Marielle Heller‘s A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood “is not a Fred Rogers biopic,” THR awards columnist Scott Feinberg has stated. “Rogers, in fact, isn’t even the central protagonist — that’s Matthew Rhys, playing a magazine writer based on Esquire’s Tom Junod, whose 1998 profile of Rogers inspired the film. But make no mistake about it: this is Hanks’ film.”

Which is what everyone has been saying, and is why Feinberg’s article is titled “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood Could Propel Tom Hanks to First Oscar Nom in 19 Years” — fine.

But Feinberg doesn’t say whether he’s talking about Hanks as a contender for Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor. Shouldn’t he clarify?

I’m asking because of a claim by Indiewire‘s Anne Thompson that Sony has decided to run Hanks in supporting and Matthew Rhys as a lead. Thompson wrote that campaigning Rhys as a lead is “fair,” considering that he plays an Esquire writer who profiles Hanks’ Fred Rogers. “The movie is really about him,” Thompson asserts.

The bottom line is that it shouldn’t and doesn’t matter how much screen time a performance occupies. If an actor dominates the film like Hanks does in A Beautiful Day or like Anthony Hopkins did in Silence of the Lambs, he should certainly be pushed for Best Actor.

Currently posted: Indiewire‘s Anne Thompson has reported that as far as an awards campaign for A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is concerned, Sony intends to push Matthew Rhys in lead and Tom Hanks in supporting?

Hollywood Reporter critic Todd McCarthy is claiming that A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is “ultimately Hanks’ show, and Hanks’ show alone.”

Jordan Ruimy said this morning that Rhys “is in practically every scene and Hanks isn’t, but Rhys’ story is the weak part…the movie lags whenever Hanks isn’t on-screen.”

The press and marketing hype that has been inflating expectations for Taika Waititi‘s Jojo Rabbit (Fox Searchlight/Disney, 10.18) collapsed in a heap after last night’s Toronto Film Festival screening. Early reviews suggest that the broad “anti-hate satire” may find favor among younger audiences and perhaps the New Academy Kidz, but the over-40 contingent will be frowning and tut-tutting for the most part.

Right now Jojo has a 55% rating at Rotten Tomatoes and 49% score with Metacritic. Do those numbers indicate an Academy contender or perhaps a box-office go-getter? I don’t want to be the one to say it.

“Jojo is a totally irresponsible movie. The amount of anti-Semitic and Holocaust jokes played for laughs is disturbing.” — World of Reel’s Jordan Ruimy.

“This spectacularly wrongheaded ‘anti-hate satire‘ (as per the how-the-hell-do-we-market-this-thing? ad campaign) is the feature-length equivalent of the ‘Springtime for Hitler’ number from Mel Brooks’ The Producers, sans context and self-awareness. It takes place in a goofball period la-la land of its own creation, with sets as minutely detailed and shots as precisely composed as those in a Wes Anderson fantasia. Indeed, Jojo Rabbit suggests what that dapper hipster auteur might generate if he was to remake Elem Klimov’s hallucinatory, horrifying World War II epic Come and See, and that’s not a compliment.” — Slant‘s Keith Uhlich.

“Taking straight from the Chaplin playbook, Waititi’s Hitler is a Mr. Bean-esque figure, hammed up to eleven as the invisible friend of young Jojo Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis). He leaps around, talks in a thick approximation of a German accent and encourages young Jojo to be the best little Nazi in the whole of the Third Reich. He is, undoubtedly, the worst thing about the film — distracting and one-note. It is possible to parody Hitler successfully, but in leaning too heavily on basic mockery, there’s nothing new that this performance brings to the table.” — Little White Lies‘ Hannah Woodhead.

“[Waititi’s decision to play a fantasy Adolf Hitler buddy figure] often feels like a way of distracting us from the truth, an elaborate smoke and mirrors act to fool us into believing Jojo Rabbit has something new to offer. Because while there are some initially amusing moments given the outlandish conceit, Waititi doesn’t really know what to do with his imaginary Hitler past an increasingly repetitive cycle of decreasingly funny acts of idiocy. He’s essentially a single sketch character and while Waititi plays him well, there’s only so much we need of him.” — The Guardian‘s Benjamin Lee.

