Earth-shattering news (or: How to resuscitate a dormant blog)

Not that I was holding out on posting due to a lack of news and/or movies seen -- difficulties we shall call "technical" halted my blogging for a bit, and there is much to write about as the days ensue (albeit infrequently, still) -- but this epic nugget from E.W. certainly is worthy of a few words:

"After more than six decades, the Academy is returning to some of its earlier roots, when a wider field competed for the top award of the year," said AMPAS president Sid Ganis. "The final outcome, of course, will be the same—one Best Picture winner—but the race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies from 2009." In the '30s and '40s the Academy recognized between 8 and 12 Best Picture nominees each year.

There are pros and cons draped all over this story, and our little gold friend.


-Obviously, it makes the whole thing more inclusive, which sort of falls in the pros category since a five-film cutoff is a little arbitrary (sure, 10 is, too, but this means fewer films get left out).

-The term "Best Picture Nominee" gets cheapened a little -- a certain con.

-Because of the Academy's inexplicably strange Best Foreign Language Film rules, another pro is put in play: More recognition for the top non-English films.

-Unfortunately, the con side of this is it brings documentaries into the discussion, too. Documentaries have no business being listed alongside dramatic films. It's like the CBS Evening News and 24 fighting for the same Emmy.

-Then again, pro-wise, another out-from-the-ghetto type of film gets highlighted: the animated film ...

- ... but what if the world's Pixar crush becomes even more irrational, and the studio's every offering gets a slot -- no matter how crappy the movie is*? Potential con.

*CoughRatatouillecough*

-And the final one is the ultimate pro vs. con: Who, excepting animated/foreign language/non-fiction films, gets the final five spots? Will the Academy follow its recent pattern, or revert to old practices?

What that means is this: For an extended span, Best Picture seemed the landing spot for period dramas (often epics) and audience/critical favorites (meaning "feel-good" movies; everything from E.T. to As Good as it Gets), with only the occasional outlier (Silence of the Lambs, Fargo, The Insider) thrown in. Meanwhile, the daring critical faves -- even near-unanimous badass movies like The Usual Suspects -- seemed destined for either Best Director, Best Screenplay, or oblivion*.

*Great song, by the way.

Lately, though, the Picture category had taken to actually leaving the house a bit. It snubbed some obvious award grabs (e.g. Dreamgirls and Cold Mountain) and even gave the gold to films that didn't fit the Best Pic Profile (consider: the 2004-07 winning string of Million Dollar Baby, Crash, The Departed and No Country For Old Men -- not one epic or feel-good film on the list).

So what will we see, with more slots available? More love for the BIG movie? Or will Charlie Kaufman* and the like finally see one of his movies validated as one of the best of the year?

*Which reminds me ... there might be a Kaufman-related post coming soon ...

The Three-Man Weav(ing)

In honor of The Matrix's 10th Anniv -- wait. I'm really not that into The Matrix. The effects were cool and all, but the rest of the movie was kind of whatever*.

*Yes! If you like that little nugget, keep checking back here for MORE insightful film critique! That's thefilmofficial.blogspot.com, everyone! And you can follow me on Twitter, too!

Anyway, hearing about the whole Matrix/10th-year thing might get you thinking about the cast, which might eventually lead you to Hugo Weaving, who was totally badass as Agent Smith in the two Matrix films I actually saw (and, presumably, the third one).



He also found himself in another popular trilogy/franchise:



... and, much earlier, in a mid-1990s Australian cult hit*.

*Bet you didn't see this one coming! ... unless you, like, knew about it already or something.



Now THAT's a diverse three-role capsule.

Bonus Oscars note: Within these three films/franchises, Weaving wore Oscar-winning costumes twice (LOTR: ROTK and Adventures of Priscilla), wore Oscar-winning makeup twice (the first and third LOTR installments), was cut together in Oscar-winning fashion twice (Best Film Editing winners LOTR: ROTK and Matrix) and was green-screened (or something like that) by four Oscar-winning visual effects teams (all three LOTRs and Matrix). Not bad for a non-household name.

The Oscar Repo Man: Best Picture, '95

Note: We here at The Film Official considered calling this The Oscar Robin Hood -- as in: rob from the rich and give to the snubbed -- but decided against it because 1) we might soon be in for some Merry Men overkill*, and 2) we didn't want to be confused with any of these guys.

*No, not Overkill**.

**Wait, can I add italicized asides to an already-italicized aside***?

***I guess so.

Anyway, as is the right of all the filmically inclined, it's time to repossess an Oscar and give it to its rightful owner. Today's target: 1995 Best Picture winner Braveheart.


Yes, Mr. Wallace, we might not be able to take your freedom, but we're taking your Oscar. Why?

First, can any non fanboy/fangirl honestly remember anything except that one famous line and all the blue paint*? I mean, I just looked at the cast again, and I don't even remotely recall Brian Cox being in this movie. And I love Brian Cox**!

*OK, OK, I'll admit it -- I remember a certain scene involving this actress, too.

Secondly, the real culprit behind this movie's big Oscar win was the Best Picture category's Epic Epidemic of the Mid-1990s (Schindler's List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, The English Patient, Titanic and even Shakespeare in Love, sort of). Not a big period piece? Sorry, not a Best Picture.

But that was then. We're at now now. And when will then be now? Hopefully not soon*.

*If you're not sure what the hell that was all about, click here.

But alas, we're not just in the business of stealing Oscars from winners and keeping them for ourselves. Instead, after careful studying of 1) the landscape and 2) a small sample of eligible films, we're bestowing the award upon these guys:


Now, picking The Usual Suspects isn't simply a case of "I like this movie better than that movie." It's not even a case of "This movie pimp-slapped that other movie so badly that Travis Bickle had to shoot up the place* just to save it."

*Oh good God that "shoot up the place" link is NSFW.

No, it's also a matter of how times have changed. Check the last five Best Picture winners:

2004: Million Dollar Baby

2005: Crash

2006: The Departed

2007: No Country For Old Men

2008: Slumdog Millionaire

Now, we could argue about these films' quality (or lack thereof*) forever.

*CoughCrashCough

But the point is: Not really any epics in there, eh? Not a single period piece (unless you count the No Country and the 1980s), no war (except mafia war) -- not even a story that spans too many decades.

Indeed, we have seen a recent priority shift in the Oscars. Films don't need to be GREAT in the literal sense to be great in the parlance of our times. Got a good story? Competent filmmaking? Then you, too, could be a Best Picture winner.

And if you've seen it, chances are you know: The Usual Suspects is beyond-words good. If it were released in the last few years, I'd've put considerable money on its receiving more than just two nominations/wins (editing, anyone?) -- and one might well have been Best Picture.

But it wasn't, so it didn't -- until now, as the first benificiary of The Oscar Repo Man's charity work.

Now, in return, I expect gifts from all cast members ... just so long as I don't receive what Kevin Spacey gave Brad Pitt (NSFW) in another 1995 film.

The Wilt Chamberlain (circa '62) of Filmmaking

OK, confession time*:

*First, let's hope the confession doesn't end up like the one at the beginning of this.

1) I'm not old enough to remember seeing basketball great Wilt Chamberlain play.

2) I'm not old enough to remember Wilt Chamberlain live (much)*.

*Aside: Although we're referencing Chamberlain, we won't talk much about this little detail.

3) Repeat 1 and 2, only in 1 replace "basketball great" with "filmmaking legend" and "Wilt Chamberlain" with this guy:


Yeah, so it's not exactly an original position for some film nerd to admire Orson Welles. But my point is this:

Welles' pre-1960s work wasn't just good for its era. Films such as Touch of Evil (the re-done 1998 version ... wow) and Citizen Kane are still good now. Like legitimate good, not "influential" good.

Which brings us to our Wilt Chamberlain/1962 analogy. Sure, during the 1961-62 season, the 7-foot-1 Chamberlain played alongside Hall of Famers like Oscar Robertson (Billy Wilder), Bill Russell (Alfred Hitchcock), Jerry West (Frank Capra) and Elgin Baylor (Elia Kazan). But come on. In '61-'62, Chamberlain averaged a league-record 50.4 points per game (Citizen Kane) and added 25.7 rebounds per (Touch of Evil). He was simply better than everybody else, even if he didn't win the MVP Award (Best Director Oscar) that year (during his career).

That all makes sense, right?

Mark your Google Calendars ...

We have ...


... an Oscars date: March 7, 2010, according to AP -- two weeks later than normal because of, ugh, the Winter Olympics*.

*Revolutionary idea: Have the figure skating finalists perform to the Best Original Song nominees. That way we can tune both out at the same time!

Oh, but this should be a positive post, because it's got us thinking about the Academy Awards and all their frustratingly exciting, obsession-driving glory.

Even more important: Christmas Day itself (a.k.a. Oscar Nominations Day) is set for Feb. 2.

So what will we see on the second day of February*?

*Do NOT say "our shadow."

Will the Academy recognize powerful, gripping cinema, like in 2007? Or will it honor over-hyped fluff ... like in 2007? Or maybe something like this?

Can't wait to see ...

Hot Editzz

You ain't seen Bad Boys II?


For some reason, I actually hadn't seen Hot Fuzz until, well, right before posting this. Now, if you've seen it, you don't need me to say (and say about two years too late) how clever it is.

Instead we'll dive into nerddom here: Film editing nerddom*.

*Note: If you haven't been upset about things like, say, the fact that The Pianist stole a Best Film Editing nomination from Minority Report in 2002, it might be best to return to your originally planned web surfing ...

