Why "Argo" Won Best Picture

The 85th Academy Awards named Ben Affleck's, Argo best picture of the year. While this Oscar was well deserved, it did not come as a surprise to me based on past winners.

Many factors are considered when determining this award, and it is not box office success or popular actors that decide the winner. If you look at past winners and their competition, it is clear that the award does not always go to the best picture, but the picture that reflects what society values at that time.

I am not suggesting that Argo did not deserve to win. Not at all. But for those who are confused about how this film made its way up and crushed films like Les Miserables and Lincoln, let me voice my opinion.

Aside from being a dramatic, deep, emotional and witty movie (a trend at the Oscars year after year), think about the story Argo tells. It's about the joint CIA-Canadian operation to rescue six American diplomatic personnel from Iran in 1980. Even if this plan did not involve something as interesting and sneaky an elaborate fake movie, the historic story is vital as to why the film won.

Foreign affairs is a current “hot topic” in the U.S now. There is a lot of discussion and debate about our relationships with countries, such as Iran. The CIA plan that the movie dramatizes, helps to explain our current relationship with Iran. 

As Denver Post movie critic Lisa Kennedy said

“"Argo" deals with one of the most volatile moments in American foreign affairs in the last 50 years: the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979. Reverberations from the toppling of the Shah, the rise of the Ayatollahs and the forging of an Iranian theocracy continue to inform the U.S. relationship to Iran and Middle East.”

This film depicts a piece of contemporary history, in which the United States was the hero. This reflects the values that are important today.

The trend of Oscars going to movies reflecting current values has been seen time and again in Hollywood. Perhaps that is why Shakespeare in Love beat the more critically acclaimed movie, Saving Private Ryan in 1998. Maybe society wasn't ready for such a graphic depiction of war so soon after Rwandan genocide and the civil wars in Afghanistan. Maybe they valued a small romantic comedy instead.

Mrs. Minniver won in 1942. A movie about World War II. This shows us that the Academy valued the depiction of the current war. The same is true the following year when Casablanca won.

In 1951, the Academy showed us that after the war, when the country was flourishing, and music and dancing were popular, An American in Paris reflected the mood of the nation more than A Streetcar Named Desire.

The true greatness of the Oscars is not that they tell us what the greatest films are. They convey what society values at the time.

For more examples click here

What the heck happened to musicals?

How did we go from this...

To this...

Gone are the days when a musical required talented singers and dancers. Now all a musical needs is flashy lights, costumes and loud music to drain out the singing voices.

Acting doesn't seem to be a skill needed to star in this genre either. Musical Stars such as Ginger Rogers and Shirley Temple have been recognized as some of the greatest actresses of their time. Today musical stars like Ashley Tisdale and Demi Lavato would do better off at acting school. 

 These days as long as someone has a nice face and can hit a few notes, they are golden. With all the voice modification available, raw talent is not an essential for musicals. 

Not to mention the camera. If you look at an old musical, you will notice that when a performer is dancing, the camera will not leave their sight. There are no dramatic cutaways or different angles. For me, this is good because it lets the viewer see the full routine and appreciate the talent. Moving the camera in every different direction works as a device to create distraction and illusion. 

As Fred Astaire said "Either the camera will dance, or I will."

The songs and their content have changed as well.  For example in the classic musical Singin in the Rain the songs are easy to hear, and articulated well. The dancing and music does not overpower the lyrics. This is far off from most musicals today. For example in the 2010 musical Burlesque, viewers do not even now what the lyrics are saying because they are too busy watching the half naked women singing them. 

Contrary to what people may think, gaudy costumes, pretty faces, and upbeat music is not necessary for the success of a musical. 

Look at the famous scene from Top Hat. It is a simple number, with no superfluous characteristics. There may not be loud singing or sexy costumes, but the incredible talent of Fred Astaire is apparent. In short, that is the point of a musical. 

It's up for you to decide. Below is a clip from the musical Singin in the Rain. Underneath that clip is a song from the musical Burlesque. Notice the differences and see what you think. 

"The Shop Around the Corner" versus "You've Got Mail"

Movie remakes is a controversial subject. Usually the new film doesn't capture the magic of the original. However there are some instances where this is not true.

The remake of the movie "The Shop Around the Corner" is one of those films. In "You've Got Mail" Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan fall in love through email. Many people don't know that this is a remake of the 1940 film titled "The Shop Around the Corner," starring none other than Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullivan.

Unlike some remakes including "King Kong" and "Guess Who," which are insults to the original, "You've Got Mail" manages to transition the original story to a more modern audience while still keeping the romance, plot and quality of the original.

The original plot follows two co- workers at a small gift shop, who do not like each other. They get annoyed and frustrated with each other on a daily basis. What they don't know is they are actually falling in love. They are each other's anonymous pen pals. They just don't know it.

The 1998 version is more or less the same plot. Only the two lovers do not work together. They are business rivals. And instead of falling in love through letters, they do so through emails.

So the big question is...Which movie is better?

I cannot answer that for everyone. But for me, it's "The Shop Around the Corner." This is a narrow win though. I cannot say that one film is better directed or acted. I cannot even say that I enjoyed one over the other. The difference is the charm that the 1940 movie and its stars have to offer. It's the era. It's classic.

As blogger Dan E. Newton said "You've Got Mail still lacks the otherworldly fantasy that The Shop Around the Corner achieves. I'm still unsure if this is a good thing or not. It is certainly indicative of the era."

The era is the biggest difference of the two movies. If "The Shop Around the Corner" were made in 1998, it would be laughed at because let's face it, no one writes letters anymore. But the fact that "You've Got Mail" managed to keep the story almost exactly the same and still appeal to a 
contemporary audience is a big deal. 

The better movie may not be clear, one might not triumph the other. So the choice is up to individual preference, a rare instance for a remake.

Now check out these lists of worst movie remakes...

 http://www.totalfilm.com/features/50-worst-movie-remakes

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/worst-horror-movie-remakes-ever-153400642.html

The Original Gangster Squad

With the Oscars just a few weeks away, I thought I'd celebrate a movie that won an Oscar, in fact many Oscars. I'm talking about Francis Ford Coppola's "The Godfather." This movie snagged the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Screenplay and Best Director in 1973, along with some other important awards since its debut. 

 The American Film Institute considers this movie, starring the infamous Marlon Brando, as the third best movie of all time.

Now why is this movie so good? Here is my opinion...

Gangster films are timeless. They spark so must interest and captivate audiences. Just look at all the movies  about famous mob bosses, gangs and organized crime. "The Godfather" was made 40 years ago, and gangster movies are still going strong today. 

"The Godfather" is not just any gangster film though. It is extremely well done. The story, in all honesty is nothing too noteworthy, but the details, the camera, the script, the acting and every other aspect is done superbly. 

  As Time Magazine critic Jay Cocks wrote “In its blending of new depth with an old genre, it becomes that rarity, a mass entertainment that is also great movie art.” 

And now a look at "Gangster Squad,"Which opened in January.  It was popular at the box office, but not so much with reviewers. 

"In spite of heavy gun fire, Gangster Squad misses," said Robert Denerstein of Movie Habit. 

You would think that a movie whose plot and genre is similar to the third best movie of all time would be more critically acclaimed. So what's the difference? "Gangster Squad" certainly does not lack a strong leading actor or drama. 
 

In fact while the bulk of gangster Mickey Cohen (played by Sean Penn) in “Gangster Squad” is action based, the bulk of Corleone's actions are talking and negotiating. 

It looks like actions do not always speak louder than words. 

 "The Godfather" is not just a source of entertainment, it's a cinematic masterpiece. 

As critic Roger Ebert said "The screenplay of `The Godfather' follows no formulas except for the classic structure in which power passes between the generations.”

While other wise guys movies like "Gangster Squad" fall back on violence to allegedly  entertain and engage, "The Godfather" turns such scenes into them art. That is the core difference.