Awesome flick for the season. And still a classic:
Category: Daily
-
Ebert hearts Hawkins
I happened upon this a week late, so apologies for that, but I still think it bears mentioning. It’s no secret that Roger Ebert is probably one of the few critics who means anything to Academy voters. Whether it’s true or not that his backing of such underdog contenders as “Crash” played into their victories, people thinking you wield that kind of influence is an influence in itself.What I’m saying, in a long-winded fashion, is that when Ebert gets truly excited about a film or a performer, the sun often shines a little brighter on their Oscar campaign. And someone whose publicist must be smiling is Sally Hawkins, a well-liked but comparatively low-profile contender who needs passionate support to come through in a crowded Best Actress race. And, in his glowing four-star review of “Happy-Go-Lucky,” passionate support is precisely what Ebert offers:
Poppy is one of the most difficult roles any actress could be assigned. She must smile and be peppy and optimistic at (almost) all times, and do it naturally and convincingly, as if the sunshine comes from inside. That’s harder than playing Lady Macbeth. Sally Hawkins been in movies before, including Leigh’s “Vera Drake” and Woody Allen’s “Cassandra’s Dream,” but this is her star-making role. She was named best actress at Berlin 2008. I will deliberately employ a cliche: She is a joy to behold.
(It’s) a role very few women could play. Maybe Meryl Streep could sustain that level of merriness, but then what can’t she do? And now I must ask, what can’t Hawkins do? There are countless ways she might have stepped wrong. But she breezes in on her bicycle and engages our deepest sympathy.
That’s heady praise there. He is also deeply impressed by Hawkins’s co-star Eddie Marsan, describing his performance as “spellbinding.” I’m not saying Ebert strikes gold every time, but should he continue to champion Hawkins and the film to such an extent, some voters might just be listening.
-
Small screen query
Off topic, of course, but I wonder if everyone else is as disappointed with some of the fall’s mid-season series as I am.My DVR is generally packed with “Friday Night Lights,” “The Office,” “Heroes,” “The Shield” and yeah, “The Big Bang Theory” (I love it — it’s harmless). But at least three of those are a total drag this season. “Lights” hasn’t learned the soap opera lessons of its second season and is settling into another melodramatic groove, while “Heroes” is just too convuluted (as usual). I honestly just watch it out of habit at this point, but I derive no enjoyment out of it.
“The Shield” is properly building the tension for a Shane/Vic stand-off, but I can’t shake the feeling that it’ll be a soft landing. “The Office” is hilarious as always, and “Big Bang” is my guilty pleasure. Thank God for small miracles.
I latched onto the first two episodes of “My Own Worst Enemy, glued to the set and eating it all up, only to feel a weird lull during the third episode. Boredom set in and suddenly I got the feeling that the show doesn’t have much space to grow. Maybe it’s just me. And I also picked up “Supernatural” on a friend’s recommendation this season. Very cool show.
Mainly, I just can’t wait for “Lost” to come back. Blew my mind last season.
Anyway, you guys? Thoughts on the fall TV season? Agreements? Disagreements?
-
The more things change, the more they stay the same
I never got around to linking to Devin Faraci’s well-reasoned piece on the politics of “Milk,” but I want to take a minute to draw your attention to it this morning. I think it’s a very sound assessment of what the film really does, which is challenge the viewer to be foolish enough to think that the country has carried Harvey Milk’s torch three decades after his assassination.A little from the piece:
Thirty years later California has another anti-gay Proposition on the ballot, and it seems like the only progress we’ve made is in the numbering, since this one is Prop 8. On the surface Prop 8 doesn’t seem as draconian as Prop 6, but it’s just as cruel and evil at its heart; Prop 8 would ban same-sex marriages in California, which had been ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court.
Usually we go to see movies about civil rights struggles of the past and they feel like distant nagging voices to us: ‘Hey, black people used to have to sit at the back of the bus! They couldn’t use white people water fountains!’ There’s something safe about these stories, and we’re allowed to shake our head at the ghosts of bigots past or the pathetic, fringe clowns who make up the race hate establishment today. We shake our heads and feel better about ourselves because we’re so progressive and have come a long way, and we feel like we’ve done our part to keep these sorts of civil rights abuses from happening again because we saw this important movie about this important subject.
But the gay rights movement isn’t something from the past*. We’ve made some progress – there are more gay characters on our TV shows than ever before, for example – but it feels like we’re still lagging in so many ways.
Check out the rest here. And if you’re a Cali resident, it goes without saying. Vote “No” on Prop. 8 next Tuesday. Make it clear, make it overwhelming clear that regression is a sin and that these are not the middle ages. For God’s sake…forward already.
-
10/29 Oscarweb Round-up
• Steven Zeitchik thinks “Frost/Nixon” will get a pass for journalist worship. [Rizky Biz Blog]• Bill Horberg captures the San Francisco debut of “Milk” in pics. [William Horberg]
• Eugene Hernandez, meanwhile, reports from the scene. [indieWIRE]
• Ditto Brad Brevet, with some nice video interviews tossed in for good measure. [Rope of Silicon]
• Jeffrey Wells draws a correlation between Nixon’s apology in “Frost/Nixon” and the painful knowledge that we’ll probably never get the same out of our current Commander-in-Chief. [Hollywood Elsewhere]
• Anne Thompson gets a big thumbs up from the first long-lead screening of “Revolutionary Road.” [Thompson on Hollywood]
• Susan King runs down the upcoming AFI Fest honorees. [The Envelope]
• Xan Brooks runs down his six favorite Bond openings. [The Guardian]
• Patrick Kevin Day reveals the secrets of makeup wizardry on “Synecdoche, New York.” [Los Angeles Times]
• Mike Jones reports on “Adam Resurrected”‘s resurrection as an Oscar hopeful. [The Circuit]
• Dave Karger and Missy Schwartz talk the year’s two remaining “mystery” films. [Entertainment Weekly]
• Translation: “Blah, blah, blah…WHY WON’T YOU LINK TO ME?!…blah, blah, blah.” [And the Winner is]
-
LONDON: A note on ‘Che’
Since its contentious debut at Cannes in May, Steven Soderbergh’s “Che” has attained a reputation in certain quarters as some kind of intimidating four-hour monolith, even a grand folly. The 252-minute running time is invariably the first detail given about the film, a figure that seems to awe and repel people in equal measure.So it was interesting, at the London Film Festival, to watch “Che” in the format Soderbergh originally intended, and as it will eventually be distributed in wide release: as two separate films screened, in this instance, two days apart.
I think it’s the right way to go, not from a commercial perspective (though probably that too), but an artistic one. For “Che” is no simple, single sprawl that has been bisected, miniseries-style. We’re talking about two individual, self-standing movies here, each one distinct in rhythm, tone and texture. Watching “Guerrilla” (Part Two) this afternoon, after “The Argentine” (Part One) had been knocking around in my head for 48 hours, gave me the appropriate distance to reflect on the changes that occurred in the man in the gap between the two narratives; I got the sense I was watching a life in progress.
Both films are fine, muscular feats of storytelling, utterly compelling through their accumulation of military and domestic detail. There’s also a preoccupation with landscape here that recalls the earthy stateliness of 1970’s European art cinema — the Taviani brothers kept coming to mind for some reason, though they never made anything remotely similar. Despite the running time, barely a scene in either film feels wasted — if anyone’s life bears such intense scrutiny, after all, it’s Guevara’s.
-
Nolan talks Ledger and Oscar
I’ve held off on linking to Geoff Boucher’s three-part interview with “The Dark Knight” director Christopher Nolan at Hero Complex for two reasons. First of all, it just seemed wiser to wait until it had run its course in full. But mainly, I was waiting on the inevitable Oscar query.Obviously, as Anne Thompson noted in a recent item, an interview like this is strategically placed to launch what hopes to be a successful Oscar campaign for the film. Yes, the news peg of the Scream Awards was significant, but this kind of a deep one-on-one with a filmmaker of Nolan’s caliber serves a specific, immediate purpose: get “The Dark Knight” back on the radar in a deep, tangible way before Oscar advertising kicks in by the middle of November.
In today’s third and final entry, Boucher finally gets to the issue of awards, specifically the potential for Heath Ledger’s instantly iconic portrayal to land a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. In response, Nolan had this to say:
I think the thing that has always been important to me in light of Heath’s death is the responsibility I’ve felt to his work. The responsibility of crafting the film in such a way that his performance came across the way he intended. Clearly, that has been the case. That’s one of the reasons I take such pride in the film.
I felt a great wave of relief, really, as people first started to see the performance and it was clear that they were getting the performance. It’s easy to forget with everything that’s happened what an enormous challenge it was for Heath to take on this iconic role. He rose to that challenge so admirably that any expression of people being excited or moved by his performance is a wonderful thing. Whatever form that takes. People coming to see his performance and getting it. It’s been extremely satisfying for all of us already. Anything that adds to that would be wonderful.
Do yourself a huge favor and read this series: Part One, Part Two and Part Three. Whether you’re a Bat geek, a recent convert or simply an admirer of Nolan’s work, there is something for everyone. A fine interview and, as I’ve noted before, a fine outlet for geekdom in Traditional Media.
-
Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t trying to kill the movie
For the most part, I really enjoyed Sasha Stone’s recent “State of the Race” column at Awards Daily. Stone’s been kicking around this beat for longer than she’d probably care to remember and she has a gift for thinking deeply about the insanity of an Oscar race. But I think she takes the issue of “tension” this season slightly over the top by leaning a bit too heavily on the eagerly posted sentiments of a new-to-L.A. blogger trying to make his mark.She starts like so:
Over at Hollywood-Elsewhere, Jeff Wells reports that both Milk and Frost/Nixon are pretty good, in his estimations. He gives them both about an 8.5 on a scale of one to ten but says he doesn’t understand what the early impressions of Frost/Nixon were about and the so-called bad buzz he heard about Milk was also unfounded.
She then quotes Scott Feinberg, an Oscar blogger who seemed to think people with a measured response to “Milk” had somehow lost their credibility because they didn’t leap at the hero worship of the tale and felt the film didn’t resonate as deeply as it might have.
To begin with, it’s clear Feinberg made the comment to elevate his status a bit. “Look, people send me tips.” That kind of thing. But beyond that, we’re not at the stage of rival publicists killing this film…yet. And while I’m sure Wells understands that, I’m not sure that Feinberg does.
Long lead press and trade features staffers made up the majority of those who’d seen “Milk” prior to yesterday’s trio of screenings in California (two for the press here in L.A. and a premiere/benefit in San Francisco). There’s no agenda for them to convey lukewarm sentiments to the film, so to blow their reactions and their motives into something false is very irresponsible.
-
10/29 Oscarweb Round-up
• Jeffrey Wells responds to yesterday’s “Frost/Nixon”/”Milk” double feature. [Hollywood Elsewhere]• David Poland gives high marks to the former… [The Hot Blog]
• …well, and the latter as well. [The Hot Blog]
• Mark Olsen previews the AFI Fest. [The Envelope]
• Patrick Goldstein pokes and prods Bill Maher about a “Religulous” hater. [The Big Picture]
• Anthony Breznican writes up “Doubt” with quotes from the director and an exclusive clip. [USA Today]
• Recall the gold: Best Director race of 1988. [Entertainment Weekly]
-
My back, my aching back…thoughts on ‘Milk’ and ‘Frost’
This is why I don’t do the festival thing. Multiple screenings back-to-back always plagues the faculties.Anyway, David Poland was eager to iPhone in his “First!” response on “Milk,” and while I agree with his assessment of Sean Penn’s phenomenal portrayal, I can’t share his overall enthusiasm for the film itself.
On the whole, it’s a shame Gus Van Sant was working from such a by-the-book, greatest hits screenplay, but his creativity as a director allows the film to steer clear of some anticipated pitfalls. I was more impressed by Josh Brolin’s work than I expected, stepping into what could have been a flat villain role and really bringing some subtlety and layers. However brief the performance, I think it might be his best work to date.
Additionally Emile Hirsch, who generally irritates me to know end, added a spark to the film that was pleasantly surprising. And Harris Savides’s work on the camera, combined with the expected artistry of the editing, elevates Dustin Lance Black’s work to greater heights than it might have deserved.
More in the way of a review later on.
Following “Milk” up with “Frost/Nixon” was interesting to say the least. It’s liberal rah-rahing of a different sort, and I confess I liked the film more than our own Guy Lodge did. It lags in the first two and a half acts, struggling to find an element that could bring something more to Peter Morgan’s stage play. When it finds the respect for Nixon that it needs, the film finally understands its own potential.
-
‘Hunger,’ ‘Bruges’ lead British Independent nominees
The British Independent Film Awards are an odd, under-the-radar institution that frequently like to avoid the obvious and champion the underdog. Last year, for example, they bypassed the starrier likes of “Eastern Promises” and “Notes on a Scandal” to award their top prize to Anton Corbijn’s magnificent, under-rewarded “Control.” The previous year, they were even more daring: Best Film justly went to “This Is England” over “The Queen,” while Helen Mirren and Forest Whitaker — gasp — lost to the unknown leads of Andrea Arnold’s “Red Road.”So it is this year that the nominations feature one doozy of a snub: while the top prize, Best British Independent Film, features such obvious contenders as “Slumdog Millionaire” and “Hunger,” Mike Leigh’s “Happy-Go-Lucky” is nowhere to be found. Ditto Best Director and Best Screenplay — the omission particularly galling when the likes of (gack) “Son of Rambow” made the cut. Did Leigh run over the voters’ dogs or something? Sanity at least prevailed in the acting categories, where Sally Hawkins, Eddie Marsan and the wonderful Alexis Zegerman all made the cut.
Zegerman’s category, Best Supporting Actress, is an indication of how slim the pickings were this year: nods for the mediocre likes of Hayley Atwell in “The Duchess” and Sienna Miller in “The Edge of Love” don’t suggest a very deep pool of nominees. Meanwhile, Kristin Scott Thomas’ mention for the fun but flimsy trifle “Easy Virtue,” which I saw this morning at the Festival, is clearly an indirect nomination for her ineligible awards-bound work in “I’ve Loved You So Long.”
Still, there’s plenty to cheer about here, not least the impressive showing for Martin McDonagh’s superb “In Bruges,” which jointly leads the field with “Hunger,” both films receiving seven nominations. The inevitability of the nominations for “Hunger” and “Slumdog Millionaire” doesn’t make them any less deserving, and “Man on Wire” is a pleasingly left-field choice in the top category.
-
Amen
Robert Pattinson, star of “Twilight,” which is set to be released on Nov. 21, was just as clueless in his acceptance speech for the new Hollywood award.
“I’m shocked and astonished that I’ve been given an award before my film’s come out. It’s all hype,” he candidly admitted before thanking festival founder Carlos de Abreu.
From Pete Hammond’s recap of last night’s Hollywood Film Festival Awards
-
Sneak peek?
A few weeks ago I mentioned that the first poster for “Revolutionary Road” was a teaser and that there would be another one-sheet on down the line. Well today I was looking at that cover of Variety, the first FYC cover of the year, and I wonder if we’re not looking at a sneak peek of the next poster art work for the film. After all, the “Duchess” and “Defiance” images were taken from one-sheets. The image of Leo and Kate looks like something that might be on a poster more than it does a melding of stills.
I dunno, just thinking out loud (because — hello! — there’s SO nothing to talk about this week). Here’s the image I’m going on about:
-
10/28 Oscarweb Round-up
• Michael Cieply says “Welcome to the pop Oscars” regarding the big budget Oscar pushes this year. [New York Times]• Tom O’Neil reports that the two biggest stars in “Doubt” won’t be at the AFI world premiere on Thursday. [Gold Derby]
• Patrick Goldstein wonders why Oscar consistently shies away from the funny bone. [The Big Picture]
• A chat with “Dear Zachary” director Kurt Kuenne. [indieWIRE]
• Nicholas Lezard comments on Gus Van Sant’s potential adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.” [The Guardian]
• Anthony Breznican profiles Elizabeth Banks and her star-making year. [USA Today]
-
Kristin Scott Thomas to be honored at Santa Barbara fest
The press release, in part:The Cinema Vanguard Award was created in recognition of an actor who has forged his/her own path – taking artistic risks and making a significant and unique contribution to film. Formerly known as The Independent Award, it was bestowed last year to Ryan Gosling. This year’s well-deserving recipient is Kristin Scott Thomas, and she will be feted on Tuesday, January 27, 2008.
Comments [SBIFF Executive Director Roger] Durling, “A masterful performance by a British actress in a French film and a triumphant Broadway debut in Chekhov in the same year – Kristin Scott Thomas is in a league by herself and an artistic force to be reckoned with.”
-
New original song contenders from ‘Madagascar,’ ‘Truth’
It looks like that rather flimsy Best Original Song category is finding a few more contenders to hopefully erase the embarrassment of last year’s nominees (three for “Enchanted,” nothing for “Into the Wild” — at least “Once” took the gold).First up, will.i.am and Hans Zimmer have cranked out four new tracks for “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa” which, if the competition falls apart, could find a place at the table.
It also looks like Rod Lurie’s “Nothing But the Truth” will sport a new tune over the closing credits, a soulful little number by Coby Jones called, well, “Nothing But the Truth.”
Lurie supplied us with the track (which he co-wrote with Jones) over the weekend. Have a listen:
[display_podcast]
I like it. Jones and Lurie might find some trouble going up against another low-key number from Bruce Springsteen of all people, but there isn’t much in the way of quality competing for a spot in this category so maybe it could squeeze in alongside The Boss and Peter Gabriel.
Fox Searchlight is also high on the Bollywood-inspired “Jai Ho” from “Slumdog Millionaire,” and with “High School Musical 3” dominating the box office over the weekend…who knows? Meanwhile Jon Brion’s “Little Person” from “Synecdoche, New York” has its fans (none of which are likely to be Academy members), while one of my favorite tunes of the year is — yes — Huey Lewis’s “Pineapple Express.” Sue me.
More on the Best Original Song predictions chart.
