When the economy starts to flounder, glitz and glamour are often traded in for more reasonable uses of money. The Academy Awards, though, did not suffer from this economic downturn; they were, in fact, glitzier than ever. The show, in an effort to regain viewers (2007 Oscars had 40 million viewers, the 2008 had only 32 million) restructured the awards show and created something magical.
The focus of the 81st Annual Academy Awards was on the presentation itself. For the many actors, producers, directors, editors, and others at the Kodak Theatre, the Academy Awards is the end all be all of great shows. In past years the feeling of glamour and beauty is poorly translated to television but this year the audience felt all of the fantasy and magic come through. The set of the Kodak Theatre was ornate and very old Hollywood. The crystal curtains were stunning and enveloped all those who were on stage. The stage floor resembled patterns that Michelangelo used in his plazas. In keeping with the old Hollywood theme, a showy bandstand was set up and the musicians played jazzy renditions of the typical Oscar themes.
During segments of the show the set was changed from simple backdrops to lavish sets to present the awards for Best Art Direction (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”), Best Costume Design (“The Duchess”), and Best Make- Up (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”). Before announcing the nominees for the Best Original Song, A.R. Rahman and Thomas Newman performed a medley of “Jai Ho”, “O Saya”, and “Down to Earth” bringing in Indian choreography.
Another performer of the night was Queen Latifah singing, “I’ll be Seeing You” in memoriam of the many people involved in the movie business that passed away within the last year. Generally, this moment leaves the crowd and at-home audience in tears. The crowd at the Kodak Theatre may have been moved but at-home audiences were far from moved. During this segment the camera, in an effort to portray the feel of the show, moved wilding about following the different screens on stage. Instead of being encompassed by the images of these people who are no longer with us the movement of the camera was distracting.
The glamour of the show continued by bringing back five previous winners in each category of Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. The sense of awe from the crowd looking upon such talent was obvious and the Academy’s choice to present the awards in this was much stronger than in years past.
The Awards ended, quite sweetly with the awarding of the Best Picture, “Slumdog Millionaire”. Members of the cast and crew swarmed the stage and the excited amongst them and the rest of the audience was apparent. Danny Boyle, director of “Slumdog Millionaire” mentioned that the entire Academy Awards from the Kodak Theatre was, “Bloody wonderful”.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Kael
Pauline Kael has been revered by many and loathed by some for her blatant opinions of movies. In reading Afterglow by Francis Davis and House Critic by Renata Adler two very different perspectives of this American movie critic are presented. Davis praises Kael for her straight-forwardness while Adler chews her to pieces for a, “jarringly, piece by piece, line by line, and without interruption, worthless”, collection of reviews. Adler, though tough, provided enough examples to prove that Kael was no “great”.
Kael, born in 1919 to Jewish Polish immigrant parents, rose to celebrity critic standing after working menial tasks and writing reviews here and there. Kael hit her stride when working for The New Yorker in 1968. She worked as one of two critics until 1979 when she became the sole film critic. Over the course of her career, Kael published five collections of reviews, I Lost it at The Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, When the Lights Go Down, Taking it All In, and Deeper Into the Movies. After living with Parkinson’s disease for ten years, Kael announced her retirement in 1991.
Kael was often praised for her colloquial writing style. She wrote that movies were a “pop” experience and wanted to write in a manner that everyone could understand. Kael spoke negatively about avant-garde, haute couture, and art house films and audiences saying an educated audience uses these films, “in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood ‘product’, finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and their liberalism”. Yet Kael’s work often makes the reader feel unintelligent and Kael seem overbearing and pretentious. She often compares work that doesn’t compare to the movie or speaks to the audience like they couldn’t understand what she was saying.
Often, Kael’s reviews were meandering, autobiographical conversations. It took Kael a considerable number of words to actually review the film. When she did begin, as Adler points out, Kael was quick to use many similar phrases such as “whore”, “myth”, “pop”, “pulp”, and “visceral”. Adler, writer for The New Yorker, critiqued Kael on her refusal to acknowledge mistakes she made, incessantly asking open-ended questions, making up endings to words, and selling out by moving to Hollywood. Adler makes many good points and provides numerous examples to support her view on Kael.
Over time Kael gained a following and during her time many critics devoted themselves to writing in her style; these critics were called “Paulettes”. Currently, A.O. Scott, film critic for the New York Times and Roger Ebert, leading film critic, admit to being influenced by Kael. Also, movie directors would send her copies of scripts or advanced copies of their movies for her to review. If Kale gave a director a positive review they were kept in work, if she was negative it could mean a director would stop making movies. David Lean, for example, said he was so traumatized by Kael’s review that he was too afraid to make another movie for 14 years.
Kael has had many fans and many critics over her long life. One thing everyone can agree upon is that her work has changed the way audiences, critics, and directors see movies. She didn’t even like “Star Wars”!
Kael, born in 1919 to Jewish Polish immigrant parents, rose to celebrity critic standing after working menial tasks and writing reviews here and there. Kael hit her stride when working for The New Yorker in 1968. She worked as one of two critics until 1979 when she became the sole film critic. Over the course of her career, Kael published five collections of reviews, I Lost it at The Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, When the Lights Go Down, Taking it All In, and Deeper Into the Movies. After living with Parkinson’s disease for ten years, Kael announced her retirement in 1991.
Kael was often praised for her colloquial writing style. She wrote that movies were a “pop” experience and wanted to write in a manner that everyone could understand. Kael spoke negatively about avant-garde, haute couture, and art house films and audiences saying an educated audience uses these films, “in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood ‘product’, finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and their liberalism”. Yet Kael’s work often makes the reader feel unintelligent and Kael seem overbearing and pretentious. She often compares work that doesn’t compare to the movie or speaks to the audience like they couldn’t understand what she was saying.
Often, Kael’s reviews were meandering, autobiographical conversations. It took Kael a considerable number of words to actually review the film. When she did begin, as Adler points out, Kael was quick to use many similar phrases such as “whore”, “myth”, “pop”, “pulp”, and “visceral”. Adler, writer for The New Yorker, critiqued Kael on her refusal to acknowledge mistakes she made, incessantly asking open-ended questions, making up endings to words, and selling out by moving to Hollywood. Adler makes many good points and provides numerous examples to support her view on Kael.
Over time Kael gained a following and during her time many critics devoted themselves to writing in her style; these critics were called “Paulettes”. Currently, A.O. Scott, film critic for the New York Times and Roger Ebert, leading film critic, admit to being influenced by Kael. Also, movie directors would send her copies of scripts or advanced copies of their movies for her to review. If Kale gave a director a positive review they were kept in work, if she was negative it could mean a director would stop making movies. David Lean, for example, said he was so traumatized by Kael’s review that he was too afraid to make another movie for 14 years.
Kael has had many fans and many critics over her long life. One thing everyone can agree upon is that her work has changed the way audiences, critics, and directors see movies. She didn’t even like “Star Wars”!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hicok, A Primer in Poetry
When a poet walks in wearing a blue t-shirt, jeans and sneakers any expectation of the pompous, pretentious, poetry reading type is removed. Hicok even says himself, “I hate poetry readings, I can’t pay attention at all…So if you get distracted by anything and everything, don’t worry”. His laid back attitude didn’t reflect at all upon Hicok’s numerous accomplishments.
Hicok is a self-taught poet, but not having a formal education hasn’t hindered him either. He has written 5 poetry books (Insomnia Diary (Pittsburgh, 2004), Animal Soul (2001), Plus Shipping (1998),The Legend of Light (1995), Bearing Witness (1991)) and won 2 Pushcart Prizes, an NEA Fellowship and one of his books was named an ALA Booklist Notable Book of the Year and winner of the Felix Pollak Prize in Poetry. He is currently teaching at Virginia Tech and is the associate professor in the M.F.A. program. In the past he owned a successful auto-die company and taught at West Michigan University part-time.
The influence of his Detroit, Michigan upbringing is everywhere, most noticeably in “A Primer”. In it, Hicok mentions that in Michigan “February is 13 months long”, “the state bird is a chained factory gate”, and “ ‘What did we do?’ is the state motto”. Others of his poems contain his Detroit influence, in “Killing” (a poem not read at the reading) Hicok depicts a boy that wishes he had stronger weapons to kill bigger targets and a boy that wishes he could defeat a bully.
Hicok read poems about life, love, politics, school, and illness. Despite the array of his work, Hicok covers each topic with the same eloquence and relates to every person. The reading began with the poem “Life” immediately putting the listener on the same level as Hicok; He didn’t want anyone to feel left out. His small talk between poems eased the audience into the works and he prefaced some poems with stories about how they related to his life.
Some of the more touching of the poems were “BRCA1”, “Her, My Body”, and “A Primer”. “BRCA1” relates to learning of a friends breast cancer and the title is taken from the gene named for the detection of early onset breast cancer. In “Her, My Body” Hicok again refers to cancer but talks about, with great delicacy, how it effects his life and love for his wife and says that he has “one way/ to be happy/ and she is that way”. “A Primer” referenced life in Michigan and got the whole audience laughing with its truthfulness.
“Let us all be from somewhere”, says Hicok as he ends “A Primer” and his readings for the night. He leaves the audience with a sense of renewed interest in the world, an increasing desire to pay attention to the little things, and a wish to be able to express, so simply, how one feels about everything around them.
Hicok is a self-taught poet, but not having a formal education hasn’t hindered him either. He has written 5 poetry books (Insomnia Diary (Pittsburgh, 2004), Animal Soul (2001), Plus Shipping (1998),The Legend of Light (1995), Bearing Witness (1991)) and won 2 Pushcart Prizes, an NEA Fellowship and one of his books was named an ALA Booklist Notable Book of the Year and winner of the Felix Pollak Prize in Poetry. He is currently teaching at Virginia Tech and is the associate professor in the M.F.A. program. In the past he owned a successful auto-die company and taught at West Michigan University part-time.
The influence of his Detroit, Michigan upbringing is everywhere, most noticeably in “A Primer”. In it, Hicok mentions that in Michigan “February is 13 months long”, “the state bird is a chained factory gate”, and “ ‘What did we do?’ is the state motto”. Others of his poems contain his Detroit influence, in “Killing” (a poem not read at the reading) Hicok depicts a boy that wishes he had stronger weapons to kill bigger targets and a boy that wishes he could defeat a bully.
Hicok read poems about life, love, politics, school, and illness. Despite the array of his work, Hicok covers each topic with the same eloquence and relates to every person. The reading began with the poem “Life” immediately putting the listener on the same level as Hicok; He didn’t want anyone to feel left out. His small talk between poems eased the audience into the works and he prefaced some poems with stories about how they related to his life.
Some of the more touching of the poems were “BRCA1”, “Her, My Body”, and “A Primer”. “BRCA1” relates to learning of a friends breast cancer and the title is taken from the gene named for the detection of early onset breast cancer. In “Her, My Body” Hicok again refers to cancer but talks about, with great delicacy, how it effects his life and love for his wife and says that he has “one way/ to be happy/ and she is that way”. “A Primer” referenced life in Michigan and got the whole audience laughing with its truthfulness.
“Let us all be from somewhere”, says Hicok as he ends “A Primer” and his readings for the night. He leaves the audience with a sense of renewed interest in the world, an increasing desire to pay attention to the little things, and a wish to be able to express, so simply, how one feels about everything around them.
Monday, February 9, 2009
From a "Slumdog" to Top Dog
“Slumdog Millionaire” is leaving audiences breathless. Right from the start “Slumdog” charges at the audience with its eye-opening look at the slums of Mumbai and doesn’t stop until the very ‘bollywood’ credit. Scene after scene, “Slumdog” proves that it is exactly the opposite. Director Danny Boyle (“28 Days Later,” “Sunshine”) doesn’t disappoint and instead has created a craze that is sweeping Hollywood.
The movie, almost released straight to DVD is now a Hollywood hit. After gaining praise from its first screening at the Telluride Film Festival “Slumdog Millionaire” has steadily gained momentum in Hollywood and is now sitting on 42 award wins and 36 other nominations. It is no surprise that “Slumdog Millionaire” has landed ten Oscar nominations, and each one has a strong chance to take home the Oscar.
