OSCARS 2022 - Pre-Show Thoughts & Predictions

 

 

OSCARS 2022 Thoughts and Predictions: 

- Here we are, on the verge of yet another pandemic-era Oscars, To quote a legendary cinematic figure: "how did it come to this?" 

The movies are in such a strange place right now. Many of us began returning to theaters in 2021, and yet ... the pandemic unquestionably has changed our movie-going habits irrevocably. And that's especially notable during Oscar season - at a time when the older audiences who usually help propel standout indie films at the box office have still, largely, been staying home. This meant that the secondary and tertiary release windows for inherently older-skewing films like West Side Story was more important than ever this year, during a time where this and other films' box office receipts were noticeably low. The problem though is that any piece of content releasing at home these days is competing with hundreds of other pieces of content also releasing on at home on a given week. Even huge tentpole movies and TV series are having a hard time breaking through the clutter - so what chance does a niche movie have? Luckily, we've seen a few real breakthroughs even in this hyper-competitive environment. Something like Coda, for example, has continued to slowly but surely build up a following over a long period of time since its initial release. Apple's long-tail promotional strategy for this film is a great example of how to do it right - especially in a world where movies tend to drop on the bigger streamers with little fanfare and then disappear from the popular discourse at lightning speed. 

I will also acknowledge that there's been a lot of discussion about whether the year's biggest blockbusters - like Spider-Man: No Way Home - should be in the Best Picture race. Look, I have long been an advocate for big blockbusters (as well as sci-fi, horror, comedies, etc) getting legitimate consideration at the Oscars IF they are truly worthy. I've been thrilled when truly standout movies like Black Panther have been nominated. But by the same token, the Oscars should always be about merit and not box office gross or streaming views. If you make it purely a popularity contest, then it isn't a real awards show anymore - and the Oscars already have enough issues with awarding films based on strength of their campaigns (and the studio dollars that go into those campaigns) as opposed to voters proactively seeking out the year's best films of their own volition. What's more, deserving smaller films actually rely on the Oscars to help their financials, as do smaller indie film studios. If the race is always cluttered with blockbusters, the industry would really suffer. Finally, I don't put any stock in arguments that revolve around TV ratings for the actual ceremony. Linear TV ratings are a sinking ship and will continue to trend down no matter what. So the Oscars should focus on rallying the base of film fans and keeping that core audience engaged and excited. Look at how the Game Awards have become a juggernaut in terms of viewership - the Oscars should take a page from that show and use the ceremony to generate hype for upcoming films (with trailer premieres, big reveals, announcements, etc). But the actual nominees need to remain based on merit.

I also hope that people will continue to be more familiar with and open to all the different ways to watch these movies. For me, someone who historically would try to see every likely Oscar nominee by the end of the year, my usual opening weekend trips to the theater evolved into a carefully curated mix of in-theater and at-home viewing - depending on where things were playing (and man, was the Arclight Hollywood missed this past year), how crowded a given showtime was looking, and what was available to watch at home and when. But I did see a lot, and by the end of the year I'd seen all but one or two of the eventual Best Picture nominees (which I've now since caught up on!). 

I will say though, 2021 was definitely one of those years where some of the best films were just, well, not Oscar movies. It's frustrating to me that there are even still movies that we know, as fans, are not going to be appreciated by Oscar voters' traditionally more conservative tastes. I mean, Pig was one of 2021's undeniable masterpieces - it should have been in the mix. Same goes for other small and quirky - but still amazing - films, like the superlative Red Rocket.

And with that said, as is tradition ... here are my Top 10 OSCAR SNUBS for this year:

1.) Tick, Tick ... Boom! for Best Picture.

- Seriously, Oscars - come on, now. Andrew Garfield gave an incredible performance in this one - and he's rightly nominated for it. But also! The direction! The cinematography! The music! This movie is the total package, and 100% should have been in the Best Picture race this year. This is definitely one of those classic examples of "the Oscars are out of touch."

2.) Peter Dinklage for Best Actor for Cyrano

 - Granted, Cyrano had the misfortune of having a wonky release schedule due to COVID delays. But still, I mean - this one had an all-timer performance from Dinklage and it's crazy that he isn't in the Best Actor mix. Go watch Cyrano if you haven't seen it!

 3.) Red Rocket for Best Picture and Simon Rex for Best Actor

- Red Rocket is an incredible tour de force of a film - an absolutely biting social satire. For whatever reason though, it's genius director Sean Baker seems perpetually underappreciated by the Oscars (yes, I'm still bitter that the incredible The Florida Project wasn't a Best Picture nominee). But man, at the least, the jaw-dropping lead performance in this one from Simon Rex should have been recognized.

4.) Pig for Best Picture and Nicholas Cage for Best Actor

-Why do the Oscars perpetually fear weird movies? Is there some unwritten rule that Oscar nominees must always be down-the-middle and straightforward? Okay, occasionally something like a Shape of Water defies the odds, but for the most part, it's hard out there for the strange ones. Because I'm not quite getting how anyone could watch Pig and NOT place it among their Top 10 films of 2021, or put Nic Cage in a similar top-tier for Best Actor. This movie sticks with you, it's powerful, it's kind of crazy but also incredibly resonant.

5.) Spencer for Best Picture

- I don't get how Spencer - a film that floored me last year - became such a seeming Oscar underdog. Yes, it's got a stunning lead performance from the rightfully-nominated Kristen Stewart, but it's also just one hell of a movie that deserve its Best Picture props. Just an incredibly-crafted film top to bottom. I think about its ending all the time. What a movie.
 
6.) The Sparks Brothers for Best Documentary

- What?! How-?! The Sparks Brothers was one of my absolute favorite films of 2021, period. A joyful ode to creativity and originality, this rock doc from Edgar Wright not only wowed me, but it made me a legit mega-fan of the band Sparks. This one should have been a contender.

 7.) Alana Haim for Best Actress for Licorice Pizza

- Okay, LP is nominated for Best Picture. Cool. But this film also features one of the most notable breakout performances I've ever seen in a film in the form of Alana Haim's incredible turn in the lead role. How could she possibly not be nominated for Best Actress? A huge, huge miss from the Oscars.

8.) The French Dispatch for Best Picture

-  Somehow Wes Anderson seems to have fallen out of favor with film snob types of late, but ... have they seen The French Dispatch? Arguably one of Anderson's best-ever films, this one is funny, resonant, meticulously-crafted, and features a murderer's row of top-notch actors doing amazing work. I think people are starting to catch on, and years from now people will look back and wonder why this film wasn't more celebrated upon its initial release.

9.) Cate Blanchett for Best Supporting Actress for Nightmare Alley

- Here's another classic Oscar logic gap. Nightmare Alley is nominated for Best Picture (deservedly!), and it's a movie filled top to bottom with fantastic supporting performances. And the one that stands out most of all is Blanchett in classic film noir femme fatale mode. She absolutely owns ever second of screen time she's given. It's an iconic performance from an all-time great actress! And yet, no nom? Not cool.

10.) Ruth Negga for Supporting Actress for Passing

- Passing was a really interesting, thought-provoking, beautifully-shot film with a lot to say about race and class in America. I would have loved to see it get more Oscar attention overall, but in particular, the lack of the always-great Ruth Negga in the Supporting Actress race feels like a big snub. Negga is so great as an black woman "passing" as white, and she plays the moral complexities of her character to perfection.

 

Bonus Snub 1: Oscar Isaac for Best Actor in The Card Counter

 

- The works of Paul Schrader tend to be a little too dark and subversive for Oscar tastes. But man, I loved The Card Counter and Oscar Isaac delivers an extremely memorable performance in it that's a real psychological deep-dive into a guy with some serious, serious issues. 

 

Bonus Snub 2: Annette for ... anything! (but at THE LEAST for Best Song)

 

-  Speaking of Sparks, this really was their year. Their rock musical Annette was a quirky delight, and I mean ... how does it at the least not get nominated for Best Song, when it's filled with great tunes like the opening Sparks-led banger "So May We Start." There's so much more that could be said about this one - all-in performances from Adam Driver and Marion Cotillard, for example - but just ... go watch it, okay?

 

Bonus Snub 3: Jared Leto for Best Supporting Actor for House of Gucci

 

- Yep, you heard me. Sometimes an actor is so crazy, so over the top, so otherworldly in a performance that it rides the line between greatness and cringe. Call it the Nic Cage effect. But I say, honor those performances that will be talked about forever. And surely, Leto's bananas turn in House of Gucci is in this category. Maybe you loved to hate it. I loved it. Give this man an(other) Oscar, dammit all.

 

 

Okay, that was a lot of snubs, huh? So let's put that pent-up annoyance behind us and get to the actual predictions. So without further ado, my ...

