Jeffrey Wells

What new evidence in the drowning death of Natalie Wood — an event that happened almost exactly 30 years ago — could prompt the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department to reopen the case? What new fact or assertion could have possibly persuaded them to start a new investigation? That’s kind of a weird thing to do, no? What could possibly come of this? Will a finger be pointed at someone for doing (or failing to do) something that led to Wood’s death?

Update: This TMZ report seems to explain a lot of it. This Lana Wood interview also.

The tragedy happened on 11.28.81. Wood, her husband Robert Wagner and Brainstorm costar Chris Walken were aboard Wagner-Wood’s yacht, Splendour, which was anchored in Isthmus Cove off Catalina Island. Also on board was the boat’s skipper, Dennis Davern, who had worked for the Wagner-Wood for many years.

From Wood’s Wiki page: “Wood either tried to leave the yacht or to secure a dinghy from banging against the hull when she accidentally slipped and fell overboard. When her body was found, she was wearing a down jacket, nightgown, and socks. A woman on a nearby yacht said she heard calls for help at around midnight. The cries lasted for about 15 minutes and were answered by someone else who said, ‘Take it easy. We’ll be over to get you.’ It was laid back. There was no urgency or immediacy in their shouts.”

“Others have speculated that a lover’s quarrel between Wood and Wagner that had to do with Walken took place before the accident.”

Walken and Wood, costars in Douglas Trumbull‘s Brainstorm, were allegedly having an affair or had recently had an affair. That, at least, is what I heard way back when from four or five gossip guys in the New York journalism world.

“For his part, Wagner has said he blames himself for the incident. ‘Did I blame myself? If I’d been there, I could have done something,’ he told the U.K.’s Daily Mail in 2009. ‘I wasn’t, but ultimately, a man is responsible for his loved one. Yes, I blamed myself. I would have done anything in the world to protect her. Anything. I lost a woman I loved with all my heart, not once but twice, and I will never completely come to terms with that.'”

Criterion’s Twelve Angry Men Bluray arrived today. I’ve never seen such rich inky blacks and delicious needlepoint detail in the fine textures of the shirts and the beard follicles and sweat beads on E.G. Marshall‘s face and the weave in Jack Warden‘s straw hat. It’s the finest-looking version of this 1957 classic I’ve ever seen. It’s like sitting in front of a movie screen, in the fourth or fifth row.

Henry Fonda in a scene from 12 Angry Men — Bluray version.

But it’s also one of the most overwhelming grainstorm experiences I’ve had in a long time. Almost every shot is blanketed with digital mosquitoes…billions upon billlions of swirling micro-gnats. It was ridiculous at first, but it got a little better when I turned the sharpness levels down from eight to two.

I realize that it’s a tradeoff — to get the deeper tones and better detail and the celluloid complexity you have to accept the mosquitoes because they’re part of the image, but man…I wanted to get out the bug spray and slap on the insect repellent.

The same scene on the 2007 DVD.

Six or seven hours ago I learned that The Iron Lady had screened for select Hollywood bloggers. Three or four hours ago In Contention‘s Kris Tapley posted his review (Meryl Streep good-great, movie mezzo-mezzo). And then Hollywood Reporter columnist Scott Feinberg posted the same opinion. And then along came Gold Derby‘s Tom O’Neil and Adam Waldowski with the old rama-lama-ding-dong. And then Deadline‘s Pete Hammond posted his Streep rave.

Streep, Streep, Streep, Streep, Streepah-lah-deep, deepah-lah-deep…Streep-peep-peep.

It was an honor and a delight not to be invited along with these guys. Thank you for not trusting me, Weinstein p.r. reps. I’m speechless. No, seriously…I’d very much appreciate being allowed to see The Iron Lady within the next few days. If it’s not too much trouble, I mean. Thank you.

Maybe this was punishment for writing that The Artist is a bit of a lightweight bauble, and that it doesn’t play as well the second time. Or maybe it’s a little slapdown or payback for being a King’s Speech hater last year. Except I never was a King’s Speech hater. I always said that film was all right, pretty good, not bad, nice, etc. What I hated was the idea of people saying it deserved the Best Picture Oscar more than The Social Network….that’s all.

The two existing trailers for Steve McQueen‘s Shame (i.e., the Carey Mulligan ‘New York, New York” songbird one that surfaced today plus the one that came out two or three weeks ago) are, I feel, more enticing on their own level than Shame itself. It’s always easier, of course, to make a more captivating two-minute trailer than a 95-minute feature, but still….

I only know that these trailers have a fleetingly warm, fascinating, alluring vibe, and that the film is significantly colder, frostier and clinical-analytical. Which isn’t to suggest that there’s anything wrong or ineffective with that. The film is what it is, and it certainly has integrity. But it’s not what these trailers are indicating. Hats off to Fox Searchlight marketing for creating two of the best trailers I’ve seen all year.

The Foreign Language Committee won’t announce its list of nine short-listed Best Foreign-Language Oscar contenders for another six or seven weeks (i.e., early January). Six films will be chosen by the regular committee, per custom, and three will be chosen by the executive committee.

I’m telling you right now there are going to howls of protest if Asghar Farhadi ‘s A Separation (Iran) and Gerardo Naranjo‘s Miss Bala (Mexico) are not among the nine. And I’m saying this in particular because I know a guy who’s spoken to a couple of Academy members who’ve seen it and they’ve been kind of “meh.” This is how the Academy denies merit and recognition to great films — they “meh” them to death at parties.

The executive committee needs to step in and do the right thing if the regular committee schmucks (who made history four years ago when they ignominiously failed to include Cristian Mungiu‘s 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days on the shortlist) fail to include Miss Bala or A Separation on the shortlist.

Sixty-three countries, including first-time entrant New Zealand, have submitted films for consideration. I’ve narrowed the list down to 17 likely contenders, meaning that at least seven of these are going to be left out in the cold, and from the nine, of course, only five final contenders will emerge. In any case here, in alphabetical order, are HE’s most likely 2011 finalists along with sporadic instant comments:

(1) Bullhead, d: Michael R. Roskam (Belgium). Instant verdict: “Popular film festival attraction, many awards, exceptionally well made. Thuggish, castrated, bull-like protagonist makes it a bit of a tough sit.”

(2) Elite Squad: The Enemy Within, d: Jose Padilha (Brazil). Instant verdict: Alleged prejudice against genre films might make it a bit tough for this police thriller. I still haven’t seen it. Thoughts?

(3) Monsieur Lazhar, d: Philippe Falardeau (Canada). Instant verdict: Nothing, zip. Seeing it next week.

(4) The Flowers of War, d: Zhang Yimou (China). A friend recently saw it and says “highly likely, real chance, Christian Bale, excellent, beautifully shot, big mass rape scene,” etc.

(5) Superclassico, d: Ole Christian Madsen (Danish). Instant verdict: “Kinda light, comedic…has played really well with the committee.”

(6) Le Havre, d: Aki Kaurismäki (Finland). Instant verdict: Old man, young boy, humanism, compassion, class act. Highly impassioned Cannes reception.

(7) Declaration of War, d: Valerie Donzelli (France). Instant verdict: “Good, not great,” says one involved observer. “Mark Johnson really liked it,” says another.

(8) Pina, d: Wim Wenders (Germany). Instant verdict: excellent 3D ballet film but fighting against foreign-language-committee prejudice regarding docs.

(9) The Turin Horse, d: Bela Tarr (Hungary). Instant verdict: Too slow, too meditative, too Tarr-ish. Observer #1: “I can’t imagine it making the short llst.” Observer #2: “No way.”

(10) A Separation, d: Asghar Farhadi (Iran). Instant verdict: Slam dunk, pre-ordained. “One way or the other it’ll get in,” a non-vested observer declares. Likely top-five nominee.

(11) Footnote, d: Joseph Cedar (Israel). Instant verdict: Highly regarded, stirringly cerebral but more of a performance film than a high achiever in its own right.

(12) Terraferma, d: Emanuele Crialese (Italy). Instant verdict: Generally posaitive response although I myself haven’t seen it.

(13) Miss Bala, d: Gerardo Naranjo (Mexico). Instant verdict: Foreign-language-committee prejudice against action films will not be tolerated because this, in a very real stylistic sense, is an art movie by Michelangelo Antonioni. “Tough film,” says one Oscar consultant. WHAT? He/she means that the not-very-bright types are going to say “meh…action, guns, Mexican mafioso, drugs, killings…not an award-calibre thing.” WRONG…it is that. Will probably need to be “saved’ by the exec committee.

(14) Happy, Happy, d: Anne Sewitsky (Norway). Instant verdict: Light, likable, genuine.

(15) In Darkness, d: Agnieszka Holland. Instant verdict: Holocaust subject gives it the usual advantage. Has played quite well. One Academy guy told a friend he was more impressed by this than by A Separation.

(16) Once upon a Time in Anatolia, d: Nuri Bilge Ceylan (Turkey). Instant verdict: Austere. Tough sit. “No way,” one guy says.

(17) Where Do We Go Now? d: Nadine Lenaki (Lebanon). Instant verdict: Good response, won audience award in Toronto.

Boxoffice.com‘s Phil Contrino is reporting that The Descendants made $39,777 from 5 locations yesterday, or an average of $7955. By comparison J. Edgar‘s opening day brought in $52,645 from 7 situations, or an average of $7520. He’s nonetheless calling it “a solid start for Payne’s film. I’m sure word of mouth will be much better for The Descendants than it is for J. Edgar. It expands to 29 locations on Friday, and we think it’ll crack the top 10. We’re forecasting $1.6 million over the weekend.”

If nothing else, the men and women of the Criterion Collection are known for adhering to purist principles in transferring older films to DVD and Bluray. Whatever and however a film in question looked to audiences when it first came out, this is how the Criterion team will present it — no ifs, ands or buts. But to go by information on a Criterion webpage for its forthcoming Bluray of Otto Preminger‘s Anatomy of a Murder (’59), the aspect-ratio brain police have wormed their way into Criterion and are imposing an Orwellian reassessment.

Frame capture from ColTriStar Home Video’s 11 year-old Anatomy of a Murder DVD

Frame capture supplied by Criterion Co. website page about its Anatomy of a Murder Bluray.

A movie that was very pleasingly and beautifully filmed with a protected aspect ratio of 1.33 to 1 — an aspect ratio which has been seen thousands of times on broadcast and cable TV, and which was presented on a 2000 Anatomy of a Murder DVD, and which the jacket copy for said disc proclaimed as “the original theatrical aspect ratio” — will be presented by Criterion next February with a 1.85 to 1 cropping.

In other words, Criterion is going to pull out its samurai blade and whack the living hell out of this film. I mean, that’s a lot of visual information being chopped out of the top and bottom of the frame. Despite those 1.33 framings being so visually pleasing, so elegant, so 1950s-looking, so boxy and fuddy-duddy, so “your grandfather’s living-room TV.”

But once again, as with Sony Home Video’s recent The Caine Mutiny Bluray, we’re going to see compositions on the Anatomy Bluray that feel sliced down and compressed and confined…like they’re in prison.

Except we were told a few weeks back that Sony’s restoration guy Grover Crisp cropped The Caine Mutiny Bluray down to1.85 because he’d reviewed the film’s original notes and logs about Edward Dmytryk‘s intended aspect ratio and that this was indeed the correct way to present it. (I still say “no” to this but that’s an earlier story.)

See the dog? You can see most of it. It’s almost a whole dog.

See the half-doggy? Do you GET IT NOW, fascists? Anyone who says that the half-doggy framing is better is in DEEP DENIAL and needs to be ignored or, better yet, slapped around.

Now, if Grover was technically correct in cropping Caine to 1.85 (and one assumes he based it on original notes and specifications, even though it was a highly questionable call from aesthetic perspective), how could Sony have approved or allowed jacket copy on the 2000 Anatomy DVD stating that 1.33 to 1 is “the original theatrical aspect ratio“?

What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?

In other words, how and why could the Criterion people approve a 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio on their forthcoming Anatomy Bluray if the original aspect ratio (according to Sony Home Video) was 1.33 to 1?

The apparent answer is that Criterion is going with a 1.85 to 1 a.r. because they damn well feel like it. Because they’ve decided “to hell with it, this is what we’re going with and fuck off.” But either Sony was correct with its 1.33 proclamation in 2000 or Criterion is right about its forthcoming Bluray. They can’t both be right.

The answer, I believe, is the rule of simple expediency. A boxier aspect ratio worked fine with 1.37 to 1 analog TVs 11 years ago, but it doesn’t work with today’s 16 x 9 high-def flat screens. It seems to be that simple. I think it’s a flat-out travesty to whack Anatomy of a Murder down to 1.85, and I had the power and the influence I would lead a smelly unkempt mob into Criterion’s Manhattan headquarters, and we would refuse to leave until they re-think things and, knowing that the fascist mindset refuses to consider 1.33 any more, agree to at least crop it down to 1.66, which I would find more tolerable. Occupy Criterion!

Postscript: I’ve sent emails about this issue both to Sony’s Crisp and the Criterion people. But they both reside in very thick and deep concrete bunkers, so to speak, and they rarely discuss aspect ratio matters with press people. It is their refusal to come out in the sunlight and talk turkey, really, that gets me so angry about this stuff.

It would be dishonest to report that the resignation of chief Academy of Motion Pictures Arst and Sciences publicist Leslie Unger has been met with great sadness among each and every LA-based entertainment journalist. She was known for having had a combative relationship with one or two journos in my sphere. Her days were numbered when AMPAS CEO Dawn Hudson brought in Christina Kounelias as the org’s CMO (chief media officer), a position senior to Ungar’s title of Director of Communications.

Unger’s departure is “not surprising,” says a journalist pal. What he meant was that it’s not unwelcome. “As soon we hang up, I’m going to dance a little jig,” he said.

The legendary eye chemistry between Warren Beatty and Julie Christie in the final scene of Heaven Can Wait (starting at the 6:00 mark in this clip) is all about spirit and pangs and possibility. But the eye current between Jeremy Irons and Juliette Binoche in this clip from Louis Malle‘s Damage is shamelessly carnal. They’ve just met six seconds earlier and it’s a done deal.

This kind of instant-green-light, good-to-go chemistry doesn’t happen all that often in dramas, or at least not as convincingly as it does here. But maybe my memory is faulty. I’m asking for other scenes that have this kind of current. One look, one touch…and there’s no doubt about what’s going to happen. It’s simply a matter of time and circumstance and somebody making the first call.

I’ve been there many times. It’s always the woman’s decision and you always know within minutes if not seconds. Losers like to think they can alpha-vibe or chitty-chat or sweet-talk their way into a woman’s boudoir. Maybe this happens every so often, but 90% of the time if a woman hasn’t given you the come-hither within three minutes or less you’re probably wasting your time.

Now, that doesn’t mean you can’t screw things up after the initial invitation. There are 50 ways you can motivate a woman out of a romantic mood, and if you can think of 35 of them in advance you’re a genius. But that green-light look is unmistakable.

Remember the days when Cameron Crowe was the eloquent hip guy, the cool guy, the ex-Rolling Stone reporter and smoothly accomplished, musically-driven director-screenwriter who made smart, rich, soulful movies (Almost Famous, Jerry Maguire, Say Anything) that the vast majority of elite critics used to embrace with the exception of Vanilla Sky, of course, and before the absolute meltdown calamity of Elizabethtown?

I’m asking this because today’s announcement about the Thanksgiving sneak of We Bought A Zoo signifies that he’s now in league with the goody-two-shoes PG family crowd. This is a guy who used to hang out with degenerate rock bands on the Sunset Strip in the ’70s. This is a former boy genius who articulated to the world how cool it was to be “uncool,” and who reminded all journalists the value of being honest and unmerciful. What happened to his hip cred? What would Lester Bangs say?

20th Century Fox’s decision to do a nationwide commercial sneak of Cameron Crowe‘s We Bought a Zoo on 11.26 — four weeks before the Matt Damon-Scarlett Johansson-Thomas Haden Church family film opens nationwide on 12.23 — is brave and radical and unprecedented. In all sincerity, hats off.

Mat Damon, Scarlett Johansson in We Bought A Zoo.

This is being done, of course, in order to present the film directly to Joe and Jane Popcorn and in so doing bypass the big-city online smartass crowd, which, Fox apparently suspects, will probably piss on it. I for one admire Fox’s brass in doing this. They’re not hiding behind high stone walls or cowering in their boots, and are more or less following Disney’s War Horse approach — let Joe Hinterland see it concurrently with the critics and thereby remove the cynical filter of early online reviews.

“Once in a while, we’re lucky enough to have a picture to which audiences of all kinds and all ages respond so strongly, that it demands a big and unexpected event,” said Fox marketing honcho Oren Aviv. “We Bought a Zoo is that kind of picture — and Thanksgiving is a great time to share it via this special very early preview.”

Best HE Comment (from “dino velvet“): “This has the whiff of FUCK, we’re up against Sherlock 2, MI4, Dragon Tattoo, Tintin, Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 AND War Horse.”

Cameron and his tech homies need to upgrade three problematic CG shots: (1) A little CG sailboat that Titanic passes on the way out of Southampton has always looked ludicrous; (2) there’s a wide shot of Titanic pulling out to sea in which the first officer (i.e., the guy who shoots himself in Act Three) is shown walking across the deck, strolling along like a little CG playdough robot; and (3) there’s a Kate Winslet face-paste used as she and Leo are running from approaching sea water that never worked…fix it.