mis is more like an opera where people sing everything, including just regular dialogue that would be better just spoken and that aspect can be tiring after a while.

Les Misèrables, along with Lincoln, is the most obvious Oscar-bait of the Best Picture nominees, in terms of its epic scope, tragic story and historical pedigree. That said, I don’t think any of these things are bad or reasons to dislike Les Mis. It delivers on most everything it sets out to accomplish and presents an exciting and epic movie.

Nominations: Best Picture; Best Actor (Hugh Jackman); Best Supporting Actress (Anne Hathaway); Best Original Song (“Suddenly”); Best Costume Design; Best Makeup and Hairstyling; Best Sound Mixing; Best Production Design

2012 Best Picture Nominee #5: Silver Linings Playbook

– How old are you?
– Old enough to have a marriage end and not wind up in a mental hospital.

– Pat and Tiffany (Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence) flirting, Silver Linings Playbook

One theory of a good comedy – especially a comedy that gets a Best Picture nomination – is that the laughs have to be earned through tears. In other words, we can only really cheer a character’s highs if we’ve also experienced their lows. It’s the kind of philosophy that pushed movies like Up into Best Picture contention (and most Pixar movies for that matter) and why Will Farrell comedies aren’t likely to be announced at the podium any time soon. Silver Linings Playbook, as this philosophy suggests, delivers a heartbreaking film that rewards its viewers for enduring the characters’ pain with a life-affirming ending. The movie also continues the sub-trend of quirky movies nominated for Best Picture this year that includes the likes of Life of Pi and Django Unchained, although trying to compare these three movies in any other way is like comparing apples to rockets.

Silver Linings Playbook opens with Pat Solitano getting released from a mental asylum eight months after nearly killing his ex-wife’s lover when he discovered the pair cheating on him. Pat, now unemployed and desperate to get back with his ex-wife is forced to move into his parent’s attic. His father, Pat Sr., (Robert DeNiro) is a die-hard Eagles fanatic with a violent streak similar to Pat’s outbursts (he’s banned from Eagle’s games for fighting), a crazy set of voodoo beliefs in what will inspire his beloved Eagles to win (somehow predicating the Budweiser “It’s only crazy if it doesn’t work” ad campaign) and a bad gambling problem. His mother, Dolores (Jacki Weaver) is constantly cooking and trying to make nice among conflicting parties.

At a dinner party hosted by an old friend, Pat meets the equally volatile Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), an angry widow also flailing at attempts to rebuild her life. Because she has a tenuous connection to Pat’s ex-wife, Pat strikes up a quasi-friendship with Tiffany and agrees to be her dance partner for a city-wide competition. And from there, true love begins to blossom.

I was as tense watching Silver Linings Playbook as at any moment in Argo or Zero Dark Thirty. The early scenes with Pat, as he fights with his family and makes sad to “reinvent himself” to win his ex-wife back are heartbreaking to watch. It seems at times that despite Pat’s continuous stream of optimistic aphorisms, he will never recover from being a deluded sad sack living in his parents’ attic. Even after Pat begins the turn around with Tiffany, I kept nervously waiting for the story to pull the rug out from under us and Pat to be sent spiraling back to square zero. For example, I was convinced that Tiffany was just a figment of Pat’s addled mind (the clues are there if you look for them – for example, how she just pops out of nowhere when they are jogging). But in true comedy form, after Silver Linings Playbook puts you through enough pain, it also rewards you with relief when our characters triumph.

The movie is a pretty interesting take on the typical romantic comedy. Like many rom-coms, the basic premise is two lonely characters that are pushed together to achieve some sort of platonic goal, but romance develops as they work towards that goal (through the power of montage. In this case, however, the characters are vastly more damaged than say a brokenhearted Adam Sandler and a Drew Barrymore engaged to the wrong man. Also, their final goal has a more realistic result (they don’t want to win the dance competition, just be in it).

