February 9, 2005

Two Of Three

THE CASE FOR THE AVIATOR

Ladies and gentlemen… may it please the voters…

Film, unlike any other medium, is capable of delivering the overwhelming power of the spectacle as well as the intimacy of human frailty. The magic of film can change the world… and the story of Howard Hughes is the story of one man who changed the world, from the arts to the balance of military power to our freedom as world citizens to fly the globe unfettered by the evil of political and social monopolies.

One of the world's richest men of his era, The Aviator shows Hughes to have been more an artist than a fiscal entity. And in this film, we get to enjoy the work of one of cinema's finest artists, Martin Scorsese, at the top of his game, assisted by a visionary financier, Graham King, marketed and distributed by one of Hollywood's great mavericks, Harvey Weinstein and starring some of Hollywood's best loved young actors… actors who are not willing to just do anything they can to make a buck, but who choose carefully and chose to come together for this very special project.

Someday, Scorsese may make a movie called "The Billionaire Madman," but while The Aviator respects the realities of Hughes' life and emotional limitations, it chooses to focus on the strength and passion of the younger Hughes, the part of his story that has become lost in the rush to laugh at his final sad days in Las Vegas. It is all too easy to forget that what made the Vegas period so compelling was the story of his life as an aviator and filmmaker… as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story."

And oh what magic Scorsese is capable of creating. In a CG driven movie universe where virtually anything is possible with enough time and a high enough budget, Scorsese finds images and experiences that no one else has ever put on film. Scorsese's passion for the history of Hollywood comes out as he recreates the wild, mad early days of the town, when a premiere was a great drama of its own and movie stars were part of a community that met night after night at a handful of Los Angeles nightclubs.

As John Logan's script reminds us, Hughes refused to take "no" for an answer… just as Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio refused to when it came to pursuing this project. Hughes was the first true "independent" and, all these years later, Graham King found a way to fund this personal $100 million movie, on the set as a hands-on producer really for the first time, but there to make everything work for his iconic director and star.

Scorsese being Scorsese, he was able to draw the best movie actors in the world to his set, even, as in the case of Jude Law or Willem Dafoe, for just a few sparse days. But he also talked Cate Blanchett into daring to recreate a truly beloved Hollywood figure in Kate Hepburn, all the while knowing that if it went wrong, it could be a career devastator. But a well-deserved Oscar nomination later, Blanchett's trust in her director paid off.

Meanwhile, Scorsese gave small, but pivotal, parts to two long-time leading men who have settled into being well-loved character actors. Alan Alda flipped the switch on his soft, feminist, liberal image and plays a corrupt Senator. Alda's traditional sharp wit, which remains restrained, always seems to be under the surface, making the unnerving sense that he will take over any verbal exchange a compelling threat. And Alec Baldwin also plays somewhat against his type, his imposing physicality never used against Hughes, but always there. And, in the end, he is bound by his own earnestness as a character, which makes this villain surprisingly likeable.

But ultimately, it is Scorsese's magical touch with the aerial sequences in the film that make it soar. He had tremendous help from Dante Ferretti and the magical Bob Richardson, who also shot Scorsese's most visually complex film after Raging Bull, Bringing Out The Dead. Whether it is flying through a field or the second story of a Beverly Hills mansion or wandering through the Coconut Grove, it's often hard to tell whether the truth or only memory can be as compelling and beautiful as what Scorsese & Co. offers us here.

Better than any of the other movies nominated, The Aviator offers a look at us… at the power of outrageous daring… not just of one man, but of a culture that shouts our aspirations across the globe.

Fot this reason, among so many others, Scorsese must fly high on Oscar night.

READER OF THE DAY: FIGURING DIEGO writes: "I guess you have heard about the ridiculous changes that are going to be made at this year's Oscars. I think those changes are rather insulting and disrespectful. Not giving the technical people the chance to talk in the moment of their lifetime is absurd. And all that stuff of making the nominees go on-stage and then the winners give a step forward is too much like American Idol or any other reality show. I don't know what can you do or if you agree with those changes or not but is there any way that you could write something in The Hot Button or in your Blog about it. I have already contacted the AMPAS Publicity Department (publicity@oscars.org) to express my feelings about this subject. Is there any way that you could post some of those letters or write something about this?

Here are a few examples:

Dear AMPAS Publicity,
I am writing this letter in hopes that it will be forwarded to either Gil Cates or the Board of Directors. I have read about the supposed changes being made this year in order to win more ratings. The changes I refer to are grouping nominees on stage and then announcing the winner, as well as presenting awards right in the audience. Perhaps the viewership of the Oscars does decline some, but isn't that understandable when the highest grossing film nominated for Best Pictue made less than 100 million dollars? The Oscars should be about artistic acheivement, not network ratings. Placing nominees on stage and forcing the losers to clap and smile while the winner talks is disgusting and demeaning. These are hard working professionals, regardless if sound recorder or Clint Eastwood, and do not deserve to be treated like reality show guinnea pigs.
I have been watching the Oscars for many years and never have I seen such an insulting idea released. It makes perfect sense to ask for short, interesting speeches; but to not even let an Oscar winner have their moment? Is this not what the Oscars are about? The envelope, the walk, the applause, and turning out to see a sea of the greatest film makers in the world all looking back at you. I would be heartbroken if I were to win an Oscar and yet be robbed of this moment. I am positive the experience means as much to every single visual effects designer as it does to the largest celebrity. I hope Mr. Cates will cancel these changes and save himself the enormous embarassment they will bring to the Academy. If he values the viewership of thirteen year old boys who prefer to watch meritless, mindless cinema regardless then perhaps he would be better suited to the MTV Movie Awards. The Oscars are one of the few classy establishments left and I hope Mr. Cates will not compromise that by actually going through with these changes.

Sincerely,
An OscarWatcher

or

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am just sending a quick note to you regarding the announced proposed changes for the 77th Annual Academy Awards telecast on February 27, 2005.

Simply stated, as reported in the media through Reuters and other agencies, the proposed changes for handing out the awards seem to be demeaning and disrespectful. As someone who has contacts with "behind-the-scenes" individuals in the film making industry, I cannot imagine their thrill of being nominated for an Academy Award, only to be given an award at their seat and not given an opportunity to go on stage and have 30 seconds of time to receive their honor.

I do not work in television and never have. I do not understand all the nuance of how detrimental stagnant ratings may appear to be nor do I pretend to have the knowledge as to why the show must constantly tweak this and that. Yet, the Oscars or Academy Awards are like an entertainment Super Bowl. No award show and few other television events bring diverse walks of people together for a singular viewing experience. Changing a few elements are understood by the general public. However, if the five acting nominees are placed on stage and left to applaud for the one of them who is the winner, that does no one any good in the long run.

The shock of having to glimpse a disappointed Jamie Foxx or watch a Kate Winslet hold back tears or the analyzing if Laura Linney's smile is forced or genuine would serve no one's best interests and could very well lead to actors refusing to appear in future years to come after their embarrassment of 2005.

I'm just one voice. Yet, others are E-mailing this mailbox and many other Oscar/Academy mailboxes. Please do not blow up the Oscar telecast. You may get through this year's broadcast just fine, but the potential detriment in years to come from individuals not showing up or refusing to stand on stage or refusing to accept their Oscar may only lead to more apathy and less ratings and a genuine dislike and disgust for the Oscars in general.

Honor the hard-working men and women behind the scenes. Don't treat them as second class by keeping them at their seats. Honor the actors and films with clips of the performances and scenes from the films. There are so many other ways to trim the broadcast. Fewer tributes and montages of Oscar past, for example. Keep the core of the ceremony intact. Let Chris Rock be Chris Rock. But, please listen and respect the wishes of the countless individuals who plan a year in advance and anticipate this telecast as much as any other social event in the year.

Thank you for your time,
MW
Maple Valley, WA

or

To Mr. Gates:

You should be ashamed of yourself. The changes you propose are insulting to the people that have worked long and hard to be nominated, let alone have a chance to win an Award.

I've been watching the Academy Awards since 1964, and the very idea that you have come to this totally classless, tactful idea of an Awards show is beyond me. How could you? The documentary short people worked hard, too.

If you are selling out to the idea that all people care about is watching a show with "big stars" then, Sir, you are bastardizing what the awards are about. This is awards. It's not a "show," no matter how hard in the last few years you (and the Academy) have tried to erase the very reason for the show in the first place -- to honor those that have won.

You've lost your way, Sir. I hope you fall flat on your face with these changes; I hope there is such rebellion by thinking people that your show is a disaster. You deserve it.

Sincerely,
An Oscarwatcher for over 40 years

or

Dear Publicity Coordinator:

Will further clarification concerning the proposed changes in this year's award ceremony be forthcoming? This has been a topic of discussion in internet film forums. The general consensus on the information that is available to the public is not favorable.

Some areas of concern are:

---The nominees will stand on stage and await the opening of the envelope and the announcement of 'The Winner'. Many feel this would embarass those who did not 'Win' and those who plan to watch the awards feel that is insensitive and frankly, lacking in the professionalism the awards represent.

--Some recipients will be handed awards in the audience and will not be allowed to make even a brief speech. Most of us feel that the technical aspects of filmmaking currently included in the awards presentation are as important as acting and directing. We would prefer that they be given an opportunity to express their gratitude.

If the proposed modifications in AMPAS' awards ceremony are being made for the sake of the viewing audience, then I hope you will consider our concerns.

Finally, I have to wonder why such an event would need to be more 'Interactive' (more like American Idol or a Reality Show?). The purpose is to recognize the outstanding achievements in film.

Thanks for your consideration."

E-ME.

The Case for Sideways
The Case for Million Dollar Baby

 

Sundance Wrap-Up
Sundance Preview Part I
Sundance Preview Part 2