Oscars 2011: the results

-Best Picture: correct!

-Best Leading Actor: correct!

-Best Leading Actress: incorrect...

Second choice: correct.

-Best Supporting Actor: incorrect...

Second choice: correct.

-Best Supporting Actress: incorrect...

Second choice: correct.

-Best Director: correct!

-Best Original Screenplay: incorrect...

Second choice: correct.

-Best Adapted Screenplay: correct!

-Best Animated Movie: incorrect...

Second choice: correct.

-Best Foreign Movie: incorrect...

Second choice: incorrect...

-Best Cinematography: correct!

-Best Editing: incorrect...

Second choice: incorrect...

-Best Art Direction: correct!

-Best Costume Design: incorrect...

Second choice: incorrect...

-Best Makeup: correct!

-Best Score: correct!

-Best Song: correct!

-Best Sound Mixing: incorrect...

Second choice: correct.

-Best Sound Editing: incorrect...

Second choice: correct.

-Best Visual Effects: incorrect...

Second choice: correct.

-Best Documentary: incorrect...

Second choice: correct.

Correct: 9

Correct on second choice: 9

Fully incorrect: 3

Not a bad score overall. Surprising to see how many of my second choice hunches proved to be right. I guess I should listen to that silly voice inside my head more... And Rango won! Wow, who would have thought the Academy would condone a gritty weird movie about talking animals appropriating an iconic American genre, with a fair amount of jokes about alcohol and inbreeding? There's hope yet for oddball animation in mainstream cinema!

So, are there some decisions I feel like bitchin' about? Sure. Drive didn't even get that one Oscar it was nominated for, the Academy must really hate that movie! Also, it's obvious the potential of Motion Capture is still way over the Academy's head, robbing the Apes of their prize. I'm also quite disappointed by the choices of winning actresses. It's no news Meryl Streep is a good actress, and it's harsh to see poor Rooney Mara paying the price for that, losing to that old hag. I guess two Oscars for Streep just wasn't enough, eh? A similar feeling rose when Bérénice Bejo didn't get the Oscar for a performance just as gripping as Dujardin's. They really made The Artist work together, neither of them did it single handedly. Giving one an award and the other none seems cruel. Other than that, me and the Academy seem to be largely on the same page. So where can I apply for Academy membership again? I still see room for improvement!

Oscars, Oscars everywhere, but not a Drive to win!

Oscar day is less than two days away now, so I thought I'd skip the usual discussion of a movie I watched the last few days and discuss my particular pick of winners instead, either movies I think will win, or movies I hope will win (wouldn't it be great if these two were one and the same?). First of all, I must protest against the Academy's decision not to nominate Drive for Best Picture, which it easily deserves. What is the point of expanding the number of Oscar nominees for Best Picture from five to ten if you ignore the tenth? So only nine nominees this year, but at least most people agree which movie would have been number ten, and which movie would have won in general. By omitting Drive and not picking a tenth movie, the Academy might as well have outright stated this movie would have won if it wasn't too violent for the Academy's taste, even though decreasing the gore levels would have made Drive a less effective movie. Similarly, also very disappointing to see Michael Fassbender is not nominated for Best Actor for his revealing role in Shame, but of course we can't have a civilized institute like the Academy promoting nudity in movies. Both cases of severe neglect were rather predictable, the Academy being the rigid backward uptight American institute it is, obviously uncomfortable with actors showing what they consider 'explicit nudity' (a penis) or films displaying extreme violence (a man getting his head kicked into pulp while using an elevator), despite such actors and films being actually excellent and already enjoying a rather large amount of positive critique around the globe. It's the same small minded thinking that robbed Mickey Rourke of his well deserved Oscar for The Wrestler just for using a swear word the day before the ceremony, but it's the way it is so we can do nothing but complain about it. A lot.