“I couldn’t care less what Scott Feinberg or anyone else says. I’ll put my money on Just Mercy winning the Audience Award in TIFF and being the one to beat for the Best Picture Oscar. It is this year’s Green Book — except it’s told through a black lens and pitched directly at a black audience. There are two white characters of note — Tim Blake Nelson and Brie Larson — who have maybe 15 minutes of screen time between them.

“Of course it’s conventional, but then so was Green Book, The King’s Speech, Spotlight, Argo and a ton of others. The transgressive Birdman-type winners are much fewer and further between, and tend to happen in years when here isn’t a big heart-tugging crowd-pleaser in the mix.”

HE comment: So Just Mercy is another Academy-pleaser by way of an emotional comfort bath, but at the same time it might be some kind of corrective makeup for the Best Picture triumph of Green Book, which was attacked for being insufficiently woke in its depiction of 1962 America? I was in heaven when the Academy told the SJW zealots to shove it up their ass by giving the Best Picture Oscar to Green Book. On the other hand one of the most depressing, suicidal-thought-inspiring events of my entire life was when The King’s Speech won the Best Picture Oscar. It made me want to buy packets of heroin.

West Hollywood has several classically designed apartment buildings (old Spanish, brick and stucco, shaded patios with fountains). I’m speaking of the area south of the Strip, north of Fountain and west of Fairfax, and principally on Laurel, Hayvenhurst, La Jolla and Harper Avenues. You can really feel the history and the ghosts, especially if you do a little research beforehand. The Strip was definitely cooler back in the ’20s, ’30s, ’40s and early ’50s. Preston Sturges‘ The Players, the Garden of Allah apartment complex, etc.

After eating last night at the decent but unremarkable Wokcano (Sunset and Crescent Heights, site of the old Schwab’s Pharmacy), Tatyana and I did a little strolling around. We didn’t do the whole classic-era tour but we hit three buildings.

First was the Villa d’Este, a beautiful Spanish-style apartment complex (arched entrance way, lots of palm trees, centrally located patio fountain) located at 1655 No. Laurel. Then we visited the 90-year-old Villa Primavera courtyard apartments (corner of Harper and Fountain), otherwise known as the In A Lonely Place residence where director Nicholas Ray actually lived. And then across the street to the Romanesque Villas (1301 No. Harper), where Marilyn Monroe lived around the time of The Asphalt Jungle.

The Villa d’Este was the setting of Under The Yum-Yum Tree (’63), a negligible Jack Lemmon horndog comedy. Never seen it, never will. The trailer is very convincing.

Lemmon was the hottest guy in Hollywood after starring in the one-two punch of Some Like It Hot (’59) and The Apartment (’60), both directed and co-written by Billy Wilder. Because the latter mixed ascerbic humor and frankly sexual situations, Lemmon was offered almost nothing but frothy sex comedies for five years following The Apartment. The only decent film he made during this period was Blake Edwards‘ Days of Wine and Roses(’62).

The sex comedies were The Wackiest Ship in the Army (’60), The Notorious Landlady (’62), Irma la Douce (’63, minor Wilder), Under the Yum Yum Tree (’63), Good Neighbor Sam (’64) and How To Murder Your Wife (’65). He also costarred that year in The Great Race, a period costume comedy about arch humor, empty artifice and scenic splendor.

Lemmon finally broke out of that shallow, synthetic cycle with Wilder’s The Fortune Cookie (’66). Not grade-A Wilder but certainly half-decent, and a great boost for Walter Matthau. And then Luv, The Odd Couple, The April Fools, The Out-of-Towners, Kotch, Avanti! and Save the Tiger. And then he hit another wall with Wilder’s The Front Page.

I heartily approved of Gavin Hood‘s Official Secrets (IFC Films, 9.30) when I saw it at last January’s Sundance Film Festival. Four out of five critics had agreed with me (and vice versa) a few days prior to the opening. It’s mildly disappointing to report that after after 10 days in theatres Official Secrets has only earned about $350K. Then again audiences have been conditioned to watch this kind of fare at home for the most part.

Just before leaving for Telluride Hood spoke with me for a few minutes. Here’s the mp3.

