SSR15

By SaltyStix Staff 2/23/08

Our final Oscar roundtable focuses on the prestigious Best Picture award. As always, feel free to comment on the bottom.

Brett: The nominees: ATONEMENT, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, MICHAEL CLAYTON,THERE WILL BE BLOOD, JUNO

Aaron: I finally saw the last two major movies that were in theaters from 2007 - Michael Clayton and Blood. I went into Clayton thinking I would be bored and I went into Blood thinking I was going to see the best movie of the year. The opposite happened. I was blown away by Clayton and utterly crushed by the boredom and pointlessness of Blood's near three hours. I know I kind of have to eat my words because I was so adamant that I thought Clayton would suck - give me a break, the trailer made it look like a clichéd law drama - but instead it was a movie with an interesting plot and numerous interesting subplots that was executed near to perfection. I REALLY hope Clayton wins. I think it is far and away the best movie. I don't really think this is a close call. It is ironic, that this movie which had to have the most carefully executed ending did so with flying colors over No Country and Blood which could have had almost any ending to satisfy you after their intensity, yet they failed. Here is how I would rank the movies:
Michael Clayton
No Country
Atonement
Juno
There Will Be Blood
I know I'm one in a million on this but ask yourself a few questions, what movie do you want to see again? What movie made you think the most? What movie left you the most satisfied? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the answer to any of those questions could be Blood.

Bob: I completely disagree. While I was not bored by any of these films (I have yet to see Atonement), the one I would most want to see again is No Country, after that, probably There Will Be Blood.
These movies were the ones that made me think the most, and were the ones where I had the most questions at the end. While I was satisfied by Michael Clayton, it was just a nice film, nothing in it approached greatness for me. All the characters were developed just fine, the acting was solid, and the plot was great, but nothing here (aside from Wilkinson's performance) really wowed me.
With Blood and Country, I was really wowed. DDL was amazing, each film had excellent scripts, cinematography, and superb character development. I would gladly watch either of these movies again as opposed to Michael Clayton. I feel like Clayton would still be enjoyable, but I can't see the film getting better with second or third viewings, or even standing the test of time when compared to the other two.
In retrospect, this reminds me a lot of 1999. (although the only major film I actually saw in the theaters then was The Phantom Menace), looking back, Michael Clayton is very similar to The Insider. Both are nice films, everything is done well, but to be honest, I don't think The Insider has stood the test of time, and I don't think Michael Clayton will really be remembered much years from now.
On the flip side 1999 films such as American Beauty, The Matrix, Fight Club, Being John Malkovich, Magnolia, and even The Sixth Sense have more than held up, and most of those weren't nominated for the major awards.

Aaron: I think that Clayton has much more durability than The Insider. As a quick aside, have you scene that movie? You can definitely watch it multiple times. I think that as far as legal thrillers go this was probably one of the best ever. Your remembrance test is pretty arbitrary too. I mean, certain people remember certain things. The average person, probably haven't, and never will see Blood.

Bob: I have seen the Insider, and while it is a decent film, I didn't feel like there was anything about it that was that great, just like I feel about Clayton, both were solid films, but neither has anything particularly memorable about them, or anything that gives them the next step.

AJ: To answer your question, Aaron, I've seen Juno 3 times in theaters. I've never seen a movie more than twice in theaters (except for Juno).
Also, the first thing I thought when I saw No Country was "I need to see that again in order to better understand what I just saw."
As for Blood, I don't think I have ever been as impacted by the final scene of a film as I was with Blood. I can completely understand why you didn't like Blood, it was extremely slow. However, I thought it kept up an amazing amount of tension considering very little happened.
The way I see it, the best picture is about a film's overall qualities. DDL's performance was one of the most complex and engrossing roles I have ever seen. He acts once every 4 or 5 years because he becomes so consumed by his roles. He's really a rare actor, and this could be his best performance. The score is phenomenal, minimalist but very tense. It fit the tone of the film very well. There was something eerie and dangerous about the American landscape at that time, and the music and images captured that feeling.
The script was well adapted. Like I said in another thread, he took themes from today's socio-political environment (oil, capitalism, religion) applied them to the birth of American industrialism. The cinematography captured the vastness of the American west (like no country).
Anderson has a unique sense of pacing, and this is the first one of his films that I didn't think had too much shit tacked in at the end. It's very much his style, but at the same time you can see he's matured since Boogie Nights and Magnolia. He's no longer trying to cram as many actors/dramatic scenes as he can into a single film. It was slow, but I never felt bored. I was oddly disturbed the entire film, but I cold never put my finger on it. In the final scene, when DDL flips everything around and begins to berate Dano, was both brilliant writing and acting. The ending was completely satisfying, which is rare for a film that long. I would call this film a modern Citizen Kane (which you disliked for its pace and length).
I kind of went off, but I felt I needed to back up my claim. I think Blood takes the award hands down, and it's at the bottom of your list.

Aaron: It's at the bottom for a reason. I also think it is mildly telling that Blood lost the Best Picture globe too - maybe that I am not entirely alone. I will spot you that DDL was amazing and that I liked the score. However the movie was not just "slow". I mean, it's not like I expected Last of the Mohicans type action or even the amount of action in Gangs of New York. I did expect things to HAPPEN though. And they didn't. I liked the first hour of the movie a lot - it showed good parts of DDL's character and some background and set up what I thought would be an interesting conclusion. Unfortunately, this was also the point where I realized the movie was only a THIRD over instead of HALF done.
I also see the best picture as the sum of all the best parts. I get EXTREMELY frustrated with people who assume that an amazing performance makes a movie great. This is part of why I don't get people who liked Before the Devil Knows You're Dead among other movies. I think this movie is similar to say, Capote, in that the only Oscar it deserves is Best Actor because that's little more than this movie was.
As for the adaptation, are you serious? I mean. Let's not look at it as how close he was to the book or any of that BS. Let's just look at if you think the script was good. DDL had some great lines. But the story and the plot were painfully absent. The themes were introduced but not entirely fleshed out and your argument about political parallels to the present makes almost no sense to me. Did the movie show why oil was important even back then? Or why it was worth so much? No, they didn't even try. Did it REALLY provide that much insight into capitalism? Certainly NOT industrialization because it doesn’t really tie oil back into production. And the message about religion is muddled throughout the movie and only saved by the last scene.
I'll also agree that the last scene was powerful but it suffered under the cheap weight of skipping through years and flipping through time. Did we need to know the year was different to figure out the deaf man in front of him was his son? The pacing you praise was awful. All it did was leave you begging for something to happen. The tension was just not there - the only tension was the great music that was wasted because you NEVER worried about anything. I thought the movie would be about DDL trying to get the land from that town. Nope, done and done. How about DDL maybe being charged with murder? Nope, done and done. What did you think was tense?
Comparing this film to Citizen Kane is a travesty. I may dislike that film but I can at least recognize that film for what it was. It had great direction and a good script and innovative camera angles (all missing in this film) AND it had good acting - from more than one person too. For however good Dano was, he was barely in the film.

