Mother and Child: Touching, Loving, and Daring

There is a time throughout the constant release of summer blockbusters in the months of May through August when a tiny, independent film makes its way (often slowly) into theaters across the nation. I experienced this pleasure earlier in the summer with the film Chloe starring Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore and have once again experienced it - to an even greater extent - with Rodrigo Garcia's film Mother and Child. With an appropriate rating of 82% over at Rotten Tomatoes, critics agree: this film is an honest portrayal of motherhood and adoption and an emotional roller coaster that will have you identifying with each character's struggle, joy, and heartbreak.

The film explores the topic of motherhood and adoption through three storylines that eventually intertwine, a narrative tool used by Garcia in in his previous works such as Nine Lives. Karen (Annette Bening) is a troubled, middle-aged woman who gave up her daughter (Naomi Watts) almost 40 years ago after giving birth at 14. Elizabeth (Naomi Watts) is a powerful, career-obsessed woman who eventually struggles with her own issues of adoption. Finally, Lucy (Kerry Washington) searches for the adoption of a daughter of her own with her husband.

One of the strongest aspects of the film, as many critics observe, are the performances. A.O. Scott with the New York Times says it best: "If you need reasons to see 'Mother and Child,' just read the names between the parentheses of this review (and add Jimmy Smits, as a goodhearted co-worker of Karen’s who gently tries to pierce her armor)." Our three leads supply incredible insights with characters that are complex yet recognizable, however Elizabeth's lines are sometimes stiff to remind us of her power and independence, yet the supporting roles are just as excellent and surprising. Samuel L. Jackson and Jimmy Smits play incredible, caring men who make the extra effort to care for the women they love. Shareeka Epps ()who deserved and received praise for her breakout role in Half Nelson) plays a tough, intelligent pregnant woman giving up her baby for adoption. Each character is full of realism and life, written incredible by Rodrigo Garcia's words. Another comfort with the characters in Mother and Child is the racial diversity: it's always nice to see a collection of color on-screen instead of the Hollywood white-wash effect.

Garcia's writing and direction help carry these characters throughout their three incredible plot lines, eventually intersecting at the film's end. What I try to find, when looking for great writing in a film, is the ability for a film to make comment on a number of issues throughout. This film, essentially, is concerned with motherhood and adoption, however, Garcia takes on many issues such as age, religion, and race. There is one scene where Elizabeth brings Paul (Samuel L. Jackson) to her apartment. She runs into her stereotypical, white, married neighbors and introduces him, comically stating "He's my father." She then remarks to Paul that it's only a matter of time until the couple speculates the hypothetical birth of their child: "Will it be white? Will it be black?" These quick interludes between these taboo topics are executed well within Garcia's intelligent writing.

What can really set a scene for emotional success isn't always dialogue. Very often, a scene is strongest when a character is doing what appears to be nothing: staring off-screen, laughing, or even putting on make-up. Michael Koresky with indieWIRE comments on Garcia's talent with this tool: "And though the film could never be called visually daring, Garcia here and there makes room for expertly crafted little grace notes..." There is one excellent scene where Elizabeth stands in an elevator, holding back a painful cry that she so excruciatingly longs to execute. These instances happen quite often throughout the film and caused this critic to swell up with tears, an action personally not often executed when watching a film. Garcia is at his best with his direction in this film, executing strong, emotional scenes with the smallest touches.

Ann Hornaday with The Washington Post is one of few critics who disliked the film, stating the film is "handled with restraint and insight -- at least until the film's maudlin, too-pat finale." Hornaday doesn't quite delve into the details of her dislike with the finale, but it is difficult to trust a review when Hornaday constantly misspells Garcia's last name. She either needs a spelling lesson or needs to escape her upper-class L.A. home.

But who should see the film? Ideally, everyone: no matter your age, sex, or gender, there is always an aspect of each character and storyline with which to identify. However, this film is meant for mothers and daughters. There is one scene in the film where Lucy struggles to calm her baby's cries. Ultimately defeated, she calls upon her mother who successfully puts the baby to sleep. Lucy herself continues crying, exclaiming "I don't love this baby. I can't do this." Her mother quickly reacts, scolding her: "What the fuck did you think being a mother was?" This is the central message of the film: to divulge the difficulties of motherhood, whether it is through nature or nurture, and identify the various struggles that each woman may face. After viewing the film I encouraged my own mother to buy a ticket, and I encourage all the rest of you as well.

