In Contention

Author: Guy Lodge

  • Sorry, Josh

    I like Josh Brolin a great deal, and I particularly like his performance in “Milk” — a courageous display of against-type delicacy and ambiguity that would be a worthy winner of Best Supporting Actor honours in most years.

    Unfortunately for him, most years don’t have the perfect storm of industry sentiment, audience popularity and landmark performing represented by Heath Ledger this year. Not to put too fine a point on it or anything, but I don’t think Brolin — or anyone else, for that matter — stands a snowball’s chance in hell of beating the late Australian. In a chat with the NYT’s Baguette, however, it appears that Brolin himself feels differently:

    “After what happened to Tilda Swinton last year, I think pretty (much) anything can happen… That was a surprise. It was. But again. Is it most deserving? Not necessarily.”

    Mr. Brolin said that as an Academy member who had voted for the first time last year he gained some insight into the whole voting process. “I think it’s an important film and I think that goes into people deciding what they’re going to vote for … It’s a very strange process. It’s very unlike what I thought it would be because suddenly you personalize it. You look at the body of work of the nominee. Lots of stuff goes through your mind.”

    For one thing, Tilda Swinton’s victory last year wasn’t entirely unanticipated, so saying “anything can happen” is a bit of a stretch. Upsets can happen, for sure, but there has to be some semblance of a crack in the frontrunner’s armour, and I don’t see one in Ledger’s case. For me, this is as much a foregone conclusion as Daniel Day-Lewis last year, or Helen Mirren in 2006, but I give Brolin credit for not completely surrendering.

    (more…)

  • WEEKLY WRAP: BAFTAs, Berlin, pre-Oscar jitters

    Aside from two major precursors, it’s been a slow week for news — which leads to a lot of prediction second-guessing.

    • “Slumdog” swept at the BAFTAs, which also put new wind in Mickey Rourke’s sails. We live-blogged it here.

    • The “Slumdog” streak inevitably continued at the WGA Awards, where “Milk” picked up some hardware too.

    • This week’s Off the Carpet column was just eager to move on already.

    • Taking a closer look at the often inscrutable Best Documentary Short race.

    • Speaking of documentaries, we wondered if a win for “Man on Wire” is the foregone conclusion that people think it is.

    • On a similar tack, do we have a real race in the Best Foreign Language Film category?

    • In a bit of a blow to next week’s Oscarcast, Peter Gabriel has nixed his participation.

    • A survey of some of the industry’s top DPs suggests that “Slumdog” looks like the one to beat for Best Cinematography too.

    • Should we be mindful of a third possibility in the Best Actor race?

    • Perhaps another underdog, “Frozen River,” has hidden strengths in the competition.

    • Away from the Oscar beat, the Berlinale continued its quiet progress, with Stephen Frears’ “Chéri” possibly one to watch.

  • ‘The nightclub of your dreams’

    Hugh Jackman talks Academy Awards here, admitting he’s a little biased towards Heath Ledger in this year’s race (though frankly, who isn’t?), and dropping more hints about the more intimate atmosphere promised at this year’s Academy Awards:

    Obviously I’m not a standup comedian and generally there’s been comedians who are actors as well (who) have been doing it for the last however many years. So there’s not the same pressure. I don’t think people expect me to come out and do seven minutes of bang-bang-bang jokes. … They really just encourage me to do what I feel I do best. It’s a night to have a feeling of celebration, of community.

    The look of the theater is very different. It’s more like the nightclub of your dreams. It’s very intimate. … It’s got to be a lot closer. It’s been a little austere in the past. You know, there’s that stage, the host being up above the stalls, looking down at everybody. … But this is a lot more intimate. It’s still spectacular, being in the Kodak Theatre. But it’s a real difference in the way things are laid out.

    It sounds like a lovely set-up for the guests. I just hope they’ve given enough thought to how it plays on TV — what feels “clubby” to people in the room could feel remote to those watching at home. I do trust Bill Condon and Laurence Mark, of all people, to retain a sense of glamour and spectacle. And I still believe Jackman has the star magnetism to bring it home. But the sheer amount of changes proposed this year gives me the feeling this is either going to be a roaring success or a crashing failure. Fingers crossed.

