9/23 OSCARWEB ROUND-UP: Brolin on Stone and Allen, remembering ‘Goodfellas’ and a ‘Boonmee’ how-to

Posted by · 9:06 am · September 23rd, 2010

In a joint venture with Interview magazine, Roger Ebert corners Casey Affleck on “I’m Still Here.” [Chicago Sun-Times]

Kevin Gray talks “Wall Street” and Woody Allen with Josh Brolin. [Vulture]

Steve Pond runs a comb through the contenders so far to gauge strengths and weaknesses. [The Odds]

Patrick Goldstein takes his second swing at Pete Hammond in as many days, this time regarding the Mel Gibson Oscar buzz thing. [The Big Picture]

A fascinating portrait of the making of “Goodfellas” by the film’s principals, 20 years on. [GQ]

“The Social Network” takes out ads on MySpace.  Duh. [Hollywood Reporter]

Glenny Kenny cooks up a user’s manual for “Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives” in advance of the New York Film Festival. [Some Came Running]

David Poland chimes in on “The Town”‘s Oscar prospects.  (And by the way, was “The Blind Side” really “unfairly mocked?”  Just asking.) [The Hot Blog]

[Photo: 20th Century Fox]




→ 17 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

17 responses so far

  • 1 9-23-2010 at 10:19 am

    James D. said...

    I am not trying to be funny, but does anyone actually still use MySpace?

  • 2 9-23-2010 at 10:20 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    I totally deleted my account a few weeks ago, and that felt about two years overdue to be honest.

  • 3 9-23-2010 at 10:20 am

    Joe said...

    Am I the only one who is annoyed by all of this Blind Side bashing? Is it possible… maybe… that some people really thought it was a well-made movie? And in case you were wondering, yes – I really did think it was one of the ten best of last year. And yet until the end of time, any crowd-pleasing contender will be referred to dismissively as “The Blind Side vote”. How come nobody talks about the Reader slot for the iffy Holocaust movie? Or The Kids taking the Milk “see? we like homos” slot.

    So Kris, to answer your question: yes, it was unfairly mocked. Hopefully, we can move on to the day where an Oscar column need not passively mention “and the Blind Side spot goes to…”

  • 4 9-23-2010 at 10:25 am

    James D. said...

    I hated The Reader, but it had its moments. The Blind Side was one of the worst things I have ever been subjected to.

  • 5 9-23-2010 at 10:37 am

    Robert Hamer said...

    The Blind Side was only “unfairly mocked” if you also berated the Gotham Awards for not trying to predict Oscar winners, and thought Avatar “is as complex as anything Charlie Kaufman has ever written.” What else do you expect from the World’s Dumbest Movie Blogger™?

  • 6 9-23-2010 at 10:44 am

    Robert Hamer said...

    @ Joe: Not necessarily ANY crowd-pleasing contender, so much as any racist, pious, predictable and self-congratulatory piece of trash that gets an Oscar nomination will be referred to as “The Blind Side vote.”

    By the way, I’ve heard quite a few people mention The Reader as taking up the “Holocaust slot.” Just look at some of the older posts from Noah Forrest or Nat Rogers on the subject if you want to dispute that.

    So hopefully, we *never* forget how low the Academy is willing to go, and shame them of their boneheaded decision from here on out so that nothing nearly as bad ever gets the title “Academy Award Nominee for Best Picture” ever again.

  • 7 9-23-2010 at 10:45 am

    James D. said...

    Joe, if I may ask, what was your top ten of last year, and what was left off in favor of The Blind Side?

  • 8 9-23-2010 at 4:13 pm

    /3rtfu11 said...

    The Blind Side is a poor example of movie racism. A much worse offender is Places in the Heart (1984) watch the first fifteen minutes and not be repulsed.

  • 9 9-24-2010 at 7:18 am

    Joe said...

    Top ten: Serious Man; Where The Wild Things Are; 500 Days of Summer; Brothers; Hurt Locker; Princess and the Frog; Soloist; Blind Side; Sugar; and Up In The Air.

    I think Blind Side was competently made and well-acted, which is why it was a touch above Sugar. However, Soloist (very simiar thematically) was far more realistic in how the situation was handled, so it was a touch above Blind Side. I left off I Love You Man and Precious.

    Anyways… I’m just wondering if this whole “self-congratulatory white guilt racism” thing is misplaced. Maybe if this were all fiction, then I can agree. But don’t act like this happens all the time. A giant majority of families (even rich white ones) do NOT invite homeless black kids into their families. If anything, I found Blind Side rather inspiring.

    By the way, Robert Hamer, I see your points. But when Secretariat (nothing racist about that film, except for the fact that it’s about horse races) is being hailed as “The Blind Side contender”, then you know it’s not just that. And I don’t disagree about “The Reader”, but the thing is that you have to go back a few years to get to a true mention of it. On the other hand, every week some middling baity pretender comes out, it’s “well, it shouldn’t be nominated, but let’s not forget The Blind Side”. It kind of insults the reason Blind Side was nominated in the first place; because it was an unpretentious, un-baity film that people fell in love with on their own.

  • 10 9-24-2010 at 7:27 am

    Joe said...

    By the way, I hope I’m not sounding too confrontational here. Just letting off some steam for an admittedly minor issue. Obviously, there’s more important things in life (like the work I’m supposed to be doing right now).

  • 11 9-24-2010 at 7:53 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    “I think Blind Side was competently made and well-acted, which is why it was a touch above Sugar.”

    Are you implying that Sugar wasn’t competently made and well acted?

    Not that I have any problem with anyone liking The Blind Side. If the film made you feel something, great.

  • 12 9-24-2010 at 3:05 pm

    Joe said...

    Guy: yes, in the sense that Blind side was slicker and had more seasoned filmmakers involved. I didn’t mean to say that Sugar was incompetent, but that it didn’t have that “studio movie” shine to it. Bottom line: I liked both movies.

  • 13 9-24-2010 at 3:14 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    You and I have vastly different definitions for “competently made.”

  • 14 9-24-2010 at 4:08 pm

    James D. said...

    Studio movie shine is good?

  • 15 9-24-2010 at 4:28 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    “Sugar” deserved awards notice for its cinematography. That’s all I’ll say.

  • 16 9-24-2010 at 4:37 pm

    Marvin said...

    I haven’t seen Blind Side, nor do I plan to ever see it by choice. Can’t fucking wait for Uncle Boonmee, though. Weerasethakul is among my five favorite working directors: Almodovar, Dardenne, Maddin, Martel and him, and my favorite movie last year was Martel’s The Headless Woman, a treasure yet to be discovered by so many.

  • 17 9-24-2010 at 4:41 pm

    Joe said...

    Kris: maybe, maybe not. Perhaps “competent” was a poor choice of words, but I stand by my statement that other things being equal (strong stories, well-developed characters), I still think Blind Side is a bit of a better technical achievement with a bit better acting and directing.
    Anyways, it’s not a big deal. Arguing Blind Side’s merits was a topic for last year. I just wish that snarky references to it would also stay in last year’s race.