How ready is America to embrace a movie that is pretty deprecating to our sense of patriotism? Doug Liman’s “Fair Game” will certainly show us if the bomb that was this March’s “Green Zone” was an anomaly or indicative of what to expect for movies about American involvement in Iraq. (Interestingly enough, both movies share a connection to the Bourne franchise through their directors – Liman took on the first installment in that series, and Paul Greengrass helmed the second and third movies before making “Green Zone.”)
The movie will probably make its two biggest power plays in the lead acting categories with two performances from prestige actors. Naomi Watts, who plays CIA spy Valerie Plame, was been nominated for Best Actress in 2003, and Sean Penn, who plays her husband, has won the prize twice. Both stand decent chances, but it’s a tight year in both fields, and they could easily get squeezed out.
With firmly established pack leaders like Annette Bening and Natalie Portman, Best Actress will surely be a tough field to crack for Watts. She’s strayed away from Oscar-type roles since her 2003 nomination for “21 Grams” save some mild buzz for “King Kong” in 2005. Watts is well-liked but hardly beloved; however,she has gotten a fair amount of buzz from the movie being shown at Cannes and other festivals; Guy Lodge of In Contention remarked: “Naomi Watts is ideally cast as Plame, really warming to her character as she becomes more imperiled.” Jeff Wells at Hollywood Experience was a whole lot more supportive:
“… I think this may be her finest performance yet. I think the reason I feel that way is because her role in this film as Valerie Plame is a truly challenging role because NOCs (Non-official cover – government intelligence operatives who assume covert roles in organizations without official ties to their government) are wallflowers by nature and are usually understated and quiet. They want be the least interesting person in the room and want to learn about you without you learning about them.”

I don’t think Sean Penn could win again just because of the virtual cap off at two Oscar wins. Three would put him at Jack Nicholson status, but even Jack received his Oscar with eight and twelve year gaps. A win for “Fair Game” would make three wins in seven years for Penn, which is, needless to say, a little excessive. But Meryl Streep has been nominated a whopping 11 times since her last win, so a nomination is by no means out of the question. He clearly has the respect and the praise to get him there (Sasha Stone of Awards Daily raved “he has so much charisma, such cinematic force one can hardly wrap one’s mind around it”), but it’s a pretty tight field as is. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get edged out by first-time nominees like Jesse Eisenberg and James Franco or one-time nominees like Colin Firth and Mark Wahlberg.
For the movie to have a shot at Best Picture, there needs to be some big buzz building around the opening to carry it through the season. It received mostly positive marks from its Cannes debut, but no one was jumping out of their seat in excitement. Emerging from the Bush era, “Fair Game” takes a look at how far we were willing to let the government take our freedom in exchange for security – and the victims of such policies. It’s not a sympathetic look at America, and neither was last year’s Best Picture winner “The Hurt Locker.” Are the politics of Oscar entering an era of confronting harsh realities?
It will need either an audience (which doesn’t seem too likely given the reception for other Iraq movies) or some strong critical allies to overcome what looks to be a fairly lackluster reception. It’s hard to get a best Picture nomination when you draw a remark like this from a major trade: “Greeted with solid applause and a smattering of boos after its first press screening, ‘Fair Game’ has an enjoyable opening hour before disintegrating into melodramatic hooey” (that would be Manohla Darghis of The New York Times).
The movie’s chances could be hurt by fledgling studio Summit Entertainment. As Kris Tapley of In Contention put it, “I’m curious to see how the studio will handle a campaign that doesn’t unfold serendipitously, as ‘The Hurt Locker’ seemed to do last year.” The campaign will need to be big and brassy to keep interest going for four months on this movie. Precursors are going to have to mention it frequently if it wants to nab a spot in the bottom 5 of Best Picture.
BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Actress (Watts)
OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Actor (Penn), Best Adapted Screenplay
With the expansion of the Best Picture field, we have to take into account all sorts of contenders for Best Picture. “Nowhere Boy” is a movie that wouldn’t have much of a chance in a field of five, but it seems like a good Golden Globes film that might have a nice shot at some Oscar nominations.

If “Waiting for Superman” gets the full support of the audiences and manages to promote positive social change, this could be an unstoppable force in the Best Documentary race – and who knows, maybe 2010 is progressive enough to nominate a documentary in Best Picture? I’d say it’s an extreme long shot at best, but if the slate thins out, this is a very good option. With a
There are many categories on my Oscar ballot that I always call a toss-up, such as the short films. However, one such category regrettably includes the Best Documentary Feature, which I have, in the past, had little interest in. These movies tackle important current events or shine new perspectives on old ones, and as I’ve become more educated, these have become more intriguing to me.
The movie makes the argument that Wall Street has been heading for collapse ever since the 1980s when institutions were allowed to trade on their own behalf. The idea that banks and firms are betting against the customers is frightening, and the marketing campaign behind the movie seeks to make it look like an “economic horror movie.” It’s an interesting notion, and given some of the movie’s revelations, Sony Pictures Classics may be on to something.
The real question is if “Inside Job” will align with the Academy’s flavor of the month in the documentary category. Last year’s winner, “The Cove,” dealt with a very strong ethical cause that had not been anywhere in the news. Two years ago, “Man on Wire” told the story of Philipe Petit’s 1973 walk between the World Trade Center towers. Three years ago, Ferguson’s own Iraq documentary “No End in Sight” lost to “Taxi to the Dark Side,” which took a look at American policy on torture in Iraq. Four years ago, winner “An Inconvenient Truth” made global warming an issue. Five years ago, “March of the Penguin” charmed everyone in America.
There was once a time when a Clint Eastwood movie being released meant instant Oscar attention and presumed to have nearly automatic entry into the Best Picture category. Wait, that was just in 2008. After picking up his second Best Picture/Best Director combo package for “Million Dollar Baby” in 2004 and nominations for “Letters from Iwo Jima” in 2006, the Academy has been cold as ice to the 80-year-old legendary filmmaker.
Eastwood’s latest directorial venture debuted last month at the Toronto Film Festival to a very polarized reaction. Some critics seemed to really like it.
Beyond the movie itself, I think Matt Damon can also be seriously considered in the Best Actor category. He received his first acting nomination last year for “Invictus,” a collaboration with Eastwood, and he also has a nice Oscar sitting on his mantle for writing “Good Will Hunting.” But with Damon also being an apparent scene-stealer in the much more Academy friendly “True Grit,” Warner Bros. may choose to campaign him harder there.
With the Oscars expansion to ten Best Picture nominees, it’s truly unfortunate that within the first year, the term “The Blind Side slot” became a legitimate phrase. We now know that certain movies of less Academy-caliber filmmaking have a shot at Best Picture. “The Blind Side” brought a mixture of inspiration and sports to the table and wound up on the Academy shortlist.
Sam Rockwell, as the convict of “Conviction” (punny, I know), seems to be the movie’s best shot at Oscar glory. He has been coming into his own as a star as of recent, and movies like “Moon” have made him a cult favorite. This could be his chance to show the mainstream how talented he truly is, and I think an aggressive campaign could easily get him into the relatively unformed Best Supporting Actor race.
I’ll close out this week chalked full of Oscar Moments with the movie that has been a favorite since it premiered at Cannes back in May, Mike Leigh’s “Another Year.” It received adoring review after adoring review, most speculating that it would win the prestigious Palme d’Or. And while it didn’t take home any hardware, it emerged as the movie with the most buzz from the festival.
It’s a fascinating idea, although from my experience with Leigh’s work, I’m not sure how much it works for me. Nevertheless, the Academy loves his writing and direction. He has been nominated four times for Best Original Screenplay, most recently in 2008 for “Happy-Go-Lucky,” and twice for Best Director, most recently for 2004’s “Vera Drake.” As for the overall success of his movies, only one, 1996’s “Secrets & Lies,” was nominated for Best Picture.
Manville has been hogging the spotlight, and when anyone talks of the ensemble, they single her out. She’s the movie’s best bet for an acting nomination, although category fraud may play a part. Most pundits consider her a leading actress, but Sony Pictures Classics may want to sneak her into the weaker Best Supporting Actress field.
Two years ago, Danny Boyle was atop the world, winning Best Director for “Slumdog Millionaire,” a movie that won eight Oscars, the second-biggest haul for any movie of the decade. And now, he may be poised to stand there again. His follow-up feature, “127 Hours,” is generating a whole lot of positive awards buzz.
Have we found a Best Picture winner with Tom Hooper’s “The King’s Speech?”
Geoffrey Rush could easily find himself in the Best Supporting Actor race. With no clear front-runner, he could easily charge to the front despite having won before back in 1996. The fact that he’s already been awarded an Oscar should only be a factor when choosing the winner; the effect should be minimal on his nomination. And Helena Bonham Carter, as George’s wife, should be able to squeeze out a nomination as well. While she’s taken on some kooky roles since her last nomination in 1997 for “The Wings of the Dove,” a return to Academy fare could find her back in their favor once more.
The big winner at Venice was “Somewhere,” which won the coveted Golden Lion there. According to jury president Quentin Tarantino, the movie ” . But does that mean anything?
Critical response was tepid at Venice; “Black Swan” was the movie on everyone’s lips. I’m not really getting the feeling that this could be an audience favorite either. The plot, which revolves around a self-absorbed movie star (Stephen Dorff) required to take on responsibility for his young daughter (Dakota Fanning’s sister, Elle), feels like something we’ve seen before. “The Game Plan,” the campy Disney movie, anyone? I’m sorry to say that I don’t see many Oscar vibes emanating from that storyline. Then again, if it’s told with brutal Coppola subtlety, the Academy will go gaga.
The Toronto Film Festival closed yesterday, and Oscars season 2010 has kicked off now as a result. To commemorate this commencement, I am dedicating the next five days solely to theorizing about the five major contenders emerging from the festivals held in Venice, Toronto, and Telluride.
Opinion on the movie emerging from the festival is incredibly polarized, with the prevailing side being those in favor. Here’s
I think the movie has the goods to be a Best Picture candidate – the subject matter may just be a little too intense for them. Mental psychodrama, as one person describe the movie, just isn’t up their alley. But if the public gets behind it and critical response is still great, it could have a chance.
At 30, her youth is an asset as she is now old enough to not be written off as “too young.” In fact, since 1997, only two actresses older than 35 have won Best Actress, both of which came in the past four years. So a win for Portman keeps the trend going. She faces stiff competition this year; many are calling it the strongest leading actress field in years. Her stiffest competition may come from Annette Bening, who at 52 won raves for “The Kids Are All Right” over the summer. With three nominations to her name, Bening will be a force to reckon with.
This time last year, I boiled the race down to Carey Mulligan vs. Meryl Streep, the film festival breakout and up-and-comer pitted against the awards mainstay. While Bening is know Meryl Streep and Portman is hardly unknown, the race is very similar. Of course last year, Sandra Bullock came out of nowhere to take it all. I think simplifying a race down to two people now is misguided, although I will say that they are the two strongest candidates at the moment. A nomination of Portman is almost certain; a snub would mean that the Academy really needs to grow up and learn how to handle tough subject matter.





The bar has been set high, at least in terms of quality, for Corbijn’s follow-up. First films usually don’t receive much notice at the Oscars, the rare exception coming, ironically, for the George Clooney vehicle “Michael Clayton,” which received nominations for Best Picture and Best Director for Tony Gilroy. Second films, however, have been able to gain traction. Let’s look at last year’s Best Director nominees and their second films.

Recent Comments