The Linky City

Two bits from Chicago
Roger Ebert the eclectic international and intergenerational cast list of the new Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies. Congratulations to all! This can only be a gazillion times smarter than the previous short run with the Bens.
Wall Street Journal saddest movie news of the day: a classic cinema shut down in Chicago.

General Linkage
Cinematical Matt Damon's "abs double." A funny quirk of crediting.
Show Tracker What are Mad Men cast members up to between seasons?
The Social Network's official site overfloweth.
Ferdy on Films announces her favorites of the year. It's almost exclusively a festival list but she considers going by theatrical release like we do a hegemonic. Ouch!

Confession/Question
Weird reader question coming, so bear with me. Before you interview a star, the publicists almost always say "no personal questions!" and I'm always like "uh, why would I ask one of those?". I am so tied up in the celluloid that it honestly never occurs to me to say something like "so tell me who you're screwing." The only time this interests me is when it has curio above/below the line value -- for instance, I love knowing which costume designer or art director is married to which actor or actress -- or when its part of the overarching Hollywood Mythology (superstar couples like Brad & Angie, Newman & Woodward, Matt & Ben, Liz & Dick, Warren & Annette, etcetera). But sometimes my lack of interest in offscreen celebrity dating shocks even myself. I was reading on PopBytes that Macauley Culkin and Mila Kunis just broke up and I didn't even know they were a couple. Or if I knew it, I never committed it to memory. And they've been together for 8 years! I blame this ignorance on having next-to-no Mila familiarity until she started working on the big screen regularly a couple of years ago. (I have only seen, like, 2 episodes of That 70s Show.) Whenever a TV star is suddenly in demand in the movies, I have that damn info-lag.

So my question is this: Which specific aspect of celebrity life or the movie industry or whatnot do you have almost zero interest in, despite your interest in everything else???

Today's Must Watch: 14 (Silent) Character Types

Oh to have the New York Times arts budget. They've asked 14 actors to recreate classic character types in 1 minute segments and the results are at turns breathtakingly gorgeous (Natalie Portman), funny (James Franco), exciting (Javier Bardem), questionable (Jesse Eisenberg?) and sometimes plain old garden variety awesome (Tilda Swinton's Falconetti?) Yes please.

Tilda Swinton

Noomi Rapace

Anthony Mackie

But my favorite might be Jennifer Lawrence's screaming victim.

Watch all 14 here (also starring Vincent Cassell, Chloë Moretz, Matt Damon, Michael Douglas, Robert Duvall and Lesley Manville.)  It'll only take you 14 minutes!

Review: "Hereafter"

Clint Eastwood, now 80 years old, has never been more regular. Somewhere between the months of October and December each year, comes a new Eastwood picture for your consideration... or "For Your Consideration" if you're a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. In some years, like 2006 (Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima) or 2008 (Changeling and Gran Torino), we get two movies. This year we get three; they're all called HEREAFTER.  

Cecile de France just swallowed gallons of ocean water

The first movie begins in 2004 with Thailand's awful tsunami which killed thousands of people. It's a gripping horrific sequence that's well filmed though it risks easy ridicule with an extended shot of a teddy bear floating in the water. The terrifying waves sweep up Marie (Cecile de France), who happens to be a famous French journalist...

Read the rest in my weekly column @ Towleroad

If you saw the picture, what did you think of it? If you didn't, do you plan to?

True Hooks For Oscar Grit. About Supporting Actor...

I'm updating the Oscar categories as you read [index] but today I'd like to talk specifically about the supporting category. Can the Coen Bros western True Grit figure in?

Supporting Actor
The excitement-boosting second trailer for True Grit gives us a good look at both Matt Damon and Josh Brolin. I had hoped that we'd get a good look at the always under-appreciated and under-used Barry Pepper [sigh] but if the trailer is any indication, you may blink and miss him in the finished movie.

Lately Oscar voters have been on a villainous bender in the Supporting Actor category. There are many reasons for this the first being who the hell would deny Ledger in '07, Bardem in '08 and Waltz in '09? But aside from a great quality performance -- nut usually the deciding factor -- Oscar has always enjoyed a good stock role, particularly in the Supporting categories. Are they in the mood for The Sidekick, The Villain, The Wisened Old Man/Mentor, The Sad Sack, or The Eccentric Weirdo?

Maybe I should chart out the last decade?

 You're welcome!

Obviously Geoffrey Rush is good to go this year for The King's Speech. Even if he weren't a beloved awards-magnetized actor, he's all these things they love (mentor, weirdo, arguable co-lead).

When they're not rewarding those stock roles and tropes, they're rewarding lead players they've fraudulently shoehorned to the 'lesser' category or certain types of performers that might crossover into any of these categories but might not: The Ham, The Overdue Giant or The Guy Who Happens To Be Having a Great Year (And This is The Film We Decided To Honor Him For).

