I’m accustomed to having strong reactions to Sofia Coppola’s films, both positively (“The Virgin Suicides,” “The Bling Ring“) and negatively (“Lost in Translation,” “Somewhere“). So perhaps the most shocking part of her latest work, “The Beguiled,” was how ambivalent I felt towards it. Most moments landed, others didn’t … but nothing really had much magnitude.
I can attribute some of this to my subject position as the viewer; “The Beguiled” is not a movie for me as a male. And that’s ok! There are no shortage of movies that indulge my viewpoint and gaze. (Like, basically all of them.)
After finding and rescuing Colin Farrell’s “blue belly” Corporal McBurney in the Virginia woods, a group of Confederacy-supporting women residing in a schoolhouse must toe the delicate line between rehabilitation and accommodation. Is he their prisoner? Guest? Somewhere in between? Everyone from the matron Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) to the more withdrawn instructor Edwina (Kirsten Dunst) and even the eldest student, the precociously flirtatious Alicia (Elle Fanning), must draw the line for herself.
Coppola opts for a studied minimalism in “The Beguiled,” emphasizing the natural surroundings of the estate rather than any lavish decoration or dress. Most of the film focuses on the very thin veneer of southern gentility covering over the women’s pent-up sexual desires. The presence of a man, even the enemy, is enough to stir up some strange sensations not normally experienced in a single-sex environment.
At times, Coppola does let the libidinous activities overpower the psychodrama; it’s as if her characters slowly become little more than their sensual stirrings. And approaching the story with little first-hand experience of Southern culture, the coastal-based Coppola does tend to exoticize their particular strain of desire. But I’m happy to watch her explore these women’s impulses. They deserve treatment as subjects of erotic fantasy, not merely its objects. B /
“You will not scare men with your intelligence,” warns an elder to the young Gertrude Bell at the outset of Werner Herzog’s “Queen of the Desert.” It’s the kind of “nevertheless, she persisted” moment that would spur on a great feminist tale. Instead, the line represents the tease for a story that never materializes.
This story of an accomplished archaeologist who provided valuable research on tribes in the Ottoman Empire as their empire collapses is all too eager to define her life in relation to the men whose path she crosses. There’s T.E. Lawrence (Robert Pattinson) of “Lawrence of Arabia” fame, a more professional acquaintance, but she sets off on her quest primarily in grief-stricken anguish at the loss of Henry Cadogan (James Franco). While in the Middle East, she spends as much time on screen rebuffing offers from Charles Doughty-Wylie (Damian Lewis) as she interacts with the native tribes.
This becomes an issue later on when Herzog tries to land the film with an anti-imperialist message as Winston Churchill arrives from the British Empire to help break up the Ottoman Empire. Gradually, Bell does grow into a bit of an anti-imperialist as she increases her understanding of the region’s tribes. But in her embittered farewell, knowing that her advice will likely be discarded, Bell expresses a kind of fondness for the people she loves that also reeks of a white savior complex.
The only thing to recommend in the film is Pattinson’s turn as Lawrence; he does the self-effacing British elite routine with aplomb. Otherwise, “Queen of the Desert” sits on a hollow throne. C /
I left Garth Davis’ “Lion” feeling as if I had watched two acts from a good movie – the first and the third. If you recognize common parlance surrounding story structure, you might detect that I neglected to mention the second act. Yes, that is what I meant.
The sprawling cross-continental tale of “Lion” is essentially split in two. In the first half, a young Indian child Saroo (Sunny Pawar) winds up stuck on a train that takes him thousands of kilometers from his native town. With little knowledge about his family or surroundings, Saroo falls into foster care and winds up adopted by a philanthropic Australian couple John and Sue Brierly (Nicole Kidman and David Wenham). In these early scenes, Davis comes quite close to achieving a kind of neorealism; shots that place a confused, lost Saroo in the vastness of the Calcutta metropolis are haunting.
Then, at the midpoint, the film flashes forward twenty years to a grown, well-adjusted Saroo (now played by Dev Patel) headed off to study hotel management. He seems fine until, of course, a question about his birthplace opens a Pandora’s Box in his brain. With a little help from Google Earth, Saroo attempts to pinpoint his home within a vast radius of possible points of departure. If you doubt his commitment, just look at the scraggly hair and scruffy beard he grows!
