Biopics With No Oscar Heat?
Friday, May 18, 2012 at 10:01PM 
Here at the Film Experience we probably complain too often about Oscar's absolute obsession with the biopic genre. One reason we hate this that we don't talk about much is that the films don't tend to age well. If you don't believe me try watching all the Oscar nominees from any particular year in a single lead acting or Picture category. Guarantee that 9 times out of 10 the bio in the mix is the one most likely to cure your insomnia.
Because of annual biographical awards love it's easy to forget early in each new film year that Oscar history is littered with bios that didn't catch on. I was just thinking about this because today is the Centennial of the Ty Cobb related Detroit strike. Cobb (1994), which you can watch on YouTube, was Tommy Lee Jones' chaser to his Oscar winning turn in The Fugitive. Come to think of it another Detroit related biopic Hoffa with Oscar's beloved Jack Nicholson also sank (mostly) with Oscar. Perhaps Detroit is an Oscar jinx for biopics? I'm calling it now: whoever plays Aretha Franklin when they get around to that biopic will be snubbed.
Which biographical films heading our way do you have the least faith in? Spielberg's Lincoln, Alfred Hitchock and the Making of Psycho with Anthony Hopkins, The Girl (another Hitchcock picture) with Toby Jones, Hyde Park on Hudson, Lovelace, Steve Jobs biopic written by Aaron Sorkin, Barbara Jordan biopic starring Viola Davis, Caught in Flight (Naomi Watts as Princess Diana), All is By My Side (Andre 3000 as Jimi Hendrix), Untitled Dr Seuss project with Johnny Depp. Etcetera. Which do you care about?
P.S. And how do you feel about Logan Marshall-Green playing a young Tennessee Williams in the Jena Malone headlined Carson McCuller's biopic Lonely Hunter? I don't have strong feelings for LM-G as of yet but Tennessee Williams is my all time favorite playwright. Have you ever read Carson McCuller's classic novel "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter"? So so so good.
Reader Comments (32)
I'd say the one with the least chance of Oscar hopes would be Caught in Flight with Naomi Watts. She was nominated once years ago but wasn't a serious contender that year although no one stood a chance against Charlize Theron. She is usually fine but rarely extraordinary and the fact that Meryl won this year for an English biopic will go against her.
The one that would seem to have the strongest chance based on pedigree would be the Lincoln film, Spielberg, Daniel Day Lewis and Sally Field are all academy faves and venerated performers so it would have to stink badly to not have considerable heat.
Nathan Baby,
My feelings for MS have been heighten from this year's defeat of Viola Davis. Of course I support the Viola Three campaign for a subsequent nomination in Best Actress that leads to win regardless of the actual quality—see what happens when you allow MS to actual take one home the system becomes skewed. I'm interested in the anti-MS, Jessie, as fellow Oscar winning girlfriend Kathy Bates calls her. Does MS' third statuette bowed well for Jessie also joining the trio club? She seems like the kind of perform when the opportunity shows itself to reward her again the consensus won't deny her. Unlike a Close who'll have to settle for Honorary Status in order to own a statuette fair and square.
Logan Green is the new Dana Ashbrook—a hot piece of ass Marisa Tomei will convert into irrelevancy.
Ah, the mention of "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter," reminds me of the fine Alan Arkin performance that shockingly lost Best Actor to Cliff Robertson's hammy work in "Charly."
Oh, travesty!
Some more:
- 'Man on the Moon' did have some traction, but ended up with nothing
- 'Creation', the Charles Darwin biopic with Paul Bettany went nowhere
- Neither did John Goodman playing Babe Ruth
From this year's slate 'Lovelace' looks pretty... I dunno, cheap? Doesn't seem like a contender to me. And they should really change the Hitchcock film's title to something catchier.
BTW, what happened to TENN, William's bipic announced some years ago, directed by Taylor Hackford?...actually I'm not a big fan of Hackford as director but since He Married Helen Mirren, he must be a cool person
I just love that picture of Williams. Where did you get it?
johnny depp played as many real person in movies : Ed wood ,blow, fear and loathing in las vegas finding never land ,before night fall, from hell, libertine ,public enemies ,rum diary .some of this movie are biopic but he didn't nominated even for great acting in ed wood , blow or libertine .
Nathaniel, I loved Naomi Watts in Mulholland Dr. just like I loved Johnny Depp in the first Pirates movie, but both actors' quality of work seems to have plummetted ever since they gave those amazing performances. Do you agree, and does their excellence in those films lessen BECAUSE of their subsequent decline in quality?
P.S. sorry for going off topic, i was just really curious about what you thought
I am sorry to say, but the Viola Davis project is the toughest sell, since she is a woman, over 40's, black... And you know no black actress have earned a third Oscar nomination... ever.
cal: It's about darn time though.
Realistically, there's three of those that interest (because of the attached director): Hyde Park on Hudson (Roger Michell. Best film: probably Enduring Love.), Lincoln (Spielberg. Best Film: Schindler's) and Caught in Flight (Interesting premise and Hirschbiegel's currently attached. Best Film: Downfall.) The rest I could take or leave.
@cal roth
Viola Davis will be the first black actress to do a lot of things including getting a third nomination. You keep bringing up her age as if she's affected by that. Her race was a bigger problem with the mainly white male voting majority of the Academy who are from a different generation and hadn't made a movie since Woody was in cloth dippers.
I choose Depp. He has lost any self dilscipline.
Poor Toby Jones! Back in 2006 he had to contend with Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who played Truman Capote a few months before he did, and in a higher-profile pic to boot. Now he has to follow in Anthony Hopkins' footsteps as Aldred Hitchcock!
The trend now seems to be to take one episode or period in the subject's life, which is an interesting gimmick.
I believe the performer with the least chances of getting nominated is Naomi Watts. And then I think about the Academy's infatuation with all things British and, oops, Oscars for Helen Mirren as The Queen and Meryl Streep as The Iron Lady... hmm... Nahhh... There seems to be no love for Naomi.
The trend now seems to be to take one episode or period in the subject's life, which is an interesting gimmick.
That isn't a gimmick. It avoids greatest hits syndrome. Allowing a very natural, free standing film, concerning a slice of a famous person's life. Micheal Mann's Ali bit off more than it could chew. A slice of life will always offer the better alternative to attempting to mount the whole thing.
ok maybe it's not related but if they ever make a movie about (goddess alert) Patty Smith, the ONLY actress who can play her is (re-goddess alert): Charlotte Gainsbourg. Why? well she can act, sing & if you are not convince yet compare photographs of the two...
First, I think Viola Davis has a shot to win for the Barbara Jordan film. She's actually a great match for the role, she already has a lot of actors (including Streep) behind her and she's never been less than captivating, even in the tiny or underwritten roles she's usually given. When an actress is that well-loved, I don't think age or race really matter.
Of this year's crop of biopics, I'm least impressed by the dueling Hitchcocks. I love the director. When I was young, I devoured every Hitchcock film I could get my hands on. His films are among the best of all time. And, as a person, there were certainly some very interesting aspects of his biography.
The problem is that both biopics look kind of cheap and slapdash from the indicators we have now. And when has a biopic of a film director ever scored with Oscar or audiences? Chaplin picked up a nod for Robert Downey Jr., but his subject is better known for his acting and the film itself was a box office flop ($9 mil on a $31 mil budget according to the all-knowing Wikipedia). Clint Eastwood's White Hunter, Black Heart faired even worse, with no Oscar traction it came and went unnoticed in theaters ($2 mil off $24 mil budget).
@W.J.
Race/Age matter when discussing Best Actress at the Oscars.
1 Woman in her 50's has won—Shirley Booth (1952)
1 Non-White actress has won—Halle Berry (2001)
That's fucked. Meryl Streep will always have a chance till the day she dies. She campaigned, she had Harvey the Devil in her corner, and a lot of grumpy older white men had no interest in voting for Viola Davis. V was in a 100+ grossing BP nominee and still couldn't win. Fuck fatty fat fat Spencer for playing a sassy black mammy. That's not progress that's an insult that black women are stuck at supporting actress being overweight and sassy.
I'm not arguing that age and race don't matter. My argument is that Viola Davis is uniquely situated for the win given the amount of goodwill audiences and the industry have for her coming off The Help. She's a very talented actress, but talent alone is never enough to win popularity contests (and make no mistake, that's what the Oscars are).
As for last year's Best Actress race, I think there were other factors that favored Meryl Streep, and none of them had anything to do with her skin color. Viola Davis' film may have been a BP nominee, but it wasn't particularly well-respected and didn't play into the Academy's preferences the way Streep's films did. It wasn't a biopic, it wasn't British, it didn't have sweeping physical transformations and Davis didn't get any *big* emotional scenes. Finally, Davis wasn't really a proper lead. The Help was more of an ensemble piece and those types of films rarely score acting nominations or wins.
I personally favored Davis over Streep last year; but I also favored Yoon Jeong-hee (of Lee Chang-dong's gorgeous Poetry) over both of them. In a perfect world, Oscar would choose the Best Actress regardless of age, race, nationality, language or financial backing. That, unfortunately, will never happen.
The proper lead argument is crap if you look closer at Streep's own nomination track record of getting secondary lead and outright supporting parts into the Best Actress race or her plan in becoming a double nominee by positing her lead performance in Adaption in Supporting, so she could go lead for The Hours.
Oh I'm for women of color (Asian, Latino, Middle Eastern, East Indian, etc) winning Best Actress. That's what I want. Streep has her third but at what price to her and others? I'm certain when she gives the best performance of her golden years it'll be overlooked because of forced desire to see her awarded a third one this year.
Come on, of course age will hurt Viola's chances. Even if you're beloved, married to a Hollywood legend and coming from an Oscar loss, you can always lose again if you're over 40, like Annette Bening losing to Swank the second time, for example. And they keep ignoring you, and there will always be a little princess with the right age to win over you, like Portman. Best actress is all about ageism, people.
Forget it: if Davis wants to win, go supporting and start showboating, like Melissa Leo in The Fighter.
BUT, if I were her, I'd stick with leading roles in movies I'd believe in. That's more important than winning Oscars.
Won't Back Down—Race is an issue (see Penelope Cruz becoming a staple in Supporting Actress), Age isn't Annette Bening's only issue—her sure thing Best Actress bet (American Beauty) she's playing a bull buster (see how that worked out for Judy Davis in '93).
ball buster
Cal --- agreed that Viola should concern herself with nabbing lead roles --even if she has to make them happen for herself (a la this Barbara Jordan film) -- more than with winning the Oscars. Getting a series of lead roles would be amazing progress. And she's got the chops for it.
James T -- no secret. just a simple internet search for "young tennessee williams" :)
Why should Viola Davis leave the desire for Oscar glory alone but merry old Meryl Streep can continue on her quest of dominance? Fuck you.
^^I'm sorry, I can't, don't hate me
Michell doesn't excite me as a filmmaker, and the trailer for Hyde Park looks very bland ala My Week with Marilyn. I'm also allergic to most films about Hollywood so both Hitchcock pics aren't my thing. Never heard of Barbara Jordan so I can't get excited for that one yet. Logan Marshall seems to be another Sam Worthington in the making (i.e. not good). Hendrix is cool, but Andre 3000? Very late 90's. Same with Princess Diana...great woman, but she was more or less a Paris Hilton figure plus class and minus the partying. There's nothing there.
That leaves Lincoln and the Jobs biopic, which should turn out brilliant with Sorkin writing and hopefully a Fincher or Nolan directing.
it's silly, ,johnny depp didn't nominated even for ed wood , blow or libertine .
As I remember it, Barbara Jordan (if we are talking about the Southern politician) was built like a retired defensive lineman - I am not sure I can see Viola Davis putting on that kind of size no matter how committed she is to the project. And without the physical resemblance, she loses all of the 'mimicry' points that seem to be essential for a best Lead nomination for a biopic.
I like the chances for "Lincoln" to pick up a truckload of nominations (is John Williams scoring...in more ways than one?) but I cannot say that I care about it all that much at this point. The one I really care about is the life story of Steve Jobs, with another script from Aaron Sorkin, who just seems to get better and better.
nathaniel, i'm interested to know what you think of the news of Nicole Kidman playing Grace Kelly
i initially thought it was going to be one of those forever-in-development Kidman projects, but its getting a decent amount of buzz and sounds like its actually going to follow through
Is she still bankable enough for the film to achieve success (financial and oscar) ????
I'd love to see Bill Murray finally walk away with the gold statue for his performance as FDR in HYDE PARK ON HUDSON, even though he should still be given his oscar back for LOST IN TRANSLATION (lost to Sean Penn, Mystic River). I think Spielberg's LINCOLN will garner some nods ( especially for the director, picture and acting categories), anyway it should be a pretty good film. In my opinion THE MAKING OF ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S PHSYCO is an attempted Hitchcock version of last years MY WEEK WITH MARILYN, I dont think it will garner many nominations, but never the less I wouldnt be surprised if either Hopkins or Johanssen or both receive nods from the academy, but I think it will be quite a long shot especially for Hopkins.
As for Naomi Watts in CAUGHT IN FLIGHT, when I heard she was going to play Lady Di I was a bit mixed up in my reaction. I think to pull off a character as complex as Lady Diana perfectly, who battled over depression, love affairs, scandal and maintaining her public image, you have to be one flawless-class acctress (like Meryl Streep in THE IRON LADY). But I still have faith in her and this might draw her attention for more serious and challenging roles which one day might actually lead to an Oscar victory for Watts.
One film which is being ignored is the UNTITLED DUSTY SPRINGFIELD PROJECT which is due to come out in 2013 and should star Nicole Kidman as Springfield.I love Kidman in almost every role, she reminds me of an Australian, modern version of Audrey Hepburn, and she is the only person whom I think will be able to capture Dusty Springfield on film best. I hope the academy wont forget about her.