I recently wrote an article about the BC arts cuts. It took me a long time to do that article, which is actually an essay, and I contacted a lot of people to finalize it. I started the article wanting to contact MLAs and tell them about the BC arts cuts and how that was going to affect short film but I quickly realized that yapping was not going to get me anywhere. Slowly I realized that the problem was not the government, it was everyone. The government doesn’t want to finance directors because they leave, audience members don’t care to see movies about Canada or BC more specifically, and directors complained about lack of money.

Everyone was unhappy, but no one seemed to have a tangible solution to the problem until I met Kellie Benz who realized that governments want money and so do filmmakers. The article would be completely different if it wasn’t for her and I thank her for that. Now, back to the importance of the article.

I love BC. I love Vancouver. I love film. If I am seeing the business I love fall apart in my own backyard, then I want to do something about. Will the article accomplish anything? Probably not. But it can bring light to topics like the importance of short film, the lack of support from the government, how to implement a new model to distribute and finance films, between others. I want to get more people on the record, here the side of the story from Cineworks and the BCAC but that will have to wait.

In the end, I just wrote it because I want to try and make a difference. I don’t want to insult anyone or any company, I think cineworks and the BCAC are working to their max capacity, and I admire them for that. But I do think there needs to be some reconstruction in the bureocracy of it all. Also, I want to thank all the directors that helped me, and Spencer Herbert for actually working like an MLA should and meeting with people.

Best Picture:

People still don’t know how the expansion to 10 categories will play out, but this is what I can gather so far. The last two slots are not certain:

1. Avatar
2. The Hurt Locker
3. Up in the Air
4. Up
5. Precious: based on the novel Push by Sapphire
6. An Education
7. Invictus
8. Inglourious Basterds
9. A serious Man
10. A single Man

Winner as of January 30th: The Hurt Locker (this may change)

Best Actor:

This one is easy, you just see the SAG awards nominees for best motion picture drama. Normally there is one or two that will join them from the comedy side, but there were no strong comedic performances this year.

1. Jeff Bridges, A Crazy Heart
2. Colin Firth, A single man
3. George Clooney, Up in the Air
4. Morgan Freeman, Invictus
5. Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

Winner as of January 30th: Jeff Bridges (this is not going to change)

Best Actress:

Really, there is only two actresses competing for this award: Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep. Forget the rest.

1. Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
2. Meryl Streep - Julie and Julia
3. Carey Mulligan - An education
4. Helen Mirren - The Last station
5. Gabourey Sibide - Precious: based on the novel Push by Sapphire

Winner as of January 30th: Sandra Bullock (this may change)

Best supporting Actress:

This one has the last two slots up for grabs actually. Not that easy to make a prediction.

1. Mo’nique - Precious
2. Anna Kendrick - Up in the air
3. Vera Farmiga - Up in the air
4. Penelope Cruz - Nine
5. Diane Kruger - Inglourious Basterds.

Winner as of January 30th: Mo’nique (this is not going to change)

Best supporting Actor :

The last slot is not certain. The rest are. And you know who is going to win.

1. Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
2. Woody Harrelson - The messenger
3. Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
4. Christopher Plummer - The last station
5. Alfred Molina - An education

Winner as of January 30th: Christoph Waltz (this is not going to change)

Best Director:

The five are set in stone, but the winner is a topic of heated debate. The DGA will help determine, but there might be a surprise in this category.

1. Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
2. James Cameron - Avatar
3. Jason Reitman - Up in the air
4. Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds
5. Lee Daniels: Precious

Winner as of January 30th: Kathryn Bigelow (this may change)

Best Adapted Screenplay

A hard one, the last two slots are really uncertain although one of them will get it for sure. 

1. An education – Nick Hornby
2. Precious – Geoffrey Fletcher
3. Up in the air – Jason Reitman
4. District 9 - Neill Blomkamp
5. Julie and Julia – Nora ephron

Winner as of January 30th: Up in the Air(this may change… unfortunately)

Best Original Screenplay

Pretty much set.

1. The Hurt Locker – Mark Boal
2. Inglourious Basterds – Quentin Tarantino
3. A serious Man - Joel and Ethan Coen
4. Up - Bob Peterson
5. (500) days of Summer - Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber

Winner as of January 30th: Inglourious Basterds (this is not going to change)

Best Documentary

The only slots that are certain are the top 2 actually.

1. The Cove
2. Food Inc.
3. Mugabe and the white African
4. The most dangerous man in America:  Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers
5. The beaches of Agnes

Winner as of January 30th: The Cove (this is not going to change)

Animated Feature film

The last spot is not certain at all.

1. Up
2. The fantastic Mr. Fox
3. The Princess and the frog
4. Coraline
5. Ponyo
   

Winner as of January 30th: Up (this is not going to change)

Best foreign language film

The last two spots are not certain. And not a lot of people write about this category believe it or not, mainly because it is hard to get access to this films. Also, this is the hardest category to predict, because it is not the academy choosing, it is a special committee.

1. The white Ribbon (Germany)
2. A prophet (France)
3. The Secret in their eyes (Argentina)
4. Winter in Wartime (Netherlands)
5. Ajami (Israel)

Winner as of January 30th: The white ribbon (this is not going to change)

Taken from my Examiner article here.

The cove

The Cove is one of the most powerful documentaries I have ever seen. Its power comes because the issue in hand is going on right now, as I write this, dolphins are probably being killed in Taijii. The film exposes the horrible whaling industry in Japan, and through a team of high motivated individuals who go out to the cove of Taijii, Japan where the fisherman catch the dolphins using very sadist methods and afterwards take them to a secluded area of the peninsula and kill them. The film follows a group led by Ric O’Barry as they set up to capture in film the methods the fisherman use to kill the dolphins, and continuously demonstrate the serious threat eating dolphin can have on humans and how companies, and the Japanese government, cover it up using briberies and lies. By gluing you to the screen through the use of very appropriate high paced music and x-ray shots that are normally reserved for war movies, the film will make you want to go to your government representatives and force them to stop negotiations with Japan unless they change their legislative powers, and rightfully so. I mean, how is it possible that 23000 dolphins are murdered every year and no one knows anything about it? More importantly, how does the government get away with it? These questions are answered here, and although the film might seem biased to some against the Japanese, it really tries not to be.

What makes this film great though is that it tries to understand the reason behind the slaughter. Although the Japanese are shown as the bad guys from the start of the film, Psihoyos constantly asks the question: why are they doing this? We get the economics side of the argument, the political, but more importantly the sociological. Psihoyos argues that the slaughters have become bigger than supply balancing demand; it is anti-Americanism at its most violent. Everyone has a reason to act the way they do (which is normally money), but beneath it all lies a non-conformist blind ideology that we really cannot understand. When we see this film its torture, but what Psihoyos wants the Japanese to feel is shock to see that they have turned their heads to this problem for so many years. In one of the last scenes, O’Barry stands in the middle of a crowd with revealing images, and he lets the images speak for themselves. This film can be viewed by 2 billion Westerners, but what really makes a difference is what the Japanese decide to do with the film. Hopefully this becomes a hit in Japan, as the film is a real shocker and a great documentary in general.

In the end, apart from getting its point across shockingly well, the film is also captivating and tense. It has a narrative and it keeps you fascinated throughout. You really don’t believe you are watching this, and the director makes sure never to bore you with unnecessary details or long history explanations, the background can easily be inferred and he doesn’t dumb us down. The film is riveting to say the least. Recommended for everyone, but not for children.

The hurt locker

The Hurt Locker follows a group of Bravo soldiers who deal with IED (improvised explosive devices). The film starts off with a devastating sequence in which the leader of the current unit is killed while trying to disarm a bomb, and the survivors of the unit, Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) and Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), are forced to work with the reckless, selfish and arrogant Sgt. William James  Ranger (Jeremy Renner) who puts both their lives into danger every time he goes out to diffuse a bomb. Yet Ranger is still the hero, mainly because we get to see how good of a person he really is. The film is filled with tense moments, and the characters of the film know that every second they are out in Baghdad disarming bombs could easily be their last, making this movie one of the more suspenseful war movies I have ever seen.

While Renner and Mackie both give incredible and strong performances, the real hero in this film is Kathryn Bingelow. She is not out to state a political message about Iraq (like Home of the brave or Stop-loss), or even a social commentary about adaption, surprisingly it’s a raw look at what life in war is really like. The violence is not explicit like in most war movies; the violence comes within each person, as they count down the hours to go home, or simply countdown to their own deaths, and put their lives in danger for each other. The film is a character study in which the quote “war is a drug” follows the characters like a shadow, showing us how these soldiers can see war as a thrilling excitement and how they can grow to hate it (like most drug addicts do). While the core of The Hurt Locker lies within its character’s motivations, the hand-held camera shots and the focus correction make every second more the squad spends in the scene more daring and confusing. We mainly see through the eyes of the soldiers, but that also means that we see how they are in constant danger of death. In one scene when Ranger has to disarm a bomb in a car, both Sanborn and Eldridge get surrounded by viewers, and as we saw in the first scene, you can never tell the difference between a viewer and someone with a remote explosion device. By letting us see through their eyes, and creating chaos through camera movement and desperation, she creates a tense atmosphere which recalls hell more than Iraq. This technique gets interesting as she repeats it throughout the film and makes us realize that Ranger is putting the two lower ranked soldiers in danger, and we want to hate him but we can’t. Renner gives a very charismatic and sometimes even heart-warming performance that shows how even some extremely well-hearted people get corrupted and addicted to war.

