This year I have not played my usual role of film critic and awards commentator. Basically, I have not seen enough films to comment intelligently on the overall landscape of film in 2007. Nor have I seen enough of the films competing (and excluded from competition) to comment on the Oscar race. BTW, I would recommend A. O. Scott's piece on the Oscars . . . "A bit of perspective is needed. The wonderful thing about the Academy Awards is that they are fundamentally trivial. To pretend otherwise is to trivialize movies. . .[Read more]."

Last night I finished watching the five best picture nominees, so I can comment on them. I'm not sure if they are the five best films of the year or if the best film of the year is included or excluded, but I can comment on what I think of these five as competitors.

Michael Clayton
I didn't really like this one too much. Michael really did, and the more we talked about it and the more I thought about it, the more open I was to it, so I should probably see it again. It's best quality is the sharpness and intensity of the style.

Atonement
I have read the novel, so that always influences how you experience a film. I LOVED the representation of the first act. It was stylish and intense (great score and sound effects editing). Act two, I think, failed to convey the real sense of the story and the long tracking shot was simply overdone. The filmmaking got in the way of the film. Act three was okay. And the denouement was stunning. I was kinda surprised it ended up being nominated, because it seemed to be slipping in standing.

There Will Be Blood
This is the one I saw last night and will need to re-read some reviews and think about it further. Daniel Day-Lewis is quite something, as I had heard. Overall I loved the style of the film. It included a series of homages to other directors (John Ford, Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, though oddly enough I found it the least Altmanesque of P. T. Anderson's films, despite being dedicated to Altman's memory). I'm still not sure what to think of it. The ending completely baffled me and left me wondering if I had approached the entire film wrong. Let me explain. When Daniel was in the church confessing his sins in order to get the lease on the Bandy land, many in the audience were laughing. I was annoyed at this, and thought they were missing the power of the scene. Yet, at the end, everyone was laughing again. And it did seem to be over the top. Then, when the film piece of music (I think Brahms) began playing it's light-hearted mood, I felt betrayed. Was I supposed to have viewed the entire thing as an absurd comic commentary on human madness instead of as a dramatic epic of human greed?

Juno
I loved Juno. The night I saw it, I decided that I liked it better than No Country for Old Men. It is charming and intelligently written. Each of the characters is well played. It is authentic to human emotional experience. I laughed so hard that the folk sitting next to us made fun of me (which pissed Michael off). I wouldn't be surprised if it pulled an upset, since often the biggest money-maker wins.

No Country for Old Men
I wrote about this film when I saw it. And after seeing the other four, I think it holds up as the best of the bunch. The writing, acting, cinematography, set design, costuming, etc., etc., are all just right, each contributing their part to make this very well crafted film.

BTW, Marfa, Texas deserves an honorary Oscar for being the location for the filming of two of these films and providing landscapes that really become characters themselves.