In Contention

Category: Daily

  • Remembering cinema’s Bush years

    As the world prepares to bid farewell to George W. Bush following tomorrow’s election, I came across an apt article in the new edition of Sight and Sound, in which critic Michael Atkinson evaluates how the Bush presidency affected American film, and how the period might be interpreted by future film historians. As always with S&S pieces, it’s not available online, but it’s an insightful (and occasionally contentious) piece worth tracking down if you want to give a cinematic spin to your sense of closure.

    As has been noted before, Atkinson believes that the sense of public panic and political insecurity that  characterised the presidency has been most clearly manifested in the resurgence of the superhero movie:

    It’s easy to imagine that in a decade or two, the Bush years will be viewed as the discouraging ebb in the pop-cult continuum when everyone from eight to 80 was excited about ‘super powers’ … Clearly, a preadolescent bout of night terrors required succour, producing a trend that’s bound to date as badly as the Spielbergian blue light and Rambotics of the 1980s.

    This is the kiddie-escapist paradigm tinctured with memories of 9/11; today, the vigilantes in primary-colour tights we hanker for don’t confront the conjectural fears of the Cold War, but the all-too-tangible, falling-bodies verities of the new millennium. In “The Dark Knight,” Christian Bale’s Batman has to wrestle, as the Bush administration didn’t, with the necessity of being perceived as evil for the sake of what’s construed as the common good.

    (more…)

  • ‘Dark Knight’ Best Pic buzz gets louder

    Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightI was sitting in a production company earlier this morning awaiting an interview subject when I picked up the latest Entertainment Weekly from the reading material there in the lobby.  It’s the holiday preview edition, with sneak peeks at the upcoming season’s films and Dave Karger’s early stabs at Oscar predictions.  There in the middle somewhere was this Mark Harris column, re-announcing the Best Picture hopes of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” and including a firm endorsement from the writer.

    Harris starts out like so:

    Over the course of its run, this column has never made an official endorsement, but with interest so exceptionally high in one of the candidates, and the vote approaching, it’s time to take a stand: I would like The Dark Knight to get a Best Picture Oscar nomination.

    Best Picture. Seriously. I write this knowing that as we enter a season crammed with Oscar-bait movies, the arrival of five richer, more resonant films could change my mind. But this just doesn’t look like that kind of year.

    …before really digging in later in the piece:

    You want to knock Dark Knight? Go ahead. Let’s fight about whether the whole Two-Face plotline should have been either more fully developed or cut completely, about whether the action scenes are intentionally disorienting or just patchily edited, and about Christian Bale’s laryngitic rasp. Let’s argue — as we’ll argue over all the Best Picture contenders — about what the film has to say, and whether it’s said with coherence, intelligence, and artistry. But don’t dismiss it just because it’s a comic-book movie. True, the genre lacks Oscar experience. But this comic-book movie has shown judgment and maturity in a year when many veteran genres have felt erratic. Why not make some history? Even within the Academy, there’s a first time for everything.

    Check out the rest here.  It’s a properly passionate study of a high-on-the-wish-list possibilty for more than a few Oscar watchers.

    Elsewhere, Tom O’Neil has amassed some more predictions from the peanut gallery while the Buzzmeter continues to lie dormant at The Envelope.  Five of the six pundits polled have “The Dark Knight” chalked up for a Best Picture nod.  We’ll see if David Poland’s Gurus o’ Gold match the sentiments whenever he decides to send out another query.

    The season is firing up.  Can you tell?

  • Luhrmann: “It’s not naturalism”

    Baz Luhrmann’s massive “Australia” keeps hurtling nearer, with the director apparently in an editing-room frenzy to have it ready in time. A new trailer and poster emerged last week, together with word that the film is hovering around the 170-minute mark. Fine by me — if that’s the scale of the project, then so be it.

    However, one thing I’ve noticed about the reaction from many bloggers and commenters is how many people seem to have missed the point of what Luhrmann is aiming to achieve here. People are complaining that the film looks too “old-fashioned,” or that, heaven forbid, it doesn’t look “realistic.”

    Apart from the fact that realism has never been on Luhrmann’s agenda, it’s perfectly obvious that he’s working in a throwback vein here. All the footage we’ve seen suggests the film is a homage to the epics of Hollywood’s golden age, with all the heightened performance style and florid visual sensibility that entails. Whether or not it works remains to be seen, but one has to understand the mode he’s working in first.

    Luhrmann makes as much clear in an extensive piece in the Guardian, where he explains his epic intentions:

    When I make a film, people don’t seem to talk about the film itself. Instead, they say: ‘How can he mix genres and styles like that?’ or ‘How can that cinematic language be credible?’ One expects it with this film, too, because, although I draw the DNA very directly from the epic tradition, this isn’t a carbon copy.

    Will I be accused of reinventing the epic? Only if it works. If it doesn’t, I’ll be accused of wasting a lot of time and money. The cinematic language is not like in the Red Curtain trilogy [Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge!], but it’s not naturalism. I think you’ll see the influences of those movies I’ve loved, but it will also be something of its own. It’s a very difficult thing to achieve.

    (more…)

  • Superb ‘Disgrace’ trailer goes online

    As I’ve said before on these pages, I’ve been looking forward to Aussie filmmaker Steve Jacobs’ film adaptation of J.M. Coetzee’s “Disgrace” for some time.

    It’s a novel very close to my heart, John Malkovich seems ideally cast in the lead and, though it’s a South African-set story, its stark, ruminative nature sits comfortably in the groove of great Australian cinema. A warm reception at Toronto (where it won the FIPRESCI award) only amplified my anticipation.

    Now a trailer has finally appeared, and from where I’m standing, it looks excellent: spare, understated, with a fine feel for the severe beauty of the Eastern Cape landscape.

    Malkovich, who appears in some ways to be channelling Coetzee himself, seems to have captured the character’s balance of affectation and disengagement, and South African newcomer Jessica Haines looks equally promising. This should really be one to watch in 2009.

    It’s not available to embed yet, but check out the trailer here. (Thanks to Stale Popcorn for pointing it out.)

  • 11/3 Oscarweb Round-up

    Richard Dreyfus• Probably running out of things to talk about, Peter Bart reviews the New York Times’ Holiday Movies section. [Peter Bart]

    • Monika Bartyzel aggregates reactions to Richard Dreyfus’s poo-pooing of “W.” on “The View.”  Damn it must be cool to do and say whatever the fuck you want to. [Cinematical]

    • Jason Solomons talks to “Quantum of Solace” director Marc Forster. [The Guardian]

    • Boyd van Hoeij files from the last gasps of the Rome fest. [indieWIRE]

    • John Horn goes deep on “Frost/Nixon.” [Los Angeles Times]

    • Jeremy McCarter goes first person with Charlie Kaufman. [Newsweek]

  • “The cock-sucking writers strike brought us here.”

    Is it just me or did tonight’s episode of “Entourage” totally kick ass?  I think it might’ve been the best of the series so far, tapping into more and more depth after hinting at some more dramatic hues a few weeks ago (the episode with the Radiohead play-out).  Jeremy Piven is doing his best work of the show thus far, almost becoming the heartbeat of the series.  And adding the talented Gary Cole to the miz will only bring good things.

    Can’t believe there are only three episodes left.

  • Live from New York, it’s a nose dive

    Boy, John McCain didn’t seem to get the joke last night on Saturday Night Live.  Having him on the show was the final nail in the coffin.  The show’s writers, though smartly avoiding hitting it too squarely on the nose, basically succeeded in making him look sad and desperate.  Borderline Dole desperate.  And not in the ironic, self-deprecating way either.

    It’s in the subtle glance Seth Meyers gives him on Weekend Update when McCain asks, “You know how they call me the maverick?”  Easily painted as a joke — “Duh, of course I know they call you that, you always talk about it” — that kind of thing.  But the “look” was so strangely unnecessary that it seems to be working on another level.  If the boos during that segment didn’t sell the moment enough, that is.

    Anyway, just caught up with it on DVR and it’s the first thing that popped into my head.  Other than, “Give Kristen Wiig her own show already,” that is.

  • Embargo? Todd McCarthy don’t need no stinkin’ embargo.

    …while “Milk” is unquestionably marked by many mandatory scenes — the electioneering, outrage at conservative opposition, tension between domestic and public life, insider politicking, public demonstrations, et al. — the quality of the writing, acting and directing generally invests them with the feel of real life and credible personal interchange, rather than of scripted stops along the way from aspiration to triumph to tragedy. And on a project whose greatest danger lay in its potential to come across as agenda-driven agitprop, the filmmakers have crucially infused the story with qualities in very short supply today — gentleness and a humane embrace of all its characters, even of the entirely vilifiable gunman, Dan White.

    From McCarthy’s recent review of Gus Van Sant’s “Milk.”  I’ll hold off commenting in depth on the film for another few weeks.  You know, integrity, that kind of thing.  A foreign idea, I know.

  • AFI FEST: ‘Hunger,’ ‘Che’

    Benicio Del Toro in CheFour days and three screenings into the 2008 AFI Fest, I’m one-for-two and looking to add to the “win” column as much as possible in the next week.  It hit me this afternoon, though, that no two films could be better suited to an introductory update from the festival, two exercises in subverting the conventions of the biopic.  One succeeds, one fails, but both maintain a certain spirit that you don’t find in the work of many filmmakers today.  And interestingly, both are set for distribution by the always courageous IFC Films.

    Let’s dive in…

    “HUNGER” (***1/2)
    Who the hell is Steve McQueen anyway?  Talk about bursting onto the scene out of nowhere — with what could have been an unfortunate namesake — and carving a spot for yourself that no one will soon dispute.  “Hunger” is one of the year’s best films, a curiously intimate dissection of the blanket, no wash and hunger protests of IRA prisoners held at HM Maze Prison in Lisburn, Northern Ireland in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

    Spearheaded by a committed (to say the least) performance from Michael Fassbender, the film may be the most visually dynamic effort to hit cinemas in 2008.  McQueen deservedly won the Caméra d’Or (for best first feature) at this year’s Cannes International Film Festival, but a case might have been made for a technical citation for lenser Sean Bobbitt.  He captures the most mundane and intimate moments with an epic craftsman’s touch, guided no doubt by McQueen’s own preoccupation with lingering in this most uncomfortable — and unfortunate — of settings.

    (more…)

  • Michael Shannon among NYT’s breakthrough picks

    The New York Times has compiled a list of what they deem the five outstanding breakthrough performances of the season. It makes for interesting reading — sure enough, there are some performers from otherwise high-profile Oscar-bait films, but there are some surprises too.

    I’m pleased to see them singling out François Bégaudeau, the star and real-life subject of “The Class,” who projects remarkable warmth and gravitas on screen for someone who has never acted before. Meanwhile, their most under-the-radar selection is Freddy Rodriguez, apparently the standout of an ensemble pic I must confess I hadn’t heard of, called “Nothing Like the Holidays.” As a fan of Rodriguez’ low-key work in the much-missed “Six Feet Under,” I’m intrigued.

    The Times’ other three picks are all in rather more baity titles: Alison Pill in “Milk,” an actress who has been bubbling under for a while now; French ingenue Alexa Davalos in “Defiance,” whom they liken to a young Liz Taylor; and finally, an actor who has long been in my Best Supporting Actor predictions list, Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road.”

    In Richard Yates’ novel, the character of John Givings is small but absolutely incendiary: a supposed paranoid schizophrenic who refuses to comply with the rigidly defined etiquette of 1950’s suburbia. Shannon has been an exciting, imposing presence in such films as “Bug” and “Shotgun Stories,” and I always thought his brooding intensity would make him ideal casting here. According to the Times, he makes good on the promise:

    (Shannon) provides some of the movie’s most thrilling fireworks … Playing a man who is mentally ill is an opportunity to chew the scenery, but Mr. Shannon does something else, infusing John with such tormented authority that the character becomes classical: he’s the movie’s Cassandra and Greek chorus at once.

    Well, that’s got my attention. In a lean category seriously wanting for contenders — beyond the slamdunk nomination for Heath Ledger — Shannon looks more and more like a surefire nominee. Read the rest here.

  • I have to say it

    Some folks have really had the wool pulled over their eyes as it pertains to “Che” this year.  That’s a shitty thing to say, I know, but it’s weird when you sense the spell of a maverick filmmaker cast so precisely over viewers just asking to be spellbound.  Suddenly subversion for its own sake and the amplified “sophistication” of a filmmaker — who seems to be flipping his audience off with each endeavor lately — equals bravura filmmaking and top-notch artistry.

    I beg to differ — emphatically.  Which isn’t to say there aren’t elements of “Che” that grabbed me and really bowled me over (like the pitch-perfect ensemble performance, for instance).  But the hero-worship, on screen and off, is simply too much.  I can’t get into it now; I’ll be here all day.  I’ll dig in later.