  • Oh Mickey, you’re so fine

    I regretfully haven’t had time today to check out Mickey Rourke’s in-depth interview with Charlie Rose that aired last night, but I hear that it’s all kind of special. Jeff Wells, for one, was thoroughly melted by it:

    I’ve felt admiration and grudging respect for Rourke before but I fell in love with him last night, as far as that’s feasible or possible from an electronic remove. I don’t care if it was an act, I loved it anyway … His calm determination that no matter what goes down there’s no stopping him, no quitting now. His saying that if Penn wins he’ll stand up and cheer because he’s great and a brother and maybe he’ll have his turn a year or two down the road. That quiet, settled, almost-dweeby quality he showed with those black horn-rim glasses…man!

    Someone has to grab that interview and put it out there right away. It was important, landmark, for the ages…please.

    More than anything, a win for Mickey Rourke is what I want to see next Sunday evening. I love Sean Penn, I truly do. He’s my favourite actor of this generation. But there’s something about Rourke’s performance in “The Wrestler” that makes me choke up a little every time I even think about it — and he sure knows how to carry that pathos into an interview context. I look forward to watching this. I don’t think it’s been uploaded yet, but it should appear soon here.

  • 2/13 Oscarweb Round-up

    • Dave Karger posts his final predictions, is still on the Sean Penn express. [Entertainment Weekly]

    • The other David, in his non-Bagger persona, sings the praises of this year’s Oscar long shots. [New York Times]

    • T.L. Stanley peeks at the entertainment on offer at next week’s Spirit Awards. (Teri Hatcher spoofing “Wendy and Lucy?” Interesting.) [Gold Rush]

    • Gold Derby serves up their own award nominations, shaming the Academy in the process. (“TDK” and Sally Hawkins fans, rejoice.) [Gold Derby]

    • The adorable Taraji P. Henson talks “Button,” dresses and her secret yearning to play Diana Ross. (Great idea. Make it happen.) [Vanity Fair]

    • David Thomson ponders the puzzle that is Steven Soderbergh. [The Guardian]

    • The Art Directors Guild offers an unusual list: from “Intolerance” to “LA Confidential,” the Top 100 Designed Films of all time. [Variety]

    • Peter Bart reports that Danny Boyle is interested in filming a woman’s story for a change. [Variety]

    • Gaynor Flynn talks to Sundance sensation and star-in-the-making Carey Mulligan. [The Independent]

    • Kim Voynar pretends that it’s even worth considering the chances of four other Best Picture nominees. [Movie City News]

  • Awwww…

    Mickey goes all soft and mushy on us, if this soundbite from the BAFTA after-party is anything to go by:

    “Sean Penn is a good friend of mine. When I was down and out he got hold of me and told me exactly what to do and what not to do. I owe him so much that I hope he wins the award.

    “I wanted to be as big as Al Pacino. I thought my acting ability was enough so I didn’t play by the rules, I ignored all the politics, I upset people and in the end I lost everything. Now I am back and I am going to stay with this work ethic until I die.”

    The thing is, I actually believe him when he says he’s backing Penn. I still think Rourke’s going to sneak the win, though.

  • Is ‘The Class’ in a position to upset ‘Bashir?’

    (UPDATE: I see Dave Karger is placing his money on “The Class” too. Interesting.)

    Yesterday, Kris took a look at the Best Documentary Feature category, and wondered whether the winner there is quite the foregone conclusion that most people think. Supporting his argument was the category’s unusual rule that voters have to have seen all five contenders before casting their ballots –- a rule which can make the category less susceptible to consensus thinking than elsewhere, as voters are forced to make aesthetic decisions for themselves rather than letting the campaigns decide for them.

    It’s a situation that can either consolidate a frontrunner’s appeal, or throw up a surprise as voters lose their hearts to a less-publicised gem. And while I agree with Kris that the latter is a possibility in the doc race, I’ve been wondering lately whether a similar upset could be brewing in the Best Foreign Language Film race –- which also requires voters to view all the nominees.

    For some time, “Waltz With Bashir” has been installed as the de facto frontrunner in this race –- and with good reason. It’s vastly acclaimed (remember the National Society of Film Critics named it the year’s best film, period), wildly inventive, won a number of significant precursors (though it recently stumbled at the BAFTAs) and, crucially, has a cache of political currency that could seal the deal for the frequently high-minded voters in this category.

    But it has a number of strikes against it too. It’s the first animated film ever to be nominated in this category, as well as the first documentary –- and the Academy isn’t exactly known for embracing the new. Given that voters in this field tend to be older Academy members, are we sure that they will take an animated effort seriously here? And are we sure that they won’t be put off by the film’s challenging, oblique structure? I’m not.

    (more…)

  • Start from scratch, Academy

    I do love a good rant about the Academy Awards. And Ryan Gilbey is, for my money, one of the sharpest, most entertaining film writers around these days. So it figures that a Gilbey-written attack on the Oscars, in the lefty political mag the New Statesman, should make for good reading.

    Gilbey cheerfully admits that he “hates” the Oscars, even as they fascinate him by “systematically disparag(ing) the creativity and alchemy of filmmaking.” And as in David Denby’s own recent rant, he dislikes all of this year’s Best Picture contenders save for “Milk,” though he still thinks Gus Van Sant’s film “pales beside” the likes of “WALL-E.” (I particularly like the accuracy with which he skewers “Frost/Nixon,” arguing that it is “built like a sitcom — every joke has its payoff in the following shot.” Bingo.)

    But he also offers some ideas for how to fix the supposedly broken machine that is the Oscars. And while some of them are typically playful and even perverse (ban Ron Howard and Meryl Streep from future nominations, he pleads), some of them (to me, at least) really make a lot of sense. I particularly like his two-birds-with-one-stone approach to rectifying the embarrassing foreign-language situation, starting by abolishing the Foreign Film category altogether:

    Scrap the only award specially designed to allow a sliver of glory to fall on cinema from other cultures. Why? Well, it’s patronising, for a start. Not quite as bad as the Best British Film Bafta, I’ll grant you, but still only a hair away from being termed The Special Needs Award For Hopeless Cases. It’s nothing short of insulting to see Laurent Cantet’s The Class and Ari Folman’s Waltz With Bashir consigned to this subsidiary category when there is more accomplishment in one frame of those films than in the entirety of most of this year’s Best Picture contenders. An awards system that does not consider The Class good enough to compete with Frost/Nixon or Slumdog Millionaire deserves to be a laughing stock.

    So how will foreign-language films get a look-in? Call it positive discrimination or affirmative action, but from now on, the total number of Best Picture nominees should be raised to six, of which two must come from non-English-speaking countries. There is simply no other way to redress the balance than to force Academy voters to consider films that are not being screened at the local mall. Let’s put The Reader up against Waltz With Bashir and then we’ll see some real tears from Kate Winslet.

    Good stuff. The rest here.

  • What the techies think

    There’s an interesting article in Popular Mechanics, in which several industry experts offer their own predictions in a number of technical categories. Like Kris’ earlier post about the DPs’ thumbs-up to “Slumdog Millionaire,” it offers a perspective on the race that can widely differ from that of critics, audiences and even the Academy itself.

    I’ve often wondered just how differently the tech winners would turn out if they were voted on by the individual branches rather than the entire Academy membership. I think it’s likely that Emmanuel Lubezki would have a cinematography Oscar for “Children of Men,” for example, or perhaps the costume design gong wouldn’t always go to the film with the most opulent threads.

    Here, sound mixer Richard Van Dyke and sound editor Brian Riordan both name “WALL-E” the clear winner in their respective fields, with the latter simply remarking, “If you mute ‘WALL-E,’ you don’t have a movie … if you mute ‘Slumdog’ for five minutes, it’s still amazing.” Both men approve of the work in “Slumdog,” while Van Dyke has some qualms with the mixing in “The Dark Knight.”

    There’s an interesting conclusion in the makeup category, where artist Barney Burman’s personal standout is “Hellboy II,” though he rather surprisingly predicts that the general membership will lean towards “The Dark Knight,” given how powerfully the makeup job supported Heath Ledger’s performance.

    (more…)

  • If it ain’t broke…

    A change is as good as a feast. I’m the last person to deny that. And for the most part, I’ve been down with the changes to this year’s Oscarcast promised by producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark.

    I’m on the record as saying I think Hugh Jackman is an inspired gamble as a choice of host. And while I’m concerned that Queen Latifah singing along to the “In Memoriam” montage has the makings of an all-out kitschfest, I’m nonetheless interested to see how it plays out.

    But there’s one change, one that a number of people still don’t seem to be aware of, that I’m not happy with at all. And that’s dispensing with the tradition (of the past couple of decades) of having last year’s winners present this year’s acting awards. As Susan Wloszczyna wrote in her interview with the pair a few weeks back:

    Instead of lining up last year’s winners and stars with upcoming movies to tout, Condon and Mark are reaching out to those names associated with a 2008 movie. And there will be a few blasts from Hollywood’s past, too.

    (more…)

  • Is Amy Adams a threat after all?

    Tariq Khan thinks so. Tom O’Neil reports that the Fox News pundit is predicting a major upset by the “Doubt” star, largely on the basis of what he perceives as “soft support” for frontrunner Penelope Cruz.

    Before you dismiss his ideas completely, it’s worth pointing out that his track record is pretty strong — he foresaw Kate Winslet’s category switch for “The Reader,” and apparently predicted all of last year’s winners correctly. Here, Khan constructs detailed arguments both against Cruz and for Adams, including this fairly astute point:

    (Adams) has the largest role in this category. As I explained above, size does matter. Adams is the only one in this category with a semi-leading role. She has plenty of dialogue and good dramatic scene work, managing to more than hold her own while acting opposite Meryl Streep for much of the film. Don’t think that voters won’t take that into account. And while the much talked about brief performance by Viola Davis might have a greater impact, many will feel that it’s just too brief to deserve an Oscar. Even veteran Ruby Dee lost for her small role in “American Gangster” last year, despite winning the SAG award just a few weeks earlier. If Dee couldn’t win, there’s probably no way that Davis can.

    Other factors listed in Adams’ favour include the possibility that voters may wish to convert one of “Doubt”‘s four acting nods into a win, Adams’ exceptional personal likeability and her significant box-office clout. Against Cruz, he cites her Globe and SAG losses (though I’m not sure I’d count those, given this year’s odd Winslet scenario), her limited screentime (not to mention her delayed appearance) and the Academy’s apparent indifference to “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” itself. (Not on his list, but a factor in my mind, is that Cruz looks set to have a big 2009, and may well be an even stronger contender for next year’s honours.)

    (more…)

  • A promising start for ‘Chéri’

    If it isn’t quite the unanimous chorus of approval one might have hoped for, there’s still enough praise for Stephen Frears’ latest film “Chéri,” which premiered in Berlin last night, to mark it as a potential 2009 contender in several areas — among them, Best Actress for Michelle Pfeiffer’s much-anticipated return to dramatic roles. (Thanks, of course, to the ever-diligent Nat Rogers for the heads-up.)

    The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt is absolutely besotted with the film, gushing that there is “no false moment or off-key note” in the entire production:

    Stephen Frears never makes the same movie twice. What he does do though is make thoroughly professional and immensely entertaining stories that pay particular attention to characters, their flaws, emotions and deepest desires. In “Cheri,” he has another dandy. Whether it will travel as far as his last film, “The Queen,” is hard to say, but with a radiant Michelle Pfeiffer as his heroine, “Cheri” could well be another breakout hit.

    The chemistry between Pfeiffer and (Rupert) Friend is positively combustible. One feels the hunger in each, the rising physical passion and emotional vulnerability in two people who, if asked, would scorn love as a human weakness. The film is in English, of course, but it can’t escape a certain Frenchness: Those who would mock love are done in by love.

    There is also, predictably, much praise lavished on the film’s scrumptious-looking tech credits, with top honours going to Alexandre Desplat’s “nostalgic, romantic, melancholy score.”

    (more…)

  • Defending the Berlin outcasts

    Several days into the Berlin Festival, it remains a rather quiet affair from the outside. A couple of starry titles have been thrown to the wolves, while we’re still awaiting news of a breakout film or performance along the lines of “Happy-Go-Lucky” last year.

    However, tonight’s screening will bring the first word on Stephen Frears’ eagerly anticipated “Chéri,” which has been prompting awards talk since mid-2008. (Nat Rogers, for one, idly muses on the Oscar chances of the film’s stars, Michelle Pfeiffer and Kathy Bates, here.)

    As for two of the films that have already been rather harshly received across the board, I was interested to hear a voice of positive dissent from one of my favourite critics, as Salon’s Stephanie Zacharek finds much to like in both Tom Tykwer’s “The International” and Lukas Moodysson’s “Mammoth.” In particular, she argues that the former, a “strange and beautifully made thriller,” may be a victim of an overt anti-Hollywood sentiment among festival critics:

    The movie I saw and loved felt “Hollywood” to me only in the best sense: Tykwer obviously had some money to work with here, and he spent some of it on the kind of elaborate, elegantly constructed set pieces that few mainstream directors know how to do anymore. (Wait until you see what he does with the Guggenheim Museum.) What’s more, “The International” is a leisurely thriller, which means it’s automatically a contradiction in terms: It can be called too slick, too boring, too “unlike anything else out there” and too “just like everything else out there” all at once. Those very conflicts are exactly what make it interesting.

    (more…)

  • UK press forgives Winslet

    Good. After weeks of mean-spirited mockery for her admittedly messy Golden Globe acceptance speeches, it appears that Winslet-baiting has finally gone out of style in the British press. UK media can demonstrate a weird tall-poppy syndrome when it comes to homegrown successes, but judging by this Independent article, they obviously approved of her restrained, clipped acceptance speech at last night’s BAFTAs:

    Rushing to the stage with a whoop, she started her speech with businesslike briskness, thanking her family and friends with just the faintest of quivers to her voice, adding that if she looked in the direction of her parents “I really will burst into tears”. “To be given this award at home really means a great deal to me. Thank you, Bafta,” Winslet added. She paid tribute to the producers of The Reader, Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack, who both died last year, saying: “I can’t believe they are no longer with us. You are much missed today and you will be much missed for many years to come.”

    The Guardian, meanwhile, deemed her “a model of composure,” while the Telegraph adds that “it was a relief Kate Winslet has finally put her acceptance speeches behind her.” As I said last night, though, I couldn’t help feeling that Winslet appeared a little too browbeaten on stage; I wouldn’t mind a little more sponteneity from her when she (almost) inevitably wins on Oscar night.

    It seems the Telegraph’s David Gritten was particularly pleased with the BAFTAs overall, calling them “by far more interesting” than the Oscars — a curious and somewhat premature conclusion, given that the Oscars look likely to unfold very similarly in a fortnight’s time.

    (more…)

  • ‘Mammoth,’ ‘Rage’ land with a thud at Berlin

    Oh dear. Colour me very disappointed indeed. “Mammoth,” Lukas Moodysson’s would-be entry into the mainstream, had me so hopeful — not least because it features Gael Garcia Barnal and Michelle Williams, arguably the two most exciting actors of their generation. But judging from a hostile crowd reception and cool-to-icy reviews, it appears the film isn’t likely to join Moodysson’s “Fucking Amal” or “Together” in the pantheon of greatness.

    IndieWire’s Eugene Hernandez reports that the film actually elicited boos at its screening — something that should always be taken with a pinch of salt, given the weird, unnecessarily cruel crowd mentality that often reigns at European festivals. (Just ask Sofia Coppola.) But Screen International’s trustworthy Jonathan Romney’s review isn’t much more merciful:

    Mammoth is an elephantine dud from a director who has plenty to say about the state of the world – and not a whit of new insight to offer nor artistic invention to express it … Moodysson’s humourless, finger-wagging script ticks every expected box, and he’s not averse to heavy visual underlining … The film’s title (alludes) – geddit? – to the capitalist global system, a wasteful titan doomed to extinction, though it applies equally well to the lumbering shaggy monster that Moodysson has created here.

    (more…)

  • “It’s such a pleasure to be here, back out of the darkness.”

    If you didn’t catch Mickey Rourke’s marvellous BAFTA acceptance speech, here it is in all its (bleeped) glory. For me, it’s moments like this that awards season is all about. (And I love the Richard Harris dedication — from one rebel talent to another.)

  • ‘Slumdog’ takes 7 BAFTAs as Rourke, Winslet triumph

    For an awards body renowned for its frequently contrarian bent, the most surprising thing about this year’s BAFTA awards was, well, just how unsurprising they were.

    As the evening unfolded, not a single result emerged that could be classified as a major upset, even if the winners (“Man on Wire” helmer James Marsh in particular) occasionally looked more astonished than anyone else. Yours truly got 16 out of 21 predictions correct (a personal BAFTA record, I think) and even then, most of those errors came from trying to second-guess their usually far less predictable tech categories, and slightly underestimating the across-the-board love for “Slumdog Millionaire.”

    For love it they did, awarding it 7 trophies in the biggest BAFTA sweep since “Schindler’s List” matched that tally fifteen years ago. There really is very little to say about the “Slumdog” phenomenon at this stage, other than to admire the grace, modesty and genuinely endearing excitement that Danny Boyle, et al, still manage to convey at these ceremonies, all the while concealing the fact that they can no longer be surprised when their names are called.

    The other major story of the ceremony, however, was Mickey Rourke, whose outrageous but nonetheless slyly self-deprecating speech was the evening’s clear highlight. (His hilarious shout-out to his agent for “telling me who to fuck” is surely a soundbite for the ages.) I think it was clear to anyone in the UK that Rourke would win this – “The Wrestler” appears to be attaining cult status here, while the buzz around “Milk” has been eerily quiet – but it does nevertheless prove that he’s still very much in the Oscar race. Taking his wonderful performance aside for a moment, Rourke has now twice proved that he makes for great TV – and assuming they can handle some salty language, his knockout speech tonight may well win over some undecided AMPAS voters.

    (More thoughts, and a full list of winners, after the cut.)

    (more…)

  • BAFTA Awards — live from London

    BEST FILM: “Slumdog Millionaire”

    I bow to no one in my love for the Rolling Stones, but even so, what the hell is Mick Jagger doing presenting this award? Anyway, as if you hadn’t guessed already, “Slumdog” inevitably takes the gold, completing what I think must be the largest BAFTA sweep in some years. (Or one of the largest ever? I’ll need to check the books on that.)

    BEST ACTOR: Mickey Rourke, “The Wrestler”

    I was confident Rourke would win here, given that “The Wrestler” has built such a surprisingly high profile on these shores. (“Milk,” on the other hand, couldn’t be less visible.) Even so, there’s always a little thrill of the unexpected about seeing Rourke in contexts like this.

    He rocks the house once again with another wonderful speech — funny, off-the-cuff, just the right side of lewd, and best of all, he’s comfortably, completely himself. And he squeezes in a few F-bombs in for good measure. Great, great stuff. I’m not a begging man, AMPAS, but please, for the sake of both art and entertainment, please give the man an Oscar.

    BEST ACTRESS: Kate Winslet, “The Reader”

    Daniel Craig barely bothered to enunciate which film she’d won for. I assume it was “The Reader,” since she’s thanking Minghella and Pollack. I feel a little bad for Winslet — she’s so obviously trying to rein it in here, she comes off a little stiff and over-rehearsed. This is the damage the merciless British press can do. But she’s clearly pleased, so … good job, I guess. (What was with that clip choice, though? Is “I’ll have what you have” really one of her best lines?)

    (more…)