 

2022 OSCAR PICKS AND PREDICTIONS:

 

BEST PICTURE:

Should Win: Licorice Pizza

- This is a tough one. Since its release, Licorice Pizza has become a pretty divisive movie. And I totally get it. The film deals with some uncomfortable themes (a relationship between a 20-something young woman and a teenage boy) and depicts racism in a way that some are taking deep issue with. It's tricky. And unfortunately, I think the limits of Twitter discourse do a complex film like this no favors. I also think that the movie does in fact make a few tonal missteps with how it handles certain things. For example, Jon Michael Higgins' depiction of a racist character feels too comedic, his lines played too much like laugh lines. That said, I think the intent of the film - and of its writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson - is indeed to challenge us as viewers and make us grapple with a lot of uncomfortable moments. I don't think the depiction at all equals endorsement here. On the contrary, the movie is about the very messy moments between childhood and adulthood and the urge we have in early adulthood - faced with the ugliness and horrors of the adult world - to somehow turn back the clock and just ... go back. There is SO much going on in this film, and to me it's both one of the most thought-provoking films of the last few years and also, at the same time, one of the most enjoyable. There are so many scenes that just absolutely sing. The sense of energy and life in this movie is tangible, and the way it captures and memorializes moments big and small is enthralling. My best movie experience of 2021 was seeing this during its initial limited theatrical run, with a crowd that was hanging on every one of those moments - always a sure sign of a truly great film. Personally, I can be hot and cold on PTA's films. But to me, this is one of his absolute best. A kinetically-charged look at growing up that's both hilarious and painful. This isn't a movie that provides answers. It simply captures a moment and lets you live in it. To me it deserves that Best Picture trophy. On a sidenote though, I'll also just say that I really loved a lot of films in this category. I'd be cool with a win from Nightmare Alley, West Side Story, Dune, Belfast, or Drive My Car.

 

Will Win: West Side Story

 

- This is a very tough prediction to make this year. We've seen Coda gain a lot of momentum. We've seen Power of the Dog emerge as a favorite. At the end of the day though, it's hard to bet against Steven Spielberg, Tony Kushner, and a stunningly re-imagined version of a classic Hollywood movie musical. This is Spielberg in both crowd-pleasing show-off mode and Oscar-bait prestige mode simultaneously, and that, I think, will prove to be an unbeatable combination with voters.

 

BEST ACTOR:

Should Win: Andrew Garfield (Tick, Tick ... Boom!)

-For me, this one is a pretty easy choice. Garfield was next-level in TTB, and showed why he is such a uniquely talented actor - a guy who can do pretty much everything and anything. This was one of *the* performances of the year, and the one that I think is going to stick with a lot of people in a very real and even life-changing way.

Will Win: Will Smith (King Richard)

- I really dug Will Smith's turn in King Richard - it's an incredible performance and arguably Smith's best-ever role. Did I love it as much as I did Andrew Garfield's turn in TTB? Not quite. But I think the story behind the story here is just too much for voters to resist - one of Hollywood's most beloved modern superstars coming back to do A-level work after several years of not-quite-A-level projects. I can't begrudge Will Smith getting his due.

BEST ACTRESS:

Should Win: Kristen Stewart (Spencer)

- I know the Kristen Stewart fans are vocal and they are legion. And I count myself among them, because to me Stewart is pretty much always great - whether she's running from underwater monsters or portraying an iconic member of the British royal family. For whatever reason though, she seems divisive to some (maybe olds who can't get over her Twilight days). But to me, this is actually an easy pick. Her role in Spencer was freaking incredible. She helped make this story of Princess Diana into one of the most tense, nail-biting, horror-movie-esque films I've ever seen. Give her the Oscar!

 

Will Win: Olivia Colman (The Lost Daughter)

 

- This one is really, really tough to call. There are a lot of big names but few of the featured movies feel unanimously acclaimed or praised. Obviously, per above, I'd love to see Stewart take home a surprise trophy - but I'd still bet on an awards favorite like Colman - whose work in The Lost Daughter was undoubtedly incredible - to walk away the winner.


BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Should Win: Ciaran Hinds (Belfast)

- For me this is a two horse race between Hinds and Troy Kotsur from Coda - and I loved both performances. However, I think Belfast is the better overall film, and I thought Hinds had the more memorable scenes. Belfast has one of the best portrayals of a kid/grandparents relationship I've ever seen in a movie, and Hinds is a huge part of why it's so great. 

 

Will Win: Troy Kotsur (Coda)

 

- Again, I loved Kotsur in Coda and will be more than happy for him if he wins. And I do think he has that momentum, as does Coda as a whole. But man, Kotsur really is the heart and soul of that film in a lot of ways, and he helps elevate the movie with his funny, heartfelt, and affecting performance. 

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Should and Will Win: Ariana DeBose (West Side Story)

- I predict a clean sweep for West Side Story in all of the major categories in which it's nominated. But of those categories, this one is easily the biggest lock. DeBose crushed it in West Side Story, and her stellar performance combined with the overall quality of the film makes her the biggest sure-thing in this year's Oscar race. I loved Judi Dench in Belfast, Aunjanue Ellis in King Richard, and Jessie Buckley is one of my faves - but this one goes to DeBose.

 

BEST DIRECTOR:

Should Win: Paul Thomas Anderson (Licorice Pizza)

- Honestly, this one is kind of a toss-up for me between PTA and Spielberg. Spielberg directs West Side Story on god mode, and is likely to take home an award for that. I also really love the work Kenneth Branagh did directing Belfast and what Ryusuke Hamaguchi did with the fantastic Drive My Car. But again, at the end of the day, I go with Licorice Pizza and PTA's incredible prowess behind the camera. I mean, the backwards-driving scene in this movie is so viscerally thrilling and riveting and incredibly directed - it might be the action scene of the year, even in a year filled with Marvel movies and a Fast & Furious. So Licorice Pizza has that, but it also has such a powerfully immersive vibe - capturing a time and place (the San Fernando Valley in the 70's) but also a feeling (coming of age, caught in the liminal space between childhood and adulthood) in a powerful way that flat-out immerses you in the world and in the headspace of this movie. 

 

Will Win: Steven Spielberg (West Side Story)

 

- It's funny how the mood changes. In recent years, some pretty damn amazing movies from the legendary Spielberg have felt like an Oscar afterthought. But like I sad above, West Side Story is unique in that it's a total populist crowd-pleaser - full of colorfully-choreographed musical numbers and catchy songs ... but also elevates beyond that thanks to some darker and more socially-relevant updates from writer Tony Kushner. But the hype has built for this one, and in these uncertain times people take comfort in the fact that the Bearded One is still out there making great movies, seemingly better than ever. This is Spielberg's to lose - and as a lifelong fan, it's hard to really argue.

 

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

Should and Will Win: Licorice Pizza

- This is a tough one, in that a.) Licorice Pizza is still somewhat divisive, and b.) a lot of my favorite screenplays from this past year were not even nominated. Where are thou, Spencer, The French Dispatch, and the great animated film The Mitchells vs. The Machines? All that said, Licorice Pizza's got the goods. Some fantastic dialogue, some hilarious exchanges, characters that are complex and layered and that feel utterly real - even in spite of the film's nostalgia-tinged, dreamlike vibe.

 

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

Should and Will Win: Drive My Car

- I only recently saw Drive My Car, but man, I really dug it. It's now an easy pick for me in this category - as the film's poetic, elegaic screenplay and unique sense of tone and pacing makes it feel uniquely affecting and like something truly special. I think this one's got a shot, and I hope a win here continues the recent trend of international films not being treated as lesser-than in key Oscar categories.

 

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:

Should Win: The Mitchells vs. The Machines

- One of my hands-down favorite movies of 2021, I think Mitchells should win all of the awards. All of them! A new animated classic, this film is funny, delightful, visually-stunning, and has a lot of good stuff to say about being yourself, being part of a family, and accepting and celebrating our differences. I absolutely loved this movie and I'd love to see it take home a surprise Oscar win.

Will Win: Flee

- Full disclosure, I've not yet seen Flee. I hear it's great, and I want to watch it. And it's probably deserving of a win. I do think it's weird that Animated Movie is even a category. Historically this means "Kids & Family," but an adult-oriented movie like Flee totally skews that and pits some very different types of films against each other in fairly awkward fashion. I say do away with this category. Have a Best Kids & Family category and then a Best Achievement in Animation category that celebrates visuals specifically (and I say this as someone who loves animation in all forms).

 

BEST INTERNATIONAL FEATURE:

Should and Will Win: Drive My Car

- Look, if there's one rule of the Oscars, it's that an international film nominated for Best Picture will end up winning Best International Feature. This is the way. That said, Drive My Car is a pretty remarkable film that certainly deserves this win. I highly recommend giving it a watch!

 

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:

Should and Will Win: Dune

- Dune was legit one of my favorite movies of 2021, and I wouldn't at all be upset if somehow it won Best Picture. I think the sequel will end up getting more serious Oscar consideration if it lives up to the high standard of the first movie - but I also think, at the least, Dune deserve recognition in the here and now for how flat-out amazing and awe-inspiring it looked.


BEST DOCUMENTARY:

- Should and Will Win: Summer of Soul

 

BEST FILM EDITING:

- Should and Will Win: Tick, Tick ... Boom!

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:
 

- Should Win: Dune

- Will Win: The Power of the Dog

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN:

- Should Win: Dune

- Will Win: West Side Story

BEST ANIMATED FILM SHORT:

- Should Win: ???
- Will Win: Robin Robin

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT:

- Should Win: ???
- Will Win: Audible

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT:

- Should Win: ???
- Will Win: The Long Goodbye

BEST COSTUME DESIGN:

- Should Win: Dune

- Will Win: Dune

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING:

- Should Win: Dune

- Will Win: The Eyes of Tammy Faye

BEST SOUND:

- Should and Will Win: Dune

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:

- Should and Will Win: The Power of the Dog

BEST ORIGINAL SONG:

- Should and Will Win: "Dos Oruguitas" - Encanto

And ... there you have it. Should be an interesting show!

Celebrate film!

INHERENT VICE Is a Long, Strange Trip

INHERENT VICE Review:

- Paul Thomas Anderson seems to be in the "I'll damn well do what I please" stage of his career. Okay, so maybe he's sort of always been there, in his way. But INHERENT VICE continues what Anderson's previous film, The Master, started. It feels like a free-form meditation on ... something, with Anderson mostly content to just play with his eclectic cast of characters and see what happens. Should nothing in particular result? Fine by him. That's a big difference versus the thunderous statement of purpose that was There Will Be Blood - still, to me, one of the greatest films of the last few decades. Anderson is still absolutely at the top of his game in terms of craftsmanship. INHERENT VICE is so thick with smoky/hippie atmosphere that it's practically a cinematic contact high. And certainly, the film's plot - an adaptation of the Thomas Pynchon novel - is a neo-noir journey down the rabbit-hole that lends itself to a loose, more free-form sort of storytelling. It's The Long Goodbye meets The Big Lebowski. It's 1970, and it's the last gasp of the free-love, free-dope hippie community of Los Angeles before the times they go a'changin'. And Anderson paints this world in vivid, smoky hues - in 70 millimeter film, it all looks amazing. But while the scene is brought to life, and the shaggy-dog noir story rife with moments of tripped-out brilliance, I still wonder whether the movie is missing a certain something that could have tightened it up into an out-and-out classic. Again, it's that feeling that Anderson is content to sort of just play in this world, not so much concerned with taking the parts and fashioning them into a cohesive and thematically-impactful whole. There's a lot to love about INHERENT VICE, but it also feels like it could have offered more beyond leaving the audience feeling like they've just lived through a crazy fever-dream.

Let me preface by saying that not only am I a huge PTA fan in general, but I also have a huge affinity for sun-soaked neo-noir. I love this genre, and I love the ability it affords a storyteller to tell a free-roaming yarn where part of the point is that nothing quite adds up. INHERENT VICE falls squarely in that tradition, sending its protagonist - doped-out private detective Larry "Doc" Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix) on a strange, spiraling search for a real-estate mogul at the center of a SoCal crime conspiracy. Along the way, Doc encounters all manner of shady characters, corrupt cops, femme fatales, false leads, dead ends, and people who just plain want him dead.

On paper, and as I'm writing this, it all sounds pretty fantastic. And it's true, sort of: INHERENT VICE is rich with great moments and memorable individual scenes. The raggedy narrative takes the form of the film's barely put-together anti-hero PI - loosely cobbled-together, eccentric, and hard to get a read on. The film's scenes often work wonderfully as self-contained vignettes, as Doc has mesmerizing, strange, and often hilarious encounters with a motley crew of weirdos, burn-outs, and bottom-feeders. But the film also takes on a sort of self-indulgent quality, stretching out scenes long past their ideal expiration dates, and letting Phoenix sort of go off the rails in his portrayal of Doc.

Phoenix is one of the best actors working today. Maybe *the* best. But what made his performances in films like The Master and Her so powerful and effective was that his natural weirdness and eccentricity served as a layer behind a facade of normalcy, of being an everyman. In The Master he was the wounded spirit of American soldiers home from war. In Her he was the emotionally crippled soul of modern man in a world more about connection with things than with other people. Here, his Doc is just Doc - there's no pretense about who this guy is. He's a larger-than-life noir character in the vein of Philip Marlowe or The Dude. And playing that sort of character seems to give Phoenix license to just go all-out, balls-to-the-wall nutty. And PTA indulges him, lingering on long takes of Phoenix just sort of muttering, squirming, squinting, and smoking. Lots and lots and lots of smoking, with long, lingering drags aplenty. Don't get me wrong, Phoenix is great here, in his way. He's very funny. And he has the uncanny ability to say so much with just an arch of the eyebrow or a grimace. But the film perhaps goes *a bit* off the rails by indulging all of it. If you're into the whole brevity thing, then you might leave wondering if the movie's two-and-a-half-hour running time could have been cut short, for the better, had Phoenix been reigned in ever so slightly.

The movie's cast is populated with a litany of great actors. The best is Josh Brolin as square-jawed, straight-laced (at least on the surface) cop Lt. Detective Christian "Bigfoot" Bjornsen. Brolin absolutely kills it in this role, portraying Bigfoot as a guy who wants so desperately to be the man's-man ying to Doc's hippie yang that he comes off as oblivious to all of his own eccentricities. Brolin and Phoenix have an endlessly entertaining rapport, and the two play off each other brilliantly.

I was also really impressed by Katherine Waterston as Doc's ex Shasta - the trouble-courting hippie whose perilous relationship with shady mogul Michael Wolfmann (an entertainingly zonked-out Eric Roberts) is what initially lures Doc into launching his investigation. Waterston's Shasta is sort of the classic "out of the past" enigmatic woman, who waltzes back into Doc's life only to screw it up. Waterston does a fantastic job of making Shasta into a worthy motivator for Doc to get off his couch and back into the fray - making her into the hippie chick of a man like Doc's dreams and a man like Bigfoot's worst nightmares. There are a lot of other great actors who turn up in the movie. I wish we got more of Michael Kenneth William's black-power convict Tariq Khalil. We get a lot of Owen Wilson's recovering-addict rocker Coy Harlingen, and man, the scenes between Wilson and Phoenix are so thick with drugged-out haze that you may find yourself coughing afterwords. Wilson is always fun to watch, and though his character at times feels like a bit of a distraction, it's a welcome one. Also excellent is Benicio Del Toro as Doc's lawyer and confidante Sauncho Smilax, Esq. Martin Short pops up in a hilarious extended cameo as a loony co-conspirator of Wolfmann's. And Hong Chau is a scene-stealer as an affable young woman who happens to run a "special" massage parlor that's also part of Wolfmann's master scheme. Also of note: Jena Malone as Wilson's ex-addict wife, and Reese Witherspoon as a put-together Deputy D.A. Penny Kimball - who carries on a mismatched affair with Doc that seems to fill her with self-loathing.

Characters like Witherspoon's Kimball and Brolin's Bigfoot seem to tell a tale of a post-hippie world, in which a true-blue doper like Doc finds himself in a society that's generally become just as weird as he is. The film is set in 1970, and the hippie movement has already peaked. Doc and his ilk are soon-to-be an endangered species. The 60's are giving way to the conservatism of the 70's and 80's. The hippies have been demonized post-Charles Manson - Doc and his ilk are derided as cultists by the cops. And so Doc, with his enduring commitment to living out his days as high as possible, is the walking symbol of a dying breed.

Well, at least that's what I'm extrapolating. As in The Master, Anderson seems to sort of circle around these big themes in INHERENT VICE, but doesn't quite seem to decide what it is, exactly, that he's trying to say here. I've seen some reviews that further expand on some of the ideas I lay out above. But I think going much further is to read more into the film than what's there. Anderson, I think, gets caught up in putting forth an overall vibe of lingering, languid, stoned-out trippiness that he loses track of the big picture storytelling. The result is that the movie ends, and there's a feeling that the movie never quite came together so as to form a cohesive whole. The best noirs have a clockwork precision that informs the surface-level chaos. There are moments here where you can't help but smile at what Anderson's doing (and I haven't read the book to comment on how it works as an adaptation). You can see puzzle pieces falling into place in unexpected and funny ways. Sometimes. Sometimes the pieces just don't seem to add up. When they do, it's great. As with the slowly-unraveling revelation that Wolffmann is involved in a circular scheme, in which a cabal called the Golden Fang deals drugs and then profits from the rehab centers that the addicts inevitably end up in. But some elements of the film - like most everything involving Wilson's rocker, or the verbose, seemingly unnecessary voice-over narration - have too many moments that are head-scratchers.

