In Contention

Tag: The Class

  • CANNES CHECK: ‘Polisse’

    The director: Maïwenn (France)

    The talent: Actress-turned-writer-director Maïwenn Le Besco (who prefers going by her first name, and whom US viewers might remember as the blue-tentacled soprano from “The Fifth Element”) takes the lead role herself, starring opposite French rapper-turned-actor Joeystarr. Supporting them, a host of familiar French faces, including Nicolas Duvauchelle (“White Material”), Frédéric Pierrot (“I’ve Loved You So Long”) and Louis-Do de Lencquesaing (“The Father of My Children”). Among the below-the-line names is Oscar-winning composer Stephen Warbeck (“Shakespeare in Love”).

    The pitch: Maïwenn’s third feature as director appears to be equal parts romantic drama and socially conscious tract. She stars as a photojournalist assigned to document goings-on at the Paris police department’s Juvenile Protection Unit, where she falls in love with a sensitive, unorthodox cop; the official synopsis emphasises the former’s bourgeois background, which implies class difference could play a significant role in the relationship. The synopsis also stresses the gruelling day-to-day routine of policemen in the unit, which may or may not hint at a kind of urban docudrama treatment.

    (more…)

  • Guy’s top 50 of the decade: #21-30

    Maggie Cheung in In the Mood for LoveA little late, but we’re at the halfway mark now, and I must say I couldn’t be more delighted and flattered by your warm response to the list so far.

    I mentioned in my intro to the first installment that I’d prefer you to view this as a loose playlist than as a rigid ordered assessment, and I’m thrilled that some of you have already taken me at my word, seeking out less-seen titles like “Last Resort” on Netflix and the like. On behalf of the movies, I thank you.

    With that said, today’s bracket of ten perhaps offers less buried treasure than yesterday’s, even turning up a pair of Best Picture Oscar winners. Hey, sometimes films get popular for a reason — I’m not such a snob, after all.

    That said, I suspect at least one of the following inclusions might prompt some healthy disagreement. The list continues after the cut.

    (more…)

  • Germany submits ‘White Ribbon’ for Oscar

    The White RibbonIt should come as no surprise to anyone that Germany has selected Michael Haneke’s “The White Ribbon” (trailer here) as their official candidate for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. No foreign-language Palme d’Or winner has failed to be entered in the race since Japan’s “The Eel” in 1997, and “The White Ribbon” has both breathless critical acclaim and a recognizable auteur name going for it.

    Still, the severe arthouse work remains an adventurous choice for Germany, given that Haneke’s icy formalism hardly sits very comfortably in the Academy’s wheelhouse.

    The Austrian filmmaker has previously had four of his films submitted for Oscar consideration by his home country, each time failing to make the Academy’s grade: most recently, 2005 critical darling “Caché” was controversially disqualified for not being in the submitting country’s own language. (The resulting outcry prompted a revision of the rules.)

    (more…)

  • Cannes: sizing up the Competition, part one

    Penelope Cruz in Broken EmbracesWith the Cannes Film Festival only two days away, it’s time to take a long hard look (or just a look, if you prefer) at the 20 films in contention for the Palme d’Or, a typically eclectic bunch married by only one factor: all but one are from directors who have been in the race before. (And people accuse the Oscars of playing favorites.)

    Cannes is a notoriously tricky (and often well-nigh impossible) contest to predict: partly because the voting body is an ever-changing template, but largely because there’s been no time ahead of the festival for any kind of critical or popular consensus to build around the mostly unseen films on the shortlist.

    This may mean that in some cases the jury is susceptible to a film’s auteur cache — think “The Wind That Shakes the Barley” in 2006 — but it also allows for surprise attacks by less heralded titles on the basis of quality alone. Though it may seem an obvious winner in retrspect, few were talking about “The Class” last year before it snuck up on the last day and slayed the competition.

    With those caveats on the table, here’s a film-by-film (10 today, 10 tomorrow) rundown of this year’s lineup, detailing the Cannes credentials of each director, and offering some thoughts as to where they may sit in the competition. I make no promises — except that at least half my speculation will likely be proved wildly wrong in a fortnight’s time.

    “BROKEN EMBRACES” (Pedro Almodovar)

    The pitch: Already widely seen and reviewed, the film marks a return to film noir territory for the Spanish master, a complex melodrama headed by Penelope Cruz as an actress trying to rid herself of an aging lover. (Spanish dialogue)

    The history: On his two previous Competition appearances, for “All About My Mother” in 1999 and “Volver” in 2006, Almodovar entered the race as the bookies’ favourite, only to land the consolation prizes of Best Director and Best Screenplay, respectively.

    The outlook: Reviews so far have been kind, if reserved; several critics appear to delight in Almodovar’s trademark color-saturated visuals and off-kilter humor, but few have suggested that this ranks among his finest works. Almodovar is surely overdue for the festival’s top honor, but if a more unanimously lauded work like “Volver” couldn’t do the trick, my guess is that “Broken Embraces” won’t either. I think the jury may pass altogether.

    (more…)

  • Better late…

    Last week’s server switch-induced hiatus prevented me from commenting on the César Awards — perhaps the ceremony I was eyeing most keenly this year given the prominence of my personal favourites in their rich pool of nominees. (I’ll say it again: France ruled 2008. End of story.)

    You’ve probably read the winners elsewhere by now. Nonetheless, I would like to offer a quick shout-out to the delightful IC interviewee Elsa Zylberstein, who deservedly took Best Supporting Actress honors for “I’ve Loved You So Long” (which also grabbed the Best First Film award). One of my many disappointments last season was watching Zylberstein enter the derby with a measure of dark-horse buzz, only to fall by the wayside at every single opportunity — I was thrilled to see her finally take home some hardware for a mighty career breakthrough.

    Zylberstein’s magnificent co-star, on the other hand, was just one of many frontrunners derailed by a surprising sweep for “Séraphine,” a modest biopic of historically neglected painter Séraphine de Senlis that garnered some warm notices at Toronto, but has otherwise been below the radar outside its home country. (It missed Oscar eligibility by a single day, though perhaps we should bear it in mind for next year.)

    I look forward to seeing it when it drops in the UK this summer. If it honestly deserved to beat the likes of “The Class” (which finally got some notice for its extraordinary screenplay), “A Christmas Tale” or “I’ve Loved You So Long,” it must be one hell of a picture. Full list of winners below the cut.

    (more…)

  • More than one ‘right’ choice

    Waltz with BashirIn the largely good-natured responses to a largely good-natured Oscar ceremony, only one result has been greeted with any real rancour from critics or pundits –- the “upset” (anticipated by some clever folks at the eleventh hour) in the Best Foreign Language Film category. But as much sympathy as one feels for the disappointed team behind the upended frontrunner, “Waltz With Bashir,” I can’t help feeling a little bad for the ultimate victor, “Departures,” whose moment in the sun is being somewhat tainted by the amount of resentment being cast its way.

    David Carr describes “Bashir’s” loss as “the biggest miss of the year,” adding that the Japanese film’s victory signals a triumph of convention over innovation. Meanwhile, Sasha Stone, who is usually at pains to be the most disinterested of Oscar bloggers, suggests that the win is “the worst of this year.” But these are mild jabs compared to Scott Foundas’ furious rant over the affair, in which he dismisses “Departures” as a “relentlessly mediocre tearjerker” and rages that “Bashir” was simply too sophisticated for the voters:

    Folman’s film was simply too innovative for the Academy’s notoriously calcified tastes … While Waltz builds to a conclusion that many (including this critic) counted among the most emotionally devastating in movies last year, it is a moment that is earned by the film rather than cheaply calculated, and which raises more questions than it answers. That’s something that many viewers of Folman’s film have found thrilling to behold, but which may well have inspired paroxysms of rage in Academy voters who stand by the belief that a movie should have a clear beginning, middle and end and send people out of the theater feeling better about “humanity.”

    I must admit to having mixed feelings about the whole business. I must emphasise that I have yet to see “Departures,” so I can make no statement about whether or not it’s an undeserving winner –- though I confess I’d be surprised if it’s as striking or provocative a piece of work as “Bashir.” And while I’m not as ardent a devotee of Folman’s film as many critics, I can’t deny that I was excited by the possibility of an animated documentary breaking new ground in a frequently conservative category. (On another tack, as I’ve said before, I agree with Foundas that the film’s omission from the ceremony’s ‘Animation 2008’ montage was inexplicable.)

    (more…)

  • More on ‘Departures’ and a potential foreign upset

    DeparturesUPDATE: Well, it seems Tom has pulled the post down.  Perhaps, as commenter Josh notes, he got his info a bit twisted.  I’ll leave this here for now but check Josh’s explanation of the process.  The waters were muddied there for a bit.

