The Weinstein Co. is pushing Marion Cotillard‘s Nine performance in the Best Actress category. She has the meatiest, hurting-est role among the Nine women — i.e., the betrayed wife of Daniel Day Lewis‘s Guido. (She’s also a lead because she sings two songs while all the other actresses sing one.) But nothing she does in Nine comes close to her acting in this scene from Public Enemies. I’m sorry but it’s true.
Three and a half days before the 11.30 embargo date, Newsweek‘s David Ansen has posted a short review of Clint Eastwood‘s Invictus. Does this mean others will jump the gun and post today or tomorrow or this weekend? A respected icon like Eastwood has little to fear from traditional big-gun critics like Ansen. Their respect for him is such that they’ll always go easy if they’re not 100% delighted. That said…
“A number of sports movies have one-word titles (Rocky, Hoosiers), but they’re not usually in Latin,” Ansen begins. “Clint Eastwood’s Invictus is not your ordinary sports movie, though it comes to a rousing climax at the 1995 Rugby World Cup match between South Africa and New Zealand. The stakes are higher: a nation’s unity hangs in the balance.
“Invictus (which means ‘unconquered’) takes place at the intersection of sports and politics. Its hero is Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman, naturally), who, in the aftermath of apartheid, has just been elected South Africa’s president after serving 27 years in prison.
“During his incarceration, Mandela studied his Afrikaner enemies and was wise to the role sports played in the national psyche. South Africa’s less-than-sterling rugby team, the Springbok, was as beloved by whites as it was despised by the black population, to whom it had become a symbol of oppression. Yet Mandela, taking a huge political risk, refuses to give in to his supporters’ demand that the team be dismantled and renamed.
“To do so, he sees, would only stoke fear and racial paranoia in the Afrikaner population. Enlisting the team’s captain (Matt Damon) to his side, Mandela challenges him to turn its losing ways around. His goal is to use rugby to bridge the racial divide in his country.
“Invictus is not a biopic; nor does it take us deep inside any of its characters — Eastwood views Mandela from a respectful middle distance. It’s about strategic inspiration. We witness a politician at the top of his game: Freeman’s wily Mandela is a master of charm and soft-spoken gravitas. Anthony Peckham‘s sturdy, functional screenplay, based on John Carlin‘s book Playing the Enemy, can be a bit on the nose (and the message songs Eastwood adds are overkill). Yet the lapses fade in the face of such a soul-stirring story — one that would be hard to believe if it were fiction. The wonder of Invictus is that it actually went down this way.”
I’m inclined to respect the embargo unless the dam breaks, in which case holding back won’t matter.
An Invictus screening begins in 28 minutes (i.e., 6:30 pm) so I don’t have time to write anything about my chat yesterday afternoon with Crazy Heart costar Maggie Gyllenhaal. Okay, I can repeat the general feeling out there that her performance as a 30ish single mom who falls in love with Jeff Bridges‘ roly-poly alcoholic country music star is a quiet, unforced, true-heart thing. More lived-in than “performed.” A supporting standout, in the view of most I’ve spoken to.
Crazy Heart costar Maggie Gyllenhaal at the end of our sit-down yesterday at a low-key place on Tenth Avenue — Tuesday, 11.25.09, 3:25 pm
Gyllenhaal also has the most beautiful eyes I’ve been close to in a long time. There’s something extra-vivid about them live. The last time I saw eyes this radiant and intense was when I got close to Elizabeth Taylor at a Manhattan party in the early ’80s.
I shot some video of our discussion but it’s taking forever to load and convert. Later tonight or tomorrow morning.
Mary Walsh is a Canadian comedian who’s created a running bit out of ambushing Canadian politicians as her character, Marg Delahunte. She recently tried this with Sarah Palin during a book signing. I say again — Palin is a flesh-and-blood incarnation of Martin Sheen‘s President Gregg Stillson in David Cronenberg‘s The Dead Zone.
A fundamental reason why so many people of taste and refinement have been talking with great admiration about Peter Capaldi‘s In The Loop performance as the sewer-mouthed Malcolm Tucker is due to envy and dream-fulfillment. Capaldi’s tirades have not only made him a dark-horse contender for a Best Supporting Actor nomination but instructed (or reminded) some of us that profanity can be artful — it can be delivered with absolute precision and beauty. You just need a team of brilliant writers feeding you the lines.
In The Loop‘s Peter Capaldi
Swearing can be emotionally cathartic for the speaker, but it’s almost always ugly for the listener. Which is why Capaldi’s imaginative and vigorous motor-mouthing in In The Loop is such a trip. Most if not all of us sound coarse and ill-mannered and pathetic in a 15 year-old boy sort of way on those rare occasions when we swear about something or someone. It would be wonderful — bliss! — if we could swear like Tucker on occasion, or even just once.
