Oscar Moment: “The Ghost Writer”

28 11 2010

Back in June, I wrote a polarizing piece suggesting that “Shutter Island” could be a legitimate player in the Best Picture race.  In the poll, most people thought that was a big pot of croc.  But what if the February release that we should be looking out for is Roman Polanski’s “The Ghost Writer?”

For many of the same reasons “Shutter Island” is being considered, we should consider this movie.  It has the name of high-prestige director on its masthead who has been rewarded by the Academy in the past decade (2002 for “The Pianist”).  It has critical support; both movies received identical BFCA scores of 81.  It is an audience-pleasing thriller that keeps you closely tied into the action until the conclusion.

But unlike “Shutter Island,” there is an aura of controversy surrounding “The Ghost Writer.”  Timed almost simultaneously with the movie’s stateside release was Roman Polanski’s arrest overseas for the statutory rape he fled the United States for decades ago.  The director instantly became a topic of heated conversation.  Should he face justice, or be pardoned after all these years?  No matter what you think, the debate put Polanski into a very present mainstream consciousness.  As Sasha Stone put it in her excellent piece Cinema Paranoia, “there was no room, nor any invitation, to look at ‘The Ghost Writer’ [after the hysteria].”

The Hollywood community flocked to Polanski’s side, and it will be interesting to see where this support goes in Oscar season.  The movie took an unexpected resonance in the face of the controversy, and I think it added a different dimension to the experience.  It certainly brought out a great deal of passion in certain people, and as Guy Lodge of In Contention pondered, “progressive media loyalty to Polanski may have gone into overdrive … [I] wonder whether the director’s band of supporters in the Academy might show up for the film come nomination time — despite its low profile and early release date.”

“The Ghost Writer” has already racked up several impressive feats this year that could bode well for it during the long season ahead.  Back in February, Polanski won Best Director at the Berlin Film Festival.  Over the summer, FIPRESCI, the international critics’ association, named it their best movie of 2010; their previous choices have included art-house favorites “Magnolia” and Best Picture nominee “There Will Be Blood.”  At the beginning of November, it received seven nominations for the European Film Awards, more than any other movie.

It remains to be seen whether these accomplishments or the controversy will amount to anything substantial in terms of Oscars.  What happens in Europe doesn’t necessarily reflect American tastes.  I think if the movie can get some support from critics groups, which isn’t too far-fetched given its 83% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 77 on Metacritic, “The Ghost Writer” could gain some significant traction for one of the bottom 5 Best Picture nominations and perhaps even an out-of-nowhere Best Director nomination.  Some have even speculated that Olivia Williams, who plays the wife of the former Prime Minister, could play into the Best Supporting Actress race.  Given the volatile field there, I wouldn’t discount her if the film starts to catch on.

Worth nothing as well: a below-the-line nomination could also be in store for composer Alexandre Desplat, who was recently awarded Composer of the Year at the World Soundtrack Awards.  However, he also has scores in play for “The King’s Speech” and “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” the former of which is probably much more Academy friendly than “The Ghost Writer.”  I haven’t listened to the score from the ultra-baity English flick, but I will say that Desplat’s score was one of my favorite parts of the movie and is very deserving of a nomination.

The general consensus is that this isn’t one of Polanski’s best, but is “not his best” better than “really good” from lesser filmmakers?  We’ll find out.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actress (Williams), Best Original Score

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “Country Strong”

26 11 2010

“Country Strong” is Middle America bait, combining country music and rehabbed alcoholic singers a la “Crazy Heart” with a spunky heroine with a down-home charm a la “The Blind Side.”  Coincidentally, both of those movies featured leading performances that won Oscars in 2009.  So are we looking at a similar trajectory for Gwyneth Paltrow, the movie’s leading lady?

Paltrow has already hit the promotional trail in somewhat unconventional but definitely effective ways.  She guest-starred on “Glee,” singing a cover of Cee-Lo Green’s “Forget You.”  Then, directly aimed at the people who will see “Country Strong,” she performed the movie’s titular track at the Country Music Awards (CMAs) in Nashville.  Here’s a clip of her singing:

Let’s not forget that Paltrow has already won Best Actress for a completely different flavor of acting (for “Shakespeare in Love” in 1998).  Her star power could power her into the race even though her only Academy friendly movie that has gotten any recognition was “The Royal Tenenbaums” back in 2001.  However, her foray into the dramatic with “Proof” landed her a Golden Globe nomination, so perhaps “Country Strong” will have that extra push to get her into the Best Actress field.  Yet even taking her competition out of the picture, I think it would be difficult for the Academy to vote her to a second win.  They realize now what a great honor their trophies are, and when someone like Hilary Swank has the same amount of wins as Meryl Streep, something’s up.

Paltrow and the movie have lost one big building block to an Oscar campaign in the Golden Globes.  The HFPA decided to place “Country Strong” in the drama category, which is much tougher to receive nominations (not to mention wins) because of the more respected field.  If the movie were placed in musical/comedy (since it features a lot of song), Paltrow would compete against Annette Bening and Sally Hawkins.  In drama, she will face Natalie Portman, Nicole Kidman, and several other talented actresses.  And for the lightweight movie, talk about a huge long shot to score a Best Picture nomination.  The only way I could see it sneaking in would be for there to magically be more than 5 nominated films.

And since this is a movie about country music, it will be a strong contender in the Best Original Song category.  There are two featured tracks in contention for the win, “Me and Tennessee” and “Coming Home.”  The rules have changed in the Best Original Song category to try to prohibit one movie from hogging all the nominations and thus vote splitting; this is why Alan Menken only chose to submit one song from “Tangled” for consideration.  If “Country Strong” wants to win this category, Screen Gems needs to pick one song to put all their horses behind.

There are 18 days between the wide release of “Country Strong” and the announcement of the 83rd Oscar nominations.  If it manages to rake in some nice box office dollars, I suspect we could be looking at a financially successful movie popular with Middle America that this year’s Academy Awards really don’t have.  It could be an enticing proposition … but it would have to make big money FAST.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actress, Best Original Song

OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Picture


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “Frankie & Alice”

23 11 2010

How important is it for the diversity of Hollywood actors to be represented at the Oscars?  That’s a question many voters will be facing this year when they fill out their ballots.  Many pundits have put all the hopes of breaking up what appears to be 20 white acting nominees on the backs of 2001’s winner for Best Actress, Halle Berry.

Her latest movie, “Frankie & Alice,” made a last-second entry into the Oscar race not too much unlike “Crazy Heart” did last year.  But unlike Jeff Bridges’ Oscar-winning vehicle, Berry’s contention in Best Actress has hardly shaken anything up.  Of the 15 awards season analysts labeled the “Gurus o’ Gold,” not a single one of them included Berry in their five picks for Best Actress.  Ouch.

Perhaps it’s just the circumstances that make Berry feel like such a great contender.  As The Los Angeles Times put it, “for the first time since the 73rd Oscars 10 years ago, there will be no black nominees in any of the acting categories in the February ceremony.”  Who better than to prove that statement made in September wrong than Halle Berry, the first African-American actress to win Best Actress.  But ever since that tearful speech, things haven’t been going to well for Berry as she fell into the “Best Actress Curse” rut that has consumed so many worthy actresses.

Since 2001, Berry has been a Bond girl in “Die Another Day,” the movie so dreadful it caused the series to reboot, the notorious feline in “Catwoman,” which won her a not-so-coveted Razzie, and the star of two other movies scoring in the 10% fresh range on Rotten Tomatoes.  Her only movie to be certified fresh since “Monster’s Ball” won her the trophy was “X-Men 2.”  Clearly Berry has strayed far away from Oscar territory (and her 2007 attempt, “Things We Lost in the Fire,” got her nowhere).

This could work in two ways.  First, like the prodigal son, they could be willing to welcome her back with open arms.  Or, the alternative is that they could shun her for disgracing her title as “Academy Award Winner Halle Berry.”  The movies she has been taking don’t exactly merit the descriptor.

A woman in the 1970s with multiple personality syndrome is more traditional bait for the Oscars, and people losing their minds traditionally go over well with the Academy (see: Anne Hathaway in “Rachel Getting Married,” Julie Christie in “Away from Her,” and Judi Dench in “Iris”).  But until she gets some big critical support, I don’t see this campaign going anywhere.

She does have one admirer, though.  Here’s pundit Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly last week on Berry in “Frankie & Alice:”

“The former Best Actress winner for ‘Monster’s Ball’ gives another strong, gutsy performance as a stripper with multiple-personality disorder (her other two personas are a racist white woman and, most arrestingly, a small child). Whether or not the film will be well-received enough for Berry to be able to challenge … Annette Bening and … Natalie Portman remains to be seen. But I’d certainly put her on the list of eight women … that have the best shot at filling out the five Best Actress slots this year.”

Perhaps there is hope.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actress (Berry)


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “Biutiful”

21 11 2010

There are two things going for “Biutiful” going into awards season – well, two names, really.  Javier Bardem and Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Bardem, winner of the 2007 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work in “No Country for Old Men,” has the respect to get into a crowded Best Actor category.  I can’t say he’s a threat for anything due to this year’s “Eat Pray Love,” but he’s been in the Academy’s consciousness for a decade now (Bardem was nominated for Best Actor in 2000 for his work on “Before Night Falls”).  He could definitely be a strong contender to take a trophy in the Leading Actor category, the more prestigious of the two male acting awards.

Bardem already has one nice award in 2010 for this role, the Best Actor award at the Cannes Film Festival back in May.  He tied for the award with an Italian actor, but that does not detract from this huge honor.  Last year’s winner was Christoph Waltz for “Inglourious Basterds,” and after receiving that prize, he steamrolled all the way to an Oscar.  However, you have to go back to 1987 to find the previous time when the opinions of the Cannes jury matched up with the Academy on actors.  So while this will undoubtedly help Bardem, it’s not the end of the race as we know it.

Alejandro González Iñárritu is also an Academy force.  In 2006, he was the first Mexican director ever to be nominated for the Oscar for Best Director for his work on “Babel.”  His other two movies, “Amores Perros” and “21 Grams,” both received Academy Award nominations.  His work is clearly respected by the voters, although given how 2010 is shaping up, he’s going to need a minor miracle to get into the 2010 field for Best Director.

“Biutiful” is Mexico’s selection for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, which is where the movie will have its best chance outside of Bardem.  It’s not often that the category gets work from well-known directors, and such movies usually manage at least a nomination.  This will make it tough for “Biutiful” to garner a Best Picture nomination since the Academy mindset has largely been dismissive of foreign films since they have their own category.  Only eight foreign language movies have ever been nominated for Best Picture, two of which came in the past decade.  However, with the nomination of “Up” last year, the voters don’t seem to let the Best Animated Feature category hold them back.  It may only be a matter of time before foreign films get their time in the sun.

Plus, on a closing note, this movie looks DEPRESSING.  The Academy has turned away from really bleak fare recently, and the plot of “Biutiful” centers around a dying man trying to make peace with some of the loose ends in his life.  Judging from this review by Variety‘s Justin Chang, this doesn’t feel like their cup of tea.

“… less invested in themes of fate and convergence than his previous work, this gritty, slow-burning melodrama nonetheless offers a very long descent into a private purgatory, and its scant emotional rewards can’t shake off the sense of a prodigiously gifted filmmaker stuck in a grim rut.”

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor, Best Foreign Language Film

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “Blue Valentine”

19 11 2010

You’ve probably heard about “Blue Valentine” for all the wrong reasons, particularly because of the absurd NC-17 rating it received at the hands of the violence-loving but genophobic (that’s the fear of sex) ratings boards of the MPAA.  Harvey Weinstein lawyered up and is now going to stare down the ridiculous organization until they renege on the rating that has led all other movies to final ruin.

Why is the movie NC-17, for all those curious out there wondering?  Because it dared to give an honest portrayal of a relationship in its most devastating moments.  The movie has gained a reputation over the past year, after playing at Sundance, Cannes, and Toronto, for being a brutal watch but incredibly powerful because it dares to not fall into Hollywood schmaltz.  As Guy Lodge of In Contention put it when he first saw the movie at Cannes, the movie’s tagline should be “don’t see it with someone you love.”

The reviews so far have been fantastic, and they have been consistently rolling in as the film plays a new festival.  Kris Tapley of In Contention wrote in October that he “found it to be a delicate and truthful examination of a relationship in crisis.”  Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly raved:

“No movie I’ve seen at Sundance this year conjures the possibilities — or the current, gloom-and-doom marketplace environment — of independent film more powerfully than Blue Valentine. A lushly touching, wrenching, and beautifully told story, directed by Derek Cianfrance with a mood of entwined romantic dreams and romantic loss …”

The movie is a promising debut for writer/director Derek Cianfrance, and if the critics really show their love for the movie through their year-end awards, I think he could be rewarded with a Best Original Screenplay nomination.  Best Director this year will be packed full of some fan favorites reaching their peak (Fincher, maybe Nolan and Aronofsky), and the choice newcomer of 2010 will probably be Tom Hooper for “The King’s Speech.”

But I get the sense that the reward for “Blue Valentine” will come through its actors, Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams.  It is their movie, and most reviews I read state that Cianfrance largely steps out of the way and lets them create the art.  According to Sasha Stone of Awards Daily, this movie is the culmination of a whole lot of work and passion from Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams:

“… Director Derek Cianfrance has been meticulously working on this film for a good ten years.  He brought it to Michelle Williams back in 2003, and a few years later they brough in Ryan Gosling.  The idea was to wait until the two of them were old enough to be believable in the part.  Since the film takes place in different moments in time, the actors had to take a hiatus and change themselves physically before coming back to film the later scenes of the couple.”

Cianfrance went to great measures to get the most authentic performances possible out of his actors.  Gosling and Williams largely lived their roles during filming, and Cianfrance captured as much of it as possible.  Praise has been pouring out for the two stars, ranging from “the performances of their careers” (Stone) to “pitch-perfect” and “gold” (Tapley).  Gosling and Williams, who both recently turned 30, are tremendously respected for their ages as can be seen through their previous nominations.  Both face difficult fields, but I think they can do it simply because “Blue Valentine” appears to fly because they knock it out of the park.

And then there’s the big question of them all: what about Best Picture?  For starters, it’s already racked up one nomination on the road to glory.  The Gotham Independent Film Awards recognized “Blue Valentine” as one of the five best independent movies of the year, along with other hopefuls like “The Kids Are All Right,” “Black Swan,” and “Winter’s Bone.”  This group picked last year’s Best Picture winner, “The Hurt Locker,” as their favorite and nominated “A Serious Man,” a 2009 Best Picture nominee, as well.  The Gotham Awards are hardly a reliable indicator for Oscar tastes, though, with a Best Picture nominee popping up every once in a while.

So who knows?  The publicity from the ratings drama isn’t hurting, but with the film’s release set for December 31, it will have very little time to find an audience, making it the “obscure indie” pick that the expanded field might be phasing out.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor, Best Actress

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director



Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “The Way Back”

16 11 2010

We won’t be seeing “The Way Back” until 2011, but since it has a nice little qualifying run in December, it is considered for the 2010 Academy Awards.  Frustrating for average bloggers like me who won’t have the slightest chance of including it in year-end favorites and predictions, perfect for the studio to offset fan reaction if it could be toxic.

I personally can’t get very jazzed about this movie, particularly after seeing the National Geographic logo among the production financiers.  It looks very much like a high school history class documentary, which doesn’t exactly have me brimming with excitement for Oscars.  Add to that the fact that the movie almost went straight-to-DVD only makes it worse.  The subject matter, avoiding oppression in Russia, got the cold shoulder from the Academy in 2008 through “Defiance.”  Oscar bait in general seems to be on the decline, with the trend over the past decade to support more “movie of the moment” types.

But nonetheless, the movie seems to have some critical support.  Kris Tapley at In Contention is fully on board, writing that the movie is “quietly profound, epic, bold filmmaking at its very best…unconventional in its depiction of a long march by Siberian Gulag escapees out of Communist Russia. But rather than becoming repetitive or aimless, the film’s series of vignettes depicting the mundane particulars of survival (be it physical or psychological) is incredibly moving and consistently engaging.”

Says Sasha Stone of Awards Daily, “There is no doubt that ‘The Way Back’ is a difficult sit. Is it an important movie? It will be to some groups, no doubt. Is it Weir’s best? Probably not. Is it one of the best of 2010? Most certainly.”  (The movie isn’t without its critics, as Eugene Novikov of Cinematical calls it “sadistically intent on making you feel as much of its subjects’ physical agony as possible.”)

So what does the movie have going for it?  For starters, there’s director Peter Weir, an immensely likable industry figure who has six Academy Award nominations to his name: four for directing, one for writing (“Green Card”), and one for producing a Best Picture (“Master and Commander”).  Stone calls this movie Weir’s “labor of love,” something which could help out in a competitive year for Best Director.  I can’t help but feel that Danny Boyle has the grueling visual experience slot for this year with his incredibly affecting “127 Hours,” and Darren Aronofsky, another powerful visual filmmaker, could find his way into the mix for “Black Swan.”

There are also some very respected performers in the movie.  Ed Harris could shake up Best Supporting Actor race, which is only vaguely defined as of now, given that he has been nominated four times before, three here and once in leading for “Pollock” back in 2000.  The “overdue” argument could easily be applied for him since it’s being shoved down our throats for Annette Bening, who has one less nomination.  Saoirse Ronan, nominated at 13 for her role in “Atonement,” could definitely factor into the race.  If they recognized her once at a young age, why not recognize her again for a much grittier role?

Apparently, the big surprise and standout of the movie is Colin Farrell.  According to Stone, “watching Farrell here I was suddenly aware of how good he really is,” and according to Tapley, “it’s one of his best performances, hands down, one of his most organic and believable portrayals.”  Farrell has had a rough personal life littered with sex tapes and alcoholism, and it’s definitely distracted from his acting.  He has, however, won a Golden Globe for Best Actor (Musical/Comedy) for his turn in “In Bruges.”  This category is getting less competitive by year, but it’s still a sign that he has some respect.  An intense, dramatic role in “The Way Back” could be the perfect inroad to Academy glory, although I expect Harris to be the movie’s contender.

However, there’s also the money issue.  “The Way Back” is being distributed by Newmarket, a fledgling studio in the Oscar campaigning industry who might not have the cash or the connections to play the politics of the Oscars right.  Face it, being a good movie is the basic prerequisite for Best Picture in the same way that being in the House of Representatives makes someone a Presidential candidate.  It takes money and influence to move a representative into serious consideration for the nation’s highest office, and the same goes for movies.  “The Way Back” could easily be droned out by bigger, flashier studio campaigns.

But let’s hope it really comes down to quality.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Harris), Best Cinematography

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Farrell), Best Supporting Actress (Ronan), Best Film Editing


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “True Grit”

12 11 2010

Unlike “The Fighter,” which seems Academy-appealing on premise, “True Grit” is appealing on pedigree.  It comes courtesy of the Coen Brothers, who each have three statues thanks to their work producing, writing, and directing “No Country for Old Men” in 2007 and another for writing “Fargo” in 1996.  Including the nominations they have received for editing under the alias Roderick Jaynes, Joel and Ethan Coen have each received a whopping TEN Oscar nominations.

Beyond just their own history, the Coen Brothers have roped in some phenomenal talent to make this look like one heck of an Oscar contender on paper.  “True Grit” is an adaptation of the novel by Charles Portis, NOT a remake of the 1969 film starring John Wayne.  According to sources, the two are very different, and those expecting a remake are in store for something entirely different.  However, John Wayne’s leading turn as Rooster Cogburn won him an Academy Award for Best Actor, so keeping in the same vain wouldn’t be such a bad thing for Jeff Bridges.

Bridges is hot off his Best Actor win for “Crazy Heart” last year and looks to be in striking range of a second trophy.  The “too soon” political argument will surely be a factor, but it’s not a novel concept for an actor to be nominated the year after they win.  It happened twice over the past decade with Russell Crowe nominated in 2001 for “A Beautiful Mind” after winning for “Gladiator” and Penelope Cruz nominated in 2009 for “Nine” after winning for “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.”  Then, of course, there’s the once in a lifetime case of Tom Hanks, who won back-to-back Best Actor statues for “Philadelphia” and then “Forrest Gump” in 1993 and 1994.  The only other actor to pull this off was Spencer Tracy back in the 1930s.  While I think Bridges has the respect to achieve this massive distinction, I doubt the politics of Academy voting nowadays will allow it.

Bridges isn’t the only threat the movie has in the acting categories.  Two-time nominee Matt Damon looks to make an entry into the Best Supporting Actor category, as does prior nominee Josh Brolin.  The race still has no clear frontrunner (hard to believe), and either of them with enough buzz when the movie screens around Thanksgiving could lead to a major shake-up.

My money is on Damon, the more respected actor in the eyes of the Academy.  He was nominated just last year for “Invictus” and has history with the Oscars dating all the way back to 1997 when he won Best Original Screenplay with pal Ben Affleck for “Good Will Hunting” and also received a Best Actor nomination.  2010 has been yet another banner year for Damon, starring in Clint Eastwood’s “Hereafter” and narrating Charles Ferguson’s “Inside Job.”  He has also been recognized as a great humanitarian and just a general class act.  It’s hard to judge his chances without anyone having seen the movie, but I think Damon could easily win the whole thing.

Brolin, on the other hand, has only recently emerged as an actor to be reckoned with thanks to roles in “Milk,” which earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, and “No Country for Old Men,” the Coen Brothers’ Best Picture winner which earned him a SAG Award for Best Ensemble.  He has a more volatile personality, and this could harm him.  In “True Grit,” he plays the outlaw Tom Chaney, another villainous role that he has gained so much notoriety playing.  Unlike the Best Supporting Actress category where double nominees from the same film are common (see the Oscar Moment on “The Fighter” for statistics), the feat hasn’t been accomplished in Best Supporting Actor since 1991 when Harvey Keitel and Ben Kingsley were both nominated for “Bugsy.”  So if I had to pick one of the two “True Grit” supporting men, I take Damon at the moment.

Then there’s also the easy Oscar nominations that the movie will pick up since is this is a Coen Brothers movie that happens to take place in the 1880s Wild West.  Best Cinematography, Production Design, Costume Design and Film Editing are certainties.  The movie could bomb and those three nominations would still be in the bag.  Best Adapted Screenplay should be an easy nomination to net given that they have been nominees four times in the category and winners twice.  Best Director will be interesting for the same reasons that it will be interesting for Danny Boyle, but if “True Grit” is a huge hit, there’s no way the Coen Brothers won’t come along for the ride here.

But perhaps the movie’s biggest wild card is the spunky teenaged heroine Mattie Ross, played by newcome Hailee Steinfeld.  She will be a more central figure in the 2010 version of “True Grit” since the novel focused more on her perspective. Still, Steinfeld will likely be campaigned for Best Supporting Actress where the field is thin and the category is more hospitable territory for young actresses.  In the past decade, 13-year-old Saiorse Ronan and 10-year-old Abigail Breslin have been nominees for “Atonement” and “Little Miss Sunshine,” respectively.  The category has also seen pint-sized winners like Tatum O’Neal for “Paper Moon” at the age of 10 and Anna Paquin for “The Piano” at the age of 11.

Steinfeld is in good company, but we have nothing other than a trailer and the confidence of the Coen Brothers to indicate whether or not she has the capability to execute this role.  Their word is good, as most actors who have worked with the duo state that they are perfectionists obsessed with precision.  All signs point to this being an inspired casting, and it won’t be hard for Steinfeld to make it a pretty meager Best Supporting Actress category this year.  But still, like everything else about “True Grit,” we still have to wait and see the critical reaction – just to make sure.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Bridges), Best Supporting Actor (Damon), Best Supporting Actress (Steinfeld), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Production Design, Best Film Editing

OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Brolin), Best Original Score


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “The Fighter”

9 11 2010

“The Fighter” was supposed to be sight unseen until after Thanksgiving, a move that lends a certain amount of prestige and mystery to an Oscar contender.  However, all assumptions are out the window after today’s announcement that it will be shown as a “secret screening” at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles tonight.  So tomorrow, official speculation begins on one of the most buzzed movies of the season.

To begin the chatter, it’s best to start with how this staked out a spot on every pundits top 10 list without anybody laying eyes on it.  “The Fighter” is a prestige December release for Paramount (the studio bringing us “True Grit” in the same month) about the boxer “Irish” Micky Ward, played by Mark Wahlberg.  Boxing is a very Academy-friendly sport: “Million Dollar Baby” and “Rocky” won Best Picture, “Raging Bull” was nominated, and acting nominations have been bestowed upon “Cinderella Man,” “Ali,” and “The Hurricane.”  Sasha Stone at Awards Daily attempted to figure out why the Academy is so in the ring for boxing and came up with a list of 10 reasons.  Here are the most pertinent:

3. During the fight, it is required that the fighter retreat momentarily to get rubbed down, stitched up, and sponged. During this time, the fighter is warned to back off because “it’s not worth it.” And if that doesn’t work, “cut me.”

5. If the hero does lose, he or she must manage to look like the winner because he or she won at the important stuff:  he or she was a good person and tried hard.  No matter what, never smash a champion belt for the jewels. It’s worth more intact and in its original condition.

7. There has to be something else at stake besides just playing the game. Palpable desperation for financial gain, for instance, personal recognition, a chance to play like the big boys do: nobody likes a rich fighter doing it just for sport.

With those in mind, “The Fighter” seems to be a straight down the Academy checklist movie.  Then again, I said the same thing about Clint Eastwood’s rugby flick “Invictus” last year, and it didn’t fare too well.  So is it really just the subject matter that gives us faith in the movie?  It’s certainly not because of David O. Russell, whose movies have hardly been a hit with the Academy in the past.  To make matters worse, Anne Thompson puts Russell in a category with Mel Gibson for despised people in Hollywood.  His quarrels with actors have been well-documented thanks to sites like YouTube, and Thompson says that the movie would have to be really good for people to get over the fact that he directed it.

I think the actors are the big selling point of the movie.  Mark Wahlberg is four years removed from a much-deserved Best Supporting Actor nomination for ‘The Departed,” and he tried to get back in the race last year for “The Lovely Bones” (which stunk and accordingly flopped).  The leading role of boxer Ward will offer up some meaty material for the actor to sink his teeth into, and as long as he does a good job, I don’t see what could keep someone like Wahlberg out of Best Actor.  He’s a likable actor who has a great success story of his own.  Besides, look at the boxing movies I listed that have found Oscar success.  With the exception of “Cinderella Man,” the movie’s main boxer has been nominated.  Swank and DeNiro won.

The movie also has three supporting performances that could each be big movers in the Oscar race this year, particularly given how volatile both fields are.  Christian Bale took off all the Batman brawn and went skinny for his role as Dickie Eklund, Micky’s older brother and trainer.  It’s really more of a co-lead from what I hear, and according to a nice chart laid out by Nathaniel Rogers of The Film Experience, one can learn that those were quite popular over the past decade.

Eklund also struggles with substance abuse, and addicts are another Academy favorite.  This category saw nominees Benicio del Toro in “21 Grams” as a reformed alcoholic, Thomas Haden Church in “Sideways” as a promiscuous wine enthusiast, Eddie Murphy in “Dreamgirls” as a recreational cocaine user, and Josh Brolin in “Milk” as the man who can’t put down the Twinkies.  Bale is playing a role that screams “OSCARS” from the rooftops; like Russell, he has a temper issue that people will have to forgive for him to go the extra mile.

Two-time nominee Amy Adams and one-time nominee Melissa Leo will both try to crack the Best Supporting Actress field, and given the year, both of them could make it provided that “The Fighter” is a big threat across the board.  This is a category especially friendly to doubly nominated movies; in six out of the last ten years, one movie has received two Best Supporting Actress nominations.  With “For Colored Girls” almost entirely out of the picture, this could be the only movie to swoop down and grab two spots.

But if there’s only one, I have a feeling it will go to Melissa Leo.  She was a surprise nominee back in 2008 for “Frozen River,” and the Academy picked her up out of obscurity and put her on the map.  That means they like her and want her to succeed.  From early buzz, she has a showier role as the mother of Wahlberg and Bale than Adams has as Wahlberg’s love interest.  Looking over the past decade of nominees, maternal figures, good or bad, show up a lot.  (Just for fun, Mo’Nique was the last bad mom to win, Jennifer Connelly was the last good mom to win.)

The movie could also score nominations in technical categories like editing, cinematography, and makeup because boxing movies require a lot of orchestration with the camera to make the fights coherent.  But the big question remains if this could be a Best Picture nominee.  It’s been assumed for months now, but it can’t stay hidden any longer.  Soon we will see the true colors.

We aren’t entirely dry on news about “The Fighter” as a whole; the movie showed at ShowEast for theater owners and won raves according to Steve Pond at The Wrap.  These aren’t Oscar prognosticators, but Pond said the consensus was that it would be a “likely Best Picture nominee, with a pair of performances that will definitely figure into the Supporting Actor and Actress races.”  We will know a lot more tomorrow, but until then, we sit back and predict.  And wait.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress (Leo), Best Film Editing

OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Adams), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “How Do You Know”

5 11 2010

No one knows much about “How Do You Know” at the present moment.  But any movie that comes from director/writer/producer James L. Brooks has to be considered given the man’s 60% track record in scoring Best Picture nominations for his movies.

I’ve only seen his latest two movies, “As Good As It Gets” (which I totally adore) and “Spanglish” (which is still good although to a much lesser degree).  But the man has directed a Best Picture winner with “Terms of Endearment” and picked up a nice Best Director trophy for himself while he was at it.  Brooks is an incredibly influential figure in comedy, and as I pointed out in my column on “Love & Other Drugs,” that’s not an incredibly popular genre with the Academy.  To land three movies in the winner’s circle is a pretty huge accomplishment.

So what’s he up to now?  A comedy with comedic actors laced with drama.  His previous movies have starred, for the most part, dramatic actors – unless you dare to call Shirley MacLaine, William Hurt, and  Jack Nicholson comedians.  It will be interesting to see how critics and voters react to this shift in tactics.  “Spanglish” starred Adam Sandler, and they pretty much spat that right back out; will “How Do You Know” be any different?

To its advantage, it does have two Academy Award winners on the marquee: Reese Witherspoon as the headliner and Jack Nicholson in a supporting role.  I think wins are out of the question; Witherspoon because she won for a much more serious role, and Nicholson because he has enough with three.  The Golden Globes could nominate Witherspoon in a heartbeat in the musical/comedy category, and I could even see Jack getting an Oscar nomination because they love so darn much.

The other two leads are played by Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd, both of whom have a fair amount of respect compared to other similar performers (cough, Jack Black/Will Ferrell).  I think it would be pretty amazing for Owen Wilson to score an Oscar nomination given the field (assuming he competes in leading actor) and his often poor selection of films leading up to this (“Drillbit Taylor,” anyone?).  Paul Rudd, on the other hand, has picked movies that have gotten his comedic talents some good notes from high up.  And according to Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere, he could actually be a contender for this movie:

“The guy who delivers the goods is Paul Rudd. This will raise his profile to the A-list. This is a guaranteed Best Supporting Actor nomination.”

I’m a huge Paul Rudd fan, and I can probably quote every single line in “Role Models” that he utters.  So I’m all for him getting an Oscar nomination.  Best Supporting Actor has been particularly kind to comedic actors in the past decade with winner Alan Arkin for “Little Miss Sunshine” and nominations for Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder” and Thomas Haden Church in “Sideways.”  My only worry for Rudd is that he could be pushed out by Mark Ruffalo in “The Kids Are All Right,” which could be a stronger overall awards play.  But in my mind, the males of that movie were the weak link, and I don’t feel as much buzz around him as I do Bening or Moore.

As for the movie as a whole, I feel like Best Original Screenplay is a category that the movie could easily score in given the pretty slim field this year.  Best Director is not quite as likely given that Brooks has already won.  But Best Picture, now that’s an interesting proposition.

Smart comedy is something that many people speculated that the Academy would want to reward with the expanded Best Picture field.  They get their recognition at the Golden Globes, but very few find their way into the big dance (with a few notable exceptions over the past few years).  I think comedy has some unfinished business with the Academy, and “How Do You Know” could provide that perfect mixture of comedy and drama to score big with the voters.  Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly stood up for it in October, writing:

“Here’s the one case where I’m apparently the most alone in my thinking, as no other participant has the film on his or her list. But I have faith in the upcoming Reese Witherspoon romantic comedy based on writer/director James L. Brooks’ selected track record (‘Broadcast News,’ ‘Terms of Endearment’) and the positive buzz I’ve been hearing about costar Paul Rudd’s performance. Here’s hoping it’s not another ‘Spanglish.'”

Karger ranked it as his fifth selection, which shows a lot of confidence.  It’s hard to judge anything until the movie gets seen by a lot of critics, so right now all I have is speculation based on little substantive evidence.  But with James L. Brooks, we can make those guesses pretty educated.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Rudd), Best Original Screenplay

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor (Nicholson)


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “Love & Other Drugs”

2 11 2010

“Love & Other Drugs” was chosen to open the AFI Fest this week, and I couldn’t think of a better time to discuss this interesting player in the 2010 awards race.

Comedies are always a wild card with the Oscars; sometimes they hit, others they flop.  Over the past decade, there have been eight Best Picture nominees that would fall into the comedic category at the Golden Globes (NOTE: I excluded musicals).  The last comedy to win Best Picture was 1998’s “Shakespeare in Love,” which is a romantic comedy not unlike “Love & Other Drugs.”

On the other hand, that movie was a period piece, an aspect that tickles Academy fancies more than the romantic comedy side.  Since 1998, no romantic comedy has been nominated for Best Picture, so “Love & Other Drugs” does face an uphill battle.  However, because of the expanded field, our only frame of reference with complete relevance to the movie is the 2009 Best Picture race.  Last year, popular romantic comedies “(500) Days of Summer” and “It’s Complicated” received Golden Globe nominations for Best Picture but failed to receive similar acclaim from the Academy.  Replacing them were darkly comedic “A Serious Man” and animated “Up,” ineligible for the award at the Globes.

So are we looking at a movie that has no power to extend its reach beyond the Golden Globes?  Based on initial critical reaction, that may be the scenario.  The Hollywood Reporter‘s Kirk Honeycutt calls it a melodrama and shockingly conventional romance with “ADD like you wouldn’t believe.”  Todd McCarthy of IndieWIRE writes that it’s “an enormously contrived and cloying romantic drama without a moment of believable reality to it.”  Kris Tapley at In Contention wrote the line that I found most discouraging: “it could have been this year’s ‘Up in the Air.’”

The movie is apparently charged with nudity that Variety‘s Justin Chang called “abundant” and sexuality that Honeycutt proclaimed “unusually bold.”  This could be off-putting to some of the older voters; however, it could pique curiosity among younger viewers and make it a box office hit.  If it does become a serious contender, expect much talk on the nudity/sexuality to surround any discussion of the film.

Not all see “Love & Other Drugs” as a lost cause.  Guru Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly is on the movie’s side, writing back in October that “the Jake Gyllenhaal/Anne Hathaway comedic drama reminds me a lot of Up in the Air and Jerry Maguire (both past Best Picture nominees). And it’s perhaps the sexiest movie I’ve seen in years. It won’t be for everyone, but if most critics go for its blend of titillation and tragedy, then it’s a contender for one of the five ‘B-list slots.’”  Karger also listed it among his 10 best picture predictions (albeit last).

I could see it filling out one of those last slots, although until the film’s release, I won’t be able to say how much a nomination would surprise me.  Something tells me though that we won’t be looking at many other nominations for the movie, though.  Even though Anne Thompson of IndieWIRE wrote “writer-director Zwick has done what I have long wanted him to do—get into the James L. Brooks/Nancy Meyers smart comedy mode,” I have a hard time seeing him finding room in the Best Director field.

As Univarn wrote on my latest predictions, “you have a lot of directors who have been very good for a long time all coming into their own right now.”  Zwick has been directing many seemingly Academy friendly movies like “Glory” and “Blood Diamond” but has never been recognized for his directorial prowess.  (Interestingly enough, he won an Oscar for producing “Shakespeare in Love” and was nominated for producing “Traffic” in 2000.)

Zwick co-wrote the movie as well, but a tight Adapted Screenplay race with such heavyweights as “The Social Network” and “Toy Story 3” may keep his work out there as well.  In my mind, the movie’s best bet is in the acting categories.  It seems to be the one exemplary aspect of the movie that all critics agree on.  Said Honeycutt, “Gyllenhaal and Hathaway are terrific as two sarcastic, sexually hungry young people eager to hop into bed, or go up against the nearest wall for a knee-trembler.”

Both sub-30 actors have been nominated for Oscars before: Gyllenhaal for Supporting Actor in 2005 for “Brokeback Mountain” and Hathaway for Leading Actress in 2008 for “Rachel Getting Married.”  They are reaching the age of anointment quickly, and it’s only a matter of time before the Academy just caves and gives them the trophy.  Whether it will be for “Love & Other Drugs” is the question.

Let’s start with Gyllenhaal, the film’s leading man.  Since his nomination, he has only starred in four movies, three of which were Oscar also-rans and the other a Hollywood swords-and-sandals epic flop.  Gyllenhaal has gotten many raves for his latest role, ranging from Tapley and Thompson calling him the best performance in the film to Hollywood Elsewhere‘s Jeffrey Wells dubbing this “his most winning performance ever – not the deepest or darkest or saddest, perhaps, but 100% likable.”  He’s facing a tough Best Actor field with the likes of Colin Firth, Jeff Bridges, and Robert Duvall as well as fellow Gen-Y actors James Franco, Ryan Gosling, and Jesse Eisenberg.  If his performance is light as Wells alludes to, it may not be anything more than a Golden Globes play.

