In Contention

Category: Daily

  • John Adams rides off into the sunset

    Well I held back on talking about HBO’s “John Adams” after viewing the second episode last month, but now that it’s over, allow me to speak up on what has become a very popular mini-series event.

    I was happy to see that the Alien and Sedition Acts finally made an appearance last week, albeit a sweeping one designed to show Adams’s supposedly intense personal anguish at the bills. Of course. But before I dig into the issues I took with this 7-part event, let me point out the obvious praise-worthy elements.

    Laura Linney is at the tip of any such list. Her removal from the story in tonight’s denouement was felt deeply. She carried this project through some of the rougher points and brought quite a vibrant characterization to the screen. Not so much Paul Giamatti, who gets his due praise over at Awards Daily. Personally I felt his entire portrayal a stretch throughout.

    When the Emmys roll around, I think we’re guaranteed an appearance by both, though I wish Tom Wilkinson’s brilliant turn as Benjamin Franklin had more meat on its bones for some potential notices. Maybe he’ll still show up in some quarters.

    HOWEVER…the final moments of tonight’s installment were dead on for the actor. Despite a stilted, choppy and over-long (like much of this mini-series) structure of the sequence, Giamatti’s portrayal of Adams’s final moments was a massive high mark in his repertoire so far, the clip they should save from “John Adams” for posterity, if any.

    Mainly, I took issue with this series from the start because a 7-part fold-out didn’t make much sense to me. The structure milks certain elements for all they are worth, and for the better, in a precious few instances. Some scenes do feel like short films unto themselves with currents of subtext and meaning…but they are few and far between. For the most part, each sequence needed substantial trimming that might have brought the series all the way down to maybe three films, but that clearly wasn’t the intention of director Tom Hooper in company.

    Even at this robust level of play, it is quite the accomplishment to maintain such thematic complexity, even if the script does hit the nail a bit too firmly on the head from time to time.

    But enough of 18th century presidential shenanigans. Bring on “Recount!” And “Generation Kill,” I must say, has a lot of promise.

  • On Robert Downey Jr.

    It was only a few years ago that the inimitable Robert Downey Jr. was in our living rooms as a result of repeated drug arrests. I recall several instances where I felt as if he’d never recover. Fortunately, he did, and on May 2 Mr. Downey will appear as a comic book hero in “Iron Man.” Advance buzz for the film has been strong, and David Carr of The New York Times filed this profile in today’s paper of the actor once labeled “the best of his generation.”

    “Iron Man,” I suspect, will be an enjoyable film. Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow and Terrence Howard also star. Based on what I’ve seen thus far, it has some technical appeal that may catch voters come awards season. It’s this film – and the remaining work on Mr. Downey’s schedule in 2008 – that should finally complete his remarkable comeback.

    Later this summer, he stars as Kirk Lazarus in the film “Tropic Thunder” from Ben Stiller. Downey’s character, a method actor who undergoes a pigment alteration, has many people curious. And this fall he appears in Joe Wright’s latest film “The Soloist” opposite Jamie Foxx.

    Mr. Downey has only been nominated once for an Academy Award, in 1993, for his role as Charlie Chaplin in Richard Attenborough’s film “Chaplin.” He did not win. Since then, he’s appeared in more than thirty five films — some quite memorable (“Wonder Boys,” “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints,” “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” and “Zodiac,” especially). But none of these roles caught the attention of the awards community.

    Seven years ago this month, Mr. Downey was fired from his recurring guest role on “Ally McBeal.” This year, he’ll release three films, one of which, “The Soloist,” may earn him a second Oscar nomination. And his past seems to be well behind him. As he remarked to Mr. Carr, “I’m not in that sphere of activity anymore, and I don’t understand it any more than I understood 10 or 20 years ago that somehow everything was going to turn out O.K. from this lousy, exotic and dark triple chapter of my life. I swear to God I don’t even really understand that planet anymore.”

    I’m certainly grateful for that.