But before anyone says "these are basic fictional tropes, of course they're rewarded" remember that not every "type" is rewarded. Oscar generally has no time for The Cocksure Young Upstart or The Longsuffering Boyfriend [Tangent: They love Longsuffering Girlfriends but no patient if exasperated men. Imagine if the sexes in Erin Brockovich were reversed. Wouldn't Erin Eckhardt -- ha! -- have been looking at a Supporting Actress nomination for co-starring in Aaron Brockovich]. They're not even all that crazy about The Loving/Proud Father or The Beautiful Loser or the Sexy "Interloper"/Seducer... this is probably why Michael Fassbender couldn't get any attention for Fish Tank despite great reviews and this is why I worry about Mark Ruffalo though everyone else seems assured of his nomination for The Kids Are All Right. He doesn't fit it any vague category that they regularly flock to and what's more he doesn't have an accent, a disease, a drinking problem or anything else to sell, showmanship wise. His character is just this fully articulated human and that type of brilliance is sometimes a tough sell.

In other words: Where's the hook?  He'll need help from his 'trouper who is overdue for attention' status. But then, Sam Rockwell (Conviction) wants those votes himself and he's got the showier character.

So I was thinking of True Grit and the way it fits into the mouthy sidekick and the charismatic villain categories (Damon and Brolin respectively) and how The Social Network doesn't really even though it also has two star hopefuls in play. You can definitely call Justin Timberlake a charismatic villain (Oscar's favorite type) but can you really call Garfield a "sidekick?"...  he's not mouthy or wisecracking, and part of the conflict is that he's really not interest in being a sidekick. He wants the co-leading role that he keeps getting turned down for. He's just kind of this guy who is losing control of the monster he helped create. And yet he's not really a pitiable sadsack either. This is all a long way of saying that Oscar likes characters to fall a little more to the extreme side of the personality spectrum. Garfield, like Ruffalo, is just beautifully examining a somewhat normal guy in an extraordinary situation. No hooks.

So, good luck to both. Or maybe you think they won't need luck. Do tell...

Updated: Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, Actor, Foreign Films

Eisenberg vs. Damon? The Youngest Best Actor Nominees!

"Do I have your full attention?"

Whilst continuing my "Best in Show" column for Tribeca Film, I decided it was high time to highlight Jesse Eisenberg from The Social Network and this is why. Here at The Film Experience though, it's time for Oscar trivia! Though I would love to see Eisenberg win traction for Best Actor, he has something else working against him besides the subdued performance: his age.

Youngest Best Actor Nominees

And where Eisenberg would fit in, were he to be nominated.
Disclaimer/Bragging: You won't find info this extensive elsewhere! The Official Oscar site / Wikipedia only offer top tens. However the following info is approximate. Though the Academy's top ten is down to the day of the actual nominations, they don't provide official nomination dates only ceremony dates. Inside Oscar and Wikipedia also only list the ceremony dates so we're just using February 1st, ∞ as a general calculation date for when nominations happened for given years.

1. Jackie Cooper, Skippy (1931) was 9 years old.
   Nine, Guido, Nine! Kind of strange that he was nominated, wasn't it, since back then they were giving people "junior" Oscars. Why wasn't he handed one of those instead? Or perhaps they started those in the wake of this nomination.
2. Mickey Rooney, Babes in Arms (1939) was 19 years old.
3. Mickey Rooney, again, The Human Comedy (1943). He was 23.
   Bonus Trivia Note: Rooney is not the youngest actor to receive two Oscar nominations. If you include supporting work, the record holder is Sal Mineo who by the age of 22 had been nominated twice: Rebel Without a Cause (1955) and Exodus (1960). If you include actors, male or female, Angela Lansbury holds the record of fastest to "two-time nominee" status: she had two nominations for Supporting Actress by the time she was 20 (The Picture of Dorian Gray and Gaslight).
   
   
   
   Mickey & Sal: fast-start careers, quick industry respect.
   
   
4. John Travolta, Saturday Night Fever (1977) was 24.
5. James Dean, East of Eden (1955) was 24 years old when he died. This nomination came posthumously when he would have just turned 25.
6. James Dean again for Giant (1956). He would have just turned 26.
7. Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson (2006) was 26 years old.
8. Orson Welles, Citizen Kane (1941) was also 26.
9. Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain (2005) was 26 going on 27.
   ****If Jesse Eisenberg is nominated for The Social Network he will boot Matt Damon out of the top ten by a hair (it's a matter of approximately 14 days).
10. Matt Damon, Good Will Hunting (1997) was 27 years and 125 days old.
    
11. Tom Cruise, Born on the 4th of July (1989) was 27½
12. Albert Finney, Tom Jones was also 27 going on 28.
13. Marlon Brando, A Streetcar Named Desire was 27 but rapidly approaching 28.
14. Montgomery Clift, my favorite actor, for The Search (1948) when he was 28.
15. Marlon Brando again for Viva Zapata! (1952) when he was almost 29.
16. Chester Morris, Alibi (1929) was turning 29 probably within a week or two of the nominations.  But I can't find the date that the Academy announced the nomination in 1930 for the films of 1928/1929.  
17. Kenneth Branagh, Henry V (1989) was newly 29 as well.
18. Anthony Franciosa, A Hatful of Rain (1957) was 29.
19. Edward Norton, American History X (1998) was 29½.
    From here on out it gets dubious/tricky. I can't vouch for the following order without official nomination dates since all of these men were born in the month of April and the nominations usually arrive in February but dates vary quite a lot.
20. Adrien Brody, The Pianist (2002) was almost 30.
    
21. Marlon Brando again for Julius Caesar (1953) when he was almost 30.
22. Ryan O'Neal, Love Story (1970) was almost 30.

Once actors have hit 30 the leading roles start coming. Though Rooney and Dean are near the top of "youngest ever" charts I think it would be best to consider Brando the patron saint of all the future young guns given his instant impact and fascinating longevity, despite many career twists and turns.

 Brando from '51 to '54: Four consecutive nods by the time he was 30 for
A Streetcar Named Desire, Viva Zapata!, Julius Caesar and On the Waterfront.

He was nominated in four consecutive years starting at the age of 27 with his history-altering performance as Stanley Kowalski (Streetcar Named Desire, 1951) and ended that insane run with a golden boy win (On the Waterfront, 1954) just 4 days shy of his 31st birthday ...which is about the time most people just start being considered for good roles let alone prizes.  

Excessive Trivia Alert! Brando snatched that youngest winner title from James Stewart (who was 32 when he won for The Philadelphia Story besting Clark Gable's win for It Happened One Night at age 34). The Godfather held onto the title for two decades until Richard Dreyfuss won at 30 (The Goodbye Girl, 1977). Dreyfuss was dethroned a quarter century later by Adrien Brody (The Pianist, 2002) who won three weeks shy of his 30th birthday. Are you loving this trivia or are you begging for it to stop? I can't stop once I get started. But I must. I must!

The only other nominees at the age of 30? That'd be Warren Beatty -Bonnie & Clyde, Richard Todd -The Hasty Heart, Franchot Tone - Mutiny on the Bounty, Dustin Hoffman -The Graduate, Sylvester Stallone -Rocky, and Leonardo DiCaprio - The Aviator.

31 Up and the men become too numerous to list. But in the past decade the men who achieved a lead nomination by 31 were Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls (2000), Jude Law in Cold Mountain (2003) and Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line... though few noticed the latter's youth at the time since Heath Ledger was making more noticeable history at 26 years of age. Together they made 2005's lineup one of the youngest skewing ever.

Here's the ten youngest best actor nominees of the past decade from youngest to oldest. (DiCaprio is the biggie here having rung up his 3rd Oscar nomination before he was 33. Still hasn't won yet, though.)

Youngest Lead Nominees of the Aughts

I promise I'll stop now!!!
What do you make of all this and do you think Jesse Eisenberg has a shot at all, given the super early frontrunner status of The Social Network minus their resistance to subdued performances and young men?

If you are over 30 reading this list I apologize. It makes me feel unaccomplished, too. If you are under 30 and an actor, take note. There's still plenty of time for you; nail your next audition!

Companion Articles / Related Reading
Best in Show: Jesse Eisenberg
Familiar Faces: Actors David Fincher Uses Frequently 
*

Yes, No, Maybe So: "True Grit"

The teaser for our Christmas present from The Coen Bros has arrived. It's our first good look at the second film version of the novel True Grit. Now why can't trailers for musicals admit their genre as readily as all westerns do -- despite westerns being a similarly troubled genre with notoriously fickle public interest. 



As a teaser there's not much to go on yet. But I am happy to say...

yes Joel and Ethan Coen reuniting with "The Dude" is cause for rejoicing all by its lonesome self and the cinematography by Coen regular Roger Deakins looks unsurprisingly purty. I also reckon Carter Burwell stuck with his "protestant hymn" scoring idea that I scooped for y'all from Nashville this spring if the music in the teaser is representative of what we'll hear in the full movie.

no Matt Damon shooting things is less thrilling than it once was.

maybe so Apart from those strong directorial hands, all four of them, this entire thing will rest on Hailee Steinfeld and she's unknown to us. Good luck Hailee!

I'm actually just doing the Yes, No, Maybe So™ from habit. I am 100% YES. And you?
* Jeff Bridges Joel Coen

Modern Maestros: Steven Soderbergh

Robert here, back with more of my series on great contemporary directors. Last week I promised someone more universally beloved than my subject Andrew Bujalski. I'm not sure if I've kept that promise. Although Mr. Soderbergh is certainly better known (though not necessarily less experimental) which is why he's so damn interesting.

Maestro: Steven Soderbergh
Known For: Politically charged dramas, mini-budget indies and the Oceans films.
Influences: William Friedkin, Sidney Lumet, take your pick from the 70's but also Bergman and (according to Soderbergh) Jean-Luc Godard most of all.
Masterpieces: So many of his films depend on personal reaction... but let's say Traffic.
Disasters:I'd say Full Frontal and Ocean's Twelve.
Better than you remember: And how you remember them is also so personal. Let's say Che.
Box Office: 183 mil for Ocean's Eleven... no shock there.
Favorite Actor:After scouring through Soderbergh's vast casts, I find the answer to be Clooney with 5 and Damon with 5.

Why do we admire Steven Soderbergh so? It's because he's decided to make the films he wants to make, the way he wants to make them and still achieve success and name recognition. As a director, he's daring, constantly pushing the possibilities of the medium. The results are often flawed, and occasionally downright bad, yet sometimes inspired and even game-changing. No one really seems to think of Soderbergh as a "comeback kid" because there's never any doubt if he'll come back eventually with a new hit (and what he's doing when he's "down," if you can call him that, is always interesting if imperfect.). Consider his output in the years after Sex, Lies and Videotape catapulted him to indie-movement-godfatherdom. There was Kafka, Schitzopolis, King of the Hill (no relation to the T.V. show of the same name), Gray's Anatomy (no relation to the T.V. show of the almost-same name). Then, suddenly he peeks his head above the water with Out of Sight, owns the cinematic landscape in 2000 with Traffic and Erin Brockovich, brings back cool with Ocean's Eleven and then it's back into the experimental. Few other directors can pull that off, if any.

What makes Soderbergh so modern is his subtle infusion of the topical in his films. Bubble isn't about a murder mystery as much as it is about the lives of Mideast factory workers. The Girlfriend Experience isn't about prostitution as much as it's about the state of the economy. Even Traffic and Erin Brockovich, which are more blatantly political, escape traps by focusing on character. The Informant, may be a zany comedy but it's a zany comedy about corporate corruption and bureaucracy. Speaking of which, who makes a zany comedy about corporate corruption and bureaucracy? It may not seem like it at first glance, but The Informant is one more in a line of bold and uncompromising experimental films from Soderbergh. Bubble and The Girlfriend Experience should stand as monuments to independent filmmakers as what's possible. Che may not have been perfect but the idea of a two-part epic where the films' inconsistencies are as important as their uniform elements is a gamble worth noticing. The Good German wasn't perfect, but it's hard to argue with the suggestion that throwback genre's should only utilize the technology and resources of the time they're recreating (I'm looking at you Grindhouse).

Oddly enough, it's not the problems with these Soderbergh films that stand out in his filmography. In his dedication to experimentation, they seem expected, almost necessary. These Soderbergh films may not have been entirely successful, but I'd never call them unsuccessful. In fact, it's primarily when he strays from his standards of modern relevance and technical audaciousness that he seems to miss the mark significantly. Consider Solaris, a film that was perhaps too conventionally filmed and philosophically detached from the social issues and politics that Soderbergh loves to have been much more than a blip in his otherwise interesting canon. And "interesting" may be the key word here. For Steven Soderbergh, success isn't measured in terms of "good" and "bad." It's measured in terms of "interesting" or "not." If something hasn't been done before, if it dares to question the standard interpretations of filmmaking, then it's worthwhile. Usually I dislike that idea, that concept is more important than product in the world of film. Yet Soderbergh is one of the few filmmakers (along with his idol Godard) for which it easily and happily applies.

Spy vs.Spy

Jose here.

Assuming you've seen the excellent The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (my review here)...

Who's your favorite, book-to-screen, spy so far this century?


Stieg Larsson's Lisbeth Salander (as played by Noomi Rapace).

OR


Robert Ludlum's Jason Bourne (as played by Matt Damon).

Discuss!

For all you European readers who've already seen the entire Millennium trilogy how does it fare when compared with the amazing Bourne series? How do these two fare when compared to the books?

RCL: Chloe, Clint, Christopher and Charlize, Pleaze.

Red Carpet Lineup: each monday (oops, it's Wednesday!) a random batch of movie peeps out and about. Who is Where and Why? And What (are they wearing)?


from left to right: Chloe Moretz just turned 13 and she'll be ubiquitous before anyone can decide whether they want to see her constantly. I have only seen her in (500) Days of Summer in which she essayed the beyond cliche role of "little person who is wiser than adults", a blight on an otherwise great movie. I can't blame her for that exactly but I hate that there's no ümläüts (or whatever the heck they're called) hanging over her name. And that I CAN blame her for. It's spelled Chloë, right big mouth? The fanboys already love "Chloe" [sic] in advance for being "Hit Girl" in Kick-Ass . That's the movie she's been out promoting this week here with shiny checkers (dress) and snarky accessory (face). She will soon be seen as the thirsty child vamp in Let Me In, the disastrous* remake of Let The Right One In; Emma Thompson brought a pig to the premiere of Nanny McPhee 2: Mole Harder in London. I adore Emma and her wit but I just don't want to see her unrecognizably uglied down for a movie. That's just the way it is. I like my movie stars to look like their beautiful selves. It's kind of what I live for. Emma recently spilled her heart out for a BBC radio show about her 90s divorce from Kenneth Branagh; Clint Eastwood was out for a meal with friends looking pretty spry. He becomes an octogenarian this May and he's still cranking out two movies a year. Bless (yes, I'm feeling generous today. It's partially because my favorite filmmakers I'm interested in tend to sit on their asses for YEARS between projects and I just don't get it). Clint's supernatural thriller Hereafter, arrives in theaters in December 2010. When else? You can probably expect Hoover, the biopic, in December 2011.

*I'm guessing. I mean, the ONLY logical reason for its existence is to sell it to people who can't read.


from left to right: Christoph Waltz is STILL collecting awards for Inglourious Basterds. This time it was the Jameson Empire Award in London. At one point does he cease being a professional actor and become a professional trophy collector? I believe this makes #26; Blanca Portillo was at the "Union de Actores" event in Madrid (is that like Spain's SAG awards? Anyone?). She's so good in Almodóvar movies (Broken Embraces and especially Volver) but I haven't yet seen her elsewhere. I'm hoping that our Spanish-speaking readers can tell us other roles of note?; Young French star Tahar Rahim, all of 28, is still out selling Un Prophete but he's already lined up new projects after that extremely well received breakthrough. Next up: The Eagle of the Ninth with Channing Tatum and then back to the arthouse for Cool Water by Emir Kusturica; Finally we conclude with Charlize Theron looking disco glam at an evening honoring Matt Damon. I've been meaning to talk about Charlize anyway...

Charlize Theron is 34. I don't know why this is but I often think of her as an older actress.



I don't mean this in the reductive Hollywood way of "let's look for a younger version, now!" or in the "she looks old for her age" way. I mean that if you asked me to place her with a group of peers I'd forget about the Gyllenhaals and the Witherspoons and put her with the Kidmans, Hayeks, Cruzs and Berrys of the world... all of whom are older. And whatever their future achievements may be, those actresses feel finished... "finished" as in fully formed, not as in "over." Don't freak out!

But who is Charlize Theron exactly? More than possibly any A list actress, I'm not sure that she has a star persona. I think she's very talented but in truth I don't often think of her and I never think "that's a Charlize Theron role right there!" In their mid 30s actresses often become forever who audiences will always think of them as. But what do we think of Charlize as. Other than "beautiful" perhaps. But that describes everyone.

<--- Theron in Sleepwalking

Does anyone else feel this disconnect? I think the problem may lie with Monster. Quality of the performance aside, it has gobbled up her career and she looked nothing like CHARLIZE THERON while acting in it, so it could it ever truly be definitive for her? In roughly 2/3rds of Sophie's Choice, for example (the definitive Meryl Streep performance if you will) she looks EXACTLY like everyone's Great Thespian Regal Beauty Fantasy of MERYL STREEP. When people conjure up images of Audrey Hepburn and her style, aren't they picturing her in Breakfast at Tiffany's fashions?

So when we think of Theron what do we think of?

What's your take on her career? I think she needs to step it up and seek out challenging roles that aren't downbeat. She's an excellent dramatician (see: Monster, Sleepwalking, North Country) but whenever she's in dramas they seem to be of very limited dour rage and they seem to require that she downplay her beauty. Where are the roles that require all of her parts and not the absence of pieces of her like her beauty, wit and energy? When she isn't dressing down onscreen, she seems to be coasting through doing things that any one of her peers could do just as well (Hancock). I'm not sure I understand her career at all. Do you?

Do you think she has more to show us... and more she should show us, after 15 years on the silver screen?
*

Modern Maestros: Paul Greengrass

Robert here, continuing my series on important contemporary directors. I feel sorta bad featuring Paul Greengrass just a week after his most divisive film. What's interesting about that film is how both the pro and the con arguments seem to be in agreement on what the film is, just their reaction to it differs. But more on that later. First...

Maestro: Paul Greengrass
Known For: Historical recreations and Bourne movies.
Influences: Independent film, activist film, documentaries.
Masterpieces: United 93
Disasters: None
Better than you remember: Everything here seems on the up-and-up.
Box Office: over 220 mil for The Bourne Ultimatum
Favorite Actor: You guessed it, Matt Damon.

In order for you to properly experience this post grab both sides of your monitor and shake it vigorously; up down, side to side, every which way. More and more. Just shake the bejesus out of it. There, now doesn't this piece feel gritty and realistic? I kid, of course, because I admire Mr. Greengrass. Though steadfast shaky-cam dissenters aren't likely to give him much goodwill, I find him to be one of the few directors who uses the effect successfully. This is true for two reasons. First, he always uses it as a compliment to (instead of a substitute for) an intelligent plot. And secondly his direction still allows you to understand visual movement through a space. When Jason Bourne is engaging in fisticuffs with someone you can always (or almost always) tell who's winning, who's losing, who's where. Too many modern shaky-cam sequences have you scratching your head the whole time, waiting until the camera seizure stops so you can tell who survived the scuffle (no offense to Michael Mann who I like and who has undoubtedly influenced Greengrass, but Public Enemies is a good example of this). And yes the cliche benefit is that it makes the film seem more realistic. It mimics what we've come to know as verite documentary style. But it's also an expressionist device, allowing the audience to feel the same turbulence as the characters. Though, to work it has to accompany an intelligent story and be coherent enough to keep the viewer from becoming disengaged. Without that it's just a gimmick.

It's a good thing Greengrass has the shaky-cam thing down since he's got some gritty and realistic stories to tell. Thematically no one is going to accuse Paul Greengrass of having great range. He's probably not going to direct cinema's next great screwball comedy. Though let's not forget he had a career in the 90's (before he became the patron saint of shaky) which included, among other things, the Branagh/Bonham Carter vehicle The Theory of Flight. In the past ten years, however, he's stuck with Bourne thrillers or real-life dramatizations. Greengrass knows how to add just the right element to elevate these genres. The use of real air traffic controllers to play themselves in United 93 is worth the price of admission alone (especially FAA chief Ben Sliney who brings a touch of honesty to his performance that somehow can't be dismissed as merely familiarity with his role). The Bourne films, meanwhile have been credited, and rightfully so, with reminding Hollywood what an adult action movie is supposed to look like. And their long reach can be seen in both Batman and Bond. Green Zone is a sorta amalgamation of Greengrass's true life movies and action flicks and is either a great example of how fictionalized action cinema can be topical or overblown revisionist history... depending of course.

Bourne, not Green

Despite this latest stumble (if it is a stumble) I'm glad we have Paul Greengrass out there making action films for adults and activist films with just the right touch. His next project according to IMDb is They Marched Into Sunlight, a parallel telling of a 1967 Viet Cong ambush and Dow Chemicals protest. Looks like more of the same from Greengrass. But I mean that in a good way. I like that Paul Greengrass knows what he does best and plans to keep doing it. He does it better than most. No need for him to shake things up... any more than he already does.

