The Uggie Scandal

A recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live directed my attention to a possible scandal among the Artist camp.  A few weeks after the film won Best Picture at the Oscars, Kimmel pointed out that the Uggie who appeared as a guest on his show to make Oscar predictions did not have the same markings as the Uggie in the film.  Using a split screen, Kimmel showed that the film’s Uggie had a rather large dark spot covering his right ear and extending down his neck, but the Uggie on Kimmel’s show had a much smaller spot.  Kimmel also pointed to shots of the dog on The Ellen DeGeneres Show and onstage at the Academy Awards when his film won Best Picture.  In every television appearance, Uggie’s markings did not match those he had in the film.  Kimmel suggested that the Uggie who had appeared on his show was an imposter.

Knowing that Uggie is at retirement age and was recently reported to be ill, I was worried that the Artist camp was attempting to hide Uggie’s inability to make appearances by sending a replacement Uggie.

Well, last week everything was cleared up on Kimmel’s show.  Uggie’s trainer, Omar von Muller, explained that two doubles were used in place of Uggie for stunts and in case Uggie was not able to work.  Because the dogs have different markings, filmmakers used makeup to match Uggie’s appearance to that of his doggie doubles.  As von Muller explained, “Uggie’s the one that did the work.”  He also cleared up that the Uggie who made television appearances was indeed the Uggie from the movie, sans makeup.

What a relief!  Watch the explanation clips, including Kimmel’s hilarious interrogation of von Muller, below.

Playing Catch-Up: Midnight in Paris

Can I please go to Paris now?

Writer-director Woody Allen’s latest comedy, Midnight in Paris, a four-time nominee at this year’s Academy Awards and winner of the Best Original Screenplay Oscar (which Allen was predictably not present to accept), made me want to fly to Paris as soon as possible.  That’s a fitting response to a film all about longing for a different milieu.

Allen’s latest hero is Gil (Owen Wilson), an idealistic writer visiting Paris with his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents.  Inez is a California girl who rolls her eyes at Gil’s romantic musings about Paris in the rain and talks about moving to Malibu, where Gil can continue to write unfulfilling Hollywood movies instead of finishing his novel.  Gil dreams of living in Paris in the 1920s, where artists and intellectuals from Europe and the U.S. alike gathered to work and play.  When Inez runs into an old friend, Paul (Michael Sheen), she drags Gil along to listen to the “pseudo-intellectual’s” “pedantic” lectures on everything from Rodin to Monet, all the while berating Gil for questioning him.  After a particularly pompous wine-tasting, a tipsy Gil decides to say goodbye to the group and take a nighttime stroll through Paris.  He loses his way, and when the clock strikes twelve a vintage car pulls up and a group of boisterous Jazz Age partiers coax him inside for champagne.  Gil soon discovers the time-travelling magic that happens at midnight in Paris.

Owen Wilson’s Gil is basically a Woody Allen stand-in, neurotic and stammering.  There are certain lines he delivers, such as when he explains that he and Inez disagree about a lot but they both like pita bread, which can be perfectly imagined coming out of Allen’s mouth.  Wilson has the same phobic, endearing quality Allen has brought to his characters for decades, but there’s an extra something that makes him refreshing.  Rachel McAdams brings her inner Regina George (Mean Girls) to the table as Inez, who’s condescending and clueless at the same time.  The supporting cast is splendid as well, including Marion Cotillard (below, with Wilson) as Adriana, Gil’s golden-age dream girl, and even French first lady Carla Bruni, who’s engaging as a tour guide.  There are a few other exciting cameos mixed in, but I’d like to save the details to preserve the magic.

The film has quite a few Allen staples.  There’s the dislike of California and mainstream Hollywood, represented by Inez and her $20,000 chairs, a sentiment familiar to Allen’s films since Annie Hall.  There’s the distaste for so-called “pseudo-intellectuals,” a term which comes up a lot in Allen’s films, from Manhattan to Hannah and Her Sisters.  There’s also the love of fantasy, present in similar fashion in the delightful The Purple Rose of Cairo, in which a film-crazed woman falls in love with a leading man when he leaves the screen to be with her.  And don’t forget the love for the 1920s, a la Bullets Over Broadway (“Don’t speak!”).  All these Allen tropes are blended charmingly in a witty and nostalgic comedy, which was made all the more entertaining for me since I’ve been reading the likes of Stein, Eliot, Fitzgerald, and Hemingway in my English classes this semester.  Anyone remotely familiar with Modernism, through art or literature or film, will enjoy the movie’s quirky history lesson.

Allen can craft a mighty fine screenplay. From the very start of the film, a voiceover conversation between Gil and Inez establishes in a few words that Gil is our idealistic hero, and Inez is the girl who wants to crush his dreams.  We realize who we’re rooting for from the get-go.  Allen knows how to create characters through their dialogue, the words they choose and when they decide to speak.

Can we talk about the locale?  No matter what era we’re in, Paris is a character.  I know that sounds cliché, especially after countless behind-the-scenes Sex and the City specials have said the same about New York, but it’s really true here.  Paris comes alive and calls to Gil and the audience alike.  How Inez could resist its charms and brush it off as “corny” is beyond me.

I could compare this to Allen’s other recent films, like Match Point, Vicky Christina Barcelona, and Scoop (which I thought was better than a lot of people gave it credit for), but I don’t think it needs a comparison.  I think it’s an ideal blend of everything Allen loves in one enchanting new comedy.

My Post-Oscar Post

This day-later recap will have to be rather quick, as I have two midterms tomorrow, but I couldn’t go without posting about what happened at last night’s Academy Awards.

What a tame evening!  When arguably the most controversial moment of the night was Jean Dujardin cursing in French, you know it was a pretty harmless ceremony.

I find it interesting that, based on reading a few articles about last night’s show, people seem quite markedly divided over Billy Crystal’s hosting job.  He’s gotten some flack for appearing in the opening montage as Sammy Davis, Jr. (whom he has played many a time before), as well as a comment he made after Octavia Spencer’s win for The Help which many have construed as racist.  On the other hand, many have also complained that his performance was boring and unfunny, and called for the likes of Chris Rock to host the show next year.  I disagree with both these sentiments.  I think Crystal is a comfortable host who doesn’t hog too much air time with obnoxious humor or insults.  He pokes fun at the celebrities in the audience, but you know that there are no hard feelings, and he keeps the show moving along.  I’d rather watch him than a loud Chris Rock (whose dig at animation voiceover work last night was the opposite of funny, in my opinion, and undermined the hard work of the people in the category he was presenting) or a half-asleep James Franco.

That said, I would like to see some fresh faces. For instance, the lovely Emma Stone got attention for putting her all into her presenting bit with Ben Stiller, and I think she’d be a great choice.  She’s young, she’s likable, she’s funny without being vulgar, and she obviously takes her jobs (even a presenting gig) seriously.  Another idea would be the Christopher Guest troupe, who appeared last night in a prerecorded bit about test audiences.  After recently watching (and in some cases rewatching ) Guest’s entire oeuvre with my roommate (our team name at Oscar trivia last week was “Wha’ Happened?!” — It was fun listening to the scorekeeper read it out.), seeing that group was an exciting surprise.  They’d bring the funny as hosts.

Otherwise, it was nice to see the montages brought back, and I appreciated that they showed clips of the nominated actors’ performances (although I thought Dujardin’s clip gave too much away).  The Cirque Du Soleil performance seemed unnecessary, however, especially when there were only two nominated songs to perform in place of it.

I was spot-on with my major predictions, because the show wasn’t full of many surprises, and I was pretty satisfied, too.  It was great to see The Artist get so much recognition.

It’s time to start looking out for next year’s Oscar nominees, although the latest at the cineplex doesn’t exactly look promising, does it?

What Will Win … Best Picture?

Tomorrow’s the big show, and it’s time to take a look at the category for Best Picture.

And the nominees are…

The Descendants

Alexander Payne’s dramedy about a father reconnecting with his two daughters in Hawaii after his wife is injured made a big impact on critics and audiences, and resulted in a lot of Oscar buzz for star George Clooney.  I have yet to see the film, but I hope to catch it in the coming weeks.  Although the film won the Golden Globe for Best Drama, I don’t believe it has a shot to win the Oscar.  While, after the Golden Globes, I believed the Oscar race would boil down to The Descendants vs. The Artist (much like last year’s The Social Network vs. The King’s Speech ), now I’m not so sure The Descendants is in the top two.  It seems to have lost steam since the Golden Globes, but I definitely think it could be considered this year’s dark horse.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Arguably the most controversial nomination of the year, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close was panned by critics who called it overly sentimental.  The Academy seemed to love it, however.  Don’t look for a win.

The Help

This year’s fan favorite featured an outstanding ensemble female cast which boasts three acting nominations.  While the film’s actresses certainly have chances to win their categories, I don’t think The Help has a chance at winning the top prize.

Hugo

Martin Scorsese’s family-friendly drama, which pays tribute to film history and the power of imagination, has replaced The Descendants in my mind as the second most likely film to win the top prize.  That doesn’t mean I’d be happy to see it win.  I saw it last night, in 2D, and I was rather disappointed.  While the look of the film is rich and intricately beautiful, and the references to film history were appreciated, I was not particularly impressed by the story, and the lead kids, Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz, were rather flat and irritating.  I’ve read since seeing the film that the 3D version is one of the best examples — if not the best — of 3D technique, and that the 3D effects actually (gasp) enhance the story.  This might be true, and maybe that is the reason I didn’t enjoy the film, but I still doubt I would consider it the best film of the year if I had seen it in 3D.

Midnight in Paris

Woody Allen’s latest comedy managed to get a lot of buzz and a few Oscar nods.  Will it win?  Most certainly not.  Will Allen care?  Most certainly not.

Moneyball

The baseball drama, starring Brad Pitt and co-written by Aaron Sorkin, got a few nominations, but is not likely to win the top prize.

The Tree of Life

This year’s Cannes favorite, and a film which divided both critics and viewers, got attention from the Academy.  If you ask me, I think this nomination is a lot like that for Extremely Loud.  It’s a way to acknowledge a film for its subject matter or technique, but in this case I don’t think it has the potential to win Best Picture.

War Horse

Spielberg’s latest epic received a pretty predictable nomination.  Will it win?  Not likely.

And the Oscar goes to…

The Artist

Arguably this past year’s most talked-about film is the frontrunner for Best Picture.  Some people have been complaining that the film is likely to win the Oscar based solely on what a lot of people call a gimmick.  I have to disagree.  Those who have actually seen the film, instead of speculating, know that Michel Hazanavicius did not simply attempt to recreate the style of a bygone era and call it a day.  Yes, there is a very obvious mimicking of classic Hollywood, but the film has so much more than that.  It comments self-reflexively on its outdated format.  It tells a story which is captivating in its simplicity.  It features visual (and aural) techniques which would likely not be found in a 1920s film, and which become relevant because of their 2011 context.  It contains a standout performance from Jean Dujardin.  The Artist will not win based on a gimmick.  It will win because it is a lovingly crafted, innovative, consistently clever and refreshing film.  It goes to show that innovation in this age does not have to be based on the latest computer graphic or 3D attraction.  It can be based on a nod to the past in the context of our future.

Watch the 84th Academy Awards live tomorrow night on ABC.

Who Will Win … Best Director?

There are some big names in this year’s directing category.  Let’s take a closer look at their chances and predict a winner.

And the nominees are…

Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris

Veteran wit Woody Allen had a big success this year with his newest comedy, which is also up for Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture.  However, Allen is known for his aversion to award ceremonies, and his last win was for the screenplay for Hannah and Her Sisters in 1987.  I’m not sure the Academy will give him the gold this time around, especially since his film is most likely not going to win Best Picture.

Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

Malick’s film created division among critics and audiences.  Some lauded its artistic visuals and poetic storytelling technique, while others brushed it off for being too boring or too confusing.  I fell into the second category.  While the Academy obviously respected the film, giving it not only a directing nomination, but a Best Picture nod, in addition to Cinematography, I don’t think Malick will get the gold.

Alexander Payne, The Descendants

Payne, of Sideways fame, made one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year.  He’s the dark horse of the category, because if The Descendants ends up beating The Artist for Best Picture, the general trend that the director of the Best Picture wins his or her category could come into play.  The last time something different happened was in 2005, when Ang Lee won for Brokeback Mountain, but Crash ended up winning Best Picture.

Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Scorsese is in second place, if you ask me.  He’s a veteran director who won his first Oscar for 2006’s The Departed.  This past year he created a tribute to film history in a film for the whole family, something that critics applauded him for, and which the Academy might recognize.

And the Oscar goes to…

Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

I’m confident that Hazanavicius, a French director known for his spy comedies starring Jean Dujardin, will come out on top this year.  He took a risk and made a film in an outdated format, and it worked for both critics and audiences.  I think the Academy will reward such creativity.