The more intriguing prospect for the movie is no doubt Anne Hathaway playing Maggie, the Parkinson’s-affected love interest of Gyllenhaal’s slick pharmaceutical salesman.  She has the more dramatically appealing and Academy friendly role, and the difficulty of tackling such a role will surely keep her in discussion all season long.  In the past decade, Academy Award nominees for Best Actress have included drug addicts, Alzheimer’s patients, a depressed writer, a psychotic killer, a paralyzed fighter, and an alcoholic.  Whatever physical condition causes leading women to ail, the Oscars have been there to reward them.

Zwick calls her “in bloom” in “Love & Other Drugs,” and early reviews seem to be in accord.  Chang calls her performance sensitive and understated, also adding that “the actress makes Maggie a vivacious presence, the sheer force of her spirit serving as a rebuke to her physical setbacks.”  Wells calls it her most appealing performance yet, praising Hathaway in writing “you can read every emotional tick and tremor on her face.”  However, the movie’s critical struggle could harm her; Tapley points out  that Hathaway plays a “one-trick, woe is me character who never finds a genuine end to her arc.”

There are plenty of great comedies made every year, many better than some of the dramas that typically make their way into the Best Picture field.  Here’s to hoping that “Love & Other Drugs” has the goods to bring glory to the genre at the Academy Awards.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actress

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: November Predictions!

1 11 2010

Folks, it’s time for a new set of predictions.  A lot has changed in the last two months since I issued a set of predictions.  Just a month away from the start of the horse race, I thought now would be a good time to step back and reevaluate.

(NOTE: I’m restructuring the change in position system from 2009.  The symbols stay the same, but listed in parentheses to the right is the previous position.)

Best Picture

  1. The Social Network 
  2. The King’s Speech  (NR)
  3. 127 Hours  (10)
  4. True Grit  (NR)
  5. Toy Story 3  (3)
  6. Inception 
  7. The Fighter  (2)
  8. The Kids Are All Right 
  9. Black Swan  (5)
  10. How Do You Know  (NR)

Dropping off: Another Year, Never Let Me Go, Blue Valentine

I‘m still feeling confident forecasting a win for “The Social Network.”  It has audiences and critics behind it; with enough precursor love, it could be an unstoppable force.  “True Grit” and “The Fighter” remain strong possibilities even unseen, although I’m sensing less excitement for the latter.  “Toy Story 3” hasn’t dropped; two contenders have just risen above it.  Given a push, it could still make a run for the money.  And “How Do You Know” is still unseen, but I’m getting good vibes.  Probably stupid to put it on my list instead of “Another Year,” but I’m going gutsy.

Right now, my biggest comment is that the race feels really stagnant.  It’s too early for the race to boil down to “The Social Network” vs. “The King’s Speech.”  The enthusiasm has kind of died for any movie, although that could easily change with this week’s release of “127 Hours.”  It’s just kind of been a dead zone for Best Picture buzz recently … which is a huge bummer.

Best Director

  1. David Fincher, “The Social Network” 
  2. Tom Hooper, “The King’s Speech”  (NR)
  3. Christopher Nolan, “Inception”
  4. Darren Aronofsky, “Black Swan”  (5)
  5. Danny Boyle, “127 Hours”  (NR)

Dropping off: Mike Leigh, David O. Russell

Same story between “Network” and “Speech” with the two battling out for the top spot.  I’m hesitant to say that two of the past three winners in this category could be nominated again this year, so I’ll pick Danny Boyle seeing as his movie is the safer bet at the moment.

I feel like this category will recognize visionaries this year.  This is only a hunch, of course, but I feel like directors such as Nolan are Aronofsky will get their just reward for creating pieces of art that don’t mold to any sort of convention.  Nolan has first priority of the two seeing as he was snubbed in 2008 and his movie will fare better with the Academy.  “Black Swan” is a risky movie and one that doesn’t align very well with Academy tastes.  An Aronofsky nomination means true progress.

Best Actor

  1. James Franco, “127 Hours”  (3)
  2. Colin Firth, “The King’s Speech”  (NR)
  3. Jesse Eisenberg, “The Social Network”  (2)
  4. Mark Wahlberg, “The Fighter”  (1)
  5. Ryan Gosling, “Blue Valentine” 

Dropping off: Robert Duvall

I’m sensing the “127 Hours” reward will come in Best Actor for James Franco.  At 32, he’d be among the youngest winners ever, and his status as an elite dramatic actor would be forever cemented.  I see him as being the critics’ circle darling, putting him in prime position from the beginning of the season.  However, there will be stiff competition from Colin Firth, who has the subjective “deserving” card in his hand after losing last year for his performance in “A Single Man.”

Eisenberg drops a slot because the choice youth performance is going to be from Franco, and Wahlberg plummets thanks to the buzz being squarely in the ring of Bale and Leo, his supporting cast.  Nonetheless, I think the preparation he put into this role will pay off with a nomination.  I think Ryan Gosling will be nominated for “Blue Valentine” over, say Robert Duvall for “Get Low” or Jeff Bridges for “True Grit,” because the NC-17 rated domestic drama may be too intense for Best Picture, but the actors will love it and reward it here.

Best Actress

  1. Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”  (2)
  2. Annette Bening, “The Kids Are All Right”  (1)
  3. Nicole Kidman, “Rabbit Hole”  (NR)
  4. Lesley Manville, “Another Year”  (NR)
  5. Michelle Williams, “Blue Valentine”  (4)

Dropping off: Jennifer Lawrence, Julianne Moore

Focus needs to get their act together and figure out how to campaign Bening and Moore.  Amidst the controversy, I think Portman has emerged all the stronger, and she is now my pick to win in the seemingly two-way battle for supremacy.

Nicole Kidman moves onto the list after her performance in “Rabbit Hole” garnered significant buzz, and Manville as well because I think “Another Year” has to have at least one acting nomination.  And for the exact same reason I predicted Ryan Gosling to get a Best Actor nomination, I predict Michelle Williams to get a Best Actress nomination for “Blue Valentine” to reward the movie’s true grit.  However, the tragic romance could go the way of “Revolutionary Road” and leave the leads out in the cold.

Best Supporting Actor

  1. Christian Bale, “The Fighter” 
  2. Geoffrey Rush, “The King’s Speech”  (NR)
  3. Andrew Garfield, “The Social Network” 
  4. Aaron Eckhart, “Rabbit Hole”  (NR)
  5. Sam Rockwell, “Conviction”  (2)

Dropping off: Vincent Cassel, Mark Ruffalo

Could there be anything more boring than the supporting categories this year?  Yawn.

Sight unseen, I still think Bale is the man to beat in this category.  Got any better suggestions?  Rush has won before, yet he will still prove to be a big threat given he lights the movie on fire.  Garfield is young and unknown, but he is incredible in the role.  He could move up to the top if there turns out to be a tidal wave of support for “The Social Network.”

I get a good feeling about Aaron Eckhart for “Rabbit Hole.”  He’s a great actor, and he works alongside Kidman who is a very good bet for a Best Actress nomination. There’s always that movie with a ton of acting nominations, and I get a feeling it could be “Rabbit Hole.”  As for Sam Rockwell, I still feel a nomination is a good possibility, but a win seems pretty tough with the general lack of enthusiasm for “Conviction.”

Best Supporting Actress

  1. Melissa Leo, “The Fighter”  (2)
  2. Miranda Richardson, “Made in Dagenham”  (NR)
  3. Hailee Steinfeld, “True Grit”  (4)
  4. Dianne Wiest, “Rabbit Hole”  (NR)
  5. Helena Bonham Carter, “The King’s Speech”  (NR)

Dropping off: Keira Knightley, Barbara Hershey, Marion Cotillard

Another win for “The Fighter” sight unseen, this time for 2008 Best Actress nominee Melissa Leo.  You got any better ideas?  This category is still wide open with a month left until the critics’ groups for the field for us, and that’s no fun.

Miranda Richardson’s spunky turn in “Made in Dagenham” seems to be getting a lot of buzz, thus it’s in at this point.  “True Grit” hasn’t been seen, but Hailee Steinfeld sure looks impressive from the trailer, so she’s in.  Dianne Weist got the critics talking about her work in “Rabbit Hole,” and she’s won twice before, so she’s in.  Helena Bonham Carter is in a strong Best Picture contender, so she’s in.  See how flimsy my logic is?  No one has a clue what to expect in this race.

I lied when I said there would be screenplays in this set of predictions.  For the wins, I’d say “The King’s Speech” and “The Social Network” for original and adapted, respectively.

So, how do you feel?  What Oscar nominations do YOU foresee?


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “Alice in Wonderland”

30 10 2010

I’m sorry, did someone say “Best Picture nominee ‘Alice in Wonderland?'”  Are we talking about the Tim Burton version?

I don’t know what they are smoking over at Disney’s awards department, but apparently someone thought it was a good idea to launch an all-out awards push for “Alice in Wonderland” for Best Picture.  As some blogger put it, “I guess a billion dollars does buy you anything.”

If Disney had put out an FYC ad asking voters to remember the costumes, the visual effects, and the set design of the movie, I would be just fine.  But an ad asking voters to consider the movie for Best Picture and other major categories?  Get real.  This is a movie that was completely dismissed by critics, scoring a 51% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 53 on Metacritic.  I gave the movie a generous C, which in retrospect may have been too lenient.  Here’s an excerpt from my review to give you a slight taste of my feelings about the movie:

Burton said that his intention was to “try and make Alice feel more like a story as opposed to a series of events” because he never felt an emotional connection between the characters in the original.  In this respect, his version is an utter disaster.  I saw exactly the opposite of what he intended: Alice wandering from place to place with absolutely no plot building.

Just because “Avatar” was a good-looking movie that made a lot of money and got a Best Picture nomination does not mean that the formula works for every good-looking movie that makes a lot of money.  “Avatar” was a good movie, certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and reached universal acclaim status on Metacritic.  Disney has a bona fide Best Picture contender in “Toy Story 3,” and it could very well win if their cards are played right.  Why on earth they feel like wasting a penny on a movie that I think has no shot in hell at receiving an Oscar nomination is totally beyond me.

I expect the movie to pick up a few tech nominations and maybe win a few guild prizes.  However, if “Alice in Wonderland” gets a Best Picture nomination, it will be the final nail in the Academy’s coffin of irrelevance.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Costume Design, Best Production Design, Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture (?)


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “Rabbit Hole”

29 10 2010

We didn’t really enter 2010 with a huge frontrunner, but when “Rabbit Hole” was cast back in spring 2009, it sure looked like one.  With Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart tackling an intensely dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning play, how could it not be an instant contender?

The movie flew under the radar for quite some time until it reemerged with a bang on the festival circuit, making a premiere in Toronto that got critics talking and buzzing.  In mere minutes, Nicole Kidman was sure-fire Best Actress nominee, and the trailer let everyone else know that this is a performance to make the Oscar voters giddy.  (For a hilarious take on Kidman and the trailer, see Stuart Heritage’s post for The Guardian.)

Kidman hasn’t exactly fared too well since her 2002 Best Actress win for The Hours, suffering unfortunate role after unfortunate role in the typical post-winner fashion.  Over the past fifteen years, only two winners in this category have been nominated again (Charlize Theron and Frances McDormand) and one has won again (Hilary Swank).  I think the Academy would love to recognize her again and show that an actress can maintain poise after winning their prize.  It also helps that the role won a Tony for Cynthia Nixon.  However, unless she gets serious traction from critics groups, I doubt she could be a real threat to win given the deserving factor of Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, and potentially even Natalie Portman.

But beyond Kidman, what are the movie’s chances?  Her spouse is played by Aaron Eckhart, a fantastic actor deserving of some Academy recognition.  He has been getting good marks for his role as a grieving father from people in high places.  Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly writes:

“[Eckhart] shines in the film’s comedic and dramatic moments, showing range I’ve never seen before. And he gets to rant and rave a bit more than Kidman does, which doesn’t hurt with the Academy. He’s delivered sturdy work for years (“In the Company of Men,” “Nurse Betty,” “Thank You for Smoking”), and I’d love to see him score his first career nomination. And fortunately, the supporting actor field isn’t nearly as dense.”

I’m a huge Eckhart fan, particularly of his underrated and overshadowed work in “The Dark Knight” and especially his fast-talking tobacco lobbyist in “Thank You For Smoking,” which I thought was the best leading performance for any male in 2006.  He could easily find a place in the Best Supporting actor category, which has some pack leaders but no top dog yet.  He would be fighting out competitive players like Geoffrey Rush, Andrew Garfield, and Mark Ruffalo, but he has enough prestige to do it.  Plus film adaptations of plays usually score acting nominations with a fair amount of ease – just look at “Doubt,” which collected four in 2008.

I have also heard lots of love for Dianne Wiest, who plays Kidman’s mother.  She’s a two-time winner of Best Supporting Actress, and something tells me that the Academy isn’t quite ready to put her in the same category as Jack Nicholson in the parthenon of actors great enough to win three Oscars.  Nonetheless, in this complete ragtag band of actress in the supporting category this year, we have to consider any possibility.  She’s clearly a favorite, 62 years old, and apparently turns in quite a performance.  According to Katey Rich of Cinema Blend, “Dianne Wiest delivers a monologue about grief that is all the more stunning for how simply and succinctly she presents it.”

Although the movie may become more of an acting showcase, let’s not forget that this play won a Pulitzer Prize, so it has to be considered in Best Adapted Screenplay.  “Doubt,” written for the screen by the same man who brought it to the stage, managed to score a nomination in 2008 for being a nearly carbon copy.  According to the film’s director, David Lindsey-Abaire, who will be adapting the movie from his play, will be staging a “complete cinematic reimagining of the material.”  If it manages to enchant on a different level, the movie could easily net a nomination.

What about Best Director?  John Cameron Mitchell has never taken on a directorial venture anything like this.  “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” and “Shortbus” were both for indie, off the beaten path niche audiences; “Rabbit Hole” is a venture into serious Academy territory.  It would take a lot to get him onto a list that is bound to include names like David Fincher, The Coen Brothers, and Danny Boyle.  Mitchell wouldn’t be the first outsider to make the cut, but it seems like a longshot at best.

And I’d say if Kidman keeps up the strong buzz throughout the season, “Rabbit Hole” is a serious Best Picture contender.  According to Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere, “A few people applauded at the end of [the] press screening. I haven’t heard any clapping at all at any TIFF press screenings so far, so this probably means something.”  It will clearly have support from the actors, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it get a SAG Ensemble nod (along with I’ll assume “The Social Network,” “True Grit,” “The Fighter,” and “The Kids Are All Right”).  The critics seem to really like it, and their support always helps.

The deciding factor could be the audience.  Are they going to fall head-over-heels for a depressing adult drama about a couple grieving the loss of their young son?  Not exactly light and uplifting, eh?  But “Precious” got a nomination, as have many movies considered too dark for the average moviegoer.  “Rabbit Hole” is definitely in the hunt, but it’s no sure bet at the present time.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actress (Kidman), Best Supporting Actor (Eckhart), Best Supporting Actress (Wiest), Best Adapted Screenplay

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “For Colored Girls”

26 10 2010

Tyler Perry has been finding great success making comedies for the past five years, yet with “For Colored Girls,” he tries something totally different.  It’s a project more similar to “Precious” than “Diary of a Mad Black Woman,” dark, dramatic, and depressing in tone.  Based on an award-winning play and featuring an ensemble cast of eight headlining African-American women, this seems like a great awards contender on paper.

Yet it won’t be able to follow in the footsteps of “Precious.”  As Guy Lodge of In Contention put it back in August, “‘Precious’ entered the race on a wave of festival-acquired respectability; it’s doubtful whether voters would have sought it out without the prior approval of Sundance, Cannes and Toronto. ‘For Colored Girls’ will have no such advantage.”  It will surely get a crowd from Perry’s die-hard fan base that will see anything he makes; however, how many of them will flock to see a drama is fairly suspect.

For a Best Picture play, it needs the critics since it didn’t have the opportunity to garner buzz on the festival circuit.  Knowing the stakes, Perry decided to screen the movie in advance for critics despite a bad experience with pre-screening of “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” that convinced him not to show his eight subsequent films.

And apparently, Perry should have stuck with his instincts because “For Colored Girls” is getting trashed out of the gate.  I’ll give you a sample of what the critics are saying.  BEWARE, it’s actually quite humorous.

Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Reporter:

“For once, Tyler Perry doesn’t put his name above the title, but perhaps he should with ‘For Colored Girls’ to distinguish this train wreck of a movie from the stunning theater piece of 36 years ago by Ntozake Shange … All Perry does is force conventional plots and characters — utter cliches without lives or souls — into the fabric of Shange’s literary work. The hackneyed melodramas get him from one poem to the next but run roughshod over the collective sense of who these women are.”

Peter DeBruge, Variety:

“While Perry’s craft has slowly but surely improved with each successive film, this latest project seems to fall beyond his reach. Just as the director was finding the organic quality that eluded him in ‘Diary’ and other early efforts, he’s confronted with a conceptual piece that calls for an entirely different approach. Yet he can’t resist turning ‘For Colored Girls’ into a Tyler Perry Movie, which means imposing diva worship where nuance is called for and a pleasure-punishing Christian worldview where a certain moral ambiguity might have been more appropriate.”

The last Tyler Perry movie to get an Oscar nomination was — oh wait, none of his movies have ever received an Oscar nomination!  If it comes off as melodramatic to audiences, word of mouth could be toxic and all chances for the movie could be sunk.  There’s only one hope I see for the movie in the big category: the fact that it is the only movie about minorities in the hunt.  The Los Angeles Times made this observation: “For the first time since the 73rd Oscars 10 years ago, there will be no black nominees in any of the acting categories in the February ceremony.”  The same goes for Best Picture which, at the moment, looks to be about as white as bleach.

Sasha Stone of Awards Daily suggests that the movie could take “The Blind Side” slot, but I think it has too narrow appeal and too depressing subject matter to be that movie.  In my mind, the best chance “For Colored Girls” has is in the acting categories.  With so many actresses, there are so many possibilities.  The question, though, is how to pick which one?  Or two?  Unless there is a clear standout, the actresses will cancel each other out.

Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere quotes an Academy source who says there are three levels of performances offered in the movie: Janet Jackson and Loretta Devine are good; Phylicia Rashad and Thandie Newton are great; Kimberly Elise and Macy Gray are masterful.  Interestingly, the two mentioned as being the best are probably the least well-known of the group.  Apparently Elise came up short in 1998 for a critically acclaimed turn in “Beloved,” so maybe this nomination could be redemption.  Gray, however, has shown up in few movies, but her work here as a back-door abortionist could be shocking and gripping.

Katey Rich of Cinema Blend offers another candidate for consideration, Anika Noni Rose.  She says of Rose, “she has one of the film’s strongest monologues, plays a character who undergoes significant changes over the course of the film, and never oversells it.”  She also brings up the fact that Rose has been solid in other awards movies like “Dreamgirls.”

For me, the only certain thing about “For Colored Girls” is that nothing is certain.  The success (or lack thereof) of the movie itself makes it a risky call for Best Picture, and the fact that no female has emerged as the movie’s dominant force makes it difficult to get much buzz going for Best Supporting Actress.  Even though it’s a weak field and the movie may have a strong showing, one or two women need broad support if the movie hopes to get a nomination.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actress (Rose, Elise)

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress (Gray, Jackson, Newton)


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Oscar Moment: “Made in Dagenham”

22 10 2010

“Made in Dagenham” could fill a whole lot of quotas at this year’s Oscars.

To start off, it’s British.  Secondly, it’s British.  Oh yeah, and did I mention it’s British?

There’s always interest when it comes to our friends across the pond as a second “British Invasion” is beginning to sway the Academy in a different direction.   And they sure do love recognizing their own movies, even if they aren’t very good (cough, “The Reader”).  If you can’t tell by the accents, “Made in Dagenham” is a VERY British movie, even enhancing its anglophilic capabilities by chronicling a period of social history in the United Kingdom.

Which brings me to my next point: it’s about women’s rights!  Rita O’Grady (Sally Hawkins) leads a strike of sewing workers to fight for equal pay for all sexes.  This true story of trying to end discrimination by gender is even told with a touch of comedy to keep it from devolving into “Norma Rae.”  What’s not for the Academy to like?

I’ve thrown out a lot of possibilities for a so-called “The Blind Side” slot.  It pains me to think that such a thing exists, but we have to consider inspirational and heartwarming movies a threat no matter how cheesy they may be.  I’ve suggested that “Conviction” and “Secretariat” both have qualities that make them a threat in a similar way, and you can add in “Made in Dagenham” to that list as well.  After the movie bowed at Toronto, Kris Tapley of In Contention stated that “the story is exactly the sort of underdog tale that can make an awards dent, especially in a field of 10.”

If it turns out to be a crowd-pleaser, even if just to a smaller crowd, this could easily be nominated when you take into account that it has pretty solid reviews.  I see a close parallel in “An Education” – a light British drama with a dynamite leading turn.  Sally Hawkins, two years removed from a snub for Mike Leigh’s “Happy-Go-Lucky,” is back and blazing in this role.  Some have compared her to Sally Field, who won an Oscar in 1979 for her role in “Norma Rae” as the titular union organizer.  Women’s rights activists have done well in Best Actress (see Charlize Theron in 2005 for “North Country”), a category that likes to celebrate strong women.  The big concern is that she may not have the prestige to break into a tight field of five this year.

But according to most professional prognosticators, the movie’s biggest acting asset is Miranda Richardson, who plays the fiery Barbara Castle.  In the same article as reference above, Kris Tapley said this of Richardson:

“Miranda Richardson may finally nail down the Oscar win many of us have desperately wanted to see her wrangle for years.  If nothing else she’s on a clear track for a nomination.  The actress is on fire as Barbara Castle, the Labor party Baroness who bravely threw her weight behind female Ford factory workers demanding equal pay in an unfair system, and at a time when it was raging against a fierce tide to do so.  The supporting actress category is ripe for the taking this year and Richardson’s is exactly the kind of commanding, bold, yet humorous turn voters love to recognize.”

In a Best Supporting Actress category that is as unshaped as a slab of clay, Richardson could swoop down and steal the momentum – because no one else has yet!  Mo’Nique got the buzz from Sundance last year and never let go; Richardson could do the same (albeit 10 months afterwards).

There are plenty of other outside possibilities for the movie, including a potential second Best Supporting Actress bid for Rosamund Pike (which seems likely if the movie goes huge) and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bob Hoskins (more likely than Pike, although Bill Murray for “Get Low” is more likely to take his slot).  It will be much easier to tell what we can expect in the middle of November when the movie is released; its success in awards season will rely quite a bit on the reception it receives here.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Actress (Hawkins), Best Supporting Actress (Richardson)

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Hoskins), Best Original Screenplay, Best Costume Design, Best Production Design, Best Original Song


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »