Actors John Cho and Simon Pegg — pilot Sulu and engineer Scotty in the story, respectively — revealed that all three screenwriters, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof, were huge fans of the original films. Their enthusiasm becomes evident through their use of the idiosyncratic humor that was so enjoyable about the television series. “Star Trek” aims to both be its own unique film and also stay relatively faithful to its source material. J.J. Abrams allows this to happen, as he’s not quite the Trekkie that the writers are. “J.J. was more of a ‘Star Wars’ fan,” Pegg said. “He came into ‘Star Trek’ as an outsider.” Pegg adds that this helped Abrams avoid feeling “slavish to the source material,” thus opening the doors for more creativity. It informs his filmmaking in a way; he relaxes a little bit, especially in this second installment.

In fact, Cho and Pegg noted that they saw Abrams’s love of “Star Wars” transfer in significant ways to the “Star Trek” franchise. The “Star Trek” television series had a sleeker look, whereas “Star Wars” was somewhat more “analog and dirty.” Abrams marries the two: “Aesthetically speaking, (the marriage) formed a brilliant bridge (from) all the clean lines and the fantastically futuristic bridge to the industrial metal of the engine room, which J.J. intended to look like the guts of the ‘Titanic.’” What’s so refreshing about Abrams’ style is that he allows this sleek and majestic spaceship to become a character in the movie. So much of what tires audiences about today’s filmmakers is that many of them seem to be enamored with close-ups, a technique that places the actors more front and center but doesn’t allow other elements to breathe. Fortunately for us (specifically our eyes), Abrams relaxes the camera and allows the audience to see the actors actually occupy physical space on screen. He gives us a Starship Enterprise that breathes with its own persona.

What really elevates this movie to heights of glory is actor Benedict Cumberbatch. Cho pays his co-star a huge compliment: “If I hadn’t worked with him, I wouldn’t know his physical dimensions just based on his work. In ‘Sherlock’, he seems mortal and 5’8”. But in this, he seems like he’s 6’4” and 220 pounds. He just seems enormous and imposing. That’s a testament to how good he is.” Cumberbatch is indeed a transfixing presence, as he supplies exasperated revelations and flashes of entropic terror throughout. “He’s terrific,” Cho said, “and beautiful.” Pegg quickly agreed, “Yeah, he’s beautiful . . . He’s a great guy. Lovely man. And he turns on that villain so well, and he’s got such a beautiful voice.” So beautiful, in fact, that his voice made him pregnant, Pegg joked. Indeed, talking with the actors, it seemed as though the two were paralyzed by the genius in their midst.

Even beyond Cumberbatch’s performance, what’s so pleasing about “Star Trek” is that every element seems to click, from the lively rapport to the terrific action sequences — probably Abrams’ forte. The filmmakers’ hard work brings together a smart and enjoyable sequel. “(Abrams) is a born storyteller,” Cho said. “He approaches (his movies) with boundless enthusiasm. This movie plays like that. It’s joyful.”

Braulio Ramirez covers film. Contact him at bramirez@dailycal.org.

The post Star-crossed fandoms appeared first on The Daily Californian.

When one thinks of Shakespeare, the mind doesn’t naturally bend toward the sci-fi/supernatural wunderkind Joss Whedon. Known primarily for his forays into television (“Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Firefly”) and recent comic book box-office success with “The Avengers,” it seemed a slight surprise when it was announced his next project would be a low-key, black-and-white adaptation of “Much Ado About Nothing.”

Now, this is not because Whedon is a stranger to comedy. “Buffy,” “Firefly,” “The Avengers” and “Cabin in the Woods” all share Whedon’s sense of wry irreverence. But Shakespeare’s sense of humor is an entirely different bag. There’s a distance, linguistically and culturally, and his use of the material verbatim, set in a modern-day Italian-style villa, only serves to enhance this disconnect.

Instead of the broader, more musically inclined vision found in Kenneth Branagh’s 1993 adaptation, Whedon takes things down a notch. The tone is far more subdued. Soft, seductive jazz replaces the bombast of horns found in Branagh’s endeavor. Low, unexpected camera angles offer an air of film noir to the proceedings of Shakespeare’s absurd plot. But these facets only make for a semi enjoyable, if somewhat slow, viewing experience. It’s the chemistry between leads Alexis Denishof and Amy Acker as Benedick and Beatrice that distinguish Whedon’s version.

The naive, masculine bravado that Denishof exudes matches so delightfully well with Acker’s sly, astute wit that the “merry war” betwixt their characters becomes — aside from a few, well-played scenes by Nathan Fillion as the asinine constable Dogberry — the only colorful highlight in this movie of muted mirth.

— Jessica Pena
Monday, April 29, 3:30 p.m. @ New People Cinema

Frances Ha

Long before Lena Dunham, writer and director Noah Baumbach understood the plight of the postcollege 20-something. In his debut film, “Kicking and Screaming,” he perfected the listless malaise of youthful urbanites with a clean, subtle style. And since, he has continued to distill the type of sardonic languor embodied by his most well-known leads — Bernard Berkman in “The Squid and The Whale” and Steve Zissou in ‘The Life Aquatic.” Now, Baumbach gives us Frances, the titular character of his latest opus “Frances Ha.”

Played by the ever-effervescent Greta Gerwig, Frances could be seen along the lines of Baumbach’s previous protagonists. She’s in her ‘20s. She’s unsure, awkward and in need of direction. She’s charming but indelicate, identified as a dancer but with questionable talent. She’s a contradiction but one that effortlessly intrigues without demanding the audience’s attention the way Hannah Horvath of “Girls” would.

This comparison to “Girls” seems inevitable. Adam Driver does perform shirtless in both works. But, the comparison isn’t necessary. “Frances Ha” owes much more of its look, tone and humor to Woody Allen’s “Manhattan” or the intimate dialogues in Jim Jarmusch’s “Coffee and Cigarettes.” It is as much an exercise in character as it is an auteur expression. More than any other work from Baumbach, “Frances Ha” teems with optimism, joy and unexpected audacity.

In one scene, the camera tracks Gerwig leaping across the crosswalks of New York set to the tune of a catchy pop song. It’s funny, beautiful, enthusiastic but most of all, it’s infectious. Despite the black-and-white film (though it is gorgeous in its composition), “Frances Ha” is Baumbach’s most colorful and warm-hearted picture to date.

— Jessica Pena
Thursday, May 2, 6:30 p.m. @ Sundance Kabuki Cinemas
Friday, May 3, 4 p.m. @ Sundance Kabuki Cinemas

Before Midnight

Perhaps what surprises the most out of “Before Midnight” is how profoundly Jesse and Celine have aged from the storybook lovers in “Before Sunrise” (1995) and “Before Sunset” (2004). At the core, they’re still the same people. Jesse hasn’t lost that youthful placidity and cock-of-the-walk charm that won Celine over. And 18 years later, young Celine’s neurotic effervescence still feeds her thoughts and moods. What’s changed is that now we sense a well-concealed anxiety and disillusionment behind Jesse’s eyes. And Celine’s entire body seems to be bogged down by something stronger than herself: Middle-age realities have dampened her soul. These people are still attractive in every sense of the word, but 18 years of life have exacerbated their neuroses.

Unlike the first two movies, “Before Midnight” has Jesse and Celine have long and hefty conversations with people other than themselves. Our time with them doesn’t involve an extended walk-and-talk, during which every step they take feels precious. The elephant in the room is no longer a clock winding down the seconds, but an 18-year history that has turned their relationship from a picturesque romance into a three-dimensional partnership. Their conversations feel weightier now, especially as a fight ensues, during which the two pull scabs every time they seem to calm down. It’s ironic then that now that they’re together, their relationship feels more on the line than it ever did.

We left “Before Sunrise” wondering whether Jesse and Celine would actually meet again in six months. We left “Before Sunset” wondering whether Jesse missed his flight to stay with Celine. In “Before Midnight,” the fate of their relationship doesn’t concern us as much as the thought of just how much these two individuals have changed over the years.

— Braulio Ramirez
Thursday, May 9, 7 p.m. @ Castro Theater

The Kings of Summer

“The Kings of Summer” follows three teenage boys who embark on an unusual adventure during a high school summer. The all-too-familiar impatience of growing up drives their decisions. They are fifteen years old, the odd age when you feel not only disconnected from everyone around you but also from yourself. Joe Toy, the leader, can barely tolerate his widowed father, Frank. His best friend Patrick shares a similar resentment toward his off-kilter parents, whose relentless perkiness is fun to watch but must be unbearable to live with 24/7. Joe convinces Patrick to run away and build a house in the middle of the woods where they can live like true men. With the help of a tag-along classmate named Biaggio they manage to build a funhouse in a secluded meadow.

Much of the film draws its laughs from the group’s failed attempts to completely adopt a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. They’re able to build animal traps, but once the time to kill comes they chicken out and buy food from a local market. The grownups also drive many of the laughs with idiosyncrasies that feel borrowed from sitcoms like “Parks and Recreation” and “Arrested Development.” The actors though are comedic veterans that know just how to engage us with their odd humor.

Jordan Vogt-Roberts’s film is not in any way original. We’ve seen this kind of film about teenage angst many times, and the coming-of-age arc feels trite. Even before the boys escape into the woods, we already know where the story will go. But if it isn’t original, Vogt-Roberts writes thorny and sensitive characters that make the film a light and comic pleasure.

— Braulio Ramirez

Key of Life
The key to the brilliance of Japanese director Kenji Uchida’s genre-blended crime comedy “Key of Life” is its carefully, and quirkily, crafted characters. While the plot might be a tried and unoriginal formula (what happens if a failed actor accidentally switches identities with a jet-set hit man?) the way that the characters react to their “Trading Places” situations is surprisingly fresh.

Masato Sakai plays Sakurai, the troubled thespian, who is first introduced by the thump of his body hitting the floor of his apartment beside a torn noose. This serves as a wonderful presentation of just one more thing he cannot succeed at. His foil is the sleek, business-first, gun-for-hire Kondo (Teruyuki Kagawa). Due to a bizarre moment of coincidence, Kondo ends up in the hospital with amnesia, and Sakurai is given a new lease on life, with Kondo’s name, life and toys at his disposal.

From here on out, the audience is given two separate storylines that seem like very different movies. One is a dark comedy thriller, as Sakurai’s undisciplined ways and naivete quickly land him in over his head in his new profession. The other resembles a romantic comedy between Kondo’s clean-slate amnesiac and a meticulous career-woman portrayed with perfect anal retentive precision by Ryoko Hirosue. The two stories collide as Sakurai is forced to help rehabilitate Kondo, who believes that he is actually the suicidal Sakurai. Uchida knows to let the dark humor unfold in the situations naturally unfold, as some of the best moments occur when Kondo laments to Sakurai what an absolute loser he must have been.

With inventive shots and brisk pacing, the story stays unpredictable and engaging. While the ending takes the easy road, the build-up is something worth watching.
— Ryan Koehn
Wednesday, May 1, 6 p.m. @ Sundance Kabuki Cinemas
Thursday, May 2, 8:30 p.m. @ Sundance Kabuki Cinemas

The post SF International Film Festival appeared first on The Daily Californian.

After a screening of “At Any Price,” an intelligent and engaging film, The Daily Californian spoke with director Ramin Bahrani and actor Dennis Quaid, two pleasant guys eager to talk about their collaboration.

Daily Californian: In the past, Ramin, you made films where the central characters are struggling financially. The Whipple family in “At Any Price,” however, isn’t so unfortunate. But Henry seems to be just as money-hungry as the poor characters in the other films. Tell me a little bit about the role money plays in your films.

Ramin Bahrani: Money is a necessity to survive, and there is also something corrupting in it … You mentioned one of the big differences between (the characters in) my previous films and Henry is that he’s actually more successful and making it … I spent a couple of months living with farmers in Iowa. They were very warm and very welcoming. They loved their community and their fellow farmers, but they were prepared to cut them out to survive. Those are the pressures that they’re under, and those are the pressures that we feel no matter where you live in America — or really in the world. It’s the pressure you feel just to make it, because the dream to making it is becoming tougher and tougher. And we wanted to express those pressures in Quaid’s character: what’s driving him to do kind of corrupt things and how was that impacting his family and his own sense of self and who he is.

DC: Dennis, you play Henry as this brittled man who very clearly puts on a facade of composure and confidence, but you can see that inside he’s miserable and desperate. Why do you think people like Henry, individuals who sort of automatically fall into a lifestyle imposed by their families, fall prey to this instead of trying to break free of it?

Dennis Quaid: Henry is a guy who grew up in a different world, a romanticized view of family farm and has taken on that dream and the responsibility from the former generations, continuing on the farm and then passing that legacy on to his sons. He lives in a world that, you know, farming’s become this 21st-century corporate world and it’s very cutthroat … So this is a guy who presents a facade out of necessity to the world to get ahead to make things better. But at the same time he’s split. He’s compromising the values that he grew up with to the point that it becomes too much for him to bear. I think he feels that the world around him will do (anything) to get him. They’re out to destroy him. This is a world where it was neighbor helping neighbor. Now it’s neighbor destroying neighbor.

DC: In your previous films, Ramin, you got really great performances out of nonactors, and I imagine you had a lot to do with their success. In “At Any Price,” however, you were working with all experienced actors, including Dennis Quaid. Was your approach to directing actors this time different?

RB: First, I had to do less. With nonprofessional actors I came to find them, I discovered them, and you spent months working together …. When you get to people like Dennis and Zac and all the other cast members, they know how to do all these things. With Dennis, as Dennis would always tell me, “Thirty years, kid!” He’s got 30 years, so he knows about it. My job at that point is more to make sure they feel comfortable. I like to give the freedom, especially in the first takes … They have the freedom to change things, because what if they have really great ideas. So they have a chance to explore and do something different. And if I think it’s good, I change. And if I think it isn’t, if it doesn’t work for the vision of my whole film, which they don’t necessarily see ’cause it’s not their job, then I go back to the way it was.

DC: How much did the two of you collaborate to flesh out the performance you gave, Dennis?

DQ: At first, when Ramin offered this to me, I went down to Austin and we met and we spent a couple of days together and just getting to know one another. I had seen his films. We talked about that and his way of filmmaking. We talked about the script and the characters. This is a man who spent two years researching this film. He basically just goes and knocks on people’s doors, invades their lives to find out the deeper things and all the little details. And then we talked about life and ourselves. After that, I was going away to do other jobs, so it was just me and the script. It was the interior of the character that I thought about . . . He’s very layered and complex. The films (Ramin) has done before have not been about acting. So I relied on Ramin to keep taking away the acting (in this film). It’s more about being.

DC: The movie applies to a lot of things that are happening with economic pressures. How do you hope this film resonates with audiences?

RB: This (film) is not (about) farmers planting corn and having organic vegetables for dinner. It’s cutthroat. So the movie’s actually exciting. And this has somehow drawn you into it … I hope other people have your reaction, which is actually to be excited by the story, (to be) moved by the characters and then to say, “Oh, my God! There’s a lot actually going on here. It’s actually about a lot of stuff.”

Braulio Ramirez covers film. Contact him at bramirez@dailycal.org.

The post Farm film comes ‘At Any Price’ appeared first on The Daily Californian.

“Stoker” shares the same masterfully creepy and super-detailed sound and visual designs that made director Park Chan-wook’s vampire thriller “Thirst” (2009) such a discomforting jolt. Park fills the voids of dialogue with sinister sounds that adequately evoke India’s preternatural hearing ability. There’s a sequence in which the camera alternates between shots of India descending toward a crumbling basement and shots of a flirtatious encounter between her mother and uncle up in the kitchen. It’s both visually arresting and genuinely tantalizing, even if Park’s approach seems to verge into old horror-movie trope territory. The power of the film’s sound design even seems to double when Uncle Charlie steps across the house foyer. It’s clear Uncle Charlie is also gifted with India’s exceptional hearing.

Unlike in “Thirst,” however, the characters in “Stoker” aren’t vampires (although the intense play of emotions between the central characters and their thirst for bloodlust do echo a vampiric vibration). Something’s not quite right with estranged Uncle Charlie, whose sudden and unexpected appearance and creepy fixation on Evelyn and India don’t rub well with us. Even more disturbing are the many hints of quiet, incestuous foreplay between Charlie and the Stoker women. Park’s decadent treatment of Charlie’s fascination with India — its growing sexual nature only exacerbating our revulsion — doesn’t help to soothe our fears.

Park doesn’t even try to hide the unpleasantness behind the central characters’ relationships. Evelyn and India feel more like parasites to each other than a mother-daughter relationship. Their respective treatments of Uncle Charlie, even if Evelyn’s feels wonderfully erotic and India’s bizarrely psychosexual, are frightening to watch. And Park, too concerned with keeping the suspense aloft, plays with our minds for far too long, and our patience wears out. What causes even more viewer anxiety is how ambivalent Park is when trying to make his audience identify with and root for these morally repugnant characters and making us fear and wish them ill omen.

The deal-breaker for this movie, however, proves to be just how obsessed it is with its aesthetic pleasures that it forgoes a far more important element: characterization. The patchy storytelling prevents the actors from thoroughly developing their characters. Park is so concerned with maintaining the suspense for as long as possible that he keeps the audience at sea about the characters to the extent that we’re never able to grapple with whom these individuals really are. Beyond their inherent eeriness, they never really make sense.

Ironically, the bipolar direction makes “Stoker” both an excellent and a terrible film at different times. Park’s approach takes “Stoker” into areas of malevolently visual sensuality as much as he takes it into claustrophobic levels of control. Sometimes, you feel you’re in the hands of a master. Other times, you wonder if he knows what the hell he’s doing.

Braulio Ramirez covers film. Contact him at bramirez@dailycal.org.

The post ‘Stoker’ confusingly strides between excellent and terrible appeared first on The Daily Californian.

‘Mekong Hotel’
An empty, silent hotel terrace overlooks the Mekong River in Thailand. A placid young man and woman absorb this scenery as they mourn the death of the man’s dog. “Its entrails have been eaten,” he tells her, “like in a Temple Fair movie.” He’s certain it was the Pob, a female ghost that lingers on this side of the river; so he’s laid a monk-blessed pot near the dog’s tomb to catch the Pob. Not too long after this, the woman lingers in a dim hotel room with her mother, a petite woman with a humdrum voice confessing she’s a ghost with some semblance of humanity.

Apichatpong Weerasethakul, the Palm d’Or-winning director of “Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives,” steadies all of these scenes with a soothing soundtrack of an acoustic guitar that lends the entire narrative — if one can even call this a narrative film — a melancholic dreaminess. This adds a very strange tonal dichotomy to the film, because Weerasethakul scores even the most disturbing scenes with the blues. Just imagine watching a rabid old woman crouched over a corpse and devouring its guts while the blues play in the background. The music evokes a soft serenity that’s much more likely to conjure a picture of two lovers strolling barefoot on the beach than a cannibalistic dinner. Weerasethakul does not make a horror film with “Mekong Hotel,” however. But it’s also hard to pinpoint what he does try to make. Weerasethakul’s odd execution inevitably elicits a growing sense of impatience.
When: March 15, 4 p.m.
Where: Pacific Film Archive Theatre
— Braulio Ramirez

Sunset Stories
At the center of “Sunset Stories” is May, an overwrought nurse sent to Los Angeles to pick up bone marrow for a transplant. We learn L.A. is the last place on earth she wants to go to. There lives JP, the guy she left behind a few years ago and whom she’s been trying to erase from her life ever since. During her reluctant visit, May happens to simultaneously bump into JP and misplace the cooler where the bone marrow is being transported. Her high-strung nature requires JP’s insouciant casualness to help her retrieve the cooler. For the next 24 hours, the two are forced to face the prickly past they share as they try to beat the clock and find the cooler.

The script’s cliched, formulaic premise already sets some tonal and stylistic obstacles for the film. Directors Ernesto Foronda and Silas Howard don’t do anything to freshen up this hackneyed story by filming it in such a contrived and rudimentary way. It’s almost insulting that they expect the viewer to believe May and JP have the perfect combination of detective savviness and luck to successfully follow the cooler’s tracks within such an untidy and overpopulated city. What’s even more disappointing is how implausible May and JP read as a former couple and how inauthentic their interactions feel — and the flat performances don’t help. By the time we reach the last third, there’s really nothing that can redeem this unimaginative story.
When: March 15, 9:10 p.m.
Where: Pacific Film Archive Theatre
— Braulio Ramirez

‘Seeking Asian Female’
In “Seeking Asian Female,” director and narrator Debbie Lum documents the love life of Steven, a 60-year-old American Asiaphile who wants nothing more than to fall in love with and marry an Asian woman. Steven pours through actual binders full of women and scours the Internet in search of his perfect “sunshine girl,” an idealized Asian bride. After connecting through email, he flies Sandy, a young Chinese woman with dreams of a life in America, out to San Francisco to become his wife. As unsettling as it is touching, the film’s love story initially appears to be genuine, but as the wedding approaches, both Steven and Sandy quickly realize the danger of falling in love with a fantasy.

“The film is primarily about learning and unlearning stereotypes. It’s also a love story, as uncomfortable as it is at times,” Lum told The Daily Californian. “Western men have this fantasy about Asian women that they’re going to be submissive, traditional, docile, catering … It’s very much related to this post-feminist backlash.”
Steven’s cheerful demeanor saves the situation from being exploitative, but it also makes his earnest search for love all the more heartbreaking to watch. Tension radiates from many scenes as cultural clashes, financial problems and romantic disappointment work together to pull the veil of fantasy off the odd couple’s eyes. The indie documentary’s exploration of “yellow fever” and Lum’s own entanglement in the lives of her subjects offer a uniquely informative and emotional, albeit uncomfortable, experience.
When: March 15, 7 p.m.
Where: Pacific Film Archive Theatre
— Grace Lovio

‘Postcards from the Zoo’
“Postcards from the Zoo” feels like a postcard itself, sent straight from the Surrealist imagination of director Edwin from the story’s fictionalized zoo in Indonesia. This film marks Edwin’s sophomore feature debut and premiered at the Berlin International Film Festival in 2012.

Lush, intimate shots of the zoo’s jungle-like atmosphere perpetually engross the viewer and set the scene for Lana, a young girl who is abandoned by her parents at the animal park. We find years after she was raised by a humble giraffe trainer on the grounds and observe the effect that a life spent entirely within the confines of a zoo has had on her. She meets a stoic magician who travels around doing stage shows and develops a crush that is based mostly on his exoticism and experiences beyond the zoo walls. Upon following him out into the city, her naivete is harshly curbed when she and the magician find work performing at a spa that doubles as a brothel.

“Postcards from the Zoo” is nuanced in its ambiguity, often making unceremonious jumps in time. What happens off-screen is told only by the fading light in Lana’s eyes while she is away from home. Interesting parallels are drawn between the animals Lana loves in the zoo and women put on display in the brothel. Overall, Edwin’s harsh adult fairy tale is filled with magic — some fake, some real. While intelligent, the film is perhaps a little heavy-handed in its thematic message on the loss of innocence.
When: March 22, 8:45 p.m.
Where: Pacific Film Archive Theatre
— Ryan Koehn

‘Invoking Justice’
The institution of sharia law has certainly garnered a bad reputation regarding women’s rights and sexual equality. In “Invoking Justice,” director Deepa Dhanraj explores the challenges this system poses for the Tamil Nadu Muslim Women’s Jamaat, a forum-style court responsible for handling familial disputes. While sharia is usually enacted under a patriarchal interpretation, the women leading this group strive to spread a more balanced reading of the Qur’an throughout their South Indian state.

The film focuses on a few particularly emotional cases. In one, a woman complains of her husband’s abusive tendencies. The local jamaat would likely turn a blind eye to his behavior and deny her any form of divorce, but the Women’s Jamaat gives her the social support and individual strength to pursue a divorce for the sake of her daughter’s future. In another, an investigator named Humsoon seeks the truth behind the death of Noorul Basriya, a girl forced into marriage after an affair with her neighbor. While police insist her fatal wounds were self-inflicted, Humsoon knows enough about the power of honor and money within her society to believe this death was anything but murder.

The ebbs and flows of action in the film reflect the slow but often rewarding processes these women face in their quest for justice. Moments of quiet frustration erupt into impassioned disputes. The sociopolitical issues portrayed in “Invoking Justice” — corruption, blackmail and female subjugation — run very deep. However, the efforts of the Women’s Jamaat provide hope that these obstacles may someday be transcended.
When: March 22, 7 p.m.
Where: Pacific Film Archive Theatre
— Erik Weiner

‘Beautiful 2012’
Capture, achieve, obtain. Whatever we do with beauty, defining it is difficult. But the four short films that comprise “Beautiful 2012,” made collaboratively by the Hong Kong Intenationl Film Festival and Internet TV company Youku, accomplish this.

The plot of South Korean director Kim Tae-yong’s “You Are More Than Beautiful” is not unheard of: A man hires a fiancee to meet his dying father. But a sense of nostalgic innocence renders the characters beautiful — the climax, for example, is an amateur Korean opera recital by the naive actress posing as the protagonist’s fiancee.

In “Walker,” director Tsai Ming-liang follows a monk, arms out in offering, as he walks Hong Kong at a snail’s pace. The stark contrast between the gray city, all noise and movement, and the red-clad monk’s quietude has an almost therapeutic effect.

Third is Gu Changwei’s “Long Tou,” a faux documentary featuring a dialogue between Chinese citizens on birth, death and the uncertainty accompanying each. Raw and impressionistic images punctuate their conversation: a child blowing bubbles and a cat atop an air-conditioning unit, among others.

Finally, Ann Hui breaks our hearts with “My Way,” her portrait of a transsexual woman whose struggle is more stunning than her physical transformation. Whether stifling tears behind a pot of noodles or waking with joy in the women’s recovery ward after her sex-change operation, the protagonist aches from a beauty that has survived the odds.

Through these four shorts, “Beautiful 2012” reminds us that the human struggle is beauty itself.
When: March 17, 4 p.m.
Where: Pacific Film Archive Theatre
— Josephine Yang

Braulio Ramirez covers film. Contact him at bramirez@dailycal.org.
Contact Ryan Koehn at rkoehn@dailycal.org.
Contact Erik Weiner at eweiner@dailycal.org.
Contact Grace Lovio at glovio@dailycal.org.
Contact Josephine Yang at jyang@dailycal.org.

The post CAAMFest 2013 Preview appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Nosaj Thing
When: Feb. 21, 6 p.m.
Where: California Academy of Sciences

After a three-year hiatus, Jason Chung, the LA-based producer behind Nosaj Thing, has just released his sublime new album Home. Frustrated by the current state of electronic music, Chung produces gorgeously intimate, stripped-down bass, heavily influenced by the late ’90s sounds of Aphex Twin, Dr. Dre and DJ Shadow.

— Meadhbh McGrath

STRFKR
When: Mar. 1, 8 p.m.
Where: California Academy of Sciences

Fresh off their release of Miracle Mile, one of the leading ensembles in indie synth-pop is ready to put on a show (and they always know how). Abandon any predispositions about their brand of music or the swarm of hipster scum you might anticipate — they will get you partying regardless.

— Ephraim Lee

Toro Y Moi
When: Mar. 2, 7:30 p.m.
Where: The Independent

If groovy synths and treble-level vocals get you in the mood for dancing, then Toro Y Moi will fulfill your smooth move desires. Originally from South Carolina, the electronic artist has recently moved to Berkeley to blast his chillwave vibes throughout the Bay.

— Ian Birnam

XXYYXX
When: Feb. 28, 9 p.m.
Where: DNA Lounge

XXYYXX is the name of Orlando, Fla.’s 17-year-old bedroom producer, Marcel Everett. Following the success of his self-titled debut album in 2012, Everett has been labeled as everything from “contemporary blogwave” to “post-Internet.” He himself describes his enchanting, sensual music pretty accurately as “doing drugs on a freeway underwater.”

— Meadhbh McGrath

‘Enthusiastic Person’
When: Through Mar. 3
Where: Fecal Face Dot Gallery

Wondering who designed the giant skulled figure with eyeballs drooping from its front teeth on Noise Pop’s website? Jay Howell is your man. Howell’s lovable monsters are endearing with their citrus colors, spindly limbs and toothy half-grimace-half-smiles.

— A.J. Kiyoizumi

Sir Sly
When: Feb. 28, 9 p.m.
Where: Rickshaw Stop

After one listen to Ghost, there’s no surprise that Neon Gold (the label that exposed Passion Pit and Ellie Goulding) kicked off the year with Sir Sly’s debut EP. Their inimitable blend of synth, riffs and heart-thumping percussion fused with haunting vocals create a cathartic experience. They are a band to watch, both critically and commercially.

— Ephraim Lee

Amon Tobin
When: Mar. 1, 8 p.m.
Where: Public Works

Brazilian electronic artist Amon Tobin produces concerts that are as much art installations as they are musical performances. The shape-shifting structures he uses to project naturalistic images serve as the backdrop to his dense music, evoking a surreal dream. If you want an out-of-this-world musical and visual experience, Amon Tobin is your go-to man.

— Addy Bhasin

Rogue Wave
When: Mar. 1, 9:30 p.m.
Where: Bottom of the Hill

It’s been a year and a half since indie rockers Rogue Wave have played, but with their reformation last June, the Oakland band will be playing the iconic Bottom of the Hill venue in San Francisco this Friday. Though their show is sold out, keep them on your radar if you dig soothing guitar lines and vocal harmonies.

— Ian Birnam

Thao & The Get Down Stay Down
When: Mar. 1, 8 p.m.
Where: Bottom of the Hill

On guitar, Thao Nguyen makes complex, incredibly fast guitar riffs look like child’s play. Mixing infectiously catchy bluegrass-esque tunes with intricate yet light-hearted guitar riffs, Thao and her band are bound to bring the energy to Noise Pop.

— Art Siriwatt

‘Bad Brains: A Band in DC’
When: Mar. 1, 9 p.m.
Where: Artists’ Television Access

A 30-year-old American band the Bad Brains have caught our attention with an innovative style that blends punk and reggae. Some argue they have never gotten the recognition they deserve. Go see them for yourself and check out what all the fuss is about.

— Braulio Ramirez

Lil Tuffy Poster Show
When: Feb. 28, 7 p.m.
Where: The Knockout

It seems as though the only thing that the White Stripes, Wu-Tang Clan and Pretty Lights agree on is the skill of Lil Tuffy, the San Franciscan master of band posters. He now curates the Noise Pop Poster Series, and his show demonstrates his minimalist but effective take on hundreds of bands and festivals since 2002.

— A.J. Kiyoizumi

Fuzz
When: Through Mar. 3
Where: Bender’s Bar

Fuzz, the new collaboration between Ty Segall and guitarist Charlie Moothart, is nothing short of some good old raw, sloppy fun. Segall and Moothart will be making their San Francisco debut, co-headlining The Knockout with Austin’s OBN III’s on Feb. 28. Be prepared to throw an elbow or two, as this is sure to be the wildest show of the week.

— Samuel Avishay

‘See a Little Light: A Celebration of the Music and Legacy of Bob Mould’
When: Feb. 27, 9 p.m.
Where: Roxie Theatre

Last November, director Justin Mitchell captured in high-quality video a concert that gathered some of the most influential musicians working today to perform songs from Bob Mould’s historic catalog. What better way to celebrate the work of an artist than by watching other artists pay him homage?

— Braulio Ramirez

Jason Lytle
When: Feb. 26, 7 p.m.
Where: Brick and Mortar Music Hall

If you missed Grandaddy’s reunion tour at Outside Lands, now is the perfect time to catch the band’s frontman at the Brick and Mortar Music Hall. Master of synth-heavy atmospheric rock, Lytle should enthrall audiences with songs off his newest album Dept. of Disappearance with some classic Grandaddy songs thrown in as well.

— Art Siriwatt

The post Noise Pop 2013 Preview appeared first on The Daily Californian.

So, without further ado, here are some of my colleagues’ and my own predictions and picks.

Jessica Pena’s Oscar Picks:

Best Picture:
Pick: “Lincoln”
Prediction: “Argo”

Best Actor:
Pick: Joaquin Phoenix, “The Master”
Prediction: Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln”

Best Actress:
Pick: Jessica Chastain, “Zero Dark Thirty”
Prediction: Jennifer Lawrence, “Silver Linings Playbook”

Best Supporting Actor:
Pick: Tommy Lee Jones, “Lincoln”
Prediction: Tommy Lee Jones, “Lincoln”

Best Supporting Actress:
Pick: Helen Hunt, “The Sessions”
Prediction: Anne Hathaway, “Les Miserables”

Best Director:
Pick: Michael Haneke, “Amour”
Prediction: Steven Spielberg, “Lincoln”

Best Original Screenplay:
Pick: “Django Unchained”
Prediction: “Zero Dark Thirty”

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Pick: “Lincoln”
Prediction: “Argo”

Best Picture:
Pick: “Zero Dark Thirty”
Prediction: “Argo”

Best Actor:
Pick: Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln”
Prediction: Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln”

Best Actress:
Pick: Jessica Chastain, “Zero Dark Thirty”
Prediction: Emmanuelle Riva, “Amour”

Best Supporting Actor:
Pick: Robert De Niro, “Silver Linings Playbook”
Prediction: Robert De Niro, “Silver Linings Playbook”

Best Supporting Actress:
Pick: Helen Hunt, “The Sessions”
Prediction: Helen Hunt, “The Sessions”

Best Director:
Pick: Benh Zeitlin, “Beasts of the Southern Wild”
Prediction: Steven Spielberg, “Lincoln”

Best Original Screenplay:
Pick: “Moonrise Kingdom”
Prediction: “Zero Dark Thirty”

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Pick: “Lincoln”
Prediction: “Lincoln”

Best Picture:
Pick: “Amour”
Prediction: “Silver Linings Playbook”

Best Director:
Pick: Michael Haneke, “Amour”
Prediction: David O. Russell, “Silver Linings Playbook”

Best Actor:
Pick: Joaquin Phoenix, “The Master”
Prediction: Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln”

Best Actress:
Pick: Emmanuelle Riva, “Amour”
Prediction: Emmanuelle Riva, “Amour”

Best Supporting Actor:
Pick: Tommy Lee Jones, “Lincoln”
Prediction: Robert De Niro, “Silver Linings Playbook”

Best Supporting Actress:
Pick: Helen Hunt, “The Sessions”
Prediction: Anne Hathaway, “Les Miserables”

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Pick: “Lincoln”
Prediction: “Silver Linings Playbook”

Best Original Screenplay:
Pick: “Amour”
Prediction: “Zero Dark Thirty”

Best Picture:
Pick: “Lincoln”
Prediction: “Silver Linings Playbook”

Best Director:
Pick: Steven Spielberg, “Lincoln”
Prediction: Steven Spielberg, “Lincoln”

Best Actor:
Pick: Joaquin Phoenix, “The Master”
Prediction: Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln”

Best Actress:
Pick: Jessica Chastain, “Zero Dark Thirty”
Prediction: Emmanuelle Riva, “Amour”

Best Supporting Actor:
Pick: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, “The Master”
Prediction: Robert De Niro, “Silver Linings Playbook”

Best Supporting Actress:
Pick: Helen Hunt, “The Sessions”
Prediction: Anne Hathaway, “Les Miserables”

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Pick: “Lincoln”
Prediction: “Silver Linings Playbook”

Best Original Screenplay:
Pick: “Zero Dark Thirty”
Prediction: “Zero Dark Thirty”

The post Oscar Preview 2013 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed this coverage.

What do I think?

If I had to rank them…

1) Amour, 2) Life of Pi, 3) Lincoln, 4) Beasts of the Southern Wild, 5) Zero Dark Thirty, 6) Silver Linings Playbook, 7) Argo, 8) Django Unchained, 9) Les Miserables

The first four movies I loved, and all of them made my top ten list (see below) so I’ll sing their praises there.

“Zero Dark Thirty” proved quite an enigma for me. I watched it in December and I’m still not exactly sure how I feel about it. I definitely responded to it and like it a lot, but I’m not sure I love it like I do “The Hurt Locker.” I don’t think that by portraying torture the film necessarily endorses it. Perhaps that’s arguable. What is not arguable, though, is its suggestion that torture led to useful intel; and to its credit, this suggestion definitely leaves the viewer shaken, even discomforted in a good way. “Zero Dark Thirty” is a serious thought-provoker, even beyond its torture conversation. Also, much of the film’s gut-wrenching punch, especially near the end, comes from Bigelow’s strengths as a director. What dissuades me from ranking this film a little higher, or giving it more merit than is due, is that I think the film benefits a lot more from the viewer’s curiosity in wanting to know what happened behind the Osama Bin Laden craze than the film’s actual contributions. In other words, I think “Zero Dark Thirty” gains more from what it shows than from how it actually shows it.

Numbers six through eight on my rankings are three films that definitely have moments I loved, but I don’t think the respective sums of these films are better than their individual contributions.

I thought “Silver Linings Playbook” was only okay when I first watched. Then I watched it a second time and I really liked it. I’m still not blind to its obvious flaws though (problematic characterization, tonal slips, formulaic plot, to name a few). For David O. Russell, I believe, it was somewhat of a directorial step-down from “The Fighter,” “I Heart Huckabees,” and even “Three Kings”— all three were much more focused and vivid executions.

There’s no denying that “Argo” is an entertaining movie, even a seat-bolter by the end. However, there’s little to no complex engagement with its story, and I don’t believe it’s anything more than a good thriller. And when compared to Affleck’s previous directorial efforts, it lacks “The Town’s” tautness and “Gone Baby Gone’s” aesthetic risks.

I laughed a lot in “Django Unchained,” but I was also bored sometimes. The only thing that makes it an obvious Tarantino film is its love of bloodshed and its occasional killer dialogue. Other than that, it lacks the consistency, the discipline, and the care (by “care,” I mean the care with which Tarantino usually handles his characters) that make most of his films so alive and watchable.

Finally, there’s “Les Miserables.” I think it’s the most ambitious film in this list, and that’s saying something. But I also think it’s the movie that most brutally trips over its own concepts and ideas. Props to it for the commitment and ambition its makers brought to it. The end result, unfortunately, just didn’t do it for me.

Who got snubbed?

The six movies that were expected to show up (“Argo,” “Zero Dark Thirty,” “Lincoln,” “Life of Pi,” “Silver Linings Playbook” and “Les Mis”) eventually did. “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” “Amour,” and “Django Unchained” all received serious competition from “Flight,” “The Master,” “Moonrise Kingdom,” and even “Skyfall.” These films’ absence didn’t really surprise anyone; but neither would their inclusion have surprised had they actually shown up. It was anyone’s game for those last spots.

Who will win?

Despite “Argo’s” presumed front-runner status, and despite its near sweep of all the guilds and other precursor awards, it’s still rolling to Oscar night with a big question mark: Its omission from the Best Director category. In the Academy’s 85 years, only three movies have won Best Picture without a Best Director nomination, and two of those movies won way back in the 1930s  when the Academy’s tendencies and interests were only being formed. So the odds are against it, but it’s in a unique position in that it actually seems to be benefiting from this snub.

It might be wise then to predict “Argo” as the winner. And it seems like the safe choice. But I think “Lincoln” still has a fighting chance to beat it, given its impressive performance in the nomination tally. Even “Amour” was heavily embraced by voters for a foreign-language film, and it might also be more of a threat to “Argo” than we think.

But I think people might be underestimating how much the Academy loved “Silver Linings Playbook.” They loved it enough to nominate it in all the acting categories, something that hadn’t happened in 31 years. They loved it so much that they saw something in Jacki Weaver, who no one was talking about prior to the nominations. They loved it enough to nominate its leading men, and, if you know your Oscar history, Oscar rarely recognizes the male leads in romantic comedies, even if they love the movies. Last, they gave it an editing nomination, which comedies struggle much more to get. Such impressive feats have to mean something, right? Most likely, I’ll be wrong, but I’m going with my gut feeling and predicting a “Silver Linings Playbook” upset.

My Top Ten (In Order)

1. Amour (d. Michael Haneke), for being hunting, austere and emotionally direct without seeming detached, and for impeccable acting and execution.
2. Life of Pi (d. Ang Lee), for using 3D to actually enhance the story; for a deft and lovely book-to-screen adaptation; and for embracing the touchy religious concept at its core.
3. Magic Mike (d. Steven Soderbergh), for surprising us by being not quite the movie that was advertised, but a smarter, more incisive and ambitious one.
4. Farewell, My Queen (d. Benoit Jacquot), because it’s so bracing for such a subtle film —  and because it feels so contemporary for a period piece, without ever seeming anachronistic.
5. Lincoln (d. Steven Spielberg), for Spielberg’s light touch, Day-Lewis’s modest playing, Kushner’s rich ideas, and its fascinating blend of macro- and micro-history.
6. Beasts of the Southern Wild (d. Benh Zeitlin), for diving into the kind of novel-like storytelling rarely embraced by filmmakers, and for polishing it around Wallis’s performance rather than vice-versa.
7. Looper (d. Rian Johnson), for having a richer and more complex moral dilemma than most dramas ever aim for and also for tightening the circular storytelling, the weird structure and the inventive plotting into a cohesive whole.
8. The Perks of Being a Wallflower (d. Stephen Chbosky), for being surprisingly tender and modest, without ever milking the sadness, and for three great central performances.
9. 21 Jump Street (d. Phil Lord, Chris Miller), for seeing into Channing Tatum’s comedic gifts, for guiding Jonah Hill through an impressive arc and for fusing them into magical onscreen chemistry.
10. Hope Springs (d. David Frankel), because despite its tonal missteps and aesthetic limitations, it treats the middle-age marriage at its center with admirable honesty and earnestness.

Contact Braulio at bramirez@dailycal.org.

The post Oscar Coverage: Best Picture appeared first on The Daily Californian.

“When Harry Met Sally…” (1989)

Rob Reiner’s direction, Nora Ephron’s script, Robert Leighton’s editing, Barry Sonnenfeld’s cinematography — these elements come together in a consummate way that demonstrates a unique love for movie love. The production team beautifully serves glorious performances from Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal, who create two indelible cinematic characters. “When Harry Met Sally…” is not a movie about cosmic forces bringing together soul mates; rather, it’s a movie that shows us that love is something made possible when you meet the right person with the right history at the right time.

My Best Friend’s Wedding” (1997)

Unlike “When Harry Met Sally…,” the conception of love in “My Best Friend’s Wedding” is somewhat more generic. Its plot and end goals don’t require a genius to predict. What makes this romantic-comedy such a wonderful movie is the colorful and endlessly complicated heroine at its center. It’s never clear why Jules is so shaken up by Kim, her best friend’s fiance. Is it jealousy? Rivalry? Love? The film never resolves this — and it shouldn’t. Our feelings for someone are much more complicated to be reduced. Jules, played flawlessly by Julia Roberts, is no diamond-in-the-rough, but that’s exactly why we root for her a little too much: We see a part of ourselves all too clearly in her.

“Jerry Maguire” (1996)

At two hours and twenty minutes, “Jerry Maguire” feels quite lengthy for a romantic comedy. In fact, the movie doesn’t really follow the typical rom-com formula. Jerry’s career predicament and midlife crisis often overshadow the unusual romance that blossoms between him and his loyal assistant, Dorothy. Yet, as the story moves forward, their romance begins to take shape, and the film often feels empty when the two aren’t sharing the screen. If by the end the film begins to lose the razor-sharp cynicism and wit that made its beginning and middle so easy to relish, it makes up for this with emotional depth and beautiful lines, such as Rene Zellweger’s iconic phrase, “You had me at ‘Hello.’” The two stars make those 139 minutes fly by.

“You’ve Got Mail” (1998)

There’s a reason why I have two movies in this list headlined by Meg Ryan. Often praised as a romantic comedy queen, but routinely under-appreciated as an actress, Ryan demonstrates in “You’ve Got Mail” more than in any other film how much craft she puts into her performances. In Ephron’s movie, she delivers probably her most mature, humanly-inflected work of her career, always proving how adept she is at conveying character details through her perfectly timed gestures, looks, and line-readings. She even brings out the best in Tom Hanks, who is subtle and restrained whenever he shares the screen with Ryan. Both of them make “You’ve Got Mail” a palpable, touching, and relatable love story that is in many ways a more genuine and tangible romance than “Sleepless in Seattle.”

