MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

The Day After Globes

So… Slumdog wins again.
The real question emerging from last night’s Golden Globes is whether the second smackdown – 1 short of a category sweep at both HFPA and BFCA – means that the other likely Best Picture competitors – Universal, Focus, WB, and Paramount – will stand down with severely decreased budgets for Phase II, which starts with nominations on January 22.
This may not mean much to you as a civilian, but how it translates is much as it translated back in 2006, when Crash just kept pushing, while Brokeback Mountain laid back and assumed the winner’s position after wining the Globes and Crash not even being nominated for Globes, while Capote, Good Night, And Good Luck, and Munich went into “just happy to be invited” mode.
Who won? The one that kept pushing.
That doesn’t mean that this year’s Best Picture Oscar is settled or that it is, in some of these cases, still in real play. But the fight is over if, for instance, the parents at GE decide that the next $30 million spent pushing Frost/Nixon is just too much and that they need to just focus on the commercial play… or if Paramount looks at Benjamin Button being, pleasurably and surprisingly capable of being money maker and choose not to chase Best Picture to the tune of $10 million or $20 million more than just running on fumes would cost, perhaps pushing the whole film back into the red… or if The Dark Knight realizes that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars didn’t win and that they should be thrilled to deal to be nominated and let Heath’s inevitable win represent… or that Milk is modestly commercial as a movie and Focus needs to keep its finances tight in this marketplace, making a big run at Best Picture too pricey to do and lose when they are so far from the chance of a win.
It’s business over art, yes. But it will also shape the last month of the race.
There are fights to be fought on a smaller scale. Sally Hawkins is the one real surprise at The Globes that could convert at The Oscars. Best Actress is an open race. Harvey Weinstein will have to spend very carefully, but Kate Winslet could well win Supporting Actress for the lead role in The Reader if publicized right. Searchlight will now keep the pressure on for a Mickey win. And the battle for the effects and make-up and design Oscars between Dark Knight and Ben Button will be fierce (you can wave your arm in the air and snap when you read that if you like).
A kinder, gentler award season comes from all this agreement. And I can start really enjoying it again. All from a slumdog.
Of course, the biggest problem is, what will journos have to write about for the next six weeks?

Be Sociable, Share!

75 Responses to “The Day After Globes”

  1. Joe Leydon says:

    What will journos have to write about for the next six weeks? That’s easy: What film can possibly beat Slumdog Millionaire for Best Picture? (Also, expect the occasional “Does Slumdog Millionaire signal the arrival of an Obama-esque multi-cultural cinema?” essay.)

  2. I think Heath will win an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, it would be a proper “final goodbye” tribute for him. His performance as the Joker was just… wow.
    I don’t think Kate Winslet will win this year. She might get beaten by Sally Hawkins (that is, if both get nominated).
    I’m rooting for Slumdog to sweep the Oscars!!!

  3. LYT says:

    Ben Button does have better effects than Dark Knight. But Transformers also had way better effects than Golden Compass.
    And indeed, Raiders and Star Wars never won Best Picture…but freakin’ Gladiator did.

  4. “expect the occasional “Does Slumdog Millionaire signal the arrival of an Obama-esque multi-cultural cinema?” essay”
    Hah! You said that right… after Halle Berry and Denzel Washington won a few years ago, everyone said it would mark the end of white actors dominating the Oscars… yet nothing has changed that much.

  5. Ugh…Winslet is just not a lead in “The Reader.” Funny how that falsehood has become “the knowledge.”

  6. harosa says:

    Glad Slumdog is making its way to the Oscars, but has it been discussed why no actors from Slumdog were nominated? Were they pushed or did the studio not even bother?

  7. jeffmcm says:

    As happy as I am for Hawkins winning, I would think that a double win for Winslet means that voters are champing to give her an Oscar. Obviously the HFPA and the Academy aren’t the same group of voters, but still…

  8. EOTW says:

    Ah, smug, liberal, white guilt. Thy name is CRASH.

  9. Harley says:

    Quickly re Rourke. One assumes he worked the HFPA members 24/7, had his picture taken with every single one of them, and basically received the Globe in exchange for all that work. If only due to the fact that Penn did absolutely none of that, and didn’t even bother to show up for the awards.
    Given that, does this still make Rourke the Oscar favorite?

  10. LYT says:

    “(Also, expect the occasional “Does Slumdog Millionaire signal the arrival of an Obama-esque multi-cultural cinema?” essay.) ”
    No sooner said than done. Check out MCN’s main page for a link.

  11. Nick Rogers says:

    harosa: The screener I have pushes for Dev Patel and Freida Pinto on the packaging. Other than those two, I really don’t know who they’d push.

  12. harosa says:

    I think the guy playing the host of the game show was fantastic, more screen time than others who’ve won supporting.

  13. Hopscotch says:

    I still think Penn is the favorite, over Rourke. Penn’s the blow-hardiest blow-hard that ever blew smoke. But, it’s a great performance thats a) based on a real person, b) gay, c) dies d) very sympathetic. Done and doner.
    Winslet will win for “The Reader”… Best Actress is anyone’s guess.

  14. “I think the guy playing the host of the game show was fantastic, more screen time than others who’ve won supporting.”
    Um yeah, his name is Anil Kapoor and he’s one of the biggest Bollywood stars in the world…

  15. IOIOIOI says:

    That’s the thing: does Hollywood really want to reward Bollywood even indirectly? I just see Slumdog winning the Oscar as a real stretch. Especially in light of an Academy struggling for ratings with the golden goose sitting right there in a Bat suit. Oh yeah Poland: ANH and RAIDERS WERE ROBBED! ET WAS FUCKING ROBBED! I love and adore Ghandi, but it’s not FUCKING ET! If the Academy want to be short-sighted again. They may as well pick Slumdog, but it’s a Bollywood movie. What type of films are they voting for again?

  16. jeffmcm says:

    Well, the Bollywood aspect will slow it down, but it really has to look like the frontrunner at this point, and I don’t see that any of the other contenders seem very strong against it. The Dark Knight will get a nomination, but it won’t win, like it or not.

  17. David Poland says:

    Kris… you are the ONLY person who I have ever heard make that argument.
    Do you REALLY think Ms Winslet would be in Supporting for that movie if she wasn’t already the lead of Rev Road?
    Do you REALLY think that her being in supporting is anything but strategy?
    Make the argument that it has happened before and it will happen again. But that she’s not the co-lead of the film?
    Is Michael Sheen a “real” supporting performance also?

  18. a_loco says:

    With this talk of who continues to push, don’t you think Dark Knight might still be pushing, considering the re-release that’s coming up?
    And I know that Star Wars and Indy didn’t win, but were they up against a movie about a bunch of Indians that no one’s ever heard of?
    And don’t you think that the Hollywood FOREIGN Press might be more inclined to award a more international film?
    I’m not trying to hate, I just think Slumdog’s chances might be a little less than what people are saying.

  19. Hallick says:

    The Dark Knight’s going to “win” for being nominated for Best Picture, and…that’s about it. Ledger’s probably safe as houses among the supporting actors right now, so they can take comfort in that one guarantee. I would’ve expected his backlash or praise-fatigue to have eaten away at the Joker’s lead at this point, but he’s the closest thing to a mortal lock in the major categories. Which delights me to no end.
    Kris – could you post an argument for Kate Winslet’s qualifications as a supporting actress in “The Reader”? I’m not inclined to believe so, but I am interested in the rationale.

  20. David, I’m not talking the politics of campaigning a performance where a studio likes. I’m talking about the dynamic of the film, and the simple truth is, “The Reader” is about Michael Berg and how Hanna Schmitz affects his life throughout. Ergo, Kate Winslet’s performance is a supporting one.
    Sheen’s performance, in my opinion, is a lead in “Frost/Nixon” and I’d actually consider Langella’s performance a supporting one before I would Sheen. The film is more about his character than it is Langella’s. But I don’t know what the point was in bringing that up…

  21. T. Holly says:

    Oh, you mean like Thelma supported Louise!?

  22. Blackcloud says:

    Quick, name the movies that beat “Star Wars” and “Raiders” for Best Picture. “The Dark Knight,” like these two, will be remembered long after whatever movie does win has faded into the dimmest recesses of obscurity. So about three hours after the ceremony ends.

  23. christian says:

    Uh, ANNIE HALL in 1977? Yeah, that Best Picture definitely faded into the dimmest recesses of obscurity. Whateva happened to Woody Whatshisname?

  24. Am I completely lost/out of the loop or is Tapley off base here??
    I thought “Supporting” nods and awards were given to “smaller” or secondary roles that supported larger ones. Not roles that supported the main character when they may be of the opposite sex.
    Like Heath Ledger was support because Bale was the lead. Or like say….the neighbor chick in “Revolutionary Road” was actress support to Winslet’s lead.
    I can’t think of a time when a female snagged a supporting nom or award playing support to a male counterpart. Winslet is the lead actress in “The Reader” and Dave’s right, politics are making her support so they can try to get her an award of any kind.
    Am I wrong here? Seriously….I’m confused.

  25. IOIOIOI says:

    jeff: It’s CRASH all over again. Everyone thought Brokeback had it. Everyone thought it was a done deal. We know what happened.
    TDK is the safe HOLLYWOOD choice considering the competition. If we lived in my world. I would go with Darren and Mickey, but this is not my world. So unless people start to love David Fincher all of a sudden. I am at a loss as to how Slumdog wins considering all that’s on the table.

  26. Joe Leydon says:

    “I can’t think of a time when a female snagged a supporting nom or award playing support to a male counterpart.”
    Geena Davis in The Accidental Tourist? Tatum O’Neal in Paper Moon?

  27. a_loco says:

    Not only did Star Wars lose to motherfucking ANNIE HALL, but it was also up against The Goodbye Girl.
    And while you might point out that Raiders lost to Chariots of Fire, please remember that
    a) CoF was a feel-good film about white people that speak English
    b) it was also up against motherfucking Reds (major prestige pick) AND motherfucking On Golden Pond.
    Of course, this is in hindsight, and in the future, we might all look back and think “How the fuck did Benjamin Button lose?” because we don’t realize how tepid the reviews are.
    Look, I say this as a fan of Slumdog, and I don’t think that it doesn’t have a chance, I just think that, like Brokeback, the Academy might turn its back on it.I should also note that both Star Wars and Raiders were much simpler in terms morality and theme than TDK.
    That said, if either TDK or Slumdog won, I would be delighted. Not because they’re my favourites (although I did greatly enjoy both), but because it would mean the Academy is accepting new forms of entertainment and not pandering to people who think Oscar winners should be self-important American films only.

  28. T. Holly says:

    If it were platonic, you wouldn’t have such a difficult time accepting it was supporting.

  29. IOIOIOI says:

    A_Loco: right on dawg. Right on.

  30. Nothing to do with sex, don. Must just be a difference in philosophy, but to me, a supporting role can have as much screen time as a lead and still be supporting. Screen time doesn’t matter in the debate, IMO. Thelma and Louise — two clear leads. The film is about both characters and your invested in their stories throughout.
    Can you tell me anything about Winslet’s character other than a) she couldn’t read, b) she was a Nazi, c) she had a thing for young cock? What’s this chick’s story? It’s played out as background for the main character’s own arc.

  31. T. Holly says:

    Kris, you skipped McKee and went straight to blogging. Thelma and Louise is his schtick. It’s Louise’s arc and Thelma’s along for the ride, but you’re pretty good at this stuff yourself. They should have given her more narrative in the adaptation and not willed symbolism onto the screen through odd stares and weepy eyes.

  32. The reason the Slumdog actors aren’t winning awards or being nominated is because they’re not all that good. Servicable, yes, but not Oscar-worthy in the slightest. And, for what it’s worth, Dev Patel is a lead but – surprise surprise – is being campaigned as supporting because the Academy doesn’t mind committing category fraud if they don’t know who are (as in Patel’s case) or if they just really really like you (Winslet, Jamie Foxx, Hoffman, etc).
    Of course, there have been times where the whole situation has been laughed out of town like when Scarlett Johansson was campaigned as supporting for Lost in Translation (supporting who, exactly? JAPAN?!) and Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive (being the main character and all…).
    I’d have an easier time accepting Winslet’s supporting bid if Kross had been campaigned as lead. Instead The Reader apparently has no lead actors, but instead has four supporting actors. Who exactly are they all supporting then? Crazy.
    And, lest we forget – although Dave did mention it in passing – everyone assumed Brokeback Mountain had the contest won until Crash won the SAG Ensemble (and even then…) so unless Slumdog wins that (which would be a joke of epic proportions) I still think it’s not entirely over. I keep thinking Milk will win SAG ensemble and could rally for Best Picture as the respectable liberal film to reward instead of Slumdog.

  33. T. Holly says:

    The Kid looking nothing like Ralph Fiennes was a huge problem, but together, they were the lead.

  34. a_loco says:

    Kris, I see where you’re coming from, but a “lead role” is not the same as a “main character”.
    Any role that shares in the entirety of the story is a lead. Lead roles do not apply to story structure in the same way as main characters. Most movies, but not all, have only one main character, The Reader has one, but he’s split into two roles, meaning neither is lead.
    Of course, the academy doesn’t give a shit what a lead is, as is proven by some of the completely whack noms they’ve pursued; Naomi Watts seems like the most egregious example at the moment.
    That said, putting Kate Winslet in Supporting makes SOOO much more sense than putting Dev Patel in Supporting.

  35. jeffmcm says:

    I haven’t seen The Reader, but I think a movie can certainly have more than one Lead role (or two if you want to split by gender). In Devil Wears Prada, I’d say both Hathaway and Streep were leading roles – the protagonist and the antagonist – and that it does a disservice to the true supporting actors when leading actors crowd into their categories because the competition is thought to be less stiff.
    IOI: We know, we all know, what would happen in your world. I like the idea of Milk being the anti-Slumdog at this point more than TDK – it fits the Academy profile a lot better. The Oscars had a curious attack of good taste last year and the year before, which seems unlikely to happen for a third year in a row.

  36. The Pope says:

    For Supporting Actress, obviously there aren’t any hard and fast rules. It really is up to the individual choice of the Academy voter BUT… I presume their choice would be somewhat swayed by the ads in the trades. If Kate is announced as Supporting, well the agreed perception is that she is Supporting. I sincerely doubt she or any major actor/actress would concede to such a thing without prior consent/contractual agreement etc.
    Obviously the whole thing is very moot as Anthony Hopkins was clearly the MALE lead in Silence of the Lambs, yet he only has 17 minutes of screentime. And then you look at Dead Poets Society and Robin Williams was nominated for Male Lead despite the fact that he had less screentime than some of the boys.
    Every so often there is a case which befuddles, but still, I think Kate is the female lead whichever way you cut it.

  37. leahnz says:

    ‘It’s Louise’s arc and Thelma’s along for the ride’
    a bit of a detour here, but…i hope i misunderstood your point somehow, t. holly, because that statement is certifiably nuts. both thelma and louise have a clear and profound shift in consciousness and character during the film: bored, sheltered, dominated housewife – who has no idea who she is or what it means to really live – ‘wakes up’ to realise her life so far has been a sham as she morphs into a bit of a badass roadside bandit; neurotic, prissy, clean-freak rape-victim slowly unspools to become a partner in crime and her own woman again, no longer a prisoner of her past. their arcs are inextricably enmeshed and neither is ‘along for the ride’.
    (i have to pinch myself every time i think about the astonishing fact that the ‘academy’ gave their ‘best pic’ award to ‘no country’. will wonders never cease)

  38. leahnz says:

    meant to say, is it me or did sam look a bit chagrined after kate’s ‘best actress’ speech leo outburst? it felt like an awkward moment to me but maybe it was my imagination

  39. EOTW says:

    JC in ABM.

  40. leahnz says:

    (ironically – and sadly – for louise, her catharsis results in becoming a fugitive and would-be prisoner of a different kind all over again)
    you’re obviously fond of caps initials, EOTW, but for us acronymically challenged, maybe just words would do.

  41. GayAsXmas says:

    I have to agree with Kris above re: Winslet. I saw The Reader a couple of days ago and to me she is a supporting actress in it. The entire film is seen through the eyes of Michael – Hanna is kept at a distance, and as has been mentioned above, you don’t actually learn much about her as a character unless it relates directly in Michael’s arc. Though she has significant screentime, the character itself is merely there as a vehicle to examine Michael’s emotional journey. I see no problem listing her as a supporting actress.
    On a related note, a part of me is sorry if this is the role that finally gets Kate her Oscar. I think she is an incredible actress. She should have won for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (and I would argue for Titanic also). She gives a brilliant technical performance in The Reader but the film is too shallow to allow her character any chance at an inner life. I can’t wait to see her in Rev Road however.

  42. yancyskancy says:

    leah: to save EOTW some typing, I’ll translate: Jennifer Connelly in A Beautiful Mind.
    You can really go nuts trying to figure out the Academy’s choices. Timothy Hutton was the male lead in Ordinary People. And I suppose Mary Steenburgen was the female lead in Melvin and Howard. Both won Supporting trophies for 1980. We followed Ethan Hawke’s arc in Training Day, right? In 1952, Richard Burton got his first nomination for My Cousin Rachel, in the supporting category, but he’s the male lead.
    My favorite case is Barry Fitzgerald, nominated in both lead and supporting categories for the exact same role in Going My Way. He won for supporting, then they changed the rules so such a ridiculous situation couldn’t happen again.

  43. byanyother says:

    Kris is right that it’s a supporting part. But he isn’t right in that lead and supporting are often divided into stars and non-stars. Sometimes voters say to hell with that and put the contender where they’d like. Winslet is the star of the film, she should probably be lead. But why would anyone complain at two different studios trying to win Oscars? So what if she’s in supporting – if she has a better shot at winning, more power to her. In other words, if she doesn’t mind, why should anyone else?

  44. jesse says:

    Yeah, I’m mostly with Kris on this one. Winslet being considered supporting isn’t nearly as egregious as some other category tinkering that’s gone on in the past. She may be the “lead” female in the movie, but there are two male actors, both playing the same lead character, who probably have more screentime. “Lead” versus “supporting” considerations do go beyond simple calculations and gender divisions.
    And I agree that Michael Sheen being considered supporting is more insulting; how many scenes in Frost/Nixon *isn’t* he in?! And does that make Rebecca Hall the lead actress, because she has the most prominent female role? No, of course not.
    All that said, I don’t think Winslet should be nominated at all for this movie, and it will really suck if she wins as kind of a weird compromise: she had a strong year, being in two end-o-year prestige pictures, and she’s been nominated a lot before… but we don’t like Revolutionary Road enough to give her that award in a pretty high-competition category… and we have this inferior performance in an inferior film in a lower-competition category, so let’s just give her an award honoring her weakest nominated performance ever. (Well, I haven’t seen Iris, but I’m assuming it’s better than The Reader). At least Pacino’s Scent of a Woman work was a showcase, hammy as it may have been.
    Then again, assuming as I am that the lead nominees will be Winslet, Hawkins, Hathaway, Streep, and Melissa Leo (don’t think Blanchett is getting in, though maybe Kristin Scott Thomas)… maybe that category isn’t actually more competitive once the dust settles on the nominations, and Winslet could win.

  45. a_loco says:

    For Sheen in F/N, Hawke in Training Day, and hell, Jamie Foxx in Collateral, I can understand why they would be put into Supporting, even though they are the leads.
    In each of those movies, they are (relatively) ordinary people whose world is thrown out of wack when a large presence (Langella, Denzel, Cruise) interferes with it. In these movies, they are the main character, but the movie is ABOUT the other guy.

  46. jesse says:

    Also on the Oscar-predicting front, OK, so just about everyone thinks the final five will be Milk, Dark Knight, Slumdog, Button, and Frost/Nixon (which, by the way, would be a group of decent-or-better movies on par with last year’s, when I couldn’t really hate on any of the nominees, big change since the early-aughts days of Chocolat, Cider House, Gladiator, Chicago). Occasionally, the five directors match up, but usually not. Who’s getting booted? There isn’t an obvious newbie or “more the acting” type of movie that will get left out; I guess Milk fits the template of a typical acting movie, but not nearly as much as Doubt, and Van Sant is pretty established.
    I guess Nolan could be the odd man out, a la Sixth Sense. And was Jackson ignored for Two Towers or am I making that up? But it seems unlikely.
    I’m wondering if Ron Howard will be ignored in favor of Jonathan Demme or even Eastwood. It doesn’t seem like Doubt or Wall-E or Gran Torino has the strength to take down Frost/Nixon in the picture category(though maybe Gran Torino could pull it off), but Demme or Eastwood might be able to outgun Howard in the directing category. I’m not really rooting for this to happen as I slightly prefer Frost/Nixon to Rachel or Torino (though all three are good-but-not-great). But Howard seems the most vulnerable if the four-for-five thing holds.

