Another Nail in the Coffin for Los Angeles Indie Movie Theaters

Rather sad day, at the very least personally, hopefully to many cinephiles in the Los Angeles area as well as the venerable institution known as the Sunset 5 will be closing its doors December 1st.  Owned and operated by Laemmle Theaters, a small Southern California chain of art houses, the decision comes with a whimper on the already sad state of art house complexes in Los Angeles.  Over the past few years, many have folded (thinking of the Fine Arts Theater and NuWilshire Theater, and the others (including the Sunset 5) have for some time appeared fledgling at best.  All of which is terribly sad news, not the least bit personally for the indelible marks seethed into my memory, but the lack of art houses in Los Angeles itself.  While bigger, fancier multiplexes have popped out and have over the past few years have increasingly shown a bigger diversity in mixing big Hollywood films with the smaller art house offerings, and certain local revival houses are doing stellar business working on their own terms (thinking of the New Beverly Cinema, owned by Quentin Tarantino, and Silent Movie House of Fairfax.)  But what's becoming of the simpler, scrappier art houses that value screen space to the truly independent, foreign and documentary features that now, more than ever appear less and less existent in Los Angeles.

Perhaps saddest for me, because I was at the Sunset 5 just yesterday (where I saw Take Shelter) and have been a regular and happy consumer for several years-- I saw films like Weekend and Tabloid there as, and as both are currently two of many favorite offerings of the year.  Yet it's fact that this nearly two decade old cinematic haven (it opened its doors in 1992) has a lasting legacy; the theater is located in center of West Hollywood and opened its doors to the small, but everlasting moment in independent filmmaking of the Queer New Wave, showing the early titles of brash filmmakers like Todd Haynes, Gregg Araki, Lisa Cholodenko, and Todd Solondz.  Before the look started to become slightly rundown, it was the hippest theater in town, but also a lovely communal moviegoing experience in of itself. 

Plans are underway that Sundance Cinemas will renovate the space and open a 7-screen multiplex in 2012, but that's hardly the point.  The of late, no-thrills atmosphere of movie places like the Sunset 5 are reminders that plush and fancy (not to mention-- ridiculously expensive) are not the wave of the future, but the reason why many prefer staying home.

Ineligible

Every year, the same old drill.  Rules, either seemingly abstract or utterly invented, come into play to damper into certain film's eligibility in certain categories.  The first cause of this rant comes in the form of the Writers Guild of America, who will announce their nominations next week.  Year after year the WGA disqualifies films because they don't comply with the rules of their organization-- screenplays written by non-members or non-affiliates.  This years unacceptable include:

• The King's Speech
• Toy Story 3
• Winter's Bone
• Blue Valentine
• Another Year
• The Ghost Writer
• Nowhere Boy
• The Way Back
• Never Let Me Go
• Love & Other Drugs
• Made in Dagenham
• Green Zone
• Biutiful
• Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
• How to Train Your Dragon

That's a lot of movies right off the bat out of running.  Some, like The King's Speech and Toy Story 3, need not worry, Oscar will have their backs-- The King's Speech is likely far and away the frontrunner for Best Original Screenplay.  Others, like smaller, richer, less lavishly lauded films-- like The Ghost Writer, Winter's Bone and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, or Blue Valentine, which has had little precursor love as of late-- could have used WGA nominations to build up steam for actual Oscar nominations.  Those two in particular would be awesome if Academy-approved.  I get that rules are rules, but this feels discriminatory-- why shame good films because their writers aren't members of your guild; seems unfair and unjust.  For a little backstory, no film has won a writing Oscar without a corresponding WGA nomination since 2002-- Pedro Almodovar's Talk to Her, and no film has won Best Picture without a WGA nomination since 2000-- Gladiator.  Makes me kind of sad to think of an awards body (just like a constitutional amendment) limiting the possibility of a film-- should not all films be treated equally.

The next tangent is perhaps more complex and has do with the music department of the Academy.  Recently a decision was made to bar the original musical scores of True Grit, The Fighter, The Kids Are All Right and Black Swan from Oscar nominations.  The rules of such, I think, are highly suspect and perhaps reason enough for the Academy to end music-driven Oscars altogether-- they clearly have little eye (or ear) for it, and suck at it (here's my own bitterness coming out after they ignored Bruce Springsteen's great song for The Wrestler in 2008.)  The Fighter and The Kids Are All Right were deemed ineligible because there were too many pop songs intermingled with original music (kind of like the 2006 Oscar winning score to Babel?!)  True Grit and Black Swan were disqualified because their original scores were deemed to dependent on other sources (Grit was influenced and intermingled with hymnals and Swan was infused with Tchaikovsky.)  Of course, a greater question is asked, why wouldn't a film like True Grit feature music inspired by 19th century hymnals, feels fairly appropriate, and how could one do a revisionist take on Swan Lake without some of the composer's inspiring music?  Does that take away from the memorable music originally and creatively composed by Carter Burwell and Clint Mansell, respectively?  It all harkens back to the sad Oscar season day when Jonny Greenwood's interesting and volcanic music for 2007's There Will Be Blood was omitted for the same reasons.  I suppose I beg, or at the very least, kindly ask the members of the Academy, as a loyal and humble servant, why this insanity continues.  Enough with the rules-- I get it, you like what you like and will continue to honor the violin-soaked sad scoring that who've honored in the past, as well as the ballast-prone John Williams-like melodies, but stop with the omissions.  Nominate what you would like, but acknowledge more out there before totally shutting them down!  Either that, or please leave music to the Grammys!

My favorites scores of 2010:

• Black Swan
• The Ghost Writer
• I Am Love
• Inception (probable Oscar favorite)
• Rabbit Hole
• The Social Network
• Somewhere
• True Grit

 Tangent completed...

Master of Suspense: Oscar Also Ran

Mr. Alfred Hitchcock is in all likelihood my favorite film director of all time.  He was the first true auteur that I obsessed and dotted on.  I remember a weekend where AMC did a marathon of his work, and I stayed up almost the entire weekend watching everything, and truth be told, it still ranks as one of the best weekends of my life.  I feel such a strong connection to all of his work (I've seen nearly everything), and continue to obsess, the right word I think, since obsession was such a deeply rooted part of his filmmaking.  And yet it still behooves me that Mr. Hitchcock never once won a competitive Academy Award for his efforts.  And for the most part, despite a respectable showing in his career, the Academy foolishly ignored the best aspects of some of his greatest films.  While I fully acknowledge that Hitchcock was in a very primal sense a popcorn film director, one must also acknowledge that his was of a gourmet variety.

Some statistics to mull over:

• Over his career, his films received 62 nominations, out of which garnered 6 statues, or 8.7%.

• His films received 3 best picture nominations
• Rebecca (1940) WINNER
• Suspicion (1941)
• Spellbound (1945)

• He himself received 5 best director nominations
• Rebecca (1940)
• Lifeboat (1944)
• Spellbound (1945)
• Rear Window (1954)
• Psycho (1960)
• 0 wins, but the Irving Thalberg recipient in 1967 where he famously just said "Thank you," before exiting the stage

• His films received 9 acting nominations
• 3 for leading actor\actress
• Laurence Olivier (Rebecca) 1940
• Joan Fontaine (Rebecca) 1940
• Joan Fontaine (Suspicion) 1941  WINNER

• 6 for supporting actor\actress
• Judith Anderson (Rebecca) 1940
• Albert Basserman (Foreign Correspondent) 1940
• Michael Chekov (Spellbound) 1945
• Claude Rains (Notorious) 1946
• Ethel Barrymore (The Paradine Case) 1947
• Janet Leigh (Psycho) 1960

• His films received 7 writing nominations, winning none
• Rebecca (1940)-- written by Charles Bennet & Joan Harrison
• Foreign Correspondent (1941)-- written by Robert E. Sherwood & Joan Harrison
• Shadow of a Doubt (1943)-- written by Gordon McDonell
• Lifeboat (1944)-- written by John Steinbeck
• Notorious (1946)-- written by Ben Hecht
• Rear Window (1954)-- written by John Michael Hayes
• North by Northwest (1959)-- written by Ernest Lehman

And while the Oscars were kind enough to remember him-- pretty much all of his major pictures were nominated for something-- usually tech stuff like art direction or score, his greatest Oscar period being in 1940s (unusually since that was he's Hollywood beginning, and arguably the 1950s were even richer), never once was he honored.  The Rebecca triumph, and it is a lovely triumph, was nevertheless back in the day seen as David O. Selznick's win, not Hitchcock's.

My three top Hitchcock films at the moment are:

• Rear Window (1954)
• Vertigo (1958)
• Strangers on a Train (1951)

Another sad omission, on which is universally dumbfounded upon, the lack of respect for the acting in his films.  Sure a few were nominated, Joan Fontaine even won, but where's Anthony Perkins' chilling Norman Bates from Psycho, that sweet and dangerous performance just as unsettling fifty years later.  Or Robert Walker's Bruno from Strangers on a Train, a soulful and sad sociopath, one of the finest villains ever put on screen.   Cary Grant, all suave and iconic in North by Northwest-- sometimes movie stars roles are just as addictive and strong as baity ones.  Kim Novack's haunting variation of Hitchcock blonde in Vertigo, easily the strongest female performance he's every coaxed, or Tippi Hedren's hysteria in Marnie.

The biggest acting omission occurs with Mr. James Stewart, who used his innate American goodness to support Hitchcock in four worthy films: Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and his two finest (I'd say) in Rear Window and Vertigo.  I know Vertigo was critically reviled when it opened...it was too new, but the performance was golden, how could that not be noticed.

It wasn't just the acting that was taken for granted, but also the other areas of the craft.  For instance, The Birds was rightfully awarded an effects nomination only to lose to Cleopatra, with it's big clunkiness.  Whereas The Birds artfully and frighteningly made for one the strongest and best effects in filmmaking even by today's over the top computerized standards-- it's all seamless, and beautiful.

It says a lot that Hitchcock's legacy will never die, but the Academy is still greatly in debt to this brilliant artist, and some things will never be okay no matter how time has passed.  I continue to obsess, and document my progress.

So Now What...

As Sunday's telecast of the Golden Globes concluded (with an uptick in viewership from last year), the general opinion was the Hollywood Foreign Press might really be the People's Choice Awards. The behemoth of 2009 filmmaking, Avatar snatches the two biggest prizes (picture, drama and director) in the same weekend the James Cameron opus breaks $500 million in domestic box office; Cameron, pleased with himself, even speaks a few lines of his invented language of the Nai'Vi in winning best director. In winning the best picture drama prize, Cameron bested the other two alleged top contenders, The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air; it also became the first science fiction film in Golden Globe history to win best picture-- something that has never occured in Oscar history either.

In the musical\comedy field The Hangover, with it's massive popularity and gay jokes won in true underdog fashion over more prestige comedy choices like the indie hit (500) Days of Summer and Nine, a surprise casuality for the singing and dancing loving HFPA (as witnessed from previous love for Moulin Rouge!; Chicago, and Dreamgirls.) Could it be that The Hangover could become a real possibility with the Academy after this key win and nominations from the Writers Guild and ACE Editors Guild?


Other populist choices were Sandra Bullock winning best actress in drama for The Blind Side (box office is $230 million and counting) and Robert Downey, Jr. winning actor in a comedy for Sherlock Holmes ($180 million and counting.) While Downey, Jr.'s win won't mean anything to the Oscars, Bullock's stock is ever gaining. After tieing the Critics Choice Awards with Meryl Streep (for Julie & Julia, another big hit at $90 million) and winning the Globe, Bullock has emerged, at least in media terms, as the dark horse in best actress. The "deul" is one between Bullock and Streep. In fact, really the only awards given out at the Golden Globes that didn't go to an extremely popular and successful film were Jeff Bridges actor win for Crazy Heart, and the song "The Weary Kind," from the same film. This is in huge contrast to recent years where the independent film community had stronger grasps in key awards-- for example last year films like Happy-Go-Lucky, In Bruges, Vicky Cristina Barcelona and The Wrestler all won key awards-- Avatar handily beat all of those films box office within it's first couple of days.

I personally thought it was a pretty dull show, even though I can't complain about the majority of the trophies handed out. Well actually I can: The Hangover and it's frat boy humor had nothing on the witty charm of (500) Days of Summer. Robert Downey, Jr., as awesome as he is, had nothing on Joseph Gordon Levitt's incandescent romantic. And Sandra Bullock, as likeable and warm as she is didn't really have an awards worthy performance in The Blind Side, which isn't to discredit it really, even though I wasn't exactly a fan. She has always been a very warm presence on screen, and a natural at the press rounds-- her speech was lovely because she exuded all the charm and American sweetheart-ness we like about her, but in terms of a cohesive, complex feat of acting triumph I think not. Also, I was left cold by the big wins of Avatar, not because I didn't like the film, but because Cameron always has to ruin it by speaking.

Is 2009 a stronger year for commercial filmmaking, or is it post-The Dark Knight criticism coming back in an eager and desperate attempt for award shows to prove that they aren't elitists? I think it's a strange case of both. 2009 has been a boon for commercial filmmaking, notably, I would say with the exception of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, all of the big blockbusters of the year have been decent-- this year alone saw a sort of re-birth in classic science fiction (District 9, Star Trek, Avatar), a rejuvenation in animation (Up, Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Princess & the Frog), a wonderful year for women named Meryl (Julie & Julia and It's Complicated are two of her highest grossing films to date) and Sandra (The Proposal reminded everyone that light comedy is her specialty and The Blind Side made history as being the first film ever to gross over $200 million with a woman carrying it.) 2009 also saw revisionist history at it's finest (Inglourious Basterds became Quentin Tarantino's highest grossing film to date.)


All of this coupled with the diminished returns of the American independent companys-- many of them released less or simply folded in the past year, have put the Oscar spotlight back in big, glossy Hollywood product. It's interesting to note that in the year's before Titanic, American filmmaking and Academy tastes were in a similar spot-- the smaller films were beating the big studio films and the old adage of Hollywood being out of touch was a trademark. Twelve years later and James Cameron has come again to save the movie industry. I meant that remark with a tinge of bitterness, but not too much, being an admirer of Avatar myself and all it's 3-D fantastical glory. The problem with the situation at hand this standstill of the awards season is basically the AMPAS is damned if they do and damned if they don't-- anointed a big popular film will delight the broadcasters and advertisers, and enrage the cinephiles.

My current predictions for the top ten best picture slots are:

• Avatar
• District 9
• An Education
  
• The Hurt Locker
• Inglourious Basterds
• Invictus
• Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
• Star Trek
  
• Up
  
• Up in the Air

The ironic thing is that in this first post-The Dark Knight awards show, there really didn't need for a big change like putting 10 nominees for a big movie to enter, and maybe even win. Avatar's principle rivals currently are The Hurt Locker (which has had the critics salivating since opening in July, the prestige factor in being a war movie, a slew of critics prizes and guild mentions, but as of now only made about $12 million in box office-- no film in recent best picture history has made that little money) and Up in the Air (a more AMPAS friendly title with critical support and booming box office-- it's about $60 million and counting-- plus big names in George Clooney, and Academy nepotism in Jason Reitman, and a timely subject matter, but it's also a comedy and it's lighter touch might make it a tough sell for the academy voters who prefer a bit more of a heavy hand.)

I guess the point is should the success of films at the box office be there one reward, and are we mistaken in calling some of the big hitters of the year artistic successes...

Wow, this is been a long rant-- I hope it makes sense to someone...