For Your Consideration - Directed by Christopher Guest

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

For Your Consideration is obviously not a major work, but given the subject matter of this board, it's the best place to spew my (admittedly picky) frustrations with the film.

Let me first preface this by saying that I'm not sure how much I really like Christopher Guest's films. I enjoyed Waiting for Guffman, but I arrived late to the party on that one and didn't think it nearly as hilarious as I had been told. I laughed even less at Best in Show, but I did very much like the charm of A Mighty Wind, and it made me look forward to a film skewering the Oscars by this team.

When the film began, I was initially surprised at how ugly the film looked. (And I don't mean Home for Purim, although that's ugly too.) I don't remember the other Guest films looking so cheap and visually uninspired. More disappointing is that, a couple of good jokes notwithstanding, I didn't find the film all that funny. The major reason is because the film doesn't ground itself in reality enough to be a successful satire; jokes about not knowing what the Internet is didn't work for me because they seemed too ridiculous to be believable, even in a kooky comedy such as this.

This brings me to my major beef with the film overall, and one that I'm sure is too critical, but it irked me nonetheless: the film isn't knowing enough about the Oscars to be a successful satire of the Oscars.

First off, I didn't believe for a second that A Home for Purim would receive Oscar buzz. It's too lousy, the kind of ugly independent movie that makes Little Miss Sunshine look like glorious studio filmmaking. What disappointed me was that this premise provided a perfect opportunity to mock the types of films Oscar DOES love; instead, I kept wondering what Internet message board thought this movie an Oscar contender. (Hopefully not ours!)

Also, why would such a low-budget indie movie be receiving Oscar buzz during shooting, when no one had seen the finished film? I didn't believe for two seconds that the media would become obsessed with the picture during SHOOTING, before it had become a substantial audience fave. Can you imagine Access Hollywood visiting the set of The Squid and the Whale to talk Oscar? I think not.

The film could have had a field day mocking the awards season, in which it seems there's a new awards show every day, but the Golden Globes, Indie Spirits, critics awards, and everything else Oscar-watchers (and Oscar hopefuls) take part in rate nary a mention in this film. (And raise your hand if you think a low-budget indie with no names would push two females for Best Actress? Anyone?)

Then, on Oscar nomination morning, I eagerly anticipated using the alphabet system to deduce at what point these actors might have their hopes dashed. But of course, in this fantasy Oscar world, the nominees are not announced alphabetically.

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

Now, I could understand if maybe the cast of Home of Purim was self-delusioned: they thought they were receiving Oscar buzz, but, in reality, no one else thought they had a prayer, hence no nominations. And yet Fred Willard's (admittedly hilarious) Access Hollywood-type show mentions the lead actor and both lead actresses as one of only two or three top contenders for the trophies. Of course I wasn't surprised when none of these three received nominations . . . but, in my overly critical Oscar-obsessed world, I didn't buy it. When was the last time a film with a top actor contender and two top actress contenders missed all three categories, especially when a non-buzzed contender from the same film did make it? Folks, this is the equivalent of Wilkinson, Spacek, and Tomei all being snubbed for In the Bedroom while Nick Stahl gets a nomination. Oh, perhaps it makes for a funnier situation, and I know I'm being too picky and I hate that . . . but it bugged me.

What bugged me even more was the actors' sudden dive into oblivion. Presumably if the Purim cast were Oscar contenders, they would have received plenty of precursor attention and buzz. I would think their careers would be skyrocketing, Oscar nod or not, and I just didn't buy that they would be back to doing stupid weight-loss commercials. In reality, we all know they'd get supporting roles in Ron Howard's next Oscar-whoring picture and get makeup nominations pronto. (Perhaps if, say, the weight-loss commercial had been remotely near funny, I wouldn't have minded this.)

So there, I know I shouldn't be too picky, it's not supposed to be real, just funny. But it wasn't that funny to me, perhaps because I thought about all the things about Oscar season that would be hilarious in a film like this . . . and wondered where they all went.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

This movie is a freakshow. Forget for one moment just how absurdly awful this film looks like (I actually think Ricky Gervais' scummy producer is correct, that 'Home for Purim' is the most uncomfortably Jew-y thing I've ever seen and that any change could be for the best) and that it would never get an Oscar nomination, or that really Oscar buzz doesn't entirely work like this. It's a satire, and I can just roll with it in the face of some ten or fifteen-odd hilarious people going nuts in a Guest film.

I don't know for sure, but the freedom that corpulent space cadet director Jay Berman allows the actors and the self-satisfied camp counselor-style freedom that Guest himself encourages seems to yield the same frighteningly goonish results. You end up with a movie that seems to just go haywire. I remember hearing the premise for this film and "Perfect. You don't even have to make it." Apparently, I wasn't alone. I can't be entirely fair in my assessment of the movie-within-a-movie 'Home for Purim' which is a kind of Tennesse Williams play where they speak in Yiddish, but the audience I say the movie with was so beside themselves with laughter upon hearing the word Meshuga on the screen. Braying with laughter like frat boys in 'Borat'. So, whereas I was left cold, it could very well have been in contrast. Parker Posey's delivery was the only one I bought for the film, but I feel as though I'm dwelling on something that's not the point.

'For Your Consideration' has laughs. Of course it does. But how could it not? It's the same group of people pretending to make a horrible movie in the wake of Oscar fever...so, it's going to be funny. If you toss enough #### at the wall, some will stick and some will not but you're gonna get flies (flies meaning fans, or critics like Peter Travers). I laughed on several occasions but this is a fine example of diminishing returns. I almost miss the quiet sweetness-over-laughs in 'A Mighty Wind' and would've liked to see one character just play it down a little. Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara deserved Oscars for that movie. I think Catherine O'Hara will be nominated and she is funny, but it's an almost frighteningly goulish performance. I haven't made sure if I like her in the movie or not, but by the end I was just muttering "...jesus christ..." under my breath at the comedic monster she had become.

The Movie Guest is directing is underwhelming. The "Movie" is a mess of comedic misappropriation. The Interviews?...hilarious.
"How's the despair?"
99-1100896887

Post by 99-1100896887 »

Because I am a huge Guest fan, I have been reading as many reviews of the film as I can, and strangely enough, there doesn't seem to be anyone "on the line"--reviewers actively hate it, or rapturously love it.
One reviewers said it was his best since Guffman, and Flipp 525 loved it, and I usually agree with him in many areas. I was disappointed in A Mighty Wind, as I thought Eugene Levy's character was just too dozy for words, and felt that this character brought the film's momentum down.
Perhaps some of critics who hated it love the REAL FYC ads every year, which I always find amusing and downright silly. Maybe, too, we demand too much of Guest, and expect him to produce a funnier film than the one before, each time.
I am seeing it this week, and since I know most every WORD in the previous films of his, I am looking forward to it.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Eric wrote:Man this movie looks dire.

It is. In fact, I'd say that the penultimate section of the movie is so dire and so hilariously, almost depressingly, truthful and revealing of the Hollywood machine that it successfully bridges that fine line between tragedy and comedy which is what the very best comedy should do.

I think the lack of the documentary style this time around really led Guest's usual troupe of actors to find a little bit more of a journey for each of their characters. I could imagine one of them being a real person. It also allowed for some of the funniest moments I have had in a theater in a long time (we were absolutely doubled over in my-abs-are-getting-a-freakin-workout laughter).

Catherine O'Hara is the fantastic stand-out of the ensemble in what are, essentially, three roles. Vulnerable, neurotic, impressionable, endearing, hilarious -- she finds a lot of different colors in this movie and some of them are not pretty. Her reaction scene during the Oscar nomination morning alone earns her at least some "consideration" in this year's Best Supporting Actress race. A poster on another site said, "She deserves a Best Supporting Actress nomination if for no other reason than that she turns into Karen Black by the film's end." Couldn't have been put any better!

Loved the hidden Jamie Lee Curtis appearance and the fact that the movie began with Bette Davis from Jezebel.

And there were four actors from "Boston Legal" just as a totally random piece of trivia.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

Man this movie looks dire.
99-1100896887

Post by 99-1100896887 »

Thanks, Penelope. I am very much looking forward to the film, to see next week. Reading the reviews below, kindly sent to us by Sonic much earlier, I can say, that, as I watch it climb in % daily on rottentomatoes, there will be huge respect for this film come Oscar season. If there are so many quotable lines , as someone refers to, it will likely be a cult film by then.
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

No, cam; Sonic was wondering what happened to this initial thread. I used to forget about the past 30 days thing myself--last year, I think I started 3 Brokeback Mountain threads because of that!
"...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
99-1100896887

Post by 99-1100896887 »

Was I whining? I don't think so. BUT the movie opens this week, and even if the last post was September, I know we are going to discuss it on this board, so it should be a present thread, shouldn't it?
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Last post Sept 13...that means it fell out of the default listing period of the last 30 days. Now you can stop whining. :p
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
99-1100896887

Post by 99-1100896887 »

I have been a huge fan of Guest and his talented ensemble since at least Waiting For Guffman, one of the truly comic films of the last ten years, IMO. We have all watched Catherine O'Hara perfom on Canadian TV for years, and it is very satifying to hear that some think her chances of a nom are good.

If you mean a Discussion Group get-together, why not a convention with some speakers and a couple of real stars?
Fred Willard would be terrifc.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Aceisgreat wrote:I'm ecstatic at the thought of Catherine O'Hara getting at least a nomination.

The Academy loves this kind of thing; Maggie Smith's performance (and subsequent nod/win) for California Suite certainly sets some kind of precedence for a nomination of this kind. An almost-too-good-too-pass-up opportunity for the Academy to reward the hilarious work of O'Hara over the years and show that it has a good sense of humor about itself, too (c'mon, they've got to do something drastic to recover from last year's, um, crash). Other films with Oscar-scenes that fared relatively well in nominations were A Star is Born, In and Out, etc.

(And might this be a good film for a UAADB get-together?)

I agree! New York?
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Aceisgreat
Temp
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 7:56 am

Post by Aceisgreat »

I'm ecstatic at the thought of Catherine O'Hara getting at least a nomination.
"I can't stand a naked light bulb any more than I can a rude remark or a vulgar action." -- Blanche DuBois
VanHelsing
Assistant
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 am
Contact:

Post by VanHelsing »

It seems that Parker Posey is being sidelined in this film. Kinda wasted cause I would like to see her work appreciated.
With a Southern accent...
"Don't you dare lie to me!" and...
"You threaten my congeniality, you threaten me!"

-------

"You shouldn't be doing what you're doing. The truth is enough!"
"Are you and Perry?" ... "Please, Nelle."
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Might this be... (pause)... a Best Picture contender??

Might it at least be the Toronto People's Choice award frontrunner?

(And might this be a good film for a UAADB get-together?)


For Your Consideration


By Michael Rechtshaffen
Hollywood Reporter


Having already taken on the worlds of musical theater, dog shows and folk music with devastatingly funny results, it was only a matter of time before Christopher Guest and his writing partner Eugene Levy would get around to sending up the Hollywood hype machine.

The outrageously hilarious "For Your Consideration" was well worth the wait. Again delivered with comic precision by Guest's crack repertory company, his patented brand of parody--call it gentle skewering--takes affectionate but deadly aim at its awards buzz mania target and the results aren't just funny, they're face-hurting funny.

Look for boxoffice results that could well top the $16-$17 million taken by "Best in Show" and "A Mighty Wind," especially if--dare we say it?--the picture should itself generate some of that nasty awards season buzz.

Certainly a major candidate would have to be the ever-brilliant Catherine O'Hara as Marilyn Hack, a perennially struggling actress who takes a role playing a dying Southern Jewish matriarch in the period indie melodrama, "Home for Purim."


Cast as the Pischer family patriarch is Victor Allan Miller (Harry Shearer), best known for his commercial appearances as a giant wiener, but now looking to hit the big time with lines like, "It's a dang mitzvah!"

Rounding out the family in this first feature by sitcom veteran Jay Berman (Guest with an Albert Einstein 'do), is the contrary daughter, played by Callie Webb (Parker Posey), a former stand-up comic whose widely panned one-woman show, "No Penis Intended," was dubbed "an unfunny romp" by one unamused critic; while the part of her enlisted brother is filled by Brian Chubb (Christopher Moynihan), who happens to be her real-life boyfriend.

But it looks like it's Marilyn's ship that is finally about to come in when an Internet rumor touts her performance as bona fide Academy Awards material and, in no time flat, that contagious Oscar fever becomes the talk of the town.

"Home for Purim" is suddenly on everybody's lips, including those of Chuck Porter (Fred Willard in an orange faux-hawk) and Cindy Martin (Jane Lynch), the unctuous hosts of "Entertainment Now."

All that attention is causing Sunfish Classics president Martin Gibb (Guest newbie Ricky Gervais) to consider making a few, not-so-subtle changes that would make the picture more commercial, much to the chagrin of screenwriters Lane Iverson (Michael McKean) and Philip Koontz (Bob Balaban).

By now, with most of the cast having worked together on Guest's three previous films, one only needs to see them pop on screen to start laughing, and that's especially true of Willard as well as Jennifer Coolidge as Whitney Taylor Brown, the film's producer and family diaper-service heiress, whose over-the-top wardrobe looks like it was raided from MGM's old costume department.

Forgoing their usual behind-the-scenes, mockumentary format, Guest and Levy (who plays Shearer's shallow agent) have opted for a straight-ahead narrative this time around, which manages to make room for an expanded cast of real characters.

They're all terrific, but at the end of the day this is O'Hara's show all the way. Watching her navigate her freshly plumped-up lips around her extreme makeover just prior to the arrival of nominations day, is alone worth the price of admission.

Not to get her hopes up or anything...
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

For Your Consideration

Allan Hunter in Toronto
Screendaily


Dir: Christopher Guest. US. 2006. 86mins.


The finest comedy stems from painfully truthful, accurate reflections of real life. That may explain why Christopher Guest’s sharply observed ensemble comedies have become such surefire guarantees of hilarity. For Your Consideration is no exception as it captures all the inanity and indignity of the Hollywood Oscar season.

Filled with quotable lines and performances to cherish, it should transform strong critical support into robust commercial returns after its world premiere at Toronto. Global fascination with the Oscars and familiarity with the campaigning hoopla suggests perky prospects in excess of any benchmarks set by recent Guest features like Best In Show (2000) and A Mighty Wind (2003). A constant delight that rarely falters, this is a little gem of a comedy that may face the ultimate irony of being an awards season contender in its own right especially in the screenplay category.

Dispensing with the faux documentary format that has distinguished much of his work, Guest stages For Your Consideration as a more straightforward narrative and may even gain a little comic purity in the process: now there is nothing false standing between us and the situation being explored.

He even dares to begin the film with a luscious clip from Warner Brothers classic Jezebel before capturing the making of low-budget independent feature Home For Purim and how a whiff of Oscar-buzz surrounding the performances distorts the lives of all those concerned.

Guest may be biting the hand that feeds but he does it with such affection and unerring precision that everyone will be able to share the joke. Period drama Home For Purim is only a slight distortion of the kind of worthy fare that occasionally leaves a mark on Oscar’s radar. The chipper publicist, boorish studio head and splendidly vacuous television entertainment show hosts are all figures that strike an immediate chord of recognition and are ripe for parody.

Expertly written by Guest and Eugene Levy, For Your Consideration is tightly focused and crisply edited combining the feel of improvisation without any of the self-indulgence that can sometimes accompany it.

The performances are universally fine with Fred Willard excelling as Entertainment Now TV anchor Chuck Porter, John Michael Higgins extracting all the laughs from gung-ho, dim-witted publicist Corey Taft and Catherine O’Hara relishing the vanities and insecurities of veteran actress Marilyn Hack, who is the first to hear of the internet buzz surrounding her performance. Her awards season transformation into a golden-tanned babe with flawless but immobile feline features and mountainous cleavage is wickedly funny.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Post Reply

Return to “2000 - 2007”