In Contention

Author: John Foote

  • The year’s evolving Oscar race reveals the weakest season in recent memory

    Frank Langella in Frost/NixonWith rumors that “The Road” may be bumped to 2009, (not Harvey Weinstein’s choice of release year) and “The Soloist” already moving on, along with the rumblings that “Frost/ Nixon” does indeed lack that edge I wrote about not so long ago, one can feel the Oscar race shifting day to day. Even “Changeling,” once thought to have a decent shot at Best Picture and Best Director nominations, is now looking like a maybe in the race, as 2008 and continues to confound audiences and critics.

    2008 has been a rather weak year at the movies with only “Stop Loss,” WALL-E,” “Iron Man” and best of all, “The Dark Knight” making much of an impact before the Toronto International Film Festival. When that 10-day event did not really produce a frontrunner as it has in years past, all eyes turned to New York and London.  Eastwood’s film received decidedly mixed reviews out of New York while “Che” continued to struggle with the length of the picture.  In London, Ron Howard’s political work, “Frost/ Nixon” has not been knocking the critics out as hoped.

    I’ve been worried about the film for some time.  But the screenplay is based on an award-winning play, Frank Langella is giving the performance that won him accolades on Broadway, but hey, in my view, Howard just isn’t the right director for this sort of film. Give it to Sidney Lumet who, in his 80s, has more edge to his work than Howard. It’s not that he is a terrible director.  On the contrary, he has made some very good films, the criminally under valued “The Missing” among them, but a picture like this needs the very things he lacks as a director.

    So where are we in terms of the Oscar race now, if these films are indeed falling off the radar (the jury is still admittedly out on “Frost”)?  What if the remaining releases are not very good at all and the Oscar race is saddled with an array of mediocre films, which has not happened for many, many years? In fact, the last time I can think of a slew of weak films making up Oscar’s major line-up was 1968, when curiously, “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Planet of the Apes” were left off the list, shunned for their sci-fi brilliance.

    (more…)

  • Is Alfred Hitchcock — gasp! — over-appreciated?

    Alfred HitchcockRandom thoughts…and writing this I risk having my head taken off by angry fans and film buffs, but I have always had some issues believing Alfred Hitchcock to be the great filmmaker artists and historians have claimed him to be. In many ways, despite having personally lectured the man and his work to film school classes, I feel he may be the most overrated filmmaker of all time.

    Aim your weapons and open fire on me, as I have placed a target on my back and surely know it, but there must be some folks out there who share my opinion?

    Admittedly, “Psycho” is a powerful film.  It was responsible for ushering in a new form of horror movie, and “Vertigo” is beautifully made, but is there anyone else out there (again) who finds the characters in his films a little…cool, remote, ah, hell…cold? Never have I felt anything for a Hitchcock character.  Never have I invested myself emotionally with a single one of them, not even when portrayed by the great James Stewart or Cary Grant.

    It bothers me that “Hitch” had the film finished in his head by the time he started shooting, leaving nothing for chance and removing any sense of creativity from the actors. He  spoke, they listened and moved and that was that. No where can I find any reference to any collaboration between the director and his actors, which to me is essential in filmmaking and strengthens the characters, giving the actors something to attach themselves to. If an actor is shown how to do it all, how to move, how to speak, how to play the role, when and where are they permitted to be creative?? Look at the dreadful acting in “The Birds” and you get an idea of what I mean.

    “Frenzy” turned out to be a very powerful film, truly frightening, and his last good picture.  However, if you ask me, his best film was “Lifeboat.”

    OK, have a go…my secret is out.  I’m not a Hitchcock fan. My God the shame, the shame…the horror.  Tell me why I should think otherwise.

  • The evolution of the actress, part two

    Jessica Lange in King KongThis is the second of a two-part study of legendary screen actresses through the years.  Click here for part one.

    Diane Keaton and Sally Field emerged at the end of the 1970s with strong performances that defined them as actresses of the future. Keaton won an Oscar for her kooky “Annie Hall” and became a regular performer  for Woody Allen. But she was also taking risks with other filmmakers, giving a darkly brilliant performance, for instance, in “Looking for Mr. Goodbar” as a promiscuous young teacher.

    Keaton gave a sublime performance in “Shoot the Moon,” a critically acclaimed box office failure, and was excellent in “Crimes of the Heart,” “The Little Drummer Girl,” “Marvin’s Room” and most recently, “Something’s Gotta Give.” Equally at home in comedy or drama, Keaton never ceases to amaze.

    Sally Field’s career is a bit more bizarre.  A two-time Oscar winner for genuinely brilliant performances, she truly arrived with “Norma Rae,” claiming all major lead actress awards.  Five years later she won again for a wonderful performance in “Places in the Heart,” which yielded the infamous “you like me” speech.  In the years since, she should have been nominated for “Forrest Gump,” but was not, and now she’s an Emmy Award winner on television. Easily miscast, though, Field can come across as too earnest in some roles, as she was in “Murphy’s Romance.”  But in the right material, she is terrific.

    (more…)

  • The evolution of the actress, part one

    Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a DreamThis is the first of a two-part study of legendary screen actresses through the years.  Stay tuned tomorrow for part two.

    We often hear about the great actors in movie history: Brando, Nicholson, Duvall, Hoffman, Hackman, Washington, Freeman and DeNiro, men who advanced the craft into an art of the highest order.

    But what of the women? They have never really been taken seriously in Hollywood as trend-setters.  Historians have even documented the genuine shock by studio heads when they realized that a woman, Vivien Leigh, had carried “Gone with the Wind” for its more than three-hour running time.

    Leigh, Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn were the greatest of classic Hollywood, and certainly Elizabeth Taylor’s astonishing performance as Martha in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” broke ground for women in terms of what they could portray on screen and get away with. A genuine movie star, Taylor gained a great deal of weight for the film and was willing to play down her stunning good looks in the name of her art.

    Brash and loud, vulgar and sexual, Martha was the greatest challenge of Taylor’s career, to which she responded with one of the cinema’s great performances. This was years before Robert De Niro in “Raging Bull,” which received substantially more attention. But all of the aforementioned actresses in one way or another broke ground for the fairer sex.

    (more…)

  • Kate Winslet: the greatest actress of her generation?

    Kate WinsletAt nearly 33 years old (eight days and counting) and with five Academy Award nominations under her belt, Kate Winslet may just be the greatest actress of her generation. Her work has not yet revealed any limitations.  Like Meryl Streep, she offers an authenticity in her work, even the lesser films.  She seems incapable of uttering a false line.  She defines authenticity at every turn.

    Her work in “Titanic” transcended the material, a shoddy screenplay that saw her running about the doomed boat making decisions about what to do next, and I’ll be damned if Winslet did not make it work. In the hands of a lesser actress, the performance, and perhaps the role, would have come across as silly, but she made a character out of Rose we dared to care about.

    There was heat between Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio on the screen.  We believed the love, we believed the devotion, and she did this at a very young age. Earlier still she had gone toe-to-toe with Emma Thomson and Alan Rickman in “Sense & Sensibility,” earning an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actress. Further back, you’ll witness chilling work in Peter Jackson’s “Heavenly Creatures” and one sees a major actress developing before our very eyes.

    (more…)

  • Some suggestions for Special Edition DVDs

    United Artists' Heaven's GateEvery week, much to the delight of my children, several packages arrive at my door containing DVDs, movies that are not yet released in the home market that I am expected to review. Tough work, ain’t it? Seriously, I would do what I do just for the free movies.

    That said, I have followed the history of DVD very closely and the manner in which several studios double dip with their releases. Most recently we have “The Godfather Restoration,” which is superb, but represents the third such DVD release for these films. The first came in 2001, The Godfather Trilogy, and then each film was released on its own so folks not wanting Part III could pass (sorry Kris).

    Another film that went through many incarnations before the Ultimate Collector’s Edition was “Blade Runner,” though last year’s final release should be the final release. Francis Ford Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now” went through several variations before coming to us in the ultimate edition, minus, of course, “Hearts of Darkness,” the splendid doc about the film’s making. What might have been cool is to see some footage of Harvey Keitel as Willard (if it exists).

