DEEP VOTE: 'Two good pictures in a row!'

As you may recall, I recently announced an exciting new feature that will be running on the blog: an Oscar-winning screenwriter who is also a member of the Academy has agreed to share with us -- for the duration of the awards season -- his thoughts about the year's contenders as he sees them and his ballot selections as he arrives at them, so that we might better understand how an Oscar voter operates and thinks.

"Deep Vote," as we're affectionately calling him (with a nod to Roger Ebert, who first used the term in a similar context), had seen virtually none of the major contenders before agreeing to do this and asked for my recommendations about which he should see first. I told him that rather than offering my personal preferences, I was sending him an alphabetically ordered list of the 15 films that had generated the most awards buzz up to that point. (Needless to say, he is welcome to see and write about others as well.)

For full disclosure purposes, the films I listed were: 1. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" 2. "The Dark Knight" 3. "Doubt" 4. "Frost/Nixon" 5. "Frozen River" 6. "Happy-Go-Lucky" 7. "Milk" 8. "Rachel Getting Married" 9. "The Reader" 10. "Revolutionary Road" 11. "Slumdog Millionaire" 12. "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" 13. "The Visitor" 14. "WALL-E" 15. "The Wrestler."

In his first correspondence with us last week, "Deep Vote" shared his reactions to three films: "Happy-Go-Lucky" (positive), "The Reader" (negative), and "The Wrestler" (mixed). This week, as you can read for yourself below, he seems to be very pleased with both films he saw: "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Wall-E." You may or may not agree with his reactions, but you have to respect how well worded and insightful they are, and I thank him -- on behalf of all of us -- for devoting so much time and care to them.

One last point: You'll note that several passages in his reactions are underlined. These were marked by me, not him, because I believe they may offer a particularly important clue about what this voter and perhaps others are -- or are not -- focusing on. For instance, I underlined his remark "our young hero (now a late teen in his third acting incarnation)" because I interpret that to mean that he was impressed with the performance, but not impressed enough to look up the name of the actor who gave it. Yes, I know he's not a member of the actors branch, and consequently does not pick which actors get nominated, but I suspect that his reactions are similar to other Academy members' in more respects than not.

You make your own conclusions....

* * *

MEMO #2

TO: THE FEINBERG FILES

FROM: DEEP VOTE

DATES: 12/29-1/7 (2 FILMS)

Scott:

A pleasure and a rarity to see 2 good pictures in a row!

• "Slumdog Millionaire" reminded me of the work of Charles Dickens: full of wild plot pushed along by improbable coincidence, severe hardship and oppression experienced by heroes of the lower classes, cranked up by exaggeration in the service of entertainment, and a large-scale happy windup at the end. While the coincidence and the exaggeration in "Slumdog" distracted me at times, there was never a dull moment and I was pleased when the good guys win out at the end... while the bad guys go down in a defeat so improbable that one must think (as one does with Dickens) of the extreme social difficulties that plague Indian society, even as it rapidly "modernizes." The worst of these are poverty, hunger and cruelty, which survive with all their attendant ills... and even a worse-than-Fagin orphan-home operator who means to blind our young hero so as to make more money from him as a beggar... and to sell our heroine into prostitution, with her virginity as a signing bonus. Throughout this whole saga, the excessive jump-cutting and flaring color oppress the viewer much as the experience of surviving slum-life oppresses the little Muslim brothers, whose mother is killed in a pogrom early on. The dangers and difficulties of such life are played counterpoint with the absurdities of modern India: the phone-bank operators pretending they are from England or America; the crowded, unsanitary and dangerous living conditions; and, on the cultural front, all of India hanging on a TV quiz show (even at night, in front of the Taj Mahal), where our young hero (now a late teen in his third acting incarnation) has built up to 240,000 dollars (or rupees?) because he's the kind of kid whose survival depends on remembering everything, and each question has reminded him of some hardship along the way. I wonder whether it's at all possible that a jealous quizmaster would have the boy tortured all night before the climactic program (ostensibly to make sure he's not cheating), especially with the boy surviving intact and appearing exactly the same the following evening... though movie torture is a bit of melodrama convenient for inducing flashbacks. The love story, too, is improbable, if only for its continual re-encounters (as are the high new buildings made even higher by digital improvements), but the girl is touching as a child and winsomely gorgeous as a young lady, and one really doesn't mind the improbability. The full Bollywood burlesque production under the end-titles removes the final scrap of stringent realism... and a good thing, too. "Slumdog" finally makes a light snack of what is heavy, gorgeous and disturbing in the hands of the best Indian film-makers. I'm sure such a film is usually the best one could hope for on the final Oscar ballot... but I'd hope to vote for a film I could cherish in memory and happily see again.

• "WALL-E" is not such a film, either... though I reveal a prejudice against full-length cartoons and sci-fi (and probably against video games): it's nearly impossible for such a movie to involve us in compelling personalities or predicaments. Frank Rich praised the film for its satiric content, but I found it a bit simple in futuristic form: bloated humans who never (till the advent of WALL-E) leave their chairs (or their screens), in a spaceship that maintains the ultimate of flacid passivity. To me, the great achievement of "WALL-E" lies in the simplicity of its love-story: that the viewer is touched and moved by two non-human creatures who fall in love even though all they can exchange verbally is the other person's name. As usual, the survival of earth and humanity is at stake, but the plot devices which reveal the peril are not up to the marvelous Pixar animation. (They could use a screenwriter, though they pride themselves in "holding their story details close!") The middle of the movie, wherein we are acquainted with the workings of blob-world in the sky in full tech detail, is drawn out much too long, whereas the end-part, where the space ship is seized by mutineers and guided back to save earth, is too short and simplified. The toxic and rusted globe depicted in the first part is not going to be saved by the miracle of planting a few seeds. Where would one plant them? And odd... though not original... that the filmic orgy of super-machinery is turned to the supposed moral of the superiority of organic life. (Not unlike the violent movies which once were made ostensibly to show that crime doesn't pay, and more lately, just for the fun of it, bring forth violence as a privilege of the truly hip.)

These two movies are each better than the usual piece of pretension that wins the grand prize... but I still hope to vote for something even better, at least in the preliminary round. In the final round, I'd probably be happy to settle for either one.

Cheers,

[Deep Vote]

---

Photo: "Slumdog Millionaire."  Credit: Fox Searchlight Pictures

Comments

[rupert]

Scott--thanks to you and Deep Vote for this exercise. It's really proving interesting.

[Willow]

Hmm, there may be a problem for Slumdog with Western viewers. What this person says (improbably tortured, highrises that are "digitally" helped) are all VERY probably and real in India. I fear too much cultural ignorance could hinder it, especially with older voters.

[Robert Hamer]

As long as he doesn't fall for the boring and pretentious The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, I'll respect this cat's opinion (the fact that he dismissed The Wrestler still stings).

[Evan]

I have always wonder: If a screenwriter barely has the time to watch the movies, how do they find the time to read all those books the movies are based on, and then how they decide if this is a good screenplay adaptation? I dont want to be rude, but seriously? I really appreciate Deep Vote's time to share his opinion and his views, but I believe at the end they just vote fot the better movie, not the adaptation. Thats why The Lord Of The Rings won this category in its last chance: they were rewarding the whole movie, not the adaptation.
Could somebody explain me how this works?

Thank Scott for such great column

[katie]

he makes a good point, i think everyone is in agreement that the second half of Wall E is it's fall. I feel the same way of the Dark knight as well, with it ending seven times, each ending more annoying that the other. can't wait for it's assessment and Benjamin button.

Button was so unbearably 'meh'. all that money, a list cast, top notch production, talented director and writer, and of course; the most interesting point of view. all of that and i still found the film mostly boring. what wasted potential. imho.

[johnny]

Wall-E is excellent. By no means is it's 2nd half a "failure", it was still pretty solid. The thing is, it had the insurmountable task of trying to equal and surpass the pitch perfect magnificence of the 1st half. It was still an exemplary film top to bottom. Oh, I liked Slumdog too. Button and Frost/Nixon was ok, but did not WOW me in a "Best Picture" kind of way

[Josh]

Overall, Wall-E was magnificent! Yes, the 2nd half of Wall-E was not in the same caliber of excellence as the 1st half, but it was still superb and did not detract from the overall experience. A silent animated sci-fi love story set in post apocalyptic earth is not supposed to work if you read it on paper, but it sure did and then some. I love the subplot which took a biting shot at our rabid consumerism, heck, I'm guilty of it myself, I own a multitude of gizmos from Ipods to blackberry's and others. I'm no different from the humans in the film, I'm a slave to technology like many others today. Heck, walking around times square last weekend, no less than 12 people bumped into me head-on because they were walking but had their head buried in their iphones, psp's, etc. Wall-E was a joy from the love story-which is the driving force of the film-to the various subplots. I'm hoping that it lands a best picture nomination. I liked Slumdog and Milk, but only one film did I leave the theater with the warmest feeling and the widest smile, and that's Wall-E.

[Ron]

Cool, he thought Slumdog and Wall-E were good movies. Those 2 are my tops of 2008. His closing statement says it all, "These two movies are each better than the usual piece of pretension that wins the grand prize". I sure hope both films get more accolades in the coming weeks, all of which will be well well deserved

[Shawn]

I agree with the above post. Wall-E's first half was as perfect as can be, and the 2nd half-which imo was a nice change of pace and was still a showcase of quality filmmaking- had the daunting task of following it up. I'm no fan of animated films, but if future animated films will even come close to Wall-E in terms of depth and craftsmanship I'm definitely going to become an avid fan. It's nice to see an American animated film break free from the typical flashy superficial fare

[IX]

So far, I think Deep Vote is brilliant. These are thoughtful critiques and pretty much spot-on (in my opinion). If only all Academy members actually were so thoughtful...

(SO glad someone is willing to criticize Wall-E's flaws. The beginning half's animation is superb, and Wall-E was Too Cute, but I've about had it with the overblown praise it's gotten when the story itself is pretty weak.)