Now, there was quite the slate of films in 2007, and quite the well-edited ones, too. So whether Hot Fuzz got snubbed (in favor of winner The Bourne Ultimatum and nominees The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Into the Wild, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood) ... well, who can say that when you're choosing five among dozens?

Regardless, just take a look at the following sequence (mostly the last few seconds of it) and try argue that Edgar Wright's hilarious action comedy didn't at least deserve consideration for The Film Official's favorite Oscar.

Brilliant indeed. Sure, it might not be the best-edited film of all time, but Hot Fuzz's quick, creative cuts certainly caught this avid (pun intended) editing nerd's attention.

Oscars in The Year 2000

I never forget an Oola.



I also never forget an Oscars misstep*, although -- and I know, this is like totally groundbreaking here -- that fact tends to tax the memory from time to time.

*The Departed over United 93 for Best Film Editing in '06? Are you serious?

Oh, but let's be fair. To expect the Academy to post a 1.000 on-base percentage would be ridiculous, and to say the Academy always fails would be equally so. In the 2000s alone, I'd say there were four very, very good films (Chicago, LOTR: Return of the King, The Departed and No Country for Old Men) that won the top Oscar.

But sometimes the Academy just plain blows it. And by blows it, I don't mean it misses out on some obscure film that only I and like six other people liked*. I'm talking about movies that clearly got at least some Oscar support -- just not enough.

*Like The Weather Man.

Take The Year 2000.

Here are the Best Picture nominees:

-Gladiator (winner)
-Traffic
-Erin Brockovich
-Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
-Chocolat

In other words:

-A fun-enough action movie
-An overdone, self-serious drug movie (although the Benicio Del Toro third of it is pretty good)
-A TNT movie (and by that I mean the network, not the AC/DC song)
-Didn't see the movie itself, but it was hard to avoid the endless allusions/homages/send-ups/ripoffs of the whole in-air-combat thing. Yawn.
-Didn't see it -- but can you blame me?

Meanwhile, check some of the other films released* in The Year 2000:

*Note: Contrary to what the link says, Memento indeed was not a 2000 release; otherwise it would be on this list, too.

-Wonder Boys: Proof that you don't have to be a downer to be a classic in The Film Official's eyes. Also proof that not all literary adaptations leave you wanting. (A horrendously snubbed) Michael Douglas nails it as a frazzled author/college professor who's got a lot on his mind -- and adds to the trouble during a three-day jaunt through Pittsburgh. Unendingly clever and creative. Deserved far more than its three nominations (Adapted Screenplay, Film Editing and Bob Dylan's winning Original Song).

-Cast Away: It's long and quiet. Some people say that like it's a bad thing. Me personally, I couldn't have rooted more for the lost soul and his pet volleyball. Plus, the ending is one of the all-time greats. So where are the nominations? It only got Sound Mixing and Best Actor (Tom Hanks). Not even cinematography. Oh, and side rant: Hanks was a thousand times better here than in his winning Forrest Gump role, yet Russell Crowe (who himself was a thousand times better in The Insider than in Gladiator) won the award in one of the worst Oscar Make-Up Calls ever.

-Requiem for a Dream: Seems like every hipster with a taste for the dark an uncomfortable considers Requiem to be one of the all-time greats. Me too. From Ellen Burstyn's Oscar-nominated (and should-have-been-Oscar-winning) performance ... to director Darren Aronofsky's innovative/influential style ... to Clint Mansell's chilling theme that still gets used in movie promos ... wow. Just one nomination?

-O Brother Where Art Thou?: It's perfect period Coen. Funny. Creative. Looks great. Sounds great (especially with all that catchy old-timey music). Features a trio of outstanding performances (George Clooney, John Turturro, Tim Blake Nelson) ... and yet, just two nods (Adapted Screenplay and Cinematography).

-Almost Famous: Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is with this movie. It's fun (and has a great soundtrack, of course), but doesn't compare to the other four on this list. But is it better than the Best Picture nominees? Well ... yeah. What's weird is that people thought as much in 2000, and they certainly think so now. Still, it only got nods for Best Original Screenplay (which writer/director Cameron Crowe won), Best Film Editing and for Kate Hudson and Frances McDormand's supporting performances.

... So, uh, yeah. Not a good year for the Academy. Which is weird, because the year before, all five of its nominees (American Beauty, The Cider House Rules, The Green Mile, The Insider and The Sixth Sense) ranged from pretty good to outstanding.

Or maybe it's not so weird. Through its history, the Academy has been pretty nebulous. One year, it honors Schindler's List with Best Pic. The next ... Forrest Gump. One year, it's Annie Hall. The next ... The Deer Hunter. Heck, the last two winners were a graphic, dark, intense thriller about a killer on the loose in the Texas/Mexico desert ... and an exotic fairy tale ride through the slums of Mumbai.

So what should we expect for '09? This?

Hope not. Here's hoping Oscar doesn't pull a 2000, no matter who gets picked for the Final Five.