Day: September 25, 2010

Armond White‘s contrarian rep will obviously be compromised if he approves of The Social Network. I’m guessing he’ll write a pan and thereby wreck the current 100% Rotten Tomatoes rating, based on 14 reviews thus far. That’s not counting another rave from Newark Star Ledger critic Stephen J. Whitty, and an especially well-written one by Some Came Running‘s Glenn Kenny.

The Social Network “does throw you into the insular but seminal Ivy League world of its characters pretty much head-first,” Kenny notes, “and then zooms along, and if you don’t get into the swim of it right away, you may get lost. You may think that the film is asking you to know what a ‘final club’ is. It isn’t. It’s just asking you on for the ride. Once you’re in and you stop worrying, it doesn’t matter.

“And then, once you understand what screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director David Fincher are doing with the structure — it’s not as straightforward as it initially seems, chronology-wise — you’re ready for it, and it’s a pleasure to get it. And to switch metaphors, and worse yet, to resort to a really hoary one, it’s like being in a supercharged Lamborghini on a clear road with an expert driver who just opens the thing up, and the shift to the high gear is the smoothest rush ever. Nice.”

I often have the tube on as a white-noise companion, and over the last couple of weeks I must have heard (and sometimes watched) this iPad spot at least 30 times — no exaggeration. It’s the first nine notes of Cole Porter‘s “Anything Goes,” repeated over and over.

BoxOffice.com’s Phil Contrino is projecting $21 million for Oliver Stone‘s Wall Street 2 by Sunday night.

Mark Romanek‘s Never Let Me Go has been limping along in limited release. It doesn’t seem fated to break out — let’s face it. 20 days I ago I mentioned the possibility that it might have been cursed by a certain hard-working fellow whose unbridled enthusiasm for films in the early stages has tended to spell doom. I’m sorry this has happened, but if I’d been calling the shots at Fox Searchlight I would have said ixnay to any film about young people meekly submitting to a cruel early death.

At last night’s Social Network party a British journalist who absolutely loves NLMG was reminding me that the donors (Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, Andrew Garfield) don’t rebel or try to escape because they’ve been conditioned from birth to never think along those lines. Those born into slavery under the Roman empire were conditioned the same way, I replied, but Spartacus and several other men broke out of gladiator school regardless and formed an army and defied Rome.

I’m sorry for preferring Spartacus to Never Let Me Go, but hot dog-eating peons like myself are always responding along these lines. NLMG is obviously a more subtle and “tasteful” and restrained film than Spartacus, but Dalton Trumbo‘s screenplay, based on Howard Fast‘s novel, is much more compelling. Why? Because unlike the donors, the gladiators refuse to just sit there and take it.

I won’t go along with the idea of Ben Affleck‘s The Town deserving a Best Picture nomination, and neither, I suspect, will a certain percentage of Academy members. (I spoke to a top-tier director-screenwriter at last night’s Social Network party who said The Town is “really not very good.”) But Anne Thompson‘s idea (voiced during yesterday’s Oscar Talk podcast with In Contention‘s Kris Tapley) about Affleck being the new Sydney Pollack is perfect.

What she meant, I think, is that Affeck has shown he has the chops to be the industry’s leading dispenser of smart, upscale, money-making MOR films that aren’t too twitchy or problematical. The kind of movie that has name actors and feisty dialogue and a highly professional sheen but with a earnest romantic element. Not one that necessarily ends with a kiss (Pollack’s romances mostly ended with the relationship in question not working out) but which has a straight, deeply felt quality.

I knew Pollack slightly (a few interviews, several social occasions) and he would have been the first to tell you he was in the business of making movies that people wanted to see. But his films always had a classy veneer, and were always adult-minded and about a theme or arc that Pollack had worked out in his head before shooting. Pollack knew his stuff and then some. He wasn’t Jean-Luc Godard (and he would have been the first to tell you he didn’t have that kind of DNA), but he was one of the best MOR behind-the-camera guys for the better part of four decades.

If Affleck can live up to Pollack’s standards and level of caring and concentration over the next two or three decades, he’ll have reason to be proud.

I say this every year so here we go again. I recognize that some blogger-columnists feel that sitting on the sidelines during awards season and gauging the industry’s political and emotional sentiments regarding this or that nominee is what they do and should do, and that this is both important and expected of them and so on. I’ve never gone along with this. In fact, my reaction to this philosophy has always been “what?”

I believe that the proper role of a good Hollywood columnist is not just to report on the conversation (which passes the time and is occasionally interesting), but to lead it — to stand tall at the lecturn and be an advocate and to put wood into the fire and keep the passion going for the right films and the right filmmakers. To celebrate art before politics. And to argue against awarding mediocre films, which is what most people are always inclined to do — i.e., be supportive of their friends and colleagues because it’s a friendly, neighborly thing to do.

The highest calling of a Hollywood columnist during awards season is to be a strong and impassioned shepherd and show the sheep where the good grass is. This doesn’t imply that sheep don’t have a nose for good grass on their own. Of course they do. But there is crabgrass, grass, decent grass, better grass, higher-quality grass and world-class gourmet grass. I would humbly submit that shepherds have an eye and a nose for grass, and that life is short so why eat regular grass when all you have to do is trudge up the hill a bit and sample the really good stuff?

In this light I feel that a statement to the effect that “it doesn’t matter how good an actor is in a given movie….there’s no way he/she will be awarded for this work” — a statement made yesterday by Indiewire‘s Anne Thompson — is, from my vantage point, wrong-headed. No matter how accurate this assessment may be in a political sense (and I’m not saying for a second that Thompson is incorrect), it is wrong to dismiss good creative work or to suggest that it’s not even worth considering in an award-season sense, even if it doesn’t have a political prayer.

I’m not stupid. I know that the chances of The Beaver‘s Mel Gibson ever winning praise from the Hollywood community are all but nil. But there’s something in me that can’t help but recoil when I hear a statement like Thompson’s. If an actor (even a racist-minded actor) has delivered an exceptional performance then he/she has delivered an exceptional performance — period. You have to always consider the long-term view and not get too parochial in your thinking. Because there’s the judgment of history — a judgment unaffected by the moody political currents — to consider.

There is nothing more banal or dismissable in the game of evaluating the best in a given field than for people to say “yeah, but I don’t really like him/her” or “but he/she is so nice!” There’s no getting away from this, but the Movie Godz are constantly asking us to not think or judge according to to the current political ether, which is to say the mentality of a group of junior high-schoolers hanging out during recess.

To put it another way, the “I’m just taking the pulse of the town and staying out of the argument ” columnists are like Judean shepherds on a hillside near Mount Sinai. Shepherd #1: “Look at those sheep over there, eating all that yellow grass and those weeds.” Shepherd #2: “Yeah, I know, and with that really nice looking patch of rich green grass to the left about 100 yards.” Shepherd #1: “Why don’t we get our staffs and scoot them over in that direction?” Shepherd #2: “No, no, that’s not our proper role. We’re here to just chill and observe and keep an eye on whatever the sheep are up to…nothing more.”

Bringing Up Baby died commercially and wasn’t even reviewed all that well when it opened in 1938. Obviously the critics and the public didn’t get it. Shouldn’t we all strive to recognize and celebrate good films or performances when they are in fact really good, regardless of the prevailing mood or peer-pressurings or whatever?

“Why is everyone so high on The Fighter?,” Indiewire‘s Anne Thompson asked In Contention‘s Kris Tapley during their latest Oscar Talk discussion. More to the point, why is Thompson so skeptical about this film sight unseen? Her first explanation: “Mark Wahlberg?” But her second comment gets down to the nub of it.

“I’d like to bring up the topic of [Fighter director] David O. Russell ,” she begins. “Right, no shortage of enemies,” Tapley replies. “That is an understatement,” Thompson said. “There is no single entity who is more widely loathed in Hollywood, perhaps. He’s really not liked. Put him in the Mel Gibson category.

The Fighter (Paramount, 12.10) “will have to be really good [to become an Oscar contender] — that’s all I want to say. I mean, this is the guy who has tapes all over the internet of him berating his cast…even George Clooney, whom everyone loves, called him on it [about bad behavior] during production of Three Kings. I’m not saying it can’t be neutralized, but I’m saying it’s a big hurdle to get over.

“[Russell] is talented, extremely talented,” she notes. But that ain’t enough. “People don’t necessarily coddle up to Sean Penn, but he’s respected [for his talent] and admired for his humanitarian efforts, for wearing his convictions on his sleeve. I don’t know that David O. Russell has earned that kind of gravitas. His films have always lacked heart and humanity. Three Kings, I would submit, is an idea movie. I would argue that his films are cold as ice.

“What are the great films that Russell has directed?,” Thompson asks. Tapley mentions Three Kings. He also speaks fondly of I Heart Huckabees. My own view is that Flirting with Disaster is a near-great film, certainly one of the funniest and most originally written adult comedies of the last 20 years.

“I want to see The Fighter, and when I do I will judge it objectively…I really will. I’m trying to explain what some of the negatives might be.”

Later in the conversation Thompson belittles the notion, primarily floated by Deadline‘s Pete Hammond (and seconded by Nikki Finke), that Mel Gibson could have a Best Actor shot if Summit decides to release The Beaver at year’s end.

“It doesn’t matter how good Mel Gibson is in the movie….there’s no way,” Thompson says. “Even if it does well commercially, even if it gets good reviews….the Academy will never give Mel Gibson an Oscar nomination, ever. It’ll never happen. The Academy is very liberal and accepts the sexual piccadilloes of Roman Polanski or Charlie Chaplin or Woody Allen, but racism and anti-Semitism they do not forgive.”

Pure Oprah kiss-assery. What everyone gets when they come on the show. An infomercial about your boundless enthusiasm, kindness, optimism, humanity, and wonderfulness. “It’s a movie, it’s fun,” Zuck says about The Social Network. “This is my life so I know it’s not that dramatic….maybe it’ll be fun to remember it as partying and all the crazy drama.”

If nothing else Bill Maher‘s latest Christine O’Donnell clip fortifies David Robb‘s 9.22 Hollywood Reporter piece that said, without being so bold as to mention Teabaggers, Sarah Palin and/or Christine O’Donnell, that yahoo sentiments voiced in Inherit The Wind are alive and well in 2010 America. Extra: O’Donnell’s greatest hits.