Perhaps the back half of “Lion” would feel less like a television movie of the week had screenwriter Luke Davies included a little bit more information about what led Saroo to become the man who would doggedly pursue the truth about his heritage above all else. As an audience, our attachment to the character comes primarily through the adorable, disoriented child version of Saroo. We know little about Patel, and without a “Philomena“-style attitude or a “Spotlight“-esque focus on tedious processes, “Lion” does little to close the pathos gap between the two iterations of its protagonist. Leaving the audience to supply the difference without providing any context on what drives the changes from boy to man is not a winning strategy.
Sure, the inevitable ending of “Lion” is moving, provided you do not have a heart of stone. But imagine how much richer the feeling could be had we known more about what kind of life Saroo lived in the twenty years elided by the film. For example, what if we saw more of the pain that stems from living away from your biological mother. Or what if we observed him becoming enticed by the life offered by the Brierlys and how it incentivized him to wipe away the past? The film is missing some connective fiber that could move it from being a mere story to embodying the story of a lifetime. C+ /
Remaking a movie from another language requires more than just translating the dialogue. When done right, a complex series of subtle changes must take place to transplant the story across cultures.
“Secret in Their Eyes,” a remake of the 2009 Argentinian film of the same (sans definite article), moves an intriguing thriller from 1970s Buenos Aires to 2000s Los Angeles. Naturally, that country’s “Dirty War” of state terrorism, which provides the setting for the original film, must be changed as America has no such equivalent. The closest equivalent that writer/director Billy Ray finds? Post-9/11 terrorism.
Yawn.
Juan José Campanella’s film dealt with tragedies that his country was still reluctant to acknowledge. Billy Ray milks the nation’s public anguish of this millennia for lazy dramatic stakes. Drawing parallels between the two changes the very nature of the story from a politically-tinged thriller to something that amounts to little more than a feature-length episode of a serialized crime drama.
Not even the talented cast of Chiwetel Ejiofor, Nicole Kidman and Julia Roberts can elevate the material back to the level of its Oscar-winning source. Ray’s script, which cuts between a murder in 2002 and its continuing aftermath in 2015, intertwines its threads to such clunky effect that “Secret in Their Eyes” never has a chance to gain any momentum. He favors big, explosive moments from his actors as opposed to giving them rich, internal characters to work with on the page.
We know from films like “12 Years a Slave” that Ejiofor is capable of communicating so much with just his eyes, yet his tortured protagonist Ray from “Secret in Their Eyes” never gets the chance to draw us into his pain. He’s a counterterrorism agent with a crush on one colleague, Nicole Kidman’s Claire, and a friendly working relationship with another, Julia Roberts’ Jess. When a routine check on a body turns out to be Jess’ daughter, the boundaries between protecting the country and pursuing justice get rather murky.
The occasional ethical question about the merits of retribution gets raised here and there, but it’s usually forgone for yet another opportunity to watch Roberts hysterically contort her face. C+ /
When I left “Stoker,” I was not entirely sure whether I liked or loathed it. The sentiment was distinct from the normal ambivalence that I feel about rather bland, unremarkable films. Rarely had such conflicting emotions about a work of art seemed so passionless to me.
Chan-wook Park’s English-language debut certainly has a cool neo-Hitchcock vibe to it, particularly in its impressive editing and heavy dependence on atmosphere. Very little happens in “Stoker,” which revolves around an odd teenager India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska), once her uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) moves in to “comfort” her recently widowed mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). They interact in cryptic ways, which are often so vague that only the language of the camera gives any clue as to what to make of it.
At first, this indistinctness is chillingly beguiling. But after a while, “Stoker” just starts to feel like a bunch of smoke and mirrors. I had no idea where the movie was going until the last 30 minutes, largely because it lacked a firm narrative. And when there is little story to follow, all attention shifts to aesthetics. With all that extra attention, Park’s style reveals itself as rather empty.
