Attenberg; Shut Up Little Man! (New Directors/New Films)

The second and final day of my ND/NF sojourn (split up over two Saturdays) was much more uneven and much less revelatory than the previous one. I saw one very good feature, but the other film I saw and the two shorts that accompanied the two movies were rather poor.

Without further ado: I first saw "Attenberg" by Athina Rachel Tsangari, after the lame short "Match" by Kate Barker-Froyland (which took a weird manner in revealing information about the characters, as well as in concluding). To give you a good idea of what to expect from this film, it apparently stemmed from the question "Do you imagine me naked?" Tsangari said in her Q&A that her making of this film was finding out the parameters of this question: "to whom, and why?" It turns out to be Marina (Ariane Labed) asking her expiring widower father Spyros (Vangelis Mourikis), one of a couple of people who are in her life. Though his answer is one of disgust, this is not a conventional dad, as he is one inclined to scream and act like a wild animal right with his daughter. We are led to believe, as there is no mention of an sort of higher education, that Marina's reading, watching Sir David Attenborough (whose mispronounced name is the basis for the title) on TV, and acting crazy with her father is the only sort of upbringing that she's ever had.

Her only other contact in the world at the film's opening is a close friend named Bella (Evangelia Randou), whom she calls a "dirty slut." The two of them do outlandish shit, like spitting, riding around on motorcycles, walking arm in arm, and looking at their shoulder blades (in the film's most beautiful image). Bella also explains about sex to her, about "prick-trees" and how to French kiss effectively. It is an interesting and insightful look at the sort of friendship that leaves everybody else out, most prominently noted in a scene where the two lip-synch together to a song about loneliness, divided by a curb from the rest of their youthful cohorts. This is one of about three scenes in the film where we see other people besides the direct characters in the film, though in each the leads remain pretty much completely isolated. Tsangari mentioned her friendship with Giorgos Lanthimos, director of "Dogtooth," as "a partnership of two" and maybe that's where she got the inspiration to include this bond between Marina and Bella.

Lanthimos is also in "Attenberg" himself, as the engineer that Marina shuttles into town (which can only remind one of the father bringing in the woman for the son to have sex with in "Dogtooth"). The two of them will go on to intercourse themselves, but not before they have a discussion about their favorite Suicide songs, perhaps somewhat of a jab at the postmodernism peddled nonstop by Tarantino (which has ironically come in without a pop culture overload consumed).

I had some qualms with "Attenberg" on an ideological level (that I still mildly bear, but feel foolish bringing up just in case I'm way off base), and its lack of a cadence is understandably anti-establishment but also unfortunate. But other than those problems, it is a diverting and intelligent film. Like "Dogtooth," it's about how the "normal," especially sexually, isn't always quite so normal. It also has one of the least sentimental views of a person on their deathbed in a long time, yet it's anything but hard-hearted, due to Mourikis' very good acting. But the most impressive job is done by Labed, who is entirely deserving of the Best Actress award she won at Venice. She throws herself into this role, and the result of this intense devotion is an astonishing performance. The cinematography is also masterful, especially in its use of color (and, as my friend noted, its absence) and framing. All-in-all, "Attenberg" goes down easier than the suffocating "Dogtooth" (a companion piece of sorts), and I wouldn't mind seeing it again. B+

Despite its shortcomings, "Attenberg" of the films I saw is the one that seems most like it should have been saved for a higher, if you will, festival (perhaps the NYFF?). "Shut Up Little Man! An Audio Misadventure" by Matthew Bate from Sundance's US Documentary Competition, however, should have been rejected from even ND/NF, or else shown in an ironic, this-is-what-not-to-do sort of way. After I had just seen the documentary form totally trashed by the surreal and totally unrevealing nonfiction short"Fwd: Update on My Life" by Nicky Tavares (which strung bits of information incoherently together without anything explaining them), Bate's wall-to-wall use of completely cliche technique shows that we shouldn't hand over the medium to amateurs.

