MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

20 Weeks To Oscar 3

It’s amazing during this time how many movies go from 0 to 50 or from 50 to 0 in 3 seconds flat. This is that time when every movie “screened great for the Academy” or was ” a disaster at the Academy” or there are “problems in post” or “they are withholding it because they can and want to build tension” or “no one saw it” or “they are showing it to people.” Lies will be told and apologized for. Truths will be discounted and then seem too obvious to have doubted.
More & Charts…

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Responses to “20 Weeks To Oscar 3”

  1. James Leer says:

    re: Brokeback Mountain, you write:
    “Focus seems to want to pretend that it’s not a gay film.”
    How is that the case? The trailer seems pretty clear to me.

  2. James Leer says:

    Also, I think the int’l poster for “Munich” has a “based on” credit, so that should probably go in Adapted now.

  3. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I still say the ads for Crash are touting Cheadle as Lead and if they’re gonna nominate anyone from Crash it’ll be Dillon. Then Thandie Newton.
    I think Howard has a very real possibility though at being nominated. Reason? Don Cheadle. Will Smith. Denzel Washington. etc. There’s no other African-American possibilities in any of the acting categories except Thandie. They like to appear racially tolerant these days. And apart from the chick from The New World and the Geisha’s girls there’s no non-caucasion people around.
    How exactly are Focus pretending Brokeback Mountain isn’t a gay film? By not showing Heath and Jake making out in the ads?
    But, it works for musicals that aren’t advertised as musicals….

  4. The Premadator says:

    For a pretty solid year at the movies the best pictures aren’t really shaping up.
    – If “Geisha” makes the impact the book did, Gong Li is going to be the one to watch.
    – “Syriana” has an unproven director but the right kind of politics. But if it has a strong Benicio Del Toro moral center, it could break the niche.
    – “Munich” is anybody’s guess. It doesn’t seem like anything the director has done before so it could be one of those “rewriting the book” pictures we get every 8 or 9 years from Spielberg. Fingers crossed.
    – “The Producers” won’t offer much to anyone who didn’t see it on the stage. Sorry DP but the trailer ain’t selling it (and I’m a Mel Brooks maniac).
    – “King Kong” doesn’t really aspire to win an Oscar does it?
    – “The New World” which will live or die by how well Malick can keep his head and camera (and our attention) out of the clouds.

  5. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    But in a year that’s as “lacklustre” and “slow”, or whatever people are saying, for movies, is it so hard to believe the Academy will fall for The Producers? I mean it could easily not, but I think it’s god as good a chance as some of the ones people are touting (Capote for Best Picture and Director for instance. That seems like a classic “only Best Actor nomination” movie to me). You said it won’t offer much to anyone who didn’t see it on stage… but, ummm, a lot of people saw it on stage.
    I’m sure King Kong aspires to win technical Oscars.
    I either want Munich to be really good or really bad. If it’s really good then that’s swell. And if it’s really bad then maybe Spielberg will stop belting out films so much, settle down, have a rest and get some great original ideas flowing. But, yes, if Munich is really good then that’ll be even more exciting!

  6. EDouglas says:

    Saw “The Libertine” last night…great performances from Depp and Morton and Malkovich…but the production and direction are terrible….it looks like a Dogme film and there are a lot of really bad decisions in terms of camerawork, music, lighting (looks like they only used natural light!)…it was really disconcerting as I think it’s an interesting story/script and the acting was great, but it was really hard to get into it otherwise.

  7. PetalumaFilms says:

    I was just thinking how it was funny JARHEAD, ELIZABETHTOWN and PROOF have just slipped away from the Oscar pre-nom charts. I guess that’s what you get for prognasticating a movie’s success based on who’s involved in it before it comes out.

  8. BluStealer says:

    After seeing Crash I don’t think it has any shot of any awards. It was a movie of the week.

  9. joefitz84 says:

    Anyone that thinks Syriana is an SOcar contender should go out and rent Abandon. And then you will know why no one thinks that way.

  10. Bruce says:

    It is hard work rating films as award winners months before they come out or even screen. They’re getting burnt left and right by accomplished directors. An award winning resume is no lock to have another award winning movie.

  11. EDouglas says:

    Jarhead’s off the chart? I’ve seen it and I think it could get some nominations.
    And to compare Syriana to Abandon is insane…it’s George Clooney vs. Katie Holmes and a far different subject matter.

  12. Joe Leydon says:

    To repeat what I said here months ago: Matt Dillon will get an Oscar nomination for “Crash.”

  13. Paul8148 says:

    For want is worth Kris is reporting over at the oscarwatch boards that Keaton and Parker might flip with Keaton going Supporting now and Parker lead. I guess with they going to go with the supporting parents route and try to get Keaton in (a lock for sure now if true) and bring along Nelson too?

  14. Sanchez says:

    I’d take that Matt Dillon bet. Kevin Dillon has a better shot at an emmy.

  15. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    “It was a movie of the week.”
    if the week extended for about half the year though. Crash is STILL being talked about, which if nothing else means it should at least still be considered. A screenplay nomination is at least very VERY possible, if not a lock. I hate saying anything is a lock, but it does seem like it will happen. Even if it gets nothing else. However, I think at this stage it will.
    If Keaton goes supporting then I’m thinking she’ll be good for the WIN. They love Keaton so it’d make sense.
    The main thing that is disappointing about this Oscar season is the zero amount of foreign possibilities. In the last few years we’ve had such Oscar-nominated movies like City of God, A Very Long Engagement, House of Flying Daggers, Motorcycle Diaries, Talk To Her, etc… this year? None. Even if it were elligible, Bruno Ganz wouldn’t even be considered for Downfall.

  16. LesterFreed says:

    It’s only being talked about bya few and thats people plugging Matt Dillon and such. As a black man I don’t need white men guilt being portrayed as talking about race.

  17. Stella's Boy says:

    I watched Crash again about a week ago. A friend really wanted to see it. The cast is exceptional and a few of the performances are excellent, but its flaws are even more glaring the second time around. Too many characters are one-dimensional, it gets way too preachy, there are too many coincidences, and too much of it seems really simplistic. I just don’t think it’s all that good.

  18. Bruce says:

    Stella’s Boy is right. Its decent. Not even close to Oscar worthy.

  19. Angelus21 says:

    Crash=No chance

  20. PandaBear says:

    Jarhead is already done. The noncontenders are falling by the wayside.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    Jarhead hasn’t even been released yet and it’s already done? Jeez.

  22. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    But what I’m saying is that in a year such as this where movies such as Jarhead are apparently over and done with before they’ve even been released, can you really count out a movie that still has people talking and is still getting buzz.
    “It’s only being talked about bya few and thats people plugging Matt Dillon and such. As a black man I don’t need white men guilt being portrayed as talking about race.”
    What you forget is that a large portion of the Academy are white men.
    The movie feels important, which could see it get something. It’s definitely on course for a screenplay nomination and I thought that was pretty much accepted by oscar watchers.

  23. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, just because it’s a bad movie doesn’t mean it can’t be an Oscar contender.

  24. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I think we’ve seen that happen many atime, non?

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon