In Contention

Blog

  • WEEKLY WRAP: ‘Slumdog’ stays happy, Bale gets angry

    A slower news week, this, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t find plenty to discuss. Here’s what was on our (and your) minds:

    • In the week’s biggest precursor news, Danny Boyle won the Directors’ Guild Award. Hollywood is still reeling from the shock.

    • Oh, and “Slumdog Millionaire” nabbed the USC Scripter award too.

    • Speaking of scripters, we say “WALL-E” is taking Best Original Screenplay. Here’s why.

    • We take a detailed look at this year’s Oscar-nominated shorts.

    • The Santa Barbara fest wrapped, with a tribute to Mickey Rourke among the highlights.

    • Two London critics’ groups acquitted themselves well this week, giving long-overdue Best Picture honours to “Hunger” and “The Wrestler” respectively.

    • Does “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” have a prayer in the Best Picture race after all?

    • Sticking with “Button,” Tech Support interviewed composer extraordinaire Alexandre Desplat.

    • We finally laid eyes on an Oscar season institution: the Vanity Fair Hollywood issue.

    • We contemplated what constitutes a genuine ‘upset’ in the Best Picture category.

    • BAFTA is taking a long hard look at their own voting process.

    • Away from the awards beat, you probably didn’t know this, but Christian Bale said some bad words.

  • Title confusion — ‘The Witness’

    I’m looking over the Oscar nominated short documentaries and when I put in what I thought was going to be “The Witness — From the Balcony of Room 306,” I was greeted with the title screen “The Witness: The Last Days of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.”

    So…uh…what gives?  Anyone privy?

  • “It’s a shame ‘Slumdog’ is going to come in second.”

    Kate Winslet in The ReaderYep, those would be Harvey Weinstein’s words right there. EW has an interesting piece positing the theory that “The Reader” is really the film most likely to spoil the party for “Slumdog” on Oscar night — even if the writers admit that it’s unlikely to happen. (I agree on both counts.)

    It’s a handy precis of the comeback narrative that Weinstein has forged this year — both for himself as a major Oscar campaigning force, and for the movie, which some months ago looked like an awards-season casualty after suffering tepid reviews and unwelcome behind-the-scenes controversy.

    How did he do it, given a campaigning budget that’s a mere fraction of the millions he spent back in the “Shakespeare in Love” days? The answer, the article says, lies in Weinstein’s self-professed new “low-key” strategy with an emphasis on simply screening the film, especially in certain well-targeted areas:

    Weinstein’s first salvo was to home in on the Academy’s aging Jewish population. Although he’s been trying to get all voters to see the movie, it’s no coincidence that he has screened The Reader at such Jewish cultural hot spots as the Skirball Center in Los Angeles and the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan, places where one is likely to find older voters with a deep connection to films about the Holocaust. ”When I went to a screening, I was one of about four people who didn’t have blue hair,” says one Academy member and former campaign engineer. ”And I was the only WASP.”

    Weinstein also invited Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel to The Reader‘s New York premiere, and courted an endorsement from the Anti-Defamation League, a group whose mission is to call attention to anti-Semitism … Weinstein says, ”It must have been the hand of Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack, because Elie Wiesel asked to see me after the screening and he hugged me and said how much he loved the movie.” (Wiesel, through his agent, declined to comment.)

    Ahem. While there may be a lot of people (Roger Ebert among them) protesting that “The Reader” isn’t a “Holocaust movie” — and beneath the surface, it isn’t really — it doesn’t appear that Weinstein has got that particular memo. The point is that he’s marketing it as a Holocaust movie, and it seems to be working.

    (more…)

  • RIP/FYC

    Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightThe New York Times put it to David Carr, a.k.a. The Carpetbagger, to write a feature in today’s paper about the tight-rope walk of campaigning for a deceased actor (Heath Ledger for “The Dark Knight”), and it’s rather clear from the quotes that no one from Warner Bros. was willing to go on the record.  The first quote in the story is ripped from his outlet’s formal review of the film six months ago, then there’s some stuff from Christopher Nolan taken from his Golden Globes acceptance speech on Ledger’s behalf.

    I participated, apparently on background, for the piece and said essentially what Sasha Stone is quoted as saying (and what I imagine any of us in the media had to offer Carr in the midst of his reporting): the trick was there was no trick.  Remind of the performance and stay out of its way.  Flowering it up with an overabundance of “for your consideration” novelty could have sunk the ship (though I’m surprised Stone hedges her bet by saying she doesn’t think Ledger is locked to win — who steals it from him?).

