Stop Jean Dujardin

email this story
read comments (22)
post a comment

A highly dubious source confided this morning that a secret high-level meeting of Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences bigwigs happened two nights ago at Kate Mantilini. I wasn't able to verify if Academy president Tom Sherak, COO Ric Robertson, and CEO Dawn Hudson actually met at 10:30 pm in a rear booth. I've only been told that a conversation might have unfolded as follows:

Sherak: I know it's late, but thanks for coming, guys. (To waiter) I'll have a Chardonnay and a bowl of whatever the soup is. What's the special?

Waiter: Split pea with ham chunks.

Sherak: Uggh! I hate split pea.

Waiter: And also tomato basil, chicken noodle and gazpacho.

Robertson: That sounds good.

Sherak: Tomato. I'll have the tomato.

Hudson: And I'll just have a Merlot, thanks. So what's up, Tom?

Sherak: Well, first of all, this meeting isn't happening because we really can't discuss what I'm about to bring up. But I feel we need to at least broach the subject.

Hudson: Is this about the 2013 telecast date?

Sherak: That's for later. I'm talking about the Academy's reputation in general, and Jean Dujardin's Best Actor chances in particular. Dujardin's SAG award win last Sunday means he's got a pretty good shot at winning the Best Actor Oscar, and that means The Artist will have a three-Oscar sweep -- Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor.

Robertson: That's bad?

Hudson: I love The Artist. It's perfect.

Sherak: Me too! I'm easy. It's fine. But it's a very soft movie, and this looks to me like another Oscar watershed year -- a year in which the honorable Academy membership will affirm its shallowness like they did when they gave the Best Picture Oscar to Driving Miss Daisy in '89 and The Greatest Show on Earth in '52 and Around the Wrold in Eighty Days in '56. Its one of "those years" that will leave a lasting mark, and I'm thinking that's not good at this stage of the game. Younger audiences see the Academy as a bunch of dilletantes with laughably mediocre taste.

Robertson: People have been taking shots at the Oscars for years. Goes with the territory.

Sherak: Yeah, but it's worse now. We're under siege. We have to protect the brand and stand for something besides flabby emotional consensus choices among the Boomer and older GenX lightweights. I'm thinking 10 or 20 years down the road. It's a matter of honor, of values and of organizational integrity. The Artist is nice movie, but this is embarassing.

Robertson: What can we do? You can't mandate good taste.

Hudson: I love The Artist! And the dog...what's his name? Poochie?

Robertson: Uggie.

Hudson: Huggie?

Robertson: Uggie, like the boots. (to Sherak) What are you thinking?

Sherak: What I'm thinking about is something I haven't been thinking about, if you catch my drift. I know there's no stopping The Artist or Michel Azzanavasheetos.

Hudson: Vasheetos?

Robertson: Pete Hammond says it rhymes with Dr. Seuss, but Sid Vicious is the safest way to go.

Sherak: So there's no stopping Sid Vicious. But I'm not comfortable with Dujardin winning Best Actor. He just grins and tap dances and mugs and doesn't shave in Act Three when his career goes south. We're talking privately here, and I'm telling you there's no honor in Dujardin winning. If it happens it'll be seen as a concession to all the things I'm worried about...all the things that people seem to despise the Academy for. George Clooney or Brad Pitt or Gary Oldman winning, fine. I like Oldman, if you wanna know. Pitt is a happy man, and George is loved by everyone. He'll be nominated again in a year or two.

Hudson: I love Jean's moustache. And he's so charming in person!

Robertson: What can we do about it, Tom?

Sherak: Nothing. Obviously. I guess I'm just venting. I want somebody else to win Best Actor and I wish I could do something to help bring that about.

Hudson: We'll be fine. It's going to be a great show.

Sherak: The show will be fine. I'm not talking about the show. I'm thinking about our brand, about our future.

Robertson: I'm afraid we can only do, absurdly, what has been given to us to do. Right to the end.

Explanation & apology: I don't know what happened but somehow an earlier version of this post disappeared. I managed to find the coded version but the comments were lost.

Colors<< previous | next >>Farewell, Mr. Gazzara

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

comment #1

Gabriel says ...

Screw Jean Dujardin. Ben Gazzara has left us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/movies/ben-gazzara-actor-of-stage-and-screen-dies-at-81.html

Posted by Gabriel at February 3, 2012 3:06 PM

comment #2

Raising_Kaned says ...

Almost seems like karma that you lost this entry earlier -- The Artist isn't nearly as bad or lightweight as any of the other movies you mention in the same breath here, IMHO. This was asked in another thread, but I'm genuinely curious what other nominee you think is "better" (aside from Moneyball, of course).

Jean Dujardin seems likely to eke out a victory, if only because his name is cool to say aloud (go ahead; try it yourself).

Ironically, Hazanavicius seems destined to lose for almost the complete opposite reason (it's not "Vicious" OR "Seuss" -- it's "Veeshee-US").

Posted by Raising_Kaned at February 3, 2012 3:19 PM

comment #3

The Reek says ...

This shit was old weeks ago. Get over it and move on.

Posted by The Reek at February 3, 2012 3:41 PM

comment #4

Dan Revill says ...

Quick! Someone, anyone, who won Best Actor 30 years ago? 20 years ago? 10 year ago?

Nobody cares.

Posted by Dan Revill at February 3, 2012 3:49 PM

comment #5

great scott says ...

GO, JEAN, GO! A second acting Oscar for Clooney, another one of these movie stars who always plays himself? Shudder to think.

Posted by great scott at February 3, 2012 3:59 PM

comment #6

Markj74 says ...

It would be a great moment to see Oldman on stage holding an Oscar. Are you listening Academy voters?

Posted by Markj74 at February 3, 2012 4:00 PM

comment #7

great scott says ...

BTW, what does SAG know that Oscar doesn't? If Clooney wins he'll be the first person in the short history of the SAG awards to win two Oscars, having lost the SAG award both times. He lost to Paul Giamatti the first time.

Posted by great scott at February 3, 2012 4:05 PM

comment #8

trimmer says ...

Dan Revill, I thought of this within 30 seconds without looking it up:

10 years ago: Denzel Washington
20 years ago: Anthony Hopkins
30 years ago: Henry Fonda

How'd I do?

Posted by trimmer at February 3, 2012 4:20 PM

comment #9

Ray says ...

U MAD BRO?

Heat, kitchen, etc.

DUJARDIN POWER.

Posted by Ray at February 3, 2012 5:52 PM

comment #10

BoulderKid says ...

Dujardin is a better pick than Clooney. If I had to rank on preference I'd go:

1) Pitt: Inhabits Billy Beane. Pitt made this film at literally the perfect point in his career/aging process. The lines on his face speak volumes, like Beane a former first round draft pick, Pitt is coming to terms with the loss of youthful good fortune that he had previously banked on and is now forced to dig deeper.

2) Oldman: I know a lot of film fans are gunning for him number one but Pitt is at least as good in his film, and I could see Pitt never having this much heat again whereas Oldman is going to be getting plump roles in to his seventies.

3) Dujardin: Very good, but I prefer the two above and their films.

4) Clooney: He does what the film requires, but his performance doesn't define "The Descendants" in the same way as the above did. Five/Ten years ago I could see Jeff Bridges, Bill Paxton, Jeff Daniels, Dennis Quaid, or a range of other middle aged actors pulling this role off.

-Bechir: Haven't seen "A Better Life" yet.

Posted by BoulderKid at February 3, 2012 6:40 PM

comment #11

Eloi Wrath says ...

I hate the fact that Clooney's rampant Oscar-whoring is making me dislike the guy. Back in the late-'90s/early-'00s, Clooney was the coolest man alive. Now he seems like the ultimate Hollywood ham, doing prestige pictures exclusively so he can win awards. Pitt is twenty times more interesting than him.

Posted by Eloi Wrath at February 3, 2012 7:02 PM

comment #12

Dan Revill says ...

@ trimmer. seeing as how i had to look all three of the movie's years up, i'd say pretty good. my point is that most people that don't live and breathe movies have little or any concern about the winners. they tune in for spectacle.

Posted by Dan Revill at February 3, 2012 8:29 PM

comment #13

AnnaZed says ...

Markj74, It will be a great moment to see Oldman on stage because that is what will happen.

Posted by AnnaZed at February 3, 2012 10:36 PM

comment #14

Chinaski1 says ...

Clooney deserves the award. Both for this performance, and for his body of work over the last 10-13 years. Wouldn't mind Pitt winning either.

Posted by Chinaski1 at February 3, 2012 11:32 PM

comment #15

Markj74 says ...

AnnaZed: I hope you're right. I'm sure the Academy voters will find some way to screw it up though.

Posted by Markj74 at February 4, 2012 12:51 AM

comment #16

JChasse says ...

In my heart, I'd be perfectly happy with "The Artist" and Dujardin winning Academy Awards (although I prefer Pitt for best actor). But when I think about it, and especially after revisiting the two OSS movies, while I did find them enjoyable, I can't shake the analogy of the whole situation being similar to if Steve Martin and Carl Reiner had been nominated for Oscars for "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid." In my mind, we have two cases of a pair of creatives best known for comedy putting out a movie where the main thing that makes it special is the technical conceit they incorporated. Granted, there's a lot more heart involved with "The Artist", but still...

Posted by JChasse at February 4, 2012 1:37 AM

comment #17

Cadavra says ...

Dujardin is a traditional old-fashioned movie star: talent, looks, charisma, and charm to burn. That he can make characters as fundamentally disagreeable as OSS 117 and George Valentin so damned lovable is a tribute to his enormous gifts. And I've seen him completely win over a Q&A audience despite his limited English (which is rapidly improving--anyone see him on Leno last night?). And most important of all: he gave a knockout performance WITHOUT USING HIS VOICE. He absolutely deserves the Oscar and everything else he's won.

Posted by Cadavra at February 4, 2012 9:11 AM

comment #18

eddie mars attacks says ...

You could throw a rock in Mantilini with your eyes closed and hit a douchebag. As Michael Lerner says: "Do me a favor, Barton. Throw it hard."

Posted by eddie mars attacks at February 4, 2012 10:37 AM

comment #19

Sams says ...

More people seem to agree that Pitt gave an excellent performance and yet he hasn't won anything save for a few critics' awards. Same with Moneyball. For some reason, neither is #1 on people's ballots. I don't know if Pitt's TV blitz this week.can change things.

Posted by Sams at February 4, 2012 4:00 PM

comment #20

lindsey says ...

Is that a picture of you Jeffrey Wells up there in the right hand corner of this page? Well, no wonder you want George Clooney to win the Oscar. You look just like him !!!

Posted by lindsey at February 4, 2012 4:48 PM

comment #21

Raising_Kaned says ...

"Pitt is twenty times more interesting than him."

Eh, have you SEEN him interviewed lately? Hardly any personal opinions, always/referring to the writer/director if they're in the room for an answer (and not in a humble way, in a "clueless" way), nothing going on behind his eyes. I understand your beef with Cloonster (to a degree), but this dude does not inspire fascination.

Then again, he is boning Angelina Jolie every night. I'd imagine -- compared to that -- everything else in life seems like a complete and utter pointless bore.

Posted by Raising_Kaned at February 4, 2012 8:05 PM

comment #22