Winner Breakdown: Film Editing

Film Editing:
- The Artist
- The Descendants
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball


This is another one of those categories where I understand it, but have a hard time noticing it when I watch the actual films. But what I do know about this category is has correlations with Best Picture. 5 our of the last 10 awards has the Best Picture winner also won editing. And those within the editing nominees are usually also Best Picture nominees. While TGWTDT was not a Best Picture nominee, I don't think you should count it out just yet. However, Hugo, having nabbed tons of nominations in the technical fields, and The Artist being the frontrunner, I'd say the race is between these two. But I wouldn't count any of these films out of the race. Yes, The Descendants and Moneyball are less likely, but I'd say they still have a shot. I'd even like to see Moneyball win, since I thought it was extremely well put together, and isn't likely to win much (or anything) this year. However, I'm officially predicting Hugo to win, but if anyone will steal it, it'll be The Artist, and equally challenging opponent.


Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball

Moneyball

Moneyball, 2011
Directed by Bennett Miller
Potential Nominations Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography

Synopsis: It's 2001, and the Oakland A's is the lowest salary team in the league. Billy Beane, the General Manager is fed up with losing, and losing good players to richer teams. How can you make a good team when you're running on $40 million, when the Yankees are running on $120 million? When Billy meets Peter Brand, a player analysis, he introduces Billy into a new way of thinking about baseball that could change everything anyone's ever thought baseball was about, and change it forever.

Before you start thinking, I'm a little late on reviewing it, just like Midnight in Paris, this is my review after watching it a second time. I went and saw it in theatres a few weeks after it's release in September, and loved it. Now, I'm no baseball fan. Sure, I've been to a few games. I've seen the Jays several times over the years, and went and saw the Yankees in NYC last April, but overall, baseball is not my thing at all. It doesn't really captivate me, nor interest me. It's a little slow-running for me, personally. However, this film really invited me right in. It was a film about baseball, but there wasn't a whole lot of baseball in it.

The film consists of the behind-the-scenes of baseball. Billy Beane is trying to figure out how to build a successful team from a tiny budget. Peter Brand tells him you aren't buying players, you're buying wins. And by buying wins you're buying runs, meaning you have to get people "who get on base". So many players are overlooked for a variety of different reasons. And we see that there is value in different ways than people think.

The story was really well told, with a really honest screenplay. It was well-paced, and introduced enough that non-baseball fans could follow it, but it wasn't too simplistic, it was just right. Additionally, the cinematography of this film is completely underrated, as is the sound mixing. The cinematography on the big screen was pretty dazzling in a subtle way. The green of the field was surrounding, and the montage scenes were beautifully shot, as were the everyday things, such as the dressing room and stands at night, the empty fields, everything. It probably won't be nominated, but I loved it anyways.

Along with that, the score by Mychael Dana is perfect for this film. It's slow-paced, and just so inspirational sounding. It's simple, and is so effective. The sound mixing for this film is great. So many times we have silence, and it's so effective. Silence, except for the sound of a ball hitting a bat, or just the low notes of the cello. While the score isn't thrilling by itself, it's extremely effective paired with the film.

I'd also like the mention the acting. Brad Pitt was really good in this film. He played all the different sides of Billy Beane so well, going from father, to GM, anger, love, pride, and competitiveness, and teacher. He was very convincing in his role, and expect him to receive a nomination, though I felt Clooney will likely steal the win, having given a slightly better performance. I've become a big fan of Brad Pitt lately. Not just the looks or whatever, but find him to be a really good actor, and always makes really good choices. Would love to see him win an Oscar, but sadly, it won't be this time. Additionally, like Owen Wilson in Midnight in Paris, it's nice to see an actor who is usually in terrible movies (Superbad just being one of them) do a serious role, and show some potential. This especially paid off for Jonah Hill, having been great as Peter Brand, the awkward, statistics whiz kid that Billy befriends. He really showed some good potential, and he has a good shot at making the Supporting Actor cut on Tuesday.

Honestly, if this film won Best Picture, I wouldn't be disappointed. It was my favourite film of the awards season, and the year, before War Horse strolled along, and I still enjoyed it very much. It was incredibly well done, looks, story, acting, etc. While the Artist was a great film, I'd love to see this film win the Big Prize, but frankly, it's not going to happen, though I'd love to see it happen.

9/10

422. Moneyball

422. (24 Sep) Moneyball (2011, Bennett Miller)* 74



With zingers clearly written by Aaron Sorkin and under Bennett Miller's intensely focused direction, Moneyball's clearest fault is its tendency to be too on the nose. Nevertheless, it's captivating filmmaking that defies sports genre cliches. (It's a novelty that Moneyball is about an underdog team that's poised to defy all the odds, but doesn't actually go the distance.) Unlike most films integrating sports or new footage, Miller isn't reliant on them. Instead, he sustains tension or lets us off the hook to craft a bona fide crowd-pleaser. Brad Pitt and Chris Pratt give the film's most accomplished performances.

MONEYBALL

Written by Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin

Directed by Bennett Miller

Starring Brad Pitt, Johan Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman

Billy Beane: There are rich teams; there are poor teams; then there’s fifty feet of crap; and then there’s us.

These days, it seems that when it comes to conversations about the American economy, the focus is on the increasing divide between the rich and the poor. In MONEYBALL, that same gap is affecting America’s favourite pass time, baseball. How can a team that only has $40 million to pay its players possibly compete with teams that have three times that amount at their disposal? The answer is simple. Input everything you know about the players into a computer and let it do all the thinking for you. And once you have all your algorithms in place, you can apply them to the sport and rob it of all spontaneity and excitement.

Unfortunately, some of the fun and excitement that usually spills over from the sport itself into the baseball movie genre, has also disappeared from MONEYBALL. Bennett Miller’s second film after his incredible debut, CAPOTE, is a succinct account of how former Oakland Athletics general manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), changed the way major league baseball teams were formed in 2002. Inspired by a concept that was brought to him by his new assistant (Jonah Hill), Beane began adding players to his roster who were notorious for getting on base. The logic was that these players cost way less and produced more consistent, if not necessarily showy, results. MONEYBALL then becomes a waiting game to see if his theory pays off and less about the actual success of the players themselves.

Pitt gives a fine performance as the frustrated Beane, choosing to play most of his struggle internally while presenting with great confidence to all who doubt him. As strong as his performance is, it is not as impressively nuanced as the turn given by Philip Seymour Hoffman as the unfortunate coach who has to play with Beane’s team of mismatched baseball rejects. Even Hill shines as a young actor who is showing more and more promise in dramatic parts. No, the trouble with MONEYBALL is not the acting but rather the thin subtext of the script. Having gone through three hands before going into production, it comes across as self-important but doesn’t have the gravitas to back it up. As a result, MONEYBALL is solid entertainment, but it never manages to crack it out of the park.