Who's Your Favorite Beatle?

The 2017 Billys

Welcome to my annual, very subjective opinion on who should win and who will win this Sunday’s Oscars. This group may be the most diverse ever, with six African-American acting candidates and three nominees for best picture focusing on the Black experience, a sharp reversal after the criticism of last year.

 

Actress in a Supporting Role

Viola Davis (Fences) is a pet peeve of mine. I always think she over does it and she didn’t need to in this well-written part. Nicole Kidman wasn’t crucial to the story of Lion. I hate to overlook Octavia Spencer, but the remaining two head the field. Naomie Harris is wrenching as the crack addict mom in Moonlight – no one got deeper in her role. As good as Michelle Williams was in Manchester by the Sea, Harris can’t be overlooked.

Should and Will Win: Naomie Harris (Moonlight)

 

Actor in a Supporting Role

Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water was my favorite performance of the year, but this was a character he’s played before.

Should Win: Mahershala Ali (Moonlight)

Will Win: Dev Patel (Lion)

 

 

Actress in a Leading Role

Isabelle Huppert played the most difficult role of the five as the victim of a violent rape in Elle, but the stoicism of her character doesn’t allow for much range. Natalie Portman gave us a new Jackie, an interpretation, not an imitation. This year the Academy should not take Meryl Streep for granted as the flamboyant, sympathetic Florence Foster Jenkins. It’s too bad she will get swept aside by the La La Land wave.

Should Win: Meryl Streep (Florence Foster Jenkins)

Will Win: Emma Stone (La La Land)

   

Actor in a Leading Role

I was expecting very little from Hacksaw Ridge, but found it inspired. Andrew Garfield brought Desmond Doss from naïve bumpkin to lauded hero and was totally credible throughout. You saw his character, not the actor. But two factors will damage him with the voters: it’s a war movie and Mel Gibson directs it. Casey Affleck’s unrelenting depression in Manchester by the Sea couldn’t have been easy to pull off. Ryan Gosling does not deserve to win, but he might.

Should Win: Andrew Garfield (Hacksaw Ridge)

Will Win: Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea)

 

Cinematography

Following the five-year old Saroo (Sunny Pawar) on his frightening 1000-mile train trip, then through the squalor of the train station and slums of Mumbai was the best film work of the year. You understood exactly how that little boy must have felt. Silence looked beautiful and scary at the same time.

Should Win: Lion

Will Win: La La Land

 

Costume Design

As authentic as the actors dressed in La La Land, the Academy can’t ignore FFJ.

Should and Will Win: Florence Foster Jenkins

 

Foreign Language Film

I enjoyed A Man Called Ove and Toni Erdmann more than any other movies I saw this year, but I fear they are not serious enough for the Academy. The Salesman from Iran was personal, moving in spots, but wandered. And I don’t know how you make a film about Iran that barely touches on the political situation. Maybe that was the only way the government allowed it to be released. Unfortunately, I didn’t see the other two, and they may win since they are dramas.

Should Win: Toni Erdmann

Will Win: ???

 

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

The brilliant August Wilson wrote the screenplay from his play. They have to give it to him!

Should and Will Win: August Wilson (Fences)

 

Writing (Original Screenplay)

Without doubt The Lobster was the most original, but it's too strange to win. 

Should Win: Manchester by the Sea

Will Win: La La Land (But Manchester has a good shot at it.)

 

Directing

The gory, but immersive battle scene in Hacksaw Ridge was the most difficult challenge a director faced this year, and Gibson nailed it. Too bad the Academy won't recognize that. Being able to stich together the three different age segments in Moonlight was a triumph for Barry Jenkins. Look for him to narrowly beat out Damien Chazelle (La La Land).

Should Win: Mel Gibson

Will Win: Barry Jenkins

 

Best Picture

I either enjoyed or appreciated every single one of these films. Arrival and Hell or High Water were the most fun. Hidden Figures and Hacksaw Ridge made you cheer. Lion made you cry. Fences made you think. Manchester by the See brilliantly immersed you in the dissolution of contemporary life.

