Oscar Watch; Richard Gere

Richard Gere, with his slick silver hair and squinty blue eyes, just turned 63 this past August. A stinging reminder that not only does time go by in the blink of an eye but also that this underrated American actor has never won an Oscar, let alone gotten nominated for one. Yes, that’s right. No nomination for his killer good role as lawyer Billy Flynn in “Chicago”, nada for his portrayal of Zack Mayo in “An Officer And A Gentleman”, the cheated-on husband in “Unfaithful”, Julian Kaye in “American Gigolo” or even as Clifford Irving in the underseen 2007 picture “The Hoax”. That might just change this year as Gere gives the performance of his career in Andrew Jarecki’s “Arbitrage”. In fact, Gere is so good as nasty hedge fund magnate Robert Miller that you still root for him to get out of his situation in one piece. Given that Miller is cheating on his wife with a french mistress, scamming his clients of millions of dollars and using his friend Jimmy as bait for the police, we shouldn’t be feeling that way about this corporate son of a gun.

Gere is magnetic, bringing ever ounce of nuance to his role and delivering a performance that’s nothing short of revelatory. No wonder critics have been screaming Oscar since “Arbitrage” got released way back in August. Does Gere have a chance at winning Best Actor? Of course not, especially with Daniel Day Lewis, Joaquin Pheonix and Denzel Washington vying for the top prize but Gere deserves to at least get nominated. In fact, a nomination would be more than welcome by many cinephiles, especially those that know just how good Gere can be when given the right script. “Arbitrage” is that script.

Written by Nicholas Jarecki, director Andrew’s half brother, “Arbitrage” is loaded with enough juicy scenes for Gere to show off his acting chops. That’s a good thing. Gere is going to need those scenes to carry him into awards season if there is any chance at even getting a nomination. Playing a money making scumbag that you really feel for isn’t the easiest thing to pull off in this day and age but Gere does it effortlessely, using his charismatic presence and brooding good looks to fully flesh out his character. Critics have been pretty unanimous in saying it’s one of his best performances, now it’s time for the academy to follow suit and honor this great actor.

http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/2012/10/28/the-contenders-richard-gere-in-arbitrage/

Barton Fink's brilliance

Full confession; I’m nuts for the Coen Brothers. I mean, who isn’t right? Their kooky and dark style is the stuff of legend in American cinema of the last three decades. Joel and Ethan Coen are –pure and simply- American treasures. Then why did their rivetingly original work in “Barton Fink” not get nominated for Best Picture of 1991? Don’t get me wrong, the nominees were top notch; Jonathan Demme’s masterful “The Silence Of The Lambs”, Oliver Stone’s fictitious but gripping “JFK”, the landmark in animation that was “Beauty And The Beast” and Barry Levinson’s “Bugsy”. Did we forget the fifth nominee? .. Oh right ! This was also the year that Barbara Streisand’s middling “The Prince Of Tides” –starring a never worse Nick Nolte as a man that falls in love with his psychiatrist- got a questionable Best Picture nomination. Yikes, talk about missing the boat.

Oscar could have gone for riskier more memorable fare. I can name at least ten movies that were a hundred times more deserving than Streisand’s sap fest; John Singleton’s “Boyz N The Hood”, Martha Coolidge’s “Rambling Rose”, James Cameron’s “Terminator 2”, Ridley Scott’s “Thelma And Louise”, Terry Gilliam’s “The Fisher King”, Gus Van Sant’s “My Own Private Idaho” Luc Besson’s “La Femme Nikita” or, hell, even “What About Bob” starring a hilarious Bill Murray. King of them all, Joel Coen’s “Barton Fink” which resonates as deeply as any movie from 1991.

Coming off a surprising Palme D’Or win at the Cannes Film Festival, Joel Coen’s movie satirized the 1940’s film business. Playing the titular character John Turturro was magnificent as Barton Fink, a writer with values of not selling out his art - yet he gets offered a big time Hollywood contract to write a “wrestling picture” and can’t decline the money. He is an artist out of touch with reality, trapped in a city out of touch with reality. Ouch, no wonder Hollywood didn’t nominate this incendiary masterpiece. “Barton Fink” bites the hand that feeds it and then some. Turturro’s Fink cannot connect with wrestling whatsoever and gets a bad case of writer’s block in the process. We follow Fink wherever he goes and wherever he takes us; is it all happening in his subconscious?

This is a film that admirably –and confusingly- mixes reality and fiction into one solid blend. However the film is a hard sell; For all the things that do happen in this movie, nothing really happens: John Turtutto's Fink is thrust into one bizarre situation after another, confusing us in the process. To call this movie a mindfuck would truly be an understatement and I do however mean that as a big, fat compliment. It’s like the surrealism of David Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive” mixed with the trippy writer’s block of Spike Jonze’s “Adaptation”, two movies that were clearly inspired by “Barton Fink”.

This is a sly, nifty little film; taking something as drab and unspectacular as a run down hotel room and turning it into a cave full of tiny, distracting wonders. The hotel Fink stays in to write his “wrestling picture” is an important part of the Coen puzzle. Whether it’s the well chosen items on the wall, the maddeningly metaphorical paintings, the buzzingly annoying flies, the slurpy noise of peeling wallpaper or John Goodman’s insane next door neighbor, the Coens choose every small little detail for a reason – which is why multiple viewings of “Barton Fink” are a must and can in fact enhance your appreciation of the maddeningly intricate script.

The story was inspired by Joel and Ethan’s own bout of writer’s block. While trying to pen their gangster film “Miller’s Crossing”, the brothers suffered such severe writer's block that they took a break from writing. During the break they wrote “Barton Fink”. “Barton Fink” one upped their gangster classic by being the gutsiest, most artistically realized movie of their career. Later would come such classics as “Fargo” and “No Country For Old Men” but the Coen brothers have not made anything as narratively complicated or risky as “Barton Fink”. Oscar be damned, the film speaks for itself.

"The Grifters" and Academy awards nonsense

 
 
Let us not kid ourselves - 1990 was the year the academy got it wrong, very wrong. This was the year that an instant classic by one our greatest living directors got stripped of the big prize by a fairly well made western directed by a well respected 80's actor. Martin Scorsese's "Goodfellas" with its ambitious tracking shots, -now constantly ripped off- narrative structure and incredible performances lost to Kevin Costner's earnest, well meaning, sincerely decent "Dances With Wolves". We all know which film stood the test of time, in fact Scorsese's classic is still consistently revisited in film schools and is one of the most ripped-off films of the 1990's and Aughts. Whereas it turns out that Costner's film -which does have its fair share of fans- is nothing more than a well made western that seemed to come out in the right place and at the right time. To make matters worse, just look at some of the other best picture nominees; "Ghost"?, "The Godfather, Part III"?  And as much as I liked Penny Marshall's "Awakenings" I'd substitute it all 4 of the above mentioned films -including "Dances With Wolves"- to give a Best Picture Nomination to Stephen Frears' "The Grifters". In fact "The Grifters" is the one 1990 film that comes closest to achieving the greatness of  "Goodfellas". Honorable mentions would include Barbet Schroder's "Reversal Of Fortune", Tim Burton's "Edward Scissorhands", Joel Coen's "Miller's Crossing", Charles Burnett's underrated "To Sleep With Anger" and even David Lynch's kinky, twisted "Wild At Heart". ALL of these films were better and more lasting than 4 of the 5 nominated films.

Frears' film -which includes the best performances of Anjelica Huston and Annette Benning's careers- is a neo-noir served black. Lots of references to film noirs of the 40's and plenty of shadows cast from venetian blinds (a noir staple). In Frears' Los Angeles we look at three tortured, miserable souls that would do anything for the green. It's money that makes the world go round in Frears' film. He shows us greed and a pitch black portrayal of the human heart. This kind of subject matter was rather well dissected by the Coen Brothers in "No Country  For Old Men" yet "The Grifters" feels just as dark and complicated a movie with Oliver Stapleton's stark cinematography and source material based on author Jim Thompson's novel  (which he gets a screenplay credit for). The movie provides an unflinching and relentless window into a dark world most of us would rather pretend doesn't exist - but it does. The characters are subtle and believable; wicked little souls that carry no redeeming value or morals- no conscience. Most of it is so beautifully photographed that it looks like a series of postcards at times YET the feeling you get when watching the film isn't a pleasant one, this is a movie that means to brutally shake you and that it does.

As much as I loved how Annette Benning brought a sexy, dangerous vibe to the film, the artistic success of "The Grifters" would not come close to the high art it achieves without Anjelica Huston's career capping performance as Lilly Dillon. Dressed up in  blood-red or plain white tight dresses, and with a white perm that looks hair sprayed to a tee,  Lilly is a small time crook that fears she has passed over her grifting gift to her son - brilliantly played by John Cusack. I wouldn't reccomend being caught up in Lilly's toxic world, but watching it unfurl from afar is a cinematic thrill. Huston’s brilliant performance makes sure were there with her every step of the way. Her goal is to cash in as much as possible, that is more important to her than anything else, including her own son's life. In fact when things get rough Lilly tries to seduce him in a scene that cannot be described in words and brings a whole new layer to the film's already constantly peeling onion-like structure. It's there and then that "The Grifters" turns into an unlikely original. The film's constant twists and turns cannot prepare you for the seduction or the backstabbingly delicious climax that caps off a truly great film, in fact repeat viewings are a must for the black world Frears' shapes and molds. After every viewing you come out learning something new about these con artists; their motivations seem more real and their actions even more repugnant. "The Grifters" pulls out a rabbit from the hat and plays with its audiences heads, what more can you ask for in a movie?

"Die Hard" and its Yipee-Ki-Yay legacy

Continuing on with my weekly column, we arrive at 1988. The nominees for best picture were "RAIN MAN", "The Accidental Tourist", "Dangerous Liaisons", "Mississippi Burning" and "Working Girl" – 5 excellent, well deserved choices. I’d –however- substitute “Working Girl” and “Dangerous Liaisons” for darker, more memorable fare such as Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation Of Christ”, Pedro Almodovar’s tasty “Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown”, Charles Chrichton’s “A Fish Called Wanda”, Robert Zemeckis’ groundbreaking “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” or even Penny Marshall’s “Big”, featuring Tom Hanks at his playful, irresistible best.

However, and this might be a bit of a controversial pick, my top choice would be John McTiernan’s Die Hard. Just like last week’s 1987 pick –“The Princess Bride”- McTiernan’s movie already had one bad thing going for it; Its genre. The action genre isn’t exactly something the academy has warmed up to in the past. One can think of such non-nominated classics such as “The Terminator”, “The Killer”, “The Matrix”, “Speed”, “The Bourne Identity”, “Aliens”, “the Dark Knight”, “Enter The Dragon”, “Face-Off” and “Kill Bill”. All of these have aged wonderfully well and were more than deserving of a shot at best picture. The only exceptions that actually did get nominated are “The Fugitive” and Ang Lee’s artful take on the action picture “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”.

McTiernan’s “Die Hard” isn’t high art but it got the job done in high octane fashion and set the standard for what an action film should be like in the 21st century. It spawned numerous rip-offs in the 90’s and still does today, none of which have attained the excitement of McTiernan’s original. It is in fact not overblown to say that “Die Hard” is the perfect modern action movie, a film with well sketched characters and a script that just doesn’t let up. It might not make you think much but it does make you feel as excited and pumped up as any movie can. Bruce Willis’ John McClane is the film’s heroic action figure, yet at the same time Willis doesn’t play the role too seriously as if winking at his audience by saying “hey, this is just a movie”. It’s a snarky, perfect performance that eventually sent Willis into superstardom mode and spawned a slew of sequels afterwards.

Willis’ McClane is the average man caught in a non-average situation. We tend to recognize ourselves in his character; whatever he does we understand why he does it. He gets shot, he bleeds. He panics, he cries. He’s not a perfect man, he’s flawed and we look up to his flaws as being part our own. This sort of identity to the main hero is what lacks in many of today’s action movies (“The Expendables” anybody?) where we can’t identify with anyone, the heroes are cardboard and the viewer is isolated and ultimately disappointed by the experience.

For an action movie to be great its hero has got to be likeable and humane -Willis does that job very well here- but a great action movie has got to also have a great villain and Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber is just that. Gruber is not a one dimensional terrorist; he is a manipulating, well versed and educated man that knows exactly what he wants to do. Gruber is methodical and is patient with his intentions. His charm and intelligence make him seem like someone who wouldn’t cause harm but he can. He is in fact very scary because he is very real. Rickman, with his well trimmed goatee, gives us a grueling, intense portrayal of evil.

The film is a great example of what happens when all the pieces of a film fall together in the right place. There are no flaws, no plot holes and no letdowns. Its 131 epic minutes are not wasted and don’t let up right up until its very last shot. In short, “Die Hard” puts you on the highest of highs and McTiernan reaches a peak he has since never attained again. His film redefines the “action movie” and the “action star”, presenting a new language to the genre and re-inventing the game with an incredible balance of character development and action. Of course Oscar didn’t come knocking, why would it anyways? Action movies are not the Academy’s thing and for good reason. They are –most of the time- loud, abrasive, dumbed down and ultimately artless films (‘The Expendables” anybody?) but sometimes a movie like “Die Hard” goes beyond genre and achieves something special through sheer perfection of the craft. Yipee-ki-yay indeed.

NOT Best Picture nominee 1987 "The Princess Bride"

1987 wasn’t a great year for movies, what with these 5 nominees in the running for Best Picture – THE LAST EMPEROR", "Broadcast News", "Fatal Attraction", "Hope and Glory", "Moonstruck". Not a bad bunch of films but none of which really stood the test of time, although I would still call Broadcast News a minor classic and far and away the best picture out of the bunch. However what the Academy failed to do then, and are still guilty of doing now, was not nominate a fantasy movie that ultimately became a classic (“Edward Scissorhands”? “The Holy Grail”? “King Kong”? “Pan’s Labyrinth”?) Rob Reiner’s The Princess Bride starts off what will be a weekly column for me as I will go through a film a week from 1987-2011 that never got nominated for Best Picture but should have had a shot at the big prize. There are plenty of contenders for every year and I encourage you to give your own choice in the comments section below.

One can understand why Rob Reiner’s The Princess Bride was such an enigma when it first came out in the fall of 1987. Here was a film that was supposed to be primarily aimed at a younger audience but ended up pleasing all ages with its deadpan, Monty Python-esque humor and a bold, satirical narrative that never took itself too seriously. That is not to say that we don’t fully invest ourselves in its fairy-tale like storytelling and genuinely good natured morals. In fact one is touched by the love story deftly told by a grandfather to his ill grandson about a beautiful princess called buttercup who gets kidnapped and needs to be rescued by her brave, young fiancée Prince Humperdinck.

What works in Reiner’s tale is that every character is a delight to watch, there isn’t a dull one in the bunch. From Wallace Shawn’s Vizzini –“Inconceivable !”- to Andre The Giant’s gentle Fezzik all the way to Billy Crystal’s hilarious cameo as Miracle Max, an old, Jewish wizard that disapproves of his wife (played by Carol Kane) and refuses to help Humperdinck in his voyage to save Buttercup. But most of all, the true heart of the story is Mandy Patinkin’s Inigo Montoya a heroic swordsman with a secret –"Hello My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."It’s an undeniably powerful line that brings real, humane feeling to Reiner’s screenplay and, with the depth Reiner brings to Montoya’s story, packs a wallop on the viewer’s emotions.

It’s not easy making a children’s tale these days and allowing adults to be as enchanted by it as the kids. Pixar has made it a habit year by year with its original tales and it is no surprise that their latest, “Brave”, had shades of Reiner’s film in some of its colorful, imaginative frames ditto “Shrek’s” fairy tale, satirical edge and –of course- the “Pirates Of The Caribbean” movies which didn’t have half the imagination of Reiner’s classic yet made 10 times the money by rehashing some of its ideas. “The Princess Bride” ran on an overdone, age old concept but brought freshness to its edges. It is a cliché to say that a movie, from start to finish, was a magical, transcendent experience but that is truly what this movie is. The laughs come with a sting and the world that we enter is so rich and mesmerizing that it is hard to have explanation of its surreal, dreamy impact.  The fact that this wasn’t nominated for Best Picture only makes it a better movie, it was a mistake not giving it its due in 1987 but it has stood the test of time and beyond. Inconceivable !