In Contention

Author: Guy Lodge

  • What does it all mean?

    Kate Winslet in The Reader“Pictures at a Revolution,” Mark Harris’s smart, keen-eyed study of the cultural implications of the 1967 Best Picture race, is without a doubt one of the best books ever written on the subject of the Academy Awards. So it’s hardly surprising that Harris, in a piece for yesterday’s Observer, has provided the most intelligent take on this year’s awards race to date.

    What’s particularly interesting is that, while he just wrote an entire volume on the countercultural meaning of a Best Picture race in a pivotal year in Hollywood history, he’s quick to avoid such a unified reading of this years nominees — effectively and wittily debunking several trends that many Oscar-watchers have attempted to glean from the crop:

    1) The Academy has a new, more global outlook, represented by the 10 nominations given to Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire. Alternatively, the Academy suddenly has a new, more insularly American outlook, as evidenced by the fact that 17 of the 20 acting nominees are from the US, the most since the early 1990s.

    2) The “gay mafia” in the Academy, outraged by the passage of the anti-gay marriage amendment Proposition 8 in California, powered the gay-rights drama Milk into the race with eight nominations. However, it will never win, because the Academy is hopelessly homophobic, as we all are presumed to have learned when Brokeback Mountain lost to Crash.

    3) In a time of great economic uncertainty for the major studios, Hollywood reasserted its authority by bestowing 13 nominations on the high-grossing, high-budget product of two conglomerates, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. But the Academy simultaneously renounced any interest in supporting studios or representing popular taste by snubbing Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster The Dark Knight, excluding it from consideration for best picture, director or screenplay.

    (more…)

  • Here’s a question…

    Okay, so I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but this just occurred to me today, after Ari Folman’s semi-surprising win at last night’s DGA awards. So I ask you: Why was “Waltz With Bashir” eligible for the DGA, but “WALL-E” wasn’t?

    Anybody?

  • Let the right one in

    Jeff Wells and Sasha Stone have already mentioned this, but it can’t hurt to bring more attention to the matter. It seems MTV is offering one college student the chance to serve as an interviewer on the Oscar red carpet, and have narrowed it down to ten finalists. The public is now invited to vote the winner, based on these ten audition videos.

    I’m not going to be unnecessarily cruel about a bunch of college kids I don’t even know, but suffice to say this guy comfortably stands out from the sea of Seacrest-Rancic-wannabes. As the video below makes quite clear, David Distenfeld is smart, genuine, reasonably funny, passionate about film and, best of all, a complete and utter awards geek. He’s one of us. Vote for him here.

  • Wow, ‘Man on Wire’ lost something…

    … as “Waltz With Bashir” helmer Ari Folman beat James Marsh in the Documentary category at the DGA Awards. Not that it means anything really in the grand scheme of things but, y’know, interesting.

    (I’d say it seals up “Bashir”‘s probable victory in the foreign-language race, but if there’s one Oscar category that’s resistant to the notion of a ‘sure thing,’ it’s that one.)

  • BAFTA admits it needs mending

    Interesting. Variety reports that BAFTA is to re-evaluate its voting process — and it appears to be a direct response to the widespread criticism that greeted this year’s nominations, which baffled pundits and industry folk alike with some questionable inclusions (Tilda Swinton, Freida Pinto, a whopping eight nods for “Changeling”) and equally baffling snubs (most notoriously, a hurtful donut for Mike Leigh’s widely acclaimed “Happy-Go-Lucky”).

    To begin with, one needs to understand the eccentric, back-and-forth nature of BAFTA voting. The first round of voting produces a longlist of 15 contenders in each category — 5 of which are selected by the relevant branch (or ‘chapter’) of voters in that field (and marked as such on the ballot), with the other 10 chosen by the general BAFTA membership.

    The next two rounds of voting work in a reversal of the Oscar system. The 5 nominees are determined by the general membership, while the winners are decided by the relevant ‘chapter’ voters alone — with the exception of Best Film, Best Foreign Language Film and the four acting awards, for which all members vote.

