TIFF - the Oscar race begins to solidify

Anyone following the buzz at this year's festival?

Gravity got raves, Bullock now joins Blanchett as a likely contender.

Prisoners seems to have broken out of its genre trappings to be a long shot for some Academy love.

But the big story is 12 Years a Slave. Rapturous doesn't even begin to describe its reception. I think we have out first bona fide shoo-in for a best picture nomination.

Also, Steve McQueen for director, Chiwetel Ejiofor for actor and Lupita, Nyong’o for supporting actress.

---

I don't know how big of a part Alfre Woodard has in this film, but I hope it's big enough and good enough to get her another Oscar nomination.


Because she deserves it.


Because she's amazing.


Because she's Alfre F*CKing Woodard.

I'm happy to hear about the early reviews for "12 Years a Slave" because the preview looked like a schmaltz-fest to me.

---

Oh, she is SO special. But I love that story, Jordy, and I'm not surprised to hear it. That's the personality that comes through in her performances, whether she's playing someone ordinary or extraordinary. She gives the audience an accessibility to everything she does.

Growl---as far as the trailer, I agree with you. It looks good, but schmalzy, and honestly nothing that special or nothing that hasn't been done many times before. The production values look stellar, however, but that's what happens with technological advances. It doesn't seem bad by any means ... just not special.

... which makes me wonder if the "power" that everyone is buzzing about lies in the violence alone. Is that was has people "speechless" and "moved" and "overwhelmed?" Because that won't do it for me. The story, the acting, the writing, and the direction need to be powerful as well ... not just the brutality.

---

It seems like a great cast. So many good actors in it. So we'll see!

I finally saw Django Unchained, and I liked it so much more than I thought I would. The violence kept me away from it ... which is a shame, because this is not realistic violence by any means! This is "Sweeney Todd" surreal violence, or, more accurately, "Sam Peckinpah violence." The bright red blood splattering in slow motion, etc. This is "grand opera," not realism and not "torture porn."

I wish people were more articulate in describing violence. All screen brutality is not created equal. The kind I can't handle is when it's too realistic or too drawn-out. The latter is usually a result of an onscreen torture, allowing everything to linger for the best/most effect.

That sends me right to the stop button on my player or the exit in the theatre if I even make it that far. I usually don't even check it out.

The last time I was repulsed to the point of (serious) anger was Pans Labyrinth. I will never, ever watch that movie again.

---

But I can tell you I'm turned off by one huge thing I keep reading: the excessive, relentless, brutal, graphic violence depicted in the film. People say they were crawling out of their skins watching it. It was almost "too much."

Steve McQueen has never been known to do anything by half. This doesn't surprise me. HUNGER and SHAME were brutal to watch; I imagine this will be, too.

---

I might be in the minority here but while I thought FRUITVALE STATION was good, I didn't see it as anything "great". I think a lot of the love for it came out of what was also happening at the time of its release, with the Zimmerman trial going on and the country (rightfully) upset about violence towards African Americans. But the movie itself felt...lacking. And all of the initial buzz for Spencer I was sure would fade since she's in the film for maybe 7 minutes and gives a good performance, but nothing really stellar.

Updated On: 9/7/13 at 11:08 AM

I have a high threshold for violence and find it can be very effective, especially in the service of historical accuracy. I'd hope in this movie it's there to fully capture, illustrate, and convey the brutality that many slaves endured. It may not be "easy" to watch, but that's the point.

And like you said, bestie, I also want the story, the acting, the writing, and the direction to be powerful and for whatever brutality there is to be an integral part of those elements. If it's -- what? -- "justified," then it goes beyond simple shock value. But that doesn't mean it isn’t still shocking.

I think of the opening sequence of "Saving Private Ryan," which, to me, is the best part of the movie, not because it's violent, but because the violence is so real, immersive, and difficult. It gives the viewer a sensory approximation of what it was to be storming that beach. You’re swept away and transported, and, in that way, the violence engenders sympathy and pathos. It provides perspective on something unimaginable.

Obviously that's not the only way to tell a story to which violence is intrinsic. Evocation (evocativeness?) has its place, too. But they’re both viable stylistic/storytelling tools.

(Perhaps if I didn't have the stomach for it, I'd feel differently.)

---

Updated On: 9/7/13 at 11:14 AM

I hate seeing violence on screen, but my understanding is McQueen attempts to confront the audience with the violence behind slavery, not suggested violence, not unrealistic violence the audience can feel distanced from, but violence that penetrates the skin and makes you feel as uncomfortable as you should feel about our history, and the history of slavery. I don't think he's interested in the least in whether he gets nominated for an Oscar or not, McQueen is an artist and a very political one; most reviews say this is a film that attempts to capture the reality of slavery from a black man's POV, and that POV experienced an incredible level of violence. I couldn't stand DJANGO UNCHAINED, I hated how much Tarantino presented slavery as something almost badass and horrible but in a fun way, the fact that we see it all as much through Christoph Waltz' white savior character as we do through Jamie Foxx's white man's version of what a black man is just really bothered me. Plus, Tarantino should be ashamed to portray black females as absolutely helpless (and if people say this was "realistic," then well, it's nice Mr. Tarantino chose to be realistic about this one thing).
I'm excited about 12 YEARS A SLAVE. I hope it makes me uncomfortable. I don't ever want to feel good about our shared history of oppression. That's why I thought ZERO DARK THIRTY hit such a nerve, it confronted us with our history. I get not wanting to be confronted by it though, but I don't think McQueen or Bigelow should have tried to downplay the violence in order to get more Oscar votes.

---

Well, I don't think movies are realistic to begin with.

"Film is truth at 24 frames per second." - Jean-Luc Godard

I'm with Stanley Donen here: "Film is a LIE at 24 frames per second."

It's all preplanned, scripted, acted, costumed, green-screened, edited, over-dubbed, focused, rehearsed, blocked, directed, scored, and shown (usually) on a flat, 2D screen that isn't life-sized.

You can chose to emulate truth, quite effectively, but movies are seldom in real time with real events transpiring. I don't need to see someone excessively tortured on screen to understand that this what the character is going through any more than I need to see that character take a dump to understand that was part of their daily reality as well. I have seen many characters tortured on screen that didn't resort to excessive violence to tell their story, be effective, and get the point clearly across.

EDIT: I should add this goes for any extended sequences, not just overly violent ones. I don't need to see two characters make love for 30 minutes, or sleep for eight hours, or eat dinner for an hour, just to show me that's "how it really happened." That's reality, man! Once you've made your point, with any type of scene, it's time to move on.

---

Updated On: 9/7/13 at 01:47 PM

"I don't need to see someone excessively tortured on screen to understand that this what the character is going through any more than I need to see that character take a dump to understand that was part of their daily reality as well."

Of course not. Which is why, when a director or writer does make the choice to show those things, if a movie is good, it's there for a reason.

I have a problem with the blanket statement that such a choice is never, ever a viable one and never, ever justifiable.

And not to get overly nit-picky about semantics, but I do think it's an important point -- I'd disagree with your opening statement.

Movies aren't real to begin with. Yes, they are inherently false. Yes, they are an emulation. But they can be realistic. They can approach realism. They don't have to. Most of them don't. But to say they can't (or shouldn't), full stop, is, I think, a very limited and limiting view.

---

Growl, it's isn't a blanket statement so much as a limit to what I can tolerate and find acceptable.

I have mine on various aspects of film. You have yours, too. Everybody does.

---

^ That's my point.

I wasn't saying "this is how it is," I was giving you my general opinion of film as a medium. I even started out by citing two exactly opposing statements from two respected filmmakers.

You can be Jean-Luc and I'll be Stanley.

And also to clarify, I don't have a problem with realism. But that's such a broad milieu that can involve everything from real time to no script to actual events without staging or preplanning.

I think you can be realistic without showing everything. Or hitting me over the head with your point (sometimes quite literally where violence is concerned).

But just as I am saying I don't think a film is automatically "worse" because it is "more real," it would be just as blanketing to say a film is automatically "better" because it is "more real."

---