In Contention

Blog

  • Treading water?

    I have a complicated relationship with Richard Curtis. (Well, with his work, at least.)

    On the one hand, I’m keen to defend the man: it’s become fashionable here to direct aggressive vitriol his way for daring to stick to an upbeat formula that, while hardly pushing the envelope artistically, has proved both popular and crowdpleasing. While more considered than most, this critique by Tim Adams in yesterday’s Observer is typical of the scepticism with which local critics regard him:

    This desire to be a one-man band, and not just a writer of scripts, appears to be born of an unlikely immodesty. There was a likable kind of humility about the scale of Four Weddings … but as the budgets have grown, so, apparently, has Curtis’s sense of what he is capable of. Somewhat like Blair, he seems to feel he is a pretty straight guy, but also a lone positive voice.

    He seems to want his films to evangelise the idea that the world is nowhere near as grim as most film-makers like to think … It is admirable, that faith, but when translated wholesale to movies it borders on sanctimoniousness.

    Like I said, I want to go against that elitist grain, but the truth is that Curtis’ maddeningly inconsistent oeuvre doesn’t entirely justify such loyalty. Yes, “Four Weddings and a Funeral” still stands as an exemplary, structurally inventive rom-com, even if it occasionally misjudges the audience’s affection for its characters. (Andie MacDowell over Kristin Scott Thomas? Really?)

    (more…)

  • Out

  • Blah, blah, blah

    UPDATE: I’ve been on a plane and then in a bed for the last however many hours, so I’ve come to the table late on this.  But Finke has responded in full and dropped the bomb that Variety wanted to buy Deadline Hollywood Daily, takes some cheap shots at Anne Thompson, etc.  No more posts on this from my end because it’s all so…pathetic.

    EARLIER: This is going to be going on for a while, but you might as well stay up to date.

    After the trinity attack on blogdom (and Nikki Finke specifically), David Poland finds irony in Variety’s anemic ad revenue while Kim Masters can’t contain the estrogen (nor pass up the chance to promote one of her old books) in a recent Daily Beast article.  Poland then lands this money shot on Masters today:

    Masters , like Finke before her blog, is without full employment as a journalist and is writing this piece as a freelancer for another blog that aspires to trafficking in gossip as “breaking news.” Slamming Variety instead of reporting on whether the accusations are factual fits the profile of the person she is defending.

    Patrick Goldstein, by the way, has responded to the weekend’s pieces at The Big Picture.  Like I said, it’s going to get ugly.  Let’s hope we can make it about the movies again real soon.

  • Right on

    There are so many contrivances in the “prison” genre that are completely absent from McQueen’s film, which focuses on the faces of characters and their surroundings. The theme is not pushed forward by plot or by character but by feeling and emotion, which is enormously difficult in such a visual and aural medium. Now that he’s been able to show the beauty in detritus, I can’t wait to see what else he shines his light on.

    From Noah Forrest’s assessment of Steve McQueen’s “Hunger” at Movie City News.

  • Wild thing

    USA Today recently offered another taste of “Where the Wild Things Are” — Susan Wlosyzczyna’s article (essentially a brief chat with child lead Max Records) doesn’t reveal much, but a bunch of new (and some old) stills sure do.

    With every glimpse I get of this film, I’m more impressed by how Spike Jonze seems to have found the appropriate visual textures to enliven Maurice Sendak’s all-but-untouchable imagery, without resorting to slavish or contrived imitation. Seriously, how gorgeous does this thing look? More pics here.

  • And now for something completely different

    Never let it be said that the Brothers Coen are predictable in their choice of projects. Having had their greatest crossover success to date with a film that dabbled in elements of the genre, Variety reports that they are set to make their first all-out Western — a remake of that hoary 1969 oater “True Grit,” best known today as the film that finally won John Wayne his gold-watch Oscar.

    On the surface, this isn’t the most promising of prospects — the story of a teenaged girl joining forces with a crotchety, aged US marshal to avenge her father’s death, the original “Grit” was a creaky, sentimental work that must have appeared dated even in its own time.

    But the Coens, obviously, are promising an interpretation far removed from that of Henry Hathaway’s film. Their intention is apparently to hew closer to Charles Portis’ source novel, telling the story from the girl’s perspective and placing less emphasis on the veteran character — which sounds like an improvement to me already. I admit I’ve never read the novel, though I gather it’s got harder edges than the 1969 adaptation.

    Encouragingly, the Paramount production will reteam the brothers with “No Country” producer Scott Rudin. Apparently, this project takes priority over their Rudin-produced adaptation of Michael Chabon’s “The Yiddish Policeman’s Union” that was being mooted — which, frankly, I’d have been more interested in seeing. But the Coens work in mysterious ways, so my mind is open.

    Finally, here’s a good omen: the last time they attempted a remake, they took on a masterpiece (“The Ladykillers”) and fell on their faces. Perhaps tackling a lesser work should reap greater rewards.

  • POLL: What did you think of ‘Knowing?’

    I guess I’ll leave it with an updated poll before heading out.

    The weekend’s box office champ was the Nicolas Cage starrer “Knowing,” from director Alex Proyas.  Even though a mere handful of you said you’d be seeing it this weekend, I figured I’d ask anyway: what did you think?  I have a hard time believing it to be this awful disaster given that Proyas is generally a guy who busies himself with sci-fi that could hardly be called brainless, but given the reviews and some brief assessments I’ve heard, maybe this really is the clunker of 2009 so far.

    So tell us your thoughts in the sidebar poll.

  • Lighting out for the territories

    Westward bound later this afternoon, so things’ll be quiet on my end.  I’m off to get lost in the city once more in the meantime.

  • Bless the diners

    Waverly Restaurant

  • Eerie lede of the day

    From the AP:

    Nicholas Hughes, the son of poet Sylvia Plath, has killed himself, 46 years after his mother committed suicide and almost 40 years to the day after his stepmother, Assia Wevill, did the same. He was 47.

  • Waiting on the blog-o-rage

    BloggingI’ve been kinda, sorta keeping up with some Twittered reactions to the recent blogger smack downs by Cynthia Littleton, Michael Fleming and editor-in-chief Peter Bart, but curiously, no reaction from the peanut gallery…yet.  It’s a lazy Sunday, after all.

    In a nutshell, it seems with this trinity Variety has called for us all to get along.  The usual names are brought up in connection to incessant, unbearable cyber-squabbling: Jeff Wells, David Poland, Nikki Finke, Patrick Goldstein.  Sharon Waxman’s name is tossed into the hat as well, but why can’t anyone just say it?  Finke and the traffic she has generated as a result of questionable (and certainly grating) practices has put the fear into industry professionals and competetive journalists.  She is the 21st Century bad apple and she’s spoiling the bunch.

    Sadly, some smart people seem to consistently be taking her lead when it comes to sand box tactics.  If smart, longtime journalists like Goldstein and Waxman are being pulled down to her level, what can we expect of other naturally competitive and snarky writers?

    I’m in no position to stand on a soap box so I won’t.  I’ve been in my fair share of online spats and felt stupid afterwards.  Usually my bone of contention will stem from a beef on a writer’s representation of a film, hardly a fight for it’s own sake or a competitive drive to amp up the hits.  But I do hate what Finke is and has been doing and it should be brought up in a certain light.

    All of that said, I think Variety is putting itself in a precarious position by unleashing three editorials on this issue in the same day, one of them from an old media type who is widely (and wrongly) known as “hating” bloggers.  So far, no reaction, but I expect it to come soon.  And I don’t think it’ll be pretty.

    (A few greatest hits from the three pieces after the jump.  And click the pic for a larger version, by the way.)

    (more…)

  • Davis flies under the radar

    (from left) Marcia Gay Harden and Hope Davis in the Broadway production of God of CarnageFrom AP drama critic Michael Kuchwara on the Broadway production of “God of Carnage”:

    The real revelation of the evening, though, is Harden, usually seen in much more somber roles such as her Oscar-winning performance as Lee Krasner in the film “Pollack.” In “Carnage,” she undergoes the play’s most startling transformation — from quiet, considerate woman concerned about such tragedies as Darfur to a bellowing harridan who’s not above throwing a punch or two. It’s one of those swell, showy comic portraits that has Tony nomination (and probably the prize, too) written all over it.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I pretty much agree with every word written here.  But I just wish Hope Davis’s slow burn (which simmers a bit more than Harden’s fireworks display) had garnered more than broad priase like “delicious self-effacement that hides a simmering rage” and an aside about one moment of showmanship that really says less about the character than most everything that precedes it.

    But, like I said…I’m in love.  Perhaps I’m biased.  There’s also this great Arts & Leisure piece on Jeff Daniels and James Gandolfini, worth a look.

    Anyway, with theater on the mind, I’ve been shamed by the fact that “August: Osage County” has eluded me since it debuted in Chicago and New York two years ago, but I finally caught up with it this afternoon…and it makes me want to put down my pen, take up a different line of work.  Depressingly brilliant piece.

  • SUNDAY CENTS: Strong showing for “Knowing”

    KnowingI guess I should listen to the murmurs. Nicolas Cage’s sci-fi extravaganza “Knowing” took the top spot at the box office this weekend with $24.8 million. In terms of Cage’s career, it’s no “National Treasure” and can’t compete with the holy trifecta of Cage action — “The Rock,” “Face/Off” and “Con Air” — but it does help wipe away some of the bad taste left in the mouth by “Bangkok Dangerous” and “Next.”

    Long story short, this guy’s career is the very definition of inconsistent. The result is doubly impressive given that Disney could only manage a similar result for their much more heavily marketed sci-fi adventure last week. I can’t imagine reviews, word of mouth or legs will be great so the big debut is a massive boost for Summit Entertainment, a company still finding its feet and identity.

    Second place goes to the Apatow-less “I Love You, Man.”  $18 million is pretty much the exact same amount as “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “Role Models” debuted with and since reviews are in the same ballpark, this should do comparable overall business as well. Incidentally, I saw the film last night and found it to be pretty worthless aside from a charming performance by Paul Rudd and one inspired joke involving iTunes. If you want to see an amazing and hilarious “bromantic” comedy, wait for “Humpday” in July.

    Our third and final opener is the Clive Owen/Julia Roberts caper “Duplicity.”  Adult-targeted films never stand a chance against shit that blows up, so $14.4 million is a respectable enough place to start.  Star power ain’t what it used to be but the pedigree of the talent in front of and behind the camera should ensure that this one sticks around for a couple of weeks. In the comedic heist sub-genre, “Out of Sight” debuted with $18.5 million in the summer of 1998 and “Bandits” did $16.6 million in 2001. Both finished around $55 million.

    (more…)

  • Are 70s acting legends on the verge of fading away?

    Jane Fonda in KluteGrowing up I was a huge John Wayne fan, but I remember when the Duke started to fade, and then that shocking evening he presented the Academy Award for Best Picture to “The Deer Hunter” just a few months before his death in 1979.

    Perhaps because we watch these people age in front of our eyes we feel a unique kinship with them, as though we know them, but seeing Wayne at the Oscars was shocking, a terrible reminder that the acting icons are very human, subject to everything life brings: aging and death (as we found out terribly this week).

    The great actors of the 1970s, those that kick-started a second movement in American acting — Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Ellen Burstyn, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Robert De Niro, Jane Fonda — are all well past 60 these days, some over 70 with Duvall edging ever closer to 80. Their best work may indeed be behind them (one never knows) and to me it represents a point of great sadness. We may never see their like again.

    They brought to the screen an inherent realism, an extraordinary authenticity that only Brando had accomplished. The day is coming when we will never be able to look forward to another great performance from the likes of Nicholson or Duvall or Fonda again.

    I remember the moment I first became aware of Nicholson, seeing him for the first time in “Five Easy Pieces,” in which he established himself as the actor of the decade, that intelligent rebel who simply would never conform to what society felt he should. Nicholson gave us a great array of performances through the 1970s, fearless in the face of risk, even singing in “Tommy,” Ken Russell’s lavish rock opera by The Who.