Renner in the hurt locker

The theme of addiction to war is what makes this film unique and one of the best of its kind. Ranger is not a misfit to society (recall Born on fourth of July, or Stop-loss for that matter) who doesn’t know what life is like outside war. No, on the contrary, he appreciates life outside war, but simply cannot live it. The struggle for adrenaline and those seconds or minutes when he faces death are the only ones that make sense to him anymore. Most people hate war, but he loves it. And the most unsettling part of it is that we can understand where he is coming from! We felt the tension he did when diffusing those bombs, and even if we were worried about death, we felt the need to grasp to our life as hard as we could. That is the magic about Bingelow’s film, she made us appreciate life and at the same time understand why soldiers put theirs in danger to one extent or the other. This could be interpreted as anti-war message, but because of the final sequence we see that she doesn’t have an agenda, she is just showing us what true life is like in war. We draw our own conclusions. It’s magically terrific to understand these characters, and that’s what makes it a great war movie.

So is this movie perfect or what? Unfortunately no. It’s hard to believe that one simple squad consisting of three people would do all the things their squad did. It’s like watching CSI: Iraq, they do everything, and that is not how war works. Also, there is a sub-plot involving a child that is never fully wrapped, we are left to conclude it ourselves, but explaining the confusion of that plot could have helped us understand Ranger more, although I think that has more to do with script than directing. Apart from that, the cinematography is top-notch, Renner is amazing and I want to see him in more films, and the music is also perfect. This film is a great war movie, and I recommend it to everyone.

8/10

Inglourious Basterds

Best Ensemble Cast: Winner – Inglorious Basterds. Who should have won: Up in the air

This category has been named the closest the SAG awards have to the best picture category, but it isn’t, the award praises the performances of the cast members and how they interact and play off each other for the betterment of the film, that’s why Sideways won back in 2004 over Million Dollar Baby, because even though Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman won the best acting prizes, the cast of Sideways worked better together, and they were an ensemble instead of one main performance and supporting ones. Inglorious Basterds is a great film, it is both entertaining and smart, something not a lot of films have, and it should be seriously considered for the Best Motion picture category at the Academy Awards. But Up in the Air has exactly what this category asks for: great performances that don’t overshadow each other but whose chemistry works to increase the quality of the film. The three main characters are brilliant and their main ideals change, and so do ours. All three of them need to win awards, as they were fantastic, and I was hoping this was going to be the award for them, as they have very little shot for the academy awards. It was a fantastic film, and I hope they get recognized somehow.

The dude

Best lead male actor in a motion picture. Winner: Jeff Bridges. Who should have won: Colin Firth

Bridges is sweeping the awards and rightfully so, he is amazing in Crazy Heart, but more importantly he has acted in iconic figures. He was the Dude after all, but after being neglected so much, he deserves the attention. Which is too bad for Colin Firth because he deserves on of the awards as well, he was amazing in A single Man. His portrayal of a lonely and tormented suicidal man is impressive to say the least.  He made the film a good film, and he deserves to win something. Hopefully a lot of people saw that film and will appreciate him for the great actor that he is. But congratulations to Bridges as well on his Oscar win.

Best lead female actor in a motion picture. Winner: Sandra Bullock. Who should have won: Meryl Streep.

This is the closest race for the Oscar. Every other acting category has a set winner, but things can turn in this category as one of three things could happen: Bullock wins, Streep wins, or the votes gets divided and the winner is either Mulligan or Sidbide. Just because Sandra Bullock won in this award show doesn’t mean she has it in the bag, although she is now the front runner. Either way, Meryl Streep should win just because she has been nominated many many times and it’s her turn again. She is an icon, and the best living actress right now. Isn’t it her turn again? Besides Sandra Bullock makes really crappy movies in general, this was an exception, but she wasn’t that good.

Christoph waltz

Outstanding performance by a male actor in a supporting role. Winner: Christoph Waltz. Who should have won: Christoph Waltz.

He was amazing, petrifying and captivating. He stole the show from Brad Pitt and Diane Kruger. He deserves every award he gets because his performance was terrific. If I ever meet him I will be scared for my life.

Outstanding performance by a female actor in a supporting role. Winner: Mo’nique. Who should have won: Mo’nique.

She scared the living crap out of me, and was perfect for the role. I haven’t seen a performance so daring and monstrous in recent years, she was the best out of the nominees. The only one that can compare is Anna Kendrick, but Mo’nique was more impacting and stuck out more than Kendrick. Mo’nique also got farther from her natural persona, she was a monster.

Emile Hirsch – The guy can act. He is second to the top of my list because he looks the age, he looks a bit like Peter Parker, and after seeing Milk and Into the Wild, I can definitely say that this guy can act. In The Girl Next Door he played an almost cool nerd, and I am sure he can play Parker with ease, although they might want someone with less of an intimidating aura (after Into the wild, he sort of went into rebel status). He also seems to like smaller budget films over big blockbuster, with Speed Racer being one of the few big budget he has done (and the worst).

Zac Efron – Yeah a lot of guys hate him. Yeah he looks a bit like a girl. But honestly speaking, he is not a bad actor. If he stopped using so many hair and make-up products he could probably look a bit less like a star, and more like Peter Parker. He also looks perfect for the age (he is 23) and could pull off the spiderman physique. If they chose him Sony will have a blast at the box office as the film will attract both females and males. I think he wouldn’t be the best choice, but if Sony is going for someone with an already built name and persona, then Efron just might be wearing the next spidy suit.

Patrick Fugit

Patrick Fugit – Or that guy from Almost Famous. He looks like Peter Parker, and I think he has the acting chops if the script really requires him to. He is sort of an unknown, but he could be the perfect candidate if Sony wants to go in that direction and be faithful to Peter Parker’s look and style. Unfortunately he does look a little older than what Sony is looking for (he is almost 29 actually. Here is a link to a picture of him today) but he could still work if they are looking for someone 25-29. A very unlikely candidate because of his age, but still one to consider.

Shia Labeouf – He loves franchises, he appeals to women, he is going to be in Wall Street 2, and he is in the average age range. Does he have the acting talent? Maybe, he has proven able to act scared, not necessarily like Parker though. Besides, his movies are mostly about big events sorrounding him, can he really pull off a movie by himself? Still a good candidate, if Sony wants to go with someone better known.

Other candidates that I hope don’t get picked:

Robert Pattinson (too good-looking or weird looking depending on your taste. Either way, can’t pull of nerd. Perfect for Harry though, see below), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (awesome, and 4 years ago he would have been perfect, but a little too old for what Sony is planning with the franchise), Taylor Lautner (no way, he can’t act for his life), Michael Cera (anxious spiderman?), Daniel Radcliffe (he is Harry Potter, not Peter Parker. Two iconic characters? He isn’t that good)

Michael Angarano

My personal pick

Michael Angarano - . Or that guy from Lords of Dogtown and Will & Grace that used to date Kirsten Stewart. He is younger than Fugit, and the perfect age for the role of Peter Parker (22), although he looks 19 so that might prove to his advantage. His face is recognizable though, and he looks like he can pull off the qualities of a good Peter Parker: bewildered by his new powers, fascinated and careless, and finally heroic yet lonely.  I can get all that from the few things I have seen him in. The thing about Parker is that his character ark is what makes the franchise work, and if you have a star their personas are going to get in the way (we are going to wait and see Efron break into song and dance, Hirsh punch someone, Pattinson say something corny, or LaBoeuf running away from his enemies). While if you cast an unknown, you are evolving with them and shaping their personas to fit the Peter Parker mold. That’s why we still see Tobey Maguire as kind of a dork, because even if he acts tough in Brothers, he is still Parker in our eyes (sorry Maguire, lose the uniform). Angarano fits the age, physical description and probably has the acting ability to be Parker. Besides, he knows a thing of two about losing women to better looking men because of his real life dramas.

Either way, I personally think that Kirsten Stewart should be cast as Mary-Jane and Robert Pattinson as Harry Osborn. They would actually fit the roles and the yellow media would have a field day inventing love triangles stories with anyone cast as Spidy. They would also attract the twilight crowd (who probably won’t be watching Spidy by their own) and make the film a little more interesting as it adds a pinch of sexual tension between those two characters who are normally just seen as friends.

Avatar poster

Best motion picture (drama) –  Winner Avatar. Who Should have won: Avatar

The competition was between Avatar and The Hurt Locker (not that Inglorious Basterds or Up in the air were not great movies, the buzz was on those two though). Maybe Avatar won because it has proven incredibly popular and the globes are trying to be more conscious of their younger audiences, or simply because it is a better movie than The Hurt Locker. The hurt locker is intense and a great character study, but Avatar is (and will be) an icon in cinema. It revolutionized movies, and will still do. The story and characters may not be as interesting (the movie is predictable, no one can deny that) as The Hurt Locker or Inglorious Basterds, but it will be remembered more, simply as that. This category was outstanding now that I think about it: The Hurt locker is the war movie of our time, with Inglorious Basterds being a close second but winning the most fun time at the cinema, and Up in the Air was the movie for the recession. Avatar though has a deeper message than all three movies, so its understandable how it won, and I think it deserved it.

Best motion picture (Musical or Comedy) – Winner: The Hangover. Who should have won: (500) days of Summer.

Yes, the Hangover is hilarious. It is actually a great comedy that never fails to deliver laughs and good times. It’s also obscene and something Judd Apatow would be proud of if he had casted Seth Rogen instead of Ed Helms. But (500) days of Summer was one of the best romantic comedies I have ever seen. It’s sweet, extremely well acted, uplifting and unpredictable. That’s the problem with most romcoms, you can see right through them. But not with (500) days of summer though. It’s incredible, and dare I say it, genius. The hangover is simply hilarious.

Best Television series (drama) – Winner: Mad Men. Who should have won: Dexter.

Television right now is fantastic. There is no way around it, the shows are smarter, more daring and old notions of family and sitcoms are being reinvented for the youtube generation making them funnier and far more interesting. Mad Men gives us a notion of a better past time, a time that men wish can go back to. It’s good, but there are some plot lines that can be completely eliminated to make the show less boring. Yet Dexter is the serial killer for our time: smart, good-looking, and with moral values that surpass most of the cops he works with. The show also hooks you up and its almost like a drug, you just can’t get enough of it. Suspenseful and mesmerizing, every episode is a masterpiece. Wish I could say the same about Mad Men.

Glee

Best television series (Musical or comedy) – Winner: Glee. Who should have won: The office.

I love Glee. It’s cliche, absurd, but never fails to deliver a freaking good time. The musical numbers are fantastic and the performances as well. How Jane Lynch lost to that chick from American Psycho is beyond me (actually, I have never seen Big Love so I can’t talk). When I was watching it I couldn’t get enough, but I look forward to my weekly dose of The Office more than Glee. It’s funnier, more in touch with our times, has plot lines that still interest us after 6 years, and it produces its best episodes yet. I say it should have won because its lost to 30 rock for many years now in this category, and its time to name it the best comedy, because it is. I dare anyone to watch ab episode and not laugh out loud. A close second is Entourage, a show that is almost pitch perfect. The last episode of the 6th season was fantastic, and every character now is a person instead of a character. They also deserve this award, and hopefully they’ll get it during their final season.

Best director (motion picture) – Winner: James Cameron. Who deserved to win: James Cameron.

It must have sucked for Kathryn Bigelow to lose to her ex-husband. In both the director and the picture category. But James Cameron put his heart and soul into this project and delivered something we had never seen before. Bigelow made a pitch perfect war movie, and character study, but Cameron did an epic. He deserves the awards he is going to get, and all the money he is banking right now. If Bigelow wins the academy award, it will be because Cameron has already won and the Academy wants to honor a female director for the first time. James Cameron, in the end, is the king of the world.

Inglorious Basterds poster

Best Screenplay (motion picture) – Winner: Up in the Air. Who should have won: Inglorious Basterds.

I loved both movies. Up in the air‘s script is funny, real and ultimately moving because we were all experiencing the recession. It was a great film, and deeply moving to every extent. It was a film that I couldn’t stop raving about to my friends, but it is flawed. Some scenes are too long and lose emotion as they go. In contrast, Inglorious Basterds killed Hitler and retold history Tarantino style. Ever scene was filled with action and suspense, and you never knew what was coming for you. The dialogue is also top notch and unpredictable, Tarantino is a master at imitating dialogue but also adding his own crispy style. Add to that great characters and that’s what screenplay should be like.

Best Animated film – Winner: Up. Who should have won: Up.

This film will probably be the one film that moves past the stigma animated films have and finally be seen as a great film, because it is. It is uplifting and funny, I almost cried twice during the movie. A movie is lucky if I feel like crying once, this movie touched my heart. No one should even think of betting against this one, its a safe bet, and deservingly so.

Acting Categories Later.

Damon and Freeman

Many Clint Eastwood films touch upon the subject of race in our world, and how simple delegations of tone or race have contributed to mass murders or killings with no motivation (Letters from Iwo Jima). Gran Torino explored acculturation in American soil, changing an old bigot’s conservative ideologies and values as he starts to cherish friendship over life. His films are truly inspirational, and it was key that he took this project on as Mandela’s message can resonate with most of his movies, and more importantly in the world today. It has a more political message than Avatar, and hits perfectly with the times: this is the perfect example of an Obama “yes we can” movie. We have moved on from the depressingly bleak films about characters with twisted movies (No country for old men, There will be blood) to characters that are near perfection in today’s world. Mandela was locked up in a cell for almost 30 years for defending his human rights against the apartheid in South Africa. He was then released and forgave everyone, saying that it was better to move on and work for a better future. This man was as close to a saint as anyone can ask, and his life is truly miraculous. But we don’t get that in this film.

Unfortunately the film is not about Mandela. This is a movie about how sports can unite people in times of despair with a racial message about overcoming obstacles and fighting for rights as well as for the gold (Ali, and Pride have similar messages). Mandela is an icon who has a dream that makes it happen, and his message is heard throughout the film, yet I was expecting a movie about Mandela. That was my fault really, but that is a reason I couldn’t enjoy it as much. The addition of prison sequences or simply heartbreaking footage could have made the movie better to tell you the truth: one because we got to see Morgan Freeman stretch his acting muscles in a role that he seems born at, and secondly it would have made his message resonate more. It is easy to talk about being tortured for 27 years, but to see an icon (either Mandela or Freeman) being tortured hits us more than simple dialogue. A picture is worth 1000 words. Eastwood probably chose to go a different way as not to pull with our emotions so much, but this movie gave me the impression it could have been more heart-warming and powerful.

Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman

Anyway, it was a good movie, although it could have been great. It works well as a sports movie although it did have some subplots that were unnecessary and overly dragging. Some scenes could have been cut more, and Mandela’s family subplot was not worked well at all. There is a part in which Mandela’s bodyguards are overly protecting him that is meant to build suspense, but fails miserably. Eastwood also went very explicit on the song choices, and some clichés that are meant to be parodied in the future.

Unfortunately they’re probably not because this film is being forgotten by audiences (and critics) fast. Freeman’s acting was not splendid, it was good but we were left short-handed. We wanted to see him under pressure and move on to be a better person, and we never got that. He is Mandela when he is onscreen, but he only shows us charismatic Mandela, never the hurt soul Eastwood tries us to assume he is under his rough shell. Damon is nothing special either, he was better at any of the Bourne series, he never inspired confidence, but he was good either way. It’s a shame this is so flawed because it could have been great. Maybe they will do another Mandela pick, and this time have enough material aim to get Freeman his best actor Oscar.

Mismatched cops

One can view this film as “Two mismatched cops, one young, white and cocky; one old, black and just one week short of retirement, set out on the trail of a serial killer.”(Johnson), so the typical fundamental parameters of most buddy cop films. Their different personalities not only help by giving them a unique chemistry, but it also helps in getting closer to the killer. Somerset tells Mills that he needs to talk the wife of the lawyer to find out what she needs to be looking for, because he knows Mills can manage to get more information out of her because of his youth and charisma. The film presents both of these characters as having issues with one another and unifying by a woman – Tracy (Gwyneth Paltrow) – into finally working together instead of against each other to solve the murders. In that way it follows the structure of one of the biggest box office hits of 1988 – Lethal Weapon (Donner 1987)– which is today considered the epitome buddy cop film. By setting the film as such Fincher tricks the audience into believing this motion picture is going to have a certain structure and ending, but then changes the film dramatically into a thriller.

Although the film works on some level as a buddy cop, it was ultimately marketed as a thriller, and rightfully so. As Jason Scott wrote in his article The persona of Se7en: “The film’s genre is favourably determined in relation to the serial killer subject matter, with an association with The Silence of the Lambs(Demme 1990), and differentiated by the sins” (Scott). Not only was this film called: “Scarier than Silence of the lambs” but there were extensive campaigns comparing the two in any way possible – be it because they have the same composer (Howard Shore) or because they both dealt with serial killers that were beyond our comprehension (Scott). In a sense this film also works as a thriller in the most generic form, as Johnston in Sin has seldom look so goodwrites:

“All the stock story elements [of a thriller] are in place: the decoy suspect arrested at an early stage, the chase, the forensic enquiries, even the arch-corny climax at which the cop’s wife/ girlfriend is menaced by the killer.” (Johnston)

Yet it is the twists and turns of this film that allows it to be unique and work ultimately as what it is – a horror film.

As Cynthia Freeland writes: “horror films concern monsters. They may seem possible but they are not real…. the monster is true to life… he seems all-powerful, unpredictable, and a source of hideous violence” (262). In a sense, the monster is a representation of our own fears and desires, horror capitalizes on the idea of making our fears communal and works for us to overcome them, even if it is for two hours (Freeland 263-264). Yet in this film (and Silence of the lambs for that matter) we are “not horrified by the on-screen monster, but only by what the monster represents: sinfulness and the human capability for monstrosity” (Veronica S., 4). The monster, Doe, is not like Michael Myers or Freddy Kruger, he makes us aware of how sinful and apathetic our society has been, and makes us doubt even the most kind of humans. Fincher – by using Doe – destroys the implications and expectations of a buddy cop and a thriller and turn it into a horror film that analyzes our own demise as humans. We become aware of what Somerset stated about an apathetic driven world, and we agree with him.

Somerset was right, and by the characterization of its detectives this film also manipulates our expectations of an action film. Somerset in a way is very similar to Doe, and they both share very similar values and principles. In a thriller film like Manhunter (Mann 1986), the detective would try and penetrate the killer’s mind, but they never shared similar ideologies or reading habits. They were opposite poles: the killer was normally a misunderstood outcast (the tooth fairy in Manhunter, or Buffalo Bill in Silence of the lambs) that acted out his violence because of his social ineptitude. Yet, in Se7en Somerset constantly defends Doe and says that he is not a lunatic “dancing around in his grandma’s panties”, but he is “methodological, diligent, and worst of all, patient” man that enhances his curiosity. These qualities also describe him: from the first scene we see Somerset as being a very organized and punctual person, his life is symbolized by a metronome, just a series of repeated beats that will eventually come to an end. He understands Doe’s purpose and crimes, and from the start knows that this is not going to have a happy ending.

Somerset also recognizes that he himself is no different from anyone else, but can still judge the society he lives in. When he gets into the taxi, a POV shot shows the dark and rainy unnamed city and its displayed at its worst. Rain-coated men throw around a woman and the noises of children are heard crying from the start of the film. He states that he wants to get “far away from here” and his comrades repeatedly remind him that he will not be able to do it. In the revealing bar conversation he has with Mills, he claims that he can no longer live in a world full of apathy as he states: “Apathy is the solution. I mean, it’s easier to lose yourself in drugs than it is to cope with life. It’s easier to steal what you want than it is to earn it. It’s easier to beat a child than it is to raise it.” Hypocritically enough, Somerset himself is the one that suffers from apathy. He urged his ex girlfriend into getting an abortion, he lives his life in the shadows judging the world from behind the window, and he constantly states that it is too late to change the world, but what he is that he is too late to change himself. He tried to change the world – just like Doe does- but he realized he failed. He himself became a product of the society he criticized so sharply, just like Doe became part of his masterplan.

Doe behind bard

John Doe, unlike Somerset, is a product of his sins by personal choice. Through this point the film separates itself from most thrillers – looking back at the film we realize that John Doe has always had the upper hand. All the murders in this film have been completely subjective and we have never doubted it. But there are flaws in his plan, like for example Tracy and the prostitute. The film never addressed these questions, but it can be argued that Fincher desired it to be this way to state a message about monsters in horror films. First of all the prostitute is not guilty of lust (Merriam Webster defines Lust as intense or unbridled sexual desire) because she does not desire sex, it is her clients that do, but Doe calls her a “disease spreading whore”. Secondly, Tracy is not guilty of any sin, but Doe still manages to kill her as a way of provoking wrath in Mills. Thirdly, he creates himself to be envious just so his masterpiece could resonate more. By that I mean that he could have easily found someone that was envious of another human being, but he chose to end his plan that way so he could be remembered his plan would be “puzzled over and studied and followed… forever”.  All of these completely subjective murders are left unexplained by Fincher so the omnipotence of John Doe as an angel of death can resonate more, and we can interpret them whichever way we like. Furthermore, by allowing Doe to explain his actions and ideas, Fincher manages to dismantle the idea that we normally have of horror villains as crazy psychopaths and humanizes John Doe. By doing this, the monster becomes more like us – making us examine ourselves and criticize our apathy towards the amoral world.

In the most simplistic of Christian allegories, John Doe becomes a religious figure that dies for our sins. Nelson compares him to Jesus Christ by saying that “The significance of his killings is found in the fact that… in reality it could be argued that he has redefined the God of Christianity, such that he ironically reverses the biblically defined values and work of Jesus Christ.” (Nelson 11). This nihilistic message of “God is Dead” and making the serial killer the new messiah is very prominent theme today in shows like Dexter and films like Saw(Wan 2004), yet is has been prominent in film since Night of the Living Dead(Romero, 1968) and Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1976). “ However, Se7en is not Saw. The killings do not play out actively, but through crime scenes and photographs” (Agaric). Se7en in contrast is unique because even if we grasp this nihilistic message, the audience knows that this is not the message we are supposed to take home because of Somerset’s words and final actions. We criticize both the world and John Doe, and change our values as to not to hurt anyone in the end.

Somerset

If Doe suffers from envy, and Mills suffers from wrath, then Somerset suffers from apathy, which is the derivative of the now known sin of sloth (Jamison). Yet he starts caring about something by the end of the film: Tracy and Mills. By working as a buddy cop film, the film manages to present Somerset as a sort of fatherly figure to this couple and when they are destroyed he manages to evolve. Not only does he does something he had only done three times before – pull out his gun – but also slaps John Doe in the face and tells him to shut up. In that sense, no one is left untouched in this thriller, but Somerset is hurt in another way, he changes to try and be more hopeful about the world to fight for it. He becomes the recipient of the message Doe was trying to contribute to the world, and just like the audience should do, he decides to take a step towards bettering the world one step at a time. It is easy to see that John Doe wanted this from the start. He is human, and he does enjoy killing his victims, but all he wanted was to better the world around him. He claimed that he was on a mission from God, and he chose Mills to kill him for a reason.

Doe had a message to perpetuate to the world and Somerset is the one that comprehends it and decides to change for the goodness of humanity. By working as a buddy cop the film manages to change the character of Somerset from an apathetic character to a more sympathetic one. By working as a thriller the film presents an incomprehensible villain and follows the parameters of a detective story, yet even if Doe was murdered in the end, his legacy still continued – making this a horror film. In the end we discover that the murders were subjective and shown to us according to what Doe wanted us to watch so his masterpiece could be completed and studied continuously. Doe manages to become a mythological Christ like figure that dies for our sins in the Nietzschean and nihilistic society that both Somerset and Doe perceive in this unnamed US city.

Works Cited

Agaric. “Se7en: Fincher’s Thriller and A Memorable Serial Killer Film – Associated Content.” Associated Content. Associated Content, 14 Dec. 2006. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/83716/se7en_finchers_thriller_and_a_memorable.html?cat=40>.

Freeland, Cynthia. “Realist Horror.” The Philosophy of Film: Introductory Text and Readings. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005. 260- 269. Print.

Haddington, Pentti (1998). This is not going to have a happy ending: searching for new representations of masculinities in David Fincher’s Se7en. Pro Graduate Thesis. University of Oulu.

Jamison, Abbot. “Spiritual Apathy: The Forgotten Deadly Sin” Thinking Faith – the online journal of the British Jesuits. Thinking Faith, n.d. Web. 4 Nov. 2009. <http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20081009_1.htm>.

Johnston, Sheila. “also showing: Sin has seldom looked so good.” The Independent . The independent, 4 Jan. 1996. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. <http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/also-showing-sin-has-seldom-looked-so-good-1322301.html>.

Nelson, Matthew (2009). Mulhall, Film, and the importance of self-reflexivity.Philosophy: senior tutorial. Dr. Petersen.

S., Veronica . “Analysis of the Source of Horror in David Fincher’s Se7en.”Associated Content – Arts and entertainment. Associated Content, 17 May 2007. Web. 6 Nov. 2009. <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/242865/analysis_of_the_source_of_horror_in_pg2_pg2.html?cat=40>.

Scott, Jason. “The persona of se7en.” Scope. Sheffield University, n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2009. <http://www.scope.nottingham.ac.uk/article.php?id=7&issue=1>.

“The Seven Deadly Sins.” White Stone Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2009. <http://whitestonejournal.com/index.php/seven-deadly-sins>.

Filmography

Seven (Single Disc Edition). Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman. New Line Home Video, 1995. DVD.

A single man poster

The concept seems fine for a movie, but it is in the ending that the film falls (I won’t spoil anything). A single man is a film that will be remembered by Colin Firth’s performance. Nothing else. Although the message of the film is a good one to take in and analyze, I don’t know what to make of the ending. It is one of those “you’re supposed to make of it whatever can apply to your life” kind of ending (haha, that is very bad phrasing, but you know what I mean), but whichever way I try to see it, it always just ends up being a very pathetic, obvious and pessimistic message. I sat down with a friend and talked for about 20 minutes on better endings for the film to send its message across, and found around 4.  I can’t go further without going into spoilers, but I think the ending broke the film.

That being said, Tom Ford constructed a beautiful script for a directorial debut, and showed us on screen something we rarely get to see: the beautification of a male body. It has been something taboo and rarely seen until Sex and the City, but Ford not only shows us the body as a way of lust, it shows us the body as a way of connecting to another human being, and the beauty of both a physical and emotional connection. The extreme close-ups of lips, eyes and noses make us aware of the beauty in the physique of both men and women, and how that beauty can make our lives just a tad brighter (Ford uses very distinct grey and primary color lighting to explicitly and exaggeratedly show his character’s emotions). Apart from the extreme close-ups as a way of incorporating into the character’s mind and desires, the music is beautiful, and the way every shot is perfectly edited to the beats of the score is to envy. The film must have had a great editor, because the pacing of each scene and the non-continual editing styles are perfect and symbiotic with the music, something that should be appraised by many.

I recommend watching this film if you like a really strong performance by a female or male actor, and don’t care as much about the message or story of the film. The supporting roles are okay, although Julianne Moore’s British accent is as fake as Pamela Anderson’s breasts: obviously false and distractingly overt. It is a very sad story, and moving at points, but it’s something that I had trouble remembering because it just didn’t stick to me. Colin Firth should get an Oscar nomination and possibly even the Oscar. It is hard to pull what he did. And he did it perfectly.