In Contention

Blog

  • Say it right

    Last week, I wondered whether Mickey Rourke’s eccentric, yet moving, acceptance speech at the Golden Globes could bolster his chances with the Academy. It may sound like a trivial concern, but the fact remains that Rourke’s speech was a talking point, a bona fide ‘moment’ that made for great TV — and if Roberto Benigni has taught us anything, it’s that onstage personality goes a long way with the Academy. In a tight race, the promise of a memorable acceptance can be just enough to push a contender past the finish line.

    Now, Dave Karger is addressing the flipside of the question, and asking whether the relatively sloppy acceptance speeches of Anne Hathaway and Kate Winslet, at the BFCA Awards and Golden Globes respectively, could actually damage their Oscar campaigns:

    Upon sharing the Critics Choice prize with her idol, Meryl Streep, Hathaway — who certainly meant to say this a bit more artfully — said it was “fitting” that she tied for the prize with Streep since she thought the Doubt star was the best actress around. But it came off condescending to all the other actresses in the room, particularly her category-mates like Angelina Jolie and Melissa Leo. The usually composed Winslet, meanwhile, nearly had a heart attack when she won her two Golden Globe prizes. To many people, the reactions seemed over-the-top. Or worse, fake.

    It must have been overwhelming for both of them to hear their names called. But on the other hand, let’s remember that both of these awards are handed out by groups of journalists, for God’s sake — people that big stars like Hathaway and Winslet usually don’t give a hoot about. Why should they then fall to pieces over what those journalists think about them?

    (more…)

  • POLL: Can a Best Picture nomination for ‘The Dark Knight’ help the Oscar telecast ratings?

    After a healthy one-week run, the majority of the readership seems to think “WALL-E” has the best show at upsetting the agreed-upon five for a Best Picture bid. “The Wrestler” and “Doubt” filled out the top three. But this week, running on the assumption that the caped Crusader will slide in after all, I thought I’d ask whether it will matter for the show’s ratings.

    Of course, a number of things could make a perfect storm in this sceneario, a “Dark Knight” nod being just one of them.  We have two exciting new producing talents at bat and a new host that could bring out the voyeurs.  But specifically as it regards a Best Picture nod for the Bat, can that spike the ratings for a show that has continued to dwindle?  Tell us in the sidebar poll!

  • Separated at birth

    Thanks to Hollywood Elsewhere for pointing out this amusing video, which … well, it speaks for itself, really:

  • OFF THE CARPET: Enough foreplay

    WALL-EWhat else is there to say?  Tomorrow we’ll have a new president and the last eight years will, hopefully, start to fade away.  In four days we’ll have a fresh slate of Oscar nominees and the last four months of awards speculation will suddenly be a distant memory.  The big wheel keeps on turning.

    I don’t know what else can be added to the conversation at this point that hasn’t been mulled over a million times already.  I do know, as my final set of Oscar predictions will reflect, that this years seems to be given to the safe bet more than any other in recent memory.  But I also know the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a difficult group of people to corner.  There are always surprises.

    As I look over the landscape of the 2008-2009 season, I find myself seeking out those blind-side possibilities.  No one saw “City of God” coming four times over in 2003.  Hardly anyone expected Tommy Lee Jones to snatch a nomination last year after failing to pop up throughout the precursor season.  And certainly, no one banked on a “Dreamgirls” snub in 2006.

    But these things happen.  I’ll lay out a set of my own left-field possibilities on Wednesday, since this year’s inauguration proceedings have kept the weekly Oscar column somewhat removed from the actual announcement (generally I write this the day before), but today I thought I’d end phase one with a few question marks I feel it necessary to punctuate.

    (more…)

  • Hare takes on the critics

    You’d think an artist as established as Sir David Hare might, in the course of his long career, have learned to take a bit of criticism in his stride. However, amid a rather odd flare-up between the venerable British playwright/screenwriter and Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw, Hare comes off looking decidedly thin-skinned.

    The source of conflict is Bradshaw’s savage (though I think rather astute) review of the Hare-penned “The Reader.” Despite his admiration for the craftmanship on display and the performance of Kate Winslet, Bradshaw disliked the film intensely, objecting that it exploited the Holocaust to lend gravitas to “a middlebrow sentimental-erotic fantasy.” It’s a complex (and spoiler-ridden) piece that can’t easily be summarised, but Bradshaw’s closing paragraph offers the nub of his argument:

    I can’t forgive this film for being so shallow and so obtuse on such a subject, and I can’t accept it as a parable for war-guilt-by-association suffered by goodish Germans of the next generation. Under the gloss of high production value, under the sheen of hardback good taste, there is something naive and glib and meretricious. It left a very strange taste in my mouth.

    Bradshaw isn’t alone; you may remember that the New York Times’ Manohla Dargis had some similar qualms about the film’s take on Holocaust, accusing it of “embalm(ing) its horrors with artfully spilled tears.”

    (more…)

  • Are you different?

    Okay, by now, most Oscarwatchers and prognozticators are expecting the same five titles to pop up in the Best Picture category: “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “The Dark Knight,” “Frost/Nixon,” “Milk” and “Slumdog Millionaire.”

    But not everyone.

    My questiont o you is, if you are predicting a DIFFERENT lineup, what is it?  I figure there are only so many combinations that can come out of the sane awards-watching universe, but I’m prepared to be surprised.  Tell us your different angle on the season.  I’m curious…

  • Learn the FX secrets of ‘Benjamin Button’

    This website has been made available to the visual effects branch for the purposes of Oscar voting.  Have a look.

    Username: sfx
    Password: buttonsbuttons

  • 1/19 Oscarweb Round-up

    (from left) Abigail Breslin and Paul Dano in Little Miss Sunshine(It’s kind of hard to find anything with meat on its bones amid all the boring, derivative Sundance coverage.)

    • David Poland spends 30 minutes with genius Charlie Kaufman. [The Hot Blog]

    • Patrick Goldstein comes to Edward Zwick’s defence over a wrong-headed, borderline moronic assessment of his recent film “Defiance.” [The Big Picture]

    • Nathaniel Rogers takes his final Oscar stabs. [The Film Experience]

    • Tom O’Neil catches up with “Reader” makeup head Ivana Primorac. [Gold Derby]

    • Speaking of which, in case you missed it over the weekend, Gerard Kennedy talked to Primorac and the rest of the film’s below-the-line crew in this week’s edition of “Tech Support.” [In Contention]

    • Dave Karger wonders if Meryl Streep’s precursor consistency will nab her a third Oscar.  If pressed to answer today, my money would be on her, too. [Entertainment Weekly]

    • Your chance to be interviewed about “The Dark Knight” and Oscar and a poll asking whether you’d be more inclined to watch the Oscars if the film is nominated for Best Picture. [USA Today]

    • Christopher Campbell takes a look at a Sundance story of yore: “Little Miss Sunshine.” [Spout Blog]

  • Suspicion of optimism

    As you know, one of the many things that aggravated me about this year’s BAFTA nominations was the pointed shut-out of Mike Leigh’s “Happy-Go-Lucky.” The snub extended to lead actress Sally Hawkins, who has torn through the critics’ awards on the other side of the Atlantic and stands a sizeable chance of landing an Oscar nod on Monday morning — as does Leigh himself, for that matter.

    The Independent recently did some digging into the snub, and has found that a number of Leigh’s peers and contemporaries are similarly shocked by the omission. Venerable critic Barry Norman (something of a British institution) is particularly outraged, hailing “Happy-Go-Lucky” as the equal of BAFTA-garlanded “Slumdog Millionaire,” and going so far to label Leigh “a prophet without honour,” less appreciated in his homeland than he is elsewhere.

    Of course, Leigh has won three BAFTAs in his career, so perhaps that’s getting a little dramatic. Nonetheless, the article wonders whether this year’s snub could be put down to a BAFTA grudge against the famously candid filmmaker, who has criticised the organisation’s voting methods in the past.

    Hmmm. Ultimately, interestingly enough, it is “Slumdog Millionaire” scribe Simon Beaufoy who might have hit the nail closest to the head when he says the film was a victim of “traditional British suspicion of optimism” — something which I think accounts for the film’s polite but less-than-ecstatic critical reception here. It’s also a precise echo of a sentiment Eddie Marsan voiced in my October interview with the actor:

    “I thought the film might go down well in America — better, even, than at home — because they’re not quite as cynical as the British. I think they’re more willing to buy into an optimistic character.”

    (more…)

  • Visual Effects Society nominees

    CloverfieldOh yeah, another guild (well, industry award I should say) this week: the Visual Effects Society (VES).  The group’s typically unnavigable list of kudos contenders can be found below and after the jump.

    It’s interesting to note “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” having a decent showing throughout, yet failing to make it to the final bake-off round.  Ditto “Cloverfield.”  Meanwhile, bake-off survivor “Australia” is nowhere to be found.

    “The Dark Knight” looked to be shut out until the miniatures and special effects categories came to its aid, but even with the four nominations to its credit (two of them in the same category — that’s not a typo), I’m tempted to think “Hellboy II: The Golden Army” might be breathing down its neck.  After all, in-camera wizardry isn’t often recognized by a visual effects branch that likes to award innovative CGI.  Then again, after the VES nods were announced two years ago, I might have thought “I Am Legend” was set for a nomination.

    The big winners throughout are, of course, Paramount’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” and “Iron Man.”  The former is still looking strong to walk away with the Oscar in about a month.

    The awards will be handed out on February 21.  “Button” producers Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall have already been announced as lifetime achievement award recipients.

    The nominees (I’m just listing the film categories):

    Outstanding Visual Effects in a Visual Effects Driven Motion Picture
    “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian”
    “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
    “Cloverfield”
    “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”
    “Iron Man”

    (more categories after the jump)

    (more…)

  • Oh yeah…

    …go Cards.

  • Here’s a question…

    …is it really safe to bet against John Williams?

  • The new millennium Oscars?

    Viggo Mortensen in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the KingLooking back over the previous Oscar winners for Best Picture since 2000, the start of a new century (and a new millennium), I find myself wondering sometimes what the hell the Academy was thinking.  It’s no secret I disagree with the Academy a lot, but I can also admit that when they get it right, they get it right.

    But since 2000, their Best Pic choices have run the gamut from incredibly ridiculous, “Gladiator” and “A Beautiful Mind” being just goofy, to bang on, with “The Departed” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.”  I am told the Academy is moving in a more progressive direction, willing to take more risks, and I suppose some of these winners do just that.  But they could have gone further.

    Year by year, here’s a quick look, with some thoughts about who might have won, and who should have at least been nominated…

    (more…)

  • Tuesday is bigger than movies

    White HouseWay off topic for a moment, but I am Canadian, proud of my country, happy to be here, though I confess to having always been fascinated with American history and politics. There are many friends of mine in the United States and I enjoy visiting whenever I can. Cocoa Beach, Florida is a popular destination for my family and Los Angeles is always great fun.

    I was four when JFK was killed and vaguely remember my parents being visibly upset at something around that time. As I grew older I was most aware, and deeply saddened when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and watched the train carry RFK home, tears streaming down my cheeks for reasons I did not understand. Watching Nixon resign was bittersweet because I always believed he had it in him to be a great President (and indeed proved to be a great Statesman), and watched with great interest when George Dubya was “elected” in 2000.

    Never in my lifetime did I expect an African-American to be elected President of the United States. There would always be too much racial hatred, too much anger, too much prejudice. What a pleasant shock to find that was not true, that people really wanted a change. To quote “2010”: “Something’s happening…something wonderful.”

    We are in the midst of witnessing history this week, seeing something extraordinary. In remarkable recognition of what might have been, Obama’s own children stated it would have been just as exciting to have seen Hilary Clinton win and a woman lead the United States.

    I am staying home Tuesday because I want to see history as it happens.  And I welcome Obama’s chance to take America into the next stage of their greatness.

    And I have every confidence he will do just that.

  • Calm before the storm

    It’s awfully quiet in Oscar blog country, isn’t it?

    Admittedly, it’s not unusual for this point in the season. All the possible precursor cards have been dealt ahead of Thursday’s nominations, and in a year that offers fewer possibilities than most, all we can do is wait, shuffling and reshuffling the same predictions in vain hope of a ‘eureka’ moment. Meanwhile, with Tuesday’s rather more significant ceremony looming, it’s hardly surprising people’s minds are elsewhere.

    We could usually rely on Sundance to keep us distracted during this lull, but as Kris and others (including the travelling Bagger) have noted, there’s even less noise emerging from Park City. I’ve been dutifully reading the reviews coming out of the festival, and have yet to get even politely excited about any of them. So, “Brooklyn’s Finest” was the first big buy of the festival, but how much anticipation can one really muster over an Antoine Fuqua cop drama starring Richard Gere?

    Beyond that, going by Anne Thompson has to say, mumblecore comedy “Humpday” sounds like an amusing diversion, with the Bagger suggesting it’s the first film at Sundance to “break through and connect.” An improv-based effort about two straight college buddies who make a self-starring gay porno, I’m guessing (and hoping) its charm exceeds that of the pitch.

  • Some help with my new book

    Donnie DarkoKris has kindly pointed out a few times in addition to being a very busy film critic up here in Canada, I also have a seven-book (keeps growing) deal with Greenwood/Praeger in the United States.  The first, “Clint Eastwood: Evolution of a Filmmaker,” was released December 30, 2008.

    I am currently working on “Spielberg: American Film Visionary,” due for release in December of 2009 and have signed to do “The Coppolas: Francis and Sofia” (release date to be announced).  But I’m also working on something as we speak called “The New Millennium American Cinema, 2000-2009,” the first in a series of decade-specific titles from the publisher.

    Given the title, it’s self-explanatory: the mainstream hits and misses, the critically acclaimed films, and those cult pictures (say, “Donnie Darko”) that found an audience despite of the odds against them in the last decade. The format of the volume will be a chapter devoted to each year with sub-chapters within devoted to each film, and an end discussion of the major new directors and actors to emerge in that particular year.  In terms of size, we are looking at between 500-550 pages.

    I was hoping to pick the brains of the good people that chime in on this site and see what they thought of this span of time in the cinema and the films they believe have made an impact, for better or worse, with critics or at the the box office (or both). In other words, which films do you think should be included in the book?  I’d love to hear from you.

    I have an initial list, but I’d like to compare it with my fellow celluloid junkies who have your finger on the pulse of the film world.  Give me the titles and why they should be there.  Again pay attention to the title, “The Millenium American Cinema” — so just U.S. titles. This is strictly a study of cinema from the United States and the impact of those films.

    Have at it!

  • TECH SUPPORT INTERVIEW: the crafts of ‘The Reader’

    Tech Support at In ContentionThe past week has been exceptionally good to Stephen Daldry’s “The Reader” on the awards circuit.  The film followed up its five Golden Globe nominations with the same number from BAFTA, not to mention Kate Winslet’s BFCA and Globe awards for her performance as Hanna Schmitz.

    I recently had the chance to speak to several of the individuals who have helped to bring the film to life from behind-the-camera: production designer Brigitte Broch, costume designer Ann Roth, makeup artist Ivana Primorac and cinematographers Chris Menges and Roger Deakins.  All five artists look back on “The Reader” fondly but they all nevertheless share a principal theme in their recollections: delay.

    Conflicts with his contractual obligations on “Doubt” meant that Deakins had to leave the production with the vast majority of the film left to shoot.  Menges says he then found himself torn upon receiving an offer to step in.

    “I first met Roger in the 1970s when he left school,” he recalls.  “He’s been to my home in Wales several times.  Roger shot 31 days of the film and I did 65.  Principally, I’ve never done it before but because I knew Roger and respect his work, it was not as difficult as it could have been.  Obviously, I do some things differently, but the principle that Roger and I adhere to is that the visual power of the film obviously comes from working closely with the director.  No D.P. has won an Academy Award without working with a director who has great visual flare.”

    (more…)

  • EW’s Heath Ledger appreciation

    Cover of Entertainment WeeklyEntertainment Weekly’s current cover story is a somewhat engaging retrospective on the career of Heath Ledger through the words of his friends and collaborators.  The first story of its kind to date, the piece is a nice idea given that Jan. 22 is both the anniversary of Ledger’s unfortunate death and the day he will likely nab a posthumous Oscar nomination for his work in “The Dark Knight.”

    My only beef with the story is the insistence on either writers Josh Rottenberg and Cristine Spines, or their editor (can’t be sure which), to fish out the most US Weekly-brand quotes from some of these people, splashing suspicion on the drug use about (though director Terry Gilliam refutes that at one point), leaning heavily on talk about Ledger’s insomnia and basically painting a much more morose portrait than was really necessary.  It’s a tough, sad read as a result.  But it’s solid and, like I said, unique.  Here are some highlights:

    “The Patriot” co-star Mel Gibson:

    His audition for The Patriot was rough. But he got the gig because of some kind of honest thing that was intrinsic to him. He was just authentic and sincere. I don’t think he knew the power he had already. So he’d work himself up into an angst situation, trying to get at things that were already there. You almost wanted to say, ”Dude, just calm down and be yourself. It’s good.”

    “Monster’s Ball” director Marc Forster:

    When he read the script, Heath said, ”Look, I get this character. I totally understand him. I’ll come down there and breathe in that world.” He wanted to try something different, something where the movie wasn’t resting on his shoulders. The one thing he said was, ”I’m not going to participate in the promotion of the movie. I’m just going to come in and focus on the acting.”

    “Four Feathers” co-star and friend Wes Bentley:

    Heath didn’t give himself enough credit for his talent as an actor. He didn’t know what he had so he decided to enjoy what was being offered to him. I wanted to explain to him, ”Please wake up to how great you are.” He didn’t have any classical training. He didn’t have anyone making him feel like he had credibility. The only voice he listened to was his own self critic, because it was the loudest.

    And finally, this sobering remark from Gilliam:

    I was in Vancouver, and there was a computer with a BBC website and it says, ”Heath Ledger found dead.” My immediate response was, ”It’s a f—ing Warner Bros. publicity stunt for the Joker!” We kept looking at the computer thinking it was going to change. But it wouldn’t go away…We’re cutting Parnassus now, so it’s like I work with Heath every day. He’s in fine shape, at least in the world I’m inhabiting at the moment. It just doesn’t make sense. Every day goes by and I think, He’ll be back in a second.

    Read the rest of the piece here.