 |
||
Page 3: jchensor's Best Picture Oscar Recap for 2001The final qualification for a Best Picture, sadly, is the most elusive one: it needs to have a voice. It needs to have its own voice and its own personality. And more often than not, the director is the one who provides that voice and gives it his or her personal touch. Unfortunately, though all qualifications listed earlier are subjective, this one is the most subjective of all. There is no doubt that Peter Jackson has given The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (jchensor's rating: 9/10) his personal touch. Most of the visuals of The Lord of the Rings were without question the vision of Jackson's imagination (the imagery of when Frodo puts on the ring, for example, was one such "Jackson-esque" touch). But despite this, the movie does not seem to have its own personality. And the reason it doesn't have its own personality is because, well, it's perfect. And this may sound ludicrous to all of the biggest Lord of the Rings fans out there, but give me a chance to explain. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring isn't just perfect, it's too perfect. The casting is flawless, from Ian McKellan as Gandalf to John Rhys-Davies as Gimley to newcomer Orlando Bloom as Legalos to Elijah Wood as Frodo. And the acting job done by all of them is equally as impressive (even by Wood, who at this point has only served to irritate me with his roles in The Faculty and Deep Impact). Jackson's direction (with his trick photography and forced perspectives, as well as the lavish worlds he has dreamed up) is solid and he treats Tolkien's original and beloved novel with great respect. The set design and backgrounds, computer generated or real, are all
But it's just too perfect. It can be comparable to seeing a model walking down a catwalk at your latest fashion show. She looks incredible... almost perfect... but then you tend think to yourself, "She must have a bad personality." And why? Why are we wired this way so that we can't believe a woman as beautiful as this model could have a decent personality? It's because it is the imperfections that give something personality. It is the minor flaws that are easily overlooked that make something what it is. If you know just the right touch to get your car started that no one else knows, it is your car. You know every imperfection of your favorite stuffed animal, so much that you could pick it out of an entire crowd of like stuffed animals. You know exactly where your cat likes to sleep and where it likes to be scratched, and that's why it's your cat. And even though your significant other may have some personality flaws that may drive others crazy, it is those qualities that make him/her even more endearing to you. It's those sort of things that allow you to call something "your own." Lord of the Rings is probably the best movie made all year. In essence, it should win Best Picture because there is literally no faults with it. But because it is so perfect, it lacks its own personality and seems a bit more distant. Gosford Park, which I gave a better rating to, spoke to me on a very personal level. It had a very strong personality that I could attach myself to. Sure, it has its flaws of the under-developed murder mystery, but that's fine. It's that imperfection that made the movie more personal to me. And that is why I could not find myself loving Lord of the Rings as much as many did. Perhaps because it was so perfect, because it was made to try to please as many people as possible, it lacked a unique voice. Jackson did what he could to inject his own elements into the movie, but at the same time he had to make sure that the hordes of Tolkien fans wouldn't want to lynch him for interpreting it in his own way too much. And because of that, it just seems too polished, too clean, and too... impersonal. And that's rather unfortunate... not for the movie, but for me because the movie speaks volumes to others and there are no flaws with the movie. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to say it again: there are no flaws with the movie! But I guess it's still missing that certain "mph!" for me and I'm actually quite sad that I cannot find as much attachment to the movie as I would have liked to have had. And because of this, I'm presented with quite a stickler: should it deserve Best Picture or not? I would normally say yes, if it were not for the fact that another movie accomplishes everything Lord of the Rings does, and yet at the same time maintains it voice...
And that movie is Moulin Rouge! (jchensor's rating: 10/10). When I walked into the theater to see this movie, I knew nothing about the film and had no idea what to expect. Little did I know I was gonna see what would become my favorite movie of 2001 and what has become one of my favorite movies of all time. Moulin Rouge!, without a doubt, has all of the qualifications a movie that deserves the Best Picture award should have. The story is well written, especially in terms of its integration with all of the musical numbers. The biggest flaw of most modern musicals (especially Disney animated musicals) is the erratic pace of the musical numbers. Most modern animated musicals (let's face it, animated movies are the only musicals these days) have a score of musical numbers towards the beginning of the film and then, as it winds toward the end, the music sort of stops coming (see Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and Mulan). Moulin Rouge! not only succeeds in avoiding this pitfall of your typical modern musical, but it eliminates the concept of musical numbers all together! One of the things I am always surprised at when I view the movie again (and again and again) is that the music never stops coming. And the fact that Baz Lurhmann and Craig Pearce were able to write an entertaining story (a very Shakespeare In Love-esque tale of a story within a story) and have it filled to the brim with non-stop music allows Moulin Rouge! to be entertaining from start to finish without a dull moment. Moulin Rouge! also has a very strong presence. You cannot talk about the advancement of modern cinema in the past year without mentioning Moulin Rouge! because it stands out so much among all the movies of 2001. After seeing the movie, regardless if it's positive or negative, the movie will leave an impression with you. You'll never hear "Like A Virgin" in the same way again. And "Your Song" will seem that much more passionate when next you hear it. And, as a musical, it has opened a whole new door to the genre and introduced it to a whole new audience that has never truly experienced the musical before. Modern younger audiences may find classic musicals laughable and embarrassing and maybe a little "hokey." It's hard for such audiences to appreciate the classic musical form of storytelling and, thus, the musical as a genre of films has all but disappeared outside of animated movies. There is no denying that Moulin Rouge! has left it's mark on modern cinema and has opened the door for a whole new generation to a style of musicals that even today's audiences can appreciate. Even if it does not reinvent the musical and give way to a musical rebirth, it cannot be ignored for its extremely well-done attempt at reviving a dying genre. And if anyone tells you that they've seen something like Moulin Rouge! before, I will not believe them. There has never been anything like Moulin Rouge! before. It's unique in every sense of the word. No musical has had Moulin Rouge!'s furious pace before, and no film has ever taken modern pop songs and incorporated it into a musical with such respect and success. Even if someone had told me what Moulin Rouge! was about and what it was like stylistically before I had saw it, I don't think in my wildest imaginations that I could have pictured a film like this. It's simply something that has never been done before. And finally, nothing comes out stronger in this movie than Baz Lurhmann's voice. The movie is so infused with everything Baz Lurhmann that if there was no Baz, there could never have been a Moulin Rouge!. No other man could have made this movie with the same impact as Lurhmann, even with the same ideas, songs, and script (and don't get me started about his snub in the Best Director category. I could go on and on and on about that). And sure enough, the movie is not perfect. There are some minor flaws with it, but all can either be overlooked or they add to the movie's charm. Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman, for example, may not be Gene Kelly and Julie Andrews, but
Thus, Moulin Rouge! embodies everything a Best Picture should embody: a carefully written and imaginative story sprung form the minds of Lurhmann and Pearce (no other person would ever have decided to have a huge musical number about love take place in a giant elephant); great acting from everyone from McGregor to Kidman to Jim Broadbent as Harold Zidler to (in the most unnoticed wonderful performance of the year) Richard Roxburgh as The Duke; and an overall masterpiece of set design, costumes, and choreographed musical sequences (since one of the last sequences, the "Hindi Sad Diamonds" sequence, was a play within a movie, it's sometimes easy to overlook that it really took some great choreography and talent to make a musical number look that incredible). And that is why I truly believe that Moulin Rouge! deserves to win the Best Picture award for 2001.
The Oscars broadcast is only a week away, and only then will I see how much the members of the Academy agree with my opinions. For the first time, I actually have a legitimate movie to root for since I've seen all five nominated movies and I know exactly which one I think deserves Best Picture. Yes, a funny thing definitely happened on the way to the Oscars... and as a result, I've never been more eager to get there. ©James Chen, Mar. 18, 2002 |
beautiful and incredibly atmospheric (most notably the giant statues that flank the river) and live up in every way to the imaginations of the many loyal readers of the novel. The story is well-paced and exciting, and that includes the way the movie just sorta... ends. The ending came right on time because if there were any more action sequences, I would have exploded with over-excitement. Everything in this movie falls perfectly into place. It is like a 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle in the way that every piece fits perfectly and that there is nothing left that doesn't belong, and when all put together it forms a whole, complete, and beautiful picture.
the fact that they are not renowned singers is what makes their characters, Christian and Satine, that much more believable. It's more inspiring to hear a person who does not normally sing break into "Your Song" from spontaneous inspirations of love. It's that much more believable and McGregor and Kidman both did a wonderful, wonderful job. Many people have also reacted negatively to the movie's "dizzying" style of directing, but the idea of taking an innocent young man in Christian and inserting him into the wild, sinful world of the Moulin Rouge would not be possible without the crazy style of direction. In order to convey the dizzying life that becoming a part of the Moulin Rouge provides, this style of story-telling is not only recommendable, it is mandatory. The warnings of Christian's father at the very start of the film would seem far less prophetic if Moulin Rouge turned out to be a very ordinary and semi-exciting place. So these flaws actually gives the movie its personality, and that's what makes Moulin Rouge! speak to me in volumes.