As the New York Times already wisely notes -- Woody Allen writes incredible roles for women. In fact, he's a far more astute writer of lead female roles than he is male. Looking at awards history -- as one should when reading this award blog -- there is only one actor ever to have ever won an Oscar in a Woody Allen role -- Mr. Michael Caine for 1986's Hannah and Her Sisters. Chazz, Matin Landau, Sean Penn, and the Woodman himself have all been nommed for other Allen pics. But it is the women who reign proud.
Victories for Diane Keaton, Mira Sorvino, Penelope Cruz, and two for Diane Wiest. Nominations for Geraldine Page, Maureen Stapleton, Judy Davis, Jennifer Tilly, and Samantha Morton.
That's a staggering amount of roles that have made it to the final five in their respective categories -- let alone the five actual victories! Interesting to note that Mia Farrow is nowhere on the list... but I digress.
The interesting thing about Woody Allen's leading lady roles is that they often have a lot in common. Having his pick of leading ladies, The Woodman has been able to change up whose headlined his films when he hasn't been dating his lead. Often, though, it seems that the character still has echoes of Allen roles that have come before. With his latest, Blue Jasmine, we find leading lady Cate Blanchett saddling up a would-be Judy Davis role and riding it with a swagger all her own.
Why put all the focus on Cate? Why not the beautiful depiction of San Francisco? Why not the ensemble cast which includes Sally Hawkins, Andrew Dice Clay, Peter Sarsgaard, Louis C.K., and Alec Baldwin -- or the adorable Alden Ehrenreich? Well... great as the city looks and excellent as that cast turns out to be -- particularly Hawkins -- this film is purely Cate's.
Blanchett plays Jasmine - nee Jeanette -- as adopted daughter who dropped out of college to marry the older, more sophisticated Alec Baldwin after meeting him on Martha's Vineyard while "Blue Moon" played. I'm ruining nothing, I assure you. She'll tell you as much in the first 90 seconds of the film and will repeat herself a number of times.
In a role similar to Mrs. Madoff, Jasmine briefly enjoyed the high-life, where money was no object and her husband was the center of her world. It was a life of relaxing, pilates, and Tori Birch shoes that all went toe up when the chickens came home to roost. Amazingly, Baldwin plays one of the rare birds who was actually captured for his gross financial indiscretions. Consequently, Jasmine is left penniless and flees to San Francisco to crash with her sister, Ginger, played by the brilliant Sally Hawkins -- whom we all loved in Happy Go-Lucky, An Education, and Never Let Go.
Somewhere along the line, Jasmine had a psychological break. The stress of her husband's downfall, her life being uprooted, and her new life with Ginger -- which is far below Jasmine's standards -- keep her a rattled, pill popping, Stoli swilling, china doll. The slightest nudge could shatter her.
This is not a woman who is particularly likeable. The more you learn about her -- the less so. This is not a woman whose struggles are one the average Joe can connect with -- outside of a couple "60 Minutes" pieces and season three of "Damages." And yet Cate Blanchett makes her accessible and sympathetic. Playing this part with her dynamic grace and elegance, Blanchett also throws in a superb case of "the nerves," and a chilled haughty edge that serves as a lousy self-defense mechanism.
From an acting standpoint, it's a tour de force. This is hands down the best lead actress performance to have come down the pike this year. Of course, the fall will run amok with them; but Cate's ahead of the game. Though she has an Oscar, it's for a supporting role nearly a decade ago.
If Denzel Washington has taught us anything -- it's that "that doesn't
count" as a "real" Oscar win. Of course it does "count;" Denzel's lesson fell on deaf ears when it comes to the McNook -- much as the press core around his Training Day nom gone victory swallowed it whole. Cate's beloved by the industry and revered for her craft. She vanished so deeply into the role of Kate Hepburn for her Aviator win, it's possible people may forget that even happened!
I don't know where Place Beyond the Pines will fall in the land of ten. I don't know whether the Academy is going to admit reality and nominate McConnaughey. I leave the entire ballot wide open. Except for one spot -- Ms. Blanchett's lead actress slot. Consider it filled. Four to go in that crowd.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Sunday, August 4, 2013
The Conjuring...
I will never see Saw. I make that clear in blog posts from time to time when I find it relevant. Oddly, that's often proven to be the case, lately -- but what can you do. For this particular entry, it's relevant because James Wan, the gifted director behind The Conjuring and Insidious started it all of with a little film called Saw ... which -- by all reports -- did kind of well and may have had a feature or two -- oh yeah, and those saws aren't for the chains, Cary Elwes, they're for your ankles. So it's a no.
Horrible cruelty and extreme violence of an Eli Roth shock value nature hold no interest for me -- despite the morality play that might be bubbling beneath the surface. In short, I never need to know how you got that key out from behind your eye.
But with Insidious and now The Conjuring, James Wan's focus has been far more on the supernatural than it has been on grit, guts, and gore. September 13 -- Friday the 13th -- shall mark the release of Insidious 2. While I wonder how far one can go with that plot line -- or how there's even a sequel with the full cast (except one wrung neck) considering how the first installment ended -- the fact that it's now a franchise should come as no surprise. While the film industry has been polarizing into enormous 3-D spectacles and little tiny art house pics hoping for an iTunes release -- horror has held as a form with low budgets and high grosses. The phenomenon of Paranormal Activity is a sure bet; it's full budget is less than a day of catering on a Downey, Jr. movie -- why not just do it? Profits rolling in at the 1000 to 10,000 % levels doesn't hurt either. James Wan has made the wise decision to keep his films cheap and to keep them raking in dough -- and they're drawing in audiences because the stories are strong and compelling -- and the mythologies are freakishly believable.
I'm not going to sit here and ruin the plot of Insidious for you -- I want you to Netflix stream that sucker for yourself. But I will say this -- for a while there you have absolutely no idea what is going on and you are completely freaked out. And then these paranormal experts arrive, lay down the "facts" about what's up in the Rose Byrne/Patrick Wilson house -- and you buy it. Throw on a tape recorder, some weird head peace, and a couple of flashbulbs -- and yes, with a tiny bit of explanation, I am absolutely willing to believe there are ghosts all over the room and that we're all in terrible danger.
That story aspect is the cornerstone of Wan's latest -- The Conjuring. Based on the true events that took place at the house visited by demonologists before heading to exorcise that charming little Dutch Colonial on Long Island. Here, Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga (who I think is doing some of her best work) are a married couple that travel around to investigate paranormal activity and hopefully bring peace to the victims thereof. And they have quite a track record. Wilson is the only non-ordained man the Catholic Church lets assess folks for exorcisms (though he's not permitted to perform them -- you need a trusty Jesuit for that) and Farmiga is a clairvoyant who can tap into the energy of the location -- the evil that took place, the spirits that are at unrest. In short -- they're a great team.
And this time, rather than making the investigator a truly secondary set of characters, Wan had the brilliant idea to split the movie nearly in two -- Lily Taylor, Ron Livingston, and their daughters living in their newly purchased haunted house -- and Wilson and Farmiga -- ghost hunters. The film bounces back and forth between the two parties before colliding them when Taylor is at her most desperate.
Unlike Mama -- or so many other horror films that have come out the past year -- which try to whip up some insane ghost explanation for why the place you're dealing with is so damn terrible -- why the spirits are at unrest -- why you're in extreme danger -- Wan keeps it simple. Want to know why this place is bad? Here's the explanation. Want the clairvoyant to see some creepy stuff? No problem. Want Lily Taylor to play the worst game of hide and seek in years? Done deal. We, as the audience, sit there screaming "Get out! Get out! Get out!" "I don't care that you have a mortgage!" "Get a hotel room!" Of course, the brilliance of an exorcism film is that it's no so much a question of you getting out of the house -- as it's a question of whatever's in the house getting inside of you.
Of course... by the time you realize that... you're too late. And that's just great for us!
It behooves me to speak briefly about the criticism The Conjuring will more than likely receive for the exorcism portions. Folks are immediately going to throw it up against the William Friedkin for comparison. I believe that we're going to have to say as a society that this is simply unfair. We can rent out the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, have Billy Friedkin come down there, and crown him the king of all things possession. It's true -- there's nothing that film did that any other film about possession has ever done better. And the awful thing for all predecessors is it seems what happened in the 1973 Ellen Burstyn masterpiece was everything on the menu: mumbled Latin, crazy vomit, crucifixes trying to push their way out from inside your gut. You know... Exorcism 101. What I can say about The Conjuring is that it made some excellent selections from the menu and the presentation was superb.
And now it behooves me to speak of Lily Taylor -- most famous for films like Dogfight, Say Anything, and Mystic Pizza. I'm sure there are those who also adored her in "Six Feet Under" or my personal favorite Taylor role, I Shot Andy Warhol. When it comes to horror, Ms. Taylor was unfortunate enough to be in The Haunting -- a film whose cast had a great pedigree and whose plot was simply lousy. It's a bad movie. So bad that it caused folks to skip the Geoffrey Rush remake of House on Haunted Hill -- the far superior of the two. Here, in The Conjuring, Lily Taylor is exceptional. Let me begin by saying how damn good she looks at the start of the film. Whatever she's eating, however she's exercising -- I'd like to know. Of course one wants one's lead to look particularly good at the start when one plans to drag them and their children through hell. And Lily Taylor does a hell of a job taking that journey. I don't know who else would be able to do this role -- and it's the triangle of Wilson, Farmiga, and Taylor that hold this picture together and elevate it above your average horror.
I suggest going during the day -- so you can exit during sunlight and make it back to your homes safely -- but then again, doing something like that might just show the spirits you're weak and make your soul all the more easily stolen.
Horrible cruelty and extreme violence of an Eli Roth shock value nature hold no interest for me -- despite the morality play that might be bubbling beneath the surface. In short, I never need to know how you got that key out from behind your eye.
But with Insidious and now The Conjuring, James Wan's focus has been far more on the supernatural than it has been on grit, guts, and gore. September 13 -- Friday the 13th -- shall mark the release of Insidious 2. While I wonder how far one can go with that plot line -- or how there's even a sequel with the full cast (except one wrung neck) considering how the first installment ended -- the fact that it's now a franchise should come as no surprise. While the film industry has been polarizing into enormous 3-D spectacles and little tiny art house pics hoping for an iTunes release -- horror has held as a form with low budgets and high grosses. The phenomenon of Paranormal Activity is a sure bet; it's full budget is less than a day of catering on a Downey, Jr. movie -- why not just do it? Profits rolling in at the 1000 to 10,000 % levels doesn't hurt either. James Wan has made the wise decision to keep his films cheap and to keep them raking in dough -- and they're drawing in audiences because the stories are strong and compelling -- and the mythologies are freakishly believable.
I'm not going to sit here and ruin the plot of Insidious for you -- I want you to Netflix stream that sucker for yourself. But I will say this -- for a while there you have absolutely no idea what is going on and you are completely freaked out. And then these paranormal experts arrive, lay down the "facts" about what's up in the Rose Byrne/Patrick Wilson house -- and you buy it. Throw on a tape recorder, some weird head peace, and a couple of flashbulbs -- and yes, with a tiny bit of explanation, I am absolutely willing to believe there are ghosts all over the room and that we're all in terrible danger.
That story aspect is the cornerstone of Wan's latest -- The Conjuring. Based on the true events that took place at the house visited by demonologists before heading to exorcise that charming little Dutch Colonial on Long Island. Here, Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga (who I think is doing some of her best work) are a married couple that travel around to investigate paranormal activity and hopefully bring peace to the victims thereof. And they have quite a track record. Wilson is the only non-ordained man the Catholic Church lets assess folks for exorcisms (though he's not permitted to perform them -- you need a trusty Jesuit for that) and Farmiga is a clairvoyant who can tap into the energy of the location -- the evil that took place, the spirits that are at unrest. In short -- they're a great team.
And this time, rather than making the investigator a truly secondary set of characters, Wan had the brilliant idea to split the movie nearly in two -- Lily Taylor, Ron Livingston, and their daughters living in their newly purchased haunted house -- and Wilson and Farmiga -- ghost hunters. The film bounces back and forth between the two parties before colliding them when Taylor is at her most desperate.
Unlike Mama -- or so many other horror films that have come out the past year -- which try to whip up some insane ghost explanation for why the place you're dealing with is so damn terrible -- why the spirits are at unrest -- why you're in extreme danger -- Wan keeps it simple. Want to know why this place is bad? Here's the explanation. Want the clairvoyant to see some creepy stuff? No problem. Want Lily Taylor to play the worst game of hide and seek in years? Done deal. We, as the audience, sit there screaming "Get out! Get out! Get out!" "I don't care that you have a mortgage!" "Get a hotel room!" Of course, the brilliance of an exorcism film is that it's no so much a question of you getting out of the house -- as it's a question of whatever's in the house getting inside of you.
Of course... by the time you realize that... you're too late. And that's just great for us!
It behooves me to speak briefly about the criticism The Conjuring will more than likely receive for the exorcism portions. Folks are immediately going to throw it up against the William Friedkin for comparison. I believe that we're going to have to say as a society that this is simply unfair. We can rent out the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, have Billy Friedkin come down there, and crown him the king of all things possession. It's true -- there's nothing that film did that any other film about possession has ever done better. And the awful thing for all predecessors is it seems what happened in the 1973 Ellen Burstyn masterpiece was everything on the menu: mumbled Latin, crazy vomit, crucifixes trying to push their way out from inside your gut. You know... Exorcism 101. What I can say about The Conjuring is that it made some excellent selections from the menu and the presentation was superb.
And now it behooves me to speak of Lily Taylor -- most famous for films like Dogfight, Say Anything, and Mystic Pizza. I'm sure there are those who also adored her in "Six Feet Under" or my personal favorite Taylor role, I Shot Andy Warhol. When it comes to horror, Ms. Taylor was unfortunate enough to be in The Haunting -- a film whose cast had a great pedigree and whose plot was simply lousy. It's a bad movie. So bad that it caused folks to skip the Geoffrey Rush remake of House on Haunted Hill -- the far superior of the two. Here, in The Conjuring, Lily Taylor is exceptional. Let me begin by saying how damn good she looks at the start of the film. Whatever she's eating, however she's exercising -- I'd like to know. Of course one wants one's lead to look particularly good at the start when one plans to drag them and their children through hell. And Lily Taylor does a hell of a job taking that journey. I don't know who else would be able to do this role -- and it's the triangle of Wilson, Farmiga, and Taylor that hold this picture together and elevate it above your average horror.
I suggest going during the day -- so you can exit during sunlight and make it back to your homes safely -- but then again, doing something like that might just show the spirits you're weak and make your soul all the more easily stolen.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Only God Forgives The Wolverine...
Only God Forgives...
I was a huge fan of Drive. In fact, I thought it was truly screwed when it came to the Academy Awards and it thrust Ryan Gosling into that "what's this guy have to do to get a nomination around here?" category. Only Half Nelson -- so don't get yourself into a Gary Oldman quagmire over this one... the guy is supremely under-nominated.
Yes, it was a violent. And those of you who know me well know that I abhor violence and that it is -- besides the presence of Andie MacDowell -- one of the surefire ways to keep me from seeing a film. I'll admit to having seen half of Django with eyes shielded, half of Inglorious under similar constraints and as I've said time and again "I will never see Saw." Thus, I don't even know what happened with Albert Brooks and that fork in Drive -- I just know that it was really, really bad.
However, in Drive there was a subtle excellence in a small crime film that got out of hand quickly all while having a sweet little Gosling/Mulligan love story. They were an excellent pairing and it was a great way for Carey and Ryan to capitalize on their other performances of that same year Shame for the CM and the one-two punch of Ides of March (which I consider a bit lackluster) and Crazy Stupid Love (a champ of a film) for the RG. All this coupled with the soundtrack by College and you had a great film on your hands.
Drive was the start of a great new pairing of director and star -- just the kind of relationship a down-home artistic actor like Ryan Gosling thrives in.
As Place Beyond the Pines rolled into town -- this time on two wheels -- I was under the false impression this was the latest from Drive director Nicolas Winding Refn, only to be swiftly corrected that Pines was the work of Mr. Derk "Blue Valentine" Cianfrance. My mistake -- months ago though it was when I made it -- briefly.
No, the follow-up picture for Mr. Refn is the now highly controversial (whatever that means in this day and age) Only God Forgives. I defiantly rented the sucker through iTunes last week to give it a view under all the heated criticism and Razzie predictions. I was hoping it would prove to be a film others relished in despising but I -- this great other mind -- would enjoy. I could not have been more wrong.
Those of you who read this blog and who talk to me about movies know that it's very difficult for me to point out films that I just plain hate. Quite hard. I look for the saving graces, failed attempts, and the "what they were going fors" in nearly every thing I lay my eyes on. With Only God Forgives, I'm at a loss on every level. I wasn't annoyed. I wasn't "grossed out." I wasn't offended. Yeah... they lop people's bodies to pieces in a glorified way that's almost as annoying as an Alex Garland Beach follow-up -- I'm looking at you, Tesseract! And I know we're in Asia (which is why I lumped this one with Wolverine), but what is with all the swords and silence? It was my impression that among the many things the Western World got from their ventures to the East was gun powder. Is just shooting people too much to ask from an action film?
There's a moment deep into Mike Nichols' The Birdcage where Nathan Lane is in "convincing" drag and breaks character with a great, "What?" showing just how flummoxed and caught off-guard he is. The tone of that single-syllable "What?" is my review of Only God Forgives.
Nevertheless, I'm happy to see Kristin Scott Thomas working. Anything that gets her on the screen is to be lauded. The lady is superb and should be in everything. Hire her today. (Don't use OGF as part of her audition reel when casting).
Rent Place Beyond the Pines -- still one of the year's finest films. And I'm certain this was just a blip for Mr. Refn; thee man has talent and I hope his next Gosling pic is a slam dunk.
THE WOLVERINE...
Oh how I waited for them to make this Wolverine story as opposed to whatever the hell that last X-Men Origins debacle was. Before righting the ship, Marvel made some missteps in there... like The Hulk, X-Men 3, The Hulk, and I almost want to say Thor (I'm in the minority and promised I'd watch it again before rendering my final verdict).
This Wolverine -- The Wolverine -- is quite good. I don't know what the movie going experience would be like for someone unaware of the Bryan Singer films -- it relies heavily on their back story -- and has a great end-credit scene leading us into Singer's neXt installment, Days of Future Past. But it is great. For those who would detract or claim that it is my Jackman blindness that's responsible for my using the word great -- let me offer this:
The Wolverine is an X-Man -- whether he likes it or not. He's also a solider -- whether he likes it or not. He also has an incredible history -- whether he likes it or not. He is the only character from the X world about whom a singular story can be effectively made -- until that great day when someone makes the Magneto movie and I have to be carted away to place with standard issue terrycloth robes and free cigarettes.
He's not going to fly around and save the world like Superman. He's not from some other land with troubles we could never fully grasp -- like Thor or... well... Superman. And completely divulging his origin is about as stupid as doing so to Hannibal Lecter -- we all saw how well continually revealing that myth worked out on the big screen -- sister soup? Please.
And Logan/Weapon X/Wolverine is not going head to head with one arch-nemesis like the Bat -- much as people like to think that putting him up against Sabertooth would do just that. They're mistaken, as the "let's pretend it never happened" previous Wolverine movie proves.
A tortured man of honor who has lived through too much history with powers he despises -- which others are constantly trying to either steal or enhance and then exploit. That is Wolverine. And that is what happens in this picture by James Mangold -- who was kind enough to step away from his stream of Oscar worthy films like Copland, Girl, Interrupted..., Walk the Line and 3:10 to Yuma -- to helm this comic pic. And he did it as the master directors who've worthily and successfully taken the comic challenge have: by relying on the already rich source material -- like Mr. Brannagh, Mr. Wheedon, and Mr. Nolan -- and getting some great writers on board -- in this case, Mark Bomback (if it's exploded in the past 10 years, he wrote some of it) and Scott Frank (Spielberg's often "go-to" who's penned films as wide ranging as Little Man Tate, Minority Report, and Out of Sight).
Unlike the mystery of swords in Only God Forgives, here they worked perfectly. The man has six blades that shoot out of his body when he gets upset -- throw him up against ninjas and the Yakuza -- they're the right villains! Just as Magneto is the perfect guy to freeze Logan and his adamantium skeleton in its tracks. There's a great expression -- often falsely attributed to Connery's character in The Untouchables -- he says something close, but not this -- "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." Well this guy has knives as a part of his skeleton. So they made it a knife fight and a sword fight. It works. It delivers.
Enjoy The Wolverine.
I was a huge fan of Drive. In fact, I thought it was truly screwed when it came to the Academy Awards and it thrust Ryan Gosling into that "what's this guy have to do to get a nomination around here?" category. Only Half Nelson -- so don't get yourself into a Gary Oldman quagmire over this one... the guy is supremely under-nominated.
Yes, it was a violent. And those of you who know me well know that I abhor violence and that it is -- besides the presence of Andie MacDowell -- one of the surefire ways to keep me from seeing a film. I'll admit to having seen half of Django with eyes shielded, half of Inglorious under similar constraints and as I've said time and again "I will never see Saw." Thus, I don't even know what happened with Albert Brooks and that fork in Drive -- I just know that it was really, really bad.
However, in Drive there was a subtle excellence in a small crime film that got out of hand quickly all while having a sweet little Gosling/Mulligan love story. They were an excellent pairing and it was a great way for Carey and Ryan to capitalize on their other performances of that same year Shame for the CM and the one-two punch of Ides of March (which I consider a bit lackluster) and Crazy Stupid Love (a champ of a film) for the RG. All this coupled with the soundtrack by College and you had a great film on your hands.
Drive was the start of a great new pairing of director and star -- just the kind of relationship a down-home artistic actor like Ryan Gosling thrives in.
As Place Beyond the Pines rolled into town -- this time on two wheels -- I was under the false impression this was the latest from Drive director Nicolas Winding Refn, only to be swiftly corrected that Pines was the work of Mr. Derk "Blue Valentine" Cianfrance. My mistake -- months ago though it was when I made it -- briefly.
No, the follow-up picture for Mr. Refn is the now highly controversial (whatever that means in this day and age) Only God Forgives. I defiantly rented the sucker through iTunes last week to give it a view under all the heated criticism and Razzie predictions. I was hoping it would prove to be a film others relished in despising but I -- this great other mind -- would enjoy. I could not have been more wrong.
Those of you who read this blog and who talk to me about movies know that it's very difficult for me to point out films that I just plain hate. Quite hard. I look for the saving graces, failed attempts, and the "what they were going fors" in nearly every thing I lay my eyes on. With Only God Forgives, I'm at a loss on every level. I wasn't annoyed. I wasn't "grossed out." I wasn't offended. Yeah... they lop people's bodies to pieces in a glorified way that's almost as annoying as an Alex Garland Beach follow-up -- I'm looking at you, Tesseract! And I know we're in Asia (which is why I lumped this one with Wolverine), but what is with all the swords and silence? It was my impression that among the many things the Western World got from their ventures to the East was gun powder. Is just shooting people too much to ask from an action film?
There's a moment deep into Mike Nichols' The Birdcage where Nathan Lane is in "convincing" drag and breaks character with a great, "What?" showing just how flummoxed and caught off-guard he is. The tone of that single-syllable "What?" is my review of Only God Forgives.
Nevertheless, I'm happy to see Kristin Scott Thomas working. Anything that gets her on the screen is to be lauded. The lady is superb and should be in everything. Hire her today. (Don't use OGF as part of her audition reel when casting).
Rent Place Beyond the Pines -- still one of the year's finest films. And I'm certain this was just a blip for Mr. Refn; thee man has talent and I hope his next Gosling pic is a slam dunk.
THE WOLVERINE...
Oh how I waited for them to make this Wolverine story as opposed to whatever the hell that last X-Men Origins debacle was. Before righting the ship, Marvel made some missteps in there... like The Hulk, X-Men 3, The Hulk, and I almost want to say Thor (I'm in the minority and promised I'd watch it again before rendering my final verdict).
This Wolverine -- The Wolverine -- is quite good. I don't know what the movie going experience would be like for someone unaware of the Bryan Singer films -- it relies heavily on their back story -- and has a great end-credit scene leading us into Singer's neXt installment, Days of Future Past. But it is great. For those who would detract or claim that it is my Jackman blindness that's responsible for my using the word great -- let me offer this:
The Wolverine is an X-Man -- whether he likes it or not. He's also a solider -- whether he likes it or not. He also has an incredible history -- whether he likes it or not. He is the only character from the X world about whom a singular story can be effectively made -- until that great day when someone makes the Magneto movie and I have to be carted away to place with standard issue terrycloth robes and free cigarettes.
He's not going to fly around and save the world like Superman. He's not from some other land with troubles we could never fully grasp -- like Thor or... well... Superman. And completely divulging his origin is about as stupid as doing so to Hannibal Lecter -- we all saw how well continually revealing that myth worked out on the big screen -- sister soup? Please.
And Logan/Weapon X/Wolverine is not going head to head with one arch-nemesis like the Bat -- much as people like to think that putting him up against Sabertooth would do just that. They're mistaken, as the "let's pretend it never happened" previous Wolverine movie proves.
A tortured man of honor who has lived through too much history with powers he despises -- which others are constantly trying to either steal or enhance and then exploit. That is Wolverine. And that is what happens in this picture by James Mangold -- who was kind enough to step away from his stream of Oscar worthy films like Copland, Girl, Interrupted..., Walk the Line and 3:10 to Yuma -- to helm this comic pic. And he did it as the master directors who've worthily and successfully taken the comic challenge have: by relying on the already rich source material -- like Mr. Brannagh, Mr. Wheedon, and Mr. Nolan -- and getting some great writers on board -- in this case, Mark Bomback (if it's exploded in the past 10 years, he wrote some of it) and Scott Frank (Spielberg's often "go-to" who's penned films as wide ranging as Little Man Tate, Minority Report, and Out of Sight).
Unlike the mystery of swords in Only God Forgives, here they worked perfectly. The man has six blades that shoot out of his body when he gets upset -- throw him up against ninjas and the Yakuza -- they're the right villains! Just as Magneto is the perfect guy to freeze Logan and his adamantium skeleton in its tracks. There's a great expression -- often falsely attributed to Connery's character in The Untouchables -- he says something close, but not this -- "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." Well this guy has knives as a part of his skeleton. So they made it a knife fight and a sword fight. It works. It delivers.
Enjoy The Wolverine.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
House of Cards Emmy Noms Will Change the Game
There's a lot to be said about movies since Mud.
Bling Ring, Behind the Candelabra, The Heat -- and how Sandy Bullock will never stop being a success. Much to say... but lest we not forget -- I remind me from time to time, too -- that this is an awards driven blog.
We're on the brink of hearing the Emmy nominations. There is an amazing phenomenon that was truly kicked off this year by Netflix's "House of Cards." We all know that by now, this is not news. However, what's interesting when it comes to the world of the Emmys is that Netflix is not a television channel -- it is an entertainment delivery system. So how this sucker is going to play into this year's awards ought to be quite fascinating.
The excellent thing to point out -- right off the bat -- is that the only reason there's an issue that will drastically change the landscape of television should "House of Cards" be nominated for best series and should Spacey, Wright, Mara, and Corey Stoll lock up acting noms (if not more folk than that) -- the only reason it's going to be able to pull this off is because it's a piece of high quality. Ignoring it would make Emmy look stupid.
This is not -- I repeat, this is not the first original web series that could have been all over your Emmy ballot. "Lilyhammer," anyone? But this massive piece of Fincher level quality that the world devoured the second it was released was an entirely different story. "House of Cards" is a force to be reckoned with.
So what does this mean? Does this mean that if something is produced by Netflix that it is a "television movie?" What if it's simul-released in theaters? And here's the biggest stretcheroo of them all -- but a legitimate question nevertheless -- what if I can watch a series on Netflix that isn't yet available in the United States via network television -- why isn't it eligible for awards now?
Used to be you needed American television distribution during the award calendar window and that you hadn't previously been exhibited in the United States via another means -- etc. etc. etc. What does the very existence of a Netflix do to all that?
I frankly find it exciting and hope that Emmy isn't silly enough to simply bestow honorary awards on "House of Cards" and then give its own category -- like Oscar and Tony have done before. This is the new "cable." Full acceptance, Emmy. And voters need to vote on quality, not on whether their jobs will be threatened.
There was a year I like to call 1991... when Beauty and the Beast became the first (and -- in my opinion - LAST) animated film nominated for best picture. It lost. Digital was invented. Lasseter was given an honorary Oscar for Toy Story and a separate category for animated film was created. If you think that wasn't because actors were terrified that they would be replaced with cartoons -- you're insane. That was the lion share of this cocktail. Take a look around at how much is animated now. Look how many voice actors it employs. Take a look at the length of the credits. You think people lost work?
In one year the phrase "web-series" went from being the equivalent of "I could always make earrings in the garage to make ends meet" to being synonymous with "depending on the company, it's better than network." I say embrace it and let the future roll in.
We'll know soon enough.
Bling Ring, Behind the Candelabra, The Heat -- and how Sandy Bullock will never stop being a success. Much to say... but lest we not forget -- I remind me from time to time, too -- that this is an awards driven blog.
We're on the brink of hearing the Emmy nominations. There is an amazing phenomenon that was truly kicked off this year by Netflix's "House of Cards." We all know that by now, this is not news. However, what's interesting when it comes to the world of the Emmys is that Netflix is not a television channel -- it is an entertainment delivery system. So how this sucker is going to play into this year's awards ought to be quite fascinating.
The excellent thing to point out -- right off the bat -- is that the only reason there's an issue that will drastically change the landscape of television should "House of Cards" be nominated for best series and should Spacey, Wright, Mara, and Corey Stoll lock up acting noms (if not more folk than that) -- the only reason it's going to be able to pull this off is because it's a piece of high quality. Ignoring it would make Emmy look stupid.
This is not -- I repeat, this is not the first original web series that could have been all over your Emmy ballot. "Lilyhammer," anyone? But this massive piece of Fincher level quality that the world devoured the second it was released was an entirely different story. "House of Cards" is a force to be reckoned with.
So what does this mean? Does this mean that if something is produced by Netflix that it is a "television movie?" What if it's simul-released in theaters? And here's the biggest stretcheroo of them all -- but a legitimate question nevertheless -- what if I can watch a series on Netflix that isn't yet available in the United States via network television -- why isn't it eligible for awards now?
Used to be you needed American television distribution during the award calendar window and that you hadn't previously been exhibited in the United States via another means -- etc. etc. etc. What does the very existence of a Netflix do to all that?
I frankly find it exciting and hope that Emmy isn't silly enough to simply bestow honorary awards on "House of Cards" and then give its own category -- like Oscar and Tony have done before. This is the new "cable." Full acceptance, Emmy. And voters need to vote on quality, not on whether their jobs will be threatened.
There was a year I like to call 1991... when Beauty and the Beast became the first (and -- in my opinion - LAST) animated film nominated for best picture. It lost. Digital was invented. Lasseter was given an honorary Oscar for Toy Story and a separate category for animated film was created. If you think that wasn't because actors were terrified that they would be replaced with cartoons -- you're insane. That was the lion share of this cocktail. Take a look around at how much is animated now. Look how many voice actors it employs. Take a look at the length of the credits. You think people lost work?
In one year the phrase "web-series" went from being the equivalent of "I could always make earrings in the garage to make ends meet" to being synonymous with "depending on the company, it's better than network." I say embrace it and let the future roll in.
We'll know soon enough.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
MUD-thew McConaughey
Alright, Alright, Alright...
Mud is a modern day Huck Finn that feels as if it were brined in a heavy dose of Tracy Letts. It turns out, that recipe's a one way ticket to a succulent meal. Two boys who live on the river -- one with a beneficent guardian, the other with tumultuous parents find a fugitive living in a boat in a tree. They strike a bargain with the fugitive, helping him in the name of love.
It's Harper Lee-ville. Mississippi Burning. The War -- only tougher.
But let's just cut to the chase -- what everyone's going to be talking about is the fact that McConaughey plays the fugitive. When George had Reese on GMA as part of her "I should have stayed in the car" apology tour, they both gushed about the rebirth of Matt Damon's favorite target -- the McConz.
I'm here to report that he's still riding the wave.
Somewhere around the time McConaughey was signing the deal to make Lincoln Lawyer, he either had hit rock bottom and was rolling the dice -- or he was making a remarkably calculated come back. There are those who will point out his role in Tropic Thunder, claiming that marked his resurrection -- could be - I consider a blip between rather awful romantic comedies - it's no "Ally McBeal" or Wonder Boys. But since the days of Lincoln Lawyer McC has carved out a place for his tripped out mystical Texan with a heart and a faulty line of logic. He has cornered the market on ... well... himself -- a character type that happens to align perfectly with the shady side of the current wave of thinker indies. These heady blue collar films have been some of the strongest works we've seen on the festival circuit and spilling out of the mini majors: Hesher, Winter's Bone, Blue Valentine, Killer Joe. We've had a spate of intellectual rural indies whose writers and directors have tapped back into cinema and literary history.
This Huck Finn shiz suits Matt McC perfectly. As did Killer Joe. As did The Paperboy. As did Magic Mike. This man is back in a major way. If we're going to dole out Oscar nominations to Alec Badlwin for The Cooler and Robert Downey, Jr. for Tropic Thunder -- then McConaughey can't be frar behind. This could well be the flick.
All of that will depend on how the audience connects with the lead of this film, the incredible Tye Sheridan -- who's all but sixteen now and looks far younger on screen. This is a master turn. It's the kind of work we're loving from guys like John Hawkes and Sheridan's Mud co-star Michael Shannon: a genuine young man from a down-on-their-luck part of the country, who's trying to be a better man, and gets disappointed by the system. Well, there's a lot of that going around lately. Turns out it works just as well on the river as it did in Hesher's suburbs. But as was the case with Hesher where all the JGL in the world didn't mean a thing without the spine that was the young Devin Brochu -- Tye Sheridan walks an elegant tightrope -- frightening us when we think he'll fall -- shocking us when he actually does -- and all in the name of perfectly executed drama. This kid's fantastic. As is the pre-teen John C. Reilly-esque best friend "Neckbone," played by Jacob Lofland. If these two weren't Huck and Tom-ing it, none of the adult actors -- all of whom are quite good -- would have the chance to enjoy their characters.
It ain't easy to steer a motorboat when you're headed up stream.
When a newcomer teenager does so adeptly, one has to take his hat off to the director, Jeff Nichols.
After Take Shelter and now Mud, Mr. Lofland is showing himself as a force to be reckoned with. This sophomore effort is solid. Crystal clear, emotionally solid, and as much an allegory as it is believable -- Mud is the work of a director who knows his craft. I understand that Mr. Lofland's success is giving him the chance to track down any actors he pleases -- it seems he should stick with the character types that make his films indelible. For some reason the known quantities -- save McConaughey - aren't playing the way they might for Paul Thomas Anderson.
Let's hope Mud's a film that we're still talking about next February -- and not just saying, "Oh, yeah. That was good -- what happened?" This is the new indie that could gun right up the middle in the age of 10.
Mud is a modern day Huck Finn that feels as if it were brined in a heavy dose of Tracy Letts. It turns out, that recipe's a one way ticket to a succulent meal. Two boys who live on the river -- one with a beneficent guardian, the other with tumultuous parents find a fugitive living in a boat in a tree. They strike a bargain with the fugitive, helping him in the name of love.
It's Harper Lee-ville. Mississippi Burning. The War -- only tougher.
But let's just cut to the chase -- what everyone's going to be talking about is the fact that McConaughey plays the fugitive. When George had Reese on GMA as part of her "I should have stayed in the car" apology tour, they both gushed about the rebirth of Matt Damon's favorite target -- the McConz.
I'm here to report that he's still riding the wave.
Somewhere around the time McConaughey was signing the deal to make Lincoln Lawyer, he either had hit rock bottom and was rolling the dice -- or he was making a remarkably calculated come back. There are those who will point out his role in Tropic Thunder, claiming that marked his resurrection -- could be - I consider a blip between rather awful romantic comedies - it's no "Ally McBeal" or Wonder Boys. But since the days of Lincoln Lawyer McC has carved out a place for his tripped out mystical Texan with a heart and a faulty line of logic. He has cornered the market on ... well... himself -- a character type that happens to align perfectly with the shady side of the current wave of thinker indies. These heady blue collar films have been some of the strongest works we've seen on the festival circuit and spilling out of the mini majors: Hesher, Winter's Bone, Blue Valentine, Killer Joe. We've had a spate of intellectual rural indies whose writers and directors have tapped back into cinema and literary history.
This Huck Finn shiz suits Matt McC perfectly. As did Killer Joe. As did The Paperboy. As did Magic Mike. This man is back in a major way. If we're going to dole out Oscar nominations to Alec Badlwin for The Cooler and Robert Downey, Jr. for Tropic Thunder -- then McConaughey can't be frar behind. This could well be the flick.
All of that will depend on how the audience connects with the lead of this film, the incredible Tye Sheridan -- who's all but sixteen now and looks far younger on screen. This is a master turn. It's the kind of work we're loving from guys like John Hawkes and Sheridan's Mud co-star Michael Shannon: a genuine young man from a down-on-their-luck part of the country, who's trying to be a better man, and gets disappointed by the system. Well, there's a lot of that going around lately. Turns out it works just as well on the river as it did in Hesher's suburbs. But as was the case with Hesher where all the JGL in the world didn't mean a thing without the spine that was the young Devin Brochu -- Tye Sheridan walks an elegant tightrope -- frightening us when we think he'll fall -- shocking us when he actually does -- and all in the name of perfectly executed drama. This kid's fantastic. As is the pre-teen John C. Reilly-esque best friend "Neckbone," played by Jacob Lofland. If these two weren't Huck and Tom-ing it, none of the adult actors -- all of whom are quite good -- would have the chance to enjoy their characters.
It ain't easy to steer a motorboat when you're headed up stream.
When a newcomer teenager does so adeptly, one has to take his hat off to the director, Jeff Nichols.
After Take Shelter and now Mud, Mr. Lofland is showing himself as a force to be reckoned with. This sophomore effort is solid. Crystal clear, emotionally solid, and as much an allegory as it is believable -- Mud is the work of a director who knows his craft. I understand that Mr. Lofland's success is giving him the chance to track down any actors he pleases -- it seems he should stick with the character types that make his films indelible. For some reason the known quantities -- save McConaughey - aren't playing the way they might for Paul Thomas Anderson.
Let's hope Mud's a film that we're still talking about next February -- and not just saying, "Oh, yeah. That was good -- what happened?" This is the new indie that could gun right up the middle in the age of 10.
Friday, May 10, 2013
The Great Gatsby: All that Baz...
*edited to get the point across better...
"How would you characterize 'The Great Gatsby'?"
"He was... uh... great!"
- Rodney Dangerfield, Back to School
At this point you're either under 18, not a film goer, or an idiot if you haven't formulated an opinion about the work of Baz Luhrmann. He's such a hyper-stylized director that you're either in or your our. For those of us who are in, it seems that when all is said and done, the best slice of Baz-ness is the much hailed Romeo and Juliet -- the film that made Leo the Leo Titanic would solidify and also the film that had me wondering -- throughout Gatsby -- whether Claire Danes could have played Daisy Buchanan.
Considering this is an awards blog -- and considering the state of Luhrmann's Gatsby, I'd be remiss not to include Moulin Rouge! -- Baz' best picture nominee. There are those, like me, who are a tad obsessed -- loving the soundtrack, thinking it might be cozy to live in an elephant. But for as many who loved it, there were people who loathed it whether they liked R&J or not. But the truth of the matter is that Moulin Rouge is the best (modern) jukebox musical -- bar none. It's a form that catches a lot of hell -- but within the form, Baz delivered. I don't know how they'll ever bring it to the stage considering Satine drops dead at the end and who the hell wants to pay $500 to take the kids to see that? And yet I know that when Mr. Luhrmann brings it to the stage, it shall he yet another marvel.
The reason I know this is that Mr. Luhrmann -- I'm just going to sail right past Australia! if you'll permit me -- is clearly now -- and seemingly always was -- an opera director. Look back over the films. What we're watching is the progression of a man who loves spectacles -- and not just the brassy pair looming over the valley of ashes. The Great Gatsby proves that the fuel to Baz' fire is not excellent storytelling, it's not even great performances, it's explosive visuals with moments of high drama.
I'm going to meander about as I assess the film -- if for no other reason that the film itself meanders about -- inviting one to critique it thusly. So let me lay out a couple of quick clear statements about the Leo Gatz...
It's better than the Redford.
It's surprisingly faithful to the book.
It is ultimately a good movie.
If you're a Bazian, you may be incredibly happy... or you may have my conflicted reaction...
Call (516) MOU-LIN2 now for great offers on FitzGerald!!!
My gut reaction is that I'm a little surprised Baz "Rouged" it in. You're really just watching Moulin Rouge! - Nassau County Edition. The camera work, the dancing, the art direction -- all quite MR. When you strip the plot down to bare bones -- they comparison is even more obvious. There are very limited differences between this story and Moulin Rouge -- Christ, if they'd said "penniless" one more time, I would have started wondering if Gatsby was a sitar player.
At the same time, you come to the realization that what makes many pieces of American literature great is that they are, at their core, very simple stories. Our experience of them through the author's selected word choice is really what matters. As I was watching this film I couldn't shake the feeling of, "Well, yeah, that's it." that kept washing over me. The thing's faithful. And, to be honest, something about it feels -- despite the cartoonishness of it -- a bit more faithful than the Bob Evans.
What today's release proved, if anything else, is that Gatsby is one of those rare novels that simply can't be filmed. The loss of language destroys it. It didn't matter that you heard Nick Carraway speaking direct quotes about our being "borne back ceaselessly to the past." What struck was that the emotion is unfilmable. What are you going to do, show a rowboat tugging on its mooring? You know what the rhymes with? Boring.
You realize, too, that's not really a sentence whose saying aloud gives a sense of revelation -- unless we're talking about The Hotel New Hampshire.
Baz gussied it up and sent it down the runway. Millions of English Lit students rejoice!
However, I have to say that as a bona fide Fitzfan, it felt empty. True, it could be that there was something to the film's picture and sound process that gave the feeling of disembodiment. But for a novel from such a tragic figure, that has a love story many rank as one of the all time greats -- it just doesn't have a convincing heart. Again, that heart seemed a medium based loss.
The only performance that one need speak of is Leonardo DiCaprio... Gatsby himself.
It was interesting to see that there were shots of Leonardo DiCaprio that were phantoms of his Romeo. For me, those moments highlighted the fact that it has been a long time since Leo has been in a convincing romantic relationship on screen. His roles are always so damn tragic: he's always winding up unhappy and dead. Gangs of New York, Aviator, Departed, Blood Diamond, Inception, and Shutter Island weren't exactly laugh factories. Nor did they have many warm beds. One of the few times he's been momentarily happily married ended up being Revolutionary Road. The audience is estranged from watching Leo be romantic. It's a dangerous place for him to be -- especially when Ryan Gosling's strutting through every other picture, desperately in love. Obviously this kid's staying at the top of the pack for a long, long time. He carved himself out a leading man niche that's on par with Nicholson, Beatty, and Clooney (though it's been a while since George had a love scene, too). Leo'd be wise to show us he can have convincing on screen sex with someone who lives happily. Vera Farmiga, Tilda Swinton, and Kate Hepburn don't count as convincers. He needs to show us that he doesn't always have to be the isolated character -- unless he plans on being Eastwood -- the problem is Ben's already doing that.
Leo is still the king. Let's not forget.
"How would you characterize 'The Great Gatsby'?"
"He was... uh... great!"
- Rodney Dangerfield, Back to School
At this point you're either under 18, not a film goer, or an idiot if you haven't formulated an opinion about the work of Baz Luhrmann. He's such a hyper-stylized director that you're either in or your our. For those of us who are in, it seems that when all is said and done, the best slice of Baz-ness is the much hailed Romeo and Juliet -- the film that made Leo the Leo Titanic would solidify and also the film that had me wondering -- throughout Gatsby -- whether Claire Danes could have played Daisy Buchanan.
Considering this is an awards blog -- and considering the state of Luhrmann's Gatsby, I'd be remiss not to include Moulin Rouge! -- Baz' best picture nominee. There are those, like me, who are a tad obsessed -- loving the soundtrack, thinking it might be cozy to live in an elephant. But for as many who loved it, there were people who loathed it whether they liked R&J or not. But the truth of the matter is that Moulin Rouge is the best (modern) jukebox musical -- bar none. It's a form that catches a lot of hell -- but within the form, Baz delivered. I don't know how they'll ever bring it to the stage considering Satine drops dead at the end and who the hell wants to pay $500 to take the kids to see that? And yet I know that when Mr. Luhrmann brings it to the stage, it shall he yet another marvel.
The reason I know this is that Mr. Luhrmann -- I'm just going to sail right past Australia! if you'll permit me -- is clearly now -- and seemingly always was -- an opera director. Look back over the films. What we're watching is the progression of a man who loves spectacles -- and not just the brassy pair looming over the valley of ashes. The Great Gatsby proves that the fuel to Baz' fire is not excellent storytelling, it's not even great performances, it's explosive visuals with moments of high drama.
I'm going to meander about as I assess the film -- if for no other reason that the film itself meanders about -- inviting one to critique it thusly. So let me lay out a couple of quick clear statements about the Leo Gatz...
It's better than the Redford.
It's surprisingly faithful to the book.
It is ultimately a good movie.
If you're a Bazian, you may be incredibly happy... or you may have my conflicted reaction...
Call (516) MOU-LIN2 now for great offers on FitzGerald!!!
My gut reaction is that I'm a little surprised Baz "Rouged" it in. You're really just watching Moulin Rouge! - Nassau County Edition. The camera work, the dancing, the art direction -- all quite MR. When you strip the plot down to bare bones -- they comparison is even more obvious. There are very limited differences between this story and Moulin Rouge -- Christ, if they'd said "penniless" one more time, I would have started wondering if Gatsby was a sitar player.
At the same time, you come to the realization that what makes many pieces of American literature great is that they are, at their core, very simple stories. Our experience of them through the author's selected word choice is really what matters. As I was watching this film I couldn't shake the feeling of, "Well, yeah, that's it." that kept washing over me. The thing's faithful. And, to be honest, something about it feels -- despite the cartoonishness of it -- a bit more faithful than the Bob Evans.
What today's release proved, if anything else, is that Gatsby is one of those rare novels that simply can't be filmed. The loss of language destroys it. It didn't matter that you heard Nick Carraway speaking direct quotes about our being "borne back ceaselessly to the past." What struck was that the emotion is unfilmable. What are you going to do, show a rowboat tugging on its mooring? You know what the rhymes with? Boring.
You realize, too, that's not really a sentence whose saying aloud gives a sense of revelation -- unless we're talking about The Hotel New Hampshire.
Baz gussied it up and sent it down the runway. Millions of English Lit students rejoice!
However, I have to say that as a bona fide Fitzfan, it felt empty. True, it could be that there was something to the film's picture and sound process that gave the feeling of disembodiment. But for a novel from such a tragic figure, that has a love story many rank as one of the all time greats -- it just doesn't have a convincing heart. Again, that heart seemed a medium based loss.
The only performance that one need speak of is Leonardo DiCaprio... Gatsby himself.
It was interesting to see that there were shots of Leonardo DiCaprio that were phantoms of his Romeo. For me, those moments highlighted the fact that it has been a long time since Leo has been in a convincing romantic relationship on screen. His roles are always so damn tragic: he's always winding up unhappy and dead. Gangs of New York, Aviator, Departed, Blood Diamond, Inception, and Shutter Island weren't exactly laugh factories. Nor did they have many warm beds. One of the few times he's been momentarily happily married ended up being Revolutionary Road. The audience is estranged from watching Leo be romantic. It's a dangerous place for him to be -- especially when Ryan Gosling's strutting through every other picture, desperately in love. Obviously this kid's staying at the top of the pack for a long, long time. He carved himself out a leading man niche that's on par with Nicholson, Beatty, and Clooney (though it's been a while since George had a love scene, too). Leo'd be wise to show us he can have convincing on screen sex with someone who lives happily. Vera Farmiga, Tilda Swinton, and Kate Hepburn don't count as convincers. He needs to show us that he doesn't always have to be the isolated character -- unless he plans on being Eastwood -- the problem is Ben's already doing that.
Leo is still the king. Let's not forget.
Pain & Gain & 42
Pain & Gain
There will be no awards for Pain & Gain -- so it shan't get its own blog entry. It's a tried and true Michael Bay movie. It falls very short of The Rock (the movie, not the guy) and I doubt Transformers fans would find it all that exciting. It's nevertheless an okay crime movie that should have been funnier.
Bay -- who knows how to make things go boom -- doesn't know how to make things amusing. Most of the time, the amusement at a Bay film comes from his absurdly over the top filming style. However, if Bay's gonna stick it for the long haul, he would do with pulling a Richard Donner.
Consider the fact that The Rock (the guy, not the movie) is currently in two of the Top 10 films with Fast and the Furious waiting in the wings; we're going to have to actually start admitting that the guy is a bona fide movie star. And let's talk about Marky Mark and the $218 Million box office haul for Ted. There's no two ways about the fact that if you're going to put these guys in a crime movie, you better be aiming for something in the Get Shorty ballpark. Here the end cocktail is more Blow than I Love You Phillip Morris -- and it should have aimed for the latter -- this take doesn't quite work. If an editor tightened this thing by twenty-five minutes, dropped the True Romance-ing, and leaned on the Midnight Run, this sucker would have been far superior.
It's a rental. I could see truly enjoying this sucker over a couple of lazy Sunday cups of coffee.
42 Reasons Why The Supporting Oscar Race May Be On...
Brian Helgeland is a mystery to me. He's one of these screenwriters who is always on high profile projects -- especially since he shared an Oscar win with Curtis Hanson for 1997's attempted iceberg pic -- L.A. Confidential. He's definitely going to deliver quality -- but it can be all over the map -- ranging from the "let's dance to Bowie in medieval times" flick - A Knight's Tale - to the "is that my Oscar in there?!?!" Sean Penn-ery that was the muted crime drama known as Mystic River. That being said, it's tough to know which version of the Jackie Robinson story he was going to deliver.
Well, let me say this: Helgeland delivered the goods. While I'll admit there's about a half-dozen overly sentimental moments of the We Are Marshall variety -- in 42, they're mostly one on one moments with good actors: just when you're about to squirm at a saccharine scene... it lands. You'll forgive 42 these itsy bitsy flaws because more than anything else, it's great.
No, it's not The Natural. And it's not Ray. And that's a good thing. This is not the story of the greatest baseball player in the history of the world. And this is not the story of a man whose personal life was so dramatic that it needs to be on the big screen. That's not Jackie Robinson. This is the story of a great ball player whose ability to stomach racism was as vital to his success as his natural talent at stealing an extra base. Interestingly, Helgeland has been a bit vocal about the fact that he doesn't see 42 as a "sports movie" -- opting to be categorized as a film about a great man, breaking the color barrier, a encapsulation of a specific moment in America. That's all fine and good, Mr. Helgeland. But I'd argue it's the "sports" aspect of this story that makes it work; it's the "sport" that facilitates the delivery of your message.
There's something amazing about the marriage of movies and athletics. We love them -- whether they're about the business (Moneyball), the hilarity of grown men playing a game for a living (Slap Shot), a specific championship (Eight Men Out), or something that enhances the sheer myth of it all with a tale we wish were true (The Natural -- no sports article would be complete without at least two references to the Redford-Levinson great). There's about 2% of sports movies where the focal team or athlete doesn't pull it off. And yet we all sit on the edge of our seats when the director throws athletic triumph into question. I don't care if it's watching Olympiads in a great struggle -- the title of the friggin' movie is Miracle, what do you think happens? -- or the story of a kid who wants to win the season ender his way -- Teen Wolf. These films have us in the palm of their hands...
God I hope she sticks it!
God, I hope they score this touchdown!
God, I hope wins despite his dramatic injury!
They're gonna make it: don't worry.
Unless, we're talking about Rocky I, Friday Night Lights, Without Limits or Jeepers Creepers 2.
Sports get the audience on the hook, willing to take an emotional roller-coaster ride, setting aside huge chunks of their logic and historic knowledge.
This marriage worked very much in 42's favor. We all know what happened. We know he made it. We know that professional sports are -- if anything -- the flipside of what they were when Mr. Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers. But we surrender to the story nevertheless -- and to the central thesis of the film: style and talent matter more than one's religion, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc. etc. It's one of the definitive reasons why we have The Olympics. There's simply no argument that you're on Jackie's side -- consequently, the film becomes a reminder of how openly racist people were permitted to be -- how incredibly stupid it was/is -- and how easy it is to get past your own preconceived notions if you just try. I'm not joking when I say you hit the end of this film and find out some terrible things happened to the bigots and it's like you just heard Lecter say, "I'm having an old friend for dinner." That means you pulled this story off.
And it took -- among many great performances -- two actors in particular...
There's a remarkable discovery in Chadwick Boseman, Hegeland's Jackie Robinson. This is far and away the largest responsibility placed on Mr. Boseman's shoulders and he delivers. This is a complex character who weathers some truly challenging moments in the course of this film. 42 was not easy work -- even though Chadwick sure as hell made it look like it was.
The issue is that his performance -- and everyone else's performance -- is overshadowed by Harrison Ford.
It may come as a surprise to all of you that Harrison -- Dr. Jones, Captain Solo, Jack Ryan, Get Off My Plane, I Did Not Kill My Wife -- Ford has but one Oscar nomination for 1985's Witness -- losing to William Hurt for Kiss Of The Spiderwoman. At the very least, those who follow the awards might be saying, "Really? Nothing for Working Girl?" -- already dismissing Mosquito Coast, Presumed Innocent, and the heavily Oscar nommed Fugitive.
One nomination -- though he's one of the most successful movie stars in the history of cinema.
And the truth is Mr. McBeal hasn't had the smoothest go of it, lately. The fourth Indiana Jones didn't have too many folks psyched about the coming fifth installment -- though we're all going to go. Cowboys and Aliens didn't do what it should... and hopefully Anchorman 2 makes up for what Morning Glory couldn't deliver in the Ford-meets-Brokaw department. But 42 is a whole bag.
Ford slips into a true character that anchors the film. The film would be nowhere without him. It's a Hackman Hoosiers, Nolte Warrior, Russell Miracle kinda role. He's a remarkable engine. 42 is the perfect reminder of Ford's talent, sense of humor, and his sheer power on screen. He does logical-mean-old-man-who-isn't-gonna-put-up-with-your-shit damn well. He's officially thrown it into Bogie gear.
If Ford can get this locked in as a supporting role -- this could be the place to hand him a statue. Scroll through the list of supporting actor winners and you see that it's often an elder statesman getting a trophy for a solid role -- while also being just a touch lifetime achievement...
Connery, Gielguld, Williams, Jones, Caine -- twice!
To those who say he has too much screen time and should be in the lead category, I counter by citing the Hutton/Hopkins/Connelly trifecta -- the Bermuda's Triangle of how rolls are categorized and which ones win...
There will be no awards for Pain & Gain -- so it shan't get its own blog entry. It's a tried and true Michael Bay movie. It falls very short of The Rock (the movie, not the guy) and I doubt Transformers fans would find it all that exciting. It's nevertheless an okay crime movie that should have been funnier.
Bay -- who knows how to make things go boom -- doesn't know how to make things amusing. Most of the time, the amusement at a Bay film comes from his absurdly over the top filming style. However, if Bay's gonna stick it for the long haul, he would do with pulling a Richard Donner.
Consider the fact that The Rock (the guy, not the movie) is currently in two of the Top 10 films with Fast and the Furious waiting in the wings; we're going to have to actually start admitting that the guy is a bona fide movie star. And let's talk about Marky Mark and the $218 Million box office haul for Ted. There's no two ways about the fact that if you're going to put these guys in a crime movie, you better be aiming for something in the Get Shorty ballpark. Here the end cocktail is more Blow than I Love You Phillip Morris -- and it should have aimed for the latter -- this take doesn't quite work. If an editor tightened this thing by twenty-five minutes, dropped the True Romance-ing, and leaned on the Midnight Run, this sucker would have been far superior.
It's a rental. I could see truly enjoying this sucker over a couple of lazy Sunday cups of coffee.
42 Reasons Why The Supporting Oscar Race May Be On...
Brian Helgeland is a mystery to me. He's one of these screenwriters who is always on high profile projects -- especially since he shared an Oscar win with Curtis Hanson for 1997's attempted iceberg pic -- L.A. Confidential. He's definitely going to deliver quality -- but it can be all over the map -- ranging from the "let's dance to Bowie in medieval times" flick - A Knight's Tale - to the "is that my Oscar in there?!?!" Sean Penn-ery that was the muted crime drama known as Mystic River. That being said, it's tough to know which version of the Jackie Robinson story he was going to deliver.
Well, let me say this: Helgeland delivered the goods. While I'll admit there's about a half-dozen overly sentimental moments of the We Are Marshall variety -- in 42, they're mostly one on one moments with good actors: just when you're about to squirm at a saccharine scene... it lands. You'll forgive 42 these itsy bitsy flaws because more than anything else, it's great.
No, it's not The Natural. And it's not Ray. And that's a good thing. This is not the story of the greatest baseball player in the history of the world. And this is not the story of a man whose personal life was so dramatic that it needs to be on the big screen. That's not Jackie Robinson. This is the story of a great ball player whose ability to stomach racism was as vital to his success as his natural talent at stealing an extra base. Interestingly, Helgeland has been a bit vocal about the fact that he doesn't see 42 as a "sports movie" -- opting to be categorized as a film about a great man, breaking the color barrier, a encapsulation of a specific moment in America. That's all fine and good, Mr. Helgeland. But I'd argue it's the "sports" aspect of this story that makes it work; it's the "sport" that facilitates the delivery of your message.
There's something amazing about the marriage of movies and athletics. We love them -- whether they're about the business (Moneyball), the hilarity of grown men playing a game for a living (Slap Shot), a specific championship (Eight Men Out), or something that enhances the sheer myth of it all with a tale we wish were true (The Natural -- no sports article would be complete without at least two references to the Redford-Levinson great). There's about 2% of sports movies where the focal team or athlete doesn't pull it off. And yet we all sit on the edge of our seats when the director throws athletic triumph into question. I don't care if it's watching Olympiads in a great struggle -- the title of the friggin' movie is Miracle, what do you think happens? -- or the story of a kid who wants to win the season ender his way -- Teen Wolf. These films have us in the palm of their hands...
God I hope she sticks it!
God, I hope they score this touchdown!
God, I hope wins despite his dramatic injury!
They're gonna make it: don't worry.
Unless, we're talking about Rocky I, Friday Night Lights, Without Limits or Jeepers Creepers 2.
Sports get the audience on the hook, willing to take an emotional roller-coaster ride, setting aside huge chunks of their logic and historic knowledge.
This marriage worked very much in 42's favor. We all know what happened. We know he made it. We know that professional sports are -- if anything -- the flipside of what they were when Mr. Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers. But we surrender to the story nevertheless -- and to the central thesis of the film: style and talent matter more than one's religion, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc. etc. It's one of the definitive reasons why we have The Olympics. There's simply no argument that you're on Jackie's side -- consequently, the film becomes a reminder of how openly racist people were permitted to be -- how incredibly stupid it was/is -- and how easy it is to get past your own preconceived notions if you just try. I'm not joking when I say you hit the end of this film and find out some terrible things happened to the bigots and it's like you just heard Lecter say, "I'm having an old friend for dinner." That means you pulled this story off.
And it took -- among many great performances -- two actors in particular...
There's a remarkable discovery in Chadwick Boseman, Hegeland's Jackie Robinson. This is far and away the largest responsibility placed on Mr. Boseman's shoulders and he delivers. This is a complex character who weathers some truly challenging moments in the course of this film. 42 was not easy work -- even though Chadwick sure as hell made it look like it was.
The issue is that his performance -- and everyone else's performance -- is overshadowed by Harrison Ford.
It may come as a surprise to all of you that Harrison -- Dr. Jones, Captain Solo, Jack Ryan, Get Off My Plane, I Did Not Kill My Wife -- Ford has but one Oscar nomination for 1985's Witness -- losing to William Hurt for Kiss Of The Spiderwoman. At the very least, those who follow the awards might be saying, "Really? Nothing for Working Girl?" -- already dismissing Mosquito Coast, Presumed Innocent, and the heavily Oscar nommed Fugitive.
One nomination -- though he's one of the most successful movie stars in the history of cinema.
And the truth is Mr. McBeal hasn't had the smoothest go of it, lately. The fourth Indiana Jones didn't have too many folks psyched about the coming fifth installment -- though we're all going to go. Cowboys and Aliens didn't do what it should... and hopefully Anchorman 2 makes up for what Morning Glory couldn't deliver in the Ford-meets-Brokaw department. But 42 is a whole bag.
Ford slips into a true character that anchors the film. The film would be nowhere without him. It's a Hackman Hoosiers, Nolte Warrior, Russell Miracle kinda role. He's a remarkable engine. 42 is the perfect reminder of Ford's talent, sense of humor, and his sheer power on screen. He does logical-mean-old-man-who-isn't-gonna-put-up-with-your-shit damn well. He's officially thrown it into Bogie gear.
If Ford can get this locked in as a supporting role -- this could be the place to hand him a statue. Scroll through the list of supporting actor winners and you see that it's often an elder statesman getting a trophy for a solid role -- while also being just a touch lifetime achievement...
Connery, Gielguld, Williams, Jones, Caine -- twice!
To those who say he has too much screen time and should be in the lead category, I counter by citing the Hutton/Hopkins/Connelly trifecta -- the Bermuda's Triangle of how rolls are categorized and which ones win...
- Timothy Hutton provides the first, strongest leg of the "Go Ahead and Be a Lead in the Supporting Category" argument. The TH is the lead of Ordinary People. Unquestionably so. Nevertheless, he won the 1980 supporting Oscar. Why was he categroized as such? Well, according to anyone you ask: "because he was young." So what?! Why is it that people consider the Supporting Oscar to be Oscar Jr.? It's maddening! Hutton proves Ford could go supporting.
- The little Labyrither serves as Exhibit B. If you're going to say, "Well, she was just the wife." I say, "Shame on you, sir!" Jennifer Connelly may well have been the only woman in A Beautiful Mind. And MAN did she have screentime. Yet her Oscar's for supporting. Take a page, Harry.
- Finally, there's the back door approach of supporting roles going lead -- proving, like back in geometry class -- that there's no rhyme or reason to this thing: Anthony Hopkins. The former Sir Tony has such limited screentime in Silence of the Lambs it's remarkable to think that he was possibly considered to be in a lead role -- go ahead and look up how few minutes Hannibal had, you'll be surprised. Why's he lead? Because his character is important? Did you see The Dark Knight?
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
"Pine" Soul: Gosling's New Indie Pic Is Above and "Beyond."
THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES...
If you're looking for a great crime film chuck full of well rounded characters with a gripping plot and a structure you're not going to find anywhere else, then The Place Beyond the Pines is the film for you.
The second feature from director/co-writer Derek Cianfrance, Pines charts a course whose mood is similar to Narc, Killing Me Softly, and Drive -- though it may in fact be superior to all three. It is, of course, an awful thing to claim that certain films are "better" than others, as they are all different. It is even a bit more awful when one claims a film is "better" than predecessors who helped forge the way for the current film's existence. That being said, I'm going to leave the word "superior" dangling out there nevertheless. The Film Nook is, after all, ultimately an awards website. Thus, things will eventually end in a realm of comparison and ranking where nominees and then winners are named. So there we have it.
Cianfrance earned a great deal of acclaim and attention for his first feature Blue Valentine -- also starring Ryan Gosling and earning the lovely Michelle Williams her second Oscar nomination (Brokeback - also from FOCUS - being her first). Those who saw Valentine and enjoyed it (as much as one can use the word "enjoy" with Blue Valentine) might still be a bit trepidatious about entering those waters again. Valentine was raw, real, and brutal. It wasn't exactly something that warmed the heart -- though the title was absolutely fair warning (don't expect to be laughing my ass off when watching Gloomy Sunday, either). With Place Beyond the Pines, Gianfrance has woven together and intriguing multi-generational crime drama that cushions the audience from its palpable plot blows by keeping audience minds anchored in the intrigue of what will happen. It's amazing how a suitcase of money and a bit of corruption make emotionally trying plots, horrible fates, and unjust outcomes stomach-able; Gianfrance's skilled direction does just that.
Of course, Derek followed the Mike Nichols rule of direction and cast his film perfectly. It could be that in Ryan Gosling, he has found the perfect leading man: a sexy, soft-spoken, anti-hero, whose fatal flaw is a deep loyalty undercut by the tumultuous battle between his heart and short temper. There's not many men who convincingly stunt ride motor cycles, squeal with delight when feeding an infant ice cream, rob banks at gunpoint, and dance with dogs. Each one of these moments seems like just another natural day for Gosling -- and is most certainly a testament to the trusting relationship between director and star. Without Gosling as the kick-off character, Pines wouldn't be properly anchored. He ties this picture down perfectly -- allowing those that follow to flourish as the echoes of his masterfully genuine performance ring through the rest of the film.
Gosling's perp is well-assisted by Ben Mendelsohn, perhaps best known as "Taggert" the crooked board member who drove Bruce Wayne from his family company -- and later had his head cracked or his eyes gouged out -- some horrible off-screen fate -- at the hands of Bane. In Pines Mendelsohn's Robin proves the half-wit two-bit thief who prompts Gosling's life of crime. Their partnership is a perfect "be careful what you wish for" relationship where Gosling's success and (dare I say) drive put Robin at further risk. Mendelsohn comes face to face with Gosling's DeNiro-esque (I prefer Gosling -- deal with it) complex criminality and lives to tell the tale. Perhaps his most defining characteristic is that the tale he tells is a kind one.
Hot on Gosling's tale is Avery, played by Bradley Cooper -- who does quite the turn. I will admit -- and those of you that followed the Oscar wave of this blog know -- that I wasn't too keen on the Silver Linings Playbook. I must watch it again and I must give it a fair shake the second time around. Having said that, Pines proves yet another film where the Hangover star is proving that he is also a serious actor. Cooper's copper performance spans fifteen years of the film's narrative -- requiring that Avery be played in two generations. Though only briefly in the latter hunk, Cooper is quite convincing as both young cop and rising politico.
Not to be overlooked is Eva Mendes, who hasn't had a performance this significant since her briefly Oscar buzzing turn in We Own the Night. Mendes weathers the storm of both Cooper and Gosling, let alone Ray Liotta, her husband, and her son -- if I went more in depth than that, I'd spoil the whole damn plot and in the words of Samwise Gamgee, "I don't mean to."
In fact every performance in the film -- particularly those of youngsters Dane DeHaan (Lawless) and Emory Cohen (Smash) -- is measured, managed, and -- simply put -- genuine. I've used that word earlier in this bit o' blog write-up, and the truth of the matter is that there's no better description of this film, its plot, its cast, and their performances than "genuine." It's as if the audience drops into Gosling's carnival trailer like a stone into a placid pond and then Gianfrance takes us on a ride through the ripples -- passing us through characters, generations, mistakes, and aftermaths.
Chalk up Independent Spirit nominations up and down the joint for this excellent little film -- which has already racked up a respectable 18 Million in domestic box office. Though it could be forgotten come Oscar time, I'd say put this one on the back burner and let's watch how the rest of the year pans out. If you slid Gosling and Cooper into the "supporting actor" category -- as all parts in this ensembler should be -- they could well pop up. The truth is supporting's the most brutal category out there -- usually packed with five deserving winners. But a Gosling win at this young an age -- and the truth is based on their bodies of work and even film to film, Gosling deserves it over Cooper any day -- would be something out of the Adrien Brody Playbook. Despite the Gos' four Golden Globe and three Indie Spirit noms, he has only one Oscar nom for Half Nelson. Walking the Sean Penn, DeNiro route that he is, Ryan stands a better chance snagging a supporting statue as Bobby D did for Godfather Part II; leading man may be something Gosling -- like Penn before him -- won't see until he crosses 40.
The Place Beyond the Pines -- easily this year's best film so far.
If you're looking for a great crime film chuck full of well rounded characters with a gripping plot and a structure you're not going to find anywhere else, then The Place Beyond the Pines is the film for you.
The second feature from director/co-writer Derek Cianfrance, Pines charts a course whose mood is similar to Narc, Killing Me Softly, and Drive -- though it may in fact be superior to all three. It is, of course, an awful thing to claim that certain films are "better" than others, as they are all different. It is even a bit more awful when one claims a film is "better" than predecessors who helped forge the way for the current film's existence. That being said, I'm going to leave the word "superior" dangling out there nevertheless. The Film Nook is, after all, ultimately an awards website. Thus, things will eventually end in a realm of comparison and ranking where nominees and then winners are named. So there we have it.
Cianfrance earned a great deal of acclaim and attention for his first feature Blue Valentine -- also starring Ryan Gosling and earning the lovely Michelle Williams her second Oscar nomination (Brokeback - also from FOCUS - being her first). Those who saw Valentine and enjoyed it (as much as one can use the word "enjoy" with Blue Valentine) might still be a bit trepidatious about entering those waters again. Valentine was raw, real, and brutal. It wasn't exactly something that warmed the heart -- though the title was absolutely fair warning (don't expect to be laughing my ass off when watching Gloomy Sunday, either). With Place Beyond the Pines, Gianfrance has woven together and intriguing multi-generational crime drama that cushions the audience from its palpable plot blows by keeping audience minds anchored in the intrigue of what will happen. It's amazing how a suitcase of money and a bit of corruption make emotionally trying plots, horrible fates, and unjust outcomes stomach-able; Gianfrance's skilled direction does just that.
Of course, Derek followed the Mike Nichols rule of direction and cast his film perfectly. It could be that in Ryan Gosling, he has found the perfect leading man: a sexy, soft-spoken, anti-hero, whose fatal flaw is a deep loyalty undercut by the tumultuous battle between his heart and short temper. There's not many men who convincingly stunt ride motor cycles, squeal with delight when feeding an infant ice cream, rob banks at gunpoint, and dance with dogs. Each one of these moments seems like just another natural day for Gosling -- and is most certainly a testament to the trusting relationship between director and star. Without Gosling as the kick-off character, Pines wouldn't be properly anchored. He ties this picture down perfectly -- allowing those that follow to flourish as the echoes of his masterfully genuine performance ring through the rest of the film.
Gosling's perp is well-assisted by Ben Mendelsohn, perhaps best known as "Taggert" the crooked board member who drove Bruce Wayne from his family company -- and later had his head cracked or his eyes gouged out -- some horrible off-screen fate -- at the hands of Bane. In Pines Mendelsohn's Robin proves the half-wit two-bit thief who prompts Gosling's life of crime. Their partnership is a perfect "be careful what you wish for" relationship where Gosling's success and (dare I say) drive put Robin at further risk. Mendelsohn comes face to face with Gosling's DeNiro-esque (I prefer Gosling -- deal with it) complex criminality and lives to tell the tale. Perhaps his most defining characteristic is that the tale he tells is a kind one.
Hot on Gosling's tale is Avery, played by Bradley Cooper -- who does quite the turn. I will admit -- and those of you that followed the Oscar wave of this blog know -- that I wasn't too keen on the Silver Linings Playbook. I must watch it again and I must give it a fair shake the second time around. Having said that, Pines proves yet another film where the Hangover star is proving that he is also a serious actor. Cooper's copper performance spans fifteen years of the film's narrative -- requiring that Avery be played in two generations. Though only briefly in the latter hunk, Cooper is quite convincing as both young cop and rising politico.
Not to be overlooked is Eva Mendes, who hasn't had a performance this significant since her briefly Oscar buzzing turn in We Own the Night. Mendes weathers the storm of both Cooper and Gosling, let alone Ray Liotta, her husband, and her son -- if I went more in depth than that, I'd spoil the whole damn plot and in the words of Samwise Gamgee, "I don't mean to."
In fact every performance in the film -- particularly those of youngsters Dane DeHaan (Lawless) and Emory Cohen (Smash) -- is measured, managed, and -- simply put -- genuine. I've used that word earlier in this bit o' blog write-up, and the truth of the matter is that there's no better description of this film, its plot, its cast, and their performances than "genuine." It's as if the audience drops into Gosling's carnival trailer like a stone into a placid pond and then Gianfrance takes us on a ride through the ripples -- passing us through characters, generations, mistakes, and aftermaths.
Chalk up Independent Spirit nominations up and down the joint for this excellent little film -- which has already racked up a respectable 18 Million in domestic box office. Though it could be forgotten come Oscar time, I'd say put this one on the back burner and let's watch how the rest of the year pans out. If you slid Gosling and Cooper into the "supporting actor" category -- as all parts in this ensembler should be -- they could well pop up. The truth is supporting's the most brutal category out there -- usually packed with five deserving winners. But a Gosling win at this young an age -- and the truth is based on their bodies of work and even film to film, Gosling deserves it over Cooper any day -- would be something out of the Adrien Brody Playbook. Despite the Gos' four Golden Globe and three Indie Spirit noms, he has only one Oscar nom for Half Nelson. Walking the Sean Penn, DeNiro route that he is, Ryan stands a better chance snagging a supporting statue as Bobby D did for Godfather Part II; leading man may be something Gosling -- like Penn before him -- won't see until he crosses 40.
The Place Beyond the Pines -- easily this year's best film so far.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Oscar Time: The McPicks
There's no point prolonging the inevitable... so let's get to what I would like to win and what actually will in this -- The Matthew J. McCue & Sebastian Equinox Picks for the 85th Annual Academy Awards...
In my dream scenario, the awards would be distributed as follows...
Picture: Zero Dark Thirty
Director: Steven Spielberg
Actor: Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
Actress: Naomi Watts, The Impossible
Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained
Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables
Original Screenplay: Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty
Adapted Screenplay: Tony Kushner, Lincoln
Best Animated Feature: Wreck It Ralph
BUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN...
I'm simply not taking the time to go through all the minor awards. I hope that Deakins wins, that Adele wins, that Life of Pi racks up what it can, and that there are some full-on, legitimate surprises. I want "upsets."
I think this year we're going to get a couple of upsets and I think they'll actually fall in the top nine -- hence those being the only ones where I listed my wishes...
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE...
The best animated feature of the year is Wreck It Ralph. Somehow, Brave has been winning awards all over the place -- so has Ralph. But this is the chance to give Tim Burton an Oscar. So I see this as Disney either congratulating themselves for yet another win with Brave and keeping the PIXAR streak at a max, or I see them handing it to the guy who showed them how much money there was in a new Alice in Wonderland -- you can thank him for Oz, too.
Why not give it to Tim for the feature version of the student film that made him a legend?
Are we going to wait until 20 years from now when Helena has to push him out in a black and white wheelchair, or are we going to give an Oscar to TIM BURTON now?
Tim better hope Brave loses.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Christ Terrio for Argo, David O. Russel for Silver Linings, Tony Kushner for Lincoln.
Tony should absolutely win. A win by any of these three may show a trend for the night as in -- "You bet your ass it's Argo." or "Holy shit, how many is Silver Linings going to win?" The only idea to compete with those is -- "Holy shit, could Lincoln hold?"
The last seems the most improbable.
I think this is Tony Kushner's to lose. I think that Spielberg did a brilliant job directing a brilliant -- albeit occasionally boring -- Tony Kushner play. And I think David O. Russell has edged him out.
A Christ Terrio victory would be just shy of a Precious level surprise.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
It would be nice if Wes Anderson could win this. He won't.
It would be something else if Mark Boal were a guaranteed winner here.
But this one's a horse race between Zero Dark and Django.
My gut is saying things have tipped and it's Quentin's second. Mark Boal won for writing Hurt Locker. Unless we want to make him the Ruth Prawer Jhabvala of the modern Middle East pic. However, a Boal win would be lovely as it may be the only significant Zero Dark victory tonight.
The surprise here will be if Michael Haneke win. He could Almodovar this... but I doubt it -- highly.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
This is Anne Hathaway. I couldn't be happier.
An upset here would be psychotic.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Besides "Original Screenplay" which is my all time favorite because it is my life, there is the most historically heated category of all time -- "Best Supporting Actor."
This is where the dog fights happen.
This year, we've got one between Christoph Waltz and Tommy Lee Jones -- two previous winners. Normally that's something that can call the race. Not this time.
The power of Lincoln could drag TLJ along. But that seems to be stalling out.
Waltz's charming acceptance speeches and his sheer exuberance that all of this is happening to him -- again -- actually matters. The reason is because we were all going to see Django to see the movie we thought was going to bring Leo a supporting actor nomination. All from a couple of shots of DiCaprio with a coconut cocktail. But once you'd seen the Tarantino, it was hard to lie -- Waltz was the best actor in the film. Period. So what do we do now?
Well, it looks like you may well let him have it over the Hollywood veteran. Let Waltz get all Jason Robards up in here. I do think it may well be the case.
A Tommy Lee win means that Lincoln is still in play in every category.
BEST ACTRESS
Will be Jennifer Lawrence. This one is as close as Meryl and Viola -- no matter what anyone says. We can all think what we want, but we're not going to truly know it until the envelope opens. If David O. Russell is up two Oscars or DeNiro has a good night -- well, shit -- it'll be obvious. But if this thing is going to run a normal course, we won't know.
It will be Jennifer Lawrence. It's actually historic if it's Jessica Chastain. Wouldn't that be something?
ACTOR
Is no question Daniel Day.
How I wish there were a Bill Murray's chance in hell for Valjean... even a Bill Macy's... but there isn't. I'm sorry, Hugh. I love you. It is the performance of a lifetime. It is better than Daniel Day. You should win. You will lose.
We'll have more fun watching you tonight, guaranteed.
Await the Joycean D-Day speech where we lose our way in lyric.
BEST DIRECTOR
It will be Steven Spielberg and it should be.
David O. Russell would be a not too big surprise. I really think he may have it.
Ang Lee would be beyond shocking. And how many times are you going to win director and lose picture? Three?! (Yes, he won Foreign Language Film, but it's a directing award.)
It will be Spielberg's third for directing. One more and he's John Ford. Mission Accomplished.
BEST PICTURE
If everything goes Lincoln or Silver Linings way, they could upset the seemingly un-upsettable Argo.
I WOULD LOVE THIS.
If it's Silver Linings -- people are going to be "moveon.org" level mad. I'm not a fan of the film and I'm telling you it could happen.
If it's Lincoln, Spielberg will be pulling a reverse Shakespeare in Love and may well get booed.
It is only Argo. It has no director nominated. If that happens tonight, we watch Oscar's armor tear.
In my dream scenario, the awards would be distributed as follows...
Picture: Zero Dark Thirty
Director: Steven Spielberg
Actor: Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
Actress: Naomi Watts, The Impossible
Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained
Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables
Original Screenplay: Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty
Adapted Screenplay: Tony Kushner, Lincoln
Best Animated Feature: Wreck It Ralph
BUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN...
I'm simply not taking the time to go through all the minor awards. I hope that Deakins wins, that Adele wins, that Life of Pi racks up what it can, and that there are some full-on, legitimate surprises. I want "upsets."
I think this year we're going to get a couple of upsets and I think they'll actually fall in the top nine -- hence those being the only ones where I listed my wishes...
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE...
The best animated feature of the year is Wreck It Ralph. Somehow, Brave has been winning awards all over the place -- so has Ralph. But this is the chance to give Tim Burton an Oscar. So I see this as Disney either congratulating themselves for yet another win with Brave and keeping the PIXAR streak at a max, or I see them handing it to the guy who showed them how much money there was in a new Alice in Wonderland -- you can thank him for Oz, too.
Why not give it to Tim for the feature version of the student film that made him a legend?
Are we going to wait until 20 years from now when Helena has to push him out in a black and white wheelchair, or are we going to give an Oscar to TIM BURTON now?
Tim better hope Brave loses.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Christ Terrio for Argo, David O. Russel for Silver Linings, Tony Kushner for Lincoln.
Tony should absolutely win. A win by any of these three may show a trend for the night as in -- "You bet your ass it's Argo." or "Holy shit, how many is Silver Linings going to win?" The only idea to compete with those is -- "Holy shit, could Lincoln hold?"
The last seems the most improbable.
I think this is Tony Kushner's to lose. I think that Spielberg did a brilliant job directing a brilliant -- albeit occasionally boring -- Tony Kushner play. And I think David O. Russell has edged him out.
A Christ Terrio victory would be just shy of a Precious level surprise.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
It would be nice if Wes Anderson could win this. He won't.
It would be something else if Mark Boal were a guaranteed winner here.
But this one's a horse race between Zero Dark and Django.
My gut is saying things have tipped and it's Quentin's second. Mark Boal won for writing Hurt Locker. Unless we want to make him the Ruth Prawer Jhabvala of the modern Middle East pic. However, a Boal win would be lovely as it may be the only significant Zero Dark victory tonight.
The surprise here will be if Michael Haneke win. He could Almodovar this... but I doubt it -- highly.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
This is Anne Hathaway. I couldn't be happier.
An upset here would be psychotic.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Besides "Original Screenplay" which is my all time favorite because it is my life, there is the most historically heated category of all time -- "Best Supporting Actor."
This is where the dog fights happen.
This year, we've got one between Christoph Waltz and Tommy Lee Jones -- two previous winners. Normally that's something that can call the race. Not this time.
The power of Lincoln could drag TLJ along. But that seems to be stalling out.
Waltz's charming acceptance speeches and his sheer exuberance that all of this is happening to him -- again -- actually matters. The reason is because we were all going to see Django to see the movie we thought was going to bring Leo a supporting actor nomination. All from a couple of shots of DiCaprio with a coconut cocktail. But once you'd seen the Tarantino, it was hard to lie -- Waltz was the best actor in the film. Period. So what do we do now?
Well, it looks like you may well let him have it over the Hollywood veteran. Let Waltz get all Jason Robards up in here. I do think it may well be the case.
A Tommy Lee win means that Lincoln is still in play in every category.
BEST ACTRESS
Will be Jennifer Lawrence. This one is as close as Meryl and Viola -- no matter what anyone says. We can all think what we want, but we're not going to truly know it until the envelope opens. If David O. Russell is up two Oscars or DeNiro has a good night -- well, shit -- it'll be obvious. But if this thing is going to run a normal course, we won't know.
It will be Jennifer Lawrence. It's actually historic if it's Jessica Chastain. Wouldn't that be something?
ACTOR
Is no question Daniel Day.
How I wish there were a Bill Murray's chance in hell for Valjean... even a Bill Macy's... but there isn't. I'm sorry, Hugh. I love you. It is the performance of a lifetime. It is better than Daniel Day. You should win. You will lose.
We'll have more fun watching you tonight, guaranteed.
Await the Joycean D-Day speech where we lose our way in lyric.
BEST DIRECTOR
It will be Steven Spielberg and it should be.
David O. Russell would be a not too big surprise. I really think he may have it.
Ang Lee would be beyond shocking. And how many times are you going to win director and lose picture? Three?! (Yes, he won Foreign Language Film, but it's a directing award.)
It will be Spielberg's third for directing. One more and he's John Ford. Mission Accomplished.
BEST PICTURE
If everything goes Lincoln or Silver Linings way, they could upset the seemingly un-upsettable Argo.
I WOULD LOVE THIS.
If it's Silver Linings -- people are going to be "moveon.org" level mad. I'm not a fan of the film and I'm telling you it could happen.
If it's Lincoln, Spielberg will be pulling a reverse Shakespeare in Love and may well get booed.
It is only Argo. It has no director nominated. If that happens tonight, we watch Oscar's armor tear.
Watts it all about, Naomi: Cause you ain't in this race...
Tonight the boxing gloves are on Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain.
It looks like Lawrence has it all locked up -- which is going to put her in a position no lead actress winner has been in -- at least in some time. Argue all you want about Charlize Theron, Reese Witherspoon, and Angelina Jolie (which was supporting). None of them was sitting pretty with the second installment of The Hunger Games -- whose box office DOUBLED Twilight -- let alone a stint in The X-Men franchise, and the slew of indie cred she's already amassed. Let alone her -- "coulda been a Whale Rider" nomination for Winter's Bone. This girl is a dynamo.
In the far corner, we see Jessica Chastain -- tour de force in The Debt, Tree of Life, and The Help -- which earned her a supporting actress nomination -- she would lose to co-star Octavia Spencer. Jessica Chastain got stamped with an It-Girl far exceeding Jennifer Lawrence's. However, that all changed with this race.
Jessica Chastain is still a formidable actress who is simultaneously the lead, character role in The Heiress on Broadway while being the tough as nails intelligence lead of Zero Dark Thirty. But odds are she is losing tonight.
So what of the rumors that Chastain's not being part of the raid on UBL's compound lessened her role -- and cut her out of a significant portion of the movie. Frankly -- and I'll write about Zero Dark in its own separate article -- I feel like that's only become the equation because major critics and consequent buzz loosely compared Chastain's performance to that of Jodie Foster's in Silence of the Lambs. A faulty comparison considering we live in a time where that kind of role is a rarity for women. In fact, I'd say there's been nothing better that Clarice Starling since. But that ain't Jessica's fault -- so stop making that comparison -- it only leads to -- "Well, Jodie was really down there in the basement, with the dude in the night-vision goggles, and the swastika bedspread and the whole nine -- Chastain kind hung back." Yeah, she's a CIA agent. Kathryn Bigelow made an accurate movie about "the greatest manhunt of all time." For some reason, society is not taking it for what it is. And that's why Chastain comes across as a tough, angry, durable believer -- whose tone isn't that far off of Brad Pitt in Moneyball. Another role, I'm sorry to say, that doesn't win Oscars.
Which probably means ZDT can forget picture (obviously) and probably screenplay -- Final picks to be posted one more article after this.
So what we're going with the is the strongest element of what I consider to be a quite flawed film, Silver Linings Playbook. I will admit that it harkens back to a type of film that I loved when I was growing up. I will also pronounce that it's not as good as any of them. There's something about it coming out now when the world is devoid of such films -- the closest we're getting is The Family Stone -- which, by the way, was better. Oscar pedigree, however, Silver Linings has.
I will more than likely watch the film again and edit my response. I doubt that will be anytime soon. But I am willing to allow for the possibility of fallibility with this one.
Lawrence, however, hasn't a mark on her. She nailed this thing and she made people rich with another thing. She's a regular Anne Hathaway. They can enjoy posing together at the end of the night. It isn't the first nomination. It wasn't necessarily expected. And it's gone that way -- period.
So what the hell is going on with the fact that Naomi Watts was never even part of the conversation? You could say it has something to do with the fact that The Impossible wasn't really the biggest part of the Oscar conversation this year. That's true. You could also say that it was a year that was so devoid of opportunities for strong female performance, the conversation was already quite narrow. You could also say say. But to you, I'd say that logic gets blown to pieces when you look at years where Jessica Lange won for Blue Sky -- what the hell, guys -- and the Marion Cotillard's La Vie En Rose victory -- deserved, but who the hell really saw it? You at least have to look Stockard Channing deep into a category and see which ponies are in play. Lord knows we're doing that with supporting actor. The only reason we're not with actor is because it was never a question.
But Naomi Watts is remarkable in The Impossible. I don't really know who else I would have wanted to see her go through what she went through and survive. I feel like there are other actresses I care about less and there are other actresses I wouldn't believe had it in them. She takes the brunt of a tsunami like nobody's business in this thing. Ewan McGregor seems like he is just going to smile his way through the fact that he's endlessly involved with Oscar related materials. No Trainspotting, Moulin Rouge!, or Beginners and their only being the question of whether Naomi would be nominated for The Impossible -- sight unseen -- made the "We don't nominate Ewan" policy forever clear.
But are we really not going to sift through the performances to see who's pulling a Burstyn? We haven't always seen all the films, and we know who's going to win -- we're not idiots -- but it seems the sliver that goes to see a film simply because "They heard Judi Dench was amazing in Notes on a Scandal" is dwindling. That's what's going on with Naomi Watts in The Impossible. There's no student sex, no great Phillip Glass, and the breasts are more "punctured" than "buoyant." But the work is unreal.
Naomi rides in to tonight's battle royale stress free. She should hold her head a bit higher as the true victor -- a Remains of the Day unto herself.
It looks like Lawrence has it all locked up -- which is going to put her in a position no lead actress winner has been in -- at least in some time. Argue all you want about Charlize Theron, Reese Witherspoon, and Angelina Jolie (which was supporting). None of them was sitting pretty with the second installment of The Hunger Games -- whose box office DOUBLED Twilight -- let alone a stint in The X-Men franchise, and the slew of indie cred she's already amassed. Let alone her -- "coulda been a Whale Rider" nomination for Winter's Bone. This girl is a dynamo.
In the far corner, we see Jessica Chastain -- tour de force in The Debt, Tree of Life, and The Help -- which earned her a supporting actress nomination -- she would lose to co-star Octavia Spencer. Jessica Chastain got stamped with an It-Girl far exceeding Jennifer Lawrence's. However, that all changed with this race.
Jessica Chastain is still a formidable actress who is simultaneously the lead, character role in The Heiress on Broadway while being the tough as nails intelligence lead of Zero Dark Thirty. But odds are she is losing tonight.
So what of the rumors that Chastain's not being part of the raid on UBL's compound lessened her role -- and cut her out of a significant portion of the movie. Frankly -- and I'll write about Zero Dark in its own separate article -- I feel like that's only become the equation because major critics and consequent buzz loosely compared Chastain's performance to that of Jodie Foster's in Silence of the Lambs. A faulty comparison considering we live in a time where that kind of role is a rarity for women. In fact, I'd say there's been nothing better that Clarice Starling since. But that ain't Jessica's fault -- so stop making that comparison -- it only leads to -- "Well, Jodie was really down there in the basement, with the dude in the night-vision goggles, and the swastika bedspread and the whole nine -- Chastain kind hung back." Yeah, she's a CIA agent. Kathryn Bigelow made an accurate movie about "the greatest manhunt of all time." For some reason, society is not taking it for what it is. And that's why Chastain comes across as a tough, angry, durable believer -- whose tone isn't that far off of Brad Pitt in Moneyball. Another role, I'm sorry to say, that doesn't win Oscars.
Which probably means ZDT can forget picture (obviously) and probably screenplay -- Final picks to be posted one more article after this.
So what we're going with the is the strongest element of what I consider to be a quite flawed film, Silver Linings Playbook. I will admit that it harkens back to a type of film that I loved when I was growing up. I will also pronounce that it's not as good as any of them. There's something about it coming out now when the world is devoid of such films -- the closest we're getting is The Family Stone -- which, by the way, was better. Oscar pedigree, however, Silver Linings has.
I will more than likely watch the film again and edit my response. I doubt that will be anytime soon. But I am willing to allow for the possibility of fallibility with this one.
Lawrence, however, hasn't a mark on her. She nailed this thing and she made people rich with another thing. She's a regular Anne Hathaway. They can enjoy posing together at the end of the night. It isn't the first nomination. It wasn't necessarily expected. And it's gone that way -- period.
So what the hell is going on with the fact that Naomi Watts was never even part of the conversation? You could say it has something to do with the fact that The Impossible wasn't really the biggest part of the Oscar conversation this year. That's true. You could also say that it was a year that was so devoid of opportunities for strong female performance, the conversation was already quite narrow. You could also say say. But to you, I'd say that logic gets blown to pieces when you look at years where Jessica Lange won for Blue Sky -- what the hell, guys -- and the Marion Cotillard's La Vie En Rose victory -- deserved, but who the hell really saw it? You at least have to look Stockard Channing deep into a category and see which ponies are in play. Lord knows we're doing that with supporting actor. The only reason we're not with actor is because it was never a question.
But Naomi Watts is remarkable in The Impossible. I don't really know who else I would have wanted to see her go through what she went through and survive. I feel like there are other actresses I care about less and there are other actresses I wouldn't believe had it in them. She takes the brunt of a tsunami like nobody's business in this thing. Ewan McGregor seems like he is just going to smile his way through the fact that he's endlessly involved with Oscar related materials. No Trainspotting, Moulin Rouge!, or Beginners and their only being the question of whether Naomi would be nominated for The Impossible -- sight unseen -- made the "We don't nominate Ewan" policy forever clear.
But are we really not going to sift through the performances to see who's pulling a Burstyn? We haven't always seen all the films, and we know who's going to win -- we're not idiots -- but it seems the sliver that goes to see a film simply because "They heard Judi Dench was amazing in Notes on a Scandal" is dwindling. That's what's going on with Naomi Watts in The Impossible. There's no student sex, no great Phillip Glass, and the breasts are more "punctured" than "buoyant." But the work is unreal.
Naomi rides in to tonight's battle royale stress free. She should hold her head a bit higher as the true victor -- a Remains of the Day unto herself.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Will Waltz Weist?
Two supporting acting victories in a short time span working with the same director. Who does this Austrian think he is? But like the great Dianne with 1986's Hannah and Her Sisters and 1994's Bullets Over Broadway -- Christoph Waltz may well Weist!
The scowling outhouse, henhouse, doghouse -- I did not kill my wife! I don't caredness of it all that is Tommy Lee Jones may not be getting an Oscar for emphatically repeating the same phrase, dramatically removing his wig, and Bob Newharting it with his surprising wife. Going toe to toe with Daniel Day Lewis is certainly an accomplishment. And let's not forget that Tommy Lee's been doing some doozies lately: the under-sung Valley of Elah -- boring as it was -- had a great T.J. performance -- and let's not forget the zero recognition for his work in No Country. Lincoln's a hell of a feather to stick in that cap. And he took the SAG -- so let's not rule him out.
But what might is that he wasn't necessarily the stand out supporting actor performance. David Strathairn -- still Oscar-less -- was remarkable as Seward. No, he doesn't get the big moments of screaming down "Pushing Daisies" in the Capitol. That's not where he's allowed to wander. But the work is solid and it's interesting he wasn't equally recognized. Because frankly, D-Day's casting a big shadow over the entire Civil War era. When all is said and done, Daniel may have turned the Spielberg-Kushner masterpiece into a Sophie's Choice. A "Yeah, HE was really good in it" -ed-ness that may shadow the rest of the film. Moreso than he did with There Will Be Blood. All I'm saying is take if from the perspective of Lewis' first two Oscars and Tommy Lee ain't no Brenda Fricker (also a victor) nor is he a Paul Dano (not even nominated). So, Tommy Lee Jones ain't a guarantee.
This ain't no Jim Broadbent free for all, either. This is an absolute usurper who's taken the other half of the awards and a distant third place in "did Harvey just pull that off." And that man is Golden Globe and BAFTA winner Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained.
What's amazing is a Waltz win may mean Quentin takes script. Meaning -- you weren't even close, Wes Anderson; I'm actually not sure what you're going to have to do to win an Oscar. And if Boal's out -- does that mean all Zero Dark sympathy is heading Chastain's way -- or that there just isn't any?
I hate to say I think it's the latter. I think we may be watching Quentin Tarantino's second original screenplay Oscar. And you know what, it's about time we gave him another trophy. Every time out of the gate this guy is going for it. He is one of the few American directors who has remained an international artistic presence for the last twenty years. He was a "celebrity" before the Coen Brothers were -- and he delivers as consistently. Inglorious Basterds deserved a lot more than a Waltz win. Could be that Django is going to take two.
My question is what happens to a Zero Dark that doesn't have either a script or an actress Oscar. Is it walking away with a couple for sound -- maximum of editing. Does that mean it's going to become a Black Hawk Down. I don't know if you all remember Ridley Scott's masterpiece about another bin Laden event -- but BHD is some serious shit. The problem is -- I wonder how much people are talking about it or watching it since it really got pushed to the side at Awardsville. Will Zero Dark become a Seabiscuit? A Master and Commander? A Munich?
There have been some stellar movies made about the Middle East. Argo is simply not one of them. Argo is a a stellar movie that "takes place" in the Middle East. But it is not a film in line with The Deer Hunter, Coming Home, Apocalypse Now, Platoon -- the non-Rambo's of Nam and their current descendants -- Stop Loss, Hurt Locker, or even Jarhead. And it sure as shit doesn't hold a candle to Zero Dark.
Crazily, this is precisely the reason ZDT has the time of it's life if it takes script and actress tomorrow. It should have had picture but got shot straight between the eyes upon release -- by politicians and controversy -- and by the nominations. Affleck was anointed the darling. Good night, Miss Bigelow... and has everyone met Miss Lawrence? It was a double jump. "Your whole show's out and there's a new film that might win a lot of shit -- you're lucky Boal didn't base that script on anything published."
Yeah, that's right -- the guy just used journalistic skill to collect the information he wove into the original -- ORIGINAL -- screenplay for Zero Dark Thirty -- a goddamn epic achievement. And yet there is also something to the epic worlds Quentin Tarantino creates time and again. The truth is I could barely watch the violence -- I looked up -- and there was Jamie Foxx buck naked, handing from his ankles. Good Morning, New York. Sure. But this guy truly went both John Ford and Sam Peckinpah on us. What -- yet another -- sweeping epic... about something entirely different -- using great movie stars -- in insane situations -- to really make a statement. You simply have to hand it to Q.
Odds are Supporting Actor is way before Original Screenplay. Odds are Supporting Actor is nigh on the first award of the night. If it's Christoph Waltz... the cresting wave could well be... Tarantino, Russell, Russell, Lawrence, Lewis, Hathaway, Argo. Could damn well be Tarantino, Lawrence, Lewis, Hathaway, Spielberg, Argo.
I'm just worried about the way that's rolling off the tongue in these last moments. Does it not feel like the flow is...
Silver Linings on the RISE
Lincoln on the DECLINE -- with the exception of the D-Day Lock.
Zero Dark on the DECLINE
Waltz on the rise
Quentin giving somewhat surprising acceptance speeches
Isn't that what we're kind of watching happen? Why would that be a "surprise" tomorrow?
Might not be my final prediction... not just yet.
But the Waltz Weist is an actual "tipping point." Gladwell sequels at the ready.
The scowling outhouse, henhouse, doghouse -- I did not kill my wife! I don't caredness of it all that is Tommy Lee Jones may not be getting an Oscar for emphatically repeating the same phrase, dramatically removing his wig, and Bob Newharting it with his surprising wife. Going toe to toe with Daniel Day Lewis is certainly an accomplishment. And let's not forget that Tommy Lee's been doing some doozies lately: the under-sung Valley of Elah -- boring as it was -- had a great T.J. performance -- and let's not forget the zero recognition for his work in No Country. Lincoln's a hell of a feather to stick in that cap. And he took the SAG -- so let's not rule him out.
But what might is that he wasn't necessarily the stand out supporting actor performance. David Strathairn -- still Oscar-less -- was remarkable as Seward. No, he doesn't get the big moments of screaming down "Pushing Daisies" in the Capitol. That's not where he's allowed to wander. But the work is solid and it's interesting he wasn't equally recognized. Because frankly, D-Day's casting a big shadow over the entire Civil War era. When all is said and done, Daniel may have turned the Spielberg-Kushner masterpiece into a Sophie's Choice. A "Yeah, HE was really good in it" -ed-ness that may shadow the rest of the film. Moreso than he did with There Will Be Blood. All I'm saying is take if from the perspective of Lewis' first two Oscars and Tommy Lee ain't no Brenda Fricker (also a victor) nor is he a Paul Dano (not even nominated). So, Tommy Lee Jones ain't a guarantee.
This ain't no Jim Broadbent free for all, either. This is an absolute usurper who's taken the other half of the awards and a distant third place in "did Harvey just pull that off." And that man is Golden Globe and BAFTA winner Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained.
What's amazing is a Waltz win may mean Quentin takes script. Meaning -- you weren't even close, Wes Anderson; I'm actually not sure what you're going to have to do to win an Oscar. And if Boal's out -- does that mean all Zero Dark sympathy is heading Chastain's way -- or that there just isn't any?
I hate to say I think it's the latter. I think we may be watching Quentin Tarantino's second original screenplay Oscar. And you know what, it's about time we gave him another trophy. Every time out of the gate this guy is going for it. He is one of the few American directors who has remained an international artistic presence for the last twenty years. He was a "celebrity" before the Coen Brothers were -- and he delivers as consistently. Inglorious Basterds deserved a lot more than a Waltz win. Could be that Django is going to take two.
My question is what happens to a Zero Dark that doesn't have either a script or an actress Oscar. Is it walking away with a couple for sound -- maximum of editing. Does that mean it's going to become a Black Hawk Down. I don't know if you all remember Ridley Scott's masterpiece about another bin Laden event -- but BHD is some serious shit. The problem is -- I wonder how much people are talking about it or watching it since it really got pushed to the side at Awardsville. Will Zero Dark become a Seabiscuit? A Master and Commander? A Munich?
There have been some stellar movies made about the Middle East. Argo is simply not one of them. Argo is a a stellar movie that "takes place" in the Middle East. But it is not a film in line with The Deer Hunter, Coming Home, Apocalypse Now, Platoon -- the non-Rambo's of Nam and their current descendants -- Stop Loss, Hurt Locker, or even Jarhead. And it sure as shit doesn't hold a candle to Zero Dark.
Crazily, this is precisely the reason ZDT has the time of it's life if it takes script and actress tomorrow. It should have had picture but got shot straight between the eyes upon release -- by politicians and controversy -- and by the nominations. Affleck was anointed the darling. Good night, Miss Bigelow... and has everyone met Miss Lawrence? It was a double jump. "Your whole show's out and there's a new film that might win a lot of shit -- you're lucky Boal didn't base that script on anything published."
Yeah, that's right -- the guy just used journalistic skill to collect the information he wove into the original -- ORIGINAL -- screenplay for Zero Dark Thirty -- a goddamn epic achievement. And yet there is also something to the epic worlds Quentin Tarantino creates time and again. The truth is I could barely watch the violence -- I looked up -- and there was Jamie Foxx buck naked, handing from his ankles. Good Morning, New York. Sure. But this guy truly went both John Ford and Sam Peckinpah on us. What -- yet another -- sweeping epic... about something entirely different -- using great movie stars -- in insane situations -- to really make a statement. You simply have to hand it to Q.
Odds are Supporting Actor is way before Original Screenplay. Odds are Supporting Actor is nigh on the first award of the night. If it's Christoph Waltz... the cresting wave could well be... Tarantino, Russell, Russell, Lawrence, Lewis, Hathaway, Argo. Could damn well be Tarantino, Lawrence, Lewis, Hathaway, Spielberg, Argo.
I'm just worried about the way that's rolling off the tongue in these last moments. Does it not feel like the flow is...
Silver Linings on the RISE
Lincoln on the DECLINE -- with the exception of the D-Day Lock.
Zero Dark on the DECLINE
Waltz on the rise
Quentin giving somewhat surprising acceptance speeches
Isn't that what we're kind of watching happen? Why would that be a "surprise" tomorrow?
Might not be my final prediction... not just yet.
But the Waltz Weist is an actual "tipping point." Gladwell sequels at the ready.
What's Up With Oscar?
In past years I used to through each of the pictures one at a time. I shan't be doing that this time around. And the reason is because that isn't the story of what's going on with this year's Academy Awards. The truth is that this thing is crazy with a capital "C," that rhymes with "T," that stands for "TEN." In my Oscar expert opinion, the expansion of the picture field has turned the awards schizophrenic. People may be out there saying, well -- doesn't that make for better television and isn't this whole thing just about audience size? Yes, You're right. People are really wondering what's going to happen tomorrow night rather than last year when the basic convo was...
"What's gonna win?"
"The Artist."
(Shoulders sag slightly) "Oh, yeah."
This Argo biz is actually interesting. I will give the Academy that. I just think that they haven't created drama as much as they've signaled that there are some serious kinks in their system. So, expand the audience all you want. Get the buzz out there. I'd just say there's a way to do that and have accurate awards. I would also say that there is a way to absolute redo the entire telecast and fix it in five seconds.
-Move all the technical awards out of the telecast. I love you - but it's a telecast.
-Move the lifetime achievements back in - but make them presented in an exciting way.
-Get the short categories out of the telecast. Replace them with awards like "Best First Film."
-Hire the producer of the BAFTAs.
That alone and you've at least got the late 80s/early 90s back, which were some damn good telecasts.
This year we are completely adrift.
I plan to continue blogging daily after this telecast. Hold me to it. I'll watch a film a day or talk about trends. But it will be daily -- and it may have a new address so I can begin using photos. During that daily blogging I'm really going to dig in to Oscar and make that the approach I take toward every single film blogged about. One of the key things I will speak about is 1998.
1998 was the year the studios had the best picture cocktail on overload. Not only was it the year that Shakespeare in Love robbed the Oscar from Saving Private Ryan and showed the world just what Harvey could do during award season -- it was a year where the five best pictures were just about two things: World War II and Elizabethan England -- two topics we've given MANY Oscars to. Look at the spread: Life is Beautiful, The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, and Shakespeare in Love. I've said it once -- and I'll say it again -- the ensuing fight between Miramax and then the Weinstein Company against DreamWorks broke the system.
That trend has obviously not stopped. Certain films are made to win Oscars. Certain films are given automatic Oscar consideration. That will never change and has been since Doug Fairbanks & Co. set us off on this crazy bender.
Amazingly, during a time period where American is in at least two wars in the Middle East -- where we have not adequately awarded a film that accurately reflects the American experience abroad -- please with the Hurt Locker -- please -- in that pocket of time we have two remarkably directed, written, and acted films in Argo and Zero Dark Thirty.
It's an absolutely fair assessment to say that Argo is the crowd and fan favorite -- it has been since the weekend it was released. It seemed this time the world was going to make up for completely overlooking The Town -- save Jeremy Renner -- and proudly proclaim "Ben Affleck's all growns up." And what the hell -- we'll give Clooney and Heslov -- deserving film makers and cool dudes -- Oscars while we're at it. Handshakes and pack pats all around.
It's an absolutely palatable movie about Iran that has an amazing message about hope -- and man is it slaying people with the b.s. "this is a movie about the power of storytelling" line. Christ, if you can come up with a line half that good and half as applicable and get it rolling in each of your speeches. Well, you wouldn't be Mitt Romney.
Argo was Chicago. Movie ended, nearly everyone said, "So that sews up the Oscar race, huh?"
Somehow Lincoln got confused into the conversation. Probably because of what an amazing turn it is for Spielberg -- which I'll talk about in a separate article. The issue truly was "Are they actually going to give Ben Affleck a directing Oscar over Spielberg? Is that actually going to happen?"
And then, Christmas week, a little film called Zero Dark Thirty opened. The no questions asked best picture of the year. Period. Absolutely. Slam dunk. It's a winner. Call a cop. Zero Dark. Done. It suffered through a massive smear campaign from our government while the calm and collected -- perhaps too serene -- Kathyn Bigelow and the simply too genius Mark Boal. I feel like huge chunk of America -- including Academy members -- have refused to see Zero Dark Thirty because they have a skewed understanding of the content and politics of this incredible film. The thing's incredible and I'll give ZDT its due post Oscar.
The thing is -- Spielberg's nominated -- Bigelow and Affleck -- let alone Tom Hooper -- are NOT nominated. And the other thing is -- it's a done deal, Argo wins tomorrow night unless there's one of the sweetest upsets in the history of the Academy Awards -- again, 1998.
So let's talk about what's up, people. No Affleck. Why?
The director category is devoid of Ben Affleck for what sure as heck doesn't seem like a snub. Have you seen a town love a guy more? It's standing ovations and "gee, shucks" speeches all over this town -- all over the world! -- for this guy. So why the hell didn't he have the votes? He won the DGA and wasn't nominated for director? Get your house in order, Oscar! You're going to give him picture anyway? Are we honestly saying Ben Affleck isn't at least Kevin Costner? TATANKA?!
We haven't seen a picture go on to win without a nominated director since Driving Miss Daisy. Anytime you have Driving Miss Daisy as your historic Oscar reference point, you're doing something terribly wrong. I'm looking at you, Emmanuelle Riva (I'm joking, don't die. You're lovely, that movie is brutal).
We actually don't know what will happen tomorrow.
It could be...
Spielberg, Lincoln
Spielberg, Argo
Russell, Argo
Lee, Argo
That is insanity. We have NO idea what will happen with screenplay. And the amazing thing is every way you cut it, it's an upset.
If Life of Pi wins anything beyond effects or score, we're all going to be like "Holy shit! It's Ang Lee's Hugo." And the amazing thing is, it's simply a superior film. It's the unsung hero of this chaos. The last five minutes are beyond A.I. in my humble opine -- but like with the Spielberg masterpiece -- I forgive Ang. And here he is -- with a gorgeous film -- just gorgeous. Could be Ang Lee... though I see him behind David O. Russell.
If David O. Russell doesn't win screenplay or director, I will be stunned. What happens if he wins both? Is it still Argo?
If Chris Terrio takes screenplay and Argo wins picture it makes the lack of a director nomination that much more stupid.
If Spielberg and Lincoln win -- especially if that's coupled with a Tony Kushner script victory -- it will actually be an upset at this point. Even though everyone immediately deemed a Lincoln sweep what would take place the morning the nominations were announced. Somehow, after making an incredible film in Lincoln -- yes, yes, which I will speak about in a separate entry -- the position it has landed Spielberg in is "That's Ben Affleck's Oscar and it's yours to lose." How the hell is that the vibe we're sending this guy to the Oscars with? Somehow this under-sung master is routinely shafted at awards. No, he doesn't always win -- look it up. No, there not all popcorn movies -- look it up. It's not Spielberg's fault everyone was a lot crazier about his film the morning they screwed Ben Affleck than they may feel now that we've been officially introduced to Mr. Affleck's second act. But boy it sure as hell feels like it's starting to tip in that direction.
So yes, these awards are insane. I'm going to come through and attack specific categories before making my straight out predictions tomorrow.
Happy Oscar Weekend.
"What's gonna win?"
"The Artist."
(Shoulders sag slightly) "Oh, yeah."
This Argo biz is actually interesting. I will give the Academy that. I just think that they haven't created drama as much as they've signaled that there are some serious kinks in their system. So, expand the audience all you want. Get the buzz out there. I'd just say there's a way to do that and have accurate awards. I would also say that there is a way to absolute redo the entire telecast and fix it in five seconds.
-Move all the technical awards out of the telecast. I love you - but it's a telecast.
-Move the lifetime achievements back in - but make them presented in an exciting way.
-Get the short categories out of the telecast. Replace them with awards like "Best First Film."
-Hire the producer of the BAFTAs.
That alone and you've at least got the late 80s/early 90s back, which were some damn good telecasts.
This year we are completely adrift.
I plan to continue blogging daily after this telecast. Hold me to it. I'll watch a film a day or talk about trends. But it will be daily -- and it may have a new address so I can begin using photos. During that daily blogging I'm really going to dig in to Oscar and make that the approach I take toward every single film blogged about. One of the key things I will speak about is 1998.
1998 was the year the studios had the best picture cocktail on overload. Not only was it the year that Shakespeare in Love robbed the Oscar from Saving Private Ryan and showed the world just what Harvey could do during award season -- it was a year where the five best pictures were just about two things: World War II and Elizabethan England -- two topics we've given MANY Oscars to. Look at the spread: Life is Beautiful, The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, and Shakespeare in Love. I've said it once -- and I'll say it again -- the ensuing fight between Miramax and then the Weinstein Company against DreamWorks broke the system.
That trend has obviously not stopped. Certain films are made to win Oscars. Certain films are given automatic Oscar consideration. That will never change and has been since Doug Fairbanks & Co. set us off on this crazy bender.
Amazingly, during a time period where American is in at least two wars in the Middle East -- where we have not adequately awarded a film that accurately reflects the American experience abroad -- please with the Hurt Locker -- please -- in that pocket of time we have two remarkably directed, written, and acted films in Argo and Zero Dark Thirty.
It's an absolutely fair assessment to say that Argo is the crowd and fan favorite -- it has been since the weekend it was released. It seemed this time the world was going to make up for completely overlooking The Town -- save Jeremy Renner -- and proudly proclaim "Ben Affleck's all growns up." And what the hell -- we'll give Clooney and Heslov -- deserving film makers and cool dudes -- Oscars while we're at it. Handshakes and pack pats all around.
It's an absolutely palatable movie about Iran that has an amazing message about hope -- and man is it slaying people with the b.s. "this is a movie about the power of storytelling" line. Christ, if you can come up with a line half that good and half as applicable and get it rolling in each of your speeches. Well, you wouldn't be Mitt Romney.
Argo was Chicago. Movie ended, nearly everyone said, "So that sews up the Oscar race, huh?"
Somehow Lincoln got confused into the conversation. Probably because of what an amazing turn it is for Spielberg -- which I'll talk about in a separate article. The issue truly was "Are they actually going to give Ben Affleck a directing Oscar over Spielberg? Is that actually going to happen?"
And then, Christmas week, a little film called Zero Dark Thirty opened. The no questions asked best picture of the year. Period. Absolutely. Slam dunk. It's a winner. Call a cop. Zero Dark. Done. It suffered through a massive smear campaign from our government while the calm and collected -- perhaps too serene -- Kathyn Bigelow and the simply too genius Mark Boal. I feel like huge chunk of America -- including Academy members -- have refused to see Zero Dark Thirty because they have a skewed understanding of the content and politics of this incredible film. The thing's incredible and I'll give ZDT its due post Oscar.
The thing is -- Spielberg's nominated -- Bigelow and Affleck -- let alone Tom Hooper -- are NOT nominated. And the other thing is -- it's a done deal, Argo wins tomorrow night unless there's one of the sweetest upsets in the history of the Academy Awards -- again, 1998.
So let's talk about what's up, people. No Affleck. Why?
The director category is devoid of Ben Affleck for what sure as heck doesn't seem like a snub. Have you seen a town love a guy more? It's standing ovations and "gee, shucks" speeches all over this town -- all over the world! -- for this guy. So why the hell didn't he have the votes? He won the DGA and wasn't nominated for director? Get your house in order, Oscar! You're going to give him picture anyway? Are we honestly saying Ben Affleck isn't at least Kevin Costner? TATANKA?!
We haven't seen a picture go on to win without a nominated director since Driving Miss Daisy. Anytime you have Driving Miss Daisy as your historic Oscar reference point, you're doing something terribly wrong. I'm looking at you, Emmanuelle Riva (I'm joking, don't die. You're lovely, that movie is brutal).
We actually don't know what will happen tomorrow.
It could be...
Spielberg, Lincoln
Spielberg, Argo
Russell, Argo
Lee, Argo
That is insanity. We have NO idea what will happen with screenplay. And the amazing thing is every way you cut it, it's an upset.
If Life of Pi wins anything beyond effects or score, we're all going to be like "Holy shit! It's Ang Lee's Hugo." And the amazing thing is, it's simply a superior film. It's the unsung hero of this chaos. The last five minutes are beyond A.I. in my humble opine -- but like with the Spielberg masterpiece -- I forgive Ang. And here he is -- with a gorgeous film -- just gorgeous. Could be Ang Lee... though I see him behind David O. Russell.
If David O. Russell doesn't win screenplay or director, I will be stunned. What happens if he wins both? Is it still Argo?
If Chris Terrio takes screenplay and Argo wins picture it makes the lack of a director nomination that much more stupid.
If Spielberg and Lincoln win -- especially if that's coupled with a Tony Kushner script victory -- it will actually be an upset at this point. Even though everyone immediately deemed a Lincoln sweep what would take place the morning the nominations were announced. Somehow, after making an incredible film in Lincoln -- yes, yes, which I will speak about in a separate entry -- the position it has landed Spielberg in is "That's Ben Affleck's Oscar and it's yours to lose." How the hell is that the vibe we're sending this guy to the Oscars with? Somehow this under-sung master is routinely shafted at awards. No, he doesn't always win -- look it up. No, there not all popcorn movies -- look it up. It's not Spielberg's fault everyone was a lot crazier about his film the morning they screwed Ben Affleck than they may feel now that we've been officially introduced to Mr. Affleck's second act. But boy it sure as hell feels like it's starting to tip in that direction.
So yes, these awards are insane. I'm going to come through and attack specific categories before making my straight out predictions tomorrow.
Happy Oscar Weekend.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Every Harvey has a Silver Lining
The film I like least... but the world seems to like most...
I admit freely and straight-uppedly, right-out-of-the-gatedly that I am missing whatever kind of emotional zeitgeist-ish thing that's happening with Silver Lining's Playbook. I am willingly and openly admitting that I damn sure am in the minority when I say that I think Silver Linings Playbook is tantamount to being this year's Chocolat. You do the math on that one and you come to your own conclusions. I have made no specific pronouncement.
I am simply saying that Lasse Hallstrom is a director whose work I love. My Life As A Dog is the first foreign film I saw in a theater (thank you, Joanne). The year he directed The Cider House Rules, I wondered if he might give American Beauty a run for it's money -- and he got my boy John Irving an Oscar. But sweet heavenly what?! is Chocolat?
To a softer, more mellow note -- and I mean that quite seriously -- get a trumpet mute in on the level of statement right off the bat -- I feel the same way about Silver Linings Playbook. I saw Spanking the Monkey in a now closed Palace Theater in Manhattan outside of which I saw Smashing Pumpkins just talking to each other -- and we still maintain they came in and saw the movie -- i.e. coolest "1990s independent film day" in the life of a dude where that matters. Flirting with Disaster -- Amazing. Three Kings was how I learned the National Board of Review was a legitimate organization. And then there's something like The Fighter. Look -- we know I'm wrong on this. I blogged about how wrong I was -- you all loved Melissa Leo and Christian Bale -- you gave them Oscars!
"How?!" I suppose would be my question. If you had told me that David O. Russell directed either Christian Bale, Melissa Leo, or both to Oscars -- I would not have guessed it would be for The Fighter -- which was DESTROYED by Warrior -- have you seen Warrior? I don't know what the hell you're doing reading this blog when you could be watching Warrior. It destroyed The Fighter.
So I don't know what's up with my connect to David O. Rusell... lately it's been off...
Because let's be frank folks, David O. Russell is one "guy" this year who really has Harvey behind him... Waltz? probably... Quentin? sure... But Django's got no chance... Silver Linings and the Jennifer Lawrence of it all is a chance for Harvey to Re-Gwynethize himself... and when you got Harvey waves of that size carrying your ship to port, it means some "man" is taking a trophy, too. But for SLP (no wonder Ali likes it) here's how the gents break down...
Is Robert DeNiro going to win? You know what, you sons of bitches, wouldn't that be something? I do think the absolute smug faced-ness of Tommy Lee Jones may have cost him the Oscar -- despite his SAG win. There's always someone who streaks all the way up through the SAGS and then tanks. That person is looking more and more like Tommy Lee. It's usually not a four-for-four year -- in fact, I'll check and update if that has ever been the case -- hell, Jodie won for Nell and Lange for frickin' Blue Sky the very first year the SAG telecast began. They've long been splitters. I do think we could see Tommy Lee topple. Yes. Whether I see DeNiro taking that slot all has to do with whether...
Well... whether you think that Harvey can dig that deep for a third DeNiro Oscar. There's sure as hell a way to get Booby D. number three. But this just ain't the role. And if Harvey's rolling the dice on the supporting actor game this year, the bets on Waltz. We'll get to him in a whole separate piece whose title you're just going to adore. But if Harv snags this sucker Judi Dench style... then hold on to your frickin' hats -- it may not even be Argo. Just tie those odds with a bow and calculate what you think.
Is Bradley Cooper winning? There's not a Hugh Jackman's chance in this male award season hell that Bradley Cooper is winning. The fact that "the guy from the Hangover" is nominated, should let Mr. Cooper feel enough like a second string Greg Kinnear to know that if he really puts his mind to it, he sure as hell showed us that he's really capable of something -- something probably amazing. Silver Linings -- again -- not it for me. I do admit, I picture a girl with brown lipstick so wanting to smack me right now because of how much she loved his sensitivity. My answer? Not real!
So it looks like the Oscar in one way shape or form is going to David O. Russell. He's either taking out Tony Kushner and walking home with adapted screenplay -- bear in mind he'd have to take out Argo's Chris Terrio, too. Or he's going to take out El Spielbergo. It could be that the once "Give Us Bararbbas!" culture of the Academy that left Affleck crucified on nomination morning has now rallied for his "but we gave you a kind of side swiped thank you that includes a friggin' best picture Oscar -- so you're Michael Douglas, not Warren Beatty." So it looks like Don Spielz is going to lose out on the Lincoln picture slot. That sucker seems done. As does hopefully the ten picture system -- you fools. But that means director may damn well be wide open.
Kneejerk was "Affleck, Bigelow, and Hooper are out. That means Lincoln and Spielberg sweep." But that sure as hell ain't proving to be the case. And that reason is manifold.
One of the reasons... Argo is and always was going to win best picture. I will get to where I made my error on that bet later... Unless there's a fantastically amazing upset! Which... I obviously hope for! Drama at all costs, unless it's when my favorite is the lock.
But look how the "And they said it was a Lincoln sweep but now it looks like an Argo romp" chips fall when you line 'em up against the Oscar nominations...
1. Bigelow's absence is killing Zero Dark. Jessica Chastain doesn't seem to have the staying power to be ZDT's victor. Looks like that is heading toward Mark Boal -- problem is it looks like he could lose to Quentin. Zero Dark is either shut out (likely), it wins screenplay (50/50), or it pulls an actress upset (1 in 10). This could be where you thank Django and ZDT goes away empty handed.
2. This means Jennifer Lawrence is absolutely going to win best actress . This has most of America saying "Wait a minute, the chick who played Katniss and Mystique can actually act?" It has your better friends saying, "Wow, she came a long way from Winter's Bone -- fast." A "lead" win for a film with other acknowledged performances is HUGE.
3. This means that the film that's nominated in every acting category is now getting a second glance because Silver Linings Playbook is nominated in ALL FOUR CATEGORIES -- it's As Good As It Gets -- plus one... no, I won't say it's REDS. 'Cause you can rally round the flag all you want at the SAG awards -- but Argo ain't an actor's movie -- not in Oscar's view. It just isn't the best cast of the year. It's a great film with many great elements. But Argo only has the Arkin nom. Suddenly you've got actors looking at a film with four categories. CLIFFHANGER!!! Does this throw Silver Linings into "Picture Play?" DON'T FORGET HOW CRASH WON.
4. You know how it's going -- Hathaway (the Les Miz-Ozcar), Waltz (looks like it, huh?), Lawrence, Day-Lewis... screenplay ain't a guarantee... so where else can Silver Lining's strike? Director and Picture. At this point, I'd say picture is out.
5. This is my blog, so I'll say it -- if David O. Russell wins best director, I will be sickened for having predicted it here. Spielberg can't lose for that to happen. It can't be this way. No.
Let's get back to it...
David O. Russell has effectively -- auteurishly in what I would consider to be the most drastically self reflexive way in the world -- made a film that was important to him. This is because -- as he brings up, I would never bring up -- his son has certain disabilities and it was important to Mr. Russell (not Mr. O'Russell) that he artistically communicate with his son. I think that is wonderful, of course. I have members of my family who are disabled or otherwise abled in some capacity and have lost some close friends who had a range of similar maladies. So -- yeah -- it resonates. To so many of you, it was "human."
Out of all the films this year, America has said "that's the one with all around character connect." I freely admit that I see why that would be the case. I emphatically admit that while being a psychotic fan of all things connected to this film, I did not feel it.
To me, everything about mental illness did not ring true. With SLP there was an overly emphatic tone to what symptoms were, to what behavior was, to what conversation was, to what breakdown was. Now -- that differs from experience to experience. DOR said it was personal to him -- perhaps that's how it was for him. But for me, this wasn't Niagra, Niagra by a good country sneeze. And as much as why that limits the film reaction for me -- which sounds obnoxious -- (but I just didn't feel it got there), I am obviously completely wrong when it comes to how everyone else has reacted. You all loved it. So screw me.
I just felt that there was a time where we were representing mental difficulties in a real way or in a fake way -- so that we could either increase awareness or so that we could simply use a lunatic as a part of storytelling. This puppy -- I don't know where it falls. I have very specific reactions to the presentation of mental illness -- so that should be taken into account. Then again, I consider things from oh, running somewhere out by that tree in Amadeus over to that screen door in Awakenings to the barred windows in Twelve Monkeys to Midnight Express -- TO BE ACCURATE! Somewhere between Hefty Bag, lucky charm when you sit next to me, and dance tournament -- I parted ways with this film -- in a way I was drawn closer to Billy Elliot, The Full Monty (film only, thank you), and Little Miss Sunshine. Here -- the "too much"... was... for me... "too much."
But all of you seem to love it!
Are we that short on "it was just an actually good romance between complicated adult characters" style films that this one is living the life of a 1970s Neil Simon screenplay?
Look, I'm a big fan of horse racing. Big fan. I'm having questions about the morals of it lately -- and maybe I'll give it up -- but not before I introduce a couple of more friends to the thrill of race where you're not just betting on the winner. You can call "Argo!" at the ribbon all you want. But shagging ass as down the stretch they come is Silver Lining's Playbook streaking past Lincoln and probably going to end in second. It's the Harvey push... and has been the case in many year's past -- The King's Speech, The Artist -- it's the flick that hooked the audience's heart.
Hey, I like The Dreamers -- I can be a jerk. DOR, J'adore. I want you to be an Oscar winner. I guess I'm just hoping for more sophisticated tackle with more piercing barbs. My heart requires a more complicated trap.
I admit freely and straight-uppedly, right-out-of-the-gatedly that I am missing whatever kind of emotional zeitgeist-ish thing that's happening with Silver Lining's Playbook. I am willingly and openly admitting that I damn sure am in the minority when I say that I think Silver Linings Playbook is tantamount to being this year's Chocolat. You do the math on that one and you come to your own conclusions. I have made no specific pronouncement.
I am simply saying that Lasse Hallstrom is a director whose work I love. My Life As A Dog is the first foreign film I saw in a theater (thank you, Joanne). The year he directed The Cider House Rules, I wondered if he might give American Beauty a run for it's money -- and he got my boy John Irving an Oscar. But sweet heavenly what?! is Chocolat?
To a softer, more mellow note -- and I mean that quite seriously -- get a trumpet mute in on the level of statement right off the bat -- I feel the same way about Silver Linings Playbook. I saw Spanking the Monkey in a now closed Palace Theater in Manhattan outside of which I saw Smashing Pumpkins just talking to each other -- and we still maintain they came in and saw the movie -- i.e. coolest "1990s independent film day" in the life of a dude where that matters. Flirting with Disaster -- Amazing. Three Kings was how I learned the National Board of Review was a legitimate organization. And then there's something like The Fighter. Look -- we know I'm wrong on this. I blogged about how wrong I was -- you all loved Melissa Leo and Christian Bale -- you gave them Oscars!
"How?!" I suppose would be my question. If you had told me that David O. Russell directed either Christian Bale, Melissa Leo, or both to Oscars -- I would not have guessed it would be for The Fighter -- which was DESTROYED by Warrior -- have you seen Warrior? I don't know what the hell you're doing reading this blog when you could be watching Warrior. It destroyed The Fighter.
So I don't know what's up with my connect to David O. Rusell... lately it's been off...
Because let's be frank folks, David O. Russell is one "guy" this year who really has Harvey behind him... Waltz? probably... Quentin? sure... But Django's got no chance... Silver Linings and the Jennifer Lawrence of it all is a chance for Harvey to Re-Gwynethize himself... and when you got Harvey waves of that size carrying your ship to port, it means some "man" is taking a trophy, too. But for SLP (no wonder Ali likes it) here's how the gents break down...
Is Robert DeNiro going to win? You know what, you sons of bitches, wouldn't that be something? I do think the absolute smug faced-ness of Tommy Lee Jones may have cost him the Oscar -- despite his SAG win. There's always someone who streaks all the way up through the SAGS and then tanks. That person is looking more and more like Tommy Lee. It's usually not a four-for-four year -- in fact, I'll check and update if that has ever been the case -- hell, Jodie won for Nell and Lange for frickin' Blue Sky the very first year the SAG telecast began. They've long been splitters. I do think we could see Tommy Lee topple. Yes. Whether I see DeNiro taking that slot all has to do with whether...
Well... whether you think that Harvey can dig that deep for a third DeNiro Oscar. There's sure as hell a way to get Booby D. number three. But this just ain't the role. And if Harvey's rolling the dice on the supporting actor game this year, the bets on Waltz. We'll get to him in a whole separate piece whose title you're just going to adore. But if Harv snags this sucker Judi Dench style... then hold on to your frickin' hats -- it may not even be Argo. Just tie those odds with a bow and calculate what you think.
Is Bradley Cooper winning? There's not a Hugh Jackman's chance in this male award season hell that Bradley Cooper is winning. The fact that "the guy from the Hangover" is nominated, should let Mr. Cooper feel enough like a second string Greg Kinnear to know that if he really puts his mind to it, he sure as hell showed us that he's really capable of something -- something probably amazing. Silver Linings -- again -- not it for me. I do admit, I picture a girl with brown lipstick so wanting to smack me right now because of how much she loved his sensitivity. My answer? Not real!
So it looks like the Oscar in one way shape or form is going to David O. Russell. He's either taking out Tony Kushner and walking home with adapted screenplay -- bear in mind he'd have to take out Argo's Chris Terrio, too. Or he's going to take out El Spielbergo. It could be that the once "Give Us Bararbbas!" culture of the Academy that left Affleck crucified on nomination morning has now rallied for his "but we gave you a kind of side swiped thank you that includes a friggin' best picture Oscar -- so you're Michael Douglas, not Warren Beatty." So it looks like Don Spielz is going to lose out on the Lincoln picture slot. That sucker seems done. As does hopefully the ten picture system -- you fools. But that means director may damn well be wide open.
Kneejerk was "Affleck, Bigelow, and Hooper are out. That means Lincoln and Spielberg sweep." But that sure as hell ain't proving to be the case. And that reason is manifold.
One of the reasons... Argo is and always was going to win best picture. I will get to where I made my error on that bet later... Unless there's a fantastically amazing upset! Which... I obviously hope for! Drama at all costs, unless it's when my favorite is the lock.
But look how the "And they said it was a Lincoln sweep but now it looks like an Argo romp" chips fall when you line 'em up against the Oscar nominations...
1. Bigelow's absence is killing Zero Dark. Jessica Chastain doesn't seem to have the staying power to be ZDT's victor. Looks like that is heading toward Mark Boal -- problem is it looks like he could lose to Quentin. Zero Dark is either shut out (likely), it wins screenplay (50/50), or it pulls an actress upset (1 in 10). This could be where you thank Django and ZDT goes away empty handed.
2. This means Jennifer Lawrence is absolutely going to win best actress . This has most of America saying "Wait a minute, the chick who played Katniss and Mystique can actually act?" It has your better friends saying, "Wow, she came a long way from Winter's Bone -- fast." A "lead" win for a film with other acknowledged performances is HUGE.
3. This means that the film that's nominated in every acting category is now getting a second glance because Silver Linings Playbook is nominated in ALL FOUR CATEGORIES -- it's As Good As It Gets -- plus one... no, I won't say it's REDS. 'Cause you can rally round the flag all you want at the SAG awards -- but Argo ain't an actor's movie -- not in Oscar's view. It just isn't the best cast of the year. It's a great film with many great elements. But Argo only has the Arkin nom. Suddenly you've got actors looking at a film with four categories. CLIFFHANGER!!! Does this throw Silver Linings into "Picture Play?" DON'T FORGET HOW CRASH WON.
4. You know how it's going -- Hathaway (the Les Miz-Ozcar), Waltz (looks like it, huh?), Lawrence, Day-Lewis... screenplay ain't a guarantee... so where else can Silver Lining's strike? Director and Picture. At this point, I'd say picture is out.
5. This is my blog, so I'll say it -- if David O. Russell wins best director, I will be sickened for having predicted it here. Spielberg can't lose for that to happen. It can't be this way. No.
Let's get back to it...
David O. Russell has effectively -- auteurishly in what I would consider to be the most drastically self reflexive way in the world -- made a film that was important to him. This is because -- as he brings up, I would never bring up -- his son has certain disabilities and it was important to Mr. Russell (not Mr. O'Russell) that he artistically communicate with his son. I think that is wonderful, of course. I have members of my family who are disabled or otherwise abled in some capacity and have lost some close friends who had a range of similar maladies. So -- yeah -- it resonates. To so many of you, it was "human."
Out of all the films this year, America has said "that's the one with all around character connect." I freely admit that I see why that would be the case. I emphatically admit that while being a psychotic fan of all things connected to this film, I did not feel it.
To me, everything about mental illness did not ring true. With SLP there was an overly emphatic tone to what symptoms were, to what behavior was, to what conversation was, to what breakdown was. Now -- that differs from experience to experience. DOR said it was personal to him -- perhaps that's how it was for him. But for me, this wasn't Niagra, Niagra by a good country sneeze. And as much as why that limits the film reaction for me -- which sounds obnoxious -- (but I just didn't feel it got there), I am obviously completely wrong when it comes to how everyone else has reacted. You all loved it. So screw me.
I just felt that there was a time where we were representing mental difficulties in a real way or in a fake way -- so that we could either increase awareness or so that we could simply use a lunatic as a part of storytelling. This puppy -- I don't know where it falls. I have very specific reactions to the presentation of mental illness -- so that should be taken into account. Then again, I consider things from oh, running somewhere out by that tree in Amadeus over to that screen door in Awakenings to the barred windows in Twelve Monkeys to Midnight Express -- TO BE ACCURATE! Somewhere between Hefty Bag, lucky charm when you sit next to me, and dance tournament -- I parted ways with this film -- in a way I was drawn closer to Billy Elliot, The Full Monty (film only, thank you), and Little Miss Sunshine. Here -- the "too much"... was... for me... "too much."
But all of you seem to love it!
Are we that short on "it was just an actually good romance between complicated adult characters" style films that this one is living the life of a 1970s Neil Simon screenplay?
Look, I'm a big fan of horse racing. Big fan. I'm having questions about the morals of it lately -- and maybe I'll give it up -- but not before I introduce a couple of more friends to the thrill of race where you're not just betting on the winner. You can call "Argo!" at the ribbon all you want. But shagging ass as down the stretch they come is Silver Lining's Playbook streaking past Lincoln and probably going to end in second. It's the Harvey push... and has been the case in many year's past -- The King's Speech, The Artist -- it's the flick that hooked the audience's heart.
Hey, I like The Dreamers -- I can be a jerk. DOR, J'adore. I want you to be an Oscar winner. I guess I'm just hoping for more sophisticated tackle with more piercing barbs. My heart requires a more complicated trap.
Monday, February 18, 2013
The Perks of Being Award Snubbered
Surprise! The movie about the quiet kid who likes books and socially awkwardly finds his way into a group of weirdos that includes one of the best gay teen performances ever has turned out to be one of my favorite movies of the year!
Surprise! The one where the kid sings Air Supply in a Jesus Christ Super Star T-Shirt!
Surprise! The one where these incredible teenagers hunt all movie just to find that Bowie is the most liberating music of all -- as they burst from the darkened tunnel of teen angst into wind-in-the-hair style revelry -- into starry nighted Bowie-ness. That one.
SUH. Prize.
Yeah, that one, where the kid reads A Separate Peace and carries a 45 of my favorite Beatles song.... I don't know what it was about it ... but somehow, a notch above Zero Dark Thirty and a notch below The Dark Knight Rises, I pick The Perks of Being a Wallflower - one of the best teen films I have seen in years.
In fact, it's probably the best American teen film in ten years -- excluding, of course, the mess of excellent comedies that have rolled out. This movie is not a comedy. There's some great laughs -- GREAT laughs. But this is no comedy. This was a real-ish teen experience that falls somewhere in that Cameron Crowe/John Hughes ballpark. These 80s/90s titans were obviously quite different but Chbosky's movie of his own novel... lands there. It lands in the realm of Ordinary People -- though I will freely admit it is no Ordinary People. It lands in the realm of Breaking Away -- though I will admit it is no Breaking Away
So what is it about The Perks of Being a Wallflower that has those who love it hooked as hard as they were by (500) Days of Summer -- and if you really just said, "Ugh, I didn't like that one either!" just stop reading. This post is not for you.
I knew nothing of the novel except that it was a smash success people told me I should read. However, when I heard that Chbosky was going to make the film himself, I opted to wait. I may read it now -- who knows -- neither here nor there. The point is I walked into the film with zero expectations. I knew there were three exceptional teen actors in the lead roles. I was unprepared for what a monumental trio they would turn out to be and how there is a new kind of iconography in the way that group works. Any teen writer worth his salt is going to say the phrase, "Kind of like Perks of Being a Wallflower," some time in the next year. It's just how it is. We all have Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller to thank for that.
Watson and Miller's step-sibling-soul-mates were the incredible guardian angels to swoop in and carry wounded Lerman's character into a world that may not have been the coolest kids in the world -- though Brad did show up at their parties -- but they were excellent spirits who insisted on having liberating experiences. How fitting for Pittsburgh, home of Andy Warhol.
Here these zine printing, mix tape making, Rocky Horror performers found a world of comfort among each other where there wasn't a struggle to climb ranks. There wasn't a sense of who lived on which side of what tracks, and there wasn't a sense of tension arising from anything -- except one's actions and one's past. That was an angle Chbosky played well. We see just enough woundedness in each of the three leads to pull us right into their world. Yes -- truth be told -- I find it hard to believe that any character Emma Watson plays is or was a slut. That was difficult to accept. Not "Danny Zucko lettered in track" difficult -- but it seemed off. Could be I've got Hermione on a pedestal -- a teen should correct me. Miller and Lerman's woes really struck a chord.
The love between this triangle of spirits swallowed me whole. For some, it simply was too wordy. Well... to you I say... some things should be too wordy. Some of us (clearly) are too wordy and they should be represented at all ages. Far too often, teenagers leaning on each other as they weather through years of unrequited love are forgotten. Suddenly you go to the prom - you become popular - you take off those pesky glasses and someone realizes you're a movie star, have been the whole time. Well, that's not Perks. This is a kid who listens to The Smiths while reading Harper Lee getting the balls to sneak onto the dancefloor for a little "Come On Eileen." And it's not only the bravest thing he does -- but the first in a stretch of brave moves by a real scaredy cat. Someone whose life blossomed because of love.
Well, I'll take it.
And I do feel there has simply been too much sappy material since about -- well -- either the end of "Seinfeld" or 9/11. There has been a push for everyone to learn something and get somewhere with their spirit that I feel betrays reality and entertainment. It's particularly annoying in the teen world where there's a time for a feel good movie -- and then there's a time where a movie should set some real expectations. Perks is on the sunny side of "real expectations" with a dash of after school special drama. But, for many people, so is life.
There was a moment this summer where I considered the fact that both Perks of Being a Wallflower and Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom -- which I will write more extensively about after awards season -- could both be nominated. To me, this was a marvel. The stylized French Movie-esque Andersonian love tale that was Moonrise and the more bookish and heartbreaking Perks. Two films about adolescence that grabbed significant audiences. Neither of these films got the awards recognition it deserves -- and I feel the Academy is foolish in this regard.
Moonrise was just as much a faux-indie darling as Beasts of the Southern Wild -- more so, it seemed. Yet Moonrise was locked out to the picture game -- it's significant nomination being for Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola in the original screenplay category. As I will discuss the closer we get to the awards -- this is perfectly fine for Anderson. Guys like Wes and Roman are of the Quentin Tarantino, Jane Campion, Neil Jordon, Sofia Coppola breed -- the award's original screenplay. But to leave it out of a field of ten -- when Winters Bone and An Education were both nominees -- it seems foolish.
I'm going to go so far as to say it seems "ageist." Perks not even landing a screenplay nomination is absurd. Look, this is a worst nightmare year for anyone in the adapted category. EVERYTHING is adapted. You're gonna have to jump -- of the bat -- and swim with Silver Linings, Argo, and Lincoln? Lots of luck. But the truth is -- regardless of that -- if there's one thing Perks was, it was written. There's been a lot of bizarre events this award season. Perhaps this one is screwy Oscar math, too. But my gut tells me it's that movies about young people simply don't get the recognition they deserve. It consequently creates a space where solid moves about youth are a rarity.
Breaking Away took original screenplay, as did Dead Poets. Of course Redford, Hutton, and Sargent all took home Oscars for Ordinary People. But there's a void of these films -- in existence, let alone as award winners. Truth is, they're tough to make -- they're tough to pull off. The same people who love Running on Empty would kill me if I said Life as a House were just as good. It's a tough audience you're playing to. So all I'm saying is when they're well done, they should be celebrated. There's 10 spaces up there. If The Blind Side can get one, Perks OR Moonrise deserves one, too -- especially if you're only nominating NINE!
Surprise! The one where the kid sings Air Supply in a Jesus Christ Super Star T-Shirt!
Surprise! The one where these incredible teenagers hunt all movie just to find that Bowie is the most liberating music of all -- as they burst from the darkened tunnel of teen angst into wind-in-the-hair style revelry -- into starry nighted Bowie-ness. That one.
SUH. Prize.
Yeah, that one, where the kid reads A Separate Peace and carries a 45 of my favorite Beatles song.... I don't know what it was about it ... but somehow, a notch above Zero Dark Thirty and a notch below The Dark Knight Rises, I pick The Perks of Being a Wallflower - one of the best teen films I have seen in years.
In fact, it's probably the best American teen film in ten years -- excluding, of course, the mess of excellent comedies that have rolled out. This movie is not a comedy. There's some great laughs -- GREAT laughs. But this is no comedy. This was a real-ish teen experience that falls somewhere in that Cameron Crowe/John Hughes ballpark. These 80s/90s titans were obviously quite different but Chbosky's movie of his own novel... lands there. It lands in the realm of Ordinary People -- though I will freely admit it is no Ordinary People. It lands in the realm of Breaking Away -- though I will admit it is no Breaking Away
So what is it about The Perks of Being a Wallflower that has those who love it hooked as hard as they were by (500) Days of Summer -- and if you really just said, "Ugh, I didn't like that one either!" just stop reading. This post is not for you.
I knew nothing of the novel except that it was a smash success people told me I should read. However, when I heard that Chbosky was going to make the film himself, I opted to wait. I may read it now -- who knows -- neither here nor there. The point is I walked into the film with zero expectations. I knew there were three exceptional teen actors in the lead roles. I was unprepared for what a monumental trio they would turn out to be and how there is a new kind of iconography in the way that group works. Any teen writer worth his salt is going to say the phrase, "Kind of like Perks of Being a Wallflower," some time in the next year. It's just how it is. We all have Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller to thank for that.
Watson and Miller's step-sibling-soul-mates were the incredible guardian angels to swoop in and carry wounded Lerman's character into a world that may not have been the coolest kids in the world -- though Brad did show up at their parties -- but they were excellent spirits who insisted on having liberating experiences. How fitting for Pittsburgh, home of Andy Warhol.
Here these zine printing, mix tape making, Rocky Horror performers found a world of comfort among each other where there wasn't a struggle to climb ranks. There wasn't a sense of who lived on which side of what tracks, and there wasn't a sense of tension arising from anything -- except one's actions and one's past. That was an angle Chbosky played well. We see just enough woundedness in each of the three leads to pull us right into their world. Yes -- truth be told -- I find it hard to believe that any character Emma Watson plays is or was a slut. That was difficult to accept. Not "Danny Zucko lettered in track" difficult -- but it seemed off. Could be I've got Hermione on a pedestal -- a teen should correct me. Miller and Lerman's woes really struck a chord.
The love between this triangle of spirits swallowed me whole. For some, it simply was too wordy. Well... to you I say... some things should be too wordy. Some of us (clearly) are too wordy and they should be represented at all ages. Far too often, teenagers leaning on each other as they weather through years of unrequited love are forgotten. Suddenly you go to the prom - you become popular - you take off those pesky glasses and someone realizes you're a movie star, have been the whole time. Well, that's not Perks. This is a kid who listens to The Smiths while reading Harper Lee getting the balls to sneak onto the dancefloor for a little "Come On Eileen." And it's not only the bravest thing he does -- but the first in a stretch of brave moves by a real scaredy cat. Someone whose life blossomed because of love.
Well, I'll take it.
And I do feel there has simply been too much sappy material since about -- well -- either the end of "Seinfeld" or 9/11. There has been a push for everyone to learn something and get somewhere with their spirit that I feel betrays reality and entertainment. It's particularly annoying in the teen world where there's a time for a feel good movie -- and then there's a time where a movie should set some real expectations. Perks is on the sunny side of "real expectations" with a dash of after school special drama. But, for many people, so is life.
There was a moment this summer where I considered the fact that both Perks of Being a Wallflower and Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom -- which I will write more extensively about after awards season -- could both be nominated. To me, this was a marvel. The stylized French Movie-esque Andersonian love tale that was Moonrise and the more bookish and heartbreaking Perks. Two films about adolescence that grabbed significant audiences. Neither of these films got the awards recognition it deserves -- and I feel the Academy is foolish in this regard.
Moonrise was just as much a faux-indie darling as Beasts of the Southern Wild -- more so, it seemed. Yet Moonrise was locked out to the picture game -- it's significant nomination being for Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola in the original screenplay category. As I will discuss the closer we get to the awards -- this is perfectly fine for Anderson. Guys like Wes and Roman are of the Quentin Tarantino, Jane Campion, Neil Jordon, Sofia Coppola breed -- the award's original screenplay. But to leave it out of a field of ten -- when Winters Bone and An Education were both nominees -- it seems foolish.
I'm going to go so far as to say it seems "ageist." Perks not even landing a screenplay nomination is absurd. Look, this is a worst nightmare year for anyone in the adapted category. EVERYTHING is adapted. You're gonna have to jump -- of the bat -- and swim with Silver Linings, Argo, and Lincoln? Lots of luck. But the truth is -- regardless of that -- if there's one thing Perks was, it was written. There's been a lot of bizarre events this award season. Perhaps this one is screwy Oscar math, too. But my gut tells me it's that movies about young people simply don't get the recognition they deserve. It consequently creates a space where solid moves about youth are a rarity.
Breaking Away took original screenplay, as did Dead Poets. Of course Redford, Hutton, and Sargent all took home Oscars for Ordinary People. But there's a void of these films -- in existence, let alone as award winners. Truth is, they're tough to make -- they're tough to pull off. The same people who love Running on Empty would kill me if I said Life as a House were just as good. It's a tough audience you're playing to. So all I'm saying is when they're well done, they should be celebrated. There's 10 spaces up there. If The Blind Side can get one, Perks OR Moonrise deserves one, too -- especially if you're only nominating NINE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)