Raging Bull

This Thursday, TBT is launching 'Block Cinema', a monthly community screening of some great films. The first film in the line up is Martin Scorsese's classic 'Raging Bull'. This is a tremendous movie that anyone with an interest in cinema should see.

You should go along to 'Block Cinema' because:

- The idea of a community cinema is very cool. It's a fun way to be a part of something Hobarty.

- 'Raging Bull' features (or perhaps, stands on the shoulders of) one of the greatest acting performances of all time by Robert De Niro. The way he gets into this character is quite frightening. He trained as a boxer and became mega-buff, then he ate like Elvis and became a total chubster for the later scenes. And that's only the physical stuff. It's such a complex and emotional performance, one that leaves barely any trace of the actor Robert De Niro behind.

- This film might be about a boxer but it's not really about boxing. It's about obsession, jealousy, masculinity, aggression, violence, relationships, trust. The themes are important and dealt with in a confronting manner through this horrible character that you can't help but despise for most of the film.

- Cinematically, the film is packed with great stuff. The editing is awesome, the camera is used perfectly, the placement and choice of music is very clever, and the decision to film in black and white was a risk that paid off. The boxing scenes are brutal and actually make you feel like you've been punched in the head a few times; they give what I can only guess would be a realistic view of being in the ring of a boxing tournament.

- This film unearthed Joe Pesci as an actor worth watching. He was excellent in this, and went on to star in other Scorsese classics like 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino'. He was also in the 'Home Alone' films. I'm not sure what to feel about them.

- There are many cool stories about the making of this film. Robert De Niro actually competed officially, as a boxer, during his training, and won a couple of matches! Martin Scorsese has said that De Niro's insistence on him directing this film, saved his life as it distracted him from drugs. Scorsese told De Niro to alter the script in order to get a more surprised reaction from Joe Pesci in one particular scene ("you f***ed my wife?!"). They used chocolate for blood.

'Block Cinema'
Thursday 30th April
South Hobart Community Centre
8pm
and it's FREE

Inexplicable Oscars

1997 Best Supporting Actress - Kim Basinger (L.A. Confidential)

'L.A. Confidential' is a fantastic, near perfect film but I can't understand how Kim Basinger's portrayal of Lynn Bracken was considered worthy of an Oscar. It's certainly not a bad performance; Basinger is convincing enough, looking and sounding the part, but was she that good? I have a soft spot for the Academy Awards, I like knowing who wins and trying to work out why. Sometimes there are awards given for seemingly inexplicable reasons, and I'm going to do my best to work out these reasons.

So, who were the nominees for this award in 1997?

Kim Basinger - L.A. Confidential
Joan Cusack - In & Out
Minnie Driver - Good Will Hunting
Julianne Moore - Boogie Nights
Gloria Stuart - Titanic

I wouldn't say it was the strongest group of contenders so maybe it's not so surprising that Basinger won. However, I think Julianne Moore was much more impressive with her role in 'Boogie Nights'.

Maybe I missed some subtleties in her acting. Perhaps I should give her more credit when I say she was convincing in this role because, maybe it was not such an easy character to play. In the hands of someone like Sharon Stone, for example, this character probably wouldn't have had the depth that Kim gave her; it would probably have been a one-dimensional femme fatale stereotype (although I could be completely wrong there, because Kim Basinger has never been considered one of the great actresses). But I don't think she should have won an Oscar just because someone else could have done a worse job; I hope that's not how they decide these things.

A somewhat cynical theory as to why she was considered the best supporting actress, is that because 'Titanic' swept up most of the awards, this award was handed to 'L.A. Confidential' as a consolation prize. As if to say "look it's a great film guys, too bad 'Titanic' had to come out... here, have this actress award". I really hope that's not what happened. I like to think that the Academy make these decisions based on what was the best in each category.

Has anyone else wondered why she won this award? Or have any other inexplicable Oscar beefs?

Dances with Woolworths

Wouldn't this be a great film? Kevin Costner stars as a supermarket manager that employs Sioux Indians on night-fill. Tension arises when Kevin refuses some of his employees the right to have their real names on their name badges (Swooping Eagle, Chief Kicking Bear etc). He soon realises he was wrong to do that and they find a respect for one another. There is a very moving scene where Kev helps the Sioux stack shelves for about three and a half hours (which is also the length of the film).

The Pursuit of Happyness

Just watched the Will Smith film The Pursuit of Happyness at Bible Study. It was the victor of four other contending films in a potentially flawed electoral system (pair and elimination). It's probably the easiest way to select a film to please a large group of people.

Will Smith was very good; he plays a serious part with excellence. I can't really remember any standout moments, and the film kept up the same pace throughout. My biggest problem with it was the music and production; it just made it seem too slick, too polished, and too cheesy. I felt the story (quite a powerful tale) would have been better served by a more gritty style.

It's not a bad movie though. Worth a watch. Much better than Boondock Saints.