    But it all leads me to wonder which films out there deserve a double disc/special edition release.

    (more…)

  • The under-appreciated

    (from left) John Wayne and James Stewart in The ShootistWe all know that there are brilliant films that sometimes never find an audience, slipping out of theatres long before they should and often disappearing into the void of the home market.

    In fairness, the advent of VHS and now DVD has allowed for such films to be re-discovered by future generations, and VHS was easily responsible for saving “Blade Runner” in the 1980s.  But these types of films deserved beter in their initial runs. Perhaps the studios were not clear on how to release them (often the case).  Perhaps critics did not get the film.  Or perhaps audiences just stayed away despite strong reviews.  Whatever the reason, there are often times that a great film just doesn’t catch on.

    I am currently contracted to write a study of the films Steven Spielberg has directed, and following that, I will be writing a study of under-appreciated films from the 1970s and 1980s. This has now been expanded into a decade-by-decade series, beginning with the 1980s (to be released in 2010), then the 1970s, the 1990s and the current decade, each one a year apart.  For obvious reasons, I am quite excited about them.

    For me, some of the more under-appreciated gems from the 1970s and 1980s for me have been films like “Black Sunday,” featuring an Osca-caliber performance from Bruce Dern, and still the best film ever made about international terrorism; John Wayne’s last film, “The Shootist,” in which The Duke portrays an aging gunslinger dying of cancer when he himself was being ravaged by the disease; the odd little western “The Missouri Breaks,” with Brando and Nicholson going toe-to-toe; the sensational musical “Hair,” directed by Oscar winner Milos Forman, who really does recreate the summer of love.

    (more…)

  • What does early (and excessive) Oscar hype do to a film’s chances?

    Cover of Entertainment Weekly featuring The CrucibleIn 1996, a fall movie preview of Entertainment Weekly arrived in my mailbox, the cast of “The Crucible” staring back at me on the cover, making clear to me this was going to be THE film of the fall. There were rumors floating within the industry that the film, based on the Arthur Miller play, could conceivably be nominated for 12 or 13 Academy Awards, and it seemed a cinch for at least a Best Picture nod.

    Having directed the play twice, studied it at length in university and being a huge Arthur Miller fan, I was thrilled that the film was finally going to get the intense big screen version it deserve. The 1959 French adaptation was okay, but not enough people had actually seen it. Here was a chance for one of the greatest dramas of the 20th century to make the transition to film with a superb cast, including Daniel Day-Lewis, Joan Allen, Paul Schofield and Winona Ryder.

    Somewhere along the way Fox panicked and released the film late in December, and though Day-Lewis finished second in balloting for the New York Film Critics Awards, the picture never caught fire as it had been predicted to do. Instead it was a dismal box office failure, nabbing only a supporting actress nomination for Joan Allen and an adapted screenplay nod for Miller.

    “The Crucible” is a great film, with powerhouse performances from Day-Lewis, Allen and Ryder, though many critics attacked the latter. But was the film a victim of over hype, or were audiences simply too familiar with the story? What happened?

    The same sort of thing almost happened to Steven Spielberg’s “Munich,” which at this time in 2005 was being touted as not just an Oscar nominee, but the likely winner for Best Picture and Best Director, sight unseen. It opened and was very good, but it wasn’t the searing masterpiece everyone had been hoping for.  And somehow “Crash” won the Best Picture prize.

    (more…)

  • Newman at his best, ‘Luke’ gets a deluxe edition

    Cool Hand Luke Deluxe EditionWith the news some weeks back that Paul Newman had left the hospital to go home to be with his family as he approached the end, I have found myself watching more and more of his films, perhaps stunned that the world will soon be deprived of his talent.

    Newman, who I had the pleasure of interviewing in 1999, has been able to balance stardom with talent in such films as “The Hustler” and “The Towering Inferno” over and over again in his career.

    There is little doubt he owned the 1960s with a string of performances that should have earned him award after award, and one such portrayal is getting a special edition DVD treatment from Warner Bros. Home Entertainment: “Cool Hand Luke.”

    All I can say is thank you, thank you, thank you. The chance to see this great film again, with Newman at his very best, was a welcome respite from the barrage of terrible DVDs that have been arriving recently. Cleaned up digitally, the film looks terrific, and Newman is so extraordinary as a petty crook, sent to a hard labor southern prison where he locks horns with the warden. The “failure to communicate” line became important in the 1960s, as the youth of America felt that way towards the establishment

    (more…)

  • Finally getting excited about 2008…

    Sean Penn in MilkNot a whole lot has piqued my cinematic interest this year. “The Dark Knight,” “Iron Man” and “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” are the happy pre-festival-season exceptions. But even with Toronto not yielding a whole lot in terms of Oscar frontrunners, I am finding more and more to be excited about in the coming months and expect an intense race for that little golden guy. Here are the six (well, seven…you’ll see) most anticipated of the year for me, at this stage…

    “The Road” (John Hollcoat)
    Is anyone else as pumped for this as I am? After reading the book in three days, imagining Viggo Mortensen in a number of the scenes and Robert Duvall as the old man, I can’t wait. If Mortensen does justice to the character (and I think he will), he is in for an Oscar nod, the second in a row for the actor.  And the film itself could be a dark horse contender for Best Picture and Best Director. The Academy has shown some courage these last few years embracing dark subjects, and this one is certainly dark.  Though the book ends with a ray of hope for humanity. Here’s hoping they capture the intensity and raw realism of the novel.

    (more…)

  • ‘L.A. Confidential’ gets a deluxe DVD release

    L.A. Confidential Special Edition DVDOne of the greatest experiences I have ever had at a Toronto festival was the North American premiere of Curtis Hanson’s “L.A. Confidential,” which was instantly declared a masterpiece and one of the great film noirs in movie history.

    Dark and entertaining with a twisting and turning narrative that keep viewers guessing throughout, the film was embraced by the critical community in a huge way, topping most of the 10-best lists that year and winning best-of-the-year prizes from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the National Society of Film Critics and the New York Film Critics Circle.

    The film is receiving a shiny new DVD release this year and I couldn’t be more excited.  The package offers a slew of special features: commentaries from film critic Andrew Sarries, author James Ellroy , nearly the entire cast, director of photography Dante Spinotti and production designer Jeannine Oppewall; a new making-of documentary with updated interviews with the players; detailed examination of the look of the film; “From Book to Screen” with Hansen, Brian Helgeland and Ellroy; and a focus on the film’s ensemble.

    As always the star of any re-issue is the film itself,  and “L.A. Confidential” remains one of the great films of the 1990s — a sublime work of art.

    Superbly acted by Guy Pearce, James Cromwell, Kevin Spacey, Danny Devito, David Strathairn, Kim Basinger and Russell Crowe (in a star-making turn), the picture was a tight ensemble piece.  It fired on all cylinders: direction, cinematography, design elements, and a film score that effortlessly zapped us back to 1950s Los Angeles.

    Kevin Spacey, two years after winning the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for “The Usual Suspects,” portrayed Jack Vincennes with a Dean Martin sort of cool, an honest cop who had sold his soul to television where he worked as an adviser on a popular series. Spacey was the anchor for the film, giving a marvelous performance that the other actors bounced off of nicely. His swift and shocking end remains one of the most startling moments I have witnessed in a film. I remember gasping out loud when the tables turned so quickly.

    (more…)

  • Best Actor race looking tight as always — expect surprises

    Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary RoadThe Best Actor category tends to be one of the more crowded categories come Oscar time, and 2008 looks to be no exception. To be sure, there are a handful of frontrunners as usual, but hovering behind them are another group, more than eight who could easily sneak in and nab a nomination. Last year Tommy Lee Jones was nominated for his powerful work in “The Valley of Elah,” a richly deserved nod, but completely unexpected by the majority of prognosticators.  I remember smiling when I heard his name read, but it was a huge surprise.

    I would expect something similar this year, as we have some of the great  actors and potentially stunning performances in contention.

    The obvious frontrunner at this point is Mickey Rourke, basking in the attention being given to “The Wrestler.”  His performance is nothing short of miraculous, an astounding piece of acting, and it is great to see him back in the fold.  But when it comes to winning the award, I have to say: not a chance. Rourke is intensely disliked in Hollywood.  He’s seen as someone who basically spit on the industry to walk away and become a boxer. As a friend close to Rourke said, “A lot of people were happy when he left and don’t want this guy back.”

    Frank Langella looks to be terrific in the trailers for “Frost/ Nixon.”  He has always been a great actor, better known for his stage work than film, though in the last few years he has become a formidable presence on the big screen. I remember seeing him as “Dracula” both on stage and on film in the late 1970s and hoped he would go far. He did, just not in the movies, until recently.

    Kris has Michael Sheen down as a lead actor possibility as well, and I agree. It’s one of those “Amadeus” situations where one performance cannot exist without the other. There is a strong chance that if the film and the actors are terrific, both of them will be nominated, though Langella certainly has the showier role of the two.

    (more…)

  • TORONTO: That’s a wrap

    TorontoAnd with a whimper it ended. With many press headed home by Wednesday of this week, the screenings were a little less crowded, there was much grumbling about the lack of strong films, and very little buying action.  The festival wound down slowly, like something in the throes of a long, drawn-out death.

    In the more than a decade I have been covering the Toronto International Film Festival, I’ve never seen a weaker year than 2008 — at least in terms of sheer quality of product. Many writers compare the festival’s success with the number of films that go on to Oscar glory, and at this point, we have no idea, but I think it is safe to say the Oscar candidates coming out of this year’s festival will be limited.

    Last year, for instance, four of the five nominees for Best Picture played here. Many news writers and critics are asking why the festival was so weak, but I think the answer is rather simple: 2008 is shaping up to be a poor year for film in general, and the festival was an unfortunate victim of that.

    I know for a fact some of the films the festival programmers wanted were simply not ready, “Milk” being one of them.  And though previously announced on IMDb, “The Road” never made it here either. The reasoning behind “Changeling” skipping out on Toronto was too foolish to comprehend (Angelina Jolie couldn’t make it and Clint Eastwood wouldn’t have been sexy enough on his own), and I think the programmers recognize that now.  And though “Doubt” was a sought-after showcase, that would never come to pass either.

    There is talk that the festival is actively trying to divorce itself from the Oscar race and the Hollywood product, but I still say this year’s fest was weak regardless of all that.

    In any case, I thought I’d give a brief recap for those who haven’t been able to keep up with the day-to-day coverage…

    (more…)

  • TORONTO: ‘Good,’ ‘Me and Orson Welles,’ ‘Every Little Step,’ ‘The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond,’ ‘The Hurt Locker’

    Christian McKay in Me and Orson WellesListening to the conversations of the other critics in the various theaters, it becomes very clear that this year’s fest has been something of a disappointment, the first in a long, long time.

    At least one critic pointed out to me that Oscar and TIFF divorced this year, which has been mentioned ad nauseum and is probably a pretty fair assessment of the situation. A lot of the press are heading home today and tomorrow as the festival begins that slow march toward the end, always exiting with a whimper and never a bang.

    These last couple of days I have screened some interesting films: a noble failure, a superb documentary, a fine war film that is still not the great film we need about Iraq.  I will get to them as I can, but for now, some quick catching up…

    (Reviews after the jump.)

    (more…)

  • TORONTO: Martin Landau and Ellen Burstyn talk ‘Lovely, Still’

    Martin Landau and Ellen BurstynWhen Chris Cooper accepted his Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 2003, he pointed out that his co-star Meryl Streep had a great deal to do with his victory.  “We made great jazz together,” he said.

    “It’s easier when you like the person,” Martin Landau says, smiling.  “I’ve had to work with actors I could not stand, women I was not attracted to, and that is where the craft comes in.  But with Ellen, we know each other, we work the same way, we were trained in a similar manner and we both found a connection to the material. It was very easy, very enjoyable coming to work each day.”

    The chemistry between Burstyn and Landau in the Nik Fackler’s “Lovely, Still” is quite remarkable as we watch two lonely old souls looking for a connection, someone to love, to be with, to care for. The story veers off in an entirely different direction than the audience expects, however, which only adds to the stunning impact of both their performances and the picture itself.

    (more…)

  • TORONTO: ‘Che,’ ‘The Wrestler’

    Benicio Del Toro in CheTwo masterpieces, one right after the other.  This was the day I had been waiting for.  I caught Steven Soderbergh’s “Che” today, all four hours and 20 minutes of it.  It’s a glorious achievement from a brilliant mind, one of the few directors who seeks to challenge himself constantly.  “Che” is audacious and bold filmmaking because not everyone will like it or even understand it perhaps.  Soderbergh digs deep into the mind of a brilliant man and allows us a lucky glimpse.

    Moments after the film ended, with barely a moment to regroup, I saw Darren Aronofsky’s “The Wrestler” — and now I understand what all the fuss is about.  If Mickey Rourke is not nominated for Best Actor for an Academy Award, there really is no justice.  But Hollywood can be quite the unforgiving town…

    (Reviews after the jump.)

    (more…)

  • TORONTO: ‘Lovely, Still,’ ‘Blindness’

    Miramax Films\' BlindnessFinally, a great little film…

    I love it when a film comes out of nowhere, from an unlikely source, a new talent, old talents re-discovering their gifts, or something that just plains shocks the hell out of the audience with its audacity and brilliance.

    That happened to me today with the wonderful, heartbreaking love story “Lovely, Still,” boasting Oscar-caliber performances from Ellen Burstyn and Martin Landau. More on that later.

    I also finally saw the new cut of “Blindness,” as well as “Good,” the second Viggo Mortensen starrer to hit the festival this year. At this writing I still have to go see “The Burning Plain” later tonight.

    Part of the day was spent chatting it up with Ellen Burstyn (a lovely lady), Martin Landau (great guy) and fresh-faced Nik Fackler.  The interview ran behind but was thoroughly enjoyable for old anti-social me.

    Atom Egoyan, Mischa Barton and Scott Speedman made appearances at this event, but I did not get a chance to chat with my fellow Canadians…simply too busy.

    (Reviews after the jump.)

    (more…)

  • TORONTO: Ed Harris on ‘Appaloosa,’ acting and film crticism

    Ed HarrisWalking into to interview with any actor/director can be a tad intimidating, even after 20 years of doing it.  They have a tendency to be…difficult.  But 30 minutes into my interview with Ed Harris, he pays me a compliment that could keep wind in my sails for the duration of the fest: “Thank you for your integrity, intelligence and dedication to your job.  This has been a pleasure.”  He smiled as we shook hands and he walked me to the door

    Harris has been an actor I have admired since first seeing him as squeaky clean John Glenn in “The Right Stuff” back in 1983, which he followed with a chilling turn as a mercenary in “Under Fire,” his bright blue eyes windows into hell’s furnace. His career has moved along an interesting trajectory, shifting between supporting roles and leads with ease, often dominating whatever film he takes on with powerhouse acting.

    Oddly enough, he did not receive his first Oscar nomination until 1995 when he gave a sterling performance as Gene Kranz in “Apollo 13,” followed by another brilliant turn in “The Truman Show” as a God-like TV producer. He nurtured his dream project, “Pollock,” through its funding, before taking up the reins as director and grabbing another Oscar nod in front of the camera. And in 2002 he was nominated for a fourth time for his AIDS-afflicted writer in “The Hours,” a critically acclaimed ensemble piece from director Stephen Daldry.

    It is doubtful that “Appaloosa” will see any Oscar attention.  Though it is beautifully shot and the art direction is sublime, the film was something of a letdown, despite strong work from Harris and co-stars Viggo Mortensen and Jeremy Irons.

    “I gave the book to Viggo here at this festival in 2005,” Harris said, “when we were here for ‘A History of Violence.’ There was no one else I really wanted to do the film with, and I certainly never considered anyone else. I just thought he and I would make a strong partnership on screen. We don’t hang out, I mean we’re friends, but we don’t see much of each other. He agreed to do it, and Viggo’s the sort of guy where his word is his bond, so that gave me the start to keep moving on the film. It didn’t really occur to me that the film was a western, what struck me was the relationship between these two men in 1882, that’s what really grabbed me about the film. That it happened to be a western was incidental.”

    (more…)