Joaquin Phoenix made his return to The Late Show last night following his performance art appearance a year and a half ago which made plenty of headlines. With the reality of “I’m Still Here” out in the open, it made for a “how could you not know” session. Letterman was reportedly in on the gag but the interview played out like he didn’t know and only assumed it was all just a put-on. In any case, it’s kind of the closing chapter in a saga that has irritated and amused many. Here’s the full appearance:
Tag: Joaquin Phoenix
-
Teasing Phoenix’s return to Letterman
Now that the cat’s out of the bag on “I’m Still Here,” all eyes are on The Late Show tonight where Joaquin Phoenix parks it on David Letterman’s chair one more time. Courtesy of The Hollywood Reporter, here’s a rather, well, nothing teaser clip of tonight’s appearance, which would have wrapped filming I guess about five ours ago:
Once the entire appearance is available I’ll try to track down an embed and post it up.
-
WEEKLY WRAP: Venice winners, Toronto bites, ‘Network’ raves
• Sofia Coppola’s “Somewhere” surprised many by taking top honors at the Venice Film Festival; we took a closer look at the Lido winners.• Meanwhile, we were considerably less than wowed by the festival closer, Julie Taymor’s “The Tempest.”
• This week’s Off the Carpet column reflected on the unusual depth of this year’s Best Actress race.
• A race that subsequently got even deeper as Lionsgate made the biggest acquisition thus far of this year’s Toronto fest: Nicole Kidman’s comeback effort “Rabbit Hole.”
-
Casey Affleck: “Gotcha!”
Obviously “Catfish” isn’t the only documentary leaving people wondering whether everything we see is legitimate. Casey Affleck’s “I’m Still Here,” a chronicle of Joaquin Phoenix’s abandonment of his acting career in favor of a passion for, hip-hop has had many puzzled since Phoenix’s awkward appearance on The Late Show over a year ago. I’ve always felt like it was a put-on but, well, it just never let up.Well, Affleck would like to come clean. The clues have been scattered around since the film bowed in Venice, but in an interview with the New York Times’ Michael Cieply, Affleck says, “It’s a terrific performance, it’s the performance of his career.” None of it was real, despite Affleck saying he “never intended to trick anybody.” But the great mystery is settled.
Whether or not the film is as poignant a study of falling from grace is still up in the air. We can’t be sure how much the idea that everything happening was real might have affected the numerous negative opinions of the film. Then again, in Venice, Guy noted that the film “is probably more interesting viewed as an immensely committed, avant-garde performance piece by Phoenix” and “a ragged but grimly compelling essay on our vile celebrity-news culture.”
In any case, the cat’s out of the bag, and Phoenix will land back on Letterman’s couch — out of character, this time — on September 22.
[Photo: People]
-
SHORT TAKE: “I’m Still Here” (**1/2)
Venice Film Festival“This is the moment where the fucking good guy wins,” yells an evidently kite-high Joaquin Phoenix at a hapless member of his entourage, midway through his brother-in-law Casey Affleck’s debatable documentary portrait of the star’s much-publicized career meltdown.
It’s a little difficult to spot the victory – or, indeed, the good guy – in this and many other such tantrums that pepper “I’m Still Here”: the film can be interpreted in a number of ways, and Phoenix comes off pretty awfully in most of them. Is it all a hoax? More specifically, could Phoenix’s actions – his abrupt 2008 “retirement” from the screen, his intended hip-hop career, his bizarre new American-Apparel-rabbi look – all be an elaborate stunt, and the film somehow not?
Affleck was predictably unforthcoming in this morning’s press conference: “Elliptical” was his one-word answer when asked how he felt about the allegations of fakery, supported by certain scenes in the film that have obviously been (re)staged. (The closing credits feature a cast list in which not every player is billed as themselves.)
-
‘I’m Still Here’ trailer
In case you’re interested in the Casey Affleck documentary about his brother-in-law Joaquin Phoenix’s attempt at a rap career and either serious-as-cancer or totally put-on downward spiral, the trailer for “I’m Still Here” has landed at Yaho0! Movies. But is it just me or is this whole thing all a bit stale already? How long ago was the Letterman appearance, anyway? And the weird red carpet interview? Oh well, check out the trailer by clicking the image below or watch the embed after the jump.
-
‘I’m Still Here’ poster
I’m not entirely sure what manner of beast Casey Affleck’s upcoming documentary about his friend Joaquin Phoenix’s 2008 retirement/reinvention/stunt/freakout is: it claims to be a sincere portrait underpinned by mutual understanding between artists, but it could just as well be the latest archly ironic act in this most slow-burning of celebrity pranks. Whether it answers any questions or simply adds more to the list, however, it’s bound to be one of the hottest tickets at next month’s Venice Film Festival, where it will premiere out of competition. (Alongside Casey’s brother Ben’s “The Town” — the Lido likes it some Affleck this year.) It also boasts one of 2010’s loveliest one-sheets, by the great Kellerhouse, Inc. — perhaps the only time the word “lovely” could be applied to the look Phoenix is rocking here.
-
The Great Performances: 2005
2005 was the year of Heath Ledger’s beautiful, moving performance in “Brokeback Mountain,” which I saw for the first time in Toronto. It instantly became the talk of the festival, and the film became the one to beat for the Academy Award.Ledger was astonishing as the taciturn cowboy who is more surprised than anybody when his soulmate turns out to be another cowboy, portrayed superbly by Jake Gyllenhall. If there is a more deeply felt moment in film history than Ledger gently adjusting Gyllenhall’s shirt at the end of the film, his eyes filled with tears, I don’t know what it is. That’s loss, that is absolute heartbreak, that is one of the greatest acting performances of the decade.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman would win the Oscar for his transformation into “Capote” and he’s very good, but just not in the same league as Ledger. I wondered from time to time if “Infamous” had been released earlier if Toby Jones might have won the Oscar instead of Hoffman. Each becomes Capote in a very different manner, and side by side it is difficult to choose the stronger portrayal. Certainly I prefer Hoffman’s as it is darker, and for me more realistic, but there can be no denying Jones.
-
1/29 Oscarweb Round-up
• Looks like Mickey Rourke isn’t going to get into the ring after all. [Associated Press]• Perhaps in response to snarky items like this? [Vulture]
• Kim Voynar deconstructs the Oscar nominations a week later. [Movie City News]
• In case it wasn’t obvious from the start, Joaquin Phoenix has been punkin’ y’all. [Entertainment Weekly]
• Anne Thompson wonders if “Milk” is coming up on the outside. I’ve heard some people here in Santa Barbara call it the #2 film in the mix, which it certainly might be. Very interesting… [Thompson on Hollywood]
• An opportune time for a story like this. (If we really, REALLY want to get all conspiracy theorist about it, The Times is the Telegraph’s conservative competition. And who owns The Times?) [Daily Telegraph]
• Rather than post the emailed producers’ statement myself, I’ll just point you to Sasha Stone’s post with the full release. [Awards Daily]
• Following that awesome Newsweek actors round table, Patrick Goldstein worships at the altar of Frank Langella (who, I just discovered today, is friggin’ 71 — now THAT’s aging well). [The Big Pucture]
-
‘Two Lovers’
This US trailer for James Gray’s wispy throwback romance has been knocking around for a little while, but it only came to my attention now. It’s a minor-key work that admittedly isn’t flattered by the rather prosaic trailer, though it’s been lauded (like all Gray’s films) in France, and I was rather charmed by it at the London Film Festival back in October.
Whether this really will be the last we see of Phoenix on screen is still open to question, but it’s a vivid, award-level turn that galvanises the otherwise slight enterprise; Gwyneth Paltrow, meanwhile, contributes her most engaging work in a decade. Look out for it.
-
SHORT TAKE: “Two Lovers” (***)
London Film FestivalBar the odd appearance of a text message or Ecstasy tablet, James Gray’s “Two Lovers,” a disarmingly modest tale of misdirected passion, could just as easily be set in 1958 as in the present day. This is both one of its charms and one of its failings.
The premise is unfussy and somewhat familiar. Devastated after being left by his fiancee, shy Brooklynite Leonard (Joaquin Phoenix) moves back in with his concerned parents, who set him up with Sandra (Vinessa Shaw), the sweet, plain daughter of family friends. Leonard, however, is more attracted to his neighbor Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), a glamorous but deeply troubled young woman, hopelessly entangled with a married man. She initially adopts Leonard as a confidante, but with time, the relationship grows closer and more complicated.
As has been noted by other critics, this is very much early Paddy Chayefsky territory, recalling works like “Marty” and “The Bachelor Party” in its low-fi drama and shabby middle-class milieu. This is still a New York where neighbors converse window-to-window across apartment block courtyards. The old-fashioned structure of this love triangle (boy finds himself caught between the homely good girl and the beautiful bad one) and the gentleness with which the relationships unfold are unusual in today’s cinematic landscape, where urban adult romance usually has to come packaged in the tropes of higher-concept romcom.
However, amid the throwback trappings and finely etched sense of melancholy, the film doesn’t have all that much to say about contemporary relationships. Modern notions of gender and sexuality never really come into play; Michelle, in particular, seems remarkably limited in her outlook for a 21st century woman. The story is clearly intended to have a timeless quality — heartbreak never goes out of style, after all — but the downside of that is a complete inability to surprise, especially in the final act. (The tartly unhappy “happy ending,” however, is beautifully executed.)
What “Two Lovers” does provide is a strong showcase for Phoenix in a rare everyman role. Paltrow’s Michelle, meanwhile, is equal parts goofy vulnerability and chilly allure. She hasn’t been this alert and unaffected on screen in quite some time. But above all, the film represents a welcome change of pace for Gray. Despite its occasional obviousness, his storytelling here has more immediacy and conviction. Thanks in no small part to his actors, this is the first James Gray film that could be ascribed the adjective “moving,” even if you always know where it’s moving to.
-
Sean Penn defends ‘Che’
British film magazine Sight & Sound has a nice new tradition of interviewing the jury president of the most recent Cannes Film Festival, which makes for interesting reading. (Last year’s prez, Stephen Frears, presciently predicted in his interview that “No Country for Old Men” would “do really well,” despite not winning anything at the festival.)Unsurprisingly, 2008 president Sean Penn is rather more candid in his interview with Richard T. Kelly. After admitting that he had four clear favourites in the competition (two of which, “The Class” and “Che,” were unanimously awarded their respective Palme d’Or and Best Actor prizes), he then launches into an impassioned defence of Steven Soderbergh’s polarising opus, as well as an attack on the journalists who dismissed it:
Right through the festival I had no awareness of what the ‘buzz’ was, and I shut people down if they tried to talk about movies in front of me. But when I did a little bit of catch-up browsing afterward I read some of the stupidest, ugliest, most cynical responses to what had gone on, and I had the front-seat to be aware of their inconsistencies.
“Che” is a great example. I pray it finds distribution in the four-hour-plus form I saw, because otherwise people will be missing out. The film-making is stellar: there are so many details in the execution of that huge story. Every sentiment about Guevara I’ve heard passionately expressed when I’ve travelled in Cuba and South America was not only dramatised, but without exposition, seamlessly, fulfilling the narrative. Then you have one of the first tour de force performances in film history that doesn’t rely on the close-up.
This is a film, I later find, that had some negative responses…I was in a jury room of nine people with more expertise in their big toenails than any of the people writing in these papers: nine out of nine wanted to go out and change the world afterwards.
-
Cannes update: Eastwood scores…again
Well, I’m pleased to report that my initial doubts about Clint Eastwood’s latest, “Changeling,” were obviously unfounded.His Angelina Jolie-starrer, based on a true story about a child’s kidnapping in 1920s Los Angeles, premiered this morning at Cannes, and, judging from the reviews so far, the man’s impeccable recent run of form hasn’t hit a snag yet. (Incidentally, both Jeff Wells and Screen Daily report that the film has been retitled “The Exchange,” a far less intriguing title, in my opinion. However, some trade papers are still going by the original title in the reviews, so I’m sticking with that for now.)
Clearly, however, the film’s a stunner by any name. Todd McCarthy’s rave for Variety puts it thus:
A thematic companion piece to “Mystic River,” but more complex and far-reaching, “Changeling” impressively continues Clint Eastwood’s great run of ambitious late-career pictures … Graced by a top-notch performance from Angelina Jolie, the Universal release looks poised to do some serious business upon tentatively scheduled opening late in the year.
McCarthy also puts to rest the rumours that film was a foray into hysterical genre territory, which I admit had me concerned for its awards prospects:
Fears that the story is now destined to veer off into “The Snake Pit” or, given Jolie’s presence, “Girl, Interrupted” looney-bin horrors prove largely unfounded, despite a couple of brief electroshock scenes. Rather, this is where the picture really spreads its wings, as ramifications of this tragic but unexceptional case seep through the police department, the legal system, the medical establishment and City Hall in entirely unexpected ways.
The word on the other side of the Atlantic is just as hot. In his Screen Daily review, Mike Goodridge minces no words abouts the film’s quality or its prospects:
Beautifully produced and guided by Eastwood’s elegant, unostentatious hand, it also boasts a career-best performance by Angelina Jolie who has never been this compelling. Like “Mystic River” in 2003, it should go all the way from the Palais to the Academy Awards next March.
-
SHORT TAKE: “Walk the Line” (***)
You’ll soon see Joaquin Phoenix tearing up the screen with a blistering performance in the story of a seminal rock star’s fascinating life in “Walk the Line” – but it ain’t Johnny Cash.The film works very well on its own terms, but I have to say – I just don’t like the terms. On performances, the singing in the film is unbelievably on point. Reese Witherspoon is fantastic and it’s perhaps her best work yet – a proud moment for the dearly departed Carter.
And Phoenix is on fire, even if I felt like I was watching Joaquin Phoenix the whole time. You see, I never once felt like this was Johnny Cash – unlike Jamie Foxx in “Ray.” And is it really wise to make your main character THIS loathsome for the entire film? Is it even that interesting to do so? Is it very respectful to hold Cash up as a junkie first and foremost? Talk about pillaging a legacy.