Best Supporting Actor Babies

Babies as in... when they were young.... when it all began.

For my weekly column at Towleroad I ended up in some sort of retro mental loop, obsessing about how the careers of the nominees kicked off. I restricted myself to Best Supporting Actor or I would've been typing for hours.

I also admit a wee perverse desire to see Dear John but so far I've stayed strong.

If you've seen any of the supporting actor nominee's debut movies, please speak up. I don't remember Matt Damon being in Mystic Pizza at all. Do you?
*

"It was difficult for me... with you."

The Best Auteur-Made Experimental Improvised Independent Film of 2002

Rob here, looking back at 2002. At the end of each year, if you're like me, you assess. Best Overall Film? Best Comedy? Best Documentary? and of course Best Auteur-Made Experimental Improvised Independent Film. Now each year that last category could have dozens of possibilities. But in 2002, the clear winner was Gerry

Gerry was the first film in Gus Van Sant's Death Trilogy and follows two friends named Gerry (Matt Damon and Casey Affleck) lost in the desert as they wander around and around.

No one is going to accuse Gerry of being the best film of 2002. It lacks a certain... gravitas that most people require for that distinction. Even though I must say as time passes those who've seen it seem to like it more and more. Best or not, Gerry is just so damn interesting, and rather charming. Among other things it's interesting how Van Sant can make the sound of rocks and sand under walking feet go from a rather pleasant ambient-noise to a slow harbinger of doom. Among other things it's charming how Damon and Affleck can pull off dialogue like that "I crows-nested up here to scout about the ravine when you Gerried the rendezvous" to explain how Affleck finds himself on the top of a huge rock formation.

In fact the more I think about Gerry, the more I ask myself things like "why shouldn't it be a contender for the best of the year?" (also "why can't I use my name as a verb?"). Heck it's enough to make me suggest that when it came to respect, recognition and accolades in 2002, Gerry got downright Robbed.
*

Invictus yay or nay? Maybe a bit of both.

I talked to a friend who'd seen Clint Eastwood's Invictus this week. He's much more of an Clint fan than I am (I know that describes 90% of the population) but he wasn't too impressed. He sees a mixed Oscar response coming... although a big hit. He calls it "super commercial" but thinks it's rather clunky with exposition and lots of “I just showed you, but in case you didn’t get it, now I’ll TELL you” moments. Morgan Freeman's star turn he describes as "oratory and noble" and also "pretty boring". Ouch.

"Let's keep on making pictures with Clint." "Shake on it!"

Despite his reservations about the quality of Invictus he still thinks it'll sneak in as a Best Pic nominee because there’s ten slots. He capped off our conversation with the following confession

I didn’t think it was very good, but maybe I cried a couple of times...don’t judge.

Hee. Hey, I'm never judging tears in a movie. I choked up once during My Sister's Keeper and I thought it stunk. My best friend cried buckets at Casper (1995) of all things. And we were at a drive in! We still tease him about it 14 years later... but in a loving way.

Do you have faith that Oscar will want Eastwood back in a big way this year after the muted awards response last year. Or are you doubtful? Either way there's always next year. The iconic actor/director is already filming his next project Hereafter scheduled for (YOU GUESSED IT!) a December 2010 release. Matt Damon stars in that one, too.
*

For Your Consideration in All Categories, INVICTUS

Clint Eastwood is coming. Hide your Oscars!


I suppose you've already checked out the trailer for Invictus in beautiful Quicktime. Soon it will be embedded everywhere in crappier looking formats. The movie, based on this true story, is about Nelson Mandela's efforts to unite a divided South Africa through rugby. The trailer and synopsis suggest that it's a two-lead film as Morgan Freeman (as Mandela) and Matt Damon (looking athletic as Francois Pienaar) work together towards making this happen. Freeman is the mastermind, Damon acts as vessel. But since Invictus is another December Eastwood Oscar lob (oops, that's a tennis term. What do they say in football?) Matt Damon will obviously be demoted to supporting for the pursuit of Oscars.

I'm not quite buying the accents they conjure for Invictus but it is only a trailer and Freeman and Damon are both hugely talented fellows. It's hard to tell about actor's voices in 150 seconds of ittybitty clips anyway. When I first saw the Amelia trailer I was nearly sold on Swank's vocal work but stretched out to 120 minutes it made me ca-razy with its strenuous affectations.

Here are the beloved stars...


It's more and more obvious that there's more community and discussion revolving around movie trailers on the web than there is on actual movies themselves. This is one of the many reasons conversation seems to die on opening weekend. So trailer madness is fitting for any Oscar discussion, unfortunately, since you know that many of the ballots are cast through a complex combination of buzz factors, hype power, the power of suggestion (sometimes literal -- like the precursor awards), industry schmoozing, the general tone of reviews... and film clips! (Yes Virginia, not every AMPAS voter watches all of their screeners, dutifully.)

Check out this random tweet about the trailer.

I think this happens more and more with trailers. Instant love. I can't say I've never experienced that. I remember falling head over heels for Milk in its 2 minute form. I mean there was no movie in sight! It was just a commercial.

Movie trailers are like frozen Buzz Concentrate. Just add water eyeballs. But, that said, it is a bit horrifying that we decide whether we love movies in their larval stage now -- we don't even wait until we get to the theater to see what's emerged from the pupa. At least that how it feels lately, buzz and hype and expectations trumping actual experience.

So I shan't say anything qualitatively about the movie (haven't seen it and a trailer is still just a trailer) except that it looks right up Oscar's alley: inspirational with an overlay of "important!" Best Picture nominee fer sure. Plus, there's the Eastwood factor. Gran Torino aside, he is, to steal from this trailer, the 'master of the Academy's fate, the captain of their soul.'

[editors note: Speaking of Clint Eastwood. The next episode of Best Pictures From the Outside In is coming up next week! "Casablanca and Unforgiven"]


And Morgan Freeman isn't without his own faithful voting block in AMPAS either. With four Oscar nominations and one win, he's pretty far up the hierarchy of the Academy's favorites. Useless trivia alert! One more winning nomination and he's actually tied with Denzel Washington as their favorite black actor of all time.

But what about you? "This trailer made me ___________" -- complete the sentence in the comments.
*

5 From 'Txt Critic' at TIFF: Antichrist, Jennifer's Body, Creation, The Trotsky and The Informant!

My texting friend who you've heard from a few times, exiting screenings with sudden opinions flying from his fingertips, just got back from Toronto. Yes, everyone was there but you and I. Txt Critic was only there half the time but saw as many films as I did last time and I stayed for the whole damn thing. They must have kept his eyes open with toothpicks like something out of A Clockwork Orange, only more voluntary-like. Here's part 1 of his capsule takes...

on Antichrist

This is the rare case where I think having the entire film spoiled for me prior to seeing it was actually a good thing. Ever since Cannes, I’d heard explicit reports -- ad nauseam -- of all the “shocking” content, and aghast reactions, on behalf of Lars Von Trier’s latest. It's about a couple’s ... let’s say ‘unconventional’... response to the death of their toddler. While it’s not generally a good thing to have prominent sequences described to you before you see a film, here, having heard all the descriptions of [semi spoilers ahead] scenes involving self-inflicted mutilation, scissors, talking animals, etc. [/end spoilers] allowed me to look beyond the artifice and see the film for its emotional content, and Von Trier’s warped, fascinating ideas. Whether you’ve been spoiled or not, it’s a film that only gets richer upon repeat viewings, and gets more and more interesting the more you discuss it. (B+)

on Jennifer's Body

Okay, so clearly I’m alone on this one. I thought this Diablo Cody scripted horror comedy was a lot of fun. It’s not scary in the least but there’s an awful lot of funny dialogue, knowing silliness, good gore (for those who like that stuff) and a soullessness from Megan Fox that's actually appropriate for once. To top it off, the proceedings are imbued with a playfulness that toys with (and subverts) teen movie conventions (including some startlingly upfront sexuality), and is clearly made by someone with a passion for horror films.


It’s not a great movie but it’s also not a retread. I wish people would back off a bit in regards to attacking Ms. Cody; I get that when an (arguably) not-great screenplay wins an Oscar it’s an affront to film aficionados, but shouldn’t she get some credit purely on the basis of following up an Oscar win with a horror flick, let alone a fairly smart, entertaining one? (B)

on Creation

There were times during this 100 minute ordeal that I actually started to wish that Charles Darwin (played here by Paul Bettany) had never been born so I wouldn’t have had to sit through this movie inspired by his life. I exaggerate but this is really one slog of a film, more dull and interminable than even a straightforward biopic might have been. Focused almost entirely on (a) Darwin’s decision to publish "The Origin of Species" in the face of his wife’s (Jennifer Connelly) religiosity, and (b) the Darwin's reaction to the death of their child, Creation offers almost nothing of substance about Darwin’s actual ideas, nor the complexities of his character or emotions. It’s mostly just the renowned central figure weeping over his dead daughter and going on numerous doctors’ visits for his long list of ailments. The title is misleading as it seems to imply too much focus on his originally controversial ideas. While this is the kind of tedious, inert historical drama that used to be catnip for the Academy, I can’t see many staying awake all the way through to see anything worth rewarding. (C-)

on The Trotsky

At long last, a star vehicle for the gawky Jay Baruchel best known for headlining “Undeclared” and bit parts in Tropic Thunder and Knocked Up. Writer-director Jacob Tierney casts the Canadian native in the role of the Leon, a high school senior who considers himself the reincarnation of the titular figure. Leon seems deadset on fighting every supposed authority figure he can (he stages a hunger strike at his father’s factory in the opening sequence). Mixing Trotsky/Stalin/etcetera in-jokes with broad sweeping Napoleon Dynamite quirk and power to the disenfranchised story beats, the film may have a limited audience (the plethora of Montreal jokes makes it unclear how it would be received outside of Canada). But it’s frequently funny and manages to not drag even though it’s too long (nearly two hours) for its somewhat thin premise. Schneider shows legitimate directorial finesse. (B)

on The Informant!

Despite the starring presence of Matt Damon and a heavily-marketed nationwide release by Warner Bros., this supremely entertaining 'based on a true story' project -- the latest from Steven Soderbergh -- is a much odder (and also more delightful) film than I was a expecting, and not simply for playing what is essentially a thriller premise as a jaunty comedy. While it’s more strangely amusing and witty than laugh-out-loud funny, Soderbergh makes a boatload of strange decisions (such as shooting this 90s-set story in a style of a 70s throwback, and utilizing a Marvin Hamlisch score that seems better suited for a Doris Day vehicle) that, almost inexplicably, work perfectly. They all contribute towards creating an experience that may throw some people, but is sure to engender itself as a DVD favorite for those who like their eccentric quirk at a lower volume. The story itself only gets more compelling as it unravels, slowly eking out details that reveal why the filmmaker felt comedy was the more suitable genre for the material. It's all sold by an utterly fantastic performance , at once broad and understated, by Matt Damon. He appears in every scene and he certainly deserves -- and in this weak year, just might get -- an Oscar nomination. (A-)

So there you have it. A lot to consider. And that's only about a day's worth of screenings. When he closes his eyes, he's probably still seeing shadows of flickering images.
*

"You know, without the glasses..."

.

"... you're not even ugly."

.

The Men Who Stare at Links

Streep Tease An evening of famous Meryl Streep monologues performed by men this Saturday, September 5th! You Los Angelenos better be going to this. I want to hear everything. Someone buy me a ticket. And a plane ticket!
The Big Picture Matt Damon getting a lifetime achievement prize? He's 38! Does that make 40 the new 70 instead of the new 30?
The Auteurs Daily asks the question I've been asking myself silently: How is Michael Haneke's The White Ribbon German enough to be Germany's official Oscar submission this year?
Awards Daily shares the BFCA's best rated films as a preview for the Oscar race. They fail to mention that the BFCA's "scores" throughout the year don't usually end up directly correlating with their "Best Picture" field. They'll ditch high rated films if they don't think they can score big Oscar nods, just watch.

Kenneth in the (212) continues his one man crusade to remind people that Ryan O'Neal was the "Brad Pitt of the 70s"
My New Plaid Pants finally forgives David Fincher for Benjamin Button
Movie|Line on True Blood's breakout blonde, Alexander Skarsgård. Do you think the producers of Thor are regretting their casting decision these days? (I personally lost all interest in that Norse God superhero movie when they passed him by.)

And finally, our long (mostly) lost Ewan McGregor back in the lead (yay!) for a movie that probably won't suck (The Men Who Stare at Goats) with an exceptional cast (on paper). Feel free to rejoice but only parenthetically since... who knows, really?



Be excited now or sensibly wait until November 6th to do so. Your choice.

I feel it's worth noting that the movie was directed by George Clooney's extremely less famous frequent partner-in-crime and two time Oscar nominee Grant Henslov (pictured left) who writes, acts, directs and produces... and supposedly even forked over the money for Clooney's first professional headshots 27 years ago. Let's hear it for Grant and for all the talented multi-hyphenates out there that make their movie star friends look even more fantastic than they already naturally do.

2009 Oscar Predictions, The Actors

We've chatted about the women. Now it's time for the men.

I'll start with the big omission news. I know most every Oscar pundit is predicting Daniel Day-Lewis for Nine (the Musical) but I think they're all forgetting an important and peculiar truth: DDL does not get nominated for performances that center around his romantic relationships. Even when the Academy likes the film.

Consider...

• A Room With a View (1986) 8 noms/3 wins
  
• My Beautiful Laundrette (1986) 1 nomination.
  He wasn't a known commodity in 86 but his double dip was incredibly chameleonic. And in two movies that were raved far and wide and that Oscar voters liked.
• The Last of the Mohicans (1992) 1 nom/1 win.
  Certainly one of the most bizarre Oscar snubbings ever for an entire film. It was epic, beautiful, period, popular and moving. And it got one nomination... for sound?
  
• The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988) 2 nominations
  
• The Age of Innocence (1993) 5 noms/ 1 win
  
• The Crucible (1996) 2 nominations
  

Oscar loves Day-Lewis when he's malevolently masculine (Gangs and There Will Be Blood) or when he's starring in biopics (Left Foot, In the Name of...). But when he's romancing the ladies? "No thanks!" says the average voter. Even when the romance is a "wow" (Mohicans) or when the movie manages an acting nomination (Crucible, Innocence) they still pass. I'm not seeing it. Here are my BEST ACTOR predictions.

I generally do well at Actor predictions this early, managing 2 or 3 of the 5. Yet Best Actor was hard to suss out beyond Morgan Freeman this year. He's the only person in any category you can probably ink in already. Revered actor playing famous recognizable role + Eastwood + bio elements (though thankfully it focuses on one time period) = they will go nuts.

Supporting Actor was far more difficult. And for the obvious reasons of 'what the hell?' who is playing who? will the films be any good? In other words, we know little. So here's my stab in the dark when it comes to the men who will be recognized for boosting the appeal of movies much bigger than their roles. I'm guessing on a double nomination for Matt Damon. Why not?

I'd really love to hear your opinions for Supporting Actor because I wouldn't be surprised at all to be 100% wrong for 2009. This tends to be my worst acting category for 'year in advance' predix. I score either 1 or 2 out of 5. I've never hit 3/5 this early like I have in the other categories.

Still, if I'm right about the general field (if not the big contenders) we're going to see a lot of first time nominees this year in the supporting actor category.
*
*