Given the absurdity that has sent this year from a "Won't it be great when Wes Anderson wins?" to a "Argo is a lock" to a "But have you seen Lincoln?" to a "But did you see Zero Dark?" to a "But did you see Les Miz" trajectory --- it seems that next year the proper thing to do would be to simply chart the emotional reaction to the year's overall content and to whichever picture seems to be leading the pack at any given point. Obviously there are many places that already conduct such analyses, but I am talking purely about some cardiogram style read out and one title -- no paragraphs, no prose, no reasoning. Just an uptick and a name -- PALPATATION... PERKS!!! I'll do it next year after I rig up some oddball equipment to track my every move. People will be able to look back and say things like, "Oh yeah, July, people were way into Moonrise Kingdom." End of info from chart.
Now we have reached the end of the year and the Nook shall launch as it does each year -- by pointing out my top ten. No, this list does not reflect what I think will fill the Oscar field. These are purely the top ten films according to me this year. I know that people will point out criminal omissions. And if I were making a time capsule, I might select other pictures to give a truer visual feel of what this year was in cinema and award competition. But it seems assembling lists in that manner is what ultimately results in a degradation of quality. You've got to just be straight.
Furthermore, since Oscar has expanded to a list of ten leaving me no option to simply say "If I wanted to call my personal picture noms it would be these five" -- it means there are consequently many more films I wish I could include because ten is simply too many to have on a list. It's like organizing a wedding party. If you just did a best man, maid or honor, and a bridesmaid or usher or two -- you'd be fine. Once you broaden the search to ten bridesmaids and groomsmen you've also expanded the list of "would be insulted people who have no business being in my wedding party but will be jealous otherwise" well into the twenties.
The plan is to announce the list - sans justification - and then to spend the next weeks leading up to the Globes analyzing the films individually -- whether they are on my list or simply HFPA noms. Then category by category, then predict the Oscar noms, then track the chase for Gold.
The McCue Top 10 for 2013:
The Dark Knight Rises
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Zero Dark Thirty
Lincoln
Les Miserables
The Life of Pi
Skyfall
Argo
Looper
Wreck-It Ralph
The Obvious Notable Omissions Include:
Moonrise Kingdom
Django Unchained
The Master
Silver Linings Playbook
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Each will be dealt with in its time...
Films I Loved and Wished Could Have Squeezed In:
Ruby Sparks
Anna Karenina
Promised Land
Arbitrage
Friends with Kids
So how the hell did I watch a year full of movies and come to the conclusion that The Dark Knight Rises and The Perks of Being a Wallflower should supersede Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln, and (my immortal beloved) Les Miz?
Quite simply because it was not something I needed to think about. When I look back over this year there is a swath of films that jumped off the edge of a ship swimming for shore with all their might, flinging swag and banner ads every which way to lock down critic, guild, and "real" honors. But the truth is, as a man who would go see a film in the theater absolutely every day -- and who is going to try to do just that in 2013 -- there are two pictures that stuck with me: The Dark Knight Rises and The Perks of Being a Wallflower.
Frankly, the only issue I've debated with myself is which of those films should take my personal number one slot. I feel I'm betraying my insane love for Perks by going with TDKR. It's not exactly Sophie's Choice... it's more like being at a restaurant and wondering if you should have the duck or the lamb. They're both excellent. You hate not having both. And there will always be some regret for not having chosen the other. In the end, you're guaranteed a succulent treat the guy with filet mignon doesn't know he's missing.
I will do my extensive write-up of The Dark Knight Rises wherein I defend that sucker harder than Godfather III. In fact, my defense for it needn't be as strong because no flaw of equal significance lies in the final Nolan picture. The mastery with which the Nolan Batman trilogy was made is equal to if not more significant to that associated with Jackson's LOTR trilogy. They're apples and oranges, for sure. These men are not in competition and should not be compared in a competitive way. Alack, Oscar history puts this film in a spot that asks whether the final masterfully made, largest of the three, should be given credit for the entire set? The very reason that the field has expanded from five best pictures to this absolutely awful world of "could be ten" noms is simply due to The Dark Knight. Never forget that. After years of downright "screwage" where the Weinsteins -- in whatever form their company was taking and where they were serving -- were battling SKG like Lannisters and Starks. Sure, there were other kingdoms vying for the field and sometimes they snuck through. But the game was being locked up a little tight -- "types" of movies, regardless of majesty, were locked out of the game and it was nice to see that the world was clamoring hard enough after The Dark Knight's snub that things changed.
It's simply that the wrong change was made. (I'm gonna drift here for a sec then hook back.)
Going from "Sure we'll include other pictures" to "Let's invite everyone to the party!" was, obviously, not the right decision. It's like saying "rather than having people of color and women on the supreme court, why don't we just let everyone be justices!" Why can't the point of view of what could be considered in the top 5 drift a way from a land so concocted it brought us ... Chocolat?
Jaws was a picture nom, so was Clockwork Orange, Cabaret nearly clipped Godfather. How about a year with Annie Hall and Star Wars. How about Midnight Cowboy winning? Well, cut to the opening of the envelopes ten and eleven years ago and everyone agreed what a weirdly formulaic game was being played. The backlash to that has led us to the field of ten which means in a world where the academy doesn't have the balls to only nominate Inglorious Basterds or An Education or Precious -- it means you get all of them, and A Serious Man and The Blind Side. So what's a nomination worth at this point anyway? Is it like picking the president at one of those early debates where they're kind enough to still bring out a modified and miniaturized Kucinich sized podium.
But I digress...
To hook back to TDKR, it should absolutely be considered a best picture nominee -- even if it were a field of five. Sixth Sense, anyone? Fugitive?!?! But it will be the surprise of my life if it is included this February, even if the field were to expand as far as ten nominees -- which is met in this year where there's about six or twenty things that could be nominated. Nolan will more than likely be overlooked. I'll cover the individual performances and my reaction to the film as a whole in a separate post. There's one surprise I could actually see happening -- you'll have to read that post to find out.
And then there's my dear beloved Perks. A film that has struck me as hard as a 2000 pic I like to call Wonder Boys. I will always have Perks near the DVD player. It will always be a film I will admire with my heart, I will occasionally emulate, and that has a piece of my soul. I never read the book -- as if I didn't have enough time while it was on the best-seller list. I went in with very little knowledge simply because I knew I would love it the moment I saw one press still with Ezra Miller, Logan Lerman, and Emma Watson. I invented an emotional reaction in my head that was so lofty I was teeing the film up to fail. Hardly. I'll watch it everyday and get a charge from it. I shall go into that film in depth in a spoiler ridden write-up of its own.
But let me just say it's a shame the reaction was so small and this is the year of adapted screenplays. Perks will be straight up locked out of the awards and it will hurt its legacy. It may fall by the wayside like Danny Boyle's Millions -- a great damn film not enough people have known to see.
My boys won't make it to the dance, I'm not a fool.
Zero Dark Thirty will.
I say this despising American foreign policy, not having believed in the value of killing one man until Barack Obama did it, still considering it too expensive, having the most psychotic respect for all the men and women in our armed forces let alone those with advanced levels of training -- and as someone who did not (ready your stones) like The Hurt Locker. This movie ran all over the place politically and the psycho conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether we're just being spoonfed the last bit of "so here's how it went down" bullshit from the "machinery." So I wasn't hooked by it's point of view on the subject and I was not predisposed to like this thing.
But sweet Christ.
ZDT brings home the bacon and fries it in the pan. Go ahead and lop my two favorite suckers off the top of the ticket and judge my picks for award contenders from there down.
Now to begin covering the films one by one...
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Picture Nominee Roundup: The Descendants
I'm going to be honest with you, world: I don't understand The Descendants.
It's going to win best adapted screenplay - it won the Golden Globe for Best Drama - this technically puts it in the second slot (though I'd say slot #2 absolutely belongs to The Help). It's directed by one of the most acclaimed writer-directors working, its headlined by the biggest male star on earth - who is gunning for Oscar gold and who Entertainment Weekly puts ahead of du Jardin. That's right, kids, EW has Clooney taking it. But I've got to say, it just wasn't there for me.
I absolutely loathe going into what it is about a picture that I do not like. Particularly when all signs point to my opinion being in the minority and my having missed something about a film the world finds fantastic. I am willing to admit that I may be absolutely wrong about this movie - I'm just telling you how I felt when I saw the thing - and the fact that it's so out of line with the majority opinion "leaves me conflicted" (to be said as Rip Torn said the line in Wonder Boys). In fact, I am going to have to sit myself down some time this Oscar weekend - pop in my screener - and give this thing a second chance. I'm reacting to this thing the way I reacted to The Fighter last year. I had no idea what all the fuss was about - meanwhile Bale and Leo walked away with every supporting trophy out there. I had the same reaction this year to The Descendants. So what is there for me to say?
A few things.
First, I would like to say that this years Warrior put The Fighter to shame. I realize I didn't latch on to David O. Russell's Southie box-fest, so my opinion needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But I love me some boxing. I watch it whenever I get the chance. I love boxing movies. I love fighting movies. I love a good family drama. I love a sibling rivalry that is straight-up toxic. All these things are crack to me. Warrior slays every single one of those categories and does it with drunk old dad as the root of the problem -- expertly played by Nick Nolte -- who not only has von Sydow to deal with but the octogenarian juggernaut that is Christopher Plummer. So... there's that.
Secondly, I wonder what was going through people's minds when they put together the advertising for The Descendants. Mom's in a coma. Dad, you didn't know she was having an affair? That's right, Dad, you're George Clooney and Mom was banging the lanky guy from Scream (who was great, by the way -- all sorts of love to Matthew Lillard). But you basically lay that out there and then show me Clooney making hard turns in Hawaiian shirts and popping up behind manicured hedges like he's a cross between the dog from Duck Hunt and Mr. Brady on that fateful trip to Hawaii.
And that isn't even close to what this movie has in store.
Truth be told, Alexander Payne is a complex director. He manipulates form, adapts great pieces of literature, and has a quirkiness that walks a precarious line between comedy and drama. Whether it's Election and all it's off-beat sex, unflattering freeze-frames, and the absolute destruction of Matthew Broderick's ("Mr. M.!") life. Whether it's Giamatti crumbling to pieces in the Santa Ynez Valley while the sultry Virginia Madsen explains how life is like a glass of vino. Or perhaps its Nicholson floating in a hot tub with a naked Kathy Bates one moment, then crying his eyes out, streaking his face with cold creme while he writes letters to Ndugu. I loved them all! I was on the hook! I found nothing jarring about the balance of these films and found the performances remarkable.
This time it wasn't there for me.
It wasn't Clooney's fault.
It was something with the overall world of this film -- the Hawaiian responsibility to the land while my wife languishes and I wonder what my life's worth is THING. I'd honestly like to hear a Hawaiian's reaction. Keanu, Obama... are you there? Fill me in.
As I said, I'll watch it again. And this sucker is absolutely going to win some trophies. For me, The Descendants rave is a mystery. How it sidelined Pitt and Moneyball will be something I never understand... unless, of course, Keanu and Obama take me to dinner. I'm in the book, boys.
It's going to win best adapted screenplay - it won the Golden Globe for Best Drama - this technically puts it in the second slot (though I'd say slot #2 absolutely belongs to The Help). It's directed by one of the most acclaimed writer-directors working, its headlined by the biggest male star on earth - who is gunning for Oscar gold and who Entertainment Weekly puts ahead of du Jardin. That's right, kids, EW has Clooney taking it. But I've got to say, it just wasn't there for me.
I absolutely loathe going into what it is about a picture that I do not like. Particularly when all signs point to my opinion being in the minority and my having missed something about a film the world finds fantastic. I am willing to admit that I may be absolutely wrong about this movie - I'm just telling you how I felt when I saw the thing - and the fact that it's so out of line with the majority opinion "leaves me conflicted" (to be said as Rip Torn said the line in Wonder Boys). In fact, I am going to have to sit myself down some time this Oscar weekend - pop in my screener - and give this thing a second chance. I'm reacting to this thing the way I reacted to The Fighter last year. I had no idea what all the fuss was about - meanwhile Bale and Leo walked away with every supporting trophy out there. I had the same reaction this year to The Descendants. So what is there for me to say?
A few things.
First, I would like to say that this years Warrior put The Fighter to shame. I realize I didn't latch on to David O. Russell's Southie box-fest, so my opinion needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But I love me some boxing. I watch it whenever I get the chance. I love boxing movies. I love fighting movies. I love a good family drama. I love a sibling rivalry that is straight-up toxic. All these things are crack to me. Warrior slays every single one of those categories and does it with drunk old dad as the root of the problem -- expertly played by Nick Nolte -- who not only has von Sydow to deal with but the octogenarian juggernaut that is Christopher Plummer. So... there's that.
Secondly, I wonder what was going through people's minds when they put together the advertising for The Descendants. Mom's in a coma. Dad, you didn't know she was having an affair? That's right, Dad, you're George Clooney and Mom was banging the lanky guy from Scream (who was great, by the way -- all sorts of love to Matthew Lillard). But you basically lay that out there and then show me Clooney making hard turns in Hawaiian shirts and popping up behind manicured hedges like he's a cross between the dog from Duck Hunt and Mr. Brady on that fateful trip to Hawaii.
And that isn't even close to what this movie has in store.
Truth be told, Alexander Payne is a complex director. He manipulates form, adapts great pieces of literature, and has a quirkiness that walks a precarious line between comedy and drama. Whether it's Election and all it's off-beat sex, unflattering freeze-frames, and the absolute destruction of Matthew Broderick's ("Mr. M.!") life. Whether it's Giamatti crumbling to pieces in the Santa Ynez Valley while the sultry Virginia Madsen explains how life is like a glass of vino. Or perhaps its Nicholson floating in a hot tub with a naked Kathy Bates one moment, then crying his eyes out, streaking his face with cold creme while he writes letters to Ndugu. I loved them all! I was on the hook! I found nothing jarring about the balance of these films and found the performances remarkable.
This time it wasn't there for me.
It wasn't Clooney's fault.
It was something with the overall world of this film -- the Hawaiian responsibility to the land while my wife languishes and I wonder what my life's worth is THING. I'd honestly like to hear a Hawaiian's reaction. Keanu, Obama... are you there? Fill me in.
As I said, I'll watch it again. And this sucker is absolutely going to win some trophies. For me, The Descendants rave is a mystery. How it sidelined Pitt and Moneyball will be something I never understand... unless, of course, Keanu and Obama take me to dinner. I'm in the book, boys.
Picture Nominee Roundup: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
The stress of this particular week and the fast approaching Oscars forces me to address the nominees a bit more quickly than I initially intended. My write-ups will more than likely not measure up the length of coverage I gave Moneyball and The Help -- and considering I already covered Tree of Life, I doubt I will again.
That having been said, let's dive into the Daldry.
Extremely Loud strikes me as one of the most critically misunderstood films of the year. Were it up to me it would have been one of the five and Daldry would most certainly have a directing nod. The fact that this adaptation of Jonathan Safron Foer's novel has met with mixed reception is not exactly a surprise -- but this should not give those who've not yet seen it the impression that it's a mixed bag of a film: truth be told, it's nothing short of excellent.
Yes, you have to be someone who is wiling to submerge yourself into the world of Daldry and someone who enjoys the way in which he constructs his films. Considering those films are The Reader, The Hours, and Billy Elliot, that's not a ridiculous request. The man is one of the top directors working and all four of his films has delivered straight down the line. Extremely is no exception. In fact, I would argue that as Daldry vies more and more for the chance to be heralded as the best British director -- considering the loss of Anthony Minghella and the fact that Mendes has been floundering of late. Additionally, Daldry, as I mentioned in my brief coverage of my personal top dozen or so films this year, has taken on the responsibility of bringing masterpieces of modern literature to the screen -- and doing so in a way that doesn't violate the intentions of the original text. To have done so with material as varied as The Hours, The Reader, and Extremely Loud is remarkable. There isn't a wobbly piece in any of his films. One just has to be prepared for the depth.
With Extremely Loud, the maestro has melded the strengths of The Hours and The Reader with his expert child-directing skills so evident in every form of Billy Elliot -- be it stage or screen. But here is where the film runs into its controversy and where there is a blatant -- nay, irresponsible reaction from critics who should be approaching a piece this sophisticated with more intelligence.
No, this kid is not Billy Elliot. He's not hammering out his coal town woes by kicking down the alleyway to some tough and tumble T-Rex. Nor is this kid Jamie Bell -- someone who hooks us all the moment we look into his eyes and who makes the audience fall in love with him by simply choosing to shadow dance with the heavy bag rather than throwing a few quick punches. The boy is a find the likes of Christian Bale and has proven to be far warmer as the years have gone by.
But that is not what Extremely Loud called for -- and Daldry had the balls to know it and a kid with the innate chops to pull it off. Whether Thomas Horn - the young chap playing Oskar Schell - was merely the kid "Jeopardy" star who mimics this character best -- already having his personality -- or whether he's an expert actor who got right into the groove of Schell and heeded the words of Daldry is something only those who worked on the film will ever know. And frankly, who gives a damn? In the end, he pulls it off remarkably.
Is this the warmest kid under the sun? Do you want him to challenge his father face to face in a tutu and be the charmingest little kid there ever was? Well -- if you do, then you should rent Billy Elliot. This kid is a different beast entirely and he hits this role square between the eyes. He is a special needs kid of undefined diagnosis that is absolutely on the autism spectrum. Any critic who claimed he was "precocious" or "unlikable" is nothing short of a jackass. I try to keep these reviews somewhere within the realm of decorum -- but sometimes braying brainless jackass who'd be better of trapped on Pleasure Island is the most accurate way to categorize irresponsible "journalists" who have absolutely no experience with the ever-growing population of special needs children who are more demanding, a bit icy, perhaps too direct and fact driven -- but just as much in need of love and warmth as anyone walking the earth. Way to be the adult who has no problem disliking a child that's more difficult to handle and to take the shortcut to thinking this consequently makes him more difficult to love. Children are easy to love. Their lives are normally simple. When their internal structures are heartbreakingly complicated, it's a call for more from us "grown-ups," not an invitation to cast them aside and write off their plight.
It behooves me to point out that this Thomas Horn's Oskar Schell needs no great decoding. He is clearly this boy - trapped within himself, struggling to make sense of a complex world where cut and dry facts don't work in all aspects of everyday life. For the most part -- Schell's mission is to take the over-stimulation of life and to narrow it down even more than the most myopic of us. Wouldn't that be the quest of any person whose system is on overload? Horn does this with mere speech patterns - a stiff blink of his eyes - a rude quip - a shake of his tambourine.
The brilliance of making this boy's only harbor in the storm his father (at first, anyway) -- and then making that father Tom Hanks -- gives Hanks one of the best "latter part of his career" roles a man of Hanks' prowess has had in ages. It's a Jimmy Steward move. It's a Henry Fonda move. It's a Donald Sutherland move. He steps out of the spotlight. Lets his overwhelming magnetism elevate the work of the younger actor whose character loves you so thoroughly. And allows his screen time to be as limited as possible.
(He and Bullock - as amazing as they are - are a bit of a mismatch as a couple. It dings the film in a minor way. But that's neither's fault and they spend so little time together it's barely worth mentioning.)
In Hanks' case -- his fate as Oskar Schell's father lies in the crumbling Twin Towers on the fateful morning of 9-11. None of us has been able to make sense of that day. The best each of us can do is recount what we went through and to relate some of our friends' tales or perhaps the near "urban legend" like miracles we've heard of survivors, coincidences, and sheer insanity. Now ask Oskar Schell to process the fact that the person he thought understood him best was obliterated by one of the most senseless acts in history. Amazingly, Safron Foer - adapted by the amazing Eric Roth - then in the hands of Stephen Daldry - did just that.
How does one do all this and steer it away from the rocky cliffs of films like The Hours and The Reader and keep a 9-11 movie infused with hope? So few of us are Virginia Woolf or the cutest boy in the world whose icy mother was Julianne Moore. So few of us wandered home one day with a controller of a German streetcar only to have a hot affair with a bosomy Nazi. But far too many of us felt the shock of 9-11 rattle through our lives and change our perception of the world forever. Few of us were able to see the possibility of hope rising out of such a tragedy. This story does just that. I won't give a damn thing away because you all need to see it. But my goodness does this thing put your heart in a vice and then hand it back to you -- tear-soaked as all hell -- in the most glorious place.
Finally, I must talk about Max von Sydow and Sandra Bullock -- two of the year's best performances. Sandy Bullock continues to prove herself to be so much more than the industry allows her to be. While her Oscar for The Blind Side may seem to some that it was more of a lifetime achievement award than it was a deserving statue for a specific performance -- Extremely Loud demonstrates that the lady can act. Man can she ever. You wonder what the hell she's doing all movie. And then you have your mind and heart blown to pieces. Brace yourselves.
And then there's the Exorcist himself, Mr. von Sydow - who went up against death in a chess game, who dated Barbara Hershey in a Woody Allen film and lived to tell the tale. One of the greatest living actors, it's a shame von Sydow had to be nominated in a year where a fellow elder-statesman already has the momentum to snag supporting actor gold. Were this any other year, he would have deserving taken the trophy -- all without muttering a word -- all by simply holding up his tattooed palms bearing the words "Yes" and "No." Max's eyes show his deep understanding of Oksar's struggle as he accompanies the boy on his post-9-11 quest. His work is amazing.
My personal pick for best picture of the year remains Midnight in Paris. That doesn't seem like it has the clout to take the gold - let's be honest, the tap-dancing Frenchman who does a bit with a dog has it all locked up. But that seemed to me to have more to do with the fact that Woody Allen is the kind of guy who is going to win one best picture - and that's all. Extremely Loud, on the other hand, is the kind of movie that would ask the Academy to really have a brain and have some balls. This is an important film that could recalibrate the nation's heart about our greatest tragedy. Let go and let it take you on its ride. Daldry has handled the material admirably - any open mind will be overwhelmed.
That having been said, let's dive into the Daldry.
Extremely Loud strikes me as one of the most critically misunderstood films of the year. Were it up to me it would have been one of the five and Daldry would most certainly have a directing nod. The fact that this adaptation of Jonathan Safron Foer's novel has met with mixed reception is not exactly a surprise -- but this should not give those who've not yet seen it the impression that it's a mixed bag of a film: truth be told, it's nothing short of excellent.
Yes, you have to be someone who is wiling to submerge yourself into the world of Daldry and someone who enjoys the way in which he constructs his films. Considering those films are The Reader, The Hours, and Billy Elliot, that's not a ridiculous request. The man is one of the top directors working and all four of his films has delivered straight down the line. Extremely is no exception. In fact, I would argue that as Daldry vies more and more for the chance to be heralded as the best British director -- considering the loss of Anthony Minghella and the fact that Mendes has been floundering of late. Additionally, Daldry, as I mentioned in my brief coverage of my personal top dozen or so films this year, has taken on the responsibility of bringing masterpieces of modern literature to the screen -- and doing so in a way that doesn't violate the intentions of the original text. To have done so with material as varied as The Hours, The Reader, and Extremely Loud is remarkable. There isn't a wobbly piece in any of his films. One just has to be prepared for the depth.
With Extremely Loud, the maestro has melded the strengths of The Hours and The Reader with his expert child-directing skills so evident in every form of Billy Elliot -- be it stage or screen. But here is where the film runs into its controversy and where there is a blatant -- nay, irresponsible reaction from critics who should be approaching a piece this sophisticated with more intelligence.
No, this kid is not Billy Elliot. He's not hammering out his coal town woes by kicking down the alleyway to some tough and tumble T-Rex. Nor is this kid Jamie Bell -- someone who hooks us all the moment we look into his eyes and who makes the audience fall in love with him by simply choosing to shadow dance with the heavy bag rather than throwing a few quick punches. The boy is a find the likes of Christian Bale and has proven to be far warmer as the years have gone by.
But that is not what Extremely Loud called for -- and Daldry had the balls to know it and a kid with the innate chops to pull it off. Whether Thomas Horn - the young chap playing Oskar Schell - was merely the kid "Jeopardy" star who mimics this character best -- already having his personality -- or whether he's an expert actor who got right into the groove of Schell and heeded the words of Daldry is something only those who worked on the film will ever know. And frankly, who gives a damn? In the end, he pulls it off remarkably.
Is this the warmest kid under the sun? Do you want him to challenge his father face to face in a tutu and be the charmingest little kid there ever was? Well -- if you do, then you should rent Billy Elliot. This kid is a different beast entirely and he hits this role square between the eyes. He is a special needs kid of undefined diagnosis that is absolutely on the autism spectrum. Any critic who claimed he was "precocious" or "unlikable" is nothing short of a jackass. I try to keep these reviews somewhere within the realm of decorum -- but sometimes braying brainless jackass who'd be better of trapped on Pleasure Island is the most accurate way to categorize irresponsible "journalists" who have absolutely no experience with the ever-growing population of special needs children who are more demanding, a bit icy, perhaps too direct and fact driven -- but just as much in need of love and warmth as anyone walking the earth. Way to be the adult who has no problem disliking a child that's more difficult to handle and to take the shortcut to thinking this consequently makes him more difficult to love. Children are easy to love. Their lives are normally simple. When their internal structures are heartbreakingly complicated, it's a call for more from us "grown-ups," not an invitation to cast them aside and write off their plight.
It behooves me to point out that this Thomas Horn's Oskar Schell needs no great decoding. He is clearly this boy - trapped within himself, struggling to make sense of a complex world where cut and dry facts don't work in all aspects of everyday life. For the most part -- Schell's mission is to take the over-stimulation of life and to narrow it down even more than the most myopic of us. Wouldn't that be the quest of any person whose system is on overload? Horn does this with mere speech patterns - a stiff blink of his eyes - a rude quip - a shake of his tambourine.
The brilliance of making this boy's only harbor in the storm his father (at first, anyway) -- and then making that father Tom Hanks -- gives Hanks one of the best "latter part of his career" roles a man of Hanks' prowess has had in ages. It's a Jimmy Steward move. It's a Henry Fonda move. It's a Donald Sutherland move. He steps out of the spotlight. Lets his overwhelming magnetism elevate the work of the younger actor whose character loves you so thoroughly. And allows his screen time to be as limited as possible.
(He and Bullock - as amazing as they are - are a bit of a mismatch as a couple. It dings the film in a minor way. But that's neither's fault and they spend so little time together it's barely worth mentioning.)
In Hanks' case -- his fate as Oskar Schell's father lies in the crumbling Twin Towers on the fateful morning of 9-11. None of us has been able to make sense of that day. The best each of us can do is recount what we went through and to relate some of our friends' tales or perhaps the near "urban legend" like miracles we've heard of survivors, coincidences, and sheer insanity. Now ask Oskar Schell to process the fact that the person he thought understood him best was obliterated by one of the most senseless acts in history. Amazingly, Safron Foer - adapted by the amazing Eric Roth - then in the hands of Stephen Daldry - did just that.
How does one do all this and steer it away from the rocky cliffs of films like The Hours and The Reader and keep a 9-11 movie infused with hope? So few of us are Virginia Woolf or the cutest boy in the world whose icy mother was Julianne Moore. So few of us wandered home one day with a controller of a German streetcar only to have a hot affair with a bosomy Nazi. But far too many of us felt the shock of 9-11 rattle through our lives and change our perception of the world forever. Few of us were able to see the possibility of hope rising out of such a tragedy. This story does just that. I won't give a damn thing away because you all need to see it. But my goodness does this thing put your heart in a vice and then hand it back to you -- tear-soaked as all hell -- in the most glorious place.
Finally, I must talk about Max von Sydow and Sandra Bullock -- two of the year's best performances. Sandy Bullock continues to prove herself to be so much more than the industry allows her to be. While her Oscar for The Blind Side may seem to some that it was more of a lifetime achievement award than it was a deserving statue for a specific performance -- Extremely Loud demonstrates that the lady can act. Man can she ever. You wonder what the hell she's doing all movie. And then you have your mind and heart blown to pieces. Brace yourselves.
And then there's the Exorcist himself, Mr. von Sydow - who went up against death in a chess game, who dated Barbara Hershey in a Woody Allen film and lived to tell the tale. One of the greatest living actors, it's a shame von Sydow had to be nominated in a year where a fellow elder-statesman already has the momentum to snag supporting actor gold. Were this any other year, he would have deserving taken the trophy -- all without muttering a word -- all by simply holding up his tattooed palms bearing the words "Yes" and "No." Max's eyes show his deep understanding of Oksar's struggle as he accompanies the boy on his post-9-11 quest. His work is amazing.
My personal pick for best picture of the year remains Midnight in Paris. That doesn't seem like it has the clout to take the gold - let's be honest, the tap-dancing Frenchman who does a bit with a dog has it all locked up. But that seemed to me to have more to do with the fact that Woody Allen is the kind of guy who is going to win one best picture - and that's all. Extremely Loud, on the other hand, is the kind of movie that would ask the Academy to really have a brain and have some balls. This is an important film that could recalibrate the nation's heart about our greatest tragedy. Let go and let it take you on its ride. Daldry has handled the material admirably - any open mind will be overwhelmed.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Picture Nominee Roundup: The Help
Considering this blog was started to track the awards seasons, make some predictions, and give the McGut reaction to what's happening out there -- it behooves me to open this edition of "Roundup" by saying I still think The Help can take it next Sunday. This sucker could Crash its way right in - and be a more deserving winner. No, it doesn't have a director nomination or a screenplay nomination -- those are serious hamstringers. But this is purely due to the fact that The Help was adapted and directed by Tate Taylor and there seems to be some resentment toward the actor cum helmer. But a picture needn't have script or director in the bag to take film. Plenty of pics didn't take director - Driving Miss Daisy, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, Crash. The list of pics that lost screenplay would take up the rest of this blog. The SAG win for ensemble and the increasing possibility of both Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis taking home gold could well land The Help with the big one.
As the summer came to a close, the adaptation of Kathry Stockett's juggernaut best-seller burst onto the scene. Though it was certainly being presented as if it had the pedigree of a best picture nominee, there were doubts whether it could go the distance -- even to nominee-ville had this not been the awful era of ten. Who knew that it would be far and away the second strongest contender, holding the number two spot as the front-runners went through their continual shift. The Help could have easily fallen into the pit so many films like Steel Magnolias, Fried Green Tomatoes, The Joy Luck Club and How to Make an American Quilt before it. SOLID films anchored in a female cast that become perennial favorites but simply don't win awards. There's something about serious female dramas that stymies their chance at victory. From 1980 until now it's nigh on impossible to point out a picture winner that's femme based. Chicago? Shakespeare in Love? Those are about as close as it gets. How great it would be if those tables turned.
The criticism has been that The Help has sugar-coated the struggle of African American domestics in Jackson Mississippi. Some have gone as far as to say that it's just another film where a white person comes to the rescue. Really? Is this the reaction to The Help? From a "sugar coating" standpoint, the critics seem to have missed the boat on what this film was trying to do. This isn't Mississippi Burning. This isn't To Kill a Mockingbird. This isn't The Maid. It was never trying to be and frankly I don't know why it should have to be. The characters were treated with dignity. The situation was presented with a balance of seriousness and humor that never belittled those who struggled, but mocked the biggest and lent a richness to characters' lives that could have been presented as dour rather than full.
Each character's thread was a well-constructed arc woven through the length of the film and tidily tied off at the picture's end. After 50/50 and The Help, one wonders if Bryce Dallas Howard will ever be forgiven or whether she may well end up the world's youngest Louise Fletcher. Jessica Chastain's ostracism, her marriage with Mike Vogel, and her glee at shaking a bag of battered chicken -- let alone her work in Tree of Life and The Debt have solidified her spot as this year's hottest female breakout. And what can't be said about Emma Stone that hasn't been said already? This lady isn't going anywhere. She's here to stay. The way her Skeeter stepped back and let the actual "help" take the spotlight of this film is what makes it such a triumph.
I haven't even mentioned the older generation of Janney, Spacek and Steenburgen!
Then there's Viola Davis whose only stumbling block on the way to the podium for actress will be her Streep-ness in a world-class career highlight performance. Whether it was her heart-wrenching turn in Doubt or her brief, but captivating performance in this year's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Viola Davis has become a watermark of greatness. Her performance as Aibileen is no exception. Coupled with her voice over and her soothing mantra -- "You is kind. You is smart. You is important."-- the amount of heartbreak or swell Davis can inflict with a single look is second to none. Davis' acting is the sort where one either has to write next to nothing or unleash a tome of frame-by-frame adoration for her the tiny shifts in her facial expressions that dictate the audience's response. Her SAG win bodes well -- as actress has aligned with SAG far more often than not these past years. Being bested by Streep's Thatcher after a 29 year Oscar drought isn't exactly a loss either. This one's neck and neck.
For this fair blogger, the scene (and picture) stealer was Octavia Spencer. Though Davis functions as the film's narrator and guides us in and out of the story her on-screen time bordered on supporting. My initial reaction was that she, Chastain, and Spencer were all going to land themselves in the Supporting Actress category, overly duking it out like the Corleone boys -- only to watch Joel Grey walk away with it all. (What a shock it would be if Grey repeated that victory this year over The Help ladies.) But as the loud-mouthed Minnie -- pie baker, extraordinaire -- Spencer turned in one of the best and inarguably most memorable performances of the year. Whether she's talking about Crisco, going head to head with Bryce Dallas Howard, or stepping on the gas to get Skeeter's book to plow ahead full steam -- Spencer's comedy never turned Minnie into an unbelievable character. She's a dead lock for supporting actress barring any Weinstein Bejo stunner. And well she should be. It's damn clear that The Help must take home trophies. We'll see next Sunday if Spencer's deserved victory is the only one -- or whether her statuette -- bound to be presented early in the telecast -- is the start of a 3 Oscar run.
As the summer came to a close, the adaptation of Kathry Stockett's juggernaut best-seller burst onto the scene. Though it was certainly being presented as if it had the pedigree of a best picture nominee, there were doubts whether it could go the distance -- even to nominee-ville had this not been the awful era of ten. Who knew that it would be far and away the second strongest contender, holding the number two spot as the front-runners went through their continual shift. The Help could have easily fallen into the pit so many films like Steel Magnolias, Fried Green Tomatoes, The Joy Luck Club and How to Make an American Quilt before it. SOLID films anchored in a female cast that become perennial favorites but simply don't win awards. There's something about serious female dramas that stymies their chance at victory. From 1980 until now it's nigh on impossible to point out a picture winner that's femme based. Chicago? Shakespeare in Love? Those are about as close as it gets. How great it would be if those tables turned.
The criticism has been that The Help has sugar-coated the struggle of African American domestics in Jackson Mississippi. Some have gone as far as to say that it's just another film where a white person comes to the rescue. Really? Is this the reaction to The Help? From a "sugar coating" standpoint, the critics seem to have missed the boat on what this film was trying to do. This isn't Mississippi Burning. This isn't To Kill a Mockingbird. This isn't The Maid. It was never trying to be and frankly I don't know why it should have to be. The characters were treated with dignity. The situation was presented with a balance of seriousness and humor that never belittled those who struggled, but mocked the biggest and lent a richness to characters' lives that could have been presented as dour rather than full.
Each character's thread was a well-constructed arc woven through the length of the film and tidily tied off at the picture's end. After 50/50 and The Help, one wonders if Bryce Dallas Howard will ever be forgiven or whether she may well end up the world's youngest Louise Fletcher. Jessica Chastain's ostracism, her marriage with Mike Vogel, and her glee at shaking a bag of battered chicken -- let alone her work in Tree of Life and The Debt have solidified her spot as this year's hottest female breakout. And what can't be said about Emma Stone that hasn't been said already? This lady isn't going anywhere. She's here to stay. The way her Skeeter stepped back and let the actual "help" take the spotlight of this film is what makes it such a triumph.
I haven't even mentioned the older generation of Janney, Spacek and Steenburgen!
Then there's Viola Davis whose only stumbling block on the way to the podium for actress will be her Streep-ness in a world-class career highlight performance. Whether it was her heart-wrenching turn in Doubt or her brief, but captivating performance in this year's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Viola Davis has become a watermark of greatness. Her performance as Aibileen is no exception. Coupled with her voice over and her soothing mantra -- "You is kind. You is smart. You is important."-- the amount of heartbreak or swell Davis can inflict with a single look is second to none. Davis' acting is the sort where one either has to write next to nothing or unleash a tome of frame-by-frame adoration for her the tiny shifts in her facial expressions that dictate the audience's response. Her SAG win bodes well -- as actress has aligned with SAG far more often than not these past years. Being bested by Streep's Thatcher after a 29 year Oscar drought isn't exactly a loss either. This one's neck and neck.
For this fair blogger, the scene (and picture) stealer was Octavia Spencer. Though Davis functions as the film's narrator and guides us in and out of the story her on-screen time bordered on supporting. My initial reaction was that she, Chastain, and Spencer were all going to land themselves in the Supporting Actress category, overly duking it out like the Corleone boys -- only to watch Joel Grey walk away with it all. (What a shock it would be if Grey repeated that victory this year over The Help ladies.) But as the loud-mouthed Minnie -- pie baker, extraordinaire -- Spencer turned in one of the best and inarguably most memorable performances of the year. Whether she's talking about Crisco, going head to head with Bryce Dallas Howard, or stepping on the gas to get Skeeter's book to plow ahead full steam -- Spencer's comedy never turned Minnie into an unbelievable character. She's a dead lock for supporting actress barring any Weinstein Bejo stunner. And well she should be. It's damn clear that The Help must take home trophies. We'll see next Sunday if Spencer's deserved victory is the only one -- or whether her statuette -- bound to be presented early in the telecast -- is the start of a 3 Oscar run.
Picture Nominee Roundup: Moneyball
In any other year, where there were five nominees, Moneyball would certainly have made the cut. Amazingly, as the category further expanded to a possible ten, it made Moneyball's nomination chances slimmer and slimmer. For some reason, this excellent film about the Oakland Athletics' Billy Beane reconstructing his team once it suffers a post-season gutting simply didn't catch on with audiences the way it should have. Considering it was masterfully directed by Bennett Miller, beautifully filmed, sports one of Brad Pitt's greatest performances, a career-changing turn from Jonah Hill, and a near perfect script from heavy hitter combo Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin -- it seemed a surefire recipe for success. But its box office and the level of warm support that has sprouted up around Moneyball is middling at best.
Often, when tudios set out to make an Oscar slam dunk - getting all their ducks in a row the way folks seem to have done for Moneyball, the end result is a piece weighed down by just a bit too much hubris. Whether it's Benjamin Button -- with Fincher, Roth, Pitt, Blanchett, and F. Scott Fitzgerald source material -- or Amistad -- Spielberg with heart-wrenching source material, Sir Tony, and the discovery of Djimon Honsou -- the Academy may toss some nominations their way, but the truth is the end result is generally off the mark. These films come across like a chef in the kitchen who was afraid to stray just a bit from "the perfect recipe" -- never, of course, having tasted the dish before to verify whether the recipe works in the first place.
Such is not the case for Moneyball. Each of its A-List components delivers straight down the line. So much of the excellence of this film seems to be written off as a Pitt vanity piece -- "the baseball movie that isn't about baseball," as Clooney put it at the Globes -- calling it boring, slow, empty. It's anything but.
Let's get right to the heart of Moneyball, Mr. Pitt. Not only has Brad Pitt spent the past 20 plus years carefully navigating his career through a chain of lead performances in top quality films -- he often proves to be the best thing in them. I needn't recap Brad's bursting onto the scene with Thelma & Louise, A River Runs Through It, and the 1994 one-two punch of Legends of the Fall and Interview with the Vampire (the hair, my God, the hair!). We all know how great he is and how that's often overshadowed by the fact that he's probably the best looking man alive (I know, boo hoo -- my talent is overshadowed by my unstoppable looks). But it's something to take a look at. Much like the Redford he so often emulates, Pitt has a difficult time being taken seriously as an actor. Button didn't help. But things like producing The Departed, doing a turn as Lt. Aldo Raine, and this year's double threat of Tree of Life and Moneyball make his prowess undeniable. So why isn't this man the hands down winner for actor?
Simply put? People don't think Pitt does "enough" as Billy Beane. They're wrong.
As I'll be mentioning throughout this Oscar round up as we close in on the awards a mere week away -- actors make up the lion share of the Academy's voting body and consequently have the power to set the tone which performances are victorious, which films take the cake, and the direction Hollywood is headed. Rarely do they wise up enough to wield this power. But their failure to latch on to Pitt's performance is a true shame and, frankly, just a plain old misstep.
As the struggling Billy Beane who is up against history, adversity, and a limited checkbook -- Pitt's measured performance has more silence than leading male performances normally include. (It's certainly not as quiet as Jean du Jardin!) The moments when Beane speaks are carefully selected, his words are direct, no moment is extraneous or questionable. A great deal of that credit -- as Pitt has lauded at length -- goes to Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, arguably the two best screenwriters in Hollywood -- certainly when it comes to the adapted side of things. The point of all this is that expertly playing a regular man who has an old school sense of chivalry where he opts to suffer alone and who rallies the troops when it's demanded of him -- even though it challenges his comfort zone -- is something to write home about.
So his wife's not in a coma and he doesn't scamper around hairpin turns in Hawaii.
So he doesn't tap dance with a dog.
As a Terms of Endearment lover who listens to people use it as the touchstone of over-sentimentality year after year -- doesn't all the hyper-drama and uber-comedy that's being celebrated this year fall far more under that umbrella?
Chew on that.
I'd be remiss not to mention Jonah Hill. From Superbad to Oscar nominee. Each of his Knocked Up / Funny People cohorts has been his career closer and to closer to Oscar gold. Of the "Freaks and Geeks" related crew, Franco has been the true crossover with multiple noms and a Hindenburg of a hosting gig. But now Hill has jumped past Rogen and Segel to a supporting actor nod -- often the fiercest category there is. Hill was the perfect counterpart to Brad Pitt. The silent, hot headed would-be slugger who couldn't hack it in the majors and soon found himself shouldering the weight of the struggling back office, paired up with the "Go Eli Yale" economic nerd whose calculations may be the key to a winning team. No scene speaks better to Pitt and Hill's magical pairing than the final day of trades. There multiple phone chess game, where we never get to see whose on the other line relied solely on their interplay and personal moments. To head into a glass office with Brad Pitt and hold your own -- as a force and a performer -- is something few have done. Hill hit it out of the park (look, I made it this far without a baseball reference, so shut it).
And then there's Bennett Miller -- director of Capote and well... nothing else. This Larchmont-Mamaroneck native (that's right!) has been dubbed one of the more pick helmers in tinsel town for having taken six years between pics. The calm perfection of Capote that so expertly executed Dan Futterman's script and got some of the best performances evah from both Hoffman and Keener -- is back again, doing the same for Zaillian/Sorkin, Pitt and Hill. There's a deliberate precision to Miller's work that seems perfectly in keeping with a man who'd take six years between films. It's almost like Miller is a novelist, taking time to select the exact story he wishes to tell and then taking the time to get it onto the screen just as he sees fit. To end up with a film this crisp, it's a wonder Miller didn't snag a directing nom. Well, sometimes there's a Mallick.
Moneyball -- it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning picture. In some ways, it's this year's "better" Seabiscuit. It has everything a best picture should -- in some years it could damn well win. This year, it just doesn't have the support. Fingers crossed for Pitt -- but he seems the third horse in the race.
Often, when tudios set out to make an Oscar slam dunk - getting all their ducks in a row the way folks seem to have done for Moneyball, the end result is a piece weighed down by just a bit too much hubris. Whether it's Benjamin Button -- with Fincher, Roth, Pitt, Blanchett, and F. Scott Fitzgerald source material -- or Amistad -- Spielberg with heart-wrenching source material, Sir Tony, and the discovery of Djimon Honsou -- the Academy may toss some nominations their way, but the truth is the end result is generally off the mark. These films come across like a chef in the kitchen who was afraid to stray just a bit from "the perfect recipe" -- never, of course, having tasted the dish before to verify whether the recipe works in the first place.
Such is not the case for Moneyball. Each of its A-List components delivers straight down the line. So much of the excellence of this film seems to be written off as a Pitt vanity piece -- "the baseball movie that isn't about baseball," as Clooney put it at the Globes -- calling it boring, slow, empty. It's anything but.
Let's get right to the heart of Moneyball, Mr. Pitt. Not only has Brad Pitt spent the past 20 plus years carefully navigating his career through a chain of lead performances in top quality films -- he often proves to be the best thing in them. I needn't recap Brad's bursting onto the scene with Thelma & Louise, A River Runs Through It, and the 1994 one-two punch of Legends of the Fall and Interview with the Vampire (the hair, my God, the hair!). We all know how great he is and how that's often overshadowed by the fact that he's probably the best looking man alive (I know, boo hoo -- my talent is overshadowed by my unstoppable looks). But it's something to take a look at. Much like the Redford he so often emulates, Pitt has a difficult time being taken seriously as an actor. Button didn't help. But things like producing The Departed, doing a turn as Lt. Aldo Raine, and this year's double threat of Tree of Life and Moneyball make his prowess undeniable. So why isn't this man the hands down winner for actor?
Simply put? People don't think Pitt does "enough" as Billy Beane. They're wrong.
As I'll be mentioning throughout this Oscar round up as we close in on the awards a mere week away -- actors make up the lion share of the Academy's voting body and consequently have the power to set the tone which performances are victorious, which films take the cake, and the direction Hollywood is headed. Rarely do they wise up enough to wield this power. But their failure to latch on to Pitt's performance is a true shame and, frankly, just a plain old misstep.
As the struggling Billy Beane who is up against history, adversity, and a limited checkbook -- Pitt's measured performance has more silence than leading male performances normally include. (It's certainly not as quiet as Jean du Jardin!) The moments when Beane speaks are carefully selected, his words are direct, no moment is extraneous or questionable. A great deal of that credit -- as Pitt has lauded at length -- goes to Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, arguably the two best screenwriters in Hollywood -- certainly when it comes to the adapted side of things. The point of all this is that expertly playing a regular man who has an old school sense of chivalry where he opts to suffer alone and who rallies the troops when it's demanded of him -- even though it challenges his comfort zone -- is something to write home about.
So his wife's not in a coma and he doesn't scamper around hairpin turns in Hawaii.
So he doesn't tap dance with a dog.
As a Terms of Endearment lover who listens to people use it as the touchstone of over-sentimentality year after year -- doesn't all the hyper-drama and uber-comedy that's being celebrated this year fall far more under that umbrella?
Chew on that.
I'd be remiss not to mention Jonah Hill. From Superbad to Oscar nominee. Each of his Knocked Up / Funny People cohorts has been his career closer and to closer to Oscar gold. Of the "Freaks and Geeks" related crew, Franco has been the true crossover with multiple noms and a Hindenburg of a hosting gig. But now Hill has jumped past Rogen and Segel to a supporting actor nod -- often the fiercest category there is. Hill was the perfect counterpart to Brad Pitt. The silent, hot headed would-be slugger who couldn't hack it in the majors and soon found himself shouldering the weight of the struggling back office, paired up with the "Go Eli Yale" economic nerd whose calculations may be the key to a winning team. No scene speaks better to Pitt and Hill's magical pairing than the final day of trades. There multiple phone chess game, where we never get to see whose on the other line relied solely on their interplay and personal moments. To head into a glass office with Brad Pitt and hold your own -- as a force and a performer -- is something few have done. Hill hit it out of the park (look, I made it this far without a baseball reference, so shut it).
And then there's Bennett Miller -- director of Capote and well... nothing else. This Larchmont-Mamaroneck native (that's right!) has been dubbed one of the more pick helmers in tinsel town for having taken six years between pics. The calm perfection of Capote that so expertly executed Dan Futterman's script and got some of the best performances evah from both Hoffman and Keener -- is back again, doing the same for Zaillian/Sorkin, Pitt and Hill. There's a deliberate precision to Miller's work that seems perfectly in keeping with a man who'd take six years between films. It's almost like Miller is a novelist, taking time to select the exact story he wishes to tell and then taking the time to get it onto the screen just as he sees fit. To end up with a film this crisp, it's a wonder Miller didn't snag a directing nom. Well, sometimes there's a Mallick.
Moneyball -- it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning picture. In some ways, it's this year's "better" Seabiscuit. It has everything a best picture should -- in some years it could damn well win. This year, it just doesn't have the support. Fingers crossed for Pitt -- but he seems the third horse in the race.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Demian Bichir - The Leading Men's Indie Nom
Demian Bichir is perhaps most famous for his tumultuous border running romance with Mary Louise Parker on "Weeds." It's hard to picture him doing much of anything without wearing slick suits, shouting quick deliberate orders to his lackeys, and keeping a short leash on that pesky Nancy Botwin.
A Better Life shows a side of Demian Bichir he has been unable to share previously. Though directed by Chris Weitz of the great Weitz brother duo who have collectively climbed there way from American Pie (not a shabby place to start), through About a Boy, In Good Company, The Golden Compass, and The Twilight Saga: New Moon -- A Better Life is a true indie.
The plot is very small, very genuine, very contained, and very poignant. The simple fact of the matter is that Bichir wants a better life for his son, Luis. Like so many immigrants before him, Bichir has trimmed legal corners in the hopes of incrementally improving his -- and more importantly his son's -- quality of life.
Bichir works as a gardener, a bit older than some, but willing to do what it takes to get the job done. He clamors at Home Depot to land jobs with wealthier Angelinos who pull in looking to hire a crew for the day -- but that kind of work has no guarantees. Bichir's true chance at happiness comes in the form of a pick-up truck. His friend and employer is ready to sell and Bichir will have the opportunity to be the sole proprietor of his own business. Of course, there are major drawbacks to a plan of this kind. First off, Bichi has no paperwork and who knows, as he says, what will happen to him should he get pulled over for something as simple as a taillight. Furthermore, he just doesn't have the cash to cover it.
Of course he gets the truck. Of course a great many things go wrong. It has never been the Film Nook's place to spoil plots. This one, though a touch on the sparse side, is good. I will admit there is an element to the script -- particularly when it becomes directly preachy about how American legal and immigration policy work that has the feel of a movie of the week. Then again, it is the mission of A Better Life to give the rest of us an insight into what is happening every day. There is no epic journey through the naturalization process here -- that is not what this film is about. But when the topic is raised, the presentation of information was simply too dry. I wonder if anything -- beyond Bichir's relationship with his son and his determination to provide solid future -- was necessary. Broadening the scope in the final third of the film detracted from the heartfelt confrontational moments.
Along the lines of award recognition, Bichir is a bit of a conundrum. The film is small. It's audience was limited. Outside of the festival and rental circuit (or the screeners) I wonder how many folks out there saw A Better Life in the theater. According to boxofficemojo, the film took in a mere 1.8 million considering its 10 million dollar budget. I always look at nominations of this sort as a great boost for a film that didn't get a chance. A Better Life certainly deserves an audience that crosses the 10 million threshold -- Bichir's press ought to grant them that. But how does this nomination square with the actors who were omitted?
It certainly is not Demian Bichir's "fault" that Leo, JGL, Owen Wilson, and Ryan Gosling didn't make it to the big dance. Bichir also snagged a SAG nom and Leo was among the nominees last Sunday. It was the influx of Mr. Oldman that knocked Leo aside. Truth be told, if one were lining up the best male performances of the year, Leo should have perhaps made his exit from the award run a bit earlier. JGL and Owen Wilson suffer from comedy disease. This year it seems only Jean du Jardin is permitted a nomination for hilarity -- despite The Descendants' marketing putting forth the notion that Clooney -- along with being a heartbroken man -- sure is a hoot when he's poking his head over a hedge or making a hairpin turn.
Bichir's lone head-to-head fight remained Ryan Gosling -- who will be getting his own blog post. The simple truth of the matter is that the critics circles -- particularly with their handful of Albert Brooks' victories -- gave the impression that Drive was very much in the game. One could sure bring up Ides, too. But it seems if Ryan were getting a nom, it was for the bad-ass jacket, not the tailored suits. But Gosling hasn't appeared among the latter half of nominees -- nor did he personally appear at the HFPA Golden Globes. Though Gosling was only nominated for Half Nelson it seemed he was destined for noms with Lars and the Real Girl and Blue Valentine. The Academy did not see things that way.
Whatever the case, Bichir is now among the five. His role is important. His performance is one that certainly showed a great deal more depth than anything he has done in the past. Whether it is one of the top five performances of the year seems a battle of opinions. For this chump, his nomination makes perfect sense. While the academy has railed about a lack of diversity in the nominees, it seems that outcry often applies only to African Americans. There is a great lack of nominations from the Latino culture -- particularly when one considers how many films like A Better Life are out there. A Better Life is a story taking place in the streets of Los Angeles and touches Academy voters on a daily basis. That combined with Bichir's solid work makes his nomination feel inevitable.
Frankly, having seen the film now, I wonder why Jose Julian wasn't nominated for his role as the adolescent Luis. Then again, this little indie should be satisfied with what it has received. The supporting actor category simply doesn't have space for Mr. Julian if Mr. Brooks was omitted. What's more, if a youngster was getting nommed this year, the choice was The Descendants' Shailene Woodley.
A Better Life shows a side of Demian Bichir he has been unable to share previously. Though directed by Chris Weitz of the great Weitz brother duo who have collectively climbed there way from American Pie (not a shabby place to start), through About a Boy, In Good Company, The Golden Compass, and The Twilight Saga: New Moon -- A Better Life is a true indie.
The plot is very small, very genuine, very contained, and very poignant. The simple fact of the matter is that Bichir wants a better life for his son, Luis. Like so many immigrants before him, Bichir has trimmed legal corners in the hopes of incrementally improving his -- and more importantly his son's -- quality of life.
Bichir works as a gardener, a bit older than some, but willing to do what it takes to get the job done. He clamors at Home Depot to land jobs with wealthier Angelinos who pull in looking to hire a crew for the day -- but that kind of work has no guarantees. Bichir's true chance at happiness comes in the form of a pick-up truck. His friend and employer is ready to sell and Bichir will have the opportunity to be the sole proprietor of his own business. Of course, there are major drawbacks to a plan of this kind. First off, Bichi has no paperwork and who knows, as he says, what will happen to him should he get pulled over for something as simple as a taillight. Furthermore, he just doesn't have the cash to cover it.
Of course he gets the truck. Of course a great many things go wrong. It has never been the Film Nook's place to spoil plots. This one, though a touch on the sparse side, is good. I will admit there is an element to the script -- particularly when it becomes directly preachy about how American legal and immigration policy work that has the feel of a movie of the week. Then again, it is the mission of A Better Life to give the rest of us an insight into what is happening every day. There is no epic journey through the naturalization process here -- that is not what this film is about. But when the topic is raised, the presentation of information was simply too dry. I wonder if anything -- beyond Bichir's relationship with his son and his determination to provide solid future -- was necessary. Broadening the scope in the final third of the film detracted from the heartfelt confrontational moments.
Along the lines of award recognition, Bichir is a bit of a conundrum. The film is small. It's audience was limited. Outside of the festival and rental circuit (or the screeners) I wonder how many folks out there saw A Better Life in the theater. According to boxofficemojo, the film took in a mere 1.8 million considering its 10 million dollar budget. I always look at nominations of this sort as a great boost for a film that didn't get a chance. A Better Life certainly deserves an audience that crosses the 10 million threshold -- Bichir's press ought to grant them that. But how does this nomination square with the actors who were omitted?
It certainly is not Demian Bichir's "fault" that Leo, JGL, Owen Wilson, and Ryan Gosling didn't make it to the big dance. Bichir also snagged a SAG nom and Leo was among the nominees last Sunday. It was the influx of Mr. Oldman that knocked Leo aside. Truth be told, if one were lining up the best male performances of the year, Leo should have perhaps made his exit from the award run a bit earlier. JGL and Owen Wilson suffer from comedy disease. This year it seems only Jean du Jardin is permitted a nomination for hilarity -- despite The Descendants' marketing putting forth the notion that Clooney -- along with being a heartbroken man -- sure is a hoot when he's poking his head over a hedge or making a hairpin turn.
Bichir's lone head-to-head fight remained Ryan Gosling -- who will be getting his own blog post. The simple truth of the matter is that the critics circles -- particularly with their handful of Albert Brooks' victories -- gave the impression that Drive was very much in the game. One could sure bring up Ides, too. But it seems if Ryan were getting a nom, it was for the bad-ass jacket, not the tailored suits. But Gosling hasn't appeared among the latter half of nominees -- nor did he personally appear at the HFPA Golden Globes. Though Gosling was only nominated for Half Nelson it seemed he was destined for noms with Lars and the Real Girl and Blue Valentine. The Academy did not see things that way.
Whatever the case, Bichir is now among the five. His role is important. His performance is one that certainly showed a great deal more depth than anything he has done in the past. Whether it is one of the top five performances of the year seems a battle of opinions. For this chump, his nomination makes perfect sense. While the academy has railed about a lack of diversity in the nominees, it seems that outcry often applies only to African Americans. There is a great lack of nominations from the Latino culture -- particularly when one considers how many films like A Better Life are out there. A Better Life is a story taking place in the streets of Los Angeles and touches Academy voters on a daily basis. That combined with Bichir's solid work makes his nomination feel inevitable.
Frankly, having seen the film now, I wonder why Jose Julian wasn't nominated for his role as the adolescent Luis. Then again, this little indie should be satisfied with what it has received. The supporting actor category simply doesn't have space for Mr. Julian if Mr. Brooks was omitted. What's more, if a youngster was getting nommed this year, the choice was The Descendants' Shailene Woodley.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
DGA down and SAG tonight...
With the Director's Guild handing their award to Michael Hazanavicius and The Aritst team, it seems this year's silent victory may be inevitable. The lone possible snag is taking both trophies -- as HW did with last year's King's Speech -- was Martin Scorsese grabbing the director trophy for Hugo. I'd like to think this is still a possibility -- but when a foreign director walks into Hollywood and takes the DGA award from former nominees -- it gives the vibe that it's a done deal.
Tonight we have the SAG awards, driving us ever closer to the Oscar podium. In recent years, the level of agreement between the SAG award and the Oscar has increased to nigh on 100%.
Last year's winners went 4 for 4 at the Oscars and the ensemble winner was none other than King's Speech Handing all the trophies directly to the future Oscar winners.
The previous year was 4 for 4 again. Ensemble went to Inglorious Basterds but frankly the ensemble side of things only has an impact every now and then -- I'll dive into that in just a moment.
The year before that was 3 for 4 -- but is what I like to call a "false negative." At that point in the awards year, Kate was still a double nominee riding The Reader as the supporting horse to her Revolutionary Road win. By the time Oscar's noms were out, she had dropped Rev Road and was sitting pretty with a lead nomination for The Reader. She took an upgrade and the trophy. (I like to think of this as the Benicio reversal: del Toro won in the lead category for Traffic making it a certainty that he would take supporting at the Oscars for the same role.) Anyway, as a result of the Kate double noms in categories that wouldn't hold, Meryl won for Doubt. What's interesting is the contender status Ms. Streep has had for the past 30 years. She has not won an Oscar since 1982's Sophie's Choice. People get this impression that Meryl always wins -- but a lot of that is due to the fact that they're watching her rake in trophies at other ceremonies. Tonight will be the decider of whether Meryl is still in the running. She may well win tonight and lose on Oscar night -- though I have to say that her performance in The Iron Lady is remarkable. But if Viola Davis take is for The Help, tonight may well be it for the Streep.
The three-way horse race of actor comes to its conclusion for Brad Pitt if either Clooney or Jean du Jardin wins. It was incredibly gallant of Pitt to use this week to distance himself from Moneyball and to re-embrace The Tree of Life -- both of which are clear points of pride for him as a performer and producer. However, he didn't sink his teeth into the actor nomination and pound the pavement for people to get out there and see his film. This is so anathema to the way he acted about Babel. Perhaps he is an older man now and not driving to the hoop the way he used to -- but it seems the problem with Moneyball is that people either saw it a long time ago or they didn't see it at all. Clooney -- much as he is a double nom for Ides of March -- has let The Descendants train roll out of the station. Jean du Jardin is riding his grin and eyebrows all the way to the bank. He's touring the globe like he is an actual member of silent cinema and is a star of a new art form. It is absolutely insane -- and charming at the same time. If Pitt doesn't win tonight -- it's a two man game. If Clooney takes it -- he may have it. The question is whether the Clooney parade (that seems to march through Hollywood on a daily basis the way Mickey comes down Disney's main street) can top Harvey's spending spree.
Supporting Actor and Actress ought to lock it up and they ought to lock it up by capitalizing on the winners from the Globes. All signs point to Octavia Spencer and Christopher Plummer. A Spencer loss in unimaginable. Personally, the only person I see best Plummer is Nolte. There's a possibility that Albert Brooks takes it and then none of us can make any predictions whatsoever. But it seems that if this race were to actually open something up that would call Plummer certainty into question -- and his being nominated and winning has been something I have been talking about since before last year's Oscar telecast: it feels that fated -- the only person to do it is Nick. They both gave amazing performances and it's 90% odds on for Plummer. But if Nolte takes it, it's a shake up.
Ensemble looks like it's going to The Help. Whether it deserves it is a good question. Much as I love the other nominees -- I think it does deserve it. The Help winning is also what makes me wonder whether this thing can come through the back door and take picture the way Crash did. That victory was purely based on a large ensemble cast that had Hollywood support. I know The Help has been locked out at every step of the game -- but there is something the little man in my belly is telling me about not counting it out. This comes from the man who was dressed as a cowboy entering an Oscar Party all set to cheer for Brokeback when I had to cave and admit, "It's going to be Crash, isn't it." That was a shocker even though I saw it coming at the end -- and it was because it was a DVD presence. There's something about The Help being the one you throw on and enjoy that the other best pictures don't have.
If anything besides The Help wins ensemble tonight -- it only matters if it's The Artist. Should it be Bridesmaids -- which would also be fantastic -- it means SAG knows how to reward itself but it does nothing to shape the Oscar game.
Tonight we have the SAG awards, driving us ever closer to the Oscar podium. In recent years, the level of agreement between the SAG award and the Oscar has increased to nigh on 100%.
Last year's winners went 4 for 4 at the Oscars and the ensemble winner was none other than King's Speech Handing all the trophies directly to the future Oscar winners.
The previous year was 4 for 4 again. Ensemble went to Inglorious Basterds but frankly the ensemble side of things only has an impact every now and then -- I'll dive into that in just a moment.
The year before that was 3 for 4 -- but is what I like to call a "false negative." At that point in the awards year, Kate was still a double nominee riding The Reader as the supporting horse to her Revolutionary Road win. By the time Oscar's noms were out, she had dropped Rev Road and was sitting pretty with a lead nomination for The Reader. She took an upgrade and the trophy. (I like to think of this as the Benicio reversal: del Toro won in the lead category for Traffic making it a certainty that he would take supporting at the Oscars for the same role.) Anyway, as a result of the Kate double noms in categories that wouldn't hold, Meryl won for Doubt. What's interesting is the contender status Ms. Streep has had for the past 30 years. She has not won an Oscar since 1982's Sophie's Choice. People get this impression that Meryl always wins -- but a lot of that is due to the fact that they're watching her rake in trophies at other ceremonies. Tonight will be the decider of whether Meryl is still in the running. She may well win tonight and lose on Oscar night -- though I have to say that her performance in The Iron Lady is remarkable. But if Viola Davis take is for The Help, tonight may well be it for the Streep.
The three-way horse race of actor comes to its conclusion for Brad Pitt if either Clooney or Jean du Jardin wins. It was incredibly gallant of Pitt to use this week to distance himself from Moneyball and to re-embrace The Tree of Life -- both of which are clear points of pride for him as a performer and producer. However, he didn't sink his teeth into the actor nomination and pound the pavement for people to get out there and see his film. This is so anathema to the way he acted about Babel. Perhaps he is an older man now and not driving to the hoop the way he used to -- but it seems the problem with Moneyball is that people either saw it a long time ago or they didn't see it at all. Clooney -- much as he is a double nom for Ides of March -- has let The Descendants train roll out of the station. Jean du Jardin is riding his grin and eyebrows all the way to the bank. He's touring the globe like he is an actual member of silent cinema and is a star of a new art form. It is absolutely insane -- and charming at the same time. If Pitt doesn't win tonight -- it's a two man game. If Clooney takes it -- he may have it. The question is whether the Clooney parade (that seems to march through Hollywood on a daily basis the way Mickey comes down Disney's main street) can top Harvey's spending spree.
Supporting Actor and Actress ought to lock it up and they ought to lock it up by capitalizing on the winners from the Globes. All signs point to Octavia Spencer and Christopher Plummer. A Spencer loss in unimaginable. Personally, the only person I see best Plummer is Nolte. There's a possibility that Albert Brooks takes it and then none of us can make any predictions whatsoever. But it seems that if this race were to actually open something up that would call Plummer certainty into question -- and his being nominated and winning has been something I have been talking about since before last year's Oscar telecast: it feels that fated -- the only person to do it is Nick. They both gave amazing performances and it's 90% odds on for Plummer. But if Nolte takes it, it's a shake up.
Ensemble looks like it's going to The Help. Whether it deserves it is a good question. Much as I love the other nominees -- I think it does deserve it. The Help winning is also what makes me wonder whether this thing can come through the back door and take picture the way Crash did. That victory was purely based on a large ensemble cast that had Hollywood support. I know The Help has been locked out at every step of the game -- but there is something the little man in my belly is telling me about not counting it out. This comes from the man who was dressed as a cowboy entering an Oscar Party all set to cheer for Brokeback when I had to cave and admit, "It's going to be Crash, isn't it." That was a shocker even though I saw it coming at the end -- and it was because it was a DVD presence. There's something about The Help being the one you throw on and enjoy that the other best pictures don't have.
If anything besides The Help wins ensemble tonight -- it only matters if it's The Artist. Should it be Bridesmaids -- which would also be fantastic -- it means SAG knows how to reward itself but it does nothing to shape the Oscar game.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
So How'd I do?
BEST PICTURE
So we extended to 9 -- Ides was omitted and Tree of Life stepped in. Extremely Loud and Moneyball make it. Not bad... not bad...
BEST DIRECTOR
Spielberg truly had an empty morning, despite War Horse's nomination. And it looks like Mallick is here once again.
BEST ACTOR
By far my worst category. Who knew Demian Bichir and Gary Oldman would be showing up to the dance? So much for Gosling and Fassbender.
It's truly a boxing match between Brad, George, and Jean.
BEST ACTRESS
So Rooney bumps Tilda. Not that surprising except for how lacking Dragon Tattoo was in overall nominations.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
I am THRILLED to see Max Von Sydow -- the only dark horse nominee that could give Christopher Plummer a run for his money, though I doubt it will go Von Sydow's way. The fact that Von Sydow bumped Brooks -- and Ryan Gosling failed to get a nomination -- testifies to the critics' circles having drastically overemphasized Drive. Frankly, I still thought it was a great movie and am surprised Brooks and Gosling were bumped for new noms.
I told you Nolte was in. See Warrior immediately. It's excellent.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
My apologies to Ms. McTeer. It seemed she wasn't the most vulnerable but Shailene Woodley from The Descendants. I wonder how this bodes for the Payne pic. But Melissa McCarthy was making her way to the dance -- and so she has.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
So much for 50/50, Win, Win, and Young Adult! This is supposed to be my category. Midnight in Paris, Bridesmaids, The Artist, Margin Call, and A Separation.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
A true lock out for Tate Taylor in both writing and directing categories.
Ides and Tinker round out the crowd. Considering Payne will more than likely win here, that may give George the push on his acting nom, but du Jardin will be tough to beat.
So we extended to 9 -- Ides was omitted and Tree of Life stepped in. Extremely Loud and Moneyball make it. Not bad... not bad...
BEST DIRECTOR
Spielberg truly had an empty morning, despite War Horse's nomination. And it looks like Mallick is here once again.
BEST ACTOR
By far my worst category. Who knew Demian Bichir and Gary Oldman would be showing up to the dance? So much for Gosling and Fassbender.
It's truly a boxing match between Brad, George, and Jean.
BEST ACTRESS
So Rooney bumps Tilda. Not that surprising except for how lacking Dragon Tattoo was in overall nominations.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
I am THRILLED to see Max Von Sydow -- the only dark horse nominee that could give Christopher Plummer a run for his money, though I doubt it will go Von Sydow's way. The fact that Von Sydow bumped Brooks -- and Ryan Gosling failed to get a nomination -- testifies to the critics' circles having drastically overemphasized Drive. Frankly, I still thought it was a great movie and am surprised Brooks and Gosling were bumped for new noms.
I told you Nolte was in. See Warrior immediately. It's excellent.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
My apologies to Ms. McTeer. It seemed she wasn't the most vulnerable but Shailene Woodley from The Descendants. I wonder how this bodes for the Payne pic. But Melissa McCarthy was making her way to the dance -- and so she has.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
So much for 50/50, Win, Win, and Young Adult! This is supposed to be my category. Midnight in Paris, Bridesmaids, The Artist, Margin Call, and A Separation.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
A true lock out for Tate Taylor in both writing and directing categories.
Ides and Tinker round out the crowd. Considering Payne will more than likely win here, that may give George the push on his acting nom, but du Jardin will be tough to beat.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Nomination Countdown
Last year I went 10 for 10 on the picture noms. I doubt I will have that success level this year considering the newly instated rule that there needn't be 10 nominees. We're living in the era of "up to 10" as the Academy slowly admits what a blunder expanding the picture category is. Thus calling precisely how many films will fit and who will be in that crowd is near impossible. I thought the best bet would be to name my classic 5 as the films I feel would be nominated in a legitimate year and then include expansions that will only be there as the picture nominees increase.
BEST PICTURE
The certain nominees seem...
The Artist
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
War Horse
Were things to expand to 7, I could see...
Midnight in Paris
The Ides of March
Were things to go to 8 or 9 -- which I highly doubt, I see a 7 cut off...
Extremely Loud Incredibly Close
Moneyball
-- DARK HORSE -- Bridesmaids (But I only see that if it's a full nine and Extremely Loud is absent.)
BEST DIRECTOR
Michael Hazavanacius, The Artist
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Wood Allen, Midnight in Paris
Steven Spielberg, War Horse
I know Fincher or Daldry could inch in here. I have a hard time seeing that happen. I believe Tate Taylor will go without a helmer nom. But I still see The Help as a viable option for Picture winner. The only absolute shocker I could see sneaking in is Malick. The Academy has done it before and might again in a year that seems desperate to prove American's are artists, too.
BEST ACTOR
Brad Pitt, Moneyball
George Clooney, The Descendants
Jean du Jardin, The Artist
Ryan Gosling, Drive
Michael Fassbender, Shame
I could see Leo bumping Fassbender -- though as much as I love Leo and Clint, it's simply undeserved. I could also see the Gosling nomination being for Ides, but that's ludicrous to me. Albert Brooks is a solid nom for Drive and I see that being the picture of choice for Gosling. How I wish Owen Wilson or JGL were going to make it to the dance. They shan't -- or I shall jump for joy.
