I saw September 5 (Paramount, 11.29) at the Chuck Jones theatre in Telluride, and my immediate reacion was “a very decent portrayal of a grim, sobering tragedy…it holds you in as it recreates the 1972 details and atmosphere and whatnot.

“Does it get into the whys and wherefores on the part of Black September’s terrorism or any of the general political particulars? Nope — it focuses solely on the strategic calls behind the reporting by ABC’s Munich-based news team, who were stationed only about 100 feet from the Israeli Olympic team’s condo.

“I didn’t feel under-fed or cheated, but I wanted to feel more of the totality of the tragedy.”

From Peter Debruge’s 8.29.24 review: “The Steven Spielberg film that September 5 most resembles is The Post, in its flurry of trying to act responsibly amid the incredible pressures of a breaking-news environment.

“September 5 takes us behind the scenes of the 17-hour Munich ordeal, beginning shortly before the attack and cataloging key decisions until just after the tragic finale, when World of Sports host Jim McKay famously confirmed the chilling news, ‘They’re all gone,’ on air.

“[And yet] as an in-the-trenches account of how ABC Sports approached the story, the film focuses primarily on a young, ambitious producer (played by a period-appropriate-looking John Magaro), based on veteran sports broadcaster Geoffrey Mason’s memory of events.

“ABC Sports may have gotten the story, but it also got it wrong, prematurely repeating an unconfirmed report that the hostages were recovered safely.

“Moritz and Fehlbaum’s matter-of-fact script lacks the punchy pressure-cooker sparring quality of inside-baseball series such as The Morning Show or Aaron Sorkin’s Sports Night, which can leave one feeling like the real story is happening elsewhere — and it is, since there’s only so much that news crews can extrapolate from telephoto lenses trained on a faraway balcony.

“When shocking incidents happen live, our imaginations tend to fill in what can’t be seen with the worst. In this case, revisiting it half a century later, knowing what happened doesn’t preclude us from wanting to get a better understanding of the specifics. But this movie’s insights are limited to the newsroom, focusing on such minutiae as TV hosts using the words ‘as we’re hearing,’ versus the reality of what transpired during the climactic disaster at Fürstenfeldbruck Air Base.”

For the last couple of months, THR hotshot columnist Scott Feinberg has been insisting that Tim Fehlbaum‘s September 5 (Paramount, 11.29) is the Best Picture contender to beat…a claim that has triggered quizzical responses here and there.

I’ve never thrown the least amount of shade at September 5 — it’s a reasonably sturdy, more-than-moderately-engaging TV journalism film — I just don’t share Scott’s conviction that it’s a Best Picture Oscar winner waiting to hqppen….it’s good but not holy-shit, cartwheels-in-the-lobby good.

Last night an industry friendo saw September 5 on the Paramount lot (thumbs up), and during the lavish post-screening reception he spoke to Fehlbaum, who directed and co-wrote the script with Moritz Binder and Alex David.

Friendo: “Fehlbaum said that Paramount only started to take the film seriously AFTER Scott Feinberg’s raves. He said ‘I would not be here were it not for the Hollywood Reporter declaring the film as their top contender’…the gist being that “once the Feinberg prediction came out it seemed that suddenly Paramount mounted a campaign.”

“Nonetheless there was a poor turnout of Academy members at the half-full screening and reception,” friendo goes on.  “A huge number of vacant seats for the film, which has to battle the Gaza of it all. And needs much more careful handling than Paramount has given it thus far.

“The friends I invited as my plus-one all said they’d never heard of the film. Paramount needs to quickly up their game.”

What filmmakers have declared that support from this or that Oscar-season handicapper was an important or crucial factor in their award-season strategies? It happens from time to time but not routinely.

I think some bought into the idea that my praise for Errol Morris‘s The Fog of War (‘03) made a slight positive difference. A decade ago I was told by a colleague of Russian producer Alexander Rodnyansky that he felt that my excitement over Andrey Zvyagintsev‘s Leviathan was influential within the industry. I know that after I did somersaults over Alfonso Cuaron‘s Children of Men (’06), I suddenly seemed to become one of Alfonso’s journo bruhs. I know that several weeks after I raved about Carey Mulligan‘s career-making performance in An Education after the film’s Sundance ’09 debut, she sent me a hand-written, snail-mail “thank you” note.

What’s behind Scott Feinberg‘s bizarre insistence upon listing Tim Fehlbaum‘s September 5 as the most likely Best Picture contender of them all? It’s a good film but not top-of-the-list good. I’m not irked or angry or fuming. I’m not slapping my forehead. I just honestly don’t get it.

In the matter of Scott Feinberg’s latest THR Oscar spitball forecast…

HE to Feinberg: I’m not putting down Tim Fehlbaum‘s September 5 — it’s a very decently constructed historical procedural about ABC’s Munich coverage of the 1972 Olympic Games / Black September tragedy — but I’m not understanding why it’s sitting at the top of your current Best Picture Oscar forecast. It’s good but not that good. John Magaro has more screen time than Peter Sarsgaard, but he doesn’t have much X-factor charisma — a sturdy actor but a tiny bit dull.

You’ve got Emilia Perez in your #2 slot, and I get it. Putting it farther down your list might trigger the fanatics and possibly start a whisper campaign that you (and by extension The Hollywood Reporter) might be transphobic on some deep-down level. So you’re playing it safe, and I totally understand and sympathize with this strategy.

That said, the most significant driver of the Emilia Perez bandwagon is woke identity stuff — you know it, I know it, the HE commentariat knows it. It’s a good, verve-y film in many respects, but while the beginning section is pretty great the ending disappoints. Sooner or later the tent will begin to deflate.

Right now there are four deserving heavy hitters — Conclave, Anora, All We Imagine as Light (get behind this snubbed masterpiece, Academy members!), and A Real Pain. Emilia Perez brings the total to five. I still haven’t seen The Brutalist but I’ll probably include it as a sixth-place contender after I finally catch it on Friday, 10.11.

Bad on Scott for relegating The Apprentice, Ali Abassi’s excellent Trump-Cohn period drama with a truly brilliant supporting performance from Jeremy Strong, to 23rd place…really bad! By any fair standard this movie delivers carefully cured, blue-chip goods.

Feinberg ranking The Substance and The Piano Lesson in 25th and 26th place = adios muchachos!

Here’s hoping that James Mangold and Jay Cocks‘ A Complete Unknown joins this modest fraternity, and maybe Babygirl also for a total of eight noms. Okay, maybe September 5 will slip in and occupy the ninth slot.

Forget Sing Sing, Saturday Night, Inside Out 2, The Wild Robot, Walter Salles‘ I’m Still Here, The Room Next Door, The Seed of the Sacred Fig (good but not good enough) and Civil War (I was a huge fan but too many people didn’t like it).

YET TO BE WIDELY SEEN:

This morning Hollywood Reporter award-season analyst Scott Feinberg offered five suggestions that would make the Oscar awards “even better” — i.e. less infuriating, less old-fogeyish, a little speedier. Here they are along with my yay-nay remarks:

1. Guarantee 10 best picture nominees culled from two separate periods — January 1st to June 30th and July 1st to year’s end. Right now almost all award-contending films are released after Labor Day, in part because the blogaroonies are often reluctant to favor any award-quality films released in the spring or summer (Ex Machina, Love & Mercy, Mad Max: Fury Road). Feinberg says this would “incentivize studios to release quality films throughout the year, since a movie would have just as much of a shot at being remembered for a best pic nom in March as it would in September.” HE comment: Good idea but how many nominees would come from period #1 and how many from period #2? HE correction: The first period should be from January 1st to August 31st, and the second from Labor Day to New Year’s Eve.

2. Tighten the Academy membership rolls by withholding voting priveleges to members who haven’t worked in ten years. This addresses the same old “get rid of the deadwood” problem that has dogged the Academy for decades. HE reaction: Taking away voting priveleges would be seen as disrespectful or even insulting to veterans. Two or three years ago I suggested that all members should be allowed to vote, but that ballots should be weighted based upon work history. If a member has worked within the past decade, he/she gets three points per vote. If he/she hasn’t worked in over a decade but less than 20 years ago, he/she gets two points per vote. If a member is a major-league dinosaur and hasn’t worked in over 20 years, he/she gets one point ver vote.

I’ve decided to be the official mediator between Awards Daily‘s Sasha Stone and The Hollywood Reporter‘s Scott Feinberg regarding their dispute about James Vanderbilt‘s Truth (Sony Pictures Classics, 10.16), which ignited yesterday. What actually happened is that Feinberg, who saw Truth in Toronto, attacked the film — a curiously aggressive response four weeks before the opening, not to mention that Feinberg mostly focuses on analysis and trend-spotting. This prompted Stone, who saw and loved it in Los Angeles around the same time, to attack Feinberg. I tumbled for Truth in Toronto and am frankly more on Stone’s side of the fence in this matter, but I can be fair-minded when the occasion requires.

Here’s the initial Feinberg article, Stone’s pushback response and my ecstatic Toronto review.

The film is a dramatization of Mary Mapes’ 2005 memoir “Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power.” It’s basically about how and why Mapes (Cate Blanchett) and legendary CBS anchor Dan Rather (Robert Redford) lost their jobs in the wake of a poorly sourced but nonetheless accurate 2004 60 Minutes report about a young George W. Bush having allegedly received preferential treatment in an attempt to duck military service in Vietnam.

The pro-Truth Stone believes that the film passes along a comprehensive and justifiably damning portrait of corporate cowardice on the part of CBS after the infamous 60 Minutes Killian documents story blew up in late ’04. She points out that if Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee had acted similarly — if he had thrown Woodward and Bernstein under the bus when their story about H.R. Haldeman being named in Grand Jury testimony as the fifth White House official to control the Nixon re-relection team’s slush fund was attacked for being false (even though Haldeman was the fifth official to control the fund) — the All The President’s Men saga would have been quite different.

The anti-Truth Feinberg believes that the film errs in trying to portray Mapes and Rather as flawed heroes, and that it’s too hard on CBS and not hard enough on Mapes, whom he believes didn’t do her job properly and deserved to be canned. He believes that “a narrative motion picture was probably the wrong format in which to re-litigate this saga…ironically, it feels more fitting for a segment on 60 Minutes…[it] just doesn’t quite ring true.”

I just figured this out. For weeks THR‘s Scott Feinberg has been heavily in the tank for Tim Fehlbaum‘s praise-worthy and respectable September 5, but not just because of the Israel empathy factor, but also because of Feinberg’s physical resemblance to costar John Magaro, who was born in ‘83.

Feinberg and Magarao are about the same height. Similar eyes, same dark hair (though not the same length), same semi-stocky build. They don’t quite look like brothers, but they could be cousins.

The trailer for Worth (Netflix 9.3) indicates quality — a thoughtful, low-key drama about the experience of Kenneth Feinberg (Michael Keaton), an attorney who was appointed to administrate the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. His task was to decide which amounts certain families of 9/11 victims would be paid as compensation.

Feinberg followed a certain impartial formula (including, I’ve read, a refusal to evaluate individual suffering), some families received less than others, and there was some resentment about this.

The film is based upon a book Feinberg wrote a book about this experience, titled “What Is Life Worth?: The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11.”

Keaton and Tucci costarred in Spotlight (although they didn’t share any scenes), and one of the Worth producers, Michael Sugar, had a producing credit on Spotlight.

Alas, after debuting at Sundance 2020 Worth received a 65% and 68% rating from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, respectively. That was nearly 20 months ago.

On top of which the film’s screenwriter-producer, Max Borenstein, is best known for writing Godzilla (’14) and Kong: Skull Island (’17), and contributing to the story of Godzilla: King of the Monsters (’19) and Godzilla vs. Kong (’21). How do all these monsters square with compensating the families of 9.11 victims?

Besides Keaton, the cast includes Stanley Tucci, Amy Ryan, Tate Donovan, Laura Benanti, Talia Balsam, Marc Maron, Chris Tardio and Victor Slezak.

There are two…well, one head-turning takeaway from Scott Feinberg’s 3.12 Kim Novak interview (audio + transcript) in the Hollywood Reporter. Plus there’s a vague refutation of a rumor about Novak having been Bill Cosby-ed by Tony Curtis during a late-night party in November 1957. Plus an interesting inference or two.

One, Novak’s fabled interracial “affair” with Sammy Davis, Jr. in late 1957, which was chronicled in a September 2013 Vanity Fair piece by Sam Kashner and discussed in an August 2017 Smithsonian article by Joy Lanzendorfer, wasn’t actually sexual**.

Lanzendorfer reported this on 8.9.17, Novak reportedly repeated the claim to Larry King in 2004, and she says it again to Feinberg in the current THR piece — no salami and, the article indicates, perhaps a hint of stalking on Davis’s part.

Vanity Fair art for Sam Kashner’s September 2013 article about the brief Novak-Davis alliance.

Novak tells Feinberg that her much-whispered-about relationship with Davis had more to do with (a) Davis aggressively pursuing Novak — inviting her to join him for a Thanksgiving dinner with his parents in Los Angeles in late November 1957, and then surprising her by showing up when she invited him out of politeness to a family Christmas gathering in Chicago a month later, and (b) Novak not wanting to discourage Davis out of concern that a racial motive might be inferred if she flat-out rejected his advances.

