2011 Seasonal Kickoff

[Okri]

I've been known to sing the title song every now and then. re: Passion - if I understand correctly, much of it's success has to do with the fact that the Broadway insiders wouldn't embrace Disney's entrance to the stage with Beauty and the Beast. Times change, eh?

Anyway, back to oscars. I guess I'm just not feeling very convinced about Albert Nobbs. That it's based on a play I've never heard of rankles a little (heh), but also the fact that Rodrigo Garcia's at the helm doesn't help. He's fine in television, generally - his work on Carnivale was great. But there's something about his film work that just doesn't work for me (though I note a number of trusted people, including dws if I remember, really admired his work with Bening in Mother and Child). I thought Nine Lives was a massive chore (that I didn't bother finishing).

How about Luc Besson's The Lady, about Aung San Suu Kyi. I can imagine critics marvelling at the visual similarities between Kyi and Michelle Yeoh. Of course, it could go the way of The Painted Veil (or Miss Potter, or....) , but I can see Yeoh getting some traction. Also, I like her, so I'm mentioning her here.

[Mister Tee]

Really? Don't think Donna Murphy in Passion would've made a race of it? Or Lea Salonga in Miss Saigon? I'll defer to your pov since you were there, but I wonder if the triumph was viewed so dramatically BECAUSE it was such a barren year (much like The Dark Knight in summer 08).

To be honest, I quite like Sunset Blvd. More than most of Lloyd Webber's stuff anyway.

Donna Murphy, actually -- and Passion itself -- is a better example of someone/thing that won because competition was low. I loved Murphy's performance, but the show was never embraced by the community, and something more populist might well have beaten her.

My recollection is that Close was immediately crowned queen when the show opened -- most people thinking her superior to those in earlier incarnations of the show. I'm not saying some all-time legendary performance might not have given her a run, but it was far from a case of "well, I guess there's nobody else".

I don't really recall that much about the show now -- the only songs I can remember are Glenn's two big numbers -- but I thought at the time it was fairly enjoyable, and that Billy Wilder/Charles Brackett should have got alot of the credit. The script is really BUILT.

[Okri]

Really? Don't think Donna Murphy in Passion would've made a race of it? Or Lea Salonga in Miss Saigon? I'll defer to your pov since you were there, but I wonder if the triumph was viewed so dramatically BECAUSE it was such a barren year (much like The Dark Knight in summer 08).

To be honest, I quite like Sunset Blvd. More than most of Lloyd Webber's stuff anyway.

[Mister Tee]

On Glenn Close: I'd say only two of her nominations (Garp and Liaisons) were slam-dunks; Fatal Attraction is an impressive performance hobbled by a bad film; and, though she wouldn't have been my choice from The Big Chill's cast, I don't consider her nomination there a bad one. The Natural, of course, is laughable.

For me, she deserved to win for Garp but got categoried out by Jessica Lange, and once someone has crossed that "should have won" threshhold I'm looking for a spot for him or her to win. Plus the cumulative weight of five nominations will make anyone seem due. Hell, I wouldn't have come close to voting for Jeff Bridges for any of his four earlier nominations, but, irrespective of what you thought of the picture, would anyone have doubted he was due by the time Crazy Heart came along?

My recollection of Close's Tony history is, she wasn't actually the favorite in '84 -- Kate Nelligan was anticipated to win for Moon for the Misbegotten -- but the enormous popularity of The Real Thing carried her and Christine Baranski along to wins. Death and the Maiden was a pure case of "there's nobody else/she's the biggest name". Sunset Boulevard, though -- I don't care how few musicals or nominees there were that season, it was viewed as an absolute triumph for Close. She'd have won against anyone you could have put up short of the ghost of Ethel Merman.

[OscarGuy]

The narratives I always caution against the most are the ones surrounding Best Actress. How many times now has Annette Bening been touted as the one to beat early on or one of the two lead competitors and ended up not even close to a win? I would argue that neither her nominations for Being Julia nor The Kids Are All Right were even in competition those years. Swank's main competition was not Bening, but Kate Winslet and Imelda Staunton, IMO. Bening would have ranked fourth in likelihood of winning. Last year, Bening might have been closer to a win with only Nicole Kidman really in competition were it not for Natalie Portman who showed up and dominated awards season.

The same can be said every time Meryl Streep gets talked up for her third Oscar. First it was Devil Wears Prada, but we knew Mirren was a foregone conclusion after her film opened. Then Doubt (the film she should have won for, IMO) when once again, Kate Winslet won her "deserved" first Oscar even if it was in a film that most people here hated. And of course Julie & Julia. Upon the arrival of Sandra Bullock on the scene, I knew the race was done no matter how many fans Meryl had.

Whether Close deserves a nomination or not, I can see her getting it if only for the fact that she plays a man. It's her first real shot at a nod in more than two decades I would say. The gimmick may well be enough to get her the nod and if not that, the fact that she's been struggling to get the film made will play well with the Academy. A win seems unlikely even if she were considered to be due, which I don't think she is. Streep's performance seems much more in the lines of Academy tastes. Based on a real character, the only thing that could hurt her is the fact that Margaret Thatcher was a miserable conservative who did her utmost to destroy the middle class while bolstering the wealthy (sound at all familiar?). Streep taking on the role seems a bit unusual, but it could be just enough to win her the third nomination, but let's not forget the PYT factor. Inevitably, a young actress rising in the world of film (or having already risen) more often than nots picks up the trophy even if she arrives late on the scene. So saying this race comes down to Streep vs. Close denies history and then slaps it in the face for good measure.

Jodie Foster won't win her third, but she could pick up a nomination for Carnage and Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn) and Elizabeth Olsen (Martha Marcy May Marlene) have very challenging roles that could fill in the spaces. And if that were the five-person line up, it would look like Streep had the distinct advantage, but history suggests Michelle Williams could clinch the win. Play a real life person, being a prominent young actress whose work in indie films has earned her a lot of respect and credit...it just seems like leaving anyone but Streep or Close out of the narrative would be ill-advised at the present.

[Okri]

The blogosphere has me rooting against Glenn Close (when did she become a great actress? Isn't it largely accepted that she deserved like only two of her nominations?)

The only nomination, as far as I know, that she is largely deemed undeserving of is the one for The Natural, but then there are those who believe she was snubbed for Reversal of fortune so it's kind of a draw, but there was always the expecttion that she would some day have an Oscar to go with her Tonys and now Emmys. Whether this is the year remains to be seen but it looks more and more like Sunset Boulevard will never be filmed, so this may be her last chance unlike Meryl Streep who could probably be nominated for reading the telephone directory to another actor.

What I find interesting, though, is if you look at her Tony wins, they come in years where there was very little on offer. Her win for Sunset Blvd came when there were literally four musicals on Broadway and only two with leading roles (only two nominations). Her second was during a mediocre Broadway year (most of the acclaimed leading ladies were off Broadway - Marvin's Room, Sight Unseen, etc and the big hit of the year - Friel's Dancing at Lughnasa, had only featured roles). Hell, her performance in The Real Thing was Tony worthy, history says, but only because she didn't face the Off Broadway ladies (that took the Drama Desk and Outer Critics circle).

I personally find her very overrated, so obviously, my personal bias skews my perception.

[Big Magilla]

The blogosphere has me rooting against Glenn Close (when did she become a great actress? Isn't it largely accepted that she deserved like only two of her nominations?)

The only nomination, as far as I know, that she is largely deemed undeserving of is the one for The Natural, but then there are those who believe she was snubbed for Reversal of fortune so it's kind of a draw, but there was always the expecttion that she would some day have an Oscar to go with her Tonys and now Emmys. Whether this is the year remains to be seen but it looks more and more like Sunset Boulevard will never be filmed, so this may be her last chance unlike Meryl Streep who could probably be nominated for reading the telephone directory to another actor.

[Okri]

I think what surprises me is just how blah this year has been. I think that this has been a ridiculously poor year for mainstream product does this one in. Flashing back to last year, we had Winter's Bone (released June 11), The Kids Are All Right (July 9), Inception (July 16) and Toy Story 3 (June 18) - between then, they took 12 above-the-title nods. I'd be really surprised to see August-and-earlier films match that or even come close.

I think all three plays are pretty average (God of Carnage, Farragut North-Ides of March, The Talking Cure/A Dangerous Method)- they certainly wouldn't be my choice to film. But then again, I also dislike Doubt and Proof, so what do I know? I really like the poster for Ides, though.

For all the fun the blogosphere has taken out of this, the one thing they don't seem to recognize is that those narratives they create aren't the actual narratives that AMPAS exists within. Remember in 2006 - it was gonna be Dreamgirls/O'Toole/Mirren stomping towards oscar. How often did we hear that the voting body felt bad for snubbing Nolan/The Dark Knight they were gonna make it up to him with Inception (I'd forgive that one if it wasn't repeatedly mentioned that those that made the changes weren't those that made the nominations, but whatever). The blogosphere has me rooting against Glenn Close (when did she become a great actress? Isn't it largely accepted that she deserved like only two of her nominations?)

I have to admit, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is high atop my own list of films I'm looking forward to. The title alone is pretty phenomenal, but that cast, the intriguing director, and the way they're selling it are all strong pluses - the out-of-date aspect you mention is probably one of the reasons I'm looking forward to it, actually (I was a big fan of AMC's Rubicon, before they went and cancelled it). And Coriolanus is probably my favourite non-GREAT Shakespeare play, so there's that.

Terrence Rattigan recently celebrated his centennial, so that helps vis-a-vis the royalities.

[Big Magilla]

Very good analysis, Tee.

I agree with most of what you say, but I had a hard enough time updating my predicitons for the main CinemaSight page, due to be published at the end of the month, that I haven't got the stamina to read the other Oscar sites let alone do an in-depth analysi,s but a couple of points:

I have the same sight-unseen feeling about War Horse that I had about Million Dollar Baby seven years ago and Titanic seven years beore that, so sight unseen, I tend to agree with whoever is proclaimning that it's the one to beat. The problem, however, is that as we have seen so many times over the last few years is tht the film that looks to be the front-runner before January often gets left in the dust so I wish they would find something else to champion. But what?

I have great hopes for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Although I both read and saw the TV version of Smiley's People I don't think I eve rgot through either version of the follow-up but Le Carre purportedly likes what they've done with it and so, he says, would Guinness. Although I have no idea who'll win the Best Actor trophy, a win, or at least a nomination for Gary Oldman in Guinness's old role would be sweet.

I think the Streep vs. Close thing is wishful thinking, but wishful thinking does on occasion come true. In their favor: everything else seems so blah.

The Beginners probably has no chance of being nominated for anything other than Supporting Actor, but Christopher Plummer is genereally regarded to be overdue and the only viable candidate we've seen thus far.

I don't know if The Help has staying power or what category Viola Davis will be positioned for. I haven't seen the film, but it's it's apparently one of those roles in an ensemble that could fairly go either way. Supporting Actress might easily win, as for lead Close and Streep dould cancel each other out, but if this is indeed a year for long time veterans (Oldman, Close or Streep and Plummer) then Vanessa Redgrave in Coriolanus would seem to be the one to beat for Supporting Actress.

[Mister Tee]

EW's Fall Preview issue has been on the stands a week, signalling serious Oscar season is about to get underway. I have to pronounce myself less than enthused by the prospect -- part of it lingering disappointment over last year's outcome, but also cumulative ennui. Over the past decade, thanks to the group-think indulged by the multitude of precursor squads, Oscar outcomes have become numbingly predictable, even foregone -- and what surprises there are (the Crash upset, the late King's Speech run, the Precious screenplay win over Up in the Air) always seem to be of the grisly variety. I have to search back most of a decade to find a result that caught me by surprise and made me happy. I still get pleasure out of re-arguing those races we deal with in our historical section...but I haven't got much enjoyment out of the show in recent times.

And glancing at the other Oscar blogger sites makes me fear we're in for another season of the same. People are already debating Should Viola Davis go lead? (as always, weighing advantage, not justice), touting War Horse -- unscreened, maybe unfinished -- as The One to Beat, and projecting a full slate of slumming major stars in the supporting categories. Hey, we all look ahead, make predictions/projections. But at this site, I think, we do it with a grain of salt, hoping for spontaneity down the line. At these other sites, people seem anxious to get things settled today -- as far as they're concerned, it's a Meryl Streep/Glenn Close best actress race and anything else is distraction. The industry that's grown up around the Oscars has done everything it can to drain all the fun out of the contest. The only thing they've failed at so far is their long-expressed wish to move the show to January -- which would be hell on us struggling-to-catch-up winter moviegoers, but fine for people who take screeners and screenings for granted. It's enough to make you want to give up before it starts.

But that, of course, is difficult for us hardcores to do. So, let's pretend this year will somehow be different; that the killjoys won't manage to take over the process; that interesting races will follow; that, above all, some films about which we're enthusiastic appear, to make us care. In short, in spite of everything, let's start thinking about this year's Oscars.

The first step is to deal with What We Know Already -- which as per August usual, is very little; perhaps even a bit less than usual, at least as regards the major categories (MovieWes could do a better job than I exploring the likely burgeoning craft slots). Only three films so far in release appear to have much hope of making a best picture list: Midnight in Paris, The Tree of Life, and, largely on audience response, The Help. I don't know that any of these would have made it under the old rule of five (though Midnight in Paris, apparently extremely popular with old-timers, might have squeaked in); I think all three would have been good bets under the recent rule of ten. The halfway/maybe six maybe eight system now in place remains untested, so it's hard to say anything definitive. But I certainly put all three in the strong-potential category, with directors Malick and Allen also quite possible for directing, and Allen for screenwriting. The list of performances is also short...I'd say Brad Pitt has a shot -- only that -- at a supporting actor nod for Tree of Life, if core enthusiasm for the film is high; Christopher Plummer is apparently possible for a mention for Beginners (though the film zipped through my neighborhood quickly, it's apparently done at least Winter's Bone-level box office); and both Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer of The Help, whatever categories they shoot for, are the most solid bets for nomination of any performers out there to date.

There's a phantom category as well: films that have been screened and/or extensively reviewed, enough that we know they're comers, but won't be sure of their degree of prominence till they hit the marketplace. The ones currently looking promising:

Sundance's Martha Marcy Mae Marlene, which many seem to feel will put the non-twin Olsen (Elizabeth) into the high-calibre best actress race, and possibly screenplay as well;

Also from Sundance, Like Crazy. It won the Grand Prize there, but I don't hear high expectations for it, beyond maybe a screenplay mention;

From Cannes, three films:

Drive, an intelligent but still high-octane action film that's part of Ryan Gosling's three-film parley this year. It's getting buzz for, of all people, Albert Brooks, whose last nomination was almost a quarter century ago. It remains to be seen if this has commercial appeal, or is the arthouse version of The Fast and the Furious, appealing to critics more than audiences;

We Need to Talk about Kevin -- which also sounds like it might be too arty, but has the great Tilda Swinton giving its central performance, and she might make the cut depending how the year goes;

And, the most touted by buzz-creators, The Artist, a silent French film about the end of the silent film era that sounds as if it'll hit the sweet spot -- unchallenging and entertaining enough to win over audiences, but with the silent factor enough of a gimmick to impress voters that they're seeing something special.

One more "out there but not yet really out there": the Hollywood trades and some bloggers are buzzing to high heaven right now about Warrior, another movie about the fight game, for which Tom Hardy and, especially, Nick Nolte in support are being heavily touted. I'm dubious about this because 1) it's Gavin O'Connor, whose films have never aroused much interest or art and 2) leading the cheering is Dave Poland, whose nearly unmatched record of backing the wrong horse would be challenged were this to break through. But it sounds like a movie with commercial appeal, and such films, with critical backing, can go a long way.

Of course, this list of "films about which we know something" is about to be expanded dramatically, as, starting next Wednesday and continuing over several weeks, a great number of films with Oscar hopes will premiere at Venice, Telluride and Toronto. Last year, these three festivals almost completely defined what became the Oscar race. When I opined, after Toronto was over, that under half a dozen films with serious Oscar potential remained to be seen (the films I cited were Secretariat, Love and Other Drugs, The Fighter, How Do You Know?, and True Grit), some folk here jumped all over me for being too quick to judge, claiming surely there was time for sleepers to still emerge. Well, in fact, it didn't happen. Only two of those still-unseen films I'd noted (The Fighter and True Grit) figured in the race, but, in spite of that, all the other top nominees came from films already either in release or screened at Sundance, Cannes or these big three. (You can go back and read my post if you doubt me) Now, I don't think the situation will be as dire this year. There's a far more extensive group of blue chip projects holding off for late-in-the-year screenings -- perhaps some not till Christmas (I'll get to them a bit further along). But I think we need to come to grips with the fact that there aren't much in the way of Oscar sleepers anymore -- or, perhaps put better, the sleepers always come out of the festivals. Sundance, Cannes and these Labor Day jamborees will turn up the surprises. Post-Toronto Fall is not a time to look for a left-field entry.

As to the movies we'll hear about over the next few weeks, they fall into roughly three categories.

First, the big-ticket items -- those that, for reasons of the creative talent involved, come in with high expectations among most serious moviegoers. These are the films for which the stakes are highest over this period: they will be publicly screened and given an instant yea-or-nay. If the latter, a film -- whatever its pedigree -- can become something of an orphan, losing the interest of critics and getting scratched off many people's lists as simply too low-priority in a crowded season. (There are people who believe the negative reaction Hereafter got at Toronto last year, and its subsequent weak commercial performance, is what's persuaded Clint Eastwood to keep J. Edgar under wraps longer this time around) If reaction is on the other hand highly positive, a film will immediately jump into serious Oscar contention.

Personal taste will to a degree decide which films belong on this list, as opposed to the lesser one I'll get to shortly. But here are the films I see as most promising up front:

The Ides of March -- Clooney's first serious directing effort since Good Night and Good Luck (I won't count Leatherheads). He's assembled an impressive cast -- Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giammatti, Marisa Tomei, with Ryan Gosling and Clooney himself heading the cast. The source material play sounds a bit pedestrian (is Okri familiar with it?), but apparently it's been somewhat reworked. This film will probably determine whether Gosling has a solid, successful year, or a breakthrough one.

A Dangerous Method -- Okri is, I believe, familiar with the play on which this is based, and considers it mediocre. Still, it's Cronenberg, Mortensen and Fassbender, a hard-to-resist combination

Contagion -- from commercials, it's a 15-years-later version of Outbreak. But Soderbergh plus that strong cast demands a certain amount of attention. At least one hopes it'll be an intelligent thriller.

Carnage-- Never saw the play, so I have no feel for whether this will work expanded for the screen. But it's got good actors and a world-class director, so we'll hope for the best.

Tinker Tailor Sailor Spy -- Never saw the Alec Guinness BBC version, and never read this particular LeCarre book. Good cast, but seems an odd, maybe out-of-date project for this day and age. I guess a whiff of Brideshead/why redo it? hangs over it for me.

Moneyball -- Michael Lewis' earlier, seemingly uncinematic non-fiction book yielded The Blind Side. We hope for better this time out. It's a talented cast, but, by me, Bennett Miller remains unproven as a director.

The Descendants -- Alexander Payne finally getting back to work after his Sideways breakthrough, this time with a big star (the busy George Clooney) aboard. A must for me, but I know there are those permanently skeptical of Payne's work.

The second group consists of films with promising elements behind them -- actors, directors, writers -- but not quite enough heat to make them automatic A-list. Their status can quickly change, of course, with enough critical zeal, as it did last year for Black Swan; it can also dissipate, as it did for The Way Back. Critical enthusiasm, if it's strong enough, can literally determine whether a particular film gets a release over the course of the Fall. Rabbit Hole, for instance, might never have made it into theatres without its reception at Toronto last year.

So, these films, too, have a great deal at stake. As I see it, they are:

Albert Nobbs -- The blogosphere already has Glenn Close inked in for her 6th, perhaps finally winning nomination. I'm agnostic on this. The material was thought to play well on stage, but that was decades ago. And it seems a rather wee project for the current environment

Shame -- Steve McQueen's followup to the much-admired Hunger, again with Michael Fassbender leading the way. From published stills, it might be too out-there for Oscar. But interest runs high.

Take This Waltz -- Sarah Polley's sophomore effort. Michele Williams is a plus; Seth Rogen and Sara Silverman are, for me, minuses.

50/50 -- This one actually has some people buzzing already. Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a guy diagnosed with cancer. His choices bespeak intelligence, though the presence of, again, Seth Rogen gives one pause

Rampart -- Oren Moverman's follow-up to The Messenger has a James Ellroy story, a bang-up cast, and that most untrustworthy of elements: solid but vague buzz (for Woody Harrelson, again). This is a prime candidate for "If critics love it, it'll get a December opening"

The Deep Blue Sea -- Terence Davies' first film in a decade, based on a play by Terence Rattigan (who, for a long-dead writer, generates alot of royalties), is said to have an exceptional Rachel Weisz performance. Another one we may not see this year unless the critics approve.

360 (Mereilles) -- Meirelles stumbled a bit with an admirable-but-not-quite-successful Blindness. He remains a director to watch, and he's assembled a pretty good bunch of actors, including the one who won an Oscar under his tutelage.

My Week With Marilyn -- A recreation of the filming of The Prince and the Showgirl. Buzz is literally all over the place -- "Branagh as Olivier steals the movie!"; "Branagh's nothing: Michele Williams is amazing!"; "Both actors and the picture stink". I'm anxious to see if any of these rumors pan out.

W.E. -- Madonna directing; Harvey Weinstein releasing. King's Speech-ish subject matter. Who knows what to expect.

And a couple of comeback hopefuls from directors long absent from the award scene: Damsels in Distress (Whit Stillman), Dark Horse (ToddSolondz), Killer Joe (William Friedkin), Twixt (Francis Ford Coppola).

And then there are the films that are by definition unidentifiable: the true sleepers; ones basically no one has on the radar but which win over audiences/critics to such a degree that they jump from obscurity to contention overnight. The King's Speech might have fallen into this category; I'd certainly argue Slumdog Millionaire did. And you can tell from those examples that, for this kind of film, the sky is the limit. But we'll have to simply wait and see if one or more emerges.

Happily, as I said earlier, the year will not be 90% over when these festivals are past. A greater number of big-time projects than usual are opting to bypass this tryout season and open cold later in the year. Not alot to buzz about them just now, but for the record, I'd say they include Scorsese's Hugo (formerly Hugo Cabret); the Cameron Crowe/Matt Damon collaboration We Bought a Zoo; Spielberg's one-two punch of War Horse and The Adventures of TinTin: Streep's delineation of The Iron Lady (directed, ominously, by Phyllida Law); The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (yeah, who needs an English-language version of this so soon? -- but I have to admit, the trailer had some truly striking images, reminding me that Fincher is one hell of a shooter); J. Edgar (Eastwood and DiCaprio together at last); Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (from unfortunate Oscar magnet Stephen Daldry); In the Land of Blood and Honey (Angelina Jolie's directing debut); and another Jason Reitman/Diablo Cody collaboration, Young Adult. Plenty to keep us interested into late Fall/early winter.

Okay...this has been my attempt to kick the board into high gear once again. Have at it.