“Who would have guessed that a book only 218 pages long could stir up so many emotions!” That quote, which graces the press notes for Stephen Daldry’s The Reader, is attributed to Oprah Winfrey, who selected the novel on which the film is based for her book club. As always, Oprah means no harm, but her influence makes such off-handed insipidity potentially dangerous. But relax –– in this case, she’s just reflecting the party line of the marketable middlebrow: Art must be Big in order to make you Feel. It’s as an ingrained assumption for one type of cultural arbiter and/or consumer, as knee-jerk suspicion of the tropes of Oscar bait is for another.
In the hands of Daldry, who has to this point never made a film for which he was not nominated for an Oscar, The Reader certainly looks like the kind of Big Art About Feelings worthy of an Oprah seal of approval … and/or a shudder from the cynic’s section. The economy that marked Bernard Schlink’s novel about moral impasses and emotional dysfunction amongst two generations Germans in the decades after the Holocaust goes untranslated. Daldry spoonfeeds feeling through score, he gives us long, indulgent sex scenes with an oft-naked Kate Winslet, years too young for the character she plays, draped in improbably golden light. And yet, within the wrappings of a film clearly, carefully calibrated for Academy favor by a distributor who couldn’t be in greater need of such recognition, The Reader’s unwillingness to clean up the ambiguities that sit at the core of its source surprises. Its classiness gives way to a refreshingly messy, even tawdry honesty about the role of morality in memory.
Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of muchdebate 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
Karina is now in Utah, where she’ll be spending the next week and a half covering the Sundance Film Festival. I’ve stayed behind in New York, as I’ve got other obligations. But just because I’m not at the Festival doesn’t mean I can’t pretend — or at least participate. So, starting today I’m going to be reviewing trailers for movies that will be playing at the festival. As of yet, I haven’t found enough trailers to carry me through next Friday, but with hundreds of movies set to screen in Park City over the next ten days, they have to be around somewhere (feel free to direct my attention to some).
First up is a trailer you may have already seen. It’s been out for at least a month, but I figured it made sense to start with it, since the movie, In Bruges, opens the festival tomorrow night. Plus, I’ve embedded the video that begins with an introduction from Oscar-winning writer-director Martin McDonagh. This way, it feels like you’re really at the Sundance premiere, where movies are almost always introduced by their makers. Of course, here there’s no Q&A afterward, but feel free to direct your questions at the computer screen and imagine McDonagh giving you a reply. Isn’t make believe fun?
Hi. My name is Christopher Campbell, and I’m not going to Sundance next year. In fact, 2008 will be the third consecutive year I don’t attend the festival. I’ve actually only been once, in 2005, and it was one of the best times I’ve ever had. Without much of an assignment, without anybody to schmooze with, interested only in seeing films and avoiding actually writing about them, I saw 37 features in seven days (do the math). I was in heaven. But, alas, I will not be heading to Park City this January. And therefore I won’t be seeing Oscar-winner Martin McDonagh’s In Bruges, which has been announced as the festival opener.
At least In Bruges, which stars Colin Farrell and Ralph Fiennes, already has a distributor, Focus Features, so it might not be too long before I get to see it. I can’t stand when I read about hot Sundance titles and then have to wait months, or even more than a year, to see them released to theaters. And by that time, I’ve usually lost interest — unless it’s supposed to be life-altering-good. According to The Hollywood Reporter, there may be a lot of English-language movies with strong star appeal in next year’s program, and more studios may be out and about making deals. Could this mean I’ll see more Sundance 2008 movies within a reasonable time?
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
