Movie Review: A Prophet

A Prophet ****
Directed By: Jacques Audiard.

Written By: Jacques Audiard & Thomas Bidegain and Abdel Raouf Dafri & Nicolas Paufaillit.

Starring: Tahar Rahim (Malik El Djebena), Niels Arestrup (César Luciani), Adel Bencherif (Ryad), Hichem Yacoubi (Reyeb), Reda Kateb (Jordi), Jean-Philippe Ricci (Vettori), Gilles Cohen (Prof), Antoine Basler (Pilicci), Leïla Bekhti (Djamila), Pierre Leccia (Sampierro), Foued Nassah (Antaro), Jean-Emmanuel Pagni (Santi).

No matter what the political implications of Jacques Audiard’s A Prophet are (and there are a lot of them), what haunts me about the movie is the difference between the opening and closing scenes in the film. When Malik (Tahar Rahim) walks into prison in the film’s opening scene, he is 19 year old kid, given six years for punching a cop, with no family and no friends either in prison, or outside. Two and half hours later (approximately 4 years in movie time) he walks out of jail having become a murderer, drug dealer and major crime figure. In a very real way, Malik had to go to prison to become a criminal.

When Malik arrives at the prison, he is completely alone. He is a Muslim, but not a devout one, so he is stuck into the cell block populated by the Muslims. Any chance he has of befriending anyone there goes away almost immediately when two inmates beat him up for his shoes. From then on, he doesn’t trust the other Muslims.

Then something happens. A new Muslim comes into the prison, for only a few weeks until he has a chance to testify at some big trial. He approaches Malik about selling him some hash, and when Malik says he has no money, the other inmate, Reyab (Hichem Yacoubi) says he can arrange it with the guard so Malik can come into his cell and suck him off. Malik refuses, but there are no secrets in the jail. Word gets back to the Corsicans, who essentially run the prison, of Reyab’s offer. They want Malik to kill him for them, and tell him that if he doesn’t they’ll kill him instead. When Malik slashes Reyab’s throat with a razor blade, his fate is sealed. He no longer has to worry about anyone messing with him, because he is under the protection of the Corsicans, led by Cesar Luciani (Niels Arestrup), but he still doesn’t really have any friends. The Corsicans treat him as their servant, making him clean up and make them coffee. Malik doesn’t mind so much. He is always listening, always learning.

Eventually Cesar will need more and more from Malik. Most of the rest of the Corsicans are either released or transferred to a prison closer to their home, meaning that Cesar has no one else he can trust. His grasp on the prison is slipping, as the Muslims, who have always out numbered the Coriscans, now wield some influence with the guards as well. When Malik gets the chance for work release, Cesar starts sending him on errands for him – meeting and negotiating with his associates on the outside. What Cesar doesn’t realize is that Malik is no longer just working for him. He has made contacts with Jordi (Reda Kateb), the prison drug dealer, and another inmate who has since been released Ryab (Adel Bencherif), and he has his own thing going now. He is turning himself into quite the little drug kingpin. We realize long before Cesar does that eventually Malik will turn on him – having learned all he could from him, sooner or later, Malik will have to make his move.

I have mentioned the Corsicans several times in this review now, and if you’re like me, you probably have no idea who they are, as I don’t think I’ve ever heard of them on the news. Apparently, some Corsicans (from Corsica an island governed by France that is between France and Italy, that have their own language), believe they should have independence from France, and some committed terrorist acts to try and further this aim. The Corsicans in this movie say they are political prisoners, but really operate much more like the Mafia then the IRA.

Writer/director Audiard draws parallels between the Muslims and the Corsicans. Both are angry with the French government, and feel marginalized and have lashed out in violence against what they believe are their oppressors.

A Prophet looks at this fascinating, rarely seen subculture with his eyes wide open. Audiard is meticulous in his view, but his characters never become ciphers – never just mere stand-ins for his larger political issues. A Prophet is a fascinating, violent look at these men. This is a key movie in Audiard’s career – the moment he goes from the promising director of such films as The Beat My Heart Skipped, into a master filmmaker. His movie is an epic crime drama, the likes of which we rarely see. The pace is dizzying, the scope huge, and yet intimate. He never loses sight of Malik in the grander scheme of things. Newcomer Tahar Rahim delivers one of the best performances of the year as Malik – his confidence slowly building, as he transforms from the naïve kid we see at the beginning of the film, into the hardened criminal at the end. Malik’s transformation is almost tragic, but Rahim makes it feel real and genuine. Malik may be happy with himself by the end of the movie, he doesn’t realize that he has sold his soul.

