In Contention

Tag: Waltz With Bashir

  • ‘White Ribbon,’ Bertolucci win BBC World Cinema Awards

    Fear not, you haven’t entered a very somber Tardis and woken up in December 2009. The BBC World Cinema Award is a small but creditable gong dished out annually to honor the best in foreign-language film — but due to a significant change in the show’s calendar, this year’s award effectively spanned the last two years of UK releases.

    Hence the rather stale-sounding list of nominees, but congratulations anyway to Michael Haneke’s 2009 Cannes champ “The White Ribbon,” which triumphed over “I Am Love,” “A Prophet,” “Let the Right One In” and “Waltz With Bashir.” (Note the absence of a certain pair of recent Oscar winners for Best Foreign Language Film.) Previous winners of the award include “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “Downfall.”

    The award was determined by a jury headed by Oscar-winning screenwriter and playwright Christopher Hampton, and presented in London last week. At the same time, Bernardo Bertolucci was honored with a lifetime achievement award. Anyway, nothing to stop the presses for, but thought you’d like to know.

    [Photo: Sony Pictures Classics]

  • The making of a surprise

    The Secret of KellsI think it’s fairly inarguable that this year’s most unexpected Oscar nomination was the deserved Best Animated Feature nod for “The Secret of Kells,” the Irish festival creeper that some journos even admitted to not having heard of. If you had your money on that one, you have my respect in addition to your fortune.

    But behind every Oscar surprise that nobody sees coming lies a lot of planning and calculation: this Wall Street Journal piece looks at how fledgling distributor GKIDS stealthily orchestrated the film’s nomination.

    Specializing in high-end family fare, GKIDS was founded a year ago by Eric Backman, with the objective of landing an Oscar nomination within two years. He’s now one year ahead of schedule, thanks to a passive campaign relying on the film itself to generate buzz.

    (more…)

  • Predict the NSFC Awards

    Tomorrow my personal favorite precursor body, the National Society of Film Critics, will announce their 2009 winners.

    Regular awards-watchers will know that the NSFC is generally the most highbrow of the critics’ groups, as well as the most independent-minded — last year, they went wholly against the Oscar grain, giving Best Picture to “Waltz With Bashir” and four major awards to “Happy-Go-Lucky.” They can, however, be ahead of the curve when it comes to late-breaking Oscar heavies — think “The Pianist” or “Million Dollar Baby.”

    This year, however, I’m guessing they’ll stick to the status quo: with such modest box-office, it seems critics want to give “The Hurt Locker” all the help it can get in the race. With that in mind, Kathryn Bigelow’s film could become the first to sweep the big three critics’ prizes since “L.A. Confidential” in 1997.

    My predictions after the cut. What are yours?

    (more…)

  • THE LONG SHOT: What are precursors for, anyway?

    Anne Hathaway at the 2009 Critics Choice AwardsI didn’t time my holiday to coincide with the sleepiest week of awards season, but that’s how it panned out anyway. While I spent 10 days drinking my way along the canals of France’s Burgundy region, divorced from my computer screen and, I admit, any thoughts of Oscar whatsoever, the industry, too, took a collective siesta.

    As people assimilated the minimal revelations of this year’s festival run (Gosh, people like “Precious?” Who knew?) and steeled themselves for the annual madness ahead, the Producers Guild of America clearly aimed to take advantage of the lull by announcing the expansion of its feature film nominees to 10. The blogosphere stirred briefly, dutifully posted the press release, and went back to sleep.

    The PGA was probably hoping for more of a reaction than it got, but that’s what happens when you ape a larger organization’s move three months after the fact…as everyone suspected you would, anyway.

    The truth, however, is that the news was as dispiriting as it was unsurprising. Because for all the organization’s feeble claims that the copycat move was made purely in the interests of artistic diversity, all it does is expose a serious identity crisis that afflicts many of the season’s precursors.

    (more…)

  • Thoughts on Cannes, Huppert and ‘Up’

    Dull but hindering circumstances kept me offline yesterday, so I couldn’t get to the Cannes/”Up” news that Kris recently posted.

    By the way, before I get into that, can I just say what a great choice the Cannes organisers have made in selecting Isabelle Huppert as their jury president this year?

    It’s been a while (8 years, to be specific) since a woman took on the role, and as one of the most adventurous, intelligent and hard-working actors of her generation, Huppert (a two-times Cannes winner herself) has earned the position. Here’s hoping she brings the same kind of fearless thinking to the panel that she does to her roles.

    As for “Up, “Being the first animated title to open the world’s most prestigious film festival is obviously a notable accomplishment — and probably an overdue one, at that.

