Wrapping up my perspective on the year today, a personal list of superlatives, Oscar categories and other silly nonsense.
Swing back around on Monday for the ultimate wrap-up, my list of the best films of the decade.
Best Picture
“A Serious Man” (Focus Features)
Best Director
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, “A Serious Man”
Best Actor
Sharlto Copley, “District 9”
Best Actress
Gabourey Sidibe, “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
The Washington, D.C. Area Film Critics Association has kicked off the critics’ kudos season with a most uninspired list of nominations. I say uninspired because, aside from a random nomination for Maya Rudolph in the lead actress category, there doesn’t seem to be a single damn original bone in the group’s body.
“Up in the Air” led the way with 8 nominations and is pretty much on track to be the critics’ darling of the year, while “Precious” and “The Hurt Locker” each landed 7 each. I imagine a similar tally will be attributed to those films when the Oscar nominees are announced. Which raises the question: Are the D.C. critics trying to emulate AMPAS here? I never follow them closely, not beyond the requisite announcement posts each year (I tend to get REALLY burned out on all the critics’ awards, frankly).
But seriously. They had to see more than 33 films this year, right? Because out of 70 possible nominees, that’s how many films were spread across the field. Kind of sad, really.
Check out the full list of nominees after the jump. And the group’s list of winners last year here.
Tom O’Neil has pooled the thoughts of 16 awards-watchers on which 10 films will make the Best Picture cut, and the results make for ominously predictable reading.
All 16 agree that “The Hurt Locker” and “Invictus” are in (I guess it’s just me holding out on the latter then), while there’s near-consensus on the likes of “Precious,” “Up in the Air,” “Up” … you get the idea. Yawn. At this rate, the switch to 10 nominees looks to sap any excitement from this stage of the race whatsoever.
More interesting, then, is to venture further down the list to see what the pundits’ more out-on-a-limb picks are. One would like to think at least one of the slots has to be filled with something slightly less expected — otherwise what’s the point? So I turned my attention to the films receiving a solitary vote from one of O’Neil’s posse.
Those hoping for a foreign-language contender in the mix (no, “Inglourious Basterds” does not count) might want to look away, as not a single punter has one on their list, while things look similarly grim for documentaries.
Now is the time when everyone begins assessing the race at its beginnings, and the gist I’m getting is that no one really knows what to write about. Stabs at analysis end up being responses to other takes or rehashed arguments, and nothing really insightful is being brought to the table.
And let’s face it. As we dip into what looks to be the longest early-season lull in some time, there really is nothing insightful to offer. So let’s just spit-ball…
I think the Sony Classics acquisition of “The Last Station” is more significant than most seem to be aware right now. There are only a handful who have seen it (Telluride being the film’s only festival stop so far), so that’s understandable. And the film isn’t a knock-out, one that will be damned as merely efficient in some circles. But with Helen Mirren in the lead actress race, it’s worth noting that suddenly that category is further framed as the old guard versus the new.
And I may be wrong in my conviction, but I have to say it again: Mirren is VERY much in this race. As the fiery Countess wife of a literary titan, she brings equal parts passion and delicacy to a complicated, certainly flawed character. She’s afforded a number of moments that give her room to chew the scenery, and if Christopher Plummer happens to ride a wave of sentiment to a nomination as well, part of me feels that he will owe something to Mirren’s coattails.
My predictions for the leading ladies this week are Mirren, Meryl Streep, Carey Mulligan, Gabourey Sidibe and, my weak link, Marion Cotillard (who is expected to be a lead actress push for “Nine,” but things could change). In that collective we have three former winners, two legends of the form, two newbies and one performer shifting into the second gear of her career. I think that’s a pretty good balance.
Tuesday dawned gray, gusty and rain-spattered here in Edinburgh – the kind of morning where there’s nothing for it than to bury oneself in the comforting recesses of a dark movie theater – which, handily enough, is all that I had on my agenda for today.