    Interestingly, some of these same champions were knocking “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” 12 months ago for similar choices.  Funny how that happens.

  • Helmers of the English language, the best and why: part two

    Peter JacksonThis is the second part of a feature running down the 10 best filmmakers working in the English language.  For part one, click here, and stay tuned in the coming weeks for a similar feature on European helmers.

    PETER JACKSON
    I know this one will bother some people but what Jackson accomplsihed with “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy was fucking historical. Who would have thought the man who made the small, personal thriller “Heavenly Creatures” could guide a film as big as “The Ten Commandments?” Furthermore, he gave the Tolkein story heart and soul, never sacrificing character for scope.

    “The Lord of Rings: The Return of the King” was such a staggering work of brilliance I never wanted it to end (some felt like it never did, with multiple denouements).  But after investing nearly 12 hours with these characters, I wanted to know every last detail of what would become of them. And “King Kong” (I love it!) was among the best films of its year, a massive work with superb visual effects, spectacular art direction and design and a terrific Naomi Watts performance.

    I look forward to “The Lovely Bones,” one of the very few books I have read in the span of two days, unable to put it down. If any director can take us to the heaven described in that book, it is Jackson.

    (more…)

  • ‘Australia’ poster

    20th Century Fox's Australia

  • 11/2 Oscarweb Round-up

    James Franco• After a third go, Jeffrey Wells is still in the tank for “Che,” claiming that you have to do some homework on the subject before coming into the film. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

    • Steven Zeitchik writes up the Oscar season from the most played-out perspective in the book: biopics. [The Hollywood Reporter]

    • Chrissey Iley chats it up with Leonardo CiCaprio. [The Guardian]

    • Meanwhile, Elizabeth Day goes toe-to-toe with Clint Eastwood. [The Guardian]

    • Michael Ordoña is a busy bee this weekend, first tackling a one-on-one with Viggo Mortensen… [Los Angeles Times]

    • …then chatting with Edward Zwick about his new film “Defiance.” [Los Angeles Times]

    • Sam Adams, meanwhile, talks to “Milk” star James Franco. [Los Angeles Times]

    • The stars share their thoughts on the 2008 election. [Premiere]

  • Awaiting ‘Che’ at the Chinese

    I lucked out with a couple of prime, mid-theater seats here at Grauman’s Chinese for tonight’s heavily anticipated screening of “Che.” Suffice it to say I won’t be posting for another five hours at best. I’ll try to hammer out something on the screening and after party either later tonight or in the A.M. For now, nothing but excitement. A once-in-a-lifetime event.

  • Helmers of the English language, the best and why: part one

    David CronenbergMy recent article on Clint Eastwood drew an excellent response from Nathaniel Rogers (a regular commenter) that led me to this article. In that piece, I make clear my admiration for Eastwood, his artistry and the fact I believe him to be among the three finest directors working in movies. I stand by that, because I do not feel every film a director makes needs to be a masterpiece, as long as they are growing and continually trying to reach for something new.  Even the greatest of artists fail, and in fact they learn more from failure than they ever do success.

    Before the knives are drawn and tossed my way I will remind all that this is my list, just an opinion. I have selected what I believe to be the finest 10 directors working in the English language (five today, five tomorrow). I am positive that there will be disagreement, but that’s what keeps the world turning. Bear in mind that one film does not a genius make, and that a body of work (at least four films) was essential for the list.

    With that, the filmmakers…

    (more…)

  • New ‘Australia’ trailer

    (Thanks to Vlad for the tip.)

  • 11/1 Oscarweb Round-up

    Sally Hawkins in Happy-Go-Lucky• Mark Olsen goes deep with Soderbergh on “Che.” [The Envelope]

    • Tom O’Neil chats it up with “Happy-Go-Lucky” star Sally Hawkins. [Gold Derby]

    • Jeffrey Wells susses through conflicting running time numbers for “Australia,” which, by the way, 25 days out from release, where the hell is this movie? [Hollywood Elsewhere]

    • Anne Thompson spends some quality time with Danny Boyle. [Variety]

    • Yeah, wait until you see Newton as Condi — if you can stand it. [The Guardian]

    • Anthony Breznican reports on the twisting and turning Oscar season of 2008. [USA Today]

    • Boy…Karina Longworth really doesn’t like Angelina Jolie’s work in “Changeling.”  [Spout Blog]