Commenting on the 2009 Oscar nominations...

Best Picture:

Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

So the big thing this year is the 10 movies up for best picture. I think its a good thing just given that UP made best picture, hopefully this means that just because a movie is animated is won't be shunted to the Best Animated Film category alone. Of course this does allow in movies such as The Blind Side. Wade said that if this wins he will be boycotting the Oscars from now on. I'm just upset because we always see the films up for Best Picture, and I really didn't want to see this.

I don't have any big issues with the nominated films that I've seen. It's a nice mix of small film and crowdpleasers. Definitely pulling for The Hurt Locker, although as long as its not Avatar or The Blind Side, I'll be OK.

Best Director:

James Cameron - Avatar
Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds
Precious - Lee Daniels
Up in the Air - Jason Reitman

My vote would be for Kathryn Bigelow or Jason Reitman. I disagree with the nom for James Cameron, but it was expected.

Got to be Kathryn Bigelow here. I really hope its not James Cameron just so I don't have to listen to that blowhard give a speech.

Best Actor:

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
George Clooney - Up in the Air
Colin Firth - A Single Man
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

I haven't seen Invictus yet, but I really want Colin Firth to win this. I love him and he was amazing in A Single Man. The buzz is that Jeff Bridges is a lock, but I didn't think his performance was especially amazing.

I don't think Jeff Bridges and, from what I've heard, Morgan Freeman should be here. There are probably more deserving performances out there. Go Jeremy Renner.

Best Actress:

Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

Not to be a snob, but Sandra Bullock? Seriously?!! Carey Mulligan was great in An Education, but we need to quite a few in this category. Congrats to Meryl Streep though on her 16th nomination. While I didn't especially love Julie & Julia, her performance was fantastic; I loved every minute she was on screen.

Here's hoping for a 2002 style split vote between Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock, with Carey Mulligan in the Adrien Brody role as surprise winner.

Best Supporting Actor:

Matt Damon - Invictus
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

We have a lot of work to do before March 7th...

This is probably Christoph Waltz's to lose. My main issue is who didn't get nominated, i.e. Anthony Mackie in The Hurt Locker or Stanley Tucci in Julie & Julia, not The Lovely Bones or Alfred Molina in An Education or, heck, even Alec Baldwin in It's Complicated. And yes, I am judging some of these films before I've seen them.

Best Supporting Actress:

Penelope Cruz - Nine
Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
Mo'Nique - Precious

I really disagree with both the nomination of Maggie Gyllenhaal (nothing special in her role/performance) and Anna Kendrick. Throughout Up in the Air, I though Anna Kendrick was the weakest player and her performance pulled me out of the film repeatedly.

Not much to say about this one, other than Vera Farmiga was probably my favorite here. It would've been really awesome to see either Melanie Laurent or Diane Kruger from Inglourious Basterds here, but what are you goin' to do?

Yay for Oscars!! Let hope those who deserve it win...

REVIEW: A Serious Man

A Serious Man plot summary from Wikipedia:

“A Serious Man” is the story of an ordinary man’s search for clarity in a universe where Jefferson Airplane is on the radio and “F-Troop” is on TV. It is 1967, and Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a physics professor at a quiet Midwestern university, has just been informed by his wife Judith (Sari Lennick) that she is leaving him. She has fallen in love with one of his more pompous colleagues, Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), who seems to her a more substantial person than the feckless Larry. Larry’s unemployable brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is sleeping on the couch, his son Danny (Aaron Wolf) is a discipline problem and a shirker at Hebrew school, and his daughter Sarah (Jessica McManus) is filching money from his wallet in order to save up for a nose job. While his wife and Sy Ableman blithely make new domestic arrangements, and his brother becomes more and more of a burden, an anonymous hostile letter-writer is trying to sabotage Larry’s chances for tenure at the university. Also, a graduate student seems to be trying to bribe him for a passing grade while at the same time threatening to sue him for defamation. Plus, the beautiful woman next door torments him by sunbathing nude. Struggling for equilibrium, Larry seeks advice from three different rabbis. Can anyone help him cope with his afflictions and become a righteous person – a mensch – a serious man?

