In Contention

Tag: Meryl Streep

  • Warm notices for Streep in ‘Julie & Julia’

    Meryl Streep in Julie & JuliaEven before anyone had laid eyes on Nora Ephron’s “Julie & Julia,” I felt fairly confident in predicting the critical response: nice, unremarkable film dominated by a broadly entertaining, larger-than-life turn from Meryl Streep.

    And so it has come to pass. The trade papers are united in their lukewarm feelings on the film itself, while Streep comes in for the expected praise for a showy star turn a showy star role. (Meanwhile, poor Amy Adams gets predictably, if charitably, sidelined, despite her joint billing.)

    Variety’s Justin Chang is harshest on the film, calling it “overstuffed and predigested … a slick, presumptuous vanity project,” but has nothing but kind words for Streep’s “delightfully daffy” performance:

    Doing her formidable best to counteract (the film’s) drawbacks is Streep, whose 5-foot-6 frame makes her an imperfect physical match for the 6-foot-2 Julia, but who proves more than up to the challenge of tackling this beloved celebrity’s equally outsized personality. Delivering an elegant approximation of the woman’s distinctly flutelike vocal pitch and endearing mannerisms, Streep abundantly conveys the warmth, rich humor and joie de vivre so evident in Julia’s TV appearances and her writing.

    (more…)

  • 9/7 Web Round-up

    David Lynch• Jeffrey Wells offers his own mid-year assessment of 2009’s best and worst so far. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

    • How New Line mutated from house of horror to chick-flick central. [The Hollywood Reporter]

    • Memo to “Baywatch: The Movie” producers: it’s about the jugs, not the jokes. [The Guardian]

    • Too lowbrow for you? Here’s David Lynch on his unlikely collaboration with musos Danger Mouse and Sparklehorse. [Sight & Sound]

    • Apparently, Meryl Streep gained 15 pounds making “Julie & Julia.” Wow, she really does want that third Oscar. [Thompson on Hollywood]

    • Francis Ford Coppola talks movies, wine and why he wanted Scorsese to direct “The Godfather Part II.” Really. [Esquire]

    • An “Up” doubter (commercially speaking, anyway) eats his words. [The New York Times]

    • Not movie-related (yet), but a “Catcher in the Rye” sequel without J.D. Salinger’s involvement? Stop the madness. [The Wall Street Journal]

  • New Yorker semi-reviews ‘Julie & Julia,’ exalts Streep

    Meryl Streep in Julie & JuliaAs far as I know, Nora Ephron’s “Julie & Julia” is still under a reviewing embargo, but the New Yorker’s Ariel Levy has sneakily buried a brief, incisive critique of the film at the tail of a substantial profile of Ephron. (Thanks to Jeff Wells for pointing it out.) You’ll need a subscription to read the whole thing, but here are the juiciest bits on the film — which will no doubt please the numerous Streepophiles out there:

    The truth is, “Julie & Julia” is not a fair fight. For half he film we are in Paris with Julia Child played by Meryl Streep. It is pretty transcendent. For the other half, we are stuck in Long Island City, Queens, with the ‘lowly cubicle worker’ Julie Powell, a character who is immature, self-pitying, and frazzled (which is to say, an average human being). Powell is played by Amy Adams, who is a talented actress, but she is up against the queen herself.

    When Adams, as Julie, is on the screen, it necessarily means that Streep, as Julia, is not, and you come to resent her for this. It is possible that the film would not have worked if it were simply a biopic of Julia Child — that it derives its narrative thrust and commercial potential from the interplay between a young woman idolizing and relying upon Child in the more-or-less present and the splendid story of Julia Child’s past. Perhaps Child is able to emerge in this film as an almost mythical creature because she is presented in contrast to a mere mortal.

    But there may be another reason the Julia Child portions of “Julie & Julia” are so irresistably vivid and the Julie Powell bits feel a little flat. It is possible that Nora Ephron no longer understands half as well what it’s like to be ordinary as she understands being remarkable.

    (more…)

  • Jolie tops female-powered Forbes list

    Angelina JolieI 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.

    (more…)

  • Acting out

    Meryl StreepThe Guardian’s Ryan Gilbey offers an interesting piece today about screen acting, and the narrow criteria by which many of us judge it. He is writing principally in response to a recently released British film, “Helen,” a rigidly stylised meta-film in which actors play actors participating in a police reconstruction, which has attracted divisive reviews for the deliberately stilted performances of its cast.

