The 85th Academy Awards (2013)
Telecast/Production Grade: C-
First thing’s first, congratulations to all of last night’s winners! To the Life of Pi team who worked in tandem to make the film, for a great many viewers, an astonishing sensory experience, taking home prizes in Cinematography, Visual Effects, Original Score, and Director. To Les Miserables, whose musical sensation largely inspired the “music in film” focus of the night’s telecast, winning in Makeup, Sound Mixing, and Supporting Actress categories. To Django Unchained, whose charisma attempted to inject a laid back feeling into the night, showcased by Quentin Tarantino and Christoph Waltz’s respective wins for Original Screenplay and Supporting Actor. To the fantastic sound teams on Skyfall and Zero Dark Thirty, who put forth such outstanding work that the Academy wasn’t able to agree on which had greater sound editing.
To Lincoln, whose astute production design most benefited from the category title change, and to Daniel Day-Lewis for offering us one of the few honestly comedic moments of the evening. To Anna Karenina‘s costume designer Jacquelline Durran, whose colourful and lively work made for one of the night’s most deserving wins. To Jennifer Lawrence, who won for no bogus reasons, but simply because she’s a hilarious and effervescent screen presence and gave a truly deserving performance in Silver Linings Playbook. To Emmanuelle Riva, who celebrated her 86th birthday on the evening, and Lawrence was whip-smart enough to mention in her acceptance speech. Finally, to Ben Affleck, who overcame cynicism to take the top prize for Argo, and was ever so grateful for all his opportunities as he accepted the win.
It’s a shame, then, that the telecast presentation was such a painful debacle. Launched on the aforementioned “music in film” theme that holds little true relevance to what made 2012 such a strong year in film, the overabundance of musical presentations put the evening disastrously off-balance. That’s not to say they were all bad, but they took focus away from the priority, which was honoring the year in cinema. By focusing on music, they detracted from the more crucial aspects of film, such as production and post-production. This ignorance bled into category presentations, where they chose not to show the category specific work on the films (i.e. costume or production sketches), instead opting for plain images. Even worse was the crude abbreviation of acceptance speeches by the mean-spirited Jaws theme by John Williams, showing the producers literally didn’t care about the winners.
As hinted, not all the moments were disastrous. The In Memoriam segment particularly made tears run down my eyes, until it was also abbreviated for a Marvin Hamlisch tribute, again raising attention to producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan’s imposing preferences. Perhaps it wouldn’t seem so distracting if we had an affable comedic presence carrying us through proceedings, but Seth MacFarlane’s jokes weren’t simply dull and predictable, but an insistent barrage of self-indulgence. The 17 minute opening was entirely devoted to Seth MacFarlane worrying about his public image, opposite a gag-inducing William Shatner Star Trek sketch. I kept reminding myself 9-year-old Quvenzhane Wallis was in the audience, but also respected auteur Michael Haneke. A cut-away to Joaquin Phoenix conveyed all the opinion needed upon the evening. This was the worst tasting carrot ever, and we don’t want it. On the bright side, how bad can a show involving Charlize Theron and Channing Tatum dancing really be?
Peeping Tom (1960)
Grade: A- | 1st Viewing
Now if you want to discuss true cinematic tribute, where better to look than the film which ushered legendary director Michael Powell’s career into a close? A movie about the making of film as much as the watching of it, we’re immediately invited into the dark room of Mark, an amateur director whose chosen documentary study happens to be the murder of pretty white women. That immediately forgoes the typical assumption of mystery surrounding the killer of a horror film, but we are intended to sympathize with Mark from the first moment. Sheltered from public interaction, not unlike us watching in a dim theater, Powell co-opts us into Mark’s murderous obsession by highlighting our addiction to onscreen terror, though not in such a tongue-in-cheek manner as Drew Godard’s The Cabin in the Woods.
A unique part of my own experience watching the film was the hot and humid auditorium I watched it in, affording all the more delirious focus on how the film itself creates an atmosphere of chemically-bathed confusion. The highly saturated colours and harsh, practically skin-baking lighting strains the eyes with an image that’s practically narcotic. Construction of terror by means of production is not only the film’s strong point, but also its focus. Powell’s critiquing both the industry that manufactures manipulative horror films such as this, as well as the audiences who find themselves drawn to see them. That challenging prospect may have put an unceremonious end to his career, but his bravado and vision continue to captivate anew to this day.
Side Effects (2013)
Grade: B- | 1st Viewing
Steven Soderbergh might have benefited some to take a page out of Peeping Tom‘s playbook, and for some time through the beginning of Side Effects it looks as though he has. Focusing on Rooney Mara’s depressed young woman coping with her husband returning home from prison, Soderbergh uses all his tools to moor his characters in psychological isolation. Continuing his studied use of digital technology in glossing the screen over in a light mist, this story of pharmaceutical drugs being overindulged starts with a fascinating analysis of our materialistic culture. Idealizing products like clothes, makeup, and drugs are taken in excess in order to grasp at the ideal lifestyle shown in advertisements. As we reach the midsection, everything seems like smooth sailing to thrust these characters into turmoil.
At this intersection, however, the film stops being a subjective story of personal turmoil and self-realization, instead opting for something closer to an objective study like Contagion. We shift focus to Jude Law’s therapist character whose life becomes all the more consumed in his defense of Mara’s character. As he gets deeper into his investigation, we’re taken further away from the core emotional concept in favor of conspiracy-mystery plotting. By the end, not only do we care so much less about all the characters involved, but the first half of the film is basically discredited as a lie. The style still stands, as it does in nearly all of Soderbergh’s films. Catherine Zeta-Jones, too, offers her most delicious scene-chewing in ages. It’s a shame that Scott Z. Burns’ script veers away from any gratifying emotional ends, and it ends Soderbergh’s big screen career (for now anyway) on a regrettably superfluous note.

Duncan Houst













Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 2:38 pm
As for me, I tried to watch The bicycle Thief, but I couldn’t finish it.
What I saw was a well made movie that I knew would emotionally drain me by the end, so I just turned it off by the halfway point since I knew that I couldn’t handle it.
I also saw Wild at Heart, which was unbelievably corny. Granted, all of David Lynch’s movies are corny, but this one was corny to the to the nth degree, and bizarrely hilarious.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 3:02 am
Im sorry but your C- grading to the Oscar telecast is B.S.
It was an A-, B at worst.
Seth Mcfarlene did exactly what most people wish hosts did, go as far at the limits hold you, if not a little over. Plus he really was funny. Yes, his humor isnt for everyone, but I liked it.
Gervais goes overboard, so thats why I don’t like him.
The Oscars aren’t a family friendly show. Its an awards show of the rich and famous, with the exception of a 9 year old.
Its a 3+ hour show, somehow you have to keep the audience entertained.
With all do respect to the technical awards, NO ONE really cares who wins, or what they have to say. The Jaws theme. Cooome on…. that was great. it was perfect.
They are relatively nobodies to the eyes of a much wider audience out there. Sure those of us that appreciate film know, but the people who just want to see who wins the big awards don’t.
In my opinion, if they cut out those awards from the telecast all together and presented at another ceremony like the honorary and Hersholt Humanitarian Award, it would be better, the show would be shorter, or have the time for more performances and such and people would find another way to complain.
Lighten up man.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 10:14 am
Nooo! Ignoring the technical awards would further cheapen the Oscar ceremony and turn it into an all-out star-fuck instead of an appreciation of the year’s best in cinema. We already have the Golden Globes as the place to worship self-absorbed A-listers, we don’t need two ceremonies for that. It would also create the perception that the technical aspects of a film don’t matter and all the public should care about is the stars. We want a smarter movie going populace, not one that determines a movie’s quality based on whether or not it has George Clooney.
I have to agree with Duncan on McFarlane. His jokes were cheap and predictable (Mel Gibson and Chris Brown jokes? Come on!) and, with the exception of a few cinematic inside jokes, he kind of stunk. Granted I can’t put the blame squarely on him, as the writing was pretty dismal as well.
The best part about the Oscar telecast was that there were so many different films that took home awards, and that’s what redeemed it for me. I’d give it a B- or C+.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 2:33 pm
I’d give the telecast a D. Out of touch, disturbingly sexist and racist hack jokes, tired writing and an unbalanced use of time. Like Alex, I enjoyed the uncertainty and variety of this year’s awards. But yes, I do think that the Oscars are something you should be able to watch with your family. No, I don’t think that means they have to be puritan and sexless, but there is a huge difference between subversive and thoughtful humor that will be smart enough to go over the youngest viewers heads, and the lowest-common-denominator crassness that populated these awards. And of course we “knew what we were getting” with Seth MacFarlane – but what kind of point is that?
I for one DO care about the winners and nominees, most especially in awards that don’t get any attention the rest of the year. And I would prefer that they are not harassed by a pubescent host about their weight after accepting their awards, cut off after an obscenely short time to make more room for an outdated musical number, or having their breasts sung about during what’s supposed to be a celebration of their work and art.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm
My Oscars Telecast 2013 breakdown:
Host – B+
Musical Performances – A-
Direction, Execution, Editing, Timing – C-
Nominees Presentation – C
Jokes – A-
Winners – C-
Movies that I Watched Last Week:
- The Double Life of Veronique (A)
- The Conversation (A)
- The Color of Paradise (A-)
- Mystic Pizza (B-)
- Delicatessen (A-)
- Strangers on a Train (B+)
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 7:42 pm
You brought up something that I’ve always thought was one of the worst things about the Oscars telecast, the presentation. It’s always boring.