Bangers n' Mash 36: Scream Queens

Here's a new episode of Bangers n' Mash. I'm too tired to say anything really pithy right now so... This one is about Scream Queens, you know, famous actresses in the horror genre. Hopefully, neither of us say anything super-sexist and offensive during its run time. Also, the video contains, go figure, screaming so you should probably turn your speakers down a bit.



Anyway, the Godzilla report card will resume tomorrow. I promise.

Series Report Card: Godzilla (1955)

2. Godzilla Raids Again
Gojira no gyakushu / Gigantis, the Fire Monster

Godzilla was, more or less, the first of his kind. He certainly wasn’t the first giant monster on screen. However, aside from a possibly apocryphal unofficial King Kong sequel, Godzilla was the first Japanese Daikaiju, a giant monster brought to life through the magic of rubber suits and miniature city sets. The first ‘Gojira” was the most expensive film Toho had made at the time and also one of its biggest hits. Expectantly, a sequel was immediately rushed into production, released within six months of the original. It’s unlikely that anyone involved realized that “Godzilla Raids Again” would be the start of a sixty year, on-going legacy. It was the first Godzilla sequel and the first in which the monster battled another giant beast. It is also, unfortunately, nowhere near as good as the first one.

While the original “Godzilla” easily elevated itself above its B-movie roots with powerful subtext and sheer visceral intensity, “Godzilla Raids Again” is a far more typical fifties sci-fi flick. In the original, the monster didn’t appear until the twenty minute mark, the audience not getting a clear look at him until even later. In the sequel, Godzilla and his rival appear at the six minute mark, wrestling each other in full view. Instead of ransacking Tokyo, Godzilla burns Osaka to the ground. When Godzilla comes ashore, the military faces him with missile launchers and canons. Once again, the monster shrugs off the attacks, kicking the tanks around. Aside from blatantly emulating the original’s formula, the only concrete connection “Godzilla Raids Again” has to the first film is a brief appearance by Dr. Yamane. Yamane, played once again by Takashi Shimura, is meant to play as weary, his prophecy of another Godzilla appearing coming true. However, Shimura seems more bored then exhausted. He explains that Godzilla is unstoppable, the Oxygen Destroyer gets a mention, and some rather effectively silent stock footage from the first flick is shown. Aside from that, this Godzilla flick is stand-alone.

The main attraction of the film, as it would be with so many of the sequels, is the battle between the two monsters. Anguirus would later become the Robin to Godzilla’s Batman, his plucky but wildly under-prepared sidekick. Here, the two kaiju are at each other’s throat, fighting brutally. Anguirus is nearly as good of a design as Godzilla. Inspired by the ankylosaurus, and blatantly referred to such in the Japanese version, the monster has a distinctive crown of horns on his head. The spiked-lined shell on his back makes for a truly memorable image, topped off with a long, spiny tail. Another first is that Anguirus, unlike the bipedal Godzilla, walks on all fours. It’s not surprising that Anguirus would go on to become a fan favorite, as he’s a truly impressive character.

Unlike the theatrical pro-wrestling style battles of the sequels, the monster fight here is more up-close and personal. Godzilla and Anguirus grapple with each other like titanic sumo-wrestlers. The two slam into each other, clawing, biting, and slashing. The city is their battleground. The monsters stomp on buildings, splash through water, and roll around in the rubble. Compared to the lumbering motion of the first movie, Godzilla moves much more smoothly. He looks a little odd when standing on his hind-legs but Anguirus’ movements are effectively animalistic. While the sped-up footage of the fight is a bit distracting, it does add a level of ferocity to the battle. As in the first, the kaiju are sometimes played by stiff hand puppets, snapping at each other’s faces. While the puppets do not match the costume’s faces, I like them anyway, especially Godzilla’s snaggle toothed mouth. Godzilla’s finishing move, smashing Anguirus through Osaka Castle, is deeply satisfying. His death blow, snapping Anguirus’ spine with his jaws, is the King of the Monsters at his most brutal. The battle is easily the highlight of the flick and a blast for any kaiju fan.

Bafflingly, it’s also placed in the middle of the movie. Godzilla vanquishes his foe and slinks off into the ocean, Osaka left in ruins. Any pacing the movie had set up grinds to a halt as the focus shifts back to the dull human characters. The love triangle of the original “Gojira” was somewhat cumbersome but at least featured powerful performances and was organically woven into the monster action. Here, the human drama distracts substantially. Bland hero-type Tsukioka and his portly friend Kobayashi are pilots for a fish cannery. Tsukioka flirts over two-way radio with his radio operator girlfriend Yamaji. After the exciting city destruction, the movie bizarrely focuses on what the fish cannery business is going to do in the wake of the disaster. A long scene in the middle of the film focuses on Kobayashi’s possibly unrequited love of the company’s daughter. The daughter is a character kept completely off-screen, devaluing any investment the viewer might have in the subplot. A later scene, where Kobayashi asks Yamaji about what gifts girls like, works slightly better. The characters are quite thinly sketched but Minoru Chiaki and Setusko Wakayama give decent performances. However, by then, the damage has been done. The human subplots void much of the excitement the monster scenes generate.

Even more bizarrely, the film throws in another distracting subplot. As Godzilla is marching towards the city, we cut to a police transport truck full of criminals. They very easily, unconvincingly, turn the tables on the cops before escaping. This escape plan winds up servicing the plot, resulting in a fire that attracts the monsters back to the island. However, the tonal shift is truly inexplicable. Even after the monsters start wrasslin’, the movie returns to the escaped criminals. In his first quasi-heroic action, Godzilla winds up inadvertently killing the crooks. The monsters crash a building, causing a river to flood the subway tunnel, drowning the baddies. The flooding tunnel is an exciting special effect but the mating effect of the rushing waves is awkward.

The final act is even more awkwardly paced. Godzilla returns to the ice-choked island he was discovered on, the Japanese air force cornering him. Kobayashi sacrifices himself to start the avalanche that buries Godzilla. The audience barely has time to process the character’s death before the action shifts again. The heroes regroup, go back to the city, before returning to the island with more bombs. During this time, Godzilla somehow doesn’t escape. I guess he forgot he has an atomic breath weapon that can melt ice. While there’s something iconic about the classic monster being buried in ice, the film’s climax is unnecessarily protracted.

“Godzilla Raids Again” lacks much of the visceral punch of the original. The film is mostly concerned with kaiju fightin’ and makes no attempt to invoke the horrors of World War II. Save for one scene. Before Godzilla marches on the city, we see the romantic couple dancing in a nightclub. The scene is scored to a rather lovely romantic ballad, the camera sweeping over the dancing lovers. The music is interrupted by a sudden warning that the monster has been spotted outside the city. The sense of panic that overcomes the crowd is keenly felt. All the lights in the city turn off, bathing Osaka in darkness. The scene is silent, save for the drone of airplanes overhead. It’s an effective moment and the only one that compares to the intensity of the first feature.

The excellent monster action of “Godzilla Raids Again” winds up not being enough to save the film from its sluggish pacing and pedestrian drama. Even the score is less exciting, Masaru Sato stepping in for Akira Ifukube. The music isn’t bad, especially a driving military theme. However, it lacks the personality of Ifukube’s iconic work. Similarly, Motoyoshi Oda’s direction isn’t as strong as Ishiro Honda’s work on the predecessor. Oda’s direction is more concerned with moody scenes of characters talking in dark rooms. He shows little interest in building tension.

“Gojira” met some reediting in its state-side version but still maintain most of the original’s power. “Godzilla Raids Again,” meanwhile, suffered some serious rejiggering in its American release as “Gigantis, the Fire Monster.” The film was hampered by constant unending narration, some provided by the main characters, other by an omniscient narrator. Stock music crowds over many of the scenes, replacing the effective silence of the original with thudding noise. A film with existing pacing problems is further ruined by the random insertion of stock-footage, some of it from military newsreels, some of it from educational documentaries, some of it even from other movies. The dubbing is embarrassing, Kobayashi saddled with an obnoxious doofus voice. The dialogue, which features such gems as “Banana oil!” and “What a guy!,” is equally tin-eared. Strangest of all, a monster that is obviously Godzilla is renamed “Gigantis,” considered a brand new monster. Some time, Anguiles and the Big G even switch roars. “Gigantis the Fire Monster” makes the intrusive and sometimes awkward “Godzilla, King of the Monsters!” seem elegant in comparison.

“Godzilla Raids Again” is a ho-hum sequel, despite introducing the kaiju battle concept. While profitable, its Japanese box office receipts didn’t meet the first film’s success. The American “Gigantis,” meanwhile, was ignored and derided. Godzilla wasn’t quite the multimedia superstar he would be in time, stumbling a bit on his sophomore rampage. It would take a royal rumble with an established monster superstar to turn Godzilla into the true King of the Monsters. [Godzilla Raids Again: C+] [Gigantis the Fire Monster: D+]

Series Report Card: Godzilla (1954)

Welcome to my latest and most ambitious Series Report Card! Like every other monster movie nerd, I'm hugely excited for the upcoming Hollywood reboot of "Godzilla," enough so that I decided to go back and rewatch the entire series up to this point. Over the course of this report card, I've reaffirmed my love of the King of the Monsters while finding myself deeper in the troupes and conventions of Japanese kaiju cinema more then ever before. Whenever available, I have watched both the original Japanese and various English versions of the films, with the focusing being primarily on the original versions. Befitting a project of this size, I'll probably wander off schedule over the following weeks. However, I have a concurrent Series Report Card I plan on running to fill the gaps whenever I fall behind. It's the Year of the Kaiju but let's start at the beginning, with the first, the undisputed king: Godzilla himself!

1. Godzilla
Gojira / Godzilla, King of the Monsters!

I can’t sum up my love of Godzilla in one paragraph. From a very young age, I’ve adored the King of the Monsters. Godzilla has an easy appeal to kids, residing at the resting point of such child-beloved ideas as dinosaurs and monsters. This is in contrast to the reaction the films usually received from mainstream critics. Those who are only use to the increasingly cheesy sequels are sometimes surprised to see that the original “Godzilla” is actually a stark horror film, a metaphor for the terror of the nuclear bomb.

The original Japanese “Gojira” establishes that tone immediately. The opening credits are, at first, without music. The credits are preceded by the massive sound of the monster’s approaching footsteps. The title is greeted by the monster’s distinct roar. Befitting that style, the titular monster is kept off-screen for the film’s first twenty minutes. Even then, the monster isn’t given a proper introduction until nearly an hour into the film. Instead, Godzilla is first introduced as a flash of light from under the ocean, a fishing ship bursting into films. Those familiar with the film’s history should know that opening scene was meant to invoke the Lucky Dragon 5 incident, an event where a Japanese fishing boat was exposed to a nuclear test. The monster’s massive power is tied directly with that of the nuclear bomb. Godzilla is first seen as only an irradiated footprint. His origin is directly tied with bomb, an ancient dinosaur awoken and mutated by nuclear testings. Godzilla reducing Tokyo to flames obviously invokes the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Horror films have always been about exorcising wider cultural concerns under more easily digestible, fantastic content. Considering “Gojira” was released not quite a decade after the end of the war, viewings must have been especially visceral for Japanese audiences.

That the film successfully invokes such powerful imagery is impressive considering that, in many ways, “Godzilla” is as much of a fifties B-movie as anything Samuel Z. Arkoff was producing at the time. The film was blatantly inspired by the massive success “King Kong” and “The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms” met in Japan. The debt to “Beast from 20,000 Fathoms” was even more obvious in the original script draft which was entitled “The Giant Monster from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.” Godzilla’s nuclear origin isn’t much different from any other fifties B-flick. Godzilla’s first march on Tokyo features the monster wrecking a train, a moment obviously recalling “King Kong.” Godzilla wrecking a chiming clock tower is similar to the Rhedosaurus wrecking a light house in “Beast.” Japan’s first attempt to repel Godzilla is an absurd giant electrical fence the country erects seemingly in hours. Like most American sci-fi flicks, the first attempt to stop the monster is fruitless. A mad scientist’s new invention is ultimately what puts the monster down, not dissimilar to “Earth vs. the Flying Saucer.” Even the film’s human heart, a romantic triangle between Dr. Serizawa, his fiancé Emiko, and her true love Ogata; isn’t much more then overheated melodrama.

The movie is elevated by the work of director Ishiro Honda, special effects master Eiji Tsuburaya, and music composer Akira Ifukube. The monster’s rampage is masterfully presented. Godzilla is kept completely off-screen during his first attack on Odo Island. Only the thunderous pounding of his feet is heard at first, establishing a tone of dread. The focus is kept on a ground level, on the suffering of the monster’s victims. A brother weeps after his family is stomped by the giant monster. Even after the monster is revealed, the film takes extra effort to ascertain his massive scale. A shot of the huge footprints and tail marks left on the beach is a favorite of mine. Honda’s direction isn’t flashy, presenting the destruction starkly and matter-of-factually. His camera pans over the devastation, presenting it honestly. The most striking visual moments is a wide shot of Tokyo aflame, Godzilla’s roaring silhouette against the burning city. My favorite visual moment is a much smaller one. Honda’s camera dissolves from the bubbling tank of Serizawa’s laboratory to Emiko’s brooding face, reflecting her conflicted emotional state.

Honda’s direction is certainly impressive. However, Tsuburaya’s special effects are clearly the star of the show. Godzilla’s rampage through Tokyo is an immediately iconic moment. In today’s age of blockbusters disaster porn, the destruction of Tokyo might come off as hokey. Indeed, some of the special effects have not aged well. The hand puppet used to represent Godzilla a few times is not horribly convincing, its eyes bulging too far. A quickly inserted stop-motion shot of Godzilla’s whipping tail stands out badly. A shot from inside a tumbling tower is awkward. While the miniatures in the film are generally fantastic, a toy fire truck is embarrassingly artificial.

However, for the most part, the effects are spectacular. Godzilla smashes through buildings with ease. The focus is just as much on the destruction as the monster. We see buildings tumble over, Godzilla’s tail crushing homes, wreckage tossed overhead. Even if the train sequence is a deliberate reference to “King Kong,” it’s fantastically used. The quick cuts between the monster’s feet and the rushing train build spectacular tension. A somber tone infects the city-wide destruction, only building as the sequence progresses. Though the monster’s English name is, in fact, a direct translation of the Japanese “Gojira,” it’s very fitting. Godzilla is God-like, unstoppable in his wrath. Godzilla’s spraying nuclear breath would be better conveyed in later films. However, its affect is notable. The breath ignites the air, the screen flashing white, annihilating all present. Audiences would eventually get use to Godzilla’s size over the years. Here, the fleeing masses are directly contrasted with the monster’s enormous size. Unlike modern blockbusters, we are never meant to enjoy the city’s destruction. Godzilla invokes terror, not amusement.

As astonishing as the effects are, they wouldn’t be anywhere near as effective with Akira Ifukube’s iconic music. The immediately recognizable military march theme would eventually become associated solely with the monster. What an incredible piece of music that is. The repeating pace of the music drives the audience’s energy up. The music keeps building, raising excitement with it. Instead of the triumphant fanfare heard in later entries, Godzilla’s theme is instead a somber tune. The droning horns invoke dread, pumping the monster’s approach. The most impressive piece of music actually isn’t that famous theme. Instead, it belongs to a choir of singing school student. The morning after Godzilla’s night of devastation, the children gather together to sing a song of peace. As their mournful music plays, the camera pans over the destruction of the city. In a movie full of bleak reflections of war’s affect on people, this sequence stands out as the starkest and most memorable.

The focus on humanity amidst the monster’s rampage has another purpose. “Gojira” invokes the aftermath of the nuclear bombing clearly in several moments. Early on, as news of Godzilla’s awakening is just hitting the presses, a bored train passenger bemoans heading back into the emergency shelters. A reporter watching the monster as he nears his tower comes dangerously close to overblown but the terror on the actor’s face reads as genuine. The latter half of the film is full of images of suffering, injured victims in crowded hospitals. A little girl sits in silence as a near-by Geiger counter reads her high level of radiation. A small boy cries as his father dies in front of him. Hundreds moan through bloodied bandages. Easily the most chilling moment involves a mother cradling her three children as Godzilla slowly approaches. As the monster draws nearer, she comforts them by saying they’ll soon be with their father again. “Godzilla” is a fantasy film. By rooting the horrors of war in a genre story, it makes the tale more accessible to those outside of Japan. By comparing the nuclear bomb to a leviathan-sized dragon, the filmmaker succinctly summarizes its horror. The bomb might as well be a mythic titan of destruction. The spectre of World War II haunts the entire movie.

The movie is concerned with more then just reminding the audience of WWII’s devastation. Akihiko Hirata’s Dr. Serizawa is one of two leading men in the film. Serizawa’s Oxygen Destroyer, a device that liquefies oxygen atoms, is the plot device that saves the day and finally kills Godzilla. However, Serizawa is hesitant to use it, even after Godzilla destroys Tokyo. He realizes, should it ever fall into other hands, the Destroyer would be used as a weapon, more dangerous then even the H-bomb. Though somewhat heavy-handed, the subplot makes its point. Technology must be used responsibly and man must make sure that nuclear horror is never unleashed on the world again. The movie further comments on the dangers of the bomb during an early scene set in the Japanese government building. When news of Godzilla’s origin is revealed to them, they bicker endlessly about whether or not to reveal this to the public. The government is incompetent. It’s up the hearts and minds of the public to change the world.

That subplot is still problematic and probably the film’s biggest flaw. See, Serizawa and Emiko were arranged to be married at birth. However, Emiko sees Serizawa as an older brother, not a lover. Her heart instead belongs to Hideto Ogata, Akira Takarada as the film’s other leading man. Momoko Kochi gives a fine performance as Emiko, her internal conflict playing nicely on her face. The problem is she has no romantic chemistry with either man. Akira Takarada gets a good moment or two but Ogata is surprisingly inactive throughout most of the story. Akihiko Hirata overdoes it several times as Serizawa. His anguished cries when he decides to destroy his research are especially overblown. The best performance in the film is from Takashi Shimura. In an American sci-fi film, the scientist who wishes to study the monster instead of killing it would be painted as a broad villain. Shimura instead plays the part subtly. He is conflicted too, realizing the threat Godzilla means to the world but reluctant to simply kill the beast. A scene of him sitting quietly in a dark study speaks volume. Quiet moments like these prove more effective then any of the movie’s big romantic drama.

While Godzilla is widely a symbol of nuclear terror, he represents something else too. On Odo Island, the natives perform a dancing ceremony, designed to drive off the beast. That night, a typhoon blows in, Godzilla arriving right behind it. The storm is seemingly in response to the ritual, the god-like dragon rejecting the villagers’ offering. Godzilla is connected with nature in that moment, representing Mother Earth’s wrath. The Japanese military, sending tanks and cannons to fight Godzilla, get a big introduction. One that couldn’t help but remind me of Michael Bay’s rah-rah military attitude. Honda winds up subverting this early presentation. The military is helpless to stop Godzilla, the missiles and canon rounds harmlessly bouncing off his hide. Despite our advanced technology, man is ultimately at nature’s whims. Godzilla is identified with an angry Earth, striking back at impetuous humanity.

Godzilla is a big threat and the film treats him as such. Even then, Honda, Tsuburaya, and suit performer Haruo Nakajima can’t help but have some fondness for the beast. Despite sweltering inside a 200-pound rubber suit, Nakajima still gives a legitimate performance as the monster. His movements are never stiff. Instead, Godzilla’s lumbering movement seems realistic, considering his size. My favorite small bit is when the kaiju flips a bridge, seemingly out of frustration. Godzilla might be terrifying but he’s still just an animal. And not beyond sympathy. This is obvious during the monster’s death. As the Oxygen Destroyer pulls the air from his lungs and rips the flesh from his bones, Godzilla releases a final cry over the waves. Ifukube’s music is elegiac, ostensibly because of Serizawa’s sacrifice. The music plays for the monster too. Like all monsters, Godzilla is an outcast, literally too big for this world. You feel bad for the creature as he dies. Maybe it’s just my build-in fondness for the big guy speaking but I believe the filmmaker fully intended this.

You can’t talk about the original “Gojira” without mentioning the American-made recutting known as “Godzilla, King of the Monsters!” I’ve never held the adaptation in high regard. Raymond Burr’s Steve Martin (Yes, that’s really his name.) is sometimes awkwardly inserted into the original film. It’s very obvious that he never truly interacts with any of the Japanese cast, instead speaking with stand-ins who are conveniently only seen from behind. Burr’s Martin affects the plot in no way. He provides melodramatic voice over that play over many of the untranslated scenes of Japanese dialogue. This is frequently an ungainly way to convey information to the audience. For what it’s worth, Burr doesn’t give a bad performance. Another issue I have with the American edit is some of its sound design decision. The ridiculous, high-pitch screams thrown in during Godzilla’s rampage are unintentionally comical and highly distract from the film’s intensity. On this re-viewing, I found myself liking the American cut a little more. It maintains far more of the original’s bleakness then you’d expect, Godzilla portrayed as just as powerful and frightening. The anti-nuclear message is trimmed but only to a degree. The presentation is far from ideal but “King of the Monsters!” is fairly faithful, keeping most of what made the original special.

Except for the ending. “Godzilla, King of the Monsters!” ends with a hopeful message. Steve Martin, like any 1950s sci-fi hero, monologues about the world being safe as the sun comes up on a new, Godzilla-free day. “Gojira,” on the other hand, ends with Dr. Yamane gravely intoning that, if humanity continues to experiment with nuclear weapons, another Godzilla will appear. The doctor was, of course, right, as the immediate sequel showed. However, the original ending isn’t a sequel hook. Rather, it continues the film’s anti-war themes, showing nuclear annihilation as an ever-present threat and one that must be guarded against at all times. Whether you call it “Gojira” or “Godzilla,” it is an intense horror film and a striking allegory about the dangers of war. [Gojira: A] [Godzilla, King of the Monsters!: B]

OSCARS 2014 LIVE BLOG

8:29 - Hello and welcome to my annual Live-Blog of the Academy Awards ceremony! This is the fifth year in a row I've live-blogged the Oscars. Last year, I wasn't pleased with my work. I thought I mostly sat back and just threw catty comments at the screen. I suspect this was because, taking effort to watch all the Best Picture nominations, I had already thought of everything of note worth saying.

This year I'll be making more of an effort to say interesting things of note. Even if the award show is frequently tedious or obnoxious and, inevitably, there's some surprise that irritates me. I do enjoy it though. It's a accumulation of a whole year of film making and, as a lover of cinema, I can't enjoy it.

8:30 - As always, refresh your page frequently to see the newest updates.

And we're starting.

Nice cummerbund, Ellen.

8:31 - Ellen might not be the most inspired choice of host but, at the very least, we will avoid another Seth McFarlane fiasco. Though she seems slightly nervous but is, thus far, fairly on the ball.

8:32 - The guy from "Captain Philips" looked really confused by that joke.

8:33 - Holy crap, that's actually Elizza Minelli? Yee gads.

The random cutaways to the audience seem a little more strained then usual.

8:34 - I think I've already laugh more in these opening four minutes then I did all throughout last years ceremony.

8:37 - Though seriously, what is up with Jared Leto's hair?

8:38 - From Bruce Dern's facial expression, I get the impression that he knows all too well what sex at a rodeo is like.

8:39 - While Ellen is doing some relatively amusing schtick, I think I'll talk a little more about my plans for the evening. Whenever a category comes up, I'll let you know Who I'd Vote For. If I was an Academy member, who I would vote for in that specific category. Simple enough and a nice way to make the evening more interesting for me and, hopefully, you too.

8:40 - Best Supporting Actor: Who I'd Vote For: Probably Jared Leto. Out of the performances tonight, I think his was the most complete transformation.

8:42 - I was really hoping they'd pick the goldfish eating scene as Jonah Hill's Oscar clip.

8:43 - It's not surprising that Leto won and, given a relatively weak field this year, I think he was definitely the best.

Also: I'M ONE FOR ONE!

8:44 - I was really hoping that speech about his mom would wander off into some weird tangent. Leto seems like a guy who would go off on a weird tangent.

8:46 - Love the introduction of Jim Carrey. That is a very blue, shiny jacket he has on.

8:48 - God, Edge The, take your hat off while you're at the Oscars.

Jim Carrey is acting a little bit like he's on something.

8:49 - Oh, boy, a montage. That is apparently mostly devoted to CGI characters.

8:50 - Oh, they are actually performing the song nominees this year. GOOD.

8:51 - I guess it was inevitable that Pharrell was going to wear that ridiculous hat. Though I'm not sure why the Sweater Brigade is dancing behind him.

8:52 - Boy, the Tracking Cam Operator is earning his keep tonight. I'm not exactly complaining though. It's a fairly easy way to energize the performance.

8:53 - Are people allowed to stand at the Oscars?

I'll admit, that was a fairly entertaining performance.

Shamefully, this year's ceremony is off to a surprising great start. I haven't had to drink any alcohol so far this evening. But, then again, the night is still young.

8:57 - For the record, I don't really have an investment in the Costume Design category.

8:58 - Boy, it sure is taking that lady a while to walk to the stage. I thought they put the nominees on the aisle seats for a reason?

9:00 - Are we on Make-Up already? This night is flying by.

I was sort of hoping Bad Grandpa would win Best Make-Up. Just because it would be pretty hilarious.

9:01 - Honestly, Academy, the make-up in "Dallas Buyers Club" was fine. But was it truly the greatest make-up of the year? Wasn't there some movie were people were turned into monsters or mushrooms or something?

9:02 - I was hoping Harrison Ford would just wander out and grumble sourly into the microphone. He sounds like he's about to pass out.

9:03 - Han Solo's eyes were doing some crazy eye looks there.

9:05 - Yeah, I bet young aspiring filmmakers really want to meet you, Channing Tatum.

9:09 - Needlessly Looking for Things to Complain About: We're a half-hour in and they've only given out three awards? At least the host hasn't told a face-palm worthy joke yet this evening.

9:10 - The banter between these two is awfully difficult.

9:12 - Best Short Animated Features?

9:13 - I'm pleasantly surprised that "Mr. Hublot" won Best Animated Short. It wasn't my favorite but it was perhaps the best of the lot. It seems like the voters in this category usually choose well. I was really expecting "Get A Horse!" to take it.

9:14 - I wish I had seen more of the nominated Animated Features. I'm looking forward to seeing "The Wind Rises" and "Ernest and Celestine."

9:15 - No surprises there

9:16 - My opinions on "Frozen" are probably well known by now: Pleasant enough, nice to look at but ultimately overrated.

9:17 - The only gaffs that people seem to be making tonight are misreading their ques. Yes, Sally, sometimes their films are made into stories.

9:18 - For a minute, I thought all the clips were only going to be from the last twenty years

9:20 - Is it bad or good that I immediately recognized Patrick Doyle's "Thor" score?

9:21 - How many people on the internet do you think started shouting "I'D SHIP IT" as soon as JGL and Emma Watson walked out hand in hand?

The first of what are sure to be many technical awards for "Gravity" tonight.

9:24 - You know, Zac Efron, you got one chance to be an Oscar Presenter and you had to flub your line. Fo' shame.

9:25 - For an award show so frequently characterized by bombast, that was an intimate, beautifully low-key performance. Sometimes a singer and a guitar are truly all you need. It perfectly matched a relaxed but emotionally honest song. I'm suddenly rooting for "The Moon Song' to win though I don't expect anything to stop the "Let It Go" juggernaut.

9:30 - Oh, boy, the Live-Action shorts. I'm rooting for "Do I Have to Take Care of Everything" but it probably won't win.

9:31 - I'm so glad "That Wasn't Me" didn't win. "Helium" was sappy but I'd be lying if it didn't have an emotional effect on me.

9:32 - The first Play-Off of the night! Finally, an excuse to drink some Scotch.

9:33 - Now that the nominees in the Live Action Shorts and Animated Shorts category are widely available to the public, perhaps they should include the Documentary Shorts in the same package? It would be nice to see them as well.

9:35 - "HERE, LET ME SHOUT OVER THE MUSIC!" Also, I'm taking a shot for that.

9:36 - I hate to say it a little but Ellen is doing an excellent job hosting this year. Funny without being needy or obnoxious. THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE, MCFARLANE!

9:37 - In a documentary year characterized by heavy politic docs, the movie about back-up singers win. That's surprising. I was really expecting "The Act of Killing" to win.

9:39 - Holy shit, Darlene Love should accept everyone's award.

9:40 - Oh boy, the Governor's Award segment. Or, in layman's terms, "Time to take a bathroom break" segment.

9:41 - It's a major shame that Steve Martin had to win some sort of honorary award. Surely at some point the Academy could have given him a real Oscar for something.

9:42 - Do you think Geoffrey Rush was born with a glass of some sort of alcohol in his hand?

9:43 - Going to go ahead and make fun of a serious situation. Why didn't Angelina Jolie make out with her humanitarian award when she received it?

9:48 - Once again, I didn't get to see any of the Foreign Language nominee this year. I really wanted to see "The Hunt." That sounded fascinating.

9:50 - I haven't seen "The Great Beauty" yet but I know it's already in the Criterion Collection so it's either brilliant or completely pretentious hogwash.

9:51 - I was really hoping Tyler Perry would present the Best Make-up award while in-character as Madea. Wait a minute, no, that would have been terrible.

9:52 - Say what you will about Tyler Perry but, shit, he knows how to read off a teleprompter.

9:53 - I'm actually surprisingly pleased with the way the Best Picture nominees are being presented this year. A sizzle reel from the movie followed by a cut to a title card. Oddly evocative and effective.

9:54 - How many shots do you think I can get through during the U2 performance? LET'S FIND OUT.

9:55 - Is Bono going through puberty?

9:57 - I think he's trying to fuck the audience with the squeakiness of his voice.

9:58 - All of the Best Song performances this year have been surprisingly stripped-down. Which has made the show a lot better? What's going on here, an Oscar ceremony that isn't completely defined by tedium and blind rage?

10:01 - After this live blog is over, I should go back and count how many questions I've asked tonight. Answer: Probably a lot.

10:02 - I'm really appreciating Ellen's style tonight, going out into the audience and interacting with the guests. It's funny and fresh. This bit, a mass twit-pic, is rather amusing.

10:04 - Did she just pronounce Kristen Bell's name as "Bee Elle?"

10:06 - Charlize Theron has got a nice dress on. Glamorous as ever. It's a shame she missed her queue. Yeah, a legitimate gaff!

10:07 - And another technical award for "Gravity." Should I turn that into a drinking game too? Sure.

10:09 - Two in a row. Any excuse for me to drink.

10:10 - I'm diggin' the nervous patter to this guy's acceptance speech.

10:11 - Of all the things I like this year at the show, the set design is kind of bizarre. What's with all the different Oscars of varying size?

10:12 - Who'd I Vote For: I thin June Squab probably gave my favorite of these five performers.

Did any body else's TV just cut to black suddenly?

10:13 - I really hope Jennifer Lawrence doesn't win. What an incredibly overrated performance.

10:14 - Lupita Nyong'o winning will hopefully mean "12 Years a Slave" will pick up a few other awards tonight. And it also means J-Law's exaggerated, ridiculous performance didn't win.

10:22 - Are those people really going to eat those pizza slices? Aw, Jared Leto gave his mom a slice of pizza.

I'm fairly certain Harvey doesn't believe in tipping servers.

10:25 - That is a hideous building. Is there a reason it's shaped like a Golden Globe?

10:26 - Ellen, Bill Murray has never had any trouble following anything. Bill Murray follows no one.

10:27 - It's a bit of a shame that Bill Murray is way too cool to host the Oscars. He'd bring such a unique energy to the proceedings.

And extra props for a shout-out to the late Harold Remmis.

10:28 - "Gravity" winning Best Cinematography isn't a huge surprise by any means but I wonder if there's going to be any backlash concerning this. This wasn't a film shot in a traditional fashion. The Dissolve recently suggests splitting the Cinematography category into two: One for best Digital Cinematography and another for Best Traditional Cinematography. I feel like this is a good idea since so many films have been and will continue to be defined by what the camera can do in a camera.

10:30 - I'm fully expecting "Gravity's" dominance of the technical award to extend in to Editing.

10:31 - Yep. I wonder if the Academy, piling some many techinical awards onto the film, will pass up Cuaron for Best Director. Then again, Steve McQueen winning would be incredible too.

10:32 - Don't worry, Alfonso, you'll probably get an opportunity later in the evening to make your speech.

10:33 - Whoopi's ruby slippers were a nice surprise. I'm not exactly sure why she's rambling about "The Wizard of Oz" right now. Oh, it's an anniversary.

10:35 - I'm not exactly sure why the Academy made time for Pink (Or does she still spell it P!nk?) to do a... Let's be kind... Non-traditional version of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow."

10:36 - She's doing a great job of stopping the momentum of a show that had, up to this point, been rolling along fairly well.

10:38 - Now let's never speak of this again.

10:40 - Holy shit, did any one else see that Snickers Godzilla commercial? That was fucking incredible.

10:42 - I guess we can forgive Ellen for trotting out a silly costume gag.

10:43 - Benedict Cumberbatch maybe has the most British name ever.

10:44 - If there's one technical award I don't expect "Gravity" to win, it's this one.

Yet I'm quite surprised that "The Great Gatsy" has been picking up as many awards as it has.

10:45 - What was with that camera angle there a second ago, focusing on the orange lights behind the winners?

10:46 - Man, Jaime Foxx looks bored as shit.

10:47 - I really don't think "The Karate Kid" remake has any place in a tribute to action heroes.

10:48 - And there was "Footloose" and "It's a Wonderful Life," two further baffling choices.

Overall, I think this year has been a little light on the clip shows. Which is good.

10:53 - I wonder who is going to be left out of the Taps montage this year.

10:54 - I'm glad Tom Laughlin was included.

10:57 - And I'm further pleased to see that Jim Kelly, Ray Harryhausen, Richard Matheson and Run Run Shaw weren't left out either. But no Ed Lauter or Jonathan Winters? Now that's shameful.

10:58 - The montage was respectful and well done. I'm even a fan of Bette Midler. But was this truly the best song choice to follow up with?

11:00 - Okay, my patience has officially run out for this song. Bette is off her game tonight. Get on with the show.

11:01 - "Complete In Memorium Gallery at Oscar.com?" What the hell is this shit? You can't make room for a few more names because Pink needed to waddle out a rendition of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow?" Even when you're going better, Oscar, you disappoint me.

11:04 - "Holdie Gawn" sounds like a Pokemon.

11:06 - Let's not oversell it, guys. "Philomena" was cute but it was far from a masterpiece.

11:07 - That was a surprisingly up-beat end there, Holdie.

11:08 - I bet you do love the movie musical, John Travola.

Because you're gay.

I'm sorry. That was low.

11:09 - I heard the Demi Lovato version of "Let It Go" while at the mall this weekend and, holy cow, was it bad. Good on the Academy for having the original actress perform instead.

11:10 - Yeah, the song is overplayed by this point. But Idina fucking killed it. That's how you do it, ladies.

11:13 - Did Jaime do that on purpose or was the teleprompter just a little slow? Who the hell is Will? At least he's having a good time.

11:14 - I have no idea who's going to win Best Score.

11:15 - Did I predict that "Gravity" was going to win? I think I did. I can't even remember at this point.

11:16 - Is there any chance at all of "Let It Go" not winning?

11:17 - That's what I thought. So the "Avenue Q" people are in the EGOT club now?

11:18 - Best speech of the night? Well, not quite good as Darlene Love breaking into song. But still good.

11:22 - "You've got some money now, Lupita." That made me laugh.

11:23 - This is a very accurate description of what it's like inside of a writer's brain.

"12 Years a Slave" is probably going to win.

11:25 - I do believe I just called that. That was a good speech!

11:26 - I'm really rooting for "Her" to win Best Original Screenplay.

Fantastic! So far, I'm pleased "American Hustle" has been locked out.

11:27 - 47 seconds, Oscar? Spike Jonze directed the "Weapon of Choice" music video. He'll take as long as he wants.

11:30 - We're three hours into the show now and only the four major categories left. Will Blanchett take home the Oscar? So far, my predictions have been fairly spot-on yet "American Hustle" hasn't been doing well. Honestly, I'd prefer Amy Adams to win even if I didn't like the movie very much. Just because she should have one already.

11:32 - To quote my room mate: "Sidney Poitier is still alive?" Almost, from the looks of it.

11:34 - Okay, so this is a big category of the night. Alfonso Cuaron is the big favorite to win, since "Gravity" was a fairly impressive visual achievement. Yet "12 Years a Slave," the favorite to win Best Picture, might follow suit instead. Honestly, a filmmaker as non-mainstream and iconiclastic as Steve McQueen winning Best Director would be sort of impressive as well. Let's see who gets it.

11:35 - Well, there's always next year, Steve. I'm not complaining though. I mean, I did give Cuaron a Phantom Award for directing this year, so I'm actually in direct agreement.

Now the big question is: Will "Gravity" win Best Picture as well? It's certainly built up some incredible momentum tonight.

11:37 - Soooo... Spanish speaking audience members, what did he just say?

11:41 - Do you think the Internet will crash if McConaughey says "alright, alright, alright" during his acceptance speech?

11:42 - Who Would I Vote For: Amy Adams because Blanchett was overly broad, Sandra Bullock was nothing but an audience surrogate, and Judi Dench and Meryl Streep were just doing their regular thing.

11:44 - Okay, I was wrong on that one. Oscar really could have picked a better crop of actresses for this category this year.

11:45 - "Random!" At least Cate is self-aware.

11:46 - I guess the Oscars is the only place where mentioning Woody Allen would be greeted with applause and hurrahs instead of boos and awkward glances.

11:47 - By the way, I agree with her speech. Movie executives who say women-led films are profitable are on crack. Make a goddamn "Wonder Woman" movie, Hollywood.

11:48 - Only two categories left to go. Is the show actually going to end on time this year? Yeah, I doubt it.

11:49 - Who I Would Have Voted For: I'm rooting for Bruce Dern but I think Chewetel Eljifor gave the best performance of this lot.

11:50 - I suppose the hanging scene had no shot of becoming the Oscar Clip but that would have been... Well, "awesome" seems like the wrong word.

11:53 - "Dallas Buyers Club" was a good performance from McConaughey and I'm absolutely not surprise that he won, seeing as how the performance was just the right type of Big. However, I think I'd be happier for this if I just pretended that McConaughey went back in time, rewrote the nominations, and won for "Killer Joe" instead.

11:54 - The little note about his dad dancing in heaven was a very McConaughey thing to say.

YES! HE SAID IT! I FEEL LIKE I JUST WON MONEY ON A BET!

11:56 - Who Would I Vote For If I Was an Academy Member: "Her," even though it has no chance at all of winning. It is genuinely my favorite of the nominees.

11:57 - So this is two years in a row that Best Picture also didn't win Best Director. I wonder if this is setting some sort of precedence. Either way, "12 Years a Slave" was certainly an achievement and I'm not upset that it won.

11:58 - I'm curious now what Steve McQueen's next film is going to be. He's an Academy Award winning filmmaker now but I can't imagine him making some audience friendly either.

12:04 - There you go, guys. The show ended almost on time. This was one of the best shows in years. Low on technical gaffes, most of the awards going to people who actually earned them. The pace moved along quickly. DeGeneres did a great job hosting, even better then last time. She was funny and amusing without getting in the way of the rest of the show. The pacing faltered a bit in the second half with the wholly unnecessary "Wizard of Oz" tribute. Yet it picked up seriously in the last third. As far as Academy Awards go, this was surprisingly painless.

12:05 - My score card this year was 15/24, which is probably better then average for me. While I can't say I had a "great" time tonight, I had a fairly good time. And I'm not even drunk yet!

12:07 - Award season has officially concluded. As I say every year, now that the Oscars are over, I can get back to watching horror movies. And I intend too. See you again soon. Thank you and good night, readers.

Recent Watches: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

This Oscar season has invited maybe a little more controversy then usual. From Woody Allen, to “12 Years a Slave’s” disturbing content, to the Academy actually liking “American Hustle,” this year has seen no shortage of outrage. However, I think the biggest generator of film-related controversy this year belongs to “The Wolf of Wall Street.” Does the film glorify its immoral, criminal protagonists? Does its sex and drug content go too far over the top? Does it unfairly represent the true story? How big of an asshole was Jordan Belfort exactly? Surprisingly, the film itself, an engaging, amusing affair, hasn’t been entirely overlooked amid the hullabaloo.

Based off his tell-all book, the film chronicles the life of Jordan Belfort, a wall street broker who made millions by selling shitty stocks for exaggerated costs, ripping off thousands and making himself absurdly rich. What money Jordan doesn’t spend on his ever-growing addiction to sex and drugs buys himself a succession of mansions, a yacht, and a supermodel wife. Nothing interrupts the constant bacchanal that is Jordan and his co-workers’ life. Not even when the government begins to investigate Stratton Oakmont’s deeply illegal business practice. The second half of the film discusses how the company hides their millions in Swedish banks, before rising drug-related insanity, a dissolving marriage, and increased government scrutiny leads to a downfall of sorts.

It’s no wonder the film has received so much attention for its content. “The Wolf of Wall Street” draws detailed attention to the impossible intake of sex and drugs Jordan and his pals regularly partaked in. The film begins with a dwarf being tossed onto a Velcro dart board and continues on to Jordan getting road-head while in his speeding Ferrari and snorting cocaine out of a call-girl’s asshole. Much attention is paid to the amount of coke and Quaaludes Belfort consumes on a daily basis. Throughout the film we see more breasts then you could ever count, full frontal nudity, and graphic fuckery of many sorts, including kinky S&M and a gay orgy. I have no idea how this movie received an R-rating. I know the moral guardians at the MPAA count the number of thrust men perform during a sex scene and I suspect this film far exceeds the typical R limit. I guess starring Leo DiCaprio and being directed by Martin Scorsese leads to some leeway.

Does the movie glorify the excesses of its protagonists’ life? Probably. If for no other reason then Scorsese never focuses on Belfort’s victims. Never once do we see the lives ruined by Stratton Oakmont’s “pump and dump” scam. The film is focused purely Belfort and his associates, telling the story from their point of view. This might be unfair, even slightly irresponsible, but I suspect it accurately reflects the source material. Maybe it’s for the best since, for the majority of the runtime, the coke, pills, hookers, and money money money looks like a whole lot of fun. The film’s rambunctious tone probably would derailed any attempt to make a statement about greed.

The movie’s themes are more self-evident. Here in America, greed works. Belfort and company are made ridiculously rich, live lives of incredible excess, rip off lots of people, and never truly suffer for it. Oh, he looses a portion of his fortune, his wife, his kids, all his friends, and spends three relatively comfortable years in jail. At the end, he’s still well-to-do and doesn’t seem to have learned much. The film is less a “rise and fall story” then a rise, rise, rise, and eventual minor fall story. This structure is helped along by the film’s epic three hour length which spends far more time on the circumstances of Belfort’s charmed life then his inevitable loss. The film accurately reflects a world were the 1% never suffer, told from the point of view of those who are victors even when they loose.

The film’s cynical tone is helped along by the fact that it’s really funny. Belfort casually discusses the business of buying prostitutes, his daily regiment of illegal substances, and how to rip people off. It’s clear that none of his crimes, both legal and moral, weigh on his conscious at all. Before a long flight, Belfort doses up just right, to insure he’s passed out for the entire trip. DiCaprio’s deadpan description of each phase of intoxication is especially amusing. When faced with a boat-capsizing tidal wave, Belfort runs for more drugs, exclaiming that he won’t die sober. Rob Reiner plays Belfort’s dad, often wryly commenting on his son’s hellraising behavior. A discussion between the two concerning women’s pubic hair is another highlight. The lead character’s debauchery arguably peaks when he decides to seduce his wife’s aunt, a moment that builds and defuses fantastically.

However, one humorous scene in the movie stands above the rest. In order to celebrate successfully smuggling cash into Sweden, Jordan and his best man Donnie pop a set of ultra-rare, ultra-powerful ‘luudes. They don’t appear to work at first, prompting the men to ingest more. And more. When the drugs finally kick in, Belfort looses complete control of his bodily functions. If the Academy gave out Oscars for comedic performances, DiCaprio would surely win. His physicality in that moment is incredible, twisting his limbs into knots, rolling around on the ground, nudging a car door open with his foot. The scene continues to build from there, the completely slurred Jordan forced to rescue an equally intoxicated Donnie. Contrasting a Popeye cartoon with Belfort’s dependence on cocaine, the moment climaxes hysterically. Even then, the movie isn’t done, the fate of Belfort’s car providing a nice punch line.

With the movie being so amusing and DiCaprio’s performance being so likable gung-ho, you almost wonder if Scorsese wants you to like these utterly despicable characters. After two and a half hours of Belfort and his cohorts being portrayed as lovably debauched pranksters, Scorsese pulls the rug out from under us. Facing financial ruin, government prosecution, and a divorce from his wife, Belfort hits rock bottom. He snorts a hidden cache of coke, beats Naomi, kidnaps his daughter, and nearly gets both killed in a car wreck. See, the director says, he’s not so much fun now, is he? It’s a good thing Scorsese is a fucking master at these sort of tonal shifts because otherwise that scene might derail “Wolf of Wall Street’s” final act.

And what about that cast? DiCaprio’s running monologue intentionally recalls “Goodfellas” but Leo makes it his own. He shows no shame, inhabiting the role of a heartless, completely debauched scumbag. He earned his nomination and, in a less busy year, would probably win. Jonah Hill certainly has the comedic chops to pull off scenes involving cousin fucking, crack smoking, and whipping his dick out at a party. He still has yet to convince me as a dramatic actor. Margot Robbie, last seen on forgettable airplane soap “Pan Am,” makes a ridiculous Long Island accent believable and proves an able foil to DiCaprio, especially when thrown glasses of water are involved. (She’s also lovely and very, very naked.) Though Matthew McConaughey’s role is ultimately small, his scene as Jordan’s cock-swinging, hedonistic mentor is certainly memorable.

Even at three hours long, “Wolf of Wall Street” is certainly a good time, an entertaining and absorbing study of a fully unrepentant character. Scorsese packs the soundtrack full of inspired choices like Devo, Klaus Nomi, the Foo Fighters, and Jimmy Castor. His direction is smooth and creative. Maybe Martin Scorsese doesn’t make masterpieces like “Raging Bull” or “Taxi Driver” anymore but this film proves he certainly hasn’t lost any of his youthful energy. [7/10]

With only a few hours to go before the Oscars, I have finally seen all of the Best Picture nominees. I would rank them thus:

Her: 9/10
Nebraska: 9/10
Gravity: 9/10
12 Years a Slave: 8/10
Dallas Buyers Club: 8/10
The Wolf of Wall Street: 7/10
Philomena: 7/10
Captain Philips: 6/10
American Hustle: 5/10

I guess that makes for a pretty good year. I also saw about half of "August: Osage County" last night before falling asleep. It seemed slightly shrill but still interesting. I was hoping to get to some of the documentary and foreign language nominees but, as usual, ran out of time. Return later tonight for my annual Live-Blog of the 86th Academy Awards. See you then!

Recent Watches: Blue Jasmine (2013)

I don’t like to comment on the personal life of the people involved with the films I review. I think its tacky and this blog is devoted to movies, not celebrity gossip. Yet it’s become difficult not to talk about “Blue Jasmine” without bringing up Woody Allen’s most recent trouble. I won’t share my opinion about Dylan Farrow’s molestation accusations other then to say I think it’s strange she’s only bringing it up now. Allen has been cranking out films annually for two decades and it’s not like “Blue Jasmine” is the only one of his recent work to receive critical praise. He won an Oscar for “Midnight in Paris” only two years ago, after all. That the controversy has overshadowed the film is disheartening, even more so if it winds up affecting the movie’s Oscar chances. It’s a funny, bittersweet film, solid work from the filmmaker.

On the same level, you can’t help but think of Mia Farrow a little while watching “Blue Jasmine.” The plot follows Jasmine, the widowed wife of a corrupt Wall Street dealer. After loosing her life of riches and comfort, Jasmine has constantly been on the edge of a mental breakdown. The movie opens as she moves in with her sister Ginger, who lives at the opposite end of the economic spectrum, Jasmine attempting to reinvent her life. Both sisters are at turning points of sorts in their lives. The film cuts back and forth between Jasmine’s fraught current life and her previous life as the spoiled wife of a rich man, right before that world crumbled.

Woody Allen has written some of the best, most nuanced female characters in cinema history as well as women that are cartoonish, obnoxious shrews. On one side of that spectrum lies Annie Hall and Alice while, say, the wife from “Midnight in Paris” resides flatly at the other extreme. Jasmine is somewhere between the two extremes. On one level, she’s mentally unstable. She’s selfish, conceited, bitchy, and myopic. She's also treated very sympathetically, the movie focusing heavily on her impending breakdown. One of this very funny film’s reoccurring gag involves Jasmine’s tendencies to ramble. The film begins with her on a plane, apparently telling an old woman she’s met all about herself. However, we soon find out the old woman never asked about Jasmine. She was merely talking to herself and the old woman was the closest person listening. This gag reaches it zenith when she starts rambling towards her confused, seven year old nephews. She’s constantly popping pills, nerves always jangling under her skin. When she wanders into a new relationship with a would-be politician, Jasmine begins to tell white lies, combing over the embarrassing or tragic details of her previous life. This ends badly. Though “Blue Jasmine” might occasionally play its heroine’s poor stress management for laughs, by the end, it veers more towards tragedy.

“Blue Jasmine” is about another woman as well. Under-appreciated character actress Sally Hawkins plays Jasmine’s put-upon sister Ginger. Ginger is about as far apart from Jasmine as possible, at least at first. She’s slightly vulgar and works a crappy job to take care of her two sons. The difference between the two sisters is most obvious when they constantly point out that they aren’t related blood. However, both women have lousy taste in men. Ginger’s ex-husband, Augie, played by an unrecognizable Andrew Dice Clay, comes off as a bit of a blowhard. Her current boyfriend, the inexplicably named Chilli, is an even bigger mook, basically the grown-up version of a guido. His pathetic attributes come into sharper focus when he storms into the apartment and tears a phone out of the wall in rage. At the same party Jasmine meets her would-be beau, Ginger encounters a charming, sexually vivacious fellow played by a perfectly likable Louise C. K. When that relationship falls apart dramatically, you feel the most for Ginger. Like Jasmine, she’s prone to negative moments, treating her sister like shit at times. At the end, she’s a fallible human being dealt a shitty card by chance.

Cate Blanchett has received plenty of praise for her leading role here. Assuming the controversy doesn’t wind up distracting, she might still win. Is it the strongest of the nominated performances? Possibly. Blanchett sometimes indulges in exaggerated Big acting. The film’s emotional climax comes during a flashback, breaking up with her husband, when she completely shatters a part. Unfortunately, Blanchett veers close to overdoing it at times. The blatantly comedic bits rest uncomfortably between mockery and sympathy. When Jasmine gets the shakes, popping pills and downing them with wine, Blanchett might be playing it too broad. However, she mostly holds the performance together, inhabiting the character with steely-eyed nerves, choking down a world of hurt. Does she deserve to win? Maybe. In a year with a better crop of nominations, probably not. This year? Yeah, I suppose.  

I’ll admit to being one of those film fans who prefer Allen’s earlier, funnier movies. Since his comedies have always run on neurosis, it’s fine that his drama mine those same emotions for pathos. (I still haven’t made it all the way through “Interiors” though. Sorry.) “Blue Jasmine” is certainly a neurotic movie. Sometimes it simplifies those issues. Jasmine’s mental breakdown manifesting as wandering through the streets, talking to herself, is a bit much, an oversimplification of a complicated issue. Jasmine nearly entering another cushy life as a politician’s wife comes about in a slightly contrived manner. Either way, I admire Allen’s stab at nonlinear storytelling. Cutting back and forth between the past and the present provides a great contrast between the differing attitudes. As the film goes on, we realize there’s really isn’t much difference between Jasmine’s life now and her life then. The cracks were just more well-hidden.

“Blue Jasmine” has maybe been a little overrated by the press. To call it Woody Allen's best film in over a decade is definitely overstating it. The script works in many of the same themes and concepts the director has always toyed with. It’s a good film, humane and in-touch. The excellent moments, both funny and sad, rise above the movie’s more flawed elements. [7/10]

Recent Watches: 12 Years a Slave (2013)

I never know what to say about a movie like “12 Years a Slave.” It’s not a film you can evaluate under the usual perimeters of “Did I like it?” “12 Years a Slave” doesn’t set out to entertain. After watching it, I honestly felt like shit. You’re supposed to feel like shit. The film rubs your noses in man’s inhumanity to man. It displays the cruelty and horror of the slave-era, as close to a historical document as one can get.

The story should be well-known by now. Born free and living in upstate New York, Solomon Northup is a violin player living with his wife and two kids. When joining a group of entertainers touring Washington D.C., he is drugged and sold into slavery. Thus begins a twelve year cycle of abuse amidst New Orleans cotton plantations. He is first sold to a plantation owner named Ford, a quiet fellow who reads from the bible and treats his slaves relatively well. But they’re still his slaves and when Solomon angers a white worker, he is sold to the sadistic, mentally unbalanced Epps. At Epps’ hands, Solomon is witness to, and suffers himself, alarming cruelty.

Director Steve McQueen, previously noted for no-holds-barred depictions of Irish prisons and sex addiction in “Hunger” and “Shame,” never shies away from portraying the horrors of the time. The moment he awakens in the world of slavery, Solomon is tortured, viciously whipped with a wooden board. One a boat to the South, he sees another black man stabbed to death for attempting to protect a female slave. That same woman is, sobbing, sold separately from her children. While on the Epps’ plantation, workers are whipped every day if their cotton production doesn’t meet expectations. An attempted escape is shunted when he walks in on two slaves being executed. The most nauseating moment occurs when a female slave is so brutally whipped that her skin smokes from the lash wounds. And why? Because she wanted a piece of soap to wash with. Despite the wave of critical recognition and award season buzz the film has received, there is no “safe” layer of prestige shine protecting the audience. The movie is stark, horrifying, and uncompromising in its portrayals.

McQueen’s direction is engineered to give every moment of torture maximum effect. In the first act, he frequently cuts between Northup’s new life as a slave and his happy former life as a family man, making the sudden moments of cruelty more jarring. The most terrifying moment is when Solomon is punished for speaking directly with a white worker. He is hanged from a noose, feet dangling inches above the ground. He stands on his toes, barely holding off strangulation. This is presented in a tortuously long take that goes for only a few minutes but feels like hours. The unbroken shot has a purpose, forcing the audience to relive every agonizing minute along with Northup. Ultimately, that is the most horrifying thing about “12 Years a Slave:” These things happened. McQueen never bows to misery porn self-consciousness. There’s no sentimentality or mawkish appeals for emotions. He is honestly presenting the awful conditions as they were.

I’ve heard “12 Years a Slave” referred to as “inspiring,” which is a somewhat misleading statement. Is Northup’s will to survive inspiring? I suppose so. Early on, we see another slave torn apart by misery, weeping endlessly. Northup never gives in to such crushing despair. Though the film’s events present him with little reason to, he continues to survive. However, this isn’t an inspiring story of the human will to endure. When finally free and reunited with his family, there’s no steering music or emotionally uplift. Solomon cries uncontrollably, apologizing repeatedly for his absence. He may have survived but the mental and emotional scars will haunt him forever. A post-credit note informs us that those responsible for his kidnapping were never punished. Northup never received justice. It almost plays like a metaphor for our country’s relationship with its past. Slavery may have ended but we can never right those wrongs.

It’s cynical to say that “12 Years a Slave’s” critical recognition has less to do with its brave, ceaseless depiction of ugly history and more to do with its tireless professionalism. The movie’s production design and ringing Hans Zimmer score are excellent, of course. Chiwetel Ejiofor is fully committed to the material. Ejiofor is more of a character actor then a leading man and never lets any actorly ego get in the way of the performance. He is as brave and visceral as the movie around him. The same could be said of unknown Lupita Nyong’o, who never flinches when depicting the sad life of Patsey, the object of Epps’ psychotic affection. As Epps, Michael Fassbender is properly unhinged, playing an unpredictable man completely free of any sympathy for his fellow man. (Nyong’o and Ejiofor should both win Oscars but seem likely to loose to flashier performances in more audience-friendly films.)

Sometimes, however, the star-studded cast proves distracting. Paul Dano still seems much too fresh-faced and young to take seriously as a cruel plantation worker. Paul Giamatti is far too recognizable an actor for the small role he is given, drawling a lot of attention to himself. Benedict Cumberbatch is fine as Ford and I love that the film doesn’t let his character off the hook, despite being comparatively kind. The worse moment of stunt casting comes when producer Brad Pitt steps into the film. Sporting another ridiculous accent, Pitt plays a kindly Canadian crucial to freeing Northup. That Pitt would give himself such an important part smacks of ego. His presence is deeply distracting, a movie star in a movie otherwise unoccupied with crowd-pleasing decisions. Aside from that, the script’s dialogue sometimes comes off as over-written, sprouting in flowery directions at times. It’s a minor quibble.

(Sadly, without those big names in the cast, it seems unlikely that the film would have received so much attention from the Academy. Many Oscar prognosticators still list the film as the favorite to win. It might. At the same time, it’s such a vicious, uncompromising affair. I can easily see it making the Academy uncomfortable, forcing them to wimp out and give a bunch of awards to, god forbid, “American Hustle” instead. Actually, I can see that happening clearly, like some weird psychic vision, and it’s really disappointing.)

On one of the many film sites I read, a comment about “12 Years a Slave” said it should be shown in high school history class. I agree fully with this. I’ve lived in the south all my life and people here are far too willing to dismiss this country’s bloody, horrible history. The damage to our collective psyche can never heal and it’s a burden every American should carry. “12 Years a Slave” will now reside on my personal list of films too traumatic to watch more then once. It’s forceful and unforgettable, a powerful, desperate plea to never forget and never make excuses. [9/10]