Did I outsmart “Nocturnal Animals,” or is it just a fairly surface-level psychological thriller? Both – or neither – may be true. But the longer I sat watching Amy Adams’ Susan Morrow taking in the manuscript of her ex-husband, Jake Gyllenhaal’s Edward Sheffield, the more I wondered if this was really it.
Director and adapter Tom Ford names both Kubrick and Hitchcock as influences on the film, and it shows in his meticulous attention to the organization of the frame and the calibrated cutting between them, respectively. He deftly cross-cuts between three storylines: the events leading up to the relationship fissure between Susan and Edward, the visualization of Edward’s novel that blows up the essence of their acrimonious split into a Western revenge tale centered around the taunting and torturing of an emasculated family man, and then Susan reading the text and carrying the weight of those words through her jaded days as a Los Angeles art dealer in decline. When the biggest problem is selling the 36-year-old Gyllenhaal and 42-year-old Adams as old enough to have been split for 20 years, that’s a good sign that a lot is working correctly.
But once the connection becomes clear that the novel is a roman à clef about the effects of the divorce on Edward, the pressure mounts for “Nocturnal Animals” to do something more with its intertwined narrative. For the most part, Ford keeps it fairly straightforward. The beautiful surfaces do say so much about the characters, particularly Susan’s sterile, well-coiffed home and wardrobe that reflect the belying calm facade she presents to the world.
Sometimes great films do more than change our thoughts. They change our way of thinking. Denis Villeneuve’s “Arrival” is one such film, reorienting our relationship with time and communication to jarring, enlightening effect. The only other recent comparison possible is a Christopher Nolan film: “Memento” or “Interstellar.”
The film attempts an ambitious coup that should be experienced, not described. But it spoils little to say that the ingenious storytelling from Eric Heisserer, adapting a short story by Ted Chiang, disorients a viewer to a point where entire sections of the film can come under reconsideration. By way of Amy Adams’ Dr. Louise Banks, a linguist tasked with figuring out how mysterious aliens express themselves, “Arrival” engages the brain while also raising questions about how that same organ processes information.
Much of the film unfolds rather plainly – Louise and a team of military personnel, including Jeremy Renner’s Ian Donnelly, insert themselves into the belly of a “heptapod” that has landed in a Montana meadow. (Many others also situate themselves across the planet.) Through a series of experiments, Louise attempts to crack an extra-terrestrial Rosetta Stone of sorts. Picture the climax of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” stretched to feature-length, and that is somewhat akin to “Arrival.”
Louise has few luxuries as she carries out her work. Time, of course, is of the essence. Many of her collaborators consider linguistics a pseudo-science, dismissing the seriousness of her mission. And with each successive trip into the heptapod, the world moves closer to the brink as media blowhards push a campaign to save the species.
With stakes this high, the average moviegoer might anticipate a massive shootout or intergalactic battle as “Arrival” heats up. Nothing of the sort happens. Villeneuve never relies on spectacle to sell the film; instead, he patiently lays the groundwork for a finale that reveals the firing of synapses in our brains as something worth celebrating and considering. This science-fiction tale has an optimism rooted in humanism, and that is something to celebrate. B+ /
I miss Christopher Nolan. Never mind that it has been less than four years since his final Batman film and fewer than 18 months since his most recent directorial effort, “Interstellar.” He understood that the scope of a sprawling comic book movie could be an epic canvas for ambitious thematic and aesthetic content, not just an excuse for bombast and branding.
He has, inexplicably, turned over the keys to the kingdom to Zack Snyder, a director full of sound and fury that signifies nothing. He has an eye and a knack for style, to give him some credit, but Snyder never deploys it in use of a story or an idea. He’s all showmanship for its own sake – surfaces above substance, declaration over development.
As if 2013’s “Man of Steel” was not nauseating enough, he arrives with an “Avengers”-ified sequel in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” It’s roughly the cinematic equivalent of Kim Kardashian’s “Break the Internet” magazine cover. Call it “Break the Box Office,” if you will, as it’s already crushing at the box office this year. The film is practically incoherent and only gets more pointless and frustrating with each new turn. With each successive insipid development, the experience is as numbing as it is infuriating.
Snyder is more concerned that we notice the giant CGI pearls snapped at the murder of Bruce Wayne’s mother than providing context or rationale for this universe in which the film takes place. So two superheroes, Batman and Superman, have been living across the water from each other … and that was not worth mentioning in “Man of Steel?” While it’s nice that the film does not waste time rehashing an origin story, clearly Ben Affleck’s Batman is much different than Christian Bale’s. He’s more overtly villainous and cynical – but why?
Perhaps these questions might have been answered in the many scenes left on the cutting room floor. These crucial contextual bits are more important than ever as they could give the franchise a headwind as it launches a bevy of spinoffs and sequels. Marvel movies are bearable because their brain trust actually cares about their characters. They might ultimately succumb to formulaic plots, sure, but they at least understand that audiences want to get attached to these larger-than-life figures. Come and forget the action, stay and remember the characters.
Director Tim Burton (“Alice in Wonderland,” “Dark Shadows“) is accustomed to working on canvases larger than life. But in his latest directorial outing “Big Eyes,” he has a hard time creating an environment that feels true to life. The film is the rare Burton picture not set in any realm of fantasy or imagination, and he feels uncomfortable in the domain of average human beings.
His response to every question that arose in production, it seems, was to opt for exaggeration. “Big Eyes” has the tense spousal dynamic of “The Color Purple” where the exploitation in the marriage is artistic rather than sexual. Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) aspires to be a renowned and revered artist yet cannot achieve such status with his own paintings. Thus, he claims the resonantly kitschy big-eyed paintings of his wife Margaret (Amy Adams) for his own and forces her into a glorified form of indentured servitude.
Burton uses a narrator to constantly remind the audience that this all happened “back then” as if the whole thing were some kind of fairy tale. Yet “Big Eyes,” sadly, derives its strength from the nagging sensation that this could just as easily be happening in 2014. The kind of cultural diminution and symbolic rape committed in the film is still endemic in today’s society, but Burton seems content with hermetically sealing it in some kind of dolled-up past.
Writer/director Spike Jonze’s “Her” is an uncommonly thoughtful film, one that is lightyears ahead of what we can really even fathom. Most works tackling the topics of technology and humanity are set in distant futures, yet they never seem to escape the mire of our present times.
“Her,” on the other hand, dares to imagine a world only tenuously related to our own. Jonze’s vision is hardly disconnected from contemporary concerns, though. It just requires us to adjust our frame of reference to imagine issues we may not have even contemplated. As a result, Jonze is able to urge us to see the world differently – a very worthwhile way to wield the power of cinema.
In his unspecified future Los Angeles, Joaquin Phoenix’s socially isolated Theodore Twombly finds romantic companionship not in another human being, but rather in his OS, Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). The soothing sultriness of her voice allays our concerns about intelligent computers, so we’re never worried about her turning into HAL from “2001.” Instead, we can focus on the very unique insights their relationship yields about intimacy and emotional mediation.
All that we think we know is up for reconsideration in “Her,” even the very nature of love. In the hands of many directors, this kind of existential revelation might leave us feeling depressed or hopeless. But Jonze, with a respect for artificial intelligence and an optimism for the future that feels quite groundbreaking, deposits us at a higher ground of understanding that almost overrides any emotional response.
Well, folks, hard to believe that we’ll have a fresh batch of Oscar nominations in less than 2 days. Where has the time gone? Seems like just yesterday that I was posting my first (and, sadly, my only) predictions that included Naomi Watts in the thick of the Best Actress race for “Diana.” But now that all the ballots are in, the jury is still out on how a few of the races will go.
Who is about to have a great wake-up call on Thursday? I sort through the acting races races below.
The top 3 seem pretty secure to me. There’s a slim chance of Hanks falling out simply because this isn’t his first rodeo and voters might want to give their vote to a fresher face. But aside from frontrunners McConaughey and Ejiofor, very few of the top nominees are new to the game.
Oscar Isaac in “Inside Llewyn Davis” and Michael B. Jordan in “Fruitvale Station,” both gave great breakout performances. Maybe in a less competitive year, they’d have broken through. In 2013, I’d be shocked if they could crack this field. It doesn’t help that neither movie seemed to gain much traction during precursor season. Past winner Forest Whitaker for “The Butler” and past nominee Robert Redford for “All Is Lost” seem unlikely as well as both of their movies have not been heavily recognized on the circuit.
Christian Bale stands a chance of showing up here, especially after netting nominations from the Golden Globes, Critics’ Choice, and BAFTA awards for his electric work in “American Hustle.” He’s won once off his only nomination, which feels like a huge injustice for his vast talents. If there’s enough love for the movie, he could land a spot. But losing at the Globes, which clearly loved “American Hustle,” indicates that love for his performance may be wide but not very deep.
Bruce Dern has campaigned his tail off for “Nebraska,” and it’s clear that he really wants to win. The film has found plenty of fans, and it’s hard to see him missing out since he’s responsible for so much of its efficacy. He’s been nominated by the triple crown of SAG, HFPA (Golden Globes), and BFCA (Critics’ Choice), yet that’s no assurance of an Oscar nomination these days. It’s not shocking that he didn’t win the Golden Globe since the organization probably wanted the ultra-wattage of Leonardo DiCaprio up on stage. The Academy goes back-and-forth on being sentimental for veterans of the craft; I don’t think they’ll be able to resist at least a nomination for Dern though.
Upon its release, I would have counted Leonardo DiCaprio out of the race for Best Actor. But he’s been more active than ever speaking up for his movie, and it really pushed “The Wolf of Wall Street” into the conversation. The late surge of momentum may not be enough to counter his omission from both SAG and BFCA – DiCaprio netted the precursor triple crown for “J. Edgar” but still found no love from the Academy in 2011. The Globe win, however, gives me the sense that he’ll slide into a nomination.
Blanchett has this all but sealed up now. It would take a major blunder on-stage for her to lose Best Actress at this point, but we all know that’s not going to happen. It’s Cate Blanchett – she’s about the classiest actress around.
Bullock, Dench, and Thompson should all coast right in with no problem. All 3 prior winners have been nominated by SAG, HFPA, and BFCA, and their films all have a sizable base of fans to pull them through.
The last bit of suspense in this category will come on nominations morning as we wait to see if it’s Meryl Streep for “August: Osage County” or Amy Adams for “American Hustle.” Streep’s case is … well, she’s Meryl Streep. The Oscars rarely pass up an opportunity to nominate her, but maybe the reflex will not be as strong now that she’s won the third Oscar for “The Iron Lady” two years ago. She’s hit all the big precursors so far, scoring all the same major nominations as the previously mentioned actresses. Her film, though, has not been particularly well-received.
Amy Adams is an Academy favorite herself though, racking up an impressive four Best Supporting Actress nominations in the past nine years. She’s never been recognized as a leading lady, and a nomination here would send the message, “We’re working on getting you that Oscar win one day, Amy, we promise!” Though she did not land a SAG nomination, she’s been recognized by the BFCA and BAFTA. Moreover, she beat Meryl Streep for Best Actress at the Golden Globes.
It’s unclear if the Academy will love “American Hustle” as much as the HFPA did. I feel pretty confident, though, that respect for Adams and the film she commands will overpower the impulse to give Streep her bazillionth nomination.
While I remain hopeful that Fassbender can pull an upset, this category looks to be all Jared Leto. He’s been taking everything in his path, and I don’t think that will stop until the Oscar. For Fassbender, though, he should at least take solace in getting his first nomination without campaigning a bit. (If he had to work so hard only to be denied recognition for his astounding work in “Shame,” then why bother lobbying anymore?)
Debut performances often fare well at the Oscars, especially in the supporting categories. 22 have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and I suspect that number will rise to 23 this week. Barkhad Abdi’s first role ever as the lead Somali pirate in “Captain Phillips” has been highly praised and won him recogition from SAG, HFPA, BFCA, and BAFTA. Especially given the praise that his film has received, I think a snub would be rather inconceivable at this point.