    EARLIER: Tom O’Neil writes the following over at Gold Derby:

    A few days ago Gold Derby reported exclusively that “The Class” got nominated thanks to the new procedure that permits the academy’s internal foreign-film committee to overrule voters and add as many as three titles to the five in the category. (EDITOR’S NOTE: This seems to be the misinterpreted information.) The new rule was instituted to dispel the kind of outcry that followed last year’s omission of previous Cannes winner “4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days” (Romania).

    Now Gold Derby can tattle a bit more. An excellent source tells us that the committee used its prerogative fully, bumping three films nominated by normal procedure in order to add their own choices. (EDITOR’S NOTE: This, too.  It seems the added films came during the first shortlisting process.) What were the other two? We don’t know for sure, but it seems logical to assume that they were other art-house darlings beloved by film critics who’d probably raise a ruckus if they were overlooked…

    How utterly screwed up this element of the Oscar process is.  It’s already pathetic that a special committee has to be there for oversight in the event that a film is snubbed that might cause some outcry, but hey, if there’s outcry over your choices, don’t bend to the will of the people and/or the critical fraternity.  Have the balls to stand by your own shitty taste.

    Anyway, it’s more and more obvious that, as I’ve been saying, the members that tend to vote in this category simply have it out for non-traditional filmmaking, end of story.  This band-aiding of the situation is just folly and, truthfully, there needs to be an entire re-working of the category’s process from the ground up.

  • You were right, I was wrong: Guy’s final predictions

    (Expanded thoughts and reasonings on yesterday’s list of predictions.)

    It’s years like 2008 when I throw my hands up and admit (albeit with great reluctance) that my family and friends have been right for the last two decades. Carla, Tom, Kim, Auntie Mavis: I give up. I am insane to care as much as I do about the Oscars. They are stupid. They don’t matter, and I really should find something more important and rewarding to care about, like, oh, needlepoint classes or professional darts championships.

    But who am I kidding? I will always care about the Oscars, even in years like this when the race is so dry, and its significance so questionable, that I take great care in not caring. In a year when so few of my personal favourites have cracked the contenders list, it has at least been interesting to sit back and watch the furore unfold over the Academy voters’ spectacularly self-sabotaging antics this year.

    I’ve been wrong about a lot of things this year (Kris scoffed at my naive suggestion back in July that “Happy-Go-Lucky” could be a Best Picture nominee, and he was right to), and right about … well … “Milk’s” nomination for Best Costume Design. (Hey, let me salvage some glory from this year’s meagre spoils.) I don’t expect to be a hell of a lot more successful with the following predictions, but you never know. It’s still been a lot of fun riding out the season with you this year – here’s to a better slate of contenders (and a lot less grousing from me) in 12 months’ time.

    BEST PICTURE
    Apart from the fact that it is the most imaginative and entertaining of this year’s feeble clutch of nominees, the reason “Slumdog Millionaire” has a stranglehold on this category is because it’s the only one of the five that has any discernible relationship to contemporary cinema. The other four all feel to varying degrees like the finely-tooled Best Picture winners of decades past, but the younger, more curious Academy members have been moving away from such self-consciously packaged ‘prestige product’ in the past few years – even if they need a lot of pointing towards what to reward in its stead.

    (more…)

  • Going with ‘Departures’

    Waltz with BashirI said yesterday that if I got cold feet on any of my predictions I would let you know, and less than 24 hours later, I’ve decided to take the dive on “Departures.”

    A lot of foreign film committee members really responded to this film, and it’s easy to see why.  It is “the kind of soft, safe, solid work that tends to take out the frontrunner in this category time and again,” I wrote yesterday.  “It deals with death in a really affecting way, at once eerie, humorous and, ultimately, moving.  When it threatens to pass into trite territory, it finds a way to stay fresh and alive, very human and absolutely satisfying…When you look back over the history of this category, you see a certain bias against non-traditional filmmaking,” i.e. an animated/documentary hybrid, however powerful.

    Today Pete Hammond has offered his thoughts on the matter, noting that “no animated film, no documentary and no film from Israel has ever won here so it would be three firsts. If not ‘Bashir,’ most pundits then move to the Palme d’Or winner from France, ‘The Class,’” Hammond continues, “but some voters I talked to thought it was dull. One even left after the first half. The committee at large likely did not vote this in on the first round and the academy’s executive committee put in it in the mix (they won’t confirm this but sources indicate that was the case). If you are looking for a pool winner go with Japan for the upset. That country’s film,’Departures’ is one the original foreign language committee LOVED.”  (UPDATE: Pete has now gone ahead and predicted “Departures” for the win as well.)

    Then there was that interesting bit of information from commenter Josh yesterday, who said, “‘Departures’ is also the least-screened nominee–if you didn’t see it at an AMPAS members screening, you probably didn’t see it. That’s an old strategy, restricting the pool of voters to the people who’ve gone out of their way to see your movie…The kind of voters who didn’t even nominate ‘Gomorrah’ or ‘4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days’ might well find the other nominees a bit cold, and go for a gentler movie that’s lovely, lyrical and a touch melodramatic.”

    Despite the precursor record “Waltz with Bashir” has tallied up, if you look at Academy history, it faces an uphill climb.  And beyond stylistic bias, it could be as simple as one guy at Hollywood Elsewhere put it (rather bluntly): “It’s a cartoon and it makes Israel look bad.”  There might be some painful truth there, however misinformed the opinion might be.

    In any case, there’s something in the winds here.  Maybe it’s folly, maybe it’s an attempt at injecting the race with some sort of excitement, maybe I’m falling on my sword, but I’m going to step out onto a limb and predict “Departures” to upset “Waltz with Bashir” tomorrow night.  You only live once, I guess.

    The adjustments have been made in the usual places, here, here and, of course, here.  Ditto the sidebar.

  • Could ‘Departures’ upset ‘Waltz with Bashir’ in the foreign language film category?

    DeparturesNow that I’ve finally seen Japanese foreign film contender “Departures,” the last of the year’s nominees that had yet to cross my path, I thought it a good idea to go ahead and toss up a final look at the foreign language film category.  Over the last few weeks I’ve dived into the short film nominees, the doc shorts and the doc features.  This is the last of those categories, which require voters to see all of the nominees before being permitted to vote.

    I spent the last two days with all of the foreign contenders, re-watching “The Baader Meinhof Complex,” “The Class” and presumed frontrunner “Waltz with Bashir” and finally taking in the bleak “Revanche,” as well as “Departures.”  The question I’m left with, much as I was in the documentary feature category a few days back (in a piece that was largely taken out of context across the net) is this: have we succumbed to the group think yet again?  Because I have a feeling “Departures” is waiting to spoil.

    It’s a beautiful film in a lot of ways, certainly not a more artistic achievement than “Waltz” but the kind of soft, safe, solid work that tends to take out the frontrunner in this category time and again.  It deals with death in a really affecting way, at once eerie, humorous and, ultimately, moving.  When it threatens to pass into trite territory, it finds a way to stay fresh and alive, very human and absolutely satisfying.

    When you look back over the history of this category, you see a certain bias against non-traditional filmmaking.  The fantasy of frontrunner “Pan’s Labyrinth” fell to the straight-forward “The Lives of Others,” a moment relatively few of us saw coming but seemed totally rational for many in hindsight.  The epic “Hero” and the artfully renderd “The Man Without a Past” both lost out to the classic stylings of “Nowhere in Africa” while the whimsy of “Amélie” fell to “No Man’s Land.”  It happens.

    So why, exactly, is it a foregone conclusion that an animated documentary hybrid film will walk away with the Oscar?  Certainly the excuse isn’t: “Because it’s the best of the nominees,” right?  It’s a sentiment I happen to agree with, but that argument never holds water.  What’s more, the film is a mere 90 minutes, while every other nominee stretches past the two hour mark.  You might think a shorter entry would be a respite to voters, but only three times in the last 10 years has the shortest film won.  And each of those was more than 90 minutes long.

    (more…)

  • Not so very shocking

    Dave Karger has posted a list of ten potential “shockers” that he thinks could (however faintly) foreseeably shake things up on Oscar night.

    Many of them have been raised before, and are suitably fanciful. Though I’ve said before that there is a logical case to be made for Melissa Leo leapfrogging both Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep to the Best Actress award, it’s safe to say that the odds are firmly stacked against that happening. Meanwhile, while the “‘Benjamin Button’ goes 0-for-13” theory has been floated around before, it’s difficult to see how it could lose all three of the technical awards in which it is deemed a lock. So those outcomes would certainly count as shocking in some measure.

    Some of Karger’s ideas would definitely be upsets, but not necessarily “shockers.” As I’ve written before, I’m joining him on the same limb in predicting a Best Foreign Language Film win for “The Class” — but that category is so prone to upsets, it’s almost more of a surprise when things go according to plan. And I know I’m not the only one seriously considering Viola Davis in the frequently topsy-turvy Best Supporting Actress category — she’s not the favourite, sure, but it wouldn’t be a jaw-dropper of Marcia Gay Harden proportions.

    Some of Karger’s supposed “shockers,” however, wouldn’t even count as upsets to me. He lists both the possibility of “Slumdog Millionaire” making a clean sweep of nine awards, and “The Dark Knight” getting only one statuette — which are really co-dependent on each other, since the sound awards, as far as I can see, represent “TDK’s” only other shots at victory. (Cinematography, I think, sailed with the ASC.) And since “Slumdog” just nabbed the CAS award, would that be so very unexpected?

    The one on Karger’s list that really surprised me, however, was a Best Actor win for Mickey Rourke. It’s well-known by now that this is a neck-and-neck battle to the finish between two beloved performances that have evenly split the major Oscar precursors. In the latest Gurus of Gold chart, Penn leads Rourke by a single vote. I think we can honestly say by now that either result would not be a surprise at all. Now Frank Langella … that would be a shocker.

  • Is ‘The Class’ in a position to upset ‘Bashir?’

    (UPDATE: I see Dave Karger is placing his money on “The Class” too. Interesting.)

    Yesterday, Kris took a look at the Best Documentary Feature category, and wondered whether the winner there is quite the foregone conclusion that most people think. Supporting his argument was the category’s unusual rule that voters have to have seen all five contenders before casting their ballots –- a rule which can make the category less susceptible to consensus thinking than elsewhere, as voters are forced to make aesthetic decisions for themselves rather than letting the campaigns decide for them.

    It’s a situation that can either consolidate a frontrunner’s appeal, or throw up a surprise as voters lose their hearts to a less-publicised gem. And while I agree with Kris that the latter is a possibility in the doc race, I’ve been wondering lately whether a similar upset could be brewing in the Best Foreign Language Film race –- which also requires voters to view all the nominees.

    For some time, “Waltz With Bashir” has been installed as the de facto frontrunner in this race –- and with good reason. It’s vastly acclaimed (remember the National Society of Film Critics named it the year’s best film, period), wildly inventive, won a number of significant precursors (though it recently stumbled at the BAFTAs) and, crucially, has a cache of political currency that could seal the deal for the frequently high-minded voters in this category.

    But it has a number of strikes against it too. It’s the first animated film ever to be nominated in this category, as well as the first documentary –- and the Academy isn’t exactly known for embracing the new. Given that voters in this field tend to be older Academy members, are we sure that they will take an animated effort seriously here? And are we sure that they won’t be put off by the film’s challenging, oblique structure? I’m not.

    (more…)

  • Start from scratch, Academy

    I do love a good rant about the Academy Awards. And Ryan Gilbey is, for my money, one of the sharpest, most entertaining film writers around these days. So it figures that a Gilbey-written attack on the Oscars, in the lefty political mag the New Statesman, should make for good reading.

    Gilbey cheerfully admits that he “hates” the Oscars, even as they fascinate him by “systematically disparag(ing) the creativity and alchemy of filmmaking.” And as in David Denby’s own recent rant, he dislikes all of this year’s Best Picture contenders save for “Milk,” though he still thinks Gus Van Sant’s film “pales beside” the likes of “WALL-E.” (I particularly like the accuracy with which he skewers “Frost/Nixon,” arguing that it is “built like a sitcom — every joke has its payoff in the following shot.” Bingo.)

    But he also offers some ideas for how to fix the supposedly broken machine that is the Oscars. And while some of them are typically playful and even perverse (ban Ron Howard and Meryl Streep from future nominations, he pleads), some of them (to me, at least) really make a lot of sense. I particularly like his two-birds-with-one-stone approach to rectifying the embarrassing foreign-language situation, starting by abolishing the Foreign Film category altogether:

    Scrap the only award specially designed to allow a sliver of glory to fall on cinema from other cultures. Why? Well, it’s patronising, for a start. Not quite as bad as the Best British Film Bafta, I’ll grant you, but still only a hair away from being termed The Special Needs Award For Hopeless Cases. It’s nothing short of insulting to see Laurent Cantet’s The Class and Ari Folman’s Waltz With Bashir consigned to this subsidiary category when there is more accomplishment in one frame of those films than in the entirety of most of this year’s Best Picture contenders. An awards system that does not consider The Class good enough to compete with Frost/Nixon or Slumdog Millionaire deserves to be a laughing stock.

