Here’s a story that broke yesterday but has continued to pick up steam through the movie blogs today: The Weinstein Co. is planning to release box office champ Inglourious Basterds on DVD by the end of the year in order to use the discs for a cheap but aggressive Oscar campaign. This isn’t surprising news considering Harvey Weinstein’s Oscar addiction, but it has suddenly made me aware that Basterds is both deserving of and sure to receive a nod for Best Picture, which would be Quentin Tarantino’s first such nominee since Pulp Fiction 15 years ago.
Seriously, if we can be talking about District 9, Star Trek and other genre movies for the top category now that it will include ten contenders, how couldn’t Basterds be seen as a likely nominee? People have celebrated Christoph Waltz’s performance since Cannes, and he’s sure to garner a Best Supporting Actor nod, but few have noted how the film itself is a lock, too. Certainly if Weinstein can get The Reader a surprise Best Picture nomination with only five available slots, he can get this film onto a ballot double the size.
Don’t forget the Holocaust rule; how could the Academy ignore a movie that features vengeful Jews assassinating Hitler and 300 other Nazis all at once in a blaze of glory? Never mind that they didn’t get some of the worst offenders involved in the genocide.
Could Basterds garner more than the two obvious nominations? I doubt Tarantino will receive recognition for either directing or screenwriting, but who knows? Any other performances worthy? Any tech fields? Variety has an interesting article today on the costume design by Anna B. Sheppard. She’s been twice nominated for, interestingly enough, Holocaust films (Schindler’s List and The Pianist), but this time she was presented with more of a challenge. I have a feeling this third Holocaust-related project could be the one to get her the Oscar.
Check out what the other film blogs are saying about Basterds‘ Oscar chances after the jump:
…Read more
I would title this Bloggery “Comic-Con 2009 Day 2,” but I’m going to reach back a little to the second half of Day 1 since yesterday’s post went up before the Avatar panel, plus people are still talking about that New Moon presentation more than 24 hours later. Unfortunately, there’s so much news and hype coming out of the Con today (Gary Oldman spills Batman 3 beans! Saw VII is greenlit!) that I may ignore some the stuff I care less about, like all the “awesome!!” responses to movies that will more than likely be commercial failures (like the ten listed here). Unless they’re really hilarious or profound.
Without further ado (I have little to say in this intro because I’m not at the Con), check out my favorite coverage from San Diego from the last 24 hours after the jump:
…Read more
Did the father of 9-year-old Slumdog Millionaire actress Rubina Ali try to sell her for nearly $300,000? He denies it, while the British tabloids reporting on the story aren’t ever to be trusted. Because it’s so hard to determine who’s telling the truth in this latest Slumdog kids controversy, I’m just going to go ahead and blame Harvey Weinstein, since he’s likely responsible for starting all the inquiries into the child actors’ lives in the first place while Oscar-campaigning for his own Best Picture hopeful (remember, he didn’t deny it). I’m not alleging that he’s spitefully continuing the backlash because his film lost the top award (he’s surely happy enough with the two actress wins), as I’m better off accusing him of actually starting poverty in India. But he’s an oft-dependable scapegoat, so I’ll just keep the finger pointed in his direction. I am going to extend another finger out, though, to Born Into Brothels directors Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman for also being instrumental in encouraging the saving of specific poor Indian children who were lucky enough to become movie stars.
Anyway, the story may be a non-story, and it may be a waste of time trying to sort it out, but it sure made for some good jokes. The best from the blogs can be found after the jump:
…Read more
“The best part about the 81st annual Academy Awards on Sunday night—y’know, besides Zac Efron, OMG!—is that once it’s over, we’ll never have to think about Slumdog Millionaire again.” — Christopher Rosen, at The New York Observer.
As the last weekday before the big event, today seems to be filled with more Oscar bloggery than all previous awards-season days combined. There are last minute predictions, last minute commentary and, most enjoyable, last minute Oscar nonsense. Are you ready? Are you bored? Are you so behind that you really need to attend tomorrow’s Best Picture nominee marathon at your local AMC theatre?
Whether or not you care about who or what wins on Sunday night, you may enjoy some of the following stories, quotes and video:
…Read more
With just a week and a half left until the Academy Awards, news of and commentary on the details of the event are a hot topic lately. Part of the heat comes from recent announcements, hints and rumors about what’s in store for this year’s telecast, which has so far been mostly a top secret production. Here’s the big question: is there anything known or unknown about the ceremony that’s appealing at all to casual viewers or even diehard fans of the Oscars? Going by what people are writing on the web this week, it doesn’t seem so. In fact, it appears the biggest threat to the program’s ratings, even more than the Dark Knight snub, is the telecast itself. Seriously, wouldn’t you draw more viewers by telling them what great things you have in store rather than hope they’re curious enough for surprises?
For thoughts on why Queen Latifah, Hugh Jackman and especially producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark are killing the Oscars this year, check out our roundup of quotes and links after the jump.
…Read more
If you’re a guy who lives in your parent’s basement, writes a movie blog, even vaguely resembles the Comic Book Store Guy’s tumescent mien, and have actually watched one of the Star Wars prequels in the last five years by choice, chances are you’ll probably enjoy Kyle Newman’s long-delayed (and for good reason) Fanboys… If you’re an adult, who refuses (or better yet forgets how) to quote episodes of The Simpsons, chances are you won’t.