Though he wasn’t nominated by SAG, Bradley Cooper has collected every other key nomination for his work in “American Hustle.” The film is beloved, and his performance is one of the best parts of the movie – hilarious but also heartily dramatic. Two years ago, back-to-back Oscar nominations for the guy who was a staple of rom-coms like “Valentine’s Day” might have seemed an absurdity. Now I see it as a practical inevitability.
Cooper was passed over by SAG in favor of a posthumous recognition for James Gandolfini in “Enough Said.” While he was certainly a beloved actor, Gandolfini was more revered for his television work than his film roles. (“Killing Them Softly” was fantastic, just going to point out once again.) The SAG nomination committee has plenty of television actors, and that may have accounted for his appearance. Otherwise, he’s been spotty, picking up a nod from BFCA but not from the HFPA. “Enough Said” really hasn’t been a big part of the Oscar conversation, and I think that will ultimately cost Gandolfini a slot in this line-up.
The final slot is likely to go to Daniel Bruhl, who I really shouldn’t be doubting as he’s racked up nominations from all significant precursors. But aside from the Golden Globe Best Picture nomination for “Rush,” the film hasn’t really been lighting up awards season. Bruhl’s work is solid but seems to draw no fervent support. I could see him losing a spot to Gandolfini or even a left-field player like Tom Hanks in “Saving Mr. Banks” or Jonah Hill in “The Wolf of Wall Street.” In my wildest dreams, James Franco’s brilliant work in “Spring Breakers” could trump Bruhl. But I have to predict what seems predictable.
It’s down to Nyong’o vs. Lawrence for the win here. Though Lawrence prevailed at the star-powered Golden Globes, I still have my doubts as to whether she can swing back-to-back Oscar wins. I think this category could also be a way for us to gauge on Oscar night which film will win Best Picture. Both films are likely to need one acting victory, and Best Supporting Actress is the most probable place to earn it. (Ejiofor has a shot for Best Actor, and that might pan out for the film.)
I think 84-year-old June Squibb is pretty much locked in for her fantastic performance in “Nebraska.” She’s had all the requisite nominations leading up to the Oscars, and her film is well-liked too.
The last two slots, however, could go any number of ways. Sally Hawkins got a Golden Globe nomination for “Blue Jasmine,” and the British contingency that got her a BAFTA nod could break her into the field here. I have to wonder if “Blue Jasmine” is purely the Cate Blanchett show, however. Scarlett Johansson’s vocal work in “Her” got her a nomination from the BFCA (it was ineligible at the Globes), but the Academy generally strays away from rewarding unconventional performances like that. Maybe Sarah Paulson, silent on the trail so far, could shock and give “12 Years a Slave” its second nomination in the category.
My guess is that the Academy will stick to some long renowned actresses to fill out the roster. Oprah Winfrey surprisingly missed with the Golden Globes for “The Butler,” but she’s been touted by the BFCA, SAG, and BAFTA. Even though the film has lost its buzz after it scored surprisingly well with the SAG, I think the Oscars will still want to give something to one of the few screen performances given by the cultural icon.
I think they’ll also be welcoming back Julia Roberts, who hasn’t been nominated since she won in 2000 for “Erin Brockovich.” As previously mentioned, “August: Osage County” hasn’t been met with rapturous acclaim. But it does have the support of the actors, who gave it a coveted Best Ensemble nomination at the SAG Awards. If anything for the film is recognized, it will be the acting. And Roberts, who many view as a co-lead, is the most likely to reap the goodwill.
Check back tomorrow to see my predictions for the writing/directing categories as well as the granddaddy of them all … BEST PICTURE!
Well, folks, the time is here to talk about Oscar season. The Venice Film Festival kicks off tomorrow, and suddenly it won’t be taboo to talk about what might be competing for the Academy Awards.
Just to show you how much things change over the course of the fall, last year I predicted “The Master” to win Best Picture at this time – and it wound up not being nominated. I was close for Best Director and Best Actor, though, ranking Ang Lee and Daniel Day-Lewis my #2 pick in their respective categories. Jennifer Lawrence was not remotely on my radar, but my projected winner Quvenzhané Wallis did manage to get a nomination! I got the movie right for Best Supporting Actor, but picked Leonardo DiCaprio instead of Christoph Waltz as the “Django Unchained” cast member to hoist the Oscar. And I, like everyone else, saw Anne Hathaway’s win coming from the moment the first “Les Misérables” trailer hit the web.
So what will surprise us this year? And what will disappoint? Here’s my first draft at a year in Oscar forecasting.
There seems to be no clear frontrunner a la “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” or “War Horse” for 2013. So I’m just going to gander it’s a dues-paying year. It seems like David O. Russell, after two straight Best Picture-Best Director nominations for “The Fighter” and “Silver Linings Playbook,” is now on the fast track to win someday. So why not 2013 with “American Hustle?” A glitzy period drama that looks to provide action, comedy, and drama looks pretty good on paper to me.
Another film I could see making a charge at the prize is Steve McQueen’s “12 Years A Slave.” Despite all the talent involved in this film, I think it might still be an underdog given that McQueen’s previous two films have not received a single Oscar nomination. Then again, Tom Hooper was a relative novice when he directed “The King’s Speech,” and we know how that story ends.
Previous Best Director nominees Bennett Miller (“Foxcatcher”), George Clooney (“The Monuments Men”), Spike Jonze (“Her”), the Coen Brothers (“Inside Llewyn Davis”), and Jason Reitman (“Labor Day”) all look to get in the Best Picture race. Based on their pedigree alone, I’m predicting nominations for these five films. All are sight unseen, save “Inside Llewyn Davis,” which I have seen and can attest is the kind of well-made film that will score with the Academy.
I guess I could include Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity” in this clump, since the film’s director is an Oscar-nominated screenwriter and editor. But that film gets a Best Picture nomination, in my mind, because it belongs in a class with “Avatar,” “Hugo,” and “Life of Pi” – technical masterpieces directed by renowned talents.
As for “August: Osage County,” that play is so well-written that it would take a first-class hack job for it not to be a Best Picture nominee. We’re talking a play that will go next to Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams in the American dramatic literature canon, people.
And to round out the top 10, I picked Ben Stiller’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.” I’m not entirely sold on it, but it could make a surprise run for Best Picture. It could also fizzle with awards voters. Who knows? Clearly not I.
Best Director
David O. Russell, “American Hustle”
Bennett Miller, “Foxcatcher”
Steve McQueen, “12 Years A Slave”
Alfonso Cuarón, “Gravity”
Spike Jonze, “Her”
As I said, I’m projecting Russell to go all the way in 2013.
Past nominee Bennett Miller could give him a run for his money, although he was overlooked for his work on 2011 Best Picture nominee “Moneyball.” Steve McQueen and Alfonso Cuaron should score their first Best Director nominations (which is a shame).
And since Spike Jonze scored a lone Best Director nomination for “Being John Malkovich” back in 1999, I don’t think it’s out of the question to see him score a second nomination for his work on “Her.” It certainly appears to be daring … and the director’s branch showed they were willing to go out on a limb last year with nominees Benh Zeitlin and Michael Haneke.
Best Actor
Matthew McConaughey, “Dallas Buyers Club”
Joaquin Phoenix, “Her”
Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years A Slave”
Oscar Isaac, “Inside Llewyn Davis”
Robert Redford, “All Is Lost”
Big, baity performances have won out here for the past decade, essentially. So I’d say the frontrunner has to be Matthew McConaughey in “Dallas Buyers Club.” His comeback narrative is appealing, and the fact that he lost a ton of weight helps.
That being said, I wouldn’t count out Joaquin Phoenix for “Her.” If he could get nominated for a polarizing film like “The Master,” perhaps there’s more respect for Phoenix in the Academy than most people recognize. He’s been nominated three times now, and I think it’s only a matter of time before he wins.
Chiwetel Ejiofor could easily supplant McConaughey as the bait performance to beat here. A frontrunner will be cemented by the time both films debut at Toronto.
Breakout performer Oscar Isaac ought to score a nod here for “Inside Llewyn Davis.” I don’t see how he can be overlooked if the movie is a hit with the Academy.
And keep an eye out for Robert Redford here. He gives an incredible, virtually wordless performance in “All Is Lost” that will not be forgotten. The Hollywood legend hasn’t been nominated for his acting in over 40 years, and the one Oscar sitting on his mantle is for directing. Might it be his time in the sun?
Best Actress
Amy Adams, “American Hustle”
Cate Blanchett, “Blue Jasmine”
Naomi Watts, “Diana”
Kate Winslet, “Labor Day”
Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr. Banks”
Please, Academy, make this Amy Adams’ year! She’s been nominated four times already in Best Supporting Actress. Now that she’s playing with the big girls in Best Actress, maybe it’s just time to give her the darned trophy already.
Woody Allen hasn’t directed a woman to a leading actress win since Diane Keaton in “Annie Hall” – perhaps Cate Blanchett’s turn in “Blue Jasmine” can break the dry spell? I think she’s a sure bet for a nomination, but another win is unlikely since Blanchett has won in the past decade.
Or maybe it’s Naomi Watts’ turn after coming up short for last year’s “The Impossible.” If the Academy loves this two-time nominee, an uncanny performance as Princess Diana would be a good time to give it to her.
Kate Winslet has been nominated for six Oscars and has won one. So why would the love stop now? In her first notable screen performance since winning for 2008’s “The Reader,” she could rack up nomination number 7 and be well on her way to becoming the Meryl Streep of her generation.
Speaking of Meryl Streep, I could be making a mistake by not including her here. She would definitely crack my top 5, but I’m hearing that she’ll be campaigned in supporting. So for now, that fifth slot goes to Emma Thompson for the breezy “Saving Mr. Banks.”
Best Supporting Actor
Michael Fassbender, “12 Years A Slave”
Bradley Cooper, “American Hustle”
Daniel Bruhl, “Rush”
Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher”
Tom Hanks, “Saving Mr. Banks”
Go big or go home. After being snubbed for his incredible work in “Shame,” I predict the Academy will right its wrongs and reward Michael Fassbender with an Oscar for “12 Years A Slave.” I really hope I’m right.
Bradley Cooper, given the villain role in “American Hustle,” could capitalize on a year of goodwill after a nomination from “Silver Linings Playbook.” He’s probably a safer pick, but I’m not interested in safe at this point.
After last year’s category was dominated by previous winners, I’m going to predict two more first-time nominees in this category: Daniel Bruhl for “Rush,” whose performance has been touted since Cannes, and Steve Carell for “Foxcatcher,” a darker role for the comedic actor.
And then I’ll predict Tom Hanks as Walt Disney in “Saving Mr. Banks” because that proposition just sounds too good to pass up for Academy voters.
Best Supporting Actress
Oprah Winfrey, “The Butler”
Meryl Streep, “August: Osage County”
Octavia Spencer, “Fruitvale Station”
Cameron Diaz, “The Counselor”
Jennifer Lawrence, “American Hustle”
Honestly, this category is such a toss-up at this point, so I’m forced to pick the only person with buzz at the moment: Oprah Winfrey for “The Butler.” Beyond her, my confidence ends. If the Weinstein Company had announced what Meryl Streep will be campaigned in, I’d feel confident picking her in whatever category they chose. Right now, I’m going with supporting.
I thought Octavia Spencer was the best part of “Fruitvale Station,” but her part may be too small or too soon after her win for “The Help.”
Cameron Diaz looks like an intriguing femme fatale in “The Counselor,” but that movie could flop so hardcore that she’s rendered a non-factor this season. With no festival appearances slated, the film does not appear to be a serious threat for anything. Diaz has been pretty quiet lately, but let’s not forget she had a string of acclaimed roles from 1998 to 2002 that gave her 4 Golden Globe nominations and 3 SAG Award nominations.
And as for that last slot, I figured I might as well throw in Jennifer Lawrence for “American Hustle.” Everyone loves J.Law, and I think enough people will like “American Hustle” to give her a victory lap after last year’s win.
Best Original Screenplay
American Hustle
Inside Llewyn Davis
Blue Jasmine
Her
Gravity
David O. Russell is a two-time writing nominee? Check for “American Hustle.”
The Coen Brothers are five-time writing nominees with two wins? Check for “Inside Llewyn Davis.”
Woody Allen has been nominated for Best Original Screenplay a whopping 15 times, and “Blue Jasmine” does not suck. Check.
Spike Jonze is an acclaimed original figure in Hollywood? Check for “Her,” but with some reluctance as “The Master” was snubbed last year for the clichéd “Flight.”
Alfonso Cuaron is a two-time writing nominee, but his latest film “Gravity” might be a lot more impressive on the screen than it is on the page. Perhaps he will wow us once again and make us regret ever doubting him … so I’ll predict “Gravity” to take the final slot here. But “Black Swan” missed here, so originality isn’t everything in the Best Original Screenplay category.
Best Adapted Screenplay
12 Years A Slave
Foxcatcher
The Monuments Men
August: Osage County
Before Midnight
It would be foolish of me not to predict a lot of Best Picture nominees here, which traditionally dominate the Best Adapted Screenplay category. But don’t count out “Before Midnight,” whose predecessor scored a nomination back in 2004 in this category. The series, and this installment in particular, has gotten a lot of positive press. I don’t think the writers will forget about this one.
What do you think? Who is the one to beat in 2013? Sound off!
Look, it’s a bird! No, it’s a plane! Worse, it’s Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel,” a bomb of heroic proportions torpedoing its way towards a multiplex near you to steal 2 1/2 hours of your life and $10 of your money. How this could have been touched by moviemaking Midas himself, Christopher Nolan, truly escapes me.
I personally saw nothing horrendously wrong with Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns,” though I haven’t seen it since 2006 (a fact that may ultimately speak loudest to its quality). However, I can point out a number of gaping flaws in “Man of Steel.” It’s one thing to leave a movie nonplussed but another entirely to be angry. If you hadn’t already guessed, I was the latter upon leaving this film.
Most issues seemed to spring from the lackluster story. The film takes on the practically futile task of humanizing Superman/Clark Kent/Kal-El, an invincible being. He’s always had an identification problem because, well, how many of us can relate to someone who is essentially perfect? (I’ll speak for myself and say that I certainly cannot.) While the drama of Clark’s grappling with his power is relatively compelling, it’s told only in brief flashbacks.
And these scenes with his adoptive parents, played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, really only serve to play into the overarching Messianic allegory of the entire film. I’m certainly not opposed to such grand implications, but they need to be done well (such as they were in Tom Hooper’s “Les Misérables“). “Man of Steel” feels completely disingenuous, exploiting spirituality for its own gain. If it were any more obvious about its overloaded metaphor, Henry Cavill’s Superman would be wearing the letter t across his chest.
Before it’s too late and no longer topical, I wanted to share a list that has been floating in my mind for a while. On Sunday night, the Academy welcomed Jennifer Lawrence and Anne Hathaway into their club. Now, they can join Daniel Day-Lewis and Christoph Waltz in adding the phrase “Oscar Winner” before their name is mentioned.
But within the next 10 years, who will join them in the pantheon of acting? I have a few suggestions…
Male
Leonardo DiCaprio
3 Oscar nominations
9 Golden Globe nominations, 1 win
8 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: The question isn’t “if.” It’s “when.” And that could be as early as this year.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
2 Golden Globe nominations
4 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: With the boy-next-door turning into a renaissance man as he heads behind the director’s chair, JGL is headed towards golden child status. Now it’s just time for the Oscars to catch up.
Ryan Gosling
1 Oscar nomination
4 Golden Globe nominations
2 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: I don’t really think I need to elaborate here as Gosling is one of the emerging Hollywood leading men. The only thing keeping him from an Oscar, in my mind, is his eclectic role selection.
Brad Pitt
4 Oscar nominations (3 as actor)
5 Golden Globe nominations, 1 win
5 SAG Award nominations, 1 win
COMMENTARY: As one of the highest-wattage stars of the past decade moves into a slower, more retrospective phase of his career, the role that will land Brad Pitt his Oscar should materialize.
George Clooney
8 Oscar nominations (4 for acting), 2 wins (1 for acting)
12 Golden Globe nominations (8 for acting), 3 wins
13 SAG Award nominations, 4 wins
COMMENTARY: Yes, Clooney has already won his Oscar(s). But I am convinced he will win his trophy for a leading role as he is such a prominent leading man in Hollywood.
Female
Amy Adams
4 Oscar nominations
4 Golden Globe nominations
5 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: 4 nominations in 7 years. That’s impressive. It’s going to happen, soon. Perhaps the first time she gets a big leading role?
Laura Linney
3 Oscar nominations
6 Golden Globe nominations, 2 wins
4 SAG Award nominations, 1 win
4 Primetime Emmy nominations, 3 wins
COMMENTARY: Though as of late Linney has been more television oriented, I still don’t think the cinematic community is done paying its dues to this talented actress.
Julianne Moore
4 Oscar nominations
7 Golden Globe nominations, 1 win
10 SAG Award nominations, 1 win
1 Primetime Emmy win
COMMENTARY: If “Game Change” had been released in theaters and not on HBO, Moore would have her Oscar. It’s been over a decade now since her last nomination, but I don’t think that means the impetus to give her award has disappeared.
Emma Stone
1 Golden Globe nomination
1 SAG Award win
COMMENTARY: She’s a new Hollywood “It” girl. Once she lands the big and flashy role, she will get an Oscar. (Heck, they had her announce the nominations this year, something usually reserved for prior winners/nominees.) She’s a beloved figure with all the charm and accessibility of Jennifer Lawrence with a little more polish and refinement.
Michelle Williams
3 Oscar nominations
3 Golden Globe nominations, 1 win
4 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: Williams showed she had some serious range in “My Week with Marilyn.” Not that her mopey characters weren’t good, but now we know she’s the real deal.
What do YOU think? Who else is destined for Oscar glory in the next decade?
With the 2012 Oscar race now immobile until nominations are announced Thursday morning, January 10, now it’s time to take one last look at the contenders and the pretenders before the dust settles. Today, I’ll be looking at Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress, two categories replete with former winners and nominees all vying for Oscar glory.
The race is Anne Hathaway’s to lose, and I’d be amazed if she did. Even though so many critics are against “Les Misérables,” few can deny the power of her performance. Some of the snootier groups have snubbed her, but take a look at this impressive domination of the category!
Safe to say, wins from the Critics’ Choice Awards, Golden Globes, and SAG Awards should lead her charge to take the stage at the Kodak Theatre. Or they will hear the people scream.
Although, in the event of a “Lincoln” sweep (and me sticking my head in an oven), Sally Field could go 3-for-3 and win here for “Lincoln.” She’s certainly had her fair share of recognition along the precursor circuit, including a high-profile win from the New York Critics’ Circle.
But in a year that could crown Daniel Day-Lewis (and maybe Robert DeNiro) a three-time champion, people will be aware that they would be ranking Field in an elite pantheon with Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson, I bet they think twice and vote Hathaway.
Or maybe they vote Hunt, who’s all but assured a nomination for her work in “The Sessions.” It’s the kind of role the Oscars eat up (good-hearted woman who likes to let loose), and the Best Actress of 1997 for “As Good As It Gets” has picked up the Big 3 nominations (Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, SAG) along the way. I think lukewarm support for the movie hurts her chances to win. So does the fact that she’s competing against Anne Freaking Hathaway.
Beyond Hathaway, Field, and Hunt, the other two nominations are pretty much up for grabs. The way I see it, there are 3 women vying for those two spots are Amy Adams for “The Master,” Maggie Smith for “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel,” and Nicole Kidman for “The Paperboy.” Each has missed a key stop on the circuit: Adams crucially at SAG, Smith with the Globes and Critics’ Choice, and Kidman only with Critics’ Choice.
On paper, the smart money would be on Nicole Kidman to snag a nomination. SAG is always the best indicator of actors’ sentiment, and she also has a key Globe nod.
But the Golden Globes are notorious for sucking up to stars so they have to show up to the ceremony. They are also notable for having many favorite actresses who seem to get nominated for just about anything they do, and this goes well beyond your obvious Meryl Streep. Nicole Kidman has been nominated for a whopping 10 Golden Globes and has won 3. So I take their nomination with a grain of salt.
SAG also usually throws a major out-of-left-field nominee into the fray, which at first sight could be considered Kidman. (Then again, since Maggie Smith has shown up nowhere else, maybe that would be her.) Last year, it was Armie Hammer for “J. Edgar,” although most thought it was Demian Bichir for “A Better Life” … until he got an Oscar nomination. In 2010, it was Hilary Swank for “Conviction.” 2009 gave us Diane Kruger for “Inglourious Basterds.”
But “The Paperboy” is, well, quite frankly a bad movie. And a part of me thinks the Academy will recoil at just how trashy and terrible it is. There’s certainly precedent for an actor being nominated for a bad movie: Cate Blanchett got a Best Actress nomination for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” which had a 35% on Rotten Tomatoes, and Sean Penn was nominated for the 34% fresh “I Am Sam.” “The Paperboy” currently sits at 39%.
I predicted the snob factor would keep out Melissa McCarthy of “Bridesmaids” last year because she was crass and defecated in a sink. I was wrong. McCarthy didn’t even have the Globe nod that Kidman earned. So, with that in mind, I will predict Nicole Kidman to get a bizarre Best Supporting Actress nomination for a role that involves her urinating on Zac Efron’s face.
The other spot, I believe, will go to Amy Adams for “The Master.” Yes, the SAG snub hurt. But she’s a new Academy darling, garnering three Best Supporting Actress nominations in six years. And I’ll continue to assert that the Academy, though perhaps not quite ready to anoint her with a statue quite yet, wants to increase the inevitability of her win. At four nominations, the cries of “why hasn’t she won yet?” will grow louder and louder.
Although don’t get me wrong, maybe they will not go with a perennial Oscar bridesmaid but rather a crowned Oscar queen.
Two-time winner Maggie Smith’s SAG nod makes her a formidable foe, though the fact that the Globes didn’t nominate her is troubling. They were big fans of “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel,” nominating it for Best Picture (musical/comedy) and Judi Dench for Best Actress. If they loved it so much, where was Maggie Smith? I suspect SAG got sentimental for a more senior member, like they did in 2010 for Robert Duvall in “Get Low.”
Another possibility I wouldn’t count out is Judi Dench for “Skyfall.” It’s a sentimental swan song for Dench in the M role, and it will be one of her final roles since she’s going blind. She won in 1998 for “Shakespeare in Love,” which she was in for all of six minutes. In this meaty, tragic role, could the Academy be won over? The BFCA was and gave her a Critics’ Choice Award nomination, although that was in a field of six. I don’t think Dench is out of the question, but I would still be shocked if she cracked this field.
The BFCA also nominated Ann Dowd of “Compliance,” a character actor who has paid her dues … and now is paying for her own campaign. She won Best Supporting Actress from the National Board of Review, although that group has faded in relevancy since they are no longer first out of the gate. Perhaps a surprise nomination is in store for a hard-working non-star, in the Demian Bichir/Richard Jenkins mold? A more relevant precedent, however, might be Jacki Weaver in “Animal Kingdom.” However, she had the awards machine of Sony Pictures Classics working for her all fall.
But I’m sticking with Adams and Kidman. I don’t have strong enough of a gut feeling to predict Dench or Dowd, and I don’t think Smith has enough heat to make it in the field.
There are four set nominees in the field: DeNiro, Jones, Arkin, and Hoffman. The latter three all scored the trifecta of nods from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA, which essentially assures them nominations. Last year saw two such actors, Leonardo DiCaprio and Tilda Swinton, get snubbed by the Academy. I can’t pinpoint precisely why they got knocked out other than a strong field for DiCaprio in Best Actor and a strong competitor for Tilda Swinton in Rooney Mara.