    (more…)

  • Are you there, Fox? It’s me, ‘Margaret’

    I have to say, I’ve all but given up hope that Kenneth Lonergan’s “Margaret” will ever see the light of day. For years now, I’ve kept an optimistic eye out for the film, kept putting it on my early Oscar prediction lists, kept checking the Fox Searchlight release schedule — only for the film, originally shot in 2005, to fall further and further beneath the radar.

    There’s talk of an unruly, wildly overlong shooting script as being to blame, while chronic perfectionism on Lonergan’s part has also been rumoured. I’m not sure what to believe — but as someone who thinks that “You Can Count on Me” is looking to remain one of the decade’s finest American films (yeah, we have to start thinking about such things, don’t we?), it’s certainly a frustrating state of affairs.

    It’s certainly hard to imagine a film of “Margaret’s” pedigree — to jog your memory, the cast includes Anna Paquin, Matt Damon and Mark Ruffalo, while Scott Rudin and the late duo of Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack all have producer credits — just falling by the wayside.

    So I was intrigued to stumble upon this news tidbit that suggests the film hasn’t been entirely forgotten — and that it doesn’t only share a trio of producers with last year’s “The Reader.” It would appear that prodigious young composer Nico Muhly has taken on the job of scoring the film, which may or may not mean anything. Searchlight’s website offers no helpful information, for one thing. Still, it’s nice to hear that “Margaret” hasn’t completely vanished off the face of the earth.

    (Coincidentally, this is the second time Muhly has cropped up in my thoughts today. This morning, I was checking out the lineup for the ATP UK Weekend, a music fest I’m attending in May — and lo and behold, there he was, alongside the likes of The Jesus Lizard and Spiritualized. Dude’s got it going on.)

  • “Listen you f***ers you screwheads…”

    I was watching some special on “Eastbound & Down” recently where one of the producers (might have been Will Ferrell, or maybe it was David Green) was talking about how the show is a commentary on the state of the hero in pop culture.  Then I heard the talk out of SXSW about “Observe and Report,” Joe Leydon’s review, for instance, indicating transgression and the idea of capturing the film’s essence in four words: “Travis Bickle: Mall Cop.”

    More and more I dig what this crew (Jody Hill, Green, Seth Rogen, etc.) is doing with comedy on the screen and forgive me, but I think Jeff Wells is missing the purposeful irony of a tag line like “Right now, the world needs a hero.”  Given the perspective Hill and company have on protagonists on the small screen, I think this is more than just an arbitrary Warner Bros. marketing decision.

    I haven’t seen “Observe and Report,” but I’m catching a whiff of something truly special.

    Observe and Report advertisement in Times Square

  • Beautiful rejects

    Yesterday’s post about the UK poster for “Let the Right One In” alerted me to the existence of a nifty little site. Not a Movie Poster showcases notable poster concepts that were ultimately rejected by the powers that be — usually, it seems, in favour of far lesser work.

    They are mostly UK designs (hence the quad format) for arthouse releases, and there is some really masterful work in the mix. It’s so rare that you see film poster design of this calibre these days — what a shame that the marketers aren’t as adventurous. Take one of my favourites, this rejected design for “I’ve Loved You So Long”:

    Now, how much better is that than the one they went with? Two more favourites,for “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” and “Elephant,” after the cut.

    (more…)

  • Too much, too soon?

    I’m not as outraged as some are by the news that “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is to be granted a Criterion Collection DVD release in May — as has been pointed out, if not one but two Michael Bay films have made the cut in the past, the label’s aesthetic standards are a bit of a mystery. And “Button” is, at the very least, an immaculate piece of craftsmanship.

    I am, however, a bit puzzled. Why does “Button” get to jump to the front of the queue while an assortment of  classics have to wait years for this seal of approval?  (For the sake of context, other titles in Criterion’s ‘coming soon’ pile include “Last Year at Marienbad” and “The Last Metro.”) And more importantly, isn’t it bizarre that this is David Fincher’s first title to get the royal Criterion treatment? Whether you like the film or not (and I admit I’m in the “not” camp), I haven’t heard many people suggesting that it’s his most significant work.

    If you ever needed a textbook illustration of the difference an Oscar nomination can make, I think we have one right here. Your thoughts?