Out of Focus

LACKLUSTER SPIRIT AND A RASPBERRY FOR THE RAZZIES

I intended to write a bigger recap of both the IFP Spirit Awards and the Razzies, but then I realized, you don't care, do you? Why should you. The Spirits were a bit too safe and predictable this year, and the Razzies deserve a Razzie of their own. Still, I've got these notes, and they'll drive me crazy if I don't put them somewhere, so here are just a few thoughts:

• The one good thing about the Razzies? I have to give Halle Berry major props for becoming only the second "winner" in history to attend the ceremony and accept her "award." (Tom Green was the first to do so for Freddy Got Fingered, but you kind of expect that from him anyway.)_I think it's really awesome that she was such a good sport.

• With that said, she really shouldn't have won. It wasn't her performance which was so awful, but the role and the movie. I didn't vote for Catwoman, but I don't have a problem with its winning. But Berry winning as well as all the awards given to Bush and Rumsfeld for their "performances" in Fahrenheit 9/11 just show how stupid the Razzies often are. You can have fun, still satirize awards shows and ridicule bad filmmaking without making stupid choices that aren't really "the worst." I know, this in many ways is even a dumb comment – to ridicule the Razzies which are basically a joke anyway. Still, I think that it should have, well, some standards.

• Enough with the Razzies, onto the Spirits which I watched live on IFC. I'm sure I was part of a vast audience of two, maybe even three hundred people who actually sat through that broadcast. This show kind of annoys me now because they try to pretend that they're all low-budget and indie, and obviously compared to the Oscars they are, but they then give the show stupid-ass production value and regular awards-show bullshit. The Oscars did a good job satirizing the usual awards show crap, namely useless unfunny banter, while the Spirits continue to perpetuate the lame scripted material. With that said, the one thing the Spirits do (which is also a rip-off of the Oscars, albeit specifically Billy Crystal-hosted shows) which can be quite funny are the song parodies of the "Best Feature" nominees. The songs are written by Jack Lechner, a development exec and author, and this year's were a bit uneven, although I think that may have been due more to the performers than the songs themselves. The songs for Maria Full of Grace (a very funny spoof of the famous Coca Cola "It's the real thing" song, performed by Megan Mullaly), Kinsey (performed by Michael McKeane, Annette O'Toole and Jane Lynch) and Baadasssss! (sung by David Allen Grier to the tune of "That's Entertainment") were great. But the spoofs of Primer and Sideways were bizarre at best and completely lacking at worst. They were performed, respectively, by Michelle Trachtenberg (why?!?) and a manic Tom Arnold.

• The Sideways sweep was both expected and unfortunate, for reasons I've already discussed elsewhere. I was a bit surprised it beat Before Sunset in the script category.

• As disappointed as I was that The Sea Inside won the "Best Foreign Language Film" Oscar last night, I'm utterly appalled that it also won the "Best Foreign Feature" Spirit Award. Regardless of how good it may be, it was absolutely the worst film in that field of five. In fact, I think that its Spirit win is the worst mistake of any prize given out this weekend. Do yourselves a favor, and when you have the opportunity (because not all have been released theatrically and/or on DVD yet), if you have the opportunity to see Bad Education, Yesterday, Oasis or Red Lights, do so, and soon. I can't believe that anybody who has seen those films could actually like The Sea Inside better, Bardem's brilliant performance not withstanding.

• You know what was weird about the show? Generally, like the Oscars, the Spirits award the "Best Feature" prize last preceded by the "Best Director" award. This year, however, Alexander Payne picked-up his director prize before they announced the winner of "Best Lead Actor." Of course, everyone in the tent or anywhere knew that it was going to go to Paul Giamatti and reference would be made to his Oscar "snub," but talk about some cheap reorganization to make the award a more "special" moment. It was almost as conspicuous as it was dumb.

• Even though Sideways deserved most of its awards, the win that made me happiest was Mean Creek taking home the "John Cassavetes Award," given to the best feature made for under $500K. If you watched the show, you also got to see the special award given to the ensemble cast of kids. If you watched the show and had seen the film, I imagine you would have noticed the same irony I did in seeing Josh Peck, the lonely but annoying bully in the film, take command of the stage, throw-out one-liners and speak for the entire cast. I'm not sure whether or not his awards show performance was a good or bad thing because he seemed almost just like the kid in the film. I imagine they had decided ahead of time that he would speak – none of the other kids made any move toward the mic – but it was still kind of eerie.

• Also if you watched the show, you might be able to answer me this: why does anyone anywhere ever allow Quentin Tarantino to speak in public to a crowd? He's really, really, REALLY awful.

• I was happy that Zach Braff won "Best First Feature" for Garden State, but he seems to be putting a lot more value into the award than he should. He mentioned that thanks to this prize, he'll now be able to keep making movies. I have just six words for Zach Braff: Matty Rich, Straight Out of Brooklyn.

• You know, I actually like Robin Williams, but again, if you saw the show (and yes, I know probably none of you did!), his appearance was kind of freaky. He announced the "Best Feature" winner, and then when Sideways producer tried to speak, Williams couldn't stop cracking jokes. It got to the point where Williams obviously knew that if he stayed on the stage, he simply wouldn't be able to control himself. He had been holding London's statuette while the producer gave his speech. Finally, he put it down on the stage and said, "I'm going to leave this here and fuck off," before running off the stage and letting London finish his speech.

OK, now I'm really done. No more film awards talk … for at least the next eight months or so!

WHEW! THANK GOD THAT'S OVER -- OSCAR ROUNDUP 2005

I don't have much time today, but I wanted to just post a few thoughts on each of the awards that I previewed just before they occurred over the weekend. If I have time later today, I'll come back to the Sideways-dominated Spirit Awards, and the Razzies which, in my book, deserve a Razzie themselves. For now though, let's talk about Big Poppa Oscar:

• OK, so my little dysfunctional Oscar theory was dysfunctional in itself, but that's not really a surprise. I thought there was more of a chance of Million Dollar Baby winning both awards than the other way around, or even than Scorsese winning director and MDB taking home picture. It's sad actually. I wish Scorsese had won the director prize, not because I think he deserved it so much more than Eastwood (I actually think Eastwood's direction was excellent), but because then Marty would stop trying to win an Oscar. Even if he doesn't consciously think that's what he's doing, films like Gangs of New York and The Aviator reek of "give me a statue!" When Scorsese isn't trying to shard to do what the Academy supposedly is looking for, he's much better. With that said, I have huge hopes for The Departed, his soon-to-shoot American remake of the great Hong Kong actioner Infernal Affairs. It should be film less epic in scope, and in a way, far more intimate, and hopefully that will benefit Scorsese … and us, and maybe in two years, he'll finally get one of those little gold men.

• Chris Rock as host? I thought he was alright. I liked that he said "ass" with his third word: "Sit your ass down!" I think the Oscars do something to funny people, and the very nature of the event (and its black-tie stuffiness) makes them a little less funny. With that said, I think Rock did as good a job as should have been expected even if some of us who love him had hoped for a little more. He seemed to disappear later in the show, but the earlier bits -- his monologue, the sequence at the Magic Johnson Theater (hello Albert Brooks! Where the hell have you been? We miss you!), some of his one-liners and even the bit with Adam Sandler, which was a great meta-joke an bad awards banter -- were funny.

• Along a similar line, while I thought the new methods of handing out some of the less-popular awards -- beauty pageant style onstage and from the audience -- looked very awkward and was downright mean to those non-winners who had to stand onstage, you've got to give Gil Cates credit: the show ran three hours-and-11 minutes long. Does anyone remember the last time an Oscar telecast was less than three-and-a-half hours? I sure as hell don't. One thing that helped was eliminating the clips of the "Best Picture" nominees. That alone probably cut about 10 minutes. The next thing to cut? The performances of the "Best Song" nominees. There is absolutely no need to see Beyonce sing three times in one evening, nor to have Antonio Banderas sing at all, especially when the original artist of the song could have done it better (as he proved when he won). The idea is that big stars will bring more viewers, but that's bullshit. I don't believe anybody watched one minute of the Oscars for those "Best Song" performances. And to make it all worse, they were all boring as hell. If you needed a bathroom break, those were the five times to do so. You cut those segments, this show would actually come in on time, if not early!

• The Johnny Carson tribute was very tastefully done, but why did they only interview Whoopi Goldberg? Where were Billy Crystal and Steve Martin? Most importantly, where was David Letterman? I know Letterman doesn't really like to look back on the show he hosted, but I can't believe that he wouldn't participate in any tribute to Carson, anywhere, at any time.

• Did anyone else notice that the main theme music for the entire show (especially running through the end credits) was the main theme from The Terminator, or at least Terminator 2: Judgment Day. (Not sure if they were the same.) I don't know, that kind of freaked me out for some reason.

• Also, was anyone else bothered that the two awards for sound were presented by Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek, who both were stunning looking, but who also could have used some sound editing to make their English more intelligible?

• Sidney Lumet certainly deserved his lifetime achievement award. Anyone who has ever read this site knows that I think Network is one of the best films ever made. But I've also been saddened by the last decade or two of his career because it's almost as if he's forgotten how to make great movies. (And if you watched the montage of his films, WOW, is he responsible for some amazing titles. Although Sharon Stone must have paid off someone to have Gloria included there.) But one thing about that tribute really disturbed me. Well, two related things, actually. At the end, they showed Lumet on the set of his new picture, Find Me Guilty. Who's the star of this next entry in the Lumet-oevre? Vin Diesel?!?!?!!? What the hell? (The second disturbing element was, did you see the hair they put on Vin? It was frightening to look at!)

• The show was relatively predictable. I did pretty well (not perfect, though) with my picks. Sadly, in many cases, that means cynicism won out. I really can't understand how if people who voted for "Best Foreign Film" had to watch all five films at special screenings that anyone could actually think that The Sea Inside was the best. Although, isn't it interesting that a certain controversial issue that plagued the "Best Picture" winner Million Dollar Baby was also the subject of the "Best Foreign Language Film" winner. Congratulations, though, to Born Into Brothels, which along with The Sea Inside managed to win its award at both the Oscars and Independent Spirit Awards.

• Best win: Definitely Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind winning "Best Original Screenplay." Nothing made me happier, and Charlie Kaufman's nervous speech was perfect.

• Biggest surprise: There wasn't really one for me. If I had to pick, I'd say the "Best Song" award going to "Al Otro Lado Del Rio" from The Motorcycle Diaries because a) the song is in Spanish, b) not too many people saw the movie, and c) usually this award goes to the most well-known/popular song regardless of how well it integrates into the film, and this song was basically unknown. The other surprise, although not really, would be The Aviator winning "Best Cinematographer," but only because there were some truly beautifully-shot films in this category. However, it's not really a surprise because what happened here was that all those people who chose MDB in the more popular categories decided to throw all the artistic ones to The Aviator.

• Most deserving person to not win an award: I've said it before, I'll say it again: Imelda Staunton for Vera Drake. Hands down. No contest.

• Last but not least, I still don't get the Before Sunset nomination in the "Best Adapted Screenplay" category. They seemed to indicate that the film was "based on characters" created by Richard Linklater and Kim Krizan for the film Before Sunrise. But that just makes it a sequel. Are sequels always in the "Best Adapted" category? Maybe. I'm trying to think of other sequels that have received Oscar nominations, but now thinking back on it, the only sequels I can think of were follow-ups to films that were themselves adapted from different source material, i.e., The Godfather and The Godfather, Part II. Does anyone know if there has ever been a sequel nominated for an Oscar where the original film was an original script?

LET THE COUNTDOWN TO THE LETDOWN BEGIN: HELLO OSCAR

Yesterday I previewed the Razzies and the Independent Spirit Awards, detailing how I voted for each. The Sideways sweep at the Spirits wasn't exactly a surprise, although it does go to the very problem I mentioned at the top of that post, namely that there now always seems to be a big indie film -- Sideways, Lost in Translation -- that also gets tons of Oscar notice, but since everyone knows it probably won't win much there, it goes on to take all the awards from the IFP.

But I'll review the Spirits later (probably tomorrow). Today is Oscar-day, and for better of worse, tonight a lot of films and people are going to be crowned "best of the year," and much if not all of the time, that probably won't be true. But we love 'em anyway, you know? Or something.

Unlike those other two awards, I sadly don't have an Academy membership, so I can't tell you exactly why I would have voted for Yesterday for "Best Foreign Language Film," or struggled to decide between House of Flying Daggers, A Very Long Engagement and yes, even The Passion of the Christ for "Best Cinematography," possibly the strongest category this year overall.

One thing to remember with the Oscars when making your predictions, though, is don't depend too heavily on who won the Golden Globes. The Globes always used to be a good predicator of who might win Oscar, but not so much anymore. While the WGA, SAG and DGA awards are voted on by many of the same people who vote for Oscar, the Globes are a completely different entity, and no member of the Hollywood Foreign Press also has membership in the Academy. The Globes used to have a larger influence because they were handed out before the Academy's ballot deadline, but starting last year with Oscar's move to earlier in the year, that all changed. The deadline for Academy members to mail their ballots this year was the Friday before the Globes were announced, so no Oscar voter knew that Clive Owen or Natalie Portman or Martin Scorsese would win their various awards.

So, just so when 3 AM rolls around and the broadcast finally ends, I can say, "I told you so," or, "No, the drugs clouded my thinking. I knew it would be the 'Night of Neverland.'" Here are my annual predictions of what will win along with what I think should win:

I'VE GOT SPIRIT, HOW 'BOUT YOU?

As I mentioned yesterday, the cinetrix has been doing a bang-up job previewing the IFP Spirit Awards over at Bravo's web site. But she's being all impartial, and I feel no compulsion to do the same.

As I also mentioned yesterday, this year I actually managed to see every film that received a Spirit Award nomination, so my voting was pretty informed. Unlike the Oscars or even the Razzies, the nominees for the Spirit Awards are determined by "expert" committees who both decide whether a film is eligible for Spirit Award consideration as well as good enough to be nominated. Unlike the Oscars where a film has to play commercially in either LA or New York for at least a week, many Spirit Award nominees often have not yet had commercial distribution, instead simply playing at various film festivals around the country. With nominees ranging from widely publicized and seen films such as Sideways to no-budget, no-distribution, hardly seen pictures like Unknown Soldier and Robbing Peter. When IFP members vote, instead of simply picking their favorite in each category, one ranks their choices in order of preference. That way, when a weighted average of scores is computed, a film that 100 people saw has as much chance as one viewed by 1000.

With that preamble aside, here's how I voted. Note, these aren't predictions, just how I ranked things:

IT'S THAT SOUND YOU MAKE WHEN YOU STICK YOUR TONGUE BETWEEN YOUR LIPS AND BLOW

Last month when the Razzie nominations were announced, I listed my worst six films of 2004. Since that time, I've had the … uhm … the … something, not sure what, to watch several more films, mostly Razzie nominees which qualify for this list. But as I always find to be the case with the Razzies, often films and actors get nominated simply because it's either easy or fun to shit on them. The truth is, while I wouldn't call any of the films or performances that received Razzie nominations "good," some of them really aren't so bad to be considered the worst of the worst.

A few examples? Take White Chicks, for example. This Wayans collective movie was nominated for Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, Worst Actress and Worst Couple. Was the movie bad? Yeah. Was it Razzie-bad? Not really. I'd still say The Stepford Wives was worse. At least the story in White Chicks, as absurd as it was, actually made sense it didn't contradict itself.

Or take Halle Berry and Sharon Stone in Catwoman. While this movie and its director absolutely positively without-a-doubt deserve their dishonors, neither Berry nor Stone are really all that awful. I mean, they have such little to work with considering how terrible the script and dialogue are. They do the best with what they have. As opposed to, for example, Ben Affleck who really is quite terrible in both Surviving Christmas and Jersey Girl.

Anyway, I have since revised and added to my bottom six of the year with a few films I have since seen and one other that I had simply forgotten about (read: managed to block from my memory). But before I reproduce this list, I have to make a special note. For me, not all bad films are equal. For example, I never in my wildest dreams would have expected anything but total crap from Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2, and that's what I got. But I expect a hell of a lot when Oliver Stone says he's making Alexander, or even when anyone – and yes, including ultimate hack Joel Schumacher – is making an adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera, something which may never be amazing but at least has the promise to look grand and not bore. So with that in mind, here's my definitive worst list, followed by how I voted for the Razzies:

Worst 10 of 2004

1. Alexander
   
2. The Phantom of the Opera
   
3. Catwoman
   
4. Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2
   
5. Surviving Christmas
   
6. The Day After Tomorrow
   
7. The Stepford Wives
   
8. Van Helsing
   
9. Around the World in 80 Days
   
10. Blade: Trinity

MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANY: HAPPY BLOG-BIRTHDAY EDITION

Tomorrow will be the one year anniversary of Out of Focus. Somehow over the past 12 months, I have actually managed to consistently write and post something to this space, and believe me, nobody is more surprised than I. I started. It all started with this post on Feb. 26 last year, and then kicked into gear with reviews of the IFP Spirit Awards and the Oscars. Now here we are, 465 posts later! How time flies when ... well, when time flies.

I plan to write about both of those events this weekend, as well as the Razzies, so come back for the "fun." Meanwhile, a few quickies:

• My Conversation co-conspirator the cinetrix is blogging about tomorrow's IFP Spirit Awards for Bravo. She has her own little Bravo-generated site and everything. The awards will be televised live on IFC at 5PM Eastern (2 PM Pacific) and then replayed by Bravo at 10 PM, preceded by a "red-carpet" show hosted by Queer Eye's Carson Kressley at 9 PM.

  As I've mentioned before, I'm an IFP member which gives me the privilege of voting on the Spirit Awards. This year, I actually managed to see every nominated film. Members vote for the Spirit Awards by ranking films they've seen in order of preference, and then a weighted average is determined. That way, films that haven't been seen by as many people don't suffer by comparison. I'll post either later tonight or tomorrow how I voted, but I will say that generally all the categories were pretty strong, especially Best Documentary and Best Foreign Language Film.

• Also tomorrow night, but not televised, are the Razzie Awards, and because I pay my dues like a good little obsessed film person, I vote on these too. I can't say that I've seen all the Razzie nominees, and I was a bit disappointed that several films didn't get nominations. I have seen all the best picture nominees, and while White Chicks certainly wasn't anything special, there were so many movies last year that were far, far worse. I'll be back to post more about my voting later as well.

• And then there's that behemoth on Sunday night. You know the one. I live-blogged the Golden Globes, but I'm leaning against doing the same Sunday night. However, between Chris Rock hosting and the freaky test-runs they're planning to do with giving out some of the awards -- having all the nominees on the stage beauty pageant style before announcing the winner? Could someone close to Gil Cates force an intervention and stop this absolutely horrible idea before it actually makes it to air? -- I'm sure there will be plenty to discuss. Predicting this year's winners seems to be more difficult than in recent years. The Golden Globes don't really have as much of an impact anymore because the deadline for Oscar ballots occurs before the Globe winners are announced. Otherwise, I would say Clive Owen had a great shot at winning the Best Supporting Actor prize, but instead, I'm betting the Million Dollar Baby wave will sweep-it-up for Morgan Freeman. I will be shocked if the big two prizes -- Picture and Director -- don't come down to a battle of Eastwood vs. Scorsese with the boxing movie knocking out the frail OCDer, but I'm hoping it goes the other way. Anyway, it's virtually a mantra now, but more later….

• Not related to the Oscars, but a potential future Razzie winner, I must continue to ask the question why anyone believes that anybody at all gives two shits about Basic Instinct 2. Actually, Sharon Stone very well could win a Razzie tomorrow for her performance in Catwoman, which actually wasn't so bad as much as a totally clichéd role in a horrible movie. Anyway, the people behind the film, especially Stone and her publicists, must know nobody truly cares because they keep pushing these annoying stories on the poor AP news wire, who I guess feels the responsibility to report everything. For instance, "Basic Instinct 2 will have bisexual love" actually does not give me any reason to believe this film won't be a complete disaster. Rather, it simply provides more evidence of its probably superior rating on the scale of craptitude!

• And not to get maudlin on what should otherwise be a celebratory occasion (so-to-speak), but the revelation that Hunter S. Thompson shot himself while on the phone with his wife was a bit disturbing, to say the least. Even more disturbing, though, is the seeming nonchalance apparent in this quote reported in the story from his wife Anita Thompson: "He wanted to leave on top of his game. I wish I could have been more supportive of his decision," she said. "It was a problem for us." She wishes she could have been "more supportive of his decision" to kill himself? Really? That's possibly the most absurd thing I've ever read, and I really, truly hope it's taken out of context.

Happy awards weekend everyone. Check back later for more….

THE GOTHAMIST INTERVIEW: FEB. OSCAR WEEK DAY 5 - BRUCE GOLDSTEIN (FILM FORUM)

As I said, if you've read this site, you knew what was coming next. There was no way we would be doing a week of Gothamist Interviews about New York film programmers without talking to Film Forum. Actually, we're only dealing with half of Film Forum, a unique and remarkable theater because on one screen you've got some of the best premieres of international/independent/documentary filmmaking that often may not open anywhere else, and on another screen is their brilliant repertory and revival programming.

That's what we're dealing with today. Earlier this week I spoke to Bruce Goldstein for about an hour. Bruce has been programming for over thirty year, and as I often write about here, I love Film Forum's repertory screen. Whether it's a two-week engagement of The Leopard or Days of Being Wild to phenomenal series like "Essential Noir", "The Essential Harold Lloyd" or the upcoming "The Early Sturges" or single day special events of early silents and pre-Code films, any student of cinema -- especially classic cinema -- should thank whatever diety allowed for the creation of Film Forum. For everything I love about TCM, it is always a better option to see something projected, especially a good print, and that's something you can only get from the places we've highlighted this week, particularly Film Forum.

Bruce, in fact, is responsible for many of these revivals simply by his attempts to get new prints made of classic films. After years of programming revivals, he finally decided to start distributing some of them himself, which is why nearly a decade ago he founded Rialto Pictures.

Starting today, Film Forum has a phenomenal series which, in its own way, is another antidote to the Oscars while also actually being about the film industry's annual self-love-fest. "Oscar's First Year: The Academy Awards 1927-28" is a week-long series during which you can see many of the first films to ever take home that little gold man. Every program is a double-feature, so you get two films for the price of one. Today and tomorrow feature two films that you shouldn't confuse with their more modern TV series counterparts: Wings won the very first Best Picture award while Seventh Heaven took home Best Director, Best Adaptation and Best Actress for Janet Gaynor. Those early Oscars included some different categories than we're used to now, and those films are also reflected in the series. For example, Sunrise won the first and only prize for "Unique & Artistic Production," and at the time, the performance awards were for an actor's body of work during the year, so Gaynor's Best Actress prize was actually for Seventh Heaven as well as this film and Street Angel (also screening). Another one-time only award was Best Title Writing, which became moot with the arrival of talkies. But during the first Oscars, Joseph Farnham took home this award for his work on both The Crowd and The Unknown. These are films that play rarely (if ever) on TCM, and screen even more infrequently. They absolutely should be seen projected in a theater, and even better, many of the screenings will feature live piano accompaniment. This is a definite must-attend series, and the kind of thing that helps a Film Forum membership pay for itself.

And for all you likola critics, the only thing I got out of these interviews was a little insight into how these programmers do their things. I buy my tickets and memberships just like everyone else!

THE GOTHAMIST INTERVIEW: FEB. OSCAR WEEK DAY 4 - FLORENCE ALMOZINI (BAMCINÉMATEK)

This has been a ridiculous week for me so far, and I'm just trying to make it through tomorrow. A new job, still not done with the old job, plus these Gothamist interviews ... sadly it has precluded me from writing some of the other pre-Razzie, pre-Spirit Award, pre-Oscar things I intended. Hopefully tonight. Maybe this weekend.

But I think it's been worth it. And I hope that anyone who reads this site has been interested in learning a bit about the thoughts of those people who program some of the amazing repertory houses around town. Today we stay east of the East River, heading from Astoria, Queens to Fort Greene, Brooklyn and a visit to BAM and the BAMcinématek for a little chat with Florence Almozini. Yes, it's true ... not all film programmers are male. In fact, the two at BAMcinématek are both women. I guess that's a point in favor of Brooklyn, eh?