Perhaps “Stoker” can approximate a Hitchcock thriller in terms of finesse. But Hitch had compassion for his characters, which is such a crucial X factor that has led his work to retain such a foothold in the public imagination. Park, on the other hand, builds such a distance between us and the characters that I found myself retreating into my own imagination to think about the next movie on my agenda. B- /
“War leaves a mark,” states Jonathan Teplitzky’s “The Railway Man,” a film that ironically leaves very little mark on the viewer. Two hours of events chug along like a train just pulling out of the station, and there’s hardly any rewarding byproduct from enduring it.
Frank Cottrell Boyce and Andy Paterson’s script moseys through Eric Lomax’s autobiography, cutting back and forth between his time as a young soldier (Jeremy Irvine) trapped in a Japanese POW camp and his life as a haunted older man (Colin Firth) unable to connect with his wife (Nicole Kidman). The format feels a little clunky, sure, but that fault pales in comparison to how blandly they present the story. Nothing about “The Railway Man” seems meant to inspire thought about larger ideas, unless that’s what you’re making for dinner after the movie is over.
Firth does a nice job conveying the damage of his traumatic wartime experience; it’s almost as if he’s just doing a more reserved, understated reprise of his Oscar-winning role as Bertie from “The King’s Speech.” But “The Railway Man” does a better job of conveying that isolation and sense of smallness with its striking, emotionally detached long shots than Firth does with any acting.
Teplitzky clearly knows how to make a film like this by the book, yet as a result, it comes across as rather cold and unfeeling. I would have loved to have seen it delve more into the psychology of Eric, both when he’s emotionally scarred as a prisoner and when he embarks on a mysterious quest for revenge as a veteran. Without such insight, “The Railway Man” just feels like a placeholder for a truly hard-hitting World War II flick to really sweep us off our feet. C+ /
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!
New Year’s Day always marks a very interesting balancing act, reflecting on the old while also ringing in the new. So while people are still thinking about 2012, let me offer up the first annual Superlatives post for the films of 2012. I’ve already weighed in with the best and worst 10 of 2012, but what about the other 80 movies of the year? What about the performances? What about all sorts of other things? This is the post where I get all sorts of stuff floating in my mind out there.
For the sake of review, I’ll go ahead and re-list my 10 best and worst of 2012.
10 More 2012 Releases I Still Need to See: “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” “The Impossible,” “Promised Land,” “The Intouchables,” “Seven Psychopaths,” “Hyde Park on Hudson,” “Not Fade Away,” “Smashed,” “The House I Live In,” “Searching for Sugar Man”
There’s no way Lee Daniels’ “The Paperboy” came from the same director as “Precious.” A film this sweaty, steamy, and trashy simply does not follow a movie so emotionally searing and poignant. And not only is the movie purely sordid, it isn’t even done artfully or tastefully.
I pray you haven’t seen director Lee Daniels’ debut film, “Shadowboxer,” because your eyes will never forgive you for it. There’s a reason you probably haven’t heard of it, and that’s because the movie is an absolute mess from beginning to end. Oh, and there’s also the matter of Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Helen Mirren having a pretty graphic sex scene. Thanks, but no thanks.
But it’s Lee Daniels of “Shadowboxer” who showed up to direct “The Paperboy,” not Lee Daniels of “Precious.” Now we are all left to wonder if Oprah directed “Precious” for him or something. I’m serious, watch “The Paperboy” and try not to let these types of conspiracy theories bubble up in your head. Well, actually don’t watch “The Paperboy” and just take my word for it that you would feel this way.
Adam Sandler sure has fallen a long way since the glory days of “Billy Madison” and “Happy Gilmore” – and those days weren’t even that good. Fifteen years later, we are invited to just go wherever with the comic who has long since worn out the welcome mat with “Just Go With It,” a typical Sandler comedy that might have been fairly amusing if it had been made a decade ago. It’s a step above last summer’s “Grown Ups” but probably only because there is a strong female presence to whip him in line.
Taking a fairly unique premise, the movie follows Sandler’s Los Angeles plastic surgeon (cue some scary and derivative jokes involving lots of Joan Rivers-esque figures) Danny and his morally suspect way of picking up women without a hitch – pretending to be married. It works out great for him until he meets the incredibly well-endowed, good-natured, and much younger Palmer (Brooklyn Decker), and he has to start an elaborate lie to keep her. The ruse, which eventually requires index cards, grows to include his divorced assistant Katherine (Jennifer Aniston) and her two annoyingly precocious children as well as his horndog brother (Nick Swardson).
All things considered, this could have been more than just mildly entertaining, which is what the end product settles for. There are a few chuckles, usually accompanied by a groan but thankfully not with eye-rolling. So by all means, if you want to see Adam Sandler re-enact the movies from his prime, “Just Go With It” should provide you with what you’re looking for. But you’re probably better off dusting off one of his older flicks so you can have the faintest hint of nostalgia of a time when these jokes and formulas weren’t stale. C /
Welcome back to another exciting awards round-up post! It’s been a whole week since I’ve said anything about the Oscars, which is the longest I’ve gone since September! It’s a good thing this week has been pretty stagnant aside from a few minor critics groups and some top 10 lists out in the mix.
Please remember to take the poll at the end of the discussion! It will help to make these posts more community-driven – it’s fun just reading it and writing about it, but I sure do enjoy it more when I get your feedback! You don’t have to live and breath Oscars like I do to take part!
As for last week’s poll, you all think that “The Social Network” will beat “The King’s Speech” for Best Picture. And by you all, I mean all one voter that took the poll. So let’s shoot for higher this week!
(And another reminder: I spent a lot of time linking the titles of movies in this post to their respective Oscar Moments/reviews if you want to know more about them. So don’t hesitate to click!)
Awards
Washington, D.C. Film Critics announce. Generally not a very exciting bunch; Kris Tapley of In Contention said their picks are usually just guessing what the Oscars will nominated in about 7 weeks. Like myself and several others, they think “The Social Network” is going to be the cup that the Academy sips from when picking their awards.
Their Best Picture line-up was absolutely stellar though: “Black Swan,” “Inception,” “127 Hours,” “The Social Network,” and “Toy Story 3.” If those were Oscar’s five (way back when they only nominated that many movies for Best Picture), I would be a very happy man. Since many are already boiling the race down to a horserace, it’s curious not to see “The King’s Speech,” but it got plenty of love, including a win for Best Actor for Colin Firth and Best Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, and Original Screenplay nominations.
Jennifer Lawrence took Best Actress for “Winter’s Bone,” which definitely showed some strength from the win as well as nominations for Supporting Actor (John Hawkes) and Adapted Screenplay. I think we could definitely be looking at a critical favorite in Lawrence, although this is a very similar trajectory to Carey Mulligan last year who wound up not taking home any major prizes.
Predictable wins for Christian Bale and Melissa Leo in “The Fighter” in the supporting categories, with the former looking more and more like a lock with each passing day. “The Social Network” also won Best Director and Adapted Screenplay, neither of which was surprising given the group’s love for the film.
Interestingly, “Inception” won Best Original Screenplay over the field of “The King’s Speech,” “The Kids Are All Right,” “Another Year,” and “Black Swan.” This category has played out interestingly at the Oscars over the past two years. 2009 brought us “The Hurt Locker” ultimately triumphing over “Inglourious Basterds” with “Up” as a dark horse looming in the background. 2008 was the horse race between two totally different types of movies, “Milk” and the almost non-verbal “Wall-E.” Given what’s been going on recently, “Inception” makes a fascinating wild card. “The King’s Speech” is like past winner “Milk,” and “The Kids Are All Right” gives off “Juno” vibes. There hasn’t been a movie like “Inception” in the race in a long time (unless you want to compare it to the mind maze of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”).
For a historical reference point, last year the group picked “Up in the Air” as their Best Picture. Aside from the slam dunk supporting categories, the only Oscar winner they selected was Kathryn Bigelow as Best Director for “The Hurt Locker.” Since 2002, they haven’t been a very reliable predictor at all of the ultimate selections of the Oscars.
The British Independent Film Awards. Predictably, “The King’s Speech” cleaned house at the British Independent Film Awards, the equivalent of the Independent Spirit Awards across the pond. The very British story of King George VI took home Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Screenplay. Curiously, director Tom Hooper lost Best Director to Gareth Edwards for his work on the ultra-low budget “Monsters.” Mike Leigh was also nominated for “Another Year” in this category.
These awards don’t really show us much other than that the British are firmly allied over their love of this movie. Last year, “Moon” triumphed over eventual Best Picture nominee “An Education,” the movie considered to have the “British vote” going into the Oscars. This faction will be crucial to “The King’s Speech” if it is to prevail in the Best Picture category, and this is a very reassuring ceremony for the movie.
Also worth noting: “Never Let Me Go” may be almost entirely forgotten, but apparently Carey Mulligan isn’t. She won Best Actress for her performance, and I still wouldn’t count her out as a dark horse Oscar nominee. I don’t think a Golden Globe nomination is entirely out of the question (a la Tobey Maguire in last year’s “Brothers“).
The European Film Awards. Not much to report here as the only awards contender really in play was “The Ghost Writer,” and it capitalized on its seven nominations by winning a stunning six categories. Lesley Manville was in contention for “Another Year” but lost Best European Actress to an actress I’ve never heard of in a movie I’ve never heard of.
Losing a child is painful in the real world, but in the sphere of cinema, it’s hardly breaking new ground. In order to communicate the emotional trauma of such an event, movies have to take the material in different and unexpected directions. “Rabbit Hole” is a success story, presenting the story of husband and wife affected by the preventable death of their four-year-old son in entirely different ways. John Cameron Mitchell takes the great theatrical aspects of David Lindsey-Abaire’s Pulitizer Prize-winning play and reminds us the power that great dialogue can have while also using the great resources of film to supplement the already incredibly powerful film.
Nearing the one-year anniversary of their son Danny’s passing, Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) are still reeling. Caught in the unenviable conundrum of choosing to mourn or move on, each find a different way to cope with the void in their lives. Becca tries to find life by acting like the hole isn’t there, removing the traces of Danny that remind her that he is gone. She finds solace, strangely, through talking with the teenager that hit her son. Becca also has to deal with the pregnancy of her irresponsible sister (Tammy Blanchard), which only complicates her volatile emotional state, and the intervention of her mother (Dianne Wiest), eager to offer advice after going through the loss of a son in her own right.
Howie, on the other hand, tries to hang on to the fading memories of his son, particularly by watching a video of Danny on his phone. Rather than try to adjust to life without his son, he advocates starting a new life altogether. He pitches selling their house and having another child, neither of which are received well by his wife. Howie has faith in the traditional methods of dealing with grief, holding onto the belief that the group therapy sessions can work long after Becca gives up on them. When those who look to religion to solve their problems finally drive her away from the group for good, he strikes up a friendship with an eight-year veteran (Sandra Oh) still looking to make peace with the loss of her child.
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
About midway through “Nine,” Stephanie, the Vogue reporter played by the ravishing Kate Hudson, informs us that “style is the new content” for her readers. Applying that quotation to Rob Marshall’s latest film adaptation of a Tony Award-winning musical, the movie is a flashy work of pure artistry that dazzles the eye. While style is a crucial part of “Nine,” the movie will be remembered for its phenomenal cast who turn in mostly solid performances but are thwarted by inept direction.
The movie’s story is indirectly based on the life of Italian film director Frederico Fellini, yet it seems to now have some striking parallels to the recent downfall of Tiger Woods. Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a beloved director, yet his last two films have been somewhat underwhelming. He hopes to steer himself back on the path to success with a new film, “Italia.” However, he is in such mental anguish because he cannot commit himself to anything or anyone. Guido has a gorgeous wife, Luisa (Marion Cotillard) at home whom he constantly neglects in favor of the temptress Carla (Penelope Cruz).
And the problems with women don’t end there. He has to deal with his indignantly querulous muse (Nicole Kidman), an American reporter who is quite the flirt (Hudson), a sassy costume designer and old friend who can sense the torment (Judi Dench), and his mother (Sophia Loren) whose legacy still haunts him. As Guido tries to find inspiration through these women, bouncing between past and present, he only finds himself more conflicted and lost. One major success of “Nine” is using cinematic devices like choppy editing and constant changes between black and white and color to show this torture. Daniel Day-Lewis is plenty capable of showing it as well, although his voice lacks some of the vocal power that the Broadway actors had in this part.
What is in my mind the finest month for the movies is almost here! Let Marshall guide you through the best and steer you away from the worst, but most of all enjoy! The studios have been holding back their best movies all year to dump them all here, where they can get serious awards consideration.
