MCN Columnists
Other Voices

By Other Voices voices@moviecitynews.com

Posted Tuesday, January 24th, 2006 - Comments Off on For Your Consideration
Be Sociable, Share!

For Your Consideration

Those three words ring loud and clear during the busy months of any given Oscar season. I decided to hold this column until the week following the closing of polls (three days ago). While this column can’t, therefore, be considered a “for your consideration” list at this juncture, at the very least these are the films of considerable note (with a fighting chance to begin with) that I hope to see recognized by the AMPAS when the nominations are announced in six days:
BATMAN BEGINS

Christopher Nolan and David Goyer’s re-imagining of the Dark Knight (please work that moniker into the sequel’s title, guys) was one of the most exhilarating cinematic experiences of 2005. A slow acceptance of the comic book genre in multiple nominations for films like Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Road to Perdition and, quite possibly, A History of Violence, is all the evidence we need that the Academy is beginning to see past any prejudices, and is grasping the potent stories that can lurk within the pages of what could be disregarded as mere “pulp.” That is good news.

Batman Begins has already been recognized by the Art Directors Guild, the Costume Designers Guild and, most surprisingly, the American Society of Cinematographers. It was also nicely represented with a few BAFTA nominations. I’ve come across a number of interviews with actors who have openly expressed love for the film – all of them dying to work with Nolan at this point, it seems. The studio’s Oscar campaign has been one of the most creative and smart campaigns of the year – not a single FYC ad containing an image ofBatman, centering the film on character and story above style and panache. And Warner Bros., on the whole, has been having a great year, becoming the first studio to ever have three films cross the $200 million mark.

Now, it doesn’t seem to me that wishful thinking plays into this scenario, as Batman Beginshas been played correctly from day one – a fighting chance indeed. Let’s hope the film can garner more than the likely technical nominations (Art Direction, Cinematography, Film Editing and Sound being the best bets) and perhaps push into Best Adapted Screenplay or even Best Director territory.

(And let me also say the “rule” that has apparently disqualified the fantastic original score fromJames Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer, due to two credited composers, needs to be changed immediately. What an embarrassment.)


THE FAMILY STONE

It really was sad to see The Family Stone go nowhere near where it belonged this year. Flimsy scheduling, poor precursor support and steady critical disregard truly damaged the ship. Thomas Bezucha’s sophomore effort was wonderfully realized and beautiful from start to finish. The anticipation now is that the film can perhaps find a home on DVD in holiday gatherings as the years tick by, but as far as 2005 is concerned, the situation has become dire.

That said, there have been sparks of hope. Sarah Jessica Parker received something of a surprise nomination from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association for Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical. And though they recognize EVERYTHING, the Golden Satellites saw fit to nominate two of the best performances of the year – Diane Keaton and Craig T. Nelson.

The film’s only other precursor mention was an Association of Cinema Editors nomination for Best Edited Film – Comedy or Musical. The overall awards campaign, however, has been painfully vague and a complete wash. But one retains hope that Bezucha’s fine screenplay or Keaton’s understated and underrated performance, can find the slightest bit of breathing room amongst the year’s nominees. I never got much of a reading on what the Academy thought of the film, but the rather apparent lack of chatter speaks louder than anything else. Fingers crossed regardless.
HUSTLE & FLOW

Back to campaigns that have hit it out of the park, we have the work the still-surviving team at Paramount Classics, with an assist from the Dart Group, have done on Craig Brewer’sHustle & Flow. I’ve seen Terrence Howard so many times this year I feel like I know the guy personally. He’s hungry, he wants it and he obviously has no problem going out and getting the job done. Only New Line and the strategic pimping of David Cronenberg comes close this year.

Howard’s performance is, in this viewer’s opinion, the single greatest acting achievement of the decade thus far. It transcends so much with such an overwhelming amount of ease that it still pains me to believe the Academy will likely fail to notice. However, the print campaign has been equally stunning and vibrant. A Golden Globe nomination for Howard, along with a SAG Ensemble nomination for the film’s cast (well done there) prove that there is a staggering amount of love lurking for this film. Will Smith is out there lobbying, and when big names speak up on things like this, the congregation pays attention. You think Harrison Ford andJack Nicholson didn’t have a little something to do with Roman Polanski’s Best Director win in 2002?

Beyond Howard’s stellar performance, though, I think it is clear that Brewer deserves double-dipping honors for his spectacular screenplay and his directorial handling of it. Any peripheral mentions for standouts like Taryn Manning or the exquisite sound design would be welcome company for the already likely Best Original Song nomination (a nomination that should go to “It’s Hard Out Here For a Pimp” rather than “Hustle & Flow,” in my humble opinion).

I don’t pretend to have any real influence over things like the polling of a 6,000 member body of people. While I’m certainly willing to speak up on what I think deserves recognition year in and year out, I don’t believe myself to be a real advocate. I’m not holding luncheons with screenings of any of the above-mentioned films, that’s for certain. I simply have a fondness for a few productions this year, as you do or the next guy, and when I open my weary eyes at five o’clock next Monday morning, I’ll be hoping and wishing that a bone is tossed their way and mine.

As will you, I’m quite sure. Good luck to you and yours. I’ll be back in one week with a reaction to the nominations.

January 25, 2006

E-mail Kris Tapley
Visit Kris’ blog. In Contention

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments Off on For Your Consideration

Comments are closed.

Voices

Comments Most Recent Archives

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