    Chiming in with last year’s tide of critical accolades for “WALL-E” and “Waltz With Bashir” (which, of course, began its buzz at Cannes), it’s clear that the artform is increasingly nearing an equal footing with live-action filmmaking as far as cineastes are concerned — even if some conservative viewers (and of course, AMPAS voters) would like to pretend otherwise.

    However, amid the breathless reporting of “first evers,” it seems to me one crucial detail has been somewhat neglected — the film is playing out of competition.

    This strikes me as an opportunity missed. I’m guessing it was Pixar’s decision not to submit the film for competition consideration, but one has to wonder what they stood to lose by trying. Given Cannes’ arthouse bent, nobody would have expected the film to win anything anyway, but a Palme d’Or nomination could have lent the film some impressive additional cache.

    (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…)

  • A private function

    When all is said and done, it wasn’t an awards season that deserved a fireworks finish, so perhaps last night’s muted, largely tasteful, faintly insular ceremony was an appropriate summation. It ran smoothly enough, with a handful of novel distractions and a uniformly generous, empathetic spirit running through the night’s speeches –- but I’d be hard pressed to remember many notable ‘moments’ from last night’s proceedings a week from now, let alone years hence.

    Part of that stems from the fact that, as has been discussed ad nauseum on these and other pages, we had a less-than-stellar field of contenders to work with. But I’m afraid I must slide into the apparently tiny glass-half-empty minority on the show itself –- as efficiently and enthusiastically as the show unfolded, I simply didn’t find all that much to love about it. As Danny Boyle suggested in the midst of yet another boundless, winning acceptance speech (can we find something for him to win every year, please?), it looked like a blast for those present, but I’m not sure the clubby, “we’re all in this together” vibe really translated to the distance of a TV screen.

    After the cloak-and-dagger secrecy shrouding Bill Condon and Laurence Mark’s revised take on the Oscars, I must say I was expecting a slicker, more dramatic reworking of the format –- and on that front, I must say I was a little disappointed. Hugh Jackman was certainly a game, likeable emcee, but I wasn’t certain who the target audience for his big set pieces was. Equal parts Crystal-esque shtick and endearingly naff “let’s put on a show” razzle-dazzle, both elements seemed to me too dated to court the broader, younger, hipper viewership the Academy wanted. The Baz Luhrmann-staged musical number at the centre was fun in itself, but existed in a similar cultural vacuum, despite the presence of current pop phenomena like Beyonce or Zac Efron. For all the hype, this was familiar content.

    (more…)

  • 2/22 Oscarweb Round-up (OSCAR DAY EDITION)

    Graham King at the 79th annual Academy Awards• David Carr tugs the heart strings with a nice write-up on “Smile Pinki” subject Pinki Kumari Sonkar. [The Carpetbagger]

    • Tom O’Neil warns of the kiss of death that the Independent Spirit Award for Best Actor has become. [Gold Derby]

    • Another tired Oscar bitch-slap piece from traditional media. [New York Times]

    • Gideon Levy tears “Waltz with Bashir” a new one. [Haaretz]

    • Kate Winslet and the “Fakebooking” craze. [Daily Telegraph]

    • Elizabeth Snead catches up with Aaron Eckhart at the Indie Spirits to get his thoughts on a potential Oscar win for “Dark Knight” co-star Heath Ledger. [The Dish Rag]

    • Speaking of the Spirits, Roger Ebert responds to the swift show, goes out of his way to praise Rourke’s “show-stopping” speech. [Chicago Sun-Times]

    • Producer Graham King re-visits his Oscar win for “The Departed” two years ago. [The Independent]

    • Anne Hathaway shows a little humility.  Probably a good thing after that cringe-worthy BFCA acceptance speech. [USA Today]

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • OFF THE CARPET: Taking a final stab

    OscarsWell, this is what it all boils down to.  I almost DON’T want to go on the record, but I kind of have to, right?

    Anyway, this is the first year I’ve actually seen every single nominated frame of film before the big night so these will either be the most educated guesses I’ve ever given or the most unfortunately influenced, one can’t be too sure.  Sometimes it’s better to predict in a void, other times not.  I did pretty good last year (after a wicked slump for a few years), largely because I succumbed to inevitability more than I have in the past, but I don’t want to be all douchey and put forth my record.  We all have ups and downs.  I’m not personally convinced of probably half of these predictions, so you certainly shouldn’t be either.

    One thing that catches my eye as I go through my “will wins,” “could wins” and “should wins” is that in many cases, I’m predicting the contender that I also feel delivers the best work in the category.  But really, only in one arena could that stink of hopeful expectation (Best Actor).  The rest is just reflective of how this weak, thin season trickled down.  I almost always have a different preference than what actually wins, so I wouldn’t call me the wishful thinking sort when it comes to hammering these out.

    Anyway, you’ll find category-by-category analysis throughout, but I have to say, those sound categories are fuckers this year.  Pardon the vulgarity.  It seems there are limitless possibilities.  I’m of the mind that one film takes both, so take your pick: “Dark Knight,” “Slumdog” or “WALL-E.”  I think the Academy at large doesn’t understand the subtlety of “WALL-E” (much like “No Country for Old Men” last year) and giving “Slumdog” a clean sweep seems to be too much.  But I’ll get into those categories, and more, after the jump.

    There is a slight possibility I’ll stick my head back in here to adjust this prediction or that before Sunday.  If I do, I’ll be sure to draw your attention to it in this space.  Check back later today with a look at all out contributors’ predictions.  For now, here are mine…

    (more…)

  • 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…)

  • 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.

  • Predicting BAFTA, part two — main categories

    Continuing yesterday’s not-so-educated guesses at tomorrow’s BAFTA Awards, we move on the main categories. In many ways, they’re easier to predict than the frequently confounding technical categories, but that’s no reason to get complacent – as we saw last year with then-unexpected wins for Tilda Swinton and Marion Cotillard, BAFTA is more than capable of throwing a significant spanner in the works in the top races.

    By the way, be sure to tune in tomorrow, when I’ll be liveblogging the ceremony, beginning with the red carpet coverage at 11 a.m. PST (that’s 7 p.m. London time).

    BAFTA bizarrely issues a press release revealing the winners before the ceremony begins. (I told you they haven’t a clue how to organise the event.) I’ll be ignoring that, for my part – the ceremony can be dull enough without having every last drop of suspense extricated from the proceedings. But the info will be available. I leave the choice up to you.

    Moving on to the predictions…

    Best Film
    “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
    “Frost/Nixon”
    “Milk”
    “The Reader”
    “Slumdog Millionaire”

    There really is terribly little to discuss here. The truth is that “Slumdog” would likely be a BAFTA favourite even if it weren’t primed for Oscar glory – a true British success story, from a popular but largely unsung hometown filmmaker, featuring a British lead actor from a high-profile Channel 4 TV drama, it’s been a massive local box-office success, and has enjoyed nearly the same level of critical adulation here as in the States. BAFTA has celebrated homegrown product in this category for the last two years, and will do so for a third time running. If anything were to derail the Mumbai express, it would be the very British-flavoured “The Reader” … but it won’t.

    (more…)

  • ‘Wrestler’ rules London crix awards

    The London Film Critics’ Circle have just announced their winners, and I have to say they’ve done a pretty terrific job. (I discussed the nominations here.) The really heartening news is that “The Wrestler” finally has another Best Picture award to its credit, five months after taking the Golden Lion at Venice — who would have thought that it’d be left to the Europeans to give this quintessential piece of Americana its due?

    Naturally, Mickey Rourke took the Best Actor award too, while Kate Winslet added yet another trophy (awarded jointly for both her 2008 films) to her crowded mantlepiece. David Fincher was a somewhat surprising winner of the Best Director award, and “Waltz With Bashir” took yet another foreign-language gong.

    If you’re wondering where “Slumdog Millionaire” features in all of this, it ruled the roost in the British Film categories, taking Best British Film and Director, and also landing Screenwriter of the Year for Simon Beaufoy. In the British races, the Londoners like to have their cake and eat it — for example, Kristin Scott Thomas took a richly deserved award for Best British Actress, but beat Best Actress winner Winslet in the process.

    Meanwhile, I’m thrilled to see Michael Fassbender getting some hardware for his staggering work in “Hunger” (which also took the Breakthrough Filmmaker prize), while in the supporting race, Eddie Marsan is another thoroughly deserving victor. Good work all round, London critics.

    Full list of winners below the cut.

    (more…)

  • Here’s a question…

    Okay, so I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but this just occurred to me today, after Ari Folman’s semi-surprising win at last night’s DGA awards. So I ask you: Why was “Waltz With Bashir” eligible for the DGA, but “WALL-E” wasn’t?

    Anybody?

  • Wow, ‘Man on Wire’ lost something…

    … as “Waltz With Bashir” helmer Ari Folman beat James Marsh in the Documentary category at the DGA Awards. Not that it means anything really in the grand scheme of things but, y’know, interesting.

    (I’d say it seals up “Bashir”‘s probable victory in the foreign-language race, but if there’s one Oscar category that’s resistant to the notion of a ‘sure thing,’ it’s that one.)