Golden Release Dates

Anyone who has read the Film Experience for very long knows that one of Nathaniel's pet issues is the weirdly blocked distribution/awards calendars. Counterprogramming seems like anathema to Hollywood. Most pundits ignore this, either because they're fine with the system the way it is or they have their own pet issues to attend to. But year after year it makes me crazy. So as a sanity measure, I do charts!

If I were only a little more organized the charts would mean a lot more in terms of comparisons sake.

Common consensus has it that the best time to release an Oscar contender is in December. That's true. But as with most "truths" it's not the whole story and thus misleading. It distorts the perception of other truths like the fact that summer is not a bad time to release a big Oscar contender, particular those with commercial appeal. Like many other common consensus beliefs, the December is everything belief is self-reinforcing so one never knows if it is actually true or if it's true because studios think it is and therefore hold their mainstream prestige pictures. The new traditions are so established now that it would certainly be a shock if there were another year like 1972 where the two big dogs (Cabaret and The Godfather) were both released before the previous year's Oscars were even held! Could you imagine if you saw 2011's biggest Oscar contenders in theaters before Oscar night on the 27th?!

On the chart below you can see that the 83rd Oscars are very November/December heavy. Last year's race was less weighted toward the holidays with only 4 of the nominees arriving in the last two months (Blind Side, Precious, Avatar and Up in the Air) earning 23 nominations between them. This year there were five (127, King's, Swan, Fighter, Grit) hogging 40 nominations. And that was just the Best Pictures.

For this chart I used all categories but the shorts. As you can see, my biggest pet peeve (one week qualifiers or the lack of any regular release required) is not the disadvantage I always pray it will be. Why do I pray for this? Because I believe that movies are for audiences first and foremost. If the audience is not allowed to see a movie, should Oscar voters so readily accept its existence? (I always wonder why this isn't part of the whole "Oscar's are irrelevant because they don't choose hits" argument. Perhaps it's too nuanced. It's not as catchy as "they ignored blockbusters!" to say "they have nominated movies the public wasn't allowed to see!) This year's Oscar roster contains as many nominations for barely qualifying films as it does from films released from January through May combined. Sad.

Though Winter's Bone, Animal Kingdom and The Kids Are All Right started Oscar buzz at Sundance in January 2010 and kept it going for a year (all received acting nominations), the first actual theatrical release to wrap up the annum with a nomination was the poorly reviewed remake The Wolfman (Best Makeup). Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was the first multiple nominee released (March) and holds the distinction of being the most-nominated film outside of the Best Picture contenders with three (all in visual categories). This particular distinction used to be an exciting/interesting one but with 10 Picture nominees one doubts it will be that interesting going forward. Last year Nine (2009) held the honor with four nominations.

If you had an Oscar contender to push would you start early to get your nominee track firmly dug or would you risk the glut of the holidays hoping for a good sprint toward the gold in the thick of it. It's a tortoise or hare situation. Here are the months the last 10 winners chose.

2009 The Hurt Locker (June) *the year we started getting ten nominees
2008 Slumdog Millionaire (November)
2007 No Country For Old Men (November)
2006 The Departed (October)
2005 Crash (May)
2004 Million Dollar Baby (Dec)
2003 Return of the King (Dec) *the year the Oscars moved from March to February
2002 Chicago (Dec)
2001 A Beautiful Mind (Dec)
2000 Gladiator (May)

This year we're looking at an October (TSN) or a November winner (TKS) unless The Fighter has more underdog spirit in it that anyone is anticipating.

20:10 "In For" or "Done For"?

The 20th minute and 10th second of The Ghost Writer

"Oh dear. You must be wondering what you've let yourself in for."
-Olivia Williams as "Ruth Lang" in The Ghost Writer (2010)

What a perfect moment to represent this movie in this series. Love that they look like so funereal (this is the beach where the body washed up at the beginning, isn't it?) Plus that security detail trailing the writer and Ruth Lang looks more stalker than a protector with the framing.

Related Post: Top Ten List

Random Jennifer Coolidge Fantasy

Just the other day -- honestly I was just minding my own business, looking at Guild award photos -- the thought suddenly popped into me weary brain: wouldn't it be awesome if Jennifer Coolidge played Paula Wagner in a biopic?

Jennifer Coolidge IS Paula Wagner in "Wagner: The True Story"

With that casting dilemma solved I guess someone now needs to write a Paula Wagner biopic and then you have to figure out who to cast as Tom Cruise since her huge producing career was so closely tied to pushing his movies out into the world.

But who could ever play Tom Cruise?  I'm sure he'd demand the role for himself.

[related reading: Take Three Jennifer Coolidge]

The King's Profanity Free Speech?

Was Harvey Weinstein just missing his old Harvey Scissorhands moniker (culled from his love of demanding cuts from the movies he'd bought from his days at Miramax)? A couple of days ago the story was making the rounds that The King's Speech would be reedited to get a family-friendlier MPAA rating. I ignored it because it seemed like a publicity stunt but like all good publicity stunts (if that's what it was) it stuck in my head. It's such a strange idea, to reedit a movie while it's playing. But perhaps it's no stranger than the R rating the film won in the first place. The last time I heard the naughty F word used so innocuously in a movie was Four Weddings and a Funeral when there was a string of them for comic effect when people were running late to one of those multiple weddings -- I don't remember which.  Or is just yet another publicity stunt to keep people talking about The King's Speech about which maybe there's not that much to talk about as it's entertaining but not exactly deep or as editorial ready as its main rivals to Oscar glory?

Between this and Blue Valentine I'm really beginning to wonder if the MPAA wasn't actually dissolved a year ago and is now just a front organization for the Weinstein Company's publicity department.

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Beginners"

We've been so caught up in Oscar nominations, we've been letting other things slide. So herewith the return of "Yes, No, Maybe So" in which we pre-judge movies we haven't even seen by their trailers. Today's topic is the new drama (dramedy?) Beginners about a man whose elderly father comes out to him. It opens in June, marking two consecutive cutesy gay-themed films for (We Love Him) 'Phillip Morris' (Ewan McGregor).  

Yes. Beginners has a fine cast: enduring screen star Christopher Plummer is the gay dad; Melanie Laurent, hot off of Inglourious Basterds, is Ewan's girl; And then there's Ewan himself who, as I've shared before, has the face that makes me happiest at the movies. It's a personal thing that I can't define but to look at him is to experience joy. This is not to say "he's hot" or anything sullied by baser instincts. It's just joy. It's not unlike how I respond to Gene Kelly or Greer Garson in old movies. Wasn't Ewan just sweetness personified in ILYPM? This trailer also gives off a bit of a mid 80s Woody Allen vibe. You know, back when Woody made bittersweet and even warm films that weren't plagued with overt misanthropy. Plus it opens with a long conversation between Ewan and his dog and people who talk lovingly to animals are the kind of people that make us happy even when they don't have magic serotonin faces like Ewan's.

No. Eeek, this reaction is super personal too. (Damn you Hannah! for asking for this particular episode of Yes No Maybe So). Depictions of older gay men in film and television make me t-o-t-a-l-l-y nervous because I hate ageism (always have, even when I was much younger) and most depictions of elderly gay characters take on some form of tragedy or patheticness. Like, I had to stop watching Brothers & Sisters when the uncle came out because the stories just got so immediately I'm Pathetic With a Capital P and don't even get me started on Queer as Folk's completely vile ageism. Truth: Everyone gets older every minute including people who think they never will so let's all stop pretending like aging is a sin. It's not good. It's not evil. It's not triumphant (survival) or tragic (yikes, you're approaching death!). It just is. So anyway. I get nervous. I hope the situations and the relationships are handled sensitively in the movie and I hope they don't reinforce all those boring ol' stereotypes that nobody needs since one day we will all be Christopher Plummer's age (if we're lucky to live that long). Yes, even Hailee Steinfeld. ;)

Maybe So.
Here is where we discuss the many ways in which this movie could go right or wrong. First you've got that a-dor-a-ble dog whose thoughts are subtitled. But the laugh line music is missing and the scene is lit and cut so pleasantly that it's not screaming BIG LAUGH. NYUCK NYUCK WINK WINK which is... comforting. Then you've got the hand drawings and the  'rollerskating where you're not supposed to bits' which is... is the latter a lift from Steve Martin's LA Story? There are worse films to steal from. So is Beginners filled with gaggy cuteness or is it just beautifully humanistic and completely adorable?

What's your best hunch?

Are you a Yes, No or  Maybe So?