Any filmgoers reading this blog will likely have numerous anecdotes about poor behaviour during films. I can remember as far back as 1989, during a screening of Sex, Lies and Videotape at the Showcase Cinema just outside Walsall, one particularly aggrieved fellow standing up mid-film to scream, “This. Movie. Is SHIT!” before storming out, presumably to ask for a refund seeing as how this wasn’t porn like he’d been promised. Since then I’ve experienced a spectrum of memorable audience reactions, from spontaneous bursts of applause to threats of violence if I dare to ask someone to shut up twenty minutes into Blade (no, I didn’t take him up on his offer of a fight; yes, sitting there for 70 minutes next to the same furious guy was a bit awkward).
Then there are the infamous festival reactions you hear of in Cannes and Venice; 22 minute ovations (surely unsustainable; does the audience delegate changing shifts of applauders to maintain the illusion?) or booing. Terrible behaviour, with the filmmakers in the room. The London Film Festival’s more polite than that, with only a mass walkout during Irreversible entering into LFF lore. Of course I’ve applauded after a movie (I nearly clapped my hands off after Black Swan), but I’ve resisted the urge to boo (though it was hard with Essential Killing and It’s Kind Of A Funny Story), and have yet to vomit (though it was a close call after Take Shelter). The audiences I’ve been a part of have similarly kept to the British code; polite applause then post-screening bile.
This year saw that change, and the unexpected sense of solidarity or outrage shown during the screenings of Helter Skelter and Compliance that I attended were among the most amusing things I’ve experienced at the LFF. Fashion photographer Mika Ninagawa‘s adaptation of Kyoko Okazaki’s manga Helter Skelter is a hit in Japan but has yet to get an international release schedule. For much of the movie I thought this was a shame, and was prepared to use SoC to promote it as hard as I could, especially to a number of people I know online who would find its commentary on feminism, sexuality, celebrity culture and the media’s exploitation of women fascinating. And then…
First thing’s first. Helter Skelter‘s protagonist, Lilico (played by model and musician Erika Sawajiri) is a model and budding actress, famous across Japan, beloved by teenage girls and one of the biggest stars in the stable of Hiroko Tada (Kaori Momoi). Her public persona is at odds with her true self; an egotistical, paranoid, sexually manipulative child-woman whose image has been manufactured by her manager to the point of changing her appearance using advanced cosmetic surgery techniques requiring drugs to prevent tissue rejection. Lilico treats everyone around her like dirt, especially her assistant Michiko Hata (Shinobu Terajima), who becomes embroiled in the model’s psychosexual meltdowns and descent into criminality.
Lilico’s mental and physical state deteriorates further once rival model Kozue Yoshikawa (US model Kiko Mizuhara) begins to surpass her success, leading her to make greater demands of those around her to consolidate her shrinking empire. Her choices become wilder, her psyche more fractured, while the police get closer to shutting down the clinic that has been keeping her image intact. By the end of the second act, Ninagawa’s movie has moved into a realm of berserk sexual fantasy that mimics the gaudy, sexually-charged cinema of De Palma, Argento and Almodovar, her imagery saturated with vivid crimson; All About Eve by way of Body Double, The Skin I Live In and Black Swan. If you know me, you’ll know I’m absolutely fine with that.
It was going great at this point. Lilico enlisting her assistant’s help in terrible crimes and creepy bondage sex games, having tantrums about her waning influence and fame, concocting sickening plans against her rivals; all gold. Sawajiri — a Japanese icon similarly suffering a dip in fortunes, as well as much gossiped-about health issues — plays Lilico brilliantly, giving this toweringly awful primadonna enough of an inner life that, between crimes, she’s almost sympathetic, humanised by the arrival of her sister and flashes of vulnerability, as well as the recognisable fear of obsolescence that we all feel. As for Ninagawa, even occasional rocky moments and overconfident flourishes seem to work, probably because the tale is familiar, and we can relax with it.
But it is not to be. Ninagawa proceeds to overbake her movie with a final half hour designed to break our endurance, offering a number of unsatisfying scenes all of which would make poor endings, but would at least have been an ending, instead of the patience-sapping, repetitious trudge we get. All good will deserted me from the moment Lilico finally met the pretentious cop who has been obsessing over her throughout (Nao Omori, unintentionally hilarious as the profundity-spouting Makoto Asada), in a scene shot in an aquarium that must have been at least two years long. My bodyclock melted, Dali-style, as the scene trickled onward, the dance of the shoal behind them hypnotising me into a trance, if trances can be considered “increasingly annoyed”.
Any points made by Ninagawa and screenwriter Arisa Kaneko about the cruelty of celebrity culture, and the damage caused by the passing fancies of a hungry public are repeated over and over again to decreasing effect. I wasn’t the only one who felt this way. As one subsequent scene faded to black, a woman behind me began half-heartedly applauding, only to stop when another scene started. Two scenes later, the screen again faded to black, only to come up again for yet another shot of Tokyo, triggering an outburst of “JESUS!” from the back of the room. When the credits finally rolled ten minutes later, no one applauded, probably waiting to be sure the credits wouldn’t stop for one last recap of the film’s theme.
I had intended to stay for the Q&A in order to ask Ninagawa who her influences were but I was so annoyed by this mood-tainting ordeal that I got out of there and raced across town to catch another screening instead (Blancanieves, which I didn’t like much either. That was a crap day). This misjudgement of the narrative’s sell-by date made me re-evaluate everything else about Helter Skelter. All the tonal mistakes and plot confusions from earlier were suddenly disastrous folly, not forgivable errors of an overly ambitious thriller. Even though I’d enjoyed Sawajiri’s hysterical performance, all I could remember after were the ponderous, risible scenes of Omori’s policeman staring out of a window talking about butterflies and ash or other cod-profound things.
And yet this audience reaction was nothing compared to that afforded Craig Zobel’s Compliance, a thriller based on real events (spoilers on that page, sort of). It tells of a put-upon fast food restaurant manager, Sandra (Ann Dowd), who receives a call from a policeman (Officer Daniels, superbly creepy work from Pat Healy) claiming that one of her staff, Becky (Dreama Walker), has stolen money from a customer. Already distracted because of concerns over a refrigerator mishap that may get her in trouble with her superiors, as well as a possible visit from one of the chain’s secret customers, Sandra takes the policeman’s claim at face value, despite her ambivalent feelings about Becky.
Officer Daniels makes numerous claims about not being able to come straight to the restaurant to interrogate Becky, but threatens that unless the staff do as he orders, she will be taken into custody. This threat is enough to make Becky commit an increasingly outlandish series of acts in order to placate the alternately charming / sinister policeman, all with the compliance of Sandra, who is so frazzled by pressure and fear that she begins to delegate the job of monitoring the young woman to other people, who also take the authority of the voice on the other end of the line at face value, so to speak. There follows a chain of events I’m loath to spoil.
By the midpoint of the film it’s obvious that Officer Daniels is not to be trusted, and the gullibility of the restaurant’s staff is shocking. But it’s easy for us to say that. After the film ended my main complaint was that it was simply unbelievable that any human would go along with the insane orders given by Daniels, which meant the most controversial and upsetting scene, which occurs late in the film, struck me as a step too far. And yet it all happened, even to the point that the Wikipedia page for this specific case (one of many) mentions a line from one of the actual participants that is included in the film (spoilers for the actual film, again).
There’s that old writing rule that even if something really happened, it doesn’t mean it will seem believable in a story, and this is no exception. But it did happen, and with that knowledge I can look back on Compliance with a clearer head, especially as, during the film, I experienced a cognitive meltdown so complete that I could hardly concentrate. The agonisingly slow pace of events, and the increasingly bizarre demands made on Becky, are almost too much to bear, made worse by Sandra’s cluelessness — Dowd is excellent, playing the manager as a deluded oaf whose well-meaning nature is overwhelmed by the threat of censure — and Becky’s youthful insecurity, meaning she barely has a voice, and certainly no agency at all.
This tension became too much to bear for our audience. As Sandra enlists her fiancee Van (Bill Camp) to help watch over Becky, the earlier hints that Officer Daniels has a much darker motive than we had feared become an actuality, and the audience rebelled. Someone at the back of the room shouted out something along the lines of, “You don’t have to just sit here and watch it, you know”; an admonition directed at us, not the characters onscreen. A couple of minutes later we heard, “That’s it, you have to leave now,” which could either have been security or the aggrieved viewer yelling at us again. Some audience members took this cue and got up; about thirty people left, with the rest of us openly grumbling and complaining at the events on the screen.
I asked the ushers afterwards what had happened; turns out some audience members had indeed been thrown out for causing a commotion. By now this audience rejection has become a common reaction to Zobel’s movie. As I came out I tweeted that the screening was extremely controversial, and thanks to @ScottEweinberg and @jamieandaston my words reached the ears of Officer Daniels himself, Mr. @Pat_Healy, who revealed that there had been similar problems at an SAG screening, not to mention the notoriously contentious post-movie Q&A at the Sundance Film Festival, which saw audience members argue with Zobel and the cast. This IndieWire article comments on Zobel’s intentions, listing other experiences of audience rebellion during the movie.
An excellent publicity stunt? As much as I’d like to say I would never behave like those audience members (and I didn’t), at numerous points in the movie I really did want to stand up and scream at the screen. Even Bigas Luna’s (literally) hypnotic Anguish didn’t affect me like that. The degradation of Becky by regular people who don’t have the courage to reject Daniels’ authority is so relentless that it feels like you’re having an electrical wire dragged across your nerves, especially as you are compelled to place yourself in that situation and think, “I wouldn’t do that”. The audience engages in a kind of combat with the film; we expect our good sense to prevail, but it doesn’t. The result is unbearable frustration, as Zobel intended.
The infamous Milgram experiments have shown that we are likely to respond to orders from authoritative individuals in ways that bypass our own sense of morality, leading to us doing terrible things. Zobel adds an extra layer by making the audience “complicit” in the events onscreen by daring us to stay in our seats as the lengthy debasement of Becky — cleverly played by Walker as a blank slate in some scenes and as a terrified, emotional human in others — begins to reach a point at which we will be forced to see things we don’t want to see. As Richard Corliss says here, this is a movie that works best when you’re trapped in a cinema, and turning the film off with the click of a button isn’t an option.
Some have said that Compliance‘s tricks are not enlightening, with some complaining that this is voyeurism with no purpose. Why put yourself through it? Is Zobel merely playing a Derren Brown prank on the audience just for laughs? Is this just a cruel game? While enduring the movie I thought back to the most chilling scene in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, in which we watch Henry and Otis murder a family, and then realise we are watching a video of the murder that they have recorded so that they too can rewatch it and enjoy it; our voyeurism thrown back in our faces. Michael Haneke’s Funny Games is often cited as another influence on Compliance, though I haven’t found the courage to watch either version of it so I can’t say with authority.
But beyond the movie references, the person I kept thinking about was Lynndie England, whose disgusting acts in Abu Ghraib were explained by her as responses to orders from above. And not just her. As Zobel says, people are more likely to do terrible things when forced into a corner, or threatened with the loss of a job, or other forms of extreme official censure. “Some people have to eat shit for their jobs because they need the money,” he says, and this rings so true it hurts. I’m terrified of losing my job, knowing that there’s very little else out there. You don’t need anything as extreme as the fear of death or terrorism to make you accept loss of liberty or privacy; you just have to think about being broke and unemployed. That fear keeps me up at night.
What some see as cruelty, or games played on the audience to see how much discomfort they will swallow before walking out of a movie, Zobel is forcing us to look at our behaviour, waking us up to the sudden dip in critical thinking we face when threatened with loss of liberty. Post-9/11, post-financial-meltdown, we’re all more vulnerable, not only to danger or poverty in the real world, but to the change of view in which we accept privation or tyranny in order to maintain our status quo. Our civil liberties are being eroded every day, and sometimes we’re even complicit in this, using the internet to publicise details about ourselves without care (Daniels’ actions also smack of the most extreme form of trolling; Zobel might be making a point about that too).
Helter Skelter attempts to make the audience think about its complicity in the celebrity culture, making demands of stars that we build up and knock down almost as a game. These people are twisted by the passing fancies of the crowd, the chattering teenage girls who obsess over their idols and they cast them aside as soon as a new model comes along. Ninagawa does her best to express our part in this cruelty, but either through poor storytelling or some cultural barrier that I can’t get past Helter Skelter fails to make an emotional connection between the idea and our perception of ourselves, and as such is merely a garish exercise in hand-wringing, made worse by the movie’s lack of focus or resolute endpoint.
Compliance, on the other hand, brilliantly portrays recognisable humans doing terrible things out of fear and, by making us a part of that crime, reveals to us how close we are to becoming drones, our autonomy forever sacrificed because we don’t have the mental energy to think past the noise of the world we live in. This isn’t a movie about movie violence, like Henry and (so I gather) Funny Games; this is about the real world, and the way we have mutely accepted our own degradation. The precariousness of our situation in an economy as fragile as this has led to a situation where we can be easily manipulated by anyone, and Compliance makes that point personal by playing with our expectations. It’s a needle that prods us until we snap.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” said Ben Franklin, and Zobel’s deeply upsetting but essential movie is arguably the most rigorous depiction in recent times of that concept, and the consequences of our ignorance / denial of our part in our own enslavement. My reaction to Compliance was so visceral that I’m tempted to say that it’s the most important film of the year. Perhaps that’s a bit too “poster quote”. However I have no qualms about saying it’s the one that will make you the most uncomfortable, intentionally rubbing its point in the audience’s face until it screams “UNCLE” and bolts for the door. See it in a room full of people, and prepare for fireworks.
Traditionally this is one of those periods in the year when I get obnoxiously, nerdily excited about something many discerning film buffs dismiss as irrelevant: the Academy Awards, where overpaid buffoons receive the acceptance of their similarly overpaid buffoonish peers in the form of a gilded trinket. My enjoyment of this ceremony and all of the nonsense surrounding it flies in the face of serious film criticism, but then so does my love of garish and noisy explodofilms, and I guess that means I’ll never get that job at Sight & Sound, WOEZ.
This year is a bit different. Aside from a blip caused by this excellent and informative Tom Shone piece about the Academy voters, RL problems have taken some of the steam out of my usual preparation for the ceremony, and we won’t even be having our traditional Oscar party this year, where a bunch of lovely folks come around to eat Pringles, set off party poppers at 4 in the morning (::panics::), and shout insults at the thoroughly dreadful Sky Movies Oscar show presenters Claudia “I haven’t seen it yet” Winkleman and Mark “I haven’t seen it either but I bet it’s crap” Dolan. Sorry guys, it would have been fun, even with those endless Moet-sponsored inserts from England. Besides, would there be anything quite as thrilling as this in this year’s ceremony? I think not.)
Maybe it’s a lucky escape for all of us. Watching the ceremony is seriously damaged by enduring these ninnies wonk on about things they do not understand. Watching the Golden Globes earlier this year was a truly disheartening experience, the only entertaining aspect of it being Jessica Stevenson-Hynes cashing a paycheck for turning up at the studio and then crocheting for four hours (seriously, she just got her crocheting equipment out and got on with it) while Sky’s fashion correspondent and that stand-up comedian who looks like he’s taking a break from getting rejected by hot girls at fresher’s week blithered on about how The King’s Speech has to win everything just because it’s British and if it fails we’ll all die because our self-worth has somehow become inextricably linked with its baffling worldwide success.
Maybe that’s another reason why I’m not looking forward to the ceremony as much as usual. For the illumination of readers who live outside the UK, it’s fair to point out that all you hear about right now is King’s Speech King’s Speech King’s Speech 24/fucking/7, and it’s ruining my enjoyment of everything. It’s not a terrible movie, per se. It’s just unsurprising and overdirected. British movies revel in these “loser overcomes adversity” plots, applying them to every subject imaginable, though at least we can be glad Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush didn’t have to end up naked like the cast of The Full Monty or Calendar Girls. King’s Speech is no exception to this reliance on the rote and cliched plot template, though much of my irkety feelings about the damnable box office colossus is aimed at the final scene.
Audiences across the country might be weeping openly at King Thingy’s triumphant pronunciation of “thet scahhndrel Mestah Hetlah”, but the scene is so badly edited it really does seem like Tom “Off-Kilter Composition” Hooper is saying the final speech was delivered with such adversity-conquering power that Britain went insane with joy at their monarch getting it finished in a reasonable amount of time, instead of thinking “Oh shit, we’re going to war and we’re going to be bombed to blood-drenched ribbons and our sons are either going to die or be traumatised for the rest of their lives, oh God, oh God, oh God.” No no, our lips were too stiff for all that: huzzah for our imperial leader’s newfound confidence! That’ll make digging an Anderson shelter in the back yard and living on birdseed and gravel for ten years all the more fun.
Which is not to say I hated it entirely. It’s pretty difficult not to enjoy the seemingly now-legendary performance from Colin Firth, who is commendably spiky and unlovable as the spiky and unlovable monarch. The cast is generally very good, though Guy Pierce’s accent is hilariously distracting and Timothy Spall’s genial take on Churchill is a poor choice. It would have been much better had it been directed by someone who wasn’t so eager to draw attention to his work. Mr. Hooper, please stop with the maddening camera-frippery please please please. Your first movie – the far superior Damned United – was similarly marred by showy compositions, and it just makes you look a bit silly. You’re never going to have to go back to directing episodes of EastEnders now, so you don’t have to prove you’re the next Orson Welles. And look! Mark Lawson thinks that your time in the TV trenches makes you and your partner-in-overcompensating-visual-splurge Danny Boyle more capable than David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky! So congrats, one temporarily senile media pundit says that you’ve made it. Now please use the centre of the frame like a grown-up, okay?
So yeah, the worrying possibility of a King’s Sweep has soured me on the awards this year. I’m not crazy enough to assume that my favourites of the year – Black Swan and Inception – would win much, but I’d be perfectly happy with The Social Network winning a bunch of stuff. The topicality of it has made many see it as a movie that will date badly, but I think it says enough about our approach to relationships and interactions that it will fare better than previous tech-movies (who can watch, say, War Games and not laugh at the LP-sized floppy discs). I’m also hoping for some love to be thrown at The Kids Are All Right: it can be dismissed as light indie fare but I think it’s a better crafted movie than that, and earns all of its emotional payoffs with enough invisibly deployed effort that many US indie movies of the past few years couldn’t even begin to imagine. I’d also be very happy to see a surprise deluge of naked gold men all over the Coen Brothers’ triumphant True Grit, a film that ranks up there with their very best.
My sourer impulses hope for a shut-out of ADHD Boyle’s predictably empty 127 Hours, which is little more than a grisly advert for Humanity that relies almost exclusively on Sigur Ros’ Festival to generate any emotion amid the frenetic and mostly random frame-shuffle: classic Boyle, then. Despite my adoration of James Franco (so, so good here, and very amusing in his Green Hornet cameo), there’s little else to praise in 127 Hours. Oh, the photography is very nice. But still, Boyle has even less to say here than usual: the message of the movie seems to be “don’t die if you can help it, and be a little nicer to your mom”. Okay, thanks for the advice, go away now. It would also be nice to see Alice in Wonderland receive none of the technical awards it was nominated for just because I hate it so much (and yes, I’m using hate in the non-hyperbolic sense that I actually do hate it: properly hate it and get red-mist-angry whenever I think about it), but the technical categories were the only ones where I thought it was worthy of praise. That’s a tough one that won’t matter at all as I doubt it will win anything even though the Academy likes to pat successful movies on the head for being profitable, no matter how inexplicable or undeserving that success is.
So anyway, who do I think will win, and who do I think should win, and who do I think was unfairly shut out? See below for further details.
Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Who Will Win: Colin Firth – The King’s Speech
Fairly obvious. His ascendance to Oscar glory wasn’t even damaged by the weird attempt by some unscrupulous scoundrel to stymie him by pointing out that King Whats-His-Name was a huge fan of Hitler (he had all of his albums, even his ill-advised dubstep experiment Das Reichbeat). The only thing that could stop Mr. Firth from winning this year would be for him to reveal he used a stunt double in THAT SCENE in Pride and Prejudice as he didn’t want to get his britches wet.
Who Should Win: Colin Firth – The King’s Speech
I used to be a Colin Firth agnostic, but this performance – and his adorable humility in the face of overwhelming praise – has made a believer of me. I’ll be just as pleased at his inevitable win as all of the journalists who will be able to print “GOD SAVE THE KING!” on the front page on Monday morning.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Ben Stiller – Greenberg
I don’t think anyone nominated this year should be excluded. Even the fact that Biutiful is an appalling movie can take anything away from Javier Bardem’s impressive work. Nevertheless, I think Stiller’s bold and detailed performance deserves more praise than it got. Ah well.
Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Who Will Win: Geoffrey Rush – The King’s Speech
I think the initial rush of enthusiasm for Christian Bale’s bold work in David O. Russell’s annoyingly conventional The Fighter has passed, though not because of anything Bale did or didn’t do (though not taking out ads of himself with his current Jesus ‘do with the word “Consider…” above it was a good move, ahem ahem). The Weinsteins are going all out with the promotion for The King’s Speech, as they always do, and I think it will swing it for Rush. Which is no crime. He’s very entertaining in that movie, though he sadly does not top his most towering and haunting performance as Casanova Frankenstein in Mystery Men.
Who Should Win: Christian Bale – The Fighter
But seriously, Bale’s performance is more than worthy of the nod. After a couple of years of harassing cinematographers and being overshadowed by his co-stars, this amazing transformation into a haunted and hyperactive loser on a redemptive path is initially showy enough to attract attention but allows for the development of quiet notes later in the movie that knocked my socks off. It reminded me of why I was thrilled when I heard he was going to be Christopher Nolan’s Batman many years ago: because he’s a really, really talented actor and has incredible screen presence when given some room to breathe. That is the main reason I’m not shouting from the rooftops about John Hawkes, who will surely now get the work he deserves after wowing us as the amoral scumbag Teardrop Dolly in Winter’s Bone.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Zach Galafianakis – It’s Kind of a Funny Story
As feeble as this movie is, Galafianakis’ unshowy stillness in the centre is the only thing that stays in the memory after the credits roll. I would have been miffed to see Fleck and Boden’s twee failure be recognised, but it would have been worth it to see Galafianakis receive his due (and not Due Date, which is what the poor bastard ended up with).
Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Who Will Win: Natalie Portman – Black Swan
This is possibly the strongest category this year, and yet there is still a frontrunner. While everyone else is preparing bunting for King Colin, I’m expending all of my energy rooting for Natalie. Let’s hope No Strings Attached isn’t her Norbit.
Who Should Win: Natalie Portman – Black Swan
I was impressed by all of the performances in this category (and was especially glad to see Nicole Kidman remind us of why she is such a fascinating actress with some very strong work in the heartbreaking Rabbit Hole), but even so, there is only one that can win. I think the only people who would be more upset if she lost would be all of the Marvel marketing folks who will have prepared countless Thor posters bragging that it stars two Academy-Award-winning actors (and Kat Dennings) in its line-up.
Who Should Have Been Nominated:
Let’s see: Catherine Keener for Please Give, Kristin Scott Thomas for Partir, Rachel Weisz for Agora, Greta Gerwig for Greenberg, Carey Mulligan for Never Let Me Go, Emma Stone for Easy A (I’m 100% serious), Julianne Moore for The Kids Are All Right (it would split the vote against Annette Bening, but it would have been nice anyway), Marion Cotillard for Inception, Angelika Papoulia in Dogtooth… The list goes on and on. What a year for incredible performances from actresses.
Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Who Will Win: Helena Bonham Carter – The King’s Speech
You’ll note a trend developing here. I’m really convinced there’s going to be a landslide for The King’s Speech, certainly in the top tiers, and this – or a win for Geoffrey Rush – would be the first sign that Hollywood has gone Monarchy-Mad. Melissa Leo screwed the pooch with her ill-considered campaign (though if she felt the Paramount marketing department were letting her down she’s perfectly entitled to do something about it, I guess), and it’s going to cost her. Plus her performance was really cartoony: even more so than Bonham Carter’s silly Queen Mom with her clipped tones and humourlessness and no mention of all that Nazi sympathising, of course.
Who Should Win: Hailee Steinfeld – True Grit
I guess? I don’t know, this is a tough category. I don’t think I loved any of the performances here (whereas the best actress category is overloaded with greatness), though I haven’t seen Jacki Weaver’s work in Animal Kingdom (released in the UK two days ago FFS). I did enjoy Steinfeld’s funny turn in True Grit, and if Bridges isn’t going to win (and Matt Damon isn’t even going to be nominated, which is bullshit), then this is where the acting praise should fall. Amy Adams was okay in The Fighter, but I’m never very keen on seeing her play working class folks (don’t get me started on Junebug). So yeah, Steinfeld gets my vote and a shrug.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Olivia Williams – The Ghost (Writer)
Ms. Williams was almost obscenely entertaining as the sour and unpredictable wife of Fierce Pierce’s puppet PM, but perhaps appearing in a thriller was enough to make the voters ignore her. Or maybe there was no effort to lobby for her nomination. Whatever the reason was, it’s a crime. See also a lack of nominations for Dale Dickey in Winter’s Bone (so terrifying) and Rebecca Hall in Please Give.
Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
What Will Win: Toy Story 3
Is there any question? I haven’t seen The Illusionist, even though I liked Chomet’s Belleville Rendezvous quite a bit when I first saw it, and so can’t attest to its quality, but even so, Toy Story 3 is one of the richest, smartest, and cleverest films of the year, as well as being the cruellest. In a good way, obviously. Cheerleaders for The Illusionist still hope for a surprise, but it’s not going to happen. This is Pixar’s year. Again.
What Should Win: Toy Story 3
See above. I’m still getting over it. Lee Unkrich and Michael Arndt owe me some new tear ducts.
What Should Have Been Nominated: Tangled / Megamind / Summer Wars
It’s a shame they didn’t expand the list to five nominees this year, because while 2010 might not have been as impressive as the previous year for animation, it was still pretty great, even if only for Walt Disney Animation’s phenomenal Tangled. It was deemed worthy of a Best Original Song nod but nothing else? Even with only three nominations I’d place this above How To Train Your Dragon which, I should stress, I liked a great deal. That said, I preferred Dreamworks Animation’s other big release of the year, the irreverent but surprisingly affecting superhero comedy Megamind. It would also have been nice to see Mamoru Hosodo’s paean to family life and the power of technology get on the list, but I realise that I’m now asking for the moon on a stick.
Achievement in Art Direction
Who Will Win: Eve Stewart and Judy Farr – The King’s Speech
In years past I’ve grown frustrated with the habit of awarding this Oscar to the movie with the stateliest stately home, mostly because I prefer the flash of a fully designed set to the stultifying idea of sitting in an antiques shop trying to find the right vase for a specific period. I suspect I’m not alone in this: everyone who loves film remembers the name Ken Adams, but does anyone remember the names of the (very talented, I’m sure) production designers and set decorators on any randomly chosen period drama from the Great British Period Drama Machine? Still, King’s Speech is bound to win this, with the grungy basement studio of Lionel Logue providing the only interesting set in the whole worthy film. Only Jess Gonchor’s designs for True Grit stand a chance of beating it, which would be nice, as I’ve enjoyed her work before now.
Who Should Win: Guy Hendrix Dyas, Larry Dias and Doug Mowat – Inception
I suspect I’m only saying this because I love the idea of a rotating set so much, but I did think Inception had some lovely sets, including the team’s ramshackle workspace, the grimy first level of the dream and the demolished hotel room in Cobb’s subconscious. Or maybe I think True Grit should win it. I’ll have to ponder that one. (No I won’t. This is bloody exhausting. There are, like, a million categories!)
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Dante Ferretti – Shutter Island
Martin Scorsese’s energetic movie may have been muddled and unfortunately stuck with the most glaringly obvious “twist” ending imaginable, but it as a technical exercise in ramping up suspense it was well worth the effort. On top of that it looked the BUSINESS. Part of that was Dante Ferretti’s brilliant production design, a highlight being the asylum on the eponymous island with its intricate nightmarish dungeons, plucked straight from the recesses of Hitchcock’s subconscious. Shutter Island may not have been a total success, partly because the movie serves the twist and not the other way around (for an hour nothing makes sense in order to hide the ending from the audience: a lethal narrative choice), but hell, it got no nominations, even in the technical categories? I guess the Academy figured that after Scorsese won for The Departed they could just forget about him.
Achievement in Cinematography
Who Will Win: Roger Deakins – True Grit
King Deakins amazes again! They should just have an award ready for him every year, and then another one for best runner-up. Truly lovely and textured work, a joy to behold. LOVE!
Who Should Win: Roger Deakins – True Grit
It’s a strong category, but even though I liked almost all of the work here (with the exception of The King’s Speech, though I blame Tom Hooper for that, not Danny Cohen), it has to go to Deakins.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Shelly Johnson – The Wolfman
As weak as that film was, it was so beautiful it was almost possible to completely ignore the phoned-in performances and creaky shock-jumps. Johnson took the black-and-white photography of the original Universal monster movies as a starting point and created a beautiful modern update with flickering shadows, delicate bounced light and an almost monochrome palette that allowed the blood to stand out in all its grisly glory. It reminded me of Emmanuel Lubezki’s terrific work on Sleepy Hollow (a film released in one of the strongest ever years for cinematography, with Conrad Hall and Dante Spinotti excelling on American Beauty and The Insider respectively).
Achievement in Costume Design
Who Will Win: Jenny Beaven – The King’s Speech
I’m actually just saying King’s Speech now as a form of temper tantrum. I’m actually not sure it will win (True Grit is a likely winner too), but I dread its dominance so much everywhere I look I see some obnoxious fish-eye close up of King Colin swallowing noisily. Ugh, I’m beginning to hate the fucking thing.
Who Should Win: Sandy Powell – The Tempest
I haven’t seen it, but I’d imagine Julie Taymor would ask her collaborator to come up with something a little more interesting than something based on a design hanging in a museum somewhere. [/bitter]
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Penny Rose – Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
This misfiring Bruckheimer game adaptation managed too look great despite Mike Newell’s seeming indifference (I expected more from him: maybe the focus groups ruined it, or perhaps the scale of it was too overwhelming to allow space to breathe). Part of that was Ms. Rose’s lovely designs. As I know nothing about clothes I won’t embarrass myself by trying to explain why I liked them so much. I just thought everyone looked really cool. Maybe I should rename this blog I Can’t Believe It’s Not Film Criticism.
Achievement in Directing
Who Will Win: David Fincher – The Social Network
At last I suspect the grim claws of the Weinsteins will loosen a little, and sanity will prevail, though part of me (the miserable pessimistic part) fears Hooper will win and then deliver his speech just to the side of the podium, facing the wrong side of the stage. But no, surely Fincher will finally get his trophy. Surely! The alternative is too depressing to comprehend: a Hooper win and Fincher following up The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo with a Driving Miss Daisy remake starring Brad Pitt as Miss Daisy and Jodie Foster taking on the role of kindly chauffeur/slave Hoke in order to appeal to the addle-brained sentimental twits who are ruining movies for everyone. Because come on, what the hell does one of the most impressive and intelligent directors to come out of America in the last twenty years have to do to get a goddamn Oscar? ::looks at Best Director snubs in the past:: Never mind.
Who Should Win: Darren Aronofsky – Black Swan
After all that I may seem like I’m being contrary, but while I thought Fincher did astounding work wrestling with Aaron Sorkin’s verbal splurge, my heart belongs to Aronofsky this year. Regular readers will be praying for me not to lose my head over Black Swan again, after writing an absurdly hyperbolic review last year, so I’ll leave it there.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Christopher Nolan – Inception
A no-brainer, surely. His ambitious screenplay has been attacked for being exposition-heavy, though there are those of us who think the exposition was actually pretty elegant considering he had to front-load the movie with about a million pages-worth of universe-explaining rules in order to make that amazing final half flow so smoothly. Whatever side of that divide you come down on, I would’ve thought only the movie’s most vocal detractors would think Nolan doesn’t deserve something for creating something so singular and odd and appealing despite being a total left-brain project without all of that lovely heart that apparently all movies require nowadays.
Hence the inclusion of Tom Hooper and David O. Russell on the list. Yes, though I love Russell’s previous work his direction of The Fighter was disappointingly straight-forward here. It would be crazy to expect his usual quirkiness considering the formulaic nature of the sports movie, but Aronofsky found a way to make The Wrestler seem uniquely his. Conspiracy theories about Russell attempting to store some mainstream capital after the Nailed debacle seem more and more justified. (For the record, I liked The Fighter well enough — I’m a sucker for boxing movies, it seems — and it was well-performed. It was just kinda flat, is all.)
Best Documentary Feature
What Will Win: Waste Land
Apparently it”s emotional and universally well-liked, so why not? As with many of the categories to come, this is a bit outside my wheel-house, so I’m guessing here. I’ve only seen Restrepo, which is a solidly made and very depressing movie, but I don’t think it will win: war is so last decade. Same with Inside Job, which I think may alienate a lot of the voters. But what do I know? I don’t even know what Gasland is about, and haven’t bothered with Banksy’s movie even though everyone loves it.
What Should Win:
Okay, I promise I’ll make more of an effort next year, because this is always a bit embarrassing. Why don’t I watch more documentaries? I really like them, so there’s not even an excuse.
What Should Have Been Nominated:
::depressed silence::
Best Documentary Short Subject
What Will Win: The Warriors of Qiugang
Is it bad that I’m only picking this because it sounds like it could be an action movie starring Donnie Yen? (Answer: yes, you twat.)
Who Should Win:
As I haven’t seen any of the nominees in this category, it’s best I just walk away before I embarrass myself further.
Achievement in Film Editing
Who Will Win: Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter – The Social Network
Some great work here, taking the excellently paced performances and making them shine, keeping the pace up. The barrage of information should be overwhelming, but Wall and Baxter control it perfectly. Not since Oliver Stone’s JFK have I been so impressed by the way the audience is guided through choppy waters by an editing team.
Who Should Win: Andrew Weisblum – Black Swan
However I think this just pips it just because Black Swan is so immersive and exhausting. It’s a technically perfect movie, and I would love to see everyone involved on the tech side of the movie get their reward.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Inception
I would have thought this was a certainty, as well-liked action movies often get a cursory editing nomination as a sop to the filmmakers who won’t see any other award love during the night, but apparently this doesn’t warrant a mention, even considering there is so much information to impart that if it hadn’t been edited as clearly and cleverly as it did the whole thing would have fallen apart. This might be the most inexplicable snub of the night, other than the sound awards, which I will get to in good time. (Note: I don’t just think editing a movie well is a matter of getting all of the footage in the right order, but it’s worth noting that two of this year’s best films were very info-heavy and relied on steady hands and smart decisions in the editing room to keep the audience onboard.)
Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
What Will Win: In a Better World
I know nothing about this as it hasn’t even been released in the UK yet, but I’ve heard chatter about it from better critics than I who have caught it at festivals. Choosing this feels right: how often does the foreign language award go to the best known movie nominated? It’s always something I’ve never heard of. It’s science.
What Should Win: Dogtooth
Yes, I’m picking this as I’ve seen it, but also because it is amazing. Will it win? Will it bollocks. Too upsetting and daring to gather votes, but it’s okay, I won’t cry. Just as long as the execrable Biutiful loses, I’ll be happy.
What Should Have Been Nominated: A Serbian Film
Kidding! Except not, because it is good. Unwatchably horrific, but good. Even more depressing than Biutiful, in fact. Isn’t that why people like that artfully-presented chunk of sentimental crap? (Okay okay, I’ll drop it now.)
Achievement in Makeup
Who Will Win: Rick Baker and Dave Elsey – The Wolfman
It’s Rick Baker, bitches! I have no idea how good the work is on the other movies nominated, but I do know the effects here are just fab. Almost as good as Baker’s ground-breaking work on American Werewolf in London.
Who Should Win: Rick Baker and Dave Elsey – The Wolfman
See above. Yes, I would like Peter Weir’s first movie since the mighty Master and Commander to win something, but come on! A werewolf movie! It’s the make-up genre. Surely werewolf movies should win every year. They have to put a ton of hair and teeth on people’s faces! That shit is hard, you know.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Black Swan
It’s the only film I can think of that had any notable make-up in it, so I plump for that one. Red contact lenses and shoulder feathers are this year’s hottest new look.
Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Score)
Who Will Win: Alexandre Desplat – The King’s Speech
One of the few things I really liked about King’s Speech was the traditional terrific soundtrack from Mr. Desplat, who is surely the most talented man in the world whose name almost decribes the sound made when a tomato falls on the floor. It might not be as good as his wonderful work on Fantastic Mr. Fox or Birth (surely his masterpiece), but it’s still worthy of admiration. (Caveat, there’s a good chance Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross will win if Speech is starting to rack up the wins and Social Network is suddenly found wanting. I’m tempted to suggest that this award will be crucial in determining who will win the most big awards on the night, but I suspect I’m overthinking it.)
Who Should Win: Hans Zimmer – Inception
Though my choice will anger at least one Facebook friend who maintains the music doesn’t work as a movie score at all (back off, Johnny May), I still maintain Zimmer’s conceptually bold and pulse-quickening score is one of the all-time greats. The fact that it references the On Her Majesty’s Secret Service score by the much-missed John Barry cements it for me. There could well be an upset on the night.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Clint Mansell – Black Swan
Dear Academy voters, yes, Britain is sorry about the whole Pop Will Eat Itself thing, they were not great, but Clint Mansell has apparently turned out to be a massive music genius and we’d really appreciate it if you throw him some love. Fourteen thousand trailers using his music can’t be wrong. Cheers, Admiral Neck. (Yes, I know, it wasn’t eligible because it referenced Tchaikovsky’s ballet so directly, but even so, it looms over almost everything else recorded this year like a bulging ballet-dancer’s groin filled with violins and such.
Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Song)
What Will Win: We Belong Together (Randy Newman) – Toy Story 3
Surely the only way the Academy can honour the majesty of Toy Story 3 is to hand another award out for this terrific, heart-flensing ditty from the maestro. All three films have featured a wonderful song: the benefit of this one is that it’s actually possible to listen to it, unlike When She Loved Me, which is still the most lethal piece of music ever recorded.
What Should Win: I See the Light (Alan Menken and Glenn Slater) – Tangled
The highlight of Walt Disney Animation’s lovely fairy tale Tangled is this soaring love song fit to rival Aladdin‘s A Whole New World for combining emotion, theme and imagery with such satifying skill. It’s the centerpiece of the movie, and seriously folks, if you hear people dismissing 3D or IMAX, this is the scene to quell the doubts. The combination of visuals and thematically resonant storytelling is one of Shades of Caruso’s favourite cinema moments in years. Sorry Randy, I want that moment GILDED by the Academy.
What Should Have Been Nominated: I’ve Got A Dream (Alan Menken and Glenn Slater) – Tangled
As the rules for this category state that a movie can have up to two songs nominated, I would have loved to see a nomination for the other showstopper from the truly magical Tangled (seriously I LOVED IT). It’s silly and broad, but it’s a proper crowdpleaser, sending audiences full of kids into all sorts of gurgling paroxysms: the sort of behaviour that usually annoys a grouchy bastard like myself but merely added to the fun in this case, because Tangled is such a joyous movie. I’m going to keep banging on about this one, so get used to it!
Best Motion Picture of the Year
What Will Win: The King’s Speech
What Should Win: Black Swan
In no world would this get the requisite amount of votes, unless there is a Fringe-style alternated universe where Paul Verhoeven, Dario Argento and David Cronenberg are treated with the fawning respect they deserve. As I’ve said before, I won’t go on about it as I’ve already exhausted reader goodwill, and I will add the caveat that a win for Social Network would please me almost as much, but I just don’t think we’re going to get either. It’s especially frustrating as The Social Network has been “in the lead” for so long, but something tells me the bubble has burst thanks to Harvey “Wilson Fisk” Weinstein’s usual obnoxious efforts. Or maybe it was that Screen Actors Guild win. It’s Crash all over again!!!
What Should Have Been Nominated: Please Give
Yes, only a few people watched it, but my other suggestion for this spot – Agora – was watched by even fewer. I seem to recall a burble of positive notices when this came out but by the end of the year no one remembered. I blame The King’s Speech. [/irrational]
Best Animated Short Film
What Will Win: Day and Night – Teddy Newton for Pixar
Yes, it’s the only one I’ve seen, but I’d be surprised if anything else won. It’s a memorable and imaginative piece of genius.
What Should Win:
It’s not fair to speculate, having not seen anything else (I really want to see The Lost Thing, having loved Shaun Tan’s work in the past), and I can’t think of any other short that should have been animated, so let’s move on.
Best Live Action Short Film
What Will Win: Wish 143
I have no idea if any of these are any good, and am only selecting this one as I’ve heard a lot about it this week (from the predictably patriotic papers that are thrilled to bitsies every time a Brit gets nominated for anything that isn’t a technical award, which is a bugbear of mine), plus the making of it has a story that will appeal to voters. I’m sure it’s very good on top of all this strategic thinking.
What Should Win:
Again I haven’t seen any of the other movies, so I won’t predict. Usually I rely on friend-of-the-blog Mim for help on these matters as she is connected, but I haven’t had a chance to talk to her about it lately. She has better things to do than give me tips about short movies.
Achievement in sound editing
Who Will Win: Skip Lievsay and Craig Berkey – True Grit
Part of the reason I’m adding this is the old standby of “Well, they have to honour it somewhere”, but also because the Coens always go the extra mile to make their movies completely distinct from everything else out there, and hiring Lievsay and Berkey to provide a new Western soundscape to distinguish this from every other Western in recent years was a shrewd choice.
Who Should Win: Richard King – Inception
Inception’s freshness was partly down to the imaginative choices made by King: the distorted music cues, the swish of the dream machine, the crisp gun battles and explosions. This is probably just as likely to win as True Grit, but I suspect the voters will want to hand the award to someone shoring up a genre seen to be in decline as it is to praise the new. Not to disparage anyone’s work here: it’s another strong category, though with one egregious omission…
What Should Have Been Nominated: Black Swan
Seriously, what the FUCK happened here? How could Craig Henigan’s amazing sound design and mix get missed off the roster? There were a lot of misses this year that caused some headscratching, but this is possibly the most baffling. The sound work on Black Swan was absolutely exemplary, and there is just no excuse for this snub. Okay, yes, the other nominees deserved their nods, but surely something could have been moved for this. I guess it’s a good job I’ll never be asked to join the Academy, because omissions like this make me wonder if I would fit in.
Achievement in sound mixing
Who Will Win: Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick and Mark Weingarten – The Social Network
It’s easy to miss a lovely piece of sound mixing, but one of my favourite moments in 2010 came as the fictional construct referred to as “Mark Zuckerberg” walked across campus after being dumped by his girlfriend. The melange of chatter from the students around him reflects the imminent chatter on the internet as he unleashes The Facebook – one of many clever touches by the always brilliant Klyce and his ace team.
Who Should Win: Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick and Mark Weingarten – The Social Network
Either that or the work on Inception, which goes from introspective silences in the first half to increasingly chaotic clatter in the hour-long setpiece. Perversely I would also like Salt‘s sound team to win as well, just so that Salt could win an Oscar. That would entertain me almost as much as that crazy movie did.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Black Swan / Shutter Island
Again, all of the sound work on Black Swan should have been given some praise, but Shutter Island‘s snub is similarly peculiar. The experience of watching both movies was immeasurably enhanced by the feeling that the room was alive with noise, sharp clicks and cracks peeping out from the expertly mixed ambient noises not for shock value, but merely as stabs at the amygdala. Your nerves jangled more and more as the movies progressed: a wonderfully unpleasant thing to endure.
Achievement in Visual Effects
Who Will Win: Paul Franklin, Chris Corbould, Andrew Lockley and Peter Bebb – Inception
The incredibly clever and imaginative in-camera effects of Inception would probably be a sure thing most years, but as it will likely win bugger all other than a sound award, it’s guaranteed to win here. I’m tempted to think the last Harry Potter movie will win big in technical stuff next year: kind of like a Return-of-the-King sop to the incredibly profitable series, which is why it won’t win here.
Who Should Win: Paul Franklin, Chris Corbould, Andrew Lockley and Peter Bebb – Inception
From the moment we saw Paris fold over on itself, it was obvious we were going to see something special in Nolan’s action masterpiece. It doesn’t matter that the Limbo effects were a bit murky and smudged: these are the visuals that caught our imagination this year. They deserve all the plaudits they’re getting.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Tron: Legacy / Black Swan
The first is a crazy FX blowout, the second has many effects that are almost invisible. As usual, I’m surprised and more than a little disgusted with the FX voters (industry folk who tend to judge on standards that we don’t necessarily understand). I figured both movies were destined to be nominated (I especially loved the FX in Tron: Legacy), but as usual we get this weird curveball, the same kind of thing that saw Speed Racer and the Matrix sequels snubbed (did John Gaeta spill red wine on some voter’s white carpet?), and E.T. winning in the same year Blade Runner was released. Always a weird category, this.
Adapted Screenplay
Who Will Win: Aaron Sorkin – The Social Network
The surest sure thing imaginable, no offence to all of the other fine screenplays nominated here (not counting 127 Hours, which manages to stretch nothing out – an achievement I’ll grant it though it doesn’t really fill the understandably threadbare story out with anything interesting). This is a tougher victory for Sorkin than you’d expect, as I’m sure there are many who think the Coens should win again. This is why I think True Grit won’t win much, even though it’s terrific. The competition this year (not counting King’s Speech and 127 Hours) is just too strong.
Who Should Win: Aaron Sorkin – The Social Network
I have many, many problems with Sorkin’s work, but I also think he’s amazing. I go back and forth on this all the time. When he’s good he’s really really good, and when he’s bad he’s fucking dreadful. The Social Network is him at his best, even with all of the tics, recycling and showing-off. Sorry Coens! I thought you did a great job too.
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughan – Kick-Ass
Stop laughing at the back! I genuinely loved what Vaughan and Goldman did here, keeping enough of Millar’s voice to make it pleasantly anarchic while tightening up his most pointless excesses and adding powerful emotional cores. The motivations of all characters were grounded amid all of the other madness, enough that I’ve been moved to the brink of tears each time I’ve watched it. Their work hasn’t yet received enough praise. Or any praise, really. Except from me and a couple of other people. I’m sure this will make up for all the difficulties I’m sure they’re experiencing while trying to make X-Men: First Class their own while Fox attempt to fuck it all up like they always do.
Original Screenplay
Who Will Win: David Seidler – The King’s Speech
Cliched, inaccurate, sentimental, really really inaccurate, and ultimately kind of lazy, but it’s a sure thing. Fuckety piss. At least it will shut out Mike “Sourdoughballs” Leigh. That’s something.
Who Should Win: Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg - The Kids Are All Right
Cholodenko and Blumberg’s light-yet-deeply structured screenplay is an almost pure joy, some last act clumsiness aside. This is the film’s only chance to be given some Oscar love this year, but it’s not about to happen. No triumph over adversity: just truth. Who wants that? ::kicks picture of Buckingham Palace into a furnace::
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Nicole Holofcener – Please Give
Holofcener’s delightful screenplay is one of the many wonders of her underrated rumination on white middle-class guilt and the ways in which we try to profit off each other to get ahead. It looks like a fluffy indie comedy but it’s filled with insight about modern life, all while being thrillingly well-observed and funny. Come on planet Earth! You complain about all the crappy movies being released and we’ve got an incredible artist and reliable entertainer standing RIGHT OVER THERE! ::points in what one assumes is the direction that leads to Ms. Holofcener:: What the hell is wrong with everyone? ::kicks picture of Windsor Castle into furnace::
Well what do you know. I start this post all agnostic and shit about The King’s Speech and end up thinking it is the deformed bastard spawned by the unholy union of Crash and Slumdog Millionaire. ::sigh:: It’s going to be a long night.
When writing about the London Film Festival I like to compare and contrast in order to convey the mentally claustrophobic experience of seeing so many movies in such a short space of time. My reaction to one bleeds over into another, or informs my thoughts on both: watching both Biutiful and Essential Killing in one miserable afternoon linked them together in a way that only an exorcist could break apart. Connections grow, parallels become obvious, and the Festival becomes a blob of mushed-up celluloid instead of a series of discrete cinematic events. (This metaphor makes more sense in my head.)
And yet one movie stood out so far from the rest that it’s hard to connect it to any other, despite similarities of theme or execution. Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan is a bomb that detonated in the middle of the festival, and nothing else could have the same impact: even Miike’s 13 Assassins paled in comparison. Early reports suggested Aronofsky had made something special, but on the page it sounded uninspiring: a ballet dancer gets a bit depressed when the pressure is on to deliver a radical new version of Swan Lake. So far, so Suspiria / Red Shoes. However, nothing could have prepared me for this assault on my senses, this barrage of hallucinogenic beauty that rendered me insensible, shaking and hyperventilating and frenetically applauding as the credits rolled.
Aronofsky has hinted at this ability before: his use of repetitive loops of imagery in Pi and Requiem for a Dream had a kind of hypnotic, rhythmic effect, and it was evident in The Fountain albeit in a less staccato form. Here he has combined his facility for creating propulsive, dialogue-free set-pieces as in his early films with the confrontational realist photography of The Wrestler and a narrative that can provide the sense of awe felt during the final moments of The Fountain: a fusion of all of his best work. No one else can end a movie as well as Aronofsky, and Black Swan tops everything else he has done.
The less you know about Black Swan, the better, but it’s safe to say the film is about talented ballet dancer Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), chosen to play both the Swan Queen and Black Swan in a new production of Swan Lake directed by lascivious maverick Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel). It’s a role she might not have the ability to pull off, and her fears threaten to consume her. Her drive to succeed is stoked by the awful behaviour of her possessive and controlling mother (a magnificently creepy Barbara Hershey), sending her into a tailspin of paranoia and suspicion exacerbated by the arrival of Lily (Mila Kunis), a free-spirit who embodies the sexuality Nina has suppressed but must harness in order to portray the Black Swan. Her grasp on reality begins to slip as the night of the first performance approaches, a process depicted by Aronofsky through unreliable imagery, nausea-inducing sound effects, subtle but nasty body horror, and mirrors, mirrors, mirrors.
A good case can be made that Aronofsky is using obvious tricks to convey Nina’s unravelling mental state, but when they are as effective as this, it doesn’t matter – if you’re willing to give yourself over. As with Christopher Nolan’s Inception, the use of easily recognisable imagery (e.g. mirrors in Black Swan to denote fractured sense of identity, elevators to denote movement between different levels of consciousness in Inception) allows the audience to swallow information on a gut level while the movie focuses on delivering story through action, not exposition. Yes, Inception‘s first hour is taken up by explaining the rules of the movie, and Black Swan spends some time explaining the story of Swan Lake in detail, but the payoff for being led by the hand early on is that Nolan and Aronofsky can later use thematic visual short-cuts with confidence that we are clued-up and ready for the ride.
Both movies end with long setpieces that would not be possible without these oft-criticised compromises, if they can even be called that. When did we become so jaded that the use of universally recognised shorthand to allow viewers to absorb information on a subconscious level is considered a bad thing? The benefit is immense: both Nolan and Aronofsky have created unforgettable experiences, riveting barrages of pure cinema that start calmly before galloping towards logical but unexpected conclusions, leaving the audience exhausted and grateful. As with last year’s Inglourious Basterds, both of these movies made me excited in a way no other works of art ever could. The sense of propulsion, of being rushed through the imaginations of two genuine artists without a chance to catch my breath, was truly thrilling.
The one thing Black Swan has over Inception is one truly magnificent performance. Natalie Portman excels as Nina, going to unbelievable physical and emotional lengths to depict the dancer’s paranoia and confusion. I doubt even her fans were aware that she could pull off a performance as wrenching and brave as this: it’s as if Brando had done dozens of relatively unchallenging movies before On The Waterfront, or De Niro had started out in the woeful crud of his later years before showing up in Mean Streets. Portman is that good. I’m genuinely amazed that she hasn’t already been given every acting award going, just to save time. It’s the performance of the year, and Black Swan wouldn’t be the masterpiece it is without her at its centre.
Every aspect of the movie is almost perfect. Kunis and Hershey do career-best work, and Cassel triumphs over some unfortunate underwriting through sheer charm alone, with some fantastic moments coming late in the film. Soundtrack composer Clint Mansell has the unenviable task of fleshing out Tchaikovsky’s masterpiece and by God he pulls it off, playing off Tchaikovsky’s themes in the non-ballet scenes and wisely leaving the original music to power the stunning dance sequences in the final act. It’s the kind of bravura score that converts people into classical fans: the crescendo in the last few minutes will likely knock you sideways. Matthew Libatique’s naturalistic, monochrome photography is also worthy of note: it’s gritty and unaffected but still conveys the grandeur of the Swan’s tale, effortlessly eluding the dancers and giving the audience a closer look at the art of dance than is usual. It’s the key to the immersive nature of the film.
That might be the reason some people have found Black Swan unpalatable. Most of Aronofsky’s influences are obvious — Hitchcock, Powell/Pressburger, Argento, Verhoeven and Cronenberg are all present and correct — but it’s telling that Aronofsky, in his truncated presentation before the screening, made reference to Gaspar Noé’s Enter The Void. Without prompting he segued into elaborate praise for Noé’s nightmare vision, recommending that everyone see it as soon as possible (yet another reason to praise Aronofsky). This recommendation seemed odd: Black Swan seemed, from trailers and clips, to be conventionally filmed compared to Noé’s bold project, which put us inside the mind of its protagonist by using a remarkable soundscape and innovative visual effects to convince us we were experiencing a final journey into a nightmare world beyond the grave.
Aronofsky can’t use the same tricks as Noe, but he comes as close as you can. Portman is constantly onscreen, those searching cameras pushing close in on her, the stunning sound design cranked up as far as possible so we are surrounded by music, noise, the cracking of her body as she punishes herself for her art. The audience winced and gasped with every flexed toe, clipped nail, and stretched ligament. As with Noé’s kaleidoscopic work, you see how redundant 3D technology can be when a truly brilliant filmmaker has the ability to draw you into his or her protagonist’s POV. When Black Swan was over my head swam: rushing out of the cinema to complete a prior engagement was made almost impossible by the disconnect between the real world and the world in which I had been submerged. The sense that we are trapped with Nina inside her madness is palpable: critics say overwrought, I say overwhelming, brave, unique.
There’s good reason to expect that Aronofsky’s gleeful mixing of high and low culture will annoy some, and his use of imagery may smack others as unsubtle. Fair enough, but if I can convince one person that the tide of positive reviews that have poured forth over the past few days are a true measure of this mesmerising work, and not just the product of empty hype, I will be happy. Aronofsky has aimed straight at the gut as much as at the brain and heart, and in the process has created a dark fairy-tale of unbelievable power. It’s the best film of the festival, and the best film of Aronofsky’s career: a pure fusion of sound and image of such mastery that everything else released this year stands cowering in its shadow.
