As today marks the end of August, it’s safe to say that the summer movie season is over. Whether it was a good or bad time for movies – from either cinematic or financial points of view – is something that might be debated for quite some time.

What does not seem to be a subject of debate for many, however, is that summer movie season is not considered to be a good launching point for movies with Oscar potential. I am personally not so convinced of this. A pre-fall release is nominated for Best Picture about 90% of the time, and just last year “Crash” pulled off one of the biggest coups is Oscar history.

Personally, I always look forward to the “summer blockbuster season” at the cineplex. I still remember walking out of Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2” in 2004 feeling, for want of a better word, “pumped.” The year prior, we were treated to Gore Verbinski’s “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” a film which was fun, hilarious, thrilling and visually superb. And last year I remember sitting in awe of the sheer quality of filmmaking present in Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins.” No film from this year’s roster of “event” movies left me feeling as exhilarated…but that doesn’t mean I don’t see Oscar in their future.

The death of George Reeves, television’s original Superman, in 1959 defined the loss of innocence for a generation. There are many who remember where they were the moment they discovered Reeves’s body had been found, the victim of an apparent suicide. The lore surrounding the event has even wound itself into incorrect information that perpetuates itself mythically, forever living on as one of Hollywood’s greatest mysteries – or is there a mystery at all?

“Hollywoodland” is a project that has seen a long road to the screen, bouncing from one studio to another and back again, enduring rigorous casting scrutiny and a number of raised eyebrows regarding the direction a screenplay based on these questionable events would take. Now the feature film debut of television veteran Allen Coulter, “Hollywoodland” is a vivid and self-propelling experience that lingers much longer than you would expect it to.

In the film, Adrien Brody portrays the fictional private investigator Louis Simo, who makes his way from buck to buck stringing along suspicious husbands and picking at closed LAPD cases like a scavenger of public enforcement. When he is tipped off to the notion that, following a quick investigation deeming Reeves’s death a suicide, Reeves’s mother believes her son was murdered, Simo embarks on a journey that will become much more personal than he would have ever intended.

The Reeves story is told through flashback, with Ben Affleck (in his career best work) taking on the role of the tragically typecast actor who rose to stardom as television’s Superman. Parallel to Simo’s investigation, we’re made witness to the long, inevitable and sad road Reeves travels, at once a handsome lady-killer and a depressed dreamer. You see, Reeves was cut from the classic movie star mold. Cary Grant, Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy would have been fitting company for the talented thespian.

However, such stardom always seemed just out of Reeves’s grasp, and after ambivalently taking the role of the Man of Steel merely to make ends meet, he would endure the sort of fame that would forever seem cheap and lacking artistic context. When audiences were distracted by the actor’s iconic image during his scenes in Fred Zinnemann’s “From Here to Eternity,” the director inevitably had the work Reeves had put into the picture removed. Suicide, it seemed, made complete sense to the community at large.

The film takes time to properly examine three popular theories about how Reeves actually met his end. The perspectives stem from a raucous girlfriend (Robin Tunney) peeved at the actor’s refusal to marry her being responsible, to former mistress Toni Mannix (Diane Lane) becoming so grief-stricken over his leaving her that her husband, MGM general manager Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins), had Reeves murdered – not the most implausible act in the eyes of many Angelenos. And, of course, the script – written by Paul Bernbaum – takes a thorough look at the classically accepted suicide theory, which certainly carries more legitimate pathos than any other.

Brody’s work in the film takes a moment to really fit the character, but once he gets into the groove of a divorced father struggling to make his own ends meet, he taps into the personal ferocity that really begins to drive Simo after a tragedy late in the second act propels him to reassess his own perspective. This is his first true starring role since his Oscar winning performance in “The Pianist,” and he reminds us exactly why he is worthy of the distinction.

The supporting cast fills out in typical fashion, with Bob Hoskins and Diane Lane seemingly phoning their work in. Though Robin Tunney really stands out as Reeves’s fiancé, Lenore Lemmon. The real story, however, is certainly Ben Affleck, in a role that could easily be seen as too demanding given the work we’ve seen out of the actor in recent years.

No, in “Hollywoodland,” Ben Affleck shows us what he can do when he really wants it. The actor took a sizeable upfront pay cut on the film (as did pretty much everyone), and while at first glance it may seem that his beefcake persona would laughably overpower the mythos of George Reeves, we soon discover just how tailor-made his screen presence is for the role. He captures the man in spirit, voice and mannerism like I certainly wouldn’t have expected, and perhaps many other filmgoers, casual and otherwise, will see the same awards-caliber work. When the film opens on September 8th, the Best Supporting Actor race may have truly commenced - or maybe the film will just stay low on everyone's radar altogether. But this is a savory, layered performance that does its job in context and is commanding as a supporting turn, giving us a character on which to base the events of the present – a character to care about, to root for and, all at once, to mourn.

All things considered, Allen Coulter’s work on his first feature is capable and smooth-sailing, if unremarkable by virtue of necessity. He never gets overly fancy, even with the unique structure, and he guides the film with the anonymous sort of hand that is certainly a positive thing. This may well be the only cinematic testament to the legacy of George Reeves, and it is as thorough a testament as one could have asked for, despite dramatic twists and turns that might have been more suitably trimmed for a tighter overall experience. In the end, however, a focused performance in the film’s background works off of a truly driven performance in the foreground to give an appropriately rounded take on what has to be considered one of the most devastating events in television history.

Claes is putting together some great templates for the rest of the site at the moment, so I thought I'd give "Page to Screen" a rest for one more week. We'll start back in on the column next week, but Gerard's "Tech Support" column will still run Thursday. All the bugs should be worked out of the site by the time the Toronto Film Festival kicks off, and I owe a big thank you to Claes for the work he's put into the look of In Contention.

Toronto kicks off in a week and a half, and as is the mantra of August, it isn’t worth getting up in arms about this possibility or that until more people actually start seeing the movies in play.

I’m beginning to think that long gone are the days where formula played into predicting an Oscar race, as the last two – arguably three – years, the Academy has tossed the “rule book” out the window, both in the nominations process and in the process of actually handing out statuettes. Rest assured, I’m going to hold back on in-depth coverage next year a little longer, because this month has been a ghost town.

But here we are, nonetheless. Talking about the movies. Though this week there might be a few things worth chewing on.

Like money, for instance. You’ll notice that in this week’s charts, “World Trade Center” has taken a drop in quite a few categories, most notably Best Picture. That comes as a result of a number of things, one being the decidedly unspectacular box office accrual to date. A film opening late in the summer needs dollars to stay on the radar. The film might have the sentiment necessary, but falling shy of $100 million just isn’t going to cut it like it did for a star-driven “Ray.”

On the other side of things, “Little Miss Sunshine” continues a steady, purposeful rollout that is bringing in exceptional revenue. With per-screen averages rising above and beyond past comedic indie hits of its kind, the makings of a formidable contender are manifesting before our very eyes. We’re talking about a film that is already out-grossing internet buzz phenomenon “Snakes on a Plane” two weeks into that film’s release.

What’s more, Fox Searchlight is excited about this movie. Having a casual, fun and laid back publicity event at the Troubadour with DeVotchKa performing (featured on the “Sunshine” soundtrack) is one of those light but memorable touches that stands out against the fray of meet-and-greets and Q & A screenings. And Searchlight is not alone in their joviality. “Sunshine” is one of those films that sparks genuine passion from both critics and voters alike. You need those “love it” votes when it comes to Oscars.

The studio has a full, healthy slate of product, but they are being very smart about where their best sells are. At the end of the day, “Sunshine” will have a clear and definitive shot at a Best Picture nomination. The critical push may still go to “Babel,” sure, but we’re already looking at likely WGA, SAG Ensemble and Golden Globe Best Picture nominations for Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris’s successful little comedy. And if the overall box office tally hits an eyebrow-raising final mark, expect the PGA to follow suit. Those are four powerful endorsements, and the likely Independent Spirit Award clean up is just icing on the cake.

But back to “World Trade Center.” One thing I’ve been keeping an eye on ever since pushing the film into my predictions three weeks ago is this sense that two Americana, “rah-rah” films (for lack of better terminology) for Best Picture might be a bit of a stretch coming out of a singular studio. Oliver Stone’s film certainly hit the right marks and covered the appropriate bases for a Best Picture hopeful, and the thought of yet another Clint Eastwood/Paul Haggis effort making it into the big categories has just seemed…too much. But then that trailer for “Flags of Our Fathers”/”Letters From Iwo Jima” hit the net.

Of course, it is foolish to judge a film based on a couple of minutes of edited imagery, but what we saw in that trailer was something deep. “Flags of Our Fathers” really looks like it could be a film of the war genre that connects throughout the Academy, and that does not occur often.

With the crutch of “Letters From Iwo Jima” hitting in January, it all just seems like too smart a plan to fall through, failing the film being an outright dog. The December release for “Flags” is at the right time, and box office will not be a concern at that time. Clint directing his first World War II film could surely be too much for the boomer generation to ignore, so I hereby rescind my dismissal of its chances some weeks back. The guy simply looks to be on fire this decade.

Now, of course, there are still those that think “United 93” can be the rally cry of the Academy. But let’s face it…that’s not a safe film for a non-critical bunch of people to get behind. Some rules never go out the window, and if last year’s ceremony proved anything, it proved the Academy still likes to play it safe. “United 93” pretty much did what it was supposed to do for Universal. It made a little money and was a nicely prestigious outing, one that will remain one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year. But it was never a real Best Picture opportunity.

I actually think Universal has some decisions to make. Robert De Niro’s “The Good Shepherd” is said to be playing flat (the screenplay certainly read as much). Maybe the choice to move, “Children of Men,” Alfonso Cuarón’s bent vision of the future, to Christmas Day is indicative of something. But comparisons to Kubrick notwithstanding, the film is still a genre thriller. The work will likely be cut out for The Angellotti Company in much less definable terms this year.

Sony still has a plethora of product, as mentioned some weeks ago in our studio breakdown. But the real concentration could end up on “The Pursuit of Happyness,” lying in wait as a warm and fuzzy December surprise. All the media attention on whether “All the King’s Men” was in trouble, “Marie Antoinette” was too divisive or “Running With Scissors” and “Stranger Than Fiction” were too smart and indie won’t matter much at all then.

So…that one-two punch of “Dreamgirls” and “Flags of Our Fathers” still seems like a solid bet for Paramount after all these months. “Babel” is its own entity, as Vantage sports an entirely different publicity push for their films than the parent company. But I still have to wait a little longer before I go ahead and give in to that. “Little Miss Sunshine” really does throw an interesting wrench into the works for Alejandro Iñárritu’s film, I think.

For now, we wait. Telluride and Toronto will unload a lot of tension like a cold shower – and I’ll finally be able to cut loose on the half dozen films I’ve seen in the interim that are set to play at the two festivals. We might be having an entirely different conversation in a few weeks.

Before cutting out, I have a quick announcement to make. I’m happy to say that In Contention will be covering the Toronto International Film Festival via “Tech Support” columnist Gerard Kennedy next month. Gerard will be blogging the entire experience, taking in a healthy amount of films and focusing things as much as he can, so be sure to read his thoughts throughout the festival, September 7-16. “Tech Support” will continue to run on Thursdays without interruption.

