PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW
Food, Inc. (Three and a Half Stars)
U. S.; Robert Kenner, 2009 (Magnolia)
Do you really know everything you should about the food you eat? (more…)
PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW
Food, Inc. (Three and a Half Stars)
U. S.; Robert Kenner, 2009 (Magnolia)
Do you really know everything you should about the food you eat? (more…)
The most often considered issue of this year’s Oscar race is, “How will having ten nominees change the game?”
And the definitive answer is, “Ask me next April.”
Well, even that may be a little blurry.
What I can tell you is what has happened so far, which is still very much at the beginning of the journey as far as actual awards voters are concerned.
What we don’t see so far is an earnest effort by the “big movies” to get slots in the BP10… except for Up, which Disney has out there on parade early and often. All the sky-is-falling whining about Star Trek and The Hangover and Harry Potter as Best Picture contenders has been followed by Paramount and Warner Bros shrugging their campaigning shoulders and not spending a dime or more than a minute of effort moving the bar in that direction. Wisely.
Besides Up, on the commercial side, there is a Supporting Actress push going on for The Proposal, some hints that Sony is going to push District 9 out there, and The Weinsteins may find some real BPO traction for Inglourious Basterds. That means that there are two possible movies in the BP race from the Top 20 domestic grossers to date.
But quietly – amazingly quietly – Avatar is becoming a serious Best Picture player. Fox isn’t pushing it. They aren’t advertising it. They are doing what they have done for years… sell the movie and if awards come, so be it. And no matter the media response to the teaser trailer, you can feel the ground rumbling under the earth’s crust for this one now. The movie is going to be very, very big.
Even if it fails by some standards, it is almost impossible to imagine the film grossing less than $500 million worldwide. That would put it with Potter 6, Ice Age 3, and Trannies 2 (in that order… do people realize that IA3 has outgrossed Tr2 worldwide?) in that financial category. This is very rarified air for a title that is neither a sequel, animated or based on a literary work that defined the box office future of the title… you know, what grandpa used to call “an original.”
There are sixty-seven $500m worldwide grossers in history and only Ghost, The Day After Tomorrow, Forrest Gump, Armageddon, Night At The Museum, I Am Legend, Hancock, The Sixth Sense, Star Wars, ET, and Jurassic Park qualify in that rarified grouping. Five of the eleven were Best Picture nominated. Only one won. But still…
The two tip-top contenders that have not been seen – Nine and Invictus – remain on the top of many lists, though we are still weeks away from seeing the goods (or the bads).
But the lists have filled up with some titles that wouldn’t quite be borderline in years past, whether Precious or A Single Man or A Serious Man. A movie like The Hurt Locker would have a very hard road, no matter how good it is, because of its lackluster box office run. Inglourious Basterds would have been dismissed by now as too commercial and fun.
Still, all five films, seen as favorites by most to secure BP slots, are not advertising yet… not fighting to get out ahead of the late-coming big dogs… biding their time, perhaps waiting for critics to give them a lift.
The most heavily pushed “small” film so far, amongst actual voters and not just the press, is An Education… which is now benefiting from an air of inevitability. The film isn’t world beating. But the movie is loveable, the performances are loveable, and all of a sudden, borderline contenders like Alfred Molina are real contenders for nomination because Academy members are being asked early and often for their consideration.
The question at the end of the day will be, “What was the great idea that got these movies nominated?” And every year, we are reminded that there is no hard and fast rule. And this year, even more so.
I predict that as obvious as the floorplan seems to be this season, there will be a major surprise or two in which films didn’t get nominated… because so many are laying back, thinking they can foist themselves on the voters late in the game. There are too many studios trying to play this game and someone’s going to go home with their balloon crushed (and it isn’t like to be Disney).
On the other hand, it seems to me that we are already down to fifteen or fewer serious contenders for nomination, even without having seen five of them. So that is the shading in which the contending marketers are operating. There will be some happy surprises as well.
As risky as I see a strategy like The Hurt Locker’s as being, I am also quite conscious that the film will certainly be amongst the best five, by most standards of quality, in that group of fifteen. So no matter how little is spent or how late it is spent, aren’t they likely to be in the group of nominees? Isn’t there a constituency that will just joke on quality and feel that a nomination vote spent there is not a wasted vote?
The most interesting thing so far is that it is already November and so little has really happened. Toronto came and went… NYFF after that… and very little has changed. Most of the horses are in the gate, kicking and squealing, but not allowed to really race. They are just biding their time, waiting for the industry to put together enough money to pay for the dirt to be laid out on the track, lest the horses run on concrete and break their dainty legs.
And when they are let loose, it will surely seem more intense than ever. But it may actually be just the opposite… no time for much to happen but for people to see the movies and to vote their hearts and not their heads.
Come February, there is no way of knowing how distributors will behave either. Will, like last year, one or two films become the obvious frontrunners and send everyone else into “it’s lovely to be nominated” mode or will there be a battle royale amongst ten contenders who all feel viable as every one of them has fatal flaws and winning strengths?
Ask me in April.
– David Poland
October 30, 2009
BEST PICTURE
|
|||||
Picture
|
Studio
|
Director
|
Stars |
Comment
|
|
The Nomination 90% Locks (in alphabetical order) | |||||
Dec 25
|
Nine |
TWC
|
Marshall
|
Day-Lewis
Et al |
In a thin year, getting over the post-production fights, looking like the front-runner |
May
|
Up |
Disney
|
Docter
Petersen |
–
|
Could the first animated film to get a BP nod in a year with an animated category get the win? |
The Nomination 80% Locks (in alphabetical order) | |||||
Dec 11
|
Invictus |
WB
|
Eastwood
|
Freeman
|
The Waiting Game… |
Nov 13 | Up In The Air |
Par
|
Reitman
|
Clooney
|
Very well liked already… a reflective comedy |
Nov 6
|
Precious |
LG
|
Daniels
|
Sidibe
‘Nique |
The race race |
Toronto Contenders Looking Likely | |||||
Oct 9
|
An Education |
SPC
|
Scherfig
|
Mulligan
Sarsgaard |
Belle Of The Ball |
Oct 2
|
A Serious Man |
Focus
|
Coens
|
Stuhlbarg
Kind |
It’s the Jewish Precious… but funny! |
Nov
|
A Single Man |
TWC
|
Ford
|
Firth
|
It’s the Gay Precious… but pretty! |
Serious Contenders To Fill The Last 3 Slots(in alphabetical order) | |||||
June
|
The Hurt Locker |
Sum
|
Bigelow
|
Renner
|
A great movie… will Summit spend to play? |
August
|
Inglourious Basterds |
TWC
|
Tarantino
|
Waltz
|
A more commercial film… but looking better and better as the “contenders” slide |
Sept 25
|
Coco Before Chanel |
SPC
|
Fontaine
|
Tautou
|
The strong small film for women…. could push out Streep’s Julia Child… or not |
Nov 13
|
The Fantastic Mr Fox |
Fox
|
Anderson
|
–
|
Fox Searchlight on it now! |
Dec 18 | Avatar |
Fox
|
Cameron
|
?
|
Is it a gamebreaker? |
The Still Blurry, Waiting For Focus | |||||
Dec 25?
|
The Lovely Bones |
Par/DW
|
Jackson
|
Weiss
Ronan Wahlberg Tucci |
Will get a late, limited release |
Nov 6
|
A Christmas Carol |
Dis
|
Zemeckis
|
Carrey
Oldman |
A breakthrough? |
Damaged Goods | |||||
Oct 2
|
Capitalism: A Love Story |
Over
|
Moore
|
–
|
Folks are trying to get excited, but privately are dissapointed |
Aug 7 | Julie & Julia |
Sony
|
Ephron
|
Streep
Adams |
A modest hit… seen as all about Streep… could rise if others fall |
Nov 25
|
The Road |
TWC
|
Hillcoat
|
Theron
Mortensen |
Not as problematic as righties claimed, but hard road for Oscar |
The Walking Dead Since July’s Chart | |||||
June
|
Tetro |
AmZ
|
Coppola
|
Gallo
Ehrenreich |
People heard something was coming… didn’t know it landed |
June
|
Cheri |
Mir
|
Frears
|
Pfeiffer
|
Commerical miss |
Aug 28
|
Taking Woodstock |
Focus
|
Lee
|
–
|
Commerical miss |
Sept 18 | The Burning Plain |
Mag
|
Arriaga
|
Theron
|
Too heavy for a theatrical…
|
Sept
|
Bright Star |
BB
|
Campion
|
Whishaw
Cornish |
DOR – Dead On Release |
2010
|
Shutter Island |
Par
|
Scorsese
|
DiCaprio
|
Moved to 2010 |
2010
|
Green Zone |
U
|
Greengrass
|
Damon
|
2010 |
The Commercial Chasers (by release date) | |||||
May
|
Star Trek |
Par
|
Abrams
|
Urban
|
Bloom off the rose with #4 summer finish |
July
|
Public Enemies |
U
|
Mann
|
Depp
|
Mann’s #2 high grosser ever has been tagged “a flop” |
Feb
|
Coraline |
Focus
|
Selick
|
–
|
Fighting the notion of 2 animated nominees |
Sept
|
The Informant! |
WB
|
Soderbergh
|
Damon
|
Tone is throwing some off |
Nov 20 | The Blind Side |
WB
|
Hancock
|
Bullock
Bates |
Could be a surprise |
Dec 25
|
Sherlock Holmes |
WB
|
Ritchie
|
Downey
|
Not likely… Guy Ritchie |
Dec 25
|
It’s Complicated |
U
|
Meyers
|
Streep
Baldwin Martin |
Could well be the surprise |
The Arthouse Chasers (by release date) | |||||
Oct 23
|
Amelia |
FxSch
|
Nair
|
Swank
|
No one is excited |
Nov 20 | Broken Embraces |
SPC
|
Almodovar
|
Cruz
|
Excellent… but not a ground breaker |
Dec 4
|
Brothers |
Lions
|
Sheridan
|
Maguire
Gyllenhaal |
It wasn’t at TIFF… how will it find wings with Precious as LGF’s true love? |
Dec 4
|
Everybody’s Fine |
Mir
|
Jones
|
DeNiro
|
Remake of a Tornatore classic |
Dec?
|
Men Who Stare At Goats |
Over
|
Heslov
|
Clooney
Bridges |
Liked, not loved. |
Dec 25 | The White Ribbon |
SPC
|
Hanaeke
|
–
|
Fine art |
Unlikely To Race This Year (in alphabetical order) | |||||
Biutiful |
U/Foc
|
Gonzalez-
Inarritu |
Bardem
|
||
Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky |
SPC
|
Kounen
|
Mikkelsen
|
||
Intrigues At Tire-Larigot (Micmacs) |
WB
|
Jeunet
|
–
|
||
The Last Station |
–
|
Hoffman
|
Plummer
Giamatti |
||
Love Ranch |
Think
|
Hackford
|
Mirren
|
||
Ondine |
–
|
Jordan
|
Bachleda-Curus
|
||
Shanghai |
TWC
|
Håfström
|
Cusack |
Review: Little Women (no spoilers) - The Hot Blog
Box Office First Look - The Hot Blog
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree - The Hot Blog
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