Big Eyes, Big Questions, Big Night... Big Open Thread
Saturday, November 22, 2014 at 5:15PM 
He sells paintings. Then he sells pictures of the paintings. Then he sells postcards of the pictures of the paintings.
I've been thinking a lot about art vs. commerce tonight, having just seen Big Eyes in which it is kind of the theme. Only not. Because there is a lot of other things going on inside this movie. Including multiple tones. It veers so far into comedy towards the end that I think they'd be smart to campaign musical/comedy for the Globes. (I kind of wanted it to be a musical. And I think Colleen Atwood and Rick Heinrichs did too but we know Tim Burton doesn't like those.) Christoph Waltz will again be the egregious category frauder of the year since it's most certainly a two-lead movie (he's missing from the first 5-10 minutes but then it's the both of them or either/or throughout. Oscar may or may not bite but it would only bite this one as fresh December bait so smart release date they chose. So for the next month I will live in fear of people loving Waltz's shtick!
We aren't allowed to review it yet so I will shut up now
Tonight: INTO THE WOODS! Which we also aren't allowed to review and which will also surely bring thoughts of art vs. commerce as we see how they adapted Sondheim's popular but still fairly dark musical in the hopes of becoming an all quadrant Disney blockbuster.
UPDATE: Still sorting out my feelings on INTO THE WOODS but have plenty of time. Loved the first act but the genius of the second act in the show is... not... clear (lost?) with the many changes made. Anna Kendrick was the MVP but the whole cast can really sing and they were all good (barring Johnny Depp on both counts) which is the #1 thing I need in musicals. Alas I have very complicated feelings about the movie musical (my most beloved genre) because I always have too many feelings going in. This is why I need original musicals to return. Less pre-movie feelings obsessiveness to brush away to get to true reaction.
ANYWAY. WHAT'S ON YOUR CINEMATIC MIND? How ready are you for the holiday movies and these two films?
Reader Comments (78)
Please, in defense of Meryl and her Oscar win for Iron Lady, it is good to remember that in addition to having been in second or third place in numerous critical of awards (among them third in the National Society Of Critics), she was chosen best actress for: New York Film Critics Circle Awards, NYFC Online, BAFTA, London Critics Film Awards, Golden Globe - Drama, among others ... Just pointing out that it was not just a victory with his fans at the Academy. Thousands of people around the world love her performance in the film, and virtually all reviews of the film, even the most negative, spoke wonders of Meryl performance. But regardless, a new victory, this time, it would be, yes, unreasonable, especially considering the amount of new films and projects in which she is involved.
Exquisitely professional thoughts. I merely hit upon this web site and desired to enunciate that I've definitely delighted in reckoning your blog articles or blog posts. Rest assured I'll subsist pledging to your RSS and I wish you write-up after much more shortly))*****
Nathaniel- I suppose so but can you really blame him? One category was locked down and he probably did feel he was in support of Foxx. Voters had a choice too, of course, and again, what a mess that year ended up being.
Were we at the same screening? I thought the transition between scenes was very fluid. Anna Kendrick was good but calling her MVP is a bit of a stretch. I think you're just being a bit of a contrarian here. The movie takes place in a fairytale musical world so the characters are larger than life; so I don't really understand the critique of that.
The Tex Avery wolf argument you just gave was also pretty weak. I think it is cool and outside the box. The whole look for the costumes was comprised of many different eras so Depp's costume didn't really distract from anything. Tex Avery was a salacious, greedy, wolf. So is the wolf in this piece. I also think that was an interesting and strong choice to make in this movie.
Cheridennis - i have no reason to be contrarian since I love a bunch of the actors in this and was eager to see them all do well. and i'm not sure anyone can be contrarian yet since so few opinions about the movie exist ;) (they just started screening it Friday!)
Daniel -- but critics and other awards bodies are also extremely influenced by campaigning. They pretend not to be but it's obvious year after year that everyone is in the oscar prediction business. If they weren't you'd see a lot more variety in winners from group to group.