The person I would assume is in the worst position is Philip Seymour Hoffman for “The Master” since it isn’t a slam-dunk Best Picture nominee like DeNiro, Jones, and Arkin’s movies are. But Hoffman, the movie’s only SAG nominee, appears to be the one performance everyone can line up behind for the film. And he’s been nominated for movies that did not play well with the Academy at large, as demonstrated by his nod for 2007’s “Charlie Wilson’s War.”
Argue as you might about the former being a sure thing because he missed out on a Golden Globe nomination, but watch his acceptance of their highest honor, the CecilB. DeMille. Now tell me if you think the voting body of less than 100 would want to nominate someone after he essentially slapped them in the face a la Ricky Gervais?
If he’s nominated, I think DeNiro could win. Though he has won twice, he hasn’t been nominated in two decades. There’s a comeback narrative for one of the greatest actors of our time, and it may be too soon for Arkin and Hoffman to win again. In the event of a “Lincoln” sweep, a rising tide could lift all ships including that of Tommy Lee Jones.
But who gets the fifth slot to compete against these four prior winners? I had hoped it would be Eddie Redmayne or Russell Crowe for “Les Misérables,” but those are highly unlikely now. If they were to pop up, put all your money on “Les Misérables” to win Best Picture.
Could it be Critics’ Choice nominee Matthew McConaughey for “Magic Mike?” He’s had quite the career turnaround in 2012, and a nomination would be a nice pat on the back. A nomination would be in the pattern of Robert Downey, Jr. in 2008 for “Tropic Thunder,” another unconventional comedic role from a resurgent actor.
McConaughey is unlikely, however, because the SAG Awards and Golden Globes overlooked him, two groups key to making people take Downey, Jr. seriously. Though he won prestigious prizes from the New York Film Critics’ Circle and the National Society of Film Critics, McConaughey might have to wait until next year for his shot at Oscar glory. Something tells me his massive weight loss for “The Dallas Buyer’s Club” is screaming Oscars 2013.
SAG didn’t leave off Javier Bardem for “Skyfall,” on the other hand. Bardem, himself a prior winner in the category, would fit right in with the rest of the nominees. His Silva from the movie would be the first Bond villain ever to be nominated for an Oscar, and though I was averse to his creepiness, others don’t seem to share my reservations.
Villains have been dominating the Best Supporting Actor category since Bardem’s win for “No Country for Old Men” in 2007. There was Heath Ledger’s posthumous win for “The Dark Knight” and Christoph Waltz’s victory for “Inglourious Basterds.” We’ve also seen nominations for Josh Brolin’s murderous monster in “Milk,” Stanley Tucci’s creepy rapist in “The Lovely Bones,” and Jeremy Renner’s tough-as-nails Jem from “The Town.” Being bad has never been so good.
But the same argument could be made for Leonardo DiCaprio’s vile slave owner Calvin Candie in “Django Unchained.” Tarantino wrote the despicable Hans Landa, the character that won Christoph Waltz an Oscar. Could he earn DiCaprio his fourth Oscar nomination – or perhaps his first win? I’d love to see it, but I’m worried about vote-splitting between DiCaprio and Christoph Waltz, back in the race for a character in “Django Unchained” not all that different than his Oscar-winning Hans Landa.
Both DiCaprio and Waltz received nominations from the Golden Globes, but neither showed up on the Critics’ Choice list nor the SAG. The latter can be explained by a lack of screeners being sent to the nominating committee, but the former is troubling. I considered “Django Unchained” to be a non-factor in the season until it found some very vocal critical supporters and a large audience. So I have to think at least one actor from the movie will show up, but I don’t think there’s a consensus on who that should be.
Waltz has won from a number of critics’ groups across the country, but none of them are particularly worth noting. DiCaprio won from the National Board of Review, which is a far more significant accolade than anything Waltz has received. If it was just Waltz from “Django Unchained” that DiCaprio had to contend with, I would predict him to receive his first Oscar nod since 2006’s “Blood Diamond.” But there’s also Samuel L. Jackson from the movie, and many people are also a big fan of his performance.
Had “Django Unchained” unfurled earlier in the season, perhaps there would have been time for consensus to form around one actor. DiCaprio could have helped himself by doing some press for the movie, yet he’s been remarkably silent. The moment just doesn’t feel right for him either; I suspect 2013 will be more fortuitous for him with a juicy role in ‘The Great Gatsby” and another re-teaming with Martin Scorsese in “The Wolf of Wall Street.”
So, in the absence of consensus, I think vote splitting will knock out all Tarantino’s performers, paving the way for Javier Bardem’s fourth Oscar nomination.
Check back tomorrow, January 7, for my final predictions in the leading acting categories!
It has been a very long time since cinema has been graced with anything quite like “The Master.” Everyone must concede that whether or not Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film works for them on a personal level, as a piece of cinematic art, it is one of the few films of our time that deserves to be called truly iconoclastic. It answers to no man, no convention, and no expectation. It boldly sets sail into uncharted waters, and even if that ride isn’t one of unparalleled brilliance, it’s one of true unfamiliarity.
If you are looking for the film to entertain, you’re likely to find yourself disappointed. “The Master” is an extremely challenging watch, particularly on a first viewing when you expect to feel the plot building towards some sort of a decisive climax. It really doesn’t. Anderson, who writes all the films he directs, takes a very unique approach to this story by really just letting the characters marinate on screen. They have very little forward momentum and just seem to sort of let themselves be blown around by the wind.
Which means that if you want to enjoy “The Master,” or get anything out of it, you are going to have to engage with it on a much deeper level. Namely, I highly recommend that to even begin to extrapolate some meaning from it, you need to see it twice. You are going to have some snap judgements on the film that may be incorrect due to the assumptions and the expectations you carried in with you. Absorb the basic chain of events, ruminate on them for a little while, and then go back. Without worrying about the outcome of events, you’ll be able to start seeing how many levels Anderson’s script is working on.
Chances are you’ve already seen “Trouble with the Curve” … but you just don’t know it yet.
If you’ve seen “Gran Torino,” you’ve seen it. Clint Eastwood is just doing a PG-13 version of his cranky, stubborn Walt Kowalski. Don’t get me wrong, I still find that fairly entertaining though as I intend to pattern my 80-year-old willful disregarding of social conventions on him. As aging Atlanta Braves scout Gus, he’s still got the ability to make curmudgeonly charming once again.
If you’ve seen “The Fighter,” you’ve seen it. Amy Adams essentially does a dolled-up reprisal of her role as Charlene the MTV Girl, a tenacious sports groupie and strongly opinionated woman. Here, she’s got some of those same qualities on display as Gus’ daughter Mickey, a baseball enthusiast looking to climb the corporate ladder but faces casual workplace misogyny. She gets called onto the road to assist her ailing father, reawakening her love for the game. Adams is a bright and fun presence on the screen, but it’s hardly of the caliber of performance David O. Russell got out of her.
If you’ve seen … really any Justin Timberlake movie, you’ve seen it. Whether it’s “The Social Network,” “Bad Teacher,” or “Friends with Benefits,” it’s the same old schtick for the former N*Sync frontman. It’s less Sean Parker-ish here, however, since the character doesn’t have nearly the dimensionality of an Aaron Sorkin creation. Timberlake tackles the role of Johnny, a failed baseball player turned novice scout. Gus has made, then broken, then made his career … and may have made his dreams with Mickey.
If you’ve seen “Moneyball,” you’ve seen this movie. Even though “Trouble with the Curve” is about the human calculations of baseball while Bennett Miller’s Best Picture nominee glorified computer models and statistics as the new great tool of baseball, both share an equal goal of bringing back a romanticism quickly disappearing from America’s pastime.
But strangely enough, “Moneyball” does a better job achieving this drawing parallels between computer pixels and the bright stadium lights. “Trouble with the Curve,” clunking along at a leisurely pace it doesn’t earn (I mean seriously, it feels like an extra innings game), can only muster up cliches to show how much it loves baseball. The game has seen better, and it deserves better. C+ /
Jack Kerouac and his pals were some of the most interesting people to walk the planet in the 1950s. They did as they wanted, lived in the moment, and thankfully had the memory and the brains to put it all onto paper for their adherents in future generations to admire as a holy text. So why on earth is the film adaptation of his seminal text, “On the Road,” such a bore to sit through?
That’s the question that kept going through my mind as I went sporadically in and out of sleep during the film. (I would not have nodded off back in the States, but the feeling of boredom and tedium definitely would still be in the air.) Granted, I haven’t read the source material, but the general spirit of liveliness just seemed totally absent, replaced by the same ennui that hipsters rebel against. I’m now caught in a conundrum: should I read the book to redeem and perhaps better understand Walter Salles’ film, or is my lack of enthusiasm an indication that reading Kerouac’s prose would just be an exercise in futility?
The allure of “The Muppets” is that Jason Segel and company, just as Jim Henson was several decades ago, are totally convinced that such a thing as innocent comedy exists and works. The film opens with a blissfully catchy song-and-dance number, “Life’s a Happy Song,” basically consisting of every character expressing their exuberant love for life. It’s totally absorbing and a fun toe-tapper.
Allow yourself to be transported by it and the rest of the movie, you’ll find that Segel’s Gary and Walter the Muppet can quickly make you forget about our crushing deficit, our crippled economy, our melting planet, our foreign entanglement, and just about anything else keeping you from thinking the world is great. The song isn’t totally ignorant, though; it lays the groundwork for the conflict of the film, Gary’s friendship with Walter disturbing his romantic relationship with Mary (Amy Adams).
The rest of the movie proceeds on a similar trip of joy, re-introducing the Henson crew of Muppets to a generation that unfortunately doesn’t know them very well. That’s a crying shame which Segel happily corrects here, capturing all the effervescence of the Muppets just like it was the 1970s and they were hosting Mark Hamill and Elton John on the show. We find them all in strange places in the present day – Miss Piggy in Paris as a magazine editor, Gonzo selling toilets, Fozzie in a bad Muppets cover band – that all add to the hilarity for those that know them.
Actually, YES, her again. Meryl Streep won her third Oscar last week, and while many (including myself) were a little upset because we were hoping Viola Davis would pull out a historic Best Actress win, it’s reason for celebration. She’s the greatest living actress, and I think few would dispute that claim. The way she gracefully and naturally inhabits any character she chooses to play is astounding. “Doubt,” my choice for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” is no exception. It was Oscar nominations all around for everyone in the cast including Streep, who received her fifteenth Oscar nomination for the role back in 2008.
John Patrick Shanley’s film, adapted from his own Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize winning play, explores a host of complicated moral and theological dilemmas in the wake of a potential priest-child sex scandal. Streep’s Sister Aloysisus becomes convinced that Father Flynn, played with a fiercely tenacious resolve by Philip Seymour Hoffman, has committed a vast wrongdoing despite having no proof. Her basis for such grave accusations are the suspicions of the naive Sister James (Amy Adams), who merely makes observations and leaves Aloysisus to construe her own meaning from them.
What results is nothing less than an acting battle between some of the best players in the game. They debate race, gender, sexuality, submission, and authority with such high stakes that you can’t help but be totally drawn into the conversation. No one would accuse Streep or Hoffman as giving constrained performances in the film, but “Doubt” hardly devolves into a shouting match as it easily could have. Rather, the dialectic struggles are only enhanced by the loudness of their voices. Adams, meanwhile, plays her typecast airhead role so well yet with a remarkably enhanced bravura. She really nails the loss of innocence arc that so often devolves into senseless banality. Davis is phenomenal as well in a single scene that packs more punch than many actresses can in an entire movie.
Hopefully Adams and Davis aren’t too far off from finally winning the Oscar that has eluded them for the past few years; Streep can now sit back and enjoy the ride; Hoffman is probably due for a second trophy at some point. So while we wait for the next Oscars, we can relish in movies like “Doubt” where four great actors act with so much intensity that the frame can barely support it.
Recent Comments