Pressing Oscar Questions / New Predictions

If you haven't yet noticed, I updated all the Oscar charts yesterday to reflect the latest shifts in buzz. As ever I am not totally enslaved by immediate buzz but try to project forward from it. I don't believe, and past experience backs me up here, that the first word from festivals is the last word on consensus. Festival audiences have, in many cases, different needs than Academy voters and the general public and even mainstream-leaning film critics.  These differing needs range from subject matter to tone to emotional and intellectual content. So there is much we still don't know about the new films winning raves. To win Oscar's heart you generally have to first master or at least make peace with three other audiences (all of which can or do overlap with each other and with Oscar but let's not complicate the matter): Critics (i.e. reviews/perceptions of quality), public (box office), media (are they interested? are their editorial angles or movie stars to keep them engaged). Festivals are the gun going off but never the finish line. So here are some questions I'm pondering.

Won't you join me in answering them?

Michael Fassbender OR Ryan Gosling? I've already pitted them against each other publically/mentally as "The Future of the Movies: Male Division" (do they have any competition?) and perhaps it's a natural evolution from that question but aren't they in direct conflict for an Oscar nod this year? Both have had amazing years with multiple films, some artistically minded, some for commerce but all of which they've been excellent in. Ryan has the more Oscar-friendly fare (Ides of March/Drive) compared to Fassy's kink (Shame/A Dangerous Method) but Fassy may have the more Oscar-friendly personality in terms of his ease with self-promotion (supposedly Gosling is unburdened by the typical Oscar dream).

I don't think there's room for both given the Best Actor field... do you?

What of Alexander Desplat?
His score for The Tree of Life seems likely to be axed for eligibility given all the other music in the film. His score for Carnage is supposedly only heard for a few minutes. His scores for the new Harry Potter and Twilight are both within long running franchises which generally don't show up in the score category since such scores tend to mix old and new themes and there's a been there/done that feeling even if the score is entirely new. Will they stiff their new favorite composer or will it be enough for them to have their all time favorite back? 79 year old John Williams has two Spielberg scores this year (Tin Tin and War Horse) after a long absence and if there was ever a time they wanted to hand him a sixth Oscar, it's probably now.

Captain America or Thor?
I've been asking this question all summer and I suspect very few people care. But hear me out: Isn't one of them going to win multiple Oscar nods? The technical fields are often hugely competitive but they're also friendlier to genre fare than the big eight. Captain America:The First Avenger has the distinct advantage in that it takes place during World War II and thus gets to show off period piece beauty in costuming (for Jeffrey Kurland and Anna B Sheppard who have both been nominated previously but never won)  and art direction (Rick Heinrichs has 3 noms / 1 win to his name) ... but Thor has a more Oscary team in costume designer Alexandra Byrne (4 nods, 1 win) and production designer Bo Welch (4 nominations) and whether or not you think that the ice planet or the mythical realm of Asgard are way too bombastically gaudy in design... Oscar loves overkill in just about any category. See last year's results for Eyesore in Wonderland and every time any pundit ever joked about "Best" being code word for "Most".

 

 Aren't "Restrained" and "Chill" Four Letter Words?
One review called Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy "marvelously chill" and the word "restrained" gets tossed around a lot for both that film and Glenn Close's Oscar bid Albert Nobbs. It's not without precedent that Oscar would embrace the chilly or the restrained but it's also not exactly the wormiest hook for AMPAS to swim towards as history indicates. What does all this mean for Gary Oldman (who our Venice correspondent claimed only raises his voice once in his film) or for Glenn Close both of whom will be waging campaigns based half on these new performances and half on their reputations as important thespians who've endured inexplicable golden snubbings.

Category Placement. To Fraud or Not To Fraud?
This question will never die and is ever a concern since modern cinema doesn't have the same clear divisions of labor as classic Hollywood in terms of "star vs. character actor". What's more many pundits, fans and agents now regularly and actively promote fraud to insure better golden opportunities for their beloved star or meal ticket. The feeling of demotion is largely a thing of the past, an Oscar being an Oscar. The unfortunate and long lasting side effect of this trend (more a tradition than trend now actually) are that real supporting players and character actors have less and less opportunities as genuine stars now rob them of their already scant opportunities for the spotlight on a very regular basis. It's almost impossible to imagine that we'll ever see another Thelma Ritter for example (sniffle). So we'll just have to wait and see how Viola Davis (The Help), Keira Knightley (A Dangerous Method), the entire Carnage cast and any of the young male leads (War Horse, Hugo, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) play it this year since all of them could theoretically opt for either lead or supporting categorization.

