• David Poland painstakingly seeks out assumed evidence to support his theory that “The Hurt Locker” will be this year’s Best Picture victor. [Movie City News]
• John Horn sits down with “Precious” screenwriter Geoffrey Fletcher. [Los Angeles Times]
• Dave Karger chats up Viggo Mortensen and his “Road” co-star Kodi Smit-McPhee. [Oscar Watch]
• “The Lovely Bones” finally landed this week, to decidedly mixed reviews.
• Kris and Anne offered their thoughts on the film (among others) in this week’s Oscar Talk.
• In Off the Carpet, we combed through the Best Adapted Screenplay contenders (which now include “District 9”).
• “New Moon” surprised nobody with a record-breaking box-office haul last weekend, and its dominance is set to continue.
• This week’s Long Shot column surveyed the growing buzz around populist contenders in this year’s Oscar race.
Welcome to Oscar Talk, your weekly kudocast featuring yours truly and Anne Thompson of Thompson on Hollywood.
On the docket today:
• We lead off talking holiday screeners, including further talk of “Inglourious Basterds” slipping into the 10 in the wake of fading heavies.
• Speaking of which, fresh off a screening of “The Lovely Bones,” a film that isn’t caught in the embargo tug of war, we touch briefly on our thoughts, to certainly be expanded at another time.
• As trade and magazine reviews pop up while others are still told to hold off, we get into Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus.”
• And with screenings of “Nine” already two weeks old, we finally add our perspective on the musical adaptation and certain category placements.
• Finally, with no revelations left save for James Cameron’s “Avatar,” we look at the film’s marketing strategy and the rumor mill on secret screenings.
Have a listen to this week’s podcast below, with Kate Hudson and “Cinema Italiano” leading the way. As always, you can subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.
[display_podcast]
Without any doubt, one of the most difficult Oscar categories to predict is Best Makeup. Like Best Visual Effects, the final three nominees are chosen from a previously announced shortlist of seven.
Very frequently, films that would seem to be sure things fail to even make the bake-off. Even so, it is possible to gauge the general sort of films which are nominated, with considerable prosthetics and aging effects being among the most cited accomplishments in this category.
This branch is one that regularly seems willing nominate dreadful films, or to eschew insularity (which is not to say they don’t have their favorites, such as Greg Cannom and Rick Baker).
I think many of the films I spoke of in September remain firmly in the running, And perhaps leading the way is Neil Blomkamp’s “District 9.” While much of the work in this was CGI, the makeup was key, not only to the main character’s transformation but also to capturing the injuries of the characters in the slums of Johannesburg. The crew has not been nominated before, but I don’t think that will be a problem.
Speaking of Peter Jackson’s latest, the film screened for the Royals tonight across the pond. The Guardian has doused it:
The screen version, by contrast, is so infuriatingly coy, and so desperate to preserve the modesty of its soulful victim that it amounts to an ongoing clean-up operation…Jackson turns up with his eyes averted, spraying cloying perfume to the left and right.
The Sun, in a clunky example of “writing,” has raved it:
[Jackson] creates something even more amazing than his Middle-earth fantasy. The effects are breathtaking.
Total Film has a rave up:
It deals with loss, grief, rage, familial breakdown and love, most of all love. But it’s also energetic and entertaining, the camera already moving whenever Jackson cuts into a scene and the horror/thriller elements given just enough fizz to recall the director’s early genre forays (minus the splatter) but not so comic book as to undercut the drama.
Why is everything being dumped out there this week? Jeez, space yourself out, folks:
(Courtesy: MySpace)
As always, the year’s adapted screenplay race is much more competitive than the original screenplay race. But what’s intriguing to note is that of the anticipated “big four” still to be widely screened, three of them are right in the thick of this discussion.
In the case of “Nine,” there is a chance for Anthony Minghella to receive his second posthumous Oscar nomination in as many years, something I don’t think we’ve seen since James Dean. But sometimes the razzle-dazzle of a movie musical can overshadow what craft there might be on the page, so it’s no slam dunk. Michael Tolkin is co-writer on the script, and even though I’ve seen the film, I’m prohibited from offering my thoughts on the work.
“The Lovely Bones,” meanwhile, is adapted from a beloved novel, looks to feature a more reserved and refined Peter Jackson than we’ve seen in recent years and could see the lovable trio (Jackson, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh) back in Oscar’s good graces. We’ll know when we see it.
The Royals and invited British press get their look on the 24th. Harry Knowles has received his typical peek (as Paramount continues to nurture the relationship as if it’s 2002 and AICN still moves the needle). The rest of the US press corps has to wait until the other side of the holiday on the 27th to judge. Hopefully we’ll still care by then. I heard some scathing criticisms out of an exhibitor screening last week.
Some categories haven’t had that much renewal since I last reviewed them. Best Original Score is an exception. Principally, this is because the category is very difficult to judge before hearing the scores, not to mention last minute personnel changes (as composers always seem to be the most disposable members of film crews).
As I said last time, the music branch, though it has opened up to newbies slightly in recent years, is notoriously one of AMPAS’s most insular branches. Best Picture nominees tend to do reasonably well, but the category also tends to award “loud” music, and as of late, world music has been a favorite.
One thing that has not changed, in my opinion, is that Michael Giacchino continues to lead this category for his score for Pixar’s “Up.” Giacchino was nominated two years ago for “Ratatouille” and again composed a soundtrack which was sad, joyous and suspenseful. The film is likely headed towards a Best Picture nomination and I expect Giacchino to show up as well.
At the same time, I also can’t help but wonder if Giacchino maybe, just maybe, could pull off a double nomination this year for his compositions on J. J. Abrams’s “Star Trek.” The music was quite original and bombastic. And, of course, the film a huge hit. I don’t see a lot of surefire nominees in this category, so this could be a place where it finds a home.
Okay, this story has been doing the round for a day or so, but I only got to it now. Let me say upfront that if you haven’t read Alice Sebold’s “The Lovely Bones,” and wish to remain innocent of any major plot developments in Peter Jackson’s upcoming film, stop reading now.
I mean it.
MAJOR SPOILER ALERT.
Still with me? Good. Those familiar with the novel will know that it ends with the heroine’s rapist-murderer (to be played in the film by Stanley Tucci) falling to his death into a ravine, after being freakishly hit on the head by a falling icicle.
I always thought it a rather crass, unintentionally amusing resolution, but was at least grateful that Sebold refrained from something more lurid.
The swank, spare-no-expense shin-dig last night at the historic Griffith Observatory was officially a DVD release party for one of the summer’s biggest critical and fiscal hits. But with nearly the entire Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s membership on hand, the general vibe of awards season in the air and the obvious implications of a fall DVD release for an early-year hopeful, it’s fair to say it was ostensibly a call to Oscar arms for a film that has a pretty good shot at one of this year’s 10 Best Picture slots.
Most of the “Star Trek” cast was on hand — Zachary Quinto, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, John Cho, Clifton Collins Jr. — but Leonard Nimoy and Walter Koenig were the ones causing the biggest stir, as of course they would. A specialty drink menu (Spock’s Mind Meld Mojito, Red Matter, Romulan Ale), little red matter balls in giant flower vases, telescopes trained on Jupiter, bright in the Southwest sky (including one of the big ones in the Observatory), the Observatory itself lit up by projected galactic imagery, the whole thing had a nifty, novel, interstellar vibe.
And it might pay off. After all, it only takes a little wining and dining to get the HFPA on your side, right? But seriously speaking, there are a couple of Best Picture slots that, to my mind, are up for grabs. Should the big anticipated films miss with the awards constituencies, then it’s just as well for a film like “Star Trek,” still one of the year’s best films.
This weekend has already brought junket screenings of Rob Marshall’s “Nine,” so we can’t call it “unseen” anymore. Then again, everyone has signed agreements not to discuss (even trigger happy HFPA types), so we can still safely call it “awaited.” Screenings of “The Lovely Bones” may or may not be set prior to the big London unveiling on the 24th, while “Invictus” is expected to start rolling out next week. “Avatar,” meanwhile, has nearly another month before we get a look.
The question is, which one is going to miss and miss big? Perhaps the answer is none, I don’t know, but we’re in that dangerous territory where anticipation could kill the impact and/or something might just fall on its face, much like we’ve seen over and over again in the past with countless other pretenders. If you have an opinion, let us know in the what that is. Come on back here with further thoughts if you wish.
Welcome to Oscar Talk, your weekly kudocast featuring yours truly and Anne Thompson of indieWIRE’s Thompson on Hollywood.
On the docket today:
• Anne and I discuss the four perceived Oscar heavies that have yet to unveil — “Avatar,” “Invictus,” “The Lovely Bones” and “Nine” — and what being last out of the gate means vis a vis echo chamber buzz.
• Spinning off of that, we dig into the “Avatar” budget story of the week.
• With the list of qualifying animated features official, we take a brief survey of the category once more with thoughts on potential nominees.
• With Movie City News’s Gurus o’ Gold chart collecting supporting category predictions, Anne and I take the opportunity to profile those two categories.
• And Anne breaks down the impromptu Mike Tyson bout that went down at LAX Wednesday and whether it could hurt James Toback’s documentary feature on the fighter.
Have a listen to this week’s podcast below. And as always, you can subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.
[display_podcast]
As a recap from the last time we covered this field, the category of Best Sound Mixing (formerly known as merely Best Sound) rewards re-recording mixers — individuals who mix music, dialogue, effects and everything else into the soundtrack we ultimately hear — as well as production sound mixer — those responsible for capturing the sounds on set as they are recorded.
As we’ve noted, LOUD films tend to be rewarded here. Blockbusters, either science-fiction or action-based, are also cited frequently. War films and musicals also tend to show up, especially when they are in contention in the Best Picture race.
Two big contenders are still unseen: Rob Marshall’s “Nine” is very likely to score here, given the branch’s love of musicals. Barring the film being a disaster, I just can’t see it missing. Last year’s winner in the category, Richard Pryke, is on board.
The other big title that is still unseen is James Cameron’s “Avatar.” I’m still not sure how the film will ultimately perform. However, it cannot be denied that Cameron’s films have excelled here. I’m sure the film will have an interesting soundscape, and mixing legends Gary Summers and Andy Nelson are on board.
I recently rewatched “Julie & Julia” at an industry screening, and came to a pair of conclusions that I hadn’t quite reached the first time. The first is that, as grandly as Meryl Streep holds up her end of the film, it’s Amy Adams’s half of the story, curiously enough, that I found more compelling.
The second is that the truly great performance of the film is given by Stanley Tucci.
Tucci’s dry-sweet delineation of Paul Child is an actor’s masterclass in making a silk purse from a sow’s ear of a character: it’s difficult to imagine any of his lines or gestures popping on the scripted page, but he listens to Streep’s performance with such intelligence and compassion that his listening becomes compelling in and of itself.
And his crisp, unexpected exclamation of “Fuck them!” deserves a line-delivery award of its own.
“People say believe half of what you see, son, and none of what you hear.” Marvin Gaye’s Motown standard may as well have been written about Oscar punditry.
Still, it’s hard to resist the allure of hearsay in this game, and even as I douse myself with multiple pinches of salt, I found these two recent tidbits from Steve Pond’s The Odds blog interesting. Interesting, I hasten to add, and little more.
The first addresses the matter of how “Precious” might play with the older, white, male audience that comprises the Academy majority:
Among the viewers who saw the film over the weekend, incidentally, were a group of Academy members and guests at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater Sunday evening. I hear that the AMPAS members screening drew a smallish audience (about 300 in the 1,000-seat theater) but played well, with the largest applause going to the film’s lead actresses, Gabourey Sidibe and Mo’Nique. (Director Lee Daniels, in contrast, reportedly didn’t prompt as much enthusiasm.) The size of the crowd suggests to me that the film’s biggest problem will get getting Oscar voters to see it.
In recent weeks we’ve been covering the performance categories in this space. With little else of tangible interest, what else can we possibly discuss? It’s as good a time as any to take note of what we have on our hands. Be sure to check out our looks at Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress if you missed them.
(Speaking of which, with the rise of “Crazy Heart” in this year’s race, it goes without saying Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhaal should be added to their respective fields as they are very much in this year’s race.)
At first glance, the Best Supporting Actor category looks fairly established this season. There have been, after all, a number of contenders already and plenty more to come. But none have really stood out from the pack yet, making this race actually as up for grabs as any other.
Possibly the most agreed-upon contender in the field has to be Christoph Waltz, who took acting honors in Cannes for his villainous portrayal in Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds.” Waltz has made for quite the story off-screen as well, given his latter-career lift-off. And even detractors of the film (yours truly included) have to consider his performance a highlight of the year so far.
If anyone gives considerable chase here it’s going to be Christopher Plummer, smartly shifted to a supporting focus for his performance as Leo Tolstoy in “The Last Station.” Plummer will have sentiment (never been nominated) and added visibility (also appearing in “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”) on his side.
When I first addressed the race for Best Art Direction in August, I spoke of how the branch tends to favor period pieces and fantasy films. Considering the research involved in the former and the often showy creativity on display in the latter, this is hardly surprising.
That said, I often feel badly for exceptional contemporary films that have been slighted here in the past. Examples from this decade immediately popping to mind include David Wasco’s tremendously clever sets for “The Royal Tenenbaums” and Alex McDowell’s ultra-realistic airport design on “The Terminal.”
While many of the titles in contention are the same over two months later, the race has nevertheless undergone some significant changes. Primarily this is because many of the films have opened, been unveiled at festivals and/or revealed glimpses via trailers and other materials.
At the top of the list, still, is Rob Marshall’s “Nine.” John Myhre won this category on both of his previous two collaborations with Marshall. Dabbling in the world of Fellini seems like the perfect opportunity to grab his fifth nomination.
While the “Sherlock Holmes” trailer has been around for a while, the verdict is still out on the latest film from Guy Ritchie – a director whose work to date has hardly been typical AMPAS fodder. Nevertheless, Sarah Greenwood has been nominated twice before for capturing period England, Joe Wright’s “Pride & Prejudice” and “Atonement” doing the trick. She’ll be doing the same here, albeit on a much larger scale. A nomination seems a distinct possibility in my opinion.
As we begin to count down the days to the official unveiling of “The Lovely Bones” in London later this month (yes, I’m as stunned as you are to realize it’s November already), the film still stands as the biggest wild-card of the season’s prestige offerings.
The trailer for “Invictus” confirmed it’s (for better or worse) the model of film we had in mind, and we have some idea what to expect from “Nine” … but even a lavish trailer didn’t answer half the questionmarks lingering over Jackson’s adaptation of Alice Sebold’s decidedly tricky source novel (discussed here).
What emerges dominant in the story’s strange genre fusion of fantasy, serial killer thriller and domestic drama? How has Saoirse Ronan’s lead role been beefed up from Susie Salmon’s passive presence in the novel? How will Jackson’s effects-heavy imagery mesh with the novel’s more delicate dramatics? And will the novel’s millions of fans be appeased or alienated by his wilder stylistic impulses? It seems to me the film stands little chance of a middling reception — it’ll hit or miss big.