After formulating a strategy over breakfast as to which films could be caught at a later date, I ended up deciding morning’s viewing with a coin-toss, a concession to fate that happily led to the droll delights of Australian animation “Mary and Max,” before my afternoon was given over to the festival’s rather more glossy opener, “Away We Go.”
As I write, Sam Mendes and cast members John Krasinski and Maggie Gyllenhaal are treading the red carpet to formally christen this year’s festival. (Not joining them is female lead Maya Rudolph, who, in an irony apparent to anyone who has seen the film, was unable to fly to Edinburgh because she is eight months pregnant.)
It’s a fitting opener, in the sense that its carefully negotiated balance between indie outsiderness and cozy Hollywood warmth reflects the transitory state of the Edinburgh Film Festival as a whole. Symbolic neatness aside, however, I see no context in which “Away We Go” (**1/2) can’t be regarded as a major disappointment from Sam Mendes.
After wrestling with dodgy wireless setups for the better part of the evening, I am happy to tell you that I’m comfortably installed in an Old Town coffee shop with an immaculate connection, so I can fill you in on the day’s doings.
Outside, it’s one of those balmy Scottish summer evenings with woozy, disconcertingly long daylight hours (the upside of coming in this season) while hordes of kilted, tourist-baiting middle-aged men parade the streets playing popular tunes adapted for the bagpipes (the considerable downside).
Anyway, I’m even happier to tell you the big festival news of the day. In a major get for a festival that usually deals in more low-key fare, Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist” has made a last-minute appearance on the programme. Edinburgh likely benefited from the film’s unexpectedly early UK release date of July 24 — otherwise you can bet the London Film Festival’s Sandra Hebron would have been all over it. Score one for the little guys.
The film will have its public screening next Wednesday, June 24. However, I’ll be seeing it at the press screening on Monday, and will do my level best to have a review for you shortly afterwards. Apologies to the Von Trier haters who thought the distraction of a festival might stem the “Antichrist” talk from my end for a while. I now await Monday with a mixture of breathlessness and extreme nerves.
In a little over an hour, I’ll be hopping on a (very) early morning train and making the 300 mile journey up north to Edinburgh. Ordinarily, this alone would be cause for excitement — for me, Scotland’s capital, with its curious combination of twisty Medieval quirk, stately academia and cooler-than-thou cultural swagger, is one of the most delightful cities in Europe. On this occasion, however, it boasts an extra drawcard — the Edinburgh International Film Festival.
It may lack the glamor of Cannes or the breadth of Toronto, but the EIFF has been modestly chugging along since 1947, making it one of the most senior of all international film festivals. It doesn’t necessarily get the glitzy international premieres that the London fest now commands, but it’s an essential date on the calendar for burgeoning UK and international filmmakers. Meanwhile, it supplements its sizable showcase of new talent with a scattering of classic retrospectives as well as new works from more established filmmakers.
Like its London counterpart, Edinburgh takes a similar “cherry-picking” approach to programming, selecting a number of proven successes from other festivals, as well as international markets. As a result, this year’s festival brings us the UK premieres of Sundance hits such as “Sin Nombre,” “Humpday” and “The Maid,” while the event I am most anticipating is the first post-Cannes screening of Andrea Arnold’s Jury Prize winner, “Fish Tank.”
Perhaps it’s telling that this recent Times interview with Sam Mendes mentions his latest film “Away We Go” in a single sentence, while focusing rather more attention on his upcoming theatrical double-bill, directing Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” and Shakespeare’s “The Winter’s Tale” for Kevin Spacey’s Old Vic in London. I have yet to see the thus-far coolly received new film (I’ll catch up with it in Edinburgh next week), but I’ve booked my theater tickets — and I know which evening I’m more excited about.
Be that as it may, it goes to demonstrate just what a busy guy he is at the moment: not many people can claim to have unveiled two major feature films and a weighty stage project in a six-month period. Not content with that, he also finds time to play cricket for a county team — there’s something I didn’t know.
As the interview makes clear, Mendes’ sudden spurt of creativity is a sort of compensation for four rather quiet years which he devoted to raising his young family. I hope he maintains the newfound energy level, given the variable nature of his filmography thus far — for a gifted filmmaker, inconsistency is best accompanied by prolificacy. (Ask Woody Allen or Clint Eastwood.)
(6/8 UPDATE: Variety is reporting this morning that, in a rare occurrence, “The Hangover” topped “Up” once actual numbers rolled in. “Final figures will show that ‘Hangover’ grossed $45 million from 3,269 runs,” Pamela McClintock writes. “‘Up’ should finish at $44.3 million to $44.4 million from 3,818 theaters.)
“Up” has now joined “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” and “Madea Goes to Jail” as the only 2009 releases to spend more than one week at the top of the box office. (EDITOR’S NOTE: Strike that. See update above.) A slim drop of 35% led to a weekend gross of $44.2 million and kept Carl Fredrickson floating above the competition en route to what surely will be one of the highest grossing totals of the summer. With $137 million in the bank already, it is pacing ahead of the 10-day tallies of “WALL-E,” “Ratatouille” and “Cars.” Anybody willing to bet on “Toy Story 3” breaking Pixar’s hot streak next summer? Didn’t think so.
Coming in a close second is “The Hangover.” Starring a bunch of nobodies (relatively speaking) and from a director five years removed from his last hit, there’s no reason this should have made $43.3 million this weekend. But it did and the only explanation is that audiences loved it. Test screenings started the word of mouth and it rolled all through the marketing campaign and what many of us saw coming as a possible sleeper hit of the summer has turned into something else entirely: a bona fide blockbuster. Even if it fails to double its debut (doubtful with word of mouth so good), it would still be a massive success for Warner Bros. No word yet on how much of the gross came from people so hungover that they forgot they already paid to see the movie the previous night as well.
Third place went to “Land of the Lost,” an unmitigated disaster. $19.5 million is what Universal would have hoped for in one day when they greenlit this sucker with a budget north of $100 million. Will Ferrell and dinosaurs seem like a smart combo to me but the trailers and buzz for this one labeled it a stinker long ago and nobody could decipher whether it was for kids or young adults. Director Brad Silberling has now sunk two potential franchise starters in a row (with “Lemony Snicket” being the other) and has to be sweating his career right now. And Danny McBride deserves better.
• Carmike Cinemas honcho S. David Passman III gets back to basics, like cleaning the bathrooms. (This story hits home with me because I grew up going to a shoddy Carmike theater.) [Company Town]
• Headline of the month. Not film related, but necessary for your morning LOL dose. [MyFoxBoston.com]
• Drew McWeeny dives head-long into the tank for Ubisoft’s “Avatar” video game with a detailed description of what must have been a breath-taking E3 demonstration. [Motion/Captured]
• Why Cannes awards mean squat for Oscar. [The Playlist]
• How “Slumdog Millionaire” is changing filmmaking in India. [The Guardian]
• Dumb list du jour… [Premiere]
• Paul Dano, “prince regent of independent film,” rides the subway. Just, you know, FYI. [The Times]
• Sam Mendes drew on Hal Ashby for “Away We Go” (he just missed the poignancy). [The Hollywood Interview]
• Searching for the Berkeley home that inspired Carl’s “Up” abode. [San Francisco Chronicle]
• CAA reaches out to James Cameron to represent the director’s new Fusion Camera System technology. [Deadline Hollywood Daily]
• Todd Leopold talks to the guys behind “Anvil!: The Story of Anvil.” [CNN]
• The complete list of tired movie cliches. [Empire]
• Mark Harris profiles Woody Allen and Larry David. [New York Magazine]
• Ethan Coen takes to the stage with “Offices,” a cycle of three short plays in the Big Apple. [The Guardian]
• Anne Thompson sums up the Cannes winners and losers, including her own list of the fest’s best films. [Thompson on Hollywood]
• Kyle Smith slams Sam Mendes’s “Away We Go” as likely appealing to the “German-army-surplus-jacket-wearing slacker demographic.” Ouch. [Lumenick on Film]
• The 60 greatest American war films. [Premiere]
• Is “man vs. machine” no longer a terrifying concept? [/Film]
• Nikki Finke points out the breaking of the 43rd seal: Shawn Levy has now directed six-straight #1 or #2 opening weekend box office champs. [Deadline Hollywood Daily]
• Top seven pre-“Jaws” summer movies. [Cinematical]
• McG discusses the alternate “Termiantor Salvation” ending that would have apparently made for amuch better film. [Entertainment Weekly]
I’ve been on board for most every Sam Mendes film since the director made his heralded debut in 1999. Even “Jarhead,” which was a big disappointment, had a lot of interesting ideas concerning the alienation of war and its effects on soldiers.