AJ: On the themes of capitalism and religion. I would say it touched on the main criticism of capitalism. In order to have a wealthy capitalist class, there must inherently be an exploitation of the working class. The citizens of the town had every right to the profit from their oil, but because they lacked the resources, they could not profit from it. The Capitalists have the resources to take, and so they do. I would say that religion and Capitalism are closely linked as well. Dano's character pretended to have a close link with God, but he was merely a showman, exploiting the weak minded members of his church. His goal was to be well known and respected, and this drove him to build a bigger and bigger church. Up until the last scene of the film, he was drive, not by a calling to spread God's word, but by greed.
Plainview, for all his wealth, has never trusted people. This is what allowed him to exploit people without it weighing heavily on his conscience. Though he would not admit it, he longed for family. He adopted his son in the hopes that he could raise him to be his successor, but when he lost his hearing he was no longer of use to him.
When his supposed brother came along, he abandoned his son in the hopes of having a protégé/business partner. This is where you will most likely disagree with me. Some people have said, in discussions, that he only wanted a family business partner so that he could put on the front of running a family business. However, when it was revealed to him that the man was not his brother, he lashed out in rage. He felt deceived and it only further instilled a sense that he could trust no man.
Plainview was an ideal capitalist in every sense of the word. He was a self-reliant man, he had drive and ambition. He would maximize profits, no matter the cost. The loss of life, of family, whatever. I likened him to John Foster Kane because like Plainview, Kane's drive for success would mean he would always be alone. The difference is, Kane died alone, longing for his lost childhood. PT Anderson is less sympathetic towards humanity. Plainview does not die alone, longing for family, he dismisses his son, a son who loved him, and berates and kills his nemesis.
The story has little in the way of plot because it is a character study. I agree, Dano's character is underutilized for a good portion of the film, but it's not about him. Dano's character was important as an antagonist to DDL's character. I would argue that Plainview's greatest struggles were internal, but it helps to have a character pitted against Plainview’s greed. I wouldn't say comparing this to Citizen Kan is a travesty. It warrants comparison. It is an in-depth character study of a man ruined by his greed. Comparing one film to another doesn't detract from the quality of the film.
On the topic of cinematography; People tend to think that cool angles are what makes good cinema. You can use impressive camera work where it is necessary, but what is most important is that the style fit the tone of the film. Blood was about the vast American west, and it had vast shots of the landscape to match. Though it wouldn't seem like it, the camera moved an awful lot for a drama. The art direction was also very good. They actually built and burned down an oil well. You only get one shot at something like that. It was a pivotal scene, much of which was done in a single moving shot with TONS of actors. It must have been a logistical nightmare to plan that scene. A good amount of the film looked to be shot on location with available light, which is a tricky thing to do, whereas Kane was almost entirely shot in a studio with traditional three-point lighting. They are obviously very different films because of how much cinema has changed in the years since. But as far as modern auteurs go, PT Anderson deserves to be compared to Orson Welles. This film was not commercial in any sense of the word, yet PT Anderson had to convince someone that it was a worthwhile project in order to get the backing of a studio.
I understand you didn't like it, but to think it inconceivable that anyone else enjoy it is absurd. Your opinion is definitely in the minority as most of the reviews I've read only praise the film.
In all this debating I've lost my train of though. This sounds ridiculous, but despite what I wrote earlier, I actually think No Country is going to win. Blood is still a great movie.

Bob: One of the major criticisms of capitalism is greed, and that was at the heart of There Will Be Blood. Plainview's greed destroyed him, just as Sunday's greed destroyed him.
While we disagree on some of the minor parts of Blood [I'm convinced that Daniel only wanted family so that he could have this facade of being a family man, and running a family business, I don't think he longed for family, in fact I'm pretty sure he says that he wants to be alone]. I think we both agree that overall, it will probably become an American classic. Even if it doesn't win Best picture, it will probably go down with Citizen Kane as one of the great character studies of all time. PTA's direction is excellent, and his screenplay is also phenomenal.
However, I also agree that I think No Country is going to win not only this award, but also direction and screenplay. It really is a shame because both films are amazing. I think that if looks like this is going to happen on Oscar night, DDL should bring PTA up on stage with him to accept his Best Actor award, because it would be a shame if PTA leaves the ceremony empty handed.
The Coen Brothers though, have never won best picture, and have never won best director, and it really is about time. They should have won these award for Fargo back in 1997, fucking English patient [sidebar, Billy Bob Thornton actually won the Oscar in 1997 for best adapted screenplay? Really, Him?]
No Country is also the film I most want to see again right now.

Aaron: You do know Billy Bob won for Sling Blade...right? And the Coens still won for original screenplay...sure they lost Best Picture but I don't really see what that has to do with Billy Bob.
Also, if PTA doesn't win anything, I think I'll be fine. Almost all of the reasons this movie was good center around DDL. Most of your thematic praises should go to Upton Sinclair.

My bold statement that I could not understand how people liked this film should probably have been more specific and come out more along the lines of "you actually liked it?" I mean. Most of my comments assume that DDL turned in the best performance in awhile, and neither of you two really seems to be on the same page there. The movie has to be more than a really good performance.
Now I'll talk about the "theme issues." I mean, sure movies are thematic and some are powerful and deep and they're art, all that art house stuff. BUT you shouldn't have to go looking for things with a strobe light. I mean, do you realize that your "capitalism theme" is basically just your knowing a definition of capitalism? Of course greed is tied to capitalism, but they are certainly not synonymous. And I think you are exaggerating the amount and extent of his greed - especially as a stark contrast to another view (ie, communism, socialism). I also find it interesting that you cite religion as tied to capital. Marx writes many times in Das Kapital that religion is what the wealthy use to distract the lower class from challenging their condition - the opiate of the masses. YET, in this movie PTA uses religion as a oppositional force to Plainview - as the main barrier to his business enterprise. DDL says he doesn't want the men worshipping there because they need sleep, he doesn't want Dano to bless the rig because he wants to be in charge, he sees religion as an oppressive force that stands for evil (Mary being beaten), AND religion is also the force that gives the community power over the capitalist (when the force DDL to be baptized into the church).
I emphasize this to show that PTA mixed up his themes. He got so giddy about drawing modern day parallels to religious fundamentalism - here and abroad that he didn't realize he set religion and capital in direct opposition. Sure, Dano is revealed to be just as greedy as the rest, but DDL's speech about how his brother was a capitalist - the true prophet, they again establish religion as an oppositional force - the classic two sides of a coin where one is capitalist, the other fundamentalist. Also, capitalism is used to DESTROY religion - yet, Marx, and Lenin, used communism to destroy religion.

AJ: I really respect Billy Bob. He may be crazy outside his films, but I think he's a legitimately good actor.
On a side note. I think PTA deserves a good amount of credit. Sure, DDL stole the show, but PTA is the brains behind the whole film. He took the Upton novel, adapted it himself, wrote a script good enough to attract DDL (lets keep in mind this guy doesn't act in anything unless he thinks its worthy), convinced Johnny Greenwood to score it, and shot a good amount of it himself (or so I hear).

Aaron: Furthermore, I disagree with you on the issue of trust a little bit. First, I think he trusted H.W., and he trusted the guy who said he was his brother. He opened up to his brother and when he realized that trust had been destroyed, he killed him, and realized that he needed his son back. Not just for family, but, "he couldn't keep doing this alone." Also, I think that he DID want family - Bob - because he is so obsessive about RUNNING the family does not mean he wants to be alone - he just wanted things to go according to his plan.
I'll let this Citizen Kane tangent slip away because it's just distracting and answer the warrants of your comparison. The cinematography was "ok." I mean, for a movie that was supposed to be so expansive, the movie did NOT have those sweeping shots - besides the two early shots of the desolate hills, and a few sparse sprinklings throughout, the movie - and the camera - was much more focused on DDL. Sure they blew something up...it was hard...and comparing PTA to Welles is WAY too soon.
I want to reiterate the standard we were trying to apply - that the movie has it all. Once it becomes a character study - which we can all agree on - don't you lose things that you think the best picture should have? How much value do you give a script that is mostly monologues? How much character development do you think the movie has if one character is overemphasized? The same would go for the OTHER acting parts too. I mean, there is a reason Michael Clayton has three Oscar noms for acting.
I think the closest model to this movie is Return of the King. Another movie based on a book with a director who had trouble making movies in less than three hours (Punch Drunk Love being the anomaly).
Also, being in the minority really has nothing to do with any of the arguments I've made. I think this review pretty much hits it on the head from where I'm coming from:
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/01/14/jaq-sees-there-will-be-blood-and-tears/
He even has a pretty funny comment on his message board where he lashes back at the people who label him "the worst critic"
and there are fifteen more reviews here that are pretty close to what I think:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/there_will_be_blood/?critic=rotten&name_order=asc
Also, I've always admitted I'm in the minority. But sometimes that's good because critics are just hacks like us anyways. Someone once said, "critics choose things not because they enjoy them, but because they are supposed to be honored."

Also. I think Michael Clayton is better than Blood. I will make my case, now.
Clayton easily meets the "wow" factor you both mention. It had RIDICULOUS acting from MULTIPLE people. It hands down has a better script - DEFINITELY a better story/plot. Hell, the subplots in Clayton are better than the whole plot of Blood. You don't have drifting concepts or scenes in Clayton - everything fits together. Even as a "character study" I like the movie - most of the flick I kept asking myself, "who is Michael Clayton?" The layers of his character, each of his brothers, Tilda's character, Arthur, the list goes on. The character development in Clayton is much much much more developed than Blood.
Repeat viewings of this movie would only make it stronger. How many of you caught that the reason he gets out of his car is because he sees the horses standing between two trees that exactly resemble the page in his son's red book that he found at Arthur's house where that slip of paper fell out? That's just one of the little bitty details they hammer into that movie that you will get, again and again and again. The question of who is Michael Clayton can keep this movie fresh.

Bob: The thing about Blood being an adaptation of Oil, is that it is a very loose adaptation. He used it as a jumping off point for his story, which apparantly (I have not read Oil) is a completly different story. The themes in Blood came from Anderson, the Themes from Oil were different. That being said, I think the main theme from Blood is Greed. It is Plainview's and Sunday's greed for power, it is Plainview's greed for money. Capitalism in my opinion is as much of a theme in Blood as Socialism and capitalism are in Oil!. Also, the film is a character study, it is the study of one character. Not of the situation they are in, or the plot that surrounds him, but how he develops as a character.I mention Orson Welles because I think Kane and Plainview are similar characters, and I believe they are similar films. Kane is also a character study, it doesn't have much plot aside from the rise and fall of Kane, just as Blood doesn't have much plot aside from the rise and fall of Plainview. Neither film has many supporting characters, and Sunday is not to be meant as more than a foil for Plainview.
I also don't understand your mention of the 15 rottentomatoes reviews. Ok that's cool, there are also 135 positive reviews. so some people didn't like the movie, most liked it. There are always going to be people who don't like a film. Apparantly we are in the minority when it comes to Before the Devil Knows Your Dead.
I feel like the question of who is Michael Clayton is similar to the question of who is Daniel Plainview. What are his motivations? What made him into the person he is? Why does he treat his son the way he does? What does he want?

Aaron: My theme comment was that much of PTA's legwork was done by Sinclair, as you agree by saying the Capitalism parallels were the same as Sinclair's to Socialism.
We all agree it is a character study. My contention is that character studies are not the complete package - you need plot, you need other characters. I have also already gone into why I did not think there was much suspense or tension to support Blood for three hours. Also, I think you would be hard pressed to find another movie that was a strict character study in the vein of Citizen Kane or Blood that the academy gave the best picture Oscar - Kane didnt even win.
AJ mentioned Welles. I said that was stupid. I already discussed why I think Orson Welles is a cut above PTA.
I mentioned the 15 rottentomatoes because AJ basically said that I was in the minority. Just like you were so adamant that Before the Devil Knows You're Dead was bad, and you were in the minority, you should be able to see where I am coming from. It is also ironic because Devil was also a movie that was only good because of good acting.
Here are my concise reasons why Clayton was superior. It was suspenseful and tense while blood was not. I carried more about the movie because there were more characters that were developed. Things happened. I was NEVER bored. The dialogue (as in between two people) was sharp. The director/editors knew how to edit their movie.

Brett: Well, its going to be hard to introduce anything new into this discussion, but I'll try. Lets look at some statistics. In the last 5 years, only once has the winner of the Golden Globe for Picture won the Oscar (LOTR: Return of the King). This is not a high number, and recent history suggests that the Winner of the Globe will not go on to win the Oscar. One could compare that number to, say the SAG Awards Best Performance by a Cast, where in the last 5 years, 3 of the winner won Best Picture at the Oscars. With these figures in mind, I rule out Atonement, not that it doesn't deserve it, but because that is the smart prediction.
There has become an increased emphasis on the cast of a picture to make a film great, and No Country's win last night at the SAG awards tells me that they are the front runners going into the Oscars. They are also my pick. While I thought that There Will Be Blood was great, it was not the Best Picture this year. It was most certainly the Best Actor, and almost the Best Director, but that is not enough. As for Clayton, I know this does not have the power to win right now. Still a very quality movie, but without the hype of No Country, this movie will not win. As for Juno, it cannot win partly based on the fact that Little Miss Sunshine lost last year. Also, being a comedy does not really help its chances. The last comedy to win Best Picture? Shakespeare in Love? Before that? Annie Hall
I am going to say No Country for Old Men will win this one

Aaron: There was an interesting article in Vanity Fair today, that was featured on imdb, http://www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/blogs/daily/2008/01/the-oscars-deco.html, that discussed the possibility that No Country and Blood would split the vote so closely that a third party - Juno could win. It has interesting examples, such as when Raging Bull and Goodfellas lost the Best Picture Oscar. Do you think this is possible? Probable?

AJ: I think this argument went off course (for me at least) with Michael Clayton. I haven't see Michael Clayton, so I cannot argue that Blood is a better film. Of the other films in the category (most of which I have seen) I was simply arguing that Blood why Blood is not at the bottom of my list (rather it is at or near the top).
Aaron, I have one HUGE complaint with something you said earlier. You mentioned that character studies were inherently flawed because they focus on a single character (I know, not your exact words, but thats the interpretation I got). You cannot support the claim that because a film chooses to focus one character, it is inherently worse than another film. They are two different types of films, just like a sci-fi is different than a historical period piece. I may prefer Sci-Fi, but I won't argue that one type is inherently better than the other type. Michael Clayton is about a man, but it gives a little more room for the other characters to develop. I wouldn't classify that as a character study, but that doesn't make it any better or worse than a movie that chooses to focus it's energy on a single character.So, I began reading through some of the negative articles on Rotten Tomatoes, and I found that I did not necessarily disagree with any of them. I agree with pretty much all of the criticisms of the film (it's too long, Dano is underused, Plainview isn't a well rounded character.)
Then I read Roger Ebert's review. I know he can be a quack sometimes, but I still regard him as the best living American film critic. He liked the film (giving it 3 1/2 stars our of 4) but he admitted it was not perfect. He had a line which I think pretty much sums up our argument.
"There Will Be Blood is the kind of film that is easily called great. I am not sure of its greatness. It was filmed in the same area of Texas used by No Country for Old Men, and that is a great film, and a perfect one. But There Will Be Blood is not perfect, and in its imperfections (its unbending characters, its lack of women or any reflection of ordinary society, its ending, its relentlessness) we may see its reach exceeding its grasp. Which is not a dishonorable thing."
I do not think it's a perfect film, but I disagree with Ebert in that I do think it is a great film.
By the way, he also compares it to Citizen Kane. There Will Be Blood is no Kane" however. Plainview lacks a "Rosebud." He regrets nothing, misses nothing, pities nothing...

Aaron: All I was saying was that, the standard you applied early in the discussion, that a film be well rounded, could not be as easily met by a character study. And that the Academy agreed - and had not given a character study the award very often. 2006 Capote lost, 2005 the FOUR character studies lost to the broader Million Dollar Baby, 2004 Lost in Translation lost, 2003 The Hours lost, 2002 A Beautiful Mind (I guess it was a character study) wins over a weak field, 2001 a character study didn't even get a nomination. I could go on. I was just providing another reason why I did not think Blood would/could win.

Bob: I don't think a film ought to be well rounded to be considered great, I just think there is something in the academies makeup which causes it to neglect character studies. Two films come to mind: Citizen Kane and Raging Bull. Each is a character study, and both are considered two of the best films of all time (in fact #1 and #4 on the most recent AFI list). I do not think that There Will Be Blood will win this year, but I do think it will be remembered as one of the best films of all time.

Brett: So where does this leave us? Who wins?

Bob: No Country for Old Men

AJ: No Country for Old Men

Aaron: No Country for Old Men

Brett: No Country for Old Men

SaltyStix Roundtable 1: The Academy's Mistakes

SaltyStix Roundtable 2: Best Animated Feature

SaltyStix Roundtable 3: Best Adapted Screenplay

SaltyStix Roundtable 4: Best Original Screenplay

SaltyStix Roundtable 5: Best Visual Effects

SaltyStix Roundtable 6: Best Art Direction

SaltyStix Roundtable 7: Best Editing