What Kind of Summer Has It Been?

Post Reply
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

Well, that sucks. Best movie of the year so far.



Edited By Penelope on 1251054148
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

I don't think so. IFC aired it On Demand alongside it's theatrical showings, and that's what ruled out A Christmas Tale last year.
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

Great write up, Tee. I pretty much agree with your consensus.

One question--I've asked a couple of times with no response: do we know if Summer Hours is eligible for nominations? If it is, I'd add it to the list of likely Original Screenplay nominees, even a possible Supporting Actress nod for Edith Scob.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

Waltz definitely has it for Supporting Actor in the Summer considerations, though I think he should be bumped up to lead. He really dominated Inglourious Basterds. I wouldn't rule out a Best Pic nod either, at least under the new rule. It has a modest personality - for a Tarantino picture anyways - and that may make it more accessible to a wider audience.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Well, Fall is officially in the offing – Labor Day just two weeks off, EW’s Fall Movie Preview issue already on the stands a week. So, it’s time to take a look back and see what the summer brought, and how any of the films released might play in the forthcoming Oscar race.

I started writing a summer look-ahead back in April, but, typical for these days, I never got around to finishing or posting it. I’ll be very honest and say my forecasts in that never-to-be post were off in two particular ways.

First, I cautioned this summer would represent a dramatic fall-off from last year in the critically-acclaimed plus commercial-hit arena. This seemed a safe bet, since Dark Knight’s only come along at blue moon pace, and Pixar seemed unlikely to repeat the high-level, LA best picture winner status of Wall E. Even last year’s third rated summer flick, Iron Man, might well have swept the visual/sound effects categories in a standard year…and, don’t forget, Tropic Thunder got an acting nomination. How could we not fall miles short of that field?

Now, it’s not as if I was violently wrong about all this: there wasn’t a Dark Knight critical/commercial convergence – the year’s top-grosser, Transformers 2, is nearly universally considered a hunk of dung. But I also expected the rest of the action movie crop to be summarily dismissed, chiefly on the basis of being second/third tier sequels. Here I missed the Abrams revitalization of Star Trek, the substantially positive response to the latest Harry Potter, and, just last week, the excited critical and audience response to sleeper District 9. Beyond that, Up – while in my estimation well short of Wall E in the quality department – got close to the same reaction from critics, and did typically top-drawer Pixar business. So, in sum: no, it was not last year’s once-a-decade art/commerce correlation. But it wasn’t off by the mile I expected, either. (Though I don’t see any acting Oscars coming from this year’s crop. And I’ll stick to my early feeling, that the sequel-ness of all the summer hits will make Avatar an easy front-runner for visual effects next year)

My other overall take was that the year would easily surpass 2008 in terms of serious, auteurist Oscar contenders. 2008, we may recall, yielded only The Visitor, which opened in the summer-bubble month of May, and Frozen River and Vicky Christina Barcelona, which came along in August – a thin crop, of which only Cruz was surefire for nomination. This year was spectacularly more promising. We had films by (remember how exciting this looked upfront) Woody Allen, Stephen Frears, Sam Mendes, Michael Mann, Ang Lee and Quentin Tarantino. Throw in Julie and Julia, for the Streep effect, and two well-enough regarded indies, The Hurt Locker and (500) Days of Summer, and it looked like a year when it would be uncharacteristically safe for grown-ups to go to the movies between May and September.

Well, you know what happened. Whatever Works is not getting Woody another writing nod (or Patricia Clarkson, early buzz recipient, a supporting actress push). Cheri will be lucky to get a costumes nod. Away We Go, while not loathed, slipped though barely noticed. Public Enemies almost did the same, even while grossing 100 million – I’d say décor nominations are all it can hope for. Taking Woodstock is still a week off, but, unless there’s a cadre of critics with undisclosed intense love for it, it’s another bust. Tarantino does have a big number one opening, but the wildly mixed nature of the film’s reviews, and, especially, the apparently high level of violence, make it an unlikely Academy favorite, with the exception of the Waitz performance.

It turned out the throw-ins were the season’s biggest gainers. (500) Days of Summer is broadly popular, and will certainly get screenplay consideration. In the brave new world of ten nominated films, it might find itself a best picture contender, as well. And Streep triumphs once again in Julie and Julia; nomination number 16 (unless I’ve lost count) is very likely coming.

The big winner, of course, is The Hurt Locker, the cause célèbre of a good number of critics and, especially, bloggers. I’m deeply conflicted about this film as an Oscar contender. Obviously I need to try and transcend my own disappointments, and deal with overall reaction. In the mind of many, this is Memento/Eternal Sunshine/United 93 – the early year surprise contender that was great-great-great, but the public didn’t go to in big enough numbers because they’re tasteless boors. That I don’t share this view makes it harder for me to decide if it’s apt to carry weight with the Oscars. Those three earlier films, as we know, weren’t 100% Academy-ignored – two got screenplay nominations (one along with an acting mention), and the other got best director -- but they fell short of their supporters’ fondest hopes. This year, of course, does offer the easier-to-crack list of ten, a list any or all of those three might have managed to penetrate, so Hurt Locker has an advantage they did not. It must, however, be noted that Hurt Locker’s commercial performance – on at least some level measuring its popularity – is well below those earlier films. Memento was actually an indie hit: 20-odd million (in 2001 dollars) on a miniscule budget. Eternal Sunshine was a failure by Jim Carrey standards, but did the $20-30 million achieved by films like Milk or Good Night and Good Luck. United 93 might be the film that best compares to Hurt Locker – a no-name cast in a stark, acting-de-emphasized recreation of recent history many were un-anxious to experience. And we considered United 93 to have been commercially rejected – but, barring miraculous reversal, it’ll have 2 – 2 ½ times the gross of Hurt Locker.

What am I saying, with all this? I think this makes Hurt Locker something less than the Oscar heavyweight its fans dream of, no matter how it does in critics’ awards or how lean the remainder of the year is. I think Bigelow for directing is by far its best top-line shot; in any year before now, she’d be the lone director non pareil. I think the lackluster acting style makes the solid performances of Renner and Mackie long-shots unless the rest of the year is beyond weak. I suppose there will be hipsters in the writers’ branch who will want to support it, but, like United 93, I think it’s far more a director’s than a writer’s film. Ironically, because of the ten-nominees rule, I’d say one of its best shots is at the best picture nod it would never have managed under normal circumstances. Like Up, it may do better than analogous predecessors of higher quality, simply because of the rule change. Ain’t life funny.

So, to group my general feelings in category form (including only films released; I can’t speak about An Education, Precious, or Up in the Air, no matter how certain their online backers):

Best picture…Nothing under the old system, but Hurt Locker, Up and (500) Days of Summer can’t be dismissed under the new.

Best actor…Nobody, unless Waitz is elevated as he was at Cannes.

Best actress…Streep, into infinity. Deschanel, if it’s a ghastly year?

Best supporting actor…Waitz, clearly. Some murmuring about Stanley Tucci, in Julia?

Best supporting actress…No one I’ve heard, though Mo ‘Nique is on the horizon.

Best director…Bigelow.

Best adapted screenplay…Nada.

Best original screenplay…Up, Hurt Locker, (500) Days of Summer. Even Duplicity got good enough reviews to qualify in the one category where grosses are frequently ignored.

Below the line, I figure Public Enemies for sets and costumes, Cheri for costumes as well, Hurt Locker getting editing. Visual effects already overflowing, with Harry Potter, District 9 and Star Trek – maybe Transformers can even get shut out? Up with the Pixar usuals: sound, sound effects, musical score. And Up and Coraline for animated (Ponyo possible, but weaker critically than I’d anticipated).

After Venice/Toronto, I’ll blend their surprises with my take on the brand-name Fall hopefuls and try to figure how this is all going to end up. And who knows? – I may even get around to posting it. This, however, is all for now.
Post Reply

Return to “Other Oscar Discussions”