A late installment today. Relaxing.
• Kvetching over the “Dark Knight” slight, with stats to assist. “The Reader” is officially the worst reviewed Best Picture nominee since 2000 and the lowest grossing as well. [Film.com]
• The ‘Slumdog’ smear sure is relentless. It’s just sad to see smart reporters like Dennis Lim taking the bait from publicists and an all-too-convenient backlash. [Slate]
• Peter Bart dug the SAG Awards. [Peter Bart]
• Dave Karger runs down some 2008 Oscar trivia, including the Stephen Daldry hat-trick of Best Director nods that, I believe, one of our commenters was all over on Thursday. [Entertainment Weekly]
• Mickey Rourke is gonna lace up the boots for real at WrestleMania. [MSNBC]
• David Carr and the value of an Oscar, monetarily speaking. [The Carpetbagger]
• Patrick Goldstein checks out David Denby and A.O. Scott going at it on Charlie Rose. [The Big Picture]
• The Weinstein Company brings on Lionsgate honcho Tom Ortenberg. Hey, that might actually work. [Los Angeles Times]
Comments
17 responses to “1/27 Oscarweb Round-up”
That was a fantastic article on Slumdog.
I never said it wasn’t well-written.
It’s hardly a smear. It seems like it’s pretty straight forward. I mean, to be fair, when was it out of line to show the other side of something in the media? Slumdog has been bathed in an untouchable golden light for the last 2 months. I think it’s more than fair to be informed that the film has it’s problems too, in addition to its success.
If only you knew what’s going on behind the veil at competing studios, Leone. I’m not saying Lim is actively smearing, just that he clearly had a few bugs dropped into his ear at an opportune time.
And it also isn’t a coincidence that I was tipped off to the article by someone who’s up against the film earlier today.
Just sayin…
I never said you didn’t say it. You have been so touchy when someone criticizes that movie, and I cannot understand why. It is the culmination of style over substance, and it saddens me greatly that the Academy is likely going to reward it. We better not criticize it, though, because we might be racist or too out of touch. No Country for Old Men was open to much more debate, probably because it was a better film.
Stats can paint any argument you want but here’s the truth. When comparing how much money The Reader made pre-nomination to every other nominee pre-nomination, it’s grossed more than Letters From Iwo Jima and right on par with There Will Be Blood and Million Dollar Baby. Of course it hasn’t grossed as much as those films did total, it hasn’t even gotten a wide release yet.
I was just going to write exactly the same thing as Chad. And you know what: I think RT is an incredibly bad indicator of what films are good or not, because the boundaries between a “fresh” and a “rotten” review are not really conceivable. Furthermore it’s easier to like a film like “The Queen” than “The Reader” for many reasons – so naturally it will get a higher RT score.
According to the stats, Kris’s favourites “Crash” and “Babel” shouldn’t have been nominated either, however beloved they were by many.
Ooooooh. Buurrrrnnnn!
The Slumdog article certainly is a smear. As an Indian, the whole premise of the article is typical and just as cliche as it claims the movie is. My father grew up in a slum before getting lucky and getting into a good school, and that is exactly how it was. In his words, Indian film makers almost always fail where Boyle succeeded.
Kris — I didn’t realize that you were alerted to the article by a competitor studio. I guess that does seem a touch deliberate, doesn’t it? Still, if what the article says is true, then what’s the difference? It’s all over the internet for people to see. I just googled Slumdog and I couldn’t believe how many crazy stories showed up — seems like there is a definitive backlash brewing but it’s coming out of India and the UK and the US media is just sort of ignoring it. Every movie has to stand on its own and shouldn’t be protected from those that would question it… that’s the great gift of art — to question, to provoke conversation and thought. No film is exempt from that questioning – even Slumdog. And in fact, it shouldn’t be exempt. It’s as it should be, I think.
Ash — I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you, truly. I have to say that I do think it’s a bit weird if you’re Indian to say that Indian filmmakers fail where this particular British director succeeded. That’s just…. well… a strange thing to say particularly when you’re faulting Dennis Lim for smearing India. YOU just smeared Indian filmmakers by repeating that.
Well, according to Ash (someone considerably more qualified on this than me — I won’t speak for you), what the article says may well be in question.
And I’m not necessarily PROTECTING the film. I’m all for an assault if its founded in good ole’ fashioned hatred. Like our buddy Chad, for instance, who just doesn’t like the film. But I get suspicious when pieces like this land at certain times, and that suspicion breeds a certain rage.
But I guess publicists gotta make a dolla.
And lastly, I think you went a bit far in your assessment of Ash’s comments. She/he because I’m not sure, sorry Ash) didn’t “smear” India. She/he said filmmakers there have failed to capture a certain truth that Boyle has with “Slumdog.” And she/he didn’t say Lim was smearing India either, just that the article was a smear of the FILM. Let’s not stretch words into meaning something they don’t.
Let me guess, the worst reviewed in 2000 was CHOCOLAT? Oh and who shoved that one down the Academy’s throat? Harvey… Fierstein? No, drat, what is his name….
The next one will be about about a saucy single mom in a concentration camp who makes brownies.
Actually it’s probably fucking GLADIATOR. Never understood why some people don’t get how that movie is the daddy.
I liked Gladiator. Eh.
@ Chad
You said: “Stats can paint any argument you want”
Well I would love to see you use stats to paint a convincing argument in favor of the inclusion of The Reader.
From my POV the only stats that you can point to are critics, box office and the guilds. Oh and maybe Ebert :). All four in this case are firmly in favor of TDK.
@ Michael Rogers: “Well I would love to see you use stats to paint a convincing argument in favor of the inclusion of The Reader.”
Damn good point.
“Gladiator” is terrific. Wouldn’t have been my choice, but a perfectly respectable Best Picture. If you want some appreciation of it, BurmsShave, try digging up the Sight & Sound review from 2000, where they even said it was Scott’s best film. (Now that I am NOT down with.)
But then, on its own limited terms, I kinda liked “Chocolat” — certainly more than I like “The Reader” — so I’ll just shut up.