In Contention

Author: Guy Lodge

  • Is Sandler a contender for ‘Funny People?’

    Adam Sandler in Funny PeopleI can’t say I saw this coming. Since the expansion of the Best Picture category, several people have considered Judd Apatow’s “Funny People” as a possible populist nominee in the race, while speculating that it could also land him a writing nod after near-misses (and Guild citations) for his previous two features.

    Meanwhile, others (Kris included) have sniffed awards potential for well-liked supporting thesp (and, of course, Mrs. Apatow) Leslie Mann. But whether due to his own dodgy résumé or the Academy’s anti-comedy bias in the lead races, no one has mentioned the film’s star, Adam Sandler, as much of an awards threat.

    The reviews, however, tell a slightly different story. Although response to the film itself is mixed, the word for Sandler is very strong indeed, recalling the “OMG he can act” notices he garnered for “Punch-Drunk Love” seven years ago (which of course landed him a Golden Globe nod, if no Oscar traction).

    (more…)

  • James Cameron on ‘The Hurt Locker’

    With the more gossipy factions of the press trying to conjure up tension between him and his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow, it’s great to see that James Cameron is having none of it.

    In this extract from an interview with David Poland — worth checking out here — Cameron sings the praises of “The Hurt Locker,” suggesting it could emerge as the “Platoon” of the Iraq generation. He also makes clear that they continue to enjoy a professional friendship … so the wags hoping for some kind of bitter rivalry come Oscar season will be disappointed.

  • WEEKLY WRAP: Comic-Con, a taste of ‘Avatar’ and ‘Alice’

    Comic-Con• Comic-Con was the week’s big story, with 25 minutes of footage from “Avatar” its major talking-point so far.

    • Meanwhile, the rather less glitzy sci-fi of “District 9” wowed the crowds.

    • And Gary Oldman slipped some unexpected news about the next Batman installment.

    • Good week for trailers, as both “Alice in Wonderland” and “Bright Star” offered a crazyglimpse of their goods.

    (more…)

  • Warm notices for Streep in ‘Julie & Julia’

    Meryl Streep in Julie & JuliaEven before anyone had laid eyes on Nora Ephron’s “Julie & Julia,” I felt fairly confident in predicting the critical response: nice, unremarkable film dominated by a broadly entertaining, larger-than-life turn from Meryl Streep.

    And so it has come to pass. The trade papers are united in their lukewarm feelings on the film itself, while Streep comes in for the expected praise for a showy star turn a showy star role. (Meanwhile, poor Amy Adams gets predictably, if charitably, sidelined, despite her joint billing.)

    Variety’s Justin Chang is harshest on the film, calling it “overstuffed and predigested … a slick, presumptuous vanity project,” but has nothing but kind words for Streep’s “delightfully daffy” performance:

    Doing her formidable best to counteract (the film’s) drawbacks is Streep, whose 5-foot-6 frame makes her an imperfect physical match for the 6-foot-2 Julia, but who proves more than up to the challenge of tackling this beloved celebrity’s equally outsized personality. Delivering an elegant approximation of the woman’s distinctly flutelike vocal pitch and endearing mannerisms, Streep abundantly conveys the warmth, rich humor and joie de vivre so evident in Julia’s TV appearances and her writing.

    (more…)

  • ‘Antichrist’ lands in the UK

    Charlotte Gainsbourg in AntichristThe Yanks have to wait until October, but it’s “‘Antichrist’ Day” here in Britain. (Hey, it might not be as popular as “‘Avatar’ Day,” but I like the ring of it.) I’m not going to dwell too heavily on the critical reception in today’s papers — you’ve got the gist by now that it’s a polarizing picture, and true to form, the reviews are split right down the middle.

    (I’m more interested to see what the weekend box-office figures are like, given that the film has been rather adventurously programmed at a few mainstream multiplexes as well as the obvious arthouse venues.)

    Of the credible broadsheets, The Times and the Telegraph are firmly in the “yes” camp (calling it “a fantastically painful mirror” and “a film soaked in the grief of its subjects,” respectively), while the Guardian‘s Peter Bradshaw and the Independent‘s Anthony Quinn remain unconvinced. (“The great artist imposes shape, pattern, order,” scolds Quinn. “The mediocre artist just throws stuff at the wall and hopes audiences will gasp.”)

    (more…)

  • The films you’re supposed to love, but don’t

    Gene Kelly in Singin' in the RainBound to raise many a film buff’s hackles, The Guardian carries an entertaining piece today by novelist Tim Lott on the subject of “the worst best films ever made” — in other words, the roundly lauded and canonized classics that routine appear on “all-time greatest” lists but, well, simply aren’t all that.

    It’s a wholly subjective issue, of course, and Lott is unashamedly provocative (if overly glib) in tackling it, taking down some seriously big targets along the way. Films in the firing line include “The Searchers” (which he accuses of both racism and “rude mechanicals”), “Les Enfants du Paradis” (“dated, overlong and absurdly wordy”), “On the Waterfront” (“a masterclass in ham acting”) and “Death in Venice” (“a colossal piece of soft-focus masturbation”).

    I disagree on most counts, but now and then his venom strikes a chord of with me. I wouldn’t go as far as he does in calling “La Dolce Vita” a “turgid, lazy mess of half-realised conceits,” but I agree that it’s not a film that has aged particularly well; compared to the still-pristine “8½,” its experiments in anti-narrative look idle and incomplete. And I’m glad someone else has the courage to say that subsequent decades of radical reinvention in the field of the movie musical make “Singin’ in the Rain” look like a very ordinary achievement indeed. (I’ll just come out and say it: I can’t stand Gene Kelly.)

    (more…)

  • Goldenthal on scoring ‘Tempest,’ ‘Enemies’

    Elliot GoldenthalLauded composer Elliot Goldenthal doesn’t deign to work all that much in film these days — the lure of stage and opera work is great, particularly when he gets Pulitzer recognition for it — and when he does, it’s not always in projects worthy of his gifts. (Anyone want to hazard a guess why he scored “S.W.A.T.” in 2003?)

    But this year finds him thoroughly immersed in the big screen again, renewing two partnerships that have proved productive in the past. We’ve already heard his work on “Public Enemies” — his first pairing with Michael Mann since “Heat” in 1995 — which was largely muted and effective, with a contemporary acoustic edge that landed on the right side of anachronistic. (I maintain, however, that the use of Diana Krall was a miscalculation.)

    But more eyes (or ears, rather) might be on his next collaboration with personal and professional partner Julie Taymor, whose screen interpretation of Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” is wavering between a 2009 or 2010 release. Anne Thompson profiles the composer and drops some intriguing hints about the latter project:

    Goldenthal’s now finalizing the score for Taymor’s demi-musical “The Tempest,” starring Helen Mirren as Prospera and Ben Whishaw as a singing Ariel. The movie uses Shakespeare’s own songs. “It’s a challenge to find something mysterious and not arcane, and not Elizabethan sounding,” he says. “It has to sound like something you’ve never heard or can categorize. I have to compose around the Shakespeare meter.”

    (more…)

  • Another look at ‘Enemies’

    Christian Bale in Public EnemiesI must say, while I’m still struggling to see the use of The Auteurs as a social networking site, it’s a smashing source of film writing. The range and intelligence of discourse there is a joy to read, and is rapidly making the site a daily essential.

    A case in point is today’s superb three-headed discussion of “Public Enemies” — well-timed given that today (as noted at the Film Experience) marks the 75th anniversary of John Dillinger’s death.

    I’ve said before that I don’t think the film has generally received the critical credit it deserves, so it’s a treat to read three equally well-informed writers debating its complexities, and its relationship to the Michael Mann canon, in more detail than any review I’ve read. Daniel Kasman is upfront in his enthusiasm, declaring it the year’s best American film so far. (Short of “The Hurt Locker,” I don’t disagree.)

    (more…)

  • ‘Alice in Wonderland’ teaser trailer

    As someone who is both fanatical about Lewis Carroll and agnostic on Tim Burton, I’ve been a little wary about this project from the outset. Burton and his team have given something of a CGI Gothic distortion to John Tenniel’s immortal illustrations — I don’t know how I feel about it, but suffice to say we can probably fill some 2010 Oscar slots in the design races.

    I am concerned, however, about the solo star billing of Johnny Depp, and his first-person narration — this story shouldn’t be The Mad Hatter Show. Thanks to Cinematical for the heads-up:

  • Searchlight backs Bridges’s “performance of a lifetime”

    Jeff Bridges in Crazy HeartWhen I first began compiling my Oscar nomination predictions back in May, I took a wild-card Best Actor punt on Jeff Bridges in a little, then distributor-less indie called “Crazy Heart.”

    In truth, I had little basis for the guess other than the strong reputation of the 1987 source novel, and the fact that Bridges is surely one of the most sorely Oscar-overdue actors in the business. Like Ed Harris, he’s one of those dependable American stalwarts, well-liked by all, who you think must win at some point, but rarely land roles showy enough for the winner’s circle.

    “Crazy Heart,” however, gives Bridges the opportunity to play a washed-up, alcoholic country singer seeking to get his life and career back on track — now just count the Oscar hooks in that sentence. How can he lose?

    So I was interested to see my idea given at least some credence by Fox Searchlight, who recently acquired global rights to the film for a seven-figure sum.

    (more…)

  • Blind attack

    Charlotte Gainsbourg in AntichristThe imminent release of “Antichrist” on this side of the pond has prompted some amusing journalism, as outraged critics make flustered pleas for a return to tighter censorship. (Apparently, adults over the age of 18 can’t be trusted to make their own viewing choices.)

    Of course, they’re obliviously playing into Lars Von Trier’s hands by publicising the film so generously — thanks to them, even my less cine-literate friends have now expressed interest in seeing it.

    Unsurprisingly, the most hilarious tirade against the film comes from that bastion of little-Englander conservatism, the Daily Mail, in which self-proclaimed “libertarian” Christopher Hart strikes down upon the film with great vengeance and furious anger, even calling for it to be banned, and only briefly pausing to admit he hasn’t actually seen it:

    You do not need to see Lars von Trier’s Antichrist to know how revolting it is.I haven’t seen it myself, nor shall I – and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.

    (more…)

  • Women on top

    Kathryn BigelowIt’s been a couple of months since I discussed the notion of 2009 being a watershed year for female filmmakers at the Oscars, and it’s a possibility that seems to be gaining traction. Sasha Stone recently responded to a post of mine by toying with the slogan “year of the woman,” while a new post by indieWIRE’s Peter Knegt continues the discussion.

    Like me, Knegt fancies the chances of Lone Scherfig and Jane Campion in the race, but his chief interest at the moment is in Kathryn Bigelow, whose film “The Hurt Locker” he declares “the biggest news to hit this year’s race,” based principally on the unexpected strength of its critical reception:

    Coming off a well-received run in the festival circuit, most expected Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker” would find some good reviews and perhaps even make a bit of money.  But “Locker” didn’t just find good reviews, it found ecstatic ones … And while judging its promising $2.2 million-and-counting – after four weeks and without going over 100 screens – is still premature, “Locker” is certainly exceeding financial expectations thus far.

    (more…)

  • An evening with Clint Mansell

    Clint MansellIt has been a very long time since I sat myself down in a wooden pew, but I think it’s safe to say that the last church recital I attended didn’t begin with a speech by a rebel auteur from Brooklyn, didn’t involve any electric guitars, and it certainly wasn’t accompanied by video imagery of Mickey Rourke. But then, the last church recital I attended wasn’t by Clint Mansell.

    A short stroll from my home in quiet North London, the Union Chapel is a converted (but still active) Victorian church that moonlights as an alternative music venue — perhaps the city’s loveliest — and tonight it played home to the extraordinary film composer and his musical cohorts.

    A cosy, candle-lit suburban chapel may seem a slightly odd setting for an evening that was largely devoted to the considerably harsher screen worlds of Darren Aronofsky, whose Mansell-penned film scores formed the bulk of the evening’s program, but it quickly proved a comfortable one.

    (more…)

  • How Harvey corrupted Oscar

    Holly Hunter and Anna Paquin in The PianoIt’s a little over a week old, but I only just noticed Mike Goodridge’s rather interesting column at ScreenDaily, in which he offers yet another take on the Academy’s expanded Best Picture field. (Is it even a month since the announcement? It feels like we’ve been talking about this forever.)

    Unlike many, Goodridge is wholeheartedly in favor of the move, which he sees as a potential corrective to the more cynical manipulations of Oscar campaigning. I don’t necessarily agree with that conclusion, but I found myself nodding while reading the setup for his argument, in which he traces the Academy’s motivation back to Harvey Weinstein’s earliest campaigning days.

    Though Weinstein is now regarded as the poster boy for disingenuous campaigning, Goodridge looks back to a time (one many pundits seem to have forgotten) when he was a force for good on the Oscar trail, using his unsurpassed savvy to get deserving indie underdogs into the race.

    (more…)

  • Catching up with the ten

    Abbie Cornish in Bright StarIt slipped my mind to update the Oscar nomination predictions I made in early June, which were looking sorrily outdated with a scant 5 Best Picture nominees. (What a difference a month makes!)

    Anyway, if only to get with the 10-strong program, it was time for a midsummer tidy, so my updated predictions can be found here.

    Aside from doubling my Best Picture ranks, I’ve limited myself to mild tweaks elsewhere — after all, with most of the big players still unseen, I’m as clueless now as I was before. As I said back in June, I believe in having fun at this early stage in the game, so I’ve retained a few wildcard inclusions and omissions.

    (more…)

  • An idle rant for a Sunday morning…

    … but one that’s been simmering inside me for some time. Who the hell are the numbskulls who select the pull quotes for DVD cover art? Do they get paid for their efforts? If so, why? And what in God’s name are they reading?

    I know it’s a trivial concern, and it’s not entirely limited to the DVD side of things: there are any number of theatrical one-sheets out there with the most mind-bogglingly (pick the relevant combination) banal/inappropriate/lazy/barely creditable selection of critical endorsements graffitied over their increasingly uninspiring designs.

    But it’s for DVD that the marketers involved produce their biggest headscratchers, going blindfolded as they select the most random possible quotes from the most unimpressive sources, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they’re actually trying to sell the movies to punters.

    (more…)

  • WEEKLY WRAP: Toronto looming, ‘Education’ rising

    Carey Mulligan in An Education• Lots of buzz over “An Education” this week, with a new trailer and poster unveiled … and the talk isn’t only about Carey Mulligan.

    • We kicked off a new season of Tech Support with a look at the runners and riders for Best Cinematography.

    • Darwin biopic “Creation” will open this year’s Toronto fest, while “Bright Star” and “Precious” are also in the lineup.

    • Speaking of “Precious,” this week’s edition of Page to Screen examined the novel behind the Sundance sensation.

    (more…)

  • REVIEW: “Broken Embraces” (***)

    Broken EmbracesMateo Blanco, the fictitious, sightless filmmaker who is both the ostensible hero of Pedro Almodóvar’s 17th feature film, “Broken Embraces,” and a highly refracted alter ego of Almodóvar himself, runs his career by one golden principle: “no sequels, remakes or biopics.”

    This statement, hammered home to Blanco (Lluis Homar) by his long-serving agent Judit (Blanca Portillo), could be read as a cheeky allusion to Almodóvar’s own directorial philosophy. Arguably the most defiantly trademarked of all contemporary arthouse auteurs – even the casual cinephile can identify un film de Almodóvar by its palette alone – he is nonetheless surprisingly resistant to repetition.

    As tempting as it may be for some to color his oeuvre with the same brush, there’s less common aesthetic ground between the jagged raunch of a “Kika,” the elegant humanism of a “Talk to Her,” or the icy genre play of a “Live Flesh,” than meets the eye, skewed black humor and extravagant visuals notwithstanding.

    It’s not a case of phasal development either: the remarkable creative hot streak of his last five films saw him trying on a range of tonal and structural guises, unexpectedly becoming this generation’s crossover arthouse teddy-bear in the process.

    (more…)