Best Picture of 2007

The Winner: No Country for Old Men.

The Other Nominees: Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, and There Will Be Blood.

My Choice: For me, this race comes down to two movies: Atonement and No Country for Old Men. I'm inclined to agree with the Academy on this one. The Coen Brothers have made a brilliant film on the nature of violence, and I enjoyed (if that's the right word) watching it even more a second time. This is a very rich film. However, if there is a movie that I expect to keep returning to time after time, it will probably be Atonement. I don't know that it is a greater achievement in filmmaking, but Atonement had much more emotional resonance for me.

Michael Clayton (2007)

George Clooney plays the title character of Michael Clayton, a nominee for Best Picture of 2007. However, despite the amount of screen time that Clooney gets and despite the fact that his character is obviously central to the plot, the strength of this film is in the ensemble cast. Some of the best actors working these days make Michael Clayton an interesting movie to watch. Think of the names Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, and the late Sydney Pollack (and Clooney too), and you'll know what I mean.

The plot is a bit too labyrinthine for most people's tastes, I'd imagine. Clooney plays the "fixer" of a prestigious law firm; he's the one you call in when you have a mess that needs to be cleaned up or taken care of quietly. He's asked to help with a case that has led to a nervous breakdown by one of the firm's partners, Arthur Edens (Wilkinson). Arthur has spent years representing a major agribusiness corporation that is charged with knowingly poisoning people with one of its weedkillers. The multi-billion-dollar case is handled from the company's side by Karen Crowder (Swinton), a very deliberate and calculating attorney who is still relatively new to the job and does not want to lose so much money for her firm. She does seem, after all, to have ambitions.

Soon after Clooney starts working on the case, though, his car is blown up and he begins to realize that Arthur is also in danger. He has to begin piecing together what Arthur has been doing since the older attorney has gone missing and refuses to answer his phone. Karen, meanwhile, is planning for a way to ensure that the truth behind the case (as outlined in a memo that admits the agribusiness company's complicity) never gets revealed.

I may have made that sound relatively simple to follow, but the movie doesn't follow the plot quite that directly. It actually starts with a sequence of events before Clayton's car explodes and then goes back in time to show us earlier events. There are some other flashbacks within flashbacks, which might account for why this film never seemed to catch on with the public. I have to admit that watching it a second time recently helped me to clarity the sequence of events a great deal more than I expected.

The plot, however, is not the best part of the movie. It's the acting. Clooney has taken on a series of challenging roles in recent years, and I think this is one of his best. He's excellent in the part, a truly complex man who has so many dreams that just keep failing to materialize. Wilkinson has a rather showy role, particularly in a couple of scenes where he gets to "demonstrate" the depths of his nervous breakdown. Swinton won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress this year, and I think many people watching this film for the first time might not understand why. But if you watch it more than once, you'll begin to see just how controlling and controlled her Karen Crowder is. She's quiet, certainly, but there's a great deal of malice beneath the surface here. She makes for a tremendous villain.

I have to mention Sydney Pollack briefly, at least. He's the head of the law firm that employs Clayton and Edens, and he's great as always. This was one of Pollack's last acting roles, and it will remind you just how good an actor he was. No doubt his understanding of the skill of acting made him a better director. It's a very bittersweet feeling I have watching this movie now.

I'm not certain that I would have picked Michael Clayton as one of the five best movies of last year. (No, I don't have an alternative list for you.) In many ways, it's a very old fashioned suspense thriller. The only difference between it and a similar movie made in, say, the 1970s is the jumbling of the sequence of events in the plot. It works better, it seems to me, as a showcase for some fine acting by several talented performers instead.

Juno (2007)

Juno was nominated for Best Picture of 2007, the only comedy to be nominated. It's a funny movie, very clever, but perhaps a bit too in love with its own cleverness. The kids in the movie don't really sound like any high schoolers that I know (or even any college students that I know). I don't think that really matters, however, given that it is a fantasy as much as it is a comedy.

Ellen Page's Juno realizes at the beginning of the film that's she pregnant and decides to have the baby but give it up for adoption. So far, so good. However, the scene where she tells her father and stepmother (with the help of her friend) is pretty ridiculous. The parents are more moved when they find out the name of the father than when Juno tells them of her condition. They certainly don't behave as parents in real life would. If you as a viewer aren't in the realm of make-believe at this point, the film only continues in this realm of the unrealistic.

Of course, her father is incredibly supportive. Of course, her stepmother, although initially distant, comes around to be on Juno's side. Of course, there's a fight between Juno and her erstwhile boyfriend, Paulie. And, of course, it's all going to be resolved by the end of the film. No open-ended conclusions for this film.

It might sound like I didn't enjoy this film, but I really did. The dialogue is funny, and the actors are all very winning in their roles. I particularly liked Michael Cera as Paulie; this young actor is cornering the market on playing the sort of teenager who's never quite sure exactly what's going on, but he's trying to do whatever he thinks is right or appropriate at the time. And Jennifer Garner as Vanessa, the wife who desperately wants to have a baby, is a revelation here. Her interplay with Jason Bateman as her husband Mark is filled with emotional landmines. You can see just how many times they have been disappointed in the past. The scene where Juno lets Vanessa feel the baby kick, in particular, is powerful for the ways that Garner lets you see both the joy and fear that this adoptive-mother-to-be feels.

I guess my only complaint, really, would be with the trend in movies lately to have everyone be so clever all the time. Everyone speaks as if they are on camera, as if they are performing. I don't truly mind that the dialogue is unbelievable, but I do hope that people don't let this archness become too much of a continuing trend. I do enjoy some sense of realism in movies that are grounded in the common, ordinary lives of people, even if those people are pregnant teenagers.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture of 2007, No Country for Old Men is a brilliant treatise on the role of violence in society. Much of the plot centers on the hunt for $2 million in drug money that has gone missing after a shoot-out on the isolated prairie of the western part of Texas. The story follows Llewelyn Moss, the hunter who stumbles upon the dead bodies at the shoot-out and the money that remains unclaimed, and his nemesis, a killer named Anton Chigurh who uses a rather unusual tool for killing. The other primary plot strand involves Sheriff Ed Tom Bell and his deputy as they try to solve the mystery of what happened to those men in the desert and what has become of Moss and his wife.

Much attention has been given to Javier Bardem's performance of Chigurh, and it's worth all of the praise that it has received. He's stunning in the part. In one of the early scenes, while handcuffed, Chigurh manages to strangle a police officer to death and free himself. The look on his face as he chokes the bleeding man to the last breath is almost orgasmic. Truly frightening to watch that scene, but it sets a tone for almost every encounter that the viewer has with this character. He leaves behind him a trail of blood and bodies. It seems he has only one purpose in life: to kill. He has apparently been given orders to retrieve the money, and anyone who stands in his way is likely to die. It's the single-mindedness of his vision that is most chilling. He seems to be an embodiment of the mentality that violence, death, destruction, etc. are effective ways to attain our goals, that whatever we must do is justifiable so long as it helps us to achieve what we set out to do. Scary stuff indeed.

Josh Brolin is great here. He's very understated as the welder who gets in a bit over his head when he starts collecting guns and money from the bodies of dead drug dealers. What I liked about his character, though, is just how much strength he has. It's a quiet strength, certainly, but he's willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done as well (although he is less prone to killing unless it is in self-defense). He's very resourceful and quite matter-of-fact; his response to his wife's question of where he got a pistol and a satchel of money ("at the getting place") perfectly sums up the ways that some Texas men tend to respond. What also struck me about his character is the depth of his conscience. Twice, he awakens in the middle of the night because he is still puzzling over some dilemma, a moral one or perhaps a logical one. Both times lead to some dangerous outcomes.

The best performance, in my mind, is by Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Bell. He's just everything you'd want in a sheriff: funny, smart, persistent, diligent, laconic, all while being a model of integrity. His voice-over at the film's start sets the tone for the kind of man he is, and he remains remarkably consistent throughout the movie. His moments of humor stand out, of course, such as when asks his deputy how they're going to put out a bulletin for a man who has recently drunk milk. Yet it's scenes such as the one with Moss's wife in the restaurant that show you the range that Jones is capable of. He tells her a story of how one man's attempts to kill a cow for slaughter went awry and, in doing so, pretty directly tells her the exact danger that her husband is in. I could watch his character again and again and still be transfixed.

I don't think this film is too graphic, a charge that has been leveled by some. It does not seem to revel in the deaths that Chigurh and others cause. The joy that he feels, for example, when strangling the deputy is really quite horrifying to the audience. Normal people would not feel any sense of exhilaration at watching the senseless deaths of innocent people (like those who lose their cars to Chigurh). If anything, this film actually shows just how brutal and ugly such killings are. The film is set in 1980, but its emphasis on the consequences of violence are just as relevant now as they would have been then. I realize that No Country for Old Men might not have played well to the older, more conservative members of the academy, but great movies about violence have won before: The Godfather, Unforgiven, The Silence of the Lambs, etc. Such films have reasons to include violence, and thematically, these violent films teach us a great deal about who we are as a people.

