Short films. Nobody watches them except the Oscar nominating comittee and yet we still wonder who will win that coveted award. Sometimes they can even lead to mainstream success; “In Bruges” director Martin McDonagh won two years ago, and before that he was just a well-respected, award-winning playwright. Now he’s important. This year’s batch of Oscar-nominated shorts begins with “Tanghi Argentini,” a Belgian film following a jolly man who attempts to learn the tango in order to impress a woman he meets on the Internet. He seeks a coworker’s help and hijinks somewhat ensues. The plot is undoubtedly trite, so much so that the “surprise” ending does not have as much of an impact as it should. But it means well and one gets the opportunity to listen to Belgians for half an hour. They have such corrosive, standoffish accents, and yet they’re always smiling and laughing. You would think natural selection would have brought their voices up an octave to match their buoyant personalities, but I haven’t taken a science class in a while so what do I know?

A short film’s duration must be 40 minutes or under to be nominated for the Oscar. The Danish, “At Night,” was exactly 40. And yet it felt so much longer. The picture follows three cancer-stricken women in a lonely hospital ward from Christmas through New Year’s Eve. The film is certainly melodramatic, as are most Danish films, yet the acting remains affecting. The picture becomes exponentially more depressing as it continues and, never a good sign for a short film, runs far too long. But the Academy should love it because it dominates the rest of the field in the gravity-of-subject-matter department.

“The Substitute” (“Il Supplente”) is an Italian picture that progresses in an intelligent manner without ever being condescending (I’m talking to you, Juno). Although some jokes fall very flat, a healthy majority of it is chuckle-inducing, occasionally to the point of guffaw. Its subtle commentary is surprising and appreciated, and it ends without overstaying its welcome, which is even more appreciated. It has likeability and, of the comedies nominated, the most substance. Therefore it could be a popular pick for younger, happier Oscar voters.

The British enter the foray of the Western with “The Tonto Woman,” an adaptation of an Elmore Leonard story. The film may have beauty, but it lacks brains. It has more impressive cinematography than “3:10 to Yuma,” another Western this year adapted from a Leonard work. But at least “3:10 to Yuma” had a screenplay. I guess the screenplay of “The Tonto Woman” was mostly blank, with the occasional direction “mug for camera in strange accent.” The film attempts to make up for its lack of plot with breathtaking cinematography and that works at times, but not enough.

“The Mozart of Pickpockets” was French, fast-paced and funny. And it has no chance to win the Oscar. The picture’s topic seems pointless compared to the other more “important” subjects of the shorts nominated, and that will certainly damage its odds of winning. But the leads in this film are so mesmerizingly cute together that I entirely disregarded its frivolity. I laughed more and cared more for the characters than I did with any of the other shorts. And I didn’t mind the picture’s predictable nature because I had so much fun watching. If I had a vote this would win hands down, and that’s why I don’t have a vote. So in the end seeing these shorts was an exercise in why the Academy irritates me-and yet I will watch the Oscars with sweaty palms, anticipating the Academy to relay the word of God. So the Academy and I have a love/hate relationship.

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, February 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Cadenza. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.