The Shape of Water: 2017

The last one. Well, the last one until the next Academy Awards. That's what The Shape of Water meant to me--the last film to meet my goal of watching all the Best Picture winners.

When the 2018 Oscar nominations came out, I had mainly heard buzz around Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. I had heard a little about The Shape of Water, but it seemed like the story about a mother seeking justice for her murdered daughter was more the story of 2018. But then the Oscar went to The Shape of Water. 

Going into the film, I didn't know much about it. I had seen the clips on the Oscars, and I knew the film would have elements of science fiction, or so I thought. It turns out that The Shape of Water is a romance at its core, a romance between a water creature and a mute woman--two unlikely characters to put in a romance. Even as I watched the film, I didn't expect just how romantic it would turn. Initially, it seemed like Elisa (played by Sally Hawkins) and the creature would become friends. The first hour or so seem fairly predictable, but then things turned and their friendship turns to love. That turn made me wonder more about the message of the film and less about the story. What does Guillermo del Toro, the writer and director of the film, want me to understand?

As I've been thinking this question over, I've come to a few conclusions. Perhaps the message is love can be in any form. The "love is love" concept is certainly supported through Elisa's relationship with the creature. Or maybe it's that people should learn to be kind. That's seen in multiple cases in the film, most involving Elisa and how she treats others. What really made me think the most was how Elisa felt, being alone in a speaking world. She seems fine, but really she is so alone. Her isolation is emphasized through del Toro's directing and the cinematography, in particular when she's riding the bus. Even when a few other people on the late or early bus with her, Elisa is often shown separate from others, absorbed in her own world or going to sleep. She's alone, but I didn't realize how lonely she was until later in the film. Maybe that's what I need to understand--how differences create isolation. Someone can seem okay but really they're not.

So that's it. That's the end. My last film (until the 2019 Academy Awards). I thought I'd feel a sense of accomplishment, but I don't have that. I guess the best word to describe how I feel is satisfied, like I know more than I did when I started. And there's something to be said for that.

Until the next winner, I'll keep watching and writing. I'm thinking about revisiting years when I didn't like the winner and watching one of the nominees to see if I like that better. But I'd also like to catch up on current films to be ready for awards season. If you have any suggestions for me, leave a comment.

Spotlight: 2015

Lies, a massive cover-up, and priests--one of those items seems out of place. Or at least it did until I watched Spotlight, the 2016 Academy Awards Best Picture Winner. While I knew the film is about  priests in Boston who sexually abused and raped children, I had no idea how far reaching this scandal was (and still is).

Spotlight begins as a film about journalists, focusing on the investigative reporting team at the Boston Globe known as Spotlight. The team consists of three reporters and one editor, Walter "Robby" Robinson (played by Michael Keaton). When the Globe hires a new editor-in-chief (played by Liev Schreiber), Spotlight is given a new assignment: investigate child abuse in the Catholic Church. Seems simple enough but it's not, given that it's Boston where the church reigns in city politics and culture. Unlike some of the other films I've watched for this project, the setting becomes a character in this film. Robby and his friends don't believe that this new editor understands Boston. He doesn't love Boston like they do. And that's a fault. That means this new editor isn't going to last.

But as the film progresses, it becomes clear that Robby and his friends don't know Boston either because what's happening with the Catholic priests is much bigger than anyone ever expected. They peel back the layers and find rot at the core.

What struck me as most impressive in Spotlight is the acting. The story is certainly compelling and captivating, but that is in part due to being based on a true story. It's the subtlety in the acting, as Keaton plays a man who is coming to realize that the values the church instilled in him growing up are not what the church practices. His performance's strength lies in his facial expressions and body language. Mark Ruffalo, who plays Spotlight reporter Mike Rezendes, also amazes in this film with his passion. At no point did I doubt his dedication to finding the truth and reporting that. The trailer alone showcases the skills of Keaton and Ruffalo in becoming these characters.

It isn't just the acting that made me feel like I was watching a documentary. The set design and costumes did as well. Despite the fact that well-known actors like Keaton, Ruffalo, Schreiber, and Rachel McAdams starred in Spotlight, the costumes and set make them seem like regular people. In one scene where the reporters meet with the editor to determine how to move forward, the costumes are plain business casual and the set is clearly a boring newsroom. Nothing fancy but that makes it all the more real.

Again, I find myself grateful for this blog. If I hadn't set my goal of watching these films, I would have never picked up Spotlight. While the plot is emotionally difficult to experience, the film is outstanding with the acting, set, and more. It's a must-watch for sure.

12 Years a Slave: 2013

As of this past weekend, I had three films left to watch to complete my goal of watching all Academy Award Best Picture winners. And now I'm down to two.

When 12 Years a Slave came out in 2013, my life consisted of being a teacher and a mom, and the small amount of time left after that was not spent following movies (or even television for that matter). At most I'd watch a rerun of some sitcom while folding laundry with my husband. I had heard about 12 Years a Slave from people at work, but only in the years after the film came out. I knew it would be difficult to watch, especially as a white person who knows that slavery built this country and is the foundation of the systemic racism that privileges me today. But for those reasons, I knew I needed to watch it.

Intellectually, I knew I would see pure hatred in this film from the white characters, but nothing could have prepared for me how vicious they were. Slavery is something my country hasn't dealt with. I learned about it in school, but it's such a watered down telling with an emphasis on "It's over now!" when really, it's not because of how slavery impacts our society today through systemic racism. So to see what slavery was like and living the world that I live in today, this film was particularly challenging to watch.

Adding to that was some amazing acting from Chiwetel Ejiofor, who plays Solomon Northrup, the free black man who is kidnapped and sold into slavery where he survives for 12 years until he is freed. Ejiofor captures the pain and suffering so well that I wanted to cry multiple times seeing his anguish over his loss of his family and his freedom. His persistence, though, is remarkable. And knowing this is a true story made his acting all the more powerful in thinking about this really happened. Solomon was real, and he lived to tell his story. Knowing that also built the suspense. I kept thinking that at any moment, Solomon would be beaten or caught when he attempts to find freedom.

12 Years a Slave is a tough but essential film to watch. This is one of those times where I'm glad I'm doing this project because I don't know if I would have watched 12 Years a Slave if I wasn't watching all the Best Picture winners. Now that I've watched, I'm really glad that I did.

Beasts of the Southern Wild: 2012

Since I had already seen 2013's winner Argo (which I enjoyed), I decided to watch one of the nominees from that year that I missed. Beasts of the Southern Wild was my pick because I remembered seeing an interview with the young actress Quvenzhané Wallis, who plays Hushpuppy and garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Actress for her work. While I saw the interview six years ago, Wallis' mature demeanor and vibrant energy stuck with me, and I've always been meaning to see Beasts of the Southern Wild; I've even checked it out from the library and brought it home for a week only to have the film go unwatched as work piles up and time runs out.

This film is definitely one that requires closer watching. I guess I would categorize it as magical realism, as there are beasts in the film that return to life after Antarctic ice melts and releases them into the sea. The beasts travel north to the Bathtub, which is in southern Louisiana. If the beasts weren't in the film, I would say the film is a family drama, centered around Hushpuppy and her daddy Wink (played by Dwight Henry). They have an unusual relationship where Hushpuppy has a lot of independence at a young age because Wink wants her to survive on her own. His love can be difficult to see because he's so hard on her, but the end of the film, I saw it. And wow, that scene brought me to tears. I can't find it online, so you'll just have to watch the film to see it.

While the beasts may sound strange (and they are), they provide an interesting metaphor, one I'm still trying to work out. I'm thinking that Beasts of the Southern Wild is a film that requires multiple viewings, but with only three away from my goal of watching all the Best Picture winners, a rewatching is going to have to wait.

The Artist: 2011

I didn't expect to watch another silent film after Wings, the first film to win Best Picture and supposedly the only silent film to win Best Picture. But apparently another silent film one, and that's The Artist. Although I suppose one could say that The Artist is not quite a silent film; there is some sound and talking. But trust, it's not much.

My surprise over The Artist winning quickly faded when I saw one of the producers: the Weinstein Company. Ah, yet again an Oscar campaign that resulted in a movie winning that didn't necessarily deserve the honor. (According to Vulture, Weinstein had a private showing of The Artist for Academy members and two of Charlie Chaplin's granddaughters were there--talk about a feeling guilty for what film used to be vote.)

The Artist isn't a bad movie. At times, it's fun with how it pokes fun at the overly dramatic actors of silent films. Just watching the trailer gives a glimpse at the sincere goofiness.

While the film has endearing moments, humor, and a dog--all qualities of an enjoyable film--it lacks what it needs to be deserving of an Oscar. Sure, a modern day silent movie is intriguing, but The Artist doesn't seem to do anything new with that genre or structure. The tilted of the camera at times to reflect George's dismay and fear over talkies becomes distracting rather than symbolizing George's confusion.

The Artist is a fine film, just not what I would think of as a Best Picture winner.

The Social Network: 2010

While The Social Network didn't win Best Picture (it was nominated), I decided to go ahead and watch it instead of rewatching the 2011 Best Picture winner The King's Speech as I had already seen it. And not rewatching The King's Speech had nothing to do with my feelings about the film. I actually really enjoyed the film when I watched it. This was a case of 2010 having a lot of amazing films I didn't see and still want to see. The Social Network just happened to be my pick from the list of nominees because it was available at my library and when I needed it. And yeah, I wanted to see Justin Timberlake's performance. I was curious.

Watching The Social Network felt odd at times because I kinda knew how the story would turn out. I mean, it's about Facebook. I know that Facebook has crazy success today (despite the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal) and that Mark Zuckerberg is still the CEO. So it was like watching Titanic in that case, only this time the ship dodged the iceberg and went on to make billions of dollars.

That being said, the film is incredible. Aaron Sorkin's dialogue was an absolute pleasure, as always. The sharpness fit the intelligent characters and the fast-paced tech world. The actors were believable, including Timberlake who plays the founder of Napster and is total scum despite what Mark in the film initially thinks of him. Visually, the film is fantastic. The quick cuts, the lighting, the types of shots--I loved how each shot told me more about characters.

The story ties up rather neatly, which made it clear to me that it wasn't exactly all true, and I'm okay with that. When I watch a film that isn't a documentary, I don't need the full true story as long as it's entertaining. But I do wonder how Mark Zuckerberg feels about the film because it is NOT at all flattering. (Turns out, he was hurt by the film. And knowing that makes me feel a little bad for liking it, but not that bad. After all, I think Zuckerberg is doing okay.)

The Hurt Locker: 2009

For the 2010 awards, the Academy made one big change to the Best Picture category: instead of the usual five nominees, the Academy allowed up to 10 nominees. In researching for this post, I learned that the Academy used to nominate 10 films. In 1944, 10 films were nominated, but then in 1945, only five films were nominated. The cause for the more recent change focused on popularity; the Academy wanted to include more popular films as nominees. If you want to know more, check out this blog from The New York Times.

The change for the 2010 Oscars meant that films like Up and Avatar were nominated along with Inglourious Basterds and A Serious Man. You might think that with the increase in the number of films nominated that I would have seen more of the nominees, but that's not the case. In 2009 I was working full time and attending grad school part time at a campus that was two hours from work and one hour from home. My free time was filled with commuting. Of the 10 nominees, the only I've seen is Up, and that didn't win Best Picture overall but did win Best Animated Picture (as it should!). I've had opportunities to see Avatar and seen clips, but it's another James Cameron film so I'm just not interested. And I've never gotten around to seeing The Blind Side, which was also nominated that year. So as I watched The Hurt Locker, I didn't have a lot of context for its competition other than what I've heard about the other films nominated.

The Hurt Locker is about war. It's not about the people who fight in war (although it was has three main characters) or what the war is about. It's not about what's right or wrong. The way the film was shot makes the audience be part of the disconcerting, overwhelming nature of being in a modern war. Unlike other Academy Award Best Picture winners set in war, The Hurt Locker is set in a modern war, in early 2000s when the United States invaded Iraq. The story is about three men who disarm bombs as other soldiers patrol streets under the military rule that followed the invasion. That plot alone sets the film apart from the other war stories I watched in that I didn't set any epic battles. There is one shoot-out scene but only with a few men involved on each side. The lack of epic battles, though, doesn't make The Hurt Locker any less intense than other war films. If anything it's more intense because it's so intimate.

What unsettled me the most was the use of sound in the film. When Will (played by Jeremy Renner) wears the bomb suit and all you can hear is his breathing echoing in the suit, the danger becomes palpable. Add in Will's need for adrenaline, and these scenes put me on edge. In one scene, the combination of Will's breathing, footsteps, and the gravel scraping along the bombs along with music create so much uncertainty for the audience.

The use of the handheld camera in this scene adds to that uncertainty. All this unsettled moment with the eerie music and sharp sounds made me think that Will wasn't going to survive this situation. Director Kathryn Bigelow deserves recognition based on this scene alone. And the Academy agreed with me: Bigelow was the first woman to win an Oscar for Best Director.

Would I watch The Hurt Locker again? Probably not, but that isn't due to the film being bad. I would watch scenes again to look more closely at Bigelow's decisions for shots and mise-en-scene, but as a whole, the film was so intense that I think once is enough for me.

No Country for Old Men: 2007

I'm still processing this film. I watched it on Saturday night with my husband, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. But I'm going to try to write about it in hopes that I'll figure something out.

No Country for Old Men won four Oscars: Best Picture, Best Director for the Coen brothers, Best Supporting Actor for Javier Bardem (so creepily, disturbingly good in his role as Chigurh), and Best Adapted Screenplay. The film is dark. Really dark. As in I can't believe that one person could be that cold-hearted and evil. Bardem convinced me that Chigurh cares about nothing, and any time he was on screen I knew that something awful was going to happen. The film is based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, so I'm thinking that characterization is from McCarthy's original work, but the Coen brothers' writing and directing combined with Bardem's skill make for a character who is so horrific in his indifference to life that it made watching the film uncomfortable. I was uncomfortable when I saw the death and even more uncomfortable when I didn't because those unseen moments seemed worse.

I hesitate to write too much about the film because I don't want to spoil anything. The story is about a sheriff in west Texas even though it seems more about Llewelyn (played by Josh Brolin) who is welder who comes across a drug deal gone bad and takes the money for himself. Llewelyn doesn't think twice about taking the money: it's there and he's there, so why not? Later when his life is in danger, he refuses to give the money up. His defiance seems idiotic at times but then other moments when he manages to escape death seems almost heroic. But then I would remember that he stole drug money, so there's really nothing heroic in that. And it's not like he went to the police to report the drugs sitting in the dry Texas country. Nope. He just takes the money, sends his wife to her mother's home, and leaves town when he realizes his life might be in danger. Llewelyn keeps telling his wife that they are retired now; he's convinced that he will get to keep this money. His arrogance (or is it stupidity) is what stopped me from seeing him as heroic or even a decent person.

I spent a lot of the film thinking about Llewelyn, but at one point, I realized the film isn't about him. It's about the sheriff, Ed Tom Bell, played by Tommy Lee Jones. Typically, when I think of Tommy Lee Jones, my mind goes to Men in Black or silly action movies like Volcano, both of which came out in the 1990s when I watched movies more frequently (high school meant a lot more time for movie watching when I had fewer responsibilities at home). Clearly, neither of those movies show what Jones can actually do as an actor. Or perhaps they do because Jones can be in those and in a film like No Country for Old Men.

Maybe I need to watch No Country for Old Men again. Or maybe I need to read the book. Or maybe both. Because writing this post hasn't helped me as much as I had hoped in figuring out what this film is about. But that might be the point; perhaps I'm not supposed to fully understand these characters, their motivations, and their relationships.

Slumdog Millionaire: 2008

It's not usually a good sign when 45 minutes into the film I'm already starting my blog. Slumdog Millionaire is one I'm watching over several nights due to other stuff happening in the evenings for me. Typically when I have to watch over several nights I wait until I'm done to start my blog post about the film, but I already have some thoughts on this one. The first being that the premise seems a bit too convenient. Apparently Jamal answers more questions right than he should on this game show, which is just the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? The show is set up that no one can get all the answers right (and then the producers never have to pay out the award money). But somehow the majority of questions that Jamal has are ones that deal with specific moments in his life that lead him to point where he is now. The structure is clever, I'll give it that, but it just seems to unrealistic. And I'm having a hard time just being interested in the characters and their story. Adding that to an unrealistic plot and I'm just not into the film.

But I will forge on and report back when the film is over...

Well, it's done now. It took two more nights, but I finished Slumdog Millionaire. The film did improve as it went on. I found myself looking forward to the scenes with Irrfan Khan, whose work I just love in The Namesake. Khan is the police detective who has been tasked with determining how Jamal was able to answer all of these questions (Jamal is arrested under suspicion of cheating). Khan is such a versatile actor. Having seen him in The Namesake as well as Life of Pi I knew he could play the quiet, unassuming character well, but as the police detective he's rough, stern, and kind of a jerk. It was interesting to see him in such a different way.

Other than Khan, it was fun to see Dev Patel as Jamal just because he's so young in this film compared to the other film I've seen him in (2016's Lion for which he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor). Watching him go from his everyday life to the game show parts definitely showed off his acting skills, but I preferred the story of Lion to Slumdog Millionaire.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri: 2017

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri was the favorite for this year's Oscar race for Best Picture. So much so that I put a hold on it at my library, thinking I would get it after the Oscars and be all set to cover 2017. Then on Oscar night, The Shape of Water won.

I debated cancelling the hold. After all, even though I changed the purpose of my blog, I'm still trying to finish Best Picture winners (and I'm finally getting close!). But a coworker told me how fantastic Three Billboards was, so I decided to leave the hold as it was. I'm glad I made that decision.

The film is worth watching just for the acting. Frances McDormand as the mother of the murdered girl is astounding. Her grief cycles between sorrow and anger constantly, and you don't always know what side you'll see or it may even be a mixture of both. To complicate things further, there's a flashback that shows the terrible relationship Mildred (McDormand) and her daughter Pamela (a brief role played by Kerry Condon). Mildred's grief becomes more understandable and terrible when we know the final words the women exchanged (you'll have to watch to know).

I don't want to say much more about the film because that would simply spoil too much of it, and I think a lot of people still need to see it. It's dark, that's for sure, but it's important, too. So much of the film is about women fighting to be heard, to have power. In times like now with #MeToo, this film is needed to show what happens when sexual assault and rape are ignored.

Brokeback Mountain: 2005

The 2006 Oscar Best Picture went to Crash, a film I've seen and that is hotly contested as unworthy of its Oscar. I have no desire to see Crash again, especially when I could watch a better film about race relations where things don't tie up as neatly as they do in parts of Crash. So I went with the film that people believed would win that year: Brokeback Mountain. I didn't know much about Brokeback Mountain prior to watching it other than Ang Lee was the director (and he is amazing), the film stars Heath Ledger (and he is also amazing), and the story has gay characters (which is a type of story I need to see more of to understand LGBTQ experiences).

I expected Brokeback  to have some action. With cowboys and horses, I expected the usual ranch scenes, maybe some shooting, just the usual western film characteristics. While Ennis and Jack shoot an elk and at coyotes and look after sheep, the film doesn't really fit the western genre I expected. Instead, it's a love story. Totally unexpected for me, and honestly, a huge relief since I don't really like westerns. What I found so moving in this film were the quiet moments. Seeing Alma realize that her husband doesn't love her and is in love with a man is heartwrenching. I know she doesn't accept what he's doing, and my heart breaks for her not being able to forgive him for being who he is.

Her silence breaks later when she is remarried and confronts Ennis about all the fish he didn't catch on those fishing trips with Jack. The scene where she confronts him made me so angry at first because I thought she was shaming him for being gay, but I wonder if it's more about her being heartbroken. I don't know if her hatred is directed at him or at his sexuality. The complexity of her feelings and how he can't handle those feelings makes the scene all the more intense.

Having now seen both Crash and Brokeback Mountain, I have to say I'm disappointed that Crash won. Brokeback Mountain may be subtle, but it's subtlety is part of what makes it so powerful. The love story between Jack and Ennis shows how beautiful love is and that love is love, no matter who that love is between.

Million Dollar Baby: 2004

Million Dollar Baby is one of the films where I remember watching the Oscars in 2005 and seeing Hilary Swank win for her portrayal of Maggie Fitzgerald, a female boxer, and having no interest in watching the film. Picking up the film at my local library to watch for this blog I had only slightly more interest because I know I'm approaching the end point of watching best picture winners and I'm excited to finally meet my goal. That and Rocky was better than I expected, so I figured another boxing film might be good.

I wouldn't say that Million Dollar Baby is good, but I wouldn't say that it's bad. The film has some interesting moments, and it's not your typical boxing film (spoiler: she doesn't win the title). The story tackles the difficult subject of euthanasia and handled it with grace. The acting is good. Did Swank earn her Oscar? Sure, I think so. It's hard to know for this year as I haven't seen the other nominees (check out the list for Best Actress for the 2005 Oscars), but there were scenes where Swank convincingly showed joy, pain, fear, and more.

For me, there are a few issues with Million Dollar Baby. One is the frame story. Morgan Freeman, who plays Eddie, narrates the film, and until the end you don't know why. When you find out why, it doesn't make much sense. Apparently he's writing a letter to Frankie's daughter to explain why her father was a good man. You know that Frankie has a bad relationship with his daughter, but it's never clear why, so then the letter doesn't have much meaning. I just wasn't invested in Frankie's character because I didn't know enough about him. The other issue I had was length. Some parts of the film just seemed to drag on. As Maggie begins fighting, the montages are quick, but then after her injury, so much of the film drags. Maybe it felt that way because I wanted to know how things would turn out, but that part dragging along with the somewhat unnecessary character Danger (I'm not sure what the point was to having his character in the story) made the second half of the movie go on and on. That slowing down of the story made the ending have less of an impact on me.

I'll leave off with this thought. If you told me that you're going to watch Million Dollar Baby, I wouldn't say you should or shouldn't. But I wouldn't be that interested in knowing your thoughts about it.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: 2003

Honestly, the first time I saw The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring I hated it. I was in the theater with my mom and brother. They had both read the books and I hadn't. When the film ended with Frodo and Sam heading downriver, I thought I had just wasted three and a half hours to see an incomplete story. And of course it was incomplete! What did I expect? It was only a third of the story. But I was so irritated I swore I wouldn't see the rest of the films.

Then I took a class in college on Tolkien while studying abroad in Oxford, England, which is where Tolkien lived when he wrote the series and most of his other work. And I fell in the love with the Ents. Yes, those giant treeherders were what I needed to realize the beauty of Tolkien's work.

Today we own all three films, the extended versions obviously, and my husband and I have watched them repeatedly. It had been awhile since we'd done a rewatch, so in preparation for this blog, my husband watched the first two films. I sat in on the second one, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, because of the three that's my favorite. (Yeah, those Ents still get to me!) Just watching the second one, I was pulled in completely and so excited to rewatch The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

On this viewing (which I should say was, for the original purpose of this blog, unnecessary because I've seen the film so many times), I was reminded of how hope is possible even in the darkest of times. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was published in 1954, following World War II, and I wonder how much living in England during the war influenced his writing. I wouldn't say that the book is an allegory or in some way represents the different sides, but I think the concept of forces coming together to unite against a common enemy is certainly relevant to what Tolkien witnessed during World War II. But that concept isn't unique to this time period, either; it's a common human experience. One that I think we need to be reminded of from time to time so as to not lose hope in our world. Maybe on this viewing, I needed that reminder, so that's what I saw.

What also struck me this time was how, despite only having three, the women in this film series and story are strong. From Galadriel, one of the fairy leaders, to Arwen, the fairy daughter who believes in man, to my favorite Eowyn, the Rohan woman who fights alongside the men in the battle for Gondor, the women in this story stand up for what they believe in. Eowyn is the strongest of the three as she defies what the men in her society believe by fighting with them. While she disguises herself to do so, her courage inspires me. She also helps Merry join the fight as well. The king tells Merry he is too small to fight, but Eowyn pulls him up on her horse and takes Merry along. She knows what it means to him to fight for their friends. Seeing those who are marginalized stand up and fight for what they believe is one of the key messages in this film. Of course, there's Frodo and Sam, two small hobbits fighting the greatest evil of their time. But that's the obvious example. Eowyn and Merry are the more meaningful example because they are less obvious.

If you have a film you've been thinking about watching, you should rewatch it. I'm glad I did for this one.

A Beautiful Mind: 2001

A Beautiful Mind was a rewatch for me and definitely a necessary one because I didn't remember much from the film at all except the shed full of magazine and newspaper clippings. I didn't even remember that the film was based on a true story. All I could remember was that I liked the movie. And that turned out to be true on the second watching.

What struck me on this viewing was how talented Russell Crowe is. Sure, Gladiator is a terrible film, but it's not Crowe's fault. His ability to portray a character suffering from schizophrenia is astounding. Crowe is intense in this film; you believe his hallucinations as real. When the truth is uncovered, I had trouble believing it, and I think that was due to Crowe's performance. The reason was because I didn't want to think that John Nash was without friends. When the truth comes out that his best friend Charles isn't real, I was crushed. Here's a social awkward man who struggled with human interactions and had found someone who seemed to really understand, but this man wasn't even real. It was all in his head.

My friend Ryan said to me before I watched the film that he thinks A Beautiful Mind is one of those movies that people would forget how much they enjoyed (I'm summing up his words here). I have to agree. If you're at all considering watching it, you should. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

The Departed: 2006

I skipped ahead a few years to The Departed because Nate and Ryan asked me to be on their podcast (to be recorded this weekend) Can We Still Be Friends? When the episode is ready, I'll be sure to post it. In the meantime, here are my initial thoughts on the film.

As a mob story set in Boston and involving crooked cops, The Departed is not a film I would normally pick up. Again, watching the Best Picture winners expands my experiences. I have to say that it seems like the Academy of the 1970s enjoyed a good mob story. The 1980s and 1990s didn't have any, so it wasn't until this 2006 film that the members deemed another mob story worthy of the big award. It's not that there weren't options. I checked, and Martin Scorcese's Goodfellas came out in 1990. That film was nominated for Best Picture and five other awards but only won Best Supporting Actor for Joe Pesci. The Departed delivers on the mob story: lots of drugs, violence, and cops that can't quite seem to catch the bad guy.

While the film is over two hours, it didn't feel long. Scorcese's cutting of scenes, switching because the undercover cop (Leonardo DiCaprio) and the detective who's also a rat (Matt Damon) speeds up the film while also drawing parallels. Both men are nervous multiple times. DiCaprio's acting was impressive. In some scenes, I was nervous that he was going to blow his cover because of all the nonverbal cues he was showing. Besides DiCaprio and Damon, the cast is loaded with strong actors, including Jack Nicholson as the mob boss Frank Costello. Nicholson was the perfect mob boss: the right amount of evilness mixed with arrogance.

I have to say, I'm looking forward to discussing this film with Nate and Ryan. I'm really interested in hearing what they have to say about how this film explores the ideas of heroes and loneliness.

Academy Awards: 2018

After watching last night's Academy Awards, I have a list of films I need to see:

• Coco (best animated picture winner and best song winner, plus it looks so fun)
• The Shape of Water (best picture winner, gotta keep going on this list)
• I, Tonya (best supporting actress went to Alison Janney, the clips make the film look sooooo interesting to someone like me who was obsessed with figure skating when the Harding and Kerrigan conflict happened)
• Foreign Films and Documentaries (again I'm reminded that I'm limited in what I watch)

I still plan to watch Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. The hold is set at my library, so whenever that comes, I'll watch Francis McDormand and Sam Rockwell in their Oscar-winning performances.

I have to say, I was glad to see some variety in last night's Oscars as far as not having one film sweep multiple categories. Sure, the diversity in the acting category winners is seriously lacking, but overall, it was good to see many films being honored.

Battle of the Sexes: 2017

Battle of the Sexes didn't even come to my attention until I watched this year's Golden Globes. As the presenters introduced different nominated best pictures, I began checking my local library's catalog to see if any of the films were available. Battle of the Sexes was nominated for best comedy, and it was one of the few available. I placed a hold and waited for my copy.

Having watched the film now, I have to say I'm surprised it was nominated for a best picture award. It's not bad, but it's also nothing special. The film is just fine. I enjoy true stories (or should I say based on true stories) films, and Battle of the Sexes fits that as it's about Billie Jean King (played by Emma Stone) playing Bobby Riggs (played by Steve Carell) to prove that women are just as athletically skilled as men. With great source material, I expected to be excited and entertained by this film. Not so much. Stone wasn't all that great in her role. The make-up and costume departments did a fantastic job with making her look the part of a 1970s tennis player, but her performance lacked depth. I felt like I was watching someone pretend to be someone else instead of embodying that character. Carell was better, but that may be due to casting: he played a goofy guy. It wasn't that different than watching him be Michael Scott from The Office. Then the final tennis tournament was so long. I guess I just don't enjoy watching people play tennis?

The highlight of the film for me was Sarah Silverman's character, Gladys Heldman, a chain-smoking agent who helps Billie Jean organize a women's tennis organization. I love her no-nonsense attitude. And her pushing her tennis players to smoke some cigarettes (because Virginia Slims sponsors their tour) is so 1970s and hilarious.

As for the Oscars, Battle of the Sexes didn't receive any nominations. Not a surprise.

Chicago: 2002

So musicals made a return in 2002 when Chicago won Best Picture (it won 6 awards altogether). What was a pleasant surprise to me was it wasn't a long musical. The film is about an hour and a half long. Now that hour and a half has a lot of songs in it, so despite that short run time, they really do pack in the singing and dancing.

The film seemed more of a celebration of the stage and jazz age than telling a story. A plot is present, but it's simple: Roxie Hart kills her lover, goes to jail, and then becomes famous because of her lawyer's quest to get a guilty woman free. Instead of developing Roxie's character (she remains shallow, which seems appropriate given what she did), the film creates big song and dance numbers that are stunning even on the small screen. My favorite was the ventriloquist act:

Renee Zellweger's timing in this scene is spot on. Richard Gere's charisma oozes from the screen in all its smarmy glory. What he lacks as a singer he makes up for in personality for sure. 

My other surprise favorite part of the movie is the reporter Mary Sunshine (what a great name). Played by Christine Baranski, the reporter delivers a play-by-play of the trial at the end. Baranski plays the character as journalist who is out for the most sensational story she can find, and as she reports, her voice captures the scandal of what unfolds in the trial. It's fun to have a woman reporting on murderesses, as Mary Sunshine is also there for other press conferences and at the jail where all the women are awaiting trial. Between Mary Sunshine and Mama (Queen Latifah) the matron of the women's jail, it's clear that women are in control in this story.

Chicago was fun. Visually it certainly deserved an Oscar. And having women in strong roles makes its win even better.

Dunkirk: 2017

Yes, I know Dunkirk hasn't won an Academy Award (yet, it's nominated but I think this year it will go to Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), but I was able to get it from my library and wanted to watch another nominated film just to have more context for this year's Academy Awards on March 4.

The story itself is fascinating: 400,000 British troops stranded in France, 300,000 of whom are rescued by small civilian boats. I was familiar with the historical event, but I didn't know the numbers or have any concept of what the experience was like for the troops or for the rescuers. Dunkirk puts the audience right in the middle. It's a film that you need to watch carefully at the beginning to understand the structure (there are three storylines). I didn't find myself connecting closely with any of the characters; instead, I was worried about all of them. And I think that's the point. All these troops, with no hope of rescue. And then the boats arrive.

Visually, the film is spectacular. The shots from the perspective of the fighter pilots put the audience in the cockpit. Cinematography has come a long way from the first best picture winner Wings. While some might want to see these scenes on a big screen, I'm glad I was at home as I think I would have been a bit queasy watching them, that's how realistic they seemed.

Dunkirk is worth watching if only for the visuals. Having an interesting structure only adds to the film.

What About American Beauty?

If anyone is keeping track, I jumped into the 2000s without posting about American Beauty, released in 1999 with an impressive cast that includes Annette Bening, Thora Birch, Mena Suvari, and Allison Janney. Those of you who have seen the film might note that I didn't include Kevin Spacey in that list. He's actually the main reason I'm not doing a rewatch of this film (or watching anything that he's in). Spacey's history of sexual harassment and assault is reason enough to avoid the actor. 

I remember seeing American Beauty in the theater, and afterwards I thought "What did I just watch?" Well, that and I was thoroughly grossed out by Spacey's character. If that was my reaction then, I'm thinking it will only be worse knowing what the actor is really like.

So, goodbye to the 90s and the 20th century. It's time to move forward and continue with the 2000s. I've already covered three (Gladiator, Birdman, and Moonlight). It looks like I just might finish watching all the Academy Aware Best Picture winners this year!

Gladiator: 2000

Technically, I'm still watching Gladiator...at least it's on my television screen right now as I write this post, but I'm at the point where I've watched enough to know that this film is not for me. Most of the time watching it I felt like I was watching the Roman version of Braveheart, but that comparison seems like an insult to Braveheart.

My biggest issue with Gladiator is the lack of character development. Maximus (played by Russell Crowe) wants revenge for the death of his wife and son and the emperor. It doesn't get any more complicated than that for his character. The love story between him and the emperor's daughter Lucilla is present but doesn't seem to be developed much either. We know they have a past and Maximus isn't that interested in revisiting the past. His loyalty to his family is above everything in his life. Certainly an admirable quality but doesn't allow for much development.

The film aspect I found interesting throughout was the color of certain scenes. When Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix who is impressively evil, I'll give the film that) is on screen, the color is cool and blue, projecting his evil intentions.

But in scenes with Maximus, in particular after Commodus murders his father to obtain the throne and orders the murder of Maximus's family, the color is warmer.

The color difference doesn't carry throughout the film, but when used, the contrast effectively presents Maximus as the hero and Commodus as the villain.

At least this is another film that Ryan and Nate talked about in their podcast; that's probably the only highlight of watching Gladiator.

The English Patient: 1996

So The English Patient is another Miramax film, meaning Harvey Weinstein worked on it as a producer. I tried not to let that color my experience watching the film, and I think it's fairly safe to say it didn't. What did affect my viewing was the Seinfeld episode where Elaine expresses her hatred of the movie (how it was just soooo boring). After watching the rather long film, I can see why Elaine hated it--it's a true romance with a sad ending. If you're interested in reading more about Elaine, Seinfeld, and The English Patient, check out this Vanity Fair article published in 2016.

I found the film fine. It was one of those films where I was impressed with the cinematography but found the characters dull. The story comes down to a woman who seems bored in her marriage (she married her childhood best friend) finds a man who seems so distant and different from her husband as crazy attractive (enter Ralph Fiennes). Adultery is committed, she dies, he's gravely injured, and oh, he colludes with the Germans during WWII in an attempt to save her (which is quite hopeless by the point he does it). Their story didn't really interest me all that much, but thankfully the film had multiple storylines, with this love story functioning as a flashback. I was more interested in following Juliette Binoche's character, the Canadian nurse who cares for the English Patient (the injured and nearly unrecognizable Ralph Fiennes), because her story follows the end of the war. Her desire to save people because of all those she's lost made her a more interesting character, but since she wasn't the focus of the film, her character didn't develop as fully as I would have liked.

The most impressive part of the film was the make-up. Here's Ralph Fiennes before the plane crash:

And after:

The most impressive part is as the present day storyline progresses, his wounds slowly change as he's healing. It was subtle but effective. The change in his appearance wasn't the only indication of time changing, but it was a detail that wasn't overlooked, which made the film seem more authentic.

I'm not Elaine--I didn't hate The English Patient--but I'm not J. Peterman, either--it's not the best film I've ever seen. This one falls in the middle for me. 

Moonlight: 2016

Moonlight was able at my library in the Hot Picks area, and knowing it was on my list, I went ahead and picked it up. Considering I had just finished Shakespeare in Love, I was looking forward to a different movie that might actually make me think and that had critical acclaim. Just to refresh your memory, Moonlight was the film that Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway called La La Land at last year's Oscars. Oops.

Even though it's only been a year since the film was released, I could already tell that Moonlight was something special half an hour into the film. The story is set up as three acts, covering three different time periods in Chiron's life. As a kid, Chiron is taunted for being different than the other kids, and one scene in particular left me aching for him. Chiron asks Juan about being called a f*****, and Juan has to explain what that word means. Juan has become a father figure for Chiron, and it's Juan's grace in this challenging conversation that amazed me. I actually held my breath as Juan worked through an answer to Chiron's question. The love and compassion that Juan has for this kid, who isn't his own, is so touching.

The contrasts in the film really interested me. Chiron as an adult is so different than what I expected based on his childhood and teen years. But the film teaches a lesson in judging others: while Chiron may seem different as an adult, as the film plays out, he's still the same person. His encounters with his mother in all the stages are heartbreaking; as an addict, she goes from being nurturing to despondent to negligent to regretful. Her last scene with the adult Chiron reveals just how much regrets what happened, and we completely understand her regrets because we saw what she did.

People need to see this film. Sure, it's not a feel good film in the truest sense of that label, but its honesty and love are so compelling that you feel good by the end because of what those can overcome.

Shakespeare in Love: 1998

So I knew I wasn't going to love Shakespeare in Love (the whole Harvey Weinstein connection soured me), but I had no idea how much I would actively dislike the film. My dislike isn't due to the acting; they were fine, even quite good at times. And my dislike isn't due to the genre; I find historical fiction enjoyable when done well. That's where the issue lies...when done well.

First, the historical aspect of the film. The way plays were rehearsed (not three weeks) is wrong. And Shakespeare writing the play and giving the actors the full script? Wrong. Christopher Marlowe dying because of something Shakespeare did? Wrong again. Marlowe was accused of being an atheist. That was far more likely to cause his death than Shakespeare lying and saying he was Marlowe when courting a noble woman. Typically I don't mind if screenwriters alter history to fit a narrative, but in this case I've learned too much about the time period to let these changes slide. Plus, a lot of the film just seemed stupid. The whole star-crossed lovers in real life plotline didn't work for me. Of all of Shakespeare's plays, the one I like the least is Romeo and Juliet. Teaching the play is great because the text is easier to understand than his other works and high schoolers like the concept of forbidden love. But I didn't like the play when I was a freshman in high school, and even after seeing two live productions and watching film versions (the Zeffirelli one and the Lurhmann one), I still don't like Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare in Love uses that play as its foundation for the love story. Really, the film had no hope of me liking it.

In thinking about the film as an Academy Award winner, I know it didn't receive those awards based on merit. It all came down to a campaign that knocked out the movie that has had far more lasting impact: Saving Private Ryan. At least in this case history shows us which film really influenced our culture and society. Maybe we can send Steven Spielberg a late Oscar?

Braveheart: 1995

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Braveheart is one movie on this list that I already owned. Or at least, I used to own it. After rewatching the film with me, my husband said that we didn't need to keep it anymore. It wasn't because he disliked the film; it's just that he doesn't need to see it again. That sums up how I feel about the film. I didn't dislike Braveheart; then again, I can't say I liked it either. Parts were interesting, parts seemed long. Overall, it was fine.

The most interesting parts of the film were the music, the landscape (although some of the shots were too long...Scotland, though beautiful, didn't change much in the film--it's vibrant green with a misty quality), and the message of not giving up even when all hope is lost. Watching the first twenty seconds of the trailer shows the beauty of the country. That first twenty seconds also shows something I disliked about the film: the love story between William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson) and Murron (played by Catherine McCormack). Her character was underdeveloped for me. I couldn't really understand what they saw in each other besides physical attraction and him being the guy her parents said she couldn't date. I know there's the history of them knowing each other as children and her giving him the thistle, which is a sweet scene, but it's just not enough for me to see them as in love. The longing stares that litter the first hour of the film as just obnoxious; those don't build character for me or suggest that their relationship has any depth.

Once the romance section was over, the fight for freedom began. These scenes were fine, but the battles and debates began to feel repetitive, win or lose. I liked what Ryan and Nate had to say in their podcast about Robert the Bruce's character, but I won't repeat them here. You'll need to listen to them to hear those thoughts.

Braveheart was one of those movies that my husband repeatedly said I should watch. Well, I've seen it now. And like I said, it was fine. I have to wonder, though, if I would have felt differently if I had seen it before Mel Gibson demonstrated who he really is with all those hateful comments. I couldn't help but think about those comments as I watched this film, and I know it influenced my viewing of him as a performer. But even so, I like to think that my opinion would have been the same.

Forrest Gump: 1994

I remember seeing Forrest Gump in the theater. I cried, a lot, and so did my mom. When I finished the film last night, I teared up a few times. It used to be that the scene at Jenny's grave at the end would be what hit me the most, but this time it was Forrest talking to his mom when she tells him that she's dying of cancer. Sally Field plays Mrs. Gump as so brave as she explains to her only son that it's her time to die. Maybe it struck me differently on this rewatch than all the previous ones because I think it's the first time I've watched this after becoming a parent almost six years ago. I've already had to explain some tough topics to my own children, but death is something I fortunately have not had to explain yet. I can imagine, though, what this was like for Forrest's mom, and Field's performance is so calm and almost soothing even though the topic is devastating for Forrest.

I wonder if I should have skipped this rewatching of Forrest Gump because other than tearing up at different moments I'm not sure that I took  much different away on this rewatch than I did on any of the previous ones. The film was so familiar to me (I watched it a lot in middle school and high school and I even have the soundtrack) that it felt like a comfortable blanket. I knew when the happy and sad moments were coming, and as the story unravels, I knew what to expect in the end. Just like the previous viewings, Tom Hanks is outstanding as he embraces the role and makes us all believe that he is actually Forrest Gump. The one small surprise I had was that the shrimp scene, when Bubba lists all the types of shrimp, isn't as long as I remember, but that didn't take away from my viewing. Nor was I surprised since that scene has been parodied and referenced so many times it's become bigger than it was.