As with several other films in this year’s Best Picture crop, the performances really help punch up the story. I think Jennifer Lawrence is a tremendous actress and she really adds a spark to the movie when she appears (part of this is because her meeting Pat signals the turn-around in his life). In my opinion, she is better here than Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty, but I feel that the latter’s heavier role and momentum from last year will carry her to the Oscar. Bradley Cooper is also very sympathetic as the sad-sack Pat.  Even though his character is pretty pathetic, he is genuinely likable and you cheer for him to overcome his obstacles.

Some of the plot elements are a little shaky: Besides Pat, every character seems to know everything about every other character at all times without a reason why they should know that (for example, how does Tiffany know Pat got in a parking lot brawl? How does she know where to find him when he’s jogging all the time?) Events seem to happen – notably a brawl Pat gets into late in the film and his old mental ward buddy constantly appearing – without any consequence or explanation. At the time they actually added to my stress as a viewer because I kept waiting for them to lead to something bad to happen to Pat. The movie’s resolution of Pat Sr.’s financial issues – solved with a bizarre bet on an Eagle’s game AND Pat and Tiffany’s dance competition – is also VERY far-fetched in my opinion and doesn’t really stick with the movie’s otherwise realistic tones (Do backdoor bookies really bet that much money?) For that matter, a police officer assigned to keep Pat in line basically disappears by the end of the movie, not even getting involved in the aforementioned parking lot brawl.

The stress I felt for these characters is, I think, a sign of how successful this movie is. Just like I really cared that Lincoln pass that 13^th Amendment, I really wanted Pat and Tiffany to be happy by the end of Silver Linings Playbook, proof the movie succeeds in presenting relatable characters (in a somewhat unbelievable circumstance) whose performances break your heart and give you hope in the span of two hours. Just like Django, I don’t think the movie has enough Big Ideas nor is it epic enough to topple Lincoln on Oscar night, but it is still a tremendous, touching movie.

Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director (David O. Russell), Best Actor (Bradley Cooper), Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Best Supporting Actor (Robert DeNiro), Best Supporting Actress (Jacki Weaver), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing

2012 Best Picture Nominee #4 Django Unchained

“How do you like the bounty hunting business?”

“Kill white people and get paid for it? What’s not to like?” – Dr. King Schultz and Django Freeman (Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx) discuss career options, Django Unchained

Without a doubt, Django Unchained is the coolest Best Picture nominee of the year. Once again, Quentin Tarantino takes a somewhat nutty premise (actually the nuttiest by far – the story is a copy of a rejected Dave Chappelle skit) and infuses it with such flair and crazy cool characters (even the villains) and copious gore to make it awesome. Certainly this is not a movie for everyone, between the buckets of blood and buckets of n-word dropping, but if you get into the flow of the movie and its out-of-control dialogue, I can’t see you not having a good time (the film is also a curious quasi-prequel to Lincoln, showing the culmination of slavery’s effect on the nation just three years before the civil war) (OK, that may be a bit of a stretch).

In 1858, a slavery chain gang en route to the Deep South is interrupted by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a jolly dentist/bounty hunter who needs one of the slaves – Django (Jamie Foxx) ­– to identify three criminals who have escaped the clutches of the law. After a violent confrontation ensues (is there any other sort in a Tarantino movie?), Django helps Schultz take down the wanted men. Schultz, an abolitionist takes Django under his wing and trains him to be a bounty hunter. After a friendship develops between the two, Schultz agrees to help Django rescue his true love Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from her cruel owner. Broomhilda has been sold to Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) who also specializes in breeding slaves to fight to the death (look – it’s not a pretty story). But Django and Schultz’s attempt to win Broomhilda’s freedom are undercut by the traitorous Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), Candie’s trusted man-servant. As is the way in a Tarantino movie, more copious violence ensues.

The plot, though unique, is at times unnecessarily complicated (why do Schultz and Django have to pose as slave fighters to get Broomhilda? How is that going to help exactly? Why is Tarantino so caught up in bartering negotiations (cf Death Proof)? Why does Tarantino sport an Australian accent for his requisite cameo?) For that matter, the movie is probably 30 minutes too long (the seemingly climatic gun battle between all the parties is far from the end of the movie and in fact there’s a second climatic gun battle).

Being awesome

But you know what? None of that really matters, because the movie is a triumph of style over substance. That may be over-stating things – the plot is kind of ingenious in places. But it’s the way people talk and act and the way the camera zooms in and holds on spectacular shots of blood squirting high in the sky that make Django Unchained such a thrilling spectacular ride. The performances by all the cast are great, people dripping with crazy coolness. It’s really a shame more of the actors weren’t nominated. Foxx, DiCaprio and especially Jackson are all worthy of nominations for their incredibly memorable portrayals. The last two are such vile, ugly people worth rooting against, I felt a special thrill when they met their final fate (“Not so fast, Stephen, you’re right where you belong.”)

Now that’s a villain!

It’s always been amazing to me that both Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, once heralded as the two biggest deals of their directorial generation, spend all their time making genre trash. Yes it’s very well made trash and both obviously enjoy doing it (and full disclosure, I love gore and garbage), but one wonders how many grind house homages the two can churn out. I’m not saying Tarantino should do this, but what would it look like if he made a “straight” movie? If he made a movie with any sort of redeeming message (I guess technically Django has the redeeming message about racism and slavery but it’s sort of lost in all the blood), I think the Academy would give him the Oscar out of sheer respect. Even Rodriguez tried to go straight for his kids for a couple movies (interestingly, Rodriguez, nearly as stylish as Tarantino, has never been nominated for Best Director or Picture). Spielberg, the director of his generation had to play it super-straight to finally get an Oscar (and it took him more than one try!).

Do I think Django Unchained is the best movie of the year? No. Lincoln is superior in basically every way, and while its actors aren’t as cool as Django’s, I do think they equal the performances in different ways (Don’t feel bad, Jamie Foxx, nobody else could outdo Daniel Day Lewis either) (Note: I am a little torn on the Samuel L. Jackson vs. Tommy Lee Jones debate and I certainly would like to see Jackson get an Oscar). Nor can Django really be fairly compared with Life of Pi, a movie not about the vileness of man, but the beauty of God (and even though maybe it shouldn’t, the themes of a Best Picture often play a role in its triumph). But damn, sometimes you just like to see awesome people acting awesome.

Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Christoph Waltz), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing,

2012 Best Picture Nominee #3: Life of Pi

“Doubt is useful, it keeps faith a living thing. After all, you cannot know the strength of your faith until it is tested.”- Pi Patel, Life of Pi

SPOILER WARNING: While we here at Operation: Oscar do not shy away from telling the end of the movie, because Life of Pi is not the typical 70-year-old fare covered here and because the following review will delve so deeply into the movie’s ending and what it means to the film as a whole, it is appropriate to mention that if you, dear reader, have not seen the movie yet and still plan to, you would probably be best served by not reading this review. Just know that I thought it was very, very good and one of those rare movies whose real “meaning” you still try to grasp days later (In this regard and also thematically, it’s like Tree of Life, but without the damn dinosaurs).

Life of Pi is an odd duck of a movie. Part adventure story/part philosophical rumination on the meaning of humanity and faith and the existence of God, I found the movie to be a powerful and painful journey. Although the story was touted as a quirky adventure of a young boy trapped on a life boat with a man eating tiger with a wacky name, it actually explores the meaning of spirituality and its role in everyday life.

Young Pi Patel (Suraj Sharma) is obsessed with religion while growing up in India. He becomes a practicing Buddhist, Catholic and Muslim by the time he is ten, much to the chagrin of his atheist father. His father owns a zoo and, striving for a better life for his family, sells the zoo’s animals and arranges to ship them, with the family, to Canada. But the Patel’s boat, run by a Japanese shipping company, sinks in a storm, trapping Pi on a life boat with just a zebra, hyena, orangutan and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Law of the jungle rules ensue and pretty sure PI is left alone with just the tiger. The two form an unlikely bond – despite the danger that exists between them at all times, Pi strives to keep Richard Parker alive, partly to ensure his own sanity and partly because he fears the tiger will devour him if he doesn’t. There is also an ongoing internal debate, initiated by his father before his death, if there is a soul in the eyes of the tiger or just a feral beast.