I still think last year’s “Revolutionary Road” (DVD coverage from John here) was a sublime work of art, but “Road to Perdition” probably remains his best work to date. It’s an intriguing portfolio. But “Away We Go” has been a troubling speed bump for me.
I saw the film weeks ago and wanted to give it another go before committing to an opinion, but I don’t know. The desire to wallow in its stereotypes and weirdly skewed view of the world just hasn’t been there.
Variety’s Dennis Harvey has written a review that kind of sums up my feelings, for the most part. I might not have been as harsh, but I understand feeling the need to do so:
…the protags are essentially blank slates, despite the skill and charm Krasinski and Rudolph bring to the roles. It’s their job simply to represent “normal” against so many illustrations of bad parenting, worse marriages and damaged adulthood. But given they’re such harmlessly pleasant folk, why don’t they have any non-messed-up friends?
Because that would un-stack the deck in a script that needs to paint them as two lonely souls in a hostile world. But in positing normal as special, the pic requires caricaturing almost everyone else.
While handled by resourceful actors, the foibles of the supporting characters are less funny than they are forced and unpleasant. Janney and Gyllenhaal in particular play figures venomously conceived.
Meant to amp up the pic’s indie-quirky cred, the soundtrack, papered with lyrically trite soundalike cuts by Scottish singer-songwriter Alexi Murdoch, instead makes progress seem more meandering and monotonous. Other design/tech contributions are solid. Still, this alternately condescending and hazy material doesn’t trigger the kind of sharp aesthetic choices Mendes and collaborators made in response to past projects from “American Beauty” to “Revolutionary Road.”
Same jaunty home-made aesthetic as the trailer. And hey, who knew Jonathan Franzen was playing romantic leads these days? Oh, wait.
Anyway, I like it, but I’m still having trouble squaring such imagery with the tag of “from director Sam Mendes.” Is this coming from a genuine place inside him, or did he think, “Hmm, I think I’ll try my hand at one of those gentle indie comedies that have done quite well lately?” Nothing wrong with that. Kudos for the change of pace, either way.
I’m excited for Mendes to seem him going this way creatively. And from “Revolutionary Road” to this, talk about an about face on the American romantic relationship:
Ahh. The dust is settling. And on the horizon, just visible through the mist and waiting to drive us all up the wall once again: the 2009 Oscar season.
I’ve been writing this year-in-advance column for probably six years now, and I always look forward to gazing ahead. No one dives in so pathetically deep this far out as yours truly, but in exchange for not having a life for the past few months, I get to unload this burden the day after our annual season’s peak and forget about little gold men entirely for a few months.
It’s quite liberating.
The most interesting thing about the season to come, from my vantage point, is the lack of a dreaded “frontrunner status” for any of the contenders. Some might say Clint Eastwood’s Nelson Mandela project (which is not called “The Human Factor,” mind you — the director says the film is currently untitled and is based on John Carlin’s book “Playing the Enemy”).
Others might say Rob Marshall’s “Nine” (coming from a money-tight company hoping to avoid echoes of “Memoirs of a Geisha”). But I don’t see a “Geisha” from here, or a “Charlie Wilson’s War,” expected heavies waiting to miss the mark. The field is curiously flat, and as a result, excitingly broad.
Let’s get to it, shall we?