Wrapping up my perspective on the year today, a personal list of superlatives, Oscar categories and other silly nonsense.
Swing back around on Monday for the ultimate wrap-up, my list of the best films of the decade.
Best Picture
“A Serious Man” (Focus Features)
Best Director
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, “A Serious Man”
Best Actor
Sharlto Copley, “District 9”
Best Actress
Gabourey Sidibe, “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
There wasn’t much in the way of a surprise with this year’s Screen Actors Guild announcement. The nods that are least likely to translate to Oscar, if I were a betting man, are Diane Kruger’s supporting actress bid for “Inglourious Basterds” and (I guess I just have a feeling) Matt Damon, supporting for “Invictus.” The rest seem like safe bets on down the line.
I wouldn’t read too much into the ensemble snub of “Up in the Air,” though it’s curious to nominate three actors from the film and then ignore it in that field. The ensemble category is also where “Nine” got its expected attention, though Penelope Cruz also showed up in supporting for the film. The BFCA, you’ll recall, went for Marion Cotillard instead.
“Precious,” “Inglourious Basterds” and “Up in the Air” had the most nominations, with three apiece. I would have expected “An Education” to have that designation, too, but somehow Alfred Molina was ignored. Maybe that won’t be the case with Oscar, maybe it will.
On to the next thing. Check the full list of nominees after the jump.
Every year I like to keep track of personal favorites throughout the Academy’s designated categories (plus one of my own addition, Best Ensemble). At the end of the year, my “if I had a ballot” post is the result.
Of course, for the most part, I follow Academy designations here. If something is ruled ineligible, I play along. It’s not that often that something like that is egregious anyway, though the music branch consistently tests my resolve on the matter. In years past I’ve tried to make it an AMPAS/critics’ awards hybrid kind of thing, but this makes it easier.
I know, I know. “Why don’t you just list what you think should be nominated, the rules be damned?” Because then I couldn’t call it “If I had a ballot?” But I guess I’m contradicting myself by adding a category. I don’t know. I’m just trying not to be too lamely definitive or authoritative with something like this, I suppose.
Anyway, I’m also abstaining from offering up a list of foreign language nods. Firstly, I feel it’s been a rather weak year in general there, but I also haven’t made my way fully through the list of submissions either. So I’ll address that another time. The same goes with he doc features, as I’d rather push through more of the eligible titles first.
This year the top 10 is the Best Picture field, obviously, and from there, I toss my two cents into a variety of discussions. Here’s what I came up with…
I’ve often been asked throughout the latter part of 2009 why I should have the gall to consider it the best year of film product in a decade. It’s such a subjective circumstance that, of course, the only answer is, “I liked a lot of movies.” That’s not enough for most. Hard and fast evidence is necessary. A carefully outlined, persuasive argument is expected.
I just liked a lot of movies.
The year began slowly, as they tend to do. The first film I saw that cried for end-of-the-year remembrance was a modest baseball drama I caught at the Santa Barbara Film Festival in February. Then it was all the way into the summer before a blockbuster banged the first four-star gong, followed shortly by a happenstance viewing of an unconventional British biopic at the Los Angeles Film Festival and a catch-up viewing of one of the year’s Sundance hits.
Sprinkled throughout was top-tier animated product, a Comic-Con screening of one of the best sci-fi outings in years (and a homefront viewing of another first-time filmmaker’s fascinating foray into the genre), not to mention finally catching up with one of two exemplary war dramas that debuted in Toronto last fall.
Before long, the summer, with all its surprise delights, both substantial and appropriately frothy, began to wind down. The fall awards season picked up steam as Telluride fired the starting gun and, after that, it seemed every trip to a darkened theater brought some form of satisfaction. Even the entertainments seemed to satisfy completely.
How can one defend the position any more succinctly? I liked. A lot. Of movies. And I relish the opportunity now to pay tribute to the year’s best, some 30 titles, each of which could have been a top 10 finalist in any other year.
For better or worse, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has, of late, been frequently cited for its Oscar prognosticative prowess. Of course, it’s a pointless tidbit in the grand scheme and no one should be looking at organizations like this to see how accurate they might be on that front (even if this one in particular, of which I am a member, makes it a point every year to remind you).
Having said that, I don’t think anyone would be shocked in the slightest if the BFCA’s list of 10 Best Picture nominees (see below) matches the Academy’s 10-for-10 this year. There is just one film on the list that ever felt truly questionable to me at some point along the way, and even that seems more and more locked in as latter-year hopefuls fail to catch expected fire.
“Inglourious Basterds” and “Nine” led the way with 10 nominations each, a new record. However, given the addition of below the line categories this year, it’s worth noting that their tallies wouldn’t have been so robust in the past. Quentin Tarantino’s film would have landed five nominations if it was business as usual. “Nine” would have landed three. And “Up in the Air” would have led the field.
*All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.
Disney tasted a bit of its old early-1990s magic with the number one finish of “The Princess and the Frog” this week. The hand-drawn toon grossed $25 million after two phenomenal weeks in New York and Los Angeles only. “The Little Mermaid,” “Beauty and the Beast” and “Aladdin” all had similar Holiday season launches and only “Aladdin” went wide with a bigger total.
Of course, all three were on far fewer venues than the 3,434 of “The Princess and the Frog,” but this is still a very encouraging figure. Family entertainment is solid gold during the two weeks around Christmas and a finish well over $100 million should be no problem. These aren’t Pixar numbers, but they at least match up to “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” “The Fox and the Hound” and other second-tier Disney classics. Or is that third-tier?
“The Blind Side” takes second place with another $15.5 million and cruises past the $150 million mark. Another $3 million and it will pass “Remember the Titans” for the title of highest grossing sports drama since “Rocky.” The $246 million it would need to pass “The Waterboy” for the title of highest grossing football movie may be out of reach, but let’s all pause for a second to digest the fact that “The Waterboy” made $245 million.
• A little movie called “Avatar” premiered. This week’s Oscar Talk tucked into the film.
• As “The Lovely Bones” faces a frosty critical welcome, this week’s Off the Carpet column went to bat for the film.
• We interviewed a quartet of young actors making strides this year: Abbie Cornish, Saoirse Ronan, Ben Foster and Bryce Dallas Howard.
• In The Long Shot, we examined the animation race — and stood up for under-the-radar contender “Mary & Max.”
*All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.
We are only one week away from the day that movie-going is changed forever so why even bother seeing anything now? I can’t be hassled by anything in only TWO dimensions! I didn’t buy these designer 3D/sunglasses for nothing!
Disney really emphasizes the 2D this weekend with the wide launch of “The Princess and the Frog,” the studio’s first non-computer animated title since “Home on the Range” in 2004. That modest film grossed $57.8 million, despite ingeniously casting Roseanne as a cow, but the damage had already been done by “Treasure Planet” two years before.
Intended to be Disney’s huge Thanksgiving family film, that flick grossed a terrible $46.9 million and effectively closed down the production house. Ironically enough, it’s John Lasseter who is spearheading the renaissance and the grosses here will go a long way towards deciding the future of the medium.
Two weeks of exclusive engagements in New York and Los Angeles have been a gold mine and “A Christmas Carol” and “Planet 51” will not be offering much competition. “The Blind Side” might be the only obstacle in the way of a really large opening but I think this should be the number one film easy and earn $32 million or so. I know I’ll be there.
Still fully engaging at the end of a long day of interviews, actress Saoirse Ronan seems as eager to dive into the particulars of Peter Jackson’s latest film, “The Lovely Bones,” as she might have been before being asked every question in the book. Her energy is undeniable, as well as her poise, a young actress grounded but hungry for challenging work.
Her performance in Jackson’s film is a considerable notch in the 15-year-old’s early career. As Susie Salmon, the ill-fated youth at the center of Alice Sebold’s best-selling novel, Ronan had to go places she certainly never has as a performer. But the working environment and relationship her director developed on the set deserves a great deal of the credit, she says.
“I don’t think I could really label what I’ve learned from Pete,” Ronan says. “I was with him for about nine months and being with someone like that every day that gets the best performance out of you that I can give makes you work hard as an actor and therefore makes you grow as an actor, and hopefully makes you a better actor. So I suppose you could say he’s made me a better actor.”
Ronan was particularly fond of Jackson’s upbeat, energetic approach to the work. And it is fair to say it was, as far as she is concerned, a non-traditional environment, but at the start of her career, she embraces the idea of eschewing the typical, just as Jackson has.
If there’s anything you’ll take away from Peter Jackson’s “The Lovely Bones,” it will most certainly be Stanley Tucci’s unsettling portrayal of Mr. Harvey, the demented antagonist of the piece and a character that couldn’t be further away from Tucci’s own disposition.
I spoke to Saoirse Ronan last week and as she puts it, “Every scene I had with Stanley was intense, as you know. It’s not going to be happy. I didn’t find it as difficult to handle as Stanley did, and I don’t mean on a performance level, but just the subject matter. Because he’s a father himself and he’s just so nice. I enjoyed doing it and I sort of enjoyed being freaked out by this man.” (Watch for that interview shortly.)
But “freaked out” doesn’t really begin to cover it. Tucci’s performance is as much in the nuance of meticulous villainy as it is in the actions written for him on the page. And to think — he almost didn’t do it. Paramount has been nice enough to offer us an exclusive look at a featurette dedicated to the role and the performance, with thoughts from Tucci and Jackson scattered throughout. Have a look after the jump.
• Just in time for BFCA and SAG balloting, Dennis Lim takes a second look at “Public Enemies.” [Los Angeles Times]
• Steven Zeitchik reports casting news before it’s official: Josh Brolin is being considered for “Men in Black 3.” I’m down. [Hero Complex]
• David Poland talks “The Lovely Bones” with Peter Jackson. [The Hot Blog]
• Reed Johnson sits down with “Invictus” director Clint Eastwood and star Morgan Freeman. [Los Angeles Times]
• Eric D. Snider digs into the different perspectives on what makes a decade’s end. [Eric D. Snider]
• Noah Forrest stumps for some low-lying contenders that need the help. [Movie City News]
It is true. The annual Oscar season has forged an epidemic of instant judgment and facile analysis that has become a fairly significant blight on the fraternity of film criticism.
Not everyone is guilty. In fact, most aren’t. But from where I sit, and speaking solely for myself, the initial quality-assessors of the industry have twisted their roles as measured, considerate analysts into something resembling auctioneers, barking verdicts and moving to the next thing. And this time of year, it seems the desire to offer that judgment first has murdered many a season’s darling.
This year’s victim, as I see it, is Peter Jackson’s meticulously crafted masterwork “The Lovely Bones.”
As of this writing, I have seen the film four times. The first occasion left me with a strong desire to keep things to myself. A few thoughts on Oscar Talk were as much as I was willing to offer. No, my opinion isn’t so sacred that it deserves such handling. But the film, in my view, is. And no one who has doled out a viewpoint seems to have been willing to let this film breathe a little before jumping to their conclusions.
Welcome to a belated edition of Oscar Talk, your weekly kudocast featuring yours truly and Anne Thompson of Thompson on Hollywood.
On the docket today:
• With the National Board of Review having kicked off the awards season, Anne and I discuss the big winners and implications for the season.
• Tis the season and the party circuit is alight, so with that in mind, we talk about a few of the taste-makers around town this week, including…
• Peter Jackson, Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci in an intimate cocktail party for “The Lovely Bones.”
• Fox Searchlight’s holiday shin-dig in Century City with “Crazy Heart” principals in attendance.
• An “Inglourious Basterds” DVD release party at producer Lawrence Bender’s home.
• And a Summit holiday party with the folks from “The Hurt Locker” burning the midnight oil.
• Finally, no reviews of “It’s Complicated” are allowed yet, but Anne and I discuss how we think it will fare in the awards race.
Have a listen to this week’s podcast below, with a taste of Hans Zimmer’s score for “Sherlock Holmes” to start you off. As always, you can subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.
[display_podcast]
One of the things I always look forward to each year has been the launch of VantageGuilds.com, an FYC site that was geared toward Paramount Vantage’s product and always had great interactive features and wonderful design. This year, with Vantage gone, we’ve got ParamountGuilds.com, which just went live.
You can check out some goodies related to “Star Trek” and “Up in the Air” right now. I’m told the content for “The Lovely Bones” and “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” will be available next week. For now, give the image below a click and have a look.
• Peter Knegt talks to “Up in the Air” supporting actress hopeful (and newly minted NBR award recipient) Anna Kendrick. [indieWIRE]
• Stanley Tucci and how to (reluctantly) play a pervert. [The Carpetbagger]
• Peter Jackson, meanwhile, doesn’t much care about an Oscar campaign but does hope that people look closely at Tucci and Saoirse Ronan’s performances. [Vulture]
• Donna Freydkin talks “Brothers” and transitioning to an adult role with Natalie Portman. [USA Today]
• Laura M. Holson talks to Tom Ford and others about the former Gucci creative director’s feature film debut, “A Single Man.” [New York Times]
• Roger Ebert four-stars “Up in the Air.” [Chicago Sun-Times]
Every now and then this season, I’ve sat down and taken on the fool’s errand of deciphering what 2009, the year in film, has been “about.” It’s silly because a given film year is the result of years and years of preparation and development, so to think a collective thematic consciousness settles in is a bit of a stretch.
This year alone we have a swift production that at this time last year saw the filmmaker still in the editing suite for his late-2008 entry, while on the other side of the spectrum, a forward-thinking director will finally see the end of a decades-long journey for an anticipated “game-changer.” Movies come from a thousand different places and a thousand different perspectives.
Nevertheless, I’ve always come back to one thought on this year’s slate of films: catharsis. With expected exceptions here and there, in one way or another, the bulk of what we’ve seen on screens in 2009 has very much been about emotional purging, bleeding out the past and, not to be too on-the-nose with the zeitgeist connotations, change.
Let me illustrate. The most and the least compelling examples are the best place to start: Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist” and Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus,” respectively.