Oscars: Who Will Win and Who Should Win Recap

What Will Win Summary
Best Picture: The Hurt Locker
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique, Precious
Best Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air – Jason Reitman & Sheldon Turner
Best Original Screenplay: Inglorious Basterds – Quentin Tarantino
Best Animated Feature Film: Up
Documentary (Feature): The Cove
Best Foreign Language Film: The White Ribbon - Germany
Best Art Direction: Avatar
Best Cinematography: The Hurt Locker – Barry Ackroyd
Best Costume Design: Bright Star
Best Film Editing: The Hurt Locker
Best Makeup: Star Trek
Best Music (Original Score): Up – Michael Giacchino
Best Music (Original Song): Crazy Heart – The Weary Kind
Best Sound Editing: Avatar
Best Sound Mixing: The Hurt Locker
Best Visual Effects: Avatar
Documentary (Short Subject): China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province
Short Film (Animated): A Matter of Loaf and Death
Short Film (Live Action): The Door

What Should Win Summary
Best Picture: Inglorious Basterds
Best Director: Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds
Best Actor: Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
Best Actress: Carey Mulligan, An Education
Best Supporting Actor: Christophe Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique, Precious
Best Adapted Screenplay: In the Loop – Jesse Armstrong/Simon Blackwell/Armando Iannucci/Tony Roche
Best Original Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds – Quentin Tarantino
Best Animated Feature Film: Up
Documentary (Feature): The Cove
Best Foreign Language Film: A Prophet - France
Best Art Direction: Avatar
Best Cinematography: The White Ribbon – Christain Berger
Best Costume Design: Bright Star
Best Film Editing: The Hurt Locker
Best Makeup: Star Trek
Best Music (Original Score): Up – Michael Giacchino
Best Music (Original Song): Crazy Heart – The Weary Kind
Best Sound Editing: Avatar
Best Sound Mixing: The Hurt Locker
Best Visual Effects: Avatar
Documentary (Short Subject): The Last Truck: The Closing of a GM Plant
Short Film (Animated): Logorama
Short Film (Live Action): Miracle Fish

Oscar Predictions: Best Picture

So finally, we reach the big one. The best picture race. With the new Preferential voting system, no one really knows how it is going to play out. Prior to this year, they used a regular system - like they still do for every other category - where you vote for your favorite. With 10 nominees this year, they changed it up. Now, you rank all 10 films for 1-10 on your ballot. In order to win a film need 50% + 1 of the vote. They essentially make 10 piles - one for each nominee - and drop the smallest pile out each round, and redistribute those votes by the next highest film still in contention - until a film reaches that 50% + 1 mark. It requires a lot more consensus - and a little less passion (the criticism that the system has received). Anyway, it should be interesting.

Avatar
Odds: 4-1
For It: It is now the BIGGEST movie of all time, and Oscar loves a success story. The reviews were great, and audiences cannot get enough of it. The Globe win was a major precursor, and makes this one of the frontrunners. It also is tied for the most nominations of any film this year, which is usually a good sign.
Against It: Every time a movie gets this successful, the boo birds come out in full force, and there is definitely a strong anti-Avatar group out there. The new preferential ballot system for best picture could easily hurt a film like this, which is divisive. There will be some who cannot bring themselves to vote for a movie about blue people.

The Blind Side
Odds: 8-1
For It: Oscar loves a feel good, underdog story and The Blind Side is certainly that. A big star turn by Sandra Bullock, who will likely walk away with the Best Actress Oscar helps a lot. If Hollywood wants to reach out to the heartland of America, who they are often accused of ignoring, this is the one they will go for – as this was a HUGE hit there. The preferential ballot system helps movies that are liked by many, even if they are loved by only a small group.
Against It: Easily the least critically acclaimed of the 10 nominees, and aside from Best Picture, it only received one other nomination, meaning that aside from actors, I’m not sure how much support this will draw.