So, eliminating two given winners, what remains? Still a fair amount of good motion picture making fortunately, though also a decent amount of nonsensical nominations (War Horse for best picture? Really?). So here are my predictions:

-Best Picture: The Artist. Not only is it celebrating Hollywood's roots (and to some extent, the Academy's) in a fantastic way, it's also the most original constructed piece among the nine nominees, using all the ancient techniques that started it all. Plus, it's actually from France, and it would be deliciously ironic to have a French movie win this American price by largely just eliminating the language barrier altogether, yet illustrating that a well crafted motion picture can charm audiences everywhere. Also, with Drive out of the picture, the competition just doesn't seem up to it. All good movies, sure, but few of them seem like actual Best Picture material.

Second choice: Hugo.

-Best Leading Actor: Jean Dujardin for The Artist. Such a riveting and charming performance! The full emotional spectrum, but doing away with dialogue, thus making it harder for the actor to convey his character's feelings, and Dujardin excelled at this.

Second choice: George Clooney for The Descendants.

-Best Leading Actress: Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A very challenging and sometimes shocking performance, made more difficult by various metal appliances, some excessive body paint and an obligatory Swedish accent (though in this movie her male counterpart didn't need one, since he's already an established star and apparently doesn't need to show why he is by turning to silly accents). Considering Rooney's limited experience so far this is a genuine tour-de-force. Definitely a young actress to keep watching!

Second choice: Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady.

-Best Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn. One great Shakespearean actor playing another, and doing a grand job at it. Besides, the poor man has been nominated four times before for an equal number of different departments of making movies, and he always left empty handed. Fifth time is the charm, or keeping with tradition?

Second choice: Christopher Plummer for Beginners.

-Best Supporting Actress: Bérénice Bejo for The Artist. Same reasons as Jean Dujardin above, plus the fact she's even more charming and just generally cute. Just as we want this pair to live happily ever after together in the movie, we want them to leave with one of those funny gold statues together.

Second choice: Octavia Spencer for The Help.

-Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist. I could tell you why, but I don't want to sound repetitive by now. So I'll just say he should win an Oscar because he made a good movie that really, really deserves it. And I might also refer you to my article on The Artist, since I'm not above shameless self-promotion.

Second choice: Martin Scorsese for Hugo.

-Best Original Screenplay: The Artist. You try and write a screenplay for a movie that has no dialogue.

Second choice: Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris.

-Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants. The other nominees, except for Hugo, seem too politically charged or too subversive to win in this category under the current conservative climate in the Academy. So it's a toss-up between Hugo and The Descendants, and I go for the latter because the Academy usually favors a movie that is all about characters, while Hugo (which of course is not at all lacking in the character department) also has that visual element to it the Academy often seems to regard with a bit of disdain. If there's one category that's basically a wild guess, it's this one.

Second choice: Hugo.

-Best Animated Movie: Kung Fu Panda 2. I would have said Rango, but I figure it's much too subversive and bizarre for the Academy's limited taste. Kung Fu Panda 2, though potentially suffering from being a sequel (also something the Academy often is intolerant of), seems like a safer bet. The other choices are either too artsy or simply not Oscar material (Puss in Boots? Come on!).

Second choice: Rango.

-Best Foreign Movie: In Darkness. Holocaust drama. What more needs there to be said about this one? Kate Winslet is living proof.

Second choice: Rundskop.

-Best Cinematography: Hugo. Martin Scorsese + 3-D = kickass camera work.

Second choice: The Tree of Life.

-Best Editing: The Artist. Though containing a lot of fairly straight forward montage due to the use of old techniques needed to give the movie a classic feel, there's also some fabulous split-screen and wiping going on which is simply too beautiful to ignore. Striving not to be boring, the editor and director turned to various daring pieces of editing (some nearly extinct these days) to convey the overall mood much more dramatically.

Second choice: Hugo.

-Best Art Direction: Hugo. Only a master of motion pictures like Scorsese could make such a wonderful combination of history and fantasy come alive so breathtakingly visually, making use of the set dressing in such a vivid fashion. The other contestants, though good in their own right, don't even come close.

Second choice: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.

-Best Costume Design: Anonymous. Underwhelmed by this year's offer of costumes, I go for the safe bet of splendid Elizabethan outfits. Fairly typical.

Second choice: Jane Eyre.

-Best Makeup: The Iron Lady. Look what they did to poor Meryl Streep, she looks like an old hag! And so did Margaret Thatcher.

Second choice: Albert Nobbs.

-Best Score: The Artist. Very little dialogue and sounds effects, so the music has an even bigger job at making the action feel compelling and emotional, and it succeeds at every turn.

Second choice: The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.

-Best Song: 'Man or Muppet' from The Muppets. Great song, also kinda catchy (like it or not). You haven't lived until you've wondered whether Jim Parsons could actually be a Muppet while pretending to be singing to this song. Anyway, it's the Muppets, song is their forte. Plus, the competition is practically non-existent.

Second choice: Rio.

-Best Sound Mixing: Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Okay, so the movie is utter trash, but the sound effects are great, again. It's not enough to carry the movie, but at least it makes these digital robots turning into cars feel somewhat real.

Second choice: Hugo.

-Best Sound Editing: Drive. Making great use of simple sound effects and good songs to achieve a maximum level of dynamics and full audience participation in this hellish joy ride. Besides, Drive should at least take home one Oscar after being ignored so drastically. Since this is the only category it's nominated for (Humbug! Shenanigans!), it might as well be this one. Otherwise, I would feel fine if the director of the movie winning Best Picture (unless it be The Artist) gets viciously assaulted by the director of Drive while on the elevator with this films's score in the background. Seems poetic justice.

Second choice: Hugo.

-Best Visual Effects: Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It's about time Andy Serkis got an Oscar for mo-capping so many fantastic digital creatures (even though he won't be the one to accept it). Motion Capture is a grand effects breakthrough but the Academy has yet to really acknowledge its potential. Here's their chance to right this wrong.

Second choice: again, Hugo.

-Best Documentary: Pina. A documentary about ballet, making full use of 3-D's potential. Seems like quite a cinematic achievement, for 3-D, documentaries and ballet.

Second choice: Undefeated.

And there you have it. Time will prove me right. Or wrong. Or 7 out of 21 right or wrong. Or another possible combination. Depending on how wrong I was, expect a follow-up to this piece next week. If I turn out to be 100% correct (fat chance!), I'll leave it at this and celebrate it by watching a Drive/Shame double feature.

The Artist: the perfect hommage to Hollywood's Silent Era

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

It took me a while (due to snowstorms, death in the family and bad scheduling), but this Friday I finally got the chance to go and see Michel Hazanavicius' The Artist, and it was very much worth the wait. I much anticipated this movie ever since I first heard of its existence: any movie that dares to go back to cinema's roots and consciously uses an 1: 1,33 aspect ratio, hardly any sound, intertitles and is shot in black and white – in an age where audiences have been pampered and spoiled by overly expensive and grandiose tricks and effects to lure them into theatres – I view as gutsy and bold, and has my respect despite the chance the movie itself fails to be compelling (which fortunately can't be said for The Artist). Given the plethora of nominations and awards the movie has won, and is still winning, around the globe, I'm pleased to see I'm not alone in this regard. It's surprisingly refreshing to see something so purposefully “primitive” capture audiences' imaginations like few movies do these days: it almost makes the 'very old' feel brand new. It's also ironic to see a movie that pays its respects to the early heydays of Hollywood (when it was still called 'Hollywoodland') is actually a French production. After all, modern Hollywood would never greenlight an “artsy” project like this, even when it does nothing but praise its own history.

