Did you know Saturdays have a 9am too?

I am now aware.

Ok, in the midst of catching up on my Football Free Agency ESPN Sportcenter updates (BTW – A certain prognosticator who called Ben Roethlisberger Despicable for a certain reason – well, Gina, your right) i am considering my picks for best supporting actor and actress.

Best supporting? Shouldn’t the best person in the movie be the star? Yes – generally. But If Mark Wahlberg is the best part of a film, I will never watch it. But it goes deeper then that – the best supporting help make the lead(s) look better by comparison. It is my feeling and belief that this is the film definition of chiaroscuro, giving the lead in the film additional depth and elements. To help those who didn’t take Comm 110 as a freshman at Fitchburg state – another shameless plug for my Alma Mater – chiaroscuro is contrast between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition, typicized as depth through shading.

Man – that last line was pretty cool. And very applicable to the Best Supporting picks.

Since I have literally 10 to get through here, I am going to group together the ones I don’t think will win, and only focus on the top 5 total. Why? Because I am writing this, and your not – so I can do as I please.

Why shouldn’t Matt Damon win? Other then François Pienaar is 6″ taller, 60 pounds of muscle heavier and dominating in a sport that most Americans do not comprehend… well, thats reason enough there. What About Penelope Cruz? in A musical film full of an all-star casting – she did not get enough screentime to warrant a win. Both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick in “Up in The Air” did nothing to really wow me. And Woody Harrelson showed as much dramatic range as any other character he has done, but wasn’t quite enough to move you emotionally.

So who is left?

Col. Landa – Christoph Waltz’s Character in “Inglourious Basterds”. I was in awe of him, his transitions character wise from Italian to French to German to English, all while having a strict, strong confidence, depth of character within a proper gentlemanly context of a Nazi Officer. Even after I learned he was from Vienna (making his German Accent authentic) and studied acting in New York (making him 100% fluent in English) I was still impressed.

The same can be said for my impression of the chameleon that is Stanley Tucci. Just go back and read his resume. Go. Now. Ok – how many times did you see a movie, Like Deconstructing Harry, or America’s Sweethearts and go – Wait? He was in that?! Oh Yea.. I didn’t recognize him! Thats part of the chameleon aspect of him – instead of blending into the background, he blends into the person on the page, and creates something so believable in the shadows that you feel it IS him. Don’t believe me? Go watch Julie & Julia again – and see if you can pick him out.

The comedienne that is Mo’Nique ranks head and shoulders above the rest of this group, in a weak year for female supporting nominations. In fact – I would have to go back to the 70th academy awards in 1998 to find a Supporting actress class that is as weak as I feel this one is (Judi Dench won for Shakespeare in Love – Totally deserving) and Mo’Nique for “Precious” takes the cake on this. Her haunting, troubled mother on welfare ranks the highest praise from me out of this group.

So – Who Wins?

MY PICK: Stanley Tucci
ACADEMY AWARD GOES TO: Christoph Waltz

MY PICK: Mo’Nique
ACADEMY AWARD GOES TO: Mo’Nique

In high school, I would get (frequently) bored with study hall. We were allowed to sign out of study hall back then and go to the library under the guise of “research”. Mid-way thorough sophomore year, I made friends with a couple of seniors who, through their encouragement (ie – me begging along) started sneaking me out of school for fun and frolicking through the spring. No, I never got into trouble – but until then, I would go to the library and read up about my favorite topics on the computer (this is fall of 1995 – the computer was even internet ready.) I would read articles on such topics as my favorite bands (Mostly Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails) sports (I had the history of the Celtics virtually memorized) and serial killers (I had already consumed John Douglas’ “Mindhunter” cover to cover). I read up on the exploits of Ted Bundy, The Zodiac, The Green River Killer, and The Mad Bomber (Manhattan, 1950′s).

Needless to say, I gained a lot of useless knowledge on serial killers.

Ok – enough on all that. The reasoning behind this – I believed that George Harvey (Played by Stanley Tucci) is a killer. Cunning, blend in the background, unassuming neighborhood killer. His way was Dahmer-esque: friendly, but not close to anyone; knew the neighbors, but no one really knew him. His cold recalcitrance to fitting in blended with a steady, outwardly friendly manner. To not give away too much, he is cut from the cloth of Edmund Kemper (Or – for those of you who are a fan – a Dexter Morgan, the Protagonist from the Showtime Show “Dexter”) someone who is comfortable enough to have a home, and a life – but still has an emptiness, an urge, a “dark passenger” (thanks for that association, Dexter Morgan).

Stanley Tucci is dark. I mean DARK dark. And brilliant. I had to think hard (and – ok I cheated and looked at his IMDB) to figure out the last thing I saw him in. Ends up, it was in Julie & Julia – as Julia Child’s husband, Paul. He has this amazing way of blending in, and becoming seamless, both as a character and as a talent. Even on the smallest of roles he comes through with a bold character (Example: he is the ONLY reason to see America’s Sweethearts. This coming from a huge John Cusack Fan) and always has the talent, not to steal a scene, but be remember-able and forgettable at the same time (like in Road to Perdition, Maid in Manhattan, and The Life and Death of Peter Sellers – playing no less the Stanley Kubrick. Brilliant!).

I think back to what makes a great supporting character: you have to be strong without upstaging; on your own but not independent; deep character without being THE character; and helpful without leading or dragging. To quote Rusty from “Ocean’s 11″: “Don’t use seven words when four will do. Don’t shift your weight, look always at your mark but don’t stare, be specific but not memorable, be funny but don’t make him laugh. He’s got to like you then forget you the moment you’ve left his side.”

Pretty well sums up a supporting actor, don’t you think? And it completely fulfills the character of George Harvey. Thank you for your brilliance in this, Mr. Tucci.

Life can be inexplicably dark at times. All of us hit that time where we are at a low point; sometimes it is set into action by an event or chain of events, other times it is just for no other reason then simply “just because”. With the light times comes the dark. And by no means was this film light.

Set in an unspecified area of the US, Staff Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) has been rotated out of active duty due to his injuries sustained in the course of battle. Reassigned to pair with Capt. Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) his new assignment is to read the script, and deliver the news to NOK’s (next of kin) that their soldier husbands/sons/daughters will not be coming home. Within this announcement, there is no offers of comfort allowed – simply an announcement and then they are on their way.

Dark and heavy, the writing task with this is no easy feat. The script in itself does some heavy lifting – even approaching such a terribly strong topic is heartbreakingly difficult. I simply feel emotionally drained just watching it – writing it, living every word in your mind before it makes it onto paper would be such and exhausting task that I cannot even comprehend it. 2 Main characters (Montgomery and Stone) gradually peel back layers hidden under combative soldiers, and expose the true men underneath; the vulnerable and compassionate, the lonely and the begrudging. You get the sense that as different as they might be, the more similar they actually are.

Oliver Stone once said of Woody Harrelson (Just before casting him in the role of Mickey Knox in “Natural Born Killers”) that Woody has an “inherent sickness to him”. There is a level, always brewing right under the surface that makes him seem like a slight sociopath – always knowing how to say the right thing at the right time. The was a decent role for him, giving him more depth as a person then I have seen from him in a long, long time. I fall back to comparing him to his character of Larry Flynt in “The People vs. Larry Flynt” where his character evolved, transformed, was deep, and he was wholeheartedly behind it. As Capt. Stone, he did a very solid job – but not spectacular to the point of and Oscar win.

When you sit back to watch this film, be ready. It might take you places your not ready to go. It might be heavier then you need to go, and it might leave you flat on your back afterwards. All that being said – sometimes you need to visit the dark places in life just so you can truly appreciate all the light around us.

I do not understand rugby at all.
At all.

It seems like a cool sport – Guys hitting other guys, a brutal, bruising sport played by hooligans and watched by gentlemen. A film about rugby is not a bad idea if people in America actually understood the sport – since we don’t, having the game be the main storyline does not work well at all. I watched the final game with my room mate Matt; after it was over, he looked at me and said “Wait…. is it over? Did… they win?” and all I could do is shrug and say “yea, I guess it is over. I donno…”

Man, I wish I understood rugby.

Now, the 1995 rugby world cup as a background for the recent election of Nelson Mandela (played well by Morgan Freeman) and the recent abolishment of Apartheid could work as a storyline if we could more see how it draws the country together, using Mandela as a side story. In reality, his character is not incredibly interesting – in fact he is a very bland person with an incredible history, little of which comes out in the film. Morgan Freeman does well in portraying him, to the point where you feel and believe in your heart of hearts he really is Mandela. Balancing against him is the white Springbok captain (Springbok is the name of the South African National rugby team) François Pienaar (Played by Matt Damon).

Now, suspend reality for a moment. Pretend that the captain isn’t the toughest guy on the team (Which François was) and pretend he wasn’t an automatic vocal leader from the beginning 2 years earlier (which François was), lets even suspend that he wasn’t the biggest guy on the team (François was about 6’4″ and 230 lbs during his playing days) and VIOLA! You have Matt Damon!

Ok. That wasn’t fair. But he was offered a role where he was, for all accounts, the 2nd smallest guy on the pitch, but speaks about how he “leads by example”. It wasn’t even realistic to think of him going up against guys who are 6″ taller, 35-60lb of muscle heavier and he “lead by example”. This alone detracts from the story for me – though he acted very well throughout, I kept looking at him like he was the only High school sophomore on the high school varsity football squad – his time on the feild was out of place, though his acting ability was not.

Overall, the film was decent, and piqued my interest in rugby – though the academy should have through twice before making these two nominations with so many justified talent waiting in the pool for their chance.

As I sat down to Re-watch Inglourious Bastereds (I saw it about 4 weeks ago) I got a text. This was the conversation that ensued:
Me: And now (I’m watching)… Inglourious Basterds
LOS: I thought it was good but didn’t live up to expectations
Me: 10 yrs of work and his “Masterpeice”? Woefully short. Good none the less.
LOS: I actually don’t like Tarantino much lately. IB redeemed him slightly in my opinion.
Me: He peaked at Pulp Fiction – hard to go back to that.
LOS: True. Maybe you’ll disagree, but IB had more of a Coen Bros. vibe then Tarantino
Me: Scriptwise: Yes. Dramatically: Yes – But Quentin can’t build the drama the way they do. If they had this script, it would still be 2 hrs 33 min, but better. Much, much better.
LOS: Can’t argue with that logic.
Me: He throws in the dialogue between action, prefers jump cuts and no sense of true drama.
LOS: I think his use of violence is starting to work against him.
Me: Yes, but he has no other place to go. He isn’t skilled enough.

That synopsizes the film pretty well.

I am not going to lie, I like Tarantino. He writes natural dialogue well. He shoots films well. He works well with the talent. All around, he does everything well. Just not superb, like a man who has spent the last solid 25 years of his life to absorbing, watching, writing and creating films.

I love a good wwII film; I have a soft spot in my heart for The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen (Both of with influenced Tarantino in this) but I only liked this film. It was epic, grandiose, larger then life – fiction from the get go, yes, but still well written. And it is known that Tarantino already won an oscar for best Original screenplay, so he is very capable of writing another. The thing that bothers me, however – is the predictability of Tarantino now. A movie of one person hunting down a group? Uma Thurmon in Kill Bill/Col Landa. A group letting an individual to “tell the Story” after everyone else is killed? Natural Born Killers (Though he had his credit removed) and The Basterds. His strange foot fetish? Every single movie (The Foot Massage Discussion, Big Toe in Kill Bill, the shoe in Inglourious Basterds, From Dusk ‘Til Dawn… I am sure you have some of your own too)

The Point is: the habitual elements, including violence – they are detracting away from the film for me.

The best part I remember from me first viewing is Col Hans Landa (Played by Christoph Waltz) and how he seamlessly and comfortably transitioned from English to German to French to Italian. Along with the rest of his character, he was the brightest spot in the entire film, overshadowing the other characters with a brilliance you see from the very beginning.

Quentin has been calling this film his “Masterpiece”. 10 years, multiple re-writes in the making. When I think of Masterpiece, my mind goes to some of the greats: John Ford directing “Grapes of Wrath”. Hitchcock’s “Vertigo”. The yardstick for any true masterpiece, in my mind, is Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather”. Where does this measure up to “The Godfather”? Woefully short. Though this might be the very masterpiece of Tarantino’s career, I would say it hardly is a masterpiece overall. My basic feeling is that this film is worth a look, and is highly entertaining, but by far not the best film from the best director with the best script.