Recent Watches: Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Do you think Kathryn Bigelow intentionally reinvented herself as a “serious” Oscar-caliber filmmaker? Before “The Hurt Locker” made her the first female Best Director winner, Bigelow was a genre worksmith, pumping out awesome action-fest like “Near Dark,” “Point Break,” and “Blue Steel,” not unlike a more prolific version of her famous ex-husband James Cameron. It’s not like “The Hurt Locker” was that far outside of her established wheelhouse anyway. Maybe her critical reevaluation truly was an accidental move. Either way, her career sure has changed now.

Despite “Zero Dark Thirty” obviously being a big important serious film with lots of awards-quality shine to it, Kathryn Bigelow is still largely operating as a genre filmmaker. She frames the squirmy, frequently uncomfortable real life subject matter in cinematic terms the audience is all ready familiar with. The first act finally ends well over an hour into the film when a defining event happens to the protagonist, Maya. An operation goes wrong, a cooperating informant reveals himself to be a suicide bomber, and a close friend dies. This time: It’s personal. The quest to find and assassinate Osama bin Laden becomes a quest of revenge.

Similarly, much of “Zero Dark Thirty” functions as a closed-room mystery. Jessica Chastain stares tersely at photographs, surveillance footage, following leads all the while. Like a renegade cop in an eighties action movie, she argues with her superiors who don’t appreciate her style to solving the case. Her frank language among the higher-ups cuts through the bureaucratic bullshit of the office. She is stuck on the bad guy, who is obviously the bad guy, even if her bosses insists that he’s unimportant. However, instead of the bad guy being an iron-clad crime boss with some sort of European accent, its Osama fucking bin Laden.

I can’t tell if re-framing real events in these terms is tasteful or not. (Though it certainly explains the movie’s success with the mainstream public.) Especially since “Zero Dark Thirty” never backs away from the harsh, uncomfortable truths. The movie begins with harrowing audio from September 11th that, played against a stark black screen, is incredibly disturbing. Perhaps the filmmaker is presenting this to us in order to justify the desperate measures the characters go too? A large percentage of the film’s early half deals openly with “advanced interrogation” techniques. The interrogee is water-boarded, strung up with ropes, forced into a box about the size of a large luggage trunk, and blasted with death metal for hours on in. Despite the best efforts of Jason Clarke, the man doing the torture still comes off as an unlikeable jock. (Are we even suppose to like the guy? I'm not sure.) To be perfectly honest, there aren’t really any likable characters in “Zero Dark Thirty.” Everyone is too severe, too consumed by their mission, to have much personality. The characters seem to be intentional ciphers, since the film directly avoids casting any recognizable movie stars. Aside from Chastain and small roles from Mark Strong and a heavily made-up James Gandolfini, the cast is filled with unfamiliar character actors. 

To also be perfectly honest, I found most of “Zero Dark Thirty” to be either boring or upsetting. When the movie actually threatens to make things personable, like when two people meet for dinner in a fancy hotel, it immediately offsets it with another terrorist attack, another bomb, another explosion. I guess this is obviously correct for what the film is about. Nobody would expect a movie about hunting terrorist to be cuddly. But what about the boredom? All that internal affairs stuff went pretty much over my head. There’s a lot of insular drama about whither they are tracking the right guy with a beard. Compelling scenes like a prisoner being taken out for a nice lunch or Chastain being attacked by machine-gun wielding terrorists in her driveway seem separated by a lot of long scenes of people sitting around in rooms and talking.

Finally, two hours into the film, things start to pick up. The team gets a bead on Osama and finally start to close in. At this point, “Zero Dark Thirty” becomes captivating. Watching the screws turn and pieces fall into place probably shouldn’t be the most satisfying part of a mystery but frequently is anyway. In the last half-hour when the SEALs team is thrown together on literal black helicopters (To throw even more bones to conspiracy theorists, the black helicopters are located in Area 51) and flown over to complete the mission is when the film suddenly becomes excellent. Bigelow seems especially talented at putting the audience in the place of soldiers in the heat of combat. The raid on bin Laden’s compound is intense, with soldiers in cramp quarters dodging machine gun fire, never knowing what’s right around the corner. When the big fat kill comes, it happens in a nicely anticlimactic fashion. I don’t know if the film is too long or drags its feet, since all that previous information ends up being pretty important. I think the case can be made for presenting it in a more likable, compelling fashion.

Jessica Chastain’s performance is good but she’s only truly impressive when allowing her vulnerable side to show, which happens maybe twice in the whole movie. (The last scene admittedly impressed me.) I think her Oscar chances are officially in peril. “Zero Dark Thirty” is certainly not as good a film as “The Hurt Locker” and I honestly have to question the motivation of making a historical film about a historical event still fresh in the public’s recent memory. After watching it, I do say it probably deserved to be nominated for Best Editing, which is the most notably well done aspect of the whole film. [5/10]

Recent Watches: Life of Pi (2012)

“Life of Pi” seems to be getting at some big themes. The story asks multiple times if animals have souls or if, what we perceive as souls, are simply humans projecting their own feelings on to them. (I write this as my beloved six-year old dog curls up next to me, sleeping soundly and warmly. That should tell you my opinion on the first matter.) The events of the story seem to prove to the characters the existence of God. The film never conceptualizes that idea into the bones of the story. Religion and faith is obviously something the film is concerned with yet those thoughts are frequently pushed to the side by the story’s more present concerns. A plot twist in the last act makes it obvious that this is a film about storytelling, how we use fiction to reassemble and compartmentalize reality into acceptable terms. These are all compelling concepts and maybe if “Life of Pi” stuck with one instead of trying to explore all three willy-nilly it would have been a more satisfying film.

At one point, about half an hour in, I wondered if the whole movie was going to be a kid yelling at CGI animals on a boat. It’s not but we can be forgiven for wondering. For a fact, large portions of the film concern themselves with Pi’s conception and childhood. Pi’s school days provides some amusing early moments, such as when he proves to the rest of the class why he’s called Pi. As a young boy, Pi adopts Hindu, Catholicism, and Islam all as his religion, in sharp contrast to his father’s cold logic. (I'm not exactly fond of the way the movie vilifies a belief in logic and science.) This angle provides ample opportunity for satire, contrast and comparison between the beliefs, and development of faith. The film doesn’t really do much with it, besides adding some quirkiness to Pi’s character. The film does even less with the young love story added in these early going chapters. That literally builds to nothing.

The boy and his tiger in a boat does take up the majority of the film’s run-time. During these moments, “Life of Pi” becomes a fairly compelling survivalist story. Though on the surface it’s utterly preposterous, the movie builds a convincing reality around the boy and the boat. There’s an odd comfort to the life they build, the boy floating just off the lifeboat in his cobbled together raft. The two debate control and territory, at first totally stand-off-ish to one another. (There's a funny moment when the tiger counters Pi's attempt to mark his territory.) Slowly, they realize that one depends on the other. Unlike many other survival stories, this one is less concerned with the gritty actualities needed to live through such a situation. While it doesn’t undersell the seriousness of the scenario, it instead builds on the bond between boy and animal. The film usually does a good job of balancing voiceover and action, allowing us entry into Pi’s thoughts without spelling anything out… Except for one glaring sequence where the film does exactly that, spelling out in voiceover how the two divergent types have become depended on each other.

At it’s most interesting, the film trades in allegory and surreal images. The ocean is frequently filled with odd lights and wondrous sights. Amusingly, a huge whale bursting out of the water is treated with awe before the film hilariously shows the downsides of a giant whale slamming into the water near your little boat. The image of a cloud of flying fish pelting the boat is slightly absurd, somewhat harrowing, and similarly funny. There’s a dream sequence where fish, squid, and faces of friends and family appear out of the depths. In the movie’s most blatant moment of unreality, Pi washes ashore on an island made of algae, populated with droves of meerkats, and featuring acidic pits of water and carnivorous plants.

Ang Lee is well known for putting pretty images up on-screen and “Life of Pi” is certainly a beautiful film to look at. I whole-heartedly expect it to win Best Cinematography. He does some interesting thing with transition. Surprisingly, the director indulges in quite a bit of 3-D eye gouging, throwing fish, waves, ores, and leaping tigers at the audience. CGI is used extensively. At times, it’s tricky to tell the real tiger apart from the computer generated construct while it’s blatantly obvious other times. The hyena and orangutan are much less convincing.

Suraj Sharma gives an excellent performance in the lead role. He ably carries the whole film on his young shoulders. A moment during a thunder storm where your unsure if Pi’s sanity is slipping away or not is particularly effective. Of all the nominations and awards the film has earned, it’s disappointing to see the talented Mr. Sharma locked out. The score plays better on film then it does by itself, helping along a few of the movie’s more lyrical moments. It’s still not a great score though, that’s for sure.

“Life of Pi” obviously works with allegory and symbols. It can be assumed that the tiger and man-eating island all mean something. However, the movie treats all of these events as nothing short of actual. There seems little doubt that Ang Lee believed all these things actually happened to the character. While slightly heavy-handed, it mostly works in a decently interesting way. Any of the slight ambiguity the film builds up is completely wasted in the last minutes. Two separate characters opening talk about what actually happened and what every little symbol means. It’s exhausting, frustrating, and disappointing. Leave something up to the viewers, for fucks’ sake. Even more aggravating, the film force-feeds you the message that we write our own story, we choose what to believe. (I guess this ties into the film’s story of faith and religion.) “Life of Pi” sells out pretty much all the good will it created for itself by being a competent, well-acted, generally likable, believable, and compelling flick with this asinine turn. [6/10]

Bangers n' Mash 11: Urban Legends

 This episode is a few days late but here it is anyway. Happy Superbowl.

In this episode, Mr. Mash and I take a break from talking about horror movies and instead talk about the things that inspire many horror movies: Urban legends, those unlikely, frequently terrifying tales that happened to a friend of a friend. We tell the tales, deconstructing their morals, social significance, and deeper meaning. Honestly, it's an ambitious subject and maybe a little out of the wheelhouse of our show's "two nerds talking on a couch" format. That's me you know, always trying to elevate the material.



The Bangers n' Mash Show now has an e-mail address! Contact us at bangersnmash88@yahoo.com, if you are of a mind to. The Bangers n' Mash Show has a Facebook page! "Like" us here. We like you!

Recent Watches: Argo (2012)

I have no prior experience with Ben Affleck the Filmmaker. When I think of the guy, I think of the star of esteemed classics like "Gigli," "Reindeer Games," "Daredevil," and "Good Will Hunting II: Hunting Season." Despite the critical acclaim "The Town" and "Gone Baby Gone" received, I went into "Argo" with few expectations.

I was vaguely familiar with the true story the film is based on, mostly through this Cracked article and the involvement of comic artist Jack Kirby. (Who has a cameo in the film, played by a well-cast Michael Parks.) The Iran Hostage Crisis is a bit of a historical blind spot for me, taking place before my birth during an overlooked presidency. The film sets up the historical context very quickly and succinctly, using Kirby-style storyboards and tense reenactments. Despite the entire plot revolving around six of the hostages, the movie’s not really about them. Instead, it’s about Tony Mendez, CIA agent who specializes in getting folks out of tricky situations. After shooting down all the other plans, Mendez cooks up a plot to sneak the six out with a fake movie production. And we’re off.

“Argo” isn’t quite a movie about movies, or even the magic or illusion of cinema. Instead, it’s a heist flick, about a ragtag group of heroes cooking up a wild scheme to sneak their loot out of its vault. Except in this case, the loot are six hostages and the vault is Iran in the middle of political revolution. The first half of the film revolves around setting up our master planners. Affleck plays Mendez, who is separated from his wife and beloved son, setting up the expected redemption arc. John Goodman does well as make-up legend John Chambers, who is deeply involved in the film’s plot and really was a CIA contact in real life. Alan Arkin is nominated for an Oscar for his supporting role as Lester Siegel, the Hollywood shyster who is largely responsible for the rest of the world believing “Argo” is a real film project. The nomination is kind of surprising. Arkin isn’t bad, he’s quite entertaining actually, but he doesn’t step outside of his grouchy, crusty older man wheelhouse.

The first half is largely the film’s most entertaining. Watching Arkin and Goodman bitch through crappy screenplays, looking for the perfect crappy screenplay, establishes the film as part of the long line of Hollywood dramas, looking at the cynicism and artifice behind the Dream Factory. My favorite scene is a thrown-together press conference, in which in-costume actors read from the script. It probably says a lot about me that I would probably rather watch the fake-movie this real one is about. (Also says a lot about me: I immediately recognized the cheap robot costume as Interrodroid 3000 from “The Middleman.”) Arkin is at his best when telling young entertainment journalist to fuck off and bitching about his ex-wife. While the scenes of scrambling politics in the CIA office are less entertaining, they do feature a highly-strung Bryan Cranston, which is always welcomed.

What really breaks up the early parts of the film are the scenes in Iran. None of the six are developed beyond basic ideas. We get quick bio readings of each near the beginning which is all that defines them throughout the entire film. There’s grumpy mustache guy, nervous dude, his wife, and some other people. We can’t even associate each character with an established actors as, besides from a barely recognizable Clea DuVall, there aren’t any known actors among the parts. The hostages are strictly plot devices. Later moments that show Iranian extremist breaking into the embassy lack tension.

Their plot device status is all the more apparent in the latter half of the film, when “Argo” becomes a full-blown thriller. After a tense walk through the crowded bazaar, the movie barrels towards its climax. Our hero has to get his half-dozen MacGuffins through the airport and out of Iran. Naturally, the plot shoves every inconvenience in the way. An overzealous military guard at the airport yells at the group, aggravating an all-ready nervous situation. When he goes to call the fake set-up Hollywood studio for confirmation of the supposed story, the producers are kept from answering the ringing phone by an intruding film shoot. Once they get on the plane, there are pursued by angry Iranian soldiers, just seconds away from catching up and ruining the entire plan. These are blatantly constructed thriller set-pieces. Despite the obvious seams showing and lack of investment in the characters, the sequences still work. The combination of pacing and acting makes the scenes intense. Affleck really should have gotten a Best Director nomination.

The subplot about Mendez, his estranged wife, and son are obvious appeals to emotion. None of it is convincing, especially since the kid is in two scenes and the wife even fewer. I stand by my opinion of the score, as its largely bland dramatic pounding and quivering strings. Unlike a lot of bloated Oscar-bait, “Argo” is well paced at a comparatively short two-hour runtime. Those Jack Kirby storyboards get a lot of screen time and provide two of the film’s most charming moments. “Argo” is hardly a masterpiece. It’s shockingly thin in some regards but undeniably effective in others. From the sounds of his previous two flicks, Affleck the Director sounds like a strong genre worksmith, which is nothing to be ashamed of. How a thriller like this gets award season buzz and others just as good, even stronger, are ignored, is a testament to the “seriousness” historical, politic content can lend a story. [7/10]

Director Report Card: David O. Russell (2012)

7. Silver Linings Playbook

While watching “Silver Linings Playbook,” a very obvious fact occurred to me for the first time. The majority of David O. Russell’s films, with maybe the exception of “Three Kings” and possibly “I Heart Huckabees,” are about family. (And you can make the case for those two.) In retrospect, this is fairly obvious. More over, the director seems particularly obsessed with dysfunctional families. Whither it be the incestuous angst of “Spanking the Monkey,” the desperate desire for familial acceptance in “Flirting with Disaster,” or the petty in-fighting, guilt, complication, and ultimate acceptance of “The Fighter,” David O. Russell is singularly focused on how mentally unbalanced people are stringed together by their blood. “Silver Linings Playbook” is about a bunch of different stuff but family looms large over the majority of the story.