District 9
Odds: 15-1
For It: For those who love science fiction, and would want to see a film in the genre win this award, but cannot stand Avatar, this is the horse to back. The film came out of nowhere to become one of the biggest hits – with audiences and critics this year.
Against It: Really though, I can’t imagine too many Academy voters putting this very high on their list of 10. It got four nominations, which is good, but nowhere near the top. Without a director or an actor in play, this is a tough get.

An Education
Odds: 10-1
For It: Women absolutely seem to love this film, and they make up a sizable amount of the Oscar voters – among actors anyway. A critical favorite, talked about all year. It did only receive three nominations, but that can easily be explained by the fact that the directors are male centric, and Sarsgaard and Molina split the supporting actor vote.
Against It: It started out strong, but has certainly faded down the stretch as it limped across the finish line. In order for this to truly win this one, Mulligan has to pull off an upset in actress, and Hornby has to win adapted screenplay – something I don’t see happening. The charges of anti-Semitism just don’t seem to be going away.

The Hurt Locker
Odds: 3-1
For It: The critics have backed it all year long, and with the DGA and PGA wins under its belt, it certainly has the most important precursors on its side. A film that few seem to have anything bad to say about – meaning that even if it doesn’t win on the number 1 votes, the preferential voting system could easily shoot this one up the ladder. Oscar has gone a little edgier in the past few years, and no one is going to feel bad about giving this the Oscar in the future.
Against It: It only made $13 million at the box office, making it the third lowest grossing Best Picture nominee of the decade (the two behind it? An Education and A Serious Man) and well behind Crash, who at $55 million was the lowest grossing best picture winner in years. Box office isn’t the only concern that the Academy takes into consideration, but it does help.

Inglourious Basterds
Odds: 6-1
For It: The supporters of the film love it, and I have a hard time imagining they won’t be putting it at number one on their ballots. If they want a big audience hit that isn’t animated or have blue people, aliens or Sandra Bullock in it, Inglorious Basterds is the film to vote for. It has been chugging along all Oscar season, and although it doesn’t have the precursors you normally expect for a film to win, that may not matter with the preferential voting.
Against It: The film also has quite a few vocal detractors – meaning that although I expect it to get a lot of #1 votes, it will also get a number of #10 votes, which with the preferential system could easily hurt the film. Oscar prefers more serious movies than Tarantino makes.

Precious
Odds: 6-1
For It: If Oscar voters went with a story of poverty in India last year, why can’t they go with one set in America this year? The film has survived its backlash, and comes into the Oscars with 6 nominations a good total. Those who like the film, really like the film, so I imagine there will be quite a few #1 votes.
Against It: The film also has detractors though – quite a few and quite vocal about it as well – meaning that it could easily be hurt by the preferential system this year. It started out very strong this year, but aside from Mo’Nique, it has faded down the stretch.

A Serious Man
Odds: 20-1
For It: The Coen’s have a strong group of very avid fans who adore everything they do (I know, I’m one of them). A Serious Man is unlike anything else nominated this year.
Against It: The film has very weak box office – not even $10 million. Plus, it only got one other nomination (Original Screenplay). Plus it is perhaps the Coen’s most divisive film to date – and the Coens have never exactly enjoyed huge critical consensus (yes, some even dislike Fargo and No Country for Old Men). They got their awards just two years ago – it’s someone else’s turn this year.

Up
Odds: 7-1
For It: Up is going to be a big beneficiary of the preferential ballot system. I mean, who didn’t love the film? I don’t expect it to get as many #1 votes as many of the other frontrunners, but if it loads up on #2s, #3 and #4s (if it goes that far which I think it could), Up could pull off a shocking upset on Oscar night.
Against It: I just don’t see it happening. The Academy has shown a disdain for animated films in the top categories for its entire 80+ year run. I don’t see that changing this year.

Up in the Air
Odds: 5-1
For It: An intelligent comedy/drama that everyone seems to really like. I don’t think it will get as many #1 votes as The Hurt Locker or Avatar, but it could easily come back strong on subsequent rounds, as it is a film that is widely liked by many.
Against It: It faded a little bit after a strong start, and the film is not really a contender to win anything other than Adapted Screenplay this year (and it will most assuredly win that one). Will that be enough to put it over the top?

Who Will Win: The preferential system makes this one the hardest to pick in years, as we really have no idea how things are going to play out. I think The Hurt Locker benefits the most from the system, and will likely be your winner – although Avatar, Up in the Air, Inglorious Basterds, Precious and Up could all make a push. Should be interesting,

Who Should Win: Since Inglorious Basterds was my favorite film of 2009, obviously I am hoping it can pull off an upset. But I will be more than happy if The Hurt Locker wins this one.

Least of the Nominees: There is nothing really wrong with The Blind Side – it is a fine inspirational sports movie as far as that goes. But it is hardly in a class with the rest of this field – as even my least favorite of the remaining films (Precious) is much better.

Movie Review: 1981

1981 ***
Directed By: Ricardo Trogi.
Written By: Ricardo Trogi.
Starring: Jean-Carl Boucher (Ricardo), Claudio Colangelo (Benito), Sandrine Bisson (Claudette), Gabriel Maillé (Jérôme), Dany Bouchard (Marchand), Léo Caron (Plante), Marjolaine Lemieux (Aline), Élizabeth Adam (Anne Tremblay).

Ricardo Trogi’s 1981 is a nostalgic look back at his own childhood. It’s kind of like a Quebecois version of the Wonder Years, that great show of the late 1980s when Fred Savage told us all about his formative years in the 1960s.

The movie stars young Jean-Carl Boucher in a marvelous comic, yet natural performance, as the young Ricardo. He is 11 years old, and his working class parents – Benito (Claudio Colangelo) and Claudette (Sandrine Bisson) have just packed up Ricardo and his younger sister and moved them to a new, more expensive house. With that means, of course, a new school and Ricardo enters a world where cliques have already formed, and he is on the outside looking in. Not only that, but while at his old school, he was just about to start learning handwriting instead of printing, here he is already expected to know it by heart. This isn’t all bad news though, as one day the teacher asks her star pupil Anne Tremblay (Elizabeth Adam) to help Ricardo with his cursive. She brushes elbows with him, which he takes as a sign that she loves him as much as he loves her. The fact that she virtually ignores him for the rest of the school year doesn’t diminish this belief.

Trogi gets the details right as to what it is like to be 11 years old. The way the teacher towers over you, and makes you feel small by comparison. How you do and say things you normally wouldn’t just to make friends. How you obsess over the smallest of details over the girl you are “in love” with. How it seems that everything your parents do is designed to specifically ruin your life. The most brilliant, unforgettable scene in the film involves Ricardo once again complaining that his parents never buy him anything and accusing his mother of “living beyond their means”, and she just goes off on him. Who hasn’t had a moment like this with their parents, where they just push things a little too far, and end up touching a nerve that sets off their parents? Like the scene I remember from my childhood, the incident is never brought up again – by either the parent or the child.

1981 doesn’t really break any new ground. There really is nothing here that you haven’t seen in other movies – or the Wonder Years for that matter. But what it does, it does with skill, style and wit. It is a highly enjoyable little film.

Oscar Predictions

The two most predictable awards of the night. I went overboard with analysis anyway.

Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, Invictus
Odds: 25-1
For Him: He is a big movie star, who has never won an acting Oscar (he won for screenplay back in 1997). He is in a feel good movie, from a legendary director (Clint Eastwood). He nails the difficult South African accent.
Against Him: Does anyone really love Invictus? The film couldn’t make it into the Best Picture lineup, even with heavy hitters like Eastwood and Freeman behind it, and 10 slots. His nomination strikes me as rather lazy of the Academy, and there is no where he’s going to get much support for the win.

Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Odds: 10-1
For Him: Harrelson had a great year – completing his comeback with his performance here, not to mention Zombieland and 2012. He has been nominated before (for The People vs. Larry Flynt), but has not won. The Messenger is a small movie, but one that has struck a chord with everyone who has seen it – and he is one of the main reasons why.
Against Him: How many people actually did see it? So far, it still has under $1 million at the box office, and it doesn’t seem to being get much of an Oscar bump. While the Academy has welcomed him back into the fold after years away, it doesn’t strike me as they want to give him the award this year.

Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Odds: 5-1
For Him: He is a true acting legend, who at 80 has received his first Oscar nomination – that’s right, he has never even been nominated before- and Oscar loves to make up for past slights. Oscar loves a good biopic, and playing Leo Tolstoy gives Plummer an opportunity to hit many different notes.
Against Him: In recent years, being old and never being nominated has got people like Hal Holbrook and Ruby Dee into the race, but not won it for them. It has actually been a while since they have given it to an old guy as a makeup prize – unless you count Alan Arkin for Little Miss Sunshine. His movie didn’t get very good reviews.

Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Odds: 15-1
For Him: Tucci had a great year – first with his fun, sympathetic performance in the audience favorite Julie and Julia, and then as the child murdering pedophile in Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones. The two performances could not be more different, and they really do show off his range this year. He is a well liked actor who has never even been nominated before.
Against Him: Which means they won’t feel obligated to give him the win – that will be next time. The Lovely Bones was one of the most anticipated films of the year, but when it came out it disappointed most critics. Some feel he is too far over the top here, and should have gotten in for Julie and Julia instead. It’s just not his year.

Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Odds: Even
For Him: The lone nominee from a Best Picture contender (and one that received 8 total nominations), the Academy obviously likes his film the best. They also love it when someone comes out of nowhere and delivers a remarkable, instantly iconic performance – and Waltz certainly qualifies as that as his villainous turn is the most talked about in the movie. He has been winning prizes for this since the Cannes film festival, including the two most important awards – the Globe and the SAG.
Against Him: Some don’t like the movie, and think that it trivializes the Holocaust. Also, they don’t feel a need to reward Waltz, as he is a newcomer – at least to them. Plus, since they have give this awards to villains the last two years, perhaps they want to go happier this year. His speeches this awards season have been BORING (but really, I’m reaching here).

Who Will Win: Waltz has been the frontrunner all season, winning practically everything, and I doubt that will change now.

Who Should Win: Waltz is far and away the best in this category. In fact, I’d say he gave the best performance of the year in any category.

Least of the Nominees: A tough call for me. Damon played a rather boring, generic role as well as it could have possibly been played. It’s not his fault it was so vanilla. Whereas I thought Plummer was uneven in a more challenging role. And I'll just add this as well - as much as I like Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones - he played the role perfectly - we've seen him be much better in the past.

Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Odds: 25-1
For Her: She has become an Oscar favorite in recent years – this being her third nomination in the past few years. Despite the fact the film got weak reviews, most people loved her performance in it. She is a sexual firecracker.
Against Her: She just won last year – and for a film and performance that got much better reviews. There are many who think that Marion Cottilard was better than Cruz in Nine, but category confusion kept her out. The movie is not that well liked, and some were underwhelmed by her big musical number. This just isn’t her year.

Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Odds: 8-1
For Her: Farmiga finally broke through with the Oscars, after a few years of flirting on the outskirts of the category. Of the two Up in the Air women, she has the meaty, more adult role in the film. She gets some points for playing the type of character that mainly are written for men.
Against Her: She will split the vote with her Up in the Air co-star Kendrick. She has never really been able to break through this year and beat Mo’Nique at any of the award shows. This is a good introduction for her to the Academy – but she’ll have to wait for another year.

Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
Odds: 15-1
For Her: Gyllenhaal has barely missed being nominated in the past, so this nomination was a long time coming. Could Bridges have been as good as he was without a scene partner like Gyllenhaal to push him into his top game?
Against Her: Her nomination was somewhat of a surprise, and surprise nominees rarely, if ever, turn into surprise winners. She has been absent for most of the other nominations this year, and so hasn’t proved she can beat Mo’Nique. Will they really give two acting awards to a film not nominated for Best Picture? I think not. Plus, well I have yet to read anything bad about Bridges work, Gyllenhaal's character - and performance - seems to rub some the wrong way. It's just not her year.

Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Odds: 10-1
For Her: She’s young, she’s pretty, she’s spunky – all things that the Academy loves to reward in this category. Her supporting role in the Twilight series has upped her profile with audiences, and her nomination here puts her near the front of the generation of young female talent out there right now.
Against Her: She will lose votes to her co-star Farmiga. She is one of the few people to actually beat Mo’Nique this year for a major award – but that was the National Board of Review and happened a long time ago, and I doubt anyone cares. The nomination will certainly help her career, but she’ll have to wait until another year to win.

Mo’Nique, Precious
Odds: Even
For Her: She has pretty much been an unstoppable force all awards season – winning every major critics award, the Globe and the SAG. The Oscars love it when someone they previously thought didn’t have acting chops proves everyone wrong. She has a larger than life role, and she rips into with a vengeance – but shows the real person underneath. This is Precious’ only real chance at a win, and they’ll want to give it something.
Against Her: Some will still dismiss her as merely a comedian who got lucky. She has been talked about so much this year that some maybe sick of her by now.

Who Will Win: Mo’Nique has been unstoppable all season long, and there is no way that the Academy is not going to follow suit.

Who Should Win: I am torn here. I loved Kendrick’s sweet innocence in Up in the Air – turning someone who I thought would be one note into a real person. But Mo’Nique is simply brilliant in her movie, and she has some emotional weight behind her performance as well.

Least of the Nominees: Without a doubt, this time it’s Penelope Cruz. She is fine in her musical number in Nine, but she spends the rest of the movie crying. How they nominated her, and not Cottilard who is the emotional heart of that movie, is beyond me.

Oscar Predictions: Lead Acting

Now, let’s move onto the categories most people like the best – the actors.

Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Odds: Even
For Him: A true acting legend. He received his first Oscar nomination nearly 40 years ago, and this year he received his fifth – and he still has not won. He has won pretty much every precursor that really matters, and people love him in the film. Nominations for Gyllenhaal and the song The Weary Kind show that the Academy really does like the movie.
Against Him: But do they really love the movie? I mean, it still could not break into Best Picture, even with 10 slots this year. Not being a Best Picture nominee hasn’t hurt previous winners, but that was when there were only 5 nominees. Is this really Bridges’s finest work, no matter how good he is?

George Clooney, Up in the Air
Odds: 8-1
For Him: A true movie star. No one does this type of role better than Clooney, who has transformed himself into an Academy favorite in the last few years. He is Hollywood’s poster boy for intelligent, adult movies that people actually want to see, as well as being beloved for his politics. Often times they want to give a star a lead Oscar after they won supporting. He is one of only two nominees from a Best Picture nominee.
Against Him: But the fact remains, that he does have an Oscar at home, something that Bridges – who has a much longer track record than Clooney does not have. They will undoubtedly give Clooney another Oscar at some point in his career – this just isn’t going to be that year.

Colin Firth, A Single Man
Odds: 10-1
For Him: Firth has a track record stretching back well more than a decade of giving solid performances. He has never even been nominated before this year, and people were amazed by his performance as a closeted gay man in the 1960s. For some reason, the Oscars still think its daring when a straight man plays gay,
Against Him: The film got no other nominations, meaning that while they may love Firth, they didn’t necessarily love the film itself – something that is important when you are going for the win. Because he has never been nominated before, they don’t really feel they owe him a win yet. That will be his next nomination.

Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Odds: 15-1
For Him: Freeman is beloved, and him playing Nelson Mandela is absolutely perfect casting, and something that Freeman brought off tremendously well. Oscar loves it when famous people play other famous people, and Freeman is their only chance to reward that in this category.
Against Him: Even with a big Oscar campaign, and Clint Eastwood, behind the film it still could not get into the 10 wide Best Picture nominee slate – meaning I don’t know how much they actually liked the film. I have a feeling that many checked off Freeman’s name out of laziness this year. He already has an Oscar, so there is not great need to give him another one for this movie.

Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
Odds: 4-1
For Him: Renner is hoping to become this year’s Adrian Brody – that largely unknown star of a movie that the Academy obviously loves who upsets his competition. He did win a few critics prizes, and people do love the movie and his performance a lot.
Against Him: Brody’s main competition was Nicholson and Day-Lewis who had four Oscars between them at the time, whereas Renner’s competition is Jeff Bridges – a beloved actor who has never won before. While it’s true when people talk about the performances in the movie, they mention Renner first, when they talk about the movie, they mention Bigelow first.

Who Will Win: I think Bridges’ time has finally come and he’ll take home the Oscar easily this year.

Who Should Win: Renner would get my vote, as he delivered the most intense performance nominated this year. Bridges should have won for The Big Lebowski.

Least of the Nominees: Don’t get me wrong, I love Morgan Freeman, and given the material he had to work with in Invictus, he delivered as good of a performance as I think was possible. Having said that, I am the only one who is tired of seeing Freeman play saints? Remember his first Oscar nominated performance, playing a viscous pimp is Street Smart? Why can’t Freeman do that again?

Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Odds: 2-1
For Her: She is a big star, and has had a career year. Getting The Blind Side to over $200 million at the box office rests on her shoulders, and The Proposal did very good as well. She has won the Globe and the SAG award already, and the fact that the film slipped into the 10 wide Best Picture category helps her out tremendously.
Against Her: She has never been an Oscar actress before – not even coming close to a nomination in the past, and sometimes, they make big stars wait a little while before they give them an Oscar. Although the film did get into the Best Picture category, it has a lot of detractors as well.

Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Odds: 20-1
For Her: She is an Oscar favorite, currently on her fourth nomination. Oscar loves historical biopics, which this is, and love over the top theatrics, which she delivers in spades in this movie.
Against Her: In my mind, she is WAY too far over the top here. Plus she won an Oscar already and not that long ago. The Last Station didn’t really get very good reviews, and other than Plummer, she is the films lone nominee. It’s just not her year.

Carey Mulligan, An Education
Odds: 5-1
For Her: One of the breakout stars of the year, Mulligan carries An Education – a Best Picture nominee – on her back. She is charming and beautiful in the movie, and has already gotten roles before of her work here. She is a major star of tomorrow, and Oscar sometimes rewards that. She has won a few critics awards, and has had people talking about the performance since it premiered at Sundance last January.
Against Her: She has not really played the Oscar game this year – concentrating on her work instead of campaigning. An Education started off very strong, but has faded a little bit down the stretch, as has she losing to Bullock at both the Globes and the SAGs. Because she is so young, and so talented (and beautiful), she will undoubtedly have another shot one day.

Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Odds: 10-1
For Her: Hers is the most loved film by Oscar – picking up six nominations this year. She is the title character, and despite the fact that she was a complete unknown when she was cast, she carried the film, giving a subtle, quiet, emotionally powerful performance.
Against Her: Unlike Mulligan, she seems to be more of a one off talent than a future star. Mo’Nique is winning in supporting actress, so they will not feel the need to give the film another win. I have a feeling the nomination is going to have to be enough.

Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
Odds: 4-1
For Her: She’s Meryl Streep! Although she has won two Oscars in the past, she hasn’t done so in more than 25 years, and on her last few nominations there have been quite a few people saying she deserves her third – after all, she has been nominated more than anybody in history. Oscar loves a biopic of famous people, and Streep plays Julia Child just about perfectly. It’s also an audience hit, which helps.
Against Her: The film didn’t get any other nominations, meaning that although they love Streep, they don’t love the movie as much. To those for whom impersonation is not enough, I doubt that they will be swayed by Streep here. And even though it has been a while, she does have two Oscars.

Who Will Win: Sandra Bullock came out of nowhere in the late going of the game, proving all the people who said it was going to Mulligan vs. Streep wrong. I suspect the steamroller season she has had recently will continue, and she’ll win.

Who Should Win: Carey Mulligan is far and away the best of the nominees this year. Sweet, innocent, naïve, yet somehow mature. It’s a brilliant performance.

Least of the Nominees: I know most of the internet people are picking on Bullock, but I would gladly take her best performance to date (which isn’t saying all that much really), over Mirren’s over the top theatrics. And although I know I will anger people, I’d probably pick her over Streep as well.

Movie Review: Before Tomorrow

Before Tomorrow **
Directed By: Marie-Hélène Cousineau & Madeline Ivalu.
Written By: Susan Avingaq & Marie-Hélène Cousineau & Madeline Ivalu based on the novel by Jørn Riel.
Starring: Madeline Ivalu (Ninioq), Paul-Dylan Ivalu (Maniq), Peter-Henry Arnatsiaq (Apak), Mary Qulitalik (Kuutujuk), Tumasie Sivuarapik (Kukik).

Before Tomorrow is said to be the third part in a trilogy following Atanjuarat and The Journals of Knud Rasmussen. Although not directed by Zacharias Kunuk as the other two films were, he is on hand as a producer, and his star – Peter-Henry Arnatsiaq has a supporting role in the film. I know that The Journals of Knud Rasmussen was largely seen as a disappointment following the groundbreaking and brilliant Atanjuarat, but I found it to be a fascinating story about the moment in time when the Inuit’s “lost their way”. Both of those films were enthralling because they were a glimpse into a culture that has largely been ignored by cinema – or at least since Nanook of the North in 1922. But they succeeded beyond the level of a mere ethnographic film because they both had strong narrative threads that pulled us through the movie. Atanjuarat is a tale of lust, revenge and violence. The Journals of Knud Rasmussen a story of choosing between what you believe is right, and your own survival. The problem with Before Tomorrow is that no such narrative exists. It takes nearly half of its running time setting things up before the main thrust of the narrative begins. And when it does, it is hardly enthralling or engrossing. The filmmakers seem much more interested in taking gorgeous shots of the Canadian North – which it must be said it does brilliantly well – then in actually telling a story. As a result, I found Before Tomorrow to be an incredibly boring film.

The movie is about an old Inuit woman named Ninoq (Madeline Ivalu – who also co-wrote and co-directed the movie), who for years has gone to an island with her friend to dry out the fish in able to store it for the winter. Both women are getting old and closer to death (the friend more than Ninoq), and her son Apak (Arnatsiaq), wants her to let a younger woman go instead, but she will hear none of it. It is her job, and she’s going to go. Her grandson Maniq (Paul-Dylan Ivalu) volunteers to go with the two old women so he can look after them if something goes wrong. Soon, the old woman’s friend is dead, and when the family does not come back for Ninioq and Maniq, they head back to the camp themselves – to discover their entire family has died from a mysterious illness brought their by outsiders. Now the old lady and her grandson are left to fend for themselves for the winter.

I know what the movie is trying to say – that Inuit women are strong, and without them the tribes would not be able to survive. Early on in the movie, an old man tells a sexist story, and while the women laugh along with everyone else, when they retire and are alone, they mock the old man. When the rest of the family has died, it falls to Ninioq to raise her only grandson – and protect him from the elements. They help each other to survive.

But for me, the narrative never really took hold. For far too long in the movie, there is not much happening at all. There are long shots of the two of them walking in the snow covered landscapes, or trapped in their cave dwelling with only a small fire going. Not much is said, except for the occasional story that the old woman tells her grandson. Far more often however, they two just sit there, trying to survive. If the filmmakers were trying to show the monotony and boredom that comes along with this sort of life, then they succeeded brilliantly. It’s just not something I really felt the need to watch.

The film is directed by Madeline-Helene Cousineau and Madeline Ivalu. They do not have the same sort of cinematic eye that Kunuk showed in his two films. Too often when stories are being told, they place the camera directly in front of the people doing the talking. It is almost like one of those Andy Warhol screen-tests. They favor long, unbroken, steady shots for most of the rest of the movie, and while it makes for some breathtaking vistas, it is not very exciting to watch – and after a while, when they are simply capturing the same vistas again and again and again, it grows tiresome. When something exciting – like the wolf attack – actually does happen, the directors do not find an interesting way to shoot it, and it comes across as incredibly fake and staged.

I’m sure there are some who will like – perhaps even love – Before Tomorrow. Judging on its 10 Genie Nominations in fact, I would wager a lot of people will. It is a specific type of film for a specific type of audience. I have to admit, that in this case, I am not that audience. After the triumphs of Atanjuarat and The Journals of Knud Rasmussen, this just felt like an afterthought.