The Loop artisans and masons, of course, are the writers. Capaldi just makes their stuff sound right, but of course that’s what all acting basically is, isn’t it? Yesterday Dark Horizon‘s Paul Fischer posted an interview with Capaldi that went like this at one point:
Fischer: “Now, this film is as much about language as it is about character. I’m just wondering how much input did you have into the way that he speaks? I mean – and his use of language. Was there any improv at all, or was it all there on the page?”
Capaldi: “It’s largely all done on the page, particularly with Malcolm, because the writers take a lot of time and put a lot of labor into constructing for him, very, very baroque sentences, and ways of speaking. So, my job is to sort of do a congenial check, to make it look as if this highly-polished text is just tripping off my tongue. So – yes, there’s always a gray area.
“[Actors] throw in bits and pieces. How we do the show, or how we did the film, which is the same way we do the show, is that we nail the text. That’s our first responsibility. We shoot a couple of passes where we nail the text. And thereafter, we’re allowed to do sort of rougher versions, where we can loosen up and throw in our own words, if we like. And also, throughout the process, we have days when we improvise around the material. And sometimes a line or whatever comes up that works, and the writers put that into the shooting script. But I wouldn’t — you know, I would say it’s their work, largely.”
What Tennessee Williams plays and film adaptations didn’t feature a handsome (or pretty) young Southern-studcat figure in a prominent role? I’m thinking, I’m thinking. Night of the Iguana, of course. The 1961 film of Summer and Smoke only had Laurence Harvey so that too was an exception. Boom, Last of the Mobile Hot Shots…what others?
In Jodie Markell‘s Loss of a Teardrop Diamond (Paladin, 12.30), the object of desire is played by 28 year-old Chris Evans.
It’s hard to define what makes an appealing movie poster, but the one for Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein‘s How To Fold A Flag just “does it right” on some level. One look and I said to myself, “I want to see this.” It makes what is clearly a left-humanist portrait of Iraq War veterans seem very plain and true and backyard American. Who’s the artist or agency, I wonder?
“With How to Fold a Flag, a diffuse yet fascinating account of four U.S. Army vets readjusting to civilian life, documakers Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein continue their sympathetic, insightful examination of individuals involved — as soldiers or civilians, willingly or otherwise — in the Iraq War,” Variety‘s Joe Leydon wrote from Toronto last September.
How to Fold a Flag: in theaters 2010 from Nomados Film on Vimeo.
“Unlike The Prisoner or: How I Planned to Kill Tony Blair or Bulletproof Salesman Tucker and Epperlein’s latest effort comes across as a kind of sequel to their 2004 debut feature, “Gunner Palace, which focused on soldiers of the 2/3 Field Artillery unit assigned to one of the volatile areas in post-Saddam Baghdad.
“Pic does suggest that each of its subjects will survive, and maybe even thrive, as they continue to distance themselves from what they did, and what was done to them, in Iraq. But for some of them, full recovery is a distant, albeit attainable, goal.”
In the same way that one formerly Democratic U.S. Senator (Connecticut’s Joseph Leiberman) and two conservative Democratic Senators (Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu and Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln) have stubbornly pledged to kill the public-option portion of the health care bill in defiance of common sense and against the wishes of almost everyone, I was the only Envelope Gold Derby Buzzmeter pundit to say “no” to Precious as a Best Picture finalist. In so doing I singlehandedly kept it out of the unanimous column.
I voted as I did not because Precious won’t be Best Picture nominated — of course it will — but because portions of it are so ugly and unpleasant and horrific to sit through that they literally made me convulse. Someone had to stand up and at least symbolically say no. To me the Precious crimes — i.e., the ones committed by Mo’Nique in the context of the film — are not relatable aspects of the human condition. They are so malignant that it’s very hard for me to nod and go “fine, good, well done” even within the remove of dramatic depiction.
I didn’t vote as I did because Precious isn’t a powerfully-acted film that’s finally about caring and compassion — it is that, at least in the third act — but because I feel that a depiction of parenting this cruel and sadistic and beyond-the-pale deplorable — in effect a slow murder of a child by her own mother — must be responded to with an initial vote that says “uhhm, well, okay, it’s a good film and I realize that Dave Karger and all the others are right…but not now.”
Here’s a summary of the yesterday’s L.A. Times/Envelope Gold Derby Buzzmeter poll results, which will be refined and updated as things move along.
The only two unanimous choices for Best Picture (i.e., chosen by all 20 pundits) are Up In The Air and The Hurt Locker. The other big-vote getters are Precious, Invictus, Nine, Up, An Education, Inglourious Basterds and A Serious Man.
Again….where is A Serious Man? You’d think that critics and pundits, at least, would understand that (a) now (i.e., mid November to early December) is the time to mix tea-leaf predictions with convictions and persuasions of their own, (b) a lack of soothing emotionality (and a chilly, analytical or even clinical vibe in place of same) is sometimes a hallmark of great, world-class filmmaking and (c) the fact that A Serious Man is ruthlessly brilliant and hilarious and honed like an effin’ diamond…you’d think that critics and pundits might recognize this fact and, you know, have it count for something in their calculations? No?
The leading Best Actor contender is A Single Man‘s Colin Firth, followed by Up In The Air‘s George Clooney, Invictus‘s Morgan Freeman, Nine‘s Daniel Day-Lewis, Crazy Heart‘s Jeff Bridges and The Road‘s Viggo Mortensen,
And in the Best Actress, An Education‘s Carey Mulligan is in the lead, but only a notch ahead of Precious star Gabby Sidibe. Next comes Julia & Julia‘s Meryl Streep, The Last Station‘s Helen Mirren and Bright Star‘s Abby Cornish.
“Peter Jackson‘s infatuation with fancy visual effects mortally wounds The Lovely Bones,” writes Daily Variety senior critic Todd McCarthy in what may be the first cut in an onslaught of critical knives. Do howlings winds and heaving seas approach?
Lovely Bones director Peter Jackson
“Alice Sebold‘s cheerily melancholy bestseller, centered upon a 14-year-old girl who narrates the story from heaven after having been brutally murdered, provides almost ready-made bigscreen material. But Jackson undermines solid work from a good cast with show-offy celestial evocations that severely disrupt the emotional connections with the characters.
“The book’s rep, the names of Jackson and exec producer Steven Spielberg, and a mighty year-end push by Paramount/DreamWorks will likely put this over with the public to a substantial extent, but it still rates as a significant artistic disappointment.
“There has been cautious optimism among longtime Jackson followers that this material might inspire him to create a worthy companion piece to his 1994 Heavenly Creatures, which similarly involves teenagers and murder in an otherwise tranquil setting and remains far and away his best film.
“The potential was certainly there in the book, which reminds of Dennis Lehane‘s successfully filmed novels Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone in its devastating emotional trauma, but offers the distinctive perspective of the most entirely plausible omniscient narrator in modern literature.
“Unfortunately, the massive success Jackson has enjoyed in the intervening years with his CGI-heavy The Lord of the Rings saga (the source of which receives fleeting homage in a bookstore scene here) and King Kong has infected the way he approaches this far more intimate tale. Instead of having the late Susie Salmon occupy a little perch in an abstract heavenly gazebo from which she can peer down upon her family and anyone else — all that is really necessary from a narrative point of view — the director has indulged his whims to create constantly shifting backdrops depicting an afterlife evocative of The Sound of Music or The Wizard of Oz one moment, The Little Prince or Teletubbies the next.
“It’s a shame, because the first half-hour or so suggests that Jackson, had he taken a vow to keep it real and use not a single visual effect, still has it in him to relate a human story in a direct, vibrant manner.”
“When it sticks to the everyday neighborhood inhabited by its characters, The Lovely Bones, which was shot on Pennsylvania locations and in New Zealand studios, finds a reasonable equilibrium between drama and production values. When it ventures beyond it, heaven turns into Hades.”
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/reviews/"><img src=
"https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/reviews.jpg"></a></div>
- Really Nice Ride
To my great surprise and delight, Christy Hall‘s Daddio, which I was remiss in not seeing during last year’s Telluride...
More » - Live-Blogging “Bad Boys: Ride or Die”
7:45 pm: Okay, the initial light-hearted section (repartee, wedding, hospital, afterlife Joey Pants, healthy diet) was enjoyable, but Jesus, when...
More » - One of the Better Apes Franchise Flicks
It took me a full month to see Wes Ball and Josh Friedman‘s Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes...
More »
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/classic/"><img src="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/heclassic-1-e1492633312403.jpg"></div>
- The Pull of Exceptional History
The Kamala surge is, I believe, mainly about two things — (a) people feeling lit up or joyful about being...
More » - If I Was Costner, I’d Probably Throw In The Towel
Unless Part Two of Kevin Costner‘s Horizon (Warner Bros., 8.16) somehow improves upon the sluggish initial installment and delivers something...
More » - Delicious, Demonic Otto Gross
For me, A Dangerous Method (2011) is David Cronenberg‘s tastiest and wickedest film — intense, sexually upfront and occasionally arousing...
More »