Sex and the City 2: A Party without PC

This was originally posted on May 31, 2010.

Sex and the City 2 begins like every day should: with glamor and gays. The first 20 or so minutes of the film are devoted to a gay wedding, making politically incorrect statements about marriage and homosexuals. But the lack of political correctness only worsens when the girls make it to the Middle East, ignoring one cultural tradition after another. If an anthropologist were to view this film, they would have a heart attack. Lucky for most SATC fans, we're not anthropologists.

In the sequel to the hugely successful film debut of the popular TV series, Sex and the City 2 carries the girls from one side of the world to another. Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall) flies Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), and Charlotte (Kristin Davis, who hosts some of the best one-liners of the film) to Abu Dhabi to take advantage of an all-expenses-paid PR trip. They're immediately immersed in glamorous, fashionable conquests in the Middle East, all accompanied with drama. Carrie runs into ex-boyfriend Aidan, Miranda struggles with unemployment, Charlotte fusses over motherhood, and Samantha deals with her sex drive at 52.

One critic after another agrees that Sex and the City 2 is a complete and utter dud. Cinematical's Eric Snider reviewed the film, dripping in sarcasm, primarily upset with (besides the entire thing) the running time, 146 minutes: "There's nothing wrong with Sex and the City 2 that couldn't be fixed by shaving 45 minutes off the running time and replacing Carrie Bradshaw with a character who isn't spoiled and unlikable." For many, this running time is of no importance. The first film, Sex and the City, also ran at a whopping two-and-a-half hours, but I feel that both films succeed in creating and engrossing the audience into a great story. Sure, it doesn't follow your standard screenplay development, but it will engross you into the world of New York and Abu Dhabi.

The Hollywood Reporter takes a less sarcastic approach to their review, citing creator/writer/producer/director Michael Patrick King's script as unbalanced: "Carrie's minor marital problems are given way too much attention, whereas the intriguing
dilemmas of Miranda and Charlotte are downplayed." One of the popular themes of SATC 2 is the idea that marriage isn't always conventional. Not only does the film start out with a gay marriage, but Carrie and Big begin to make their own rules, like Big's proposal of taking a two-day hiatus each week. The struggle between the simple, conventional ideas of marriage are something that make the film so interesting. Taking a scissor to the reel of this storyline would dilute the material to almost nothing. As for Miranda and Charlotte, I do agree that their storylines are downplayed, but this is perhaps due to the random outing to the Middle East, where occupations and children are nowhere to be found. There is one delightful, emotional scene between the two beauties that brings a familiar discussion to mother's ears everywhere.

Roger Ebert scathes the film in his review, spitting out one sarcastic sentence after another. His primary complaint seems to be the sexy fashion of the film: "Carrie and Samantha also display the maximum possible boobage, oblivious to Arab ideas about women's modesty. There's more cleavage in this film than at a pro wrestler's wedding." Indeed, much of the wardrobe in the film promotes "boobage" over modesty, but this isn't the issue. The issue is much to do with the conflicting lines in the script, where Miranda constantly badgers Samantha for showing her cleavage and legs. Yet, when the gang goes on a camel ride in the desert, Carrie seems to have more cleavage than dress.

My biggest complaint for this glamorous, cleavage-obsessed film is the lack of drama. The first film, I believed was successful in its dramatic moments and most rewarding during the times of tears and anger (specifically the Valentine's Day dinner between Carrie and Miranda). Sex and the City 2 has its drama but not to the same degree: we are blinded by the lavish surroundings of the girls in Abu Dhabi (although, little secret, these scenes were film in Morrocco) and flashed with one glittering jewel (or man's package) after another.

There are many statements from the girls that are so overtly politically incorrect one may pause to decide whether to laugh or cringe. But, if anybody has been paying attention to the advertisements, this is about having a ball. This is not the same film as the first Sex and the City or the same content as the HBO television show. This is supposed to be a party, and it is a flamboyant one at that. So enjoy it. This movie is for the gays and gals, not the heterosexual, middle-aged men who review it (note: I am nowhere near that category).

Still Lost with "LOST"

The series finale of LOST finally premiered last night and guess what peeps - it was CRAY CRAY (as usual)! Everyone and their mom literally made an appearance on the series finale with some really intense, beautiful emotional scenes. My personal favorite was the appearance by Juliette as Jack's wife.

The entire episode was centered around the idea of love and trust. Each character has expressed love for someone or something: Jack and Kate, Sawyer and Juliette, Locke and the island, etc. Even more important is the love each character has had after the death one of the characters: again, Sawyer and Juliette.

There is a scene at the end of the finale where Jack meets his father once again, but this time not on the island. They have an incredibly ambiguous discussion that basically tells the audience and all LOST fans: this doesn't make sense and never will. Jack says: "How are you here right now?" and his father responds "How are you here?" And they pretty much say that you're alive and dead and have been.

In the final act, when on the island, Jack saved the island from beind destroyed and died doing so. Hurley and Ben were left on the island to take care of it. Kate, Sawyer, Claire and the rest of the gang made it off the island and back to "reality" (whatever that is).

My biggest problem with the finale was the religious undertone at the end. Someone said to me, after complaining about this randomness, that LOST has always been about faith but I disagree. LOST has always been about trust - characters constantly tell each other "You just have to trust me." I feel that this religious message at the end was quite random and inappropriate. What do you think? Did you enjoy the finale? Leave your comments so we can have a dicussion!

Chloe is Strong, Complex, and Mysterious

Amanda Seyfried has become a household name since her lead role in Mamma Mia! Before, Seyfried starred as a supporting actress in the not-so-complicated (but hilarious) Mean Girls and then moved to more heated material with HBO's polygamist drama series Big Love. Now, Seyfried stars in her riskiest role to date as an erotic seductress in Chloe. In the film, Chloe (Seyfried) is hired by gynecologist Catherine Steward (Julianne Moore) to uncover her suspicion that her husband, David (Liam Neeson), is cheating.

The highest rating Chloe has received at Rotten Tomatoes is 69% (convenient, considering the explicit sexuality of the film), a rating with which I wholeheartedly disagree. The film has its scenes that just don't work (many of which consist of Catherine's son), a few cliches (as Ebert puts it, a house out of Architectural Digest), but the film has two incredible female lead performances from Seyfried and, of course, Moore.

One of Cinematical writer Monika Bartyzel's distinct complaints about the film is the performances, stating:

The perofrmances seem fine, but removed... this is an erotic thriller, and if you can't feel that attraction, that need, that at-all-odds desire, it won't unfold and grab you as it should.

Her definition of the performances need in an erotic thriller are accurate, however, her perception of these performances is something I disdain. Chloe is a character to which you must feel a certain ambiguity towards; her motives appear ambivalent. You believe, at first, that Chloe is simply doing her job. But you then begin to question her motives: is she trying to help Catherine? Is she interested in Catherine's husband? Catherine's son? Seyfried has stated in interviews that her research for this role consisted of lengthy discussions with its director, Atom Egoyan, and I believe these interviews created an incredible execution of the character. Every move, every word is spoken with accuracy and seduction because, as Chloe says in the opening lines of the film, she's always been good with words.

There is always at least one sentence (if not the whole article) in New York Times critic A.O. Scott's reviews that I find inaccurate. Scott's review can be summarized by one line near the end of his article:

The heavy-breathing soft-core action, accompanied by Mychael Danna’s engorged musical score, is not itself objectionable, but it lacks any real dramatic vitality or emotional charge.

Mr. Scott's ignorance pollutes my perception of the film. The "soft-core" action that Scott describes is always accompanied by Danna's score, both of which I found incredibly emotional. The intimacy between Chloe and David cannot just be described as sexual but incredibly emotional because it always refers back to Catherine. There are two scenes where Chloe and David are intimate, and the emotional charge is so effective because it is inter-cut with Catherine's reactions. Even when Chloe describes the intimate relationships between herself and David, the descriptions are jarring because of the effect they have on Catherine.

For me, the most important quality of a film are its performances. There are films, such as Precious or even Julie & Julia, where a screenplay is not as strong as it could be. But strong female performances (from Mo'Nique and Streep) can make a film so much stronger. With Chloe, we are met with the strongest performance by Amanda Seyfried to date. Her character is so complex and her perception and delivery are spot on. The conversations between Seyfried and Moore are so raw and effective - both actresses are on par and have an intense chemistry.