  • Steve Lopez and ‘The Soloist’

    I stopped by Vroman’s Bookstore in Pasadena yesterday evening to hear Steve Lopez read from his new book “The Soloist: A Lost Dream, an Unlikely Friendship and the Redemptive Power of Music,” fully expecting a run-of-the-mill book release PR thing. As it turns out, Lopez is a quick-on-his-heels delight of a public speaker, engaging, never tedious and insightful when it really counts.

    And actually, there was no book reading, since Lopez had “lost his glasses for the third day in a row.” Instead, the LA Times columnist simply recounted, in maybe an hour’s time, his relationship with Nathaniel Ayers, a homeless resident of downtown Los Angeles and Skid Row — and a Juliard-trained musician all the same, whose story might be hard to believe, but can be captivating to the most cynical.

    L.A. residents are quite familiar with Lopez’s “Points West” column that runs daily in the Times. One of the few living, breathing journalistic spirits of considerable heft at the paper, it seems, Lopez turns a phrase and transforms the mundane into the captivating with a truly gifted sense of the English language. He has introduced readers to members of an entire scale of notoriety, always with equal aplomb, and his articles about Ayers lit a spark for many Angelenos.

    The articles, of course, have been adapted by screenwriter Susannah Grant into a film to be released later in the fall by DreamWorks. And Lopez’s book release this week is the beginning of a long road for Ayers’ story, one that will bubble to the surface on a much larger scale when the film lands in November. But what I learned listening to Lopez speak yesterday was how much of a concerted effort the book was for forwarding the issue of mental disorder in the United States, ailments that leave the public stigmatized, a dirty secret, of sorts, that the country seems unwilling to deal with in any up-front manner.

    There are those, I’m sure of it, who feel this project seems a grating experience on the horizon of the film awards season. I, too, had my doubts as to something this potentially schmaltz-laden hitting the screens. But my view has shifted somewhat after hearing Lopez tell it. However opportunistic it might seem to the jaded for the film industry to seize upon a story like this, I have to say, I believe a lot of good could come of it in the end. I look forward to Joe Wright’s work even more so with this added context.

    In the film, Lopez will be portrayed by Robert Downey Jr., while Jamie Foxx will portray Ayers. Oscar nominee Catherine Keener also stars.

    I recorded Lopez’s talk, which runs right at an hour. I thought it would be a great way to initiate a new multimedia aspect of In Contention, and so, I offer it to you now. It’s a funny and insightful 60 minutes from one of the industry’s best columnists.

    Have a listen:

    [display_podcast]

  • The Indy scuttlebutt goes into high gear

    Leave it to Anne Thompson to diligently amass the rampant Indy IV speculation that has suddenly ejaculated all over the Web this week.

    And what a hairy bunch of links it is, everything from her and Todd McCarthy’s original break that the film would debut at Cannes, to McCarthy’s round-up of Cannes films in play, Jeffrey Wells’ scoop that the film would run over 140 minutes (WHY?!) to Vulture’s latest blast, which rounds up all the rumors circulating what might be a below-par effort.

    I remain, as I have been on this film from day one, completely and utterly terrified. I honestly, truly, 100% think that “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is going to be a turd, a stinker…an afterthought. Like the aftershocks of a bad dream where you’re kind of awake, kind of not, but praying the worst is behind you.

    There…I’ve said it. Do I base this on anything other than sheer gut feeling? Nope. Although I don’t think it needs to be said…again…that David Koepp is public enemy#1. My friend John Campea over at The Movie Blog continues to have hope. He tells me every time we broach the subject that, no matter the endgame, Indy IV is his #1 most anticipated film of the year and will remain that way. Fine, fair enough.

    But I’ve anticipated a lot of shit storms in my day. At the end of the day, I don’t think I could possibly cross enough fingers. Let’s hope “Iron Man” is phenomenal, and therefore, softens the blow as we wait, patiently, for “The Dark Knight.”

  • Marketa Irglova: More than ‘Once’

    Good news for fans of the winsome 20 year-old singer/songwriter/actress — the one who, not content with showing up every other Best Song nominee in her live performance with Glen Hansard, went on to deliver the best damn acceptance speech of the night too. (Fan? Me?)

