2016 Oscars: The Revenant

the_revenant_2015_film_poster
Source: Wikipedia

The Revenant, AKA, Leonardo DiCaprio tries everything he and a crazy Spaniard can think of to get him an Oscar. This film is the elephant in the room (or should I say bear?) Everyone has been talking about it for months. “Oh, Leo, simply must get his first Oscar!” This movie is beautiful. The landscapes and on-site filming definitely paid off. Gorgeous Chilean landscapes pretending to be Wyoming, overlaid with a CGI bear that was actually tastefully done, and some killer makeup work for all of Glass’ (Leo’s) implausibly severe injuries. While watching the film, I actually really enjoyed it. DiCaprio and Tom Hardy were absolutely captivating. I know, I know: it seems like I’m just buying into the hype, but DiCaprio’s physical acting worked remarkably well with little dialogue. However, I felt that in many scenes Hardy seemed to steal the show, creating the most complete character in the film, whose motivations and selfish brutality came through in every interaction he had. So between the strong acting, beautiful camera work, and some really startling, shock-value-type scenes (eating bison liver, neck cauterizing, Tauntauning*, and other nasty stuff), the movie is definitely good.

However, the more I think about it, the less this movie makes any sense. It’s shot and played like a period drama (or at least historical fiction), but the level of implausibility keeps escalating as the movie progresses. Quick *Spoiler* for the number of things Glass survives: bear attack, waterfall, riding a horse off a cliff, and all of the sanitary, injury, and climate-based complications he encounters. He crawls for miles, survives being shot, heals really fast(?), can swim with a broken leg, spends a night Tauntauning in his dead horse, and still is only barely behind Hardy the whole time? Eh, plot-wise it gets kind of lost in all of the fantabulous stunts that DiCaprio (or really his stunt double/CGI-workers) go through. Also, sorry, but the ending was dumb; there are huge plot holes with the Native Americans’ subplot and their role at the end is confusing. Also, the final fight scene is kind of anticlimactic after all of the lead in, the decoy horse, etc. *Spoiler* Hardy and DiCaprio clumsily rolling around in the snow seemed too drawn out and didn’t fit with the grit of the first 2.5 hours of the movie. It’s hard to see how there’s any emotional resolution for Glass, since he doesn’t have anything left to live for, presumably.

giphy3
Literally Oscar bait. Source: ivassalkapcsolatosproblemak.tumblr.com

 

Overall, the movie is worth watching for the views and the acting, but why does the academy keep giving things to Innaritu? I completely disagree with the Academy’s choice two years in a row to give the Best Director award to this dude who continues to artsy fartsy his way to Oscars. Boo. Blorg! Pick & Academy Pick: Best Actor; Blorg! Pick: Best Supporting Actor; Academy Pick: Best Director

 

For more Blorgin’ on the Oscars, click here!


*Tauntauning (verb) the act of cutting open and climbing into a dead animal to keep warm in a wintry night. Anyone who doesn’t know what a Tauntaun is needs to drop everything and watch the original Star Wars trilogy (Ep. IV-VI, obviously). The act of Tauntauning was made famous by Han Solo in Empire Strikes Back and replicated unironically by Innaritu’s The Revenant.

The medical feasibility of Tauntauning has been rigorously documented in this brilliant and amusing article by Keith Veronese.

17v2bo5n2y387jpg
Cute critter until you have to sleep in its gut. Image Credit: i09.gizmodo.com
Advertisements

2016 Oscars: The Big Short

the_big_short_teaser_poster
Source: Wikipedia

Thoroughly entertaining. The Big Short succeeded in exposing mass audiences to the extremely complicated and nuanced market forces that led to the 2007 Housing Crisis. The inclusion of celebrity cameos like Anthony Bourdain and Margot Robbie were especially helpful in explaining the complex concepts into more relatable and easily digestible pieces. The Jenga scene is already iconic for its ability to explain the Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) crisis clearly and concisely (watch it here). A star-studded and hilarious cast, clever narrative style, and pseudo-documentary cinematography all lent themselves well to this timely and smart movie.

Christian Bale is one of the greatest actors that is currently active in Hollywood, and this film proves, yet again, that he can play any kind of character, from Batman to the Machinist, as he dives fully into his role as Michael Burry, an enigmatic genius with very few social skills. Steve Carrell, as Mark Baum, is also continuing to show that he is much more than a comedic actor. Carrell delivered another heartfelt and believable performance this year, earning his second Oscar nomination for Best Actor. He was never destined to win this year, since it is the year of the DiCaprio, but he will continue to get these kinds of roles and will certainly win one someday soon. Perhaps the most entertaining character of The Big Short though, is Jared Vennett, played by Ryan Gosling, whose performance blends the humor and fourth-wall-breaking documentary style that makes this film so unique. Half narrator and half supporting character, Gosling really ties a lot of the story together and shows his ability to play the serious moments and the comedic ones, all within the same film. Despite all of that, the crowning achievement goes to director and screenwriter Adam McKay, more famous for his comedic blockbuster Anchorman, who proved himself more than capable of handling a much more serious and intellectual film. McKay has proven his range and will likely produce more serious comedies in the future (here’s hoping!) He won the Oscar for best adapted screenplay, in translating the Michael Lewis book into such a clever film. It certainly makes me want to read the book, so maybe you can expect a post on that too in the near future!

the-big-short-christian-bale-explodes-animated-gif
Why Lehman Brothers? Why??? Image Source: Speakgif.com

My one big complaint, and probably the reason I think The Big Short should not have won Best Picture (which it did not, despite some late momentum in its favor) was that the final five minutes were overly politicized and a little light on facts. The fallout of the crisis, as described by the movie, leads audiences to believe that absolutely nothing had been done by the government or financial institutions to prevent a recurrence. There are certainly some politicians and economists who believe this, but the truth appears to be more nuanced, including the legal difficulties with prosecution of executives and the marginal (if not complete) success of Dodd-Frank legislation. A full account of the debate can be found at this Washington Post article. I recommend doing a little bit of independent research after watching the movie to help balance the facts with the opinions of the creators. Don’t get me wrong though, I really did enjoy the film and will recommend it to anyone who asks. I just think it’s important to temper the message with some research of your own. Overall, this movie is highly creative and very informative with clever writing and excellent casting, I strongly recommend it to all.

For more Blorgin’ on the Oscars, click here!

The Martian – in print and film

the_martian_2014
A truly awesome cover. It is no surprise that it became a bestseller with this image on the front. Source: Wikimedia

I recently both read the novel and watched the film based on the novel of The Martian by Andy Weir. Since both came out relatively recently and there were some significant stylistic and event plot elements between the two, a combined review seemed to fit best, enabling me to compare and contrast the two versions. I will try to minimize spoilers in this review, but some comparisons will require referencing specific plot points, so anywhere that says *Spoiler* skip to the next paragraph if you don’t want to have anything given away.

The basic premise, if you don’t already know, is that the story is set a few years into our future, in a world where humans have been to Mars. The idea is still novel, but much like with the Apollo missions to the moon, NASA is running periodic reconnaissance and scientific manned explorations to the Red Planet. Our hero, Mark Watney is one of a team of six NASA astronauts that have been sent to Mars to continue learning and exploring the planet. Only a couple of days into their planned multi-week expedition, a massive storm hits and the whole crew is forced to abandon their base and return to Earth. However, in the confusion of the storm, Mark Watney is lost and presumed dead as the rest of the crew flees to angry planet to return to Earth. What follows is Watney’s desperate attempt to survive on a foreign and unforgiving planet, alone, and with no plan to escape.

The Book:

Presented in a log format, the novel opens with Mark Watney speaking in first-person directly to the readers. From the first word, you are captured by Watney’s personality and the desperate nature of his situation. The author, Weir, is able to balance a format that provides some plausibility to the book’s narrative style (i.e. Watney’s first-person record of events) with the scientific and technical explanations that help a reader to understand how space travel and survival on another planet works, including, of course the theoretical advancements Weir’s nebulous near future setting makes possible. This combination: bringing hard science fiction into a personable and likable character’s log entries makes this book highly entertaining and an instant hit.

The first third of the book is pure science fiction gold. It opens with Watney already stranded on Mars, with the details of how he came to be stranded trickling in gradually through his log entries. One of the absolute best elements of the book is how well Weir portrays Watney’s loneliness. He is the only person on the entire planet. That makes the limited first-person perspective of the log entries a natural fit that only accentuates this feeling of loneliness. Watney’s perspective is THE perspective. The series of incredible and extremely dangerous crises Watney has to survive are met by the clever genius and biting wit of a super lovable character.

2000px-nasa_logo-svg
By the way, let’s increase funding for NASA. It’s really important. And awesome. Source: Wikimedia

The problems start about a third of the way in, when Weir starts to abandon this log format for narration, switching back and forth between the other astronauts returning to Earth, the teams of NASA scientists on Earth trying to orchestrate a rescue mission for Watney, and even a weird segment told from the a third-person perspective describing a tear in the base’s fabric. I understand why Weir went with this format, it allowed him to further the plot while keeping the action in the present tense. One of the limits of Watney’s log was that the readers heard about all of his troubles after the fact, making it very clear he had already survived them. However, this tonal change felt like an interruption from a format that had been working brilliantly. I suspect there was probably a way that could have been finessed to give the more active feel to the drama*.

These narrative changes continue throughout the end of the book, as these additional viewpoints continue to eat into Watney’s share of the page count, almost relegating him back into the ensemble of characters. The log entries are fewer and farther between and the plot seems to gradually fall away from that empathetic sense of being stranded on Mars with Watney that the novel had at the beginning.

The novel ended solidly, if not brilliantly, and the book left a feeling of wonder at the true scale of Watney’s journey. Overall, I think that this book is a very solid entry into modern science fiction canon. It has some truly inspiring moments, a highly memorable main character, and the rare ability to make scientific exploration a fun and exciting topic for the masses. However, this book is also a case study in the limitations of being self-published. Weir, a first-time author, originally published the book for free on Amazon and it took off, with the print version following much later. This trajectory is a real cinderella story, but it also means that the novel didn’t have a chance to get screened and edited by multiple sets of eyes. In a sense, it was still rough around the edges and it’s not really any fault to Weir, more the circumstances around the books “publication.” All that being said, it is a highly enjoyable book with great concepts and a wonderful story, that occasionally feels raw and unrefined due to some mild to moderate stylistic and tonal jumps. I would definitely recommend it to all fans of science and science fiction or survival adventures.

Rating: 8 out of 10

pia02406
Twin Peaks on Mars, near the Pathfinder site. A real picture from NASA of a key location from The MartianSource: Wikimedia Commons.

The Film:

The decision to make the book, The Martian, into a movie seemed like a brilliant idea. You had this story of an intrepid explorer surviving on his own in a foreign land with no help from the outside, à la Castaway, plus the allure of space travel and all of the crowd-pleasing CGI enhancements that come with it. It was a slam dunk. Now, cast Matt Damon as Mark Watney. Boom, say hello Oscars!

October_2_24_92_99_18.eps
Source: Wikimedia Commons

And that is actually what happened, only I’m not so sure those voters in the Academy actually read the book. As I relayed above, the book had some wonderful strengths, but the movie also had an opportunity to tweak some of the weaknesses and generate an even stronger product. In other words, The Martian movie could have been better than the book. That is a bold statement, and one I don’t take lightly. It is a rare feat, but this movie was really primed to take a unpolished nugget of a story and complete it.

Unfortunately, I think it missed the mark.** Matt Damon’s acting was superb and the visuals stunning. Plot-wise, it was ok. The main crux of the story was relayed well: potatoes, satellites and all that. But the issues were in the finer details of the movie’s presentation. For some reason, Ridley Scott’s movie decided to tell the story chronologically, starting from moments before the astronauts were hit by the storm that stranded Watney. The stories of the ensemble characters, all well-acted I might add, were thrown in from the start, giving the viewers no time to appreciate Watney on his own. That sense of loneliness and the log entry format was lost and a real opportunity was missed in the process. There were a few scenes where Damon spoke into the camera in a video log style, and those were the highlights of the film. Speaking to the wry wit and ingenuity of this lovable character. In the film, viewers are only given a few minutes to see this side of the character, while the book gave you about 100 pages.

Understandably, a movie cannot accomplish every single plot point in a 200 page book in the span of only two hours. But some key moments felt rushed and some of the most iconic struggle scenes from the book were left out of the movie entirely. Moments that changed how Watney approached he entire survival plan and showed the true strength of his character and depth of his cleverness. These plot cuts would have been more forgivable if they had not added multiple unnecessary scenes for the ensemble characters and an unbelievably hokey and ridiculous Hollywood ending. The last five minutes left such a bad taste in my mouth that I was surprised the Academy gave it a Best Picture nomination.

giphy1
‘Nuff said. Source: filmlinc.org/nyff

Overall, the movie had some shining strengths: Matt Damon’s superior acting skills, a strong supporting cast (including the notable performances of Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, and Donald Glover), and some breathtaking visuals. The plot was solid, though it is hard to credit the movie with the plot, since Weir’s book laid it out pretty directly. But a lot of the directorial decisions surrounding tone and storytelling format, plot tweaks made for movie-goers, and the entire removal of the sense of Watney’s loneliness from the beginning of the story made the movie a weaker version than the original book. It is still worth seeing, especially if you have not read the book, but fans of Weir’s version may be disappointed.

Rating for book readers: 7 out of 10

Hypothetical rating for non-book readers: 9 out of 10

Best Picture Oscar considerations:

Though definitely the weakest overall film of the nominees, The Martian is a well-executed science fiction film about a man trying to survive in a desolate land with nothing but his wits and the supplies he can find. This extraterrestrial version of Robinson Crusoe features Matt Damon’s acting talents as the main character, Mark Watney in his struggle for survival. Though I have no complaints about Damon’s performance, and his Best Actor nomination is well-deserved, the nomination of this film for Best Picture seems like a stretch. I have already written about the differences between the film and book versions of the story above, documenting many of the film’s shortcomings and missed opportunities. Overall, I recommend it to science fiction fans, especially those who have not already read the book.


*Idea: maybe a voice recording function in the helmet of his spacesuit that integrated into the base’s log memory? I mean, why not? It’s science fiction after all.

**Watney. Pun intended.