BEST ACTRESS
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Viola Davis, The Help
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn
Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin
I could see Rooney Mara come in and bump someone. Frankly, I feel like that person is Glenn as no one has see Albert Nobbs. The most vulnerable may appear to be Tilda -- partially because she's foreign, in a small film, and has won before -- but I think those things play as nice strengths. The dream of dreams would be a Kristin Wiig nom. I just don't see that happening.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Albert Brooks, Drive
Kenneth Brannagh, My Week With Marilyn
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Nolte is my throwing it on the table a bit. But who else is it going to be? If Vigo carries his HFPA glory over -- and I saw and liked A Dangerous Method -- I would be surprised. If Hanks name arises here -- and there has been zero campaign -- look for Extremely to pepper the morning.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Bernice Bejo, The Artist
Shailene Woodley, The Descendants
The wobbly one here is McTeer -- I could also see Chastain flopping pictures. These five seem to have the lead but one of them will fall to Melissa McCarthy. My guess is McTeer. The other four are in films that are simply too anchored.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Midnight in Paris
Bridesmaids
50/50
Young Adult (which may mean keep an eye out for Charlize, but I doubt it)
Win, Win
I could see Win, Win -- excellent as it is -- falling to The Artist. The Weinstein's are going the whole with that film. Not having a script nomination would be a stunner. If Win, Win and The Artist are there, Young Adult may get bumped.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Moneyball
The Descendants
Hugo
War Horse
The Help
I could see Drago Tattoo getting in here, particularly if Rooney and Fincher show. But I wonder. Giving Zallian two nominations (he'd share one for Moneyball) seems tough. I have more confidence in Eric Roth landing a nomination for Extremely Loud or one of the other kid movies snagging a nod. The one to bump is War Horse. I have a hard time seeing an adapted category without Lee Hall and Richard Curtis.
We will see in 9 hours and 17 minutes.
BEST PICTURE
The certain nominees seem...
The Artist
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
War Horse
Were things to expand to 7, I could see...
Midnight in Paris
The Ides of March
Were things to go to 8 or 9 -- which I highly doubt, I see a 7 cut off...
Extremely Loud Incredibly Close
Moneyball
-- DARK HORSE -- Bridesmaids (But I only see that if it's a full nine and Extremely Loud is absent.)
BEST DIRECTOR
Michael Hazavanacius, The Artist
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Wood Allen, Midnight in Paris
Steven Spielberg, War Horse
I know Fincher or Daldry could inch in here. I have a hard time seeing that happen. I believe Tate Taylor will go without a helmer nom. But I still see The Help as a viable option for Picture winner. The only absolute shocker I could see sneaking in is Malick. The Academy has done it before and might again in a year that seems desperate to prove American's are artists, too.
BEST ACTOR
Brad Pitt, Moneyball
George Clooney, The Descendants
Jean du Jardin, The Artist
Ryan Gosling, Drive
Michael Fassbender, Shame
I could see Leo bumping Fassbender -- though as much as I love Leo and Clint, it's simply undeserved. I could also see the Gosling nomination being for Ides, but that's ludicrous to me. Albert Brooks is a solid nom for Drive and I see that being the picture of choice for Gosling. How I wish Owen Wilson or JGL were going to make it to the dance. They shan't -- or I shall jump for joy.
BEST ACTRESS
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Viola Davis, The Help
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn
Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin
I could see Rooney Mara come in and bump someone. Frankly, I feel like that person is Glenn as no one has see Albert Nobbs. The most vulnerable may appear to be Tilda -- partially because she's foreign, in a small film, and has won before -- but I think those things play as nice strengths. The dream of dreams would be a Kristin Wiig nom. I just don't see that happening.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Albert Brooks, Drive
Kenneth Brannagh, My Week With Marilyn
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Nolte is my throwing it on the table a bit. But who else is it going to be? If Vigo carries his HFPA glory over -- and I saw and liked A Dangerous Method -- I would be surprised. If Hanks name arises here -- and there has been zero campaign -- look for Extremely to pepper the morning.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Bernice Bejo, The Artist
Shailene Woodley, The Descendants
The wobbly one here is McTeer -- I could also see Chastain flopping pictures. These five seem to have the lead but one of them will fall to Melissa McCarthy. My guess is McTeer. The other four are in films that are simply too anchored.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Midnight in Paris
Bridesmaids
50/50
Young Adult (which may mean keep an eye out for Charlize, but I doubt it)
Win, Win
I could see Win, Win -- excellent as it is -- falling to The Artist. The Weinstein's are going the whole with that film. Not having a script nomination would be a stunner. If Win, Win and The Artist are there, Young Adult may get bumped.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Moneyball
The Descendants
Hugo
War Horse
The Help
I could see Drago Tattoo getting in here, particularly if Rooney and Fincher show. But I wonder. Giving Zallian two nominations (he'd share one for Moneyball) seems tough. I have more confidence in Eric Roth landing a nomination for Extremely Loud or one of the other kid movies snagging a nod. The one to bump is War Horse. I have a hard time seeing an adapted category without Lee Hall and Richard Curtis.
We will see in 9 hours and 17 minutes.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Who from SAG noms, Critic Wins, and General Buzz may slip in...
Sneaky, sneaky...
Each year there are one or two surprise nominees who slip into major categories simply due to campaigning, screeners, or a collection of buzz. Oftentimes, these are films, performances, or technical achievements that have been lauded among critics circles but weren't able to break into the HFPA Globe noms despite their having a range of 10 to 12 of everything -- unless of course we're talking writer or director.
So who will that be this year?
Firstly, I am intrigued to see how the final push for Extremely Loud Incredibly Close plays out. In past years, the solid Daldry pics were already a part of the Awards dance. Whether it was Billy Elliot -- Daldry's most famous project that traded a Globe nomination for picture in to receive both a director nod for Daldry and a writing nod for Lee Hall. Or The Hours -- best picture and actress winner at the Globes -- that went on to snag actress out from under Zellweger despite the "all the aboard the Chicago train" vibe of 2002. And then there's The Reader which brought Kate one of her two Globes that evening -- albeit in the supporting category. One wonders how Kate came to the decision to push for a Reader nom in the lead category -- which certainly carried the picture along with it -- when she could have thrown her weight behind her Revolutionary Road victory and perhaps carried that company with the same momentum landing then-husband Sam Mendes a nom. Someone with knowledge of how this went down should please fill me in.
This year, however, Extremely Loud was Globe nom-less and is scrambling against misguided reviews and a last minute release to snag a few Oscar noms. They can roll clips where People Magazine lauds it as the finest film of the year as much as they like -- save Midnight in Paris, there are days I agree with them -- Loud needs Oscar nominations if it plans on having any theatrical life at all. Personally, I think they may well pull it off. If the noms stretch to 7 or 8, Loud may be in. Daldry seems out -- but Eric Roth may duck his head into the already competitive adapted category and there is a chance Sandra Bullock may snag a supporting nomination -- though I wonder who she'd bump considering McCarthy, Spencer, Chastain, and Bejo are locks and bumping Woodley seems impossible in a year with this much heat (can you believe it?) on The Descendants. I see this as an "all in" proposition. Either Extremely Loud makes it with at least 3 or 4 nominations or we see a mirror of the Globes -- a total lock out.
And then there's Drive. While it goes without saying that Albert Brooks will receive a supporting actor nom and also stands the best chance -- but seriously, lots of luck unless you pull a Binoche -- against Christopher Plummer, the films other chances are up in the air. It's my opinion that Gosling, as he has in the past, will grab what I call the "Sean Penn nom" the I am Sam/Sweet and Lowdown "you don't have a chance in hell, but that was one heck of a performance" nomination. He's done it before with each of his previous nominations and after a year where he also starred in Ides of March and the highly underrated Crazy Stupid Love, a Gosling omission would be a shocker. Considering duJadin, Clooney, Pitt, are absolute locks one wonders who gets bumped. Leo is, after all, Leo, but has anyone heard another person talk about how great J. Edgar or Leo's performance is? At least Fassbender's hard to like Shame sports a great performance though the film as a whole is difficult to embrace -- I enjoyed it, but I certainly can see why many wouldn't.
Warrior is a remarkably "under the radar" pic this year. Personally, the drama between Warrior's Conlon brothers is far more intriguing than any aspect of The Fighter's Ward bros. There is a production level question to Gavin O'Connor's film that gives it more of a "made for cable" feel than David O. Russel's stylized and very nominated Fighter -- but the performances leave no question. Tom Hardy's shot at a nomination starts with this role -- which will go without one. But after Rock N' Rolla, Dark Knight, Inception, The Take (TV -- but something you all need to Netflix stream STAT), Tinker Tailor, and the upcoming Knight Rises, Hardy has established himself as a player. Warrior makes him a lead. Once we pass This Means War, where Hardy's acting accolade arrives will be the next question. This year, it seems the only shot Warrior has is a repeat of the SAG nom for Mr. Nick Nolte. Nolte's nominated films come in spurts. Sometimes he's included -- Affliction, Prince of Tides -- sometimes he's not -- Cape Fear, Lorezo's Oil. It could well be that Nolte has since launched himself into a shaky realm where each performance seems a comeback and this time around he gets the lone nom for a fine film.
Martha Marcy May Marlene may be relegated to the Independent Spirit world. But is it possible the world hasn't forgotten Elizabeth Olsen's star turn and she Whale Riders herself right into the top five ladies? Woodley may well be this year's Hailee Steinfeld, meaning the Academy might think it's already satisfied patting an ingenue on the back -- especially when the still quite young Michelle Williams has a genuine shot at taking it all. But the early buzz on Olsen was so extreme it's possible it hasn't worn off. In a category that will include Williams, Streep, Davis, Close -- it may be too much for Olsen to overcome Tilda or Rooney. In fact, those last two ladies may well both show up and knock out Glenn.
The directing category is one to keep in mind until Monday night when I'll do my final predictions for Tuesday morning's announcement. Scorsese - in. Allen - in. Hazanavicius - in. Payne - in. Then there's a battle between Spielberg, Fincher, Daldry, and quite possibly Bennett Miller (who deserves more recognition than he's getting, but let's be frank -- not going to happen). Could be two of these wild cards jump in and my dear sweet Wood man gets knocked. Though The Artists has so much tied up and a great deal of DreamWorks effort behind The Help -- this doesn't mean a director push for Tate Taylor. Daldry is balls to the wall with Loud and Fincher may well be looked upon as the man who was screwed last year -- whether Dragon Tattoo snags anything in the upper categories beyond an adapted screenplay nom remains to be seen.
And this is where this entry borders upon the "who's actually going to get it" realm, leaving behind the sneaky sneaks. Thus, the rest of the Hollywood shuffle shall have to wait until Monday night.
Each year there are one or two surprise nominees who slip into major categories simply due to campaigning, screeners, or a collection of buzz. Oftentimes, these are films, performances, or technical achievements that have been lauded among critics circles but weren't able to break into the HFPA Globe noms despite their having a range of 10 to 12 of everything -- unless of course we're talking writer or director.
So who will that be this year?
Firstly, I am intrigued to see how the final push for Extremely Loud Incredibly Close plays out. In past years, the solid Daldry pics were already a part of the Awards dance. Whether it was Billy Elliot -- Daldry's most famous project that traded a Globe nomination for picture in to receive both a director nod for Daldry and a writing nod for Lee Hall. Or The Hours -- best picture and actress winner at the Globes -- that went on to snag actress out from under Zellweger despite the "all the aboard the Chicago train" vibe of 2002. And then there's The Reader which brought Kate one of her two Globes that evening -- albeit in the supporting category. One wonders how Kate came to the decision to push for a Reader nom in the lead category -- which certainly carried the picture along with it -- when she could have thrown her weight behind her Revolutionary Road victory and perhaps carried that company with the same momentum landing then-husband Sam Mendes a nom. Someone with knowledge of how this went down should please fill me in.
This year, however, Extremely Loud was Globe nom-less and is scrambling against misguided reviews and a last minute release to snag a few Oscar noms. They can roll clips where People Magazine lauds it as the finest film of the year as much as they like -- save Midnight in Paris, there are days I agree with them -- Loud needs Oscar nominations if it plans on having any theatrical life at all. Personally, I think they may well pull it off. If the noms stretch to 7 or 8, Loud may be in. Daldry seems out -- but Eric Roth may duck his head into the already competitive adapted category and there is a chance Sandra Bullock may snag a supporting nomination -- though I wonder who she'd bump considering McCarthy, Spencer, Chastain, and Bejo are locks and bumping Woodley seems impossible in a year with this much heat (can you believe it?) on The Descendants. I see this as an "all in" proposition. Either Extremely Loud makes it with at least 3 or 4 nominations or we see a mirror of the Globes -- a total lock out.
And then there's Drive. While it goes without saying that Albert Brooks will receive a supporting actor nom and also stands the best chance -- but seriously, lots of luck unless you pull a Binoche -- against Christopher Plummer, the films other chances are up in the air. It's my opinion that Gosling, as he has in the past, will grab what I call the "Sean Penn nom" the I am Sam/Sweet and Lowdown "you don't have a chance in hell, but that was one heck of a performance" nomination. He's done it before with each of his previous nominations and after a year where he also starred in Ides of March and the highly underrated Crazy Stupid Love, a Gosling omission would be a shocker. Considering duJadin, Clooney, Pitt, are absolute locks one wonders who gets bumped. Leo is, after all, Leo, but has anyone heard another person talk about how great J. Edgar or Leo's performance is? At least Fassbender's hard to like Shame sports a great performance though the film as a whole is difficult to embrace -- I enjoyed it, but I certainly can see why many wouldn't.
Warrior is a remarkably "under the radar" pic this year. Personally, the drama between Warrior's Conlon brothers is far more intriguing than any aspect of The Fighter's Ward bros. There is a production level question to Gavin O'Connor's film that gives it more of a "made for cable" feel than David O. Russel's stylized and very nominated Fighter -- but the performances leave no question. Tom Hardy's shot at a nomination starts with this role -- which will go without one. But after Rock N' Rolla, Dark Knight, Inception, The Take (TV -- but something you all need to Netflix stream STAT), Tinker Tailor, and the upcoming Knight Rises, Hardy has established himself as a player. Warrior makes him a lead. Once we pass This Means War, where Hardy's acting accolade arrives will be the next question. This year, it seems the only shot Warrior has is a repeat of the SAG nom for Mr. Nick Nolte. Nolte's nominated films come in spurts. Sometimes he's included -- Affliction, Prince of Tides -- sometimes he's not -- Cape Fear, Lorezo's Oil. It could well be that Nolte has since launched himself into a shaky realm where each performance seems a comeback and this time around he gets the lone nom for a fine film.
Martha Marcy May Marlene may be relegated to the Independent Spirit world. But is it possible the world hasn't forgotten Elizabeth Olsen's star turn and she Whale Riders herself right into the top five ladies? Woodley may well be this year's Hailee Steinfeld, meaning the Academy might think it's already satisfied patting an ingenue on the back -- especially when the still quite young Michelle Williams has a genuine shot at taking it all. But the early buzz on Olsen was so extreme it's possible it hasn't worn off. In a category that will include Williams, Streep, Davis, Close -- it may be too much for Olsen to overcome Tilda or Rooney. In fact, those last two ladies may well both show up and knock out Glenn.
The directing category is one to keep in mind until Monday night when I'll do my final predictions for Tuesday morning's announcement. Scorsese - in. Allen - in. Hazanavicius - in. Payne - in. Then there's a battle between Spielberg, Fincher, Daldry, and quite possibly Bennett Miller (who deserves more recognition than he's getting, but let's be frank -- not going to happen). Could be two of these wild cards jump in and my dear sweet Wood man gets knocked. Though The Artists has so much tied up and a great deal of DreamWorks effort behind The Help -- this doesn't mean a director push for Tate Taylor. Daldry is balls to the wall with Loud and Fincher may well be looked upon as the man who was screwed last year -- whether Dragon Tattoo snags anything in the upper categories beyond an adapted screenplay nom remains to be seen.
And this is where this entry borders upon the "who's actually going to get it" realm, leaving behind the sneaky sneaks. Thus, the rest of the Hollywood shuffle shall have to wait until Monday night.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Globes Wrap-Up and What It Bodes for Oscar...
The headline for the Golden Globes -- that NBC set themselves up for, given the fact that the peacock put all its money on Ricky Gervais, rather than the star studded crowd -- is that Ricky was tepid at best. Last year's telecast was a piece of overblown controversy that seemed scandalous if only because the audience (in the Beverly Hilton, that is -- the nominees and other celebs) was either more drunk or simply more boisterous. Last year people at the various tables actually made noises. Last night it was as if they were all on mute or were forbidden to clap. The prep-school boy in me wonders if Hollywood actually pulled together to remain silent and let Ricky flop (and it wasn't a flop, it just wasn't a "10" when NBC and Gervias himself were promising nothing short of a "15"). But this would require the most impossible of things: getting liberals to agree and act.
I can't simply ignore the television winners...
There were a few moments in the evening that were pure HFPA. Perhaps the Laura Dern and Matt LeBlanc victories demonstrate this most clearly. "Enlightened" and "Episodes" are both solid shows -- as are Dern and LeBlanc as performers. But here was a moment where the HFPA decided to go off the radar and declare to winners of their own. It's doubtful either will be winning too many more trophies throughout the year. Yet, this is often refreshing -- as it was with Claire Danes first Globe for "My So-Called," Kerri Russel's victory for "Felicity," "Party of Five" and "Nip/Tuck" winning best series -- and the lovely year where "Twin Peaks" nearly swept. These victors would see no such level of success come Emmy time.
Otherwise the winners were just. Danes and "Homeland" were to be expected. As were "Downton Abbey," "Modern Family," Kate Winslet, Peter Dinklage, Kelsey Grammer, and the "could it have possibly been anyone else?" win for Jessica Lange. I've not seen "Luther" but I shall certainly give it a view now that won lead actor for a mini-series or television movie. If you're going to beat Hugh Bonneville, then I must investigate.
And then there was film...
I'm a notoriously lousy shot when it comes to picking Golden Globe winners. Last night I handed over and voted with my heart during our little Golden Globe Fete and consequently REALLY lost. But there were some telling moments last night, as well as some genuine surprises. The question is how this will all shake out come Oscar time. The categories will combine, new-comers will arrive at the races (I'll devote an entire entry to this topic alone) and the victors needn't remain the same.
Michelle Williams bests Kristen Wiig
The issue here is that My Week with Marilyn is neither a musical nor a comedy. If it's a comedy, so is Descendants and The Help. If it's a musical, so is Shame! Marilyn was nothing short of a true drama. I have no problem with Michelle Williams winning. Truth be told, I thought her performance was the best actress performance of the year. Period. It's the categorization so Harvey's ladies can double-down that I find irksome. There have been probably ten nominatable performances this year on the women's side. Williams' win last night might have killed Wiig's chance at anything beyond a writing nomination. Some may have considered this an impossibility, but a win last night could have proven otherwise. I'll keep my fingers crossed with KW next Tuesday morning.
Jean DuJardin - The man to beat?
In a year that looked as if Clooney and Pitt would be duking it out for best actor come Oscar time. It seems there's a third dog in the fight -- a charming one that can dance. Roberto Benigni is the constant comparison for DuJardin -- but this is false. Benigni was at the dance as a writer, director, actor, producer. He was the Italian equivalent of Warren Beatty or Laurence Olivier. His victory had far more to do with the film achievement than it had to do his acting prowess. With DuJardin it's quite the other way -- this is a true award for acting and charm. Like the Williams win, I wonder if DuJardin's predictable success at the Globes locks out the other, worthy comedians: Owen Wilson and Joseph Gordon Levitt most notably. 50/50 will have it's script nomination. Midnight in Paris will have that and more. But will their lead males make it to the game? My suspicion is a maximum of one. I'd be surprised if it weren't Wilson. My apologies to JGL -- and those of you that know me, know how much it pains me to deny that dapper chap anything.
Are Clooney and Pitt out? (While I'm at it, I may as well discuss The Descendants.)
The tit for tat nominations of Ides by Pitt and Moneyball by Clooney with Pitt's cane was one of the kinder, loftier moments of the night. Second only -- it seems -- to Michelle Williams' speech. When Clooney won and immediately pointed out his affection and respect for Pitt -- well, it was world class. However, does topping Pitt mean that Brad stands no chance at the Oscars, that it's Clooney vs. DuJardin and that the Frenchman takes all?
My gut says yes. Mon dieux! Cursed Malcolm Gladwell and his Blink decisions.
However, there is a political structure to these things. If Hollywood drops into self-preservation mode, they can easily side-step a DuJardin win and toss the statue to Clooney or Pitt. Clooney has an Oscar. Folks, from time to time, like to bring up the lunacy that it's "only" for supporting -- as if winning best supporting actor is a piece of cake -- when it time and again proves the most difficult category when it's not saluting someone's lifetime achievement. But is the Academy simply going to hand George a statue every time he makes two movies?
By that logic, does Pitt not win? He made two films this year and has never won. At some point, he will have to awarded. He could have had a statue for The Departed if we were operating by today's rules about the amount of producers permitted to win. Babel and Benjamin Button were not Brad's time. Had he even earned a supporting nom for Inglorious Basterds (and it should have been categorized as supporting) odds are Waltz would still have won. This year gives the Academy the chance not only to award Pitt for a solid performance in a great film -- it gives the Academy the chance to highlight what a great film Moneyball is with one statuette. Adapted Screenplay may be within reach but Pitt would be a true coup.
George, George, George... Everyone is a fan and his success seems never-ending. There are blips along the road -- but then he comes back with the one-two-punch of Ides of March and The Descendants and he's right back on top. Much like last year with The Fighter, I seem to be in the vast minority when it comes to The Descendants. As an endless admirer of Alexander Payne, I'm truly surprised by the extent to which this particular film is being lauded. It was missing a component for me.
And yet -- it took Picture! I'd be stunned if it repeated this success. This seems far more Scent of a Woman, The Hours, Atonement to me. "Enjoy your trophy -- for a month." In so many words. Let's not belittle Alexander Payne's win. He's a great film maker and an amazing writer. But all last night's win demonstrated was that the drama nominees may well be out of the race.
Is supporting all tied up?
Looks like it is. Waltz and Monique had it tied up. As did Leo and Bale. Looks like Plummer and Spencer have it nailed down. Christopher Plummer's victory is a life-time coming and he entered the year an odds on favorite before Beginners was even released. Considering Captain von Trapp has never won, now's the time to Coburn him up.
Octavia Spencer is no surprise. Melissa McCarthy would have been amazing. Jessica Chastain has had a remarkable year. But for so many people, The Help's best maid is Octavia -- a long time actress, slugging it out in supporting roles for years. If anyone were to overtake her for the Oscar it would be a true shock.
Woody and Marty --
I will keep my remarks about screenplay and director to a minimum as I want to jinx nothing. They will both be obvious nominees -- Woody more than likely a double nom as writer and director -- Marty a double nom as director and best documentary feature.
I'll say no more.
Meryl...
Saying that Meryl Streep won the Golden Globe for Iron Lady comes as no surprise -- except that the award seemed Viola Davis'. Not only did it seem this way to a young blogger who looks a helluva lot like Matthew J. McCue -- it sure as hell seemed that way to Meryl herself.
I would love to see Viola win the Oscar as she is a remarkable performer who anchors The Help in true emotionality that reins it in from being an outright comedy and keeps it as genuine as possible. Since her turn in Doubt -- opposite the Meryl -- her Oscar time seemed fast coming. It may swing itself around in the upcoming month. I'm still waiting to see what Oscar does with The Help. I doubt Octavia will be the only one headed home with a statue.
But why chastise Meryl for winning? The truth is Meryl hasn't won an Academy Award since 1982's Sophie's Choice. Yes, she is always nominated. But the cry of woe from so many movie and award fans is that she always wins. On the contrary, she nearly always loses. She had a crack at it for Adaptation and Julie and Julia. Perhaps Iron Lady is the ticket for Oscar number three. The Academy may be weary of continually awarding people for playing Brits (whether or not they are actual Brits themselves). But the amount of winners who have either been British or playing a member of British royalty or politics far exceeds turns as Americans of any import. Whether this counts against Meryl -- and which horse Harvey chooses to back -- given that both Marilyn and Iron Lady are his -- will be the decider.
Spielberg...
Of course the Globes gave Mr. Spielberg the award for best animated feature. They weren't going to let him go home empty-handed and The Adventures of Tintin is a great film -- particularly when you consider that this is the Hollywood Foreign Press handing out the accolade. But in a year of two films -- one of which is the remarkable War Horse one wonders whether it's a lock out for Steven.
Concluding...
I'm hoping, as I do each year, that there is a significant shake-up between the Globe nominations and the Oscar nominations -- but one rarely sees more than one surprise. Furthermore, that surprise is rarely something that isn't already buzzing around in the air somewhere between the Globe nom announcement and this brief bit of lag time before the Oscar nominations.
So much of what we saw last night is a lock. The Artist may well have it tied down. Whether they can wrangle actor, director, score, or supporting actress -- considering most best pictures have at least 4 -- usually more like 6 -- Oscars in total -- is another story.
Here's hoping things get and stay more exciting than last night's broadcast.
I can't simply ignore the television winners...
There were a few moments in the evening that were pure HFPA. Perhaps the Laura Dern and Matt LeBlanc victories demonstrate this most clearly. "Enlightened" and "Episodes" are both solid shows -- as are Dern and LeBlanc as performers. But here was a moment where the HFPA decided to go off the radar and declare to winners of their own. It's doubtful either will be winning too many more trophies throughout the year. Yet, this is often refreshing -- as it was with Claire Danes first Globe for "My So-Called," Kerri Russel's victory for "Felicity," "Party of Five" and "Nip/Tuck" winning best series -- and the lovely year where "Twin Peaks" nearly swept. These victors would see no such level of success come Emmy time.
Otherwise the winners were just. Danes and "Homeland" were to be expected. As were "Downton Abbey," "Modern Family," Kate Winslet, Peter Dinklage, Kelsey Grammer, and the "could it have possibly been anyone else?" win for Jessica Lange. I've not seen "Luther" but I shall certainly give it a view now that won lead actor for a mini-series or television movie. If you're going to beat Hugh Bonneville, then I must investigate.
And then there was film...
I'm a notoriously lousy shot when it comes to picking Golden Globe winners. Last night I handed over and voted with my heart during our little Golden Globe Fete and consequently REALLY lost. But there were some telling moments last night, as well as some genuine surprises. The question is how this will all shake out come Oscar time. The categories will combine, new-comers will arrive at the races (I'll devote an entire entry to this topic alone) and the victors needn't remain the same.
Michelle Williams bests Kristen Wiig
The issue here is that My Week with Marilyn is neither a musical nor a comedy. If it's a comedy, so is Descendants and The Help. If it's a musical, so is Shame! Marilyn was nothing short of a true drama. I have no problem with Michelle Williams winning. Truth be told, I thought her performance was the best actress performance of the year. Period. It's the categorization so Harvey's ladies can double-down that I find irksome. There have been probably ten nominatable performances this year on the women's side. Williams' win last night might have killed Wiig's chance at anything beyond a writing nomination. Some may have considered this an impossibility, but a win last night could have proven otherwise. I'll keep my fingers crossed with KW next Tuesday morning.
Jean DuJardin - The man to beat?
In a year that looked as if Clooney and Pitt would be duking it out for best actor come Oscar time. It seems there's a third dog in the fight -- a charming one that can dance. Roberto Benigni is the constant comparison for DuJardin -- but this is false. Benigni was at the dance as a writer, director, actor, producer. He was the Italian equivalent of Warren Beatty or Laurence Olivier. His victory had far more to do with the film achievement than it had to do his acting prowess. With DuJardin it's quite the other way -- this is a true award for acting and charm. Like the Williams win, I wonder if DuJardin's predictable success at the Globes locks out the other, worthy comedians: Owen Wilson and Joseph Gordon Levitt most notably. 50/50 will have it's script nomination. Midnight in Paris will have that and more. But will their lead males make it to the game? My suspicion is a maximum of one. I'd be surprised if it weren't Wilson. My apologies to JGL -- and those of you that know me, know how much it pains me to deny that dapper chap anything.
Are Clooney and Pitt out? (While I'm at it, I may as well discuss The Descendants.)
The tit for tat nominations of Ides by Pitt and Moneyball by Clooney with Pitt's cane was one of the kinder, loftier moments of the night. Second only -- it seems -- to Michelle Williams' speech. When Clooney won and immediately pointed out his affection and respect for Pitt -- well, it was world class. However, does topping Pitt mean that Brad stands no chance at the Oscars, that it's Clooney vs. DuJardin and that the Frenchman takes all?
My gut says yes. Mon dieux! Cursed Malcolm Gladwell and his Blink decisions.
However, there is a political structure to these things. If Hollywood drops into self-preservation mode, they can easily side-step a DuJardin win and toss the statue to Clooney or Pitt. Clooney has an Oscar. Folks, from time to time, like to bring up the lunacy that it's "only" for supporting -- as if winning best supporting actor is a piece of cake -- when it time and again proves the most difficult category when it's not saluting someone's lifetime achievement. But is the Academy simply going to hand George a statue every time he makes two movies?
By that logic, does Pitt not win? He made two films this year and has never won. At some point, he will have to awarded. He could have had a statue for The Departed if we were operating by today's rules about the amount of producers permitted to win. Babel and Benjamin Button were not Brad's time. Had he even earned a supporting nom for Inglorious Basterds (and it should have been categorized as supporting) odds are Waltz would still have won. This year gives the Academy the chance not only to award Pitt for a solid performance in a great film -- it gives the Academy the chance to highlight what a great film Moneyball is with one statuette. Adapted Screenplay may be within reach but Pitt would be a true coup.
George, George, George... Everyone is a fan and his success seems never-ending. There are blips along the road -- but then he comes back with the one-two-punch of Ides of March and The Descendants and he's right back on top. Much like last year with The Fighter, I seem to be in the vast minority when it comes to The Descendants. As an endless admirer of Alexander Payne, I'm truly surprised by the extent to which this particular film is being lauded. It was missing a component for me.
And yet -- it took Picture! I'd be stunned if it repeated this success. This seems far more Scent of a Woman, The Hours, Atonement to me. "Enjoy your trophy -- for a month." In so many words. Let's not belittle Alexander Payne's win. He's a great film maker and an amazing writer. But all last night's win demonstrated was that the drama nominees may well be out of the race.
Is supporting all tied up?
Looks like it is. Waltz and Monique had it tied up. As did Leo and Bale. Looks like Plummer and Spencer have it nailed down. Christopher Plummer's victory is a life-time coming and he entered the year an odds on favorite before Beginners was even released. Considering Captain von Trapp has never won, now's the time to Coburn him up.
Octavia Spencer is no surprise. Melissa McCarthy would have been amazing. Jessica Chastain has had a remarkable year. But for so many people, The Help's best maid is Octavia -- a long time actress, slugging it out in supporting roles for years. If anyone were to overtake her for the Oscar it would be a true shock.
Woody and Marty --
I will keep my remarks about screenplay and director to a minimum as I want to jinx nothing. They will both be obvious nominees -- Woody more than likely a double nom as writer and director -- Marty a double nom as director and best documentary feature.
I'll say no more.
Meryl...
Saying that Meryl Streep won the Golden Globe for Iron Lady comes as no surprise -- except that the award seemed Viola Davis'. Not only did it seem this way to a young blogger who looks a helluva lot like Matthew J. McCue -- it sure as hell seemed that way to Meryl herself.
I would love to see Viola win the Oscar as she is a remarkable performer who anchors The Help in true emotionality that reins it in from being an outright comedy and keeps it as genuine as possible. Since her turn in Doubt -- opposite the Meryl -- her Oscar time seemed fast coming. It may swing itself around in the upcoming month. I'm still waiting to see what Oscar does with The Help. I doubt Octavia will be the only one headed home with a statue.
But why chastise Meryl for winning? The truth is Meryl hasn't won an Academy Award since 1982's Sophie's Choice. Yes, she is always nominated. But the cry of woe from so many movie and award fans is that she always wins. On the contrary, she nearly always loses. She had a crack at it for Adaptation and Julie and Julia. Perhaps Iron Lady is the ticket for Oscar number three. The Academy may be weary of continually awarding people for playing Brits (whether or not they are actual Brits themselves). But the amount of winners who have either been British or playing a member of British royalty or politics far exceeds turns as Americans of any import. Whether this counts against Meryl -- and which horse Harvey chooses to back -- given that both Marilyn and Iron Lady are his -- will be the decider.
Spielberg...
Of course the Globes gave Mr. Spielberg the award for best animated feature. They weren't going to let him go home empty-handed and The Adventures of Tintin is a great film -- particularly when you consider that this is the Hollywood Foreign Press handing out the accolade. But in a year of two films -- one of which is the remarkable War Horse one wonders whether it's a lock out for Steven.
Concluding...
I'm hoping, as I do each year, that there is a significant shake-up between the Globe nominations and the Oscar nominations -- but one rarely sees more than one surprise. Furthermore, that surprise is rarely something that isn't already buzzing around in the air somewhere between the Globe nom announcement and this brief bit of lag time before the Oscar nominations.
So much of what we saw last night is a lock. The Artist may well have it tied down. Whether they can wrangle actor, director, score, or supporting actress -- considering most best pictures have at least 4 -- usually more like 6 -- Oscars in total -- is another story.
Here's hoping things get and stay more exciting than last night's broadcast.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
My 12 of '11
For the lion share of this year, it seemed that films were going to be predominantly mediocre. I've not taken the time -- and I doubt you will -- to go back and look over my reaction to the films from 2010, but this year kept giving the sneaking suspicion that it was going to be a bit "lackluster." I highlight that word simply because I known I've thrown it around regularly as I went to the cinema this year. But, as luck would have it, the yuletide award contender dumping ground evened it all out.
This was certainly not a Silence of the Lambs, Gladiator, The Kids Are All Right, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump kinda year. Lambs was out before the Oscar telecast for the previous year's films -- still holding the crown as the first best picture to be on video when it one. Gladiator was a May-ish tentpole film that withstood two Soderbergh's to sally on to victory. Ryan was out in July as was Gump which happened -- if memory serves -- on July 6, 1994. Then there's The Kids Are All Right which gave m'lady Annette the front-run slot on actress all the way up until Natalie's nail-clipper of a swan turn. This year -- not so much.
There were no front-runners popping their heads out in spring leaving the field entirely devoid of buzz until my favorite film of the year was released this summer. Thus, let the list begin. My favorite film and the eleven that follow -- in no particular order -- addressed in brief before their more lengthy coverage once we jump Sunday's HFPA hurdle.
McCue's Best Picture of the Year
Midnight in Paris
There have been those who have knocked Paris as Woody Allen-lite, claiming that it is the best of his latest films. I'm not one who reads reviews -- certainly not before I see them -- but buzz is unavoidable. Truth be told, these very same critics were calling Melinda and Melinda the best Woody Allen of the latest films. If that is going to be the case, it seems folks should be giving credit where credit is due.
Not only was this simply one of Woody's best movies -- it just is -- it demonstrated a true heir apparent to the neurotic leads formerly played by Allen himself. Owen Wilson could not have been more pitch perfect as Gill Pender, the hack screenwriter hoping to make the transition to "Great American" novelist. The hopeful eyes as the clock strikes twelve, the classic auto pulls up, and Wilson's Pender is thrust back into 1920's Paris among the moveable feast of artists Woody Allen has hailed his entire career.
It's a delightfully charming, lush romance that does for Paris what Woody Allen has done time and again for Manhattan. I've written it up before -- I shall again -- but let it simply be said that this was hands down my favorite film -- not simply out of sentimentality, but because it is masterfully written, directed, acted, and photographed.
The Eleven of Eleven in no particular order...
50/50
My love for Joseph Gordon Levitt not only knows no bounds -- but it is repeatedly confirmed by each new venture the lad undertakes. Whether it's Hesher (which was great) or a cover of "What Are You Doing New Year's Eve?" with Zooey Deschanel, JGL continues to win hearts. I am so happy to see Will Reiser's screenplay popping up as a nominee throughout the award season. The balance of comedy, reality, romance, and bromance made 50/50 an absolute treat.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Stephen Daldry's four films have each proven him to be one of the best directors working in film. Though he may remain most famous for Billy Elliot - duh - his continued expertise at adapting modern literature places him in a perch all his own. The Hours and then The Reader were each heart-wrenching masterworks each of which earned best picture nominations and delivered their female leads best actress Oscars. And now Daldry tackles Jonathan Safran Foer's 9/11 novel. This film has received all sorts of off-base criticism -- particularly the remarks directed at young Thomas Horn, who is carrying a film with the likes of Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, and Max Von Sydow. To label his character precocious or unlikable is to demonstrate one's absolute inexperience with complicated children with special needs. How on earth is a child who can barely process an average day supposed to process that horrid Tuesday? Say what you will, I call Daldry at 4 for 4.
Moneyball
Yes, this may well be Brad Pitt's Oscar. He's been waiting since his Globe victory in '95 for Twelve Monkeys -- the Oscar then going to Spacey for The Usual Suspects. Whether or not Brad wins it will go down as one his best performances. Furthermore, his pairing with Jonah Hill could not have been more perfectly calibrated. Hill should earn an Oscar nomination for his supporting role, making the "Freaks and Geeks" attendees at Kodak far more triumphant than Mr. Franco's co-hosting turn last year. The only criticism people seem to have for Mr. Pitt is that there is nothing particularly thrilling about his work. I will get into this as I discuss the acting category further. However, I think this is a ludicrous statement whose argument only becomes more foggy and shaky as people attempt to elucidate. We can't simply award those performances where characters are suffering some absolute horror or enduring a decade long struggle. The subtle moments of Bennett Miller's Moneyball is what makes it expert. Zallian and Sorkin hammering out dynamite dialogue and some of the best "process film" sequences in a sports film ain't too shabby either -- one wonders if they can be bested for adapted except for the fact that both men have already won, Sorkin only last year. To keep a back office movie about changing the style of recruiting as grounded in America's pastime as any other baseball flick with the exception of The Natural is a true achievement. Whether it will sneak it's way into the big dance rests on how many writers and actors vote Moneyball staight down the ballot.
The Whistleblower
Though I do have a connection to the writers, director, producer, and script supervisor of this thriller, you must understand my absolute pleasure at having seen what an incredible movie The Whistleblower turned out to be. Centered on the true story of an American woman who risked her life to draw attention to human sex trafficking and the many prestigious international agencies complicit in the kidnap, rape, and murder of countless women, The Whistleblower's strength is in its pace, momentum, and relentless performances led by Oscar winner Rachel Weisz, Vanessa Redgrave, and David Strathairn. The brilliance of The Whistleblower is that it tackles an enormous ongoing international human rights tragedy but does so in a way that is neither dour nor melodramatic. Watching The Whistleblower is far more akin to sitting down to a classic Alan J. Pakula or Sydney Pollack thriller. Larysa Kondracki and Eilis Kirwan have created a picture that brings All the President's Men, The Parallax View, The Firm to mind when a ringing phone, a shadow, and duplicitous characters prove as shocking as the inhuman crimes. The Whistleblower is not to be missed.
Hugo
I knew nothing of The Invention of Hugo Cabret except that my brilliant and remarkably well-read niece considered it one of the best books she'd ever read. Upon my insistence, she didn't share a shred of the story -- much as she begged to let me in on details right up until the lights dimmed and we donned our 3D glasses. As a man who was once not the greatest Martin Scorsese fan considering his inclination for excessive violence and unlikable characters -- or what my friends from film school would call "real situations" -- I was stunned to see him create a film with such heart. The child performers and the magnificent Ben Kingsley turn Hugo into the picture that may well bring Marty his second best director Oscar.
Win Win
The little wrestling film that could may be the only Oscar front-runner to escape my earlier criticism of a year that got off to a late start. (Though Win Win seems to have only briefly held front-runner status as an original screenplay contender. Keep in mind, original screenplay is perhaps the best award of the night.) Released in springtime, Win Win has the feel of a true "Indie of the '90s" -- a tiny New Jersey story that captures a moment in American history and the surrogate family that flourishes around a high school wrestling star. Each performance was excellent and yet again Tom McCarthy has created a fantastic small film with great resonance, comedy, and heart. Where would this year's supporting performances be without Bobby Cannavale?
War Horse
Few things were more shocking to me this year than when Steven Spielberg was omitted from the Directors Guild nominations. Clearly, people have not seen War Horse or have brought their undue Spielberg distaste to yet another great piece of film making. The notion that there is a corny quality to Spielberg's films is more popular than it is grounded in fact. War Horse -- were it not for my personal favorite Midnight in Paris -- is the best film of the year. Once again Steven Spielberg has tackled war with heart. The cry for peace in Spielberg's films from Munich onward is approached from a more youthful angle but pits characters and actors from England, Germany, and France in a World War I film where they bond over a horse rather than allowing their human differences to drive them apart. Ultimately, Spielberg shows that soldiers have more in common with one another than the super powers that thrust them into war. From the world's most successful film maker, that's quite a statement.
The Help
I saw The Help in a theater where I was the only other male and my counterpart groaned the entire time. I'm certain he and his wife have a lovely, even-keeled marriage. I, on the other hand, found it to be the film you wish you could dismiss but is simply too good to write off. In the end -- particularly if you give it a second view -- The Help proves one of the year's best. Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Emma Stone, Jessica Chastain, Bryce Dallas Howard, Sissy Spacek, and Allison Janney are one of the best female casts assembled in years -- don't worry, I haven't gotten to Bridesmaids yet. But what struck me about this particular collection of females was that they weren't this femme team slogging it through a world of man-trouble as is so often the case. Here were two sets of women filling out a spectrum of opinions about segregation. There's a gloss that certainly prevents this film from being an accurate depiction of life in the Deep South for any of the characters -- which is why I feel it should be in the Globes' comedy category. However, there's still something remarkable about the heart in this little film. Crazy as I may sound -- said it before, will again -- I wonder if it's the won to beat come Oscar time.
The Artist
Given the Weinstein muscle that's going to slide behind this sucker and push it to King's Speech/Shakespeare in Love levels, I wonder how much needs to be said about The Artist. Perhaps the most important thing to say -- before I address each contender in depth during the lovely weeks between the Globes and the Oscars is that the hype is true. There's a lyrical romance and a brilliance of performance in The Artist that prove cinema's power is vision and story. Dialogue has always been a secondary component and remains so -- as Hugo, War Horse, Martha Marcy, and so many other of this year's great pictures continue to prove. All that remains for this excellent little film is the question of whether it could and whether it should take it all. Frankly, it seems like it's coming in hot for Sunday's Globes (Come on, Woody!) -- but this may well be the year where there's a Weinstein reversal. Have they pushed too soon with each of their contenders?
Bridesmaids
I've yet to meet a person who didn't love Bridesmaids. There are men who think they wouldn't like it. They are, of course, wrong. Though just a little too long -- and seemingly because director Paul Feig decided to let each comedy bit run to its very last breath -- Bridesmaids sidesteps the pitfall of so many Apatow productions. And I say this an a devout worshipper of all things Judd Apatow. He is operating on a level that is outrageous, not only bringing the entire cast of his cult television series to significant Hollywood fame where nearly each has had a crack at championing his or her own pet project -- but also redefining the parameters of the American comedy. It's within that redefining things often go awry. There's a quest for too much heart that can occasionally drag his pictures down -- or at least grind them to a 15 to 20 minute halt. Such is not he case with Bridesmaids. All comedies -- particularly buddy comedies and romantic comedies -- Bridesmaids is both -- hit a dire moment where characters are required to redeem themselves -- generally through an apology. Wiig and Mumolo penned a script that got through that hurdle as quickly as possible. Though there is a deep trough for Annie, it doesn't mean the comedy stops. In the end, the moments where we're not laughing seem brief. Bridesmaids is a triumph.
Martha Marcy May Marlene
I had no clue what I was getting myself into when I watched Martha Marcy May Marlene and I am going to give each of you that same gift. I will ruin nothing -- until I do more complete write-ups between the award presentations. This micro-budget psycho-thriller was one of the most tense films I've endured in years. It's silent and still moments are far more terrifying than any scream, violence, or chase sequence. The way the film makers imbued the world of MMMM with the psychology of it's main character -- a tour de force from Elizabeth Olsen (yes, that Olsen) -- trapped the viewer in her consciousness and made us equally paranoid, lost, and fearful. Great work that will be an influence on a generation of film makers.
Well that's my twelve, folks. Sorry it's a day late. I'll chime in with some more direct Globe related info tomorrow.
This was certainly not a Silence of the Lambs, Gladiator, The Kids Are All Right, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump kinda year. Lambs was out before the Oscar telecast for the previous year's films -- still holding the crown as the first best picture to be on video when it one. Gladiator was a May-ish tentpole film that withstood two Soderbergh's to sally on to victory. Ryan was out in July as was Gump which happened -- if memory serves -- on July 6, 1994. Then there's The Kids Are All Right which gave m'lady Annette the front-run slot on actress all the way up until Natalie's nail-clipper of a swan turn. This year -- not so much.
There were no front-runners popping their heads out in spring leaving the field entirely devoid of buzz until my favorite film of the year was released this summer. Thus, let the list begin. My favorite film and the eleven that follow -- in no particular order -- addressed in brief before their more lengthy coverage once we jump Sunday's HFPA hurdle.
McCue's Best Picture of the Year
Midnight in Paris
There have been those who have knocked Paris as Woody Allen-lite, claiming that it is the best of his latest films. I'm not one who reads reviews -- certainly not before I see them -- but buzz is unavoidable. Truth be told, these very same critics were calling Melinda and Melinda the best Woody Allen of the latest films. If that is going to be the case, it seems folks should be giving credit where credit is due.
Not only was this simply one of Woody's best movies -- it just is -- it demonstrated a true heir apparent to the neurotic leads formerly played by Allen himself. Owen Wilson could not have been more pitch perfect as Gill Pender, the hack screenwriter hoping to make the transition to "Great American" novelist. The hopeful eyes as the clock strikes twelve, the classic auto pulls up, and Wilson's Pender is thrust back into 1920's Paris among the moveable feast of artists Woody Allen has hailed his entire career.
It's a delightfully charming, lush romance that does for Paris what Woody Allen has done time and again for Manhattan. I've written it up before -- I shall again -- but let it simply be said that this was hands down my favorite film -- not simply out of sentimentality, but because it is masterfully written, directed, acted, and photographed.
The Eleven of Eleven in no particular order...
50/50
My love for Joseph Gordon Levitt not only knows no bounds -- but it is repeatedly confirmed by each new venture the lad undertakes. Whether it's Hesher (which was great) or a cover of "What Are You Doing New Year's Eve?" with Zooey Deschanel, JGL continues to win hearts. I am so happy to see Will Reiser's screenplay popping up as a nominee throughout the award season. The balance of comedy, reality, romance, and bromance made 50/50 an absolute treat.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Stephen Daldry's four films have each proven him to be one of the best directors working in film. Though he may remain most famous for Billy Elliot - duh - his continued expertise at adapting modern literature places him in a perch all his own. The Hours and then The Reader were each heart-wrenching masterworks each of which earned best picture nominations and delivered their female leads best actress Oscars. And now Daldry tackles Jonathan Safran Foer's 9/11 novel. This film has received all sorts of off-base criticism -- particularly the remarks directed at young Thomas Horn, who is carrying a film with the likes of Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, and Max Von Sydow. To label his character precocious or unlikable is to demonstrate one's absolute inexperience with complicated children with special needs. How on earth is a child who can barely process an average day supposed to process that horrid Tuesday? Say what you will, I call Daldry at 4 for 4.
Moneyball
Yes, this may well be Brad Pitt's Oscar. He's been waiting since his Globe victory in '95 for Twelve Monkeys -- the Oscar then going to Spacey for The Usual Suspects. Whether or not Brad wins it will go down as one his best performances. Furthermore, his pairing with Jonah Hill could not have been more perfectly calibrated. Hill should earn an Oscar nomination for his supporting role, making the "Freaks and Geeks" attendees at Kodak far more triumphant than Mr. Franco's co-hosting turn last year. The only criticism people seem to have for Mr. Pitt is that there is nothing particularly thrilling about his work. I will get into this as I discuss the acting category further. However, I think this is a ludicrous statement whose argument only becomes more foggy and shaky as people attempt to elucidate. We can't simply award those performances where characters are suffering some absolute horror or enduring a decade long struggle. The subtle moments of Bennett Miller's Moneyball is what makes it expert. Zallian and Sorkin hammering out dynamite dialogue and some of the best "process film" sequences in a sports film ain't too shabby either -- one wonders if they can be bested for adapted except for the fact that both men have already won, Sorkin only last year. To keep a back office movie about changing the style of recruiting as grounded in America's pastime as any other baseball flick with the exception of The Natural is a true achievement. Whether it will sneak it's way into the big dance rests on how many writers and actors vote Moneyball staight down the ballot.
The Whistleblower
Though I do have a connection to the writers, director, producer, and script supervisor of this thriller, you must understand my absolute pleasure at having seen what an incredible movie The Whistleblower turned out to be. Centered on the true story of an American woman who risked her life to draw attention to human sex trafficking and the many prestigious international agencies complicit in the kidnap, rape, and murder of countless women, The Whistleblower's strength is in its pace, momentum, and relentless performances led by Oscar winner Rachel Weisz, Vanessa Redgrave, and David Strathairn. The brilliance of The Whistleblower is that it tackles an enormous ongoing international human rights tragedy but does so in a way that is neither dour nor melodramatic. Watching The Whistleblower is far more akin to sitting down to a classic Alan J. Pakula or Sydney Pollack thriller. Larysa Kondracki and Eilis Kirwan have created a picture that brings All the President's Men, The Parallax View, The Firm to mind when a ringing phone, a shadow, and duplicitous characters prove as shocking as the inhuman crimes. The Whistleblower is not to be missed.
Hugo
I knew nothing of The Invention of Hugo Cabret except that my brilliant and remarkably well-read niece considered it one of the best books she'd ever read. Upon my insistence, she didn't share a shred of the story -- much as she begged to let me in on details right up until the lights dimmed and we donned our 3D glasses. As a man who was once not the greatest Martin Scorsese fan considering his inclination for excessive violence and unlikable characters -- or what my friends from film school would call "real situations" -- I was stunned to see him create a film with such heart. The child performers and the magnificent Ben Kingsley turn Hugo into the picture that may well bring Marty his second best director Oscar.
Win Win
The little wrestling film that could may be the only Oscar front-runner to escape my earlier criticism of a year that got off to a late start. (Though Win Win seems to have only briefly held front-runner status as an original screenplay contender. Keep in mind, original screenplay is perhaps the best award of the night.) Released in springtime, Win Win has the feel of a true "Indie of the '90s" -- a tiny New Jersey story that captures a moment in American history and the surrogate family that flourishes around a high school wrestling star. Each performance was excellent and yet again Tom McCarthy has created a fantastic small film with great resonance, comedy, and heart. Where would this year's supporting performances be without Bobby Cannavale?
War Horse
Few things were more shocking to me this year than when Steven Spielberg was omitted from the Directors Guild nominations. Clearly, people have not seen War Horse or have brought their undue Spielberg distaste to yet another great piece of film making. The notion that there is a corny quality to Spielberg's films is more popular than it is grounded in fact. War Horse -- were it not for my personal favorite Midnight in Paris -- is the best film of the year. Once again Steven Spielberg has tackled war with heart. The cry for peace in Spielberg's films from Munich onward is approached from a more youthful angle but pits characters and actors from England, Germany, and France in a World War I film where they bond over a horse rather than allowing their human differences to drive them apart. Ultimately, Spielberg shows that soldiers have more in common with one another than the super powers that thrust them into war. From the world's most successful film maker, that's quite a statement.
The Help
I saw The Help in a theater where I was the only other male and my counterpart groaned the entire time. I'm certain he and his wife have a lovely, even-keeled marriage. I, on the other hand, found it to be the film you wish you could dismiss but is simply too good to write off. In the end -- particularly if you give it a second view -- The Help proves one of the year's best. Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Emma Stone, Jessica Chastain, Bryce Dallas Howard, Sissy Spacek, and Allison Janney are one of the best female casts assembled in years -- don't worry, I haven't gotten to Bridesmaids yet. But what struck me about this particular collection of females was that they weren't this femme team slogging it through a world of man-trouble as is so often the case. Here were two sets of women filling out a spectrum of opinions about segregation. There's a gloss that certainly prevents this film from being an accurate depiction of life in the Deep South for any of the characters -- which is why I feel it should be in the Globes' comedy category. However, there's still something remarkable about the heart in this little film. Crazy as I may sound -- said it before, will again -- I wonder if it's the won to beat come Oscar time.
The Artist
Given the Weinstein muscle that's going to slide behind this sucker and push it to King's Speech/Shakespeare in Love levels, I wonder how much needs to be said about The Artist. Perhaps the most important thing to say -- before I address each contender in depth during the lovely weeks between the Globes and the Oscars is that the hype is true. There's a lyrical romance and a brilliance of performance in The Artist that prove cinema's power is vision and story. Dialogue has always been a secondary component and remains so -- as Hugo, War Horse, Martha Marcy, and so many other of this year's great pictures continue to prove. All that remains for this excellent little film is the question of whether it could and whether it should take it all. Frankly, it seems like it's coming in hot for Sunday's Globes (Come on, Woody!) -- but this may well be the year where there's a Weinstein reversal. Have they pushed too soon with each of their contenders?
Bridesmaids
I've yet to meet a person who didn't love Bridesmaids. There are men who think they wouldn't like it. They are, of course, wrong. Though just a little too long -- and seemingly because director Paul Feig decided to let each comedy bit run to its very last breath -- Bridesmaids sidesteps the pitfall of so many Apatow productions. And I say this an a devout worshipper of all things Judd Apatow. He is operating on a level that is outrageous, not only bringing the entire cast of his cult television series to significant Hollywood fame where nearly each has had a crack at championing his or her own pet project -- but also redefining the parameters of the American comedy. It's within that redefining things often go awry. There's a quest for too much heart that can occasionally drag his pictures down -- or at least grind them to a 15 to 20 minute halt. Such is not he case with Bridesmaids. All comedies -- particularly buddy comedies and romantic comedies -- Bridesmaids is both -- hit a dire moment where characters are required to redeem themselves -- generally through an apology. Wiig and Mumolo penned a script that got through that hurdle as quickly as possible. Though there is a deep trough for Annie, it doesn't mean the comedy stops. In the end, the moments where we're not laughing seem brief. Bridesmaids is a triumph.
Martha Marcy May Marlene
I had no clue what I was getting myself into when I watched Martha Marcy May Marlene and I am going to give each of you that same gift. I will ruin nothing -- until I do more complete write-ups between the award presentations. This micro-budget psycho-thriller was one of the most tense films I've endured in years. It's silent and still moments are far more terrifying than any scream, violence, or chase sequence. The way the film makers imbued the world of MMMM with the psychology of it's main character -- a tour de force from Elizabeth Olsen (yes, that Olsen) -- trapped the viewer in her consciousness and made us equally paranoid, lost, and fearful. Great work that will be an influence on a generation of film makers.
Well that's my twelve, folks. Sorry it's a day late. I'll chime in with some more direct Globe related info tomorrow.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Globe Week Commence...
There is perhaps no better way to start the week leading up to the Hollywood Foreign Press Association's Golden Globe Awards than with a set of Directors Guild Nominations that throw the entire Oscar race into question.
In the past weeks, more and more publications have done their best to point out the disparity between Globe winners and Oscar winners in years past -- particular during these, the dark days of ten nominees. However, what these publications fail to notice - time and again - is the remarkable symmetry between the nominees. The question, it seems, is how much advertising, press, guild momentum, and screeners can flood the market in the brief time between Globe Night and Oscar Night -- six weeks, this year. The Oscar nominations are a mere 8.25 days after the Globes and this sort of crunch time -- as I mentioned in this very blog time and again last year -- seems to have only given further credence to the Globes while mildly weakening the statue I so adore (Moses, can you hear me now?). It's an Oscar, so it's going to take a lot more. But being head and shoulders above the rest is its claim to fame. Encroachment should be dealt with swiftly and wisely.
In the simplest of terms, McCue's current theory is that the crunch time and expansion of best picture nominees to ten -- which is now "up to ten" and supposed to be more thrilling but is ultimately nothing more than odd -- has given HFPA a leg up. If your nominees are going to match and you're going to match the winners bordering on 66%, then the first guy out of the gate seems to have a bit more credence. Oscar is, after all, Oscar. He'll be difficult to topple. But the Golden Globes, which the Academy long brushed aside as the RC Cola -- nay the White Rock -- of accolades has slid right into Pepsi position. Why else dig deep with Billy Crystal (who I am thrilled is returning) except Gervais? Sure, they had Eddie Murphy -- but it seems after Ratner's gaffe, Murphy would have been bullet-riddled by the time Ricky was through with him. I remember when the Globes were hostless. Someone introduced Miss Golden Globe who usually tipped her shoulders forward to hide her budding boobs, and the evening went on. Ricky Gervais two years in a row -- despite a (completely inflated) controversy? NBC ain't messing around.
Then there's today, the Monday before the Globes with Scorsese, Payne, Hazanavicius (scourge of Kim Novak!), Woody Allen ... and there he is folks, David Fincher as this year's Directors Guild Nominees.
What does this say for Oscar?
Does this mean Spielberg is out? Is War Horse headed for the glue factory? Because I thought it was marvelous!
Does this mean Woody is in for the first time since 1994? (I go by the year films came out, not the year trophies are distributed.)
What does this say for Tate Taylor? Something tells me not to count Tate Taylor out. I have a feeling he may Driving Miss Daisy this ball to the hoop -- directing nod or not. There's something about The Help that has me wondering whether it will take the cake (hopefully devoid of a certain ingredient). You heard it here, folks! Tate Taylor may well be a modern day Bruce Beresford!
Then again, this Fincher DGA nom may not be guilt over last year's award tease -- he could be a late arrival. The press was locked out of many screenings. He did masterful work. Though it highly resembled the Swedish original, there was enough Finch-touch to make it his own. Furthermore, Dragon Tattoo isn't something that's easy to replicate while putting your personal, established, stylistic spin on it. (As I have mentioned more than once, I'll address each film individually as the Oscars approach.) But folks are acting like having the existing novel and Swedish film made the Fincher version a snap. I suggest getting the cash, film rights, and trying it yourself. He did, after all, discover Rooney Mara -- who may well end up an actress nominee. He assembled a nice band of the most Aryan looking group of Hollywooders for the ride. I love the man, but you're digging deep with Julian Sands. Then again, who the else has such a perfect look? That's Fincher. Yet -- having said all that, I wonder if his footing is solid. Spielberg's omission seems ludicrous and the possibility of Dragon Tattoo getting a picture nom only seems feasible if the nominees stretch up past eight. Sooner or later, Fincher will have his winning year. He's not a Schnabel. He's not a Kieslowski. He's hardly the "being nominated was award enough" type. In the harsh light of day (or night, depending on which part of Sweden you're currently in) doesn't that seem all this is? A nom as an award, not as validation of the fact that Finch actually has a shot at winning. Prove me wrong awards year -- prove me wrong. But that's what the gut says.
Perhaps because the only difference between the Globes and the DGA is that they swapped Clooney for Fincher. Thus, the other four seem to be in prime position for Oscar nominations. Are these the four fixed, leaving a wild card slot? Odds are. It seems for Sunday's purposes, Marty has it in the bag -- unless the Weinsteins can truly get everyone aboard the silent -- but possibly deadly -- train. I would obviously love Woody to take both scribe and helmer -- but the odds of that seem slim and I'm delicately walking on Annette Bening like eggshells when it comes to the Wood-man's Globe and Oscar chances.
So, folks, what we've got here is a full on shake up.
We're looking at an unconfirmed year that doesn't even have a front-runner with possible upset nipping at its heels as we had at this point for so many years. And I mean the legit years. Not years where Scorsese was getting the Globe for Gangs of New York -- years where we thought he was getting it for The Aviator and yet Michael Mann got the statue for picture while the ever so slinking Million Dollar Baby was already through the door, giving Eastwood the directing trophy, and waiting to knock off The Spruce Goose come Oscar time. Bigelow went trophy-less as did The Hurt Locker for picture -- but it was clear it was a two dog fight with the blue folk losing footing with each dollar it grossed. The switcheroo from Social Network to King's Speech is something I still marvel at. I love Colin Firth more than the next guy and I can see how his highness outdid Zuckerberg. But it was Facebook's to lose. Where does that apply this year?
Hugo can't possibly be considered a picture lock. The Artist? If it pulls it off, it will be more as a default victor that had some Harvey shoulder behind it. A silent, black and white film, with a French lead? You can Life As Beautiful me all you want - it didn't win picture. Furthermore, we're talking about a type of film that had actually been made for nearly 30 straight years. There was plenty of source material to draw from. Masterfully as it was made -- and I will go through each film once the Globes have passed -- I wonder how many actors who vote in the Academy will want to ditch the microphone. Personally, I had a column in college called "Talkies Are Just A Fad." But I stumbled upon that phrase as a witty retort and decided it was a good header for my film write-ups. There's something about The Artist that doesn't have "it." It may at the Globes -- where there are two categories -- but can it hold?
Furthermore, it's in the comedy category against Bridesmaids, Midnight in Paris, 50/50 (my little buddy), and the remarkably unfunny (yet quite good) My Week With Marilyn. A black and white silent winning the hearts of the Hollywood Foreign Press may seem like a no-brainer once the envelop is opened. Then again -- can't the same be said of Bridesmaids and Midnight in Paris?
What about the dramas? One wonders how Hugo, The Help, and The Descendants ended up on this side of the aisle. Then again, The Player won best comedy so who the hell knows what lands a flick in one pocket or the other. Rounding out the dirty-half dozen are War Horse, Moneyball, and Ides. On one level it seems folks are doing everything in their power to ensure Clooney will attend. He will. So will Pitt and Spielberg. But again, a clear winner is a tricky pick.
If the pictures were aligned properly giving The Help comedy and War Horse drama -- then I'd say we have a horse race on our hands, realize that's not even close to a good War Horse joke, that I didn't intend one, consider making a dog race joke, and then simply say -- we've at least have a boxing match. The Globes can be screwy - hailing the completely snubbed (save song) Evita -- giving it to dear old Bugsy while Silence of the Lambs goes down as one of the only films to win the top five honors -- going Hours -- Atonement -- Robert Altman for Gosford Park -- to watch it all swept away by the Kodak, Shrine, or Dorothy Chandler Pavillion -- depending on the year.
This year is pure chaos. In the coming days I'll do my best to untangle this Globe-knot. And I encourage you all to make your predictions Saturday night. I'm NOTORIOUSLY lousy at picking the Globes because I go with my heart and only have critics circles as a reference point -- as if those have told us anything! But in what is hopefully the final days of the "more than five" Oscar era -- note how tricky it is to nail down who's taking a Golden Boy without knowing the Globe victors.
Tomorrow I'll go over my favorite dozen films of the year in the briefest terms. That can give you a look-see into where this blogger's coming from this year.
In the past weeks, more and more publications have done their best to point out the disparity between Globe winners and Oscar winners in years past -- particular during these, the dark days of ten nominees. However, what these publications fail to notice - time and again - is the remarkable symmetry between the nominees. The question, it seems, is how much advertising, press, guild momentum, and screeners can flood the market in the brief time between Globe Night and Oscar Night -- six weeks, this year. The Oscar nominations are a mere 8.25 days after the Globes and this sort of crunch time -- as I mentioned in this very blog time and again last year -- seems to have only given further credence to the Globes while mildly weakening the statue I so adore (Moses, can you hear me now?). It's an Oscar, so it's going to take a lot more. But being head and shoulders above the rest is its claim to fame. Encroachment should be dealt with swiftly and wisely.
In the simplest of terms, McCue's current theory is that the crunch time and expansion of best picture nominees to ten -- which is now "up to ten" and supposed to be more thrilling but is ultimately nothing more than odd -- has given HFPA a leg up. If your nominees are going to match and you're going to match the winners bordering on 66%, then the first guy out of the gate seems to have a bit more credence. Oscar is, after all, Oscar. He'll be difficult to topple. But the Golden Globes, which the Academy long brushed aside as the RC Cola -- nay the White Rock -- of accolades has slid right into Pepsi position. Why else dig deep with Billy Crystal (who I am thrilled is returning) except Gervais? Sure, they had Eddie Murphy -- but it seems after Ratner's gaffe, Murphy would have been bullet-riddled by the time Ricky was through with him. I remember when the Globes were hostless. Someone introduced Miss Golden Globe who usually tipped her shoulders forward to hide her budding boobs, and the evening went on. Ricky Gervais two years in a row -- despite a (completely inflated) controversy? NBC ain't messing around.
Then there's today, the Monday before the Globes with Scorsese, Payne, Hazanavicius (scourge of Kim Novak!), Woody Allen ... and there he is folks, David Fincher as this year's Directors Guild Nominees.
What does this say for Oscar?
Does this mean Spielberg is out? Is War Horse headed for the glue factory? Because I thought it was marvelous!
Does this mean Woody is in for the first time since 1994? (I go by the year films came out, not the year trophies are distributed.)
What does this say for Tate Taylor? Something tells me not to count Tate Taylor out. I have a feeling he may Driving Miss Daisy this ball to the hoop -- directing nod or not. There's something about The Help that has me wondering whether it will take the cake (hopefully devoid of a certain ingredient). You heard it here, folks! Tate Taylor may well be a modern day Bruce Beresford!
Then again, this Fincher DGA nom may not be guilt over last year's award tease -- he could be a late arrival. The press was locked out of many screenings. He did masterful work. Though it highly resembled the Swedish original, there was enough Finch-touch to make it his own. Furthermore, Dragon Tattoo isn't something that's easy to replicate while putting your personal, established, stylistic spin on it. (As I have mentioned more than once, I'll address each film individually as the Oscars approach.) But folks are acting like having the existing novel and Swedish film made the Fincher version a snap. I suggest getting the cash, film rights, and trying it yourself. He did, after all, discover Rooney Mara -- who may well end up an actress nominee. He assembled a nice band of the most Aryan looking group of Hollywooders for the ride. I love the man, but you're digging deep with Julian Sands. Then again, who the else has such a perfect look? That's Fincher. Yet -- having said all that, I wonder if his footing is solid. Spielberg's omission seems ludicrous and the possibility of Dragon Tattoo getting a picture nom only seems feasible if the nominees stretch up past eight. Sooner or later, Fincher will have his winning year. He's not a Schnabel. He's not a Kieslowski. He's hardly the "being nominated was award enough" type. In the harsh light of day (or night, depending on which part of Sweden you're currently in) doesn't that seem all this is? A nom as an award, not as validation of the fact that Finch actually has a shot at winning. Prove me wrong awards year -- prove me wrong. But that's what the gut says.
Perhaps because the only difference between the Globes and the DGA is that they swapped Clooney for Fincher. Thus, the other four seem to be in prime position for Oscar nominations. Are these the four fixed, leaving a wild card slot? Odds are. It seems for Sunday's purposes, Marty has it in the bag -- unless the Weinsteins can truly get everyone aboard the silent -- but possibly deadly -- train. I would obviously love Woody to take both scribe and helmer -- but the odds of that seem slim and I'm delicately walking on Annette Bening like eggshells when it comes to the Wood-man's Globe and Oscar chances.
So, folks, what we've got here is a full on shake up.
We're looking at an unconfirmed year that doesn't even have a front-runner with possible upset nipping at its heels as we had at this point for so many years. And I mean the legit years. Not years where Scorsese was getting the Globe for Gangs of New York -- years where we thought he was getting it for The Aviator and yet Michael Mann got the statue for picture while the ever so slinking Million Dollar Baby was already through the door, giving Eastwood the directing trophy, and waiting to knock off The Spruce Goose come Oscar time. Bigelow went trophy-less as did The Hurt Locker for picture -- but it was clear it was a two dog fight with the blue folk losing footing with each dollar it grossed. The switcheroo from Social Network to King's Speech is something I still marvel at. I love Colin Firth more than the next guy and I can see how his highness outdid Zuckerberg. But it was Facebook's to lose. Where does that apply this year?
Hugo can't possibly be considered a picture lock. The Artist? If it pulls it off, it will be more as a default victor that had some Harvey shoulder behind it. A silent, black and white film, with a French lead? You can Life As Beautiful me all you want - it didn't win picture. Furthermore, we're talking about a type of film that had actually been made for nearly 30 straight years. There was plenty of source material to draw from. Masterfully as it was made -- and I will go through each film once the Globes have passed -- I wonder how many actors who vote in the Academy will want to ditch the microphone. Personally, I had a column in college called "Talkies Are Just A Fad." But I stumbled upon that phrase as a witty retort and decided it was a good header for my film write-ups. There's something about The Artist that doesn't have "it." It may at the Globes -- where there are two categories -- but can it hold?
Furthermore, it's in the comedy category against Bridesmaids, Midnight in Paris, 50/50 (my little buddy), and the remarkably unfunny (yet quite good) My Week With Marilyn. A black and white silent winning the hearts of the Hollywood Foreign Press may seem like a no-brainer once the envelop is opened. Then again -- can't the same be said of Bridesmaids and Midnight in Paris?
What about the dramas? One wonders how Hugo, The Help, and The Descendants ended up on this side of the aisle. Then again, The Player won best comedy so who the hell knows what lands a flick in one pocket or the other. Rounding out the dirty-half dozen are War Horse, Moneyball, and Ides. On one level it seems folks are doing everything in their power to ensure Clooney will attend. He will. So will Pitt and Spielberg. But again, a clear winner is a tricky pick.
If the pictures were aligned properly giving The Help comedy and War Horse drama -- then I'd say we have a horse race on our hands, realize that's not even close to a good War Horse joke, that I didn't intend one, consider making a dog race joke, and then simply say -- we've at least have a boxing match. The Globes can be screwy - hailing the completely snubbed (save song) Evita -- giving it to dear old Bugsy while Silence of the Lambs goes down as one of the only films to win the top five honors -- going Hours -- Atonement -- Robert Altman for Gosford Park -- to watch it all swept away by the Kodak, Shrine, or Dorothy Chandler Pavillion -- depending on the year.
This year is pure chaos. In the coming days I'll do my best to untangle this Globe-knot. And I encourage you all to make your predictions Saturday night. I'm NOTORIOUSLY lousy at picking the Globes because I go with my heart and only have critics circles as a reference point -- as if those have told us anything! But in what is hopefully the final days of the "more than five" Oscar era -- note how tricky it is to nail down who's taking a Golden Boy without knowing the Globe victors.
Tomorrow I'll go over my favorite dozen films of the year in the briefest terms. That can give you a look-see into where this blogger's coming from this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)