James Sturm, a cartoonist, co-founder of the alt-weekly The Stranger in Seattle and co-founder of something called the Center for Cartoon Studies, laid out the case for a boycott of the film back in February in Slate, which reposted his piece the other day.

My quick Google of the keywords finds no evidence that the idea garnered much traction, although there have been discussions of the idea elsewhere, some preceding Sturm’s piece,  and an online petition seeking royalties for the family of Kirby who died in 1994. With fewer than 1,500 signatures, it’s not been a success by Internet standards.

In fact, Sturm was rather downbeat about the chances of a boycott even as he was writing:

A boycott of The Avengers and other Marvel movies could conceivably strike a blow in the only place that truly hurts a corporation: its bottom line. But I don’t have high hopes of this happening. I think most people feel that if you look at how any company makes its sausages, you are going to find some pretty nasty stuff. And few people will feel strongly enough about Kirby’s treatment to keep them from seeing one of the summer’s biggest blockbusters. Even a lot of die-hard comics fans will probably feel that boycotters are doing little more than raining on their parade.

Sturm lays out the sausage-making details of the Kirby case, and the failed efforts to challenge his work-for-hire treatment and the contracts he signed. And he underscores that Kirby wasn’t just an illustrator following Lee’s scripts. In fact, there were no scripts:

 At Marvel, Lee would give his collaborator a brief story synopsis (or come up with one in conjunction with the artist) who would then draw the comic before a script was written. Comics is a visual medium, and telling the story first in pictures gave the work a fluidity that was lacking in other comics. After the comic was drawn, Lee would then add lively dialogue that would further shape the story and define the characters.

It’s worth a read. And a weep. And if you’re touched by The Avengers, or any of the cavalcade of Marvel movies, you owe it to yourself to learn who this Kirby guy was.

The Marvel industrial-promotional complex certainly won’t tell you.

 

This was a strange year for the Best Picture nominees. Seven and a half of the nine nominees are period pieces, with only The Descendants and half of Midnight in Paris taking place in the present. Two of the movies are about silent cinema (Hugo and The Artist), two of the movies take place in Paris during the 1920s (Hugo and Midnight in Paris), and, bizarrely, two of the movies take place in 2002 (Moneyball and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close), which is something that can’t even be said about any of the Best Picture nominees from 2002. Hugo and The Artist are interesting mirror images of each other: One is a French movie that takes place in Hollywood of the late 1920s, and the other is a Hollywood movie that takes place in France of the late 1920s; One is a silent film about the birth of the sound era, the other is a sound film about the death of silent film history; One makes every effort to feel like it was made eighty years ago, while the other embraces 3-D technology arguably better than any other movie ever has; And, perhaps most differently, one will win Best Picture and the other won’t. And Hugo and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close both appear to have the exact same plot outline: A young boy goes on a search involving a missing lock/key in the hopes that it can help reveal a secret message from his recently deceased father. Of course, that’s where the similarities end between those two, as Hugo was the year’s best film, while Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close was extremely awful and incredibly annoying. Even typing the movie’s title is annoying.

In my predictions, I always get somewhere between 15-19 of the 24 awards correct, but the dream is to go 20 for 24. I haven’t done it yet, but maybe this will be the year. 

Best Picture

The Artist

The Descendants

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

The Help

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

Tree of Life

War Horse

What Should Win? To me, Hugo was very clearly the best film of 2011, and nothing else was even close. Unfortunately, it won’t win Best Picture because it cost 150 million dollars to make, and to date it’s only brought in 66.7 million at the box office. Recent Oscar history has shown that a movie can win Best Picture even if it doesn’t make much money, a la The Hurt Locker, which took the big prize in 2009 despite making only 15.7 million domestically. But The Hurt Locker made back it’s budget, so it wasn’t seen as a box office failure. And regardless of artistic merit, a lot of Academy members don’t like voting for a box office failure.

What Will Win? The Artist is the front-runner, but audiences haven’t totally embraced it and there’s a bit of a backlash against it for being too simple to win Best Picture. Of course, simplicity didn’t stop Chicago or Shakespeare in Love from winning, so I don’t put a lot of stock into that theory. But audience reception really does mean a lot to some voters, and especially with older members that remember the Hollywood of the 50s and 60s when mega-hits like Ben-Hur and My Fair Lady routinely won Best Picture. Given that (and it pains me to say this), I think The Help has a decent chance, and if anything were to beat The Artist, it would be that. But even still, this reminds me of one of those NFL playoff games where people talk themselves into the underdog having a shot just because they don’t like the favorite, and then the favorite wins big anyway.

What Got Screwed? I had six of these nominees in my own top 15 of 2011, which is close enough of an overlap that they deserve their spot. I thought The Help was an exceedingly average movie with good performances, and I hated Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, which I found to be just awful filmmaking. I also hated Tree of Life, because I found it to be nothing more than an overly pretentious series of images set to music and alleged to have deep meanings about life, but which failed to coalesce into an actual “movie.” I think it would have worked better as a visual arts project for a museum. But even still, I’m weirdly okay with Tree of Life being here, because it was ambitious, audacious, and will probably be highly influential, and it inspired as much passion from its supporters as anything else this year. And I’d rather see the Academy recognize failed art than average commercialism. But if I could take out The Help and Extremely Loud & incredibly Close and swap in two more deserving movies, it would have to be Drive and Beginners, two fully realized movies that wore their styles on their sleeve and didn’t get the attention they deserved.