December 4
A major Oscars wild-card is “Brothers.” No one really knows what to make of it. If the movie hits big, it could completely change the game. But it could just fly under the radar like most expect it to now. However, the trailer makes it look as if it the movie could be absolutely mind-blowing. Directed by Jim Sheridan, who has received six Academy Award nominations, “Brothers” follows Grace Cahill (Natalie Portman) as she and her daughters deal with the loss of her husband, Sam (Tobey Maguire), in war. Sam’s brother, Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) comes to live with Grace to lend a helping hand. But romantic sparks fly between the two at precisely the wrong time: the discovery that Sam is alive and coming home. With the two brothers both tugging Grace’s heart for their share, a different type of sparks fly.
You have heard me say plenty about “Up in the Air.” If you haven’t read my Oscar Moment on the movie or heard my bliss at the release of the trailer, let me give you one more chance to hope on the bandwagon.
But the movies don’t stop there. “Armored,” an action-drama that is tooting its own moral horn, starring Matt Dillon and Laurence Fishburne. “Everybody’s Fine” appears to be a holiday movie, so that might be worth checking out if you’re in the spirit. The movie, a remake of a 1990 Italian film by the same name, stars Robert DeNiro as a widower who reconnects with his estrange children. And “Transylmania” looks to cash in on the vampire craze sweeping the nation by satirizing it, but I doubt it will be financially viable because it is being released by a no-name studio and without any big names.
December 11
The highlight of the weekend for many will be “The Princess and the Frog,” Disney’s return to the traditional animation by hand musical. The movie looks to capitalize on what we know and love Disney musicals for, adding some catchy tunes to a fairy tale we have known since childhood. Anika Noni Rose, best known for her role as Lorrell in the film adaptation of “Dreamgirls,” lends her talented voice to the princess Tiana. As a huge fan of “Dreamgirls” during the winter of 2006, I couldn’t think of someone better equipped to handle the sweet, soft Disney music (which isn’t designed for belters like Beyoncé or Jennifer Hudson). That being said, the music won’t sound like anything you’ve ever heard from a Disney fairy tale. It is being scored by Randy Newman, not Alan Menken (“Beauty and the Beast,” etc.), and will have a jazzy feel much like its setting, New Orleans.
This week also boasts the opening of three major Oscar players. Two have been featured in Oscar Moments, “Invictus” and “A Single Man.” The former opens nationwide this Friday, the latter only in limited release. I’ll repost the trailers below because they are worth watching. But read the Oscar Moment if you want to know more about the movies.
According to the people that matter, “The Lovely Bones” has all the pieces to make a great movie. But for summer reading two years ago, I read the source material, Alice Sebold’s acclaimed novel. I found it dreadfully melodramatic and very depressing without any sort of emotional payoff to reward the reader for making it through. But maybe Hollywood will mess up the novel in a good way. If any movie could, it would be this one. With a director like Peter Jackson and a cast including Saiorse Ronan (“Atonement”), Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, and Susan Sarandon, it could very well happen. It opens in limited release on this date and slowly expands until its nationwide release on Martin Luther King Day weekend in 2010.
“You will not scare men with your intelligence,” warns an elder to the young Gertrude Bell at the outset of Werner Herzog’s “
“War leaves a mark,” states Jonathan Teplitzky’s “
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.
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.
Although don’t get me wrong, maybe they will not go with a perennial Oscar bridesmaid but rather a crowned Oscar queen.
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.
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.
There’s no way Lee Daniels’ “
Washington, D.C. Film Critics announce. Generally not a very exciting bunch; Kris Tapley of In Contention said their picks are usually just guessing what the Oscars will nominated in about 7 weeks. Like myself and several others, they think “
Predictable wins for Christian Bale and Melissa Leo in “
The British Independent Film Awards. Predictably, “The King’s Speech” cleaned house at the British Independent Film Awards, the equivalent of the Independent Spirit Awards across the pond. The very British story of King George VI took home Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Screenplay. Curiously, director Tom Hooper lost Best Director to Gareth Edwards for his work on the ultra-low budget “Monsters.” Mike Leigh was also nominated for “Another Year” in this category.
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?
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. 
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 
And I’d say if Kidman keeps up the strong buzz throughout the season, “Rabbit Hole” is a serious Best Picture contender. According to 
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments