OC Screenwriters Association

Reitman Vs. Sheldon Turner Controversy: We Compare The Two 'Up In The Air' Scripts

This is an interesting comparison of the versions of the script that got made into the film "Up In The Air."  This after the LA Times printed a piece suggesting that Jason Reitman wasn't giving credited co-writer Sheldon Turner his due on the awards circuit.

link

 Imagine a person who travels so much and is so emotionally unavailable that he prefers the artificial environments of airports to home.  In fact, in "Up In The Air" one of the first things we find out about Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is that all the things that might irritate us about airports - the bad food, the security measures, etc, feel like "home" to him.

Interesting character with lots of potential.

The story is adapted from a novel by  Walter Kirn.  Bingham, the main character, is a professional corporate downsizer (job terminator.)  Even more to the point, he works for a company that is hired by other companies to do their dirty work.  They come in when companies need to dump a work force and handle it for them.  Bingham has a specific and time-tested way to do this.  

He doesn't condescend to the terminated and he's supportive without being chummy. He's good at what he does and the fact that he's devastating people's lives doesn't have a huge emotional impact on him so no long term repercussions - or so he thinks.  He's content and thriving.  Eventually, his way of life and employment will be threatened but let's not get ahead of the story.

As mentioned, Bingham loves to travel.  In a hotel bar in an opening sequence, he small talks potential sexual conquest Alex Goran (the stunning and sexy Vera Farmiga) by comparing rental car companies and their strengths.  Then they swap plastic courtesy cards and she is massively turned on by his mythical American Airlines concierge key.  

When they compare frequent flier miles and she confesses to only 60k / year, asking his numbers, he refuses, saying it's personal and she says "Come on, show some hubris - impress me."  

 A bit broad and artificially funny but also deliciously done.

I wish I could put all the dialogue in that scene in a bottle and sprinkle it on everything I write.  That's how good it is with two veteran actors making it work by delivering it to pitch-perfect perfection.

Bingham's ideal existence is challenged by corporate spark plug Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) who is developing a way to dismiss people using a webcam and a script.  Pushbutton dimissals.  No more traveling.  This horrofies and threatens the Binghm character's existence.  Clooney objects, saying she has no idea what she's doing and the boss decides to put them on the road together so the young pup can learn from the old dog.

At this point, you'd think maybe this was romantic comedy material.  Nope.  They aren't interested in each other even when Kendrick's boyfriend breaks up with her via a text message.  She's around solely to poke his conscience, tell him that his existence is a shadow of what it could be if only he'd find someone to love.  In fact, at some point she even disappears from the storyline and we don't pick her back up until the end.  

With her out of the story, "Up In The Air" lags and isn't nearly as sparkling as it was.  The two of them made a good team - her Yin to his Yang.  Once gone, the story becomes a bit tedious and mundane.

We miss moments like:

   Clooney: "I'm like my mother.  I stereotype - it's faster."

    Clooney to her on plane where she's typing hard:  "Are you mad at your computer?"  Her: "I type with purpose."

The Kendrick character is both an archetype and stereotype at times.  Her 1st real dismissal interview is too easy - too easy for him to be the hero because she's such a cluelss dork.  But she's got a good presence and it is sorely missed when Clooney has to work the  story himself.

The movie takes a completely different turn as Bingham and Alex ( Farmiga) bond after Kendrick goes away.  He shows her his high schol in Wisconsin, takes her to his neice's wedding, etc.  Why?  What function do these scenes serve.  There's really no moment when he realizes he's left this community life behind and become this island of himself.  There's also no reason given as to what event(s) pushed him into that lifestyle.  Abusive parents?  Selfish and handsome?  What?  But perhaps the entire sequence is meant to convey that.  If so, it is really weak and aimless.

I won't detail the ending Act because it has a lot of fun reversals in it.  It does keep you guessing at to what's going to happen and that's good.

Not a yuck fest, not a great drama, "Up In The Air" strikes an interesting balance between both but also fails to do either at times leaving you detached and uninvolved.  It's not sweet enough to leave you feeling happy, not sour enough to leave you wryly intrigued.  Perhaps that the place the filmmakers wanted.  For me, it felt a little unsatisfying.

I have no strong desire to see this film again.  But I am glad I saw it once.

Strong performances, solid material and a good job by director Jason Reitman (but not a Best Director win in my opinion.)  I also doubt that this film will get anywhere near the votes to win Best Picture.

What an odd little film this is.   Based on a memoir from British journalist Lynn Barber about her affair with a con artist when she was in school, the original essay was published in the literary magazine "Granta" and wasn't transformed into in a book until the film was well into production.  Begin the oddness.

Nick Hornby, who wrote the screenplay, is a well-known British novelist (High Fidelity, About a Boy) and who has had several of his books and essays turned into films but hasn't done much in the way of screenwriting.  Another oddness.

The story is straightforward.  A young girl (16) is transfixed by the attentions of an older man who sees her walking home in the rain one day.  Unknown to her initially, he is a con man who makes a living stealing art and also moving black families into housing units so when the old women who live there become afraid and want to move out, he can buy the units cheap.

Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is a bright and educationally motivated young woman who is a bit bored by her life and its predictable paths.  Every one tells her she should go to Oxford.  She thinks that's an okay idea until one day along comes this charismatic older man who shows her things she only daydreamed about - like night clubs and Paris and dog racing and all sorts of psuedo-sophisticated whirlwind events.

She's sixteen and he's much older - maybe by ten years or more.  They don't sleep with each other until she's seventeen so I guess that was okay but no character ever mentions the disparity in their ages which I found a little troubling.  Even her very controlling parents don't seem to comment much about their relationship.  The filmmakers would have you accept that they are as seduced by David (Peter Sarsgaard) as Jenny is.  A bit of a stretch perhaps.

A concerned teacher tells her to finish her education but also never says anything about the gap in their ages or how it's painfully obvious that David can manipulate Jenny's hunger to live a bigger existence so easily.  The people that David hangs with even comment on Jenny's grades in school with little or no recognition that she is still in school.  Odd compounded.

Jenny's coming-of-age is both exciting and painful.  Her arguments for her lifestyle changes to her friends and teachers are solid and seemingly informed but they are without a knowledge of how the world can turn on you - how wonderful can become horrible in an eye blink.  Ultimately, she has her way in pretty much whatever she wants and as the saying goes - be careful what you wish for.

The movie takes a darker turn at this point and I'll spare the details so as not to spoil it.  Jenny learns that life lived at that high a level has an equally high price.  Living like an adult means being hurt like an adult.  In most cases, there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.  

Cary Mulligan as Jenny is luminous.  If you've got a heartbeat you can't help but fall in love with her.  She reminds me somewhat of Emily Watson when she was up and coming, especially in "Breaking The Waves."  Mulligan's performance is instantly accessible and powerful - part of the reason is certainly the excellent dialogue with which Horny infuses the script.  The other reason is Mulligan's pixish face.  The dimples on this woman's cheeks are so disarming when she wants them to be - but inside there is a core made of solid steel.  Mulligan knows exactly how to use all that to best effect.

The rest of the cast is equally as accomplished and excellent with veteran actors like Alfred Molina as Jenny's father and Emma Thompson (in a throwaway role) as the school principal.

Hornby's screenplay is serviceable for the most part.  At times it really shines and crackles with his obvious skill.  But things like tired montages, skipping over lakes of emotion instead of diving in, and some unsatisfying resolutions drag those sparkling moments down.

Nevertheless, this is the rarest of all films these days.  A drama that is well-paced, interesting, and illuminates only a small corner of a world that isn't all that open to most of us.  What makes it work is the scent of sleaze that wafts from the Sarsgaard character.  You know he's wrong, you just don't want to believe it because his character also oozes a sincerity and hunger for normalcy that belies your instincts.  There's no doubt he loves Jenny - he just has no way to make that connection on a truthful basis.  A truly masterful character turn.

I am a bit confused by one thing in that this is a British film and yet not in the Foreign Film category.  It's about as British as it can be and yet it's in the "American" Best Picture category.  I've seen this before, obviously, but what are the rules these days?  I'll have to look them up.

This film won't please you if you're expecting big moments where people shout and throw things and chew the scenes.  But as is typical of excellent British drama, the many small moments are truly powerful and scream and bleed with the best of them.

At ninety-five minutes, I think this film could have been expanded by about ten minutes or so.  It felt as if there were a few scenes missing - a too fast transition to the darker parts and no solid expansion of them.  

"An Education" isn't perhaps the best film I've ever seen but it's pretty damned good.  Although I doubt it will win, it is worthy certainly of Academy consideration - and yours. 

Spoiler alert:  Most of this review is actually a rant about Quentin Tarantino.

Tell me honestly:  how in the world does a film like this make the best of anything list, let alone the Oscars?  Was it really such a good idea to let crap like this into consideration with the expansion from five to ten nominees?  This film and "District 9" (my review) were my two least favorite films of the group and I have no idea why they're in the list.  The only reason I watched this film was because I committed to review all the Best Picture nominees.  Next time, I'll just pass.

I'm well aware that some people have an appreciation for Mr. Tarantino's works.  I am not one of them. I've tried.  Not hard but I have tried.  

After "Reservoir Dogs" I've never gone to a theater to see one of his films although I have rented a few in an attempt to see what everyone likes about his movie making.  It's not that I don't like violent films - I write them myself - I just don't get this guy and his ahem "artistic" sensibilities.  Plus, there's a lot of good information that he heavily "borrows" a lot of his material from other sources.  Don't get me started on where I think he got his "Kill Bill" story - I'd have to point you at one of my movies and how similar his is to mine which was done years before and he did know about because we were both at the same film company at the time.

Yes, okay - maybe it's sour grapes.  I admit that he's got the sort of career I dream about.  But then again, so do a lot of other people who I don't dislike as much.

Sigh...

Enough about my Tarantino rant.  Let's talk about this movie.

Why?  Why make this film?  Did it tell us anything we already didn't know?  No.  Did  it illuminate the War in any fashion?  No.  Did it teach me anything - anything - about myself or the human condition?  Please.  Does it show American soldiers being sociopathic killers and torturers?  Yes.  And that is really an affront to every American, but especially the soldiers who fought this war.  And for crap's sake, it rewrote history!  Hitler and his high command killed in a theater explosion?  Do you fully appreciate the idiocy of that?  

Lighten up - I can already hear you saying.  It's made to be tongue in cheek.  Don't you get the joke?  No, I don't.  The only joke here that is consistently funny is that anyone found any value in this movie.

Let's see if I can synopsize it for you:  A group of serial killer Americans led by a serial killer commander choose to go to Germany and kill Germans in the most horrific fashion imaginable in order to scare the crap out of them.  Fun.  I'm getting the joke now.  

Morally bankrupt, overly tedious and way too long, Tarantino falls into the same traps in this film he has always fallen into.  He is too in love with himself to cut his scenes or his insanely long and boring dialogue - I'm shocked this wasn't a two-parter like the simple-minded, overlong "Kill Bill."  Why not pack it with even more extraneous garbage that doesn't make any sense?

I confess.  There isn't much that Tarantino could have done, based on his previous work,  to convince me that this would have been worth my time.  I did struggle to keep an open mind - and failed.  The introductory scenes just left me dead inside (or asleep maybe.)  Who exactly am I supposed to like in this film?  I guess the girl Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) whose family is killed in the beginning and...hmmm.  No one else.

I mean, seriously - defend these scenes and ideas someone:

• These very smart and clever men who are so good at what they do suddenly go stone stupid and make a plan that has no chance of succeeding.  It's so clever that in five seconds the Landa character (Christoph Waltz) has sussed it out.
• The bar scene - wha..?
• The "war paint" scene where Shosanna puts on her "armor" (makeup) before going to battle.  Tre' clever.  Haven't seen anything like that before in a hundred other films.
• The awkward nitrate film explanation scene inserted with a once-only voiceover narrative and black and white film footage  to us how explosive nitrate film stock is.  Let's see - can't think of any other way to do this so I'll just jam in a one-time v.o.  and break fourth wall.  Now that's filmmaking.
• And who told Eli Roth he could act?  Both he and Brad Pitt looked like they had gas through most of this film and Pitt seriously looked like he was channeling  the Don Corleone character from "The Godfather" with his jaw struck in some ridiculous fashion.
• How about the stupid cinema lobby scene which wasn't funny but more like a pathetic student film moment with Mr. Pitt using the broadest possible accent in his Italian.  Yuck, yuck - now that's just mega-funny.
• Of course security won't look behind the screen for the explosive film nitrate all stacked nicely for burning.  Just because Hitler's coming for popcorn - that wouldn't make any sense to have extra security - or even normal security - now would it?

And how about all that really artistic slow-motion violence?  Come on, Quentin - that was old in John Woo's heydey in Hong Kong twenty-plus years ago.  Can't you think of anything original?  Honestly, have you ever?

Damn it all.  This was 153 minutes of stupidity in my life that I won't get back. 

Shame on you Adademy voters for putting this miserable dog of a film in with some truly great films.  What's next?  Transformers III?

"A Serious Man" is as disturbing a film as one can imagine making.  More disturbing than "No Country For Old Men?"  Yes - blatant violence is absent from this film except for one unexpected moment that turns out to be a dream but what makes this film so hard to watch is the same thing that makes a newspaper so difficult to read - the random nature of life and the seeming non-logical nature of our existence.  

"Why me?"  Behind this simple question in this black comedy is a demon of epic proportions lurking - one we try to push out of our lives and deny.  But at the edges of a silent scream it waits doing nothing but sitting there with a smug smile and the power to completely destroy our lives. 

The story revolves around Larry Gopnik perfectly played by Michael Stuhlbarg, a professor of physics whose life is ruled by the certain logic of the Universe through his math.  He does his job, comes home, takes care of his family and is a decently observant Jew.  This is all of us at some point - taking our lives to a place we can't know and can't see so we just do the things we're supposed to do every day.

Things begin to unravel for Gopnik when one of his students tries to bribe him into changing his grade.  Gopnik explains to the student that he has no knowledge of the math behind the physics and so he can't possibly give him a passing grade.  The student says "But I understand the cat" refering to Schrödinger's cat, a thought experiment, often described as a paradox  It illustrates what Schrödinger saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The thought experiment presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event.  The student is arguing here that he gets the paradox, intuitively and doesn't need the math.  He understands the duality of our lives, both good and bad.  To Gopnik this is incomprehensible - until his life goes out from under him and he he begins to understand that logic isn't applicable here; he needs to try to understand the cat, something he won't be able to do for most of the film.

This goes to the very nature of the film which feels like it's mostly about the uncertainty of life - that we cannot possibly know in which direction we're heading because all directions are random based on a thousand minor interactions.  I kept seeing raindrops in this film - raindrops that collasce and form into floods that can drown us or sweep us along willy nilly to another reality.

The story narrative is loosely based on the Book Of Job who was beset by Yaweh by so many trials that he nearly lost his faith in God's will but in the end was rewarded for his staunch faith.

I won't recount the various events that lead to Gopnik's ruin but suffice to say that they are both mundane ("Dad, 'F-Troop' is fuzzy") to the profound ("Hashem (God) hasn't given me shit!")

Gopnik tries to get answers from attorneys and rabbis alike.  Most are inane, one drops dead.  Gopnik might as well ask a wandering dog for answers - those answers will not be not forthcoming.

Some see this film as relentlessly bleak and discouraging.  And perhaps that's the point.  The Coens wrap it in their sly humor but they aren't joking around here.  Or maybe they are since trying to figure out The Universe is like an ant trying to figure out where its at after being stuffed into a series of dozens of nesting boxes and then buried 1,000 feet underground.  Woody Allen had a great quote about this: "When you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans."

It's amazing to me that the Coens, for all their exalted and priviledged status as filmmakers can still find the common man.  Some would say they sit in judgment of these characters they create, laughing at them, showing us how superior they (the Coens) are to us all.  I think that's wrong-minded.  The story feels intensely autobiographical especially the Gopnik son who goes through the movie stoned and unaware of the bigger questions facing his father.  I think the Coens are channeling, not sitting in judgement.  At the same  time, their movies deftly point out that they have done some serious thinking about religion, God and these paradoxes of our existence and have come to no good conclusions, just more questions. Who has?  Anyone who says they have the answers, these films seem to say, is a fool.  Agnosticism is a robe the Coens pull on every time they sit down to create a movie.

The film is amusing and so very clever in its approach.  It teaches and informs without being overly preachy.  Okay, some of the scenes are thematically sledge-hammered into your brain but on the whole, there is enough cautiousness presented here that you're able to sit and allow the film to roll over you as you slowly develop this sense of growing horror that this is your life they're talking about - everyone's life in fact.

Nature plays a big part in the Coen films and this one is no exception.  Whether the natural forces are just that - nature - or God - isn't ever really made clear but there is a hint in the book of Job where God appears as a "whirlwind."  As it sits, you can interpet the ending any way you choose and it's valid.  That, in itself, is quite an accomplishment since it's rare in today's Hollywood that an audience is allowed to make up their own minds about how they feel (Mr. Speilberg, are you listening?)

I choose to see the agnostic message here:  Since we can't know we just have to act right toward each other and hope for the best.  Yaweh, God, if he exists is unknowable and unreachable.  Trust your fellow man, as bankrupt a philosophy as that can be made in some people's hands.  Does Bernie Madoff get pay-per-view in prison I wonder?  I think he needs to see this film.

The song "Somebody to Love" by Jefferson Airplane sums up the film to a neat degree:

When the truth is found to be lies
And all the joy within you dies
Don't you want somebody to love?
Don't you need somebody to love?

Watch "A Serious Man" and remember that no one in Hollywood, since Woody Allen went south on us, is making these types of films anymore. All right, perhaps the lightweight and self-serving Charlie Kaufman - but otherwise no one seems to be searching for these deeper answers in film and making that search as public and personal as the Coens.  

Allen did it in the 80's - the Coens are doing it now; twenty years from now someone else will be doing it again because it doesn't matter how many people do it, we all come to the same conclusions: if you're not sure that your religion or philosophy has all the answers then you can search until you're dead and you'll never be able to say with certainty that you've figured it out.

 Even if you're a serious man.

I saw "Up" with honestly little anticipation.  The trailers didn't intrigue me.  Not like "Wall-E."  Nothing about the movie seemed to appeal to me but really, am I the target demographic anyway?

I know Pixar is a wonderful company, with "The Incredibles" being one of my all-time favorite films, but I was never a huge fan of "Toy Story" or the other Pixar films - except as mentioned and "Monsters, Inc.".

My first thoughts were confirmed.  "Up" didn't thrill me.   It's a good film - just not wonderful.

The movie spends a lot of time needlessly setting up the backstory about a young boy who meets a young girl who both love adventure newsreels.  They become friends, marry and carry on for what seems an eternity growing old together.  Honestly, was anything in that overlong montage worth the hundreds of hours it must have taken to put it together?

Eventually, the woman dies and the old man loses the love of his live.  He finds  little to like about a world that has gone modern around him - literally.  They are building a super, ultra, modern-type building around his little patch of heaven where he married and grew old.  He simply refuses to sell or change.  When he hurts a workman in anger, he's sued, loses his house and is forced out.  

Instead of going to the nursing home, he uses his knowledge of balloons to lift his entire house 'up' and away to South America where he had always promised his dead wife they'd go.  He doesn't realize that he's also taken a klutsy little nature scout with him who has to "help an old person" to get his last merit badge.

The story is typically Pixar-like; complicated, at times touching and at (few) times well-told.  My problems with "Up" began after the landing in South America.  The direction the script takes is nothing short of bizarre.  Talking dogs (the one named "Doug" was freaking wonderful); an inventor who is also an old explorer who invented the collar that allows the dogs to talk and also to be his servants.  Huh?  There was absolutely nothing in the setup that fortold these parts and they come out of nowhere for a lot of head-scratching moments.

The old adventurer has an obsession to find a prehistoric bird which of course is right under his nose.  The old man and the kid (and Doug, the dog) have to help the bird escape and fight of the old explorer who was a childhood hero of the old man but now is evil.

Just explode my head now.

I'm sorry.  "Toy Story," "Monsters, Inc.," the incredible "Incredibles," etc. had clean storylines that made sense in their individual worlds.  This one did not and the convoluted nature of the plot takes away a lot of the charm of the film.  Is this really the best story they could have come up with?  Based on other, better films I say no.

This one just didn't do it for me.  I doubt I'll ever watch it again and I didn't recommend it to any friends although I wasn't negative about it.  I just shrugged when they asked me if I liked it.

I say 5 oranges on this one - not sour nor sweet but certainly more sour than sweet.

I was predisposed to like "The Blindside."  I like football and football movies; I like inspirational stories (most times) and I've always liked Sandra Bullock.  All good and as expected.

Yeah, it's over the top on sweetness at times; yeah, Bullock has her moments of scene chewing; yeah, it's "movie" football with all the bad that endgenders.  Even so this was a good, solid film about a remarkable story of how life can take us to unexpected places.

The story follows Michael Oher a supremely talented football player (he allowed no sacks in 2009) who is currently a starting offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens and how he came to that career through the strangest set of circumstances you can imagine.  

A white, upper-class Southern family, Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy (Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw,) find Michael wandering the streets homeless.  They take him in initially just to give him a place to stay temporarily, and through a long series of circumstances become his legal guardians since he's a ward of the State.  They make it possible for Michael to finish high school with high enough grades to get a football scholarship to The University of Mississippi to play for the Ole Miss Rebels, the Tuohy's alma mater.  This after being functionally illiterate and a D- student.

You can slice their motives for adopting Michael any way you want - white guilt, a desire to see this  talented football player play for Old Miss - or just plain guilt at their rich trappings - it's all explored in this thoughtfull and compelling film.  Anything you might think, say, imagine as to the angles on this story are covered and covered well.  I never felt like the information was being shoved at me but it was all presented in nice increments including Oher's background at being taken from his mother at a young age because of her addiction to crack cocaine.

The screenplay never falters pacing-wise.  Dialogue sparkles with some terrific one-liners (Sean Tuohy: Who would've thought we'd have a black son before we met a Democrat?) and is delivered pitch-perfectly by the cast.  The direction is solid and at times inspired.  The acting is very good all around with Bullock seeming to have inserted herself perfectly into Leigh Anne Tuohy's spirit and sass.  Even country star Tim McGraw does a very credible job.  Kathy Bates shows up midway through to do a turn as "Miss Sue" Michael's tutor.

A fun segment was when college recruiting began and Oher was visited by  some of the big names in college coaching:  Houston Nutt, Ed Orgeron (Oher's coaches in college), Nick Saban Lou Holtz, Tommy Tuberville, and Phillip Fulmer.  They are all played by the real coaches although some of them are out of football and some now coach for different teams.  S.J., Michael's younger (adoptive) brother. is shown finagling his own set of concessions from these men in various scenes to good effect.  The actor who plays S.J. is Jae Head and he is very good in this.

The film goes to some dark places, perhaps not as deeply as some would have liked, but for me the story wasn't solely about the sickness infecting our inner cities that allows mothers to abandon their children, but rather how we are redeemed by each other.  How we can only solve these intractable problems one kid at a time.

What the Touhy's did was indeed inspirational.  I'm sure there were times where they seriously questioned their commitment to this young man - but doesn't every parent come to a breaking point anyway?  Leigh Anne Tuohy and her family are heroes for stepping in when they could have looked the other way or just dropping a bundle of cash on a charity to assuage whatever guilt they felt.  They didn't.  And it's made the world just that much better for it.  Their actions saved a kid from a horrible and loveless life.  How cool is that?

On a side note, I liked that the screenwriter took the time to show us that yes, the Tuohy's had money, but also that they worked hard for it.  Leigh Anne was constantly on the phone, making deals, berating distributors, getting better wholesale prices for her design company.  Part of this is to show that she is a driven woman and can move the stars to get what she wants but it also had the effect of showing she's no slouch when it comes to being a working mom with a busy, active family.

The ending scrolls are sad in that they tell of children from Michael's neighborhood who didn't have the benefit of the intervention of the Tuohys - their stories weren't as inspirational and feel good - in fact, most of them ended up dead.  A sobering lesson at the cost of turning away from the problems facing all children but expecially those in the inner city where life and death are realtime preoccupations.

The measure of any film based on true events for me is, at the end of the movie, do I want to read the book upon which it was based.  Yes.  I definitely do on this one.   In fact, I want to find and watch the Oprah segment that dealt with this story and had the actual Tuohy family on.

This film earned Academy Award nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress (Sandra Bullock.)  Both nominations are well-deserved.

See "The Blindside" and revel in the joy of this amazing true story.

"Precious" is a hard film to watch.  The amount of misery and unrelenting pain that this film presents is almost beyond comprehension.  Poverty, illiteracy, rape, incest, HIV, physical and verbal and emotional abuse...how could anyone cope with all that?  How does the human spirit survive after being battered by all that? It's hard to fathom.

Like of lot of stories of this type before it, "Precious" explores familiar ground and expected consequences.  What differentiates this one is the expert handling of the characters and plot narrative - it never becomes burdensome or overbearing.

Directed by Lee Daniels and written for the screen by  Geoffrey Fletcher  "Precious" is based on first-time novelist Sapphire's book "Push."  Sapphire, according to background material, was a literacy teacher in Harlem and the Bronx for seven years.  The character of Precious is a composite based on the women that Sapphire worked with for those years.

The movie version of Precious lives with her abusive mother.  She is pregnant with her second child by her absent father.  Her first child suffers from Downs Syndrome, a child also conceived by her missing father.  Precious' life is a serious of mentally and physically abusive moments from school mates, neighborhood bullies and her mother.  What is implied but never really stated is that Precious is abused primarily by a system that allows all this to happen without much in the way of regard or remedies.

And yet, for all the agony the movie presents there is a strong undercurrent of redemption and hope - especially when Precious enters a special school and is helped by a lovely teacher (Paula Patton) to learn and to explore her inner self.   This is her true journey and the story of the film - we can help and redeem each other if we just listen and care.

First time actress Gabourey Sidibe has the lead role of Precious and she is really quite amazing.  Her angry and confused mother is played by comedian Mo'Nique who is about as pitch perfect as an actress can get.  You get the feeling that everyone here is channeling an experience that, if they didn't live it, they understand all too tragically well.  I'm not sure this is necessarily just an African-American story but it is certainly a story about how poverty and the relentless drone of generational ignorance about life options can infect and carry through from parent to child.

I can't find much to fault in this story or its presentation.  The use of background narrative throughout from the Precious character ties together a spare and understated script.  There are moments of violence and explosive emotion but the story is told so matter-of-factly that the horror of what is unfolding becomes even more overwhelming.  A tribute to the light hand of both writer and director.

The ending, which is a bit predictable and simplisitic but perhaps necessarily so, could have been so much bigger, drama-wise.  Lee dials it down, dials it back to a point where you just feel like you've been holding your breath a bit longer than you should.  You exhale and everything is released.  But not like you were choking for air - just like you missed a few breaths.  It's a marvel to think that Lee avoided what would have been a natural moment for the actors to chew the scenery and instead just guided them into a soft splashdown.

The film was set in 1987.  I didn't quite understand why since nothing I could see is specific to that time period and you never really got the sense that we were actually in a different era - except that no one had cell phones or iPods.

Bravo also to the actresses in this film who dulled themselves down to play these roles. Mariah Carey goes ultra-plain  to play one of Precious' counselors.  They sweat, have armpit hair, walk around in dirty shifts, and never try to look even one bit glam.  It reminded me of how courageous actress Shirley MacLaine was in "Postcards From The Edge" when she was in the hospital.  

See "Precious."  Perhaps it's not a big screen film experience but it is a powerful and sobering one.  It makes you ache for a way to actually help people to escape this cycle of violence and ignorance so artfully and powerfully portrayed here.

People say to me all the time that they don't make films like they used - yes, in fact they do.  

This Friday, all the Oscar-nominated shorts will be shown at The Regency South Coast Village Theater (live action link / animation link) 

I was lucky enough to get a screener and was able to watch them all.

The verdict: Worth every quick minute of time.

LIVE ACTION:

The live action set ranges from a horrifying look at post-Chernobyl consequences to a goofy and lovable wannbe magician.

“The Door” Juanita Wilson and James Flynn (Russian):  Even though the disaster at a Russian nuclear plant was over two decades ago, the shock waves are still being felt.  In this memorable short, we're shown how a family touched by the tragedy copes - or doesn't.

“Instead of Abracadabra” Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström (Swedish):  funny, goofy, great spirit.  The main character is a lovable loser who only wants to succeed as a magician despite his apparent lack of skill and his father's constant disapproval.  My 2nd favorite.

“Kavi” Gregg Helvey (Hindi):  This was a solid entry but didn't have enough power to push it over for me.  The young boy, Kavi, has a terrible life but there was something lacking in the presentation.  I think a bit more length, another few scenes would have helped.

“Miracle Fish” Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey (English):  A very different and clever piece with a shocker for an ending.  Nothing in this film is as you expect it to be.

“The New Tenants” Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson (English):  This was my favorite although it really didn't start out that way.  The opening few minutes irritated the crap out of me but slowly the film began to grow on me and I ended up smiling broadly and chuckling in appreciation at the end.

I have a hard time picking a winner in this set but I'm going to go with "The New Tenants" because it's more fully realized.  Although because it's a black comedy and there are two socially-aware entries here the Academy might go with either "Kavi" or "The Door."

ANIMATION:

The animation set is as fun and diverse as the live action set.

“French Roast” Fabrice O. Joubert (French):  A cute little animation that goes to some strange and wonderful places as a stuffy man struggles to figure out how to pay his cafe check.

“Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell (English, 6):  A funny idea that didn't really carry me in its execution.  I loved the little girl character and Granny was perfection but it left some things unresolved for me.

“The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” Javier Recio Gracia (Non-dialogue):  This one was a fun idea married to a tightly-paced storyline that reminded me of the old Looney Tunes cartoons in a very good way.

“Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin (English):  Perhaps the most clever and unusual of all the films.  I was entranced by the tapestry of this one.  The sheer scope of it was mind-bending.  I won't spoil it for you.  My 2nd favorite.

“A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park (English):  Come on - Wallace and Gromit?  How could anything or anyone compete with the incomparable Nick Park?  It's all there - the fatuous and foolish Wallace, long suffering Gromit, a villain of epic proportitions (like the penguin-chicken in "The Wrong Trousers") and the incredible story-telling artistry and craftmanship of the man who has never not won an Academy Award for his nominated work.  This was my favorite and has to be a fav going in.  Simply amazing.  How he does this time after time and tops himself is just beyond me. 

My favorite and I think the winner in this category would be "A Matter of Loaf and Death" although Logorama" is so visually stunning it might just edge out Nick Park's incredible work.

All in all, neither set disappoints and either set is worth the time and money you'd spend.