BAMcinématek is a program that runs out of the BAM Rose Cinemas, and if you've never checked out their schedule, you really should. Right now they have an amazing series playing featuring the films of Henri-Georges Clouzot, the man many people called France's answer to Hitchcock. In fact, on Saturday they screen . No, not that piece of trash remake from about 10 years ago with Sharon Stone and Chazz Palminteri, but the original film from 1955 that helped prompt Hitchcock to go out and make Psycho! Clouzot's film is one of the all-time great thrillers, and should not be missed.

BAMcinématek also gives you a chance to see what the fus is all about with Korean director Park Chan-wook late next week with a four day engagement of his films under the title "Mr. Vengeance: Park Chan-wook." As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, his film Oldboy blew me away. Oldboy is getting a limited theatrical release, I believe rolling out at the end of March. But if you go to BAM, you can also see If You Were Me, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and Joint Security Area.

And the great programming will continue through April and May. Florence is especially excited about a series dedicated to one of her favorite filmmakers, French Director Arnaud Desplechin, which will run April 13-17 and feature an appearance and Q&A by Mr. Desplechin after the screening of his latest film Kings and Queen. Keep watch on the BAMcinématek web site for more information.

We'll be wrapping up our film programmer series tomorrow. If you read this site, you should easily be able to figure out who, or at least what venue, will be featured. It's basically the only place I spend as much time raving about as I do TCM, and for good reason.

THE GOTHAMIST INTERVIEW: FEB. OSCAR WEEK DAY 3 - DAVID SCHWARTZ (MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE)

For day three of film programmer week at the Gothamist Interview we head across the East River to Astoria, Queens where those brave enough to leave the isle of Manhattan have the ability to visit the Museum of the Moving Image, formerly known as the American Museum of the Moving Image. Apparently, the original Museum of the Moving Image was in London, but since it recently closed, it gave the Queens institution the ability to become the MMI rather than just the American MMI. MMI is unique among our featured institutions this week because not only do they show screening programs, but they're actually a museum ... of the moving image. What I mean is that while MoMA is a museum and may have some film and video related exhibitions from time-to-time, MMI is solely dedicated to film, TV, video etc. They have galleries and exhibitions that focus on the history and production of the moving image we have all come to love so much whether via motion pictures or television. For our purposes, though, we're focusing on the man behind their repertory screening program, David Schwartz. David will celebrate his 20th year at MMI this coming September. I must admit, I've found our programmers Oscar predictions/hopes to be a bit interesting. I guess I'm not surprised that they don't care much about them, but what is interesting is that for the second day in a row, the film mentioned by our interview subject as the one he most hopes will win is one nominated in the Animated Short film cateogy. Equally interesting, David and yesterday's interview Laurence Kardish did not mention the same animated short! Maybe it has something to do with programming at museums. Or, maybe not.

THE GOTHAMIST INTERVIEW: FEB. OSCAR WEEK DAY 2 - LAURENCE KARDISH (MoMA)

Day two of film programmer week at the Gothamist Interview takes us across town from a vital New York cultural institution on the west side to one of the most venerable and popular centers of art on the east side. Often overshadowed by the painters and sculptors featured in its galleries, the Department of Film and Media at the Museum of Modern Art has long been one of the most important and interesting repertory screens in town. A major reason for that is the presence of Laurence Kardish, Senior Curator of the department, who has programmed much of what the MoMA has screened for more than 35 years. (Can you imagine working for the same company since 1968? I can't -- I wasn't born until 1971!) With the MoMA out in Queens for the past couple years while its midtown home was under renovation, MoMA film moved in to the Gramercy Theater on 23rd Street. Now with the building on 53rd reopening, MoMA film has moved back home, and it did so with a bang: a year-long, still ongoing series surveying the first "112 Years of Cinema." MoMA also is responsible, along with yesterday's subject, the Film Society of Lincoln Center, with the annual New Directors/New Films festival which starts this year on March 23. Larry gives us a bit of an inside peak into what goes into some of the decision making programming the MoMA, and interestingly enough, when asked about what film he hopes win an Oscar, he doesn't mention any of the big favorites but rather one of the animated shorts. Hey, at least he's seen them. I also find it funny, although maybe not surprising, that Larry's "guilty pleasure" -- "seeing something mindless at the AMC Empire on 42nd Street -- is basically my home away from home.