That’s 75 of the 165 words The Playlist devotes to reviewing Fanboys, in a post appropriately titled ‘Fanboys’… Whatever.
It makes a certain kind of sense that *I* never bothered to see this film (although we did cover its Kevin Spacey-presented screening at Comic-Con last summer) and forgot it was even coming out this week. But I wonder if even the target audience alluded to in that pullquote is still desperate (if they ever were) to see this thing? After all the rigamarole with the Weinsteins and the cancer subplot, and literal years of chatter about it online, is it possible that Fanboys peaked long before it was released?
To loosely paraphrase Journey: the Sundance movie deals never end, they go on and on and on and on. As Magnolia announces (via indieWIRE) that they’ve picked up Sundance Narrative Competition title Arlen Faber (starring Jeff Daniels, Lauren Graham and Olivia Thirlby) the biggest deal of the festival is getting infinitely more complicated. We’ve added Faber to our Sundance 2009 deal chart, and have also ammended the purchase price of Humpday. We’ll hold off on ammending the Push entry to reflect Harvey Weinstein’s claims, at least for now.
In a turn of events that recalls an infamous Sundance story of yore, Harvey Weinstein is insisting that The Weinstein Co. locked down rights to Push (not that one, the Sundance one) before Lionsgate made its deal. Fortunately for everyone in Park City, this fight waited until after the film festival ended and ol’ Harv was nowhere near making a scene in a restaurant. Instead, the rights tug-of-war is going to the courts (on both coasts), making everyone think this is the indie version of the Watchmen battle and giving the blogs something more interesting than actors’ rants and masquerades to comment on:
…Read more
With Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed.
Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there.
…Read more
In 10 out of 14 years, the winner of the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role has gone on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. If this year marks the 11th such congruence, Meryl Streep will take home the Oscar. Yet there is an odd circumstance with the Academy’s nominations that hurts Streep’s chances. Another one of the Academy’s Best Actress contenders also received a SAG Award Sunday night: Kate Winslet, who won the supporting actress trophy for The Reader. At the Oscars, this role has been recognized as a lead performance, one that is likely a favorite to win.
Yes, it is a strange situation, one that shocked and confused Oscar prognosticators (especially this writer) on Thursday morning. Winslet’s Reader performance was campaigned as a supporting role, and she was recognized as such by the Golden Globes, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, the Chicago Film Critics Association and of course the Screen Actors Guild. A few organizations did nominate her for a lead award for The Reader, though few people take the Satellites seriously, and the BAFTA Awards are different than most in that they permit Winslet to compete against herself in the same category (she is also nominated for Best Leading Actress for Revolutionary Road).
Some now believe the Academy’s deviation will in fact cost Winslet the Oscar she could have won in the supporting field. Either voters will be confused about what film she’s nominated for (unless I’m simply less observant than elderly Academy members, which may indeed be the case), or she will now split the majority vote with Streep and thus allow Anne Hathaway or Melissa Leo to slip ahead (Angelina Jolie is believed to have no shot). Another idea is that voters will dismiss Winslet due to doubts over which category the performance belongs in. But since enough members of the Academy made it a point to nominate her as lead actress in the first place, this is hardly a reasonable theory.
…Read more
Each day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Darren Aronofsky’s Pi (1998).
Today’s story is a little shorter than the rest in this series, but it’s worth remembering because it involves another instance where one Sundance success directly resulted in the making of a later Sundance success (a la Slacker leading to Clerks). The earlier film in this case was Welcome to the Dollhouse, which Darren Aronofsky saw at the 1996 festival. In Peter Biskind’s book Down and Dirty Pictures, Aronfsky comments on the experience: “I thought it was such a unique, weird film, that it really gave me the courage to go back to New York and just try to throw something together.” That November he was in production on Pi.
…Read more
Each day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Scott Hicks’ Shine (1996).
1996 was a monumental year for independent film. It began with a Sundance Film Festival that, according to Peter Biskind’s book Down and Dirty Pictures “would go down as Ten Days That Shook the Indie World,” because of the tremendous buying frenzy that occurred, including the infamous acquisition of The Spitfire Grill by Castle Rock for $10 million. The year then transpired with a slew of popular specialty titles that boosted business at many arthouse multiplexes while also exposing them as being unsuited for large crowds (the boom in indie film attendance was something I experienced first hand, having that year begun my first career at NYC’s Angelika Film Center). And the year ended (in 14-month Hollywood terms) with an unprecedented number of specialty films receiving nominations for Academy Awards.
Most astonishing, certainly, was the fact that four of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture were specialty titles, one of which had been discovered at Sundance. The film, Shine, might not have had a chance at such an honor, however, if Miramax and Harvey Weinstein had gotten their way.
…Read more
Each day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Kevin Smith’s Clerks (1994).
It’s only fitting to follow yesterday’s post on Slacker with the Sundance story of Clerks, since Kevin Smith was directly influenced by Richard Linklater’s film. And like Linklater, Smith nearly didn’t go to Sundance with his breakthrough indie, although in his case it was initially a matter of choice rather than rejection. According to Peter Biskind’s book Down and Dirty Pictures, Smith says about the decision, “We never even thought about Sundance. That was not a festival that we were meant for.”
…Read more
Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.”
Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin.
The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. …Read more
