In Contention

Blog

  • Can ‘Slumdog’ really make a clean sweep?

    As we all know, this was a(nother) exceptionally good weekend for “Slumdog Millionaire,” as it nabbed a quartet of technical guild trophies, from the cinematographers, editors, art directors and even, in an especially unlikely coup, the sound mixers. With just the costume designers left to weigh in, this means that Danny Boyle’s film has not come up empty at a single guild ceremony all season — it is an unprecedented hot streak.

    With voters seemingly incapable, on any given ballot, of not checking the box alongside the word “Slumdog,” the film suddenly poses a very real threat of nabbing 9 awards, sweeping every category in which it is nominated at the Oscars. Nathaniel Rogers, for one, is predicting such an outcome, and thinks that the key to everything lies in the usually unheralded sound categories:

    It might sound odd to say but I believe these are the key categories of the night. If they announce them early and they both go to Slumdog Millionaire we have a sweeper on our hands and you’ll watch it win all 9 of its categories. If it loses both it will likely be a more traditional night when several film get a couple of statues each. But these two categories are clearly where Slumdog is most vulnerable to defeat. Voters could also opt to improve WALL•E or The Dark Knight‘s statue total … (But) the biggest problem for both the robot and the batman is, I fear, each other. Which might have also been the case in the best picture nomination battle.

    I completely agree. The two sound categories are among the races causing me the most head-scratching as I finalise my predictions. As a technical feat of sound design, “WALL-E” would appear to be the connoisseur’s choice, but the fact that it was passed over by the guild raises a questionmark. “The Dark Knight” fits the same “acclaimed action movie” profile that netted “The Bourne Ultimatum” a brace of wins here last year. But aren’t the Academy members who don’t know much about the craft, but do love “Slumdog,” simply going to check off the film’s name twice more?

    (more…)

  • Berlin jury avoids the mainstream

    Perhaps it’s an indication of an unusually low-key festival, or perhaps (more likely) I’ve been too distracted by the steamrolling Oscar season, but either way, I’m a little disturbed that the Berlin Film Festival wrapped up this weekend and I am barely familiar with most of the prizewinning films.

    I had heard some positive things about “London River,” a culture-clash drama from “Day of Glory” helmer Rachid Bouchareb, set around the 2005 London bombings, that gathered some buzz for Brenda Blethyn’s performance — but ended up taking Best Actor for Sotigui Kouyate.

    And I was aware that “Sweet Rush,” which shared the Alfred Bauer Prize (which rewards “new perspectives,” apparently), is the latest from Andrzej Wajda (though word is it’s not one of his best), while I remember the Best Screenplay winner, Iraq-themed US indie “The Messenger,” gathered some notice at Sundance.

    But I must admit that the winner of the Golden Bear, “The Milk of Sorrow,” skipped my radar entirely. The sophomore film from female Peruvian director Claudia Llosa, it’s a solemn-sounding effort about the lifelong trauma inflicted on a child of rape — or, if you want the more sensationalist pitch, a woman with a potato in her nether regions. It seems to have attracted mixed notices — Variety’s review admires from a distance, but Screen International finds it “mannered” and “contrived.”

    Of course, one would expect a jury headed by avante-garde arthouse queen Tilda Swinton to favour the international and the eccentric, so none of this is really a surprise — especially given that they’d made clear their intent to reward politically charged work.

    In any case, the Golden Bear truly hasn’t been any indicator of international success of late — the last few winners include “U-Carmen eKhayelitsha” (which really deserved a higher profile), “Grbavica,” “Tuya’s Marriage” and “Elite Squad.” I have a feeling Llosa’s film isn’t going to have much more luck crossing over, but we’ll see.

    Full list of winners after the cut.

    (more…)

  • ‘Slumdog,’ ‘WALL-E,’ ‘Wire’ win big at the Eddies

    ACE Eddie AwardUPDATED: Alright, back from the show and it seems “Slumdog” also predictably won the ASC award, which brings me to a possibility that has come up in a number of conversations recently: could the film sweep all its Oscar categories in one week’s time?  It is the film of the year and truthfully, there seems to be a ripple through the industry hinting at a nine Oscar outcome (since it can’t exactly win two Oscars in the Original Song category — but wouldn’t a tie just be hilarious?).

    Anyway, this was my second time reporting from the ACE Eddie Awards ceremony and it’s generally a good time, for those who can keep up with the inside baseball, of course.  Note to self: maybe not bring the girlfriend next time.

    Beyond the quick dash of kudos-dishing there were a trio of special awards handed out tonight.  For starters, the Career Achievement Eddies went to Arthur Schmidt and Sidney Katz (father of ACE member Virginia Katz).  Watching Schmidt’s reel play before Robert Zemeckis handed him his honor was a treat, of course, considering the nearly three decades of movie magic the man has been partially responsible for: “Back to the Future,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?,” “The Last of the Mohicans,” “Forrest Gump,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” “The Birdcage,” etc.  He seems to have taken a break the last four years.

    Mel Gibson, meanwhile, joined Stuart Baird in presenting Richard Donner with the Golden Eddie Award (which last year went to Norman Jewison).  Donner’s speech was a highlight, despite the rambling (which was done with trademark Donner endearment).  He put a bow on the thing with a trio of political points, the first being an anti-fur declaration (to go along with an anti-fur button pinned to his lapel).  Then he encouraged us all to adopt puppies rather than buy, and whether you voted for Barack Obama or not, he said, “we’re going through a lot of shit and he needs all of your support now.”  Each of them were met with big applause in a West L.A. ballroom, but of course.

    But again, the highlight reel = movie magic: “Superman,” “The Omen,” “Lethal Weapon,” “The Goonies” — GREAT call by ACE this year, I have to say.  But the one thing that stuck in my mind was Gibson’s weird cavalier facial hair…thing.  An evil Robin Hood, that’s what he looked like up there.  Or a “V for Vendetta” mask.

    Anyway, the big awards went to “Slumdog” and “WALL-E,” of course (as well as “Man on Wire”), the newsy news of which you can find after the jump.  I think the Pixar win is a bit of a surprise and in a way, a refreshing one.  It’s nice to see this guild really break down the barrier for animated films in this way, since no other toon has taken the Eddie in the past despite numerous nominations in the comedy category.  The former, however, and Chris Dickens (looking quite Moby-esque, I have to say), seems to be on an unstoppable Oscar trajectory.

    Much to the chagrin of some, the enthusiasm of others.  Such is the season…

    (more…)

  • ‘Man on Wire’ wins Doc Eddie

    The year’s most talked about documentary just beat out “Chicago 10” and “Bush’s War” here at The Beverly Hilton’s Crystal Ballroom in the second award of the evening. Sadly, editor Jinx Godfrey wasn’t here to accept the trophy, but she sent along her assistant to handle things.

    More to come…

  • POLL: Who deserves it? — BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

    I think we all know how this will turn out, so a Sunday is as good a day as any.  Let us know in the sidebar poll.

  • ‘Slumdog’ tonight, too?

    In addition to the ADG award “Slumdog Millionaire” took yesterday, the Cinema Audio Society also bestowed it with their award in something of a surprise (I’d say).  I usually go to that ceremony, but with it being Valentine’s Day, other duties beckoned.

    I will, however, be at tonight’s ACE Eddies ceremony, so look for a from-the-floor posting when the winner is announced.  Are we expecting anything other than “Slumdog” here?  And for comedy, I don’t know.  “Tropic Thunder” maybe?  Personally, I’d give it to “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.”

    Pretty quiet for the most part otherwise, but let us all wish Guy a happy birthday.  I expect he’s face deep in his 10th pint across the pond by now.  Better be, anyway.

  • ‘Button,’ ‘Knight,’ ‘Slumdog’ take ADG Awards

    The Art Directors Guild didn’t really veer from the expected last night, handing their awards to “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” in the period category, “The Dark Knight” in fantasy and “Slumdog Millionaire” in contemporary.

    And on we go. This pretty much affirms “Button’s” grip on this category for the Oscars. The real question, however, remains: how on earth does Nathan Crowley’s work in “The Dark Knight” qualify as “fantasy” design?

  • Writing the silences

    Hard as it may be to believe, it seems there are a lot of people in and around the industry who don’t fully understand what a screenplay is — who think that ‘writing’ equals ‘dialogue.’ This makes it all the more laudable that the Academy’s writing branch recognised “WALL-E,” a film that hinges, of course, on extended stretches of dialogue-free storytelling.

    As I’ve written before, it’s a significant challenge to build empathetic characters, credible relationships and narrative immediacy with a minimum of on-screen words. And yet, one still hears occasional murmurings questioning the validity of the film as a feat of screenwriting. (Presumably they imagine the animators made up the story as they drew, or that all silent cinema was entirely improvised.)

    So I was pleased to read Andrew Stanton thoroughly address this issue in a chat with Pete Hammond, wherein he states that of all “WALL-E”‘s 6 nominations, he takes the most pride in the screenplay nod:

    “I am prouder to be in writing more than anything else. At Pixar we say ‘story, story, story.’ It’s the root of everything,” he says. “It’s the biggest pat on the back I can think of. We put ourselves fully into every aspect but it’s all in service of the story.”

    It could be a tough sell to the overall academy (every branch votes on the final screenplay award) as a lot of members just don’t understand how a virtually silent movie, in which the main characters speak their own language, could possibly have been “written.”  But Stanton says it’s no different than the process any other writer would go through.

    “How you tell a story is just as important as what the story is. In my mind these characters were gonna speak. They just weren’t gonna speak in a language you and I knew. When they spoke and why they spoke was just as important as if you could understand their language,” he says.

    Well said. Got it, voters?

  • Taking it in his stride

    With the Best Actor race narrowing to a heated finish between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn, it’s easy to forget that Clint Eastwood was once very much part of the conversation. Of course, any such possibilities were sunk as “Gran Torino” became the first Eastwood in six years to come up empty on nomination morning. In a substantial interview in today’s Guardian, however, Eastwood doesn’t seem particularly fazed by missing out this time:

    “I have had three films nominated out of the last five I’ve made. I just make the film the best I can. The rest is political stuff and posturing. I’m not terribly good at that. I think our message was as good as any message out there this year. There we are.”

    I imagine it’s easier to be philosophical about such things when you have four Oscars on your mantlepiece already, and the film in question is still raking in the millions. However, as I read the piece, I got the distinct impression that “Torino” is very much a film Eastwood made for himself, rather than with designs on awards and critical kudos. (As it happens, interviewer Emma Brockes is refreshingly unfawning on her subject — though she likes the film as a whole, she isn’t too awed to point out its flaws, including the star’s own occasional “snarling and overacting.”)

    Of course, a more cynical take would be that he isn’t bothered by his poor showing in this year’s awards race because he has an ominously baity project in the pipeline — his thus-far vaguely defined Nelson Mandela picture — that could well feed the Academy’s known penchant for ennobling true-life stories. As a South African, I must admit that the project has me nervous for all kinds of reasons, but amid the earnestness, Eastwood isn’t above poking a bit of fun at himself:

    When I ask who will play (Mandela), he looks devilish and says, “I’m going to play him. I’m going to show you my versatility.” (It will actually be Morgan Freeman. “Perfect casting for Mandela.”)

    We will no doubt be talking further about this project when Kris offers his year-in-advance speculation on the 2009 Oscars later this month, so keep an eye out for that. In the meantime, read the rest of the interview here.

  • POLL: Who deserves it? — BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

    Moving into the acting categories, tell us in the sidebar poll.

  • Penn and Rourke thank Boston critics for their “indecisiveness”

    I saw this over at Awards Daily and just had to post it:

  • Sorry, Josh

    I like Josh Brolin a great deal, and I particularly like his performance in “Milk” — a courageous display of against-type delicacy and ambiguity that would be a worthy winner of Best Supporting Actor honours in most years.

    Unfortunately for him, most years don’t have the perfect storm of industry sentiment, audience popularity and landmark performing represented by Heath Ledger this year. Not to put too fine a point on it or anything, but I don’t think Brolin — or anyone else, for that matter — stands a snowball’s chance in hell of beating the late Australian. In a chat with the NYT’s Baguette, however, it appears that Brolin himself feels differently:

    “After what happened to Tilda Swinton last year, I think pretty (much) anything can happen… That was a surprise. It was. But again. Is it most deserving? Not necessarily.”

    Mr. Brolin said that as an Academy member who had voted for the first time last year he gained some insight into the whole voting process. “I think it’s an important film and I think that goes into people deciding what they’re going to vote for … It’s a very strange process. It’s very unlike what I thought it would be because suddenly you personalize it. You look at the body of work of the nominee. Lots of stuff goes through your mind.”

    For one thing, Tilda Swinton’s victory last year wasn’t entirely unanticipated, so saying “anything can happen” is a bit of a stretch. Upsets can happen, for sure, but there has to be some semblance of a crack in the frontrunner’s armour, and I don’t see one in Ledger’s case. For me, this is as much a foregone conclusion as Daniel Day-Lewis last year, or Helen Mirren in 2006, but I give Brolin credit for not completely surrendering.

    (more…)

  • WEEKLY WRAP: BAFTAs, Berlin, pre-Oscar jitters

    Aside from two major precursors, it’s been a slow week for news — which leads to a lot of prediction second-guessing.

    • “Slumdog” swept at the BAFTAs, which also put new wind in Mickey Rourke’s sails. We live-blogged it here.

    • The “Slumdog” streak inevitably continued at the WGA Awards, where “Milk” picked up some hardware too.

    • This week’s Off the Carpet column was just eager to move on already.

    • Taking a closer look at the often inscrutable Best Documentary Short race.

    • Speaking of documentaries, we wondered if a win for “Man on Wire” is the foregone conclusion that people think it is.

    • On a similar tack, do we have a real race in the Best Foreign Language Film category?

    • In a bit of a blow to next week’s Oscarcast, Peter Gabriel has nixed his participation.

    • A survey of some of the industry’s top DPs suggests that “Slumdog” looks like the one to beat for Best Cinematography too.

    • Should we be mindful of a third possibility in the Best Actor race?