The film talks about how audio tapes made by two sleep-deprived (well, one of them isn't affected by it) San Fran émigrés of their neighbors began to circulate, acquire devoted listeners, and started to become material for plays, samples, and comic books. In the hands of a talented documentarian, maybe this would have been interesting, but instead, it fails to improve (I assume) on the experience of reading one of the many articles waved in front of the camera. We never hear/read/see any of the recordings or their spinoffs from beginning to end, which suggests either 1) the filmmaker assumes the audience has some degree of familiarity with them or 2) that there's really not much there.

For this film to be successful, it would have to be much more probing and a lot more succinct. Instead, we get bad and anachronistic dramatic re-enactments that are used over and over again due to a lack of authentic video. 85 minutes is a short running time, but it consists mostly of padding and thus one may confuse it for 170. The film claims to have some sort of heady ideological angle, but it comes off not only as more inflicting flab but also, as my friend and reviewers such as Nick Schager have pointed out, as crap. I thank the film for introducing me to this subject, but I can't give it much more credit than that, and can only say that sitting through it is a cinematic misadventure (apologies to Dane Cook). C-

Jane Eyre (2011)

I had a suspicion that the simply astounding poster for "Jane Eyre" would trump the film itself, even though the ticket taker at my theater spoke enthusiastically of its exciting properties, but I wasn't sure by exactly how much. Having endured the film's tedious 2 hour length, I now know the difference in quality between the two works is quite large indeed. This is a plodding film, made by a director who I admire for taking a chance but also see as terribly misguided all the same. One could not imagine that the person who made "Sin Nombre," a very abrasive film, could possibly assemble a movie this dull. Filmmakers such as Jane Campion and Sofia Coppola have done disarming things with similar material, so the fact that Cary Joji Fukunaga brings little to the table is disappointing. And what he does have, he squanders with incompetent, at times risible, direction.

I admit, I say this with limited familiarity with the original novel by Charlotte Brontë. I know from a friend that the story is told in a more sequential manner there than here, and from scanning the opening page of the book that it is told in first person. The film adaptation changes both of these elements slightly, neither for the better. Screenwriter Moira Buffini jumbles the chronology, which produced for me a sort of disconnect to the story. On this same note, I didn't relate too much with the title character, who's sealed off from the audience. I'm guessing that the Brontë version worked better by not separating you from her, and maybe by having people identify with her more this movie could have been improved a bit.

The film is definitely helped, though not completely remedied, by the performances from Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender in the lead roles. Wasikowska, though looking uncomfortable at times (Fukunaga's fault perhaps?), plays the title character well as a quick-witted converser, traumatized by her past (involving Craig Roberts and Sally Hawkins playing against type) but wanting to move on and get some work. We learn, after seeing her taken in by missionary St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell), that her first job came as the governess of the estate of Edward Fairfax Rochester. Fassbender, though terrific and scene-stealing as always, seems to be getting accustomed to the role of the middle-aged guy who preys on the young girl and pulls back to a pre-made facade after this and "Fish Tank." I think it's a good thing that he'll be working again with Steve McQueen, who did the exceptional "Hunger," on "Shame."

How I'd much rather be viewing and talking about that film than this one. No matter. The house that she goes to live in includes an unrelated Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) (whom, according to my friend, is toned down from the book and is seen her as an ally to Jane), as well as a young French girl named Adele (Romy Settbon Moore) whom Jane is teaching and a figure (to be revealed) who is producing noises and fires during the night. This is the backdrop for scenes where Rochester makes his affection for Jane clear and where he finds that even a man as high in stature as himself has to work sometimes for love. Their drawn-out courtship is frustrating as drama, disturbing when it becomes more prescient, and, at a later juncture, simply hilarious. This strikes me as a detrimental misconception on the part of the makers of the film, but who knows? Holy shit, maybe this is all some sort of crazy-ass stylization way ahead of our time!

