Sean Penn probably deserved it, but...

Photo: Chris Carlson, AP

I still haven't seen many of the films nominated in last night's Academy Awards, including Milk and The Wrestler. So I can't really tell you who I thought should have won any of the awards last night. But what I do know is what the press and other more-informed, wider published critics predicted, and five of the six big categories were unsurprisingly what they predicted; Kate Winslet avoided being the Oscar's Susan Lucci, Penelope Cruz said something in Spanish, the Joker got the last laugh, Slumdogs cleaned up the top prizes.

But what of the Best Actor award? That was the big mystery of the night. Would they go with the heavily hyped comeback of Mickey Rourke? Or would they get topical and give a third award to Sean "Commie-Homo-Loving-Son-of-a-Gun" Penn? Most people were placing their hopes in Rourke, because his pitch is the great story - the fuck-up who comes away with gold. He doesn't wear the whole "now I'm on the straight and narrow" suit that convincingly, but that's what makes him so cool. He's this mad dog who could potentially get the highest acting award in the world.

But of course, the award didn't go to him. Sean Penn took his third gold plated statue home for playing the real-life assassinated homosexual politician Harvey Milk. It shouldn't be that surprising in theory; when given the choice, the Academy seems to prefer an actor who plays a person based on real life. Only four of the best actor winners this decade have won playing original characters, this as opposed to eight in the previous decade.

But there's another precedent worth noting - Penn's first Best Actor award in 2004 for his role in Mystic River. Because I haven't seen that film yet either, I can't really say with any critical honesty whether or not I thought he deserved that award. That's really aside the point. But look who his main competition was that year. Bill Murray for Lost In Translation. Here was a comic actor, a guy who made a career as a smart-ass turning more introspective with age, in a movie with My Bloody Valentine on the soundtrack. Johnny Depp channeling Keith Richards not withstanding, Murray was like Rourke, the dark horse with a shot at gold - the cool nominee (or for you Depp fans, the cool nominee who actually had a shot of winning.)

But then they gave the award to Penn. What does one make of this? It'd be a stretch to call Penn a safe choice. He's one of the most well-respected actors in Hollywood, but he also has a reputation of being a passionate risk-taker, which some might call cool in its own right. But not as cool, because he can be a bit too serious about his art. Maybe that's why he'd get picked over the cool guys. Who knows what sort of irreverent places Rourke and Murray could have taken the award?

Or he could just be a better actor getting awards based solely on the merit his work. I know, crazy!

Failures in Marketing: In Bruges

A warning for those who don't like spoilers ... there are SPOILERS below.

It's hard to imagine a duo of more affable and entertaining hit men than Jules and Vincent from Pulp Fiction. But that didn't stop critics from comparing to In Bruges guns-for-hire protagonists, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson). From the looks of the trailer and the DVD box, the film looked like a - to steal the quote from Karen Drubin of Elle Magazine that's on the DVD cover - "A Hilarious, Twisted Pleasure." I'm not sure why they decided to capitalize each word of that, but still, hit men? In a medieval town no one knows? Where one of them likes it and the other so doesn't? With midgets? Hold onto your sides!



Sarcasm aside, I was actually looking forward to seeing this kind of movie since I am a big fan of Pulp Fiction and films of that ilk. Plus, like any shut-in American, hearing Colin Farrell use his natural Irish accent made him all the more appealing, since we all know that Europeans who speak English all tend to sound better at it than we Americans do for some reason.

What I didn't expect was how dark the movie actually was. OK, in a movie about hit men, there's bound to be some some blood and violence with politically incorrect humor found therein. And there definitely is some of it In Bruges. But the film's actual primary dilemma, Ray's guilt over accidentally shooting a little boy dead while on the job, is the polar opposite of twisted entertainment. I mean, they actually show the boy with his head wound before he falls over. And Ray, at one point in the movie, almost commits suicide over his crushing guilt, pondering whether or not he's going to hell over his accidental homicide. It's a difficult and daring subject that the marketing seems to completely undermine.

But you know what is funny? The back of the DVD box's plot synopsis says that the two hit men, "soon find themselves in a life-and-death struggle of comic proportions against one very angry crime boss (Ralph Fiennes.)" Of comic proportions? It's not like there's a bunch of random midgets and fat people buggering up the shootout. The film has a small and intimate feeling - much like the setting - from the beginning to the end. And like most of the movie - it is primarily a heavy affair interlaced with some odd and yet oddly natural comedic elements. (Like Fiennes and Farrell's negotiation of how they'll exit the hotel without harming the pregnant owner caught in the crosshairs.) But even as the film ends, with the blood that's spilled, In Bruges keeps its head in the realistic consequences, both emotional and physical, of violence, as opposed to a gleeful romp through bullets and bodies.