And The 'Best Picture' Oscar SHOULD Go to: '12 Years a Slave'

To my mind it would be damned near a crime - almost as bad as the Academy passing over 'Avatar' several years ago (for Hurt Locker) to award any nominee other than '12 Years a Slave', 'Best Picture. For those who don't know, the film is a British production, directed by Steve McQueen from an adaptation of the 1853 memoir of the same name by Solomon Northup, a New York State-born free negro who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841 and sold into slavery. He worked on plantations in the state of Louisiana for twelve years before his release.

This movie has all the elements of a Best Picture, except perhaps one: it is very difficult to watch. It is definitely not a film you will see for "entertainment". But it is riveting history. My wife and I were so taken up by the drama that we weren't able to leave our seats for the entire screening time, to use the restroom. That is how captivating it was.

The most appalling scenes occur when Northrup is taken to the Louisiana plantation to work the fields. The scenes of the whippings -beating are so realistic that it was hard to get them out of your head. But the memory - from the film- of what happened to this courageous African-American will burn into every engram and stay with you and also (should) arouse you to fury if you see balderdash written by simpletons that, "Hey, slavery wasn't that bad'. See:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/01/walter-block-another-libertairn.html

from a Loyola prof libertarian blockhead.

Thus, the only reason '12 Years' may not move to the winners' circle is the unrelenting gravitas of the film. In this case, the Academy may well veer to the space flick 'Gravity' - which to be sure, is also a terrific film, e..g. see:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/gravity-space-flick-to-keep-you.html

So, to be truthful, I wouldn't be terribly disappointed if 'Gravity' won instead and I'd understand it. The Academy may simply opt not to choose a film that is so unremittingly intense and which may also not sit well with some of its members (mainly the 'over 65' group, as pointed out by MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Friday night).

But at least the choice would be tolerable compared to 'American Hustle' or god forbid, 'The Wolf of Wall Street', both of which, imho, glorify criminals and sleaze bags - the last thing we need in Neoliberal America!  If either of these flicks gets the Best Picture, I will really be pissed, but hey  - who can account for such anomalies especially after the dissing of 'Avatar'?

As for Best Actor, I'd like to see Bruce Dern get it. He's labored in the movie mills for many decades (e.g. 'Silent Running', 'The Two-Headed Transplant' etc.) without getting much acclaim though he's a top notch actor. This would cap off a life of intriguing, contrarian roles and set within a compelling drama about an older guy on the brink of losing it to Alzheimers, in 'Nebraska'.  (The award will probably go to Matthew McConaghuey.  )

For 'Best Actress', my pick is  Sandra Bullock with Best Supporting Actress going to Jennifer Lawrence, star girl from 'The Hunger Games'.

Anyway, we will see. At least the Oscars should be a temporary diversion from what's going on in Ukraine.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Has Too Much Time On His Hands

Scene from 'Gravity' - Did the minor errors really detract from viewing? Hardly!


Some readers may recall that I took on Neil DeGrasse Tyson before over the issue of Pluto and whether it was a planet or not. See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-wrong-about.html  Now, it appears, Neil has been blasting - tweeting the new space flick 'Gravity' as "scientifically inaccurate".  Note that this is on the basis of maybe 5-6 occasions for artistic license and perhaps 1-2 actual errors from a film that gets 99% of gravity -free action correct. Can Tyson really have this much time on his hands?

Some of the tweets dispatched from this Director of the Hayden Planetarium follow, and then the responses from Jet Propulsion Laboratory astrophysicist Kevin Grazier, who was science advisor for the film:

- "The astronauts couldn't think of getting to the International Space Station (ISS) as it's no where near the Hubble - they're in totally different orbits."

Dr. Grazier's response:

"The creators knew that in the real world you could not get from the Hubble space telescope to the space station. But so WHAT?  We're not doing documentaries."

Tyson again:

"When Clooney releases Bullock's tether he drifts away. In zero-G a single tug brings them together".:

Dr. Grazier:

"Right. Whoops."

Tyson:

"Why, in an otherwise convincing zero G scene did Bullock's hair not float freely on her head."

Grazier:

"Look, story trumps science every time. When I looked around the theater people weren't going....'errrmm....no that's wrong', but their eyes were glued to the screen in awe. I think we had it."

 I think the last is the most germane. In the end, producers - movie makers, to make a film audience -worthy, will always take some exceptions to reality. Hell, that's why we watch movies. If we were only invested in strict facts, we'd stick to documentaries. Having said that, 'Gravity' is a film vastly more faithful to the real physics in the zero -G environment than many similar space flicks. I mean, even 2001 -  A Space Odyssey, didn't get everything perfectly correct. But so what, it was still a great film.

No one should let Tyson's nitpicks deter them from seeing a terrific movie. In fact, wifey and I plan to see it again .

'Gravity'- A Space Flick to Keep You Strapped to the Edge of Your Seat!

Ever since "Avatar", I've been patiently waiting for a movie that did justice to "Real 3D" and wasn't merely a 2 .5 D ripoff. Alfonso Cuarón's  film 'Gravity' more than qualifies and even surpasses 'Avatar' because it's set in space - 658 km above the Earth, and the viewer literally feels every twist and turn of the spacecraft, every lurch, gyration, leap and misstep - especially when one of more of the astronauts becomes untethered and is free floating. Several times, on account of the realistic effects (working platform rotating relative to the Earth below), I had to avert my vision in order to avoid motion sickness. That is how real the 3 dimensional effects were!  (The film is also available in IMAX 3D which, I am sure, accentuates the effects even more.)

The scene of Earth below conjoined with the closer field view of the two astronauts ('Matt Kowalski"  - George Clooney, and "Ryan Stone" - Sandra Bullock) puts the viewer right with them  at that altitude - looking down at the Earth, as Stone attempts to repair the Hubble telescope. Stone is a high profile medical engineer, and Kowalski is her "driver" as he puts it. It is up to her to get a critical panel interface installed within an hour....when all of a sudden.....well, you have to see the movie. But let me say it is the most realistic, physics-based science fiction film since '2001 - A Space Odyssey'.

In that sense, let us be clear that the laws and principles of physics are as much "co-stars" as the two headliners, Clooney and Bullock. Indeed, one might even go so far as to suggest the laws of physics steal every scene. How so? Because every scene is totally faithful to the effects that would occur in a gravity-free environment, from when bolts come loose, to when one of the astronauts sheds a tear, to when an attempt is made to open an air lock (on the space station nearby).

The film was four and a half years in the making, and you can see it with every scene in the meticulous attention to detail and particularly the harshness of the space environment.  The unrelenting tension in the movie - continually amped up by the REAL 3D effects- is triggered after debris from an exploded Russian satellite (the Russians destroyed it on account of  its having become unstable in orbit) crashes into their shuttle,  catapulting them into pure survival mode.

With oxygen rapidly depleting and time running out, Ryan and Kowalski must use a combination of flight training, physics and luck to get them back to safety. How they do it is the whole gist of the story, and I don't intend to spoil any of it for potential movie goers.

Suffice it to say, if you are into 3D special effects  - I am talking seriously realistic ones that make it seem as if you're right there amidst the action- then you need to see this flick! If you love settings in space, as I do, and are looking for a combination of Disney World space ride simulated adventure and taut story, don't miss 'Gravity'.

It not only kept us bolted to our seats for 90 minutes, but totally took our minds off politics and the ongoing shutdown of the government, and that's saying a lot!

This is one movie you will not mind spending $9.75 to see (matinee), to obtain genuinely 3D special effects that will make you dodge objects coming at you when you least expect it!

Oh, and it might be a good idea to have gravol handy just in case!