“One Fine Day” (1996)

A big reason why I love “One Fine Day” has less to do with the actual quality or particular achievements of this film than with my personal memories of watching the movie multiple times. I have very fond childhood memories of sneaking into my parents’ bedroom, slipping under the covers where my father lay half awake, and digging into a bucket of popcorn as the two of us watched reruns of this movie. I’m sure that my copious memories of these father-son moments had as much to do with my love for the film as anything actually happening in the film. But we don’t see movies in a vacuum, do we? Our regard for a film stems as much from the actual merits of the film as it does from our specific state when we watch it. I don’t wish to undermine, however, the quality of this movie. It’s not very original, but its two leads, George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer, have amazing chemistry that brings this story to life. It’s a movie I deeply treasure, and one which I hope you’ll come across and give it a chance. It deserves it.

Braulio is the lead film critic. Contact Braulio at bramirez@dailycal.org.

The post In Honor of Valentine’s Day: My Top 5 Romantic Comedies appeared first on The Daily Californian.

And although I don’t believe they ventured too far from their safe zone this year — that would have required nominating the brilliant 21-year-old Logan Lerman for “Perks of Being a Wallflower”—  they went just far enough to find excellent work by diverse performers: two always-reliable acting veterans, one who showed us a new side of himself, and one who achieved a peak in a trademark style of acting specific to him; one A-list actor with a love/hate relationship with the Oscars, but who gave an undeniably great performance; one charismatic movie-star finally recognized for his acting chops rather than his rugged persona or star magnetism; and one quasi-rising young star who pulled the rug out from under us with a bonafide performance. These are the Oscars’ best friends this year (though not in the order I described them)…

Bradley Cooper, “Silver Linings Playbook”

Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln”

Hugh Jackman, “Les Miserables”

Joaquin Phoenix, “The Master”

Denzel Washington, “Flight”

What do I think?

If I had to rank the nominees it would go 1) Phoenix, 2) Day-Lewis, 3) Cooper, 4) Washington, 5) Jackman.

I hate to actually rank this category if only because I think every single one of these actors made remarkable contributions to movies last year. Like I stated above, this category is stockpiled with amazing work. Even Jackman, housed in a movie I found berating and insipid, has plenty of magical moments to consider his performance an acting triumph. If his is the one performance here I didn’t truly love, I still thought he was exceptionally strong, and I appreciated the obvious commitment and dedication he brought to the part.

Whip Whitaker is Denzel Washington’s meatiest role since “Training Day,” and he delivers a painstaking portrait of a bruised, defiant soul. The fact that this gargantuan performance ranks only fourth says a lot about the quality of work in this category. Heck, the fact that Bradley Cooper managed to paint an even more visceral picture of anxiety and restlessness than his co-nominee surprises —  in a good way. I admired how tightly controlled and focused Cooper remained throughout “Silver Linings Playbook,” not just because the actor appears reads so disciplined inside the schizophrenically turbulent character, but even more so because he does that under clunky direction and erratic editing.

The last two contenders give me headaches precisely because I can’t quite choose one over the other. Day-Lewis’s and Phoenix’s performances have nothing in common except for sheer brilliance. Day-Lewis wowed me less so because he added another indelible characterization to his resume and more so because he deviated from an architectural acting style that’s characterized most of his work since “My Left Foot.” Watching him step into Abraham Lincoln’s shoes was like watching Day-Lewis finally strip from a (metaphorical) black-and-white suit we always see him in and into his pajamas. There’s an effortlessness in his performance that allowed him to let down his guard and find nuances we’d never seen from him before.

Finally, there’s the clammy worm Joaquin Phoenix crafts in “The Master.”  Phoenix turns into an aimless soul hidden underneath a shell of inarticulate thirst for something unspeakable. It’s because of Phoenix that, to me, “The Master” became less of a quasi-Scientology study and more of the spiritual journey — and eventually loss. A war veteran endures in post-war limbo.

This is why it’s so hard to pick a favorite … so I’m rooting for a Day-Lewis/Phoenix tie, which of course won’t happen, but in my mind it will.

Who got snubbed?

The fifth spot always seems like it’s up for grabs in awards season. But this category narrowed down quickly to six men very early on.  John Hawkes landed in the dreadful sixth spot for his role in “The Sessions.” There were other long-shots like Anthony Hopkins (“Hitchcock”), Richard Gere (“Arbitrage”), and Tommy Lee Jones (“Hope Springs”). But none of them really had the fighting chance that Hawkes had that in the end failed him.

Unfortunately, Jean-Louis Trintignant was overshadowed by his costar, Emmanuelle Riva, in “Amour.” Riva ended up surprising with a much-deserved nomination, but Trintignant was left on the cutting board for an even more tremendous performance. If Oscar nominations were based solely on quality of work —  which they aren’t, but should be — Trintignant should have scored here with relative ease.

Who will win?

It’s surprising the ease with which Day-Lewis rose to frontrunner status so quickly in the game given the level of competition. He seems insurmountable at this point, which partly saddens me just because a category this awesome automatically demands a fierce race between such brilliant contenders. Still, Day-Lewis will make Oscar history with a fantastic performance. He deserves it.

My ballot (in alphabetical order)

1. Bradley Cooper, “Silver Linings Playbook,” because Pat is a challenging character to master in terms of both tone and motivation, and Cooper aced it.
2. Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln,” because he’s even more moving as a warmhearted father and a disgruntled husband than he is gripping as the sixteenth President of the United States.
3. Joaquin Phoenix, “The Master,” because he aced a Sean-Penn-style part, doing marvels with tetchy physicality. The way he hunches his shoulders, flares out his arms like a vulture and ramrods his posture with a cocked jaw add meaning to Freddie Quell’s distorted soul.
4. Jean-Louis Trintignant, “Amour,” because the anger underneath the good-heartedness, the philosophical life-questioning so readable in his face, and the stoicism fading into his elderly strut make us wonder if Georges is the bigger victim in Haneke’s Book of the Death.
5. Denzel Washington, “Flight,” because he perfected his patented cocksureness, belligerence and take-no-bullshit bravado so unique to his performances, while still coloring Whip with an anxious, heavy heart and a bruised soul.

Extremely Honorable Mention to Logan Lerman, who doles out character details and flashes of teenage angst in “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” I wish I could have squeezed him in here but there was just no room.

Contact Braulio at bramirez@dailycal.org.

The post Oscar Coverage: Best Actor appeared first on The Daily Californian.