FYC #72: The Entertainment Junkie

FYC #73: Reel 3

Editor’s note: Welcome to the twenty-eighth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

by Jason from The Entertainment Junkie

Think about all of the summer blockbusters we’ve seen in the past several years. The form is full of special-effects-driven spectacles, with giant robots going head-to-head, whole cities being laid to waste, and gorgeous new worlds being built. And as the technology improves, these effects become sharper and more realistic, allowing filmmakers to bring to life even more wonders. But with this comes a problem: more and more films are abusing the use of visual effects, making effects drive the story (or semblance of a story, as is too often the case). The kinds of effects that the Academy should honor, then, are the opposite of this: the effective use of visual effects, which is the story is supported and enhanced by the effects, whether through important plot points (like 2008’s winner, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) or by creating a world for the story to take place in (like last year’s champion, Avatar, which admittedly didn’t have much in its favor outside of its effects). 

Now that the Academy has expanded the Visual Effects category from three to five nominees, there are more opportunities to honor the use of effects. The decision to expand to five nominees is certainly symbolic of how many films are driven by special effects now. The question is, how many of these five nominees are effective uses of visual effects?

Alice in Wonderland certainly isn’t a shining example. In fact, I’d say that it’s the perfect representation of everything that’s wrong with blockbusters these days. It’s not that the world of Underland shouldn’t have been built by special effects; surely it was necessary. The problem is that the world is so ugly, the effects so poorly rendered (especially in 3D) that it’s ridiculous to even think that the film could earn a nomination here. If you want evidence of just how bad it gets, look no further than the abomination known as the Futterwacken scene toward the film’s end. If there’s any justice in the world, this will win nothing come Oscar night.

Iron Man 2 also fails on this front. The effects in this film aren’t nearly as ugly as those in Alice in Wonderland, but they do fall short in another way: they’re boring. The film shows us nothing new, nothing that we haven’t seen done before (and better) in other movies. And that’s a tragic short-coming for an effects-driven film. All around Iron Man 2 was a disappointment compared to the original, including its effects. Did the film really deserve this nomination? Not when the digital-cool world of Tron:Legacy and the brilliant (and perfectly used) visuals in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World were ignored (the latter, by the way, had the best visual effects of the year, hands down).   

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is a difficult film to figure out in regards to visual effects. The whole film series doesn’t make magic look particularly fun or magical, despite using cutting-edge technology. The strengths of these films’ effects come from other things, such as Lupin’s werewolf transformation in Prisoner of Azkaban or the bridge collapse in Half-Blood Prince. In Part 1, the big effects pieces are few, and there’s nothing really stunning about them. I’m guessing next year’s Part 2, featuring the climactic Battle of Hogwarts, will be a lock for next year’s Visual Effects prize, and this year’s nomination is simply filler for the category.

Hereafter was not among many people’s favorite films. It was a big-idea piece that didn’t really have anything to say, with plot strands that went nowhere and a third-act that completely derailed the film. But the tsunami scene at the beginning of the film was terrific, completely unexpected in a Clint Eastwood film and wonderfully executed. I wouldn’t say that the film is worthy of winning the Oscar, but it is a film in which the story, for better or worse, is supported by the effects rather than the other way around. Though the glimpses into the afterlife weren’t terribly thrilling, the tsunami was certainly worth a nod.  

That just leaves Inception. The film is obviously built as a effects piece, the kind of film that couldn’t exist unless the technology for the effects existed. But the great thing about Inception is that the film isn’t dominated by computer-generated visual effects. For example, the oft-discussed hallway fight sequence was filmed on a rotating set, utilizing camera tricks instead of CGI. Of course, digital effects were employed as well, and unlike the other four films they created truly memorable spectacles, such as Paris folding in upon itself and Cobb’s meticulously detailed Limbo world. All of which never took precedence over the story. And that is the most special effect of all in this film (well, that and Marion Cotillard *sigh*). 

So there you have it: five films that supposedly exemplify the best visual effects of 2010. Maybe next year the Academy won’t ignore such shining examples as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, recognizing the truly special effects of 2011 (however many there are).

 Editor’s note: Welcome to the nineteenthof a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

by Jason from The Entertainment Junkie

I’m currently taking a class called Russian Literature in World Cinema. On the first day of class, my professor asked us one question: what makes a good adaptation of a book into a movie? It’s a complicated question. For me, movies are more like short stories, whereas television series/miniseries are more like novels.  Therefore, when a book is adapted into a movie, I see it as editing a novel into a short story: things are going to have to be cut. Sometimes those things are subplots, sometimes background characters, and sometimes little moments of character development. The success of an adaptation, then, comes from how the screenwriter preserves the essence of the literature he’s adapting: does the film keep the main plot, and do the natures of the main characters remain intact? 2007’s Adapted Screenplay category had an example of success and failure: the Coens’ No Country for Old Men script perfectly embodied the nihilism of Cormac McCarthy’s novel, while Christopher Hampton’s Atonement screenplay lost Ian McEwan’s gorgeous novel (though I should say that no film version could really do justice to McEwan’s magnificent use of the English language).

I wish I could judge this year’s crop of adapted screenplays on how well they are adapted from their source material, but of the four films that are based works of literature, I have read none of them. So I can only judge based on the screenplays themselves, though I encourage anyone who has read the source material to offer their comparisons. The films are also ranked in order of how deserving of the Oscar I think they are.

1.    The Social Network; screenplay by Aaron Sorkin, based on The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich

There’s a major backlash against The Social Network right now: those who hailed the film as the best of the year and an instant masterpiece are now referring to it as overrated, and the various awards groups have now decided that, after two months of fawning over the film, The King’s Speech is the best film of all time. I, on the other hand, wasn’t crazy about the film from the very beginning; it’s a very good film, maybe even a borderline great film, but not one of the best of the year. That being said, there’s no denying Sorkin’s brilliant screenplay, which takes on a Rashomon-like structure that never sides with anyone, instead portraying all sides as deeply flawed men fueled by entitlement and/or hubris. The script is littered with great quips, true to Sorkin’s style (my favorite: “Dating you is like dating a Stairmaster.”). And the script does something that the final film glosses over: does singular ownership of anything exist anymore, and more importantly, did it ever exist to begin with? It’s taken a long time for Sorkin to finally earn an Oscar nomination, and he deserves the win.

 2.    Toy Story 3; screenplay by Michael Arndt, story by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Lee Unkrich

I don’t really understand why sequels are automatically considered adapted screenplays, since generally they’re original (well, relatively speaking) stories involving returning characters, rather than the same story told again, a la remakes. Therefore I don’t think Toy Story 3 deserves to be in this category, but should be considered an original screenplay instead. But what I think doesn’t matter, since its already been nominated as adapted, and nothing can change that now. The script for this film is excellent, full of heart and nostalgia for those, like me, who grew up with Toy Story. My biggest complaint is that there are too many new characters that don’t amount to much, and it seems to have more broad jokes in a Dreamworks manner that is, honestly, beneath the Pixar team. Still, there’s no denying that it deserved its nomination and, if not for The Social Network, the win.

3.    127 Hours; screenplay by Simon Beaufoy and Danny Boyle, based on Between a Rock and a Hard Place by Aron Ralston

Here’s an example of a film taking a very difficult premise and turning it into something incredible. However, I’m not sure how much of what made 127 Hours work was in the script; I think of it more as a feat of Danny Boyle’s frantic direction, Jon Harris’s quick-cut editing and James Franco’s magnetic performance. But all that had to come from somewhere, right? The script makes great use of Ralston’s inner thoughts, escaping into fantasy and memories while he is trapped deep in a Utah canyon. The script helps all the other elements come together to capture Ralston as the deeply human character he is, and the result, like it or not, is never boring.

 4.    True Grit; written for the screen by Ethan & Joel Coen, based on True Grit by Charles Portis

The Coens are quickly becoming a writing mainstay for the Academy, perhaps even to the point of finding a Woody Allen-esque level of love. The True Grit script is certainly well-crafted, complete with a lack of contractions and great moments of Coen-brand humor. However, like the film above, I think True Grit is more of a feat of the Coens’ direction, Roger Deakins’ gorgeous cinematography (please let him win the Oscar for this) and the strong performances, particularly from LEAD actress Hailee Steinfeld. That’s not a knock against the screenplay, but I don’t think it was the strongest element of the film.

5.    Winter’s Bone; screenplay by Debra Granik and Anne Rosellini, based on Winter’s Bone by Daniel Woodrell
I was not a major fan of Winter’s Bone either, despite many people’s obvious love for the film. Like The Social Network, I think it’s a good movie that flirts with greatness, but the movie’s strength lies in its stunning cast. The script takes various twists and turns that don’t have much of an impact on the page, and none of them are truly surprising. On its own, it’s not much, but once it’s put to film, every actor sells the story in a way that makes it haunting and great. But since we’re only judging screenplays here, I have to give it my last place spot.

Overall, a great crop of screenplays, if maybe not the strongest in recent years. Maybe one day I’ll be able to find out if they’re successful adaptations or not.