Just a quick reminder, to anyone interested, I’ll be filling in for my friend Doug Nagy alongside John Campea of The Movie Blog tomorrow and Friday for their live Movie Blog: Uncut video podcast. It’s generally a breezy good time, just chit-chatting about the week’s movie news and a good bulk of time devoted to live questions from readers and viewers.
If you’re around the ole’ computer tomorrow at 9pm EST/6pm PST, be sure to give us a look.
With the recent release of a spiffy new trailer and plenty of attention geared toward a potential return to form for director Jonathan Demme, the Oscar prospects of “Rachel Getting Married” have gone into hyperdrive. In the midst of all this sight-unseen speculation, a number of eyes have been turned toward the supporting actress hopes of three-time nominee Debra Winger.
Winger popped up as a possibility in early 2003 when the eventual flop “Radio” was coming down the pike, largely because Oscarwatchers were anticipating a new dawn for the esteemed actress. That seems to be the case with “Rachel,” but the blind stabs of good intentions are ignoring the true prospect of the film, “Mad Men” star Rosemarie Dewitt.
Word on the performance is that it might have the stuff to grab a supporting nomination and that Winger isn’t really in the film enough to make a real impact on the awards season. The real angle of interest, however, is that Dewitt has an amazing story, one that I didn’t even realize until recently sifting through her bio.
Turns out Dewitt is the granddaughter of Jimmie “Cinderella Man” Braddock. Yes, that “Cinderella Man.” She even had a role in the Ron Howard film from 2005 (I missed her completely). And of course, with “Mad Men” being the new darling on the small screen (gotta finish that first season soon), there are plenty of ways “in” to the circuit for this young lady.
So take it for what it’s worth, take it with a grain of salt if you want, but it looks like Ms. Dewitt is the name to watch out for right behind sure-to-be electric Anne Hathaway in “Margot at the Wedding 2” — I mean, “Rachel Getting Married.”
Just a friendly FYI to the readership. Brian kicks off the “Page to Screen” screenplay review column here at In Contention tomorrow with a look at Rian Johnson’s eagerly anticipated “Brick” follow-up “The Brothers Bloom.” I’m joining in on the gig with Brian last year and will offer my look at Eric Roth’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” next week, August 12. The column will hit every Tuesday as we plow toward the Oscar season and should wrap up some time in September.
It’s been a couple of weeks since we introduced a new sidebar poll — tons going on, apologies. But suffice it to say, “The Dark Knight” beat out eight other highly regarded comic book films to be the readers’ choice for best all-time in the genre. No shock there, though it took more votes than I anticipated overall.
This week, with the rush to anoint Jonathan Demme a prodigal son returned following the debut of the “Rachel Getting Married” trailer, I thought it would be fun to suss out what readers think of a few filmmakers testing the awards waters with new product this season after a number of missteps in recent memory.
The aforementioned Demme is coming off of a couple of largely ignored documentaries and forgettable narrative entries such as “Beloved,” “The Truth About Charlie” and, to a lesser extent, “The Manchurian Candidate.”
Woody Allen, meanwhile, is stepping up to the plate with “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” a critical fave out of Cannes following years of missteps since “Sweet and Lowdown” (save for “Match Point,” which had its followers).
Spike Lee hasn’t exactly turned the heads of awards-giving bodies all that much for some time, though he looks to dive back into the fray with “Miracle at St. Anna,” and Jim Sheridan is coming off the miscalculation of “Get Rich or Die Tryin’” with the Susanne Bier remake “Brothers.”
So…tell us in the poll. Which of these recently off-the-mark helmers has the best shot at reclaiming former glory with his resepective awards hopeful this season?