I love the films of the Coen brothers. The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men, Fargo, Raising Arizona are some of my favorite films. They're latest, A Serious Man, is a little harder to swallow. Ebert had a great quote from Variety's Todd McArthy in his review, "This is the type of film you get to make after you win an Academy Award." Ain't that the truth. I'm sure this is a deeply personal film for the Coen brothers. It's set in the time (the 60s) and place (St. Louis Park, MN) where the Coens grew up, its story hinges on its character's Judaism. In a lot of ways it reminds me of last years Synecdoche, NY, except its not such a twisted mind-screw. This film's inner meaning lies more in the heads of the filmmakers than it does on screen.

I did like the film, but a lot of it I just didn't "get." I think that's exactly what Kinsey and I said to each other after the film was over. I spent about 15 minutes later in the evening looking up stuff online, like what a dybbuk is and other random facts about Judaism. Like I said the film seems very personal to the Coen brothers, who are Jewish.

The film is excellently crafted, of course. The editing and soundtrack choices are wonderful. And Roger Deakins, the helmsman of such beautiful films as No Country for Old Men, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Assassination of Jesse James, is behind the lens for the 11th time with the Coen brothers. And the acting keeps pace. Michael Stuhlberg, who I think is pretty unknown outside of the theatre crowd, does a commendable job as the lead. It would be easy to play Larry Gopnik as either a lovable loser or a common schmuck, but Stuhlberg plays him with enough subtlety and compassion to make him feel human.

OK, now back to what happens in the film and what it means. After doing a bunch of online research and reading a bunch of other reviews, I think I got the gist of it. Now Kinsey doesn't agree with this explanation but I think it makes some sense. According to Ebert and A.O. Scott, A Serious Man is a retelling of the biblical story of Job. Now I don't think it's a straight retelling but there are aspects of it in there, along with some continuation and a bit of a twist. Its more of an artist's interpretation, like if Picasso decided to repaint the Mona Lisa. It probably wouldn't look much like the original, but you would still know the source material. In the Book of Job, Job is tested by God through multiple tragedies yet continues to be faithful. So, to sum up, he's a good and righteous man who has a horrible time. In the film, Larry Gopnik's travails are less severe, but seem to happen for little reason and he seems a decent chap. The continuation and twist come in when Larry gives into temptation and then feels God's wrath. At least I think so.

Its either about that or its about the hopelessness and pointlessness of existence. You pick.

Well, I pick neither. I disagree with Wade, and yes, even Ebert and the great A.O. Scott. Being that the Coen brothers are Jewish, I would expect that they actually know the story of Job. This is not the story of Job, and if the Coen brother were attempting a modern take of the story, they have failed horribly. Job is not tested by God, but by Satan, because he's a righteous man - right from the beginning of this movie it is eluded to that Larry is not especially righteous (his wife gets after him for putting off seeing the rabbi). Also there is no big twist at the end, just more bad things happen and things get worse. It makes sense to tie the increase in disaster into the actions that Larry takes at the time, but once again this is the complete opposite of the story Job. There are many, many other stories out there of temptation (all the trouble in Larry's life leads to this moment of moral collapse), and then the consequences due to them.

So what's my take? Well I'm not completely sure, but the most I can offer is that this is a father/son film. Larry's son is the only other character we get to share experiences with throughout the movie. He, unlike his father, openly commits transgressions, and sometimes he is caught, but the results always seem to work out in his favor (having his radio taken away leads to a connection with the most sought after rabbi;, despite drug use, he still performs his role in the bar mitzvah). So the film gives us two takes for comparison, Larry trying to do his best, yet numerous failures and troubles, and the son, trying to do as little as possible, and getting through. There is also the sheperd/father relationships with the three rabbis. As Larry seeks answers to why his life is falling apart they don't listen/help/or even agree to see him. Thus leaving Larry (and the audience) with what appears to be the main thesis of the film- WHY is life this way???

Kinsey: 3/5 stars

Wade: 3.5/5 stars