Jamie -- yes, a win is a win. But every win is composed of different elements and diffferent reasons especially for legendary stars, wins are rarely about the performance itself and more about the whole history of that performer (see also Jeff Bridges win for Crazy Heart - a good performance surely but he was winning for his entire career). When Streep won for Kramer vs Kramer and Sophie's Choice she was winning for her performances (and a little of the "new star coronation" that we saw with Jennifer Lawrence in 2012). But had she won for any of her recent nominations, it would have been a win for her whole career since none of those performances are unanimously agreed upon as Unquestionable Great. The last performance she gave that it's hard to find any dissent on is Angels in America. And she won prizes for that :)
Jamie - Streep fatigue is a real thing. I have it, and I've been a fan since 1985 - a real one who's seen every film (well, I'm waiting for DVD on The Giver) and was happy for her last win. I personally am tired of the nominations for sub-par work and the depressing hunger in her awards campaigns (e.g., the Emma Thompson NBR speech).
Interestingly, her post-Iron Lady films have been on something of a downswing at the box office - Weinstein, in particular, had much bigger hopes for both August and The Giver - though that may be due to the quality of the films (and YA dystopia fatigue in the case of The Giver) as much as Streep fatigue.
I'm here to support both Jamie and Daniel's comments. They are both correct.
And silly, silly people, Katharine Hepburn won back-to-back Oscars in 1967 (mediocre performance) and 1968 (truly outstanding performance). Streep can certainly win again, and soon.
Erik Anderson, I haven't seen 'Into the Woods' yet, so my comparison comes from the word on Streep's performance.
Nathaniel - I agree with you and understand fully that the Iron Lady win was hindering the remarkable feat of her career/ nominations and not so much her actual performance. I would say that your answer probably applies to a lot of recent Oscar winners whose narrative of "their time" or "new star". I am not sure why only Streep is held to the standards of being "unquestionably great" or unanimously praised by all? I am sure that there always dissenters for a performance/ win.
In reading reactions to the film? I am reading some very glowing first impressions which say that she is a sure thing for a nomination. I was simply curious why you are always so quick to cut her accomplishment down to size in favor of the mediocrity of other actresses who in probably are no way near being " unquestionably great" or unanimously praised by all.
As for The Iron Lady win- I doubt Streep looks at the award knowing it was a celebration of her career- I do not think she looks at it and says "i cannot believe I won for an universally panned performance."
Suzanne- I do not consider any of Streep's recent nominations subpar, especially when compared to the work of her peers and as for her recent box office clout- that is about to change with Into the Woods.
I do understand those who have Streep fatigue. I have Jennifer Lawrence fatigue,my Amy Adams fatigue is intense. I love Julianne Moore as well but how come we are all not annoyed that she has already won Best Actress when the majority of the world has not even seen it?Is that her most remarkable work ever? Who knows?
I just feel that some on this site believe that Streep should not be praised for a performance unless she is literally reinventing the wheel. Others just starting to learn how to ride the bike get the unanimous praise.
Nathaniel, I fully agree that there is no way to separate an entire career when choosing the performance of a veteran, and there's nothing wrong with that. There are also other factors involved. Viola Davis also made a major campaign, but did not receive almost no relevant prize of critics groups, but only by industry (Broadcast and SAG were the only ones outstanding awards, actually), but still was virtually tied with Meryl on Oscar night ... I look forward to Viola win the Oscar. I look forward Julianne Moore wins the Oscar as well, which, it seems, also by a series of factors, able to take this year. Kisses from Brazil, I follow the site for over ten years. Our great actress is Fernanda Montenegro (although we have many other extraordinary actresses here) and I know that you liked her work in Central Station. Recently she won an Emmy Award (Latin) by a wonderful job in a series called MOTHER'S SWEET, she is sensational.
Jamie: many, many people (and many, many critics) praised the performance of Meryl, then it would be absurd to think that (I won is an universally panned performance) ...
Nat, Is the three week embargo on Into The Woods reviews unusually long? Yesterday's screening and Q&A events seem to be well publicized with the intention of having as many awards voters see the film as possible. The line between discussion of awards potential and a review seems to vary depending on the writer.
Is there a potential for backlash even before reviews are published and weeks before the public release?
Jamie - but just your question itself betrays your complete immovability on this topic
your question assumes that the person being asked believes that all actresses are meidocre in comparison to Streep's "unquestionable greatness" and I simply do not believe that is the case. I think there are many actor that have greatness in them and I think worshipping someone to that extent that you find them infallible and incapable of being anything less than "unquestionably great" is the entire problem with Streep's career. It's why nominations are so easy for her even when she doesnt dserve them. The widely accepted notion that she is infallible guarantees great reviews. I'd rather she earn the great reviews each time.Meryl has been utterly brilliant in some films, very good in others, and way over the top in a few.
Perhaps the question is messed up- I admit that. But the truth is you are far more critical towards Streep (her acting, her choice in directors,her taking away roles) more so than you are with other actresses.
We can agree to disagree. It is only my opinion.
I think the biggest 'problem' with Streep is that many people tend to hold her to a different standard because of her body of work, the immense respect from her peers and her legendary status (I see Blanchett moving in that direction in years to come). Hence, they may tend to be more critical of her performance - it's understandable. What I'm saying is that we will never judge a mediocre actress the same way we judge someone who has been touted as one of the greatest. And the best thing to do is to agree to disagree. One of my friends who's a big Streep fan always says this: if there's another actress in her role giving the same kind of performance that Streep is giving, that actress will be praised to the rafters. The fans may be right to a certain extent but they also have to recognise that because of the aforementioned reasons, they may precariously fall into the 'everything she touches is gold' notion, being too unwilling and subjective to see the flaws that her non-fans may see. I like Streep but I feel she tends to ham it up in certain roles (which is not a bad thing depending on the context). To be honest, I find her performances now more accessible and warmer than a few of her icy but critically praised ones in the 80s (the same way I feel about Blanchett, Kidman and Spacek and their earlier performances).But that's not to say one is better than the other. Every writer/critic is subjective according to his own lens of perception. That's a given whether we like it or not. If we can truly accept that, then it's easier to not want to will someone into indulging in our own views. Just my 2-cents' worth.
The level of scrutiny and criticism Meryl Streep receives simply comes with the territory of her remarkable career. When you're that acclaimed and have accumulated that many nominations the knives obviously come out. Personally, I never have understood the divisiveness of her third Oscar. Shitty movie, but impeccable performance. However, it was so much more inspired and worthy than Sandra Bullock's phoned-in performance, Kate Winslet's least inspired performance of her entire career, and Jennifer Lawrence's very uneven, borderline supporting win. IMO the best actress winners of the past few years were Natalie portman and Cate Blanchett, who both truly gave their best work.
Judging from last year when she made it in for another divisive performance where the critics were out to get her (over Thompson who had a lot of momentum), proves that there's still immeasurable support of Streep in the industry.
Jsns - well that works both ways though. you say it means people are more critical. I say it means people are LESS critical because most people are not bravely iconoclastic individualistic with their opinions and if someone is widely accepted to be great there's a certain measure of accepting their greatness before you've evern seen their film... which is detrimental to really seeing it. I think this is why Scorsese's contemporary work is so praised to the rafters even though it's rarely a patch on his earlier work. I also think it's why an element of "prestige" to any movie helps it win praise and awards when sometimes films without any prestige elements or from disreputable genres (like horror or sci-fi) are better films.
in short: I guarantee that a few of the best picture nominees this year won't be as good as THE BABADOOK (too scary. too small. too horror. no "prestige" stars) or PRIDE (too light. too comedic. too small. no "prestige" stars really) but they are taken seriously because of this phenomenon that people accept a certain amount of worth in various people and genres before even looking at the work.
I should also state that I really liked her as the witch. I just think between her mannered and manic flashiness and the costumes flashiness and the visual effects flashiness and the musical flashiness sometimes it's just way too busy and messy. (her final scene is really weird - i've talked to a few people about it and nobody seems to understand what is happening)
But I LOVED her "Stay With Me" scene - beautiful singing and emoting and just magical acting.
Nat, I agree with you...it cuts both ways. As I've mentioned, some Streep die-hards don't (or don't want to) see the flaws in her performances. Let's face it: no actress is so great that she's brilliant in every role/film. And it's a shame to keep defending her on every count...rather pointless if you were to ask me. On the other end of the spectrum, you have another group that's overly critical - they'll never be satisfied no matter what. You simply can't please them all:)
Btw, I'm rather puzzled by the day-night difference in the reception of Babadook in the US as opposed to that in Asia. If you read the reviews here in Asia, not a single one has painted the movie in a positive light (personally I thought it was dull, not scary at all). The audience in this part of the world didn't like it as well (based on many comments that I see on Facebook/Twitter). However, the Western critics seemed to lap it up. My point here is that the 2 groups tend to define horror movie standards very differently (there's a lot of cultural and historical bearings on this but I guess that's another topic for another day).
Nathaniel -- I thought of the Scorsese comparison too. There were always going to be quite a few people that would say Streep's the MVP of Into the Woods no matter what, just like there are always quite a few people who praise everything Scorsese does. Or it's like Sasha Stone proclaiming that every new Fincher movie is a masterpiece, and then flipping out when not everyone agrees with her.
I don't understand why some people who love hugely popular artists need every. single. person. to agree with them every. single. time. in order to feel validated (See also: the Nolan fanboys, the Beyoncé stans, etc).
Jan and Nathaniel- I am not trying to sway anyone to my side or think less of anyone for not- just merely engaging and asking questions for Oscar race discussion. We all have our favorite horse. I was just curious as to why everyone else on the net was praising the performance and Nathaniel was the only one who seemed not dazzled by it. He answered why and I understand his opinion. That's all.
meryl remains a comments magnet.
Jan - yes I empathise on the Nolans front...I have a few friends who will rather choke on their own vomit than admit Chris Nolan isn't always the genius in every movie....they will mow you down in a heartbeat if you so much as question their favourite director's prestige.
Jamie - just for your info, I have 2 US friends who attended the ITW screening and there's been nothing but glowing reviews for Meryl on their facebook accounts. And they're not even fans to begin with.
Jack Nicholson is the only male I can think of who has received the same kind of criticism.
Marcelo -it never fails. She's always good for conversation :)
A firestorm of comments always breaks out when Meryl Streep & Oscar are mentioned.
I simply want to point out that Daniel Day Lewis won 3 Oscars and his 3rd win never causes any quibbles or resentment. Meryl's third win was for an impressive performance but...it's clearly a sore nerve for some. I wish this inequity did not exist but sadly it does.
I love the good work of many actresses, but fear for the narrow line they have to tread between adulation and backlash. It's painful to watch.
Finally, Nathaniel I want to thank you for giving a shout out to Essie Davies in Babadook as well as the cast of Pride. I completely agree that the spectrum of performances considered award worthy is narrow indeed. I think critics awards should strive to be more independent and award those who work in genre, foreign, and indie films - it's ridiculous when they mirror the status quo. ( For those wondering who Essie Davies is try watching Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries. Another great actress from Australia...)
The "problem" with Meryl's career is that she keeps getting attention for nearly everything, at least if it's baity enough. I didn't consider the witch in ITW to be that baity at all. Well, not in Lead.
In Supporting the nom should be a done deal. The Academy reacts different like many other critics. They nominate what THEY love, not the critics. They award what THEY love, not critics.
It was always predictable how critics would see TIL and how the Academy would. Yes, it was only nominated for 2 categories, but in the end both categories won. She had simply HUGE attention for the role alone, hardly any of them cared for the film at all. Yet on the global BO, it made more money than Blue Jasmine.
Weinstein also made his duty and campaigned HARD for her,reminding voters that she didn't win since 29 years.
We really must stop blaming her for everything alone. Studios campaign for her, though it's still ironic that Disney does. #NBRspeech
All in all she's a phenomina that can't be explained. She's 65 years old and still on top. And yes, she's such a comment magnet, marcelo. That's just impressive...
She's getting the medal of freedom today. Oscars Shmoscars, that's the highest honor for a U.S. citizen. I think she cares way much more about that than any (other) Oscar.
Nathaniel- I'm sorry I think you have a problem with the material and not Meryl. The Actor serves the Story. I think all of Meryl's choices were clearly defined. I also don't believe that you didn't understand what was going on in "Last Midnight". Not unless you just stopped listening to The Witch's lines in the song. The song is a mental breakdown. An existential and intellectual tantrum if you will. I assure you, if you were fated to be an ugly old crone for 20 years and then basically your first day back as a beautiful woman: you'd be pretty full of yourself and over-the-top too. It's called acting choices. Just because you didn't try to understand them, doesn't mean they were the wrong ones. :)