There is beautiful nature shown in this film (from which a couple of nice compositions by "Sin Nombre" cinematographer Adriano Goldman are drawn), but it's underutilized, and viewers don't get to linger on it as they do in Campion's "Bright Star." A couple of man-made images linger: Eyre as a child lying on the floor cross-dissolved into a saucer of tea, as well as Eyre and Rochester lit by the fire. If Fukunaga had pushed more deeply on this front, and done without the old-fashioned score by "Atonement" composer Dario Marianelli, then possibly there would be more of the "reinvention" that the ads all professed this film to have. I mean, even though I was a little unsettled by these things, being inflicted with disquiet is far superior to being inflicted with boredom. C

Outbound; Pariah (New Directors/New Films)

The combined quality of the two films I saw on this double feature, my first day at this year's ND/NF (the 40th anniversary edition), surpasses anything that I saw at last year's New York Film Festival (also hosted at Lincoln Center), suggesting that this may be ultimately the more worthwhile event. This is a festival where you can not only listen to the directors and casts talk about their works, but also meet them. The NYFF supplies distance between you and the creator of the art and thus makes it a bit less enjoyable.

"Outbound" (or "Periferic," as it's referred to in Romanian) by Bodgan George Apetri stands as an out-and-out masterpiece on the director's first go at full-length filmmaking. Technically flawless and brilliantly controlled, it lets us in on the story of Matilda, played by Ana Ularu, a Romanian cross between Milla Jovovich and Michelle Rodriguez in appearance but a much superior performer than either. She wants to leave Romania on her day leave from prison. She goes to her married brother Andrei (Andi Vasluianu), her sexual client Paul (Mimi Branescu from "Tuesday, After Christmas"), and her son Toma (Timotei Duma), trying to get cash and everything necessary to leave and never come back. As she moves along, the film beautifully unfolds, giving us details about the characters that ultimately form a fractured understanding. In this way, it is a cousin of "If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle," also shot by Marius Panduru and also about prison.

The film's formal prowess can be noted at any moment. It opens with one of the most arrestingly hypnotic images I've ever seen (involving rain), and cycles through follow shots, long takes, jump cuts, flashes of light, and more, displaying an incredible visual stylist at work. The cinematography, editing, and lighting all reach immense heights, but that's not the only great thing about this film. The actors pick up the slack and (for the most part) deliver excellent performances. If you could dock this film points for anything, it would be for the symbolism (like naming the proverbial ferryman out of Romania "Vergil") and parallels (the mother and the son), but in my opinion these add something to the film, perhaps a bit more of a pulse to connect with. And the handling of the ending may disappoint some, though to me it gives the film its most successful conclusion possible. "Outbound" is all you could hope for with a debut and one longs for Apetri to go onwards with his powerful skill, even though he could stop right here and have already had a worthy career. A

I also saw Dee Rees' short-film-adaptation "Pariah" in its New York premiere and first screening since Sundance, where it was picked up for massive distribution by Focus Features. For much of the running time, the movie is superb, a different kind of success than "Outbound." The film is told with an objective point-of-view, which provides the film with a nice flow but also may contribute to the movie's ultimate splintering off. We most prominently follow the symbolically named, closeted gay teenager Alike (Adepero Oduye), a great student who tries to navigate the social landscape of a New York where sexual orientation is over-classified. Her best friend Laura (Pernell Walker) is the most genuine person in her life, but she is shunned by Alike's mother (Kim Wayans). Speaking of Alike's family, only her sister (Sahra Mellesse) is supportive of her. Her overworked parents, nurse mother and detective father (Charles Parnell), pick up signals of her true nature but desperately want them not to be (though less her father than her mother, the former coming to accept, the latter stubbornly anti-gay). Her mother tries to set Alike up with another friend, Bina (Aasha Davis), but that turns out to be what neither mother nor daughter expected.

Despite being tritely scored, this is a strongly acted and written work, with many great scenes. It is magnificently photographed by Bradford Young (who won an award at Sundance for it), using focus in dazzling ways, and utilizing movement and camera placement to capture everything. (It must be said, however, that a friend nearly got sick at the film's constant motion.) This is complimented by the top-notch editing work by Mako Kamitsuna. But the film just doesn't go all the way, as the English teacher in the film urges the lead to do. It pulls back and goes for less of an ending than it probably could have, or perhaps doesn't validate its ending enough, or something. Whatever the case, "Pariah" doesn't jell above a scene-by-scene level. I don't mind that much, though, as it is plenty engaging and directed with talent, and I hope it success with audiences and awards bodies when it arrives in theaters towards the end of the year. B+

I will return on next Saturday to see Athina Rachel Tsangari's "Dogtooth"-esque trip "Attenberg" and Matthew Bate's Sundance competition documentary "Shut Up Little Man! An Audio Misadventure."