The story is surprisingly simple, while also reflecting actual circumstances between 1927 and 1932. Popular silent movie actor George Valentin (the name certainly doesn't remind us of Rudolph Valentino by accident) is at the top of his game in the movie business, loved alike by audiences for his flair and charismatic attitude and by studio execs for his uncanny ability to make them a fortune. Played by French actor Jean Dujardin, who performs the role with such charm and wit you simply can't resist him (and hopefully, neither can the Academy) George meets young debutante Peppy Miller, the film's other most excellent piece of casting, played with equal grace and delight by Bérénice Bejo, who also should not leave the room empty handed at the Oscar ceremony next week. He gives her useful pointers on how to survive the tough competition of the motion picture industry, which helps her get her foot between the door so eventually she too becomes a renowned actress. George however soon finds himself confronted with the rise of the 'talkie', the sound film, which he first dismisses as rubbish, thus paving the way for his downfall in the movie business, while Peppy not only manages to a make a successful transition to the new format, but actually thrives in it, and soon his movies are forgotten while hers make her the biggest star in Hollywood. On a downward spiral to his demise, Peppy, at first secretly, helps George because she loves him, but when he finds out he won't reciprocate and continues to diminish in status and life. But thanks to Peppy's genuine desire to make him a star again and win his heart, she presents him with another solution (which you should check out for yourself), thereby setting things right and making the movie end on a happy note. We wouldn't want to have it any other way.

Though this basic storyline would probably have worked well in a “normal” movie too, it's The Artist's classic approach to its execution that makes it work as convincingly as it does. It uses various cinematic techniques to make it feel like the very thing it's supposed to pay hommage too, namely an actual silent film. Such techniques include:

-Black & white: of course this movie would not have worked were it shot in colour like any other contemporary film. Black and white stock is the most obvious way of making this feel like a movie from the good old days, since for general audiences, 'black and white' and 'old movies' are almost synonymous. Of course, colour techniques were in use from the cinema's very beginning. In my mind, it would not have felt wrong if the fire scene in The Artist for example had made use of red tinted film stock to acknowledge this fact, but that might have confused audiences not familiar with the colourful aspects of the early days of the silver screen. And since the scene feels fine anyway, there's no point in bitching about this supposed missed opportunity.

-The 1,33:1 ratio: also known as the Academy ratio (come on, Academy, you have to give this film some Oscars just for this one!). Nowadays, audiences are used to films being shown in wide screen formats in movie theatres, but it was not always so. The typical silent film would not have used this expensive technique, which was reserved only for the more lavish productions and wouldn't get into full swing until television established itself as the premium 1,33:1 ratio user in the fifties, at which point studios started to use wide screen ratios more and more to get audiences back into theatres (resulting in the now preferred ratio of 2,40:1, originally known as CinemaScope). It's great seeing modern audiences enjoy a movie in the almost square shaped Academy ratio, without actually caring the frame is much smaller then they're used to see in theatres but the movie is so fascinating they let it slide. Plus, the smaller ratio makes the actors more engaging because it focuses so much on them and much less on the rest of the setting. Fortunately, The Artist's top notch cast is up to the challenge of surviving the 1,33:1 aspect ratio without feeling forced or artificial.

-The observant camera: a lot of the present day zooming and tracking camera techniques had not yet been invented in the late twenties and were generally impossible to achieve, making the use of camera positions feel static and passive, only purely observing the action and never actually getting mixed up in it. The Artist too adheres to this notion and makes much less use of the camera's abilities than most people might be comfortable with in this hyperkinetic and dynamic age of shooting scenes. But again, because of the fully gripping and entertaining acting a lot of people probably won't even notice the difference.

-The wipe: this particular method of showing scene transitions was common in use back in the Silent Era, but is almost extinct now. Most people will only know it from the Star Wars movies, where George Lucas featured a great number of different ways to use wipes for ending one scene and moving into the next, thus briefly showing a part of each scene setting in the same frame, as an hommage to the classic adventure serials of the Twenties and Thirties that influenced him whilst making Star Wars. The Artist too doesn't just move from one scene to the next in a routine fashion, but applies various forms of wipes in progressing between settings.

