Oscars 2013: "Anna Karenina" (2012)

Director: Joe Wright

Writers: Tom Stoppard (Screenplay), Leo Tolstoy (novel)

Starring: Kiera Knightly, Aaron Johnson, Jude Law, Matthew Macfadyen, Michelle Dockery

If I was going to give an excuse as to why I neglected to write about the Oscar nominated films in advance, I would say that it was due to the fact that this years Oscars contained some long ass films. The cinema seems to be reverting back to the days when film would last for hours, when an audience reaction wasn't necessarily the main objective and it was more the fascination with people moving on a screen (ie ‘Birth of a Nation’) and had to be viewed in two sittings (sometimes even three). These days most cinemas don’t have an interval in the middle of the film so the viewer is stuck in a dark cinema or glued to the sofa (hypothetically speaking) for hours on end. Therefore it took time to watch all of the nominated films, dedication to writing notes, and then more time to attempt to provide a somewhat interesting overview on what the film was like and why one should choose to watch it. Okay so maybe I’m being a bit dramatic, basically I’m one lazy motherblogger. One of these long films, and the subject of this post, is Joe Wrights “Anna Karenina” (2012) starring Kiera Knightly, Jude Law and Aaron Johnson.

Out of the three Oscar nominations, ‘Anna Karenina’ won one for Best Achievement in Costume design (made by Jacqueline Durran). This year, Durran also won a BAFTA for her costume designs, as well as a CDG award from the Costume Designers Guild. Safe to say, the costumes in this period drama are pretty spectacular. After all, what kind of period drama would the film be without costumes? The film won another 12 prizes and has been nominated for 30 awards in total.

In addition to the costumes, another predominant feature of this film is the production design and cinematography.The combination of the two really set the scene beautifully for this period drama and essentially transport the viewer into Tolstoys mind, or for the literary critics out there, at least the audience saw Joe Wrights directional vision. The stage set up and the unique frame transitions using trains, a stage backdrop and theatre backstage area helped in providing a slightly claustrophobic atmosphere for the viewer- in turn emphasizing the rising tension in the film that runs parallel to the emotions of Anna Karenina herself as she becomes increasingly watched and judged by society for her sordid affair.

I literally prayed that Kiera Knightly (Karenina) did not pout her way through this film. In general, I admire her as an actress and there really is no one else who can do period dramas as well, but at times I worry whether she believes that everyone pouted their way through life from the 16th century (Pirates of the Caribbean) to 19th century. Anna Karenina begins the narrative as the Belle of St Petersberg society. In his novel Tolstoy managed to encompass a whole society at the height of Russian Imperialism; a vision that I believe Wright has managed to convey beautifully by using the stage where the whole of society seems to unite. The theatre is used to convey the illusion of a pretty, decadent and heavily embellished society given centre stage, that behind the scenes (scenes that have been shot in other locations) tell a very different story. At certain points throughout the story the audience do sympathize with Anna: she is married to a husband (Law) who treats her well, but is boring and more focused on his work. Therefore it is understandable that Anna is going to want to fall and experience a more passionate, different kind of love with Alexei (Johnson). Yet even after her affair she tries to maintain her self important reasoning believing she is above everyone else thus refusing to accept her new position in society and in turn becoming increasingly outcast.

Three quarters of the way through the film the tone seems to change from being 'steamy' and full of sexual tension to cold and empty, until eventually Karenina falls off her pedestal/ station platform. Overall the film questions many aspects of life, fantasy, reality, emotions, and human characteristics. It also makes the viewer question whether society today has changed that much since Tolstoys Russia. I know, unfortunately we do not endorse Oscar winning costumes everyday, but living in London where at least once every two months the tube and overground services experience major delays due to a person throwing themselves under a train, it does make you wonder what kind of life that person must of been living in todays society to drive them to do that.

Verdict: watch it! Knightly doesn't pout too much in this one, honest.

Oscars 2013: "Silver Linings Playbook"

Director: David O. Russell

Screenplay: David O. Russell, Matthew Quick (novel)

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawerence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker and Julia Stiles.

I don’t really know just where to begin on explaining this film. In all sincerity- from someone who generally hates romance films- I absolutely loved it.  Originally I thought is was about two people with mental health problems who fall in love inside a mental home in some indie ‘quirky cute’ fashion, in a sort of annoying Zooey Deschanel kind of way- so it took me a while to sit down and watch it. Another reason I thought I would not enjoy this film was because of Bradley Cooper, I’m not his biggest fan, as you can probably detect from my rather negative rant on his film “Limitless” (2010). In actuality, it is about two people who have psychiatric issues but the meet and develop a relationship in the outside world and certainly not in an

annoying 'quirky' fashion. It is a black comedy, mixed with a type of coming of age film as the characters leave their negative pasts behind and look for a brighter, happier future. Excelsior!

This film just proves the point that to be a critic on film I need to keep an open mind to various other films rather than dismissing them straight away- message loudly received, thanks. Bradley Cooper was actually great in this film. His subtle style of acting worked well for a character who spends the duration of the film in a rather subdued state, trying hard to suppress any past feelings of anger and aggression having been released from a psychiatric unit at the start of the film. The real star however, or starlet, of the film is Jennifer Lawrence. Maybe you were expecting me to add something new compared to all the other reviews out there who praise her but um nope, nothing negative to say. I’ve not read the Hunger Games books and went to watch the film to see what all the fuss was about- I did enjoy it, but didn’t really think Lawrence was anything spectacular. So really, her Oscar win should read ‘Best emerging Actress’ rather than just ‘Best Actress’ as I don’t think anyone was expecting her talent to stretch thus far. Talk about Excelsior.

The story is loosely based on the authors, Matthew Quick, own experiences in dealing with depression. He has a lot in common with Cooper’s character, Pat Solatano. As Lawrence’s character, Tiffany, bluntly points out, Pat has ‘poor social skills’. He interups his parents sleep by storming into their room to discuss a book he finished reading at 4am or because he can’t find his wedding video; he asks inappropiate questions about peoples private lives; he goes back to the school where he has a restraing order and asks for his job back and all because his main focus is to try and win back his ex-wife Nikki, no matter how early in the morning- he will try everything to get her back. He uses the word ‘Excelsior’ to invoke inspiration in getting his life back on track or back how it was.  

It was the director, David O. Russell who decided to divulge deeper into the fragile relationship between Pat and his family. Robert De Niro plays Pat’s gambling ‘but most definitely not a bookie’ father who blames Pat if his team, the Philadelphia Eagles, lose a match. He refers to Pat as his lucky charm but yet maintains a distance in getting emotionally involed with Pats ‘crazy’ episode. The fact that Pats portrait is not hanging by his brothers on the wall but left on the shelf is a clear indication that the other brother is the ‘golden’ child. Jacki Weaver plays the doting mother who goes to fetch Pat from the unit as soon as the doctos say he is eligible to be released. She is very understanding of Pat’s condition, even if she can at times be too overbering, its clear that she loves her family and does her best to try and help. Safe to say the relationships expressed in this film are less than ordinary but at the same time can be seen as a magnified view of some peoples family life- especially those dealing with a member who has depression.

The film has helped a lot of people to recognise or aid with mental health issues and the impact it can have on someones life and people around them- even in the smallest of cases. The story brings to light the fact that not all people who have depressive tendencies are completly ‘insane’ and can lead normal lives. The film forces people to see the silver lining in all situations and that life may not always go as planned. All in all, a great film and defintely worth adding it to your ‘must-watch’ list.

Oscars 2013: "Argo"

Director: Ben Affleck

Writer: Chris Terrio, Tony Mendez and Joshuah Bearman

Producer: George Clooney

Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman

So the Oscars happened, but you probably knew this already- not exactly flashing news. And now we are moving into this years summer releases- finally we can watch “The Great Gatsby”, which will be a highlight,  for me anyway.The fact that the Oscars are over, however is not going to stop me continuing to write about the films that were nominated and now may or may not have won a golden statue. Lets proceed.

Had I organised my life and written this entry before the Award ceremony on the 24th of Feb 2013, I would of definitely predicted that “Argo” (2012) would win at least one Oscar. Instead it won three: Best Motion picture (Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney), Best Screenplay (Chris Terrio) and Best Achievement in Editing (William Goldenberg). Ben Affleck was not nominated for Best Director at the Academy Awards however he did win a BAFTA for his directing capabilities; so as they say win some, lose some.

Regardless of the fact that the film is now Oscar certified and it comes adorned with 57 other wins from various Award ceremonies the film should not be cast aside as pretentious. It is still, most definitely, worth a watch. The narrative itself seems ludacris: revolving around CIA agent, Tony Mendez (played by Affleck) who devices a plot in attempt to rescue 6 other American ambassadors, who are in hiding in Iran after a raid on the US embassy during the revolution of 1980. The plan is they are going to be ‘smuggled’ out of Iran by obtaining fake Canadian identities and pretending to be part of a film crew searching for locations to shoot a new up and coming Sci-fi movie. A script is chosen, there are storyboards drawn up, costume designs- the works. Mendez travels to Iran and encounters countless problems in trying to extradite the fugitives back to the US safetly. This type of plot, one would think, could only be drawn up in Hollywoodland but what makes the story even more unbelievable is that the film is actually based on real life events.

This is not just your average Hollywood action movie. In fact, there is very little action at all, but tonnes of suspense. The film starts of as a documentary of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and then, using a graphic match, the shot moves from documentary footage continuing the image of the revolution into the film shot. Overall the film can be classified as historical drama. Affleck has been criticised for his falsification of the events- new characters invented, scenes and facts added etc. But, in all honesty, what historical representation or even documentary is completely factually accurate? They all get edited in some way or another- the main objections are that they provide good entertainment to capture an audiences attention for the films duration and perhaps provide a starting point/ alternative information for the viewer who may want to research deeper into the subject in question.

Thus ‘historically’ Affleck neglected to mention the full aid provided from various goverments and give credit to the principle historical players such as Ken Taylor- the Canadian Ambassador who originally (supposedly) devised the whole plan- and completely dismissing the aid given by the British embassy to the fugitives.  It can be argued, however, that due to the mise-en-abyme effect created by focusing on the making of a film within a film, Affleck’s objective was not to support any particular government at all (the American government is not represented very well yet it does play a bigger part in getting the hostages to safetly) but rather Affleck pays the highest credit to the role of Hollywood in the missions success- as any good little Hollywood boy would, when having to premier his film infront of Tinstletowns elite. Essentially the film acts as a reminder to the audience that Affleck has still got some talent since his last Oscar nominated directing project, “Gone Baby Gone” (2007).

Regardless of whatever point, historical fact, myth, story, low budget sci-fi drama the film was trying to fabricate or recreate- the point is YOU need to watch it.