TIFF 2015 review: Spotlight

As mentioned in a previous post, Spotlight was the best movie I saw at TIFF this year (I think it's going to win Best Picture-bold statement to make in September, I know, but mark my words as an early prediction for Oscar). It was also a super hot ticket to get a hold of, which, surprised me a little, as there wasn't a whole lot of buzz about this coming into the fest, although there's been a lot of buzz about it coming out of the fest.

It tool me multiple approaches to secure tickets to this one, including a psychotic exchange with a scalper on craigslist, who after I offered him $110 for a pair of tickets (which is just over the face value) he told me that he wouldn't even sell me one ticket for that price, and then I had a full blown rage attack on him-told him it was people like him that ruined the festival for true movie lovers, he should get a real job, stop ripping people off etc. to which he countered that he would sell me the tickets for the price I offered even though he had offers for more. (Needless to say, I declined to buy them as I was pretty sure he might murder me in real life, and also, fuck scalpers).

So, I had to rush it, and my Rush line experience was excellent! Thankfully my brother took the first shift (as I was at a screening of Jonás Cuarón's Desierto making eyes at Gael Garcia Bernal-more on that in another post). I waited the final 2 hours in line with a really nice 40-something Mom, who had never rushed a movie before (and maybe never even been to TIFF before). We talked for quite some time, and eventually she revealed that her husband was an actor who was in the movie! It turns out that Spotlight filmed all the interiors in Toronto, and so all of the reporters/newspaper employees in the movie are Toronto actors. I asked her why on earth was she in the rush line if her husband was in the god damned movie?!? We never really did figure that one out... Eventually her husband joined us in line and he told me about his experiences on set. He was so humble about it all and kept saying, "who knows if I'll even end up in the movie. they probably cut my scenes which happens all the time when you work as an extra." Well not only were his scenes in the movie, they were pretty crucial to the plot! I think he's the only newspaper employee other than the main cast who has any lines! Just a regular humble Canadian Dad actor! When you see the movie, his character's name is Peter, and Peter is told to "get out" of the room. What a cool guy (and an entertainment lawyer to boot!). If only I could be an entertainment lawyer/Toronto actor...

The movie is based on the real events surrounding the investigative reporters who worked at the Boston Globe and broke open the Catholic church molestation/child abuse scandal in 2001. For a movie based on something we all already know about, it is a compelling film. This is why I think it's so excellent and really has a shot at Oscar. To be able to take a subject that is very hard to think/talk about (child abuse) and place it in a setting that can be slow, painstaking, and uneventful (long term investigative journalism) and get an incredibly tight, well paced, gripping and weighty film is really quite the feat. I think that movies are normally good for 1 of 2 reasons: they either entertain, or have something important to say. When a movie is able to do both is when it is great.

The movie is a true ensemble cast and the acting is superb. I recently read that all of the actors--Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schreiber etc--are going to be submitted in the Best Supporting categories for the Oscars. It will be interesting to see who is able to get the nomination, and if multiple are nominated for best Supporting Actor, if they'll split votes and not win (this is what often happens when more than one person from the same movie is nominated in the same category).

Also, let's look at Rachel's outfit. 

The Q&A after the film was a huge love fest. All the actors were there, and the nice thing is that they brought out the real journalists who they portrayed in the film. The actors couldn't have had nicer things to say about the journalists, and vice versa. (I also love how the actors were the ones taking pics on their phones while on stage with the journalists)

Take a listen to the Q&A with the director, actors, and journalists below. 

TIFF 2015 Review: The Lobster

The Lobster was the movie I was most looking forward to at TIFF b/c the plot sounded like one of my fantasies comes true: all single people have 45 days to pair up with a romantic partner, and if they don't find someone, they get turned into the animal of their choice and released into the wild.

This idea is very attractive to me. I'd basically be living my best life if given the opportunity to do this. Although I wouldn't waste any of the 45 days searching for a partner (haven't I been doing that for years anyway to no avail?) I would however spend the 45 days thinking long and hard about what animal I would want to be turned into, so that I could make the best choice. Now, having already spent a few weeks ruminating on this, I'm really leaning towards a sea turtle. Let me tell you why: they live a really long life (100+ years), they spend most of their life in the ocean, though they can be on land too, and despite there always being environmental dangers for turtles (pollution, destruction of habitat etc), I feel like no one really fucks with the turtles (versus, whales or sharks for instance).

Anyway, The Lobster wasn't what I thought it was going to be. Maybe that's because I was in such anticipation to see it (My brother Alex never watches trailers for movies he really wants to see in case it ruins it for him-maybe I should have implemented this rule for this movie). The film was MUCH darker than I had expected it to be, and that's not to say that it was bad, or that I didn't like it, I just had the impression the movie was going to be more of a satire/dark comedy. Don't get me wrong, there are funny/absurd moments in the film, but overall it is pretty bleak. The film follows Colin Farrell's character whose wife has recently left him, and as a result he must check into (and surrender himself to) the singles hotel (where all of society's singles are sent) and its strict rules. While there, you are given your meals, your clothes, your schedules etc and are not allowed to masturbate (and if you're caught doing so, as John C. Reiley's character is, it aint pretty). Each day singles are taken out to hunt the humans who have escaped the hotel. The more runaways you capture, the longer you are given at the hotel (i.e. you can buy your time and add to your initial 45 days by being a ruthless killer--see, this shit is a lot darker than I thought, right?) Also, in order to form a couple with someone at the hotel (and thus have a chance to leave the hotel and return to real life) you need to have a common characteristic with the person you pair with: i.e. you each have frequent nose bleeds, a limp, or are short-sighted etc.

Eventually Colin Farrell's character escapes the hotel and joins up with a seemingly rebellious militant group that lives in the woods (run by French actress Lea Sedoux) and are staunchly against coupling (also, they only listen to electronic music b/c there is to be no dancing with others!) Basically Farrell's character goes from one extreme to the other, though both groups are equally controlling and crazy (I think probably one of the director's points re: society). It is in this group where he meets Rachel Weisz' character (who like him, is short-sighted!) and they fall in love (strictly forbidden!) For the rest of the film they have to navigate their relationship and figure out what they'll do/can do in order to be together.

It's not that I didn't like this movie, it's just that with it's incredible premise (the world having no use or patience for single people) I thought the story could have gone in a much different  (lighter and funnier) direction.  I mean, my whole life is an exercise in the painful, inconvenient reality of being single amidst a world of couples. (Think: I am the lone injured bird circling above Noah's ark while all those animal duos board). That shit can be really funny, and would make for a great movie (a la "They Shoot Single People don't they?"). But instead, this movie focuses on the nature of controlling people's behaviours and an exploration of human nature can gets really dark really fast. So, this movie seemed like a bit of a missed opportunity for me. Also, there's a scene where a wonderful dog is killed, and that will always make me not love a movie, because obviously animals > humans.
(The weird thing is that 3 movies I saw at TIFF this year had scenes where dogs were murdered. WHY world, WHY???)

Another disappointment (especially since I was still reeling from the Tom Hardy no-show the night before) was that only member from the cast who showed was Rachel Weisz. No Colin Farrell, or Lea Sedoux (both who I've seen previously at TIFF) or John C. Reiley. Though Rachel did do an outfit change during the screening, so I at least got to see 2 different looks:

 

I prefer the first outfit. You?

All in all, this movie is worth a watch. I think it has some interesting things to say, just be prepared for some bleak shit.

To listen to the Q&A with Director Yorgos Lanthimos and actress Rachel Weisz (including a question asked by yours truly!) click below. Also, they reveal what animals they would be if they had to chose (answer: Rachel would like to be pony owned by a 13 girl in England and Yorgos would like to be an eagle).

TIFF 2015 Review: Hitchcock/Truffaut documentary

There are always sacrifices that have to be made during TIFF; sometimes you must forgo one movie to see another. Most of the time it's a roll the dice moment. And at the end of night 1 of the fest, after hearing the reactions to Michael Moore's new documentary "Where to Invade Next," I know that I made the wrong choice going for the British musical "London Road" instead. Damn the lure of Tom Hardy (who ended up only being in one scene of the movie and didn't come to the screening-AHHHHHHHHHH!). I done fucked up! (Though with Hardy's uneasy relationship with the press, maybe I'm glad I didn't hear him interviewed in person: see here).

But first, I want to talk about Kent Jones' amazing documentary Hitchcock/Truffaut.

This is an absolute must see for anyone who appreciates the mastery of Hitchcock and what he did (and continues to do for film). The film uses the seminal film text "Hitchcock/Truffaut" as a jumping off point. For those unfamiliar with it, it is a fantastic book put together by Truffaut, a French filmmaker who was very fond of Hitchcock, and began a long-distance friendship with him through letters, that eventually turned into an 8 day interview between the 2 men (the audio recordings are 27 hours) where they discussed each of Hitchcock's films and basically ruminated on the art of film. This interview makes up the text of the book, which also includes photos of the 2 directors from the 8 days, and many stills/story boards from Hitchcock's films. My brother gave me a copy of the book years ago, and it is excellent; a great book to have in your film library!

The film interviews a few famous directors-David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, Marty Scorsese- on their thoughts about the beauty of Hitchcock's filmmaking. It's really quite illuminating to hear these directors speak about Hitchcock-in their comments you realize that 1. They are so observant of every detail of film (which makes sense, considering they're directors but regardless, it is impressive) and 2. Despite the fact that those speaking about him are some of the best film directors of today, their talent is nothing compared to the genius of Hitchcock.   

Both my brother and I actually wished that the film had been longer (which isn't something either of us feel often at the end of a movie) and the only criticism I have is that the film focused too much on Vertigo (a film that although beautiful, kinda sucks as the plot and story makes no sense at all) and not enough on Hitchcock's better films, like Psycho, Rear Window, North by Northwest etc. But, that was the director's choice (and speaking with him afterwards, it was clear that he loves Vertigo). Regardless, definitely worth a watch when this comes out. 

If you're interested in hearing the Q&A with the director, Kent Jones, listen below:

TIFF 2015 Overview

Another September, another TIFF season done! Sigh. Who knew that watching movies and spotting celebs could be so tiring?!?! (Don't worry, I ain't complaining). I was planning on writing reviews for everything I saw, and posting them in semi-real time, but my viewing schedule was so hectic that I couldn't keep up! So, this is my attempt to give some insight on what I saw (and considering most of the films won't come out in wide release for quite some time, I feel like I'm not too far behind).

This year, I took full advantage of the fact that I'm unemployed, and saw the most films I've ever seen at TIFF in one year-20 movies! Woo! Here is the run down of what I saw:

• Hitchcock/Truffaut (documentary) 
• London Road (British Musical based on stage play) 
• The Lobster (drama)
• My Great Night (Spanish language Comedy)
• He Named Me Malala (documentary)
• Jason Reitman’s Live Read of the Princess Bride
• Eva doesn't sleep (Argentinian film)
• Legend (drama)
• This Changes Everything (Naomi Klein documentary) 
• Desierto (Mexican drama)
• Spotlight (drama)
• Anomalisa (stop animation directed by Charlie Kaufman)
• Victoria (German thriller filmed in 1 take) 
• No Men Beyond This Point (Canadian mockumentary)
• Sherpa (documentary on Everest) 
• The Waiting Room (Bosnian drama)
• The Witch (supernatural thriller/horror) 
• Angry Indian Goddesses (Indian dramedy)
• Lolo (French language rom com directed by Julie Delpy)
• The Final Girls (horror comedy at Midnight Madness)

And I'm happy to report that with the exception of a few films that were disappointing (we'll get to that later) most things were excellent, especially the 4 documentaries I saw. The best movie I saw was Spotlight (and I think there's a pretty good chance it will win Best Picture this year, although the race is still early).

Now, on to my reviews!

Red Carpet: Disappointments and DISASTERS

My list of Disappointments were way more surprising, as in the past these women have owned the red carpet, so what the fuck happened?

I hate to say it, but the biggest disappoint of the night for me was Julianne Moore. I'm pretty sure my friend Heidi put money on Julianne Moore wearing green, which I thought was a safe bet.

@The_A_Mrk I have been waiting my whole life for her to win an Oscar in greeeeen! I'm so bummed!
— Heidi Brander (@HeidiBrander) February 23, 2015

So crestfallen over that one, as I love good old J. Moore, was so happy she was going to win the gold, and was looking forward to seeing her fashion steeze, as all season leading up to the Oscars, it's been great (loved her short embellished gold look at the Independent Spirit Awards!) But this white Chanel dress, with what I think look like sushi roll embellishments, was just a major bummer. I also found it pretty surprising that she wasn't dressed by her usual red-carpet go-to designer, Tom Ford (who also directed her in 2009's A Single Man) and who is partly responsible for some of her best looks (see red dress below). Looking at the pictures from Vanity Fair's After Party though, I don't think Tom held it against her.

Next disappointment was the once fashion forward, and now fashion standstill Kerry Washington. Does she have a new stylist or something, b/c if she does, she should fire them. I still think about the coral Miu Miu dress she wore to the Oscars in 2013, but this is the second year in a row that the look has been not good at the Oscars. The skirt isn't so awful, but the strapless peplum top really looks like upholstery fabric. After a google, I just realized that this years look was also Miu Miu. BIZARRO!

Not the biggest fan of the sofa fabric!

Kerry in a better Miu Miu look!

Another big disappointment was Zoe Saldana, who has famously discussed the power fashion and stylists have on a press tour for a film, and thus the film's success:

Saldana looked like she was wearing something you'd wear to a ballet class, if it were turned into a gown.

And now, the DISASTERS!

First up, every famous person's favourite friend, G.P. And I say, good God Goop, where in Pepto-Bismol vagina flower hell did this thing come from? I can't with this.

Most of Gwyneth Paltrow's dress is trying to get off of her
— Vulture (@vulture) February 23, 2015

I'm sure others will be able to snark on it better, but this dress is bad. It's the practically the same colour as the Calvin Klein princess ball gown she wore when she won her Oscar in 1998, and I hate the one shouldered flower-shoulder extravaganza. It's also disappointing b/c we all know that G has the ability to throw down on the Red carpet. I mean her white Tom Ford caped gown she wore in 2013 is one of the best red carpet looks I've ever seen. So good.

Worse than G though was Nicole Kidman, who looked like she her dress was made from the skins of one thousand goldfish (or from a couple tubes of remainder Christmas wrapping paper you buy at the Dollar store). The out of place red belt didn't help things either. Also frustrating b/c of some of Nicole's fantastic previous Oscar looks i.e. the John Galliano mentioned in the previous post, as well as the red Balenciaga dress she wore in 2007, another one of my favourite looks of all time. On another note, why did she and Keith Urban get to sit in the front row?

In better fashion times

Goldfish dress?

And now, for perhaps my most loathed look, the one and only Jared Leto, or as TLo at one of my fave blogs like to call him, Pixie Jesus.

Pixie Jesus indeed. Although I should mention that he and I have the exact same hair cut and colour.

And just because I really need to include her somewhere, an honourable mention goes to Shirley Maclaine's glitterati jump suit!

Shirley Mcclain's glittery zoot suit is my everything. #Oscars2015 #OscarsTO
— Astrid Mrkich (@The_A_Mrk) February 23, 2015

SOMEWHERE LIZA IS DRESSED LIKE SHIRLEY MACLAINE?
— Heidi Brander (@HeidiBrander) February 23, 2015

Did I miss anything? What were your least fave looks?

Fashion Smut: My favourite looks of Oscar 2015.

I've purposely kept myself off all my favourite blogs today so as to not colour my view of what the fashion Gods were throwing at us last night. It's too easy to bandwagon jump! and so, this is my own take on the dress (and tuxedo) smut that was thrown down on the red carpet at Oscar 2015.

Let's start with the best, shall we...

None of my best dressed from last night were surprises to me, as they are all women whose fashion choices I constantly and consistently love.

First up is my absolute favourite, which would be Emma Stone in Elie Saab.

Emma stones fashion game is my dress porn. #OscarsRedCarpet #Oscars2015 #OscarsTO
— Astrid Mrkich (@The_A_Mrk) February 23, 2015 

I mean look at the back! 

I love the sleekness of the dress, and a long sleeve in February (especially in rainy LA last night) is a great choice. But mostly I love the colour! Chartreuse(ish). That is a tough colour to rock, and it looks great on her.

What's interesting about Emma Stone's dress as well is that it illustrates how Elie Saab can go in very different directions and doesn't always hit a home run with every red carpet dress (i.e. JLO's Boobs&Tulle extravaganza).

Maybe chartreuse looks great on all redheads? B/c this is somewhat reminiscent of Nicole Kidman's famous John Galliano for Dior dress she wore in 1997 (Y'all know the story about her sitting absolutely still in the limo for 2+ hours so as to not wrinkle the dress. That shit takes discipline!)

Next is Emma Stone's co-star from Birdman, Naomi Watts, in Armani Privé.

Just blew my fashion load over Naomi Watts' dress. #OscarsRedCarpet #Oscars2015 #OscarsTO
— Astrid Mrkich (@The_A_Mrk) February 23, 2015

Again, I'm really loving the back!

Naomi Watts usually goes for a sleek silhouette, in a metallic or neutral, but you know what?! If it works, it works! Her dress this year is actually similar to what she wore 2 years ago, also Armani Privé in a sparkly metallic (and also one of my fave looks at the 2013 Oscars, see here to revisit). I liked it then, and I like it now!

Next is Lupita Nyong'o in Calvin Klein, who can actually do NO wrong re: the fashion. Like, holy F!

Lupita Nyongo in head to toe pearls. FLAWLESS #OscarsRedCarpet #Oscars2015
— Astrid Mrkich (@The_A_Mrk) February 23, 2015

I mean, she had a lot to live up to from the Nairobi Blue Prada dress from last year, but she did not disappoint. I don't think photos even really do it justice, but my god, she is a pearl from head to toe!

How surprising is it that this is Calvin Klein? Not usually their jam now is it? Vogue.com has a really great article explaining the concept behind the dress here and some great pictures of the dress being constructed. 

 





Last but not least is Cate Blanchett, in Maison Martin Margiela.

My favourite red carpet dresser of all time, cate blanchett, does not disappoint. Black gown, turquoise jewels. Best. #Oscars2015
— Astrid Mrkich (@The_A_Mrk) February 23, 2015

I mean, this isn't my favourite look she's ever had (that would go to my favourite Oscar look of all time-the lavender Givenchy she wore in 2011, posted below b/c really I just want to post pictures of this dress whenever I can) but it fits great, it's simple, and I love an aggressive statement piece of jewelry with a pop of colour.

Also can we talk about how amazing what she wore to the Independent Spirit Awards on Saturday? I mean look at this:

 

This dress is INSANE. I love it SO MUCH. It looks like the story board of a Wes Anderson movie and it makes me so god damned happy! Cate Blanchett, you are my Fashion Spirit Animal!

Lastly, a few shout outs to the guys who brought it (No one will beat Pharrell's formal shorts look from last year--see here--but still). Considering men don't have a whole lot of choice on the red carpet (black tux, black tux, white tux, black tux, ...) I love when someone busts out a great coloured tux, like David Oyelowo and Eddie Redmayne, below, though not a powdered blue tux, I'm looking at you Jared Leto!

So, who did I miss on the best dressed list?

Next up, my fashion disappointments and disasters!

Better late than never: My Oscar picks for 2015

I can't believe the Oscar's are mere days away. It certainly has crept up on me this year, and I'm so sad that I haven't been able to blog as much as I'd like to (given all my lawyerly type activity, I haven't been able to squeeze it all in!) But in the last few days leading up to my favourite day of the year, I'm going to try and power out a few of my thoughts for the few who are interested (my Mom?)



It has always been a goal of mine to win an Oscar Pool, like a real, legit, prize wielding pool. Every year, my favourite blogger, Lainey from LaineyGossip, gives an awesome swag prize to the person who gets the most categories correct, earliest in the process. This year the prize is an Alexander McQueen purse, $500 at Homesense, and beauty grab bag (you can still enter--go here to do so).

Last year was probably my best opportunity to win all the things. I was so close-only one category wrong!-but alas, someone got perfect, and my dreams were dashed! I will admit though, that last year wasn't too hard to predict who would be going home with gold statutes.  Almost all the categories were pre-determined seemingly months ahead of the ceremony-remember how long the god-damned  McConnaissance went on for? (Shudder).

Anyhow, this year is harder to predict, which means I really had to kick my Hollywood politics knowledge into high gear. It's harder because 2, maybe 3, of the 6 major awards (the 4 acting awards, Best picture and director) are still a 2 man/2 movie race. Best Picture is still a battle between Boyhood and Birdman, and as such, Director is still a battle between those films' respective directors.

The Acting Race is still between Michael Keaton and Eddy Redmayne (yell at me if you want, as some people think Redmayne is now a lock, but you forget how old and fickle the Academy voter is!). Because best picture and director are not absolute locks, some other awards are harder to predict as well--Editing, sound etc. This however, if you're an Oscar nerd like me, makes for a more interesting Oscar night. Check out my picks below, along with explanations (and feel free to use them for your own Oscar Pool picks, although if you win something, I think you should share!)

You'll see that I ultimately chose Keaton over Redmayne (and I may be proven wrong) but hear me out: the Academy are mostly old white American men (file this to Keaton's advantage who is also an old white American man), and Oscar LOVES a good comeback story and films about actors. As my brother points out to me however (and I'm sure if he's right, he'll tell me again), a performance like Redmayne's, a bio-pic of a famous historical figure where he had to transform himself physically for the role is textbook Oscar-bait. I still think he's too young for the Academy to give it to him though...He'd be the youngest Best Actor ever I believe...

For directing, I'm going with Iñárittu over Linklater, partly because of the trend over the past few years of giving Best Director to feats of technical difficulty (i.e. Ang Lee for Life of Pi, Alfonso Cuaron for Gravity) and then Best Picture to the more traditional "narrative" film (Argo, 12 Years A Slave). It could go to Linklater, as I think being able to successful cut a film made over 12 years with a shit ton of footage is incredible, but I really just loved the way Birdman looked. Filming and editing the movie so it looks like 1 long shot is so fucking cool (I still can't believe it didn't get nominated for Editing?!?!-which is another clue as to whether it will get Best Picture, as Picture and Editing normally go hand in hand)

For best Picture, I've stuck with Boyhood. I really did love it, and its proven to be one of what I think were the best movies of the year (along with Selma and Birdman, and then some lesser known, not Award-bait films, but let's leave that for another post).

I actually really like the trend of splitting Best Director and Picture, as it can reward more than 1 movie for achieving different kinds of things. I mean, out of the 3 films I listed above (each which are Best Picture Nominees), I liked them for different reasons. Boyhood for being able to successfully execute an incredibly ambitious project, Birdman for creating a feeling and weird little world that looks and sounds so different, and Selma, for showing the important role art and filmmaking has to play in documenting history, drawing parallels between our past and present, and trying to raise consciousness about crucial issues. Ugh, I could go on and on about Selma, and how insane it is that it's been shit on so unfairly, when really it is an excellent film in terms of telling a compelling and important part of history, and in the level of acting and directing it possesses. But perhaps I've already expressed enough rage today...

Although if you want to experience some rage, may I suggest you hop over to the Hollywood Reporter's annual Anonymous Oscar pics from Academy members (usually a feature I absolutely LOVE and eat up with a spoon b/c of the insightful inside scoop it offers). This year, the first "Brutally Honest Oscar Ballot" they posted is so offside and non-sensical and inconsistent with itself that well, just read it...here.

Jezebel wrote a great critique of it here (entitled "Why the Academy Voting Process is Such a Mess") that covers many of the things I found so frustrating about it. Let me just add one dumb comment, why the fuck does a Publicist get to vote? There is no Best Publicist Award at the Oscars...

Anyway, I really think this year, like the last 2, will show us the Picture/Director split again, though I could have gotten it wrong-maybe Best Picture will go to Birdman and Director to Linklater.

What are your picks? Anything you're excited/enraged by?

First reactions to Oscar Noms: I hate you Academy etc.

Well technically, my Oscar watch begins in the spring with the rumblings coming out of Cannes, which then begins my countdown and anticipation to what I'll see at TIFF in September, which really properly gets the whole award season kicked off in full try-harding fashion.

I began the day obviously by watching the nominations live - [side note how anyone (i.e. Chris Pine) can look that good in a suit at 5:30am PST I'll never understand] - and then by immediately basking in the petty satisfaction of Jennifer Aniston not getting a nomination (#Brangeloonieforlife), despite one the sickest, slickest Oscar campaigns run in years. So I guess even though the Academy is racist, sexist, and completely out of touch with everything (see: this years nominations below), the one thing I'll give to them is the fact that they really didn't want Rachel Green's future shitty fart-comedy movie trailers to say "starring Academy Award Nominee Jennifer Aniston"

Sorry Jenn! No Oscar for you!

But I'd say that's probably the only thing they got right today. The more I think about it, the more insane these nominations are. So now though, lets talk some shit about the Academy is. Initial thoughts:

What the hell went wrong for Selma this year? Especially coming off a previous year that saw 12 Years a Slave win Best Picture?! Ugh. My brother suggests that one of the problems with Selma was that it came out too late in the year, and so there hasn't been enough buzz, not enough people have seen it. I don't disagree, but also, there are clearly other things at play here, i.e. race and gender -- 2 things the Academy doesn't do well. Proof: Oscar voters are 94% white, 77% male and only 14% are under the age of 50.

Selma did get a Best Pic nomination, but nothing else. This is strange, no? Is the sum of a movie not made of its parts? If a movie is Best Pic quality, doesn't that indicate that the story, and/or acting and/or directing is also great?

My brother pointed out that in Ava DuVernay (who directed Selma) not being nominated for Best Director, this is the 8th time a female director's film has been nominated for Best Picture, but she hasn't been nominated for Best Director. (Other examples: Zero Dark Thirty, The Kids Are Alright, Winter's Bone...) I guess what the Academy is saying is, you shouldn't make movies unless you're a while man--b/c that's who is nominated this year (and every year). No doubt that Richard Linklater's masterful Boyhood gets him on the list, as well as Birdman's Alejandro González Iñárritu. Those are easily the 2 best movies I saw in 2014 (though I still have some catching up to do). And I'm thrilled that Wes Anderson, who is one of my favourite directors, finally got a Best Director nomination, but don't tell me that Ava DuVernay didn't deserve that nomination more than the guy who directed The Imitation Game, which is not a very good film by the way (Cumberbitches beware!) UGH.

So, to honour the rage of Ava not being nominated, I'll tell you to go and see her first feature, Middle Of Nowhere, which I saw a few years ago at TIFF. It's a really great film about a woman who drops out of med school to support her husband who's in prison. David Oyelowo, who plays MLK Jr. in Selma, is in it as well.

Shock in the Best Actor category is the addition of Bradley Cooper to the exclusion of Jake Gylenhall and David Oyelowo. Jake, who's been nominated for all the Awards this season for his performance in Nightcrawler, was considered a lock for the fourth spot, with Oyelowo, B. Coop, and Steve Carrell vying for 5th. In true Academy fashion though, the black man playing MLK Jr. is overlooked for the white man's dream, B. Coop. Third year in a row now for Coop with his good hair and his relatable American roles--football! cops! snipers! I can almost see Academy members clenching their fists and gritting their teeth while whispering "America" as they submitted their ballots for Coop. 

And really, American Sniper, 6 nominations? I just can't with that movie. And I can't with Clint Eastwood, who is now nominated for everything and anything he does. He is the undeserving male version of Meryl Streep. Honestly, I'm surprised Eastwood's crazy Chrysler commercials that aired during the Superbowl a few years back (that Bill Hader so wonderfully parodied) weren't nominated.

I wonder if the nostalgia for American militarism is coming from the resurgent "war on terror" we've been seeing lately? (I'm not actually asking by the way). In any case, the fact that Eastwood chose not to depict the end of Navy seal Chris Kyle's narrative--that the most lethal sniper in American war sniper was not killed during his 4 tours in Iraq, but actually was shot to death at a shooting range in Texas by a fellow young military veteran he'd gone there with b/c of the vets ongoing PTSD. Maybe examining the story of PTSD, lack of support for returning soldiers, or insane gun violence in the US would have been a more worthwhile note to end the film on? No?

Other ridiculousness/snubs:

• Birdman is NOT nominated for Editing. The whole movie is edited to look like one continuous shot. How that doesn't get some Editing recognition is beyond me.
• Force Majeure, which I've heard about non-stop since TIFF was left off the Foreign Films list.
• NO Foxcatcher for Best Pic, despite having a Best Actor nom and Best director nom, and that there can be 10 nominees for Picture, and there are only 8.

I know there are more, but I must leave some of the raging for tomorrow!

What are your thoughts about the noms?