What the hell with the Best Animated Film category this year?
The (relative) failure of Cars 2 has left a gaping Pixar sized hole in the category that was arguably specifically designed just to honor Pixar. Rango, an early visually stunning hit, seems to have no real competition whatsoever. It's hard to see any of its competition as nominees, isn't it? There are sequels no one seems particularly excited about yet (Happy Feet 2, Puss in Boots, Kung Fu Panda 2), films that were hits that no one seems particularly excited about (Rio). Arthur Christmas is a question mark but is anyone excited about it? What's more the only event movie that's still to come (The Adventures of TinTin: The Secret of the Unicorn)  should theoretically be disqualified given past AMPAS decisions declaring motion capture ineligible. Is it time to shutter this category or do they just have to hope that it's exciting again next year and the year after? 

The Nomination Is Theirs To Lose. Will They?
Just about every pundit worth his/her salt agrees that The Tree of Life, The Help and Midnight in Paris are the three biggies with Best Picture potential to have already hit theaters. Then there are those stubbornly holding on to hopes for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two (I readily admit bias that I don't think it's deserving even as a cumulative honor) or The Rise of the Planet of the Apes though history suggests that it won't happen since sequels are only ever nominated when their predecessors were. Though I adamantly doubt that either has a good shot at the most coveted of all nominations, there is a first time for everything and it's true that modern franchise culture is a relatively new ubiquitous Hollywood reality and thus Oscar history might not be the best indication of how the Academy will view or soon view franchise efforts.

Should all of these films or even just three of them be nominated... well, that doesn't leave much room at all for the Christmas time films that are still withheld from eager eyeballs or the films that are on everyone's lips having just debuted at this festival or that one.

Which leads us to the final question...

Which of the unseen films will tank?
J Edgar, War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Iron Lady, Hugo? That's a lot of unseen fare still that even long lead festival audiences haven't gazed upon. Which do you suspect will deliver and which won't?

Box Office and Oscar: Bespectacled Wizards Break Bank

Harry Potter and Woody Allen, those short bespectacled movie magicians who both apparate into movie theaters constantly, each broke box office records this weekend, bookending the top ten chart. 

What kind of curriculum would Professor Woody Dumbledallen bring to Hogwarts?

The eighth and final film in the Potterverse sent walking papers to Batman (who had previously held the all time best first weekend record with The Dark Knight) and it even staged a bank robbery as its opening setpiece! Meanwhile, Woody Allen broke his own records. If you don't adjust for inflation, Midnight in Paris just became his highest grossing film in US dollars toppling the exquisite Hannah and Her Sisters which Nick and I were just chatting about. (Midnight in Paris is still trailing Match Point by a little and Vicky Cristina Barcelona by more than that in terms of global box office.)

01 HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART TWO [review] new $169.1
(here's a fun article on the top ten US openings)
02 TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON $21.3 (cum. $302.8)
03 HORRIBLE BOSSES $17.7 (cum $60.1)
04 ZOOKEEPER $12.3 (cum $42.3)
05 CARS 2  $8.4 (cum. $165.3)
06 WINNIE THE POOH new $7.8
07 BAD TEACHER $5.1 (cum. $88.4)
08 LARRY CROWNE  $2.6 (cum. $31.7)
09 SUPER 8 $1.9 [thoughts] (cum. $122.2)
10 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS $1.8 [group thoughts] (cum. $41.7)

Apocalypse Now: Zookeeper fell only 38% in its second weekend indicating that it pleased its TGIF loving audience last weekend. Make of that what you will.

Oscar Buzz: I realize that a good cross section of TFE readers are Potterheads -- that's a given when something is that popular -- so I mean this with all due respect but I personally suspect that the Oscar hype is fan-fever rather than prophetic buzz. The conversation, such as it is, suggests that AMPAS will want to reward the entire series with a Best Picture nod for #8. As ever with punditry, I could be horribly wrong, but it seems to me that sentiment, which everyone is correct to assume is a hugely powerful campaign tool, won't necessarily play in to this degree. Sequels, as a general rule, don't get nominated unless their ancestors were also nominated. 

Here is the Oscar record for Harry Potter.

Sorcerors Stone: 3 nominations, 0 wins (art direction, score, costumes) 
Chamber of Secrets: nothing.
Prisoner of Azkaban: 2 nominations, 0 wins (score, visual effects)
Goblet of Fire: 1 nomination, 0 wins (art direction)
Order of the Phoenix: nothing.
Half-Blood Prince: 1 nomination, 0 wins (cinematography)
Deathly Hallows Part One: 2 nominations, 0 wins (art direction, visual effects)

That equates to roughly 1.2 nominations a picture with no statues and these are the kind of nominations that are generally given to ubiquitous blockbusters that are considered solid entertainments (scattered techs) but aren't truly beloved or considered Serious Art by the voters. Potter has never been nominated in any big ticket category... not even in screenplay where blockbuster adaptations of best-sellers can sometimes find footing. Potter's Oscar history thus far should given everyone who cares reason to hope that they'll want to reward the series with a goodbye statue for art direction (and even the haters wouldn't have much to complain about there given Stuart Craig's huge series-long achievements) but otherwise no branch within AMPAS has taken a consistent shine. On the other hand, last year after an already exhaustive seven films had passed it was still getting some attention so who knows...

If sentiment does move Academy voters, I suspect it will only move the film onto more ballots than usual but not necessarily in those crucial #1 "i can't live without this" positions. My take: if there's a Best Picture nominee already in theaters at this writing, it's either Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life (ONLY if its hardcore devotees stay faithful but that all depends on whether another Film as Art / Auteurist favorite arrives before December 31st) or Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris (which has two enviable campaign angles to work with: "comeback" and "nostalgia") and the list ends there.

What did you see this weekend? Or did you stay in and weep over the Friday Night Lights finale?

What do you make of the Oscar buzz for Midnight and/or Deathly Hallows? The real thing or just impatience to get the golden party started?

Yes, No, Maybe So: Hugo

Robert (author of Distant Relatives) here. If you, like me, have been wondering how the phrases "Martin Scorsese" and "family-friendly holiday season event film" could possibly fit together ever since the announcement of The Invention of Hugo Cabret...

...later shortened to Hugo Cabret, later shortened to Hugo (by the time the film hits theaters in November it may just be H.) the newly released trailer may answer your questions, though not necessarily satisfactorily, and may leave you with all new ones. Let's discuss.

The name Martin Scorsese was, is, and will continue to be the selling point behind this film, at least for cinephiles who consider each new Scorsese film an event. But the trailer here has definitely been cut for the kind of mass audience that doesn't flock to Scorsese in droves. If you're looking for something non-threatening enough for the kids, but well crafted enough for adults, this trailer is targeting you. And in that sense the trailer does have something of an "instant holiday classic" feel to it. Not to mention some possibly impressive production design by Dante Feretti that could get him noticed again after his Shutter Island snub last season.

Yet while the production design appears promising, there's always the possibility that this busy-looking film will be a gold and teal nightmare. The 3D cinematography is rife with things flying at the camera. In this trailer alone we count at least five: Sacha Baron Cohen's hand, a dog, dragon smoke, a key necklace, and Hugo's hand. (So help me if that scene of Hugo going down a big fun slide is accompanied with a POV shot) Barring the title card there's not much here that feels Scorsese. Sure it's off his genre, but even when he does go off genre, Scorsese explores the same general themes and ideas (once calling The Age of Innocence his most violent picture). So even the slightest hint of a Scorsese touch, like the presence of Ray Winstone, was welcome, though I wanted to shout "No Hugo! Don't go with Mr. French!"

So what is Scorsese doing? Pilling up money for his next project? An academic exercise in trying something new?

Actually what he's doing is a family-friendly holiday season event film in exactly the way Scorsese would do it. Scorsese was never going to do fantasy in the mold of something modern. His films always reference back to the classics. Even Shutter Island disappointed many by possessing the obviousness of an old melodramatic Hammer Horror film instead of something that felt new. But that's what he does. Something tells me that what interested Scorsese in this project was the potential to make an homage to Georges Méliès (played by Ben Kingsley) and the films that birthed the fantasy genre. And those films were indeed intentionally artificial and filled with gimmicks.

So maybe we can't fault Scorsese for inconsistency of vision. We may want Scorsese to be modern and inventive. We may want him to wow us with spectacle like Peter Jackson or Christopher Nolan. But that's the fault of our expectation. What Scorsese clearly wants to do is recreate the magic of the old days. Whether or not you end up liking Hugo may depend on whether you appreciate the note on which the trailer ends, a recreation of the Lumiere's brother's L'arrivée d'un train à La Ciotat this time with the train actually pummelling toward the audience... in 3D.

My Bellatrix vs. Minerva Fantasy

Today at a critics screening, upset that the film was out of focus, I ran out of the theater to tell the people in charge. On my way out I tripped on a step I didn't see in the dark and literally went tumbling, face first (luckily my hands hit the ground before my face). After the screening -- which I winced through in pain -- I looked down to see my foot covered in blood! My toe is all F***ed up.

This is a really long way of saying that maybe Potter fans put some sort of hex on me today, anticipating a negative review of the last chapter of the beloved franchise. But the truth is I was somewhat nice to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two in my review at Towleroad because it is 100 times better than Part One -- not that that's a high bar to jump -- even if I think it's wanting in a few key ways*. Let's say B/B- for solid if limited entertainment. In short: it's a worthy finale and totally representative of the series. 

*Like, for instance you have all these great adult British actors and they rarely interact. I mean I was D-Y-I-N-G for a Helena vs. Maggie / Bellatrix vs. Minerva showdown so I could pretend that Lucy Honeychurch was finally done with "Poor Charlotte"'s constant fussy meddling and enlisted the dark arts to take her down! (Merchant & Ivory's Harry Potter. Haha. Just try to imagine it!) I knew this battle wasn't going to happen because I've read the book but instead all I got was like a disappointing three seconds between Julie Walters and Helena (I'll readily admit it was a great moment in the book.)

Was the Harry Potter finale satisfying for you? Do you think Stuart Craig will win the Art Direction Oscar as a thank you for the whole series? He's been nominated for Harry Potter movies three times out of seven thus far (plus six noms with three Oscars before it).

Halfway Honors. Best of 2011 Thus Far

This year seems to be off to a slow start but here's what I'd choose as the best of the year thus far. I've excluded films that are still waiting for their proper release like Andrew Haigh's finely tuned miniature gay drama Weekend (which has been collecting festival trophies and which I loved) and Paddy Considine's discomfiting abuse drama Tyrannosaur which I did not love but which boasts impressive acting.

TOP TEN PICTURES (alpha order)
The Arbor, Beginners, Bridesmaids, Certified Copy, Jane Eyre, Midnight in Paris, Poetry, Rango, The Tree of Life and Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives. You can see a complete list of what I've seen here.

[Notable films that I did plan to see but will have to catch on DVD include: Hanna, The Housemaid and Win Win]

DIRECTOR
Clio Barnard - THE ARBOR
Lee Chang-dong - POETRY
Abbas Kiarostami -CERTIFIED COPY
Terrence Malick -THE TREE OF LIFE
Mike Mills -BEGINNERS

notes: I gave Barnard the slight edge over Apichatpong Weerathesakul mostly because I far prefer "Joe's" earlier effort Tropical Malady to Boonmee. But not without some hesitation. I appreciated the bold experimentation of The Arbor, a documentary/narrative hybrid about the life and work of playwright and screenwriter Andrea Dunbar (Rita, Sue and Bob, Too). I just wish the film had been tighter and less relentless in its last 45 minutes. It had already done so much surgical socioeconomic surveillance damage by that point that rather than feeling devastating it started to feel exhausting. But it's definitely worth a look.

ACTRESS
Juliette Binoche - CERTIFIED COPY
Yun Jeong-Hie -POETRY
Mia Wasikowska - JANE EYRE
Kristen Wiig - BRIDESMAIDS
Michelle Williams -MEEKS CUTOFF

actors and the supporting crop and even a few technicals if you just...

Click to read more ...