In Contention

Tag: Laurence Mark

  • THE LISTS: Top 10 movie-related moments of 2009

    UpAs the year (and decade) slowly winds down, I thought it would be a pretty good time to revive our long-slumbering Lists feature here at In Contention. And what better way to do so and salute the year at hand than to lay out the most significant movie-related moments of 2009?

    The American Film Institute kind of tried its hand at this yesterday. I was already considering a list along these lines, but the AFI thing definitely got my the ole’ gears turning once again. Suffice it to say, I think they missed a few spots.

    It was an intriguing year. For me, as mentioned many times, it was the best year of filmmaking the decade has seen. But it was also a pivotal year for the film industry, as everything from standardized digital projection to 3D technology, experimental distribution schemes to economic effects on the business seemed to be on the table as points of consideration along the way.

    It was the first year of the Obama administration, something that found its way into the arts discussion as well. Whether it was the consideration of “Slumdog Millionaire” (which ultimately won the Best Picture Oscar this year) as the “first film of the Obama era” or the desire to include films like “Precious” (a stretch) and “Invictus” (not such a stretch) in that conversation, the political environment, as ever, was in the cinema air.

    It was a year of many things, so obviously, a list like this could be filled with any number of instances. But these 10 stuck out to me as the most significant ticks on the clock of 2009. Agree, disagree, whatever the case, don’t look too hard for a “Twilight” mention (though I suppose one may have been warranted).

    My picks…

    (more…)

  • Hanks was AMPAS’s first choice for President, search is on for telecast talent

    Tom HanksI stumbled onto this item over at Deadline Hollywood Daily earlier this afternoon.  Apparently Tom Hanks, who was elected First Vice-President of the Academy earlier this week, was the group’s first choice for the top spot.  In fact, Tom Sherak, who was ultimately elected president, is the one who nominated Hanks in the first place.

    Here’s what Nikki Finke dug up:

    Sherak…thought Hanks could be a “Gregory Peck-type” AMPAS leader. But insiders tell me Hanks declined, saying he “didn’t feel he could put the time in”. So his name was withdrawn, and that’s when Sherak got the gig. At least it’s comforting to know that AMPAS’ and Sherak’s heads were in the right place by wanting an actor instead of two back-to-back studio shills.

    (more…)

  • To the Oscar grouches

    Hugh Jackman at the 81st annual Academy AwardsAlright, we already we handled the “Slumdog Millionaire” backlash and overall sense of hatred toward the film from movie-goers who simply couldn’t handle the boredom of an awards season that was written.  Today, it’s time to take the folks to task who couldn’t get to their computers quickly enough to bemoan the Academy’s presentation of 25 honors Sunday night.

    Patrick Goldstein and Mary McNamara were two of the first to cut loose, leaving their own LA Times colleague T.J. Simers to wonder if they thought they could have done a better job.  And we all knew Nikki Finke was going to breathe fire because that’s what crotchety dragons do.

    And yet, despite the sniping — ratings were up.  And they’ll probably go up again next year just due to the anticipation created by this year’s telecast, which was the plan all along.

    Pete Hammond, in his final installment of Notes on a Season this year, addressed the issue with this wrap-up of the reaction to the reaction:

    It was fitting that it all ended Sunday night with an Oscar ceremony that was one for the ages — a beautifully produced show by Bill Condon and Laurence Mark that captured everything we still love about movies and the Academy Awards. Those bloggers, columnists and critics out there who were panning it before it was even over have had to run back into their holes and take cover from the vociferous reaction, in and out of the industry, to their ill-conceived attack.

    “I don’t get the criticism,” one longtime academy member told me Monday. “This was an amazing show. You could just feel it in waves as it went along. Those guys [Condon and Mark], they are really good.”

    I’m told the academy itself was fielding numerous calls complaining about the complainers — but, hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion even if it was formed before the show made it to the air. You can’t please everyone, but with this production the Academy got back on track — and the 13% increase in ratings was the cherry on top. Here’s hoping this team returns next year. Clearly, the public still has a jones on for the Oscars when they are produced with smarts and style.

    Smack down.

  • Ratings were up!

    From Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily:

    News reports this morning say the 81st Academy Awards broadcast delivered increased ratings in the 50 or so biggest U.S. markets, up about 6% over 2008 which registered the lowest ratings in the history of the telecast. New York delivered the largest rating Sunday (34.1/49 share), followed by Chicago (31.2/46) and Los Angeles (28.1/44). For the night, ABC beat the combined household delivery of CBS, NBC and Fox by roughly 30%. If this holds (and a more complete Nielsen report will come out later today), then Oscars producers Larry Mark and Bill Condon, as well as host Hugh Jackman, and director Roger Goodman, and designer David Rockwell, did AMPAS proud by at least reversing the recent downward spiral.

    Here is the AP story she’s sourcing but not linking, mind you.  And lest she stop being herself, let it be known that Nikki hated the show.  I always get an icky feeling when I link to her…

  • A private function

    When all is said and done, it wasn’t an awards season that deserved a fireworks finish, so perhaps last night’s muted, largely tasteful, faintly insular ceremony was an appropriate summation. It ran smoothly enough, with a handful of novel distractions and a uniformly generous, empathetic spirit running through the night’s speeches –- but I’d be hard pressed to remember many notable ‘moments’ from last night’s proceedings a week from now, let alone years hence.

    Part of that stems from the fact that, as has been discussed ad nauseum on these and other pages, we had a less-than-stellar field of contenders to work with. But I’m afraid I must slide into the apparently tiny glass-half-empty minority on the show itself –- as efficiently and enthusiastically as the show unfolded, I simply didn’t find all that much to love about it. As Danny Boyle suggested in the midst of yet another boundless, winning acceptance speech (can we find something for him to win every year, please?), it looked like a blast for those present, but I’m not sure the clubby, “we’re all in this together” vibe really translated to the distance of a TV screen.

    After the cloak-and-dagger secrecy shrouding Bill Condon and Laurence Mark’s revised take on the Oscars, I must say I was expecting a slicker, more dramatic reworking of the format –- and on that front, I must say I was a little disappointed. Hugh Jackman was certainly a game, likeable emcee, but I wasn’t certain who the target audience for his big set pieces was. Equal parts Crystal-esque shtick and endearingly naff “let’s put on a show” razzle-dazzle, both elements seemed to me too dated to court the broader, younger, hipper viewership the Academy wanted. The Baz Luhrmann-staged musical number at the centre was fun in itself, but existed in a similar cultural vacuum, despite the presence of current pop phenomena like Beyonce or Zac Efron. For all the hype, this was familiar content.

    (more…)

  • POLL: What did you think of the Oscarcast?

    Very easy thumbs up, thumbs down poll this week.  But please, keep your opinions of the winners out of it.  We’re interested in what you thought of the actual show.  Let Bill Condon and Larry Mark know what you thought in the sidebar poll.

  • ‘Slumdog’ takes 8 trophies as Oscar keeps it under 190 minutes

    Danny Boyle at the 81st annual Academy AwardsIn the final analysis, there isn’t much to say other than: What a captivating way to put a bow on the worst and, ultimately, most boring Oscar season of all time.  The 81st annual Academy Awards swiftly went down earlier this evening with few surprise winners and a classy new sheen.  It was captivating and, at times, inspiring.  Here are my thoughts on Hollywood’s biggest night:

    The winners
    I did extremely well with my predictions this year, nailing 21 of the 24 categories and making good with gambles in the foreign language film and short film categories.  I stuck with my heart on Mickey Rourke despite the smart money being on Sean Penn, but regardless of the strong desire to see the former holding an Oscar in his hands and delivering one more barn-burning speech, it is, of course, impossible to argue with Sean Penn’s expert work in “Milk.”  His heartfelt acceptance was a highlight and it all felt somehow more complete than it did five years ago.

    That “Departures” win took the wind out of the sails of one of the year’s most ingenious productions and yes, this is a committee that still needs a major overhaul.  I don’t think I could possibly say it enough.  That should take nothing away from Japan’s victory, mind you, because their submission is a delightful film that won’t deserve most of the ill will coming its way from those who haven’t even seen it.  But “Bashir” seems to have wrongfully faced an uphill battle from the start.

    The sound categories (hotly debated all week) proved once again that the Academy doesn’t understand the impact of mixers and editors on animated films.  “Slumdog Millionaire” took the mixing award (I’m kicking myself for changing that), while “The Dark Knight” took the sound editing trophy.

    Regarding those shorts, by the way, Pixar remains winless in the animated field since 2001’s “For the Birds” (the gorgeous “La Maison en Petits Cubes” rightly won tonight), while “Toyland,” with its ambitious structure (for a short) and obviously baity subject matter reigned supreme in live action.

    The only award I missed kind of irritated me, I have to admit: Best Documentary Short.  “Smile Pinki” took down what I thought to be the best of the field (and being the most cinematic, the most likely winner), Steve Okazaki’s “The Conscience of Nhem En.”  But there was a concerted publicity effort behind the former that maybe I should have paid more attention to.

    (More, plus a full list of tonight’s Oscar winners, after the jump.)

    (more…)

  • “It’s just us talking. It’s Oscar night.”

    Tom Cruise at the 74th annual Academy AwardsThere’s always a healthy amount of irritation slung about during an Oscar season regarding the 6,000-strong body of men and women charged with choosing the year’s “best” in filmmaking accomplishment.  Some say the group is out of touch, others say voters aren’t educated enough in the arenas they choose to award.  For me, I’ve always felt like the group doesn’t approach the task with the proper amount of care and sense of responsibility, a responsibility that should be taken quite seriously.

    With that in mind, and regardless of any public bias against the man speaking the words (I’ve gone into that before), this Tom Cruise monologue that opened the 2002 Oscar telecast, six months after the 9/11 World Trade Center attack, crackles with the kind of spirit I wish was always apparent out of this organization.  When moments of passion such as this are few and far between, moments which lack any real sense of dishonesty or showmanship (beyond Cruise’s skill as an orator), I feel there is something wrong with the proceedings.

    I know Bill Condon and Larry Mark are going to aim at making tonight swift and fun, but I hope it doesn’t lose a certain well-intentioned sense of sincerity and duty.  It’s a tough line to walk, and a thin one between self-righteousness and honest passion.  Cruise nailed it.

  • Curiouser and curiouser

    I have to say, it’s a stroke of luck that the most predictable Oscar race in some years at least happens to conicide with the most unpredictable Oscar ceremony. It’s as if Bill Condon and Laurence Mark knew that they had to pull out all the stops in reconfiguring the show to make up for a slate of nominees that could not have been more cautious. The few hints that have been dropped so far (including a radically altered stage design) suggest that, whether it sinks or soars, something very different is in store.

    Pete Hammond has written an interesting piece in which he considers the information we have so far, and wonders what bearing this year’s ceremony might have on the Oscarcast’s long-term future. He acknowledges the canniness of Condon and Mark’s semi-veiled strategy thus far (suggesting, I suspect  accurately, that the “leaked” news of Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron as presenters was in fact calculated to lure in younger viewers), and drops this tantalising bit of gossip:

    Oscar director Roger Goodman has worked with the new producers the past few weeks. A friend who sat with him the other night at the Scientific and Technical Awards ceremony said Goodman was characterizing Condon as a certified genius.

    OK, maybe this is a lot of hype. But … Oscar-nominated producer, Bruce Cohen said he had heard the same kind of talk.  He mentioned that Condon and Mark had presented their plans for the show to the academy’s board of governors two weeks ago and the board was blown away. If you can wow this crowd, you must be on to something.

    (more…)

  • If it ain’t broke…

    A change is as good as a feast. I’m the last person to deny that. And for the most part, I’ve been down with the changes to this year’s Oscarcast promised by producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark.

    I’m on the record as saying I think Hugh Jackman is an inspired gamble as a choice of host. And while I’m concerned that Queen Latifah singing along to the “In Memoriam” montage has the makings of an all-out kitschfest, I’m nonetheless interested to see how it plays out.

    But there’s one change, one that a number of people still don’t seem to be aware of, that I’m not happy with at all. And that’s dispensing with the tradition (of the past couple of decades) of having last year’s winners present this year’s acting awards. As Susan Wloszczyna wrote in her interview with the pair a few weeks back:

    Instead of lining up last year’s winners and stars with upcoming movies to tout, Condon and Mark are reaching out to those names associated with a 2008 movie. And there will be a few blasts from Hollywood’s past, too.

    (more…)

  • Hugh Jackman finally talks his Oscar hosting gig

    Hugh JackmanIn the first interview I’ve come across where he talks at length about his upcoming Oscar emcee gig, Hugh Jackman talks to ABC’s OntheRedCarpet.com about memories watching Johnny Carson and Billy Crystal hosting the show, plans for a “twist” in the natural order of things and his overall philosophy on the job at hand.  It’s a fascinating four-and-a-half minute video well worth a look (and listen).

    Here are some highlights:

    It’s one of those nights where it seems the whole world takes the night off and enjoys the show.  What I was most excited about was, and I don’t want to give anything away, but there’s a twist this year.  I feel like I’m part of something new, part of a new initiative, a new era.  It feels like [Oscarcast producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon] are guiding me in a way that will make the show fun and quicker.

    We say “host” here, but in my country we would call it an “emcee” or a “master of ceremonies.”  Your job is to ensure that everyone has the best time possible and has a great night.  I don’t feel the show should be about the host.  My role is to keep the night flowing, fun, to keep it inclusive.  I have a game plan, I have a number of stuff written and things like that but at the same time I think it’s also important as the host to be ready to go with whatever happens.  I think my experience in theater is no matter what you’re doing, you want to give people that sense that anything can happen, and let’s face it, at the Oscars, anything can.

    Check out the video here.

  • Wait…Queen Latifah to sing during ‘In Memoriam’ segment?

    Queen LatifahThis, I can’t go along with.  I’ve been one of the biggest supporters of whatever Bill Condon and Laurence Mark can cook up, but crooning during a segment like this?  And Queen Latifah of all people (who I love, mind you)?  I don’t like it.  Maybe it’ll work but I’m skeptical.

    From E!:

    I can exclusively reveal that Queen has signed on to sing during the awards show’s annual “In Memoriam” montage, paying tribute to Industry leaders who passed away in the last year.

    But what will she be singing?

    Easy: “I’ll Be Seeing You,” a song with a long run in Hollywood. Originally from the 1938 Broadway musical Right This Way, it became popular as the theme to Liberace’s 1950s TV show, and was used in Crimes and Misdemeanors, Misery and The Notebook and during the closing credits for the last episode of Beavis and Butt-head.

  • Solid proof Condon/Mark is the right call

    “Dreagirls” was on HBO last night and even though I’m long on the record for not being a fan, I still give it a look from time to time.  I caught the last act or so and the closing credits sequence, and I had forgotten how dazzling that sequence is.  You probably remember it: every single aspect of the production, form the costume design to the film editing, the coreography and sound to the art direction, each element was treated to its own bit of razzle dazzle over the credits.

    Multiple angles for the editor, sketches for production and costume design, appropriate visuals throughout.  It’s a really special sequence, I think, and one that exhibits Condon’s clear affinity for the medium.  I’m sure he’ll bring every ounce of that passion into the Oscar cast in just under two weeks’ time, and no matter how boring the eventual outcome (for those bored by things like, I don’t know, the best film of the year winning Best Picture), I think we’ll all be in for a treat.

    I tried to find a YouTube clip of that “Dreamgirls” credits sequence, by the way, but no luck.  Go check it out again if you have a chance, though.  Lots of heart in that bit.

  • 2/6 Oscarweb Round-up

    Richard Jenkins• David Poland is probably wrong on two counts at the top of his recent Oscar column (certainly plkenty of us had our sites set on Davis and Shannon going into this awards season), but we’ll give him some slack. [Movie City News]

    • David Carr, via video, talks about Bill Condon and Larry Mark futzing with the traditional Oscar show format. [The Carpetbagger]

    • Dammit.  I thought something was fishy when I had to shell out money hand over fist for some Boss tickets Monday. [The Big Picture]

    • Getting to know Oscar nominee Courtney Hunt. [The Guardian]

    • Dave Karger bangs the drum for Oscar underdog Richard Jenkins. [Entertainment Weekly]

    • The annual “how the Oscar statuette is made” feature. [Daily Telegraph]

    • Was “Waterworld” an “eco-parable” ahead of its time? [Slate]

    • Claufia Puig reviews the Oscar shorts.  High marks for “Toyland,” “The Pig” and “Manon on the Asphalt.” [USA Today]

    • Andrew O’Hehir also digs in. [Beyond the Multiplex]

  • No “embarrassing interruptions of impassioned speeches”

    Bill CondonThat’s the line that grabbed me in this Susan Wloszczyna feature on Oscar producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark.  If there’s anything that drives me up the wall, it’s the musical interjection of a speech, no matter how rambling.  This is a person’s moment and ignorant, cue-happy conductors (and presumably the producers chattering into their ears) have to crank up the orchestra to send them on their way.  Meanwhile, the Academy offers up the most rank stretch of montages (however pointless) and any other number of dubious production choices.

    We’re all pretty well assured that kind of hogwash isn’t going to fly this year, but it’s nice to see Condon and Mark taking a stand for the speech thing.  Then again, he pulls his punch later in the story, so who knows?

    Here’s a bit from the piece:

    When it comes to entertaining the masses, it doesn’t really matter what is on the ballot, Mark insists. His and Condon’s primary objective is “to celebrate all the movies of 2008.” Blockbusters, sleepers, art-house fare, you name it. Attention will be paid to movie history, too, “but no clips of Gone With the Wind.”

    In other words, these fellows aren’t losing sleep over how the voters went for the low-profile Holocaust-themed drama The Reader over superhero sensation The Dark Knight in the top contest.

    “We have enough great material to attract a crowd,” Condon says. “It’s the academy’s job to honor the best movies, not what will provide the highest ratings. We both feel they show great integrity in what they do.”

    Even though I choked on Condon’s — let’s say — diplomatic quote at the end there.

    The rest is the same old, same old you’ve read on the dup elsewhere, though I remain excited by nuggets like this:

    (more…)

  • 1/5 Oscarweb Round-up

    (from left) Bill Condon and Laurence Mark• “Che” tops David Poland’s top 10 list, which also includes…”Mamma Mia!”  That’s originality for ya. [The Hot Blog]

    • David Carr does some number crunching on a few Best Picture contenders. [The Carpetbagger]

    • Michael Cieply spends some time with the producers of this year’s Oscar telecast. [New York Times]

    • Lewis Beale on the Jewish image in Hollywood. [Los Angeles Times]

    • Brad Brevet draws a connection between Walt Kowalski and Ethan Edwards. [Rope of Silicon]

    • Christopher Rosen spotlights performances from “Ghost Town,” “Che” and “The Visitor” as the year’s most overlooked. [New York Observer]

    • Karina Longworth responds to negativity over her dubious review of “Dear Zachary.” [Spout Blog]

    • A week old, but yours truly walks through the acting critics awards landscape at year’s end with a few organization members. [Variety]

  • “You’re so money and you don’t even know it.”

    Hugh Jackman in AustraliaTim Gray has put together a typical response piece to the Hugh Jackman emcee news over at Variety, but the real interesting bits are as follows:

    “[W]e are trying to turn a corner and to give the evening more of a nightclub-party feel — which it once had,” said the show’s producer Laurence Mark.

    And…

    “Hugh will entertain the audience throughout the show,” [Oscarcast executive producer Bill] Condon said. Jackman’s goal, as theirs, is “to keep the show hot throughout, to make it communal and great fun.”

    I always knew guys like Spacey, Clooney and Jackman made sense as an Oscar host, but I never could really put into words why.  But it’s starting to click.  Jackman and the rest, they are perfect “master of ceremonies” types, yes, but they’re also the kind of guys you can totally see as a soiree host with the most, bouncing around an intimate gathering and asking, “How’s the tuna tar-tar?”  Things like that.  Mark’s “nightclub” quote nails it and I have to say, it’s nice to see him and Condon taking this so seriously and with the height of class.

    Better and better…

    Meanwhile, Mary McNamara has a wandering Envelope piece up that reads like a “who should host” story that had to be rethought after the Jackman news hit.  Whether that’s true or not, I can’t be sure, but it’s a tally of stars to fill the hours on the show…I think.

  • Who should host the Oscars?

    Kevin SpaceyThis morning I linked to our friend John Campea at The Movie Blog who offered up a list of 15 possibilities for host of this year’s Oscar festivities.  Producers Bill Condon and Larry Mark are hard at work putting the show’s particulars together (when Condon has a few moments away from that Richard Pryor biopic he’s been writing), and sooner or later, an announcement will be made.

    I agree with a few of Campea’s suggestions.  George Clooney, for instance, is an inspired pick, the charmer of Hollywood without an enmy in the world — well, except for McCain supporters, I guess.  I also like the choice of Robert Downey Jr., though in 2008, it’s almost TOO on the nose.  Rounding out the big names that make sense, I’d be on board for Tom Hanks as well, always adept at working a crowd.  But Steve Carrell seems to lack the right prestigious “umph,” while Denzel Washington would prove to be too cardboard-stiff, I’d wager.

    We’ve been there and done that with Steve Martin, Ellen Degeneres and Jon Stewart — new blood would be preferable.  And Steven Colbert would be a false echo of Stewart’s attempts.  Will Ferrell and Ben Stiller — too silly.  Tina Fey — too one-note.  Jerry Seinfeld — too snooty.  And Ricky Gervais was a manifested pipe-dream from the start.  But I’d absolutely be on board if Condon and Mark want to hand over emcee duties to Uwe Boll.  Who wouldn’t??  But you might as well toss in Kelsey Grammer in full-blown Beast make-up as a co-host at that point.

    So the question remains: Who should be the host?  Who has the right amount of showmanship to off-set his dramatic faculties and keep the even keel a show like this needs?  Who has the right comedic reserve to tap into when necessary and who would absolutely light up the stage with his consistent determination to perform?

    (more…)