It’s interesting that this year’s Oscars are being held the second Sunday of February. Usually they’re held the last Sunday or the first Sunday of March in a Winter Olympic year. It was pretty evident will all my cramming of my Best Picture reviews. I didn’t start until three weeks to go and I didn’t think I could review all nine in time. But I did! The last of the Best Picture reviews I posted on Wednesday. Next year they’ll be going back to the last Sunday of February. So hopefully reviewing them all will be a lot more relaxed.
Anyways I’m able to make predictions for this year’s Oscars. I’m even able to make some calls for what should win in some categories. I’ve seen enough films to make up 96 of the 124 nominations. They range from single-nomination films like Knives Out to Joker with the most nominations with eleven in total. Most categories have been very predictable with the same film or same effort winning film award after film award. That could help me with my Oscar bingo I’ll be playing once again this Sunday! However there are a few that appear unpredictable. So without further ado, here are my predictions for the 2019 Academy Awards:
All credit to Olly Gibbs for that excellent image of this year’s nominees. This year has a wide range of film among the nine nominees. Two are set during World Wars. Two are written and directed by a Hollywood couple. Four have had a domestic gross at the box office of over $100 million. Two are films that got moved to NetFlix after an initial box-office release. One is done by a master of gangster movies and another is done by his heir apparent, but not a gangster movie at all. One is a modern-day adaptation of a classic novel. One is a fictional account of a cartoon villain. One is of car racing. One is of a failing marriage. One if of classic Hollywood. One is of Hitler through a child’s eyes. One is a possible answer to a popular whodunit. One is of a journey during war. And one is of an impoverished family trying to break free. All are seen worthy of being nominated in the Best Picture category this year. So here is my rundown of the Best Picture nominees:
1917 – War movies usually win the Academy over, as long as they’re done well. This has been the darling of most awards shows. I predict this as my Will Win pick. I myself admire it for its cinematography and it’s storytelling, but it’s not the film I most want to win Best Picture. Usually for Best Picture, I feel it should have much of the best of the year in the three top categories: acting, directing and writing.
Ford v Ferrari – Very rarely do auto racing movies get nominated for Best Picture. This is more than an auto racing film. It’s about those that were behind the big moment and the family relation of the racer who was shunned behind. Definitely a crowd-pleaser, but it doesn’t look like an Academy-pleaser.
The Irishman – What can I say? This is the film in which I most want to win because this is a film that went above and beyond what I expected out of it. I admire films that go above and beyond what I expect. Plus it had top-notch acting, directing and writing. However it lost a lot of its energy it had back in November. That’s why I think it won’t win.
Jojo Rabbit – This is one movie that would normally not be Best Picture material. I have to say of all nine Best Picture nominees, this is my favorite. This is the most entertaining of the nine. However I know how to separate my personal favorite from the films I feel are the best. Besides I know how stodgy the Academy is towards comedies.
Joker – Last year was something how a superhero movie finally got a Best Picture nomination. This year is a case of a story of the genesis of a villain won crowds and won movie awards. This is an impressive story too. However I feel that it faces stiff competition in the Best Picture race from other films.
Little Women – To think this is the first Little Women adaptation to be nominated for Best Picture! I can’t complain at all as the film took some different twists and it came out a winning story. I admire the way it was directed, written and acted, but there are films that have more boost in this competition.
Marriage Story – Sometimes all it takes to win people is a story that connects with people. That’s the magic of Marriage Story. This film’s best qualities are the acting and writing. However this is another film that appears prone to fall under the weight of bigger competition. Plus this being on NetFlix may be an additional reason why its chances were hurt.
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood – This is one salute to the Golden Age of Hollywood with a twist. Also it will cause a lot of people to reassess their definition of what a Quentin Tarantino movie is. I know my parents still think Tarantino movies are all ‘blood and guts’ but this film shows a side of Quentin most people overlook. I do rank this as a film in the Top 3 most expected to win, but it’s not my top pick. I think its summer release may have caused it to lose much of its buzz.
Parasite – This is definitely the foreign-language film of the year. Undisputed! This is my Should Win pick because this film has accomplished more than any of the other nine Best Picture nominees. It’s a case once again that the best film of the year is not in the English-language. However I’m very doubtful it will win. I remember last year Roma was the best film but it lost out to Green Book. That solidified my belief the Academy will never make a foreign-language film a Best Picture winner.
I know a lot of people often think the Academy Awards are a case of Hollywood patting itself on the back. One can say an excellent example of this was last year when Roma lost Best Picture to Green Book. If Once Upon A Time In Hollywood wins this, then it will further prove their point. I am very doubtful Parasite will win. However if 1917 wins, it won’t look like Hollywood patting itself on the back because it’s a British film!
Should Win: Bong Joon-ho – Parasite
Will Win: Sam Mendes – 1917
I chose Bong Joon-ho naturally. Most people feel the common belief that The winner for Best Director should be the director of the Best Picture winner. It happens over 70% of the time at the Oscars. As a result my Best Director pick for Should Win is from the same film as my Should Win for Best Picture. I feel it’s right since Parasite is the film I admire most and it’s Bong who made it happen. I feel it will go to Sam Mendes because of his past awards success this year. Nevertheless I would not be disappointed if it did because 1917 is a film that’s worth admiring.
Should Win and Will Win: Joaquin Phoenix – Joker
What can I say? It’s not just about being widely praised as the acting performance of the year but of the movie role of the year. Nobody — not even the most loyal of Batman fans — expected Joker to be the film that it is. It’s a film that not only tells the story of the emergence of the Joker, the chaos of Gotham City and the genesis of Batman, but it takes one into the mind of Arthur Fleck. One knew that Arthur would snap any minute. What can I say? One could argue that it’s Joaquin that single-handedly made the work!
Should Win and Will Win: Renee Zellweger – Judy
I never reviewed Judy in my blog after I saw it back in November. It’s an excellent story of a period in the last year of Judy Garland’s life. It focuses on her attempt for a comeback and how it appeared showbiz took everything out of her. It also flashed back to her childhood and how she was raised to think that a normal life that the other girls were having is for mortals. Renee was excellent in embodying Judy as she looked like a person who just couldn’t come to terms with herself and even feared what she would mostly be remembered for. Renee was spot on in epitomizing Judy from the voice, to the singing to the hostile attitude to the troubled personality to even writing left-handed.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Should Win: Joe Pesci – The Irishman
Will Win: Brad Pitt – Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
One thing about this year’s acting nominees. A lot of people talked about the lack of racial diversity. That is true, and I even reminded people in social media of Spielberg saying the Academy is like a member-only club.
As for actors, another lack of diversity is that only six nominations went to performances from five actors who were never nominated before. For Supporting Actor, this is normally a ‘newbie-friendly’ category but all five have been nominated before in the past and only Brad Pitt has never won an Oscar. That appears likely to change as he is the heavy favorite to win for his scene-stealing in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Actually Brad has enough screen time to qualify for the Best LEAD Actor category! However I would be likely to go with Joe Pesci for his portrayal as a mob boss who appears like a father figure. Nevertheless Sunday will be Brad’s moment.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Should Win and Will Win: Laura Dern – Marriage Story
Some performances nominated for Supporting Actor/Actress are usually lead roles that are ‘politicked’ as supporting roles, like I I mentioned about Brad Pitt earlier. Some supporting acting nominations and wins are because they’re good at stealing the show from the lead actors. And some nominations and wins in the supporting acting categories can also be because they do an excellent job of character acting. That’s why I have no problem with Laura Dern winning. She made you hate Nora! She did an excellent job as the manipulative sly-talking lawyer and she made her character of Nora almost look like she was a snake! Actors are taught about even using animal-like behaviors to enhance characters. This award is Laura’s for the taking. And on the day before her 53rd birthday to boot!
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Should Win: Boon Jong-ho – Parasite
Will Win: Quentin Tarantino – Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
If there’s one major category that I feel will be the hardest to predict, it’s actually both screenplay categories. Lately some of the award shows have given alternating views on who they think is the best. I agree with what Bong Joon-ho said in his acceptance speech at the Golden Globes: “Once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you’ll be introduced to so many more amazing films.” I agree, but I doubt if the Academy agrees. Roma may have won last year, but I don’t think they’ll make it two in a row.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Should Win: Steve Zaillian – The Irishman
Will Win: Greta Gerwig – Little Women
It’s interesting that Greta and her common-law partner Noah Baumbach are both nominated for screenplays this year. I had to go with The Irishman on this one because it’s a complex story that Zaillian is able to make work. I think they will give it to Great for putting a new twist to a story that’s been adapted numerous times. I think the biggest upset could come from Jojo Rabbit, but I’m still set on Little Women.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Will Win: Toy Story 4
This year I did not see any of the nominated films. I only saw three animated films and none of them got nominated here. Even though Klaus won the Annie Award and the BAFTA, I have a feeling Disney is going to take it again. This is the one category Disney wants to win most. wouldn’t that be something if Toy Story 4 loses to a NetFlix film?
BEST INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM
Should Win and Will Win: Parasite (South Korea)
For those wondering, this is a new title for the category that used to be called Best Foreign Language Film. This year I saw four of the five nominees in this category, which is extremely rare for me. The others I saw are Pain And Glory, Honeyland and Corpus Christi. That means I can also make a ‘should win’ judgement in this category. It’s safe to say Parasite is the foreign-language film of the year. Also Honeyland makes history as the first documentary to be nominated in this category.
Will Win: Roger Deakins – 1917
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Will Win: Jacqueline Durran – Little Women
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Will Win: Honeyland
BEST FILM EDITING
Will Win: Yang Jin-mo – Parasite
BEST HAIR AND MAKE-UP
Will Win: Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan and Vivian Baker – Bombshell
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Will Win: Hildur Guðnadóttir – Joker
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Will Win: “(I’m Gonna) Love Me Again” – Rocketman
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Will Win: Barbara Ling & Nancy Haigh – Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
BEST SOUND EDITING
Will Win: Ford v Ferrari
BEST SOUND MIXING
Will Win: Ford v Ferrari
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Will Win: 1917
SHORT FILM PREDICTIONS
JUST ONE MORE – TOP OSCAR UPSETS
Here are the five upsets I anticipate are most likely to happen. In category order:
- Taika Waititi for Best Adapted Screenplay for Jojo Rabbit
- Klaus for Best Animated Feature
- Michael McCusker and Andrew Buckland for Best Film Editing for Ford v Ferrari
- American Factory for Best Documentary Feature
- The Lion King for Best Visual Effects
And there you go. My predictions for the winners, and possible upsetters of the 92nd Academy Awards. Having a hostless Oscars last year was such a success, they did it again this year. Will it be as entertaining? Will there be some shock winners like Olivia Colman was last year? It will all be decided Sunday night.
There have been films about marriages falling apart before. You could understand that a film like Marriage Story would be expected to deliver a lot in order to separate itself from the other divorce films. It will surprise you.
The film begins on the two in the marriage: Charlie and Nicole Barber. Charlie is a successful theatre producer in New York and Nicole is a former teen actress originally from California who’s part of his production and has helped her career as an adult actress. We see images of Nicole and we hear Charlie’s voice of what he loves best about Nicole. We see images of Charlie and we hear from Nicole what she loves best about Charlie. We then see Charlie and Nicole sitting in the office of a marriage mediator. What we heard are the written essays both were requested by the mediator to write of each other. The mediator requests Nicole to read first, but she’s too embarrassed and they forego the counselling.
The marriage troubles appear to have happened when Nicole was offered a starring role in a Hollywood television production. After she left the New York production of Charlie’s, Nicole moved back temporarily into her mother’s house taking their 8-year-old son Henry with them. Charlie chose to stay in New York as his play is moving to Broadway. They want the split to be amicable and to forego lawyers. However right after shooting, one of her castmates recommended a family lawyer she had for her ow divorce.
Her name is Nora and she is known to have experience in family situations, especially those in showbiz. Right from the start, Nora appears ready to deal with Nicole’s case, even before she hears it. Nicole does state her case. She tells of how she feels neglected by him and he constantly rejects her ideas and desires. She also suspects him having an affair with the stage manager of the theatre company.
Charlie goes to Los Angeles with the intention of visiting Nicole’s family. Nicole’s family is very affectionate to Charlie, but Nicole wants them kept out of it since this divorce is happening. The family try to make like it’s a normal visit until Charlie is served the divorce papers. Charlie first meets with Jay Marotta in Los Angeles who’s known to be an aggressive lawyer who fights dirty. Charlie declines hiring him, but he receives a phone call from Nora saying he needs to find a lawyer or risk losing custody of Henry. It’s on his return flight he finds a lawyer who’s not one Nicole previously consulted.
His name is Bert Spitz and he’s retired from family law and favors a civil approach to handling divorce. However Bert does make it clear there are some thing Bert will need to do to win custody of Henry such as move to Los Angeles. Charlie finds an apartment and remodels it to look modern. However he still has to fly back to New York frequently to work on his show. Charlie doesn’t want this to be a dirty court show so he gets Bert to arrange a meeting between the two of them, Nicole and Nora. From the start, Nora is the one in control as she brings up Nicole claim of him not being warm to her ambitions and revealing Henry prefers to stay with his mother instead of fly between the two cities. A frustrated Bert recommends Charlie move to Los Angeles completely.
A frustrated Charlie has had it. He fires Bert. During his Broadway run, he wins a lucrative Fellowship Grant. The first payout is enough to buy Jay on retainer. The case then moves to court. A confident Nora reassures Nicole that everything will be for her success, until she sees Jay coming to the court office. She knows it will get ugly. And it does get ugly in the court as Nora tries to portray Charlie as a bad person with past infidelity and emotional distance and Jay tries to portray Nicole as a bad person by making her wine drinking look like alcoholism and a criminal for hacking Charlie’s emails.
This whole lawyer vs. lawyer action frustrates both Nicole and Charlie. They act in a friendly way, especially around Henry. They don’t want this divorce to be a burden to Henry but he makes it obvious the back and forth is an annoyance to him. They hope a private discussion without either lawyer present will lead to a better resolve to the situation. Instead it starts as friendly and then turns into a heated argument. So heated, it a case Nicole claims he has gotten too involved with himself and an angry Charlie wishes she would die. However it’s Charlie realizing what he said that he breaks down, with Nicole comforting him.
The divorce drama isn’t over. Charlie is to have nightly visits with Henry where he is monitored by an expert evaluator. The visit appears to go well until Charlie shows both Henry and evaluator a trick he does with his carpenters knife in front of castmates. The trick failed and it left a long cut on his arm. The court process ends as both agree to relax their demands. At a family party with Nora as guest, Nora reveals the 50/50 agreement is actually 55/45 in her favor with terms Nicole didn’t want. At a party with his Broadway castmates, they console Charlie and he sings a song which seems to reflect his feelings of defeat.
One year passes. Charlie’s play has a successful year-long run and Nicole was nominated for an Emmy for directing. She also has a new boyfriend, possibly the boy she met at a party a year earlier. It’s on the day of Halloween Party. Nicole’s family is excited to see Charlie and Charlie tells them all he accepted residency to spend more time around Henry. Just before Charlie is about to take Henry to the party, he notices Henry trying to read something written on paper. Charlie tries to read it, but realizes it’s what Nicole wrote about Charlie in preparation with meeting with the mediator over a year ago. Charlie reads it as Nicole just enters in, and is in tears. At the end of the party, Nicole notices Henry tired on Charlie’s shoulder. Nicole agrees to let Charlie have him for the night, even though it’s her night with him.
There have been films about marriages falling apart and even films about actual divorce battles. Some will remember 1979’s Kramer vs. Kramer. That film won the Oscar for Best Picture and even highlighted a touchy topic about children caught in the middle of their parents’ divorces. This film is unique as this is about a divorce and it’s a divorce of a showbiz couple with differing career paths whose ambitions can be best met thousands of miles apart. The thing about this film is that anyone who’s been married, been in a long-term relationship, or are even going through divorce themselves can see certain instances in the Barber story that mirror their own. Maybe it’s at the beginning where Charlie’s and Nicole’s essays reflect one’s pre-divorce feelings towards their spouse. Maybe it’s the nasty court battles. Maybe it’s those child custody situations. Maybe it’s even those moments where instead of keeping it all together, they just let it out and just vent out their hostile frustrations towards them. I’m sure one can see their own situation mirrored in this film.
The film does a very good, very thorough, if not completely thorough, look at the divorce of the Barbers. The film starts with the two talking of what wins them to the other. It progresses when we learn of their past career moments, present career situations and obvious future goals. It leads into how the split gets to the point a divorce is necessary and how lawyer involvement is needed. It gets to the legal preparation and even how one tried to prepare himself to win a custody battle. It even gets to moments where both bring out the worst in each other. Then there’s the two aftermaths: the first aftermath being right after the divorce and the second being much later with the calm after the storm. The film is very good at showing how the ambitions of the two, whom both describe the other as ‘a competitive person’ at the beginning, cause the friction. The film is good at showing how one state’s divorce laws conflict with another’s laws. The film is good at showing how divorce battles interfere with their child’s life. The film is also creative as it shows the first part of the aftermath of the court battle with a musical note. Nicole, her mother and sister perform a song from a Stephen Sondheim musical at a post-trial celebration party while Charlie sings a song from a Stephen Sondheim musical at a New York return party about heartbreak. It fits the film and story perfectly.
I feel the biggest focus of the film is not just the marriage falling apart, but of the involvement of lawyers. One of Jay’s assistants said: ‘Criminal lawyers see the good in bad people. Divorce lawyers see the bad in good people.’ That is very true. We see it at the trial as both Nora and Jay try to vilify their client’s spouse and expose the dirt in them. Even after we heard Nicole and Charlie describe each other at the beginning as ‘a competitive person,’ we see in the court battles that their competitiveness is nothing compared to Jay and Nora. Many divorce lawyers like Jay and Nora end up being this kind of ‘cutthroat competitive.’ You can see it puts a strain on Nicole and Charlie. Sometimes you’re left to wonder if their most frustrated by the divorce proceedings or by their lawyers’ involvement. Both lawyers even showed animal-like mannerisms in the way they did their business; Nora appeared to be coming off like a snake while Jay appeared to be coming off like a bull. What can I say? It’s like my father once said “The only people that really win in a divorce are the lawyers.” Very true, Dad!
It would be interesting to compare this to Kramer vs. Kramer. One think that’s noticed is that this film is a lot more intense. One difference is Kramer focuses on a neighbor who’s in support while Nicole has more of a support system of a family. Both films are about a divorce and a custody battle. However the role of Henry in this film is not as dimension as that of the role of Billy in Kramer. Both boys have similar bowl-cuts, but Billy was the bigger role. Actually the bigger roles in this film were the lawyers. There was some ‘lawyer moments’ in Kramer, but not as much. I think that’s the thing with this film is that it’s not just about a divorce but about lawyer interference too.
Interesting note is that Scarlett has been married once and has a daughter from that marriage to Ryan Reynolds. Adam Driver is currently married and has a child. Noah Baumbach is currently married to Greta Gerwig but was married to Jennifer Jason Leigh for some time before and fathered a child through her. Sometimes it’s tempting to think this is about that marriage, especially when Jennifer, like Nicole, was a teen movie star with her breakthrough coming in Fast Times At Ridgemont High. Noah will admit it’s partially about that, but it’s about other divorces too like his own parents and through people he worked with. He even interviewed lawyers, judges and mediators. In case you’re wondering, Jennifer did see it and she’s cool with it. That bit about Nicole having directorial pursuits, I think that’s more like Gerwig than Leigh.
This has to be the best film ever made by Noah Baumbach. Up until now, I felt his best work was The Squid And The Whale which ironically is what it’s like being a teen during a divorce, and was semi-autobiographical. This film he directs and writes really appears to be a mirror on what’s happening in a lot of people’s marriages today. It reminds me of what won people to certain independent films of the late-1980’s and early 1990’s. Those films consisted of actors playing regular people who won audiences over by being reflections of themselves. This film does that. Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver were also excellent in their parts. There were times when they had to be their own individual character and then times to be a character that was part of a couple. Both did an excellent job of making their characters work. Laura Dern was hateably-excellent as the divorce lawyer that was appeared more interested in winning for her than her client and was going to manipulate her way into getting it. Julie Hagerty was also very good as the mother trying to be supportive for Nicole but still having high regards for Charlie. Azhy Robertson was also very good as Henry, but his role lacked the dimension and the screen time of that of Billy Kramer. I feel the role didn’t touch on the frustrations of the child that well.
Marriage Story is the story of two people in the arts whose marriage falls apart. However what they go through is what one can see mirrored in their own lives or what they see happening to couples close to them or what one experienced in their own divorce. That’s the film’s best quality.