    Confused? I don’t blame you. It’s a ludicrous system that has received a lot of flak in the industry (Mike Leigh himself has been a vocal critic in the past), not least because it frequently leads to some inexpertly chosen nominees. (This, for example, is how a film like “Mamma Mia!” lands a Best Score nod.) The obvious solution, then, would be to use ‘chapter’ voting to determine the nominees, right?

    (more…)

  • ‘4 Months’ takes BBC award

    The BBC Four World Cinema Award is an endearingly unassuming, low-fi ceremony — so unassuming and low-fi, in fact, I’d forgotten it took place until I happened upon the TV broadcast earlier this evening. (It seems nesting on a Saturday night has the odd advantage.)

    It’s a simple enough prize. UK critics elect a shortlist of the five outstanding foreign-language releases of the year, upon which a jury of industry figures convenes to choose to best of them. The award is now in its sixth year: previous winners include “Belleville Rendezvous,” “The Return,” “Downfall,” “The Death of Mr Lazarescu” and “Pan’s Labyrinth.” This year’s list, heavy on 2007 films that only received a UK release last year, went as follows:

    “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” (WINNER)
    “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
    “Gomorrah”
    “The Orphanage”
    “Persepolis”

    Jury head John Hurt said the verdict was unanimous. Not a very surprising, or very arguable, result — though with a list of that calibre, it’s hard to go wrong. (Only “The Orphanage,” I think, is a little out of its depth here.) By the way, can you spot what the five shortlisted films have in common? Yep, all were either snubbed or ineligible for the foreign-language Oscar. Make of that what you will.

    Meanwhile, Werner Herzog picked up a lifetime achievement award and gave one of the most eloquent speeches I’ve heard all season. I know he doesn’t really have a shot in hell, but I’d sure love to see him on the Oscar stage. (EDIT: If you’re interested, you can watch the ceremony here.)

  • Double feature

    I believe this is what graphic designers term the “Washington-movie grid format.” Either that, or the creative well at the Universal/Working Title marketing department is running dry. It wasn’t that great the first time, guys. (EDIT: I see our friend Glenn has joined the dots too. Great minds, and all that.)

  • WEEKLY WRAP: ‘Slumdog,’ Sundance, Santa Barbara

    It slipped my mind to do this yesterday, but here’s the week that was:

    • “Slumdog Millionaire” steamrolled through the week’s precursors, taking the Producers Guild Award…

    • … before landing top honours at the SAG Awards, which we live-blogged for your pleasure.

    • Still on “Slumdog,” a potential smear campaign against the film was duly foiled.

    • No surprise, then, that this week’s Off the Carpet column declared the race pretty much over.

    • The Academy settled “The Reader” producers’ dilemma by breaking its ludicrous “three-nominee” rule.

    • Meanwhile, some are wondering whether Harvey Weinstein’s tactics could harm the film’s chances, particularly in the Best Actress race.

    • Away from the Oscar race, gritty urban drama “Push” cleaned up at Sundance.

    • The Santa Barbara fest carried on, with an interesting screenwriters’ forum among the highlights.

    • Still at Santa Barbara, Danny Boyle, Kate Winslet and this year’s six Virtuoso stars were among those celebrated.

    • Could “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” really go 0-for-13 on Oscar night?

    • Finally, rounding off a very “Slumdog”-flavoured week, be sure to check out our interview with the film’s brilliant craftsmen.

  • Crikey

    Thanks to The Film Experience for pointing out this tease of a still from Stephen Frears’ Berlin-bound period romance “Chéri,” which promises something of a return to form for star Michelle Pfeiffer. (IMDB tells me she’s 50. You kidding me?)

    More stills can be found at this fansite, showcasing what looks to be predictably lavish production design and costuming by Oscar nominee Consolata Boyle (“The Queen”). Do we have a 2009 craft-category contender already?

  • In praise of Kate’s … feet?

    I’m not sure where I stand on David Thomson these days. He is surely one of the greatest film writers still at work today; few of his rivals manage such a fine balance of personal appreciation and critical insight, particularly in the area of performance. (As a prose stylist, Thomson at his best leaves Ebert for dust, in my opinion.) His “Biographical Dictionary of Film” is as essential as it is idiosyncratic, while last year’s “Have You Seen … ?” is a bedside-book delight, ideal for dipping in and out of at leisure.

    But in recent years, his work has grown increasingly sloppy and, in some cases, frankly unhinged. His further “Biographical Dictionary” entries for the Guardian have been spotty and back-handed of late, but the clincher was his factually malnourished and unavoidably creepy 2006 “biography” of his long-time cinematic crush, Nicole Kidman, which paid stomach-churning tribute to the Australian’s “commas of breast” and “gingery pubic hair.” An embarrassment for all concerned, it truly has to be read to be believed.

    It’s difficult to say, then, whether it’s good or bad news for Kate Winslet that Thomson appears to have set his sights on her instead, writing an extraordinarily generous tribute to her in today’s Guardian, calling the actress “the finest performer of her generation,” and waxing lyrical about her performance in “The Reader” (“easily the best and most disturbing film of the year”). It is, in fairness, a civil and intelligent appreciation for the most part, after an eccentric opening that focuses on her, er, feet:

    Near the end of The Reader there is a large close-up of two bare feet … The feet are less than lovely – mottled, calloused, the toenails out of shape, everything well-worn. My wife opined, “They can’t be Kate Winslet’s feet – must be a stand-in, a foot-in. Perhaps they are Sam Mendes’s feet, and he did the shot so she could have a lie-in.”

    Not to disparage the consideration and fondness between Mendes and Winslet, husband and wife, director and actor, I preferred to think that Winslet is too much the perfectionist to let false feet into her picture. “She’d have been up at four in the morning,” I said, “getting the make-up people to give her the opposite of a pedicure” … I assume that Winslet would take any trouble, from the tips of her broken toes to the proper split ends in her elderly German hair. “Would Meryl Streep entertain anyone else’s feet?” I asked my wife. She agreed not. And that is the standard here: Kate Winslet is the heir to Meryl Streep.

    (more…)

  • Life is short, etc, etc, etc…

    Today’s Telegraph carries an interview with Brad Pitt that somehow manages to be simultaneously personal, honest and thoroughly unilluminating. There’s plenty of contented musing on fatherhood and Angelina Jolie if that’s your cup of tea, but I couldn’t help being somewhat disappointed by the banality of his take on “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”:

    “I walked away realising that time is short,” he says, talking on a sound stage at the Warner Bros studios in Burbank, California. “I don’t know if I have a day or 10 days or 10 years or 40 years. Am I halfway or am I close to the end? I don’t know, so I have to make sure I don’t waste those moments in any kind of pettiness or bitterness or laziness, and that I surround myself with the people who are most important to me.”

    Further on, he lets loose with the stunning insight that the film is “about looking back on the significant moments in your life.” Well, I’ll be. I could have sworn Eric Roth had more than that in mind when he adapted F. Scott Fitzgerald’s story, but what do I know?

    I’ve always liked Brad Pitt. A lot. He’s a strong actor — even if “Button” is a million miles from his best work on screen — and a smart, funny, charismatic celebrity. Or he used to be, at least. Why then, throughout the whole “Button” publicity run, has he restricted himself to such bland, humour-starved soundbites, both in print and on camera?

    It’s clear he’s in a happy place personally right now, and that’s great for him. But am I the only one tiring of the relentless earnestness, and longing for a bit of movie-star dash from the man? Some are apparently counting on Pitt’s presence to “save” the Oscar telecast, but as long as he keeps following this script, I’d look elsewhere.

  • The Bagger finds the meaning

    There are few journalists with as sharp an understanding of the tunnel vision that affects award-season coverage as David Carr.  So it’s with a guard of irony that, in yesterday’s ruminative NYT piece, he describes this year’s race as “somehow less frivolous than it has (been) in recent years.”