It’s also about mental health. Pat has just ended a stint in a mental hospital after brutally beating his philandering wife’s lover. It’s been eight months but he is convinced the marriage isn’t over, obsesses over his ex-wife despite a restraining order, and is determined to win her back. He starts the movie out on a hugely positive streak, running, smiling, constantly talking about how every situation has a silver lining, repeating his catch phrase of “Excelsior!” That night the first crack in his façade of mental health show when throws a copy of "A Farewell to Arms" out the window and wakes his parents up at four o’clock in the morning, swearing and screaming about the downer ending. Pat is bipolar and the film portrays the condition accurately, with the character fluctuating between high highs and low lows, living much of his life in a mildly depressed medium. He’s constantly trying to improve his life but numerous freak-outs over the course of the film show that he was let out of the institution much too early.

Mental illness hardly makes Pat stand out among his friends and families. His father, played by Robert DeNiro displaying some passion and interest for the first time in decades, is slightly OCD and deeply superstitious, displaying a number of quirks while watching football games, his primary passion. Ronny, a close friend of Pat’s, puts on a happy face for his wife but the stress of a new baby, refurnishing his home, and his marriage in general is secretly shaking him apart. Most important to the film is Tiffany, Ronnie’s sister-in-law, played by Jennifer Lawrence. A recent widow, Tiffany has worked through a period of depression and promiscuity, and like Pat, is working hard to get her life back together.

Tiffany is indicative of the film’s strengths and weaknesses. She is prone to launching into somewhat long-winded speeches that spell out other character’s flaws. She has a quirky streak especially when ambushing Pat on his runs on a daily basis. She seems awfully preoccupied with bringing an unhealthy man out of his shell, in this case by involving him in a dance contest. It’s tempting to shout “Manic Pixie Dream Girl!” Truthfully, the character doesn’t totally resist the label, especially in scenes later in the film where she pulls obscure facts out of thin air. Yet, at the same time, the movie is frank about her flaws. Her quirks aren’t overly precious or meant just to endear her to the audience. Like pretty much everyone in the film, she’s got problems. Lawrence commits fully to the material, filling her role believably, frequently being quite funny, even if she can’t sell some of her dialogue. And, for the record, the tights she wears during the dance sequences don’t do her any disservice.

The cast is what mostly carries the film. The part of Pat was obviously written for Mark Wahlberg. When you can so clearly hear the dialogue coming out of his mouth, I don’t know why Russell cast someone else. (Maybe Wahlberg’s Boston accent would have been too distracting in the Philadelphia setting.) Bradley Cooper does well in the part, successfully expanding past his pretty bog image. He’s actually overdressed for most of the movie. The handful of scenes of him loosing it allow Cooper to show some depth as an actor. He doesn’t overplay it. (The movie doesn’t earn any points for just kind of brushing over the character’s sexism though.) His best scene comes when the character quietly, kindly dissuades one of Tiffany's would-be beaus from her doorstep. The chemistry between Cooper and Lawrence, what the movie is really built on, generally works. Those early going scenes are a bit rough but, as you watch the film, you start to feel a connection between them.

After so many years of forgettable tough-guy parts, it’s nice to see DeNiro indulge in his neurotic side. The best scene for Bob comes at the end of the second act, when the emotional, upset father starts to cruelly berate his son. The scenes of family bickering reminded me a lot of “The Fighter,” though they’re less shrill. I’m not sure why Jacki Weaver got a best supporting actress nod. She doesn’t have very much to do, mostly sticks to “worried mom” mode, and only varies from that a few times. I much preferred John Ortiz as Ronnie, who sells his much more quiet mental breakdown with a huge amount of humor and subtly. In maybe the most unexpected performances of the year, a visibly older Chris Tucker has a small though strong supporting part as a frequently escaping sanitarium patient. I’ve only previous known Tucker for broad schtick so to see him give such a down-to-earth, relaxed, honest performance is kind of mind-blowing.

It took some time for me to warm up to the film. The first act, with its expected scenes of Pat readjusting to life with his parents and visiting a shrink, feel very constructed. It’s no fault of the performers, who mostly elevated the somewhat routine material. As I said earlier, the romance between Pat and Tiffany at first seems unconvincing. It’s not until their first “date,” a frank scene where Tiffany openly discusses her sexual history, that the movie started to pull me in. After that, the various montages of their dance sessions together, though totally cliched, are effortlessly charming and likable. You really start rooting for these kids somewhere around the hour mark. Simple scenes of Cooper and Lawrence dancing together are the highlight of the movie.

Even then, I’ve got some complaints. The big dramatic plot moment at the end of the second act, a fight outside a football stadium, feels badly contrived. It’s pops out of nowhere and disappears just as quickly, an obvious plot mechanism if I’ve seen one. The drama of the finale similarly feels somewhat engineered. In-between a major plot reveal concerning Pat’s parents being brushed aside and Tiffany’s sad-sack attempts to fall back into bad habits, it’s so obvious the screenwriters were raising the stakes for the climax. A plot twist concerning a letter is obvious from the beginning. The movie not-too blatantly rips off “Lost in Translation” by leaving a whispered message unheard. The resolution is perhaps too clean cut, especially considering the character’s known mental problems. Despite the super happy ending, you can foresee issues arising for the characters in the future.

And yet… It almost doesn’t matter. The big dance-off climax is so fucking joyous, so infectiously fun. The actors and the screenplay meet half-way, creating lovable characters that you want to see succeed and be happy. Despite a few obvious contrivances, the movie feels surprisingly life-like, without any of the surreal exaggeration or over-the-top melodrama of the director’s previous films. Russell’s direction is stylish without being intrusive. I especially like a POV shot during a key flashback. Danny Elfman contributes one of his best scores in a while, totally devoid of jaunty tubas or Burton-esque woodwinds. I liked “Silver Linings Playbook” and it might be one of the most agreeable crowd-pleaser in recent memory. Taking that into account, it’s numerous Oscar nominations aren’t surprising at all. [Grade: B+]

Bangers n' Mash: The 2012 Phantom Awards

What with it being Oscar season and all that, Mr. Mash and I decided to get in on the action with our own award show, one catering towards genre cinema: The Phantom Awards! In truth, the award show is something I've been doing strictly for my own amusement since 2002. In the latter portion of the show, we discuss the films we're looking forward to in 2013. Blog readers feel free to skip that, since I repeat quite a bit from my 2013 Film Preview.
 


I got a copyright notice for one of the songs I used. Which is why there's forty seconds of silence around forty minutes into the episode. Sorry about that. I'll be avoiding using commercial music in future episodes.

I'm also working on an RSS feed at the moment, so this show can become a real podcast. Look for that in the future.

Oscar 2013: Nominations and Predictions

 At this point, I don’t feel the need to defend my love of the Academy Awards, since I’ve used the opening paragraphs in the last three years’ write-ups to do that. If I haven’t made the point that the Oscars are important, even if they’re not, I should really pack up this whole writer thing and give a real career a shot.

(Break for snide comments and snarky asides.) The real importance of the Oscars is historical. It shows less what films were actually important in any given year but rather what films we (and by we, I mean a council of old, white people) thought were important. If the list of nominations is anything to go by, 2012 was a year primarily concerned with politics, children surviving without adults, and mental health. Which is… Kind of right on the money. Huh. Maybe I’m on to something with this.

This year’s bucket of nominations is both surprising and utterly traditional. Yes, there were some notable snubs, lock-outs, and several surprises. However, all the movies we expected to get nominations got nominations. “Lincoln,” a project staffed with a boatload of prestige and Academy appeal, gained the most nominations, something I could have told you back in September. Let’s get on with the bitching and wildly inaccurate predictions.

BEST PICTURE:

The Academy has stuck with the nine film selection for the biggest category, once again arbitrarily excluding another obvious Best Picture pick. Surprisingly, that exclusion wasn’t for “Django Unchained” or “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” a blood-soaked controversial genre riff and a scrappy indie flick respectively, but instead for “The Master,” Paul Thomas Anderson’s new by-all-accounts masterpiece. Maybe there are too many Scientologists in the voting pool. Anderson’s lost is Tarrantino’s and Hushpuppy’s gain.

“Amour,” which seems to be provocateur Michael Haneke’s move into slightly less depressing territory, made a much stronger showing then expected, breaking into major categories. Despite the divisive critical reaction, it’s not surprising that “Les Miserables” placed. After all, there’s nothing the Academy loves more then a big costume-drama musical. The Weinstein’s latest multi-million dollar campaign push seems to have paid off for “Silver Linings Playbook,” which dominated the acting category and naturally earned a placement here. “Life of Pi” is blatant Oscar bait, so it’s not surprising it placed, even if it has a relative lack of buzz.

That leaves the nominations that were fully expected. “Lincoln” had Best Picture written on it from the moment it was announced. “Argo” was my earliest pick for best picture, considering it’s a movie about movies, the Academy’s favorite subject. After topping numerous year-end lists, “Zero Dark Thirty” moved ahead as a possible favorite to win the night’s top prize. Either way, disregarding a possible Weinstein-bought win for “The Silver Linings Playbook” (They’ve done it before), it’s coming down to these three.

OFFCIAL PREDICTION:
Remember how I said it came down to “Lincoln,” “Zero Dark Thirty,” and “Argo?” Well, two of those were snubbed in other major categories, leaving one probable winner: “Lincoln,” likely to be the night’s most unsurprising win.

SNUBS:
We all know the Best Picture nominations were expanded to ten to make room for movies audience have actually heard of. In the past, this has meant some summer blockbusters sneaking in. So the total lack of love for “The Avengers” and “The Dark Knight Rises” surprised me a little. Just a little. Oscar has made it clear, unless someone died, superheroes are of no interest to them. In other news, a snub for “Moonrise Kingdom” is depressing but unsurprising.

BEST ACTOR:

The appeal of Bradley Cooper escapes me. He emerged fully form out of the Hollywood Leading Man Generator, with a smug sense of satisfaction, lack of range, and bland good looks, causing him to fall somewhere between Dane Cook and a pre-“Killer Joe” Matthew McConaughey. He seems destined for a career full of forgettable romantic comedies. His nomination isn’t shocking, considering “The Silver Linings Playbook” gathered a great deal of hype. Considering his previous credits include “The A-Team” and “The Words,” a win seems a little unlikely… Assuming Weinstein money doesn’t win the statue for him.

There weren’t any big surprises in the category. The Academy’s general ambivalence towards “The Master” made Joaquin Phoenix less then a lock, even if the general consensus is it’s one of the best performances of 2012. (In a year without a Spielberg film, he’d be the clear winner.) Denzel Washington, in-between indistinguishable crime thrillers, found time to earn critical raves for “Flight.” Oscar loves Denzel and alcoholics so a nod was obvious. Almost as obvious as Daniel Day-Lewis’ turn as Abraham Lincoln, possibly the most Oscar-ly actor/film combination ever. Hugh Jackman mostly seem to sneak in on account of Academy good-will. They clearly like the guy, at least when he’s singing and dancing.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION:
Joaquin probably deserves it, and might still win, but it’s pretty clear to me Daniel Day-Lewis will continue to horde Oscars, even if he’s the last person who needs them.

SNUBS:
I mentioned “Killer Joe” and Matthew McConaughey earlier. The dude never had a chance, considering the movie’s limited release and brutal content. I was still rooting for him, as he managed to turn my entire opinion of his acting ability around in a few minutes.

John Hawkes was definitely at his Oscar bait-est in “The Sessions” and, despite a previous nomination for “Winter’s Bone,” the Academy didn’t bite. The same goes for Ben Affleck and “Argo,” a movie Oscar apparently liked way less then expected.

BEST ACTRESS:

Is Quvenzhane Wallis’ nomination really a surprise? That the Academy even remembered a tiny independent film like that existed is surprising, despite it’s presence on numerous top ten list. However, Wallis probably gave the break-out performance of the year. The movie’s placement in any other category is a shock, but not this one. None of that really matters because she’s not going to win. They don’t give Oscars to little kids. (Tatum O’Neil and Anna Paquin were both technically teenagers.)

Especially not when there are way friendlier choices. Jessica Chastain earned a crap load of hype at last year’s ceremony, some of it actually deserved. Unless the voters are totally polarized by the film’s political content, I’d say she’s the clear winner for “Zero Dark Thirty.” She’s actually the main character of the film, which works in her favor.

Jennifer Lawrence, who should have won two years ago, broke into the mainstream with a bow-and-arrow boom this year. Her nod here is representative of that. (And of the pre-oft-mentioned Weinsteins influence.) If the torture controversy of “Zero Dark Thirty” proves too much, Lawrence is the likely winner. I guess I’m rooting for her, even if her post-“Winter’s Bone” career choices have underwhelmed me.

Some were surprised by Emmanuelle Riva’s nomination. Honestly, I wasn’t. Oscar loves dying old ladies. She actually has about a 50/50 shot of winning too. The politics of “Zero Dark Thirty” and the light(er) tone of “Silver Linings Playbook” are likely to split the voting between Chastain and Lawrence, allowing a runner-up like Riva to sneak off with the award, similar to what happen with Marion Cotillard in 2008. Riva is my official dark horse choice. Also, Naomi Watts was in some movie called “The Impossible,” which I think is about a flood or something?

OFFICIAL PREDICTION: I’m sticking with Jessica Chastain, though I’m prepared for an upset in Riva or Lawrence’s favor.

SNUBS:
Speaking of Marion Cotillard, she made some movie about a lady getting her leg bitten off by a killer whale. I guess Oscar deemed that too hilarious. I can’t pretend to be upset about Keira Knightly/“Anna Kerina,” Helen Mirren/“Hitchcock,” and whichever old British lady was in “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” being ignored, because all of those are fucking boring. I am upset about Kara Hayward not receiving a nod for “Moonrise Kingdom.” The odds were low but if that movie had a shot in any category, it would be this one.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Welcome to the most boring category of the night! Every single one of these guys has an Oscar all ready and, out of the five, there isn’t one stand-out. Alan Arkin and Robert DeNiro both got in because of their film’s overall momentum, I suspect. Christoph Waltz, despite probably giving the best performance out of the group, won’t win again this soon.

In my opinion, it comes down to Philip Seymour Hoffman for “The Master” and Tommy Lee Jones for “Lincoln.” Both are important supporting roles and both played historical figures. (Thinly-veiled in Hoffman’s case.) Of the two, I’d bet on Jones. He already has a statue but it’s for “The Fugitive,” a crowd-pleasing thriller and adaptation of an old TV show… Which means it barely counts in Oscar’s opinion. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the Academy wants to legitimize Jones’ Oscar-winning status with an award for a glitzier project.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION: Tommy Lee Jones, unless Robert DeNiro gets an old-favorite, “look how much his career sucks these days” pity win.

SNUBS:
I was pissed off that Christoph Waltz got nominated for “Django Unchained.” Not because he isn’t a great actor or didn’t give a great performance, but because it excluded two actors that had much better chances of winning. I was really rooting for Samuel L. Jackson, who made up for a career full of awful movies with a fan-fucking-tastic performance as the film’s real villain. Similarly, I figured an eye-catching part like Calvin Candie made Leo a shoo-in. Last year, I guessed this was his chance at finally getting a little gold man. By intentionally ignoring the two performances that actually had a shot at winning, the Academy has lowered “Django’s” odds of winning anything all the way down to zero. I’m sure they think it’s where an inflammatory, exploitation movie variation probably belongs.

Though McConaughey deserved a nomination for “Killer Joe,” “Magic Mike” or “Bernie” were friendlier, more-likely nods. Goose egg. It’s weird the voters were able to ignore Bradley Cooper’s resume full of terrible movies, but not the Shirtless One’s.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Here’s a category were everyone’s all ready been nominated, with few wins, leaving the field pretty open. Oscar really liked “Silver Linings Playbook,” didn’t they? I didn’t even know Jacki Weaver was in the goddamn movie. Helen Hunt in “The Sessions” seemed like an early favorite but the movie’s otherwise lukewarm response with the voters makes a win unlikely.

Amy Adams could win since Oscar likes her and have passed her over a few times. I hope Sally Field doesn’t win since, of course, Sally Field sucks. It is a come-back role for a previous winner in a movie that’s going to dominate the night, so she’s still a possibility. Anne Hathaway seems the likeliest choice though. She has the most buzz of the five, which is, let’s face it, what wins awards. Her turn in “Les Mis” is by all accounts the best thing about the movie. Perhaps more importantly, she’s a good actress. As far as I’m concerned, her nomination is a stand-in for her clearly superior turn as the best Catwoman ever.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION: Going with Anne Hathaway though any of these ladies could get it.

SNUBS:
Ann Dowd, with her self-financed campaign for the hugely unpleasant “Compliance,” never had a chance. That’s a bummer because the movie really deserves the attention and Dowd did a good job with the most difficult part in a difficult movie.

BEST DIRECTOR:

I’m going to just condense this part with the SNUBS section because that’s what everyone’s talking about anyway. The two most likely choices for winning this category, Katheryn Bigelow and Ben Affleck, weren’t even nominated. It’s clear the torture controversy is what forced Bigelow out but I’m not sure why Oscar decided it didn’t like Affleck all of a sudden.

Without those two, this category is without a strong contender. Michael Haneke is probably too mean, Ang Lee is probably too boring, and Benh Zeitlin should be happy they even let him in the fucking building. Considering the lack of competition, that Weinstein money will help David O. Russell out a whole bunch. However, “Silver Linings Playbook” is almost definitely not winning Best Picture and we all know Best Director goes where Best Picture goes. And Best Picture is going to “Lincoln,” so…

OFFICIAL PREDICTION: Steven Spielberg. There’s pretty much no other choice. I’m hoping for an upset though just because that would be more interesting.

WRITING:

These two categories are almost entirely filled with best picture nominations. Writing is the one category were indie scrappiness actually helps, since Academy likes to stick smaller, better movies with an award here, since they have no chance of sneaking into the big league.

Tarantino’s writing is always a good bet but I suspect “Django” is too action-y, racist-y to win, especially since the Academy doesn’t give a shit about his direction. Nobody gives a shit about “Flight” and “Amour” has better odds in other categories. Controversy is somewhat unlikely to affect “Zero Dark Thirty” in this category, were ripped-from-the-headlines freshness is beneficial. In its sole showing, “Moonrise Kingdom” is the clear winner in my eyes. The Academy will probably go somewhere else.

As for adapted screenplay, ignore “Life of Pi” and “Lincoln.” “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” being the indiest of these, has the most hype. “Argo” and, assuming it doesn’t sweep the acting categories, “Silver Lining Playbook” are more Oscar-friendly and one of them will get it, in all likelihood.

OFFICIAL PREDICTION: “Moonrise Kingdom,” even if “Zero Dark Thirty” has better odds, and “Silver Lining Playbook.”

OTHER FILM CATEGORIES:

In the Animated Film category, “Brave,” “Frankenweenie,” “ParaNorman,” and “Wreck-It Ralph” were all shoo-ins. That the Academy remembered “The Pirates! Band of Misfits” at all really shocked me, considering nobody else remembered. They have shown love for Aardman before, so it’s not without precedence. “Brave” will probably win, even if “Wreck-it Ralph” and “ParaNorman” are better movies. The video game jokes of the former and the edgy humor of the latter will probably polarize Academy voters.

“Pirates” took the fifth slot that should have gone to “The Secret World of Arrietty” (Oscar obviously doesn’t give a shit about anime unless it’s Miyazaki. This is probably Disney’s fault) or some indie faire like “The Rabbi’s Cat” or “Consuming Spirits.” Good for them for ignoring “Hotel Transylvania” and whatever crap Fox Animation and DreamWorks vomited up this year.

I’ll admit ignorance in the Foreign Language category. The spread of nominations across bigger categories can both help and hurt “Amour.” Help in that it’s unlikely to win in any other category and is the nominated film here people are most aware of. Hurt in that voters might steer towards one of the other titles because it is so well known. It’s easy to see why the political content of “War Witch,” “No,” and the epic scope of “A Royal Family” and “Kon-Tiki” would appeal to Oscar. The movie about the old people is still my bet.

Ignorance crops up again in Documentary Feature, as it usually does. “Searching for Sugar Man” definitely has the most hype of any of them, but Oscar doesn’t always like small, character-oriented docs. “The Invisible War” seems a little more in tune with Oscar’s sensibilities. But, honestly, so do the other three nominations.

MUSIC:

I honestly don’t think the Academy knows what makes a good score, since they inevitably just gather up a bunch of generic shit from the other, more important categories. “Argo” is a typical thriller score with lots of straining strings, thundering drums, and occasional moments of world music dopiness. John Williams score for “Lincoln” is a… John Williams score for a historical drama. In other words, it’s as blandly listenable as everything else he’s done recently, without being powerful or interesting. Only when Williams is humping Copeland’s corpse does it come alive. Thomas Newman’s work on “Skyfall” is okay but lacks the strong identity an action movie score needs. That’s a genre were most of the music sounds the same. Dario Mariannelli’s “Anna Karenia” mostly made me go “Eh,” though it’s at least sort of jaunty. Mychael Danna’s “Life of Pi” is kind of pretty, actually a little fun, even if I'll admit all that world music blooping and blopping just puts me to sleep. It’ll probably win.

Original Song is a little better. “Suddenly,” from “Les Miserables,” is what you’d expect from the movie-exclusive song from a Broadway musical adaptation. It’s an overwrought love song but with a smidge of legit emotion. Presumably “Everybody Needs a Best Friend” from “Ted” got nominated so Seth MacFarlane wouldn’t storm out of the show halfway through. What’s good about that one comes strictly from Norah Jones sunshine-and-roses delivery and less from MacFarlane’s route, big band music. “Pi’s Lullaby” from “Life of Pi” has pretty orchestration even if the Bollywood style singing puts me off and it only has, like, six lyrics. “Before My Time,” from climate change documentary “Chasing Ice,” is obviously the best song. Clearly sang by Scarlett Johansson of all people, with simple music that underlines the emotional frankness of the lyrics, it’s touching and quietly sad. It won’t win though because Adele’s big, brassy “Skyfall” theme has got the right mix of commercial viability and over-the-top theatrics that Oscar drops its pants for. It’s a good modern pop song while also sounding like a classic James Bond film.

SNUBS: 
All my favorite scores of the year, like Alan Silvestri’s kick-ass powering “Avengers” theme, the elegant beauty of “Cloud Atlas’” score, the Celtic mist of Patrick Doyle’s “Brave,” or the retro-synth fun of “ParaNorman,” were disqualified for having melodies you can actually hum, presumably. I’m really shocked “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” which actually had a decent score, didn’t earn a nod in this category since it made tracks in so many others.

As for songs, I guess “Touch the Sky” from “Brave” and the adorable “Strange Love” from “Frankenweenie” sounded too much like actual pop songs for Oscar. It would have been awesome to hear the over-the-top parody of “Casa de mi Padre” at the ceremony but it wasn’t meant to be. Tarrantino courted this category for the first time with “Ancora Qui” and “Who Did That to You?” One is haunting, the other is funky, and both are perfectly placed within the film. The Academy was unimpressed. Assholes.

MISC.:

There’s little too talk about in the technical categories. I hope “The Avengers” or “Prometheus” win in Best Visual Effects, since both of those films had seamless effects. “Skyfall” had gorgeous cinematography but Oscar will probably give it to “Life of Pi,” because Oscar is boring. Speaking of boring, expect a stuffy costume drama to sweep Production Design and Costume Design. (I don’t know how to feel about “Mirror Mirror” getting a nod in costumes. Sure, the movie was awful, but the costumes were impressive. Ornate and ridiculous, but impressive.) The practical monster make-up in “The Hobbit” probably deserves to win in Make-Up. Since “Cloud Atlas,” which beautifully balanced six different stories, isn’t nominated, I don’t give a shit who wins Best Editing. The overall shut-out for “Cloud Atlas” and “The Avengers,” my two favorite films of the year, just makes me sort of sourly grumpy.

-

Reviews of some of the above films will probably crop up between now and February 24th. On the 24th you better be here reading my bitching, moaning, screaming, and drunken blabbering during my fourth annual live-blog of the ceremony. I’m sure watching Seth MacFarlane try to put a leash on his vulgar sense of humor while singing lots of big band standards will be deeeeeeelightful. Be there or have something better to do with your night.