You’ve all surely seen the trailer for “Rachel Getting Married,” Jonathan Demme’s supposed return to form, by now. And while it’s true that it has generally raised expectations for the film, I wonder if Nathaniel Rogers over at The Film Experience isn’t getting a bit over-excited. Treating a Best Actress nomination for Anne Hathaway as a virtual fait accompli, he gloats as follows:
Long before the other Oscar sites glommed on to it, I was touting the possibility of “Rachel Getting Married” being a return to form for Jonathan Demme. As a dedicated actressexual Demme is a director I’m inordinately fond of … I had the feeling that he had another Best Actress nominee in him. Not to blow my own horn –ok ok, I’m blowing! But remember, when Hathaway is walking those carpets: I called this one first.
I don’t like to rain on anyone’s parade (not least since I did my own share of wafty Best Actress speculation last week), but isn’t it a little early in the game to call anyone a certain nominee, particularly for a film we haven’t seen yet? There are a lot of Academy heavy-hitters (Streep, Winslet, Linney, Theron, etc) waiting in the wings, and the less familiar likes of Melissa Leo and Sally Hawkins are angling for position too. The Best Actress race is actually looking rather crowded for a change – at least until we know more about some upcoming films.
Speaking of the home market, Hector Babenco’s “Kiss of the Spider Woman,” one of the great films of the 1980s, finally arrived on my desk this week from the good folks at City Lights Entertainment. It has not been available on DVD until now. Kris previewed the release last month.
Having not seen the film for more than 20 years, I anxiously popped it into my player and sat down to enjoy it once again with my wife. To my surprise, the film’s raw power is still there, the performances of William Hurt and Raul Julia have seemed to deepen over the years and the picture’s independent spirit remains intact.
William Hurt was on the rise in Hollywood when he agreed to take the role after more than 14 months of the producers and director working with Burt Lancaster fell apart. Lancaster had very strong ideas about how he saw the film, and after a triple by-pass, the prducers went elsewhere for the part of Molina.
Known as an intellectual actor, William Hurt would go on to win the Academy Award for his brilliant performance as a jailed homosexual who falls in love with his cellmate (a revolutionary portrayed with intense brilliance by Raul Julia). Shot on location in Brazil, the film had a gritty, honest look that attracted critics upon the poicture’s release in 1985.
To the shock of even the producers it was nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Hurt) and Best Adapted Screenplay. Strangely, and sadly, Julia was snubbed for a nod alongside Hurt. James Garner probably took the nod that might have been his for “Murphy’s Romance.” Hurt’s ultimate win was something of a surprise over the heavily favored Jack Nicholson (in “Prizzi’s Honor”), scoring a point for indy films in the 1980s.
I wonder if any of us really understands the impact of home entertainment, beginning back in the early 1980s with the advent of the VHS and BETA tapes one could rent to play on new machines known as VCRs.
My parents, God bless them, bought one right away, perhaps a way to get their eldest son (me), away at college, to come home and visit weekends. I did indeed, and after Dad would pick me up at the bus station, we would stop at the video store and grab 10 or so movies for the weekend.
I rarely went for new releases. Instead I chose films that I had seen once on the late show, perhaps, or films of interest I might have heard about. Sometimes I might even have gone for the films I had never heard a thing about but were directed by someone I recognized or featured an actor I knew.
I was 19 when I hit university and felt I was pretty well educated cinematically, having seen many films at the rep theaters in town. I would set my alarm for the late shows, attending showings at the libraries and consuming every book I could find on film. So the advent of the VHS tape was a film lover’s wet dream.
I watched literally thousands of films at home, over and over, studying them and finding something new each time. When I became a professional critic (when someone finally paid me for it) I made it clear that in addition to reviewing new releases in theatres, I must be permitted to review what was out for the home market.
The generation of film-goers that followed me me (I am 49) are far better equipped with film knowledge than I was as a teen, but they have seen probably thousands more films than I had seen at that age as well. Furthermore, the special features on DVDs provide audiences with extraordinary knowledge that we were simply never privvy to.
Yes I know there are disadvantages to home viewing. Perhaps it has bred bad manners in movie theaters — talking, coming and going, cell phone use — but I still believe that films should be seen on a movie screen whenever possible.
I am thrilled that Paramount and Francis Ford Coppola have gone back to restore “The Godfather” and “The Godfather Part II” in the upcoming “The Godfather Restoration,” which will also include the film that does not exist in my universe, the wretched “The Godfather Part III.” Entirely new generations will get to see two of the greatest films ever made, enjoy the insightful commentary and documentaries that come with the set, and hopefully, come to understand that art can also be entertainment.
(more…)
Now I know I mention British film publication Sight & Sound quite often (I don’t work for them, honest), but they keep printing such good stuff. The September issue, just out, has an extensive career profile, with accompanying interview, on Clint Eastwood – a happy coincidence in the week that our friend Mr Foote’s book on the man has emerged.
The piece, by the venerable Geoff Andrew, echoes the oft-stated view – one I understand, but still don’t share – that Eastwood is America’s finest living filmmaker, one who “believes in the old-fashioned art of drawing us into a film rather than in displays of virtuosity.”
There’s also an evaluation of “Changeling” in which Andrew disagrees with S&S’s editor, and matches the breathless trade paper reviews at Cannes, making lofty comparisons to “Chinatown” and “LA Confidential” to boot:
J. Michael Straczynski’s deft script and Eastwood’s measured, quietly meticulous mise en scene manage to fashion (many) disparate elements into a complex, multi-stranded but entirely coherent drama … What’s possibly most impressive is the way Eastwood makes it all look so easy; as the story steadily grows broader and deeper in its import, it still feels like a damned good yarn.
With each review I read, I change my mind regarding the contender status of this oddly-scheduled film – Andrew’s take certainly suggests it has the gravitas to the distance, though there’s nothing on Angelina Jolie’s much-hyped performance. (Neither the profile nor the interview, however, feature any reference to “Gran Torino,” which is still something of a mystery package sitting in prime awards-season territory.)
It is a well-known fact (okay, okay, this writer’s opinion) that Maria Bello was robbed of a 2005 Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her taut, unnerving performance in Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence,” despite a gong from the New York critics and a (lead) nomination at the Globes. (She wasn’t far off for “The Cooler” a year previously, either.)
Now you may recall (though I wouldn’t blame you if you’d already forgotten) that the winner of Best Supporting Actress that year was Rachel Weisz for her agreeable and, in my opinion, wholly unremarkable work in “The Constant Gardener.” It’s a win I’ve never really understood.
Now, in a depressing twist of fate, Bello finds herself taking over Weisz’s role in the godawful “Mummy” franchise, the latest installment of which Kris seems less than keen on. If you ever needed a textbook demonstration of the difference an Oscar (or at least a nomination) can make to an actor’s career, there you have it.
However, in an interesting Guardian interview with the excellent film writer Ryan Gilbey, Bello appears to be making the best of a bad situation. The usually more indie-minded actress tells Gilbey that she’s always hankered after just such a part:
I’ve been telling my agent for years that I wanted an action movie, but no one saw me like that. Two weeks before my 40th birthday, I guess I’d given up. I mean, how many action roles are there for women over 40? Soon after that, I got a call to say they were considering me for the part.
…and pray that “The Dark knight” can manage to stay on top this weekend rather than be dethroned by the worst film of the year so far.
A story with these particulars has been a long time coming. Sad to say the reality isn’t embraced by others, but it remains just that…the reality.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbv_DB-6TXk
The return of Jonathan Demme? I’ll admit, this role looks like it fits Anne Hathaway perfectly. I’m not sold on her Oscar buzz yet (Globes, sure), but I’m not as skeptical as I was.
David Poland has dipped his toes into the Oscar waters of 2008 and come up with…well, the same thing we’ve all got at the moment, to tell you the truth.
The one point he touches on that we haven’t brought up in this space yet is the notion that The Weinstein Company’s “The Reader” will likely find its way to screens in 2009 rather than this year. There’s a discrepancy of preference between the studio and producer Scott Rudin, but we can guess who wins that battle at the end of the day. Rudin has plenty to keep his 2008 attention with John Shanley’s “Doubt” and Sam Mendes’s “Revolutionary Road.”
Here are Poland’s brief asides on that:
There still could be a backdoor surprise effort, like the Weinsteins’ Scott Rudin movie, The Reader… but probably not. (The one 2009 title that screams “They could make December!” is DreamAmount’s The Lovely Bones, though Par needs Benjamin Button to make a LOT of money and awards talk will help and DW’s side of that mountain is pushing The Soloist hard as they exit the auditorium.)…
…The Reader also happens to be the last picture made by Mirage under Pollack and Minghella. But, the in-control producer on board is Scott Rudin, who always has a lot of awards pictures out there and probably doesn’t want this one to threaten Doubt or his beloved Revolutionary Road (which also stars Kate Winslet). And for that matter, Rudin is probably appalled with the idea of an appeal for The Reader being made by invoking two lost Oscar-winning filmmakers… especially Pollack, for whom Rudin went well out of his way to keep the keep the press at bay as Polack dealt with his illness and efforts at recovery.
He’s also got his first big list of title up as well, including some love for “W” (after that trailer?) and mentions for “The Secret Life of Bees” (the one film Fox Searchlight will be taking to Toronto) and “Che” (which will go before North American audiences at the New York fest but still is unlikely to see the light of day in 2008…unless director Steven Soderbergh suddenly decides to make a buck for an interested studio rather than perpetuate his long-ish vision of the film.
Read up on Poland’s column here, and check out his chart here.
And check back Monday for our updated charts here at In Contention.
I have now seen “The Dark Knight” three times, and listened to the score several times. While the flaws of the film as a whole have become more apparent (though I still maintain it is excellent), the collaboration of Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard keeps growing on me as an integral part of the film and character building, especially for Batman and the Joker.
The nature of the collaboration will almost certainly keep the duo out of the Oscar race due to the rules on such matters. But I still can’t help but wonder…why does this remain the only category where two artists who work together and, as such, enrich each other’s work, not allow such artists to be awarded for it? I need only point out the Nick Cave/Warren Ellis score to “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” last year as another example.
I…just…don’t…get…it
I was a big fan of Peter Sollett’s NYU student film “Five Feet High and Rising” and doubly impressed when he expanded those ideas in 2002 as “Raising Victor Vargas.” So count me in for the upcoming “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist,” which gets a trailer today:
(Courtesy: /Film)
Many of you may have noticed the Facebook tag in the right sidebar for our modest In Contention group. A number of you have already joined up, and we love you for it. We’re just sort of testing the waters of alternate Web communities to spread the IC word, so thanks for helping us out.
Currently there are two groups. One is the regular In Contention Facebook group, fit with posted items from the site, a message board for spouting off and, of course, a Wall for you to tell us to keep up the good work or shove it, whatever your pleasure. If you haven’t jumped on the bandwagon, join up now!
There’s also a blog networks application we added, which will include RSS feeds, rating system, and…of course…a Wall. Probably over saturating it, but it’ll the feed is a nice touch. Become a fan today and tell us how much we stink at this!
A trailer for Steven Soderbergh’s “The Argentine” (the first half of his “Che” epic, which received mixed reactions at Cannes this year but certainly has its devotees) has landed on YouTube. James at Cinematical points the way, but get it while it’s hot. Not that there’s a studio involved that could yank the trailer down, but I don’t imagine this was an intentional leak.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsyGJbuU9Q
It’s certainly not good news that the film hasn’t secured U.S. distribution as far as the upcoming awards circuit is concerned. We struck the film from the record (well, the charts in any case) a month ago because that grim feeling is starting to set in. “Che” may have to live to fight another day in 2009. But this should be enough to whet your appetite in the interim.