    While he acknowledges the comparative slightness of the Oscars against such events as Obama’s inauguration and the global financial crisis, he feels that the awards, and more particularly, the films being awarded, have a clearer collective sense of purpose — and resonance — this year:

    Consumers who are motivated by the laurels heaped on these films to plunk down increasingly scarce disposable income will leave the movie house with the message that circumstance is just that, and no match for the indomitability of human will. The films are built on individual successes — kids from the slums who better themselves, a television celebrity who finds his inner newsman, a newborn who overcomes old age and the midlife closeted man who steps into the light — that accrue to the greater good. That message, that darkness can be overcome by individuals working for the common good, is not so distant from the current collective impulse.

    I think it’s an intelligent point, but a flawed one. Carr may refer to this year’s nominees as “the filmed stories that have captured the public’s attention,” but the fact is that, in at least two cases, they haven’t. Carr already marks “The Reader,” the gloomiest and lowest-grossing of the Best Picture nominees, as an exception to his argument, but “Frost/Nixon” hasn’t fared much better commercially. In his recent chat with Charlie Rose, David Denby astutely pointed out that Ron Howard’s film rather overstates the relevance of an event that amounts to little more than an interesting historical footnote — and its $12 million gross so far suggests the public agrees.

    (more…)

  • Is ‘Slumdog’ score too pop?

    Thanks to Nat Rogers at The Film Experience for pointing out a really worthwhile article in the Wall Street Journal, in which music critic Jim Fusilli takes a close look at this year’s nominees for Best Original Score. It’s not a category which tends to inspire much intelligent coverage in mainstream outlets, so it’s great to see someone giving the race the attention it deserves.

    Fusilli starts by commending the Academy for dodging the iffy qualification issues that have plagued previous races — principally the weirdly flexible criteria that allowed “Babel” in, but not “There Will Be Blood” — though I would still venture that “The Dark Knight”‘s initial disqualification scuppered its chances in the category. In any case, this year’s five nominated scores are all clearly original works, and Fusilli is generally impressed by the calibre of the competition. He is, however, not entirely convinced by frontrunner A.R. Rahman’s work on “Slumdog Millionaire”:

    This year, voters will have to decide whether to recognize music that’s most memorable as catchy pop or symphonic music that illuminates story and character. Mr. Rahman’s ebullient work for “Slumdog Millionaire,” a film about a poor boy who may win a fortune on a game show, is likely the early favorite — last week, I stopped in a theater in Boston to see it again and members of the audience cheered when his name appeared in the end credits. That may not be what a film-score composer is looking for. As Mr. Elfman told me last week, “If I’m going for any reaction, the best I could possibly hope for is that they see my name and go, ‘Oh really?’ Writing a score that gets people to jump out of the chairs is a whole other ballgame.”

    (more…)

  • Brit critics follow the script

    It seems we really have reached consensus here. The Richard Attenborough Film Awards, a relatively new set of awards voted on by regional UK critics, haved chimed in with nearly everyone else, handing their Film of the Year and Director of the Year honours to Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire.”

    They stuck with the well-awarded in the acting categories too, crowning Mickey Rourke and Kate Winslet (for “The Reader”) as Actor and Actress of the Year, respectively, while Dev Patel took the Breakthrough Star award.

    Meanwhile, I’m pleased to see Screenwriter of the Year went to Martin McDonagh for “In Bruges.” That might have been a less expected choice a month ago, before the nearly year-old release achieved a remarkable awards-season turnaround in the last few weeks.

    Four People’s Choice awards were spread between “The Dark Knight,” “Mamma Mia!” and “Slumdog,” completing a very British-leaning set of winners — hardly surprising, given that last year, the Attenboroughs were all about “Atonement.” I expect the BAFTA winners list will look somewhat similar.

    List of winners after the cut.

    (more…)

  • ‘Two Lovers’

    This US trailer for James Gray’s wispy throwback romance has been knocking around for a little while, but it only came to my attention now. It’s a minor-key work that admittedly isn’t flattered by the rather prosaic trailer, though it’s been lauded (like all Gray’s films) in France, and I was rather charmed by it at the London Film Festival back in October.

    Whether this really will be the last we see of Phoenix on screen is still open to question, but it’s a vivid, award-level turn that galvanises the otherwise slight enterprise; Gwyneth Paltrow, meanwhile, contributes her most engaging work in a decade. Look out for it.

  • Class act

    Jeff Wells has captured some of last night’s Kristin Scott Thomas Q&A at the Santa Barbara festival, and it’s well worth a look — as I found when I interviewed her back in December, she’s immensely forthright, considered and witty in her discussion of her craft. Truly one of the best in the game.

    Wells also offers some tidbits from an informal chat he enjoyed with Scott Thomas afterwards, the most intriguing of which is that “plans are afoot to shoot a film version of ‘The Seagull’ with the same Broadway cast.”

    If you caught the Royal Court revival of Chekhov’s play in either of its London or New York incarnations, chances are you’re as excited by that news as I am. If you didn’t, you should be excited anyway.

    Scott Thomas’ interpretation of Arkadina was possibly the greatest stage performance I have ever seen, and the prospect of it being immortalised on film, with the likes of Carey Mulligan (who killed as Nina in the same production) and Peter Sarsgaard strutting their stuff too, is tantalising indeed. (The production I saw had Chiwetel Ejiofor in place of Sarsgaard — hardly a bad tradeoff.)

    If it gets done, and done right, on screen, Scott Thomas could just nab the second Oscar nomination that so unfairly eluded her this year for her staggering work in “I’ve Loved You So Long.” Here’s hoping. Check out the interview here.

  • The Bagger gets it

    As if we needed any more reasons to love David Carr, he has come out in full support of Matteo Garrone’s superb “Gomorrah,” citing its Oscar snub as “criminal”:

    (The Bagger) can’t get the movie out of his mind. There is a kind of moral certainty to the film – deeply corrupt, remarkably brutal – that makes everything make sense within the four corners of the movie. It’s full of likable, familiar types, but they just happen to have the habit of blowing people’s brains out. What does it say about culture when primordial evil expresses itself in a kid who might live right down the block?

    Indeed. The Academy may believe that this masterpiece doesn’t ‘deliver’ as effectively as, say, the thoroughly average “The Baader Meinhof Complex,” but he (and we) ain’t fooled. The film opens Stateside next month; don’t let the lack of a puny Oscar nod stop you from seeing it.

  • Elevating Ebert

    Roger Ebert has yet to weigh in with his formal Oscar predictions, but for now, he’s trying something a little different — selecting winners purely on the basis of “elevation,” which is to say the nominees that have had the most profound emotional impact on him. (He offers an in-depth explanation of this rationale here.)

    He has run through three categories so far, and using his criteria, I am hard-pressed to disagree with any of them. Melissa Leo — whose performance is, I think, in a different league to those of her fellow nominees — is Ebert’s personal favourite in the Best Actress category; he aptly describes her work as “close to the bone, closer to the soul.”

    Meanwhile, he celebrates “Milk” in the Best Picture category, with Gus Van Sant skilful use of existing footage of the candlelit Castro Street parade in Harvey Milk’s honour the clear emotional tipping point for him. I must concur here, even if “Milk” as a whole isn’t my favourite of the nominees. (I can’t say I was as moved by “Slumdog Millionaire” as I was grandly entertained.)

    However, I particularly love Ebert’s verdict in the Best Actor race, as he offers a point-on appreciation of what makes Mickey Rourke’s performance such a singular achievement:

    (“The Wrestler”) is his comeback on his own terms, as a full-force, heedless, passionate physical actor, with strong undercurrents of tenderness, loneliness, and need. He did a lot of his own wrestling in the film, including a scene where he deliberately cuts himself, and he was painfully honest in the scenes with women. What you see is a man with what he knows is the role of his lifetime, and willing (I am convinced) to die for it.

    Bingo. I’ve been struggling for a while to put my finger on exactly why I am that much more affected by Rourke’s performance than I am by Sean Penn’s impeccable inhabitation of Harvey Milk, but Ebert nails it. There is so much visibly at stake in the former; it’s about as autobiographical as an ostensibly fictitious performance can be.