Website of Jonathan O. Dewbre

I will be honest and say that 2009 has not been one of my favorite years for film. The best picture category for this year’s Oscars has been increased to include 10 nominees – of those 10, there was one film that I loved, three that I liked, one that I hated, and two which I intentionally avoided seeing. (I didn’t see “Inglorious Basterds” because I’m not a Tarantino fan on a good day, and the idea of a WWII revenge fantasy didn’t appeal to me. I didn’t see “The Blind Side” either, because it looked like schmaltz. I could be wrong about both movies, but I have a feeling I’m not. Also, I didn’t get a chance to see “The Last Station,” though I really wanted to.) In short, I don’t see a reason for having 10 nominees instead of 5, except to decrease the honor of being nominated by half and allowing everyone to go home with an achievement trophy. (Reminds me of grade school athletics all over again.)

In an effort to make this list short, I’ll just say who I think should win each award instead of who probably will win.

BEST PICTURE: “The Hurt Locker”

The movie business seems to be fascinated with the military right now. All three serious contenders for this award – “Avatar,” “The Hurt Locker,” “Inglorious Basterds” – have war as a primary theme. That’s not to mention other films like “The Messenger,” “Brothers,” “The Men Who Stare At Goats.” We’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for quite a while now, but I guess I’m a little surprised that we’re only receiving a glut of war films now, years after the wars themselves started.

“Avatar” painted a very unfavorable portrait of the military, and yet managed to be a huge box-office success. (Don’t worry… I’m not going to talk incessantly about how much I disliked that movie.) “The Hurt Locker,” on the other hand, took the route of exploring the psychology of soldiers, particularly those who continuously re-enlist, and did it WITHOUT being an anti-war diatribe. The idea that war is terrible and soldiers who voluntarily enlist are insane has been a Hollywood staple since at least the time “All Quiet On The Western Front” won best picture. What “The Hurt Locker” does is demonstrate where that insanity comes from. Despite the realism in the tense bomb-defusing scenes, you are rarely given a clue as to what’s going on or how to feel about it, or whether a given person is good or bad. At one point, a sympathetic character is shown to be dead, only to turn up alive in a later scene with no explanation. By the end of the film, you understand how psychologically screwed up the main character is and why he can no longer function in normal society. The epigram stating that “war is a drug” makes sense, and “The Hurt Locker” demonstrates that viscerally, without shoving an intellectual debate about war in your face.

It should be noted that some controversy has sprung up around “The Hurt Locker.” One of the producers made the stupid decision to lobby the film by badmouthing “Avatar,” and the filmmakers failed to credit or compensate the real-life EOD expert whose stories formed the basis of the movie. Whether or not you let these facts affect your appreciation of the movie is up to you. I don’t typically like war films and I have a hard time identifying with military culture, but despite my prejudices “The Hurt Locker” ended up surprising me. It’s not my favorite movie of the last year, but it definitely deserves to win in the best picture category.

BEST DIRECTOR: Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker”

A lot has been made out of the fact that Bigelow is the only woman who has ever been in serious contention for a best director Oscar. That irritates me, because I think she should simply be seen as the most competent director among this year’s nominees, regardless of her gender. “The Hurt Locker” was really made by its direction – Bigelow managed to take what was a patchwork script and turn it into an excellent film. We feel the tension of the bomb-defusing scenes because Bigelow knows to let them play out in real time, instead of trying to disorient the audience with quick cuts. She gives the Iraqi bystanders personalities instead of just using them as background observers, which brings the war zone to life instead of making it seem deserted. Bigelow also knows enough to allow the actors freedom of improvisation, which keeps the dialogue from seeming overly scripted. Most of all, she does all of this and more without being too flashy or apparent; that, to me, is the hallmark of a good director.

BEST ACTRESS AND SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Mo’Nique and Gabourey Sidibe, “Precious: Based On The Novel ‘Push’ By Sapphire”

This year’s supporting actress competition isn’t even a competition. Each of these actresses did competent jobs, but Mo’Nique’s performance is the firecracker, and the one that stays with you. And this brings me to my main critique of “Precious” itself: the film suffers heavily from over-direction. When Precious pretends to be a glamorous celebrity, or pretends to be a French film star, or pretends that photographs are actually speaking to her, it is all vividly literal and not at all believable. When director Lee Daniels connects a scene where Precious is hit in the back of the head and falls to the ground with a graphic flashback to her rape at the hands of her father, it is borderline offensive. And when the film opens with Precious herself being hugged by Sapphire, the author of the original novel – well, you know you’ve got problems from the start. The thing is, “Push” worked because it was a first-person novel grammatically written in the style of a poorly educated, borderline-illiterate girl. It’s an engrossing novel that could not possibly have made a completely faithful transition to the screen. The film’s greatest success is in its powerhouse acting talent; every actor/actress in it gives a memorable performance, including, oddly enough, Mariah Carey.

Sandra Bullock has been nominated in the best actress category and she is considered to be a lock. Gabourey Sidibe has consistently lost to either her or Meryl Streep in most of the major film award ceremonies. Sidibe’s character in “Precious” is vocally quiet but she is required to show a lot of emotion through body language, and is on-screen for the entire film. Sidibe has also been overshadowed by Mo’Nique’s performance, and that demonstrates the tendency of award committees to favor passion over subtlety. My wish is that Sidibe would win the award. While Bullock is a hugely talented and popular actress, her latest film is stereotypical of those where white people act as saviors to non-white people. Gabourey Sidibe’s ability to pull off a difficult first role, especially when she is a non-typical movie actress, seems like much more of a success story than “The Blind Side.”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Woody Harrelson, “The Messenger”

Woody Harrelson is not an actor I typically like. His role in “The Messenger,” however, seems to have been custom-made for him, in that he is allowed to be brash, uncaring, drunk, and promiscuous at varying times. And it works, because he practically carries the film. Initially seen as a dictatorial, jingoistic sh*thead, his character is forced by the U.S. Army to break the news of a soldier’s death to his or her loved ones. His job is not pleasant. Harrelson gets assaulted, screamed at, and forced to participate in the grieving process despite his attempts to stay unemotional and uninvolved. “The Messenger” is hard to sit through – moreso than “The Hurt Locker” – for the very reason that the filmmakers see to it that you can’t stay uninvolved. Every character has a life and a back-story, and the acting in the film is uniformly brilliant. Harrelson is the stand out, going from being a military stereotype to having a memorable emotional epiphany at the end of the film.

BEST ACTOR: Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart”

Last year I said that Mickey Rourke deserved to win this award for his performance in “The Wrestler.” (He didn’t win.) My reasoning was that an actor playing an extension of his own personality does an invariably better job than an actor playing a character that actually requires him to “act.” The same seems to be true of Jeff Bridges, who is considered a lock in this category. Bridges IS Bad Blake, more or less, and there is no point in “Crazy Heart” where you believe otherwise. Perhaps that’s not a good enough reason to give someone an Academy Award, but then again, what is? Bridges, like Sandra Bullock, has been in movies forever and has gone unrecognized for this fact long enough that it’s put a lot of critical support behind him. Plus, he’s been nominated for best actor four times before and hasn’t won once. (Speaking of “The Wrestler,” I didn’t particularly like “Crazy Heart.” I think it’s because every time I was preparing for something terrible to happen, the movie tricked me. Also, the happy ending seemed a little disingenuous.)

By the way, Colin Firth would be my second choice in this category for his surprisingly effective performance in “A Single Man.” I never thought I’d find myself sympathizing with a character played by Firth, or even that he’d find a way to break out of romantic comedies and Jane Austen adaptations. If somebody ever plans a biopic of Cary Grant, they need to give Firth a call.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, “Up In The Air”

Remember how I said there was only one film on this year’s best picture list that I actually loved? That would be “Up In The Air.” This film was tailor-made for sad-sack white guys like myself who have had employment problems, have never really known love, aren’t sure what they really want out of life and who prefer to deal with their problems by internalizing everything. Sure, it’s different from “Precious,” but having a strong emotional bond with a film often depends on how well you can relate to it. Reitman is brilliant at blending everyday drama with gentle comedy, and I envy the way he is able to write with such a strong ear for the way people actually act and talk. There is nothing about “Up In The Air” that I didn’t like.

For what it’s worth, I really liked the screenplay for “An Education” as well, and its subject of a young woman following her dreams versus settling for practicality was very similar to the theme of “Up In The Air.” Liking it is probably not a coincidence, as it was adapted by Nick Hornby.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, “A Serious Man”

I’ve already praised the screenplay for “The Messenger,” which was nominated in this category. “A Serious Man” was also well-written, so I had trouble deciding which screenplay to write down here. I finally decided that I enjoyed watching “A Serious Man,” whereas saying that I enjoyed watching “The Messenger” would be a huge overstatement. I continue to have a love/hate relationship with the Coen brothers – for example, I despised “No Country For Old Men.” I have a better time with their comedies, and “A Serious Man” is, I think, the best they’ve done since “Raising Arizona.” In retrospect, adapting the book of Job from the Bible could really only be done as a bleak comedy. The Coens’ tendency to rely on weird and outlandish characters has always bothered me, but in “A Serious Man” they serve as a perpetual plague of irritation and unhelpfulness to Larry Gopnik. It’s really one, long slow burn that puts “Fawlty Towers” to shame, and even though I’m not going to pretend like the ending made any sense to me, there’s still a lot here to think and debate about.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: “The White Ribbon”

Making a prediction in this category really isn’t fair, because Michael Haneke’s film “The White Ribbon” is the only nominee I’ve seen. It’s also the only one that’s made it into the theaters in Dallas, so I’m fairly sure that it’s going to win. Haneke is a German filmmaker with a disturbing fascination with violence. His film “Funny Games” was originally made in Germany and then remade with an English-speaking cast; I didn’t see it, as the violence in it was deliberately intended to provoke and I don’t like having my buttons pushed. “The White Ribbon” is an enigma. It’s a beautifully filmed black-and-white feature set in pre-WWI Germany, but which could easily pass for an Ingmar Bergman film. Like Bergman, the film is fatalistic and preoccupied with religion and death. Violent, disturbing things happen in it, but with a few exceptions, the violence is recalled in voice-over and isn’t seen on screen. The question is whether the children of the village, who are lorded over with rigid discipline and speeches about purity, are responsible for committing them. The presence of “white ribbons” is a pretty obvious analogy to the arm bands that would eventually be worn by the Nazis, but that’s one of the only things in the film that is obvious. Still, almost every frame of the film seems like a painting, so its cinematography deserves an award even if it isn’t the best choice in the foreign language category.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM AND LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM: “A Matter Of Loaf And Death” and “The Door”

I’ve been pretty vocal about my hatred of computer-generated special effects and their use in animation. These days, if anything is animated, it’s animated on a computer. There is one exception among this years five short animated film, and it’s also the only one that runs about 30 minutes long – Nick Park’s “Wallace And Gromit: A Matter Of Loaf And Death.” I love Nick Park’s work, and like his previous films, this one is done in stop motion clay. I’ve seen videos documenting Park’s process in creating these short films; he has the patience of a saint. Pretty much everything he’s done with Wallace and Gromit has won an Oscar, and with good reason. “Loaf And Death” is not, in my opinion, the best short he’s done, but it’s still a good sight better than the other 2010 animated short films. (Pixar didn’t get nominated this year… I wonder if they have an exemption?)

I liked almost all of this year’s live action shorts, but the one that stood out for me was “The Door,” an extremely bleak film about a family evacuating from Pripyat after the Chernobyl explosion and then watching their daughter die from acute radiation poisoning, unable to do anything about it. It’s definitely the darkest and most powerful of the shorts, and it’s also the only one I liked which didn’t seem like a rip-off of “Slumdog Millionaire” or “Napoleon Dynamite.” I loved “Instead Of Abracadabra” for its humor, and I’d watch it again, but I wouldn’t give it an award just for that.

So… yeah. Here’s your Oscar, “The Door.” Now, let me never have to hear of you or see you ever again.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM: … Oh, who the hell am I kidding?

“Up” was nominated for both best picture and best animated feature film. I thought they created the animated film category so that wouldn’t happen again… oh well. Do award ceremonies mean anything to Pixar anymore? This isn’t even a competition to them. They should get a lifetime achievement award and let that be that. Give someone else a chance. Of course, “Up” is still the best animated feature film among the five nominated, so I’m just being a sourpuss. The voters might have given the award to “Coraline” if Pixar fatigue set in, but I kind of doubt it.

On a different subject, there’s a film called “The Secret Of The Kells” that was nominated this year that looks amazing. I haven’t been able to watch it. Why? Because the film doesn’t have a g*ddamn U.S. distributer! You’d think that an Academy Award nominated film would have garnered enough interest to get released before the ceremony. Apparently not. Apparently, releasing “The Secret Of The Kells” into theaters is a financial gamble, but making “The Crazies” and releasing it EVERYWHERE is financially sound. Damn it, Hollywood! You suck!

THAT’S IT FOR MY 2010 OSCAR PREDICITIONS. HOPE I GOT A FEW OF THEM RIGHT!