Death and Dignity

The power of art is in its ability to express the most fundamental of emotions in poignant and powerful ways. Moreover, great art is able to remind us of the power of these emotions or give us a new perspective on them. Two of the contenders for this year’s Academy Awards show the power of cinema in this way, a third shows how emotions can lead even the best of us astray.

He may not win a nomination but DiCaprio is brilliant in Django Unchained

Django Unchained by Quentin Tarantino has been notably snubbed by the Academy this year. Despite being nominated for best film, supporting actor (Christoph Waltz), cinematography (Robert Richardson), sound editing (Wylie Stateman) and original screenplay (Quentin Tarantino), once again Tarantino will not win best director and Leonardo DiCaprio will be overlooked for his performance. This glaring omission aside, this is perhaps one of the best films in recent times. Tarantino showcases his ability to imitate his favourite genres and films while giving us his own unique take on Hollywood. The extreme violence that the film contains, leading to the delay in its release, is trademark Tarantino and he remains one of the best at mixing violence, comedy and seriously gripping dialogue. The furore over DiCaprio not being nominated misses the point that once again Christoph Waltz is a strong contender for best supporting actor. After his win for Inglorious Basterds, it is not surprising that Tarantino used him in such a prominent way in this latest film. Instead, I think that there should be uproar that Waltz is not nominated for best actor and the fact that Jamie Foxx is seen as the main actor. On screen time alone Waltz is as prominent as Foxx, not to mention the subtlety and nuance he brings to his character. This is not to disparage Foxx’s performance, he is typically unassuming in his performance, but to highlight how it is not the big name stars that make this film a success. Similarly in films such as Pulp Fiction, it is the lesser lights such as Samuel L. Jackson that really make Tarantino’s films stand out. Moreover, Waltz is the moral compass of this film and it is his actions that lead to the redemption of Django. Thus Tarantino is able to take a simple tale of revenge and make it into a gripping, moral tale about friendship and loyalty.

The lead role of Maya proves that anyone can enjoy torture and swearing profusely 

Zero Dark Thirty by Kathryn Bigelow is another Oscar contender this year and has been seen as a box office success. Following her success with The Hurt Locker, this documentary-esque film about the hunt and eventual killing of Osama Bin Laden has greeted positively in America. Not having read any reviews of the film, I expected the Bigelow trademark suspense and tension that made The Hurt Locker such a gripping story. However, instead I was treated to over 2 hours of boring dialogue, annoying characters and the least interesting final scene in recent movie history. Not only is the main character of Maya frustrating and annoying, her stupid and unnecessary use of expletives makes her toughness seem superficial and demeans her apparent intelligence, but the movie feels slow to the point of painful. I am surprised that Bigelow did not edit this film more closely because by the time we got to the pay off, where Osama is shot in his home in front of his children, I truly did not care (in fact I felt more sorry for his wife than any of the Americans in the film). Moreover, it seems Bigelow was more intent on proving how stupid the CIA and various American intelligence services were rather than provide a watchable film. It reminded me a lot of David Fincher’s film Zodiac in its narrow appeal to an obsessive American fan base. Unfortunately, I think this film will go on to nab more awards for Bigelow and maybe even win best picture/director. If so, it will prove that the Academy values patriotic garbage over quality, thoughtful cinema. This is a horrible piece of film making and its success can only be attributed to the American people’s desire for revenge for 9/11 but as the film unintentionally proves: that revenge came at the cost of many lives, was largely self inflicted and arrived much too late.

The demise of this couple is simultaneously heartbreaking, uplifting and painful to watch

The final Oscar contender to be examined is Michael Haneke’s Amour. This is a gripping, powerful tale of love (as the title implies) that takes us intimately into the lives of an old couple in their final months. Haneke’s trademark use of long, slow takes and interesting uses of sound make this film have a depth that cannot be conveyed by a plot synopsis. The amazing thing about this film is the simplicity. Set mostly in a single French apartment and starring only a handful of actors, Haneke once again makes his audience feel like voyeurs into the private lives of his characters. One of the opening shots of an audience at a piano recital is uncomfortably long but superbly sets the scene for what is to follow. He is able to mix moments of tenderness with the harsh reality of a slow, painful death without ever becoming clichéd or predictable. Moreover, he never lets the viewer off the hook (as evidenced by at least 2 people leaving the screening I was in) by shying away at the most painful or confronting moments. It is precisely his intention to confront his audience with the horrible reality of death that makes this one of his best works to date. I do hope he wins the best director or film for this marvellous work as he proves that even the simplest emotion, fear of death, in the simplest settings make for gripping cinema.