• Anne Thompson reports that there is no “official” costume designer on “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” so anyone holding out longshot hope for its Oscar chances in that field can go ahead and focus elsewhere. [Thompson on Hollywood]
• Melena Ryzik gets Ivan Reitman to admit “The Hangover” would be on his top 10 list. [The Carpetbagger]
• Dave Karger chats with “Nine” star Penelope Cruz, who could be on her way to back-to-back supporting actress nominations. [Oscar Watch]
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.
• Anthony Breznican writes up the year in varied animated features. [USA Today]
• David Thomson on the death of method acting. [Wall Street Journal]
• Tom O’Neil chats up “The Messenger” star Ben Foster. [Gold Derby]
Kris is too smart to go there but, undeterred by my less-than-stellar Globes showing, I will.
Principally, I admit, because I feel like going on record with my odd conviction that “The Messenger” will claim four nods. This is the film’s moment to pounce, I think.
My biggest wish for the morning? For an unexpected (and deserving) name to crop up in that still-wild final Best Actress spot. (Sidebar: does the Best Stunt Ensemble award still exist? Why is no one predicting it?)
What are the crazy voices in your head telling you? My guesses after the cut.
As the season hits its stride, and precursors turn murky perceptions of pack leaders and stragglers into harder realities, I find myself wondering how I would fill out my ballot if I were an Academy member.
That’s not the same as wondering what I would fill my ballot with – as Kris just did today. Unlike many voters in the Academy and precursor ranks alike, who seemingly run out of ideas two slots in (“Hmm, did I see ten movies this year?”) and then reach for the names they’ve heard everyone else mention, I have no shortage of worthy suggestions for inclusion, whether people are talking about them or not.
No, I’m referring to the how, the method, the strategy. Is it as simple as jotting down the films and individual achievements one admired most over the past 12 months? In a perfect world, yes. But do considerations of which of one’s favorites – and, indeed, least favorites – pose a threat in the race necessitate some compromise?
Were I an Academy voter, in other words, would I give “35 Shots of Rum” one of my Best Picture slots, knowing full well it doesn’t having a snowball’s chance of a nomination? Or would I be a little craftier, and give the slot to “The Messenger” – a fine film that I love less, but that has slightly more hope of knocking something truly undeserving from the Oscar lineup?
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…
Doesn’t it feel like an eternity ago that we were talking about the possibilities for “Shutter Island” in this year’s Oscar race? I’m still sulking, frankly.
Still, compensation for the delay arrives in the shape of some European festival prestige: Martin Scorsese’s adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s Gothic thriller will play out of competition at the 60th Berlin International Film Festival in February.
Of course, Berlin audiences won’t be the first to lay eyes on the film: it recently had a “surprise” screening at Butt-Numb-a-Thon in Texas. Impressions are scattered around the net if you care to seek them.
Also in the lineup is Roman Polanski’s latest, “The Ghost Writer” — a political thriller adapted from a Robert Harris novel, starring Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan. Unlike Scorsese’s film, Polanski’s will be in contention for the Golden Bear.
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.
Jeez, give us some breathing room. Anyway, the American Film Institute has revealed their annual selection of the year’s best U.S. titles, and as usual, it’s a pleasingly diverse, idiosyncratic list.
My heart sings to see Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck’s marvelous “Sugar” make the cut, at the expense of heavily-hyped titles like “Invictus” and even “Avatar” — Anne Thompson reports the latter got a special citation for technical achievement, though it’s not in the press release.
From an awards-watcher’s perspective, however, the most interesting inclusion here might be “The Messenger,” whose higher-than-expected precursor profile suggests some may be underestimating its Oscar potential.
Those looking for correlation with the Academy’s eventual Top 10 should bear in mind that a foreign title like “An Education” isn’t eligible for inclusion here. Even so, I’d say there are plenty of American titles not included here that are more likely to land Best Picture nods than, say, “The Hangover.”
But that’s the beauty of the list — it’s always a joy to see a set of year-end honors with more on its mind than mere Oscar prognostication. Check out the full Top 10 after the cut.
Ben Foster became an actor I knew I would watch for a long time during an episode of the now canceled TV drama “Boston Public.”
Foster was cast as a high school student dying of cancer and had an extraordinary monologue about wanting a Christmas with no crying, with no tears; he wanted his last Christmas to be about joy, so he kept the fact that the cancer was no longer in remission from his family. He had what Pauline Kael called, “Bite you on the nose talent.”
In the last few years Foster has slowly been building up a strong filmography that I believe has placed him as one of the most gifted and exciting young actors in American cinema. Even a role on “My Name is Earl” was electrifying. With major roles in “Alpha Dog,” “3:10 to Yuma” and now “The Messenger,” it’s a quick cross-section of a talent on the rise.
Many times interviewing young actors on the way up is an exercise in tedium because they can be so full of themselves there is barely room in the same room for us both. Not so with Foster, a thoroughly engaging, intelligent, brutally honest young man with his head firmly attached.
Films dealing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been popular with audiences or critics over the last few years. “In the Valley of Elah” was superb because of the haunting performance from Tommy Lee Jones, and this year Kathryn Bigelow gave us “The Hurt Locker,” which is easily among the best films of the year and could see her become the first women to win an Academy Award for Best Director. So I waded right in: Why this film?
The real question with today’s National Board of Review announcement wasn’t who won, but who didn’t win.
A couple of ties and a list of honorees that seemed to canvas the entire crop of filmmaking product from 2009 adds something of a diluted quality to the proceedings, I must say. Of course, it is worth noting that major titles like “The Lovely Bones” and “Nine” were not only absent from the list of the group’s top 10 films of the year, but they weren’t visible anywhere, in any category.
The big winner was Jason Reitman’s “Up in the Air,” which took down Best Film, Best Actor (George Clooney in a tie with “Invictus” star Morgan Freeman), Best Supporting Actress (Anna Kendrick) and Best Adapted Screenplay.
“Invictus” also did well, nabbing a Best Director citation for Clint Eastwood (someone the NBR has shown, time and again, that they can’t resist) in addition to Freeman’s shared award and a mention in the Freedom of Expression category.
(More, including a full list of winners, after the jump.)
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.
• “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.
• The significance of “Nine” for Anthony Minghella’s legacy. [The Guardian]
• Steven Zeitchik catches on to the year’s thin original screenplay race and bangs the drum for “Sugar.” [Risky Business]
• Lauren Shucker talks “Up in the Air” with director Jason Reitman. [Wall Street Journal]
Woody Harrelson is running behind…about a half an hour behind. This after a number of delays and schedule changes throughout the week. When he strolls nonchalantly out onto the rooftop spread of a posh West Hollywood hotel, you can see why. It’s not irresponsibility. It’s not eccentric nuisance. The guy just marches to his own drummer, and certainly, to his own beat.
Publicity handler in tow, Harrelson moves and speaks purposefully, casual, always relaxed (though one might have fun speculating why that is). Some may get him to say sensational things, but that’s not the M.O. of the interviewer he’s chatting with this afternoon. So the perching hawk to my left, giving him a sharp look when he offers harmless jokes that might be seen as tasteless, isn’t exactly necessary.
“Why don’t you let us talk alone,” he finally says, half-way through — respectfully, but sincerely. He’s a man who seems to enjoy a chat, no matter how much it might push the rest of his schedule back. And he’d certainly prefer to engage in one without that kind of oversight.
Ostensibly his press rounds as of late are for the Oren Moverman film “The Messenger.” Appearances on The Colbert Report and, immediately following our encounter, The Late Late Show are popping up left and right. He’s on the cover of this month’s Venice magazine. But he’s also given a pair of zany performances in genre films this year that are worth discussing for the versatility they illuminate in his work.
Woody hustled off to CBS to film this appearance on The Late Late Show right after I spoke with him Tuesday. So it’s surreal, from my point of view, to see him wearing the same stuff he was when we spoke. Anyway, just one of those things. Wonderful interview, a Teddy bear, great heart, and, it goes without saying, a hell of an actor. I really hope his brilliant work in “The Messenger” gets a fair shake this season.
When I had the unmitigated gall last week to project a set of winners for this year’s Oscar race, I was a bit startled at how easy Mark Boal’s script for “The Hurt Locker” slid into the Best Original Screenplay slot. Looking over the landscape of contenders in the category, it’s a little obvious why such a somewhat non-traditional entry would be pegged as a frontrunner: this is a pretty thin year for original screenplays.
That should take nothing away from Boal’s work, which is certainly commendable. But beyond Pixar’s “Up” (penned by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson) and the Coen brothers’ “A Serious Man” (my pick for best-in-show in the category), there isn’t much competition for Boal’s play at the statuette. I even find myself struggling with two more solid bets for nods after that trio.
Fox Searchlight, however, is making some pretty strong moves on behalf of “(500) Days of Summer,” written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber. The pair has already been cited by the Hollywood Film Festival as well as the Hamilton Behind the Camera awards. Given the studio’s campaign prowess (and the undying spirit of the film’s champions), it makes sense to expect a spot to be reserved for the film here.
To fill out the set, you’ve got a slot that is undeniably up for grabs. So let’s dig into the field and see what we come up with.
*All historical figures are adjusted to today’s dollars.
Roland Emmerich’s still got it. And by “it,” I mean the ability to make blockbuster hits out of the same movie again and again.
“2012” opened at the top of the box office with $65 million and the seventh-biggest opening of 2009. It’s also the 10th-biggest November opening of all time, sliding in between last year’s “Quantum of Solace” and 2002’s surprise juggernaut “8 Mile.”
Mid-November releases have the benefit of the highly lucrative Thanksgiving holiday coming somewhere around their second or third week, so “2012” has the chance to earn three times its opening, which certainly wouldn’t be the case in the summer. I actually don’t think it will be the case here either and I think we’ll see it top out around $150 million. While that figure is less than the production budget, the film has already made $225 million worldwide after just three days, so Emmerich has free reign to make whatever disaster movie he wants next.
Destroying the Earth four times is probably the limit for any director but luckily for Emmerich, we just discovered water on the moon, so he can go ahead and make a movie where we’ve colonized it and are living there, but for whatever reason it gets destroyed.