In Contention

Author: Guy Lodge

  • THE LONG SHOT: Don’t look back in anger

    Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback MountainFor all the movement in the awards game this week – Jeff Bridges leap-frogging into contention, the animation race swelling to five nominees, “Precious” continuing to gather momentum – my head hasn’t really been in it this week.

    That’s partly because we’re all still making blind prognoses until four unseen juggernauts – “Nine,” “Avatar,” “The Lovely Bones,” and “Invictus” – finally deign to show their faces. And partly because I’m only looking forward to one of those titles with sincere movie-fan enthusiasm, as opposed to professional curiosity. Sometimes you just get the wholly subjective feeling that it isn’t going to be ‘your’ Oscar season – and while I’m not there yet, the fear is setting in.

    So, with no current awards developments getting me particularly enthralled or incensed, I’ve spent most of my time lately in a reflective state. With ‘best of the 2000s’ lists already coming thick and fast, and my DVD trawl through the decade’s leftovers for my own list in full swing, Oscar’s own performance over the last 10 years has been on my mind.

    As I discussed in this space a few weeks ago, it’s been a slightly schizophrenic decade of Oscar winners, one that has blurred long-held definitions of “Oscar-bait.” One does have to wonder about the identity or cultural relevance of any group that can alternately celebrate such disparate achievements as “Slumdog Millionaire,” “Gladiator” and “No Country for Old Men.” Who are these people, and what do they know?

    (more…)

  • Weinstein teams with Disney/ABC for ‘Nine’ attack

    Penelope Cruz in NineHarvey Weinstein’s publicity campaign for “Nine” was never going to be a subtle affair, was it?

    Variety reports that The Weinstein Company has turned to Disney/ABC Unlimited for a cross-platform promotional pact that will see the Oscar-baiting musical saturating ABC’s programming, from “Dancing With the Stars” to daytime soap operas:

    Under the arrangement, a themed dance number on the Nov. 17 episode of “Stars” will be set to the “Nine” song “Be Italian.” Dancers will also wear outfits from the movie.

    Meanwhile, throughout the month of December, “Nine” will be written into episodes of “All My Children,” “One Life to Live” and “General Hospital.”

    Also, on Nov. 22, a two-minute “Nine” trailer will run simultaneously “road-block” style on Lifetime, ABC Family, SoapNet, A&E and Bio. That same night, the trailer is set to run on ABC during the “American Music Awards.”

    (more…)

  • One-man anti-‘Precious’ campaign

    Mo'Nique in PreciousWow, and I thought I didn’t get on with “Precious.”

    Jeffrey Wells has drawn attention to the concerted efforts of one Anthony Smith, a 29 year-old African-American working in film acquisition, to derail the “Precious” express. Smith has written an open letter decrying the film’s alleged use of racial and social stereotypes as both “dangerous” and “offensive,” which he is sending to assorted industry figures and op-ed pages.

    I quote his letter after the cut not because I particularly agree with or endorse it — as much as I didn’t like the film, I think accusing it of racism is a wild stretch. And as a work of fiction, I don’t think the film has any particular responsibility towards any particular social group, so I find much of Smith’s argument naïve at best.

    (more…)

  • A chauvinist moment

    Regular readers will know that I’m something of a fan of January Jones. The 31 year-old star of “Mad Men” (which wrapped its third season this week, though me and my fellow Brits haven’t even got started) has essayed the best female character in American film or TV in two years, gives great interview and, well, looks like this.

    Somebody give her a movie already. No, “Pirate Radio” does not count. Anyway there’s nothing edifying, intelligent or movie-related about this video from Jones’s recent GQ cover shoot, but…

  • Through the grapevine

    Matt Damon in Invictus“People say believe half of what you see, son, and none of what you hear.” Marvin Gaye’s Motown standard may as well have been written about Oscar punditry.

    Still, it’s hard to resist the allure of hearsay in this game, and even as I douse myself with multiple pinches of salt, I found these two recent tidbits from Steve Pond’s The Odds blog interesting. Interesting, I hasten to add, and little more.

    The first addresses the matter of how “Precious” might play with the older, white, male audience that comprises the Academy majority:

    Among the viewers who saw the film over the weekend, incidentally, were a group of Academy members and guests at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater Sunday evening. I hear that the AMPAS members screening drew a smallish audience (about 300 in the 1,000-seat theater) but played well, with the largest applause going to the film’s lead actresses, Gabourey Sidibe and Mo’Nique. (Director Lee Daniels, in contrast, reportedly didn’t prompt as much enthusiasm.) The size of the crowd suggests to me that the film’s biggest problem will get getting Oscar voters to see it.

    (more…)

  • First stab at winner predictions, part 2: Yours and mine

    Christoph Waltz in Inglourious BasterdsSeeing as Kris was (delete as appropriate) brave/stupid/psychic/smart enough to predict who will win the Oscars four months ahead of the ceremony (and three weeks earlier than he did last year), I figured I’d follow up, as I did last year, with my own foolhardy guesses too.

    Last year, Kris kicked my ass at this particular game, correctly guessing 13 out 21 categories, and forecasting “Slumdog” fever while I was still on the “Milk” train. (Ironically, the lone “Slumdog Millionaire” win I predicted — Best Song — was one Kris missed.) For my part, I called wins for Sean Penn and Kate Winslet (for the wrong film, of course) … though that hardly qualifies as visionary, does it?

    This year, however, we are of a like mind in most of the top categories, though we part ways considerably further down the list. If you’re looking to take any of our predictions to the bank, stick with Kris. But, you know, a different perspective never hurt anyone.

    My best (or worst) guesses after the cut, followed by your collective prediction culled from yesterday’s comment thread.

    (more…)

  • Hollywood, Johannesburg

    Sharlto Copley in District 9In January 2005, exactly one week after I left my birth town of Johannesburg to study film in the brighter lights of London, Darrell James Roodt’s earnest AIDS drama “Yesterday” became South Africa’s first Oscar nominee in the Best Foreign Language Film category.

    Only a month later, the rather better “uCarmen eKhayelitsha” took the Golden Bear at the Berlin fest; again, the country’s first production to take top honors at one of the major festivals. And only a year later, Gavid Hood’s “Tsotsi” went one better than “Yesterday” by taking the Oscar.

    By this time, I was beginning to wonder if the movie gods were sending me a sign that I’d picked the wrong country: South Africa’s film industry seemed poised for a crossover explosion. That didn’t quite happen. Hampered by the usual financial constraints of a third-world industry, the country went back to its steady output of provincial lowbrow comedies and not-quite-there dramas, few of them seen beyond its own borders.

    Almost five years later, however, something interesting is starting to bubble there again — but this time, it’s not South Africa’s own industry making waves as much as an international cinematic preoccupation with the country and its stories.

    (more…)

  • A bit of context

    Christine Baranski and Meryl Streep in Mamma Mia!

    From the moment it was commissioned, this was intended STRICTLY as a “defined the decade” list, regardless of qualitative considerations. Go back and re-read it in that light, recover from the horror of “Saw” and “Mamma Mia!”’s inclusion (Guy’s right to single these out, but they aren’t the only ones: I personally loathe “Slumdog”, for instance) and I hope it then makes a little more sense.

    Though I’d much rather have been allowed to submit a list of personal favourites (and will probably follow up with one, on my blog, which will include all of about ten films from the current list), this Telegraph one was put together purely with an emphasis on importance/cultural impact, not critical preference.

    Regular reader and Telegraph critic Tim Robey clarifies the intent of that surprising ‘Top 100 films of the decade’ list that got some of you fired up earlier this week.

  • The Times names Haneke’s ‘Caché’ the decade’s best

    Cache (Hidden)I’m not sure why the British broadsheets are all falling over themselves to publish their ‘best of the 2000s’ lists in early November, but mere days after The Telegraph critics declared Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” the film of the decade, The Times has weighed in with their own Top 100.

    In their list, a different Michael comes out on top: Haneke’s cryptic and rather brilliant 2005 thriller “Caché” (or “Hidden,” if you prefer), which only came in at #44 on the Telegraph list, is their pick of the last 10 years. (Has that threat of a Ron Howard remake gone away yet?) I must say, I’m happier with that choice than the Moore film, which doesn’t even feature on The Times list.

    That said, the lists’ objectives are different: The Telegraph aimed to gather the most significant films of the decade, disregarding aesthetic worth in some cases, while The Times has gone for a blunter ‘best films’ claim. Both lists are equally contentious and sometimes silly, as such group-think collectives tend to be. (“Team America” in the top 10 is an obvious attention-seeking ploy, but what of the British bias that places “Casino Royale” and “The Queen” similarly high?)

    (More, and the Times Top 20, after the cut.)

    (more…)

  • Same-but-different ‘A Single Man’ trailer

    Well, they may have buggered up the poster, but they knew better than to mess with the gorgeous trailer we saw back in September. The Weinsteins’ first official trailer for Tom Ford’s startling debut replays the lush, wordless montage of the original, with a couple of Oscar-chasing quotes inserted for effect. (And not subtly, either: “There is already Oscar buzz for Julianne Moore” isn’t a critical endorsement, it’s a non-statement.)

    Regardless, it’s still neck-and-neck with “A Serious Man” (don’t tell me you’re still hazy on those titles) for the ‘trailer of the year’ distinction.

  • A more fantastic fox

    I don’t think I need to explain why I love this. Props to graphic designer Sam Smith (and Jeff Wells for bringing it to light).

    Fantastic Mr. Antichrist

  • ‘A Prophet’ dominates European Film Award nominations

    Tahar Rahim in A ProphetIs “A Prophet” gradually stealing awards-season momentum from “The White Ribbon?” (It’s the superior film, if you ask me.) Too soon to say, of course, but it certainly came out on top in this morning’s European Film Award nominations.

    Jacques Audiard’s searing chronicle of French prison gangs leads the field with six nominations, to four for Michael Haneke’s German Palme d’Or winner. The two films, seen by many pundits as the chief contenders for the foreign-language Oscar, also appear to be the frontrunners here, continuing a rivalry that started way back in May at Cannes.

    Also beating “Ribbon”‘s total, with five nods (six, if you include the People’s Choice Award), is “Slumdog Millionaire,” which didn’t make last year’s cut-off date. The film’s popularity clearly still lingers (to the point that it even eked out a Best Actor nod for Dev Patel, ahead of, say, Michael Fassbender), though I sense its moment has passed.

    (More discussion, and a full list of nominees, after the cut.)

    (more…)

  • Idle trivia for a Saturday morning

    Henry Fonda. Alan Arkin. Jack Palance. And, strictly hypothetically, Jeff Bridges.

    What am I listing here? Bragging rights and an imaginary cookie for the first correct answer.

  • WEEKLY WRAP: Oscar hosts, Bridges arrives, animated five

    Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart• Oscar season ramped up this week, with the popular selection of Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin as this year’s Oscar emcees.

    • This week’s Off the Carpet column surveyed the runners and riders for Best Actor …

    • … only to be immediately outdated as Jeff Bridges and “Crazy Heart” arrived to turn that race on its head.

    • Big news in the Best Animated Feature race, as last-minute entry “A Town Called Panic” ensured we’ll have five nominees.

    (more…)

  • The Telegraph picks the decade’s Top 100

    Fahrenheit 9/11I’ve lately been immersed in a marathon of DVD viewing and re-viewings, catching up on films that slipped through the cracks and reassessing former favorites — all in preparation for my own year-end “Best of the 2000s” list.

    It’s a process that has resulted in some unexpected fringe challengers (“Longing,” an underexposed work of New German Cinema, won’t leave me alone), as well as some shifted perspectives (Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s “Distant,” which I adored on first viewing six years ago, burned a little less brightly second time around). Nat Rogers is currently doing similar homework at the Film Experience, on a year-by-year basis.

    At this stage, I have only a faint idea of what my list will eventually look like, but I’m already fairly sure that it will have little in common with the Top 100 of the decade that has just been unveiled at The Telegraph. Compiled by the British paper’s three critics, including IC friend Tim Robey, it’s an interesting and occasionally perplexing list.

    They state upfront that their aim is to represent the decade’s “pick ‘n mix” culture, though the headline promises the decade’s “Top 100 movie masterpieces.” “Mamma Mia!” and “Saw,” both in the top 20, may fit the former description, but “masterpieces” they ain’t. Then again, popularity or influence aren’t the principal criteria either, as the list includes such obscurities as “Los Angeles Plays Itself.”

    Whatever the system of selection, the result, you may or may not be thrilled to hear, is that Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” is the film of the 2000s.

    (More, including the Telegraph’s Top 20 films, after the cut.)

    (more…)

  • The honorary Oscars: “A dying ritual”

    Lauren BacallAs I’ve said before, I’m dismayed by the Academy’s decision to relegate the honorary Oscar winners to a separate, untelevised ceremony, which will take place next Saturday. Even more than the inflation of the Best Picture nominees, it’s a move that betrays desperate self-doubt and compromise on the Academy’s part.

    Meanwhile, they only rubbed salt in the wounds by making such roundly well-received choices for this year’s honorees: few would disagree that the likes of Lauren Bacall and Gordon Willis are  well due for Oscar recognition, so it truly insults the recipients (not to mention film fans in general) to deny them a public moment in the spotlight.

    (more…)

  • Same-but-different trailer for ‘It’s Complicated’

    Handily coinciding with its two male stars’ big news this week, the second trailer for Nancy Meyers’ romcom mostly overlaps with the first, with a few added flourishes.

    Despite having never liked a Meyers confection before, something about this one is working for me. Steve Pond has a mole who says the film is “absolutely terrific,” though of course that means little. Either way, mature audiences are going to turn out in droves for this.

  • Carey goes for the de-glam vote

    Mariah Carey in PreciousMariah Carey is clearly well-versed in Oscar strategy. Or, at least, one strategy in particular: the “uglying-up” route that has won kudos for multiple attractive actresses (Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron, Marion Cotillard et al) “brave” enough to shed makeup and/or don prosthetics for their art.

    I say this because Carey currently seems to be telling anyone who will listen about the makeunder she endured for her extended cameo in “Precious.” To the New York Times, she recently gushed, “People say to me, ‘You’re so ugly in this movie,’ and I take that as a compliment,” before revealing how Lee Daniels ordered her to remove her blush. (Quelle horreur!)

    Meanwhile, she tells Us Magazine that she “drank some ugly juice” to achieve her level of “hideousness” in the movie. And in case we hadn’t got the idea, she reiterates in an interview in today’s LA Times that she’s unable to so much as look at her “hideosity” on screen.

    (more…)