Best Director

Woody Allen – Midnight in Paris

Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist

Terrence Malick – Tree of Life

Alexander Payne – The Descendants

Martin Scorsese – Hugo

Who Should Win? In making Hugo, Scorsese didn’t just craft a wonderful movie, but he also made a love letter to the history of cinema, and something that is sure to be one of the most treasured works by arguably the greatest filmmaker of the last forty years.

Who Will Win? Only four times in the last forty years has the person who won the Director’s Guild award then lost the Academy Award, and 2002 was the last time it happened, when Rob Marshall won the DGA for Chicago but lost the Oscar to Roman Polanski, for The Pianist. But I really believe this could be one of those years. Hazanavicius won the DGA, but Scorsese is so beloved that it’s not difficult to imagine people voting for him over “the unknown French guy,” and it’s hard to picture a scenario where Martin Scorsese will ever deserve a second Oscar more than he does for Hugo.

Who Got Screwed? Arguably, the two most important things for a director are creating the style and drawing the best work out of their actors. Given that, I don’t think Woody Allen deserves to be here. I loved Midnight in Paris, but its strength was in its script. The movie wasn’t particularly interesting visually, and the acting was very good but unremarkable. That spot should have gone to Bennett Miller for Moneyball, a movie with impeccable craft and style, and the best ever acting by its stars, Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill.

Best Actor

Demian Bichir – A Better Life

George Clooney – The Descendants

Jean Dujardin – The Artist

Gary Oldman – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Brad Pitt – Moneyball

Who Should Win? Part of me thinks Gary Oldman should win, because he’s such a criminally underrated and underappreciated actor that this is his first nomination. But if we’re going strictly by the performance, Oldman’s is a bit too restrained. I’d give it to Brad Pitt. Pitt is an actor who consistently gets a little better every year, and Moneyball is his best job yet. He nails every nuance, every subtle tick of emotion, every face tilt, smirk, shift of tone, and knowing smile. It’s one of those performances that you really don’t notice how great it is until you see it a second time, and the belief in the character completely sinks in.

Who Will Win? This is the first year in a long time where there’s A) no performance that towers in quality over the others, and B) no obvious frontrunner. I could actually imagine each person winning. Clooney and Dujardin are the favorites, having picked up the most precursor awards. Pitt is respected, due, and arguably the most deserving. Oldman is seen as heavily past due. And Bichir is the only nominee that really has a true showcase scene in his film, with the closing scene between he and his son in A Better Life practically screaming the words “For Your Consideration.” But even though I think everyone here has a puncher’s chance, it still probably comes down to Clooney and Dujardin. Clooney may have given his best performance, but I think Dujardin’s work had the higher degree of difficulty. Acting is easier with great dialogue; Dujardin did his work with no dialogue at all. And even though everyone loves George Clooney, I wonder if people might be a little sick of all of his accolades. Are we really ready for him to have two acting Oscars? Here’s a complete list of the living actors with two Oscars: Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Hanks, Robert DeNiro, Sean Penn, Daniel Day Lewis, Denzel Washington, Michael Caine, Kevin Spacey, and Gene Hackman. I love Clooney as much as anyone, but he doesn’t strike me as someone that needs to join that list quite yet. I think Jean Dujardin will win.

Who Got Screwed? As much as I believe Gary Oldman is a great actor who should have been nominated long ago, I don’t think his work in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was one of the five best lead actor performances of 2011. That spot should have gone to Michael Fassbender for Shame, where he flawlessly displayed all of the pain, anguish, and lack of control that define addiction.

Best Actress

Glenn Close – Albert Nobbs

Viola Davis – The Help

Rooney Mara – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady

Michelle Williams – My Week With Marilyn

Who Should Win? Keira Knightley, for A Dangerous Method. What’s that you say? She wasn’t nominated? Well, of the nominees, and if we’re eliminating politics or career from the discussion and just focusing on the performance, I think it should be Rooney Mara by a landslide. Mara absorbed herself so deeply into the role that she truly became Lizbeth Salander, and she totally stole Noomi Rapace’s thunder after Rapace won raves for her portrayal of Lizbeth in the Swedish version of the film. Mara created a dangerous mixture of toughness and vulnerability that really deserves more than just the nomination.

Who Will Win? It’s effectively down to Davis and Streep. The argument for Streep seems to be “she was really good and she hasn’t won an Oscar in nearly thirty years,” while the argument for Davis seems to be “she was really good and only one African American has won Best Actress in Oscar history” (Halle Berry in 2001 for Monster’s Ball). While counting out Streep always seems a bit risky, betting against her has been the right move 14 out of 16 times. And with things relatively equal, it might be hard for voters to give Streep a third Oscar at the expense of giving Viola Davis her first.

Who Got Screwed? In some years, it’s difficult to even find five performances to nominate. But 2011 was an extraordinarily fruitful year for lead actresses, and this category could have been filled with five completely different names without a difficult search.  Keira Knightley (A Dangerous Method), Charlize Theron (Young Adult), Kirsten Dunst (Melancholia), Tilda Swinton (We Need to Talk About Kevin), and Elizabeth Olsen (Martha Marcy May Marlene) were all worthy, and their absence just has to be chalked up to “in any other year, they could’ve been nominated.” But Knightley is the one that can legitimately say she got screwed. I saw A Dangerous Method at its premiere in Toronto last fall, and I walked away from the movie thinking it was Knightley’s Oscar to lose. I’m still amazed her performance couldn’t overcome disappointing reviews for the movie to snag a nomination. I would have given her Glenn Close’s spot.

Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh – My Week With Marilyn

Jonah Hill – Moneyball

Nick Nolte – Warrior

Christopher Plummer – Beginners

Max Von Sydow – Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Who Should Win? Christopher Plummer gave a career-best performance as the newly out of the closet gay man in Beginners, and he filled the role with a joy and vibrancy that’s contagious when watching the movie.

Who Will Win? Plummer is the closest we have to a sure thing in the acting races this year; it should be his award to lose. But Max Von Sydow has a chance for an upset based mostly on the same reasoning as Plummer—old, respected, great career, never won anything. The problem with the case for Von Sydow is that his role wasn’t as good as Plummer’s, and he’s nominated for a movie that most people strongly dislike. Christopher Plummer should spend Sunday morning practicing his acceptance speech.

Who Got Screwed? I’m one of the people that was shocked Albert Brooks wasn’t nominated for Drive, and not just because he was expected to be. He was also really good, playing a deliciously creepy villain whose ruthlessness manages to consistently feel unexpected. And his omission from the category was especially surprising given the recent Oscar precedent of this award going to the year’s best villain, which happened three years in a row before Christian Bale broke the trend last year for The Fighter. (Those three winners were Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men, Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight, and Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds.) I think Von Sydow’s nomination should have gone to Brooks, and I also think Ben Kingsley was unfairly overlooked for his portrayal of director Georges Melies in Hugo.

Best Supporting Actress

Berenice Bejo – The Artist

Jessica Chastain – The Help

Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids

Janet McTeer – Albert Nobbs

Octavia Spencer – The Help

Who Should Win? If you agree with the idea that a great supporting performance is about scene stealing, then it’s hard to say the award shouldn’t go to McCarthy. Every time she leaves the screen in Bridesmaids, you just can’t wait for her to get back. And her performance vaulted her from an unknown sitcom actress to a household name in a matter of weeks.

Who Will Win? I do think McCarthy has a very legit chance to upset, but Octavia Spencer has pretty well swept the precursor awards. Plus The Help was an even bigger box office success than Bridesmaids, and it’s seen as a triumph of acting (proven by it’s Best Ensemble Cast award from the Screen Actors Guild). But the huge support for The Help might be what costs Spencer the Oscar, as her costar, Jessica Chastain, could steal some of her votes. But will it be enough for McCarthy to swoop in for the win? Doubtful.

Who Got Screwed? I’m still a bit confused as to why Shailene Woodley wasn’t nominated for The Descendants. I thought she was just as good as George Clooney, and nearly as essential to the movie’s emotional resonance. Janet McTeer’s spot should have gone to her. And even though the role was completely unheralded and never in discussion for a nomination, I thought Melanie Laurent did a wonderful job in Beginners.

Best Adapted Screenplay

The Descendants – Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash

Hugo – John Logan

The Ides of March – George Clooney & Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon

Moneyball – Stan Chervin and Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – Bridget O’Connor & Peter Straughan

Who Should Win? Moneyball and The Descendants were the two best adapted scripts of the year, and a lot of people think The Descendants will win because it was the better film (which is debatable, but that’s beside the point). But the Adapted Screenplay Oscar should also be about degree of difficulty. Did your source material easily lend itself to a film script? How much needed to be changed to create a viable film? With The Descendants, by all accounts the script captured the novel pretty closely. But Moneyball is another matter entirely. The book Moneyball doesn’t have a narrative. It doesn’t really tell a story or have a plot. The book is about new ways of analyzing statistics and using them to economic advantage. In choosing to turn that into a film, the screenwriters had to forge an angle for the story, find a beginning and an ending, and create all the dialogue from scratch. The fact that they did it so well, and the movie worked precisely on the strength of its script, is why Moneyball deserves the Oscar.

Who Will Win? It’s neck and neck between The Descendants and Moneyball, but I think Moneyball will win for the same reasons listed above, and because people love Aaron Sorkin.

Who Got Screwed? I really have a hard time understanding why The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo wasn’t recognized in this category, as its writer, Steven Zaillian, had the unenviable task of distilling an immensely popular 500-page novel about a murder investigation down to a 2-½ hour movie. A huge amount of detail inevitably had to be left out, but the movie comes across quite clearly, and the plot is without holes. I irrationally love Hugo more than anyone, but it was adapted from an illustrated novel, which is practically a rough draft of a screenplay. Its nomination should have gone to Dragon Tattoo.

Best Original Screenplay

The Artist – Michel Hazanavicius

Bridesmaids – Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig

Margin Call – J.C. Chandor

Midnight in Paris – Woody Allen

A Separation – Asghar Farhadi

Who Should Win? Midnight in Paris is the most original story of the year, and it succeeds with dialogue and structure just as much as it does in concept.

Who Will Win? A lot of people are predicting The Artist here, but I just don’t see it. Not only is there no dialogue (the obvious hindrance for a win in this category), but the story is also very basic. I loved The Artist and don’t wish to discredit it’s screenplay, which certainly didn’t write itself, but I think there’s a big difference between a very good screenplay, and an Oscar winning screenplay. Midnight in Paris is an Oscar winning screenplay. But having said that, it still has one major voter hurdle to overcome, namely the public knowledge that Woody Allen doesn’t attend the Oscars. Not only is it a bit of a drag to award someone who won’t be there to give a speech, but it can also be construed as disrespectful to the institution of the Oscars. Will that perception be enough to cost Woody the Oscar? No, I don’t think it will be.

Who Got Screwed? This was the category that I really think got it wrong in the nomination process. I haven’t seen A Separation, and it’s supposed to be phenomenal, so I’ll leave it out of my complaining. But I really don’t think The Artist and Margin Call deserve to be here. For those two slots, I can think of four very deserving movies: Beginners, Win Win, Crazy Stupid Love, and 50/50. Beginners and Win Win are the two that I really think belonged here, and especially Win Win, which ended up completely shut out of the Oscar nominations despite being one of the year’s best films.

Best Animated Feature Film

A Cat in Paris

Chico & Rita

Kung Fu Panda 2

Puss in Boots

Rango

Pixar began releasing a movie every year in 2006, and since that happened, it’s been pretty difficult to fathom this category without their participation. But Cars 2 sucked just enough to not get nominated, leaving the category open in what may be an increasingly rare occasion. Of the nominees, I haven’t seen Chico & Rita or A Cat in Paris, and I thought Kung Fu Panda 2 was clearly the strongest of the other three. But every Oscar predictor seems to unanimously agree that Rango will win, so it seems foolish to bet against it.

Best Documentary Feature

Hell and Back Again

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

Pina

Undefeated

If this were simply a popular vote, Undefeated would win. It’s a classic, crowd-pleasing sports tearjerker, and there was barely a dry eye in the theater when I attended the Toronto premiere. But Best Documentary is one of the categories that an Academy member may only vote for if they verify that they’ve seen all of the nominees. And because the only people who do that are documentary enthusiasts, popularity won’t mean anything here. Pina, a 3-D dance film by legendary German director Wim Wenders, has a decent shot because of its success in theaters and its artistic pedigree, but the likely winner is Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory. The story of a wrongly incarcerated trio called the West Memphis Three, the directors spent the better part of two decades making the three films that tell their story, and led to their eventual release. The film is now showing on HBO On Demand, and it’s supposed to be outstanding.

Best Foreign Language Film

Bullhead – Belgium

Footnote – Israel

In Darkness – Poland

Monsieur Lazhar – Canada

A Separation – Iran

From what I saw, my favorite foreign film of the year was Le Havre, but unfortunately it wasn’t nominated. Of the nominees, the only one I’ve seen is Footnote, which I saw in Toronto and is quite good. Monsieur Lazhar is also very well regarded, while I haven’t heard anything about Bullhead. But I think it comes down to in Darkness versus A Separation. In Darkness is a holocaust story, and apparently a very good one, so it goes without saying that it will receive plenty of support from a voting body that skews very old and very Jewish. But even still, the overwhelming love and accolades for A Separation are simply too loud and numerous to ignore. Even though I haven’t seen the film yet, A Separation sounds like it just can’t lose.

Best Cinematography

Jeff Cronenweth – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Janusz Kaminski – War Horse

Emmanuel Lubezki – Tree of Life

Robert Richardson – Hugo

Guillaume Schiffman – The Artist

Much as I disliked Tree of Life, its gorgeous imagery is the one quality I freely credit it with, and Emmanuel Lubezki is a five-time nominee who has yet to take home a statue. I thought Sean Bobbitt deserved a nomination for his gorgeous work in Shame, but no dice. Out of the other nominees, War Horse has an outside chance, and Hugo could certainly win given how masterfully it utilized 3-D. But voters should recognize that this is the best chance Tree of Life has to take home an award.

Best Film Editing

The Artist

The Descendants

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Moneyball

The Best Editing Oscar usually goes one of two ways: either A) it goes to the film that created the best puzzle or built the best suspense, or B) it goes to the eventual Best Picture winner. Given that, I think we can effectively rule out Hugo and The Descendants. And even though The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo did a great job in crafting it’s puzzle, it was also close to three hours long, which means a lot of people will inevitably think it needed another twenty minutes cut out and they’ll blame that on the editor. I would have liked nominations to go to Beginners for its use of still photos and time jumps, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for its slow-burn build-up of information and intensity, but neither made the cut. Personally, I think Moneyball was a major achievement in editing, as it seamlessly mixed in flashback footage of Billy Beane’s playing career, real life voiceovers of play-calling and sports radio, and a nice twist on classic sports movie montages. But the subtly skillful editing in The Artist ably helps it sustain viewer attention without the use of dialogue, and I suspect the lack of an obvious shoo-in candidate will mean this award gets swept up in The Artist’s march towards Best Picture.

Best Music – Original Score

Ludovic Bource – The Artist

Alberto Iglesias – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Howard Shore – Hugo

John Williams – The Adventures of Tintin

John Williams – War Horse

This is a tough category for me, as my three favorite scores of the year aren’t even here (Trent Reznor’s work in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Howard Shore’s score for A Dangerous Method, and the Chemical Brothers beats that soundtracked Hanna). Given what is here, I think Hugo has the best chance for an upset, and you can never quite count out John Williams even though he’s come up empty on forty (!!) of his previous forty-five nominations. But The Artist should have this race pretty well locked up, and not just because the score is very good, but because it has such a prominent role in an otherwise silent movie. It’s pretty much impossible to miss its quality, though there could be some backlash over the use of Bernard Herrman’s Vertigo score in one sequence, which inspired Kim Novak to tell the press that she felt like Vertigo had been “raped.”

Best Music – Original Song

“Man or Muppet” – The Muppets

“Real in Rio” – Rio

God, what a pathetic boring race. Not even a decade ago, it looked like this category had turned a major corner when Eminem won the Oscar for “Lose Yourself,” the timeless theme song from 8 Mile. False alarm, I guess. Out of 39 eligible songs, the Academy could only get two nominees due to the complicated rules that involve minimum point totals. This category has always had the same credibility problem as the Grammys, which comes from the fact that popular music still has too much of a generation gap for voters in their forties and voters in their eighties to come to any kind of agreement on quality. Which means that the nominees usually end up being bland and inoffensive, because that’s the only stuff that doesn’t lose out on all the points coming from the older voters. I guess the Muppets song will probably win, but who cares? This category needs a major overhaul next year.

Best Visual Effects

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Hugo

Real Steel

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

There’s a small chance Hugo could win this if it goes on a semi-sweep of the technical categories, but the most impressive special effects of the year were in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and I expect them to be recognized.

Best Art Direction

The Artist

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

War Horse

Of its eleven nominations, this is the one award that I think Hugo has safely in the bag. Not only did it seamlessly recreate a Paris train station from the late 1920s, but also the magical sets from the films of Georges Melies.

Best Costume Design

Anonymous

The Artist

Hugo

Jane Eyre

W.E.

I like Hugo here, too, mostly because of the lobster costumes in one of the flashbacks to the Melies films. Lobster costumes!

Best Makeup

Albert Nobbs

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

The Iron Lady

I’ve said this in years past, but I think this is a dead category that will disappear from the ceremony within ten years. Almost all creature effects, disfiguring, and aging are now done digitally, so there’s little use for dramatic makeup anymore. But the makeup in The Iron Lady was pretty good, and about as prominent as film makeup gets these days. Unless you count the clay-faces that the actors in J. Edgar were turned into, which thankfully did not earn a nomination.

Best Sound Editing

Drive

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

War Horse

The sound awards typically boil down to pure guesswork for Oscar predictors, but there are a few constants: Bad movies don’t win and war movies often do. So War Horse is as logical a guess as it probably gets.

Best Sound Mixing

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Moneyball

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

War Horse

I’m picking War Horse. See above for the (limited) details.

Best Documentary Short

The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement

God is the Bigger Elvis

Incident in New Baghdad

Saving Face

The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

This is the one category that I haven’t seen a single one of the nominees. But my sources tell me that Saving Face is the best one, and my sources don’t like it when I don’t listen to them.

Best Short Film – Animated

Dimanche/Sunday

The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

La Luna

A Morning Stroll

Wild Life

La Luna is by Pixar, and it’s very good, which for some people should be all you need to know. But if you can believe it, Pixar has actually lost this category the last six times it was nominated. Voters usually see the five nominees all together as one screening, and in that setting, the Pixar one almost always stands out as actually being the most normal and polished, while the other four can be all over the board in terms of style, tone, technique, and theme. Take A Morning Stroll, for example, which was my favorite. It documents a man walking past a chicken on the sidewalk in three different time periods/styles. In 1959, the art is in newspaper style and the man glances down at the chicken. In 2009, the art is like an iPod commercial, and the man is too busy on his mobile device to notice the chicken. And in the zombie apocalypse of 2059, the man tries to eat the chicken. I loved it, and I’m pulling for it to win even though my sources are predicting The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore, which I found boring.

Best Short Film – Live Action

Pentecost

Raju

The Shore

Time Freak

Tuba Atlantic

I’m torn on this one. Raju had the best story, The Shore had the best quality, and Time Freak was the funniest. I would probably choose Time Freak, but I suspect Raju will play better with the voters.

Daniel Joyaux is a film and pop culture critic living in Ann Arbor. You can read more of his work at thirdmanmovies.blogspot.com

Talbert, who landed a spot in the Michigan Journalism Hall of Fame for docs like this one, originally brought An Eagle Should Fly, his nonfiction version of the story, to local television in 1985.

As in the fictionalilzed Hollywood version, he examined the adversities black airmen faced on the ground with their own society as well as their battles with the Luftwaffe in the air. It was the era when African-Americans talked about the prospect of “the double-V”: a victory over fascism abroad and segregation at home.

The film includes footage of the late Detroit Mayor Coleman Young, who served as a Tuskegee navigator and bombardier, as well as an in-uniform activist challenging racism in the military. Former astronaut and U.S. Sen. John Glenn is among the many others interviewed.

The film is back in circulation this Friday, Feb. 24, digitally remastered in high definition, for a scholarship fund-raiser for the Detroit Chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists. The screening at the DoubleTree Hotel in Detroit is part of a 30-30-30 campaign to raise $30,000 through 30 events during the chapter’s 30th anniversary year.

In an e-mail today, Talbert explained how it feels seeing the story of the airmen told, now, by Hollywood.

“I do have feelings of vindication and adulation whenever anyone gives those great guys a positive play,” Talbert said.

As for the movie Red Tails,  he continued: “I wish Lucas would have done a docudrama as opposed to a  Hollywood melodrama … a lot of good historical information could have been worked into the script.”

Then he added: ” The movie  was most interesting and worth the price of a ticket.”

Which counts as praise from one filmmaker to another.

Tickets for the screening — which begins with light fare at 5:30 p.m. and concludes with a post-film panel discussion — are $25 per person. For tickets and more information, call 313-300-2807.

So wrote Ted Mundorff, Chief Executive Officer of Landmark Theatres.

The beloved, three-screen theater, tucked behind a shopping center at Telegraph and Maple, has attracted area cinephiles for decades. Opened in 1974 , the Maple has changed hands several times, most recently when Landmark purchased it from AMC in 1998. Landmark was bought by iconoclast billionaire Mark Cuban. Throughout all the changes, the Maple continued to be a showplace for independent, foreign and unconventional cinema, which often couldn’t be found on any other screen in town.

Detroit Film Critic Society member jJohn Monaghan shared a few of his favorite Maple moments: “The preview screening of Reservoir Dogs where about half of the elderly audience walked out at the ear-cutting scene, heads shaking. Second greatest: Liquid Sky (the new wave/alien vampire romp). Probably looks ridiculous today, but I thought it was the COOLEST in 1982.”

Message boards and social media lit up with outpourings of shock, regret and warm memories of good times spent at the big little popcorn palace. A wave of melancholy washed over movie buffs, until an
acorn of hope sprang up through the cyber weeds. Late Wednesday night, a commenter named Jon Goldstein responded to a thread about the Theatre’s closing on one of the Patch community news web pages. “Rumor is correct. The theater will not close but just change hands on February 1st. We are going to do a complete renovation of the theater in the late spring/early summer. Hope you will come in to check out our plans!”

By Thursday, Goldstein was making the rounds to various outlets, assuring fans that the Maple would be back, and better than ever, after a brief shutdown to remodel, with a planned grand reopening in mid spring. Goldstein, a Bloomfield Township resident, is an investment broker, who also has a stake in the Emagine Movie chain, and will operate the Maple through his company Cloud Nine Theater Productions. Check this space for updates as renovation progresses.

BEST OF 2011 NOMINATIONS!

(Detroit, Michigan – December 12, 2011)…The Detroit Film Critics Society is pleased to announce the BEST OF 2011 nominees in ten categories. The society was founded in Spring 2007 and consists of a group of 22 Michigan film critics who write or broadcast in the Detroit area as well as other major cities within a 150-mile radius of the city including Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Flint, Michigan.

Each critic submitted their top 5 picks in the following categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Ensemble, and Breakthrough Performance, Best Screenplay, and Best Documentary. From these submissions, each entry was given a point value and the top 5 in each category have been placed on the final ballot. One category, Best Ensemble, has a tie with 6 nominees. The 2011 winners will be announced on December 16th, 2011.

Leading with 6 nominations this year is “TAKE SHELTER”. Other top nominees include “THE ARTIST” with 5 nominations and “THE HELP” with 4 nominations. Both Michel Hazanavicius and Jeff Nichols have been nominated twice this year for Best Director and Best Screenplay. Jessica Chastain has received 3 nominations for Best Supporting Actress, Best Ensemble, and Breakthrough performance. New categories this year include Best Screenplay and Best Documentary.

THE NOMINATIONS FOR 2011
PICKED BY THE DETROIT FILM CRITICS SOCIETY
(in alphabetical order)

1. BEST PICTURE
• THE ARTIST
• THE DESCENDANTS
• HUGO
• TAKE SHELTER
• THE TREE OF LIFE

2. BEST DIRECTOR
• MICHEL HAZANAVICIUS – THE ARTIST
• TERRENCE MALICK – THE TREE OF LIFE
• JEFF NICHOLS – TAKE SHELTER
• MARTIN SCORSESE– HUGO
• NICHOLAS WINDING REFN – DRIVE

3. BEST ACTOR
• GEORGE CLOONEY– THE DESCENDANTS
• JEAN DUJARDIN – THE ARTIST
• MICHAEL FASSBENDER – SHAME
• BRAD PITT – MONEYBALL
• MICHAEL SHANNON – TAKE SHELTER

Detroit Film Critics Society Press Release – continued – page 2

4. BEST ACTRESS
• VIOLA DAVIS – THE HELP
• FELICITY JONES – LIKE CRAZY
• MERYL STREEP – THE IRON LADY
• CHARLIZE THERON – YOUNG ADULT
• MICHELLE WILLIAMS – MY WEEK WITH MARILYN

5. BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
• KENNETH BRANAGH – MY WEEK WITH MARILYN
• ALBERT BROOKS – DRIVE
• RYAN GOSLING – CRAZY STUPID LOVE
• PATTON OSWALT – YOUNG ADULT
• CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER – BEGINNERS

6. BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
• BERENICE BEJO – THE ARTIST
• JESSICA CHASTAIN – TAKE SHELTER
• CAREY MULLIGAN – SHAME
• VANESSA REDGRAVE – CORIOLANUS
• OCTAVIA SPENCER – THE HELP

7. BEST ENSEMBLE
• CARNAGE
• CEDAR RAPIDS
• CRAZY STUPID LOVE
• THE HELP
• MARGIN CALL
• WIN WIN

8. BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE
• JESSICA CHASTAIN – THE HELP/TAKE SHELTER/THE TREE OF LIFE
• FELICITY JONES – LIKE CRAZY
• MELISSA MCCARTHY – BRIDESMAIDS
• ELIZABETH OLSEN –MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE
• SHAILENE WOODLEY– THE DESCENDANTS

9. BEST SCREENPLAY
• 50/50 – WILL REISER
• THE ARTIST – MICHEL HAZANAVICIUS
• BEGINNERS – MIKE MILLS
• MONEYBALL – AARON SORKIN & STEVEN ZAILLIAN
• TAKE SHELTER– JEFF NICHOLS

10. BEST DOCUMENTARY
• INTO ETERNITY
• INTO THE ABYSS
•
• TABLOID
• WE WERE HERE

Kal Penn, John Cho, Thomas Lennon, Neil Patrick Harris

Rated: R Run Time: 90 min

Grade B-

The Harold and Kumar franchise is about as rude, outrageous and unrepentantly sacrilegious as mainstream American movies get, at least until Trey Parker and Matt Stone make another picture. Here’s just a brief sampler of the catalog of crude offerings on display here: ample nudity, urination, violence, up to and including mild genital mutilation, various religions mocked, and a toddler hopped up on cocaine. Yet somehow it all comes together into a yuletide celebration of warm and cozy multiethnic yuks.

Perennially stoned geek besties Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) have drifted apart since the last installment, each in a long term relationship with a real woman, and doing the unthinkable by edging deeper into adulthood. The slightly stodgier Harold, is firmly lodged in suburbia, with his baby hungry new wife and her huge extended family coming over for a huge Christmas party. Troublemaking slacker pal Kumar is heartbroken that he didn’t get an invite to aforementioned soirée, yet still manages to burn down the prize Christmas tree, hand grown by Harold’s intimidating father-in law (played with a wink by tough guy Machette star Danny Trejo). This sets our intrepid duo on a quest for a replacement tree, along the way suffering car crashes, run ins with Russian mobsters, musical numbers and hallucinogens so strong they turn the guys into claymation characters. It’s not all bad though; they get to scarf some of their beloved White Castle sliders, and befriend an awesome sidekick called “Wafflebot”, which as advertised, is a robot that serves waffles. We get the inevitable cameo by the delightful series regular Neil Patrick Harris, the joke being that his real world gayness is just a cover for this cad to score more “p-tang”. Also on hand is comedy journeyman Thomas Lennon, who god bless him, is a pretty sure sign that you’re watching a middlebrow comedy. The 3-D effects are done with a smirk, as exploding ornaments and bodily fluids come flying off the screen. Much of the film was shot in the Metro area, subbing for New Jersey, with glimpses of Ann arbor peeking through, and the home of the Hashbash seems a perfect place for such antics.

You get what you pay for here; not exactly world-shattering comedy, but the jokes come quick and easy. The trouble, as any junky knows, is you need bigger and bigger doses just to maintain the same high; and it’s difficult to imagine how much raunchier the series could safely get. Their high spirited forefathers Cheech and Chong had tremendous success, then kept tapping the same vein over and over again; with diminishing returns. Will Harold and Kumar suffer the same fate? Probably, but as long as there is a buck in it, these dudes seemed poised to keep the buzz going at any cost.
-Corey Hall

Director: Goran Olsson
Run time: 100 min

Grade B-

Just when you thought that we’ve explored every nook cranny and walk in closet of the chaotic, exhilarating cultural upheavals of mid-twentieth century America, there comes a fascinating scrapbook of odds and ends delivered from the unlikeliest of places; Sweden. Yes, though Gil Scott Heron sang that the revolution would not be televised, apparently much of it was shown in Europe, and Black Power Mixtape explores a treasure trove of footage shot by Swedish television journalists, some of whom got extraordinary access to now legendary figures that the U.S media often shunned. The likes of Angela Davis, Louis Farrakhan, Stokley Carmichael, and controversial Black Panther Party leader Bobby Seale are all seen, along with voice-overs from some of their contemporaries, like Melvin Van Peebles, and from modern artists that were inspired by them, such as Erika Badyu, Questlove and Talib Kweli. The result is an engaging but disjointed collage; an interesting assemblage of raw footage, but nothing that ever coalesces into a vital narrative.

The film chronicles the charged, radical and sometimes violent climate that developed in the inner cities after the killings of Malcolm X, RFK and MLK JR., and in the continuing tumult of the Vietnam War, and spotlights some of the most militant and brilliant voices of the era, some times in more intimate settings. Especially revealing is the fiery Carmichael in private, tenderly chatting with his mother about the personal toil of poverty and oppression.

Also compelling are the random street scenes, kids playing Double Dutch, and the proud proprietor of a Black studies bookstore showing off his wares. Some of this material is nostalgic and wistful, and some of it just as controversial now as it was then.
Harry Bellafonte, ever the flamethrower, outright calls Martin Luther King Jr.’s murder a government sponsored hit job, triggered not simply for his civil rights work, but his growing message of economic populism, which was bigger threat to the powers that be.

There is undeniable power in seeing our own near history seen through the prism of a foreign culture, yet the Swedes don’t seem to have any particular insight, aside from rubbernecking the exciting, perpetual train wreck of American democracy.
The creeping paternalism of the Europeans is subtle, but alarmingly creeps through in a scene of Swedish tourists on a bus ride through exotic Harlem, where the driver warns them to stay in the bus, because even the “better blacks” avoid the area. Still Black Power Mixtape is well intentioned, and will certain serve as reminder of where we used to be, and where we, as a society, would still like to go.

Now playing at the Royal Oak Landmark Main Art Theatre

Premiering at the Detroit Film Theatre this week, I’m Dangerous With Love follows native Detroiter Dimitri Mugianis’ transformation from Ibogaine evangelist to Iboga shaman. Ibogaine, an illegal hallucinogenic drug used in underground clinics to alleviate symptoms of heroin withdrawal, is derived from Iboga root bark, a sacrament of the West African Bwiti religion when ingested. Mugianis begins as a clandestine administrator of the drug, advocating its efficacy from his own experience as an addict who found respite in the drug’s power to quell withdrawal symptoms as well as cravings. Although he is a passionate and charismatic counselor, at times the story of his breakdown and subsequent self-actualization feels simplistically portrayed. The film is harrowing and admittedly lo-fi — which is by no means a deal-breaker, and actually seems representative of the grimy underground circles Mugianis navigates — but the telling leaves a vaguely unsavory taste in the mouth, possibly because the viewer’s inevitably voyeuristic response to the subject overpowers, with delicious sordidness, the story of the man himself. Left hungry for answers about Mugianis’ motives and intentions, Metro Times asked him some questions.

Metro Times: Why do you think Ibogaine is not a medically accepted, or even acknowledged, treatment for heroin withdrawal symptoms?

Dimitri Mugianis: That’s a long and complicated answer. First of all, you can’t make money off of it. Second of all, it’s from Africa, from this weird group called Bwiti. You trip on it; junkies found it. So you have a lot working against you. It doesn’t fit into the medical model we have set up.

MT: Would you have it legalized, though?

Mugianis: My feeling is that Iboga is legal, because it’s legal to practice my religion. I just think the courts and the legal system need to catch up and realize they made a mistake.

MT: In the documentary, Ibogaine is described as an addiction interrupter. To what extent do you think that people believe it’s in fact a cure for addiction?

Mugianis: I’ve never seen Ibogaine get one person off of drugs. This is an opportunity, an experience, a doorway, but the individual has to engage, and the community has to engage. So the idea that you consume this and it takes care of it is complete nonsense. That is the idea of Western psychopharmacology. We take the pill and come home and it does something to you. This involves you coming to it. That’s the big problem. It will not get you off of heroin. It will not get you off of crack. It didn’t get me off of it — it opened up the doorway.

MT: How does Ibogaine differ from such hallucinogens as acid, PCP, mushrooms, etc, with which people struggle and find either great spiritual awakening or detriment?

Mugianis: I don’t consider it a hallucinogen; I consider it a vision. I don’t believe I hallucinate on Iboga; I believe I see.

MT: Your journey from drug addict to Ibogaine evangelist to Bwiti shaman seems unlikely. Has it been difficult to reshape your understanding of your own identity through all of these transformations?

Mugianis: Look, I’ve got a sense of humor. I’m a Greek boy from Detroit. Then I threw Mobengo into the mix. I understand who I am and where I come from. But a piece of me is from Gabon. I remember that I’m a Greek kid from the west side of Detroit, and that’ll always be with me. What we’re really reclaiming are the technologies taken from all of us, regardless of what your background was. You’re not that far from the soil. The medicine is in each and every one of us.

MT: In the beginning, you discuss your love for administering the treatments, and your enthusiasm and passion are very evident. In a way, it looks like you are replicating the high you got from drugs, but instead, it’s from the risk of human success or failure. Was this the case at any point?

Mugianis: To look for that rush, to look for that challenge and danger was part of it, absolutely. I’m getting ahold of it. The Bwiti calmed me down. I hope I’ve tempered that with my practice. But it was a part of an act of radical service. I quoted Bakunin in the beginning and I still believe that, that the urge to destroy is also a creative urge. So the answer is yes, it comes from the same place. But it also makes it me unique for my ministry.

MT: And would that rush and the impulse to obtain it come at the expense of the people you’re trying to help?

Mugianis: Here’s the thing: It could, but I don’t think that it ever happened. I think one of the things working in my favor is how careful I am. Yes, I might be pushed by anger and by love and by chaos. All that stuff might have been the impetus. Also, it was the recklessness to get this medicine out to people. The care that we gave to people, I stand behind. I don’t think I put anyone at risk.

MT: When one of the users has a seizure due to Benzocaine withdrawal, you think he is choking on a grape. Later, cardiac arrest is also cited as a possibility. For someone watching, this scenario demonstrates the problem of your administration of Ibogaine treatments to people with potentially life-threatening withdrawal symptoms. What do you believe qualifies you to administer these drugs from a medical standpoint?

Mugianis: What happened there was about screening. I think that what happens is that we try to medicalize absolutely everything from birth to death. I don’t have any right to do a medical procedure, but I don’t think Iboga is a medical procedure.

MT: Do you consider both Ibogaine and Iboga to be the sacrament?

Mugianis: I do. I think God is in the molecule.

MT: Is there anything else that you want people to understand or to take away from the film?

Mugianis: I hope that people understand that the medicine is in them.

Dangerous With Love premieres at 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 20, at the Detroit Film Theatre, inside the Detroit Institute of Arts, 5200 Woodward Ave., Detroit; 313-833-7900.

This brand spanking new, snazzy trailer gives us a hint of what spandex insanity director Joss Wheedon will be bringing to the multiplex masses next spring. We enjoyed the snappy patter dropped by Robert Downey’s snarky, badass party boy Tony Stark, and seeing the destruction wrought upon downtown Cleveland, which would have been Detroit, if our brave film incentive forces hadn’t been defeated by the evil, penny pinching governor.

Face front true Believers!