-The intertitles: as a way of passing inaudible dialogue between characters to the audience, title cards with the supposedly spoken lines used to be shown between shots so viewers knew what was being discussed. This movie also makes use of intertitles, though in a bare boned fashion, only applying them where audiences really need to understand what is being said (or for comedic purposes). It's amazing how much of the movie is intelligible without intertitles, which once again gives credit to the movie's simple but effective story line and its highly capable actors executing it in such a way we can almost read their lips (which often, we actually can).

-The (lack of) sound: this is of course The Artist's most defining feature, since it's basically what the movie is all about. George Valentin doesn't speak in his films, and won't when the technology is made available. His movies, as well as the movie itself, are accompanied by an orchestral score setting the mood of the scenes (and doing it so well that it too got itself Oscar nominated). Eventually George is not heard anymore, even by his former associates in the motion picture industry, who opt for sound films instead. Peppy however thrives in the latest addition to the film medium: however, we are not shown any of her films in this movie so we don't actually hear her (it would have been great to actually hear some sound film here, but it would probably take audiences out of the experience). In fact, the only bit of sound film we see in this film is not accompanied by actual sound other than the usual film score, since this is above all, a silent movie. That's not to say there is no actual sound in the film, since there is. In a fantastic dream sequence, George finds himself surrounded and attacked by everyday sounds all around him, while he himself proves incapable of producing speech. The sounds get so intrusive and agressive, that a feather hitting the ground produces a loud boom as if a bomb is exploding, thus waking him up from his nightmare. In the end, with Peppy's help and support, George finally utters his first actual words when he has regained his lust for life and admits his love for Peppy, making the emotional impact of his speech increase tenfold. With a few simple words, Hazanavicius ends his movie with the greatest possible emotional climax.

As if the clever use of ancient techniques and a gripping story were not enough, the assembled cast also adds nothing but talent and success to the film. Both Dujardin and Bejo show they're fully aware what effect Hazanavicius was going for and make the movie come totally alive, having us root and feel for them all the way. The supporting cast includes some notable talent, most of which undoubtedly have not done a project like this before but comprehending it completely. John Goodman plays a wonderfully pragmatic and ruthless movie producer who easily trades in George for Peppy when the former won't do 'talkies' and the latter excels at them. James Cromwell performs one of his more refined and memorable roles as Clifton, George's loyal driver who sticks with him no matter what until his boss is destitute and fires him, but still waiting at his doorstep for new instructions for a day, and all too eager to aid Peppy into rescuing George from his descent into self-destruction. The film also features bit parts for Missi Pyle as a typical Hollywood diva who feels upstaged by George's canine sidekick (and rightfully so!; maybe it's about time the Academy considered handing out those little golden statues for animal performers too, since the dog steals almost every scene he's in), and Malcolm McDowell as an extra who heartwarmingly humors the somewhat naive Peppy in the very beginning of her career in movies. All actors seemingly enjoyed shooting this unusual project, and it fully shows on screen: none of them seem uncomfortable in shooting a silent film, making us wonder whether they're actually speaking dialogue on set, or whether the very act of speech is a bit of acting. What fun they must have had on set!

With The Artist, Michel Hazanavicius has made the most wonderful hommage to the Silent Era yet, honouring the early days of Hollywood cinema despite never having worked in Hollywood himself, but fully reflecting the importance of Hollywood's early days on world cinema. Let's hope the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences acknowledges his ingenious film with a number of Oscars, including those for his lead actors who manage to steal our hearts for 100 minutes despite being devoid of speech for 99 of them. In directing a delightful film which adheres to tried but obviously still true tools of making movies, and manages to fully capture a contemporary audience, Hazanavicius has proven himself an artist indeed, and the result can be called nothing but the highest form of moving picture art.