April 27, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
I believe Susan Sarandon was over 40 when she won for Dead Man Walking, a year after Lange won.
It’s interesting, though, I would have thought that the trend of voting for relatively younger actresses was a modern one, but the stats seem to prove otherwise. For some reason, though, it still feels like most of the last decade or so’s Best Actress winners feel kind of ingenue-ish and inexperienced.
Yeah…anyway. Mirren’s still got it sewn up, I’d say. She’s hot for 61. That’s all it takes.
“Diane Keaton
I’m trying to decide whether I should feel concerned or flattered that you just dug up a 374 day old piece of copy to refute a statement of relative current consensus. But then again, it’s insightful nonetheless, so maybe “thanks” is more the term I should be looking for. I should take a look at those charts again myself.
But really, an across-the-board knockout with critics that is likely to get a Best Picture nomination with a lead actress who won the SAG five years ago, lost the Oscar, had a big year on TV this year, etc., etc. I don’t know if any stat you dig up could really discredit all of that. Are you playing devil’s advocate here, or are you simply playing advocate?
I’m wondering why DP dug up a year-old Best Supporting Actress column when he could have just looked at his own more recent pronouncements about sure winners in other categories.
Please enlighten me, J Mc.
I just think it’s great news for Kate Winslet myself. New Line – don’t give up yet!
Come on, this is too obvious for me to need to remind you:
“There isn’t a bad performance in the movie. But the powerful surprise is Jennifer Hudson, who will be winning an Oscar this year, no matter what category they run her in.”
Well, Kate AND Penelope.
Kris, I wouldn’t be SO sure of Helen Mirren. Have you seen Notes on a Scandal yet? The Academy loves La Dench for good reason (she’s a solid actress) and she really knocks one out of the park with her least glamorous role ever. (And she gets naked, which I’ve found is almost a sure way to get an Oscar nomination for an actress as well… Charlize, Halle, etc.) The only thing working against Dench is that it’s a darker movie/role, but I do think her performance leaves a long impression because it’s her own character and she’s not playing someone else. (Though we also have learned that the Academy loves when actors play other people so there’s that going for MIrren.)
I don’t really think Dench can be considered in the same, er, field as Charlize and Halle when it comes to nudity on screen.
“Hilary Swank – 26 and 31”
*shudders* don’t remind us that she won that thing twice only five years apart, Dave.
btw, is anyone else sorta shocked that Casino Royale has a 95% RT/Cream of the Crop rating? But of course now everyone will be a hypocritical git and say it can’t be an awards contender because it’s Bond, yet The Departed can be. Odd. And I liked The Departed.
I’m not sure it’s hypocritical, just facing reality. Whether or not Casino Royale deserves it, there’s no way it’s going to be up for anything but technical awards, and probably not even those. How is it hypocritical?
Judi Dench naked? Hey, I am so THERE on opening day.
Kris told me, Edward, that he thought Best Actress was down to Dench or Mirren. He and I have long been discussing the veterans in this race, which is one of the things about it that makes it so refreshing and so unique. I don’t know where Poland is going with this but the whole point of this year is that it bucks a trend. And THANK GOD, for once.
Veterans across the board, incidentally – Eastwood and Scorsese, for starters. But Mirren and Dench — how cool is that? Dame vs. Dame. If Mirren doesn’t win I am going to break plates. I swear to god. Kris told me, Edward, that he thought Best Actress was down to Dench or Mirren. He and I have long been discussing the veterans in this race, which is one of the things about it that makes it so refreshing and so unique. I don’t know where Poland is going with this but the whole point of this year is that it bucks a trend. And THANK GOD, for once.
Veterans across the board, incidentally – Eastwood and Scorsese, for starters. But Mirren and Dench — how cool is that? Dame vs. Dame. If Mirren doesn’t win I am going to break plates. I swear to god. <---just the fact that I said that probably means she won't win.
p.s. Academy’s obvious homophobia will play in a Dench loss, imo.
I have yet to see either Dench or Mirren’s films, but I still think the one to beat is Meryl Streep… Aalthough I wouldn’t be upset if Penelope won :o)
Oy…
Someday people will understand that BBM lost because not enough people liked it/loved it, not because of The Academy’s homophobia. Funny how when those kind of assertions support a position one wants to take, they are real and yet, when there is no recent history of rewarding older actresses, it’s a thrilling trend-bucking.
“a statement of relative current consensus”
That is why they hate us.
When will people wake up to the reality that “current concensus” is about a handful of journalists and not about the people who will be voting.
I’m not saying that endless repetition of the same misleading statement can’t push a film or person into contention… but more often, it misses the mark. And fo course, everyone conveniently forgets what they were touting at the same time last year and the year before.
Of fucking course the current concensus is Mirren… great performance, great lady, great actress, and they haven’t seen all the contenders.
Similar to the Penelope Cruz bullshit. She may well end up in, but she’s not close to being a frontrunner and there is a very real chance she doesn’t make it. Same with Babel.
But the “relative current consensus” says…
I am wrong on many things… but listening to the “relative current consensus” is like listening to the wind… the back vagina wind.
P.S. I adore Notes on a Scandel… but it is Whatever Happened To Baby Jane redux, not high art. Dench is spectacular, but it’s the kind of role that wins a Supporting Oscar, not a lead.
And yes, J Mc… being that specific, you have a point.
But there are those performances. As brilliant as Mirren is this year (and almost every year), this is not one of those. Like last year, when Hoffman and Ledger were both giving that kind of performance, there is room for a race.
If Hudson doesn’t move to lead, it will only be because the powers that be believe she can win Supporting and not beat Mirren. I say winners are built on boldness, not running with the status quo. Even if Hudson lost to Mirren or Streep or Dench, I would prefer to see her and Knowles both nominated than to see just one nominated is Supporting.
And by the way… crazy for WB to stick Leo in Supp for Departed when he is the co-lead and his is not getting anywhere near a nomination for Blood Diamond and it is going to be rough to get two Supporting Actor nods for Departed.
You can fight nature in the awards season if you have a film like Last King of Scotland, where there is only one possible acting nomination across the board. Whitaker likely gets nominated in either category, though he has no shot at all of winning lead and by pushing lead, he might even get pushed out a nom if Watanabe becomes a contender for Iwo Jima.
Sigh…
But don’t mind me. I am questioning “relative current consensus.”
Oy, he said the ‘V’ word again! Stop saying Vagina!!! Argh. At least use the correct term: back pussy.
Go Helen!
If it does come down to Dench vs. Mirren, some will remember that Dench has already won, thus giving Mirren a sentiment edge.
“No woman should have two mink coats until every woman has one mink coat.”–ONE TWO THREE
Back pussy… sorry, BiP
“p.s. Academy’s obvious homophobia will play in a Dench loss, imo.”
I guess you’re forgetting Aileen Wournos’ love interest in Monster then 🙂 And as far as the race issue, can you get more difficult than the relationships in Monster’s Ball or Crash?
Oh, and before you all race out to see Notes for the nudity… you can’t really see anything. Dench is in a bathtub with very murky water…but maybe it’ll get the older men in the Academy excited 🙂
“but it is Whatever Happened To Baby Jane redux, not high art.”
BTW, I’m guessing you’re aware of Zoe Heller’s parentage?
BTW, David, what do you think of the supporting/lead thing in Notes re: Dench/Blanchett? After seeing it, I think it’s just as much about Blanchett’s character (or more) than Dench’s…but is it often where you can have two leads of the same gender put against each other? I thought that was a reason why they choose lead/supporting, though this one really could go either way.
Edward writes: I guess you’re forgetting Aileen Wournos’ love interest in Monster then 🙂
Sorry, you can’t compare the two. The hot Charlize Theron uglying herself up to give the single best performance of the year (like Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry) is very different from Judi Dench doing it. Men don’t mind gay sex between women as long as they can get hard while watching, thinking about or imagining it. Imagining Theron or Swank as lesbos isn’t difficult to take. If it’s good enough, you’re right, it won’t matter. If it is borderline, it could matter.
PS – also, actress is incredibly crowded this year, which is why I even brought up the homophobia thing – because if they’re looking for a reason to cut Dench, that might be one irrational one. Maybe not, though. Theron had no competition, really, and though people shocked by it, Swank was also the standout that year. This year, I think, it’s Mirren. But if Mirren and Streep go head to head, that could mean a third choice will sneak in, but it would probably be Penelope Cruz. I have to see the movie before I can say for sure either way and even then I might not know what I’m talking about.
Well, the lesbian element in Notes is very low-key compared to Boys Don’t Cry and Monster (but I can’t really say more without spoiling it)…and I don’t think any of those movies are really that titilating (okay, maybe Boys Don’t Cry has a few scenes that are)
I agree with you but I think the idea of Charlize having sex with a donkey wouldn’t put Academy voters off. Is Notes like The Talented Mr. Ripley? Because I thought that was such an underrated movie and the only reason I think it did poorly was because of the gay undertones. Matt Damon’s best perf.
I can’t imagine Streep having much of a chance given that she’s already won twice, plus her movie has to be seen as relatively lightweight material relative to most of the other contenders (although The Queen is hardly Masterpiece Theater itself).
Hm.. yeah, you could draw parallels with Ripley. I mean, it’s definitely a thriller in the vein of Fatal Attraction, though it’s a bit more high brow due to its cast and theatrical credentials of the director/writer. I think the movie should be an easy sell to mainstream America though…heck, we’ve had a number of similar teacher-student cases here so it’s timely in that sense.
ED: Yeah, I saw “Notes on a Scandal” some time ago, and as BiPed mentions, I’ve thought the race a fight between Mirren and Dench ever since. But Dave makes a good point about it being a stronger supporting turn than leading.
Dave: I don’t know if there is a “reality” to “wake up to,” first off. Maybe there is your reality. And then there’s the next guy’s. That’s trying too hard to strive for underlying “truth,” after all. However, “The Queen” and Mirren are not only critical faves at this juncture. I don’t have a DW reading yet, but up until now, a lot of the chatter from voters I’ve heard has been that Frears’ film and that performance is one of the highs of the year. Alongside critical gushing and a likely Best Pic mention for the film (as it seems to be shaping up), “realtive CURRENT concensus” isn’t a stretch by any means.
“everyone conveniently forgets what they were touting at the same time last year and the year before”
Hoping you’re including yourself here.
And did WB officially go supporting for Leo on Departed? That FYC site had his name absent last I checked.
BiPed: Not that I, or anyone, should be talking “Notes” too specifically right now, but the “lesbian” element of the film is so tuned down as to be nearly non-exsistent. Dench said that the character herself probably doesn’t even see it that way. It’s more a yearning for affection. She probably wouldn’t want to do more than scrub Blanchett’s back (as Dench puts it). Think “The Cable Guy.” A funny comparison, yeah. But applicable. The “lesbian” angle doesn’t exist, so it certainly won’t throw voters off.
(So weird calling you “BiPed,” by the way.)
Oh, and Dave, since you were nice enough to remind me of where my head was at last year regarding Keaton vs. Li, I thought I’d point out where your head was at with Keaton vs. Thurman:
“Keaton removes herself from Best Actress slot… kills awards buzz and perhaps the film’s box office chances. A Globes fave, but will have to top Thurman”
“If she gets beat by Keaton for the Globe, could knock her down a peg”
http://www.moviecitynews.com/columnists/poland/2005_oscar/051103_Actress.html
You know, jsut so there’s some balance on the table…
Then there was this, you know, since there’s concern about definitives:
“But after finally getting to watch the trailer in Hi-Def Quicktime a few times, I have very few doubts. Munich is a prohibitive frontrunner to win the Academy Award for Best Picture on March 5, 2006…At least this year, the soft sister that threatens [Spielberg’s] win is also a film he also happened to exec produce
Wow, I didn’t even remember that Uma Thurman was in a movie last year, much less seen as an awards-contender.
She wasn’t, J Mc. (ha ha)
Wasn’t trying to compete, Kris. Was just suggesting that conventional wisdom can be suspect… as it was last year. Of course, there is a big difference between having seen a film and getting that first wave of response – knives were out for Munich the night it first screened – and not.
Note that I made no such comment about Dreamgirls this week, though I do think it is your likely winner.
I guess we’ll see whether Todd McCarthy decides he needs to eviscerate this year’s Oscar frontrunner because it offends his sense of morality.
Knives were not out for Munich, quite the opposite but the movie was a mess and lifeless. That fucking scene killed it. It wasn’t an Oscar movie – it wasn’t its fault it got labeled as such. The game was an ugly beast back then for sure.
Knives were out for Munich from the instant Tony Kushner was hired, at least in that one particular arena, plus there’s the inevitable Spielberg backlash that he’s had to deal with since Jaws became a hit.
Yeah, I think the knives were out once it kind of missed the bar it had been aimed at the whole year long (subjective, of course). The flip side is this year, where the year-long “frontrunner” seems to have gone over as well as it needed to be, with plenty of “it lives up to expectations” stuff going around.
It’s almost refreshing for me that I haven’t seen “Dreamgirls” yet, I might add. I should see how long I can hold off…
JUst checked WB’s FYC site and this is how they’re listed:
“The Actors – Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson and Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Ray Winstone, Vera Farmiga, Anthony Anderson and Alec Baldwin ”
Vera Farmiga for Best Actor!!!
I’ll admit that I thought Uma was a lock for a best supporting actress last year… yes, even (and especially) after seeing the movie.
I think it’s safe to say that if I like or love a musical it won’t get nominated. If I hate it, it will win everything. I’ll let you know how that bodes for Dreamgirls when I get a chance to see it 🙂
I disagree completely; I wanted to see Munich do well. I love Spielberg and the sentiment I got was that it came out of love for him that his movie was suddenly the default frontrunner. But unfortunately, on paper it looked like an Oscar movie – in reality, it wasn’t. It was a brooding think piece, not best pic material; it was a miracle it was even nominated (bodes well for Flags).
The media knives were out for it the day the Time Magazine cover came out and no one else had an interview scheduled.
And just because you didn’t like the movie BiP, doesn’t mean it didn’t get and deserve a nomination.
The McCarthy kill review was not driven by the sex scene.
The TIME thing was a non-issue. Ditto McCarthy (imo). Even if you expertly control a release of a movie down to the letter it still has to face audiences. Most people don’t remember Road to Perdition’s road off Oscar. Their campaign was one of the best I have ever seen. The reviews were GREAT. But it hit theaters and boom. It was done.
Munich was atop many top ten lists and if it had been an Oscar movie (tearjerking drama) it would have delivered as promised.
I’ll never buy your line about Munich, Poland (Munich/Poland…sounds like a WWII drama). You’re extremely biased where Spielberg is concerned. 🙂
Well, one thing that worked so well for Munich was because it was held until late in the game, and as they say “last seen, best remembered”… this year, that’s the case with Letters from Iwo Jima, The Good Shepherd, Apocalypto, We Are Marshall and in some ways, Dreamgirls. Munich was kept a secret and they started doing screenings just before the NY/LA critics voted, and though it didn’t get much there (and missed out on the Globes), it was screened so much in December, that it was hard to overlook it. (Same goes for Million Dollar Baby, but I still contend that was a great film that deserved everything it got.)
Munich‘s first half was A-grade brilliance. It’s second half was embarassing lunacy (in my eyes). Shame really, cause if it were just a 70s inspired thriller it would’ve been spectacular. Meh, that’s gone now.
On the Uma thing, I kept thinking “Why was she a frontrunner for Prime?” and then I remembered she was in The Producers – and this is from someone who actually quite liked The Producers, but I thought she was the weakest.
I still say that if they want a second Best Supporting Actor nominee for The Departed, they should dump Wahlberg from their thoughts and focus on Martin Sheen. He’s old, he’s respected, he’s never been nominated before, he’s great in the role. He is very Alan Alda in The Aviator if you ask me.
“I can’t imagine Streep having much of a chance given that she’s already won twice,”
She hasn’t won in 23 years. And only one of her statues is Best Actress. She might as well be batting zero.
On Notes on a Scandel, the reason Dench is in lead and Blanchett supporting is because Blanchett also has The Good German for lead and they don’t wanna upset their chances.
The Academy doesn’t look at how long it’s been since you’ve won, they just look at who’s won and who hasn’t, and the fact that Mirren has never won while Streep and Dench have is probably a boost for her. (Mirren).
Well, Hilary Swank beat Annette Bening and Kate Winslet who had three noms each. They obviously don’t give a rats arse about time or previous wins.
It’s a factor, come on. It just isn’t the only factor.
Adding to the Oscar fun, I just received a FYC screener for Little Children…gives a bit more weight to a Kate Winslet nomination, screenplay, etc. (Patrick Wilson is in the lead category while Jackie Earle Haley and Noah Emmerich are supporting)
Patrick Wilson, no shot. Winslet was so good. But my favorite was Noah Emmerich. Too bad he isn’t get any buzz because he was just amazing.
Hilary Swank beat Bening and Winslet because her role in MDB role was considered to be clearly stronger than the others – Bening and Winslet have both been much better in other movies, but this was Swank’s career high.
That’s fairly comedic, BiPed. No one was more brutal about A.I., War of the Worlds, or Amistad. I was mixed negative on Schindler’s Freakin’ List, for God’s sake. Short memories. I always have “a thing” when it is a convenient way to cut into my ideas.
I’ve never been against Marty. I don’t need Dreamgirls to win to be fulfilled. Outside of some early reaches and inclusions to stir it up, my personal preferences rarely match any of my prognostications.
And your argument that the Time exclusive had nothing to do with the abuse is simply wrong, caused by your lack of daily participation with journalists. I was in the room. You were not. You can’t win that argument, sorry. It was all media people were talking about for weeks.
As for the argument about women and the vote… stunts win. I don’t believe that Nicole Kidman’s fake nose won her the Oscar. I think that is a shitty, disrespectful position. But aside from that, the last years were Sing, Fight, Fat, Fuck, Transvestite.
Does that make Mirren’s transformation the key? Hudson’s American Idol leap? Streep doing comedy? (Btw, not close to winning for career achievement… still seen as young-ish) Dench going Sapphic?
Just sayin…
How is it disrespectful to say that Kidman didn’t win for her fake nose, and then to boil down the other winners thusly? I mean, I think you’re essentially right, but…?
And I know she wore a lot of makeup and tight clothes, but I don’t think that made Erin Brockovich a tranny 🙂
The tranny would be Boys Don’t Cry… did I screw up and miss Erin?
I think that the nose was not enough to be a real stunt. I only think people who were looking to discount the performance argued that point. The others are all excellent performances as well. I don’t mean to dispute that. But they were also all extreme variations on expectations… as noted.
Fair enough, but now I’m not clear on what ‘extreme variations on expectations’ means. Oscar voters’ expectations? Is this just a technical way of saying ‘going ugly’ which is itself a defiance of expectations?
Jesus, I can’t believe I have to debate this with you again. You write:
“And your argument that the Time exclusive had nothing to do with the abuse is simply wrong, caused by your lack of daily participation with journalists. I was in the room. You were not. You can’t win that argument, sorry. It was all media people were talking about for weeks.”
Well, again you’re wrong. Just because you are engaging in a backpeddling, apologist clusterfuck with a bunch of people who think they know everything about the Oscar race because they’re talking to each other about it doesn’t mean Munich was ruined by it. In other words, I had a perspective that was removed from the clusterfuck, which is why I know that Munich was never going to win Best pic. It was cold; it fell apart in the third act and he chose to include a scene that reminded me of a really bad Kathryn Bigelow film (albeit a guilty pleasure) where Ron Silver had a frightening orgasm atop poor Jamie Lee Curtis. Bottom line, it didn’t work in that movie and it didn’t work in Munich.
But if it makes you feel better to believe that you and all of those journalists in the room who decide the fate of the Oscar race, go ahead. I’ve seen films overcome far worse than a bunch of journalists deciding that one publicity movie killed a movie. Titanic is one I can remember. But there have been others.
The bottom line: if the movie has the stuff, the movie has the stuff. Academy voters vote with their hearts. It was impossible to get the heart involved with Munich. It was an intellectual think piece and it almost works on that level.
If it had been GREAT Spielberg could have appeared as a judge on Dancing with the Stars and it wouldn’t have made a difference.
p.s. I know, Dancing with the Stars wasn’t around then. Just saying.
As for “current consensus” and the so called Hudson lock – check out the various critics choice for Best Supporting Actress – Blanchett is picking up quite a few – more than Hudson –
And yes – isn’t it grand to see exceptionally fine actresses like Dench, Mirren and Streep- without regard to the “hottie” factor – get applause for their fine performances – hope this is a trend!!!
As for “current consensus” and the so called Hudson lock – check out the various critics choice for Best Supporting Actress – Blanchett is picking up quite a few – more than Hudson –
And yes – isn’t it grand to see exceptionally fine actresses like Dench, Mirren and Streep- without regard to the “hottie” factor – get applause for their fine performances – hope this is a trend!!!
Critcs choices and Oscar don’t tend to match, Cob.
= they don’t matter.