In Contention

Blog

  • Standing up for the women

    Kim Voynar has a sharp piece up at MCN in which she decries the absence of female-focused (and female-directed) films from the top line of Oscar contenders.

    Of particular irritation to her is that femme-driven films like “Rachel Getting Married,” “Happy-Go-Lucky,” “I’ve Loved You So Long,” “Frozen River” and “Wendy and Lucy” — the latter two directed by women too — are garnering fawning reviews and plenty of awards attention for their stars, yet for the most part are being written off as Best Picture contenders. The Oscar pundits, she believes, aren’t helping either:

    Twenty-three films on the Gurus of Gold Best Picture chart and of those, not a single damned one is directed by a woman. That’s just sad — both generally speaking, and because I’m rather shocked that Frozen River, at least, hasn’t manbaged to garner even a single vote in its favor. The only femme-helmed film even showing up on the Gurus’ Best Pic chart is … The Secret Life of Bees? Seriously? No offense to that film, but Dakota and the Bees above Frozen River? I honestly cannot imagine an objective version of reality where the former is a better film artistically speaking. And don’t get me started on the mostly dreadful Body of Lies being anywhere on that list when Frozen River is not. Oy.

    She has a point, even if her argument is (I suspect consciously) on the naive side. The truth is that tiny, discomfiting films like “Frozen River” and “Wendy and Lucy” would likely never be deemed Best Picture contenders, no matter who directed them — though I wish that weren’t so, particularly in the latter film’s case.

    (more…)

  • indieWIRE surveys the race, questions ‘Button’

    Lots of conflicting soundbites have been bandied about this week regarding “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” but here’s the first one I’ve seen with a credibly named source. In an article on indieWIRE, the site’s editor, Eugene Hernandez, discusses the awards race with colleague Peter Knegt, and offers this carefully-worded take on the still-embargoed film:

    While I feel that “Benjamin Button” is, on first viewing, hardly a lock for best picture, the attention that will justifiably be paid to its considerable technological achievements could sweep it into the higher profile categories. (“Forrest Gump” was popular with the Academy and there are some parallel’s here). But, as I was telling a friend today, for a much more striking and beautiful marriage of technology and ideas, I’d encourage folks to watch “WALL-E” again.

    Knegt, meanwhile, suggests that “Button” might follow a similar course to “Dreamgirls” two years ago, raking in the technical nods, but missing out in top categories.

    Other topics of conversation include “Milk,” which they posit as a clear frontrunner for Best Picture, and a “lock” for acting and screenplay nods. (They also side with Kris in selecting Josh Brolin as the film’s strongest supporting contender.) Meanwhile, they pretty much write off “Doubt” as a Best Picture contender, and go on to suggest some underdogs on the rise. Like me, they think “Gomorrah” could be one to watch:

    (more…)

  • ‘Departed’ sequel sorta, kinda, maybe mooted

    As far as these sort of rumours go, it’s not completely fabricated, but it’s hardly solid either. Still, Mark Wahlberg (perhaps looking towards brighter things than “Max Payne”) has been dropping vague hints concerning a potential follow-up to 2006’s Best Picture. The Guardian tells it like this:

    “They were talking about bringing in a couple of new guys like [Robert] De Niro, maybe Brad Pitt or someone like that playing the bad guy, a corrupt politician or something,” Wahlberg told Digital Spy. “Then, like the Hong Kong trilogy that the movie is based on, come back and do a prequel and bring everyone else back who was in the first.”

    Indeed, “Infernal Affairs,” the Hong Kong thriller from which Scorsese’s film was adapted, inspired both a prequel and sequel, so it’s hardly an outrageous notion. Wahlberg did add that he’d only be on board “if we can make it better than the first,” which is a pretty tall order. I won’t start holding my breath just yet, but it sure sounds like a fun idea.

  • Eastwood/Spielberg team up with Peter Morgan on ‘Hereafter’

    Peter MorganThe day-to-day deal signings and rumored particulars that end up in the trades are generally no interest to me.  I like to wait until we get a little further down the road, but this project really caught my attention.

    Peter Morgan is sure to leap further toward the head of the writing class this year with “Frost/Nixon,” so his involvement in a DreamWorks project with Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood above the line is exciting to say the least.  (Though having said that, I never can shake the opinion of one Oscar-nominated writer/director last year who told me of Morgan’s play: “If I knew all I had to do to make a successful play was have characters front and center spouting off exposition, I’d have been writing plays a long time ago.”  I liked the play, but I find it difficult to argue with that criticism.)

    Anyway, enough catty asides.  Here’s the news from Variety on “Hereafter”:

    Clint Eastwood is in talks to direct the supernatural thriller “Hereafter” for DreamWorks.

    Company, led by principals Steven Spielberg and Stacey Snider, picked up the spec penned by “Frost/Nixon” scribe Peter Morgan in March when it was still a part of Paramount Pictures. DreamWorks held onto the project as part of its separation pact with the Melrose studio and has been wooing Eastwood to board the project for months.

    Plot details are being kept under wraps, but it is described as in the vein of “The Sixth Sense.”

    Kathleen Kennedy is producing.

  • ‘Button’ poster

    From the just-landed screening invitation, a bit clearer than the other shots out there at the moment:

    Paramount Pictures' The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

  • New ‘Watchmen’ trailer

  • A.R. Rahman: “Danny wanted it loud”

    I have no idea what the Academy’s fussy music branch will make of it, but A.R. Rahman’s busy, boisterous score for “Slumdog Millionaire” is one of my favourite efforts in the field this year. Fusing contemporary Indian pop with more traditional Bollywood motifs and flashes of electronica, it’s an achievement as limber and witty as the film it accompanies.

    Rahman has long been revered, both as a composer and a pop star, in his native India, but he’s only recently begun testing Western waters. I appreciated his elaborately heightened contributions to last year’s “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” more than most, but “Slumdog” should really make his name in this part of the world.

    There’s a brief but insightful interview with Rahman over at Vulture, in which he discusses the considerable differences between working for Bollywood and working for Boyle — a difference over over 100 musical cues, for starters. In the light of a discussion going on a recent comments thread about how a score should operate within a film, I thought this statement rather interesting:

    What’s good about [Boyle] is that he likes how Indian films mix music. You push it and it comes out. We wanted it edgy, upfront. He said every piece of music was going to be a piece by itself. Normally some directors suppress music — they always want the effects to be loud and the music to be softer. Danny wanted it loud.

    (more…)

  • Surrounded by humanity

    I’ll definitely file on this extensively later, but judging by this excited and energized crowd, not to mention a more-lengthy-than-usual ovation, the star-studded “Milk” premiere was a rousing success at the Academy tonight. And the film really sings on a second viewing.

    More later…

  • Poor UK reviews for ‘Baader Meinhof’

    With a higher international profile than most of the other submissions in the category, Germany’s controversial “The Baader Meinhof Complex” would appear to be headed for a Best Foreign Language Film nomination — and there is talk that film has screened well for Academy members.

    However, with nominees in this category generally receiving so much less public attention than in others, critical reception can be an important factor in the voting — and it’s in that department that things aren’t quite going to plan for Uli Edel’s film. Trade paper reviews have been lukewarm, with Variety deeming it “long and humdrum,” and Screen International declaring that it “emotionally flatlines, even as it fascinates.” (For my part, I thought it engrossing enough but dramatically opaque.)

    Now, on the eve of the film’s UK release, it has been even more harshly dismissed by critics here. In a severe one-star review, The Independent’s Anthony Quinn writes:

    How far was Germany’s recent Nazi past to blame for the rise of the Red Army Faction? How did a small group of radical left-wing students of the 1960s turn into one of the most feared terrorist units of the 1970s? What was the nature of the disputes that eventually split apart the RAF, and what resonance does their legacy have today? Any one of these questions might have been a useful co-ordinate by which to plot a narrative … But it turns out he hasn’t answered any of them. His approach has simply been to cram everything he knows about the Baader Meinhof years into a running time of two and a half hours. It is really the most unhelpful and unenlightening film on the subject you could possibly imagine.

    (more…)

  • ‘O’ Horten’ trailer

    Bent Hamer’s “O’ Horten,” Norway’s submission for Best Foreign Language Film, has just got the shiny Apple treatment for its trailer. It looks melancholy, sweetly strange and altogether rather winning, as one would expect from the always interesting Hamer, whose Matt Dillon-starring 2005 effort “Factotum” really deserved more notice.

    The trailer comes complete with besotted quotes from Kenneth Turan and Lisa Schwarzbaum, and I’m hearing a fair bit of Oscar buzz around this one — that February 20 release date is auspicious indeed. Two years ago, Sony Pictures Classics released surprise winner “The Lives of Others” around the same time, and it paid off handsomely. Are they planning a similar coup for “O’ Horten”?

    With so many of the presumed frontrunners in the category on the bleak, gritty side, the voters may well gravitate towards a gentler, seemingly more sentimental contender like this.

