• PR experts tell Kim Masters that critical pans of “The Tourist” could make Angelina Jolie’s support for her Golden Globe nomination in the form of attending the ceremony “potentially embarrassing.” [Hollywood Reporter]
• Guy Adams, meanwhile, takes aim at the HFPA’s susceptibility to bribery this year. [The Independent]
• The 25 best performances from 2010 that won’t win Oscars. [Vulture]
True to form, the Golden Globe nominations are a buffet of the good, the bad and the unconscionably hideous — with perhaps a touch more emphasis than usual on the third of those this year. I refer, of course, to those largely mortifying Comedy/Musical races, where HFPA voters solved the lack of obvious contenders this year by giving in to their randiest star-shagging urges.
Welcome to the Best Picture race, “Red,” “The Tourist” and (pauses to cross himself and say three Hail Marys) “Alice in Wonderland.” Or, you know, not. Congratulations on your double-shot of well-deserved Best Actor nominations, Mr. Depp. Or, you know, not. Sorry, Sally Hawkins, we liked you just fine in “Made in Dagenham,” but Angelina Jolie was obviously working harder in her movie. Or, you know, not.
Still, even as we strike down upon the HFPA with great vengeance and furious anger, I’m feeling pretty chipper about some things: reviled as it is by many, “Burlesque” is the kind of grandly gaudy goof-off that I’m happy to see livening up the category, while my biggest air-punch of the morning came when my actress of the year Emma Stone’s name was read out for “Easy A.”
There has been some debate this morning in the British corner of the Twitterverse about the merits of The Guardian’s inaugural Film Power 100 list, which claims to represent the 100 industry figures current wielding the most power over, and influence on, UK filmgoers.
It’s an ungainly and frequently baffling collection of names, mashing together actors, directors, moguls and journalists, but as readers pick away at the inclusion of this star over that — and non-Brits scratch their heads and wonder who the hell Claudia Winkleman is — few are arguing with the paper’s #1 choice: the long-dormant but mightily resurrected James Cameron. They explain his selection as follows:
[H]e is almost the entire reason why [3D] is no longer viewed exclusively as a sideshow gimmick … No film-maker has taken a more passionate interest and involvement in cinema technology than this Canadian-born writer-director-producer, who pushed 3D and computer-generated character creation to a point of sophistication that would enable him to make his Pocahontas-goes-science-fiction extravaganza.
Sony recently announced a December release date for Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s English language debut “The Tourist,” starring Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie. It’s likely o be a commercial play (that will nevertheless be an SEO dream for webmasters), but the recently debuted trailer showcases a delightful performance from Depp. Check it out at Yahoo! Movies by clicking the image below or watch an embed after the jump. (Believe it or not there was actually a press release issued Monday announcing the upcoming launch of this trailer. Soon enough it’ll be the press release announcing the press release.)
It wasn’t by coincidence that the three photos decorating the season’s introductory installment of this column two weeks ago represented lead actress contenders in the 2010 Oscar race. After all the talk of 2009 being “the year of the woman,” owing much to the number of female directors who found themselves in the mix (and inevitably leading to Kathryn Bigelow’s history-making moment at the Kodak), I’m sensing an even better argument for 2010 as a singular season for the fairer sex.
Let’s start with the performances. By my count, there are already eight nominatable offerings from lead actresses this year (which contrasts drastically with a dearth of supporting hopefuls). This is just going by what I’ve seen, mind you.
For starters, Natalie Portman has dazzled the early festival season with her work in “Black Swan.” Lesley Manville, meanwhile (should she remain a lead focus), sets a high bar in “Another Year.” Despite my feelings on the film, Carey Mulligan really settles into a next-level groove in “Never Let Me Go,” and Jennifer Lawrence, of course (like Mulligan last year), has already become the year’s star-in-the-making story in “Winter’s Bone.”
Dovetailing with the performances themselves, there are also films that seem to reflect the theme in narrative. In “Secretariat,” for instance, Diane Lane capably (if a bit histrionically) portrays headstrong Penny Chenery, a woman of virtue in an era when she was expected to keep her head down and clean house. Similarly, Sally Hawkins absolutely kills as the Norma Rae-ish Rita O’Grady in “Made in Dagenham,” fighting for equal pay in a similar time (and she’s likely to be joined in the hunt by co-star Miranda Richardson for a fiery supporting turn). And we can’t forget the palpable feminism apparent in summer indie “The Kids Are All Right,” where Annette Bening and Julianne Moore both bring their “A” game.
It’s difficult to know how to interpret the news that “The Tourist,” the first English-language feature from Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, has been yanked forward into the 2010 release calendar, following a reportedly well-received screening for studio bosses. The film will now hit US theaters on December 10, a release date it shares with the latest “Chronicles of Narnia” instalment and, more pertinently, David O. Russell’s Oscar hopeful “The Fighter.”
Why difficult? Well, the buzz on the film has heretofore been so quiet that we have little idea what manner of beast it is. I haven’t seen “Anthony Zimmer,” Jérôme Salle’s well-regarded but underexposed 2005 French espionage thriller from which von Donnersmarck’s film is adapted, but it appears to be a lightweight genre effort.
While many will assume that the rescheduling positions “The Tourist” as a serious awards prospect, it could just be that Sony sees the film as a commercial winner for adult audiences in the pre-Christmas rush. (We only need look back at last year’s brutal holiday season to be reminded that a December release is no guarantee of awards gold.)
*All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.
Laziest headline ever? It’s that kind of Friday folks.
Hey boys! Anything you can do, Angelina Jolie can make look sexier and she’s here to prove it with “Salt.” Originally a vehicle for Tom Cruise, Jolie stepped in and is literally the only woman in Hollywood who can have action scripts rewritten and re-gendered to fit her interest. She’s also the only woman in Hollywood who is currently sleeping with Brad Pitt, so let me just add this up; Angelina Jolie-2, every other woman in Hollywood-0.
This clout came from solid performances for “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider,” “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” and “Wanted.” The last of which opened to a very strong and surprising $56.4 million back in 2008. Sure, it was based on a comic book and had other recognizable faces in it, but the marketing really didn’t have much going for it other than the promise of Jolie shooting ridiculous weapons and leaning out of cars.
She’s had less success when dipping into dramatic territory, with “Changeling” and “A Mighty Heart” earning her rave reviews but fizzling at the box office. Nobody wants to see those hit lips quivering like a victim. We want to see fights and just enough skin to warrant a PG-13 rating!
In exactly one week’s time, we’ll have a brand new list of Oscar nominations to pore over, pick apart and eventually file away in our subconscious with the other 81 editions of this annual collective. For Oscar geeks, nomination day is in many ways more exciting than the ceremony itself, celebrating a broader spectrum of work and throwing up far more surprises along the way.
For all that, once the winners are announced, the nomination list as a whole tends to be disregarded, returned to only by trivia buffs and the geekiest of Oscar geeks. (Guilty on both counts.) And that’s shame, because a field of five nominees can often be more illuminating viewed collectively than even the worthiest of individual champions.
Today’s list, then, is devoted to that most elusive of Oscar holy grails: the perfect nominee field.
Yes, more often than not, the Academy will nominate several notable achievements in a single category. But rarer than hen’s teeth are the robust Oscar categories that feature a full house of five outstanding nominees, five contenders that would all be worthy of a win in any other year. No unremarkable coaster nominees sliding in on the coattails of a popular picture. No bad films with an expensively studio-bought nominations. No filler. No fat. Just five superb achievements.
As someone who is neither a fan nor a detractor of Megan Fox, Lynn Hirschberg’s mammoth profile of the actress in yesterday’s New York Times made for fascinating, and rather upsetting, reading.
Less a straightforward interview than a scientific deconstruction of her star persona, the picture it paints is of a savvy career woman who has invested so much time and effort in building her public image that her own personality has been obscured — even to herself.
I have no real opinion of Fox as an actress, as we haven’t been given enough to judge her on: she is precisely as good (or bad, according to taste) as her roles demand in “Transformers” or “Jennifer’s Body.” Physically, she’s obviously attractive, but not sparky or distinctive enough to interest me personally.
1999 was a strange year. And it’s hard to believe a full decade has slipped past since. There were some great award-winning performances, to be sure, but there seemed to be just as many not nominated that certainly should have been.
Ten years later, I remain stunned that Reese Witherspoon was not nominated for her brilliant work in “Election” as a pathologically ambitious, grasping social climber student doing anything it takes to head up the student council in Alexander Payne’s astute and black comedy.
Witherspoon won the National Society of Film Critics award for Best Actress, besting eventual Oscar, LAFCA and NYFCC champ Hilary Swank in “Boys Don’t Cry.” What made Witherspoon’s work so incredible was that we all must have known a Tracy Flick during our high school days, and the actress created such an accurate depiction.
Swank was a most deserving winner for her superb performance, winning over nominees, Annette Bening in “American Beauty,” Janet McTeer in “Tumbleweeds,” Julianne Moore in “The End of the Affiar” and Meryl Streep in “Music of the Heart” (perhaps the perennial Oscar favorite’s least accomplished nominated performance).
Bening’s performance was brilliant, she won the Screen Actors Guild award for it, and though there seemed to be a swell of support for her as Oscar night approached, there was no denying Swank for her career-altering work.
I must say I’m always somewhat fascinated by the annual Forbes 100 Most Powerful Celebrities list, not least because I’ve never really understood how they arrive at it.
I have no doubt the financial publishing behemoth has some sort of intricate formula that factors in earnings and media exposure to somehow arrive at a rank order, but as a total idiot in such matters, I remain bewildered by a list that compares the wholly disparate (to me, at least) achievements of such figures as Rush Limbaugh, Ryan Seacrest and Roger Federer.
But compare them they have, and this year’s number-crunching informs us that Angelina Jolie is officially the most powerful celebrity in the world.
I suppose I won’t argue with that: while I wouldn’t call Jolie the most influential actress in the game at the moment (surely that title goes to Meryl Streep in her newfound incarnation as summer-movie titan, which landed her at #64 on Forbes’ list), “celebrity” is a very different animal, and the number of magazine covers Jolie graces weekly at a newsagent’s near you speaks for itself.
Clearly that kind of exposure is a more crucial factor in Forbes’ estimation than earnings, as I’d reckon Jolie’s personal fortune is meagre compared to that of runner-up Oprah Winfrey. Interestingly, the top four spots in the list are held by women, which belies more than a few media perceptions.
What do Paramore, The Rock and Kate Winslet have in common? Why, they’re all nominees for the 2009 MTV Movie Awards, of course. Like, duh.
I have no idea what the MTV Movie Awards are for. Nobody knows or cares who wins them. (Who took Best Actor laurels last year? I doubt Will Smith could tell you — and he won, for Chrissake.)
Subject to public vote, they serve largely as a popularity contest along the lines of People’s Choice honours — but then they taint the purity of such a credo by throwing in a mention for something incongruously credible like “Milk.” (In the prestigious Best Kiss category, to boot — how honoured Gus Van Sant must feel.)
Anyway, this year’s nominees are a typically ill-thought and ill-fitting bunch. “Twilight” leads the race, closely followed by “Slumdog Millionaire,” which should tell you pretty much everything you need to know about the awards. They claim that the nominations were also determined by the public, though I have a hard time believing that the same people who decreed Vin Diesel a Best Actor contender for “Fast & Furious” also voted Kate Winslet in for “The Reader.”
Speaking of which, there’s a delicious hint of Bizarro World in the Best Actress category, which finds Anne Hathaway repeating her nomination success at the Academy Awards — except, wait, it’s for “Bride Wars,” not “Rachel Getting Married.” Riiight. Angelina Jolie, meanwhile, finds herself in the race for “Wanted” rather than “Changeling” — though that’s a preference I heartily endorse.
One thing is worth noting, however: even the bloody MTV Awards could be bothered to nominate Bruce Springsteen’s “The Wrestler” theme. The Academy will never live that one down. (Check out the MTV nods here, if you dare.)
How did I miss this? From the Guardian’s Oscar wrap earlier this week:
When Miley Cyrus told news media that Angelina Jolie is her “favourite figure from history,” was it because she thinks that Jolie is Alexander the Great’s mother, Colin Farrell the King of Macedonia and Brad Pitt Achilles? Sure, why not?
Priceless. But let’s not be too hard on Cyrus … she is young, after all. With time, she’ll hopefully come to realize the full scale of the mighty struggles and triumphs endured by true historical heroes who changed the world for the better. You know, like Jennifer Aniston.
(PS. Changing the subject, but sticking with the theme of foot-in-mouth moments from Sunday’s proceedings, did anyone else shift uncomfortably in their seat when Michael Douglas gushed that Frank Langella far outstripped previous interpretations of Richard Nixon … all the while standing next to Anthony Hopkins? Late to bring it up, I know, but it’s been nagging at me.)
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.
• Patrick Goldstein reports on his self-moderated producers panel from last week’s Santa Barbara International Film Festival. [The Big Picture]
• The Gurus o’ Gold pick their ones and twos. [Movie City News]
• Angelina Jolie has, uh…misplaced her “Girl, Interrupted” Oscar. [Daily Telegraph]
• Tom O’Neil, meanwhile, gives Meryl Streep shit for leaving hers in the bathroom back in 1980. [Gold Derby]
• David Denby smacks “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” down for good measure. [The New Yorker]
• Jeffrey Wells is amused. [Hollywood Elsewhere]
• Mary McNamara talks to “five-time Oscar loser” Kate Winslet. [The Envelope]
• Susan King does the same with first-time nominee Frank Langella. [The Envelope]
• And speaking of Winslet, Tim Wilson writes up the box office symbiotism of her films across the pond. [The Guardian]
• Trying to get in on more of that tech action, Elizabeth Snead talks to “Benjamin Button” costumer Jacqueline West. [The Envelope]
• “Push” and “Cove” top the critics’ picks for the best of Sundance. [indieWIRE]
• Despite a nation-wide ban on Israeli products, two brave souls screen “Waltz with Bashir” in Beirut. [The Guardian]
• The Stanley Kubrick Holocaust film (and shining new ingenue) that almost was. [The Independent]
• Giving Kate Winslet shit across the pond for forgetting Angelina Jolie’s name at the Globes. [Daily Telegraph]
• The top 10 most bewildering Best Picture nominees. [Rope of Silicon]
Yesterday the Academy displayed just what a fractured organization they are, championing a small film like “Slumdog Millionaire,” for which I applaud them, but snubbing “The Dark Knight,” one of the best reviewed films of the year and a titan at the box office. All day I was asking, ‘How?’ All day I wondered just how out of touch this organization truly is and what a major overhaul is needed.
Call it ageism if you must, but we I think we need new blood in there. I have been covering the Academy Awards for more than 20 years and have had my share of disappointments and shocks over that span of time. One would think I’d get used to it.
I remember the rage when “Ghost” was nominated for Best Picture and when Roberto Begnini won Best Actor. That anger and shock was nothing like I felt yesterday morning at 8:30 Ontario time.
I could not speak. I closed my office door and quietly raged, trying to make sense of it. Reading the other reactions helped ease the wound (I take it personally you see when my films are snubbed) and tried to see the good in the nominations this year. And as Guy astutely points out, there is some good.
Melissa Leo in “Frozen River” made the cut, as did Richard Jenkins for “The Visitor.” Both deserved, both terrific performances. “Wall-E” grabbed a screenplay nod, as well as sound nominations, and “Slumdog Millionaire” did very well indeed, with 10 nods. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” lead the pack with 13 and Brad Pitt finally got a nomination for Best Actor — long overdue. Mickey Rourke and Marisa Tomei made the list for “The Wrestler” and all four major actors from “Doubt” are nominees.
Like I said, I’m on the record. I’ve given some left-field choices (as have you). But here are some lingering thoughts bouncing around inside my tired old head this evening:
1) I think we’re going to see tomorrow, finally, that “Rachel Getting Married” is nothing more than a critical fave. Personally, I liked it enough, but all the “one of the year’s best” talk was dubious to say the least. A SAG ensemble nod would have kept me quiet. Talk about a place it could have made a stand. And that WGA snub was just one more smack by the industry, in my view. Maybe it’s just like one voter told me: “I couldn’t stand these people.” Anne Hathaway, step up for the film’s consolation nod.
2) “Gran Torino,” “Gran Torino,” “Gran Torino.” I can’t say it enough…this film is creeping up. It’s possible it came on too late and Clint missed the timing this time out, but, like I’ve said…watch it. Personally I think it’s a bigger threat than “The Reader.” A bad-ass white guy kicking kids off his lawn or a porno about a sympathetic Nazi. Which film is going to resonate more with the Academy? You tell me.
3) Everyone says, in varying degrees, that everything from “The Dark Knight” to “Frost/Nixon” to “Milk” are on the bubble. But here’s a radical idea: what if the weak link is the film many have called cold and removed? “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” sure does have a lot of guild support…but so did “Dreamgirls.”
4) Could one of the biggest stories tomorrow be the snubbing of Brangelina? Some think he’s out, some think she’s out…but what if they’re both out? Eesh.
5) Better yet, might the biggest shock of the day be a “Man on Wire” snub in the documentary feature category? All I’m saying is films dominated by preexisting footage can struggle here sometimes.
Then again…maybe I’m off my rocker. But there you have it.
I’ve only made one prediction alteration, FYI, and that’s swapping “Slumdog Millionaire” for “Quantum of Solace” in the sound editing field. The latter was just an arbitrary choice to reflect the mixers’ feelings, but I’m thinking of a sweeper possibility there and I like the advenurous choice of “Slumdog” more than “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” But really, that category lately? Flip a coin.
Enjoy the morning.