Coming up next is Braveheart, a movie we own but I've never seen. I'm not excited about watching yet another three hour epic for this blog, but with a long weekend, I think it will be a bit easier.

Golden Globes: 2018

In the spirit of a film blog (and one that focuses on award winning films), it only seems logical to discuss the Golden Globes, often cited as one indicator of the Oscars (coming March 4, 2018, put it on your calendar now). While I could spend this post discussing how much I love Oprah and her speech (here's the transcript in case you missed it), I'm going to focus instead on what I left the Globes with: a list of films to see.

1) Dunkirk: Nominated for Best Motion Picture-Drama, Dunkirk is based on the true story of small fishing boats rescuing British soldiers in World War II. The film came out in the summer, and honestly, I didn't even think about seeing it in the theater. I've watched a lot of war movies for this blog, so I don't feel like I'm lacking in this area. Watching the clips for Dunkirk during the Globes, though, made me think it might be inspiring to watch (I do love true stories where regular people are heroes because they remind me that good people exist in our world), and luckily for me, as a summer release, it's already available on DVD at my local library. I placed my hold for the film and now just have to wait for it to come in.

2) Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri: When I went to see Lady Bird, I thought about seeing his film instead, but I decided not to because I really needed a comedy, not a drama, that day. Now I really want to find a time to go see Three Billboards, and I think that needs to happen before March 4.

3) All the foreign language film nominees: Every year I see this category on the Globes and Oscars and want to watch them. Maybe that's the next list I should work my way through whenever I finish the Best Pictures list I'm currently working on.

4) Battle of the Sexes: So I know nothing about this movie other than Steve Carell is in it and it's a comedy. Did I mention Steve Carell is in it? Do I need any other reason to see it? I think not. And good news...this one is also available at my local library.

Schindler's List: 1993

I've had to watch a lot of long films for this blog; apparently being long helps a film win Best Picture. And some of those films felt long, dragging on and on with not clear reason for the length. Schindler's List may be over three hours long, but it doesn't feel long. My original viewing schedule was for three days, as I figured I wouldn't want to stay up late watching the film, but I was wrong. The film pulled me in, and even through I knew the ending, I had to keep watching.

I'll admit: I wasn't excited to watch this film. I knew how dark and devastating it would be. I've read a lot of literature set during the Holocaust and reading more about the horrific event doesn't make it easier to digest. Knowing that the film would be difficult made me wait to watch it when I would have more time to process it and wouldn't have to worry about going into work for a few days, which is why I waited until winter break to watch it.

The scenes that the film is known for, notably involving the girl in the red coat (who is responsible for changing Schindler for the better), were incredibly moving, but Amon Goeth's evilness, the commander of the work camp played by Ralph Fiennes in what must have been an incredibly difficult role, is something that struck me continually. He is the epitome of heartless, seeing Jewish people as objects and killing at random for sheer pleasure. In one scene, he shoots Jews from the balcony of his house for no reason other than fun. The only thing the Jewish people in the work camp could do was run faster and hope he wouldn't pick them. It's so horrible, and it's only the beginning because in later scenes he toys with people before killing them. His character showed just how heartless, how evil, the Nazis were. Spielberg's directing of Fiennes and decisions for shots and angles emphasize how helpless the Jewish people are and how diabolical Hitler and his Nazis were.

While his character troubled me, the transformation of Schindler from businessman to savior is remarkable to watch, in large part due to Liam Neeson's abilities to convey his feelings. I could see Schindler's transformation occur throughout his interactions with Stern, Helen, and other Jewish people in his factory. I'd say for the first hour and a half of the film I couldn't stand Schindler; he was profiting because of war and violence against Jewish people. But after he sees the clearing of the ghetto in Krakow and his realization of what the Nazis are doing, he becomes a good man, one that seems alone is this corrupt world. *Spoiler Alert* When he breaks down near the end of the film, saying how he could have and should have saved more people, I teared up. It's heart wrenching to watch because along the way I was thinking the same thing. Sure, I wasn't alive to do something, but why didn't my country do more? And what's happening today in our world that could be prevented?

So yeah, Schindler's List maybe tough to watch due to the violence and cruelty, but it reminds us that there are good people in the world. We just need to choose to be one of them.

It's Been Awhile...

Honestly, I've been watching movies...I just haven't been working on this list. For this post, I thought I'd cover some of the highlights of my year end viewings until I manage to watch Schindler's List (yes, I have a copy now, picked up today from my library).

Mudbound: Thank you, Netflix, for posting your film online as well as releasing it in theaters. With two young kids, it's hard for me to get out to see new releases, so I was excited to hear about Mudbound being on Netflix. As difficult as the film is to watch at times due to the content, it's a must see. Mary J. Blige is simply amazing. I cannot begin to tell you how convincing her performance is. And Rob Morgan as her husband Hap is astonishing. The pain he experiences, both physical and emotional, gripped me. I found myself hurting along with him. I'm hoping to see more of Blige and Morgan in upcoming films. Side note: Morgan is one of the police officers in Stranger Things. As much as I love that series, it doesn't show how powerful Morgan is as an actor.

Lady Bird: I did get to the theater for this one, and I have to say, Lady Bird, I get you. My high school experiences may have differed from yours, but the feelings were there. I also get her mom's feelings, sometimes. This is a film I need to watch again in 10 years when I have two teenagers. Lady Bird is funny, but I didn't find myself laughing out loud. Instead, it was more of that "hmpf" chuckle. My favorite funny moment was when Lady Bird and her friend Julie were caught eating communion wafers at their Catholic school.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi: I LOVE Star Wars, so I'm always a little nervous when new films come out. I have to wonder, can they ever compare to the original trilogy (and by that I mean episodes 4, 5, and 6 obviously). This new series is living up, and what I particularly loved about The Last Jedi is the creation and development of new characters and relationships. As much as I love watching Leia, Luke, and Han fight the Empire, it really is time for new heroes and new stories. The Last Jedi delivers while still making connections to the older generation. The only problem is having to wait a year and a half for the next installment.