  • International ‘Revolutionary Road’ trailer

    And a great new domestic trailer at Thompson on Hollywood.  Enough of the foreplay though.  Many of us in the media finally get a look at this in two days.

  • Downey, Jenkins among EW’s Entertainers of the Year

    It’s interesting to note that, in addition to citations for the respective casts of “The Dark Knight” and “Sex and the City: The Movie,” only five film actors made EW’s recently unveiled list of the 25 Entertainers of the Year. (Six if you count their #2 pick, Tina Fey — which I don’t.)

    Perhaps it chimes in with the widespread feeling that 2008 isn’t a vintage year for cinema, perhaps the worlds of TV and music simply had more to offer, or perhaps I’m simply over-analysing. It’s curious to see arguably the year’s two most overexposed stars, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, absent from the list — make of that what you will.

    Nevertheless, the list was topped by a movie star: Robert Downey, Jr. Even with the bumping of “The Soloist” from the 2008 slate, it’s difficult to deny what a great year he’s had — between “Iron Man” and “Tropic Thunder,” he really found his popular touch, and even the most elitist critic had a kind word for him. Whether or not that unlikely Oscar campaign for the latter film takes flight, he has, as EW aptly puts it, “pulled off one of the smartest second acts in showbiz history.”

    Other names present on the list include Meryl Streep, James Franco and Elizabeth Banks — but the most surprising and delightful inclusion is Richard Jenkins. I can’t imagine that the humble 61 year-old character actor ever thought he’d appear on a list alongside the likes of Leona Lewis and The Jonas Brothers, but good for him. It’s an appropriate recognition for a year that saw him supplement a career performance in “The Visitor” with cunning appearances in two mainstream crowdpleasers. Here’s EW’s take:

    Richard Jenkins has had a colorful career, but he never seemed like an actor who’d get interrupted during dinner. After growing up in De Kalb, Ill., he became one of those ubiquitous character actors whom only a few know by name: the gay federal agent in Flirting With Disaster, the psychiatrist in There’s Something About Mary, the deceased patriarch in HBO’s Six Feet Under, and on and on. This year, Jenkins played Will Ferrell’s stepdad in Step Brothers and a gym manager in Burn After Reading. Though Jenkins has worked with just about every big-name filmmaker and actor in Hollywood, The Visitor writer-director Tom McCarthy was still considered brave for elevating him to leading man. ”There was never a question about whether he could do this,” he says. ”Richard has proven himself.’

    Indeed he has. That Best Actor nomination for “The Visitor” looks more and more likely to me.

  • Rourke to be feted by Santa Barbara Fest

    Mickey Rourke at the 2008 Venice Film FestivalThe press release, in part:

    It was announced today by SBIFF Executive Director Roger Durling, that Mickey Rourke, star of the upcoming “The Wrestler,” will be honored with the American Riviera Award on Friday, January 30, 2009 at the 24th annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

    “America is all about second chances,” commented Durling, “and so it’s appropriate that the American Riviera Award that always goes to a U.S. actor should be given this year to Mickey Rourke – who has shown us with his performance in ‘The Wrestler’ to never underestimate a true artist and his power to reinvent himself.”

    Check out my interview with Rourke here.

  • Calling out the Oscar quote whores

    Almost all critics and bloggers are guilty of it at some time or another — when one is suitably impressed by a particular film or performance, they often express their approval in Oscar-related terms. “So-and-so is Oscar-worthy,” “Start the Oscar buzz now for such-and-such,” and so on. It’s a lazy and fate-tempting practice, and I confess I fall into the trap occasionally myself.

    Now over at eFilmCritic, Erik Childress has posted an interesting and rather cheeky piece on the subject, in which he rounds up the worst offenders, and can’t resist taking the odd gleeful dig at certain misguided endorsements. This one particularly amused me:

    (2003) Angelina Jolie is brilliant. She gives another Oscar-worthy performance. (“Beyond Borders”) – Paul Clinton

    When you’ve stopped laughing, try these for size:

    (2006) Another powerful Penn performance. Oscar-worthy in every way. (“All the King’s Men”) – Clay Smith

    (2003) This film has more heart than any 100 films released this year. Earns its place in film history within the first hour. A masterpiece of nuance filmmaking. The first Oscar contender of the season. (“Matchstick Men”) – Mike Sargent

    (2004) One of the first serious Oscar contenders of the year. (“The Village”) – Jim O’Brien

    (more…)

  • TECH SUPPORT: Best Makeup — Volume One

    Tech Support at In Contention“Norbit.” “Click.” “The Time Machine.” “Life.” What do all of these dreadful films have in common? They are Oscar nominees because of the category of Best Makeup!

    I will give this branch kudos for often willing to think outside the box but they still manage to be quite bizarre in their choice of nominees more often than not.

    All things considered, it’s is a difficult category to predict. While the three nominees are chosen from seven pre-announced finalists, the “bake-off” to seven often has shockers in store. Films that would appear slam-dunks are ignored while movies no one was considering end up short-listed.

    All that said, I’m still going to do my best to handicap it!

    One film that would logically seem to be leading for a nod is David Fincher’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” As I have said before, I suspect this film could be headed to across-the-board nominations in the tech categories. Aging both Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett over 80 years (albeit it different directions) will be enormously visual and integral to the plot. My only concern would be if there is use of visual effects to “brush up” the makeup work. This branch does not like having their territory intruded upon by CGI.

    Fincher’s movie is no lock. Nothing ever can be in this category. But I do believe it is out in front by a significant margin at this point, especially with veteran Greg Cannom in charge. Beyond that, I have no idea.

    (more…)

  • “The stuff of legend”

    That’s what Jeff Wells is calling Kristin Scott Thomas’ performance in “I’ve Loved You So Long.”

    Strong words, sure, but as I’ve said before, it is a mesmerising piece of work. Not everyone might connect with this very soft, low-key film — but Wells’ response is an indication of how passionate its supporters are. It’s the kind of performance that inspires first-place votes on the ballots of a devoted band of the actors’ branch, even as it may skip the radar of others. In this year’s unusually competitive Best Actress race, Scott Thomas is the one name I feel 100% confident about placing in my projected five.

    I’ve had the pleasure this week of speaking to both Scott Thomas and her equally impressive co-star Elsa Zylberstein who, if there’s any justice, should be in the mix for Best Supporting Actress. Watch out for those interviews on these pages soon, as well as some others — I’m having an actressy week, as it turns out.

  • ‘Dark Knight’ score officially DQ’d by Academy

    (from left) Aaron Eckhart and Gary Oldman in The Dark KnightUPDATE (8:14 p.m.): Now comes this story from Jon Burlingame at Variety (always well-informed on this stuff), spelling out the particulars:

    Sources inside the committee said that the big issue was the fact that five names were listed as composers on the music cue sheet, the official studio document that specifies every piece of music (along with its duration and copyright owner) in the film.

    Zimmer said, in an interview with Variety prior to this week’s Acad action, that listing multiple names on the cue sheet was a way of financially rewarding parts of the music team who helped make the overall work successful. (Performing-rights societies like ASCAP and BMI use the cue sheet to distribute royalties to composers.)

    Zimmer, Howard and the other three individuals — music editor Alex Gibson, ambient music designer Mel Wesson and composer Lorne Balfe — reportedly signed an affidavit stating that the score was primarily the work of Zimmer and Howard.

    That apparently wasn’t enough for the majority of the committee, which was also supplied with documentation indicating that more than 60%, but less than 70%, of the score was credited to Zimmer and Howard.

    What a load of horseshit, no?

    EARLIER: Not that this is a surprise, but I’m hearing that because there were too many names listed on the cue sheet for “The Dark Knight” score, the work has been disqualified.  The music branch apparently spent a considerable amount of time discussing the issue and likely due to their labyrinthine rules, which have been bandied about considerably in other outlets.

    It’s a shame, seeing as I thought James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer really added considerably to the flavor of their original work in “Batman Begins” (also disqualified in 2005).  But the bottom line here is, someone needs to take a sandblaster to this branch’s rulebook and do away with the subjectivity that can really eat away at some fine work.

    More as it comes…

  • Extremely complicated new Buzzmeter launches

    Well, I’m sure Tom O’Neil can finally breathe a sigh of relief, after trying his damnedest to stay ahead of the curb with pundit aggregation while The Envelope’s new Buzzmeter was put together.  Well, it’s finally debuted, and though there are a ton of pundits involved, I find myself wondering if any (or many) of them will get confused or downright agitated by the involved (if impressive) interface.

    That said, the new digs are highly informative, with new members and comments sections for each pundit on their various picks.  I’m slowly making my way through mine, though all my picks are in place for now.  There are about 12 of us chiming in at the moment, with the predicted five Best Picture nominees being “Australia,” “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “The Dark Knight,” “Frost/Nixon” and “Slumdog Millionaire.”  I was most surprised by the Best Director placement for Jonathan Demme, but anyway, I expect a number of these things to slip and slide as more and more pundits sign on and commit.

    Check out the new Buzzmeter here.