So that leaves La La Land and Moonlight. Both could win but not for the right reasons. Hollywood loves itself, and La La Land is Hollywood. Moonlight is the most unapologetically Black movie nominated, and the Academy is very sensitive to last year’s accusations. There should be some exciting moments as the ceremony rushes to wrap up by midnight.

Should Win: Lion

Long Shot: Hidden Figures

Will Win: La La Land

 

Now some comments on the less prominent categories, where I can claim very little knowledge!

 

Documentary (Feature)

I Am Not Your Negro is the powerful story of racism in America as seen through the eyes of James Baldwin. As he says it in the film, the last word of the title is not so polite. It may go to O.J.: Made in America.

Documentary (Short Subject)

Saw none of the nominees, but heard great things about The White Helmets.

 

Film Editing

The structure of Moonlight posed the biggest editing challenge of the five nominees.

 

Music (Original Score)

No question here: La La Land

Music (Original Song)

"City of Stars" was beautiful and memorable, even with Ryan Gosling singing it!

 

Production Design

Probably La La Land, with Arrival a close second

 

Sound Editing and Sound Mixing

Since I don't know the difference, I shouldn't say a thing, but it's probably La La for both.

 

La La Land

La La Land, written and directed by Damien Chazelle, 2h 8min

La La Land is really two movies in one. The first has a lot of singing and dancing with minimal plot; the second is more dramatic and thoughtful, with better music, less dancing and better acting. I liked the second movie a lot more.

The opening scene is a typical Los Angeles traffic jam, except this one turns into a musical spectacular with the singing drivers dancing across the hoods and roofs of the idled cars. Seems kind of silly, but it gets across the point that LA is different and La La – a little, maybe a lot, nutty.

Mia (Emma Stone) and Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) have a spat when he cuts her off, but they soon drive off. One night, hearing some good piano improv, she ducks into a club. It is Sebastian playing, but he has just been fired for going off the set list and rudely brushes by her. Mia has a waking dream where Sebastian stops and kisses her passionately, but she quickly snaps back to reality. Dreams like this are an important part of the film.

In a third of these somewhat implausible coincidences, Mia and Sebastian find themselves at the same classic Hollywood pool party. There’s a song for Mia while she's dressing, another production number at the party, then then they perform a singing, dancing duet in the Hollywood Hills with the lights of the city glistening in the background.

At this point I’m thinking the music isn’t very memorable and the dancing amateurish. (I do admire Stone and Gosling for doing these scenes themselves, no dubbing, no CGI.) But with Mia and Sebastian established as a couple, the focus shifts to what they will do with their lives. They face a universal dilemma: how much must you sacrifice your instinctual passions to achieve a sustainable, responsible life?

Ryan compromises first, joining a band led by his friend Keith (John Legend) that is more pop than jazz. Mia struggles through film auditions until Sebastian encourages her to write a one-act play for herself.

This is where the film came alive for me. The jazz was more to my liking, and the plot took over. Stone and Gosling make their characters sympathetic, so you are involved in their story. The film becomes about their ambitions and relationship, and how they handle success and failure.

At times it feels like La La Land is a gentle satire of a big studio film with a Hollywood ending. The dream sequence in the final scene is an example. But these are “real” people dealing with the complex issue of reconciling dreams with reality.

There is plenty to admire about La La Land, especially if you appreciate the song and dance numbers more than I did. The Best Picture of the Year? It’s nominated for 14 awards, partly because Hollywood loves nothing more than films about itself. It wouldn't be my choice.

Grade: B+

Arrival, Silence and Toni Erdmann

Arrival, directed by Denis Villeneuve, 1h 56min

Right from the start you know that Louise Banks’s beautiful young daughter is afflicted with an incurable disease and dies. The little girl’s life and death are shown in quick clips, but very little is revealed about Louise, other than her heartbreak.

From that sad start, you see Louise (Amy Adams) in her life as a language teacher. Her class is interrupted by a worldwide alert about the arrival of 12 pods that seem to be from outer space.

Louise is asked by the Army to help communicate with the aliens and is paired with Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), a nuclear physicist, who initially dismisses Louise’s value to the mission. Louise and Ian, along with Army personnel, are brought inside the weightless pods. The creatures look like upright octopuses. Since they have seven tentacles, the scientists dub them “heptapods.”

The creatures are behind a glass wall and squirt seemingly random ink onto the glass. What follows is a fascinating reconstruction of the elements of language, that allows Louise to establish a rudimentary level of communication with the strange beings. Ian is impressed, and they draw closer.

Distracting her are the visions she has of her and a daughter that, at that point, she knows nothing about. Ian and Louise determine that these visions may be glimpses of the future. They begin to understand that her exposure to the pods is giving her special abilities. When global politics causes a disagreement over whether to engage or fight the invaders, Louise gains enough confidence to help avert catastrophe. She also begins to understand what her visions mean.

Along with the solid performances by Adams and Renner, Arrival gives us the best of sci-fi. It raises questions about how a change in our basic reality would affect the human condition. Ultimately the film asks, “If you could see the future, would you change it?” Very cosmic!

Grade: A-

 

Silence, directed by Martin Scorcese, 2h 41min

Another film, more inscrutable questions: What is the meaning of faith? Is there one true way?

Martin Scorsese’s Silence is, as you might expect, a big, beautiful film and unafraid to take on the most basic elements of man’s belief system. The film is certainly ambitious, but its success will may depend on whether you can maintain an interest in these questions, as well as its harrowing adventure story, over the course of more than 2 ½ hours.

The plot revolves around two young Catholic missionaries, Rodrigues (Adam Garfield) and Garupe (Adam Driver) who are sent to find an older mentor, Father Ferreira (at last, a serious role for Liam Neeson) in Japan. The Portuguese hierarchy has heard a tale they can’t believe - that Ferreira has denied the Faith - and they want the young priests to find out the truth. Rodrigues and Garupe realize the search will be dangerous because Japanese warlords are violently persecuting converts and missionaries.

They find small cells of recently baptized Catholics. They are hidden in caves and under constant fear of being betrayed to the evil Inquisitor, who will torture them unless they renounce their new religion. Kichijiro, a young fisherman with a drinking problem and a murky past, agrees to be their guide.

The bulk of the movie is a game of cat and mouse with the gleefully sadistic Inquisitor. Time and again Kichijiro betrays them to save himself. Since they need his help to find Ferreira, they always find reasons to forgive him.

As the violence and death mount, Rodrigues’s faith is tested. As despicable as the warlords are, he sees that they are just as bound to Buddhism as he is to Catholicism. He finally does find Ferreira, who has denounced the Church and even has a Japanese wife and daughter.

Rodrigues is confronted with the choice he has dreaded. Ferreira counsels him that faith doesn’t need to be expressed “one way or the other,” and it’s hubris to insist that the Catholic Church is God’s only salvation. For Rodrigues this is like wrestling the Devil.

The filming of Silence is just as sweeping as the philosophic ground it covers. The beauty of the ocean vistas and the Japanese landscape are in sharp contrast to the cruelty of the Inquisitor and his men. Scorcese is at the top of his game in this regard, but the film, like so many others, is too long. We understand quickly what the missionaries are confronting and the search for Ferreira seems endless. But when Rodrigues does find him, the resolution feels rushed, as if the director realized he needed to wrap things up in a hurry.

There are two outstanding performances. Andrew Garfield is able to be both a true believer and a reluctant skeptic, but rugged enough to convincingly withstand the physical and mental abuse by his Japanese foes. Yôsuke Kubozuka gets you to sympathize with the wily Kichijiro despite his despicable betrayals.

Silence is a fine film in many ways, but Scorsese’s ego as an auteur let him run too long in some places and skip rich ground in others. It’s still worth seeing for the cinematography alone; even more if you are intrigued by the thorny questions of belief it poses.

Grade: B

 

Toni Erdmann, written and directed by Maren Ade, 2h 42min

This very funny, eventually poignant German movie has been deservedly nominated for Best Foreign Film. Don’t be put off by the length. With so many humorous scenes, it flies by.

Toni Erdmann (Peter Simonischek) is the practical joking alter ego of Winfried Conradi. He likes nothing more than donning false teeth and an ill-fitting wig to the delight of some family members and to the everlasting shame of Ines (Sandra Hüller), his driven daughter, who is a consultant for the oil business.

Not surprisingly they have been estranged, but, after the death of his dog, Winfried decides to reconnect with her as Toni. He follows her to her office in Bucharest, and she begrudgingly lets him into her life. At a disastrous embassy party he asks his uptight daughter, “Are you human?” She counters, “Do you have any ambition beyond getting people to sit on a fart cushion?” At this point he agrees to leave Bucharest.

But not really. He shows up at a bar and introduces himself to her and her friends as a “life coach” and, crucially in Romania, a friend of "Tiriac," the one-time Davis Cup tennis player, and now successful entrepreneur.

She clings to her stressed-out demeanor, but he starts to wear her down. The first sign is when she laughs in the middle of a presentation to a Romanian oil executive. Toni has met some locals and told them he is the German ambassador. They know he is lying but invite him to a party anyway. He convinces Ines to come along, and, after she has a couple of drinks, he cajoles her into singing “The Greatest Love of All" (made famous by Whitney Houston). She starts hesitantly, but then launches into some off-key screeching, proving how Toni is getting through to her. Her metamorphosis is complete with the hysterical party she hosts at her apartment for the people who work for her.

Simonischek is priceless as Toni. He is funny throughout but also gives you glimpses of a thoughtfulness just below the surface. Hüller has a much more muted role, but is completely convincing as the depressed daughter distancing herself from a crazy parent.

After the party Toni, now really Winfried, counsels her, “If life is just about getting things done, it will pass you by.” Good advice in our breathless world.

Grade: A

Fences and Hidden Figures

Fences, written by August Wilson, directed by Denzel Washington, 2h 19 min

Your opinion of the film adaptation of August Wilson’s play Fences depends mainly on whether you think Denzel Washington succeeds in the lead role of Troy Maxson, the embittered, restless trash collector from the Hill District of Pittsburgh.

There are so many aspects of Troy’s personality that the role requires an actor with substantial range. Since Denzel appears in nearly every scene, you have plenty of time to evaluate him. While not the perfect Troy Maxson, he brings the required intensity. Along with the superb supporting cast, that makes Fences a gripping drama.

Maxson’s difficult life is revealed in the course of the film. After killing a man in the course of a robbery, he was sent to prison for 15 years. Later, his friend Bono (the fine character actor Stephen Henderson) inspired him to play baseball, and he became a star in the Negro Leagues. Because of the color barrier, he never made it to the Majors, and that perceived injustice still eats at him.

Most of the film centers on the Maxson home, much of it in their backyard, where, appropriately, Troy and his son Cory (Jovan Adepo) are building a fence. Troy’s wife Rose (Viola Davis) keeps a wary watch over them because of their constant conflict. With the close camera work in the confines of the limited sets, the intimacy of the play is recreated, as is the rawness of the emotions.

“Fences” is an all-pervasive metaphor. Fences keep outsiders from interfering in the family dynamic, but it pressurizes the Maxsons because they can’t escape, particularly Rose. There are barriers between them that Troy has built up. Because of his baseball experiences, he won’t allow Cory to play football, telling him it will never lead to anything. He won't help his son Lyons (Russell Hornsby) from a first marriage who wants to be a musician. Rose, despite her dogged love and support, is trapped by her husband's demands and anger. Only Troy is allowed any release, more and more frequently slipping away to bar that we never see.

Of course, there is the segregation of the era. Since Troy won’t allow himself to see that changing, he doesn’t believe he, or anyone, can overcome it. There is even an ironic baseball analogy: Troy was a good hitter, slugging balls over the fence; any thought of changing his current situation, or to swing for the fences, isn’t realistic.

The film hinges on Denzel’s portrayal of Troy. Although set in the 50’s, his dialect and facial expressions are sometimes exaggerated. Troy should have more sullen dignity, and Denzel seems, at times, to be hamming it up. Since he was also the film's director, he may not have had the perspective to dial this back.

Rose is a perfect role for Davis and she is a Best Supporting Actress nominee. In a brutal confrontation with Troy, her eyes streaming tears and her nose running, she cries out “What about me?” In fact, it’s the same question gnawing at Troy and Cory. All three are trying to overcome the fences that Troy and society have imposed.

Even with Denzel’s flaws as I see them, he does project a very vivid Troy and has been recognized as a Best Actor nominee. Along with the fine performances from Davis and the other supporting actors, Fences transcends its time and place to give the audience an intense experience and much to consider.

Grade: A-

 

Hidden Figures, directed by Theodore Melfi, 2h 8min

Coming out of this movie, you will say, like so many others, “Why have we never heard about this before?”

Hidden Figures tells the story of the African-American women who provided the data crunching and mathematical analysis for the early space program, That's right, the Mercury astronauts – Alan Shepard, Gus Grissom, John Glenn – that we all stopped class to watch on black and white TVs in grade school. These were the men whose images that we knew so well from Life and other magazines. 

This movie has the common disclaimer that it is “based on true events,” and there are liberties taken for dramatic effect. The basic story that a group of black women who were in many cases mathematical prodigies worked as “computers” is true. They were “computers” because there were no machine computers that could handle that amount of data. They even used slide rules, the ultimate geek status symbol back then.

In this early 60’s era the space program was based in the near Virginia suburbs of Washington, D. C. The film focusses on three of the black women who are relegated to their own room in another building away from where the white, male scientists work. Their white supervisor (Kirsten Dunst) gives them the numbers to crunch, and they crunch them - no questions asked. There is even a “Colored Only” bathroom. 

Then the white launch team, led by Al Harrison (the familiar Kevin Costner), finds an equation they can’t solve. While delivering computations Katherine Johnson (the versatile Taraji P. Henson) goes to the black board and quickly finds the solution. Octavia Spencer, her usual wry, determined self, plays Dorothy Vaughan, the unofficial supervisor of the other "computers." Her strong but understated performance has earned her a Best Supporting Actress nomination. The third of the trio is the sassy Janelle Monáe as Mary Jackson, who NASA eventually sends to engineering school.

After proving her mathematical chops, Johnson alone is allowed in the room with the white scientists, all in short-sleeve, white shirts with skinny, dark ties, and she quickly becomes a star. Her main handicap is that she still has to race a quarter mile back to the colored bathroom. When Costner finds out, he bravely rips down the “Whites Only” sign in the main building. Whether this aspect of the story is literally true doesn’t matter. The symbolism adds momentum to the wave of delight you experience as these women overcome prejudice and skepticism to take their rightful place among the other NASA employees.

The actual story of how these women came to be assimilated into the space program transpired over many years from the late forties to late fifties, and NASA was actually desegregated in 1958. That this all occurred before the glare of the civil rights movement and the Mercury launches may account for why this story was never covered more substantially. Compressing the timeline into the early years of the space program dramatizes but doesn’t distort their incredible accomplishments.

So be glad you now do know about these amazing women. Their portrayal makes for a sharp, entertaining movie that is also joyful and uplifting – no doom and gloom or sex and violence. It is possible!

Grade: A

Good to Fair

A Man Called Ove, written and directed by Hannes Holm, 1h 56min

You may have missed this very funny, even touching Swedish film that has been nominated for Best Foreign Film. It’s no longer in theaters, but you can get it on demand for $1!

Ove, played by the subtle and very funny Rolf Lassgård, is your classic cranky old man. Recently fired from his job, he enforces his neighborhood association’s rules with a dour demeanor. His only distraction is visiting his wife’s grave.

With no angst he reaches a very logical, if drastic, conclusion. His life is meaningless so he should end it. Ironically, this is the funny part. Just when he has stood on a chair and tightened the rope around his neck to hang himself, the doorbell rings. Looking annoyed, he removes the rope and answers the door.

It’s an Iranian family that has moved into the neighborhood, and they’ve dropped by to say hello. Exasperated, Ove is barely civil to them, but they are not discouraged. When he turns on his car in the garage or puts a shotgun to his head, they are at his door again, and he can’t finish the job.

It is not surprising that soon this family, especially the two children, becomes important to Ove and he rediscovers reasons to live. Hackneyed as that may sound, it’s Lassgård’s acting skill that gives this movie life. The humor is dark, but rich, and the supporting actors in the family, young and old, are perfect foils for the neighborhood grouch. Even Ove’s cat is funny.

Lassgård is just as good as Bill Murray was in St. Vincent. What a delight to find an unsung gem like this!

Grade: A-

 

The Founder, directed by John Lee Hancock, 1h 55min

It’s safe to say that everyone one of us has eaten at McDonald’s. The text epilogue to this film cites an incredible statistic: every day of the year McDonald’s feeds 1% of the world’s population! Whatever the nutritional value, Mickey D’s may be the world’s most recognized brand.

Even for our age group, it’s hard to remember when there wasn’t a McDonald’s close by. But most big companies (Exxon and Apple are good examples) have a messy start. This one is about the founding of McDonald’s and the man who made it renowned in this country and then the world - the nasty, cutthroat Ray Kroc.

In the beginning there was one hamburger stand, and two brothers named McDonald ran it. In those days leggy carhops on roller skates at drive-in hamburger joints were the rage. The teens that congregated there didn’t mind the slow service, because they just wanted to hang out; food and service were secondary. No one called it fast food back then.

The McDonald brothers changed all that. Using assembly-line techniques and a limited menu, the food was served faster than anyone had ever seen. They promoted themselves as a family restaurant, and it caught on quickly, at least in the very limited area of California where they had restaurants.

Then along comes Ray Kroc (the reliable, sometimes brilliant Michael Keaton). A 52-year old, Willy Loman type, Kroc wanted to sell the brothers a milk-shake machine, the latest in a line of dubious products he had pitched over the years. But Kroc saw the ingenuity of the McDonald’s system and quickly made a deal to help them expand.

And like all their subsequent deals, the brothers didn’t realize until it was too late that Kroc had out maneuvered them. His confidence snowballs, and the brother’s control over the name, even company symbols like the Golden Arches, gradually slips away.

The supporting actors are effective, particularly Nick Offerman and John Carroll Lynch as the brothers, but it is Keaton who shines as the mildly sympathetic bumbler that becomes the ruthless CEO of an enormously profitable company.

In his relentless drive for money and success, bitterly overdue in his mind, Kroc becomes soulless and unlikeable. Kudos to Keaton for taking on such an unsympathetic character. He plays Kroc so perfectly that you will walk out of the theater saying, “What a bastard!”

Grade: B+

 

 

Allied, directed by Robert Zemeckis, 2h 4min

Allied with heavy advertising and mega-star names created high expectations. It’s a decent movie with a provocative premise, but maybe not as good as you hoped it would be.

Max (Brad Pitt) is a Canadian spy ordered to work with Marianne (Marion Cotillard) of the French Resistance to assassinate the German Ambassador in Casablanca (wink, wink!). Although initially they realize getting involved could compromise the mission, it wouldn't be much of a movie if they didn’t.

Eventually they do marry, settle in London and have a baby girl. Then British Intelligence tells Max he has to find out whether Marianne is a German spy. If she is, he has to kill her or be tried for treason as her accomplice.

There are exciting moments, but the movie turns out to be more of a love story than a thriller. The problem is that you don’t get swept up in their relationship. Cotillard gives Marianne an intriguing combination of strength and confusion, so blame it on Pitt. He’s a handsome, stoic leading man, but with little emotional depth. At least they didn't have him muttering, “In all the gin joints …”

Grade: B

  

Rules Don’t Apply, written and directed by Warren Beatty, 2h 7min

This is only the second theatrical movie Warren Beatty has released since Bulworth in 1998. He’s rusty and it shows.

Apparently Beatty is fascinated with Howard Hughes and has always wanted to do a film about him. I’m not sure many of us still share that passion, and anyone younger certainly doesn’t. If you are interested, I’d recommend 2004’s The Aviator. Maybe Beatty needed to wait for over ten years so that Leonardo DiCaprio’s vivid portrayal of Hughes wouldn’t be so recent. Unfortunately, he waited too long for anyone to care.

The basic structure of the film is a bizarre love triangle between a young actress, a studio flunky, and Hughes. Beatty parades all of Hughes’s eccentricities, as well as his struggles to hold onto his father’s company, and his love for filmmaking and aviation. Unfortunately, he skips around so much that these plot points are never fully developed and the characters, including Hughes, seem shallow.

Rules Don’t Apply feels like a vanity project where no one could tell a legendary star what to cut or when to rewrite.

Grade: C-