The story, based on the novel “Q&A” by Vikas Swarup, follows Jamal Malik as he answers question after question correctly in the Indian version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” The film begins with the typed question on the screen, "Jamal Malik is one question away from winning 20 million rupees," it reads. "How did he do it? A) He cheated. B) He's lucky. C) He's a genius. D) It is written." From there, the story is told in episodic flashbacks of Jamal’s life in the slums where each flashback reveals how Jamal knows the answers. Jamal Malik’s childhood is unlike any imaginable by American audiences and, therefore, is captivating. Jamal, his brother Salim, and ‘third musketeer’ Latika are all orphaned and left to fend for themselves in their youth. Throughout their tumultuous childhood, they become thieves, gang members, or prostitutes.
The film is filled with exquisite cinematography matching the energy and feel of “City of Gods”(directed by Fernando Meirelles) with the use of light and action shots. The editing of the “Slumdog” is impeccable, especially with the transitions between the youth of Jamal, the game show and the questioning by security. The soundtrack is just as seamless as the other elements of the film. The mix of semi-traditional Indian rhythms and electronically infused pop music suits each scene.
Despite all of its strengths “Slumdog Millionaire” seems cliché in parts, the ending is no surprise and completely predictable. Through the acting of the entire cast and the rest of the cinematography these shortcomings can be overlooked.
Throughout, the actors all prove themselves. The adult Jamal (Dev Patel from “Skins”), Salim, played by Madhur Mittal, and Latika, played by Freida Pinto, were full of a range of emotions and executed each scene stunningly. The best moments come from the interactions between the children that play Jamal, Salim, and Latika. Taken from the actual slums of Mumbai and placed in the movie, the Hindi-speaking children, Ayush Mahesh Khedekar, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, and Rubiana Ali, respectively, are so engaging and convincing in their parts it is difficult not to fall in love with each of them (Through her work in the Indian casting, Loveleen Tandan, gained status as co-director). In particular, the interactions between Khedekar and Ismail as brothers are impeccable, even in their youth both actors grasped the intensity and depth of their parts.
So where does the success of “Slumdog Millionaire” come from?
D) It is written.
The movie, almost released straight to DVD is now a Hollywood hit. After gaining praise from its first screening at the Telluride Film Festival “Slumdog Millionaire” has steadily gained momentum in Hollywood and is now sitting on 42 award wins and 36 other nominations. It is no surprise that “Slumdog Millionaire” has landed ten Oscar nominations, and each one has a strong chance to take home the Oscar.
The story, based on the novel “Q&A” by Vikas Swarup, follows Jamal Malik as he answers question after question correctly in the Indian version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” The film begins with the typed question on the screen, "Jamal Malik is one question away from winning 20 million rupees," it reads. "How did he do it? A) He cheated. B) He's lucky. C) He's a genius. D) It is written." From there, the story is told in episodic flashbacks of Jamal’s life in the slums where each flashback reveals how Jamal knows the answers. Jamal Malik’s childhood is unlike any imaginable by American audiences and, therefore, is captivating. Jamal, his brother Salim, and ‘third musketeer’ Latika are all orphaned and left to fend for themselves in their youth. Throughout their tumultuous childhood, they become thieves, gang members, or prostitutes.
The film is filled with exquisite cinematography matching the energy and feel of “City of Gods”(directed by Fernando Meirelles) with the use of light and action shots. The editing of the “Slumdog” is impeccable, especially with the transitions between the youth of Jamal, the game show and the questioning by security. The soundtrack is just as seamless as the other elements of the film. The mix of semi-traditional Indian rhythms and electronically infused pop music suits each scene.
Despite all of its strengths “Slumdog Millionaire” seems cliché in parts, the ending is no surprise and completely predictable. Through the acting of the entire cast and the rest of the cinematography these shortcomings can be overlooked.
Throughout, the actors all prove themselves. The adult Jamal (Dev Patel from “Skins”), Salim, played by Madhur Mittal, and Latika, played by Freida Pinto, were full of a range of emotions and executed each scene stunningly. The best moments come from the interactions between the children that play Jamal, Salim, and Latika. Taken from the actual slums of Mumbai and placed in the movie, the Hindi-speaking children, Ayush Mahesh Khedekar, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, and Rubiana Ali, respectively, are so engaging and convincing in their parts it is difficult not to fall in love with each of them (Through her work in the Indian casting, Loveleen Tandan, gained status as co-director). In particular, the interactions between Khedekar and Ismail as brothers are impeccable, even in their youth both actors grasped the intensity and depth of their parts.
So where does the success of “Slumdog Millionaire” come from?
D) It is written.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