Cedar Rapids

"Cedar Rapids" by Miguel Arteta claims to know what bullshit is, so it's kind of strange to me how it is unable to avoid being it itself. It has insight, but wrapped in a candy-colored, slapdash box, presented like the giver is reluctant about handing it to the receiver. I saw it with a Midwesterner, and felt a bit uncomfortable at the film's digs, but even so, it didn't hold up as a success under those circumstances. If it were a success, it probably would have. This is a film that aims somewhere between treacle and hardcore satire, and ends up just about shooting its own eye out. In this position, the slaps at Midwestern culture seem like half-hearted cheap shots, and the schmaltz (which deserves no mention alongside Frank Capra, the point of influence the critics have been using) doesn't even register. In its falling between sardonic and sentimental extremes, it, like "The Housemaid," doesn't ever manage to make a bond with its audience. Which is fine, I guess; the movie would think it was being too "gay."

We follow the exploits of Tim Lippe (Ed Helms, who admirably throws himself into the part), a dude with small ambitions, big-time prejudices, unconventional sexual partners, and an impassioned demeanor, cause that's just how Midwesterners do (so says this movie). He works at an insurance company, which has a track record of winning awards, and heads to Cedar Rapids after the suicide of his reputed fellow employee to preserve it. He wears the warnings and beliefs that have been ingrained in him by his boss (Stephen Root), told to stay with the good guys (like Isiah Whitlock, Jr.), keep off the trail of troublemakers (such as John C. Reilly, basically reprising his role of Dr. Steve Brule) and to keep his eyes on the prize. He soon is being flirtatious with Joan (Anne Heche), who uses Cedar Rapids as a place to get crazy away from her family. His relationship with her gives the movie its ideological heft (about how people aim for so little and are satisfied when they achieve it), but it proves even too revealing, as the film is guilty of the same crimes for which it calls its characters out.

Although the people around me when I saw it broke into literal hysterics, I don't think this is a particularly funny movie. Writer Phil Johnston, a relative amateur with only a couple of credits to his name on IMDb, makes all of his comic setups look choreographed and preconceived. He gives a couple people a couple of good lines, but that doesn't make up for the fact that he equates getting smashed and drugged up to being free (and doesn't try to critique that in the slightest). Because of missteps like this, someone really could make a parody of "Cedar Rapids." Though since it's as "derivative" and "mild" as Anthony Lane and J. Hoberman respectively called it, why would you? C

The Housemaid (Hanyo) (2010)

Im Sang-soo knows how to compose a shot and track forwards or backwards. He's truly talented with that. He's not so good, though, at sustaining any sort of interest, as "The Housemaid," his remake of a film made just over 40 years ago, is irritatingly dull in its slow crawl from scene to scene. I'm fine with slow movies, but there's scarcely a point for this movie to be one, and thus it is very boring. It's supposed to be "provocative," or something (that's what the ads and critics have been saying), but I'm pretty sure the only provoking that'll be happening will be the pinching administered to your arm to keep yourself awake.

I love unbelievable cinematography as much as the next man. More so, probably. But there are also some things that are more important than having your film look good. For example, it doesn't help much when you don't have ANY characters that you can relate to in the slightest. The main character in this film (played by Do-yeon Jeon) finds out information way after we do, and thus cannot really hold our attention. She's a maid who after a little while at her post starts being basically forced (via red wine) into having sex with the father of the family. It shouldn't be too much of a SPOILER, but she gets pregnant. The film would possibly be effective if it let us catch on to this as she did, but due to the film's objective POV (which attempts to pick up on all of the action in this household), we have already processed this information for quite some time before it comes as a revelation to her. A film similar in premise is Roman Polanski's "The Ghost Writer," which achieves wonders by putting the audience and the main character on the same level.

Back to the plot. The wife of course is pissed off when she finds out, when her (annoying) mother tells her because the experienced maid in the house informed on the main character. This makes little to sense as a plot device, as the experienced maid seems to be the only character that we have a chance at relating to. Then again, she basically tossed out all of her credibility as a believable character when flailed around in a random drunken rage. That leaves just about no one (except for the girl of the family, who's only a secondary character), unless you're about to sympathize with a lecherous man or petty grandmother. Me neither. Maybe I just knew too much coming in, or something, but this film didn't really connect with me. I wouldn't really risk taking the chance of it not connecting with you, either.

The film develops and develops, until it doesn't really matter what happens. We don't care about the characters, and thus we don't care about what they do. Simple as that. I wish I had spent my evening in a much different way than waiting it out through 106 minutes of unimaginative cinema like "The Housemaid." The camerawork is something to behold, but all the same, that can't be the only thing that's good about a movie. It's like eating a pie crust without filling inside it. C-

Nostalgia for the Light (Nostalgia de la luz)

"Next to the stars in the sky, the troubles of Chile may seem insignificant. But if you laid them out on a table, they would be a galaxy."

"Nostalgia for the Light" made me think about astronomy in entirely different ways. It makes a parallel between the universe as a whole and the Atacama Desert, where much of a dark period in Chilean history took place and is preserved. By doing this, the film compares the history of humanity with the history of the individual (of those people missing relatives, and of director Patricio Guzman's own life and interests), and confronts massive, mind-blowing notions. It reminds one of films like "Waltz With Bashir" and "Shoah" in how it captures the human tendency to want both to look towards the future, to keep discovering, and also to throw away the past. As in those films, there are people who don't want to let go, who see how that would be even more catastrophic than enduring the catastrophe itself. "Nostalgia for the Light" stands like the bodies left in the Atacama as a way to hold onto history, and thus remains about as valuable as films can get.

The film is an ideological overload on first look, and close attention and repeated viewing is probably necessary. The entry point is the director, who was very into astronomy when he was young, when technological advancement was prided upon, before the political problems in Chile eroded these things. However, we learn this is not the only bad patch of Chilean history: the 19th century seems to be something that nobody wants to think about. This is so much the case that concentration camps were built atop the mines of that time, in an attempt to leave the period behind. Add to that the fact that those under Pinochet placed the corpses of people they murdered in the Atacama, leaving them both well-kept but at the same time infuriatingly decomposed. This has saddened the people who have looked and looked to find the remains of bodies that once housed people they once knew. To some, the shreds they find are cathartic, but to others, they only give to the desire to find something impossible to reach.

The film's overall craftsmanship is marvelous. The cinematography (contrasting the red, rough desert and the white, clean telescopes, as well as space, for further comparison) and the score are both resonant. I only criticize the director's decision to apply iMovie grade effects and (at times) conventional documentary techniques to the film, but, as a friend notes, neither hurts the film too much and both can be somewhat validated. "Nostalgia for the Light" consciously evokes a sliver of land and a country for most of its 90 minutes but at the same time, it opens out into the sky to survey our steps forward and our steps back, our history expanding and contracting again to one day leave us. "Nostalgia for the Light" makes sure that this won't happen in the present day. A

Rubber

Made as straight pulp, "Rubber" by Quentin Dupieux maybe would be more successful than it is. But then again, that would be pretty, ahem, tiresome. We see a tire come to life and make things (including human beings) blow up by harnessing some sort of power. This happens many times over the course of the film, always shot in the exact same way. No insight into the character of the tire, as a banal but more entertaining film would attempt to do. Just an Anton Chigurh type, one that can only be stopped with death and not even that.

So, to counterbalance this, we have a meta-narrative involving a nerdy dude apparently on order from an unseen boss who sets up "spectators" with binoculars to watch the tire. This is considered "watching a movie," and although I see what Dupieux is aiming at with this conceit, it fails due to the fact that it makes little to no sense. Of course, suspending disbelief is step one in watching a movie about a serial murdering tire. But in a film anything is possible, we all know. Having people watch action from miles away that goes inside and outside of buildings with binoculars, though, just makes no logical sense even in a fantastical film such as "Rubber" and is too clunky to be accepted. The reason this section is in here is to both pad the film (it's only 85 minutes long anyways) and also to look at the dynamics of audiences, specifically midnight ones. I get it, but Dupieux could have achieved it with more gusto and with less of a heavy hand than he does.

I guess the resulting mishmash produces more interesting results than otherwise, though. Jack Plotnick as the orchestrating dude does pretty well, most notably when he gives an aimless monologue on when he went with his family to the mountains. Plus, Stephen Spinella as Lt. Chad brings down the house with an arresting opening speech, and even though I think his character (who gets out of the trunk of a car, talks, and gets right back in) should have been contained in this scene, he does end up supplying the film with a bit more life. "Rubber" doesn't really manage to satisfy for the most part. It has some memorable characters and a bizarre atmosphere, but skids ultimately to disposability. C+

Heartbeats (Les amours imaginaires)

Anyone who enjoys good, calculated art direction, costumes, and cinematography may go into cardiac arrest while watching Xavier Dolan's enjoyably opulent "Heartbeats." Even though some have grumbled at his homages to films like Wong Kar-wai's "In the Mood for Love" and Gregg Araki's "Mysterious Skin," a film that makes your head constantly spin is definitely not a bad thing. It has a plot that isn't exactly remarkable, but rather perfectly tightens and loosens at the right moments, allowing you to be both astonished by what you see and also chafed by a bit of narrative tension. One has to be craving a film like this for it to work like magic, so those who aren't too crazy from the sound of it should probably step back, but I predict those who have it in mind will relish it quite a bit.

We follow Francis (played by Dolan himself) and Marie (Monia Chokri), two friends who both see Nicolas (Niels Schneider) as their soul mate. At first they all just hang out together, but soon Francis and Marie are trying to one-up each other to win over Nico. That's pretty much it, but I think Dolan is wise in not letting the plot upstage the production. That is, until the end, when the movie really needs it and when a jolt of drama helps big time.

Perhaps to illuminate the story, or maybe to pad the movie up to a 95-minute running time, we also have clips of people describing their own personal love stories. The movie when it hits these patches feels a bit jerky, and these sorts of things are usually trite, but I have to say these sections actually work pretty well.

All the acting is good as well, especially Dolan, who my friend describes as almost like a silent-movie star in his emotions. He's definitely a great screen presence (apparently he acted before he started directing films), and he solidifies this late in the film when he pulls a completely unexpected move (something like a spastic convulsion) off brilliantly. "Heartbeats" will perhaps bring to mind for its viewers recent films such as "Broken Embraces" and "I Am Love." Let me tell you: it's better than both of them. B+

Oscar Wild(e): 2011 Predictions and Preferences

I want to get this up here, since I've been putting it off for a while. This is pretty basic stuff, not detailed commentary, since I haven't had enough time or (to be frank) enough interest to carry out my ambitions of writing pieces about every single nominee (I only got to "The Kids Are All Right" and "The King's Speech").

The rules of the road here: the first list is in the order of my preference, the second is in the order of the nominees' chances of winning. If there is only one list, it is a prediction list, not a preference list (though when that happens, it's noted).

I've assigned letter grades (and sprawling letter grades, like Nathaniel Rogers does and Nick Davis also) to all of the "above the line" (i.e. not technical) categories, plus the Documentary Feature, Foreign Feature, Animated Feature, and Animated and Live Action short categories. I was going to do letter rankings for all the categories, but outside of cinematography and art direction, I'm pretty much out of my element.

This is spare, but, again, I don't have all the time or the help in the world and I was tired of meditating on this. Maybe I'll put some commentary on certain categories up, but I'm still not quite sure. Sorry for the minor sloppiness in not supplying every name with every (technical) category; if you want those, go to the Oscar website. It's overwhelming, and I don't want to put this off any longer. Just so I don't lose my pedigree as a purveyor of Oscar coverage:

Best Picture:

1. Toy Story 3 A

2. Winter’s Bone A-

3. The Social Network B

4. Black Swan B

5. Inception B

6. The Kids Are All Right B

7. The King’s Speech B-

8. True Grit C+

9. 127 Hours C+

10. The Fighter C

1. The King’s Speech

2. The Social Network

3. True Grit

4. Black Swan

5. The Fighter

6. Toy Story 3

7. Inception

8. The Kids Are All Right

9. 127 Hours

10. Winter’s Bone

Best Director (I guess the same as above, though I would maybe rank Fincher higher and Aronofsky lower):

1. David Fincher, The Social Network

2. Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan

3. Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech

4. Joel and Ethan Coen, True Grit

5. David O. Russell, The Fighter

1. Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech

2. David Fincher, The Social Network

3. Joel and Ethan Coen, True Grit

4. Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan

5. David O. Russell, The Fighter

Best Actor:

1. Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network A/A-

2. Colin Firth, The King’s Speech A/A-

3. James Franco, 127 Hours B/B+

4. Javier Bardem, Biutiful B

5. Jeff Bridges, True Grit B/B-

1. Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

2. Javier Bardem, Biutiful

3. Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network

4. James Franco, 127 Hours

5. Jeff Bridges, True Grit

Best Actress:

1. Jennifer Lawrence, Winter’s Bone A

2. Natalie Portman, Black Swan A

3. Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right A/A-

4. Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine A-

5. Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole B/B-

1. Natalie Portman, Black Swan

2. Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right

3. Jennifer Lawrence, Winter’s Bone

4. Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine

5. Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole

Best Supporting Actor:

1. John Hawkes, Winter’s Bone A/A-

2. Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right A-/B+

3. Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech A-/B+

4. Jeremy Renner, The Town B

5. Christian Bale, The Fighter B

1. Christian Bale, The Fighter

2. Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech

3. Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right

4. John Hawkes, Winter’s Bone

5. Jeremy Renner, The Town

Best Supporting Actress:

1. Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom A

2. Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech B+

3. Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit B/B-

4. Melissa Leo, The Fighter B/B-

5. Amy Adams, The Fighter B/B-

1. Melissa Leo, The Fighter

2. Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit

3. Amy Adams, The Fighter

4. Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom

5. Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech

Best Original Screenplay

1. Another Year A/A-

2. The Kids Are All Right A-/B+

3. Inception B/B-

4. The King’s Speech B-

5. The Fighter C

1. The King’s Speech

2. The Kids Are All Right

3. Inception

4. Another Year

5. The Fighter

Best Adapted Screenplay

1. Toy Story 3 A

2. The Social Network B+

3. Winter’s Bone B+

4. True Grit B

5. 127 Hours C+

1. The Social Network

2. Toy Story 3

3. Winter’s Bone

4. True Grit

5. 127 Hours

Best Animated Feature

1. Toy Story 3 A

2. The Illusionist B

3. How to Train Your Dragon B

Same as above

Art Direction:

1. Inception

2. The King’s Speech

3. True Grit

Having not seen: Alice in Wonderland, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

1. The King’s Speech

2. Inception

3. True Grit

4. Alice in Wonderland

5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Costume Design (though I have no real way of ranking this rationally):

1. The King’s Speech

2. I Am Love

3. True Grit

Having not seen: Alice in Wonderland, The Tempest

1. I Am Love (the night’s upset, I believe)

2. The King’s Speech

3. True Grit

4. Alice in Wonderland

5. The Tempest

Best Cinematography

1. Roger Deakins, True Grit

2. Danny Cohen, The King’s Speech

3. Matthew Libatique, Black Swan

4. Jeff Cronenweth, The Social Network

5. Wally Pfister, Inception

1. Roger Deakins

2. Danny Cohen

3. Wally Pfister

4. Jeff Cronenweth

5. Matthew Libatique

Best Documentary Feature

1. Exit Through the Gift Shop A

2. Restrepo B

3. Inside Job B-

Having not seen: Waste Land, Gasland

1. Inside Job

2. Exit Through the Gift Shop

3. Waste Land

4. Restrepo

5. Gasland

Best Documentary Short

Having not seen: any of them

1. Strangers No More

2. The Warriors of Qiugang

3. Killing in the Name

4. Poster Girl

5. Sun Come Up

Best Foreign Film

1. Dogtooth B+

2. Biutiful C

3. Outside the Law D

Having not seen: Incendies, In a Better World

1. In a Better World

2. Incendies

3. Biutiful

4. Dogtooth

5. Outside the Law

Best Animated Short

1. Madagascar, a Journey Diary B+

2. The Lost Thing B

3. The Gruffalo B

4. Day and Night B-

5. Let’s Pollute C

1. Madagascar, a Journey Diary

2. Day and Night

3. The Gruffalo

4. Let’s Pollute

5. The Lost Thing

Best Live Action Short

1. God of Love A-

2. Na Wewe B+

3. The Crush B

4. The Confession B

5. Wish 143 C+

1. God of Love

2. Na Wewe

3. The Confession

4. Wish 143

5. The Crush

Film Editing (this year, no particular preference; though this is one of my favorite categories):

1. The King’s Speech

2. 127 Hours

3. The Social Network

4. The Fighter

5. Black Swan

Makeup:

1. Barney’s Version (horrible makeup, mind you; hope this doesn’t win)

Having not seen: The Way Back, The Wolfman

1. The Way Back

2. Barney’s Version

3. The Wolfman

Music (Original Score)

1. The Social Network

2. Inception

3. 127 Hours

4. How to Train Your Dragon

5. The King’s Speech

1. The Social Network

2. The King’s Speech

3. Inception

4. 127 Hours

5. How to Train Your Dragon

Original Song:

1. We Belong Together – Toy Story 3

2. Coming Home – Country Strong

3. I See the Light - Tangled

4. If I Rise – 127 Hours

1. We Belong Together

2. Coming Home

3. I See the Light

4. If I Rise

Sound Mixing (no preference):

1. Inception

2. Salt

3. The King’s Speech

4. The Social Network

5. True Grit

Sound Editing (no preference):

1. Inception

2. Tron: Legacy

3. Unstoppable

4. True Grit

5. Toy Story 3

Visual Effects:

1. Inception

2. Iron Man 2

3. Hereafter

Having not seen: Alice in Wonderland, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

1. Inception

2. Hereafter

3. Iron Man 2

4. Harry Potter DH Part 1

5. Alice in Wonderland

Outside the Law (Hors-la-loi)

"Outside the Law" has perhaps one of the worst first scenes in cinema history, so its cause isn't helped from the get go. It involves an Algerian family being evicted by French colonist from the land they've owned for so long. I'm pretty sure Rachid Bouchareb wanted the scene to be devastating, or something, but his direction is so awful that it doesn't work in the slightest. He doesn't get the actors to seem like they relate to each other, or to have any sort of affect. The mishandling of this moment throws off the rest of the movie, completely blowing its chance at getting a grip on the audience and thus relegating us to being bystanders. It's even worse when you consider that an episode like this should work on its own.

It only gets drearier when it devolves into a bunch of what are basically vignettes following the three brothers (Jamel Debbouze, Roschdy Zem, and Sami Bouajila, all of whom get their histrionic freak on, despite having potential for understatement and evocation) of the family on their separate paths, and then more bland as we see the brothers become less and less respectable human beings and interesting characters. I don't have a particular weakness for guys-in-treachcoats-and-hats movies, but this movie must one of the most hopeless, as it cannot come up with at least one decent staging as it descends, minute by boring minute, into becoming a time-waster. As my friend points out, you won't learn anything about the French-Algerian Conflict here.

Watching Bela Tarr's "Satantango," as I did last night, makes one appreciate good, careful craft. Watching Boucherab at work here shows just about how choppy you can get. He's pretty much the anti-Tarr, cutting off scenes way before they should close, impressively shuffling lenses and colors, but to no avail. One wonders if "Days of Glory," this film's apparent predecessor (which got a lot more pats on the back), worked some great wonders that are absent here (now I know why the section on the war in this one was so scarce).

"Outside the Law" is monotonous and out of touch with the audience. It is almost entirely unsatisfying. It's like someone made a musical and removed all of the musical numbers, stringing the sudsy in-between bits together and calling it a day. We get separated from the characters, and thus are left to look at them simply as murderers, a mistake that every good crime film is able to avoid. If this manages to win the Oscar for Best Foreign Film, it'll be one of the Academy's biggest lapses. It is the movie of the year which makes the biggest step at divorcing the Cannes Film Festival from quality. The only way that it can be seen as a success is that it inflicts the same sort of repression on you that it portrays. You will want to leave early, so save yourself the trouble. D