Brokeback Mountain and Oscar Roundtable

Finally got around to watching Brokeback Mountain. There's been an incredible buzz surrounding this movie and people have either, going by news reports, absolutely loved it or hated it. Considering the number of nominations BbM has been gathering (including 8 for the Oscars) I had to watch this movie to see how it compares with the other top movies nominated.

I'm not going into any lengthy, detailed review of the movie. There are plenty of valuable, better written reviews online to give readers a pretty fair idea about the storyline.

The movie is definitely well-directed. Ang Lee crafts each and every scene with care and deftly gets us involved into the story, allowing it to unravel leisurely and at a quiet pace. Although this movie deals with a bold theme, and the plot allows for several potentially emotionally-charged moments, it does not engage in any such shakesperean-like drama . There is a sense of restraint throughout and it would seem that Lee is more keen in making an intellectual argument rather appealing to raw emotions. Especially the ending which would've been more tragic had the director allowed it to be. But then on the same note the directors subtle show of support for gay marriages and union (at the end) couldn't have been more emphatic if he'd engaged in unnecassary melodrama earlier.

I realize i'm contradicting myself. The directors appeal to the logic of the mind bears fruit at the end cos he's forcefully put his message across. But I'd hoped it would be a more moving, emotional experience (like Munich). Imagine Titanic without the cheesy Melodrama. But as the director and having considered all factors, Ang Lee might've felt that this approach would probably be best suited to provide full justice to the script. And Kudos for his efforts.

The acting performances are brilliant. And deservedly receive acting nominations. Heath Ledger's reticent, soft-spoken, well modulated quasi-aussie cowboy accent is perfect. Jake Gyllenhaal virtually inhabits his character.

So? How does this compare with the other movies? Hmm diffficult to say. While Munich and Crash brilliantly manipulate the audiences emotions ( and the word manipulate is used here in the most positive sense possible), Goodnight and Goodluck and Brokeback Mountain seek to, as mentioned earlier, make intellectual arguments to already seering,controversial issues. None of the stories can be considered "safe" or "formulaic" and are all grim, edgy movies. Brokeback Mountain especially seems to be caught up in a battle between the conservative right-winged groups who were up-in-arms at the movie and the liberal left wing (which populates most of hollywood). We shall see how it all boils down on March 5th.

Meanwhile, I found an interesting article on Newsweek Entertainment which carried the Annual Oscar Roundtable discussion between all the nominated directors. Could there be a more diverse, exciting group of filmakers in a single room? A very interesting read indeed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11077661/site/newsweek/

-Nav

Indo-Pak Series 2006 - Yawn...

I have an unique theory as to India's recent test loss. They were bored to defeat. Bored, as in having to sit in an chemistry class for over 5 hours and not to be confused with bored as in drilling, although that usage also applies in this case.

The dead, flat, batsman's pitches which Pakistan prepared are the worst kind for cricket. Any sort of psychological advantage Indians held after the 1st test at Lahore were quickly dispensed by the lifelessness of the Faisalabad pitch. Give credit to Rahul Dravid for picking 5 bowlers and the initial enthusiasm displayed by young R.P.Singh and a re-energized Zaheer Khan to dismiss Pakistan in the 1st innings. But Pakistan's 2nd Innings really did the damage on the 4th day, the wicket neither suiting the Indian spinners nor the pace bowlers. With no turn and no pace, Younis Khan and Mohammed Yousuf went about dismantling the Indian attack.

Let me try to get into Dravid's mind for a moment and try to analyze what he might've been thinking.At any point in a test match, as a bowling and fielding side, there has to be some kind of positive optimism which the captain and players exude. On a flat track, they hope to contain matters till the situation becomes more favorable. In this case it would mean let the fast bowlers bowl to defensive fields, block the boundaries, consistent tight fielding to regulate Pakistani scoring and then when the pitch provides glimpses of some turn or wear and tear, attack with Kumble and Harbhajan Singh. But this would never happen. There would be no rescue from the spinners as the pitch refused to crumble and allow for spin and the tennis-ball like bounce ensured that Pakistan batsmen could play over the top with a certain sense of freedom. Pakistan, to their credit grabbed all opportunities they were given and even when there was talk amongst the commentators (mostly Dean Jones) about declaration, such kindness was not shown on the Indian bowlers.

By the time the Indian cricket team reached Karachi for the 3rd test, they were mentally bored and tired. The Adrenaline and upbeat tempo which India had shown on their last trip was sorely missing. How else would you explain letting Pakistan off the hook after Irfan Pathan's sensational hattrick? And then proceeding to fail to post competitive scores when required and losing the match by a huge margin.

I don't think anybody really was upset at the Indian loss. Most people I met and who are passionate supporters could only shrug their shoulders upon hearing India's defeat. I suppose that pretty much sums up this test series. None of the high's and lows of the previous trip.

In the end, besides being bored,it came down to which team had the better variety of bowlers and Pakistan certainly seem to have a more potent attack this time around on such surfaces. Irfan Pathan has some lost some pace and the vicious in-swinger which were crucial in his initial years. He needs to get back that zip and pace to regain his prime form. Zaheer Khan is not the fast bowler he was 2 years ago. He seems overweight and relies heavily on reverse swing. I feel we have a safe bowling rotation which does not neccasarily translate into good. We need to get Balaji back into the rotation and one express fast bowler who's capable of shaking things up for others like Pathan and Khan to exploit.

-Nav

Oscar Talk

Out of the 30 nominations I'd predicted, I got 23 right.Wow! Definitely an improvement over last year where I might've gotten around 16-17 right.

There were a few surprises - I'd expected Syriana to get nod for best picture ahead of Crash although both were really equally hard-hitting, edgy movies. The reason, I suspect, has to do with the dense, complex structure of Syriana's screenplay which had so much to say and may not have, in hindsight, successfully brought the point across to the audiences. A case of less would've been better.

Kiera Knightley getting the nod for her performance in Pride & Prejudice ; a movie which I haven't watched but I'm glad she was nominated cos she's really one of my favorite actresses and really, she needed it after her disastrous Domino debacle ( I seriously considered a refund till she bared her boobs and that was worth the price of admission). Dame Judi Dench gets a nod courtesy the "Wildcard" spot which is usually reserved for Over-the-hill actresses partaking in risque', independent productions or some non-American actress. This year it was a fight between Judi Dench and Zhang Ziyi for Memoirs of a Geisha. Mostly the two nominees - the default British actress (which in this case would be Kiera, unfortunately) and the wild card serve as necassary decorations while the remaining 3, usually American actresses, fight it out for the top award.

William Hurt for best supporting actor?!? Why? I've watched History of Violence and let me assure you that his 5 minute role in the movie does not justify his nomination. And it would seem even more unfair when compared with Matt Damon for Syriana, or Don Cheadle for Crash. Often the Academy feel they have to inject some kind of controversial nominee or decision to stir a debate and tounge wagging.

An interesting tussle for the Best Original Screenplay between Crash, Syriana and Woody Allen's Matchpoint. Now that would be the category I'll be watching closely. Three sublime screenplays but which are so vastly different from one other in tone and presentation - Crash-so provocative, relentless and dramatic, Syriana -Intelligent, subtly conveying a sense of helplessness and desperation, masterfully juggling several protagonists and tales like puppets, and Matchpoint - a departure from regular Woody Allen stories yet maintaining the brilliant wit, honesty and an ever sharp eye for everyday truths and reality which is present in all his screenplays. Few can match Allen's lucidity in dialogue.

The others categories are more or less predictable and this year there is NO one movie which I'm rooting for except perhaps Munich, which is shockingly only nominated in 3 categories and excluded in the Best Cinematography category. Unlike last year when I wished Aviator would sweep in all categories, this year I nurse no such dreams.

Johnny Depp, probably provided his most outstanding, dramatic, outrageous perfomance in the Libertine, a movie which, unfortunately, did not garner enough support and publicity which in the end may have been the reasons why he was not nominated. If he'd been nominated it would be an interesting head-to head with Philip Seymour Hoffman for the best Actor award, which it would seem at the moment Hoffman has all but delivered his acceptance speech.

And I'll conclude the Oscar talk with some humor. The day after the nominations were announced, several leading Indian newspapers splashed in the headlines - "Paheli Out", "Paheli does not get the nod at the Oscars" and so on and so forth. HAHA. keep dreaming suckers! Let's face it, Paheli was not India's best effort. Infact there was a collective groan from several leading critics when it was chosen to be sent to the Oscars. And for those who'll immediately attack people like me with statements like "We should not start aping Hollywood movies just so we win the Oscars" and " We should start our own Awards". Such statements are depressing and hypocritical. Indian directors have no issues with directly copying popular hollywood movies and regurgitating them on screen (like American Pie, Unfaithful) but don't have what it takes to deal with the tough, gritty movies which Hollywood ALSO produces. Munich, Brokeback Mountain, Anyone?

And why is it that when it comes to sending Indian movies across to be selected for Best Foreign Movie category that the selection panel (whoever this mysterious group maybe) look only towards bollywood movies? Are there no suitable Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam movies? Or anyother regional language? I'm quite certain they are! And infinitely better than Paheli.

-Nav