 

Not the best of traveling companions

The story is told in flashback form by an adult Pi to an author who wants to write the story. At the movie’s end, with the author totally incredulous as to how Patel could have survived, Pi tells a different story, indicating his mother, an injured sailor and the boat’s crew chef had initially survived. The chef killed the sailor and Pi’s mom before Pi killed him and was left to sail for 222 days on his own. In the end, the author decides the tiger story must have been true.

At first, I was infuriated by the ending of the movie. While I usually enjoy a good twist, I thought trying to ground the movie in a more “realistic” place totally defeated its themes of faith and mysticism (even if we are left to decide what “really” happened). Secondly, the author then spells out exactly who each character in Pi’s story represented (PI was the tiger, the chef was the hyena, etc.) which felt like unfortunate spoon-feeding to the audience of the movie’s meaning. On the other hand, I’m not sure if I would have ever figured out the symbolism on my own, so perhaps that was a good call.

After thinking about it more, while I’m still not sure I agree with “grounding” the story at the end, thinking about its implications has given me a greater appreciation for the movie. If Pi is actually the tiger, then the journey is really about Pi’s internal struggle to come to grips and ultimately rise above the inherent savagery of humanity. Pi notes that “Richard Parker kept him alive” and this is literally true, since it was the beast within Pi that was able to defeat the evil cook. Nevertheless, as the movie progresses, Richard Park becomes continually weaker and more dependent on Pi, thus showing the ultimate triumph of humanity’s inherent goodness over its savagery (at least in Pi’s case). Pi cannot “tame” Richard Parker (or completely vanquish the evil within him) but he can train and control it. The journey itself, if it is to prove the existence of God, is about Pi’s test of faith, as he is trapped in the middle of the Ocean and seemingly abandoned by God.

One of the hard to watch scenes

As I said, Life of Pi is the sort of deep, spiritual movie you don’t find very often. Its story works so well that, as noted, I was actually bothered when Pi revealed it was possibly not true. That said, it’s not an easy film to watch, as to explore the ugly side of humanity and existence in general, we get the ugly deaths of the zebra and orangutan and Pi’s own occasional dips into savagery. It is also a beautifully shot film with lush and unique visuals. I really liked the shipwreck sequences, with exotic animals flying or swimming around in the water and the lights of the ship going underwater. This movie would definitely have my vote for Best Cinematography. The visual effects are also great. The filmmakers used real tigers and other animals part of the time and CG animals in other parts and I really could not tell a difference. I was forced to see the movie in 3-D, and I’m not sure that effect really made a difference, although the sequence where the blue whale jumps over Pi’s boat was pretty awesome.

The movie centers basically along the relationship of a boy and a tiger, trapped in a small space and somehow it works. It could be boring or tedious, but the excitement level and tension are kept high and the movie moves quickly.

Life of Pi may not “prove the existence of God” as Pi claims it will, but it provides both a very harrowing adventure story and the sort of movie with Big Ideas you don’t often see.

Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects, Best Original Score, Best Original Song (Pi’s Lullaby)

2012 Best Picture Nominee #2: Zero Dark Thirty

“The politics are changing. You don’t want to be the last one left holding a dog collar,” Dan (Jason Clarke) providing some cultural context to the mid 2000s, Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty is almost like an episode of Law and Order: SVU if the criminals were terrorists and the suspects weren’t allowed to lawyer up. Based on the true story of the manhunt for Osama Bin Laden (supposedly with tireless accuracy), the movie follows one woman’s Moby Dick-like odyssey for a decade as she attempts to track down the world’s foremost terrorist, mostly following a solitary lead that few others give credence

