In Contention

Tag: Mad Men

  • Emmy goes to the movies

    We don’t normally pay much attention to the Emmy Awards, this being a site primarily devoted to the bigger screen. But when the recently unveiled nomination list contains such film heavyweights as Todd Haynes, Olivier Assayas and (twice) Martin Scorsese, it’d be remiss not to mention it — and the fact that the line between cinema and television is becoming an increasingly pliable one.

    Indeed, there’s still disagreement over which category one of yesterday’s nominees falls into. Assayas’ five-hour stunner “Carlos” may have been produced for French television, but it’s a bit difficult to define a vast work from one of world cinema’s leading auteurs, one that premiered at the Cannes Film Festival and was theatrically released on the arthouse circuit, as merely a TV miniseries.

    Most haven’t — it won a slew of film critics’ awards last year (and indeed made my 2010 Top 10) before more finicky eligibility rules kept it out of the Oscar race (I know, I know, as if) and in the TV races at the Globe and SAG Awards.

    (more…)

  • Paramount and Lionsgate do it up pre-Globes

    Tobey Maguire in BrothersThere will be a number of post-Golden Globes parties tonight — Summit, Warner Bros., Fox, Weinstein, etc. — but a pair of studios did it up Saturday night in honor of their nominees.

    First at the Chateau Marmont, Paramount toasted its stable with a star-studded, paparazzi-snapping affair.  Actually, it wasn’t the least bit comfortable.  Talk about over-invited.  In the inner sanctum, surrounded by Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Benicio Del Toro, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick, Mike Tyson (who wasn’t on the list, but would you turn him away?), George Clooney, Chris Pine, Tobey Maguire, etc., breathing, let alone moving more than two inches, was a chore.  Jason Reitman was on hand early on but had to take off for the LAFCA gala before long.  Luckily, he missed that fire hazard.

    I got a few seconds with Farmiga, who was excited to say hello to Scorsese again.  Anne Kendrick and her beau Edgar Wright smartly made their way to a secondary room at one point where we had a nice chat.  Wright was, of course, being hit up by “Scott Pilgrim” queries left and right.  From the youngsters, that is.  The crowd was largely, shall we say, octogenarian.  Plenty of HFPA and Academy members scattered throughout.  And Kendrick, bless her heart, didn’t even want to talk about the “O-word.”

    (more…)

  • A chauvinist moment

    Regular readers will know that I’m something of a fan of January Jones. The 31 year-old star of “Mad Men” (which wrapped its third season this week, though me and my fellow Brits haven’t even got started) has essayed the best female character in American film or TV in two years, gives great interview and, well, looks like this.

    Somebody give her a movie already. No, “Pirate Radio” does not count. Anyway there’s nothing edifying, intelligent or movie-related about this video from Jones’s recent GQ cover shoot, but…

  • Miss January

    Kris already drew your attention to today’s Emmy nominations, and since we don’t really do TV here at InContention — and since the Emmys are quite possibly the most eternally frustrating of all major showbiz awards — we won’t go into a detailed bitching session about how the voters cocked this or that up. Anyway, there were pleasant surprises to be had: “The Flight of the Conchords!” Sarah Silverman! Hope Davis!

    Kris highlighted Denis Leary as his pet snub of the morning, but I can’t be the only one baffled that, amid the 16 well-deserved nominations for the best show on TV, there was no room for its standout performer of the season. Hell, make that the standout performer of the season. January Jones, we salute you.

    January Jones in Mad Men

  • INTERVIEW: Rosemarie DeWitt

    Rosemarie DeWittRosemarie DeWitt is excited.

    It can be difficult to gauge emotion in the formal, slightly removed context of a phone interview, but DeWitt’s warm, clear voice betrays an eagerness right from the get-go, articulating thoughts at a pace that occasionally exceeds my shorthand. Only when addressing the heady buzz of awards season does she finally pause to reach for words.

    “It’s crazy, seriously crazy, but more than anything, it’s just really flattering,” she says.  “This is the best job I’ve ever had, and I’m so, so proud of the film. Anything more than that is just…” A moment passes as she takes a breath, and considers the matter. “Wow,” she concludes simply.

    The film in question, of course, is “Rachel Getting Married,” Jonathan Demme’s barbed family drama that has been widley declared the filmmaker’s return to form after some years in the wilderness. The buzz, meanwhile, is for DeWitt’s subtle, complex turn in the title role, which has garnered considerable plaudits for the hitherto low-profile 34-year-old actor, a frequent stage presence only recently receiving her due on screen, both big and small.

    Best known until now for her tart, sexy portrayal of Midge, Jon Hamm’s bohemian city mistress in TV critics’ darling “Mad Men,” DeWitt is calling from Los Angeles.  She’s just finishing work on another cable series, “The United States of Tara,” a dark, high-concept comedy created by Diablo Cody and starring Toni Collette (an “absolute genius,” DeWitt gushes).

    All of which would be enough to get excited about without Oscar talk being thrown into the mix. But as Rachel, the older sister of Anne Hathaway’s self-destructive addict Kym, DeWitt’s attentive, commendably unflattering performance finds itself right in the thick of the Best Supporting Actress competition. Hers is, for me, the most resonant performance in a film that doesn’t want for thespian fireworks, largely because DeWitt never pushes Rachel into the stock character of the saintly, long-suffering sibling.

    (more…)

  • 9/27 Oscarweb Round-up

    Josh Brolin in W.• Anne Thompson reports that Paramount Vantage will officially debut the “Revolutionary Road” trailer on Sunday’s episode of “Mad Men.”  Very smart. [Thompson on Hollywood]

    • The toughest journalist gigs in cinema. [Time Out]

    • In the introductory post of his long in the works awards blog (welcome to the fray), Pete Hammond bangs the drums for Dustin Hoffman in “Last Chance Harvey.”  Overture will have a tough enough time with one Best Actor hopeful, though, let alone two. [Notes on a Season]

    • Tom O’Neil rounds up a bunch of thoughts from the Oscarweb regarding potential Oscar hosts. [Gold Derby]

    • Steven Zeitchick gets excited about the foreign film race. [Risky Biz Blog]

    • Michael Cieply and Charles Solomon shed light on a credit dispute among the principles of Universal’s animated endeavor “The Tale of Despereaux.” [New York Times]

    • John HIscock spends some quality time with “Appaloosa” star Viggo Mortensen across the pond. [Daily Telegraph]

    • Oscar winner Helen Mirren is set to take on the role of an Israeli Nazi hunter with “Shakespeare in Love” director John Madden at the helm. [The Independent]

    • Anthony Breznican gets a first look at Oliver Stone’s “W.” [USA Today]

  • “To a place where we know we are loved”

    This may be a movie awards site, but it would be remiss of us not to acknowledge that the Emmy awards take place tonight. I find it difficult to get invested in the Emmys when they so brazenly ignore landmark television on a yearly basis — this is the group that waited until “The Sopranos”‘ fifth season to give it the gold, and never even got around to rewarding such shows as “Six Feet Under” or “Homicide: Life on the Street.”

    Suffice to say that if they snub “Mad Men” tonight — as I suspect they will — I’ll care about the Emmys even less than I already do. Still, my fingers are crossed for Matthew Weiner’s magnificent series, not because it needs any kind of validation, but because anything that might raise its viewing figures is to be welcomed.

    As a tribute to the show, here is a fascinating scene from the first season’s finale that neatly summates the show’s numerous virtues: the rigorous intelligence and economy of the writing (there is so much going on subtextually in these three minutes), the refreshingly languid pacing, the impeccable production values and the galvanizing star presence of Jon Hamm. (Could he be the next George Clooney?) Watch and savour:

  • Can ‘Revolutionary Road’ be too good for film?

    It’s a slow month for news, so I understand that film bloggers’ minds can wander. I sympathize with that. But even taking that into account, Jeff Wells’ recent post outlining his doubts over the upcoming ‘Revolutionary Road’ struck me as pretty tenuous. Wells’ essential argument is that the film’s stumbling block looks to be the sheer brilliance of Richard Yates’ source novel:

    The more formidable the reputation of the book that’s been made for the big screen, the greater the odds that the film will have problems of one kind or another. The motto, in short, is that it’s not the beauty of the prose but the strength of the bones that counts.

    Truthfully or not, fairly or unfairly, that’s the general belief. And given this, it’s hard not to feel a little queasy about Sam Mendes’ “Revolutionary Road,” the forthcoming Leonardo DiCaprio-Kate Winslet drama that’s based upon Richard Yates’ hugely respected novel about suburban middle-class malaise in the 1950s.

    In response, let me begin by offering offer a subjective, by-no-means comprehensive selection of exceptions to Wells’ stated theory – literary adaptations that are in equal proportion of greatness to their source material. “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” for one. “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” is another. “To Kill a Mockingbird” was okay, and “A Clockwork Orange” didn’t totally suck either. “The Grapes of Wrath,” “LA Confidential,” “Tess,” “Trainspotting,” “Kes,” “Howards End” … you get the idea.

    (more…)

  • Is Rosemarie DeWitt the one to watch in ‘Rachel?’

    Rosemarie DeWitt in Rachel Getting MarriedWith the recent release of a spiffy new trailer and plenty of attention geared toward a potential return to form for director Jonathan Demme, the Oscar prospects of “Rachel Getting Married” have gone into hyperdrive.  In the midst of all this sight-unseen speculation, a number of eyes have been turned toward the supporting actress hopes of three-time nominee Debra Winger.

    Winger popped up as a possibility in early 2003 when the eventual flop “Radio” was coming down the pike, largely because Oscarwatchers were anticipating a new dawn for the esteemed actress.  That seems to be the case with “Rachel,” but the blind stabs of good intentions are ignoring the true prospect of the film, “Mad Men” star Rosemarie Dewitt.

    Word on the performance is that it might have the stuff to grab a supporting nomination and that Winger isn’t really in the film enough to make a real impact on the awards season.  The real angle of interest, however, is that Dewitt has an amazing story, one that I didn’t even realize until recently sifting through her bio.

    Turns out Dewitt is the granddaughter of Jimmie “Cinderella Man” Braddock.  Yes, that “Cinderella Man.”  She even had a role in the Ron Howard film from 2005 (I missed her completely).  And of course, with “Mad Men” being the new darling on the small screen (gotta finish that first season soon), there are plenty of ways “in” to the circuit for this young lady.

    So take it for what it’s worth, take it with a grain of salt if you want, but it looks like Ms. Dewitt is the name to watch out for right behind sure-to-be electric Anne Hathaway in “Margot at the Wedding 2” — I mean, “Rachel Getting Married.”

  • ‘Mad Men’: Rewriting the hero

    I know we don’t really cover TV here at In Contention, but since Matthew Weiner’s AMC show “Mad Men” is the greatest piece of screen drama I’ve seen in any medium this past year, I couldn’t resist linking to this mammoth profile of the show, and its creator, in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine.

    Neatly timed to coincide with the imminent first-season DVD release, and (hopefully) to catch the eye of Emmy voters, Alex Witchel’s piece gives fascinating insight into the writerly thinking behind what is certainly the most literate show currently on air. (As a screenwriter, I found the first season to be pretty much a master class in character construction, and the marrying of social and personal narratives.) Weiner, who was also a significant member of the writing team on “The Sopranos,” proves a fiercely intelligent interviewee; the following is one of the best descriptions of a writer’s raison d’etre I’ve read in a while:

    The payoff for Weiner is getting to combine his love of history and literature with his love for the tradition of live television from the 1950s: Paddy Chayevsky, Rod Serling, “Kraft Television Theater” and “Playhouse 90.” “It all goes back to being socially conscious and the blacklist and who those heroes are,” he said. “Those were my parents’ heroes, and I think that part of the show is me trying to be one of those heroes and part of the show is trying to figure out — this sounds really ineloquent — trying to figure out what is the deal with my parents. Am I them? Because you know you are.”

    Read the rest here. Sorry for the fanboy tone of this post, but it’s a great piece on a landmark work.