In reportedly agreeing to play King Triton in Disney’s forthcoming live-action CGI remake of The Little Mermaid, Javier Bardem is merely playing his cards like an adult. This is the world in which we live, and paycheck roles in tentpole films (digital Disney remakes, Marvel and Star Wars franchise flicks) is where the money is. Not to mention “the artistic thrills”, to quote Rosemary’s Baby protagonist Guy Woodhouse (John Cassevetes).

The only headscratcher is that Ariel is being played by Halle Bailey, which would suggest that Triton, her dad, should be played by an actor in the realm of Samuel L. Jackson, Cuba Gooding or Jeffrey Wright…right? Perhaps the actress cast as the late Queen Athena will complete the portrait.

The Bardem casting was reported Wednesday by Deadline‘s Amanda N’Duka. Rob Marshall is directing the CG feature from a script by David Magee. Harry Styles is reportedly in talks for the role of Prince Eric. Previously announced cast includes Melissa McCarthy as Ursula, Awkwafina as Scuttle and Jacob Tremblay as Flounder.

In William Wyler‘s Ben-Hur, Pontius Pilate (Frank Thring) attempts to explain to Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) the way of the world as defined by Rome. If Pilate were to comment on the Bardem casting, he would put it thusly:

“Where there is greatness, great government or power, even great feeling or compassion, error also is great. We progress and mature by fault. Disney has stated time and again it is endeavoring to shape our cultural life in a great cinematic future. Perfect freedom has no existence. A grown man knows the world he lives in, and for the present, the world is Disney. Javier Bardem has simply chosen to cash a fat check rather than fight.”

Yesterday The Hollywood Reporter‘s Scott Feinberg seemed to draw an analogy between Tuesday’s Emmy nominations, which ignored many performances by well-known movie stars, and a February ’18 Vulture assessment of certain Academy nomination preferences by the “New Academy Kidz.”

It would seem, in other words, that changes within the TV Academy (new members, new rules, new thinking) are affecting the nominations.

“Emmy categories were announced on Tuesday, recognizing virtually every aspect of the TV business,” Feinberg began. “One thing, though, was noticeably missing from this year’s list that has been a staple of previous years: a large presence of movie stars (or, at least, people who first established themselves on the big screen before moving to the small).

“The TV Academy’s performers peer group took a pass on a host of A-list and/or Film Academy-knowledged actors and actresses who were thought to be in serious contention, including Catch-22‘s George Clooney; Homecoming‘s Julia Roberts; Maniac‘s Jonah Hill, Emma Stone and Sally Field; Grace and Frankie‘s Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin; Kidding‘s Jim Carrey; Who Is America‘s Sacha Baron Cohen; Yellowstone‘s Kevin Costner; King Lear‘s Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson; Ray Donovan‘s Jon Voight and Susan Sarandon; Knightfall‘s Mark Hamill; The Deuce‘s James Franco and Maggie Gyllenhaal; Shameless‘ William H. Macy; The Widow‘s Kate Beckinsale; and Live in Front of a Studio Audience: Norman Lear’s All in the Family and The Jeffersons‘ Jamie Foxx, Woody Harrelson, Marisa Tomei, Kerry Washington and Will Ferrell.”

“New voter” quote from Vulture‘s “We Polled New Oscar Voters: How Are They Changing the Way the Academy Thinks?” by Kyle Buchanan [now with N.Y. Times], Stacey Wilson Hunt and Chris Lee:

“’In general, it just feels like there is a feeling that we have to award people who have maybe been overlooked before. It’s about not wanting to award people who they have been rewarded a lot in the past. Maybe we need to give someone else a chance. I definitely think, whether [it’s] conscious or subconscious, [this is] happening.”

Consider again a quote from HE reader “filmklassik” in a 1.24.18 piece called “New Oscar Bait Hinges on Tribal Identity“:

“It’s a bit cheeky to say ‘never ever again’ (because who the hell knows), but yeah, in this particular cultural moment it is all about Tribal Identity. And what’s disturbing is, we have a whole generation now for whom tribal representation is, to use one critic’s word, numinous. The under-40 crowd has invested Race, Gender and Sexuality with a kind of cosmic significance. It doesn’t mean a lot to them — it means everything to them. Indeed, much of their conversation and writing seems to always come back to it.”

On Wednesday morning the Morning Joe team aired a video of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein schmoozing, cavorting and thick as thieves at some kind of easy-pickings Mar-a-Lago party in ’92.

Trump has portrayed himself as estranged from Epstein since the billionaire’s criminal history of soliciting and sexual trafficking recently re-surfaced; the video indicates that Trump has been lying about this, at least as far as the early ’90s were concerned.

In a 10.29.02 New York magazine profile of Epstein, Trump was quoted as follows: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

The late David Ferrie, a JFK assassination conspiracy suspect by the sights of Jim Garrison.

The thing that got my attention, and I mean a visual aspect that leapt right out in a WTF sense, is the apparent fact that Trump was wearing extra-dark, seemingly dyed eyebrows during that Mar-a-Lago party, which happened when Trump was 46 and Epstein was 39.

In the God-knows-how-many-thousands-of-photos snapped of Trump before and after this ’92 soiree, he’s never had these weird black caterpillars. They initially reminded me of the ones worn by Akim Tamiroff in For Whom The Bell Tolls or those Martin Scorsese cat eyebrows.

Before he became a blonde Trump’s hair was medium light brown, and swarthy brows aren’t exactly characteristic of people with fair Germanic complexions.

Then it hit me…of course! These are the inky, paste-on eyebrows worn by Ferrie, a suspect in the mid ’60s Jim Garrison investigation of the JFK assassination.

You’re reading about a new film and thinking about the contributors. What filmmakers of consequence (directors, actors, screenwriters, producers, directors of photography) instill, in this instance, feelings of uncertainty or trepidation? Or dread? Based, obviously, on their past work.

I’m not talking about actors whose faces need punching. That’s a separate consideration. I’m talking about strong creatives who, without any calculated malice aforethought, have rubbed your sensibilities the wrong way. This doesn’t make them bad people or unworthy industry professionals. It simply means that their names make you go “uh-oh.”

For me, the two biggest threats in this regard (and I don’t mean this in a cruel or dismissive way) are cinematographers Janusz Kaminski and Bradford Young — the former for his relentless use of desaturated color plus milky light shafts pouring through large windows, the latter for his devotion to under-lighting (leading to palettes of pea-green murk and mine-shaft ink).

One of the burdens of being a big-deal creative with a noteworthy signature is that you won’t please everyone. That goes with the territory.

From World of Reel‘s Jordan Ruimy:

The Safdies‘ Uncut Gems
James Gray‘s Ad Astra
Taika Waititi’s Jojo Rabbit
Fernando Meirelles‘ The Pope
Pablo Larrain‘s Ema
Hirokazu Kore-eda‘s The Truth
Bill Condon’s The Good Liar
Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story
Steven Soderbergh’s The Laundromat
Noah Hawley’s Lucy in the Sky
Bong Joon-Ho’s Parasite
Celine Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire
Michael Angeo Covino’s The Climb
Werner Herzog’s Family Romance LLC
Agnes Varda’s Varda by Agnes