The last part of the movie has been criticized for its ambiguity, and I have to say, without revealing the ending, that I have no idea why. Everything that happens at the end has been set up throughout the rest of the film. Listen to what the characters say about the future, and you'll know what I mean. Watch how Chigurh behaves after he's killed someone, and you'll understand. And listen carefully to the story that ends the film; it's the key that pulls everything together in as clear a fashion as any movie can that is about the insanity that violence represents.

Atonement (2007)

One of my favorite films released in 2007 was Atonement. I've seen the film multiple times, including two times in theaters during its initial release, and it is a rich experience each time. Almost every aspect of this film is first-rate: the acting, the direction, the cinematography, the set and costume design, the writing, the editing. I may appreciate the overall achievement of other films from 2007 a bit more, as did the Academy, but this is one that I return to again and again.

The film tells the story of the consequences of a lie. A 13-year-old girl, Briony Tallis, "sees" two encounters between her older sister, Cecilia, and the family's gardener, Robbie. Being just a bit too young to comprehend fully what she sees while simultaneously being just old enough to envy Robbie's attentions for Cecilia, Briony uses her talent for storytelling to create and support an accusation of rape against Robbie. The cousin who claims to be the victim of the rape, Lola, goes along with Briony's tale, and Robbie is first sent to prison and then, in effect, forced to serve in the British army during World War II. Cecilia breaks from her family over their treatment of Robbie and begins a life for herself as a nurse, a life she hopes to share with Robbie when he returns from war. Her words to him on the night of his arrest echo throughout the film: "I love you. Come back. Come back to me."

I've written elsewhere of my admiration for James McAvoy. He's an exceptional choice here for the romantic male lead of Robbie Turner. And Keira Knightley matches him expertly. Their scenes at the fountain and in the library bristle with a sexual charge. You can sense what Knightley's Cecilia means when she tells Robbie that he knew all along that they were in love, even before she figured it out herself. The film overall depends upon the chemistry that these two actors have. Their relationship is the emotional core of the movie, even more so at times than the lie that Briony tells, and you want them to be reunited and have the happy ending that they deserve.

There are three actresses who play the part of Briony Tallis. The first is Saoirise Ronan, who plays her at film's start at the age of 13. She's exceptional in the part, showing just how mean-spirited and spiteful a child of that age can be. You can sense that she knows she is dooming Robbie to an awful life, but her anger and desire for revenge are so overpowering that she will not or cannot stop herself from telling the lie. The middle of the film has Romola Garai playing Briony at age 18. Briony has begun training as a nurse, perhaps (as the story suggests) as a form of penance. She has finally begun to see how damaging her actions were, and the sense of remorse she feels is obvious. The painful scene she has with a wounded French soldier, who may or may not have met her before, is just one example of Garai's subtle gifts as an actress.

The best, though, is indeed saved for last. Vanessa Redgrave plays the successful author Briony at the end of her life. Her scenes all involve a television interview about her latest (what she calls her last) novel, Atonement, which tells the "truth" about her actions as a child. Much of Redgrave's time on the screen is shot in close-up, just her explaining the sequence of events that have led her to write the book, and boy, is she a marvel to watch. There's lots of dazzling stuff in this movie, including an amazing tracking shot on the beach at Dunkirk that almost everyone mentions, but few things keep you as spellbound as Redgrave's Briony finally admitting to everyone, including herself, the full extent of what she's done. Such a small part, in some ways, but such a commanding actress to leave you with such an impression at the end of the film.

Other members of the supporting cast are perfect in their parts. A young Benedict Cumberbatch, years away from his sexier roles as Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Strange, here plays a rather sadistic chocolatier, a phrase I don’t expect to get to use too often. Harriet Walter does a marvelous spin as the matriarch of the Tallis family, always in need of an afternoon lie-down for a heat-induced headache. I also enjoyed seeing the great Brenda Blethyn in the small role of Robbie’s mother, a servant at the Tallis mansion. The green silk dress that Knightley wears for the sequence in the library deserves special mention too. It certainly provides support for why Robbie would find Cecilia irresistible.

I think what has struck me each time that I've seen this film is how expertly constructed it is. I'll give just one example to demonstrate what I mean. From her bedroom window, Briony sees the encounter between Cecilia and Robbie that ends with Cecilia diving into the fountain, emerging fully drenched in only a slip, and walking away with a vase. Briony, of course, being a "writer" even at the age of 13, begins to put the details together in a way that she can understand. However, immediately after we see Briony's "version" of events, the film shifts to a different angle, both in terms of where the camera is looking and in terms of story perspective, and it shows us another version of the same sequence of events (the "real" version, allegedly). It's a daring move to use such a method throughout a film that is ostensibly a historical romance, yet it works brilliantly here. (Perhaps too well. The couple sitting behind me at the second screening spent much of the closing credits time trying to figure out what had really happened. Pity.)

It is sometimes difficult to put into words exactly why I like some films so much. Such is the case with Atonement. It is, obviously, quite a different film from the others in this category. Some would even say that it is a relatively old-fashioned film, given its subject matter. However, I think what truly elevates it is the way that it does indeed challenge our notions of storytelling. This narrative keeps folding and unfolding upon itself. Even at the end of the film, some of the moments that we have come to accept as "real" earlier on are proven to be just as false as others. It's a challenge to a viewer to make sense of the story on their own terms, and I think that is just what we need in movies these days.

Oscar Win: Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures/Original Score

Other Nominations: Best Motion Picture of the Year, Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role (Saoirse Ronan), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Achievement in Cinematography, Best Achievement in Art Direction, and Best Achievement in Costume Design 

There Will Be Blood (2007)

One of the nominees for Best Picture of 2007, There Will Be Blood ostensibly tells the story of the level of greed that was inspired by the discovery of oil in turn-of-the-last-century California. Its primary character is Daniel Plainview, a man whose desire to make as much money and acquire as much of the oil-rich land as possible overtakes almost every aspect of his life. The plot turns upon his growing obsessive nature, which is nicely compared and contrasted to that of a young minister who seemingly wants only to have his church grow as swiftly and exponentially as Daniel's wealth grows. This is a film about the single-minded ways that we go about achieving our goals, and it is also a commentary on the disastrous results of doing so.

This film was directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, and it's quite a revelation watching it once you know he's the director. This is nothing like Boogie Nights or Magnolia, both of which I really admired and enjoyed. They were very much in the same vein as Robert Altman's films, very episodic with interconnected characters and plot lines. Anderson has dedicated There Will Be Blood to Altman, yet it's not a film like the kind Altman would have ever made. Instead, this film follows a relatively straightforward chronological plot. There's one main character who is the focus throughout the action. There aren't the same quick cuts that you associate with either Anderson or Altman; scenes and shots sometimes play out very slowly. And rather than a lot of dialogue, particularly the kind that overlaps, There Will Be Blood is often a film about silence. The first 15 minutes, for example, are wordless. Yet you're still drawn in quite powerfully to what is happening as Plainview tries to rescue himself from a dangerous fall down a mine shaft.

Of course, at the center of this film is the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis as Plainview. It's one of the greatest performances I've seen in years. Day-Lewis has such commitment to the part and such intensity. He's truly frightening to watch at times, so deep into character has he gone. You can see all of his emotions, even when he's trying to mask them himself, and you can certainly see how his growing obsession with oil and the money that it brings can, quite literally, physically transform him. You can't quite turn away from him whenever he's on the screen, and that's almost every minute of this movie. A lesser actor could never be as commanding a presence in this role. The overall success of the film depends, I think, primarily upon how much we are invested in Day-Lewis's Plainview.

What's even more amazing about his work is that it so overshadows that of some of the other cast that you forget how, in some ways, they are completely wrong for the parts they have been given. Case in point: Paul Dano. As the Rev. Sunday, Dano gives just too weak a performance. He's meant to be akin to a faith healer at times, one of those charismatic ministers, but he can't quite muster the gravitas that the part dictates. He comes across more like a child who's playing "grown-up." I know Dano is a good actor; I thought he was one of the best things about Little Miss Sunshine. However, when you're in the same scene with the force of nature that is Daniel Day-Lewis, you need to be able to hold your own.

I do, however, want to point out one other performance that I think does stay with you after the film. Dillon Freasier plays H.W. Plainview, Daniel's "adopted" son. Much of Freasier's performance is silent, even before his character loses his hearing in a mining accident. Yet even without words, he manages to convey just how much he is absorbing from the events around him. He has some of the most expressive eyes I've seen since watching Whoopi Goldberg in The Color Purple years ago. Like her, Freasier can summon emotions through a simple look. It's quite amazing that such a young performer can leave almost as indelible mark as the lead actor.