Other strong aspects of the film include its score and cinematography. A.O. Scott may describe Mychael Danna's score as "engorged," but I would say the opposite. Half of the score was appropriately subtle throughout the film. There is a constant theme of guitar strings that represent Chloe's intimate presence in a scene. For me, these pieces are the strongest of the entire score. The cinematography, Cinematical agrees, is stunning. Paul Sarossy creates a visual character throughout the film. In one scene, cross-cutting between Chloe's and David's erotic meet-up and Catherine in the shower, Sarossy presents his strongest abilities as cinematographer.The beauty of the camera movement and framing of the shots communicate incredible symbolism and foreshadowing.

The movie's storyline and subject matter is so complex and interesting; screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson has done an incredible job handling such complicated material. Although there are some scenes where the dialogue is stiff, the film keeps you constantly questioning the motives of Chloe, even when the end credits begin to role. There is always a question of "Will this film be good?" as one takes their seat in the audience. Sometimes a movie that leaves you questioning is a movie that answers your first question. Yes, Chloe is strong in many aspects, and I cannot get it out of my head.

What does the "iSlate" mean for Hollywood?

The Hollywood Reporter has an interesting article on what the new Apple tablet has in store for Hollywood. What has been rumored to be named "the iSlate," Apple will announce details of the product soon (less than an hour)! It is expected to be tight competition with Amazon Kindle, an electronic reader, and will [of course] be fully loaded with other multimedia options.

According to Whitney, Hollywood isn't taking the iSlate seriously:

"The whole game is changing, and this is just one play in the game," says Jared Tobman, executive vp digital and production at Reveille. "Apple has a great playbook for how the new game will be played, but I don't think one device or one company presents the salvation or the end of content distribution as we know it."

Whitney should realize that this quote doesn't at all represent all of Hollywood. This quote, in fact, is quite naive. To say that one device or company can present the end of distribution may be true, but does Tobman recognize Apple's presence? It has already chance the distribution of media. iTunes began as a device for the music industry but has developed into distribution for both television and film (Hollywood and independent media).

The article also acknowledges Apple's presence with consumers, stating the tablet "...is the most buzzed-about because of the company's high marks with consumer experience and because of the iPhone's popularity."

This is, of course, another important aspect. Apple's popularity with consumers has that much more affect on the changes of content distribution with multimedia. Apple has developed an incredible amount of devotion from eager consumers who will demand their media when they want it.

"The TV business model already is under enormous pressure as studios and networks look for ways to shave costs from scripted content. There are only so many ad dollars to go around, which is why devices that support and encourage paid models are alluring. That includes smartphones like those from Apple and Google."

Here, again, we see another inclination toward the gray areas of distribution. Along with new technology comes increased costs to share distribution in every format. When one new technology is introduced, such as the iSlate, distributors must gather the funding - and with this economy is no easy task - to supply consumers with what they want. We, as consumers, demand what we want. Apple gives us this opportunity and distribution companies in all forms of media must comply.

My Oscar Nominations Wish List

The Academy Award nominations will be announced in about one week on Tuesday, February 2 at 5:30am PST. For now, I have compiled my own list of the major categories. Check them out and let me know what your nominations are! The bolded ones are my picks!

The Academy Awards will air Sunday, March 7, 2010.

Best Picture

• (500) Days of Summer
• An Education
• A Single Man
  • This film will certainly not receive the statue and it may not even receive the nomination it rightfully deserves. When I think Best Picture, I think Best Everything, and this film has it all. The performances are incredible and the adaptation from script to screen is extremely gratifying. What Isherwood completes in writing Tom Ford enhances in both the script and the visuals of the film. The range of emotions in the film is simple yet it holds such an incredible tone of beauty throughout its entirety.
    
• Avatar
• District 9
• Inglorious Basterds
• Los abrazos rotos
• Nine
• Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
• Up in the Air

Actor in a Leading Role

• Colin Firth -- A Single Man
  • You can bet he won't win it. Jeff Bridges will certainly take this statue home (I still have yet to see him in Crazy Heart), but I firmly believe Firth's turn as a single, lonely, recovering man is incredible. Firth accomplishes so much emotion without even opening his mouth, and when he does - to only mutter a simple sentence - it flows confidently and desperately.
    
• Daniel Day-Lewis -- Nine
• George Clooney -- Up in the Air
• Jeff Bridges -- Crazy Heart
• Willem Dafoe - Antichrist

Actress in a Leading Role

• Carey Mulligan -- An Education
  • Sandra Bullock has been taking home the awards lately. It seems to be that Bullock and Streep have been going head to head (and tying for the Critic's Choice Award). But the real star in this category is Mulligan. There is such confident in her character, but Mulligan places the ignorance and naivety of a teenager right alongside it. Mulligan has truly made a breakthrough with this performance but, unfortunately, she will not receive proper recognition. Sandra Bullock, if you even get a nomination... >.<
    
• Charlotte Gainsbourg -- Antichrist
• Emily Blunt -- The Young Victoria
• Gabourey “Gabby” Sidibe -- Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
• Meryl Streep -- Julia & Julia

Actor in a Supporting Role

• Christian McKay -- Me and Orson Welles
• Christoph Waltz -- Inglorious Basterds
  • He's been sweeping the awards and he deserves them all entirely. Waltz's turn as a Nazi killer in Tarantino's masterpiece is haunting and hilarious. There is so much joy watching this character unfold his cringing words with a smirk on his face. Waltz will get it, don't you fret.
    
• Matt Damon -- Invictus
• Stanley Tucci -- The Lovely Bones

Actress in a Supporting Role

• Anna Kendrick -- Up in the Air
• Julianne Moore -- A Single Man
• Mo’Nique -- Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  • As I've said before, Mo'Nique is really the only woman in this category who has blown me away. Her transition from comedy to drama is impeccable - she embraced this role more than almost any role I've seen on film (however, nothing can beat Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose). As I said in my review of the film in November: Mo' Nique will nab the Oscar.
    
• Penelope Cruz -- Nine
• Vera Farmiga -- Up in the Air

Directing

• James Cameron -- Avatar
  • Avatar, despite its incredibly lame and unoriginal script, is an original masterpiece of filmmaking. It's the future, and James Cameron carried it.
    
• Jason Reitman -- Up in the Air
• Lars von Trier - Antichrist
• Lee Daniels - Precious: Based on the story Push by Sapphire
  • I know I'm stretching it here, putting six nominees, but I would like to say that, out of respect for Mr. Daniels, we need more black men in cinema. And we need more gay men in cinema. And he did an outstanding job with Precious.
    
• Quentin Tarantino -- Inglorious Basterds
• Tom Ford – A Single Man

Writing (Original Screenplay)

• (500) Days of Summer -- Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber
• Antichrist – Lars von Trier
• A Serious Man – Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
• The Hurt Locker -- Mark Boal
• Inglorious Basterds -- Quentin Tarantino
  • He'll get it.
    

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

• An Education -- Nick Hornby
• District 9 -- Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tachell
• Julia & Julia -- Nora Ephron
• Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire --
• Up in the Air -- Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner
  • They'll get it.
    

Foreign Language Film

• Los abrazos rotos
  • Out of the films that have been nominated for past awards, this is the only one I have seen. The only other one I'm really looking forward to is The White Ribbon.
    

Music (Score)

• Avatar -- James Horner
• A Single Man --Abel Korzeniowski
  • Screw you, Up. This score is impeccable!
    
• Up – Michael Giacchino
• Where the While Things Are -- Carter Burwell, Karen Orzolek

Music (Song)

• Avatar -- James Horner, Simon Franglen, Kuk Harrel (“I See You”)
• Nine -- Maury Yeston (“Cinema Italiano”)
• Where the Wild Things Are -- Karen Orzolek, Nick Zinner (“All Is Love”)

Cinematography

• Avatar
• Inglorious Basterds
• Nine
• A Single Man

Makeup

• Avatar
• District 9
• Fantastic Mr. Fox
• Inglorious Basterds
• Nine

Costume Design

• Inglorious Basterds
• Nine
• A Single Man
• The Young Victoria

Art Direction

• Avatar
• Fantastic Mr. Fox
• Inglorious Basterds
• A Single Man
• The Young Victoria

Visual Effects

• Avatar (duh)
  

Animated Feature Film

• Coraline
• Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
• Fantastic Mr. Fox
  • This film is stunning with its animation. It's one-of-a-kind yet Up keeps taking this category, when it is absolutely nothing new for Pixar.
    
• The Princess and the Frog
• Up

A Single Man is One-Of-A-Kind

There are times when a film is so anticipated that it can be a disappointment. When Little Children was receiving its Oscar buzz in 2006 I fled to my nearest bookstore and purchased the book. To my delight, I loved it. When I finally saw the film, however, I hated it. This also brings about the problem of adaptation where the book is often always better than the film. For A Single Man I did the same – I quickly read the novel by Christopher Isherwood and fell in love with it. The film adaptation directed by Tom Ford, I am happy to report, is just as attractive and touching – if not more so than the novel.

Deborah Young with The Hollywood Reporter says: “Most of the action takes place over the course of a single day in Los Angeles in the early '60s, when being gay was socially disapproved. The film brushes ever so lightly on the issue of discrimination…” This distinction is important for the film and filmgoers. Many audiences may be surprised and disappointed by the gay subject matter of the film (thanks to the Weinstein Company’s heterosexually overwrought trailer), but one must note that the homosexuality is almost unimportant. There is no preaching of the acceptance of homosexuality, but instead a certain modernism exists. In 1962 homosexuality was much different – and almost unapparent – compared to today. Like the novel, homosexuality is not an issue. The script depicts it as just there.

It seems the reviews do not have any singularity to them. As I shift from one review (from the New York Times) to another (Roger Ebert) they continually pick on the visual richness of the film. indieWIRE fully agrees, stating: “…viewers who are totally cool with the gay themes still may be turned off by an 105 minute hybrid of moving painting and perfume commercial.” This is an ignorant exaggeration. It seems - since last saw the film - that nearly half was made up of intense close-ups of various images: a beautiful, blooming flower; a Latino man exhaling his cigarette smoke; a pair of eyes staring into the camera. If this is agitating to an audience member, I would simply tell them that they do not understand the film. The depiction of beauty is the message of the film: something so little, like one’s eyes looking into yours, can be so effective and significant. George travels through his day silent, quiet, and perceptive. He is an observer and discoverer of the beauty in his life, no matter how small.

What each review collectively respects are the performances of the film, specifically Colin Firth, whom many of you only recognize as love interests in Bridget Jones’ Diary and Mamma Mia. From Manohla Darvis of NY Times: “…the director knows how to exploit his actor’s reserve to terrific effect, as when he sets the camera in front of Mr. Firth’s face in one critical scene and just lets the machine record the tremors of emotion cracking the facade.” Indeed, Firth is exceptional as George. He goes about his day with such reserve. When you look into his face you almost know what he’s thinking, but not quite. When he interacts with his student, Mr. Potter (Nicholas Hoult), George’s face comes alive. Julianne Moore is incredibly playful and dramatic with her role as George’s intimate best friend, and Matthew Goode’s role as George’s dead lover, Jim, brightens each flashback with a love one can only wish to have (and for those who have it, may not appreciate it as much as the camera).

“Fashion is very fleeting. Film lasts forever. And I think that a film should challenge you. I think a film should make you think. And if I can get the audience to leave the theater and think: ‘Wow. I need to pay more attention to my day…” then I think the film will have meant something.” And it means so much more than I believed it would. There has only been one “film” to churn my mind like A Single Man. I say “film” because it is the HBO miniseries Angels in America. Also set in the past, it raises so many questions for its audience through incredibly writing, acting, and cinematography. I have seen it so much that I know it word for word. Although I am familiar with each character’s words, I discover something new each time I watch: the symbolism, the setting, the tone, etc. A Single Man holds this magnificence as well.

Isherwood’s novel contains such immense beauty in every word, and Ford has brought these into a witty, handsome script. But Ford has also translated these words into images and created a masterpiece. When a film like this comes along it is impossible to become obsessed; there is such attention to detail that your eyes and mind wish to gain an understanding for it all. I can only hope this film will receive its appropriate Academy Award statues – Best Picture, Director, Actor, Cinematography – but I have a feeling it will only receive it in nominations.