    Here’s a bit from Carr’s piece:

    There is a kind of institutional graciousness at work. Many Oscar campaigns are executed not because of the quality of the movie — see the campaign for “Seven Pounds” [interesting bit of editorializing] — but because A-list talent requires it. Mr. Ledger, though, has no needs on this earth; a victory will not serve as a career booster and fee raiser…

    Is it wrong for us to stare, to reminisce, to regret? Hardly. Mr. Ledger’s death, which created a huge wave of public grief, was clearly a seminal moment in popular culture. The studio needed to navigate all those currents in releasing the film and in the Oscar ritual as well.

    More here.

  • Predicting BAFTA, part one — the techs

    It’s no secret that the BAFTA awards, which unfold at London’s Royal Opera House on Sunday evening, can be one of the most contrarian and surprising events on the awards calendar – but nowhere are they more unpredictable, and occasionally inscrutable, than in their technical awards.

    Year in, year out, anybody trying to predict the BAFTAs is foiled in the tech categories, which they tend to spread far more generously than the American Academy, throwing up one (occasionally head-scratching) shocker after another. Who could foresee “Almost Famous” beating “Gladiator” to Best Sound, or “Vera Drake” getting the better of “The Aviator” in the Costume Design race?

    What few people realize is that, unlike at the Oscars, BAFTA’s tech categories (in addition to the directing and writing awards) are voted on by branch members only, rather than the entire membership – and peers can have a very different take from ours on their own craft. This makes predictions a rather thankless task, but I’m forging ahead anyway.

    (On a side note, it’s worth bearing in mind that they anticipated some tech upsets at last year’s Oscars, such the “The Bourne Ultimatum” for Best Sound and the jaw-dropping VFX win for “The Golden Compass.”)

    Best Cinematography
    “Changeling,” Tom Stern
    “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” Claudio Miranda
    “The Dark Knight,” Wally Pfister
    “The Reader,” Chris Menges and Roger Deakins
    “Slumdog Millionaire,” Anthony Dod Mantle

    (more…)

  • Oscar TV spot

    And in case you missed the nifty new “biggest movie event of the year” website, have a look here.

  • POLL: Who deserves it? — BEST MAKEUP

    Tell us in the sidebar poll.  (FYI, any poll that is decided by a margin of 10 votes or less will be posted once again after we’ve run through all the categories, to make pick up any straggler votes that might seal the deal for the winning contender.  So far that is only the case with two categories.)

  • “A great man is one who in manhood still keeps the heart of a child.”

  • Bale’s apology

    And that’s that.  From TMZ (via /Film):

    “The thing I really want to stress is that I have NO confusion what-so-ever. I was out of order beyond belief. I acted like a punk. I regret that and there is nobody that has heard that tape that is hit harder by it than me. I make no excuses for it, it is inexcusable.

    “In [T2] you will meet Sarah Connor. And she is in an insane asylum—why is she there? Because she is crazy. Now I play John Connor her son, and on the day that all of this happened, the scene that we were doing, I was trying to show a little of that in-the-blood craziness, and it went a little wrong… I took it way too far, and I completely mixed up fact and fiction. I’m half John Connor, I’m half Christian there.

    “I’ve not only talked with [DP Shane Hurlbut], we’ve resolved this completely. That very day we kept working for a number of hours. Listen when I’m saying I’m not coming back on that set if he’s still hired, it’s hot air. I don’t believe that. I have no intention of getting anybody fired.

    “And another thing: a lot of people think that I was a bully to this guy. That’s an insult to Shane. He is a big guy. I couldn’t have bullied that guy if I tried. He’s much bigger than me—he’s an ex-friggin football player.”

  • What about Melissa Leo?

    Yesterday, Kris pondered whether Kate Winslet’s Best Actress Oscar is quite the sure thing it appears to be on paper, or whether Meryl Streep can surf in on a tide of veteran goodwill and spoil the Brit’s party yet again.

    I’ve been saying since nomination day that I can’t imagine Winslet losing yet again, least of all for a performance in a Best Picture nominee (the first time she’s had that luxury since her non-starter nomination for “Titanic” in 1997). If she wins the BAFTA on Sunday, as almost everyone suspects she will, her campaign stays comfortably on course; if, however, Streep manages to pull off an upset, I may well change my mind.

    But allow me to play devil’s advocate for a minute. Why has the competition been reduced to two performances that are by no means necessarily the strongest in the lineup? Let’s perform a process of elimination. Streep’s performance has been polarising from the get-go, with the reverberations of Variety’s notably harsh review still being felt in the critical community. (As “Doubt” opens today in the UK, a number of critics find themselves bewildered, with the Guardian describing her work as “beyond absurdity.”)

    Of the competition, Angelina Jolie has drawn even less critical consensus than Streep, so it’s safe to say she’s out of the running. Anne Hathaway looked to be a frontrunner at one point, and barely anyone has a bad word to say about her performance, but judging from the tepid Academy reaction to her divisive film, I can’t help feeling that her ship has sailed. Kate Winslet’s performance has also been widely praised, and it’s clear that a large faction of the Academy appreciates “The Reader” — but it’s still a film with some notable detractors, and not everyone likes the way Harvey Weinstein muscled it into the race.

    And so we arrive at Melissa Leo. In many ways the odd woman out in this year’s star-heavy Best Actress race, she is arguably the one nominee whose performance — and film — have attracted the least criticism from any quarter. Critics have showered superlatives upon Leo’s raw, career-defining performance, with the venerable Roger Ebert singling her out as his favourite of the nominees.

    (more…)

  • Citizen Dave

    David LettermanWe don’t get into television much around these parts.  I don’t have the heart, really, what with “24” sucking the life out of me, “Heroes” spiraling out of control and “Friday Night Lights” and “Entourage” gone for the moment.  “Lost” helps soothe the irritation, but we certainly don’t talk late night very much.

    But for a long while now, it seems David Letterman has been the only late night destination worth a damn.  I lost my patience for Conan O’Brien years ago (seriously, it’s painful to watch him struggle to keep up when he has, say, Jim Carrey on…and the old shtick doesn’t cut it anymore), while Jay Leno is and always has been the worst interviewer in the racket.  Why 10pm?  Just retire?

    Anyway, with that in mind, I thoroughly enjoyed this Chicago Tribune piece from Steve Johnson, spotlighting Letterman’s “remarkable transformation” from a goofy laugh hound to a meaningful figment of America’s social conscience.  Here’s a taste:

    Since his 2000 heart surgery, he has taken on President Bush and candidate John McCain, global warming and Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and the lack of national leadership. His first broadcast after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was an almost oracular expression of what a nation was feeling and the best thing any broadcaster found to say in that dark period.

    He even turned a post-jail visit by Paris Hilton political, in a sense, using her appearance as cultural critique, a riotous dismantling of the notion of unearned celebrity and blind adherence to promotional agendas.

    (more…)

  • Berlin fest gets under way

    As far as press coverage goes, the Berlin Film Festival tends to get a bit drowned in the flurry of Oscar season, so you could be forgiven for failing to notice that it actually kicked off last night, with the world premiere of Tom Tykwer’s corporate thriller “The International.”

    Sadly, as I suspected, the film doesn’t seem to be much to write home about. Screen International describes it as “ploddingly talky,” describing stars Clive Owen and Naomi Watts as “leaden” and “struggling,” respectively. Variety is no more enthusiastic, deeming it a “mostly ho-hum” exercise. As a fan of both stars and the director, it’s disheartening to see them all punching so far below their weight; Owen, in particular, needs to have a word with his agent. (Why is one of the best actors of his generation stuck in a rut of identikit thrillers? Is “Inside Man 2” really called for?)

    Anyway, onwards and upwards. Tonight sees the premiere of “Ricky,” the new one from François Ozon, who is always interesting even when he misses the mark. (And I must admit that, after the unholy mess that was Ozon’s recent “Angel,” I don’t have the greatest of confidence in this new fantasy-comedy experiment.)

    The weekend will shed some light on two very intriguing titles. Sally Potter’s “Rage,” which features (amongst other things) Judi Dench, Eddie Izzard and Jude Law in drag, promises to live up to the batty eccentricity of Potter’s best work — check out Nat Rogers’ illustrated preview here. Meanwhile, Lukas Moodysson’s “Mammoth,” a seemingly “Babel”-flavoured story of families in crisis, stars Gael Garcia Bernal and Michelle Williams, and has long been one of my most anticipated films of the year. Fingers crossed.

  • 2/6 Oscarweb Round-up

    Richard Jenkins• David Poland is probably wrong on two counts at the top of his recent Oscar column (certainly plkenty of us had our sites set on Davis and Shannon going into this awards season), but we’ll give him some slack. [Movie City News]

    • David Carr, via video, talks about Bill Condon and Larry Mark futzing with the traditional Oscar show format. [The Carpetbagger]

    • Dammit.  I thought something was fishy when I had to shell out money hand over fist for some Boss tickets Monday. [The Big Picture]

    • Getting to know Oscar nominee Courtney Hunt. [The Guardian]

    • Dave Karger bangs the drum for Oscar underdog Richard Jenkins. [Entertainment Weekly]

    • The annual “how the Oscar statuette is made” feature. [Daily Telegraph]

    • Was “Waterworld” an “eco-parable” ahead of its time? [Slate]

    • Claufia Puig reviews the Oscar shorts.  High marks for “Toyland,” “The Pig” and “Manon on the Asphalt.” [USA Today]

    • Andrew O’Hehir also digs in. [Beyond the Multiplex]

  • Define ‘upset’

    Let’s get this straight: an upset and an injustice are two very different things. When a nominee that isn’t widely expected to win beats one that is, that’s an upset. When a highly deserving underdog loses to a less deserving favourite, that’s an injustice. The latter arguably happens more frequently in Oscar history than the former, but that’s no reason to blur the line.

    I mention this in connection with a poll that Sasha Stone spotted yesterday, in which the following were named the biggest Oscar upsets of all time in the Best Picture category:

    1. “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan” (1998)
    2. “Crash” over “Brokeback Mountain” (2005)
    3. “Dances With Wolves” over “GoodFellas” (1990)
    4. “Rocky” over “Taxi Driver” (1976)
    5. “How Green Was My Valley” over “Citizen Kane” (1941)

    Now I remember the 1990 awards clearly — I was 8 years old, and it was the first Oscar season that I followed keenly from beginning to end. And even I, at that tender age, knew that “Dances With Wolves” was a gimme, a slam-dunk, a no-brainer. However critically acclaimed Scorsese’s masterpiece was, it hadn’t a prayer against the film that swept the Guilds and the Globes — Kevin Costner enjoyed as great a stranglehold on the Oscar as Danny Boyle does today. “GoodFellas” winning would’ve been the upset, not the other way round.

    (more…)

  • ‘Young Victoria’ surfaces

    A lavishly mounted biopic of the eponymous British monarch that boasts Martin Scorsese among its producers, “The Young Victoria” seemed primed for Oscar consideration last year. Sandy Powell’s typically elaborate costumes were an apparent shoo-in, and some pundits had star-in-waiting Emily Blunt as a dark horse on their Best Actress lists — until the film was unceremoniously yanked from the 2008 schedule.

    Now, ahead of its UK release on March 6, the Telegraph offers an extensive profile of the film, declaring it “a vibrant celebration of a joyous and passionate Queen.” The film certainly has an interesting pedigree, pairing a quintessentially British writer (Julian Fellowes of “Gosford Park” fame) with a very adventurous choice of director, French-Canadian auteur Jean-Marc Vallée. Vallée’s last film, the funky gay-oriented family drama “C.R.A.Z.Y.,” has become something of a cult item, so it’ll be interesting to see what he brings to the table here.

    The cast, as you would expect, is mighty impressive, with Paul Bettany, Miranda Richardson, Jim Broadbent, Mark Strong and Rupert Friend (soon to be seen in “Chéri”) supporting Blunt, whose lead turn Fellowes describes as “one of those wonderful meetings of part and actress that doesn’t happen very often.” The trailer below is, I think, a little dourly cut, but with the level of talent involved, this could be one to watch.

  • NYT Mag’s Great Performers

    The New York Times Magazine has launched a sweet set of slide shows, “Great Performers,” narrated by journalist Lynn Hirschberg featuring Oscar nominees Frank Langella, Sean Penn, Brad Pitt, Mickey Rourke, Penelope Cruz (saucy shots!), Kate Winslet and Robert Downey Jr.

    These shots of Winslet and Rourke are definitely my favorites.  Loky has become a star in his own right this year:

    Kate Winslet

    Mickey Rourke

  • Winslet’s win a done deal or is there more to consider?

    Kate Winslet in The ReaderWhen Kate Winslet surprisingly popped up in the lead actress category for her performance in “The Reader,” most of us immediately jumped to the conclusion that she’ll win the Oscar walking away.  That is still probably the safest bet, but some folks are disturbing the waters, starting with Winslet herself in a recent AP story:

    Kate Winslet says she is prepared to leave this year’s Oscar ceremony as she has five times in the past — without a golden statue.

    “I’m so used to it, having gone through it before and having lost so many times,” Winslet says. “Being in that losing state is something I’m much more comfortable in, in a funny kind of a way.”

    David Carr, meanwhile, points out that Ray Richmond considers Winslet’s category switcheroo to be a “snag”:

    Winslet’s previous wins for “Reader” came in the supporting category. For reasons known only to its acting branch, the Academy decided to give her more votes in the lead category. Winslet is untested here. While the odds still favor her, don’t rule out the chance of a loss.

    What do you think?  Is the Oscar already in her hand or is Meryl Streep most likely to swoop in and grab statue #3?  (Personally I don’t think Anne Hathaway is going to figure in here.)

  • POLL: Who deserves it? — BEST FILM EDITING

    You know the drill.  Sidebar poll.  Let us know.