DISCLAIMER: In the next while, you will see a lot of film reviews that have been delayed for the longest time. I’m passing them off as DVD reviews.
“Can’t you just go and speak to Judge Bazile? We ain’t hurting anybody.”
Loving was actually the very first film I saw in 2017. Pardon the delay of the review. It’s still worth reviewing as it is a unique film, and not just because of its subject matter.
Richard and Mildred Loving want to marry. It’s the right time; they’ve been dating for a long time she’s having a baby. Problem is Mildred is black and Richard is white and they live in Virginia where interracial marriage is forbidden by law. They travel to Washington, D.C. to marry, but it causes problems as the couple are raided by the police and told their marriage certificate is not valid.
The couple were tried in the court of law in Virginia and they plead guilty. They received a suspended sentence, but decided to move to Washington, D.C. Life in Washington doesn’t work out for them as the oldest of their three children was hit by a car. The child survives, but Mildred decides she prefers the calm life of the country and wants to move back to Virginia. Especially since their families are there. In addition, Mildred writes to Robert F. Kennedy of her situation. Kennedy sends her letter to the ACLU. Bernard Cohen, a lawyer associated with the ACLU, agrees to contest the marriage ruling in the state of Virginia, but is slapped by disapproval in the court based on Virginia’s constitutional law.
Mildred then has Cohen take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1967, the US Supreme Court overturned their convictions and ruled that the criminalizing of interracial marriages violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Lovings could now live in Virginia without fear of threat and love each other peacefully.
This film is of a relevant topic. Interracial marriage is a topic that still develops some heated discussion in the United States today. Many countries like Canada, the UK and even France don’t see interracial love as much of a problem. However there are still a significant number of people in the United States that look down upon it. Even seeing how Richard’s mother was disapproving of the marriage and even telling Richard he ‘did a wrong thing’ really gets one thinking at first how someone, including many millions around the world, can think loving a person of a different race is ‘wrong.’ Even hearing how the courts of Virginia ruled that: “God created the continents to keep the races separate and that they don’t mix.” I thought that was bizarre that they thought that but the courts in the Commonwealth Of Virginia considered that to be the truth. Me, I’d demand they pull out the Bible and show me where marrying someone of another race is a sin. Which of the Ten Commandments did that violate?
I was anticipating the subject of race to be included in the film. I know the prime topic of interracial love would be the prime topic but I figured the topic of race would be present too,, especially since this is in Virginia. The topic of race was not focused too heavily. However there were some moments when the subject of race was present. Like the case when Richard was going for a beer with his brothers-in-law from Mildred’s side of the family. I remember one of them questioning “You think you’re black?’ That too had me thinking about the racial divide in the US that still hits today.
The most surprising thing about Loving is that it wasn’t as dramatic as one would expect it to be. In fact the film appeared less focused on the events and more focused on the people Richard and Mildred Loving. It focused on the two as a couple, but mostly on both Richard Loving and Mildred Loving as individuals. Richard was seen of having the personality of a man who’s both hard and sensitive at the same time, but fearful of what would happen. Possibly because he’s white and he knows about a lot of racism that he could be subject to hate and even violence for. Mildred, whose actually half-black and half-Native American, was seen as a person who was soft and smart, but always optimistic. She had that look on her like she had nothing to lose and whatever else to gain.
It first seems like an odd choice to be more focused on the people instead of the events. I often wondered too about why it was done so. Over time, I saw it as something that made sense. We should not forget that it was the Lovings’ love for each other that made this happen. Sure, history will record Richard and Mildred for making history for their interracial marriage, but they made history because of their love for each other. The feelings for each other are made very obvious to us as are their feelings towards the events in their lives. This angle of focus was a very good choice in making such a film. We more of a look at the couple that made history rather than the history they made.
I admire writer/director Jeff Nichols for using that angle in creating the story of the Lovings. It is a unique angle and keeps their story from coming off as a made-for-TV movie. The portrayals of the Lovings by Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga were excellent and very telling of Richard and Mildred both as individuals and as a couple. The other actors in the film didn’t have such well-developed roles, but they did own the scenes when they had them, like Sharon Blackwood as Richard’s disapproving mother and Nick Kroll as Bernie Cohen the lawyer. The score from David Wingo didn’t occupy too much of the film, but its presence helped with the storytelling.
Loving is an excellent film that shows a focus to a story many know, but a focus overlooked. It’s also a film relevant now as interracial marriage is still a hot topic to many today.
When you think of the Grateful Dead, who’s the first person that comes to mind? Jerry Garcia, right? Even though Jerry is the most famous member, rhythm guitarist Bob Weir is also a key part of the band. The Other One: The Long Strange Trip Of Bob Weir is a documentary focusing on Weir both as a member of the Grateful Dead and his own personal life.
Bobby weir was born in San Francisco in 1947 and was adopted by a well-to-do family. He had an adopted brother and a sister born to his adoptive parents. However Booby grew up a very restless boy. He was expelled from schools within a matter of months. However he developed a passion for the guitar at a young age. There’s even mention of how excited he was when he got a guitar for Christmas. At a young age, he caught the attention of a band playing in the back alley of a Palo Alto spot. They were the Grateful Dead. They took a liking to Booby and the rest is history.
The funny thing about Bobby is that he was a bit of an oddity with the Dead. The other members of the Dead describe themselves as ‘uglies’ and Booby as a ‘cutie’ and they describe the Grateful Dead in its early days as ‘Bobby and the four uglies.’ It seemed like a good break to be welcomed into a band at such a young age but his parents were firm on his education and reminded the other dead members of that.
Over time the San Francisco music scene of the 60’s would rise and eventually become a permanent fixture on pop culture and even definers of the counterculture of that period. The Grateful Dead themselves would become synonymous with the psychedelia of that time. But even before that happens, the documentary pays attention to the band’s first few years trying to make a name for themselves. It reminds you they had to struggle with small gigs just like many other bands before them. Then they signed onto a big label. Then they went from playing in bars to playing in concert halls. Then came the Deadheads: a group of people that stayed loyal to the band year after year, decade after decade. A loyalty not seen before in rock ‘n roll.
Even despite playing music and hitting the big time, the documentary shows of the friendship Weir had with the band. It was of a family nature to the point that Weir almost ignored his own family. The family relation with the other bands did take challenges of their own. The first sign was in the 1980’s when they made a comeback which included a chart-topping album for the first time with 1987’s ‘In The Dark’ and the single ‘Touch Of Grey.’ There was the focus of Jerry Garcia’s cult-of-personality: something Jerry didn’t really welcome in his life. There were even times Bob took personal vacations. Then there was the time Jerry was going through rehab and Bobby acted as a support for him up until his dying day.
It doesn’t stop there. It also focuses on how Weir decided to finally settle down after decades of womanizing with Natascha Munter. The two wed when he was 52 and they have two daughters. Even then the trip wasn’t over. Weir tried to learn of his birth parents. He learned of his mother after she died that she had gave birth to 12 children. He was able to meet up with his birth father and the two have been close ever since.
This documentary is definitely one for people who like biographies of musicians or biography shows in particular. No question Deadheads young and old will want to see this. In fact I remember seeing a wide range of people in the audience watching this documentary. It’s possible some of the seniors in the audience may have been amongst the first generation of Deadheads. If you only care about musicians and their star power, this is not for you. Also if you’re a Deadhead simply because of Jerry Garcia, this will remind you that you’re not a true Deadhead. It’s not just a biography but gives you a feel of the music Bob helped create and continues to play whenever he performs with surviving members of the Dead. The mix of biography with live performances of his music really adds into the feel of it.
The documentary doesn’t really offer anything original as far as documentary film making goes. What it does is showcase a musician’s life that is a life less ordinary. The stories of how he was adopted and how he got into a lot of trouble as a kid will surely raise eyebrows and even a giggle or two. However seeing how he was able to settle down in his older years and even meet up with his adoptive father in recent years shows this is no ordinary life. The intimacy of the biography doesn’t stop with his personal life. It also shows how Bob treated the other Dead members like family even more than he treated his own. In fact hearing from Jerry’s daughter how Bob was like a brother to Jerry up until his last days shows how much the other members meant to him.
The are some flaws with the documentary. Most noticeably, it focuses almost exclusively on his music with the Grateful Dead and hardly ever focuses on his music with his other bands like Kingfish, RatDog, Booby and the Midnites and Furthur. Also the documentary made him look like he was a swinger all his life before Natascha. There’s no mention of his seven-year relationship with Frankie Hart back in the 70’s.
The Other One: The Long Strange Trip Of Bob Weir is a very good documentary to watch even if you’re not a fan of the Grateful Dead. It was time well spent for me. It reminds you there are a lot of great rock ‘n roll musicians that contributed a lot to the genre but don’t get the star status as many others.
When I Walk is a unique documentary where the documentarian is the complete subject of the film. It’s a very personal documentary. Possibly because this may be the last film he ever makes.
We meet Jason da Silva, a promising young documentarian of Indian heritage living in Vancouver. He lived the life of a budding 25 year-old filmmaker and had a promising future ahead. That all changed in 2006 during a family vacation in St. Maartens. His legs weakened and he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. His condition wasn’t fatal but it would lead to weakening of his body and other deteriorations. Jason was encouraged by his mother not to allow his disease to limit what he can do. So Jason decided to make his battle with MS his subject of his next film.
Jason is determined to fight it or deal with it the best way he can. He tries his hands as many different types of medicines and healings. He first travels to his parents’ hometown of Goa, India where he agrees to Ayurveda medicine. He then goes to Lourdes, France on the advice of his very religious Catholic grandmother and receives healing water. He also arranges an appointment for a wonder-surgery that’s a breakthrough in fighting MS and is highly advertised on Youtube by people cured through this surgery. The Ayurveda medicine procedures didn’t work. Lourdes didn’t heal. And this ‘wonder surgery’ only gave limited improvements that didn’t last.
Family unity is another theme in the film as Jason comes from a close family with relatives in Canada, New York and back home in India. His mother is the one who’s trying to encourage him to stay positive and hold his head up high. Though she cries near the end of the film and admits she didn’t know how bad it was and how limiting it would be. There’s another time when he visits a relative in India and tries to find out if his MS is inherited.
Despite his illness and its dehabilitation over time, Jason continues to be strong. He talks of difficulties going to restaurants and various other places in New York. He meet up with another person in a wheelchair and they decide to organize a blog of wheelchair accessible locations in New York. It’s not just simply taking restaurants that advertise themselves as ‘wheelchair accessible’ at face value. Both Jason and his colleague go to the various locations and test out how ‘wheelchair accessible’ the places are in both the facilities and the washrooms. Jason also purchases various filmmaking software and various computer accessories to assist him with his filmmaking as his body functioning lessens over time. They show one gadget which assists in functions as Jason makes commands in a microphone. Some days it’s so hard to talk, Alice–who I will talk about shortly– has to learn filmmaking and its functions in order to complete certain jobs for Jason.
Possibly the biggest plot of the documentary is not just simply overcoming his condition of MS in daily life but his relationship with Alice Cook. Before Alice, Jason was a frequent dater in the film making scene. He first thought MS would be the end of the dating road. Then he went to a support group for people with MS offered by his mother. He met a woman named Alice who was around the same age as him. Alice is a fully able person who attended the sessions in support of her stepfather who has MS. Alice took an interest in Jason. They started dating. Alice started helping and assisting Jason in his daily life. Then in 2009 they married. They even show Jason using his scooter with Alice on the back and a Just Married sign on the seat.
However right after the marriage came some new hurdles. First was the stress of being married to a physically limited person. Alice is a very cooperative and a very supportive wife but the stress does take its toll and Alice needs a vacation for a week to give herself relief. One of the things she sacrificed in her relationship with Jason was her love of hiking. She would have the chance to hike again after so many years. There’s also the effort of the two to have children. The film takes us to the doctor’s office where Jason learns he’s fertile and conception is possible. The first conception works but Alice miscarries. SPOILER ALERT: However the film ends with Alice showing Jason the result of her home pregnancy test: a positive. The film’s last scene shows the two in the ultrasound lab and the screen showing a healthy fetus.
One thing about this documentary that stands out is how personal this is for the filmmaker. Before MS, Jason was no simple documentarian. He was already showing promise at a young age with short documentaries like Olivia’s Puzzle, Twins Of Mankala and a Song For Daniel. He also had two feature-length documentaries to his credit: Lest We Forget and From The Mouthpiece On Back. One would figure MS would be an end to a filmmaking career at such a young age but Jason’s determined not to let it stop him. The film is very personal as it not only hides nothing of Jason but also of Alice. We see an image of blood in the bathtub when Alice miscarries. We also hear Alice tell her side of the story at times and she holds nothing back. In fact there are times when she’s in tears when she talks of the stress of managing a physically challenged husband and her fears for the future as his condition deteriorates over time. This film is as much about the struggle of the two as it is the triumph. Even Jason admits there are times when he can’t handle it or wants to give up.
Another addition to the documentary is the animation. Often the documentary will go to animated images of Jason in his life, MS eating away at him showing the MS as ‘bugs,’ and various other images. That is another added bonus to the documentary that keeps it from getting mundane. Although the animation is not the most professional, it still adds to the documentary.
As a documentary, it’s questionable whether this is worthy of box office release. It has already made appearances at the Sundance Film Fest and the Hot Docs Film Festival where it even won an award. It’s still possible. One thing I know is that it is definitely eligible for broadcast on a documentary television channel.
When I Walk is a film worth seeing. It’s as truthful about the struggles and the setbacks as it is about the triumphs. Definitely worth seeing for all types of people.
BONUS: If you want to learn more about Jason and When I Walk just go to: http://wheniwalk.com/ There’s even a mailing list to subscribe to.
DISCLAIMER: The object of the article is not to express my personal view of same-sex marriage but to give an analysis on how it could impact the National Election.
“I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue. At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. I have hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient. I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth.”
That announcement from Barack Obama during an ABC news interview is seen by many as a positive move. For many Americans, this is an announcement they feel they’ve waited too long to hear. For other Americans, they are unhappy at what he declared and can’t believe that an American president would approve of such a thing. One thing to take a note of is that Obama made that announcement almost six months before the American people go to vote for President of the United States. The question remains was that a smart pre-election move or a risky move?
To get an understanding of why the topic of same-sex marriage has always been a hot button, you have to look at social history. Same-sex relationships and activities have always been looked down upon worldwide throughout history. Things started changing starting in the late 60’s. The signs of changes coming first occurred in the late-40’s early 50’s when professor Alfred Kinsey published his findings on human sexuality and activity. Part of his findings included what he learned of homosexuality and he even talked of the seven levels of homosexuality from the completely heterosexual Level 0 to the fully homosexual Level 6. It wasn’t until the 1970’s that things reached a turning point in the US when openly gay politician Harvey Milk was voted into San Francisco city council and helped defeat a bill banning homosexuals from housing and teaching jobs in 1978. The 80’s was a hard and dark time for gay men as the AIDS epidemic had gay men as most of their victims. The 90’s experienced a resurgence of pride with President Bill Clinton urging gays in the military. It’s only until this century that the gay population of the United States saw the possibility of gay marriage. And with good reason.
Hard to believe that 25 years ago, the idea of same-sex marriage was unheard of anywhere in the world. The first sign of things to come happened when same-sex relations were first legitimized in Denmark back in 1989 as ‘legalized partnerships’. Many countries followed with their own recognition, like ‘registered partnerships’ or ‘life partnerships’, but it wasn’t until 2000 when the Netherlands became the first country to officially recognize same-sex matrimony. Belgium and the Canadian province of Ontario followed in 2003 with Spain following in 2005 and South Africa following in 2006. Today thirteen countries legally recognize same-sex marriages.
The United States was always hard to achieve legal recognition. Even if a President is liberal in beliefs and stances, he will face the pressures of the political opposition. That explains why even though Bill Clinton was the most ‘gay-friendly’ President Of The United States in its history and even supported gays in the military, he compromised to a ‘don’t ask: don’t tell’ rule. In 1996 he even signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as ‘one man and one woman’ after it was passed as law by Congress. Nevertheless the right would gradually increase state-by-state. It wouldn’t be until May 2004 that Massachusetts would become the first state in American history to legally recognize same-sex marriages. The issue of gay marriage would continue to be a state-by-state issue as some states would legitimize same-sex marriages while other states would pass laws prohibiting such recognition. Even some states–most noticeably the state of California with Proposition 8– would place the issue on the voter’s ballot. Currently nine states in the United States give full recognition to same sex marriages while most other states have either a statute or a constitutional law banning same-sex marriage. Nineteen states have a constitutional law banning recognition of any same-sex union.
Now comes President Barack Obama. Like Bill Clinton before him, Obama has also had his times of personal stances and bowing to pressures from the opposition. Obama favored legalizing same-sex marriages in a 1996 interview but during the 2008 Presidential Election campaign, he stated he believed marriage to be one man and one woman. Obama exhibited similar complications when in January 2009 he opposed a federal mandate for same-sex marriage and opposed DOMA. He’d continue to say that his opinion of same-sex marriage was ‘evolving’. However the first hint of Obama siding with the position of same-sex marriage came in February in 2011 when he announced that DOMA was unconstitutional. It wouldn’t be until May 9, 2012 that Obama would finally make his stance on same-sex marriage heard. His opinion was warmly greeted by many people, especially LBGT groups and other liberals. Some people were skeptical, feeling they might still get the same raw deal they’ve been getting for years. There’s no question that the upcoming Presidential Election had a lot to do with his announcement.
Even though Obama’s gay marriage stance appears as a positive step towards the upcoming election, there is also the opposite side as this could pave the way for a Republican being President. Of all issues facing the United States, it’s this issue that best resembles the current divisiveness and polarization of American politics. Its strongest opponents of course are those that side with the Republican Party and the values it stands for. The Republican Party has always left a bitter taste in the throats of the LGBT population of the United States. They still remember how conservative icon President Ronald Reagan sided with religious leaders; including the Moral Majority’s Jerry Falwell who declared the AIDS epidemic in the early 80’s as “God’s punishment to the gay lifestyle”. This may have a lot to do with the Reagan Administration’s slow acting upon the epidemic. President George Bush Sr. was strongly opposed to gays in the military and campaigned the Republican Party during the 1992 Presidential election as ‘the party of family values’: a title that has popularity stuck since. The younger George Bush even tried to push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as ‘one man and one woman’ only to lose in the Supreme Court in 2004. Many believe his opposition to same-sex marriage is what helped him win the 2004 Election.
Soon after came the right-wing of the United States of today. You can hear it in the many voices of the right-wing pundits on the airwaves constantly stating their opposition to same-sex marriage, even going as far as declaring that ‘marriage is not a right’. Many Republicans strongly believe that defining marriage as ‘one man and one woman’ is a value instead of a prejudice. There’s even a set of voters in the millions that vote at election time on ‘family values issues’, known as ‘Values Voters’. Even Republican politician Mike Huckabee slammed Obama’s declaration of DOMA as ‘unconstitutional’ and a bad move come the Election. As expected, all candidates for the Republican Race were opposed to same-sex marriage.
You can bet after Obama’s stance that Wednesday, there was a lot of talk of the right-wing and the Republicans, especially from Race front-runner Mitt Romney. Three days after, Romney spoke to a graduating class at Liberty College reaffirming his opposition towards same-sex marriage and declaring his strong support for traditional Christian values. He even declared: that the “pre-eminence of the family” remains at the heart of the principles that underpin the nation. That drew a loud cheer from the 25,000 in the crowd.
There is an interesting footnote in Romney’s view. It’s also been known that he’s not opposed to same-sex adoption. Also interesting to know is just days after his stance on traditional marriage, it was brought to the attention that Romney was a high school bully who bullied an allegedly gay student because of his fancy hairstyle. Romney promptly apologized in public for all the bullying he did.
So Obama said his thoughts on same-sex marriage and the public have responded. His stance on same-sex marriage could either help him or hinder him. The big question is will it work against him n the upcoming Presidential Election or will it work for him? And if it does work for him, will that pave the way for full recognition of same-sex marriages in the whole of the United States? It will all be decided on November 6th, and possibly the four years after.
WIKIPEDIA: Timeline of Same-Sex Marriage. Wikipedia.com. 2012. Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
WIKIPEDIA: Same-Sex Marriage In The United States. Wikipedia.com. 2012. Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
Roberts, Robin. Interview. ABC News. May 2012. 9 May 2012. <http://news.yahoo.com/transcript-robin-roberts-abc-news-interview-president-obama-001212560–abc-news-topstories.html>
Parisse, Emmanuel. “Romney adamantly rejects same-sex marriage” Yahoo! News 12 May 2012. <http://news.yahoo.com/romney-courts-young-evangelicals-promotes-values-062331045.html>