    So how will foreign-language films get a look-in? Call it positive discrimination or affirmative action, but from now on, the total number of Best Picture nominees should be raised to six, of which two must come from non-English-speaking countries. There is simply no other way to redress the balance than to force Academy voters to consider films that are not being screened at the local mall. Let’s put The Reader up against Waltz With Bashir and then we’ll see some real tears from Kate Winslet.

    Good stuff. The rest here.

  • 2/10 Oscarweb Round-up

    Jeffrey Dean Morgan in Watchmen• At least Ron Rosenbaum kind of gets it.  Though he apparently thinks he’s the only one a bit miffed at the redemption angle.  Do some more Googling, Ron. [Slate]

    • Joining the “Reader” bash, Noah Forrest pleads with the Academy not to hand the Oscar to Kate Winslet. [Movie City News]

    • Jeff Wells gets word that Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” could be in theaters by the end of the year. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

    • David Poland scatters “Watchmen” gossip while apparently indicating that Warner Bros. owes him and others a look at the film a month in advance. [The Hot Blog]

    • Patrick Goldstein is big on foreign film contender “The Class.” [The Big Picture]

    • Brits pick the most memorable movie quotes ever. [Daily Telegraph]

    • Sasha Stone talks to Oscar-nominated “Frozen River” scribe Courtney Hunt. [Awards Daily]

    • Thank God Michael Bay didn’t have his way with this year’s Oscar telecast. [Rope of Silicon]

    • Pete Hammond jumps on the “Mickey might win” bandwagon, becomes, like, the 10th person to draw a parallel to last year’s Best Actress race.  He also points to a potential Viola Davis upset in the supporting actress category. [Notes on a Season]

    • David Carr, meanwhile, comments on Rourke’s “whale of a speech” at the BAFTAs.  But he rather insultingly thinks voters would be “picking the speech over the performance.”  Hardly. [The Carpetbagger]

    • Xan Brooks prays for a little spice and surprising variety at this year’s Oscar ceremony. [The Guardian]

  • Cesar nods include ‘Class,’ ‘Loved,’ Swinton

    Now here’s a set of nominations I can get behind. As I may have mentioned before, 2008 was all about the rejuvenation of French cinema for me, with Gallic productions occupying a quarter of my year-end Top 20, including the two poll spots.

    So it’s hardly surprising that I’m immensely pleased by the list of nominees revealed yesterday for the Cesar Awards, otherwise known as the French Oscars –- not least because my two list-topping films, “I’ve Loved You So Long” and newly-minted Oscar nominee “The Class,” feature strongly.

    The former grabbed 6 nods, including a surefire Best Actress bid for the sadly Oscar-snubbed Kristin Scott Thomas, while I’m pleased to see her wonderful co-star, Elsa Zylberstein, finally getting some awards love in the supporting category. “The Class” managed five, though I’m a little disappointed to see the film’s excellent ensemble go unacknowledged, even in the ‘young actor’ categories.

    Both films feature in the Best Picture lineup, as does “Public Enemy Number One,” a sprawling biopic of gangster Jacques Mesrine that has been a local box-office smash and leads all nominees with 10 bids. Close behind, with nine, is Arnaud Desplechin’s critical favourite “A Christmas Tale,” though I’m surprised to see its two most dynamic stars, Catherine Deneuve and last year’s Best Actor winner Mathieu Amalric, both snubbed.

    Incidentally, Kristin Scott Thomas wasn’t the only Brit to receive notice: also landing in the Best Actress lineup is Tilda Swinton, for her astounding performance in Erick Zoncka’s “Julia.” Together with the insane snubs of Scott Thomas and Sally Hawkins, the fact that this fearless piece of work never even entered the Oscar discussion boggles the mind. But I digress.

    (More thoughts, and a list of nominations, below the cut.)

    (more…)

  • Hey, it ain’t ALL bad

    OK, looking at the bigger picture, I’m as mortified as everyone else by this morning’s Academy Award nominations. By playing it safe in numerous areas, AMPAS voters have once more failed their art form … but more surprisingly, they have failed their audience.

    Kris has already touched to some extent on the most glaring injustices of the morning, and I plan to indulge in my own share of ranting later today. But before I get into that, I’d like to channel my inner Bing Crosby and accentuate the positive. Amid the minefield of errors, there were some isolated pleasant surprises and level-headed decisions, even if many of them were on a smaller scale. And these were the best of them:

    “GRAN TORINO” STRIKES OUT: Many were speculating that the latest from the (usually) Oscar-beloved Clint Eastwood could be a spoiler in the top race, with the man himself an ominous threat to actually take the Best Actor gong. But for once, Eastwood’s stealth-release strategy didn’t pay off. Either the film gathered momentum too late, or voters saw through the film’s creaky construction and hammy lead turn. Either way, in passing over Eastwood for the wonderful Richard Jenkins, the Academy made the right call.

    ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY GETS ORIGINAL: Matching the WGA’s Original Screenplay nominees in only one instance, voters dug deep here and pulled some inspired choices out of the hat. Bypassing the familiar comforts of Woody Allen or the Coen Brothers, they recognised that “Frozen River” owed its jagged, riveting tension to more than just Melissa Leo’s stellar performance, and, most thrillingly, recognised the pitch-black wit and literary sensibility of “In Bruges.” A nod for Mike Leigh’s unconventionally constructed “Happy-Go-Lucky” was more expected, but no less gratifying.

    (more…)

  • My dream ballot: part two

    OK, I explained the deal with this yesterday, when I covered the technical categories. What follows are the names and films that I, in a perfect world, would like to hear announced by Sid Ganis and Forest Whitaker bright and early tomorrow morning. (Or tomorrow afternoon, in my case … living across the Atlantic does have occasional advantages.)

    Once more, my personal ballot takes no notice of Academy rules, eligibility squabbles, or whether or not anyone believes they have a shot in hell. For me, they simply represent the finest achievements I saw in 2008, with all the subjectivity that entails. Feel free to argue, or share your own distant hopes for tomorrow — however faint — in the comments.

    Best Picture
    “The Class”
    “Gomorrah”
    “I’ve Loved You So Long”
    “Synecdoche, New York”
    “Wendy and Lucy”

    OK, so this won’t comes a surprise to anyone who read my Best of 2008 list, but these remain for me the year’s five most clear-cut masterworks. I’ve already made the case for each of these nominees at greater length, but for now, let me say that they are all notably linked by their startling humanity and strength of characterisation. The Academy will inevitably focus on works more formally elaborate than most of those listed here, but from where I’m standing, none were more emotionally rewarding. (As it happens, my honourable mentions here get their due in the next category.)

    (more…)

  • ‘Gomorrah’ doesn’t deliver, says AMPAS

    Kris has already given the philistines on the Academy’s foreign-language film committee a deserved telling-off for sidelining Italy’s astonishing entry “Gomorrah,” but I feel compelled to add my voice to his — not least because, if I had my way, Matteo Garrone’s cinematic gut-punch about the Camorra crime syndicate would be in line for a Best Picture nod, not just a puny ghetto-category citation.

    I could be here all day if I decided to go through the innumerable landmark films, from “City of God” to “The Celebration” to “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” that have been similarly mistreated by this ever-disappointing branch of voters, so I shouldn’t have been surprised when they failed us yet again, right?

    And yet I was, because the newly formed executive committee, which added an extra three titles to the list of six elected by the main body, was specifically designed to avoid such travesties. I can believe that they may well have used one of their slots to save France’s masterpiece “The Class” from exclusion, and if that’s the case, I’m most grateful. (Though I still wouldn’t put it past the boneheads to omit it from the final five.) Hell, it’s not inconceivable to me that they coud have stepped in on behalf of a popular favourite like “Waltz With Bashir” — the ignorance of the larger committee knows no bounds.

    But even given that worst case scenario, and speaking as someone who has seen 8 of the 9 shortlisted titles, I can’t fathom how the executive committee didn’t deem “Gomorrah” worthy of their company. What was the rule change for, if not to protect challenging, relevant, widely acclaimed works like Garrone’s film? 

    Well, Jeff Wells has done some digging, and seems to have found the explanation. He spoke to a member of the committee, who had this to say:

    Voices in the foreign branch’s executive elite committee just didn’t think Gomorrah “delivered in the way it could or should have,” he said. “It’s not a matter of it not being heart-warming. It’s a matter of our respecting the film without believing that it really brought the goods home.”

    (more…)