Feinberg’s article also contains a between-the-lines inference that while Tony Curtis may have slipped Novak a Mickey Finn during a late-night after party at his Beverly Hills home (which he shared with then-wife Janet Leigh), Davis may have been “in on it” and perhaps was the guy who drove Novak back to her home, where she woke up in her bed stark naked the next morning, not having the slightest clue what had happened.

Feinberg excerpt: “One day, Novak left Paramount studios — still in her [Judy Barton] wig and green gown from Vertigo — to attend a charity dinner, where Tony Curtis invited her to an afterparty at the home he shared with Janet Leigh. Hearing that [director Richard] Quine would be there, she said yes.

“When she arrived, Quine [with whom Novak was involved to some extent] wasn’t there. But Davis was, and he offered to help her take off her wig.

“‘By the time he got it off,’ Novak recalls, ‘Tony Curtis had brought me a drink. I don’t know…I only had, I think, one drink there. But that’s the last thing I knew. I do not know anything afterward, cross my heart, hope to die. Don’t know what happened after that or how my car got back in front of my apartment.”

“Does Novak think someone spiked her drink? ‘I really do,’ she said. “I didn’t think of it then because people didn’t talk about things like that, but I could never figure it out…I’ve never blacked out in my entire life.’

“She adds, ‘I think Tony Curtis did it. I don’t want to think Sammy did that.’ And when she awoke the following morning? ‘I’ll just tell you the honest truth: I didn’t have my clothes on.'”

The “tell” is Novak saying “I don’t want to think Sammy did that.”

If you’ve ever read any of Scott Feinberg‘s “Brutally Honest Oscar Voter” columns, you know that a lot of Academy members are, to put it gently, stubbornly resistant to what could be described as present-tense, finger-to-the-wind, representational snowflake currents.

If you wanted to be dismissive you could call them woke-indifferent, under-the-radar scowlers. As in unenlightened, incurious, living in their own foxholes, “I miss the ’70s”, somewhat resentful, “I’m from Missouri,” “everything sucks,” etc.

They’re not lacking in talent or intelligence or love for movie lore, these people, but they do seem irked by the social justice warrior syndrome…to processing all the contenders with a carefully calibrated woke filter. They like what they like and respect what they respect, but they sometimes vote for films that the wokesters despise (i.e., Green Book) and thank God in heaven for that.

God Herself howled in triumph, trust me, on the night that Green Book won and Spike Lee turned his back. And She beamed with delight when Get Out was blown off.

There are, of course, many other Academy members who see things differently. Particularly the newly added internationals who voted overwhelmingly for Parasite + the New Academy Kidz who hate anything that smacks of OLDER WHITE GUYS and are always thinking “let’s give actors and filmmakers who aren’t part of the older-white-guy, Spielberg-stamped network a chance.”

But based on those “Brutally Honest” confessionals, a good percentage of Oscar voters and guild members don’t think like…well, any of the elite critics and Oscar-watching columnists.

It’s like Clayton Davis, Eric Kohn, Justin Chang, Tom O’Neill, Robbie Collin, Manohla Dargis, Angelica Jade Bastién, Steve Pond, Erik Anderson, David Ehrlich, Alison Willmore…it’s like the wokesterati and SJW banner carriers live on one planet, and the people who actually work in the film industry and vote for Oscars (and Emmys and guild awards) live on another.

Do certain tastes and preferences overlap? Yes, of course, but generally speaking very few….I should say almost no critics or columnists seem to live, think and breathe like the rank and file. Put another way, very few critic-columnists dare to think and write like stubbornly independent foxhole contrarians. Because to do so would mean (and this is crucial) not getting hired by the editors and publishers who are also living in fear of the Khmer Rouge…who are white-knuckle terrified of offending the comintern.

Bottom line: If you want to be survive in the film-assessing, Oscar-covering journalistic world of 2020 and ’21, you must play along with the wokesters. Or at least pretend to play along. Which is why almost everyone is more or less singing the same tune.

Except, that is, for Hollywood Elsewhere (i.e., myself) and a few others out there. That’s right…HE and very few others stand alone. Alone against the wind and the herd.

It’s absolutely certain that Donald Trump will constantly lie and fabricate during tonight’s Cleveland debate with Joe Biden. Yes, Biden will have many opportunities to call Trump on his whoppers, but do I understand that absolutely no clarifying information will be offered to viewers as Trump goes into his usual b.s.?

Debate moderator Chris Wallace has told N.Y. Times reporter Michael Grynbuam that fact-checking will be “a step too far” and that he doesn’t want to be “a truth squad“, and that it’ll basically be up to Biden to challenge Trump on this and that. Biden will therefore have to spend a good deal of his camera time shaking his head and saying that Trump is confused, a chronic liar or a dishonest sociopath, or a combination of all three.

Barely 100 people will attend in person. Each candidate has two minutes to respond to a question. No opening statements. The first question will be asked of Trump.

NPR’s Domenico Montanaro: “Debates can go very far south when a moderator isn’t in control. How and how much will he fact-check both candidates, Trump in particular, given that he can be so combative and is fine with running with things that aren’t true? How will Trump respond to Wallace pushing back?”

University of Pennsylvania historian Mary Frances Berry to NPR’s Domenico Montanaro: “The people who just want to get rid of Trump will be satisfied if Biden shows up, if he doesn’t collapse in the middle of the debate, and whatever he says, even if it’s erroneous or a gaffe — like 200 million [who have died from the coronavirus] — they’ll dismiss that, and people will just give him a pass.”

It’s now 3:30 pm Pacific. The Biden-Trump debate begins at 6 pm or 9 pm Cleveland time.

The 2016 Golden Globe nominations were announced this morning by The Hollywood Foreign Press Association. GG noms stir the conversational pot, help SAG-snubbed contenders get back into the psychological/emotional swing of things, focus attention in the major categories, toss in a couple of surprises, etc. Here are the nominees plus HE mood-pocket commentary:

Best Motion Picture, Drama: Carol, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Revenant, Room, Spotlight. HE comment: This is Spotlight‘s to lose. These five are almost certainly the biggies right now in terms of the general conversation, even if Love & Mercy, Brooklyn and Beasts of No Nation deserve their place at the table. I don’t need to remind the community that The Movie Godz are particularly behind Love & Mercy, and concurrently distressed that so many people have said it doesn’t rate because it was released last June. C’mon!

Best Motion Picture, Comedy: The Big Short, Joy, The Martian, Spy, Trainwreck. HE comment: Huzzah for The Big Short! The HFPA can nominate The Martian as a comedy and even give it an award and that’s fine, but that doesn’t change the fact that it died yesterday as a Best Picture contender when SAG declined to give it a Best Ensemble nomination. The likeliest winner is…I don’t know.

Best Actress in a motion picture, drama: Cate Blanchett, Carol; Brie Larson, Room; Rooney Mara, Carol; Saoirse Ronan, Brooklyn; Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl. HE comment: Larson is the presumptive favorite (am I wrong?) but HE’s rooting interest is for Ronan first and Vikander second. It’s probably safe to say that Blanchett/Mara will cancel each other out.

Best Actress in a motion picture, comedy: Jennifer Lawrence, Joy; Melissa McCarthy, Spy; Amy Schumer, Trainwreck; Maggie Smith, The Lady in the Van; Lily Tomlin, Grandma. HE comment: Schumer is in the running! (Please note that I put her in an earlybird HE Oscar chart last September.) This is mainly between Lawrence and Smith; Lawrence is the likely winner…right?

Best Actor in a motion picture, drama: Bryan Cranston, Trumbo; Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant; Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs; Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl; Will Smith, Concussion. HE comment: Leo totally wins this. No way Smith prevails (not with that “I make movies to please my grandmother” remark) but he should nonetheless send a basket of fruit and a bottle of wine to THR‘s Scott Feinberg for getting him this far. Redmayne is a non-starter.

Best Actor in a motion picture, comedy: Christian Bale, The Big Short; Steve Carell, The Big Short, Matt Damon, The Martian; Al Pacino, Danny Collins; Mark Ruffalo, Infinitely Polar Bear. HE comment: Pacino takes it in a walk. Seriously, no clue. Bale and Carell cancel each other out so…what, Damon takes it as a consolation prize for The Martian getting rejected in yesterday’s SAG nominations?

Best Actress in a supporting role in a motion picture: Jane Fonda, Youth; Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight; Helen Mirren, Trumbo; Alicia Vikander, Ex Machina; Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs. HE comment: Fonda owns! Okay, Fonda or Vikander to win. Mirren, Winslet and especially Leigh are placeholders, thrown in to round out the pack. The chief distinction in Leigh’s performance is that she gets slugged six or seven times by Kurt Russell and winds up…okay, no spoiling.

Best Actor in a supporting role in a motion picture: Paul Dano, Love & Mercy, Idris Elba, Beasts of No Nation; Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies; Michael Shannon, 99 Homes; Sylvester Stallone, Creed. HE comment: Strongest nominee roster of them all — it’s probably between Rylance, Dano and Stallone but don’t call Elba or Shannon slouches. I’m a Dano guy but I respect each and every performance in this category.