In Contention

Tag: E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial

  • POLL: The most influential films of all time, round one, part two

    Harrison Ford in Blade RunnerAnd with that, part one of the first round of voting comes to a close.  Go here for the background on our survey.

    Today, we have 10 fresh titles in the left sidebar for you to rifle through on the way to choosing THREE worthy of moving forward to the next round.  Each poll throughout the rest of round one will include 10 films and choices of up to three.  Last week’s poll was the big dive, 16 titles.  The five that moved on from there were:

    “Apocalypse Now” (1979)
    “Battleship Potemkin” (1925)
    “Citizen Kane” (1941)
    “Gone with the Wind” (1939)
    “Rashomon” (1959)

    I must say, I was sad to see “Bonnie and Clyde” left out.  The Arthur Penn classic was in the top five for a while, but it was too close for comfort on “Battleship Potemkin” as far as I’m concerned.  Literally, a final vote right at the deadline secured it a place in the top five over “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial.”  That says one thing to me: more people need to see it.  So to those of you who’ve never seen it, do yourself a favor: seek it out.

    No, it is not the most captivating film of all time and no, you won’t be seeing anything “new” by your standards.  But do a little digging and find out why the film has meant so much to the practice of film editing and montage and you’ll discover why its impact is probably felt as much if not more than the most seminal titles on our massive list of 66.

    Keep in mind when voting: this isn’t a popularity contest.  Don’t just rattle off votes for your favorite films (which, I imagine, has to be the main reason “E.T” was so high on the list during part one).  Take a moment to think about what the films have meant to the medium.  This list represents you, the readership, after all, so vote wisely.

    This poll will close Wednesday, April 29 at 2:00 pm EST.

  • Oscar might go for “Button”

    Cate Blanchett in The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonThere is no good reason for me to think this, of course.  Call it a gut feeling, but I have a sneaking feeling the Academy might ignore “Slumdog Millionaire,” despite its countless awards, and go for homegrown studio product this year.  Let’s face it, the Academy has proven they march to their own drummer over and over again.

    “Slumdog” has already become a pop culture phenomenon around North America and Britain, making far more money than the filmmakers ever thought it would. Hell, before the festival season started the film was doomed, set for direct-to-DVD distribution.  Yes, Danny Boyle has won the DGA award, a solid predictor, but I’m not convinced.  Hollywood loves to congratulate itself, which we saw in 1997 with “Titanic” somehow winning a record 11 awards over the vastly superior “L.A. Confidential.”  David Fincher’s “Button” has been around for years, waiting for the right director, the right effects, the right time.

    So often in the past the Academy has gone for a film that is conservative and offends no one, ignoring the better work.”Driving Miss Daisy” over “Do the Right Thing” (which wasn’t even nominated), “Gandhi” over “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial,” “Oliver!” over “2001:A Space Odyssey.”  The list goes on and on.  “Button” is a handsomely mounted project, beautifully shot, meticulously crafted, with strong performances from the cast,and rock solid direction from Fincher.

    “Slumdog” may well prevail, but as a devil’s advocate, I am throwing it out there that “Button” could surprise, taking wins for both Best Picture and Best Director.  Am I crazy?

  • Getting carried away with ‘WALL-E’ and the LAFCA

    BrazilI have been griping about the state of the movie year since after the Toronto International Film Festival, and frankly I took some heat for bitching about it. So yes, I feel some vindication about the way the season is shaping up: 2008 is a hugely disappointing year at the movies, with only a handful of really brilliant films. After the bounty of last year, obviously our hopes were high, which is a mistake, but it seems we have endured one failure after another this year.

    So the Los Angeles Film Critics Association voted “WALL-E” best film of the year.  Does this increase the film’s Oscar chances for a Best Picture nod? It will certainly draw some more attention but at the end of the day the film will land in the feature animation category, which is where it belongs.

    I agree with Kris that “WALL-E” is over-appreciated and hugely overrated. Yes, it was a good film, a beautiful picture that was a stunning visual experience, but it’s not the masterpiece it is being hailed as. In my opinion it is indicative of the weak movie year we are suffering through.  I have three more films to see to wrap up my 2008 coverage, and at this writing, “The Dark Knight” is my choice as best film of the year, with Nolan my best director.  So I have to say it was cool to see both slide in as runner-ups.

    But let’s be realistic about the L.A. Film Critics.  They like to make a statement. They did it in 1985 with “Brazil,” an unreleased film from Terry Gilliam that somehow won their Best Picture prize and forced Universal to finally put it in theaters.

    (more…)

  • Attenborough: Oscar got it wrong

    As awards geeks, bitching about the Academy’s supposed mistakes is pretty much our favourite sport. The question of who should and shouldn’t have won provides endless material for discussion — frequently on these pages.

    One of the titles that comes up often in the “shouldn’t have won” category is Richard Attenborough’s “Gandhi,” that well-mounted, well-acted and thoroughly indigestible biopic that managed to beat such more-beloved nominees as “Tootsie” and “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.” It was an unpopular choice even at the time. After the ceremony, NYT critic Vincent Canby famously wrote: “”E.T.” and “Tootsie” are films. “Gandhi” is a laboriously illustrated textbook.”

    Interestingly, Lord Attenborough, of all people, agrees. In a recent interview with BBC Radio Five, he admits that “E.T.” was robbed, being “an infinitely more creative and fundamental piece of cinema” than his own winning film. Attenborough continues:

    [Business partner] Diana and I went to see “E.T.” in Los Angeles shortly before all the awards and we used language, when we came out, to the extent of saying ‘we have no chance – “E.T.” should and will walk away with it’.

    Without the initial premise of Mahatma Gandhi, the film (“Gandhi”) would be nothing. Therefore it’s a narrative film but it’s a piece of narration rather than a piece of cinema, as such. “E.T.” depended absolutely on the concept of cinema and I think that Steven Spielberg, who I’m very fond of, is a genius. I think “E.T.” is a quite extraordinary piece of cinema.

    I couldn’t have said it any better myself. I’ve never been a fan of Attenborough as a filmmaker (“Shadowlands” excepted), but he sure is a classy guy. There are a lot of undeserving Oscar winners out there who must know they got lucky, but few of them have the guts to come right out and say so.

    Anyone else want to come forward? Kevin Costner? Gwyneth Paltrow? John G. Avildsen? Anyone?

  • Actors winning Best Director — always deserved?

    Of course not. Quite often the Academy gets behind an actor for the simple reason they pulled of the film without screwing too much up.

    How else can one explain Mel Gibson’s win for “Braveheart” but failure to be nominated for his masterpiece “The Passion of the Christ” and “Apocalypto,” easily two of the finest directed films of the last ten years? Somewhere along the road, the Academy fell in love with actors who try their hand at directing (unless your name is Sean Penn or Barbara Streisand) and began giving away Oscars, quite often over more deserving directors.

    Poor Martin Scorsese has watched actors win the Best Director prize over his work three times. In 1980, of course, Robert Redford won for his drama “Ordinary People” over Scorsese’s searing “Raging Bull,” while ten years later Kevin Costner won the Oscar for “Dances with Wolves,” besting Scorsese for “Goodfellas.” But hey — this is the Academy…right? Clint Eastwood also bested Scorsese’s “The Aviator” in 2004 with a win for “Million Dollar Baby.”

    One year after Redford won his Academy Award for Best Director, Warren Beatty took home the award, much deserved for his criminally under-appreciated epic “Reds.” But he would watch in shock as “Chariots of Fire” ran to the Best Picture award over his film. The following year, a minor British actor, Richard Attenborough directed “Gandhi,” which the Academy fell in love with, honoring the achievements of the film’s subject rather than the effort itself, which even at the time seemed old-fashioned and rather ordinary. Attenborough himself, on the way to accept the Directors Guild Award for the film, stopped to chat with Steven Spielberg to make clear what everyone in the room seemed to know: that Spielberg should have won the award for “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial!”

    (more…)