richardhowe.com

In this morning’s Boston Globe, Wesley Morris takes a hard look at what nominees and eventual winners “suffer” to walk away with Oscar. This thoughtful piece is worth a read. As with Neal Gabler’s article in the Christian Science Monitor, it is Morris’ take on Mark Wahlberg’s performance as Micky Ward in “The Fighter” that will interest locals. He labels Wahlberg the “most ironic loser” in his role depicting a passive character – not over the top, not requiring the wigs, the cosmetics,  prosthetic bits, the twisted expressions or dialectical direction. Here is his look:

This year, the biggest winner in this preference for work that shows will be Colin Firth, whose vivid stuttering in “The King’s Speech’’ borders, under the circumstances, on pornographic. The most ironic loser is Mark Wahlberg. His performance in “The Fighter’’ has been roundly underpraised compared with the admittedly deserved kudos heaped upon his costars (and likely winners tonight) Melissa Leo and Christian Bale. It’s true they were bigger, louder, and showier than Wahlberg, who plays a real-life character who happens to be passive. But the bias for work that shows almost certainly worked against him. Leo was made to look older than her 50 years and worked her Lowell accent like a whip. Bale, an extreme technician of the “Raging Bull’’ school, lost a lot of weight and hid his native Welsh accent for a Lowell one, as well.

Given what these two — and their blue-collar costar Amy Adams — obviously did, people were forced to ask what Wahlberg had done, besides get himself in fighting shape and get the movie made? He’s from Boston. He was already in great shape. He made it look too easy by comparison. Where was his work? Depending on how things go for Natalie Portman tonight, he might want to go over and tell Annette Bening he knows how she feels.

Read the entire “Many who suffer for art end up celebrating” article here at Boston.com and keep it in mind as you watch the Oscar results tonight.

There’s an interesting piece by Neal Gabler in today’s Christian Science Monitor on the way the movies – Oscar-worthy and otherwise – reflect the times. Gabler notes in his premise:

Despite the reach for that feel-good denouement, there is nevertheless something else in this year’s crop of both Oscar nominees and movies generally that one doesn’t typically associate with American films: a sense of malaise that borders on fatigue.

While Gabler runs the list of films from “The King’s Speech” to “Toy Story 3″ and films from other eras to make his point – it’s his analysis of  “The Fighter” that is of interest to locals. Having noted that “The Fighter” doesn’t include the big win in the Gatti trifecta of fights, he continues with this premise – juxtaposing this movie with “Rocky”:

But one can really see the distance between our traditional films of faith and today’s films of uncertainty by comparing ones of the same genre, then and now, and noting how the elements have been reconfigured for our times. “The Fighter,” starring Mark Wahlberg as the Lowell, Mass., boxer Micky Ward, sounds formulaic. He is a down-on-his-luck, working-class, last-chance pug who has will and courage and a bit of boxing skill. And he manages to parlay these into a crack at the championship. Another “Rocky.” 

Except that “Rocky” was a post-Watergate movie when the country was working strenuously to restore its faith in government, Washington, even American idealism itself. It was about resolve, hope, dreams, and inspiration. Its message was that anyone who really wants to make it, can. “The Fighter” has no such platitudes to dispense. It is less about individual strength of character than about need, more about tiptoeing one’s way through a personal minefield than about bulling one’s way to the title. Unlike Rocky Balboa, Micky Ward is not caught in a slough of despair from which he has to free himself. He is trapped in a web of obligation – to his tart mother who manages him; to his new girlfriend who thinks he has to disentangle himself from his family; and most of all to his spindly, drug-addled half brother who taught Micky how to box but who now seems to stand athwart his dreams.

I don’t think I am giving anything away when I say that Ward wins the title at film’s end. But the sense of exhilaration is muted. It is less a title he has won than a familial truce. In effect, the message of “The Fighter” isn’t about guts and glory. It is about how difficult it is to balance the professional and personal, about how many claims are made on our lives, and about how emotionally demanding success can be, not how liberating it is. In short, it is a film of its time, just as “Rocky” was.

His thesis is an interesting one and his take on Micky Ward and “The Fighter” even more so.

Read the full Neal Gabler article “Oscars 2011: How the year’s top films reflect the times”  here

Dan McNeil posted this on Facebook today with the heading “Good protest sign.” The photo is by Lindsey Connor Mosby.

The State Legislature gave the Governor added control over outside agencies including the Massachusetts Film Board. In a move to streamline – and in some cases – shake-up these agencies, the administration removed the Film Office director, Nicholas Paleologos from his position. Some said that Paleologas was targeted for snitching to the film industry that the administration was planning a big cut to the tax credits that brought movie makers to the Commonwealth. The cuts didn’t materialize and in fact a delegation led by John Dukakis – Board chair – traveled just recently to meet with movie industry leaders to pitch Massachusetts as still a great place to make movies.

Paleologos is fighting his ouster by suing the Commonwealth for illegally removing him from his position. The hearing should be interesting. Locals continue to praise Paleologos’ assistance and commitment in getting the award-winning  movie – The Fighter – a Lowell story - filmed entirely on location in the city of Lowell.

Read the full article here in today’s Boston.com.