    Complaining that many audiences place too much stock in “realism” in acting — using the deification of intensely studied, precise performers likes of Meryl Streep (“a walking manual on acting”) as an example — Gilbey argues the following:

    David Mamet writes that “We confuse ‘I like it’ with ‘It is very realistic.’ If we like it we say, ‘Yes, that’s very true.’” So truth becomes our alibi, our defence for that which pleases us.

    Given our myriad ideas of truth, it is no wonder we turn to the awards ceremonies to clarify and ratify. But while Sean Penn, Philip Seymour Hoffman or Meryl Streep win prizes, and their acting may feel true or right, it is detrimental to the craft to hold up as ideal only those performances that work as audition pieces, or as 30-second excerpts on Oscar night. The actors in Bresson’s Mouchette or Dumont’s La Vie de Jésus are but one component of those films’ defining philosophy and meaning; removed from that context, their performances have no meaning.

    (more…)

  • ‘Julie & Julia’ trailer

    And with that, Meryl Streep’s journey to a Best Supporting Actress nomination is underway.  Unless, of course, the studio and/or producer Scott Rudin get greedy and take a stab at lead.  She’s certainly got the character down pat.  Here’s the teaser poster if you missed it.  And the trailer:

  • ‘Julie & Julia’ teaser poster

    I’m still hearing supporting from pretty much everyone on Meryl Streep’s awards hopes here, by the way.  One of three Scott Rudin projects that could find itself in the running this year (the others being “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” and the new Nancy Meyers flick — four if “Margaret” ever finds its way to the screen):

    Julie & Julia

    (Courtesy: First Showing)

  • Commenter quote of the week

    “Can I just say, if Hilary Swank beats Meryl Streep to three oscars…that might be the most frustrating thing ever.”

    So says JAB in the year-in-advance Off the Carpet post from Monday.

  • 2/21 Oscarweb Round-up

    Meryl Streep in Doubt• Inside the secret history of Oscar speeches. [Esquire]

    • Sasha Stone surveys the damage of the Oscar season. [Awards Daily]

    • How “Slumdog Millionaire” fits into the recession. [Associated Press]

    • Jeff Sneider, formerly of Variety, joins Jeff Wells as one of only two brave souls predicting both Mickey Rourke and Meryl Streep for come-from-behind victories. [The InSneider]

    • Michael Cieply notes the USC marching band will play a part in the opening Oscar number. [The Carpetbagger]

    • Jeff Wells makes his final calls. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

    • Kim Voynar uses Guitar Hero to predict the Spirits and the Oscars. [Movie City News]

  • Last minute jitters

    Waltz with BashirI’ll have a post up later today running a comb through my final predictions.  Tomorrow we’ll showcase all contributor picks (as well as the “Who deserves it?” poll results), but for now, I thought I’d share my pain with the readership.

    By pain, I mean last minute jitters, those creepy, crawling, gut-twisting thoughts that leave you in a haze over what to pick in this category or that, even if a frontrunner is staring you in the face.  There are a number of categories doing this to me this year.

    First and foremost, I’ve been on the precipice of picking a “Slumdog” sweep for nearly two weeks now.  Nathaniel Rogers has been bold enough to go there, but I haven’t allowed myself (yet) to think the Academy will vote for the film in the Best Sound Editing field.  However, as a multi-nominated sound mixer friend told me, members generally just vote for their favorite film throughout the crafts categories (much to his own chagrin many times over).

    I also found out last night that the only films that reached the Cinema Audio Society in screener form were “Quantum of Solace” and…”Slumdog Millionaire,” which makes their vote a bit difficult to chalk up as comprehensive.  Maybe “The Dark Knight” and “WALL-E” are still very much in the mixing race and the Best Picture frontrunner will lose both statues.  But this is just one example of the insanity that flows through my mind this time of year.

    Another thought is all the bad “Reader” press lately and how that may or may not affect Kate Winslet’s chances of a win in the lead actress category.  Many have chalked Meryl Streep up as the competition, but there have been murmurs for some time that Melissa Leo is a prized commodity in this field.  Sasha Stone is spit-balling the possibility today as well.  She’s got people like Dustin Hoffman out there singing her praises.  And her film is a welcome point of variety in a slate of expected nominees (both here and in the original screenplay category).

    (more…)

  • It’s all about the actors

    Over at USA Today, Susan Wloszczyna has come to the conclusion that, in a fairly weak year for film with a less-than-competitive Best Picture slate to show for it, the performance categories are where it’s at this year:

    The real action this year is in the acting. Sets were chewed with delicious relish and scenes were snatched with delectable finesse, even if the films themselves have underwhelmed.

    “I look at my ballot and see all these amazing actors,” says an overwhelmed Donna Gigliotti, a producer on The Reader and a trophy winner for 1998’s Shakespeare in Love. “It’s just staggering. That role was a game changer for Anne Hathaway, nothing that anyone expected from her. And Melissa Leo in Frozen River? What is she, 48? Her nomination just made me want to stand up and cheer. Richard Jenkins is such a fabulous actor. And Taraji P. Henson is the soul of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.“

    I’m inclined to agree. Though I still think the Academy dropped the ball in some areas (Best Actress, in particular, could have been a far richer and more diverse race had the likes of Sally Hawkins and Kristin Scott Thomas been invited), it’s true that, while 2008 hasn’t been as rewarding for auteur works as some previous years, we’ve seen a lot of films either wholly constructed around their performances (“The Wrestler” being a prime example) or saved by them (for my money, Anne Hathaway and Rosemarie DeWitt are the most focused elements of “Rachel Getting Married”).

    The result is, I think, that people seem a lot more invested in this year’s acting races than the ones for Picture or Director — and it’s not just because the latter two are foregone conclusions. (Let’s face it, there’s not much more suspense in some of the acting categories, and I think you know what I’m referring to.) It seems to me that the performances of 2008 have been more complete, complex and adventurous than the films — in some cases, the very films in which they appear.

    (more…)

  • Start from scratch, Academy

    I do love a good rant about the Academy Awards. And Ryan Gilbey is, for my money, one of the sharpest, most entertaining film writers around these days. So it figures that a Gilbey-written attack on the Oscars, in the lefty political mag the New Statesman, should make for good reading.

    Gilbey cheerfully admits that he “hates” the Oscars, even as they fascinate him by “systematically disparag(ing) the creativity and alchemy of filmmaking.” And as in David Denby’s own recent rant, he dislikes all of this year’s Best Picture contenders save for “Milk,” though he still thinks Gus Van Sant’s film “pales beside” the likes of “WALL-E.” (I particularly like the accuracy with which he skewers “Frost/Nixon,” arguing that it is “built like a sitcom — every joke has its payoff in the following shot.” Bingo.)

    But he also offers some ideas for how to fix the supposedly broken machine that is the Oscars. And while some of them are typically playful and even perverse (ban Ron Howard and Meryl Streep from future nominations, he pleads), some of them (to me, at least) really make a lot of sense. I particularly like his two-birds-with-one-stone approach to rectifying the embarrassing foreign-language situation, starting by abolishing the Foreign Film category altogether:

    Scrap the only award specially designed to allow a sliver of glory to fall on cinema from other cultures. Why? Well, it’s patronising, for a start. Not quite as bad as the Best British Film Bafta, I’ll grant you, but still only a hair away from being termed The Special Needs Award For Hopeless Cases. It’s nothing short of insulting to see Laurent Cantet’s The Class and Ari Folman’s Waltz With Bashir consigned to this subsidiary category when there is more accomplishment in one frame of those films than in the entirety of most of this year’s Best Picture contenders. An awards system that does not consider The Class good enough to compete with Frost/Nixon or Slumdog Millionaire deserves to be a laughing stock.

    So how will foreign-language films get a look-in? Call it positive discrimination or affirmative action, but from now on, the total number of Best Picture nominees should be raised to six, of which two must come from non-English-speaking countries. There is simply no other way to redress the balance than to force Academy voters to consider films that are not being screened at the local mall. Let’s put The Reader up against Waltz With Bashir and then we’ll see some real tears from Kate Winslet.

    Good stuff. The rest here.

  • Pretty brave

    Most people seem to be going along with the assumption Kate Winslet has this year’s lead actress Oscar in the bag for “The Reader.” But if anyone is nipping at her heels, it has to be Meryl Streep, whose performance in “Doubt” (however off the rails it went) has been right there, waiting to upset the whole year.

    In my daily Variety visit this afternoon, I came across the following Spartan advertisement for Streep’s performance. No words, no pomp, no circumstance. Just the face. Pretty brave in the face of what so many are chalking up as a sure thing. Maybe this kind of modesty is the right idea, the right level of, “Hey, that’s unique.” Or maybe not.

    Meryl Streep in Doubt

  • What about Melissa Leo?

    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.

    (more…)

  • Winslet’s win a done deal or is there more to consider?

    Kate Winslet in The ReaderWhen Kate Winslet surprisingly popped up in the lead actress category for her performance in “The Reader,” most of us immediately jumped to the conclusion that she’ll win the Oscar walking away.  That is still probably the safest bet, but some folks are disturbing the waters, starting with Winslet herself in a recent AP story:

    Kate Winslet says she is prepared to leave this year’s Oscar ceremony as she has five times in the past — without a golden statue.

    “I’m so used to it, having gone through it before and having lost so many times,” Winslet says. “Being in that losing state is something I’m much more comfortable in, in a funny kind of a way.”

    David Carr, meanwhile, points out that Ray Richmond considers Winslet’s category switcheroo to be a “snag”:

    Winslet’s previous wins for “Reader” came in the supporting category. For reasons known only to its acting branch, the Academy decided to give her more votes in the lead category. Winslet is untested here. While the odds still favor her, don’t rule out the chance of a loss.

    What do you think?  Is the Oscar already in her hand or is Meryl Streep most likely to swoop in and grab statue #3?  (Personally I don’t think Anne Hathaway is going to figure in here.)

  • 2/4 Oscarweb Round-up

    Angelina Jolie at the 72nd Annual Academy Awards• 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]

  • In praise of Kate’s … feet?

    I’m not sure where I stand on David Thomson these days. He is surely one of the greatest film writers still at work today; few of his rivals manage such a fine balance of personal appreciation and critical insight, particularly in the area of performance. (As a prose stylist, Thomson at his best leaves Ebert for dust, in my opinion.) His “Biographical Dictionary of Film” is as essential as it is idiosyncratic, while last year’s “Have You Seen … ?” is a bedside-book delight, ideal for dipping in and out of at leisure.

    But in recent years, his work has grown increasingly sloppy and, in some cases, frankly unhinged. His further “Biographical Dictionary” entries for the Guardian have been spotty and back-handed of late, but the clincher was his factually malnourished and unavoidably creepy 2006 “biography” of his long-time cinematic crush, Nicole Kidman, which paid stomach-churning tribute to the Australian’s “commas of breast” and “gingery pubic hair.” An embarrassment for all concerned, it truly has to be read to be believed.

    It’s difficult to say, then, whether it’s good or bad news for Kate Winslet that Thomson appears to have set his sights on her instead, writing an extraordinarily generous tribute to her in today’s Guardian, calling the actress “the finest performer of her generation,” and waxing lyrical about her performance in “The Reader” (“easily the best and most disturbing film of the year”). It is, in fairness, a civil and intelligent appreciation for the most part, after an eccentric opening that focuses on her, er, feet:

    Near the end of The Reader there is a large close-up of two bare feet … The feet are less than lovely – mottled, calloused, the toenails out of shape, everything well-worn. My wife opined, “They can’t be Kate Winslet’s feet – must be a stand-in, a foot-in. Perhaps they are Sam Mendes’s feet, and he did the shot so she could have a lie-in.”

    Not to disparage the consideration and fondness between Mendes and Winslet, husband and wife, director and actor, I preferred to think that Winslet is too much the perfectionist to let false feet into her picture. “She’d have been up at four in the morning,” I said, “getting the make-up people to give her the opposite of a pedicure” … I assume that Winslet would take any trouble, from the tips of her broken toes to the proper split ends in her elderly German hair. “Would Meryl Streep entertain anyone else’s feet?” I asked my wife. She agreed not. And that is the standard here: Kate Winslet is the heir to Meryl Streep.

    (more…)

  • Did Harvey Weinstein cost Kate the Oscar?

    Harvey WeinsteinFor all his marketing and campaigning genius, Harvey Weinstein’s tactics have become — well, have been — a bit thuggish. In Peter Biskind’s extraordinary book “Down and Dirty Pictures,” a stunning look at the independent film world in the late 1980s and all through the 1990s, we are made privy to many of Harvey’s tantrums, eyewitness accounts of his bullying behavior, and crazy belief that because he is rich, he can do whatever he wants.  He can always buy his way out.

    Is there anyone left out there who truly believes that “Shakespeare in Love,” a lovely film, was actually better than “Saving Private Ryan?” Somehow Weinstein convinced the Academy it was, so the best directed, best edited, best shot and best sounding film, lost to a beautifully written work that will be forgotten in time, if it has not been forgotten already.

    Weinstein is a genius at getting his films Academy Award nominations, and some have said he will promise the artists as much when he buys the film or agrees to finance the work. He took Billy Bob Thornton from relative obscurity to an Oscar win for writing “Sling Blade.”  Who did Thornton defeat that year?  No less than the great Arthur Miller for “The Crucible!”

    I had hoped that when Disney dismissed Weinstein and brother Bob from Miramax (a company they founded) that perhaps he had learned something. It seems The Weinstein Company will continue the legacy of Miramax during the Oscar season, however.

    (more…)