Q&A Leftovers: Oscar Madness, Black Actors, Carrey & Kunis

Okay, before I decide how to reconfigure the fun but exhausting new Q&A series, I thought I'd answer 5 Oscar questions I stubbornly avoided before.

Ellen Burstyn in "Resurrection" (1980)

Michael: Going back to 1980 out of the five nominees - who would you have handed the Best Actress Oscar to?
Nathaniel:  I can't vote on 1980 because I've never found an opportunity to see Ellen Burstyn in Resurrection and I don't vote without seeing all five. Or at least I don't vote without all five if I really love the missing actor... which, in this case, I do. (Also: regarding 1980. I've heard the pleas for me to talk about Gena Rowlands since I never do. I just have to decide how to attack that large subject.)

Philip: Why do you think Oscar never took a liking to Jim Carrey?
Nathaniel: He was trying too hard when they weren't ready for him yet. The Truman Show (1998) was too close to his comic persona for people to get how brilliant he was in it. By the time he'd work up to "due" and gave his best performance (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 2004) he happened to do it within a romantic masterpiece. Alas, it's only women who ever get Oscar credit for those. Sexist but true.

Two Actors. Beloved by Plant Life. Not by Oscar.

Adam: What sort of project do you think Mila Kunis should tackle for Oscar recognition? Comedy or drama? Any roles in particular?
Nathaniel: I talked about this briefly last month, not in the context of Oscar but in the context of a wise career move. I wrote:

My basic feeling is that she should ditch the comedies briefly for something E-V-I-L. That vaguely sinister erotic charge that she gifted to Black Swan and the way you could read it as playful one minute and agenda-filled the next, suggests that she has an untapped capacity for darker roles

But what's good for the career isn't always good for Oscar favor. But wait there's more!

Click to read more ...

10th Anniversary Redheads: Tilda & Nicole

August 8th, 2001, ten years ago today, was a major day in the careers of two of our favorite screen redheads, Tilda Swinton and Nicole Kidman.

The Deep End, a gripping thriller about a mother (Tilda Swinton) who becomes entangled in criminal acts upon discovering her teenager's dangerous gay liaison, was for many moviegoers Tilda's debut. It was certainly her first leading mainstream-ish role, following closely on the heels of a breakthrough as the villain of Danny Boyle's The Beach (2000). For those of us who had already been hypnotized by her face in Derek Jarman's films or Orlando (1993), it was still something of a revelation and an obvious career pivot point. The Deep End proved that Swinton could carry a more mainstream narrative and that she could absorb awards season heat. Her performance won at least one minor critics awards and nabbed OFCS and Golden Globe nominations though Oscar would wait. Tilda would go on to continue her astonishing dual track career of headlining brilliant daring fare in arthouses whilst showing up in showy supporting roles in mainstream films which eventually led to that Oscar win for Michael Clayton. Didn't The Deep End make all of this possible... or least predict it?

Do you ever think about The Deep End these days?

Today's other actressy anniversary is less a breakthrough than an emancipation.

Ten years ago today Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise finalized their divorce while Nicole's star was going supernova. Moulin Rouge! had become an unlikely hit earlier in the summer while the media continued to salivate over the Kidman/Cruise split. And the same week the  divorce was finalized Kidman opened her second box office hit of the summer, The Others which eventually broke the magic $100 million barrier. Summer 2001 was unarguably The Summer of Nicole's Ascendance.

In the past decade, Kidman has proved her screen worth and her star mojo so emphatically and so often that the Mrs. Tom Cruise days seem like a barely remembered dream, don't they? Ancient history that was in actuality only ten years past.

Are new Kidman and Swinton films still events for you?

Cinema de Gym: 'Juno'

Kurt here, back with another installment of Cinema de Gym. Y'all didn't have much to say about the last two episodes, so I'm happy to return with a movie that's more actressy and Oscary, for better or worse. Hopefully it'll get folks talking. Juno is a film that has not sat well in my memory – a hipper-than-thou pin cushion for all my Quirk Cinema complaints. When a post-2007 indie gets under the skin with all its precious, self-negating eccentricities, Diablo Cody usually proves the perfect scapegoat. What hath she wrought with her Millenial-surrealist dialogue, best described as Kevin Williamson by way of the Urban Outfitters library? Well, probably half of what's now in the Urban Outfitters library, for one. Her words are sticky pop contrivance glazed over genuine depth of feeling, a concoction that was wildly validated by everyone from Oscar to Ebert to an army of young adults, who'd found their Clueless – a comedy that shaped their vernacular.

Which, in all fairness, is no small feat, and I tip my hat to Cody for having the wherewithal to tap into the voice of a generation (or, at least, the pseudo-emo white-kid leg of it). But her hyper-stylization is certainly not without its drawbacks, and Juno sees many an honest moment neutralized by an on-cue Codyism. The argument, of course, is that the lingo is what makes the film unique (and, to many, what makes it great). My retort is that its success is hinged on the direction of Jason Reitman (a near-virtuoso among young American filmmakers) and the performances from the cast. Though he operates on the same tonal plane as his screenwriter, Reitman's visualization of Cody's script is what truly shapes the film's identity, speaking to you in a singularly authentic way the words cannot. And the impeccably chosen actors, though no doubt thrilled to have been handed such colorful material, do some astonishing weight-lifting in terms of helping to substantiate the language. Their work, and Reitman's, will make this film watchable in 20 years. Cody's will always live in the "whoa dream big" world of 2007.

I'll admit I rolled my eyes when I saw that Juno was the film of the day at the gym. My retrospective qualms with it tend to blind me of its charms. The segment I caught was highly representative of the film entire: a peaks-and-valleys stretch of time riddled with poignant moments and Codyan pratfalls. I got to see the bit where Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner's relationship ends, the part where Juno tells Jennifer "I'm still in if you are" (excuse me while I freely mix actor and character names), and the part where Juno professes her love for Paulie Bleeker. This, unfortunately, also means I had to hear an in-labor Juno declare that "Thundercats are go!"; a lovely speech undone by the line, "You're golden, man"; and background song lyrics that whisper, "I like amputees with stamp collections" (though I guess I can't blame Cody for that one). That's Juno for you: it giveth and it taketh away.

Before I go, I wanted to say a word or two about Garner, who's never been lovelier or more assured as an actor than she is in this movie. A fine candidate for Michael C.'s Unsung Heroes series, her performance – easily overlooked upon first viewing – is all heart and earnestness, and she's very much the straight gal to everyone else's buzzing one-linerocity. Does that mean she doesn't do as much weight-lifting? Hardly. Garner more or less carries this movie's weight. I was happy to exit during the scene where she enters the delivery room and picks up her son for the first time. "I think he was always hers," says Juno's narration. It's a perfect metaphor for how I feel about this film: Cody may have carried Juno in the womb, but it's surrogates who stepped in and raised it to its full potential.

Conclusions?

1. Movies may often start with the screenwriter, but they certainly don't end with them.
2. Jennifer Garner should have had a much greater presence in the 2007 awards discussion.
3. I am not exactly looking forward to Young Adult, aka Reitman-Cody Partnership, Part Deux.
4. Just for kicks: Google "Paulie Bleeker" and what do you find? Paulie Bleeker Halloween costumes. I am really tempted...

So, how 'bout it? Has my Juno post left you pregnant with responses?

Tilda Androgyne

Tilda Swinton is on the cover of W's August issue with a mess of hot photos inside. And by hot I mean cool and by cool I mean sickening or whatever word is the new aspirational one to indicate people who are better than us.

Tilda is very tall but she's that much higher because we're always placing her on pedestals. But just look at her! Who can be blamed for building said pedestals, altars or shrines. 

This next photo totally screams Victor/Victoria. I doubt Tilda could sing as well as Julie Andrews (but then, who could?) so maybe they should reinterpret it as a minimalist art film.

In addition to playing the woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman entertainer at the center, Tilda could play every role? I will now spend the next seventeen hours imagining Tilda in the Lesley Ann Warren / Norma Cassidy role. In fact, let's repurpose one of Norma's grandest quotes to speak of Tilda right now.

With you it's like 'Pow!Pow!Pow!' like the Fourth of July, every time!

Well it is with Tilda! You never have to fake it with her. She's orgasmic.  

More photos after the jump...

Click to read more ...

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?