In Contention

Tag: M.I.A.

  • Winslet, Cruz, Herzog crack 2009 TIME 100

    Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet at the 81st Annual Academy AwardsGiven the debate currently active on these pages over what does and does not merit the term “influential” in the film world, there couldn’t be a better time to link to Time magazine’s list of (supposedly) the world’s 100 most influential people.

    Time slightly sidesteps the inherent comparative silliness of such a list by breaking it down into spheres of influence — though you have to admit there’s something slightly confounding about a survey that places Michelle Obama and Rafael Nadal in the same category. (Apples or oranges? Discuss.)

    But even  by just taking a mini-survey of the film-related figures in their Artists & Entertainers division, one has to conclude that they are as uncertain about what “influential” actually means as so many others are. In many cases, the list could be more plainly described as “famous people who have had a very good year.”

    Take Kate Winslet, for example — an undeniably great actress, a constant media presence in the last few months, and duly rewarded for her pains. But “influential?” As accomplished a performer as Winslet is, I’m not convinced that she has significantly altered the craft in which she works, or given rise to any discernible popular or artistic trends. Going strictly by the book, I’m afraid I’d have to declare Zac Efron a worthier inclusion than Winslet.

    The same caveat goes for Penélope Cruz, also on the list — a very talented and likable figure who some feel scored a personal best in the past year, but success does not equal influence. (On the other end of the scale, while his industry power remains a constant, what has Tom Hanks done in the past 12 months to merit his inclusion? And what did any of these folks do so right that, say, Christopher Nolan did not?)

    (more…)

  • Nominees luncheon under way

    Taraji P. Henson at the 2009 Academy nominees luncheonToday is the big Academy luncheon for this year’s Oscar nominees.  The AP’s Sandy Cohen and The Carpetbagger’s Michael Cieply are filing from the event.

    This is one of the most fascinating aspects of the season for me because of the varying personalities you find mingling together.  Right now, M.I.A. is chowing down with Kate Winslet (assuming they both showed up).  An interesting picture.

    It reminds me of three years ago when I couldn’t help but ask the guys from Three 6 Mafia what they thought of the luncheon, rubbing elbows with everyone from Steven Spielberg to Reese Witherspoon.  The quote I wrangled didn’t disappoint:

    I was thinking, ‘What am I doing here?’ You know, you’re used to sitting in the studio with a bunch of guys drinking beer and smelling like something they shouldn’t be smelling like, and then you pull a switcheroo and you’re in Hollywood in a room with Steven Spielberg and Reese Witherspoon. And she’s sexy, man.

    I laugh every time I read that.

  • Hey, it ain’t ALL bad

    OK, looking at the bigger picture, I’m as mortified as everyone else by this morning’s Academy Award nominations. By playing it safe in numerous areas, AMPAS voters have once more failed their art form … but more surprisingly, they have failed their audience.

    Kris has already touched to some extent on the most glaring injustices of the morning, and I plan to indulge in my own share of ranting later today. But before I get into that, I’d like to channel my inner Bing Crosby and accentuate the positive. Amid the minefield of errors, there were some isolated pleasant surprises and level-headed decisions, even if many of them were on a smaller scale. And these were the best of them:

    “GRAN TORINO” STRIKES OUT: Many were speculating that the latest from the (usually) Oscar-beloved Clint Eastwood could be a spoiler in the top race, with the man himself an ominous threat to actually take the Best Actor gong. But for once, Eastwood’s stealth-release strategy didn’t pay off. Either the film gathered momentum too late, or voters saw through the film’s creaky construction and hammy lead turn. Either way, in passing over Eastwood for the wonderful Richard Jenkins, the Academy made the right call.

    ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY GETS ORIGINAL: Matching the WGA’s Original Screenplay nominees in only one instance, voters dug deep here and pulled some inspired choices out of the hat. Bypassing the familiar comforts of Woody Allen or the Coen Brothers, they recognised that “Frozen River” owed its jagged, riveting tension to more than just Melissa Leo’s stellar performance, and, most thrillingly, recognised the pitch-black wit and literary sensibility of “In Bruges.” A nod for Mike Leigh’s unconventionally constructed “Happy-Go-Lucky” was more expected, but no less gratifying.

    (more…)

  • 12/7 Oscarweb Round-up

    A.R. Rahman• Pete Hammond reports on the week that was, including a lively “Seven Pounds” Q&A session. [Notes on a Season]

    • Jeff Wells responds with a second-hand swipe at the film. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

    • And Steven Zeitchik breaks embargo, writes up a positive assessment. [Risky Biz Blog]

    • Tom O’Neil points out how Oscar success for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” could finally be F. Scott Fitzgerald’s warm Hollywood welcome. [Gold Derby]

    • Hat-tipping A.R. Rahman’s collaboration with M.I.A. on the “Slumdog Millionaire” soundtrack. [Vulture]

    • David Carr talks to “Doubt” scribe and helmer John Patrick Shanley. [New York Times]

    • Heath Ledger wins his first award of the season. [New York Daily News]

    • Roger Ebert offers up the 25 best films of the year. [Chicago Sun-Times]

    • The Times goes longer. [The Times]

  • Thanks for waiting

    Sorry for ducking out yesterday — it was a Saturday of multiple distractions. Normal service to resume shortly.

    In the meantime, for your listening pleasure, here’s “O… Saya,” the sensational A.R. Rahman/M.I.A. cut from the “Slumdog Millionaire” soundtrack. It won’t get anywhere near Oscar night, of course — though I’m brazenly predicting that the film’s exuberant Bollywood-inspired closer, “Jai Ho,” will not only be nominated for Best Original Song, but will win.

    Still, close your eyes, listen to this and imagine M.I.A. on the Kodak stage instead of, say, Miley Cyrus or  whatever drek they choose to nominate instead.

  • No one on the corner has swagger like us

    M.I.A.

    “A.R. was the most established, amazing producer…He works with 100-people orchestras, and his sound is huge. Then on the other end of the room was me, making music on GarageBand [software] and playing Danny these really gritty, badly recorded MP3s. We had all these meetings and stuff, and then I realized that’s what the movie is — it’s the contradiction between these two things. That’s what the whole continent [of India] is…

    “If I was painting a picture of that part of the world, it’s not that I’d make it more glum, but I would try not to involve all the positive stuff from it, like the singing and dancing and easy stuff. I think we’re already used to that, and comfortable with that part. So there times that I was like, ‘We don’t have to make it so Bollywood’ … Danny, I think, wanted it to be good on both sides. He wanted the Indian population to get it, as well as the West. That’s a really difficult thing to do, and I think he did it — I think he did it really well.”

    From Todd Martens’s 11/24 interview with artist M.I.A., re: her electrifying work on the “Slumdog Millionaire” soundtrack.

  • A.R. Rahman: “Danny wanted it loud”

    I have no idea what the Academy’s fussy music branch will make of it, but A.R. Rahman’s busy, boisterous score for “Slumdog Millionaire” is one of my favourite efforts in the field this year. Fusing contemporary Indian pop with more traditional Bollywood motifs and flashes of electronica, it’s an achievement as limber and witty as the film it accompanies.

    Rahman has long been revered, both as a composer and a pop star, in his native India, but he’s only recently begun testing Western waters. I appreciated his elaborately heightened contributions to last year’s “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” more than most, but “Slumdog” should really make his name in this part of the world.

    There’s a brief but insightful interview with Rahman over at Vulture, in which he discusses the considerable differences between working for Bollywood and working for Boyle — a difference over over 100 musical cues, for starters. In the light of a discussion going on a recent comments thread about how a score should operate within a film, I thought this statement rather interesting:

    What’s good about [Boyle] is that he likes how Indian films mix music. You push it and it comes out. We wanted it edgy, upfront. He said every piece of music was going to be a piece by itself. Normally some directors suppress music — they always want the effects to be loud and the music to be softer. Danny wanted it loud.

    (more…)

  • Bonafide hustler makin’ my name…

    I really…REALLY want to see “Slumdog Millionaire” again.  But for now, I’ll settle for this: