Awards Season 2016: The 88th Annual Academy Awards

The 88th Annual Academy Awards were held last night at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles. Like last year, it came up with one or two surprises and more than a few talking points.

You'd kind of have to have been living under a stone to have missed the #OscarsSoWhite controversy which engulfed social media in January when, for the second year in a row, all 20 Oscar acting nominees were white (which, given the brilliant performances by Michael B. Jordan in Creed and Idris Elba in Beasts Of No Nation seems like a bit of an oversight). Many column inches were written and several high-profile names- Spike Lee, Will Smith, Jada Pinkett Smith- boycotted the event. Given this powderkeg background, there was bound to be some nervousness over how host Chris Rock would address it. 

He did it as only he could; head on and unapologetic. His opening monologue was funny but sharp, calling Hollywood out on its 'sorority racism'. Generally speaking, Rock was more comfortable as host than he was in 2005 and handled what could have been a massively awkward situation extremely well. Not every joke found its mark, not every joke can, but he did well. Trying to raise money for his daughters' Girl Scout pack by selling cookies to the audience is a bit random, but this is the ceremony that gave us a social-media-crashing selfie and Neil Patrick Harris in his underwear, so I guess it's all relative.

The evening followed the life of a film, from genesis to execution, so the first awards of the evening were for the screenplays (something I appreciated). With wins for Spotlight and The Big Short- two films with strong social messages- the political aspects of the acceptance speeches started early with an astonishingly blunt message from Adam McKay about not voting for presidential candidates who are in the pockets of big business or banks. 

The political speeches continued with Jenny Beavan speaking about the reality that the dystopic future Mad Max: Fury Road presents being scarily close, to Leonardo DiCaprio's plea for something to be done about climate change, director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's call to eliminate prejudice and the powerful message given by Vice President Joe Biden about sexual abuse on campuses before introducing Lady Gaga to sing 'Til It Happens To You' from The Hunting Ground (a sobering documentary about the epidemic of campus abuse). I thought Sam Smith's acceptance speech- dedicating his award to the LGBT community- was sweet in intention but could have done with some fact-checking (no openly gay actor has won the Best Actor Oscar, but openly gay men and women have won Oscars in the past). 

On to the awards themselves:

Not a clean sweep for me this year but I'm incredibly happy with 5 out of 6 (especially given certain uncertainties, if that makes sense)

There were a couple of surprises- mostly, Mark Rylance winning Best Supporting Actor and Alicia Vikander winning Best Supporting Actress- but generally the awards fell where expected. I was gobsmacked yet overjoyed that Spotlight picked up Best Picture- it was the right decision. I was also pleased by the Oscar wins for Amy, the Original Screenplay win for Spotlight, Emmanuel Lubezski's third consecutive Cinematography Oscar (after Gravity and Birdman) and Ennio Morricone for his superb score for The Hateful Eight. I was surprised by 'Writing's On The Wall' winning Best Original Song, but that's down to a matter for personal taste rather than anything else. 

Mad Max: Fury Road was the big winner of the evening, with six Oscars. The Revenant took home three, with Spotlight winning two. Despite multiple nominations, there were no wins for The Martian, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Brooklyn or Carol.


Below is the full list of winners at the 88th Annual Academy Awards:

Best Motion Picture of the Year: Spotlight

Best Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)

Best Actress: Brie Larson (Room)

Best Supporting Actor: Mark Rylance (Bridge Of Spies)

Best Supporting Actress: Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl)

Best Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (The Revenant)

Best Original Screenplay: Spotlight

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Big Short

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year: Inside Out

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year: Son Of Saul

Best Cinematography: The Revenant

Best Editing: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Production Design: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Costume Design: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Makeup and Hairstyling: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Original Score: The Hateful Eight

Best Original Song: 'Writing's On The Wall' (SPECTRE)

Best Sound Mixing: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Sound Editing: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Visual Effects: Ex Machina

Best Documentary (Feature): Amy

Best Documentary (Short Subject): A Girl In The River: The Price Of Forgiveness

Best Animated Short Film: Bear Story

Best Live Action Short Film: Stutterer


Congratulations to all winners and nominees!

Tez

Awards Season 2016: Tez's Official Oscar Predictions 2016

Tonight, the great and good of Hollywood will convene to celebrate the best of film-making in 2015 at the 88th Annual Academy Awards, which will be hosted for the second time by Chris Rock. It has become a tradition for me to predict the nominations and the winners in the main six categories (the four acting categories, Best Director and Best Picture).  I've done this since 2003 with varying degrees of success. So, without further ado, here are my predictions for who will win.

Best Supporting Actress: Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl)

With no disrespect to any of the other nominees, this is a two horse race between Alicia Vikander and Kate Winslet. Both have previous wins behind them (Vikander got the SAG and Critics' Choice; Winslet the BAFTA and the Golden Globe). Both performances are strong, even if I found Winslet's more mannered and more actorly, less naturalistic than Vikander's. There would be a certain amount of pleasure in seeing Winslet win her second Oscar on the same night DiCaprio wins his first. However, because Vikander won the SAG Award- voted on by actors, many of whom make up the Academy voting list- I'm gonna put her ahead. However, I won't be at all surprised if Winslet nabs it. 


Best Supporting Actor: Sylvester Stallone (Creed)

Simply put, I found Stallone's performance in Creed to be exceptional and he actually does act as a supporting character to Donny. He's witty, wise and heartbreaking- he also has a lot of goodwill in Hollywood and a lot of people would love to see him take the main prize tonight (as Critics' Choice and Golden Globe wins have shown). Interestingly, he's won both awards he's been nominated for; I really hope he makes the perfect three tonight.


Best Actress: Brie Larson (Room)

Closest you can get to a cast-iron bet tonight. Larson's moving and emotive performance, having to convey such a difficult situation yet bearing it so bravely, has completely swept the awards season boards- SAG, Golden Globes, BAFTA, Independent Spirits- so any other name tonight would be a huge surprise. And I do mean huge. 


Best Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)

OK. Do I think Leo deserves to win? No, I don't. His performance in The Revenant is perfectly decent but he's done better performances. Do I think he will win? Without a shadow of a doubt. We're in the same situation as Scorsese and The Departed; it almost feels like 'his turn'. Similar to Larson, he's swept the boards where he's been nominated so it's a fairly foregone conclusion.


Best Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (The Revenant)

With BAFTA, Golden Globe and DGA wins, it does look like it'll be second time around for Inarritu tonight. Interesting fact: if he does win, Inarritu will be the first director since Joseph L. Mankiewicz to win back-to-back Best Director Oscars and the first in over sixty years.  His direction is solid enough and his partnership with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezski is one of the strongest I've seen. I would be shocked to see another director win tonight.


Best Picture: Spotlight

This might come back to bite me, but I genuinely think Spotlight deserves to win the Best Picture Oscar over The Revenant. Whether it will, I don't know. Spotlight is an absolute masterclass in cinema: its script is superb (and will, with any justice, bag the Best Original Screenplay Oscar), the acting performances throughtout the ensemble are on point, the direction is solid, the themes of the film are topical without being polemical or heavy-handed. Were I a member of the Academy, this is where my vote would be going. However, it does look likely that The Revenant might get it. 


Last year, I got 4 out of 6 (all four acting awards) but fell foul of Inarritu and Birdman. I'm not making the same mistake on Best Director this year. However, I'm not sure on Best Picture or on Best Supporting Actress. I reckon another 4 out of 6. 

There'll be a full blog tomorrow discussing my thoughts on the ceremony and a list of all the winners.

Tez

Awards Season 2016: Screen Actors' Guild Awards Winners

Yesterday (30th January), the Screen Actors' Guiold Awards were announced. Here are the film winners:

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture: 

Spotlight

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role: 

Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role: 

Brie Larson (Room)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role: 

Idris Elba (Beasts Of No Nation)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role: 

Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl)

A good night for Idris Elba who also won Best Actor in a Miniseries for Luther. More awards for DiCaprio and Larson which really strengthen their Oscar chances (especially as the SAG Awards are voted on by actors, who also make up the voting arm of the Academy). A second win for Alicia Vikander (after the Critics' Choice win) might increase her chance of the Oscar win as well. Spotlight winning the Best Cast award (essentially Best Picture) does its chances no harm either in what is shaping up to be a rather unpredictable year for several categories. 

Next up with awards season will be the Directors' Guild Awards on February 6th.

Review: The Revenant (UK Cert 15)

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's follow-up to the Oscar-winning Birdman puts him squarely back into awards territory with Western thriller drama The Revenant.

It's 1820s America. Frontiersman Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his half-Native American son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) are working on a fur trapping expedition under the command of Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson). When Glass is savagely mauled by a bear, Henry asks for two men to stay behind to tend to him. John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) and Jim Bridger (Will Poulter) stay with him, but Fitzgerald betrays them, killing Hawk and burying the severely injured Glass alive. Glass hauls himself out of the shallow grave and sets on a trek to find the man who betrayed him and killed his son.

The film is 'inspired by true events' and 'based in part' on a book by Michael Punke- the 'in part' bit no doubt being that a) there once lived a fur trapper called Hugh Glass, b) Glass did get mauled by a bear and was left for dead and c) Glass then went to find the men who left him for dead. Everything else- the son, the revenge plot- seems to be completely fabricated. For information on the historical accuracy (or otherwise), this is a good article to start with.

I'll be honest, when I saw the first trailer, I was kinda underwhelmed and thought 'looks alright-ish, might give it a punt if there's nothing else on'. And then the awards praise started coming which sealed the deal. So I sat through it. Whilst I thought it was better than The Hateful Eight (which isn't saying much), it shares a lot of the same problems. Lots of shots that take too long. Script issues. A preponderence of overindulgent extraneous bilge that detracts from what is, at heart, a strong and intriguing narrative which a damn good edit could bring to the fore.

A lot of column inches has been devoted to the relentless masculinity and brutality of the film, being severally described as 'gut-churningly brutal' and 'meaningless pain porn', which led one American critic to ham-fistedly and narrow-mindedly suggest that this was not a film for the ladies. Is it brutal? Yes, in places, but- in my opinion- not relentlessly so (this is no Saw or Hostel). There are several main 'action' sequences- the opening attack, the bear attack, the final fight- which are apt to induce winces as flesh is shredded, fingers are lopped off and skulls are caved in. The bear attack is not massively prolonged but is tough to watch (even though you can tell the bear is CGI). 

There's a lot of metaphor about the strength of trees and breath ('while you breathe, you fight') which is fine but Inarritu overeggs it with constant shots of both- DiCaprio's breath even misting the camera lens at a few points just in case you really haven't got it- and there are constant references back to both. It's heavy-handed and unnecessary. Give your audience some credit. And, whilst we're on the subject of unnecessary, the final shot of DiCaprio giving a thousand-yard stare right into the camera? Give me a break!

Much of the awards hype has been focusing on DiCaprio's performance and the fact that he's likely to finally win his Oscar; he's got the Golden Globe and Critics' Choice awards already. His performance as Glass is decent enough, hardly groundbreaking or revolutionary though. In my opinion, he's given better performances (and even been nominated for an Oscar for those performances; Howard Hughes in The Aviator, for instance). Being completely honest, of the Best Actor nominated performances I've seen so far this year, I was more impressed with the performances of Michael Fassbender and Eddie Redmayne than DiCaprio's. 

I think my main issue is less to do with his performance- which, as I said, is decent- and more to do with the fact that there isn't much of a character to start with (a direct fault of the script). Glass is a good trapper; he loves his son and loved his wife. That's it. There's not much to get behind there. There's also only so much crawling and grunting he can do before it really starts to test your patience. You also have the issue that, no matter what peril Glass is placed in on his trek for vengeance, you know he's not actually in any real danger because the final pay-off has to be a confrontation between Glass and Fitzgerald. So you can have him fall over a waterfall, have to hide from rampaging Native Americans or chuck him off a cliff and have him shelter in the gutted out remains of a horse, he's always going to survive (despite severe and almost life-ending injuries from the bear attack). 

Tom Hardy is Fitzgerald, the primary human antagonist, but confuses wide eyes and a mangled and wandering Texas accent for menace. Plus, he's written so paper thinly as an out-and-out bad guy from the very get-go that there's no nuance, no shade. He's a racist, self-centred bully. You're just waiting for him to strike. Plus he gets to deliver the most trite and platitudinous message at the end: revenge won't bring your son back. Well, no shit, Sherlock. Once again, the script lets the actors down. 

So, what's good? Well, once again, Emmanuel Lubezski's sublime cinematography serves the grandeur of the great outdoors to good effect. The supporting performances by Domhnall Gleeson and Will Poulter are strong, both good men stuck in a bad situation. The opening battle- where the trapper party is attacked by a band of maurauding Native Americans- is slickly handled and well choreographed. 

A script is a blueprint and without a strong blueprint, the house is not fit to stand. Despite some strong performances and arresting visuals, the fundamentally flawed script (lacking in any kind of nuanced characterisation) renders this bland and the overextended, overindulgent run time renders it boring. Despite this, I'm sure that it will be lauded with awards (and, in all seriousness, it should win the Oscar for Best Cinematography) and DiCaprio will almost certainly get his Oscar, thus rendering an entire raft of Internet memes completely obsolete. 

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Tez

The Wolf of Wall Street (Cert: 18)

For over a decade there has been a sense of déjà vu with Scorsese’s films: his latest arrives on a fifty storey tidal wave of hype, critics hailing it as easily as good as Taxi Driver or Raging Bull, but this is never the case. Gangs of New York, The Aviator, even The Departed: all solid entries on the director’s peerless CV, but nothing that comes close to his early days. The Wolf of Wall Street feels like the first film in a long time that breathes the same air as the masterpieces that made Scorsese’s name.

The problem with Scorsese’s most recent films is that they don’t feel like Scorsese is behind the camera, that he is going out of his way to win awards. With The Departed it was as if Scorsese was doing his best Tarantino impression rather than make another Scorsese picture. The Wolf of Wall Street is Scorsese back to his playful, rule-breaking self, setting up scenes that you think will go one way, then veer off in the opposite direction. It’s three chaotic hours of virtually scene-for-scene sex, drugs and ticking off every foul-mouthed word in the English language. It’s also one of the strongest scripts that Scorsese has brought to the screen.

Like Henry Hill in GoodFellas, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is loathsome and morally bankrupt. In Wolf’s opening scenes we are introduced to the man and his lifestyle (all swiftly cut together by Scorsese’s long-time editor, Thelma Schoonmaker). He is arrogant, egotistical and unrepentant. Screenwriter Terence Winter does not soften the film’s protagonist: this is the man that you are going to spend the next three hours with, like it or not. It is to both Winter and DiCaprio’s credit that we do not walk out within the first ten minutes. We may not like Belfort, but we want to see him rise as well as, inevitably, fall.

Belfort is arguably DiCarprio’s best performance. Scorsese has nurtured DiCaprio since they first worked together on Gangs of New York, and if DiCaprio’s role as Amsterdam Vallon felt safe, that at no point was he really challenged as an actor, then with The Wolf of Wall Street DiCaprio is given a sandpit to play in and do whatever the hell he likes. He gets to do intense, showman-like speeches as Belfort fires up his employees at Stratton Oakmont, deliver razor-sharp, irreverent voiceovers, and gives us a master class in slapstick comedy (it’s only January and Wolf has already given us one of the stand-out set pieces of 2014, when Belfort, drugged up to his eyeballs, attempts to crawl back into his car).

The Wolf of Wall Street is very much a film of two halves; Belfort’s rise and fall. In the first half DiCaprio is fast talking, impassioned, every facial muscle getting used. Belfort may make his money by stealing it from everyone else, a “Twisted Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to himself and his merry band of brokers” as Forbes once described him, but you cannot take your eyes off the man while he’s doing it. As with so many rich and powerful men, ego gets the better of Belfort and DiCaprio delivers the flip side of the wild performance he gives early on. As the FBI and FCC cut Belfort down to size, DiCaprio becomes far more restrained. He is hunched up, exhausted, speaking softly and slowly. There are moments where we glimpse the fierce, take no prisoners Belfort, but he is a different man now, having everything he strived to build taken away from him. Few actors are as versatile and even fewer are as convincing. So much of what makes The Wolf of Wall Street such an outstanding film is down to DiCaprio.

Another actor giving everything and then that little bit more is Jonah Hill as Donnie Azoff, Belfort’s protégé and literal partner in crime. Hill has been great to watch ever since he first appeared in Superbad. Here he transforms from a man who envies Belfort, to becoming Belfort’s shadow. Like DiCaprio, not only does Hill get to fire smart one-liners and deliver priceless moments of physical comedy, but he can also, impressively, be both subtle and moving. When Azoff realises that Belfort is working as an informant for the FBI, he is reduced to silence, choking back tears. It is heartbreaking to watch and once again confirms that Hill is far more than a comedy actor.

While The Wolf of Wall Street could be otherwise known as The Leonardo DiCaprio Show, the film has plenty of cameos. Most films struggle to have one memorable supporting role, Wolf has several. Best of the bunch is Matthew McConaughey as Belfort’s mentor Mark Hanna. Everything that McConaughey says or does is brilliantly funny; you wonder how much of his performance is derived from the script and how much did he come up with on the spot. The Artist’s Jean Dujardin appears as a slimy banker, almost permanently wearing a devious smile and, while dressed in sharp suits and giving an air of sophistication, is just as grubby as Belfort. Joanna Lumley makes a surprise appearance as Naomi’s (Margot Robbie) English aunt; a scene involving Belfort flirting with her being both comical and awkward to watch.

The majority of Scorsese’s films are dotted with pitch black humour, yet The Wolf of Wall Street feels like Scorsese’s first real attempt at comedy. Considering the film is three hours long, you will be laughing for much of its running time. Wolf’s 180 minutes are not constant laughter, however, Terence Winter has also written a number of powerful, eye-opening scenes. One of the film’s many set pieces is when Belfort and his nemesis, FBI agent Patrick Denham (Kyle Chandler) meet for the first time. Offering Denham plenty of fine food and wine, as well as sneakily trying to bribe him, you think that Belfort has got away with it. This is merely an act from Denham who makes it all too clear to Belfort that he is after him. For the majority of this scene Belfort has been the one in control, leading Denham on a merry dance, when it has been Denham all along who has been playing the multi-millionaire.

When the FBI start picking away at Belfort, threatening him with court appearances and decades in prison, it is a Wizard of Oz moment as the curtain is pulled back, revealing a repulsive man behind the money and the style, his wife Naomi bearing the brunt of his temper and out of control drug taking. This could have been a cynical way to justify how, for much of the film, Belfort is portrayed as a messiah figure; the villain of the piece finally getting his comeuppance. Everyone watching The Wall of Wall Street is waiting for things to turn sour for Belfort and they do so in spectacular style, but Winter does this in a way that feels satisfying rather than pretentious.

Many critics have questioned the morals of The Wolf of Wall Street, or, as they see it, the lack of them. I’m going to back very slowly away from the debate over Martin Scorsese’s films being explicitly violent or sexist, but what I will point out with The Wolf of Wall Street is that it is based on the life of Jordan Belfort, a man for whom excess was his everyday life. Imagine the outcry from those same critics if Scorsese toned down Belfort’s exploits, there would be plenty of reviews out there all repeating the words “let down”, “a waste”, and “a cynical attempt to win another Best Director award”.

Does Belfort get the punishment he deserves? I don’t think it spoils the film by saying no, not exactly. This is one of the many reasons why critics feel that the film celebrates greed, which is not true at all. At no point does Scorsese judge Belfort; instead he shows us the world we live in, that is on the front page of the tabloids almost every day. People like Belfort have been allowed to exploit their way to wealth and power, which begs the question, just who is the real villain here?

The Wolf of Wall Street is Scorsese back to his very best, throwing all sorts of original and insane ideas at the screen. Under any other director this could have been a painful, even embarrassing three hours, but Scorsese’s confident direction keeps the film utterly focused and at no point does it flag. Updating the gangsters and hustlers of his earlier films to the three-thousand dollar suit wearing stockbrokers, Scorsese gives us a near-perfect study of this world, these apparently respectable people cutting corners and getting rich the easy way.

It may take several years, but The Wolf of Wall Street will be ranked up there with Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and GoodFellas as one of Scorsese’s most celebrated films.

5 out of 5

Matt