I’ll check in next week with a quick preview. Until then, you know the drill:

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts
Oscar Predictions Archive
"The Contenders"

Previous Oscar Columns:
08/14/06 - "Enough Foreplay!"
08/07/06 - "Don't Knock Masturbation; it's Sex with Someone I Love"
07/31/06 - "Old and New, the Oscar Season Approaches"

Sasha Stone has Oscarwatch back up and running today, fit with a new main page design and some cool ideas for cross-coverage. Nice! She'll be adding more and more soon enough.

Anyway, in case you haven't checked her site out in the last week or so due to the demons of web-hosting, get back over there and give it a look. She's back!

Last week we began our dissection of potential first-time nominees here at “Tech Support.” We addressed the art direction and cinematography categories. Today we round things out with hopeful first-timers in the costume design, film editing and music branches.

In the world of Costume Design, 30 year veteran Penny Rose was responsible for two of the most memorably expansive wardrobes of the last decade: Alan Parker’s “Evita” in 1996 and Gore Verbinski’s “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” in 2003. This year she follows up her work on the original “Pirates” flick in “Dead Man’s Chest,” the year’s biggest box office success story. It would be somewhat odd if Rose were to score a nod for the inferior sequel, having missed out for the original. But one never knows. She at least seems assured for another guild nomination.

Last year’s cinematic output was a dreadful display in my opinion. It almost became infamously so, what with a number of readers questioning my passion for film, my dedication to balanced coverage and my overall lack of excitement for the 2005 season.

I’m nothing if not candid (well – not as candid as Sumner Redstone apparently was today), and I’m always the first to address my attitude and such criticisms. While the assumption that my passion was gone was certainly off-target (Why would I continue to write about such things otherwise?), the widespread interpretation of my sluggish reaction was pretty much on the money.

The simple fact was, last year it wasn’t connecting for me. It was all a drab affair and my feelings on the season played themselves out in a top ten list that was speckled with such down-tuned and brooding efforts as Gus Van Sant’s “Last Days,” Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins,” David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence” (though I certainly wasn’t alone on that one) and Gore Verbinski’s “The Weather Man.” The feeling was as equally shared as it wasn’t, but that’s how my 2005 cookie crumbled. And I guess real-life stuff can play into such things as well.

This year, however, I am bursting with exhilaration, not only at what is on the periphery, but also at what I’ve already seen. This is the most difficult time, that pre-Toronto phase where you’re sitting on reviews of films for weeks upon weeks. Last year, all was well. Nothing much mattered to me in that regard. But this year – this year I’m just giddy, and that’s the best adjective I could possibly use. I’m giddy and rejuvenated by the films in play, both reviewed and kept under my hat, and there really is no point to this column other than to convey just that.

Sometimes you feel like it’s all sluggish and “work.” Other times, you feel like the luckiest person in the world because people are making fantastic and unique films. This year, I feel like the luckiest person in the world, and I hope my fellow journalists and filmgoers feel the same way. However, if they don’t, “one man’s floor is another man’s ceiling.” Right?

(And no, the title of this blurb does not indicate anything. It just felt like the right extra touch.)

UPDATED (3:11PM):

I've updated the prediction charts this afternoon. Check back next week for a new Oscar column.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts
Oscar Predictions Archive
"The Contenders"

Previous Oscar Columns:
08/14/06 - "Enough Foreplay!"
08/07/06 - "Don't Knock Masturbation; it's Sex with Someone I Love"
07/31/06 - "Old and New, the Oscar Season Approaches"

EARLIER:

Taking that deep breath before the season slams into us post-Toronto. Check back Thursday for Gerard's "Tech Support" follow up.

Slow day, nothing really worth talking about, and "Snakes on a Plane" has been done and over with since July it seems. Just go out and enjoy the silliness, I guess.

But then I read Anne Thompson's latest "Risky Business" column at The Hollywood Reporter and was immediately taken aback by a quote from Warner Bros. production head Jeff Robinov, maybe half-way through the piece:

"'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made."

I respect the need for damage control, and I also respect a studio's belief in its output, win, lose or draw (I happen to buy the notion that WB is in this for the long haul). But that last sentiment is pretty absurd, coming from the studio that gave us "Batman Begins" just one year ago. Emotional? Sure, I'm with you. Realistic? Wow, I'd watch my choice of words next time, Mr. Robinov, because I doubt (and certainly hope) you don't believe that.

Enjoy the weekend.

It is my pleasure to welcome Gerard Kennedy to the team, an individual who shares with me a similar passion for the various technical and artstic branches of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Gerard is thereby a perfect fit for a personal brainchild I have anxiously waited to bring to the table of film awards coverage for some time.

I've been writing about the Oscars for nearly six years now, and one thing that has always been missing from the canvas, year in and year out, is ample and deserved attention paid to the hard-working people behind the scenes of this inarguably collaborative art form. We now hope to change that with "Tech Support," Gerard's new weekly column here at In Contention which aims to finally bring these otherwise neglected races to the forefront of the Oscar discussion.

Hard boiled:

Giles Foden’s “The Last King of Scotland” is a deeply resonant reading experience to say the least. The book is written from the perspective – in journal form more often than not – of Nicholas Garrigan, a Scottish physician who comes to the African country of Uganda for both self-fulfillment and to be of medical service where he can. However, what he discovers in the equatorial chaos of Idi Amin’s dictatorship is a sickening twist of friendship, camaraderie and, ultimately, self-loathing.

The folks at Dreamworks/Paramount continued their amazingly cunning sell of “Dreamgirls” to the press last night at the Pacific Design Center, as the Los Angeles crowd was afforded the opportunity to see the four musical numbers shown at Cannes a few months back. Not only that, but they revealed the trailer for the film, which may or may not have been released beforehand, I’m not sure. Rest assured that trailer is a winner, perfectly constructed and screaming Best Picture from the first few frames.

The numbers shown really displayed the essence and feel of the story, ultimately representing the cinematography, costume design and production design as eye-popping aspects indeed. The first number stuck out to me, which should be the segment that seals the deal on an Eddie Murphy nomination (he seems like a solid gold winner at this point, to be honest). In all honesty, from what was shown, Murphy seems to be the standout of the entire film, even in his minute exposure in the trailer.

Having Jennifer Hudson belt out a couple of tunes in the lobby afterwards was salesmanship at its highest form. And she worked the room all night, full of an honest sense of disbelief that “it’s all happening.” She’s a bright and humble person to say the least and that attitude will take her far this year.

I also had the chance to bump into Bill Condon before the presentation. I was happily surprised to find that he is a fellow Oscar obsessive and an avid reader of the online awards frenzy, including In Contention. His reaction to meeting me, I have to say, was a trippy one to say the least: “Kris Tapley! So that’s what you look like! You’re so young!” It’s always great to meet readers...but OSCAR WINNING readers? What a delight. And he’s one of the nicest, most down-to-earth filmmakers I’ve met – a rarity.

Also it looks like four - count 'em - four new songs were written specifically for the film, so I'm sure we'll see some representation in the Best Original Song category.

We’ll see how the awards derby unfolds for “Dreamgirls,” but the studio has been on the ball from day one on this one, ever since that set visit back in February. Some might think it’s dangerous to put yourself out there so soon, what with the film being considered the undeniable frontrunner as early as August. But they really seem to have the goods, and they're fearless about representing the film. But I only have one thing to say: those tuna things Wolfgang Puck provided in the catering were scrumptious!

UPDATE (10:41am): CHARTS NOW UPDATED. SEE BELOW.

Boy these August columns can be rough.

So this week a couple of film festival schedules began to fill out nicely, what with the laid-back Telluride announcing some flavor and the big daddy Toronto revealing a number of galas. Again, only after that first week of September will the awards scene begin to make some sense. Though a number of the films finally unveiling I’ve had a chance to see already, my opinion of an Oscar race is obviously no more or less valid than the next guy’s, no matter how much I stomp my feet and shout.

It’s time to hear the congregation speak up, and speak up they shall. But it’s still a ways off. Until then we’re just spinning our wheels, and today’s column will feel somewhat aimless as a result of the lack of anything of consequence to comment or report on. So let’s just think out loud.

First and foremost, Gerard Kennedy will kick off the “Tech Support” column Thursday, a segment of In Contention that I am very excited about. The technical branches of the Academy are terribly unrepresented by the media, and it’s time to lend them some credence. We’ll get into that later in the week.

Nothing much else in the way of “news” has come down the pike in the last few weeks, though some category disputes are beginning to take shape.

Rumor has it that Dame Judi Dench pressured a lead campaign for her performance in “Notes on a Scandal,” while co-star Cate Blanchett will potentially be relegated to the supporting arena. Both may still go into the lead category at the end of the day, however. Blanchett will be pushed as a lead in Warner Bros.’s “The Good German.” Meanwhile, all performances in “Bobby” will be pushed as supporting, the standout being Sharon Stone from most accounts. Things are still iffy regarding the campaigns of Jennifer Hudson and Beyónce Knowles in “Dreamgirls,” though most seem to think supporting for the former, lead for the latter.

Additionally, talk continues to circle around Peter O’Toole’s performance in Roger Michell’s “Venus,” which will unveil at Toronto. O’Toole is one of the classic cases, if not THE classic case, of an individual due for Oscar recognition in a grotesque manner. The Academy, you’ll remember, decided a few years back to give him the “sorry we never gave you a real Oscar” award, otherwise known as the “Honorary Oscar,” and O’Toole infamously declined initially. He later accepted graciously, however. There was also a film floating around at one point stirring some awards talk for the actor called “The Final Curtain” which went nowhere, and so O’Toole’s Oscar destiny seemed in limbo.

Now with “Venus,” in which O’Toole portrays, according to IMDb, one of a “pair of veteran actors (whose life) gets turned upside down after they meet a brash teenager,” things might be looking up. That synopsis is not much to go on, sure, but with the early word being so positive, Miramax may have a slam dunk on their hands. It’s something to keep an eye on. Leslie Phillips, Vanessa Redgrave and Jodie Whittaker also star.

Speaking of the Best Actor race, that Ed Harris vehicle, “Copying Beethoven,” has finally secured distributive backing from MGM and The Weinstein Company. Tackling the role of – you guessed it – Ludwig von Beethoven, Harris could be a formidable contender in the Best Actor arena, should there be a campaign of consequence. No one knows much of anything about the actual film or performance in any case, and that makes the third high profile lead actor possibility for Miramax (along with O’Toole and Richard Gere in “The Hoax”).

That tid-bit brings me to another point of curiosity this year, regarding the ubiquitous biopic of film awards season. What is striking this year is how outbalanced the typical biopic subjects are by the more obscure or otherwise “second-tier” real-life representations.

As mentioned, Ed Harris (“Copying Beethoven”) and Forest Whitaker (“The Last King of Scotland”) will be taking on Ludwig von Beethoven and Idi Amin respectively. In addition, Kirsten Dunst portrays Marie Antoinette in Sofia Coppola’s film of the same name, while Toby Jones takes his own stab at Truman Capote in “Infamous.” Helen Mirren will rock out Queen Elizabeth II in the uber-buzzed “The Queen” and Nicole Kidman as Diane Arbus in “Fur” should be a trippy experience. But as for your “typical” biopics, that’s about it.

However, just take a quick glance at the huge line of somewhat less obvious biopic characterizations coming down the pike:

There’s Ben Affleck as haunted television “Superman” star George Reeves in “Hollywoodland,” Richard Gere as Howard Hughes biographer trickster Clifford Irving in “The Hoax,” Jared Leto as John Lennon assassin Mark David Chapman in “Chapter 27” and Vin Diesel as righteous defendant Giacomo DiNorscio in “Find Me Guilty.”

Oh, I’m not done. Don’t forget Viggo Mortensen as famed Spanish mercenary Capitán Diego Alatriste in “Alatriste,” Keisha Castle-Hughes as the Virgin Mary in “The Nativity Story,” Susan Sarandon as tobacco billionaire Doris Duke in “Doris and Bernard,” Renée Zellweger as children’s book author Beatrix Potter in “Miss Potter,” Derek Luke as South African freedom fighter Patrick Chamusso in “Catch a Fire” and, of course, Nicolas Cage and Michael Peña as Ground Zero survivors John McLoughlin and Will Jimenos in “World Trade Center.”

Are you beginning to see my point? It’s as if filmmakers have finally, as a whole, looked to the intricacies of little-known personas for their biopic fix this season. That said, most of these films seem to be lagging behind in the prospective awards derby, with just “World Trade Center” and “Catch a Fire” boasting, at first long glance, any major awards potential of consequence. But things can change on a dime, and no one knows anything, right?

Most of the films in play will start screening in earnest in the next few weeks. Todd Field’s “Little Children” has been getting a few looks. It’ll run at Telluride and, perhaps, Toronto. “Bobby” will likely get a look or two before that “work in progress” screening at Toronto, and Sony hopefuls “All the King’s Men” and “Stranger Than Fiction” will screen as well, so surely be on the lookout for the typical embargo breakers on those flicks.

In the meantime…there’s nothing to talk about! David Poland surprisingly started his Oscar column last week at Movie City News, kind of proving the point that the air is dry (what with the rehash of everything we’ve been discussing for a number of weeks). Before long, the Variety and Hollywood Reporter special issues will begin editorial preparation, and those rascals at the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times will get their butts in gear as well. It’ll be interesting to see what they do this year, as pointed out in the focus of last week’s column. But I’m going to cut everything short today. Hopefully we’ll actually be somewhere next week.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts
Oscar Predictions Archive
"The Contenders"

Previous Oscar Columns:
080/7/06 - "Don't Knock Masturbation; it's Sex with Someone I Love"
07/31/06 - "Old and New, the Oscar Season Approaches"

Just a quick heads up, the "Page to Screen" column is moving to Tuesdays, leaving the Oscar column to itself on Mondays. Gerard Kennedy's "Tech Support" column, starting this week, will run on Thursdays.

I didn't really feel the heat turning up until today's reviews of "World Trade Center" hit full blast, of course, but it seems the "United 93" vs. "World Trade Center" dispute is going to get nasty. Real nasty.

Let alone the fact that those out to disaprove of Oliver Stone's film are beginning to see their destinies self-served, or that vacant criticism the likes of comparing it to "United 93" runs far too rampant considering these are drastically different films. I have a lot of respect for each effort and simply consider one film to be "fuller" than the other. But each is effective and a testament to Hollywood handling themselves accordingly with this event, so much so that it seems foolish in retrospect to have assumed otherwise, no matter the past.

Ultimately I had hoped there would not be a "this versus that" story this year (last year's racism vs. homophobia battle in the form of "Crash" vs. "Brokeback Mountain" was pathetic and a disservice to both films), but it looks like we might have one after all, whether Oscars are involved or not.

Oh well. At least we get to see Sam take care of a bunch of mother fuckin' snakes on a mother fuckin' plane, right?

This Los Angeles Times story about Walden Media's packing up and moving in with Fox is interesting in that we're now seeing a true test of Disney's stranglehold on the children's market. I just finished up a New York Times story on "How to Eat Fried Worms" that largely dealt with Walden's practices and spent some time talking to Walden representatives, and it is indeed a part of their business model to branch out into a brand name that parents trust, much like "Disney." Together they were a potential powerhouse, but with Walden at Fox, this might be an interesting development to watch.

Children's programming is still a great way of keeping budgets down and profits high, as kids don't flock to multiplexes for A-list talent more so than easy-to-grasp plot and story. I think in many ways, this is the future of a profit-heavy film industry, and maybe larger productions will begin to take note of what's being aimed at the children's market.

In the meantime, Philip Anschutz's company is making a smart decision, because they are spreading the idea by moving to Fox rather than consolidating it by being at Disney. Disney afterall just cut its production detail down to a miniscule amount of films per year, films that will largely concentrate on the Disney marquee stories that, one can only assume, will be geared toward the children's market. It looks like lines are being drawn in the sand.

Lorenza Muñoz on Walden's move to Fox (LA Times)
Yours truly on Walden and "How To Eat Fried Worms" (NY Times)

The awards season began in earnest last week, with screenings of “Babel” happening in Los Angeles and Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” landing a number of reviews. Few of said reviews have found anything particularly wrong with the film, be them raves or mere acceptance pieces. Stone’s film releases this Wednesday, while screenings of New Line’s “Little Children,” another awards hopeful, begin to rev up as well (though some of us can't seem to understand the meaning of the term "embargo"). It really looks like the summer is gone.

Warner Bros. made a last minute shuffle last week on two potential Oscar prospects as “The Fountain” and “Luck You” got brand new release dates further into the calendar. David Poland’s Movie City News even began its Screening Series on Thursday with a screening of “The Illusionist,” plus the re-launch of the Gurus o’ Gold earlier in the week on Tuesday.

And over the weekend? The beautiful one-sheet for Kevin Macdonald’s “The Last King of Scotland,” a film still lurking on the periphery of consideration by those who write about this kind of thing.

The engine is humming. I just hope we don’t stall.

Now is the time for all the studios to send their game-hunting publicists out into the wild to tame the journalistic beasts of the film awards conversation. “This film is the studio’s top contender; that film is not.” “This film turned out better than expected; that film did not.” The Toronto International Film Festival is now exactly one month away, and in the next 30 days, flags will be planted, egos will be stroked, the bed will be made for films to lie down and ultimately wow us with their illustrious prowess, or otherwise disappoint us with difficulties performing. Basically, the season has started, but we’ve still got a lot of dog and pony stuff to go before anything even begins to settle into a viable mixture worth discussing. So what can we talk about in the meantime?

How about coverage? Last year marked a brand new age in the world of awards watching on the internet. Folks like Emanuel Levy had been writing about the Oscars for years when the web boom came along, providing an outlet for all those obsessed with this time of year to start gabbing about this film’s chances or that film’s.

Sasha Stone’s Oscarwatch.com is unquestionably the site that paved the way for this movement, and she rarely gets the credit she deserves. Awards aficionado Tom O’Neil cooked up GoldDerby.com soon after, offering a space for various sanctioned pundits to toss in their two cents on the race unfolding before them. That may very well have been the first mark of professional punditry that thrives today as an advertising beacon for various publications.

Speaking of advertising, internet columnist David Poland saw an opportunity to cash in on the proceedings in 2002 when he launched MovieCityNews.com, a renegade news source that plays like a trade with attitude (for lack of a better term). He ushered in the age of Oscar ads we live in today, at once creating a monster and the ultimate symbiotic relationship during this time of year for journalists and studios.

The bar was raised in 2005, but no one involved in raising it seemed to rise up to it. The Los Angeles Times purchased Tom O’Neil’s GoldDerby.com, also bringing in former Premiere writer Steve Pond and fashionista Elizabeth Snead to blog the season as they saw fit. The New York Times tapped the witty David Carr to blog in his own fashion, a fashion he determined halfway through the season to be more dependant on recognizing the futility of it all, thereby creatively rising above the pack. And USA Today set aside some net space for Steve Bowles to talk up the Oscar race as the "O-Factor" joined the fray.

Ironically, the trades did not do much in the way of improving their respective awards coverage pages, though The Hollywood Reporter’s Anne Thompson took up blogging and spent plenty of time dishing on the Oscar flurry.

So, we’ve entered the age of traditional media, “sanctioned” if you will, elbowing their way into the game. Meanwhile, folks like Ms. Stone keep doing the same purposeful thing she’s always done; her niche is her own. Countless, in many cases faceless amateur Oscar sites and blogs continue to pop up, while the insularity of message boards still finds room for tangible discussion from time to time.

I’ve written about the history of internet awards coverage until I was blue in the face, but the point here is to ask, “What’s next?” Is the whole machine grinding into the perfect tool for usage by studios and publicists, out to manipulate, as their job dictates? Are we playing into their hands, or are they playing into ours? That might seem like an immature question, and one might wager that no hands are being played into, given that everyone wins. But while everyone wins, I think everyone loses all the same, because a system like this is destined to stagnate.

What I hunger for is variety and insight, and that’s typically difficult to find in this world of largely reactionary commentary. I by no means succeed in bringing as much to the table, but I try, and I guess what I’m hoping for this season is to see these many different outlets do just that – try.

In the final analysis, however, insularity reigns supreme. These issues are of no concern to anyone outside of the metropolitan centers that live and breathe the entertainment industry. The audience is extremely limited, but that audience dictates something broader in context, so the importance in the eyes of those with the power is in no way reduced. However, covering the Oscar race has to contain an element of personal commentary to have any spice whatsoever, and to assume there is any sort of journalistic benefit to the whole matter is to have a blinded view of journalism indeed. Yet here I am, writing about the Oscars.

There is no “answer,” and there very well may be no “truth.” It has taken living neck deep in the race in Los Angeles – in utero, if you will – to fully comprehend that notion. The search is fun, and defining the season is a joy. Rooting for favorites is hard to escape, though objectivity is not necessarily fleeting. However, there are now far too many cooks in the kitchen and not enough items on the menu. Someone needs to think up a clever new soufflé.

Maybe things will stay in the rut they were in last year, and then we’ll know. We’ll know that a new standard of “one hand washes the other” has been established, likely to survive, well, as long as each entity is served. Or maybe personalities will show themselves and bring both entertainment and enlightenment to the table, but those times might be a ways off. Traditional media still has to catch up in the web world, let alone set interesting standards in this rapidly growing zone of film awards coverage.

All the while, we’re looking toward a ceremony that, year in and year out, boasts an outcome that is as subjectively acceptable or unacceptable as anything else. And complain though we may, chastise though we feel we must, each and every year, the glamour grabs us, and the fantasy takes us in.

You want to know what the funny thing is? No one is watching.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts
Oscar Predictions Archive
"The Contenders"

Previous Oscar Columns:
7/31/06 - "Old and New, the Oscar Season Approaches"

NOTE: Just a heads up - the following "Page to Screen" column was written prior to my screening Todd Field's film last week. A review of the completed product will follow in the coming weeks. Stay tuned for that.

Tom Perrotta’s “Election” changed the careers of filmmakers Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor when they adapted the novel to critical acclaim in 1999. Tapping into a deep-seeded introspection of sorts that was vibrantly captured on screen, Perrotta’s singular voice could be sensed even through Payne and Taylor’s already developing heavy dosage of intellectual panache.

Taking the reins of a Perrotta adaptation this year is “In the Bedroom” helmer Todd Field. Leaving the brooding sensibilities of Andre Dubus III behind for the less plot-concerned Perrotta, and providing for what should be an intriguing character study above all else, Field seems, even with one film behind him, to be the right sort of filmmaker to take a crack at this novel.

Normally I save this kind of thing for "The Blog," but Fox Searchlight has released the one-sheet for Kevin Macdonald's "The Last King of Scotland," and it is the most striking, the least derivative poster released all year. Take a look:

This film has all the makings of a major Oscar player, one that most prognosticators are looking over in favor of Fox's lighter efforts, "Little Miss Sunshine" and the upcoming "A Good Year" and "The History Boys." But the story lurking in "Last King" has the gravitas to actually say something on a global stage. Most of the insularity of last year's Oscars may certainly be combatted this time around by stuff like this.

"The Last King of Scotland," written by Giles Foden, will be the subject of Monday, August 14th's "Page to Screen" column.

Warner Bros. has just informed the press that their releases "The Fountain" and "Lucky You" have been bumped to November 22 and October 27 respectively. That clears the latter off of "Hollywoodland"'s Oscar-starting spot on September 8 and gives the former the Thanksgiving weekend to hopefully pull in sizeable income.

The official press release, re: "The Fountain":

THE FOUNTAIN RELEASE DATE MOVING TO
THANKSGIVING FIVE-DAY WEEKEND
BURBANK, CA, 31 July 2006 – The domestic theatrical release of The Fountain, from Warner Bros. Pictures and Regency Enterprises, has been moved from October 13 to November 22, 2006. The announcement was made by Dan Fellman, President of Domestic Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures.

The film, written and directed by Darren Aronofsky (π, Requiem For a Dream) has already garnered impressive early buzz from both the press and fans.In response, the studio anticipates having an even stronger opening over the long holiday weekend.

“We are so proud of The Fountain and opening on the Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving will give more people a chance to see what we think is Darren’s finest work,” said Fellman. “The extra month will also allow time to build a bigger long-lead campaign and generate greater word-of-mouth in the weeks leading up to the opening,”

The Fountain is an odyssey about one man’s thousand-year struggle to save the woman he loves. His epic journey begins in 16th-century Spain, where conquistador Tomas (Hugh Jackman) commences his search for the Fountain of Youth, the legendary entity believed to grant immortality. As modern-day scientist Tommy Creo, he desperately struggles to find a cure for the cancer that is killing his beloved wife, Isabel (Rachel Weisz). Traveling through deep space as a 26th-century astronaut, Tom begins to grasp the mysteries that have consumed him for a millennium. The three stories converge into one truth, as the Thomas of all periods—warrior, scientist, and explorer—comes to terms with life, love, death and rebirth.

Warner Bros. Pictures and Regency Enterprises present, a Protozoa Pictures / New Regency Production of a film by Darren Aronofsky, The Fountain, starring Hugh Jackman (the X-Men franchise, Tony Award winner for Broadway’s The Boy From Oz), Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardner) and Academy Award winner Ellen Burstyn (Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore), who gained her sixth Oscar nomination for her work in Aronofsky’s Requiem For a Dream. Written and directed by Darren Aronofsky, from a story by Aronofsky & Ari Handel the film is produced by Eric Watson, Arnon Milchan and Iain Smith, with Nick Wechsler serving as executive producer. The behind-the-scene creative team is led by director of photography Matthew Libatique, production designer James Chinlund, editor Jay Rabinowitz, costume designer Renée April, and composer Clint Mansell.

The Fountain will be released domestically by Warner Bros. Pictures, a Warner Bros. Entertainment Company.

David Poland has geared up the Gurus o' Gold again over at Movie City News for a quick look from afar. This made for a nice look at what industry folks were predicting last year during the Oscar race, and a decent break from the prognostication that is so popular amongst the tenacious fanworld of Oscarland.

Personally I'm surprised anyone still thinks "Babel" can be seen as appealing enough throughout the Academy to garner a Best Picture nomination, but most of us agree that "Dreamgirls" and "World Trade Center" are shaping up to be great bets, while "The Good German" is on the fence for me, and "Flags of Our Fathers" (to round out the Gurus' top five) has become something of a question mark in my view as time has passed.

“World Trade Center” is a nearly flawless account of something so personal, yet so universal, that it leaves the instigating events of September 11, 2001 almost as an afterthought – lipstick on the rim of a wineglass long emptied. The triumph of commanding such humanity in the face of a story that could have easily been played up as the rah-rah “9/11 MOVIE” some might have expected belongs in large part to screenwriter Andrea Berloff, who pitched a striking and rich tale to producers Michael Shamberg and Stacy Sher before burying herself into the lives of Will Jimeno and John McLoughlin (the two Port Authority survivors upon which the film is based). A huge chunk of that glory, however, deserves to be placed into the hands of Oliver Stone, a filmmaker who shows in this latest effort (in a career speckled with films that were his own, if nothing else) that he retains the professionalism to tell a story free of artistic whimsy or personal commentary.

The film tells Jimeno (Michael Peña) and McLoughlin’s (Nicolas Cage) story in a straightforward manner free of any fuss, unnecessarily schmaltzy or otherwise. The drama of this story is not manufactured and is very much real. Of the 20 individuals successfully retrieved from the rubble of the World Trade Center, Jimeno and McLoughlin were numbers 18 and 19. Part of a confused and unprepared Port Authority team hastily assembled (as most efforts inevitably were that day), the two officers were in the lobby of Tower One when its fatal collapse ensued. Along with three other officers, the two men successfully retreated into an elevator shaft as the concrete jungle descended upon them. They had no idea what was happening, and indeed would not be aware that the World Trade Center had been obliterated until they were pulled from the rubble an ungodly number of hours later.

I read Berloff’s screenplay a few months ago and I found the material somewhat insipid upon an initial assessment. However, I must say I was more than pleasantly surprised to see the tale ultimately lifted so vibrantly off the page by Stone and the actors involved, finding the true pulse of the screenwriter’s work.

Berloff chooses to reveal Jimeno and McLoughlin’s story in the manner I reported on at that time, something of an “Apollo 13” template, cutting from the men in peril, to their wives, Allison (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and Donna (Maria Bello) respectively. Trapped, in their own way – on the outside, Allison and Donna waited in vain for word of their husbands’ survival, their demise, anything beyond the insistence of their simply being “missing.” Meanwhile, the longer Jimeno and McLoughlin remained submerged, the stronger their hope became in the face of losing the lives they loved, the lives in which they belonged more so than any other place on Earth. As their bodies physically gave way to the unforgiving pressure and internal bleeding, their spirits remained as solid as ever.

Nicolas Cage portrays McLoughlin with the steely sense of awareness and second-nature knowledge that seems about right. McLoughlin has seen much in his many years at the Port Authority, and if any man was the one to look to in such a crisis, he was the guy. He drafted the emergency scenarios relevant to another Word Trade Center attack following the 1993 bombing, but no one saw this event coming. There simply was no plan. But McLoughlin dove in as if he just did not know what to do otherwise, and it takes a certain acceptance of whatever might come one’s way to be that headstrong and that assured without the slightest trace of self-awareness. Cage portrays as much with a delicate ease that is at once arresting and relaxing.

Jimeno, the rookie of the crew, was out to prove himself like any other new kid on the block. He wanted the acceptance of his comrades but he also knew where the boundaries of his job were drawn. The respect he unabashedly held for authority is present in Peña’s portrayal, as well as a certain, at times infectious, positivity that shines through the thickest of rock and dust debris covering the actor’s face.

Gyllenhaal and Bello portray two women cosmically intertwined who would not meet one another, nor know of their fated connection until the whole ordeal was resolved. As the pregnant and sometimes hysterical Allison, Gyllenhaal steps her game up a notch (and will do so further later this year in Marc Forster’s “Stranger Than Fiction”), while Bello (donning eerie yet somehow strangely appealing blue contacts) portrays the rock of a mother of four you’d expect Donna McLoughlin to be; she certainly seems like the sort of woman the thought of whom would keep a man alive.

The rest of the cast most notably includes an unrecognizable Stephen Dorff as the officer in charge of Jimeno’s and McLoughlin’s extraction once they were discovered, as well as a nice cameo from Stone staple Frank Whaley as a helpful paramedic who seemed to have a story worth telling of his own. Michael Shannon (appearing in “Bug” later his year) also co-stars as Dave Karnes, a former marine who, desperate to help the situation, drove from Connecticut to New York and made his way to ground zero. Had he not taken that moment to rediscover his passion for serving his country, Jimeno and McLoughlin might never have been found alive.

I have to mention clearly that, while such thematics as “serving one’s country” or “the brotherhood of many to save a few,” or what have you, might seem potentially over-bearing, they are not as much in this film. These strands and basic facts come together on screen in “World Trade Center” less as manipulation than they do as insistent historic rhetoric. And the old-fashioned relating of the story from the hands of director Oliver Stone is at times stunning.

Humility is the most endangered trait amongst the filmmaking community today, and perhaps since the dawn of the medium. That Stone could so humbly remove himself and his ego from the spotlight in order to convey Jimeno’s and McLoughlin’s story is striking, not only due to the fact that this is Oliver Stone we are talking about, but I venture to say because few, if any other filmmaker, would have been so selfless about such a film. This will widely be reported as the most un-Oliver Stone film of the director’s career, and while that statement is true, it should not be seen as a slight, as if to say he finally came around or some such nonsense. Stone is one of the most artistically gifted filmmakers of his generation, responsible for some arousing innovations in visually storytelling. But he is also capable of the basest aspects of the field, and “World Trade Center” is his charcoal sketch; it is his watercolor with primaries. He left the fancy toolkit at home this time around, and he may have found something invigorating lurking in his long-abandoned primitive brushstrokes.

Before closing here I think it is worth pointing out that, all due respect to the cinematography of Seamus McGarvey or the score from Craig Armstrong, Jan Roelfs’s painstaking recreation of ground zero is worth a specific mention above all else. The work put into the rubble trapping Jimeno and McLoughlin, not to mention the practical usage of set materials during the collapse of the first tower, are design elements of the highest order, and should “World Trade Center” become an awards giant this Oscar season, I should certainly hope Roelfs and his team will be remembered.

Ultimately I must say I am very proud of the Hollywood establishment for handling 9/11 in the successful manner we’ve seen this year. Universal’s “United 93” and Paramount’s “World Trade Center” are two drastically different films with drastically different themes. One is about dread, the other about hope. However, just as those two feelings can go hand in hand, so do these two films, serving as serendipitous compliments to one another. “That day” was very much about dread and hope, and now that those two surface level, primal aspects of the event have been handled so capably, the filmmaking community is free to express itself through 9/11 in much more visceral, peripheral ways. Mike Binder’s upcoming “Reign O’er Me” might just be that first step. In the meantime, “World Trade Center” is a beautiful, engaging and affecting experience, one of the very best films of the year.

I completely forgot to mention this feature yesterday when I posted the Oscar column, but I've outlined a massive list of acting contenders and films in play by studio to go along with the predictions columns and charts. Check it out here.

Also, those links to the predictions charts in the sidebar are functional now, and they'll take you to the current charts each time we post a column or predictions update. All charts will be archived this year in the index.