    Anyway, after stating in multiple interviews that it was unlikely she would ever act again, seems like Irglova has had a change of heart. Screen International reports that she’s in talks to play the female lead in Czech production “Darkness,” a psychological thriller from veteran Slovak director Juraj Herz. The film, which begins shooting in the fall, centres on a man returning to his childhood home and being haunted by visions of his past.

    OK, so far so familiar, and chances are it won’t see the light of day in the US. Still, nice to see that someone noticed there was more substance to her performance in “Once” than a couple of (very) pretty songs. I’m sure I’m not the only one crossing my fingers for her.

    (Meanwhile, those seeking to recapture the magic of Marketa and Glen’s Oscar night performance would be well advised to check out their equally awesome appearance on last week’s episode of “Later… with Jools Holland” on BBC Two, where even the terrific Goldfrapp paled by comparison. Bound to be on YouTube soon, folks.)

  • ‘The Soloist’ based on the new book?

    We all know Joe Wright’s upcoming film “The Soloist,” written by Susannah Grant, was taken from the articles of Steve Lopez a few years ago. In the film, Robert Downey Jr. will play the LA Times columnist while Jamie Foxx will star as Nathaniel Ayers, the homeless Julliard-trained musician who became the subject of Lopez’s writings.

    In most cases, as we learned twice over last year, screenplays based upon magazine or newspaper articles have a tough road to adapted screenplay consideration, given the general lack of narrative structure and the tendency to stray from the material presented in the actual articles. With that in mind, I figured “The Soloist” would be headed for original screenplay consideration in the fall. BUT…

    I came across this today. It seems Steve Lopez will be reading from his new book “The Soloist: A Lost Dream, an Unlikely Friendship and the Redemptive Power of Music” in Pasadena on Friday. The book actually releases tomorrow in bookstores nationwide.

    So…now I wonder. The screenplay was obviously registered before the book was published, which puts it in the realm of original work, but these things can be tricky. And perhaps the book is simply a conglomeration of Lopez’s articles, in which case, nothing to see here. But we’ll have to keep our eye on it for now.

  • STV: Bringing pretention to the tabloids

    Don’t stop the presses or anything, but Stu Van Airsdale seems to be at it again, injecting those blow-hard, hoity-toity sentiments into the discussion at Defamer, of all places — completely ignorant, it seems, of the irony

    Anyway, this week his aimless blathering crosses the film awards beat, so we have to comment, I guess. Stu seems to be all bent out of shape because poor Tom O’Neil, who still can’t catch a break with those who refuse to see his work for what it is, doesn’t like 1927’s “Sunrise” and is okay with “Wings” taking that year’s Best Picture trophy over a flick he deems a “soap opera.”

    First, Tom’s comments. Foolish? Sure, if you agree that “Sunrise” is a masterpiece of the cinematic medium (I do). But worthy of this?:

    So why even mention him? Because people actually read this guy — casual fans wind up browsing him and voting in his goddamned polls outlining the “best” of 80 years ago. They don’t discuss; they avoid. They don’t watch; they ignore. And while we can endure it with our industrial-size grain of salt every Oscar season, Sunrise and you deserve better. So write a letter, start a petition — anything to make him stop. At least until this fall, when it’s not about cinema anyway.

    Not really. But wait, by “this fall,” does STV mean those few months when he gets paid to write about all this silliness for Vanity Fair?

    Give me a passionate (if at times tasteless) guy over a self-important sell-out who poses otherwise any…day…of…the…week.

    By the way, why is Stu hiding under that “STV” moniker anyway? I seeeee yooouuu.

  • Downey = 2008

    I’m working on a piece about how much Robert Downey Jr. seems set to dominate the film landscape of 2008, but in the meantime (thanks to The Movie Blog):

  • Jeez…UNCLE already!

    Do we really need another George Clooney profile?

    I feel as though I can’t turn a corner in this town without finding his still handsome but clearly aging mug plastered on this magazine or that (while simultaneously popping up in the same typical tabloid outlets to boot — but that’s not his, or his publicist’s, fault).

    First it was a Time Magazine worship session from political writer Joel Stein that made some sense in the midst of an Oscar derby that clearly held Clooney and his film, “Michael Clayton,” in the thick of things. Then, in the run-up to the release of “Leatherheads” (a film that I still haven’t seen and, despite the poor critical reception, kind of want to check out), he got one of those uber-cool Esquire covers that you might expect. But the PR overhaul was starting to reach an apex, I felt.

    And hitting my doorstep today? A solid week after “Leatherheads” has already landed and underwhelmed? Clooney gets what might be close to a 10,000-word profile in the pages of The New Yorker.

    We get it! He’s our movie star. As some outlets have proclaimed (searching for the narrative, as always), he might be “the last movie star.” I know the media want to keep the fellatio going as long as possible on this cat, but can’t they at least come up for air form time to time??

    Who am I kidding? Everyone loves this guy. I love this guy. I just need some space, George. I need to find myself. I need to know myself…without you.

  • Peter Gabriel: Best Original Song contender?

    Reading through David Poland’s mid-Disney presentation…thing…I was reminded of a potential Best Original Song contender that slipped my mind in recent months.

    Peter Gabriel is working on a song for Disney’s “Wall-E,” and it could be a contender to watch as the season unfolds. Of course, Poland reports that it is a closing track (I wasn’t aware of this), and since the rule shift a few years back, closing tracks don’t find much head-way unless they’re used in some way elsewhere in the film to creative purpose.

    In any case, it’d be great to have Gabriel back in the fold. He hasn’t been too prevalent in the cinema world since his superb score for Rabbit-Proof Fence” in 2002. And who can forget his unexpected work in “The Last Temptation of Christ” two decades ago? I don’t know why, but he seems like a perfect fit for “Wall-E.”

    Chalk him up as a possibility.

  • Want to read up on some Fitzgerald?

    The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

  • What’s the f***ing point?

    It’s one thing for a report to land by a Hollywood trade that an upcoming release is getting another bump to the next quarter for unverified reasons. But come on.

    I don’t know if it’s just me, but Slate’s Kim Masters always seems to be fishing for a story.

    I don’t take issue often because her pieces tend to have such a brief shelf life when they aim so low. The shit storm is stirred, publicity, however bad, does its job. But to poke Tom Cruise, United Artists and Bryan Singer’s “Valkyrie” with two anonymous sources and no apparent angle beyond “something thinks?” Give me a break.

    Of course, there are those who eat this stuff up. Jeffrey Wells keeps linking to and pontificating on every new point, but that’s what he does. Others spin their wheels in other, equally pointless directions. But at least they spin and then walk away. This is a full-blown report, and it amounts to nothing.

    The bottom line is this: who cares? What’s the story? And are you really prepared to justify “It must suck” as the story? Or is your aim just to take a stab at the Gray Lady seven graphs in?

    This is mean-spirited gossip-mongering posing as informative journalism. And sometimes, it just pisses me off.

    Here’s how Masters begins her “story”:

    So, the release of Valkyrie, the Tom Cruise film about the failed attempt to assassinate Hitler, has been pushed back—again—from October to February 2009. The studio says that the Presidents’ Day weekend represented an opportunity to cash in. But many see the move as a very bad sign, and, indeed, the buzz on the film is not good.

    And the wrap up:

    Certainly, Stiller has a hit coming next May in Night at the Museum 2. We hear there may be another Cruise cameo in that film (imagine—Cruise, part of Stiller’s comic gang!), though Fox denies that. Meanwhile, our Valkyrie source tells us about a bit of humor on the set. It seems some folks displayed posters of old Cruise movies—Cocktail and so on—and decorated the star’s face with eye patches. Apparently that bit of lightening up was not appreciated.

    More unsubstantiated gossip. Read the rest.

  • Most anticipated films of the summer

    The release of “Iron Man” is breathing down our necks, if you can believe it. And with it comes the 2008 summer movie season, which looks to be an overall kick-ass time at the cineplex.

    Usually I end up peppering in a few unexpected flicks in a summer list such as this, but beyond maybe David Mamet’s “Redbelt” and — I don’t know — “Son of Rambow,” there really just isn’t a lot of peripheral stuff that’s catching my eye. It’s all about the popcorn, baby!

    Additionally, I’ll be in London from the middle of May to the middle of July, so my summer movie perspective will be a little different this year.

    Anyway, I haven’t been this excited for the hot months since…well, last year. But we know how that turned out. 2008 goes above and beyond in the anticipation arena, however, so here’s a list of the films I find myself thinking about…constantly:

    1. “The Dark Knight” (July 18)
    2. “Iron Man” (May 2)
    3. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” (May 22)
    4. “The Incredible Hulk” (June 12)
    5. “Pineapple Express” (August 8)
    6. “WALL•E” (June 27)
    7. “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” (May 16)
    8. “Hancock” (June 2)
    9. “Tropic Thunder” (August 15)
    10. “The Happening” (June 13)

  • ‘Valkyrie’ scoots out of the season

    According to Variety, Bryan Singer’s “Valkyrie,” starring Tom Cruise, has been bounced out of Oct. 2008 and into Feb. 2009.  That pretty much spells it out, but I haven’t been expecting much from this film from the start, to be quite honest.  The script is solid, if unremarkable, and Cruise seems to be missing the beat more often than not lately.

  • Heston

    Nothing can be said that hasn’t been said. Despite his political missteps (however objective such a thing might be), Heston was a God of the screen. And he has left us.

    In the way of tribute, a glimpse of his Oscar-winning performance in “Ben-Hur”:

    httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=c1iDvYMd8_U

  • Call it 170

    Reading through Jeffrey Wells’s Hollywood Elsewhere this afternoon, I see he’s spitballing about the length of the script for David Fincher’s upcoming “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” written by Eric Roth.

    I made a call and got a different figure: 170 pages — with some considerable narration to boot.

    Wells’s point seems to be, “uh-oh, it’s gonna be long.” But as far as I’m concerned, a good movie can’t be long enough. So, you know, so be it if “Button” clocks in close to three hours long.

    A commenter at Hollywood Elsewhere, meanwhile, had this to say:

    I know somebody who’s seen a rouch (sic) cut (possibly just the assembly) and says it came in at 3 and a half hours.

    They also said it was a REALLY good 3 and a half hours, so there you go.

    Well, indeed. There you go. We’ll know more soon enough, but this is one of my most anticipated efforts of the season.

    Additionally, Roth is taking off from a 64-page short story, so we can bet on a lot of original material that, hopefully, adds to the emotional context of the original work. And the cover of the recently re-released short story, by the way, showcases the words “The inspiration for the upcoming motion picture,” so I wonder if, at the end of the day, the script might be deemed an original work because of what will likely be a profound, if necessary, departure from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words.

  • Bryony…again?

    I was doing some quick research today into a few titles I neglected to mention in February’s year in advance Oscar column and came across a weird little instance.

    It seems Romola Garai is set to portray a character by the name of Bryony in Richard Eyre’s upcoming “The Other Man,” opposite Liam Neeson, Laura Linney and Antonio Banderas. An i-for-a-y away from the character she conveyed so well (and absence of her due kudos) in last year’s “Atonement.”

    Odd how those things happen.

  • Woah…I think we have a real makeup contender

    Putting together a list of makeup contenders was a little difficult for the year-in-advance column this year. I ultimately settled on “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (a film that will be integrating plenty of effects, makeup key among them), “The Other Boleyn Girl” (eh…I know) and “The Dark Knight” (maybe voters will be impressed by the effects used on Heath Ledger’s Joker and, late in the film, Aaron Eckhart’s Two-Face).

    Frankly, I didn’t see much else worth considering…until I came across this shot of Frank Langella in Ron Howard’s “Frost/Nixon.”

    Sure, I figured some makeup would be used on this film to bridge the gap in appearance between Langella and Richard Nixon. Certainly more than the stage production, which didn’t get too crazy, even for a theatrical performance. But I didn’t expect to find Langella completely lost under the effects. He’s unrecognizable in this, the closest shot of the actor in the film I think we’ve seen yet.

    If the film turns into a sweeper, we’ll certainly need to watch out for it here.