Official Secrets is a fact-based whistleblower drama about exposing shifty, lying behavior on the part of the Bush-Cheney administration in the selling and prosecution of the Iraq War. It’s about real-life translator and British intelligence employee Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley) revealing a U.S. plan to intimidate United Nations “swing”countries into voting in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which of course was founded upon a fiction that Saddam Hussein‘s Iraqi government was in possession of WMDs and represented a terrorist threat.

Secrets is an ace-level piece about pressure, courage and hard political elbows — a grade-A, non-manipulative procedural that tells Gun’s story in brisk, straightforward fashion. It’s exactly the sort of fact-based government & politics drama that I adore.

The performances by Knightley, Matt Smith (as Observer reporter Martin Bright), Matthew Goode (as journalist Peter Beaumont), Rhys Ifans as Ed Vulliamy, Adam Bakri as Yasar Gun, and
Ralph Fiennes as British attorney Ben Emmerson are excellent fits — as good as any fan of this kind of thing could possibly hope for.

Two months ago Gun participated in a sit-down with Hood and the journalists who broke the story of the leaked memo, Martin Bright and Ed Vulliamy, on Democracy Now!:

Rian Johnson‘s Knives Out (Lionsgate, 11.27) has been described by Toronto Film Festival critics as a good whodunit chuckle — a wokey reshuffling of an Agatha Christie deck of cards. Respective Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings of 100% and 85%.

The only slightly tepid review is from Screen Daily‘s Tim Grierson.

Without spilling any beans or speaking out of turn, I was told last summer that Knives Out is actually a Trump-era allegory by way of snooty one-percent entitlement attitudes and a matter of illegal immigration status.

A colleague assures that Knives Out “is 100% a murder mystery, with the added layer of some Trump-era satire.” He found the latter “less effective although it seems to have delighted the folks at Indiewire.”

The common assessment is that Indiewire‘s Eric Kohn is absolutely top tier — one of the most sage and sophisticated critics out there. He has long been recognized as such. And David Ehrlich is also quite the steady and perceptive fellow, and generally an excellent writer — engaging copy just pours out of the guy. And Kate Erbland is…well, consistent.

But I have to be honest and admit to certain premonitions that kick in before I read almost any Indiewire review, and certainly reviews of films that lay claim to any degree of social realism.

My gut belief is that Indiewire assessments of films are first and foremost about “how woke is this?” and secondly about “how good is this?” I realize that to some HE regulars this may sound like one of the biggest “duhhh” observations I’ve ever posted, but it never hurts to reiterate. On top of which this is Sunday.

Kohn, Ehrlich and Erbland may vigorously dispute this view (I’d be hugely surprised if they didn’t) but I’ve been sensing over and over that Team Indiewire is always asking itself “are the attitudes and perceptions in this film sufficiently enlightened by SJW virtue-signalling standards?”

I believe this mindset is a big part of how they see things. Call me overly cautious or even timid for phrasing this viewpoint as carefully as I have here. To some Indiewire‘s “totally in the woke tank” approach is as obvious as the sky.

I fully admit that this impression could be proven erroneous if someone were to conduct an exhaustive inventory of all their reviews over the last two or three years (and certainly since the advent of the movement that was largely ignited by the historic 10.5.17 N.Y. Times story that brought about the fall of Harvey Weinstein.

I’m just saying that one way or the other I can always feel the presence of a woke measurement stick every time I read a Kohn, Ehrlich and Erbland review.

Should woke sticks be put aside when reviewing a film or anything else? Of course not. Every interesting or pertinent consideration under the sun should be included in any intelligent, fully considered review, column-inches warranting. I just happen to feel that a film’s wokeness (of lack thereof) isn’t the meat of the matter. But it sure seems to be a big deal at the woke-iest movie site on the planet.

If someone were to write a woke reassessment of all significant Hollywood-generated films of the 20th Century and the first 15 years of the 21st Century, would it sell? Maybe or maybe not, but reading such a book would almost certainly give me a headache.

2:15 pm Update: Did I imagine that Indiewire‘s Anne Thompson is reported that as far as an awards campaign for A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is concerned, Sony intends to push Matthew Rhys in lead and Tom Hanks in supporting? Nope, I didn’t.

Thompson has written that campaigning Rhys as a lead is “fair,” considering that he plays an Esquire writer who profiles Hanks’ Fred Rogers. “The movie is really about him,” Thompson asserts.

Urging Academy and SAG voters to consider Rhys as a leading contender for the Best Actor Oscar might be “fair”, but this doesn’t sound like an especially savvy decision on Sony’s part. Running Hanks in supporting argues with the award-season strategizing that led to Anthony Hopkins‘ Hannibal Lecter performance in The Silence of the Lambs being nominated for and winning the Best Actor Oscar.

Hollywood Reporter critic Todd McCarthy is claiming that A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is “ultimately Hanks’ show, and Hanks’ show alone.”

Some weeks ago there was some discussion about whether or not Hanks’ Beautiful Day performance would qualify as a lead, as he has less screen time than Rhys’ “Lloyd Vogel” character, an Esquire journalist (based on Tom Junod) who interviews Hanks’ Fred Rogers.

Jordan Ruimy said this morning that Rhys “is in practically every scene and Hanks isn’t, but Rhys’ story is the weak part…the movie lags whenever Hanks isn’t on-screen.”

HE response: Based on these and other impressions, Hanks is apparently Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs — a performance that sinks in and dominates by sheer force of personality. Alongside this the measure of screen time is nothing.

If Sony is determined to pursue the strategy that Thompson has reported on, Hanks will stand a half-decent chance of losing to Once Upon A Time in Hollywood‘s Brad Pitt in Supporting. (OUATIH is, of course, also a Sony film.) And the allegedly mopey Rhys probably won’t be nominated for Best Actor at all.

If Sony reverses strategy and runs Hanks as Best Actor candidate as la Hopkins in Silence, he could win. Yes, he would be facing tough competition from Joaquin Pheonix‘s Joker performance, but he would almost certainly be supported by the Academy voters who gave the Best Picture Oscar to Green Book.

THR‘s McCarthy: There’s no question that Hanks is perfect in the part, as the actor’s amiability and unquestionable sincerity make for an ideal match with [Rogers]’ unique television personality. [But] Marielle Heller’s film is a more modest achievement, sympathetic and yet entirely predictable in its dramatic trajectory of making a believer of an angry, cynical journalist.”

Absurdism: (1) Intentionally ridiculous or bizarre behavior or character…”the absurdism of the Dada movement”; (2) “The belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.”

“This is an embarassment for our country, and we see a new embarassment every day…literally pathetic, and that’s not how I want to feel about a President, whether from my party or from the other one. Putting up a wall is a 17th Century solution…it shows you how upside down and antique the President’s priorities really are.”

Hollywood Reporter award-season columnist Scott Feinberg has composed a polite, respectful, carefully-qualified dismissal of Destin Daniel Cretton‘s Just Mercy. Okay, a semi-dismissal.

Trust me — whenever a headline asks “can a certain film win awards?,” the implication is that it may not.

I for one am inclined to be suspicious, especially considering that a trusted HE confidante is calling Just Mercy “very conventional” with “two cringe-worthy courtroom speeches.” And yet “watchable as far as it goes, solid performances throughout.” In other words, pretty good but no Cuban cigar.

The award-touted pic played last night “through the roof” at Toronto’s Roy Thomson Hall, Feinberg reports, “thanks largely to a powerful story strongly brought to life,” etc. Michael B. Jordan portrays real-life lawyer and activist Bryan Stevenson and Jamie Foxx is Walter McMillian, a wrongly convicted murderer whose sentence is turned around over the course of the film.

But hold your horses, Feinberg is also saying. Wait just a damn minute. Don’t get your knickers into too much of a twist.

“The reality is that Just Mercy is a somewhat glossy, on-the-nose, big-studio film, and is not nearly as polished or impressive as Cretton’s Short Term 12, which introduced Brie Larson and a host of other terrific young talent to cinephiles. But it will get a much better release [than Short Term 12], and will similarly appeal to audience emotions, which is why it cannot be counted out.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Feinberg seems to be implying that Just Mercy will engage emotions by way of virtue signalling — i,.e., drawing from the old Call Northside 777 playbook but with a strong ethnic-confrontation component (i.e., a brilliant, soft-spoken black attorney carefully disputing racist assumptions and attitudes voiced by Alabama crackers).

Feinberg: “At the end of the day, the best awards bets for Just Mercy are probably two supporting actors who make the most of a number of big moments to shine in the 137-minute film: Foxx and, as another inmate sentenced to death row, Rob Morgan (who was even better this year in Joe Talbot‘s The Last Black Man in San Francisco).

“Jordan is very good, as always, but this time in a part that is probably too understated and noble to emerge from a crowded field of best actor contenders.”

Shorter Feinberg: Foxx will be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but don’t count on too much else.

Contrasting opinion from Deadline‘s Pete Hammond: “The Toronto first night audience handed Just Mercy unusually strong applause (especially considering there was no Q&A or spotlight on the filmmakers during the end credits) after its first screening at the Roy Thompson Hall, and then multiple standing ovations at the Elgin for its second screening and q & a.

“One executive from a rival studio told me earlier Friday, hours before the premiere, that they heard it could be ‘this year’s Green Book.’ Time will tell on that, but in terms of a reception, it certainly seemed to match the enthusiasm for 2018’s Best Picture Oscar winner, and definitely will find a place in the race for this year.”

The Venice Film Festival’s Golden Lion trophy has been won by Todd Phillips‘ Joker, and the Grand Jury Prize has been handed to Roman Polanski‘s An Officer and a Spy.

Joker star Joaquin Phoenix was already considered a likely contender (if not an apparent lock) for a Best Actor Oscar nomination, but now he’s entering award season with an even stronger brief.

The Polanski win is a fairly serious shocker considering that (a) An Officer and a Spy has managed only a 56% positive rating from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and (b) the fact that Venice Film Festival jury president Lucretia Martel expressed reservations about Polanski’s history just before the festival began, adding that she didn’t want to attend an opening-night event in his film’s honor.

Martel’s remarks prompted a demand for an apology from one of Polanski’s producers, which Martel subsequently offered.

During the opening press conference Martel said, ”I do not divide the artists from their works of art. I think that important aspects about the work of art emerge from the man. I also think that, for all of you, the presence of Polanski with what we know about him in the past is somehow difficult to face.”

Besides Martel the Venice jurors included ex-TIFF honcho Piers Handling (Canada), director Mary Harron, actress Stacy Martin, dp Rodrigo Prieto, and directors Tsukamoto Shinya and Paolo Virzì.

The other Venice awards won’t have much international reverberation: Silver Lion for Best Director: Roy Andersson, About Endlessness; Volpi Cup for Best Actress: Ariane Ascaride, Gloria Mundi; Volpi Cup for Best Actor: Luca Marinelli, Martin Eden; Best Screenplay: No. 7 Cherry Lane, Yonfan; Special Jury Prize: The Mafia Is No Longer What It Used to Be, Franco Maresco; Marcello Mastroianni Award for Young Actor: Toby Wallace, Babyteeth.

Excepts from Glenn Kenny’s review of the Polanski film:

“The film itself is fantastic.

“An Officer and a Spy takes the perspective of officer Georges Picquart (Jean Dujardin), who looked on while Dreyfus was condemned and then, after taking over a section of the Army’s intelligence division, learned how egregiously Dreyfus had been framed.

“The twist here is that Picquart was personally anti-Semitic, and personally disliked Dreyfus for that reason. In the movie’s opening scenes, when Picquart reports to his superiors about watching Dreyfus stripped of the buttons on his uniform as part of his sentences’ ‘degradation,’ he says it was like the Army was being stripped of ‘a pestilence.’

“But Picquart is, outside of [this] grotesque prejudice, a man of honor, a believer in the truth. Once he discovers it he won’t back down. It will mean ruin to him in many respects.

According to the National Institute of Health, obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States, right behind tobacco use. An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are due to the obesity epidemic. In some circles this information is a problem, and in fact necessitates the general prohibition against fat-shaming. Last year Weight Watchers changed its name to WW because “merely the idea of watching your weight is now bullying” or fat-shaming. Maher: “Health care is not just about you and the government — it’s also about you and the waitress.”

Posted on 7.24.08: