The Moving Picture

The Golden Globe nominations are in and it looks like this could finally be Leonardo DiCaprio’s year.
The 32-year-old actor earned an almost unheard of two Golden Globe nominations in the same category. He was recognized for his work in “Blood Diamond” as Danny Archer, the amoral smuggler who finds redemption, and for his role as Billy Costigan, the Irish mafia turncoat in “The Departed.”
After 14 years in the filmmaking business and one Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor, DiCaprio may finally take home the coveted statue for Best Actor. With two of the five nominations in the Best Actor category for the Golden Globes, Peter O’Toole (Maurice in “Venus”), Will Smith (Chris Gardner in “The Pursuit of Happiness) and Forest Whitaker (Idi Amin in “The Last King of Scotland”) would be hard pressed to snag the Oscar from DiCaprio this year.
The young actor was previously nominated for an Oscar for the role of Arnie Grape — Gilbert Grape’s mentally handicapped brother — in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” However, the veteran actor Tommy Lee Jones’ beat out the 19-year-old in 1993 for his role as Marshal Samuel Gerard, who hunted the escaped Dr. Richard Kimble played by Harrison Ford in “The Fugitive.”
Who knows? Despite DiCaprio’s unwillingness or inability to play the Hollywood game, it may simply be his time this year and there can be no denying his talent. With two Golden Globe nominations for Best Actor, the Academy cannot write off his performances as a rookie fluke this year.
It is also a shame that Rudy Youngblood was not included among the contestants for Best Actor. His portrayal of Jaguar Paw in “Apocalypto” was one of this year’s best. However, Hollywood is known for snubbing newcomers, expecting rookies to pay their dues before earning the businesses’ highest awards.
This could also be Clint Eastwood’s year once again. The actor turned director picked up two Golden Globe nominations for Best Director for his films “Letter from Iwo Jima” and “Flags of Our Fathers.” Again, with two nominations in the same category Martin Scorsese (“The Departed), Stephen Frears (“The Queen”) and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu will have a tough time defeating one of Hollywood’s favorites.
Eastwood’s double nomination in the Golden Globes also makes him a shoe in for an Oscar nomination. Should he take the coveted statue home this year he will become one of Hollywood’s most “winningest” directors, joining the likes of John Ford, William Wyler and Frank Capra.
There was also a small Golden Globe surprise in the area of Best Picture. Not only were the likely candidates present — the critically acclaimed “Babel,” “Little Children” and “The Queen,” as well as Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed” with its high-profile cast — but the critically lukewarm “Bobby” also made it into the top five films of 2006.
Director Emilio Estevez’s drama about a day in the life of 22 people surrounding Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination deserved a place in this year’s top films. It was emotionally powerful with its well-crafted script, which used an interesting roundabout storytelling method to capture the importance of Kennedy’s place in the world in 1968.
Estevez’s story spoke volumes about the United States in 1968 and he could not have selected a better time to tell it in today’s age of an unsatisfactory war, disillusionment and political hopelessness. His story proved timeless and relevant, trademarks of a film deserving of Hollywood’s highest award.
You also could not ask for a better cast headed by legendary greats Anthony Hopkins, Harry Belafonte, William H. Macy and Laurence Fishburne right on down to stellar newcomers, such as Elijah Wood and Shia LaBeouf.
Facing such stiff competition, “Bobby” may not take home the Golden Globe for Best Picture, but its nomination makes it a candidate for at least an Oscar nod. However, its name is likely to be substituted for either “Apocalypto” (which earned a nomination for Best Foreign Language Film) or Eastwood’s “Flags of Our Fathers” may yet sneak its way in.
The category for Best Supporting Actor also contained a few Golden Globe surprises. Eddie Murphy and Mark Whalberg both earned their first nominations for their roles in “Dreamgirls” and “The Departed,” respectively. An even bigger surprise was Ben Affleck’s inclusion on the list for his portrayal of George Reeves in “Hollywoodland.” Old standbys Jack Nicholson for the mafia boss Bobby Costigan in “The Departed” and Brad Pitt for Richard in “Babel” also made the list. However, Hollywood loves characterizations of real people and Affleck’s portrayal of one of its own just might earn him a Golden Globe. He would certainly deserve the victory and with a little luck, his name might at least be included on Oscar night.
One name that was left off of the list and should have been included was Adam Beach for his role as Ira Hayes in “Flags of Our Fathers.” Beach’s performance stole the show and ended up being the heart of the film. His name deserved a place on the Golden Globe list for Best Supporting Actor. However, breakout performances are rarely recognized by Hollywood, which appreciates one surviving the test of time, but perhaps Beach’s name may yet sneak its way onto the Oscar list.
Some other apt selections included Annette Bening’s nomination for Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy for her role as the selfish, glory-seeking mother of Augusten Burroughs in “Running with Scissors;” Adriana Barraza and Rinko Kikuchi’s nomination for Best Supporting Actress for their roles in “Babel” as the Mexican housekeeper and the deaf-mute Japanese teenager, respectively and Will Ferrell as Harold Crick in “Stranger than Fiction” and Johnny Depp once again for his unique characterization of the wacky Captain Jack Sparrow, both earned nominations for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical.
If the Golden Globes are any indication of the outcome of Oscar night, and they usually are, then Leonardo DiCaprio and Clint Eastwood should have very good nights. The films “Babel,” “The Departed,” and “Little Children” should also experience great success. However, the campaigning is far from over and there may yet be some surprises.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 09:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

By VANESSA D. OVERBECK
Staff Writer

“The Nativity” is 2006’s most cowardly film. It takes no risks, offers no interpretation and instead presents the flattest, most boring renditions of one of the greatest stories in human history.
“The Nativity” sucked all the joy and wonder out of what should have been a passionate and beautiful tale of love, faith and sacrifice. In its attempt at biblical accuracy, the film had little to offer cinematically. The script gave very little to the actors to work with and was practically emotionless. Perhaps not wishing to alienate Christian audiences, the film seemed to avoid any attempt at explanation at every turn. The writer and director may have succeeded in not alienating viewers, but instead they created a characterless, lifeless, uninteresting film.
All along the road to Bethlehem Joseph and Mary have only one conversation regarding their role as the parents of the world’s most miraculous child. It essentially amounted to we’re both scared and we don’t know what we have to offer him. The parents of the Son of God must have had a lot more to say and certainly must have had strong, complex emotions about their future role in the life of Jesus Christ. Yet this is all the producers of “The Nativity” could come up with. What a cowardly copout. Show a little heart and take a little risk and offer your audience a little human emotion.
Furthermore, when the angel first tells Mary about the Immaculate Conception, the Bible reads that she humbly accepted her burden on faith alone. However, the big screen gives one the opportunity to elaborate on the complex feelings Mary must have had about her pregnancy, the terror she must have overcome and the joy she must have felt at the impending birth of her people’s savior. At best, these themes are only lightly touched on.
The director also offered nothing as to what made Mary worthy of bearing such a fabulous child. These flaws made Keisha Castle Hughes’ job not only difficult, but also next to impossible. Her performance was the weakest of the entire cast and that is in large part a result of the gutless script.
And what about Joseph? He delivered the best performance with what the pathetic script had to offer, but a gutsier interpretation would have given his delivery even greater strength.
Perhaps the film’s greatest offense was the presence of the three wise men at the birth of Christ. The film went to great and gutless lengths to stick closely to the Biblical tale, then goes completely cliché at the end, including the wise men in the manger scene. They did not arrive until months later. It was ridiculous to offer such a boringly accurate big screen rendition of the nativity story and then blow it in the final moments.
Most disappointing is, what with director Catherine Hardwicke’s solid filmography, which is characterized by gutsy risk taking — “The Newton Boys,” “2 Days in the Valley” and “Tombstone,” — that she offered such a boring and flat cinematic presentation in “The Nativity.” There is also no excuse for writer Mike Rich with such passionate and moving tales as “Radio,” “Finding Forester” and “The Rookie” to his credit.
Shame on both of them for their gutlessness. They had a rich opportunity here to present a colorful, exciting and inspiring film akin to “The Passion of the Christ,” but settled instead for a dull, stale and practically unwatchable film. Next time, in the interest of good art, do not settle for the safe road. Risk a little and you just might achieve both accuracy and beauty.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 05:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“Bobby,” Emilio Estevez’s third film from behind the camera, is a big step up from his last stint as director in 1996 for “Men at Work.” Estevez attracted an all-star cast from Anthony Hopkins to Lindsay Lohan with his original script. However, the response from audiences and critics alike has been mixed, at best.
The film did not score big with audiences, who perhaps expected something less artfully crafted and more straightforward in its presentation. The film left the local Krikorian Premiere Theatre after three weeks of screenings.
“Bobby” has also been more miss than hit with critics. Again, from the title film connoisseurs may have been expecting a docudrama on the life of one of America’s greatest politicians, not a character and time-period examination told through a day in the life of hotel guests and employees present at Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination.
“Bobby” follows the lives of campaign volunteers, hotel guests and employees, a resident drug dealer and entertainers on the day Kennedy won the democratic presidential nomination. The film is set in the Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel in the kitchen of which Kennedy was shot after learning of his victory.
“Bobby” attempts to depict the importance of the rise of Kennedy during this time of rising consumer consumption and materialism, class differences, racism and the war in Vietnam through the experiences of 22 different characters.
These different storylines vary in success from compelling and moving to flat and unimportant. However, despite the power, or lack-thereof, of the individual storylines, the overall feeling of the time, disillusionment and hopelessness, was successfully conveyed.
Kennedy represented a light in the darkness, hope where there was none and a future bright with possibility rather than dark with despair. Estevez’s storytelling method may have suffered from flaws along the way, but in the end he was able to convey the gut-wrenching importance of Kennedy’s assassination.
One of the compelling storylines was that of Diane (Lohan) and William (Elijah Wood), young friends who are at the hotel for their wedding. Diane is marrying William, who has been drafted, to keep him out of Vietnam. Her selflessness and his good heart are moving and powerful.
The scenes with the black cook Edward Robinson (Laurence Fishburne) and the Mexican-American kitchen helpers Jose (Freddy Rodriguez) and Miguel (Jacob Vargas) are some of the best-written scenes of the film, ones Estevez should be particularly proud of. Robinson’s diatribe on anger and strength of character are beautiful, capturing the soul of the film and Kennedy’s importance in several bright shining cinematic moments.
Then there are the storylines that fell hopelessly flat. William H. Macy gave a great performance as the hotel manager Paul, but the scenes involving his affair with the hotel telephone operator Angela (Heather Graham) and the confrontation by his wife, the hair stylist Miriam (Sharon Stone) seem completely disconnected from the central theme — Bobby. They added nothing and completely detracted from the overall message.
One of the film’s most delightful elements was the audio and film clips from Kennedy’s many moving speeches. “Bobby” is worth a see if for nothing else than to hear Kennedy’s profound words once more.
Despite this film’s flaws, “Bobby” is heartfelt and it succeeds in more ways than it fails. Though it may not reach the Oscar podium for anything this year, it is more than worthy of a viewing in theaters or at least a DVD rental. Just do not expect a docudrama, but rather artful story weaving and you will find much less to be disappointed in.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)