Don DeLillo:
Everybody remembers the killer’s name, Norman Bates, but nobody remembers the victim’s name. Anthony Perkins is Norman Bates, Janet Leigh is Janet Leigh. The victim is required to share the name of the actress who plays her. It is Janet Leigh who enters the remote motel owned by Norman Bates.
That’s from DeLillo’s new novel, a slim volume called Point Omega. The opening and closing sections, “Anonymity” and “Anonymity 2,” take place on consecutive days in a museum gallery exhibiting Douglas Gordon’s 24 Hour Psycho, a screening of the Alfred Hitchcock film that slows the events of its 109-minute running time so the action extends one full day. It’s an interesting experiment—both the book and the Gordon installation. DeLillo fans will want to check out Point Omega, but Psycho fans may want to also. It’s just 117 pages—it flies by in any case.
You can read it while listening to Bernard Herrmann’s frightening score featured on the front page today. But DeLillo got me thinking: is it true that “nobody remembers the victim’s name”? I do. It’s Marion Crane, and the point of course is that she’s the bird. That’s an important point in understanding the film, and in understanding Hitchcock, for that matter. Sir Alfred had a fascination with birds and with actresses of a certain type, especially at that time in his career.
Perhaps “nobody” is overstating it then, but DeLillo does have a point. People are more likely to describe the victim in the shower as Janet Leigh. She’s a real person. It’s more scary that way. Marion Crane’s death is unfortunate, Janet Leigh’s is tragic. People often confuse actors for their roles, and when a character experiences sheer terror, we’re more apt to identify with the actor than just the role. Norman Bates, on the other hand, is more scary than the real-life Anthony Perkins. Bates is the stuff of myth. We love to demonize—to make the monster non-human—and it’s easier to do that with Bates than with Perkins.
There’s not much to say about the show. The two hosts, Martin and Baldwin, hardly did anything to make the night memorable. I remember reading stories about Billy Crystal when he was hosting—there’d be four or five months of tireless preparation that went into the show, especially the opening act. It showed. It was funny. Something to remember. I suppose they don’t do that anymore.
But we’re not tuning in for the show anyway, right? There are the awards!
The big winner, I was glad to see, was The Hurt Locker, winning Best Picture, Best Director, and six Oscars altogether. I have lost track of the times I’ve been disappointed at the end of an Oscar show, so it’s gratifying to see the Academy do the right thing.
Tom Hanks, oddly, didn’t read the ten nominees. Was that intentional, or did he forget? Or was I nodding? One other oddity: the reading of the prize winners was not consistent. Kate Winslet’s “…and the Oscar goes to…” was a contrast to the reading of other presenters, ”…and the winner is….” Which is it these days?
The final tally:
6 — The Hurt Locker (Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
3 — Avatar (Cinematography, Art Direction, Visual Effects)
2 — Precious (Supporting Actress, Adapted Screenplay)
2 — Up (Animated Feature, Score)
2 — Crazy Heart (Actor, Song)
1 — The Blind Side (Actress)
1 — Inglourious Basterds (Supporting Actor)
1 — Star Trek (Makeup)
1 — The Young Victoria (Costume Design)
1 — El Secreto de Sus Ojos (Foreign-language Film)
1 — The Cove (Documentary Feature)
1 — Music by Prudence (Documentary Short)
1 — Longarama (Animated Short)
1 — The New Tenants (Live-action Short)
For what it’s worth (not a lot, actually), I was 16 of 24 on my predictions.
On the first day of the year—also the first day of this blog—I said not to expect a list of my Top 10 Movies of 2009. I’m not one to go back on my word, but in the interest of looking one more time at films from last year—and today is a good day for that—I’ve put together a list of the five films of 2009 that I found to be the most enjoyable.
The Best Picture award will be the presented tomorrow night at the end of the ceremony. The name on the award may be a misnomer. The award is truly an award for English-language films. That’s how it’s worked historically. Foreign-language films have their own category—which is great since the foreign films can use all the attention they can get, but it’s a mistake to think that those films are any less worthy than the English-language Best Picture nominees. In fact, it’s clear that the foreign films are better than some of the B.P. nominees, and over the years the real “best picture” is often among the foreign titles.
The filmmakers behind the five nominated foreign-language films were featured at a symposium at the the Academy today. It was a great event—a special honor for the nominees, and a special treat to be in the audience. Clips from each of the films were presented, followed by a panel discusssion with the directors. The program was moderated by the Mark Johnson of the Academy, who made the point that this past year was the best for foreign-language films in the years he’s been running the awards committee.
It’s a shame that more Americans don’t see foreign-language films. There’s a small and loyal following for foreign films, but the larger audience stays away. I’m not sure why that is. Is it too hard for Americans to read subtitles? Do Americans just not care what happens elsewhere in the world? Whatever it is, it makes it hard for a filmmaker or company to release a foreign-language film in the U.S. and make money. Which means that many of the world’s great films never even make it into the U.S. market. In fact this year’s Oscar entry from Peru still doesn’t have a release scheduled here.
What can you do about it? Go see a foreign-language film. You won’t be disappointed.
You may want to start with this year’s nominees. Three of the films are playing now, and the Argentine film opens in a few weeks.
It takes three days for the accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers to count all the ballots of Academy voters. They’ll be done sometime today, at which point exactly two people will know the names of the winners. The rest of us get the news Sunday night.
In the meantime we can make predictions. If we didn’t make predictions, we wouldn’t have any surprises. I hope there might be a few at the big show, but at this time it all looks very predictable.
You can take a look at what I see in my crystal ball, my picks for the Oscars.

The winner: The Hurt Locker
The verdict: Oscar gets it right! All the talk is that it’s a two-picture race. If so, it really shouldn’t be close. Avatar is technically stunning and visually imaginative, but it doesn’t compare to The Hurt Locker as a complete film. With District 9 in the running, sci-fi fans have another place to put their vote. That should help Kathyrn Bigelow’s film. I’ve read that the new preference voting procedures also will work against Avatar, but I don’t think anybody really knows which film will benefit from the new process.
The winner: Jeff Bridges
The verdict: It’s about time! I can’t seeing anyone else winning, but if there is a longshot winner, it’ll be Colin Firth.
The winner: Christoph Waltz
The verdict: A terrific performance and a well-deserved win. The dark horse is Woody Harrelson.
The winner: Sandra Bullock
The verdict: Somehow the thinking with Academy voters seems to go like this: Meryl Streep gave a great performance this year, so let’s give her a nomination—but let’s give the Oscar to someone else. It’s been 27 years since her last win (she has 16 noms altogether), and there’s no reason to keep her waiting any longer. Perhaps if they had preference voting for Best Actress (it’s only used for Best Picture, though), Streep would have a third little man for her mantel. That said, my rooting interest here is for Carey Mulligan.
The winner: Mo’Nique
The verdict: No contest.
The winner: Kathryn Bigelow
The verdict: The headlines will be: A Woman Wins (Finally). Bottom line: Bigelow deserves it.
The winner: A Prophet
The verdict: It’s a powerful film, but not the kind of material that often wins the Oscar. I have not yet seen the South American films so I can’t judge, but the buzz for the Argentine entry is strong, and it has an excellent chance to win.
The winner: Up in the Air
The verdict: A smart screenplay. Writing is a lot more than dialogue, but the dialogue is what people remember, and the dialogue in Up in the Air is sharp and reminiscent of Hollywood classics of the past.
The winner: The Hurt Locker
The verdict: The Hurt Locker by a nose, but don’t count out Tarantino.
The winner: Up
The winner: Avatar
The winner: The Hurt Locker
The verdict: I wouldn’t mind seeing The White Ribbon win, but I’m a sucker for black-and-white.
The winner: Coco Before Chanel
The verdict: Everyone in the know is picking The Young Victoria, but I need to be a contrarian somewhere.
The winner: The Cove
The winner: Music by Prudence
The winner: The Hurt Locker
The winner: Star Trek
The verdict: A well-liked sci-fi film (though I was lukewarm) gets its one Oscar.
The winner: Up
The verdict: Michael Giacchino’s score was just terrific.
The winner: The Weary Kind
The verdict: I’m not sure it was the best song in the film, but it’s the best of the nominees.
The winner: A Matter of Loaf and Death
The verdict: Never bet against Nick Park.
The winner: Kavi
The verdict: Picking winners when you haven’t seen the films is a little like picking racehorses based on their names.
The winner: Avatar
The winner: Avatar
The winner: Avatar
MAD Puzzle No. 3 is here. Somehow February slipped by without a new puzzle. Busy times. Expect more in March.

This one’s a themeless. You can get it at the Puzzles page.

Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Last 50 Posts
Back
Back
Void « Default
Life
Earth
Wind
Water
Fire
Light 