The movie opens with snippets of dialogue from 911 calls from the 9/11 attacks, with no accompanying visuals. It’s an interesting way to introduce the subject matter since one would think the actual images would be just as powerful and maybe create a link to what drives the agents on their decade long search. Interestingly, the attacks are rarely ever mentioned throughout the film, which I think is pretty smart. It stops the movie from just being a rah-rah, go USA piece and further drives its very isolated feel. The movie is focusing on the little people – the people on the ground floor who are carrying out the mission – both the CIA agents and the terrorists – who get so caught up in the mission they never really question the bigger picture driving it on (Presidents only appear on news broadcasts, for example and even bin Laden himself is represented in quick blurry shots).

Two years after the attacks, Maya (Jessica Chastain) arrives in a Pakistani detention unit, run by Dan (Jason Clarke) and gets to watch and even partake in some torture firsthand. Eventually, some smooth talking interrogation gives Maya the name of Abu Ahmed, a high level courier who may have direct contact with bin Laden, himself. If he is real. Maya pursues Abu Ahmed through years and years, losing friends to politics and terrorist attacks along the way.

The lead eventually pays off, after a long build up, leading to the money making part of the movie – a recreation of the attack on bin Laden’s compound. And where I found the procedural aspect of the first half of the movie slow at times, the actual attack is great. I remember at the time of bin Laden’s take out, how captivated the whole nation was by it because it really did sound like an action movie. And sure enough, it comes off like a great, heart stopping action sequence. Director Katherine Bigelow really was snubbed for the Best Director award, because she portrays the attack on the compound with such heart stopping intensity. (One qualm – casting Chris Pratt aka Parks and Rec’s dimwitted Andy Dwyer as a Navy Seal took me out of parts of the attack because I kept thinking “Andy isn’t shooting people in the head.”)

Much like director Katherine Bigelow’s last movie, 2009 Best Picture The Hurt Locker, if you look beyond the political context, Zero Dark Thirty is about a person driven beyond reason on a singular mission to the sacrifice of all else in her life (actually that’s a lot like Law and Order too). We learn almost nothing about Maya’s personal life – why she got into the CIA, what was her training like, anything really. Chastain is considered a front runner for the Best Actress award, but it is hard for me to get behind her because the character is so fundamentally nondescript. Chastain is good at revealing apparent inner turmoil, but where a lot of that springs from, well damn if I know.

Even though Republicans have come out against this movie, I thought its politics were actually fairly conservative. Torture gives the agents their best leads and when the program is shut down, they lament how much more slowly they have to work. Even the famed attack on the compound is slowed down because they lack real insight into who is in there (and the movie kind of drags while they spend a long time debating it).

Zero Dark 30 (or ZD30, the acronym I am trying and failing to get started) is a very well-crafted movie, although I don’t think it is necessarily an enjoyable movie. It’s definitely not something you’re going to pop in the DVD player on a Saturday night to chill out (unless your idea of a relaxing Saturday night includes a good waterboarding). Moreover, ZD30 is absolutely not for dumb people or people with little knowledge of world events. Nothing is overtly explained – you either know the situation, recognize the landmarks (like the famed bin Laden compound) or you will get left behind (actually, there were several events that occurred in the movie that I struggled to remember happening).  In summation, ZD30 is an excellently made and thoughtful, although not always enjoyable to watch, movie.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress (Jessica Chastain), Best Original Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, Best Film Editing

2012 Best Picture Nominee: Lincoln

“I wouldn’t be too upset if Jeff Davis and the rest slipped out the backdoor when our backs were turned,” – Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis), master of subterfuge, Lincoln.

