Dancer in the Dark vis-à-vis Hollywood

Dancer in the Dark[1] is the final instalment of Lars von Trier’s Golden-Hearted Trilogy. The other two films of this trilogy are Breaking the Waves[2] and The Idiots[3]. The Golden-Hearted Trilogy was inspired by a children’s story about a girl who gives away her possessions to needy passers-by until she has nothing left; still, she believes, everything will be all right.[4] The three films also centre on the theme of filmmaking under the restrictions of Dogma95. Von Trier was one of the instigators of the Dogma95 school of filmmaking with its ambitions of facilitating, legitimising and empowering the cinemas of small European nations to compete with and counteract Hollywood and its global market dominance.[5] According to its Manifesto, Dogma95 achieved this anti-Hollywood goal through its promotion of technology and the ‘Vow of Chastity,’ both of which, when adopted successfully, were to emphasise the democratic possibilities of filmmaking.[6] Dogma films aimed to stand in stark contrast to the industry driven nature of Hollywood. Dancer in the Dark, however, is a post-Dogma design and represents von Trier’s partial and experimental movement away from the anarchic and organic rules of Dogma. The film illustrates how this Danish director is not completely willing to subject his work to the Vow of Chastity “at the cost of any good taste and aesthetic considerations.”[7] Subsequently, Dancer in the Dark has become a bridge between two disparate forms of filmmaking; a hybrid that combines the organic verisimilitude of European Dogma95 with Hollywood’s conventions and hyper-realism. It is on these terms that Dancer in the Dark can be considered as a contemporary European film that meets Hollywood ‘face-to-face’. Furthermore, this meeting has also permitted von Trier to proficiently address two filmic-political issues; the first is Hollywood’s global hegemonic deliberation of cultural-political values, and the second pertains to the meaning of stereotypes in transnational cinemas. Accordingly, this essay will first delve into the rules of Dogma95 and examine the extent to which Dancer in the Dark still conforms to this contemporary European method of filmmaking. This will then be followed by an analysis of the film’s Hollywood conventions. The essay will conclude with a discussion of the two aforementioned filmic-political issues.

The Dogma95 school of filmmaking was initiated in 1995 by Danish directors Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg. The Dogma rules, also known as the ‘Vow of Chastity,’ stipulated location-shooting, direct sound, hand-held camera, colour film stock, available lighting and Academy 35mm format; the rules were also against the director being credited, optical work and filters, superficial action, genre movies, and temporal and geographical alienation.[8] The Dogma rules in theory aimed to pioneer, empower and legitimise the relatively minor cinemas of small, particularly European, nations. It celebrated the anarchic, organic and minimalist method of film production and evokes similar liberal ideals to that of the 1970s Punk ‘Do-It-Yourself’ movement, 1950s Auteur Theory and 1910s Dadaists.[9]

Dogma’s restricted means of filmmaking meant that its stylistics centred on “an instability and obscurity of the image,”[10] this assertion is often interpreted as an honouring of realist aesthetics. As follows, Dogma films are expected to generate an impression of authenticity and present their audiences with the ‘truth’ through a stylised form that appears to be an ‘untampered’ record of events.[11] Moreover, the early Dogma works also had a distinctively masculinist bent to its provocations which was highlighted through the films’ stark treatment of gender and sexuality; this is pertinent within von Trier’s repertoire as he explores female martyrdom in Dancer in the Dark, debasement in Breaking the Waves, servitude in Dogville and maternal guilt/grief in Antichrist.[12] [13]

The critical response to Dogma 95 has been bipolar – it has been dismissed as a mere publicity stunt and a ‘gimmick,’ seeing that both von Trier and Vinterberg have not consistently followed their own rules.[14] In contrast to this marketing interpretation, Dogma has also been recognised for its artistry as it alludes to the notion that limitations enhance creativity, especially those that the artist self-imposes. Mette Hjort seeks a more cohesive answer, and critiques Dogma as a small European nation’s response to ‘the inequities of globalising processes.’[15] By the same token, Shohini Chaudhuri considers the Dogma rules to be carefully framed in opposition to Hollywood’s for the purpose of challenging the ever-narrowing conception of what constitutes viable or legitimate filmmaking; whereby, just as the manifesto states, “for the first time, anyone can make movies.”[16] [17]

Dancer in the Dark is a post-Dogma design and can be essentially interpreted as von Trier flirting with the enemy, however though, the film still largely adheres to and draws on Dogma’s ‘Vow of Chastity’ – for the possible and expected purpose of ‘forcing the truth out of its characters and setting;’[18] constructing ‘realism’ from contrived verisimilitude. Thus, in this sense of utilising the Dogma rules and also being the product of a Danish director, Dancer in the Dark is a contemporary European film. Dancer was predominately filmed with a Sony VX-1000 Digital Handycam and through this doing von Trier persistently blurs the boundaries of documentation and fiction-creation.[19]

The film’s opening illustrates this point as the audience abruptly enters into the action without a typical Hollywood establishing long-shot to buffer their expectations (that is, if they disregard the abstract paintings of the overture). The documentary-feel of The Sound of Music rehearsal presents the characters in a very ordinary light and induces the impression that they are just as; real people existing in their own worlds who happen to be captured on film. Of course as the story progresses, this initial ‘real’ impression collapses against the film’s generic, narrative and other textual constructed elements (principally the musical genre). Nevertheless, von Trier’s Dogma-abiding decision to use hand-held cameras sustains an initial impression of verisimilitudinous realism.

Another directorial stylistic that is also the result of the Dogma rule of hand-held cameras is what I consider to be as von Trier’s signature aesthetic. This ‘fragmented reality’ aesthetic effect is created from the astute manipulation and combination of cinematographic direction (the camera lens’ focus, depth of field, framing, lighting and movement) and editing. This stylistic first presents a scene in the hand-held format, and then continuously cuts back and forth among its focal subjects; with each cut, the camera instantaneously switches between that of a close-up, medium and long shot, as well as modifying the shot’s perspective – a kind of organic montage, but one which doesn’t leave the scene. This stylistic often disjoins the flow of action but not so immensely that it disorientates the viewer’s sense of cause and effect. The stylistic provides new perspectives on the action as often the immediate transition into a new camera shot and angle forces the viewer to re-evaluate what they see on screen. In addition, this stylistic is also used to move the action into the future – sometimes by a few seconds, others by minutes or hours – and allows von Trier to heighten the crucial moments of a scene. Likewise, he frequently places awkward silences into these sequences as they often speak volumes about character relations.

The film’s opening scene capably demonstrates the effect of this ‘fragmented reality’ stylistic. The montage sequence begins with Björk’s Selma and Catherine Deneuve’s Cathy rehearsing ‘My Favourite Things,’ this is then followed by the producer whispering to the choreographer that “she sings funny and her dancing is not all that great either,” next the choreographer teaches Selma how to move her head, then a sudden cut to the second singing of ‘My Favourite Things,’ followed by Cathy commanding Selma to not call her ‘Cvalda,’ and finally with the director’s congratulatory de-briefing. This scene, which plays out in less than 3 minutes, opens up, in an unceremonious manner, the film’s dynamic characterisation and overarching thematic concerns; the audience senses Selma and Cathy’s comradeship, their immigrant status and the inherent racial discrimination that they face – in essence, the space that they hold in the society that the film depicts.

Von Trier employs this stylistic technique again to document the private endearing relationship between Selma and her son Gene. This is portrayed through the evening dinner ritual where Selma disciplines Gene and compels him to help with her play. The two discursively converse on banal subjects that often lead to dead ends – such is demonstrated by Selma’s question “Are you tired?” and Gene, in response, pointing out the awkwardness of their bantering “Why should you always ask me so stupid questions?” There are moments of the scene which typically present Selma in a low shot to connote her status as mother and Gene with a high shot to denote his childishness, but often the mobile nature of the hand-held camera and the cut-editing distorts these conventional cinematic signifiers. This distortion is appropriately used when considering the generalisation that for most immigrants their children hold more cultural capital than the parents, as the children have been properly socialised to the culture and customs of their adopted country; this is directly illustrated through Selma’s smirking but helpless facial response to Gene’s “It’s your damn musical” comment. In effect, this stylised manipulation of the hand-held efficiently presents the film’s melodrama in a documentary-like ‘realistic’ light.

Apart from the fervent use of the hand-held, Dancer also conforms to the Dogma 95 rules of using colour film stock and available lighting. Von Trier’s use of naturalistic available lighting has resulted in the film’s drab washed-out tones; so much that the film’s stock seems to have been filtered. Filters and optical work are forbidden under the Dogma means of production, but here von Trier adopts it tastefully for the purpose of establishing two distinctive spaces that Björk occupies within the film. The first space belongs to Selma and is of the melodrama genre; the second is that of the musical where Björk’s extra-textual persona seeps through seamlessly. Dancer in the Dark, however, is primarily a drama and the musical aspect, although crucial to its meaning, is secondary. On the film’s website, von Trier even personally explains the necessity of creating “little tricks” so that the musical numbers were able to fit textually into the film; the musical aspects exist in Dancer on the premise that Selma has musical fantasies and the ability to hear music in everyday sounds.[20] Von Trier didn’t want “the music to suddenly pour down from the sky” because he thought that would take some of the pain and danger away from the overarching melodramatic aspect of the film.[21] This split between the two genres seems to be in part inspired by Bob Fosse’s Cabaret.[22] In Cabaret, Fosse distinctively places the musical numbers on the Kit Kat Club stage and away from the narrative’s drama. The musical numbers were created with one hundred static cameras and similar to the hand-held provide some interesting shots and angles (“gifts” as von Trier calls them).[23] This camera technique with its inclusive editing induces the impression of a ‘live’ Broadway performance, while the film stock, drenched in bright colour, generates the musical sequences’ ethereal, almost Hollywood hyper-real atmospherics. The most surreal example of this is the song that occurs after Selma shoots Bill.

Another one of von Trier’s subversions of the Dogma conventions is the inclusion of his full name at the film’s beginning. Dogma 95 discourages this self-crediting as it claims to be anti-auteur (“The auteur concept was bourgeois romanticism from the very start and thereby …false![24]), however this rule is ironic as ideologically Dogma very much follows the auteur theory of promoting the director’s vision beyond the point of Hollywood. Moreover, Dancer was also not shot on location in the sense that the narrative is set in Washington, USA but filmed and produced in Denmark (von Trier has a phobia of flying); this aspect contributes to film’s simulated Gothic America. Likewise, Breaking the Waves although set in Scotland was filmed in one of the largest studios in Copenhagen.[25] This involuntary subversion against location-shooting is transparently made voluntary in Dogville whereby von Trier abandons the entire notion of naturalistic location, be it simulated or authentic, for a black studio stage with white chalk lines drawn to indicate relevant brinks and boundaries. These two subversions, although undermining the Dogma ‘Vow of Chastity,’ do not yield the work towards the aesthetics and ideology of Hollywood films either.

Dancer in the Dark’s inclusion of the musical genre, irrevocably, represents its ‘face-to-face’ meeting with Hollywood on an aesthetic and generic level. Together with the film’s other Hollywood attachments of character simplification and celebrity appearances, they help to complement and sustain the emotional poignancy of the maternal melodrama. In her essay Mum’s the Word, Brenda Austin-Smith explains that the musical and the melodrama are staples of classical Hollywood production, and how their unorthodox mixture in Dancer in the Dark interrogates the meaning and intent of each genre.[26] She sees this to climax in the Trial scene and refers to the notion of an actor’s celebrity status in shaping the audience’s perception of his character to elucidate this argument. Austin-Smith recognises how Selma’s idiosyncrasies are transparently linked to Björk’s inelastic extra-textual identity as alternative-pop diva and Joel Grey’s representative role as an ambassador of the musical genre is formed through his inter-textual identity as the master of ceremonies in Cabaret. [27] She realises a symbolic significance to this connection: Grey, who portrays Oldrich Novy, is Selma’s supposed father and his public genealogical rejection of her in court allegorically signifies Dancer as a rejected child of the musical film tradition; whereby Selma’s death sentence comes to represent not only her court-perceived wrongdoings but also the film’s violation of the ‘law of genre’.[28] Von Trier seems to be punishing his protagonist for his own flaw of kowtowing to not only one but two Hollywood genres and transgressing against the Dogma vow of no genre movies. Additionally, this punishment is made all the more tragically frustrating by the character simplification of Selma as the heroic, yet naïve, maternal martyr and Bill as the self-absorbed traitor. Thus, even with these three face-to-face meetings with Hollywood conventions – the musical genre, the celebrity appearances and the character simplification – Dancer in the Dark still does not convey the impression of being ‘Hollywood’. Rather, these conventions are subverted, and contribute to a European sense of the maternal melodrama – one where the tragedy is heightened. This ‘European’ sense of the maternal melodrama is affected through the film’s anti-Hollywood ending where the main character is hanged; this ending fulfils the expectation of ‘realistic’ realism typically present within Dogma films and, in effect, takes away from the impact, tone and ideology of the film’s Hollywood conventions.

Nevertheless, von Trier’s sheer adoption of Hollywood conventions and his ambition of working, in part, within that framework better allows his work to address certain filmic-political issues regarding transnational cinemas. Dancer in the Dark illustrates von Trier’s willingness to experiment with, and artistically validate, the aesthetics of Hollywood filmmaking, and subsequently through this process transforms it into a Hollywood production – one that happens to have Dogma95 elements. If we take the logic behind the Essentialist approach to National Cinema whereby it is assumed that films produced in a particular country ‘reflect’ something essential about the country as a ‘nation’;[29] then, one can borrow this logical and equally surmise that a film created with particular conventions can ‘reflect’ something essential about the school where these conventions come from. In this case, it is von Trier using Dancer to examine Hollywood’s global hegemonic deliberation of cultural-political values and the concept of stereotyping in transnational cinemas.

Thomas Elsaesser, in his book European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood, remarks how Hollywood films propagate and advertise very specific tastes and attitudes in their deliberation of national values such as democracy, freedom, and open exchange of people, goods and services.[30] These essentially national and American values are, however, construed as ‘universal’ because of Hollywood’s hegemony and dominance over the global film industry. These values and goals have served America well insofar as have, until the end of the last century, been widely endorsed by peoples who neither share territorial proximity with the United States nor language, faith, customs or a common history.[31] In contrast, the European values of solidarity, pacifism, the welfare state and the preservation of the past commonly conveyed in European cinemas have been less inspirational and have certainly not translated into the same kind of global recognition as in the case of Hollywood.[32] Von Trier is clearly aware of this form of manipulation, and uses Dancer’s Americanism, to undermine these values. Selma comes to represent the typically naïve immigrant with communist tendencies who idealises America for the movies that it produces: “In Czechoslovakia I saw a film and they were eating candy from a tin just like this. I thought to myself how wonderful it must be in the United States.” Meanwhile, Bill, the lawyers and the jury come to depict America’s inherent xenophobia and hypocrisy regarding the aforementioned American values. Conceptually, von Trier seeks to make the viewer aware and conscious of Elsaesser’s thesis – seeing that Hollywood’s values are essentially a construction, be it national or cultural, and thereby should not be construed as being applicable to all.

Furthermore, Elsaesser also observes how set ideas about the national character or cultural stereotyping (of the ‘other’ and the ‘self’) are most likely to thrive within popular culture and the media; he diagnoses these stereotypes as “accurate, if regrettable ‘reflections’ of widely held views.” In Dancer, this works twofold as the film comes to concurrently support and challenge the preconceived notions of both American and European audiences; for example, the film confirms the American stereotype of the seemingly unappreciative communist Eastern-European migrant, while for a European audience, the stereotype of the ‘McCarthy’ anti-foreign prosecutor and judicial system. Moreover, when considering the Essentialist approach to National Cinema it can also be said that Dancer in the Dark reveals how the Danish perceive America; this is made even more blatant as von Trier critiques the film’s theme of capital punishment on its website: “I think that most people in Denmark find the death penalty very foreign. I’m not saying that Danish people are more humane than others; just that it’s a tradition foreign to Scandinavians … The death penalty doesn’t seem like a punishment, however, it’s more like revenge and it’s dangerous to allow the state to have anything to do with revenge. I’m deeply against the death penalty.”[33] With this personal remark, it seems that von Trier chose to employ Hollywood conventions in Dancer for the prime purpose of being able to socially critique America; in other words, using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house.

In this essay, I have argued that Dancer in the Dark can be considered a contemporary European film because of its alliance to certain Dogma95 rules such as the use of hand-held cameras, colour film stock and available lighting. The film also exhibits subversions of the Dogma rules like its crediting of the director, use of filters and non-compliance to filming on location. The Dogma features of the film contribute to Dancer’s verisimilitude, which aims to present the overarching melodrama in a realistic light. Dancer in the Dark also meets Hollywood ‘face-to-face’ through its adoption of certain Hollywood conventions such as the musical genre, the celebrity appearances and the character simplification; these contribute to the film’s partial hyper-real musical sections, but also, as a form of contrast, help to heighten the tragic melodramatic aspect of the film. Moreover, von Trier’s usage of Hollywood conventions facilitates and legitimises him to address the filmic-political issues of Hollywood’s global hegemonic deliberation of cultural-political values and stereotypes in transnational cinemas. In practice, von Trier has demonstrated that a filmmaker can adopt Hollywood conventions without having to succumb to its implicated ideologies.

Bibliography

Breaking the Waves. Dir. Lars von Trier. October Films (USA). 1996.

Cabaret. Dir: Bob Fosse. ABC Pictures. 1972.

Dancer in the Dark. Dir. Lars von Trier. Fine Line Features (USA). 2000.

Dogville. Dir: Lars von Trier. Columbia Tristar. 2003.

The Idiots. Dir: Lars von Trier. Umbrella Entertainment Pty. Ltd. (Australia). 1998.

Tranceformer: A Portrait of Lars von Trier. Dir: Stig Björkman. Umbrella

Entertainment Pty. Ltd. (Australia). 1997.

Austin-Smith, Brenda. ‘“Mum’s the Word”: The Trial of Genre in Dancer in the Dark’.

Post Script. 26/1. Fall 2006.

Chaudhuri, Shohini. ‘Dogma Brothers: Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg’. New

Punk Cinema. Ed: Rhombes, Nicholas. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

2006.

Elsaesser, Thomas. ‘ImpersoNations: National Cinema, Historical Imaginaries’.

European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood. Amsterdam: Amsterdam

University Press. 2005.

von Trier, Lars. ‘Lars von Trier on Making Dancer in the Dark’. Dancer in the Dark

website. http://www.dancerinthedarkmovie.com/lars_int.html Last accessed:

11/06/08.

von Trier, Lars and Vinterberg, Thomas. Dogme 95 Manifesto.

http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm. Last accessed: 11/06/08.

von Trier, Lars and Vinterberg, Thomas. Dogme 95 Vow of Chastity,

http://www.dogme95.dk/the_vow/vow.html. Last accessed: 11/06/08.

---

[1] Dancer in the Dark, dir. Lars von Trier, Fine Line Features (USA), 2000.

[2] Breaking the Waves, dir. Lars von Trier, October Films (USA), 1996.

[3] The Idiots, dir: Lars von Trier, Umbrella Entertainment Pty. Ltd. (Australia), 1998.

[4] Shohini Chaudhuri, ‘Dogma Brothers: Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg’, New Punk Cinema, Ed: Rhombes, Nicholas, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006, p. 164.

[5] Op. cit., p. 155.

[6] Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, Dogme 95 Manifesto, http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm, last accessed: 11/06/08.

[7] Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, Dogme 95 Vow of Chastity, http://www.dogme95.dk/the_vow/vow.html, last accessed: 11/06/08.

[8] Chaudhuri, Op. cit., p. 153.

[9] Chaudhuri, Op. cit., p. 155.

[10] Chaudhuri, Op. cit., p. 157.

[11] Chaudhuri, Ibid.

[12] Dogville, dir: Lars von Trier, Columbia Tristar, 2003.

[13] Chaudhuri, Op. Cit., p. 158.

[14] Chaudhuri, Op. Cit., p. 154.

[15] Chaudhuri, Ibid.

[16] Chaudhuri, Ibid.

[17] von Trier and Vinterberg, Dogme 95 Manifesto, http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm, last accessed: 11/06/08.

[18] von Trier and Vinterberg, Ibid.

[19] Chaudhuri, Op. Cit., p. 163.

[20] Lars von Trier, ‘Lars von Trier on Making Dancer in the Dark’, Dancer in the Dark website, http://www.dancerinthedarkmovie.com/lars_int.html, last accessed: 11/06/08.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Cabaret, dir: Bob Fosse, ABC Pictures, 1972.

[23] von Trier, Ibid.

[24] von Trier and Vinterberg, Dogme 95 Manifesto, http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm, last accessed: 11/06/08.

[25] Tranceformer: A Portrait of Lars von Trier, dir: Stig Björkman, Umbrella Entertainment Pty. Ltd. (Australia), 1997.

[26] Brenda Austin-Smith, ‘“Mum’s the Word”: The Trial of Genre in Dancer in the Dark’, Post Script, 26/1 (Fall 2006).

[27] Austin-Smith, Ibid.

[28] Austin-Smith, Ibid.

[29] Thomas Elsaesser, ‘ImpersoNations: National Cinema, Historical Imaginaries’, European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005, p 64.

[30] Elsaesser, Ibid., p. 60.

[31] Elsaesser, Op. cit.

[32] Elsaesser, Op. cit.

[33] Lars von Trier, ‘Lars von Trier on Making Dancer in the Dark’, Dancer in the Dark website, http://www.dancerinthedarkmovie.com/lars_int.html, last accessed: 11/06/08.

'Mother and Child' ... Oscar-Buzz for Mrs. Warren Beatty?

I am completely impartial to Annette Bening. I think she is an actress with potential (despite her youthful age of 52) but have only seen her in a few things.

My close friend, Claudie, absolutely hates her, attributing most of the hatred to her hammy performances in Being Julia and American Beauty: two of her most famous and celebrated performances, along with The Grifters; from the three, she won her three Academy Award Nominations (former two for Best Actress 2004, 1999, and latter Best Supporting Actress 1990). It is quite a shame that she had lost all three bids, but even more embarrassingly so, twice losing to the unconventional but formidable Hilary Swank.

Don't get me wrong, but Hilary is great, and absolutely hands-down deserved her first Oscar for Kimberly Pierce's Boys Don't Cry (1999). No argument there. But for 2004? I completely disagree with the Academy's pick. Million Dollar Baby is a solid film, though very much Hallmark-flavoured in terms of the narrative and script, but the performances and direction are solid. Clint Eastwood is a mesmerising director, whom always brings a subtle, sophisticated charm to his films. And Swank's performance is solid and hits all the right notes; it's a hark back to sporting flicks of the '70s and '80s, such as and Raging Bull and Rocky. But Swank is very much a limited actress, though she definitely has the androgyny element as her niche, and indeed, what an exciting niche to own. But was she Oscar-worthy in 2004?

I don't think so.

My rankings of the nominated performances that year are:

1. Imelda Staunton in Mike Leigh's Vera Drake: heartbreak perfection. Staunton won the Venice Film Festival's Best Actress Volpi Cup prize, and the BAFTA.

2. Kate Winslet in her cult-ish beloved Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

and 3. Catalina Sandino Moreno in the raw Maria Full of Grace, for which she won the Berlin Film Festival Best Actress prize.

Those three should have been the front-runners, but instead it was Annette and Hilary.

Regardless, considering that you generally have to be a "front-runner", winner of the Globe to become Oscar champion, for 2004, Annette along with Hilary were in the lead, and considering both are quite limited ranged actresses (with Annette being slightly more diverse), it should have gone to Annette.

But now with 2010's magnificent, The Hours-esque female heartbreak melodrama, Mother and Child (Rodrigo Garcia, 2010), I am hopeful and wishing that she'll win the Oscar, come January 2011. All of this sudden passion for Mrs. Bening, arose from a viewing of Mother and Child.

Annette gives a restrained and thought-out performance; one which is far from her typical (sometimes effective, sometimes fanciful, sometimes disingenuous) histrionics. I think she may have it in the bag - with more chances arising from The Kids are All Right. Naomi Watts is, as always, remarkably stellar in the film too - she will probably get a supporting actress nomination and hopefully win (and like Annette, has other films in contention this year: namely, Fair Game (Doug Liman, 2010) and You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (Woody Allen, 2010). I'm also hoping, above all, that Julianne Moore will also be nominated and wins the Oscar. I've always loved Moore, but feel that she and Annette will be splitting the votes with The Kids are All Right, and for some reason, I don't see this 'dramedy' doing that well - maybe taking the token "independent, art-house, Americana" slot at the Oscars, but other than that? I'm turned off of that film because in the trailer, we see Moore's character falling for Mark Ruffalo, I thought she was a lesbian with Bening? I despise cheap, hetero-normative depictions of lesbianism.


Annette, Julianne and Naomi are three greatly talented actresses, whom I've felt as though there was a thread running through the three of them, primarily due to their acting styles that tend towards histrionics (and restrained histrionics). All three deserve an Oscar in my books.

Moreover, I am also waiting with bated breath for Leigh's Another Year, which I hear has a spectacular heartbreaking performance from Lesley Manville. Also Juliette Binoche in her Cannes Best Actress winning performance in Certified Copy (Abbas Kiarostami, 2010). However, I still feel that Manville and Bening have better chances at being nominated. I doubt that Manville will win because Leigh's ladies are, sadly, never triumphant, with even the 'powerhouse' Sally Hawkins (who you'd think Oscar-voters would love because she's young and attractive) being horrifically snubbed for a Best Actress nomination in 2008.

So, all in all, I am hoping for Annette to carry the label of "Academy Award Winner" as of 2011. I am now a fan of her work, and will intently revisit American Beauty. I don't mind histrionics at all, but only if they are done 'tastefully' or 'appropriately' that they are effective.

For Your Consideration:

Annette Bening, Mother and Child, Oscar for Best Actress in a Leading Role, 2010.
Naomi Watts, Mother and Child, Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role, 2010.

Re-Vitalisation of my Cinema Blog

Please let me kindly introduce myself.

My name is Matthew, and I am thoroughly fascinated by film. I am currently a student at the University of Sydney, appropriately majoring in Film Studies and English, amongst other things.

I previously had the joyous experience of writing a blog for one of my courses, entitled: Cinematic Modernism. From that experience, has now seen the birth of this new blog: "Oh Cinema, look what you've done to it."

Basically, the premise of this blog will be that of me writing a 'reading' of a film that I've recently viewed. The reading will be ecclectic and attempt to engage you, the reader; or rather it will be a means by which I will have the opportunity to express my feelings about a film on paper. So yes, as you may have guessed, this is very much an exercise in self-indulgence, but please feel free to read my opinions and comment, or yell back, telling me how wrong my thinking is.

Oscar 2009 Predictions

Best Original Screenplay:

Will Win: Inglourious Basterds [incorrect]
Possible Upset: The Hurt Locker
(I think) Should Win: Inglourious Basterds
Another Worthy Winner: A Serious Man

Best Adapted Screenplay

Will Win: Up in the Air [incorrect]
Possible Upset: Precious
(I think) Should Win: An Education or Up in the Air
Another Worthy Winner: Up in the Air

Best Supporting Actor

Will Win: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds [correct]
Possible Upset: Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
(I think) Should Win: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Another Worthy Winner: Woody Harrelson, The Messenger

Best Supporting Actress (My Favourite Category, only not this year!)

Will Win: Mo’Nique, Precious (Unhappy Jan! All she does is scream, yell and swear… firstly talk about black ghetto stereotypes… jeez louise) [correct]

Possible Upset: Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air (At least she acts, and is the only one who has managed to steal a pre-cursor award from the Mo. I don’t know why people are also suggesting Maggie Gyllenhaal as an upset… instead I’ve heard a lot of backlash against Maggie… but I’d rather Maggie win it, even though she is mediocre in Crazy Heart.)

(I think) Should Win: Up in the Air girls: Vera Farmiga or Anna Kendrick

Another Worthy Winner: Maggie Gyllenhaal for her work in Secretary and SherryBaby.

Not Nominated but A Very Worthy Winner: Samantha Morton, The Messenger. Julianne Moore, A Single Man. And of course, the best… Melanie Laurent for Inglourious Basterds. Damn.

Best Actor:

Will Win: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart [correct]
Possible Upset: Colin Firth, A Single Man
(I think) Should Win: Colin Firth, A Single Man
Another Worthy Winner: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

Best Actress (My favourite category, again, not this year)

Will Win: Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia (the lesser of 2 evils) [incorrect]

Possible Upset: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side (the odds are for her)
(I think) Should Win: BAFTA-winner Carey Mulligan, An Education (at least she is a versatile actor, unlike Gabby)

Another Worthy Winner: Gabourey Sidibe, Precious or Helen Mirren, The Last Station (but those 2 have no chance in hell).

Not Nominated but A Very Worthy Winner: critics darling Tilda Swinton in Julia, Cesar-winner Yolande Moreau in Seraphine, Cannes Best Actress winner Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Aussie Abbie Cornish for Bright Star.

Best Director:

Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker [correct]
Possible Upset: Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
(I think) Should Win: Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
Another Worthy Winner: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Not Nominated but A Very Worthy Winner: Michael Haneke, The White Ribbon

Best Picture

Will Win: The Hurt Locker [correct]
Possible Upset: Inglourious Basterds
(I think) Should Win: Inglourious Basterds
Another Worthy Winner: Avatar

Score: 5/8

Reaction to the Academy Award nominations 2009: Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress

Last night I stayed up ’til 1.30am (in Sydney) to catch a live date with Anne Hathaway (in Los Angeles). Only I missed her by 10 minutes, and had to wait for the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Science’s IT crew to replay our virtual, one-sided date. Yes the Oscar nominations came out yesterday morning and just right before I had the time to finish and publish my predictions for Lead and Support Actresses. I focus on these 2 categories as they are my specialty. So now, I will give you my thoughts on the nominees and an extra early prediction on who should/will win.

Best Actress in a Leading Role: admittedly, the category this year is such a dud. The 5 nominated were no big surprise, all 5 had appeared on virtually every pundits’ predictions: Bullock, Mirren, Streep, Mulligan and Sidibe. Most gave mediocre, substantial but unexciting performances in, again, mediocre-substantial but very unexciting films. What is ironic, however, is that last year this category was so jam packed that even certain ‘locks’ and ‘frontrunners’ were shut out of the race, with the 5 nominees still being incredibly strong without them. We had: Kate Winslet in The Reader (and Revolutionary Road), Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married, Meryl Streep in Doubt, Melissa Leo in Frozen River and Angelina Jolie in Changeling, with the exclusions of Berlin Silver Bear recipient Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky), Cesar-nominated Kristin Scott Thomas (I’ve Loved You So Long) and critics favourite Michelle Williams in Wendy and Lucy.

What is even worse about this year is that all the really WOW performances were in small-budget, independent films which haven’t received the campaign-ridden attention as that of The Blind Side, Julie and Julia, Precious, An Education and The Last Station. I would have loved to see:

Abbie Cornish nominated for her impeccable turn in Jane Campion’s Bright Star: Miss Cornish proves that Ryan Phillipe has good taste in actresses for wives/girlfriends, and undoubtedly paired up with the much more talented one out of the two, despite whatever the Oscars thought. (I’m sorry Reese, but you was campaignin’ against my gurl and I know you gots lots o’ monies but I’ma gonna get my whole ‘hood to root for my homegirl… Okays!).

Or for Cesar-winning actress Yolande Moreau to be nominated for Seraphine, this undervalued French actress even gained the attention of the National Society of Film Critics and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, unfortunately she didn’t fare well with the Academy.

Or Tilda Swinton nominated for arguably the most searing and compelling performance of her luminous career in Julia.

Or Charlotte Gainsbourg nominated for her Cannes Film Festival Best Actress winning turn in Lars von Trier’s Antichrist. Apparently, for some stupid reason or another, it isn’t in contention because it premiered on Pay-TV or something like that.

I was really hoping for one of these 4 women to have a surprise nomination and break apart the mediocrity that has now become the line-up for Best Actress…

…or maybe I’m being too harsh.

I do support Carey Mulligan’s nomination, she was utterly charming and adorable in An Education, but considering most of the acting work was achieved through her stylist and English background, I don’t think she should win. Moreover, remembering that one of the best (British) actresses of our time only won her Oscar last year after 5 nominations and 13 years of waiting, I think Carey will survive a few more years, or even a decade, without one.

Gabourey Sidibe is searing in Precious and basically has to endure the (von Trier-like/Charlize Theron-like/Boys Don’t Cry-like) abuse that is hurled at her. She is a gem and the inherent understanding, interiority, emotional resonance and spirit that she enacts in her performance conjures up the likes of Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry, Charlize Theron in Monster, Cher in Mask, Bjork in Dancer in the Dark, Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves and Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider – all the aforementioned women were either not respected or known actresses prior to their breakthrough performances, and regardless of their prior limited acting successes and visibility in the industry, they were able to show the general public the amount of emotional reserve and psychological depth/intelligence that they had secretly possessed (regardless of years of acting training or no acting training whatsoever); such raw and pure energy, which no matter how many years of acting classes an actress attends will she ever be able to imitate – you either have it or you don’t. Sidibe’s screen presence and intensity reminded me of Melanie Laurent’s brilliance in Inglourious Basterds. A win would be pretty cool, but I am generally against young, unestablished actors winning over older, established actors. Your prize is the nomination, treasure that. I’m very ageist in that way. But with the precious Ms. Sibide, I may make an exception.

I’m sure Dame Helen Mirren is superb in The Last Station, and she is one of my favourite actresses of all time, so I am rooting for her. But I have heard that she is a bit too over-the-top in the film and isn’t doing anything spectacular that we haven’t seen before.

Talking about silly brings me to MERYL STREEP (as Sophia Loren so awkwardly stated last year at the ceremony, her name symbolises “unmatched excellence”, you know, just in case you didn’t know…). Julie and Julia is just not a serious film, the kind that I’m into. I didn’t mind it but wasn’t blown away by it. Her performance is substantial, she is after all Meryl Streep. Admittedly, I’m not American nor am I into cooking, so how the fuck was I to know who Julia Child was prior? Even through all of Streep’s metamorphic, mimetic performance, I just can’t get away from (a) Nora Ephron talking about late-aged people having sex on The View and (b) Meryl sticking her tongue out and simulating the noise of a fart. And if that was really what the real Julia Child was like, gee, she was one sophisticated lady.

But in all truth, I love Meryl, and am in the camp which believe that she should already have 3 Oscars if not 4. At least 2 Best Actress Oscars to tie with the likes of Hilary Swank, Sally Field, Jodie Foster, Luise Rainer and Glenda Jackson. And I am not discounting those 5 actresses’ talents, careers and amazing incarnations, but in parts of their careers they have been very flat, one-note and even embarrassing: e.g. Swank in PS I love You, Field in Not Without My Daughter and Brothers and Sisters, Foster in Flight Plan. I just feel that it is so disappointing to be giving Meryl her prized 3rd Oscar for such an unremarkable performance in such an unremarkable film. I would even have liked it better if she had ‘stolen’ Kate Winslet’s Oscar last year for Doubt. If only Meryl had won for A Cry in the Dark (for which she won the Best Actress prize at the Cannes Film Festival in ’88), or The Bridges of Madison County or Adaptation, we wouldn’t be in this situation now.

Of course, the worst is Sandra Bullock. Some say her winning will top the nightmare that is Julia Roberts winning Best Actress in 2000 for Erin Brockovich over Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream, Laura Linney in You Can Count on Me, Juliette Binoche in Chocolat and Joan Allen in The Contender. I say: “No it won’t! Julia Roberts will always be the nightmare.” At least Bullock is charming in her comedic roles. At least Bullock doesn’t take herself too seriously. At least Bullock isn’t a bitch who think she’s a really “great” actress with an “amazing” repertoire behind her, when really she’s not. At least Bullock knows how to get into her characters’ mindsets. At least Bullock doesn’t encourage prostitution like Roberts does in the heinous Pretty Woman. At least Bullock isn’t deluded. At least Bullock can sort of act in her nominated role. At least Bullock doesn’t have an undeserved Oscar on her mantle… (meaning that hopefully, as much as I love Sandra Bullock, the comedic actress celebrity persona, she won’t win.) And if she does win, can’t we all just pretend it was for her rich, deeply-complex and understood supporting performance in 2005′s Crash? Moreover, I feel that there is a lot of momentum for Bullock, especially since she has shown just as much appreciation and gratitude for her Razzie nom as with her Oscar nom; showing that she doesn’t take herself too seriously.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role: I personally found the nominees here to be even more worse than the leading line-up. The leading line-up was not a surprise – I’d would have gladly bet my mortgage on Bullock, Mirren, Mulligan, Sidibe and Streep. But the Best Supporting Actress category, which this year was the strongest than it’s ever been, was ultimately reduced to a garden path that has Mo’Nique’s name at the end of the line. OK, so let’s see who we have:

- Mo’Nique, who will certainly win with her portrayal of a sadistic mother: she basically ghettoizes all of cinema’s worst mums into one: a bit of Shelley Winters from A Patch of Blue, some Piper Laurie from Carrie and a lot of Jennifer Hudson from Dreamgirls (Hey, Effie White refuses to work and support her daughter because all she can do, apparently, is sing and she refuses to engage in a lesser employment because she believes that God put her on this earth to sing, and if her endeavour to sing fails and this leaves her daughter hungry and out in the cold, then so be it; in my books, that very much constitutes a bad mother!). Her performance is visceral and leaves an impression, but I have a problem with African Americans basically acting like themselves – shouting and being all loud and ghetto, being yourself doesn’t constitute acting. Also, in the future, Mo’Nique will have a career just as bright as her fellow Oscar-winner sista J.Hud, as I really cannot see her in another dramatic or comedic role that isn’t Big Mamma’s House IV. I’m sorry but I feel that an Academy Award winning actor should be more versatile than that. I found Mo’Nique to be very one-note, and wasn’t able to reveal and interiority of that character – maybe a script problem, but who knows? I thought she didn’t seem committed to her performance, and it just seemed like she was just “acting”. Unlike her co-star Gabourey Sidibe, there seemed to be a sense of lack, a spark missing from her villain, of which Christoph Waltz, Javier Bardem, Heath Ledger, Tilda Swinton, Louise Fletcher and Anthony Hopkins possess in their Academy Award winning, or soon to be winning, portrayal of their respective villains.

- Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air, both these girls, like their film, are charming and delightful but missing a WOW factor in their performances. Farmiga oozes her mature sex/sensuality and seduces us like she does Clooney. Meanwhile, Kendrick has a bit more meat and bones with her role as she has to do more of the ‘acting’ and has got more of the precarious dramedy scenes which either make or break the film. In most, Kendrick slides through them successfully. Also, Kendrick’s is a kind of “a performance within a performance”-type role, which the Academy tends to go gaga for in this category. Kendrick, also has the special honour of being the only actress to win a major precursor (National Board of Review) over Mo’Nique. But I feel the Academy will be torn between the two: Farmiga has less to ‘act’ in this, but has a substantial career and body of work behind her; while, Kendrick does more of the ‘acting’ but has Twilight in her repertoire.

- Maggie Gyllenhaal-Sarsgaard: her surprise nomination is the stuff that I stay up late for. Many see this nomination as an apology for ignoring this brilliant young actress’s work in Sherrybaby, Secretary, Donnie Darko and World Trade Centre. I am rooting for her to win, and maybe she possibly has what’s needed to dethrone Mo’Nique reign (despite a lack of precursor critics or industry buzz [but considering she was able to nab a nomination away from the many other richly/equally talented actresses that were in serious contention earlier on proves that maybe she is the miracle worker]).

- Penelope Cruz: (NB: I adore, respect and ‘love’ Penelope Cruz, ever since I saw her in All About My Mother and Volver, and rooted for her Oscar win last year with Vicky Cristina Barelona but…) I hate this fucking bitch for stealing a precious nom away from Julianne Moore, Samantha Morton, Melanie Laurent, Sigourney Weaver, Natalie Portman and Diane Kruger. All non-Oscar winning actresses who gave far better performances in far better faring films. Nine was atrocious! Penelope Cruz was mediocre in it. She plays her typecast role of the seductress, the kind of role which completely flattened her career when she first started out in Hollywood. So why the fuck is the Academy now rewarding her for it? Penelope was fantastic in Almodovar’s Broken Embraces, and with that role she was able to (a) communicate properly (b) communicate emotions (c) play the temptress but in a way that is multidimensional, fascinating and ever-so-alluring. Why wasn’t she nominated for that performance, since the Academy felt so strongly to honour her again. Why this nomination for her in Nine? It doesn’t make sense to me. It’s not like she’s got a chance of winning – in its history, the Academy has only ever had 5 back-to-back consecutive wins, and Cruz is no Luise Rainer, nor a K. Hepburn, nor a Jason Robards, nor a Tom Hanks or Spencer Tracy. I need to rewatch her films with Almodovar and Allen to remind myself that I ‘love’ her.

I would have so wanted Julianne Moore to have been nominated a 5th time for A Single Man and win it. Or the evanescent 2-time nominated Samantha Morton (The Messenger) to pull a coup with her 3rd. Or Melanie Laurent:, who’s in Inglourious Basterds for approx. 41 mins which is shorter than Waltz’s screen time, Tarantino’s finest heroine. I would have thought that only one of these 3 women would’ve had the audacity to kick Mo’Nique to the curb.

Out of the nominees, I’d give Best Actress to Helen Mirren and/or Gabourey Sidibe, and Best Supporting Actress to Maggie Gyllenhaal.

But if I was a member of the academy, I would have voted for and given the two awards to:

Best Actress: either Tilda Swinton in Julia or Yolande Moreau in Seraphine (a Cesar Best Actress winner last year).

Best Supporting Actress: hands down to Melanie Laurent in Inglourious Basterds.

Yet, I am betting on: Meryl Streep to win Best Actress and Mo’Nique to win Best Support Actress. I think the voters will suddenly remember that Sandra’s got a Razzie nom and discount her.