Cannes 2017 came to an end today and my oh my what an interesting year it has been (despite my lack of entries since I was not there and therefore I can’t comment on that). The 70th edition finished in a very unconventional way, much like its jury President, Pedro Almodóvar, with many additional prizes being awarded, including a tie for Best Screenplay and a special prize for Nicole Kidman, who is clearly having the time of her life (and we love it).
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences just announced that late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel will be back to present the Oscars for the second year in a row. I truly love Jimmy Kimmel, I really do, but I feel forced to share my very unpopular opinion with the world: I think this is a huge mistake and I simply can’t understand this decision. These are my reasons (personal AND factual).
Writing a review on a biopic is never easy, but writing a review on a biopic about a convicted real-life murderer told from the killer’s point of view might be the most difficult task ever (perhaps not “ever”, but pretty much). Phil Spector, the 2013 TV movie directed by David Mamet based on the 2003 murder of the actress Lana Clarkson in hands of one of the most renowned music producers in the world, is, in my opinion, one of the best TV movies made recently by HBO. Is it accurate? Every party will say it is not for different reasons (I myself am not expert on the trial so I’m not going to judge its accuracy), but truth (THE TRUTH) is not its main goal: “This is a work of fiction. It’s not ‘based on a true story.’ It is a drama inspired by actual persons in a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor to comment upon the trial or its outcome.” Phil Spector is a fiction that goes beyond the actual events and challenges our perception of objectivity, bias and celebrity culture.
I am a firm believer that movies (especially American movies) portraying teenagers and high schools and these sorts of things are usually terribly wrong on so many levels: first of all, most of the actors are not even teenagers (Rachel McAdams was 26 when she played Regina George in Mean Girls), every high school looks the same and relies on the same stereotypes (maybe it’s my European point of view, who knows. Please, don’t take me wrong, I still love Mean Girls (the screenplay is simply brilliant) and I grew up obsessed with High School Musical, but the way these types of films depict high school is simply stereotypical and in a way it makes me feel that whomever wrote or directed them is out of touch with the youth and with the real topic of social anxiety among teenagers. Even movies such as The Duff, which criticizes the way teens who do not fit the mold are simply cast aside by popular teens, ends up being a stereotype blown out of proportions. The idea may be realistic but the “mise en scène” is plain wrong. Which is why The Edge of Seventeen is such an important movie and has simply moved me: it is the most relatable movie that I have ever seen, probably in my whole life.
Films have the power to change people’s perception of life. Cinema is considered a way to see life through somebody else’s eyes and experience things that we would not be able to experience firsthand. Short films have the same power, with the added difficulty that they have to make us feel and experience life in just a few minutes, with just a few shots, and yet they can move us and make us understand characters we hadn’t even met some 10 minutes before. They can teach us invaluable lessons so that even though we may have not lived that experience, we can relate it to our own lives, our own experiences. Stutterer, the first film by Irish writer director Benjamin Cleary and winner of the 2016 Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film, tells a story that goes beyond the screen to tackle a theme at the core of our society: communication.
One of the indisputable truths in life is that The Beatles never go out of fashion. This was especially proved last year when the documentary The Beatles: Eight Days a Week – The Touring Years grossed over $12 million at the box office worldwide, which means that despite splitting over 40 years ago, people of all generations still love the Fab Four. It would then be no surprise that the 1964 comedy “mockumentary” A Hard Day’s Night is still wildly popular amongst Beatlemaniacs and just about anyone who likes the Beatles (myself included), but has it stood the test of time?
It’s finally Oscars Day, my favorite day of the year (just so that you get my excitement, it’s like my birthday and Christmas combined). Tonight all the questions we’ve been making during the awards season will be answered: how many Oscars will La La Land win? Will it break a record like at the Golden Globes? Will Barry Jenkins’ poetic masterpiece Moonlight spoil La La Land’s big night? In a previous entry, I predicted the winners of the main categories, based on articles by some of the main film outlets in the Internet, today I’m giving my final predictions in all 24 categories.
If the predictions are correct and La La Land wins Best Picture Oscar tomorrow, Damien Chazelle’s movie will be the 11th musical in Academy Awards history to take home the highest honor of the year. With this in mind, here are the 10 musicals that have won the Best Picture Oscar.
2016 has been a year of exceptionally great films from a wide rage of genres and origins, with completely different plots, characters and actors, in a year when diversity has been acknowledged by Academy voters. Now that the voting deadline has been reached the fate of the nine Best Picture nominees is in the hands of the accountants, and although La La Land is expected to win Best Picture by a landslide (or should I say a La La Landslide? Sorry for the pun), most of the films nominated could taken the award home any other year. So, let’s look at the 2017 nominees’ figures, from budget to Academy Award nominations, box office results and ratings.
“I believe the characters we read on the page become more real than the men who stand beside us”.
If I could sum up Jackie in a quote that would be it. A lot has been said about Jackie, mostly (not to say almost exclusively) about Natalie Portman’s flawless performance. I think Jackie is much more than that, it is an extraordinary biopic (“biopic”) about perception, image creation and the thin line between reality and fiction at a time when most of our contact with reality comes from preconstructed images from the Internet and the media.