I like a lot about INHERENT VICE, and it's a film that has a lot of greatness to soak in that's scattered throughout its sprawling running time. What keeps it from total greatness though is that the movie has a lot on its mind. It doesn't want to be pure, Lebowski-esque farce. Anderson seems to want to say a lot about the 60's, the 70's, hippie culture, cop culture, business culture, and the push and pull of liberalism and conservatism in modern America. I'm just not sure that he ever says exactly what he wants to say though. For that reason, INHERENT VICE can feel like a long strange trip without a true light at the end of the tunnel. At the same time, it can't be discounted, because the voice telling us this tale is one of the best damn filmmakers we've got.

My grade: B+

THE MASTER Asks Big Questions, But Provides Few Answers

THE MASTER Review:

- There's no doubt - Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the great filmmakers of our time. His movies are ambitious, thematically-rich, gorgeous to look at, and typically filled with stunning performances from top-notch actors. To me, Anderson reached his apex with his last film, There Will Be Blood, which was an incredible instant-classic. One of the top films of the last decade. And now ... after a lengthy wait, comes The Master. My anticipation for this film was off the charts. Anderson, teaming with Joaquin Phoenix, Phillip Seymour-Hoffman, in a film that was purportedly inspired by the life of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology? It seemed fascinating, thrilling, and like a potential masterpiece in the making.

The truth is though - I came out of The Master with mixed emotions. I felt like I had just witnessed some of the very best performances I'd *ever* seen in a film. I knew what I had seen was stunningly shot, meticulously crafted. Certainly, the characters and the narrative left me a lot to chew on. But I just wasn't quite sure what to make of the movie. It felt scattered, disjointed. It felt like Anderson had a lot of disparate ideas about man and master, about religion and cult, about post-war America, about Id, Ego, and Super Ego. But I wasn't quite sure if he ever fully tied those ideas together into one cohesive whole. Not that there's anything wrong with a collage-style movie. Anderson, of course, has experimented with that very idea in films like Magnolia. But you need that one through-line, that connective tissue, those "aha! moments" where the bell goes off and you see the forest for the trees. The Master is a film that may reward multiple viewings in that manner - as its layers are peeled back and the Truth behind some of its mysteries is exposed. But my gut feeling is that, while this film will be analyzed and discussed for years to come, its sketchiness and looseness will make most interpretations seem like they're reaching a bit.

But let's go back to the acting for a second. For let it be said: Joaquin Phoenix simply takes things to another level in this one. As Freddie Quells, Phoenix has a Brando-esque rawness that is totally captivating. He lets it all hang out, and goes for broke. Quells is sailor returned from serving in World War II. To what extent he always was a certain way, and to what extent he's been changed and warped by the war, we don't quite know. But Freddie, when we first meet him, is like some kind of feral, almost neanderthal-esque man who wants to fight and fornicate. Post-war, he wanders from odd job to odd job, but his self-sabotaging ways get him into trouble. Ultimately, he stumbles onto a cruise ship while trying to escape from some guys he's run afoul of, and has a fateful meeting with one Lancaster Dodd. Philip Seymour Hoffman shapes Dodd into a bellowing, charismatic cult leader - "The Master" - a blowhard philosopher/intellectual who is the founder of "The Cause" - a new-age belief system that bears some resemblance to Scientology. Dodd, a man typically surrounded by followers and yes-men, takes a liking to Quells. There's something about Quells' unchecked id that fascinates Dodd. Dodd's entire belief system is about controlling and repressing man's basest and most animalistic urges - and yet, The Master hints that Dodd seeks to tame Quells as a means of, in turn, taming himself. In a way, "The Cause" seems as much a way for Dodd to come to terms with his own vices - sex, booze, rage, etc. - as it is anything else. But Dodd is also clearly a charlatan and a fraud - a modern-day Wizard of Oz. Even he seems uncertain of what B.S. he'll spew forth next. But like many con-artists, part of the game is conning himself. And so, Dodd and Quells enjoy a unique sort of relationship. To Dodd, Quells is almost like a dog to be trained. And in many ways, Quells acts like a dog - ever loyal to his master, only half-understanding the things being said to him, being trained to obey.

The relationship between Dodd and Quells is what makes The Master sing. The scenes between Hoffman and Phoenix are often electric - a clash of titans that will shake you and stir you. There is a love and a hate between the two characters that is truly epic. And that strange relationship is made all the more compelling by the two actors bringing it to life. Let me just emphasize: what Phoenix does here is totally remarkable. As theatrical and singular as Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, yet with a naturalism and sense of immersion in character that I've rarely seen in film.

The problem is that there is a vague sense here of existential conflict, of life and death struggle, of a clash of wills between two men. But it feels like an outline that's not fully formed. In part, it may be that the film is actually hurt by its ties to the Scientology story. The fact is, there are some undeniable ties to the life story of L. Ron Hubbard - enough that it will be in the back of your mind throughout the movie - but the movie ultimately ends up having little to do with Scientology at all. To me though, the fact that the movie draws *any* comparison ends up hurting it. Because the moments that do evoke it also emphasize that the film doesn't really talk about the sorts of questions we all have about the religion: why would seemingly smart and well-off people join it? Why wouldn't they question the outlandish mythology on which it's based? And to what extent did L. Ron Hubbard intend for it to become what it has? The Master isn't really interested in any of these more specific topics. The movie is painting a picture in very, very broad strokes. It wants to explore why one man would follow another, even if the master's philosophy never really makes sense in any meaningful way to the follower. The movie posits that in fact, we are all Quells, and that only a thin veneer of B.S. allows us to function as civilized human beings. Because Dodd's "The Cause," says The Master, was never *really* about explaining the mysteries of the universe. No - it was, only, about creating a system that would bring this man followers - that would create for him a flock. Again though, while the movie works - and is thought-provoking - on this sort of big, grand level ... it's less compelling as an actual narrative.

Anderson stages the movie with a strange blend of matter-of-factness and dreamlike, surreal storytelling. At times, what we see may or may not be Quells' imagination at work - his delusions. But Anderson seems to shift from reality to fantasy on a whim. "He's making all of this up as he goes along," warns Dodd's doubting son to Quells - speaking of his father's philosophical principles that make up The Cause. Sometimes, the same could be said of Anderson's narrative. Maybe that's the intended effect? I don't know. But certain reveals fall flat. Quells' relationship with a young lover from back home is more awkward and baffling than anything else. So too is Dodd's strained relationship with his icy wife, played with great restraint by Amy Adams. Adams does a great job in the role, but her relationship with Dodd - and with Quells - is left so open for interpretation that it's hard to get a handle on. And that's the thing ... there are many puzzle pieces here, but few if any are moved into place by the movie's end. As phenomenal as the lead performances are, the film leaves you wanting for some sort of narrative meat to sink your teeth into. Anderson isn't trying for Lynchian abstractness, but he begins veering into that territory in a way that I'm not sure he fully intended. Perhaps Phoenix's brilliant but admittedly over-the-top performance ended up pushing the film in that direction. Perhaps Anderson - known for dreaming up disparate scenes and then later tying them together - never quite found that connective tissue I mentioned earlier. But regardless of his intentions, too many scenes in The Master left me wondering what the heck Anderson was trying to say. And no explanations I've seen or heard have yet sold me that there is, in fact, something major that I was missing. Maybe there is some grand, unifying theory of The Master out there that will change my mind. More likely, however, is that this is simply a case of big but vaguely-defined themes overwhelming the rest of the movie, at the  expense of  definable narrative progression and character arcs.

PT Anderson is one of the great modern filmmakers. And any film fan owes it to themselves to go see The Master - because even if it isn't a masterpiece, per se, it is one of those brilliant-but-flawed works whose high points are very, very high. The performances are breathtaking, the cinematography mind-blowing (not to mention - the intense, mood-setting score from Johnny Greenwood). Individual scenes are stand-outs. And yet, those high points make the movie's inability to fully resonate that much more frustrating. In a way, it reminded me a bit of this summer's Prometheus - grasping at the Big Questions but never quite addressing them head-on. The Master asks much, but rarely answers in a satisfying or definitive manner. And so you have to wonder - what story does this movie tell? I suspect that film fans will be wondering - and discussing - for a long time to come.

My Grade: B+