  47. adorian says:

    The Sunshine Boys. George Burns was clearly the co-lead. He and Matthau were both nominated as leads for the Golden Globes. But they moved Burns to supporting for the Oscars, and he won.
    And how about the Oliver Othello of 1965? Most people consider Iago to be a co-lead, but Frank Finley got nominated as supporting. More troubling was that Maggie Smith as Desdemona got nominated for supporting, along with Joyce Redman as Emilia. Most people would consider Desdemona a lead character, and yes Emilia is supporting.

  48. chris says:

    Obviously, us Oscar watchers (TM) see supporting/lead differently and I’m sure voters do, too. But there is a difference between a supporting character and a supporting actor.
    In “Reader,” the main character is the guy, but that character is split between two actors, one of whom has less screen time than Winslet and one of whom might have slightly more — so I suppose I could see the argument that her character is supporting his, but not that the actress is supporting the actor(s).
    I’d argue a better way to look at it is, after the movie is over, which of the characters who had big chunks of screen time sticks with you? Screen time-wise, Frances McDormand is a supporting character in “Fargo,” but she’s the most vivid character, much like I’d say Winslet is in “Reader,” partly because she’s so great and partly because David Cross so isn’t. (Also, of course Winslet is fine with being shoved down to supporting, since it leaves her free to direct some awards attention to her and her husband’s film, in which there’s no way she could be called anything but a lead.)

  49. So it is just reallllly confusing. I do totally see your point, kris. And I also see how there’s really no rules for it.
    However, I still think the idea that putting Winslet as supporting in all the ads “for your consideration” plants the idea in voters heads without the discussion we’re having here. Yet another reason the Oscar machine is getting more and more lame each year.

  50. David Poland says:

    We don’t know anything much about the boy either.
    That’s why the film doesn’t really work.
    When you walk out of that theater, NO ONE is talking about his journey. They talk about her choices, not his… not the intent of the filmmakers… but reality.
    If you want to make the argument, he has a bigger effect on her life, as he doesn’t choose to tell the truth.

  51. David Poland says:

    And yes, in Frost/Nixon, it is 100% Frost’s story and Nixon is absolutely in support.
    But that’s not how they are selling it.
    Just like The Reader.
    All that said, your schtick of “mythology as truth” because you have decided… not somewhere I am unwilling to go… but not when it’s such shaky ground. One can certainly say it’s a borderline call. But that is about as factual as it gets.
    What is factual, however, is that in a year with just The Reader, Winslet would be going for Lead, not Supporting. I assume you do not claim otherwise. That’s why the politics of it DO matter.
    Or have you been reading too much McKee?

  52. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: it’s asshole responses like the above, that really make me want to throw something at your head. Nothing fatal. Just a Nerf football right between the eyes. Seriously; I give dap to Michael Clayton and the Wrestler, and you give me your condescending bullshit reply? Total dick move there Jeff. Nevertheless; Milk is what’s Milk about, and did you forget about Brokeback? You really think this Academy are that enlightened? Ha. You’re funny. You make me laugh.

  53. a_loco says:

    OK, so I guess the conclusion is, that along with fixing the rules for Foreign Language and Documentary, the Academy should come up with guidelines for defining Lead and Supporting Roles. Sure, some lead roles might get lost in the mix, such as a role like Hopkins in SotL, but I’d be much happier if Hopkins was nominated for Supporting if it meant that motherfucking Dev Patel wasn’t.

  54. leahnz says:

    hey, don’t count out cate blanchett, she could fart under a blanket and the academy would nominate her.
    (thanks yancy, duh on my part but i really do struggle with all the acronyms)

  55. Dr Wally says:

    “And the battle for the effects and make-up and design Oscars between Dark Knight and Ben Button will be fierce (you can wave your arm in the air and snap when you read that if you like).”
    TDK will win visual effects, as Ben Button was done by ILM. ILM get the bum’s rush every year, maybe due to Lucas not being part of the guild, and that run will continue here. (Iron Man will probably oust Indy for the third FX nomination). I mean, Golden Compass over Transformers and Pirates 3? Reveng of the Sith being passed over for freakin’ Narnia? Gladiator over The Perfect Storm? If you’ll buy those decisions, i have an HD-DVD player i’d like to sell you.

  56. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, I’m sorry you missed it, but I was actually partially agreeing with you. Also you didn’t say anything in this thread about Michael Clayton so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
    I’m glad you’re laughing though because anything to alleviate your anger problem is a good thing.

  57. Triple Option says:

    Hallick wrote: The Dark Knight’s going to “win” for being nominated for Best Picture

  58. Triple Option says:

    Leahnz wrote: (thanks yancy, duh on my part but i really do struggle with all the acronyms)
    You and me both, sister. Like how bout a little help here? Jurnolizm one-oh-one: write it out the first time and then do your abbrs later. Even nicknames or shortenings work. Bat works, Slum, I know what you

  59. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: it’s not anger. It’s just anger. Something everyone should feel once in awhile, but you responded to me in a rather weird way. So I will call you or anyone else out in a similar situation. Such as your current response. Which is nothing but conjecture on your part. Nevertheless; a NOMINATION IS NOT A WIN FOR THE DARK KNIGHT! A win for the TDK is a FREAKIN WIN! Seriously; it’s time for a change.

  60. jeffmcm says:

    Okay, I don’t know what you mean and the part I do understand, I don’t agree with, so I think that’s that.

  61. Hallick says:

    A nomination for The Dark Knight will be as far as the movie goes at this point. If it had gotten something more at the Golden Globes, I’d start seeing it more IOIOIOI’s way. But I don’t feel any momentum for TDK to be a real contender after the nominations are done. Right now, there’s a better than slight (but not quite good) chance it won’t BE nominated.
    I’m not saying that in any kind of wishful way, since I personally think it deserves as much contender-level respect as something like Slumdog Millionaire is getting. But I’m just not sensing any far and away buzz for that.

  62. Hallick says:

    “hey, don’t count out cate blanchett, she could fart under a blanket and the academy would nominate her.”
    I could’ve sworn swear she did that very thing in Benjamin Button. In the hospital. Let’s see what happens next…

  63. Hallick says:

    And what would you call that anyway, leahnz? The Dutch Oven Rule?

  64. leahnz says:

    lol, hallick, absolutely
    (triple op: amen to that. i’m so relieved i’m not the only one!)

  65. IOIOIOI says:

    Hallick: It’s a Crash/Brokeback situation.
    Jeff: It’s not that hard to understand. Why do you act so white? What the hell is up with that man? Seriously? What the hell?

  66. Joe Leydon says:

    IO: Please don’t play the race card here, even as a joke. Some of us are not amused. Seriously. You cheapen our heritage by doing so.

  67. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, at this point I don’t really even know why you’re irritated with me or what it is that I don’t understand. We seem to no longer be on the same track.

  68. Jeff, he’s irritated at you because you don’t agree with him. I thought you would’ve figured this out by now 🙂
    In the matter of lead/supporting roles I think sometimes you just need to go on presence. While Anthony Hopkins is hardly a lead in Silence of the Lambs in terms of screentime, his performance is a large part of what makes the film so successful and it reverberates through the entire film. Same goes for Nicole Kidman in The Hours.
    But then there are times when it’s people like Jennifer Hudson or Dev Patel or Jamie Foxx who are clearly the most important characters of their respective films and yet they’re placed in supporting category because it’s the easier get. That frustrates the hell outta me.
    “So what if she’s in supporting – if she has a better shot at winning, more power to her.”
    It’s attitudes like that that mean we’ll never see the end of situations like Jamie Foxx getting a best supporting actor nomination for a movie in which he is, quite literally, in every single scene of (that’d be Collateral) or how Ethan Hawke is somehow “supporting” Denzel Washington (i guess somebody DID have to stand back to allow Denzel to eat as much scenery as possible) in Training Day.
    If movies like Thelma & Louise were released today the way they’d determine whether Davis or Sarandon was to go lead would be “well, Susan has a contender for supporting actress so let’s put her in lead and geena in supporting.”

  69. jeffmcm says:

    The thing is, I halfway agree with him (that Brokeback could = Slumdog). I guess he’s irritated that I’m not in 100% lockstep (because I’m quite confident that The Dark Knight is no Crash).
    I hate to imagine the ‘outrage’ on Oscar night when it only wins for Ledger and some technical stuff, much less what might happen if it doesn’t get nominated (which could happen).
    And let me reiterate, that when people shrug and use the ‘so what’ argument, it does a disservice to the people who really _are_ supporting players and stand to get nominations but can’t because leading actors have strategized their way into the category.

  70. IOIOIOI says:

    Camels: Balls to you, sir. It has nothing to do with not agreeing with me. I simply find his responses dicky.
    Joe: WGAS. WGAF.
    Jeff: If you do not intend to come across dicky, then I apologize for taking your responses that way. Seeing as you seemingly intend to insult me in your post all the time. Stop being a dick, and we will be fine.
    That aside; I would love it to be any other film besides TDK, because TDK is a life-time sort of flick. It’s sort of like a comic book version of GIANT for Heath Ledger. It will always be that great performance, hanging out there in the ether, waiting for people to watch.
    The thing of it is: Slumdog is a double fuck you special as a winner. Not only does it insult a large Hollywood tentpole production, that master art and economics in one calendar year. It also represents an Academy of Motion Picture Sciences telling everyone in the country who does not agree with rewarding a Bollywood movie to FUCK OFF. How long can they keep doing that and still be viable?
    I could careless at how great Slumdog is as a film, or if it’s an epic downer. You simply as an entity cannot ignore something like TDK for Slumdog. If you do. If you really go down that road one more time. You are making your rewards more of a mockery then the time Harvey and Co. stole them in the 1990s. This is a moment to me. Where the Academy gives into their populus leanings, or leave most of the moviegoing public behind.
    I just find it risky in this day and age of massive upheaval in pop-culture, for the Academy to not indulge it’s populace leanings this one time. This one time they have the chance to draw huge ratings, get people into some upsets (that Sally broad is so going to pull some shit off), and leave them with a show that rewards them instead of pisses them off.

  71. jeffmcm says:

    What exactly is your problem with Bollywood?
    And what does this mean: “…a large Hollywood tentpole production, that master art and economics in one calendar year.” ?

  72. Triple Option says:

    IOIOIOI wrote: You simply as an entity cannot ignore something like TDK for Slumdog.”
    How did you come to the conclusion that it’s an either/or scenario for Slumdog or Dark Knight? Weren’t there five nominees for best pic for golden globes not two, right? It’s not like Slumdog was on 5000 screens and Knight was struggling for airtime for people to see it.
    I’ve been saying for a while that in their arrogance the Academy could ass their way out of relevance but I don’t see how a case can be made that something that by your own admission is not part of the Academy nomenclature being the reason why the most popular film in the past decade isn’t getting its props.

  73. Forgot about this thread, so, coming back to it late.
    No David, I don’t think she’d be considered anything other than a lead by the studio if this was her one role of the year. But, again, that’s not the debate I’m having.
    “If you want to make the argument, he has a bigger effect on her life, as he doesn’t choose to tell the truth.”
    This is like calling Kim Basinger a lead in Tim Burton’s “Batman.” An exception that doesn’t prove a rule. My point is the story is his, whether hers is more powerful on some level or not isn’t in the argument because it isn’t as developed (and indeed, both are underdeveloped).
    I see this as a much more clear-cut supporting performance than you and others do, but it is obviously subjective on some level.

  74. Joe Leydon says:

    If memory serves me correctly, none of the Asian actors in The Last Emperor were pushed for acting prizes. (I think Peter O’Toole was a contender.) And, again, maybe I’m misremembering, but isn’t The Last Emperor the last Best Picture winner which had NO NOMINEES in acting categories?

  75. yancyskancy says:

    Joe: Neither Braveheart nor Lord of the Rings: ROTK garnered any acting nods.

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