Why 12 Years a Slave Will Win Best Picture and Gravity Won't

Basically these are the two main contenders at the moment, and it's really not that hard to see why my title is accurate here. To whomever watched both, if you actually think Gravity (2013) will win top honors maybe you should go back to film school for a semester. Both actually have similar underplots; which is the story of survival against immeasurably difficult odds and circumstances. But here's where one triumphs over the other. What's that thing that's really important in a film that has to be nuanced and explored and worked on before principal photography even starts? Oh yeah, the fucking story. What's the story of Gravity? The plot? Two astronauts are stranded in space trying to get home safely. The end.

Both Alfonso Cuaron and Steve McQueen are auteurs in their own right but you have to admit that McQueen's work, though less prolific than Cuaron's is far superior. Here he's taking on a story that basically enormous in scope and emotion, it has to be dealt with delicately and with finesse, and he accomplishes that task beautifully. 

Visual effects don't equal Oscar gold no matter how awesome, didn't we learn that with Avatar?

I may not be a 'big player' in the film business but I did graduate (with honors I might add) from two of the top film studies programs in the country and was taught by some of the best professors in the academic world so excuse me but I know a thing or two about these things. Also, I pride myself in knowing what wins Oscars and what doesn't. A film based mostly on gimmick and technical tricks will not win anything but technical awards. Like anyone gives a shit about those anyway. Oh Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects awards are coming up, time for me to freshen my drink and use the bathroom. That's where Gravity will hit home runs.

Three huge contenders for acting nods this year, (L to R) Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyoung'o and Chiwetel Ejiofor)

On the other hand we are blessed and I truly mean blessed with a film like 12 Years a Slave (2013) which doesn't come out every so often, it will definitely be in that category of There Will Be Blood (2007), The Social Network (2010), and others that granted didn't win Best Picture honors but that was mostly due to politics, but it's a film that 50 years down the line film schools will make their students study.

It's basically the Slavery version of Schindler's List (1993), which I have to say while watching I saw so many similarities between. It was a no-holds-barred account of the story of a man through whom we saw the atrocities of what people are capable of doing to other people that actually happened in our human history. It is brutal, and yet so sincere, that's how you approach making a movie about such a delicate subject. 

the brutality and visceral nature of Schinder's List made people appreciate and understand the content in ways they'd never had before, same goes for 12 Years a Slave.

Really all you have to look at is the history of the Academy Awards, yeah they're political, yeah they're just dumb show and a fashion 'meat parade' as George C. Scott famously quipped but who wins Best Picture? Perfect example is when The Hurt Locker (2009) triumphed over overblown bullshit gimmicky crap film Avatar (2009)...in 2009. Here's a few things that matter to the Academy; Scope, brevity, STORY, and pathos. Usually a film has to have all to win. Some times they miss the mark, but I think there's nothing about this film that they can use against it. It is literally perfect Best Picture material. A better film couldn't have been fitted for that category. And they LOOOOOOOVE it when a true story is brought to life. My friend and I are talking about this as we speak and she said the following about 12 Years a Slave; 'it's dark and violent and hard to watch', all good points. But that's never stopped the Academy. Sure Passion of the Christ (2004) didn't even get nominated, but that was largely due to controversy of antisemitism and a valid one at that, and also lest we forget the same director won a decade earlier basically every award for the 'dark, violent, and hard to watch' epic Braveheart (1994). And what else fell into all those categories? One of the greatest films of all time that as difficult to watch as it was we all still did and we were better people for it, that's why all awards went to Schindler's List (1993) the year prior. 
This film to me is basically the new version of that, it has all of those things I spoke of earlier; heart, pathos, humanity, tragedy, redemption, and it makes us FEEL rather than sit there going 'woah that was cool'. So it's no question in my opinion, and if you want to put money on it, I'm ready. 12 Years a Slave to win, Steve McQueen to win, John Ridley to win, Chiwetel Ejiofor to win, Michael Fassbender to win, Sarah Paulson to win. I'm putting all my eggs into this basket this year, and though it might not turn out as I want on some of them, the first two are a sure thing in my mind. 

Trailers below: 

No I Haven't Read the Fucking Book

'This special effect was way better in the book'

Seriously ya'll, there are certain books that I refuse to read because they are either 'Children's Books' or 'Young Adult Books' or 'Stupid'. But you know what? I'll still make it out to the theater and watch Hunger Games: Catching Fire (whistling noise). Not to blow my own horn or anything but I tend to gravitate towards books that Stanley Kubrick once turned into a film in fact, my favorite book of all time was turned into a film by Kubrick...I'll give you a hint, the author's Russian. I mean I gave The Hobbit a glance through while stoned in high school, and once at the Columbia Bookstore I actually picked up a copy of 'Twilight' before screaming and running out of the store like a mad woman, after which, taking a series of cold showers. But that shit doesn't wash off people. That's why I was hesitant to pick up the 'epic' books that The Hunger Games are based on. First of all, it gets so much criticism for basically being an amalgam of all kinds of shit, specifically the film Battle Royale (2000). 

I found it to have a little touch of Ayn Rand dystopianism, a dash of Shirley Jackson's 'The Lottery', and basically every gladiator film that's ever been out since the camera was invented. But I finally watched it, I did, and though every extra of Panem looks like they're late for a Lady Gaga concert, and the narrative was somewhat fuddled I enjoyed myself. J-Law strikes again.

And I am looking forward to the sequel. And no I won't be reading the second book before I watch it so there. You know what I like about some movies? No reading involved. And you know what I hate? The phrase 'the book was so much better than the movie you guys', tell me you haven't wanted to punch the lights out of that pretentious assmunch. 

Aesthetically the marketing is fabulous, it appeals to the serious fashion crowd, and we know they don't read shit...unless you count Vogue...which I do.

You can see that the story is very 'Young Adult' and clearly not the model of post-modern dystopia and communist allegory we all know and love as literate individuals who once took an English class (O, Captain, my Captain), but hey, it's a children's book for fuck's sake. Girls that are no older than 15 will dress up like Katniss Everdeen for Halloween. Girls over 20 will go for 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo', which I HAVE read (oh holy shit). 

The worst example of film or literature ever. Like ever. Also the best example of accidental marketing.

So basically what I'm saying is that some books are not worth reading, just watch the effing movie and get off on Peeta and Katniss having moments of awkward teenage love as they try to not kill each other. Don't read the motherfucking 'Notebook', in fact, don't read anything by Nicholas Sparks nor watch any movies that his books are based on. Just get your popcorn on and hush up screaming teenagers sitting next to you when you shamelessly as an adult over 25 buy your ticket to Catching Fire (2013) rather than something actually thought provoking like 12 Years a Slave (2013), also based on a book and a really good one, but let's face it how many of you are going to watch 12 Years a Slave and exclaim that you know all about Solomon Northup, slavery in America, and the Civil War. A lot of you, and I will be super annoyed. So let's put on our Katniss pins, do the three finger salute, and just have a little bit of illiterate fun while we still don't get judged for it.

Trailer below.

Crazy Love, Crazy Film.

Burt and Linda Pugach today.

 “If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." –Burt Pugach

Documentaries usually move me for a good afternoon or couple hours following their end. I’ll bring them up over dinner to get intellectual points, and recommend them to friends, but generally leave them on the back burner lest the topic on which they are based resurfaces and I can say ‘Oh, I know about that, I watched the documentary.’

Considering how blasé people get due to the volume of documentaries with a message, it’s more difficult to find one that truly sticks with you since its inception. I have found such a one. It is a sensational and bizarre tale of an obsessive, fanatical, and hysterical love between two other worldly personalities.

Crazy Love (2007) directed by Dan Klores and Fisher Stevens follows attorney at large and professional eccentric Burt Pugach who was a swarthy, egocentric and somewhat maniacal wealthy man on the Staten Island scene in 1959 when he met 21-year-old pretty girl Linda Riss. He showered her with gifts, courted her persistently, and propositioned her until she relented and they began dating. Their turbulent relationship eventually ended when she found out that he was already divorced and had a child. Unable to deal with Linda leaving him, Burt paid three thugs to knock on Linda’s door one fateful day and throw lye in her face, permanently blinding and scarring her. 

There was almost a Burton-Taylor glamor to their crazy, if it wasn't way of the Richter scale.

You would think that this is where the story ends, but this is actually where it starts to get interesting. This is just the build up to the eventuality that rocks you to your core and completely blows your mind.

You quickly realize that these two people might exist in a realm of the insane and surreal that to them seems perfectly normal and find yourself immersed in a story you would have never consciously believed could have happened.

Pugach was sentenced to 14 years in prison during which time he wrote his only love letters every day professing his undying passion for her. After he was released they were married, and to this day are still together.

The film allows access not only into the lives but into the minds of truly unique individuals whose shocking attitude towards romance and love might just leave you speechless, but will never let you forget.

Tamara Straus of The San Francisco Chronicle wrote about the film saying that it was "among the weirdest explorations of connubial relationships since Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?’.

This film is inspirational on a few levels. It makes us all remember that truth is often stranger than fiction and to find a story that sensationalizes one doesn’t need to go much further than the headlines. It’s ‘sick’ in that strange way that is enthralling and inescapable, and is compelling and memorable at the same time. It’s funny yet heartbreaking, visceral yet surreal, sardonic yet sincere, and on the whole a completely unforgettable film experience.

Watch the Trailer for Crazy Love (2007) here.

You Don't Have to be NC-17 to Be Bought By Criterion

Thank you von Trier, we all so desperately need to see this, in the longest take ever known to man kind, and if it's not definitely feels that way.

So my friend sent me this interesting link up on the Criterion website about the grossest films in its roster of otherwise respectable and timeless cinematic triumphs. So like right next to The Rules of the Game (Jean Renoir) you can buy a copy of Antichrist (Lars von Trier) where the cover is Willem Defoe doing Charlotte Gainsburg up against a tree of protruding limbs. So hot. Here's the list if you're interested and haven't eaten anything this morning yet. Criterions Greatest Gross Outs.

Now, why should Criterion be so high and mighty? I mean they bought films like Armageddon (1999) and The Rock (1996) for eff's sake, but I will say this, they do own a few in their catalog that would make even the person with the strongest stomach squirm in their seat. Antichrist (2009) is a perfect example of this. Now, if I was to eat an egg salad sandwich that had been siting in a hot car that I purchased and the worst deli in New York City and then did 18 jumping jacks, I'm still not exactly prone to vomit. It's rather difficult for me? TMI? Deal with it. But not even at the end, in the MIDDLE of this film, I had to excuse myself out of the theater to blow chunks. And I will never trust Von Trier again. I mean, I had to take a klonopin just so I could watch Melancholia (2011) because I was so nervous. And I honestly have no idea why Criterion would invest in such crap. Even by pretentious euro-standards Antichrist is terrible. And yet that's not why I lost my lunch that day. I just couldn't deal with the fact that von Trier saw the need to assault every one of my senses until I felt like I couldn't breath. It's like 'how far can I go with this? I don't want people just to walk out in anger, I want them to be heaving and dialing the emergency room. Get Willem Dafoe on the phone.' 

Just one of the NSFW scenes from Caligula (1979), though seemingly alright on the surface, you should know that the girl in this scene is playing Caligula's (Malcolm McDowell's) SISTER Drusilla.

The other films all totally deserve to be up there, but I've seen way worse that Criterion refuses to touch. Dino De Laurentis' Caligula (1979) is a perfect example, also any work by Alejandro Jodorowsky. Watch The Holy Mountain (1973), I dare you. I double dog dare you. People think you need to be within a horror genre and sub-genre of blood and guts to be seriously offensive to all the senses, but it's not true. You just have to put people into very uncomfortable situations. Also, you have to be pretty innovative and an ancient Roman contraption that slices off peoples heads because of a shredding like locomotive on it's bottom layer can do so when you bury people with just their heads sticking out is pretty innovative. It's just one out of many beyond disgusting and yet fascinating films in Caligula (1979) so don't fret I didn't give too much away.

Eyes Without a Face (1960) is actually pretty terrifying in that French solipsistic type way, and that's not to mention the amount of gore that is involved in the surgery scenes, even in black and white it's more visceral than your average slasher film.

I guess what I'm saying is that the disgusting is also innovative, and doesn't have to be 'horrific'. If you look at another film on the list; George Fanju's Eyes Without a Face (1960) it's absolutely captivating. Probably because it's based on actual events and it's directed brilliantly. What is it about? Exactly that. This girl is born without a face, just a pair of beautiful big blue eyes, and her father, the ever present surgeon experimentation extraordinaire keeps kidnapping young girls so that he can take off their faces and try sewing them unto his daughters, and womp womp, none ever really work. And this was decades before 'it rubs the lotion on it's skin' so it was pretty innovative. Also, it's French, so, points there. Anyway, I would say if you're have a thick skin watch some of these films, they are in the Criterion roster for a reason, most of them (I said MOST) are not gross because of a sexual content that is displeasing....of course that's MOST again, people. But yeah, throw on some Cronenberg and have a barf bag ready just in case. Maybe you'll be richer for the experience mentally even if your stomach will empty.

Some trailers below: