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
Well, there goes Redbox as being a great deal for consumers.
Dear Jean-Luc Godard,
Clint Eastwood’s “Hereafter” fell out of the top 10 at the box office this Sunday after spending only three weeks among Hollywood’s top earners. With only $31 million in the bank and running out of steam quickly, what does this mean for the movie’s Oscar chances?
I’ve been a little busy doing clean-up work on my own site for the past week, but one thing I’ve been meaning to address is some criticism laid out against me by a fellow blogger. In a post calling out flaws in himself and other bloggers, he specifically addressed my post on “
I write largely for an audience that could care less about classic film. I myself don’t really care that much for it, but I know that it’s important that I see these movies to have a larger understanding of film. The movies I choose to review don’t require an incredible amount of knowledge of classics, and referring to them in reviews or posts would be largely wasted intellectual ramble. I choose to spend most of my time watching movies that help me make accurate comparisons to help my friends and bloggers. It makes more sense to say that the latest indie comedy is no “Juno,” not that it’s no “Citizen Kane.”
I had no intentions to give “Citizen Kane” a full critical overview because I’m simply not qualified. But I believe that taking into account my purpose and my audience, my post did what it was supposed to do. I’m not asking you to trust me as a film scholar; I’m asking you to trust me as a teenager with an appreciation for film. I’m willing to hear criticism of my work, but my overall message to James at Central Florida Film Critic is that you can’t judge all writing through one lens. You have to take into account different perspectives, and I think your scolding of my post simply didn’t do that. If the way I view movies doesn’t align with the way you want to view them, I can only recommend you finding another site to read.
I talk a lot about the moviegoing experience, particularly all the things that can go wrong with it. In fact, I think this is the second time that I said I’ve stopped linking to other factoids simply because I’ve said so much. Nonetheless, I have a new entry to the “things that bother me when I go see a movie.”
Well, that was quick.
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 
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.
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 
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.
The New York Times
I know I have spoken quite vocally about the influence that Roger Ebert has had on my film criticism, but today, I think it would appropriate to recognize the other big influence: Gene Shalit.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments