The Oscars- But Not Quite

I'm hoping you all watched the Oscars, dear readers, but if you didn't you certainly missed out! I am so very pleased to tell you that The Artist (previously reviewed by yours truly) took the award for Best Picture! It came completely out of left field, though it had been my favorite for the category. I never expected that a silent film could win out against eight other talkies. That makes the Artist the second silent film to win Best Picture, the other being "Wings" which won Best Picture in the original ceremony of 1929.

(via)

Christopher Plummer won for Best Supporting actor for "Beginners", making him the oldest living recipient of the Academy Award, only two years younger than the ceremony itself (I'd like to point out that my grandmother, whom I watched the Oscars with, is exactly as old as the Oscars!).

(via)

Though I was sad that The Help didn't win many awards, I was glad that they at least got Best Supporting Actress with Octavia Spencer.

(via)

However, the awards themselves aren't what I want to talk to you today. In fact, it's the commercials they aired during the ceremony - or two of them, at least. If you haven't yet heard, Ellen Degeneres was recently picked up by JC Penney to be their new celebrity spokesperson. I won't go into the One Million Mom scandal, but suffice it to say that equality won out. Anyway, JC Penney premiered five new commercials during the Oscars - four of them set in different time periods.



Intro   Ancient Rome   The Wild West   Victorian England   The 1950s

Probably most striking of all, though, was the following ad from Dior. Pay close attention. If you blink, you'll miss it:





Did you see them? All three of them? Rumor has it that this technology has been in development since the early days of CGI (my dad has been talking about this for about twenty years). So far it's only been used to change an actors appearance, like Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button or Ralph Fiennes in the Harry Potter series. As seen here the idea is to have an actress play the body of the deceased star and digitally place a mask created from captured footage. We'll see. Marilyn is still in the Uncanny Valley, if you ask me but who knows? Maybe someday we'll get to see Meryl Streep and Katharine Hepburn (the two most Oscar-nominated persons of all time) co-star in a movie. I'd pay movie theatre prices to see that!

PS: Happy Leap Day!

The Artist - Film Review

Caution - spoilers and un-spoilers ahead.

Probably the most intriguing nominee for Best Picture this year is an unassuming import called "The Artist"

(via)

It tells the story of (fictional) silent film legend George Valentin and (equally fictional) bright new starlet Peppy Miller during the advent of 'talkies'. While Valentin stalwartly stands by silent film, Miller embraces the new medium, to very different results





What really sets this film apart from its competitors is that it's both black-and-white and silent. That's right folks: a silent film took the Golden Globe this year! Here's my review in three parts. Story This was the weak-point of the film. The story follows the expected talkie-takeover plot until you near the end of the film, when the two characters meet again (under circumstances I shan't reveal). Here though, the film takes a couple of odd twists and turns, and doesn't really end up where you'd expect it, especially with the googly-eyes the protagonists are making at each other in the poster (have I said to much?). Then again, it's kind of refreshing to watch a movie that doesn't just follow the standard expected endings. I'll give this film a B for story.
 

(via)

Craft This is where "The Artist" really takes the cake. It's been a while since I've been completely captivated by every moment of a film, and you might think a movie with no talking would put you to sleep, but here the silence electrifies the audience. I'd compare it to the idea that when one sense is taken away, the other senses take over. Since you can't hear the actors talk (and since you obviously can't taste, touch, or smell them), your eyes are drawn in as the only thing that can connect you to the story. The cinematography is outstanding, the actors are just the right amount of expressive without going overboard, and the black and white just made each scene delicious to watch.

(via)

The film isn't 100% silent, actually - there are two scenes where sound is present, and the first (a nightmare sequence) takes full advantage of the audience's malaise at the sudden introduction of sound. There is also at the very least one instance where they take advantage of the silent film title cards to play around with the audience. My friend put it best when she said, "it's been a long time since movies have been coy." For craft, the film gets an A+.

(via)

Costume The story covers the years 1927-1932, and though the costumes are beautiful, for the most part one fails to see the gradual transition over the course of the film. This might be understandable for a character who gets hit by the Great Depression, but Peppy Miller's Hollywood wardrobe doesn't really change for the greater part of the film, even after the Stock Market crash.

(via)

The only costume I had real issue with was the uber-short fringed number pictured above and featured abundantly in the trailer. It was really short by 20s standards, even in pre-code Hollywood, that skirt would have raised eyebrows. Of course, if the script called for a Burlesque dancer or other such temptress then that would have been fine, but the scene they film in the movie is a sort of evening party. Basically the dress was pretty but just too short. Overall, I'd give the costumes a B.

(via)

Please, please, please see this film while it's still in theatres. I guarantee it will not be the same on home video. This is a cinema experience you do not want to pass up.

She's sad because you're not buying tickets RIGHT NOW. (via)

They do make them like they used to.

Cast of Sound of Music to Appear on Oprah TOMORROW!

For those of you who don't consistently watch Oprah (myself included), I do want to announce to you musical theater fans that the cast of The Sound of Music will be the special guests on her show tomorrow! After the trip to Australia, this is likely my favorite part of Oprah's final season.

Andrews fawns over Plummer from afar... Who wouldn't? Rawr!

Of course, you may be thinking, Big woop! What's so special about that? I'll tell you what: for the first time since 1965, the children will perform as they did in the film! I'm not sure if Christopher Plummer and Julie Andrews will sing - after all Andrews hasn't been able to really sing since her voice node surgery fiasco back in '97... Anyway, I just thought you musical theater/film aficionados would be interested to hear that! Don't miss it! I shan't.

If Julie Andrews can't make you smile, you're made of stone.

Interesting story about Julie Andrews and this movie: "The Sound of Music" and "My Fair Lady" both came out in the same award season. Andrews played Eliza Doolittle on Broadway opposite Rex Harrison. She was ousted in favor of Hepburn for God knows what reason. "My Fair Lady" stole most of the Oscars that year, including best picture. Audrey Hepburn received a big fat nothing. On the other hand, Andrews (who in turn replaced Broadway's Mary Martin in the role of Maria) was nominated for Best Actress and won a Golden Globe in the same category. I'm not trying to pick sides here, both ladies are practically perfect in their own right, but nothing good comes from trying to switch out genres between actresses like this. [Thanks to TJ at the The TJ Times for reminding me that it was "Mary Poppins" that came out in the same year as "My Fair Lady" and for which Andrews won the Oscar for Best Actress, not the "Sound of Music", as I stated above.]

More tomorrow!
Nostalgically Yours