    • Perhaps another underdog, “Frozen River,” has hidden strengths in the competition.

    • Away from the Oscar beat, the Berlinale continued its quiet progress, with Stephen Frears’ “Chéri” possibly one to watch.

  • ‘The nightclub of your dreams’

    Hugh Jackman talks Academy Awards here, admitting he’s a little biased towards Heath Ledger in this year’s race (though frankly, who isn’t?), and dropping more hints about the more intimate atmosphere promised at this year’s Academy Awards:

    Obviously I’m not a standup comedian and generally there’s been comedians who are actors as well (who) have been doing it for the last however many years. So there’s not the same pressure. I don’t think people expect me to come out and do seven minutes of bang-bang-bang jokes. … They really just encourage me to do what I feel I do best. It’s a night to have a feeling of celebration, of community.

    The look of the theater is very different. It’s more like the nightclub of your dreams. It’s very intimate. … It’s got to be a lot closer. It’s been a little austere in the past. You know, there’s that stage, the host being up above the stalls, looking down at everybody. … But this is a lot more intimate. It’s still spectacular, being in the Kodak Theatre. But it’s a real difference in the way things are laid out.

    It sounds like a lovely set-up for the guests. I just hope they’ve given enough thought to how it plays on TV — what feels “clubby” to people in the room could feel remote to those watching at home. I do trust Bill Condon and Laurence Mark, of all people, to retain a sense of glamour and spectacle. And I still believe Jackman has the star magnetism to bring it home. But the sheer amount of changes proposed this year gives me the feeling this is either going to be a roaring success or a crashing failure. Fingers crossed.

  • Penn to Rourke: “It’s your time, brother.”

    Mickey RourkeNot to be all Rourke all the time, but I’ve been sitting here watching/listening to the Charlie Rose interview finally and around the 35:00 mark, Rose pops the big question about the year’s Oscar season: “How does it feel to be in this competition with Sean Penn?”

    Rourke took it right along in stride, like everything else in the interview (it really is a grand slam one-on-one).  I don’t know if this tid-bit has popped up elsewhere this season — it very well may have.  But apparently Penn talked to Rourke when “The Wrestler” was making the rounds in Toronto and he sensed a major awards circuit on the horizon, so he sat him down and essentially coached him through what was sure to be a heady process for the formerly disgraced actor.

    Here’s Rourke:

    I love him like a brother.  I’ve known him for over 20 years.  He’s definitely the best actor of his generation.  He’s somebody that I respect because he works so hard at what he does and he does it really well and he’s smart.  He’s his own man.

    When we did this movie we didn’t have a distributor.  We won an award in Venice and then we were in Toronto.  Sean and I saw each other and he gave me a big smile.  I went over to his table, we hugged and he told me, ‘Listen, this is what’s going to go down.’  I had no clue about this campaign thing.  He said, ‘Do this, do this, don’t do that, don’t do that.’  He was supporting me and he says, ‘It’s your time, brother.’

    Rourke also talks more in-depth about that letter he wrote to Bruce Springsteen, how he now had “access to change,” etc., which of course led The Boss to pen an amazing track that would ultimately get the AMPAS shaft.  And I’m glad he got into “gigging,” too, which he told me about when we spoke a few months back and I’m sure he addressed elsewhere, too.  But I haven’t seen him address it in a video format yet.

  • That Mickey/Rose interview

    In lieu of an embed to the full interview (which you can view here), I did stumble across this 50 second clip of the actor discussing his role in “The Wrestler” with Charlie Rose:

  • POLL: Who deserves it? — BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

    Moving right along…tell us what you think in the sidebar poll.

  • Oh Mickey, you’re so fine

    I regretfully haven’t had time today to check out Mickey Rourke’s in-depth interview with Charlie Rose that aired last night, but I hear that it’s all kind of special. Jeff Wells, for one, was thoroughly melted by it:

    I’ve felt admiration and grudging respect for Rourke before but I fell in love with him last night, as far as that’s feasible or possible from an electronic remove. I don’t care if it was an act, I loved it anyway … His calm determination that no matter what goes down there’s no stopping him, no quitting now. His saying that if Penn wins he’ll stand up and cheer because he’s great and a brother and maybe he’ll have his turn a year or two down the road. That quiet, settled, almost-dweeby quality he showed with those black horn-rim glasses…man!

    Someone has to grab that interview and put it out there right away. It was important, landmark, for the ages…please.

    More than anything, a win for Mickey Rourke is what I want to see next Sunday evening. I love Sean Penn, I truly do. He’s my favourite actor of this generation. But there’s something about Rourke’s performance in “The Wrestler” that makes me choke up a little every time I even think about it — and he sure knows how to carry that pathos into an interview context. I look forward to watching this. I don’t think it’s been uploaded yet, but it should appear soon here.