Personal note: When I first envisioned this blog lo these many months ago, I had an idea of breaking away from the past when nomination day hit in order to unleash some up-to-the minute Oscar thoughts. That said, looking at a list of movies I mostly haven’t seen didn’t yield much in the way of interesting thoughts. So I decided to take a page from what I was already doing and look at each Best Picture nominee and then we’ll do a wrap up closer to the big day after I have (hopefully) seen the Big Nine. If I was really smart, I would have started writing these as soon as I saw the films in question. I actually wrote one up for The Master, but a.) that movie kind of sucked and b.) it wasn’t nominated for Best Picture. The best laid plans and all that (not the Best Laid Plans, which are not an official Oscar category.) So with that in mind, let’s get the easiest out of the way first.

Lincoln is basically an amazing movie, damn near close to being a perfect movie. Sweeping in scope, told with precise historic accuracy, detailed with amazing performances and ringing with themes and Big Ideas about the nature of the American Government that resonate heavily today, I really feel this movie has something for everyone and will leave you thinking about it days later.

The movie is set in January 1865. With the Civil War winding down and the nation torn asunder, President Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis) decides to take advantage of a lame duck Congress in order to finally outlaw slavery. The need to abolish slavery is not just for the morality of the issue but because Lincoln understands allowing slavery to fester will just lead the nation to further splitting and an inevitable second Civil War. Such a morally righteous task is not as easy as one would think. Even though the Congress is only being seated by northerners at this point, many are hesitant to outlaw slavery due to lingering racism and political concerns.  

Lincolns plan involves a variety of complex machinations, from bribes to strong arming. Meanwhile, Lincoln must effectively hold off peace with the South in order to halt things from going back the way they were. Lincoln must deal with both sides, even the ultra-zealous anti-slavery advocate Thaddeus Stevens whose hard line stance are as dangerous to the amendment as those who oppose it.

Yes it’s a wig. He makes mention of it.

I think where Lincoln is most powerful is the way the story ponders the country’s political process in a manner that is still relevant today. Lincoln looks at what is seemingly the most obvious, slam-dunk constitutional amendment of all time – banning slavery – and shows what a trying, nail-biting and arduous process such an act of absolute good can be. If that easy-peasy of an amendment takes such pains to adopt, it’s no wonder the issues that we face today, without such obvious white-and-black layout, take so long to pan out and why the political process moves at a seeming snail’s pace (Lincoln even points out that this is by design). A man of absolute good, like Stevens is forced to scale back on his beliefs of racial equality just to get a piece of his dream – the abolition of slavery – realized.  In a time when both political parties refuse to budge on the issues, the lessons about political compromise are hard to ignore.

Lincoln is made by its incredible performances.  Daniel Day Lewis is downright incredible, capturing the spirit of Lincoln, from his down home folksy way that belie his sneaky intelligence and political genius. Tommy Lee Jones was tremendous as the wry sarcastic Stevens. David Strathairn is also compelling as Lincoln’s “Straight man” and occasional “heavy” William Seward. Sally Field was given a somewhat thankless role as the harping Mary Lincoln, but even she imbues the character with a lot of sympathy that history has stripped her of.

One note on the movie’s suspense, particularly in the passage of the 13^th amendment. Yes, the voting scene is done well and I was certainly on the edge of my seat during the climatic vote (although not as much as the woman sitting behind me who gasped at every “no” vote.) That said, I think the comment “We all knew how it was going to end and yet I was enthralled” is somewhat asinine. I would wager that you as a viewer know how most movies are going to end, be they stepped in history or based on some crazy world with wizards and spaceships. Basic storytelling logic pretty well denotes how most movies will end (spoiler alert: the good guys win!). It is the measure of a good movie to keep us in suspense no matter the story. I don’t think Lincoln really had a more uphill struggle than say Star Wars in keeping us in suspense until the end.

Lincoln is my (very) early pick for Best Picture, and Best Actor. It is a wonderful, bracing and downright incredible film.

Oscar nominations: Best Picture, Best Director (Steven Spielberg), Best Actor (Daniel Day Lewis), Best Supporting Actor (Tommy Lee Jones); Best Supporting Actress (Sally Field); Best Adapted Screenplay; Best Original Score; Best Sound Mixing; Best Production Design; Best Cinematography; Best Costume Design; Best Editing