Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:52 pm
by The Original BJ
Mister Tee wrote:I think dws makes a strong point, that something like the Philip Seymour Hoffman/Doubt nomination is an even darker sign for how corrupt the system has become. This was a part clearly considered lead at the Tonys, that had no issue with a competitor from the same film, but simply went for the fraudulent nod because it was felt it could be got. (And it's not as if Hoffman would have had no chance at the lead nod -- Richard Jenkins was hardly a juggernaut)
Agreed, though, to play devil's advocate, Keisha Castle-Hughes and Kate Winslet both serve as recent counter-examples -- clear leads that were wrongly campaigned, and even recognized by precursors in the Supporting category, but correctly slotted by Oscar. (And perhaps the failure of Dev Patel to be recognized at all, despite a supporting push, might be a counter-example as well.) It seems that SOME attempts at category fraud do fail, but why these cases did when so many others have succeeded is beyond me.
But I agree that Kids Are All Right will be a good test case for whether or not we've gotten to the point where anything goes.
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 2:50 pm
by Mister Tee
I think dws makes a strong point, that something like the Philip Seymour Hoffman/Doubt nomination is an even darker sign for how corrupt the system has become. This was a part clearly considered lead at the Tonys, that had no issue with a competitor from the same film, but simply went for the fraudulent nod because it was felt it could be got. (And it's not as if Hoffman would have had no chance at the lead nod -- Richard Jenkins was hardly a juggernaut)
I've been rather less militant about the shift to support in some cases that many around here have been -- I actively agreed with Blanchett/Notes on a Scandal (thought it was Dench's movie), and I could even see some rationale that the second half of Brokeback Mountain being centered on the Ledger character made an argument he was the sole lead (I'm not saying I agree with that, merely that I don't dismiss it like I would the latest Glenn Beck scandal). But Thelma and Louise, Midnight Cowboy, Terms of Endearment -- these are immutably equal parts, and I fear, like dws, that the push would have been on to move someone in each of those instances. And the Kids Are All Right seems quite clearly in that tradition, which is why it interests me as a test case.
Never Let Me Go is a wonderful novel, but its effectiveness rests on a very delicate sensibility which will be quite difficult to bring to the screen. Even the ad campaign, deciding how much or how little to give away, will play a role in how well it works. I'm neither sold nor un-sold on Romanek based on One Hour Photo; that earlier film wasn't anything much, but neither was it without promise. I do like the cast, even Knightley in a role which channels some of the annoyance I know alot of people have for her these days.
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:09 am
by flipp525
The Original BJ wrote:I would perfectly happy with an Oscar nomination for Mark Ruffalo, though he could miss for much the same reason he missed for You Can Count on Me a decade ago: he makes it look so easy.
We could see Ruffalo nominated next year for his lead role in The Normal Heart, the film adaptation of Larry Kramer's semi-autobiographical play about the early years of the AIDS epidemic and the creation of the Gay Men's Health Crisis. I was in this play in college. His role as Ned Weeks is certainly "awards-baity" enough.
Has there been any talk about Carey Mulligan yet for Never Let Me Go? From what I've seen of her in the trailer, it looks like an incredibly affecting performance. In fact, the entire movie looks pretty devastating, especially if you've read Ishiguro's novel and know where it's going.
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:39 am
by The Original BJ
I definitely want to write up a full review of The Kids Are All Right, but in response to some of the thoughts percolating here:
I don't think Little Miss Sunshine and Full Monty are appropriate comparisons. Kids Are All Right may be an adult crowd-pleaser -- it's pretty funny -- but it's also very poignant and has quite a bit of dramatic heft. I think a better recent comparison would actually be Sideways -- light compared to, say, The Hurt Locker, but certainly not thin or forgettable.
I would perfectly happy with an Oscar nomination for Mark Ruffalo, though he could miss for much the same reason he missed for You Can Count on Me a decade ago: he makes it look so easy.
Over the last few years there have been a lot of dumb reasons why lead actors have been nominated in support. But even THOSE lame excuses can't really be used with Bening and Moore in this film. Neither actor has a slightly larger role than the other. Neither actor has a more dominant character. And both actors are, status-wise, full-blown leading ladies. To nominate one in support would be as ridiculous as demoting Thelma or Louise to Supporting Actress when the whole film is about them as a pair.
As for whether the film will continue to make money as it expands, I have no idea. I will say that I think anyone who has ever had a family will find so much to relate to in this film -- so much to laugh at, so much to tear up over -- that I hope its audience-pleasing aspects hold universal appeal. (And it's certainly not an inaccessible movie aesthetically.) But that's a topic that I hope to discuss in more detail later.
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 3:05 pm
by dws1982
Mister Tee wrote:Your take on the relative size of Bening/Moore's performances matches everything I've heard, which is why I've thought since Sundance that we're going to get an acid test of how corrupt the nominating system can become.
I think that if Amadeus came out today, we'd see one of the actors in Lead and one in Support. Probably the same with Thelma and Louise. I wouldn't be surprised if we never see two Best Actress or Best actor nominees from the same movie again. Even movies with leads of different genders are often putting one in Support because a supporting nomination seems like an easier "get" (see Doubt and The Last Station).
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:55 pm
by Mister Tee
Sabin wrote:it seems like a very modest, cuddly film and might just be remembered warmly and fall through the cracks.
Of course, that would also describe The Full Monty or Little Miss Sunshine. There's actually a segment of Oscar voters who PREFER warm and cuddly, certainly to anything visionary or cutting edge.
On the general matter, I'm in complete agreement: studios have abandoned the grown-up audience for way too much of the summer. It's as if the only sort of counter-programming they believe in for the whole season is something for teenage boys/something for teenage girls. The outsize success of a few documentaries in summer -- Fahrenheit 9/11 and Inconvenient Truth -- seemed to me largely based on adults starved for something halfway intelligent turning out in droves. The Kids Are All Right might be the first serious attempt in years to bring in that audience with a dramatic film.
Of course, everybody at the studios will rejoinder with, look what happened to Cinderella Man -- not allowing for the possibility it failed because many grown-ups found it a hokey bore.
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:33 pm
by Sabin
I think a summer release is a great idea. Every day my parents call me and ask what they should go and see. There's nothing! There is nothing for parents out there! This movie will change that. It has Little Miss Sunshine underdog status but with a strong My Big Fat Greek Wedding appeal for parents and grandparents. They're doing a good job of making the one sheet even look like summer.
I think it's far too soon to speculate its Oscar chances if it even has any beyond the Indie Spirits but Cholondenko started as a strong independent female voice in the 90's like Tamra Jenkins did with Slums of Beverly Hills and that translated to an Oscar nom for The Savages. It all depends on the rest of the year. Focus is behind it so it's certainly in the cards, but it seems like a very modest, cuddly film and might just be remembered warmly and fall through the cracks.
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:31 pm
by OscarGuy
There are exceptions always, but the general nature of releasing in July often suggests a release that producers don't think they have film that can withstand the Oscar season. Even June, August and September are poor months to release Oscar bait...it would be nice if that weren't the case, allowing us to spread the good across the bad, but that's not usually the case as it is.
I have a question for those who've seen it or read reviews (I try not to dilute my own opinion of a film by reading reviews beforehand), has there been any talk about Mark Ruffalo? He's the kind of actor I've always liked (like Paul Rudd) that never seems to get the attention he should be. Just curious.
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:23 pm
by Mister Tee
The Original BJ wrote:I think a lot of the discussion about Bening being "overdue" for an Oscar is a direct product of the media's infatuation with the Bening vs. Swank smackdowns, which have effectively managed to paint Bening as the big loser in her last two races. (Never mind that Hilary Swank was clearly better -- and scored significantly stronger reviews -- in both cases.)
And, after having seen The Kids Are All Right, I would say that a supporting nomination for either Bening or Moore could contend for the worst case of Lead in Support category fraud ever. Sometimes I feel like a broken record on this issue, but there has to be SOME limit to this nonsense, right? Or are we at the point where just about anything can be considered a supporting performance?
Also never mind the fact that the idea of Bening running even second in '04 is absurd, given that Staunton won at least a share of every major critics' best actress award, and Winslet was viewed as far more overdue for a more widely seen film.
Your take on the relative size of Bening/Moore's performances matches everything I've heard, which is why I've thought since Sundance that we're going to get an acid test of how corrupt the nominating system can become. You really ought to look at some of the commenters at Awards Daily -- people are actually accusing those who say Moore should be a lead or nothing of being contemptuous of the supporting designation. Getting the slotting RIGHT doesn't even seem to cross their minds as an issue.
Anyway, we're definitely going to see this play out, as the film opened even bigger than I imagined -- per screen average over $70,000. I can't remember the last limited indie to open that well. Now, it's possible the film's initial gross is boosted by gay-friendly audiences -- Milk, recall, opened to huge numbers but faded fairly quickly, suggesting that highly-praised gay-centered films have a significant advantage in big cities but an equal disadvantage when the film hits outlying areas. In that vein, BJ, I'll be interested in your take, whether this is a film that gay audiences alone will love, or if it's got a universal enough vibe to cross over.
And, Oscar Guy, I don't know why this release date bugs you so much. Little Miss Sunshine opened just a few weeks later and obviously had a major Oscar run. Is the dfference between July and August so extreme?
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:24 am
by The Original BJ
I think a lot of the discussion about Bening being "overdue" for an Oscar is a direct product of the media's infatuation with the Bening vs. Swank smackdowns, which have effectively managed to paint Bening as the big loser in her last two races. (Never mind that Hilary Swank was clearly better -- and scored significantly stronger reviews -- in both cases.)
And, after having seen The Kids Are All Right, I would say that a supporting nomination for either Bening or Moore could contend for the worst case of Lead in Support category fraud ever. Sometimes I feel like a broken record on this issue, but there has to be SOME limit to this nonsense, right? Or are we at the point where just about anything can be considered a supporting performance?
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:47 pm
by Damien
I think that generally Annette Bening is considered a talented actress who seems like a reasonably nice person, but she's certainly not a gay icon - she's probably too subdued for that -- although I seem to remember that Tom O'Neil has a thing for her (or maybe like Penelope he just doesn't like Hilary Swank). I think that Bening is still first and foremost thought of as the woman who finally tied down Warren Beatty, although these days no one seems that interested in Beatty. SO I can't answer why anyone would think that her being Oscar-less is worse than Pfeiffer, Close et al, not to mention Barbara Stanwyck, Irene Dunne, Deborah Kerr, Jean Arthur, etc.
I would say that Moore is more respected as an actress than Bening mostly because she takes riskier, more interesting projects.
=====================
I think Toy Story 3 is a lock for a Best Picture nomination, and would be even if there were still only 5 nominees.
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:55 pm
by ITALIANO
Mister Tee wrote:this site has its share of gay representation
Well, yes, I don't think anyone can disagree with this statement...
I don't think that, even in America, Bening is a gay icon -unless she's now become one because of her daughter's personal life. But I always felt that Moore - while justly appreciated on this board - isn't exactly loved in the US; Bening may be more popular there (in Europe it's the opposite).
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:04 am
by Sonic Youth
OscarGuy wrote:The Kids Are All Right is definitely getting better notices than I expected. I still can't believe they released it in July. Can it really be remembered for that long?
If Bening and/or Moore is remembered by the time of nominations, then the film will be as well. It looks like one of those films, like "Capote", that ride on the performers coattails. And if it isn't nominated but the performers are, we can't blame faulty memory on that.
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:59 am
by Big Magilla
Reza wrote:Sacha and Tapley's sites. How do I get there?
Awards Daily and In Contention.
I occasionally go to them for news but not to read the comments by readers which are often as bad as those at Tom O'Neill's site.
I refuse to get pumped up over whether or not Julianne Moore should be shoehorned into in the Supporting Actress category or not. I haven't seen the film.
The whole thing is laughable anyway. I thought the same people who think Bening is overdue for an Oscar also think Moore is overdue for one.
From her billing and what I've read about the film Moore is the co-lead along with Bening, but Bening's reviews are stronger. Moore could be nominated in lead, but if the year ends up with a number of strong contenders she could be left out. Even if nominated in support and Bening wins as lead, it doesn't necessarily follow that Moore would be the winner in Support, though that is possible.
If the two are nominated in the same category, Bening could still win but her chances would be somewhat diminished by the general reluctance to award one performer in a category over a co-star though that does happen on occasion. In any event, it's really too early to speculate.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1278770397
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:30 am
by Reza
Sacha and Tapley's sites. How do I get there?