For Your Consideration - Best Actress

Every couple of years it turns out to be a great year for women in movies. Actresses other than Meryl Streep get excellent parts and give terrific performances and no matter whether or not people go to see them, the fact that these films got made in the first place is its own little victory. Happily, the luck of 2007's great movie year extended to roles for, and films about, women: AWAY FROM HER, THE SAVAGES, MARGOT AT THE WEDDING, OFFSIDE, BLACK BOOK, GRINDHOUSE, and even an animated film like PERSEPOLIS had some of the best roles for women in a long time. Maybe not all of them were major Hollywood movies, but they were all good movies, some of them great, and they're going to be remembered; that's more important than making money, if you ask me. So with this in mind, here are two amazing performances that should not be overlooked by the Academy because I think they’ll end up being remembered by history, and the Academy wouldn’t want to look like they’re off the mark, would they? Thought not.

Nicole Kidman is one of those actresses who seem too good to be true, as talented as she is beautiful and willing to take chances on risky material. With MARGOT AT THE WEDDING she gave a truly remarkable performance, quite possibly the best of her career thus far, and no one is paying attention to either her or the movie. I think they will eventually, making MARGOT a future classic or cult hit at best, and when they do they're going to see Kidman doing work that is incredibly brave and honest that there will be a lot of forehead slapping and screams of "How could she not be nominated for this?" And I'm right there with you.

What’s fascinating about her character in MARGOT (she’s Margot) is that what you think you’re seeing is a woman who is just a total and utter bitch, cruel to most everyone around her and walking around with an air of superiority about her. Not so. In fact, what you’re seeing is an intelligent woman who is in the process of unraveling; her marriage is about over, she’s having an affair with a pompous ass, and going through an emotional breakdown. In the process of all this she’s thrown back in with her family and that sure as hell doesn’t make anything any better. But in a sense, it’s also just what was needed, too. MARGOT takes place over a few days and what you’re really seeing is Margot herself under the microscope; it’s wrong to judge her as a person based on what you see, because what you’re seeing are what are possibly the worst few days of this person’s life so far. With Kidman playing her, Margot is such a damaged personality, seemingly unsure about everything in her life and only just now becoming aware of this. She has a scene with the excellent Ciaran Hinds in a bookstore that’s heartbreaking and difficult to watch but it also happens to be the pinnacle of Kidman’s screen acting work thus far; this is when Margot realizes that she doesn’t have her shit together like she thought and it’s unforgettable, one of the best movie moments of 2007. I would be a total idiot if I didn’t also praise writer/director Noah Baumbach’s superb screenplay (this is also a great film about contemporary family relations) and make mention that Kidman is joined by a top-rank cast, namely Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jack Black and Hinds, but I was so overwhelmed by Kidman’s work here (unexpectedly so) that I can’t picture this film without her.

It’s something to have one such incredible performance in a movie year, but to have two makes you think that the end of the world is coming or something, it’s too good to be true. OK, I’m overstating things, but before Kidman I long thought that Ashley Judd’s work in BUG couldn’t be topped and it’s a really tough choice between the two of them. I’ve always known that Judd was a fine actress, but she’d been doing one DOUBLE JEOPARDYs too many over the years to remind me of this; BUG was a revelation for Judd, a fantastic piece of material that would be tough for only any actress, but Judd came through it almost like a new actress. A bizarrely romantic film, this adaptation of Tracy Lettis’ play nails the desperation that often comes with (or without) love, that feeling that we must adopt the interests, obsessions and problems of our significant others, but also one that finds this condition within us strangely liberating. BUG ends with a scene that’s equal parts bravely fatalistic and strangely liberating that it feels like the most romantic moment you’ll see in movies this year. It’s not an easy thing for audiences to accept (and since Lionsgate sold BUG as a horror film in the SAW mode, they most certainly did not), but one of the reasons you do is how well Judd convinces us about her character’s emotional state – that she cannot live without Michael Shannon (likewise excellent), an Iraq vet convinced he’s been injected with bugs – that you accept it 100%. What’s great is how Judd opens the film as this very damaged woman with a serious drug habit, just out of an abusive marriage, who accepts this strange man into her life not just out of her own need but also because she can see that he needs her, too. It’s surprisingly very touching, and the emotional content is almost all on Judd and she handles it flawlessly. BUG certainly does get stranger as the character’s shared paranoia progresses, but what you don’t ever forget (and this why I like the film so much) is that these two honestly do love each other. Yes, BUG is a dark, often disturbing piece, and yes, these people are kinda batshit insane, but it doesn’t exactly matter. I don’t think that BUG is specifically about insanity as it about loving within insanity (does that make sense?) and it wouldn’t have worked without Ashley Judd. I hope she picks up the ball from this film and continues to work with material this daring because one of these days it’s going to get her some serious accolades. Nominating her for BUG would be a damn good place to start.

Tsui! Lam! To! TRIANGLE!

I've often thought it would be a great idea if two top film directors would direct a movie together. I don't mean an anthology film or one directs one half of the movie each, but that they actually direct the film together, Coen Brothers style. Just imagine what a film directed by both Martin Scorsese and, say, Quentin Tarantino would be like. Would it be disjointed, a clash of egos, or would it end up being something new and fresh that would add something new to their respective directing styles? I know the real reason why those things don't actually happen - the DGA doesn't allow it - but it's a cool idea nonetheless. It may sound overly fannish, but if it works it can be something new and exciting. Who wouldn't want something like that to happen?

That's not exactly the case with TRIANGLE, but it's kinda close and if you're a fan of Hong Kong cinema (which I happen to be), it's a bit of a dream come true. TRIANGLE is co-directed by Tsui Hark, Ringo Lam and Johnnie To, three of the Hong Kong greats, each of them directing one act of the story in the order I just presented. The plot: Three casual friends (Simon Yam, Louis Koo and Sun Honglei), all in need of cash, meet a mysterious stranger who gives them instructions on where they can unearth a rare artifact. Unfortunately, there are people on their ass who making their lives hell: Yam's wife is having an affair with a brutish cop out to kill him, while Koo is in debt to a trio of Mainland gangsters who want him to drive a getaway car for a jewel store heist. Once the friends pull off their little heist, then things get really complicated.

So that's Tsui Hark's contribution, the set up, and Tsui works it all like a pro. Tsui has a somewhat thankless job here, as he can't go into much of his trademark dynamic action set-pieces or else he'll risk fucking up the rest of the film for his co-directors, but he admirable stays on track (and also serves to remind you that even with the beloved insanity of KNOCK-OFF and TIME AND TIDE, he can make pared-down, efficient films, too. I can't think of any of them right now, but let's just assume that for the sake of this piece, OK? (Oh, and by the way, KNOCK-OFF is a brilliant masterpiece of motion picture making. So is DOUBLE TEAM. Anyway, back to point.) My point being, the set-up works; we're intrigued with the robbery and the mechanics of the plot, tying all the various characters together, is starting to work. There are also some nice Tsui touches peppered throughout, but nothing is overdone. A solid opening.

As with any heist movie, the essence of the story isn't in the heist itself (unless you're talking RIFIFI) but the aftermath, and here's where things begin to go astray for TRIANGLE in a lot of ways. the second segment is directed by Ringo Lam, one of Hong Kong's crime film masters, but also the director with the spottiest track record of the three. He's got some classics (CITY ON FIRE, FULL CONTACT), sure, but also some misfires (VICTIM) and he hasn't come up with a great film in a long time. His midsection here is likewise disjointed; the plot begins to unravel for the protagonists and for the audience, too. Lam veers off into some odd, character-oriented directions that only draw things out too long and makes this segment the bloodiest in the entire film, so much so that you wonder a bit how certain characters who have been stabbed, shot, or hit with cars can still be walking. The subplot of Yam and his wife takes center stage and drags the film down a bit - it simply isn't that interesting - and there's too much time focused on it. However, once To takes over absolutely none of that matters. Man, oh man, do I loves me some Johnnie To!

Sometimes all it takes is a rousing finish to make an otherwise problematic picture look much better, and there's no question that Johnnie To's final third of TRIANGLE is what puts it into the category of really satisfying entertainment. The wrapping-up of TRIANGLE becomes yet another example of what makes To's film so wonderful. Suddenly it becomes an joyful, inventive playhouse of filmmaking and a terrific comedy, too, with all of the characters converging in one place, each of them carrying a white plastic bag filled with something they don't want the others to see. There's a shootout, of course, where To slyly references his recent films EXILED and THROW DOWN, but it's a wonderful action set piece, too, and for me the whole thing was just one giant grin-inducing pleasure. Best of all, the shift in gears doesn't feel too out of place. The movie has already shown itself to be a little schizoid, so why not have fun with it and get even crazier? No matter what you think, it certainly save the picture and lets you leave it with a big smile on your face. OK, maybe I'm a little predisposed to liking it, being a To fan and all, but the important thing is I did like it. TRIANGLE is saved and has a memorable final third. I have no problem with that.

So certainly if you're a fan of either of these three guys TRIANGLE is worth seeing, but it's also worth it if you're interested to see how an experiment like this works. I love how these guys finally teamed up and applaud the results. I wish this kind of thing happened more often.

Look Familiar?

OK. Exhibit one, the trailer for FUNNY GAMES, Michael Haneke's upcoming remake (shot-for-shot, apparently) of his 1997 classic:



And now the trailer for Stanley Kubrick's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE:



Needless to say, there are some striking similarities. And I suppose it's not actually all that important when you think about it. After all, this is just one trailer copying another trailer. The only people who would make note of it would be movie lovers or CLOCKWORK ORANGE fans, and while there are certainly plenty of them out there, it's not enough to really raise a fuss over the issue. The offending party, if you really want to use that term (oh wait, I just did), isn't Haneke but rather someone at the Warner Independent Pictures trailer department, and someone with a good memory, at that.

But still...

Originality has to account for something. The CLOCKWORK ORANGE trailer was cut by Kubrick himself (who cut all his own trailers) and obviously the guy knew what he was doing. It's still a great trailer, one that's enticing even if you've seen the film countless number of times, and if you're going to steal, why not take from the best? But I find it irritating that someone over at WIP thinks that I or any other film lover doesn't know that trailer and that it's OK to pilfer from it. The advertising world takes from itself more often than not, but something like this, as minor as it seems, feels to me like they're thinking they just take from past trailers and it isn't a problem. Hey, maybe the trailer could have been Haneke hosting a tour of the film's locations or maybe make the trailer in 3-D. No one remembers those things anyway, so it's finder's keepers, right? Right?

I know it's just a trailer and it's not like the film itself will be stealing from A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. It doesn't take away from my enthusiasm about seeing the 2008 FUNNY GAMES or will dissuade me from seeing any more Warner Independent Pictures films. But I'm more than turned off by this idea of taking from another trailer to a classic film (especially A CLOCKWORK ORANGE) and making it the campaign to your film. Just because FUNNY GAMES is a remake doesn't mean the trailer has a right to be, too.

For Your Consideration - Best Actor

Ah, awards season. A very busy time of year for some, an annoying time for others. Genuinely great films often go unrecognized by the awards givers and the ones that do get recognized do so not because of their quality but more because the studios behind them just happen to be especially adept in playing the awards game (I’m looking at you, Weinsteins). In years past I’ve found it fun to try and guess the eventual nominees (even though the surprises are usually few) but now that everyone and their brother makes a living out of it the fun has been diminished. Not that I would mind if I offered the opportunity to make a living it. I’d probably be pretty good.

Anyway, we’re lucky that 2007 turned out to be a damn good year for movies, with solid releases coming in every month of the year, from majors to indies. When you look at most of the ten best lists out there it’s usually the same titles again and again, but those titles are especially strong and would probably be awards contenders in any year they opened. Unfortunately they can only nominate the top five vote-getters, so if you’re sixth on the list then you’re stuck dangling in the wind, with only consolatory phone calls from friends and family to ease your pain. This is a real damn shame, because we have great films like ZODIAC that deserve to be recognized but probably won’t because it came out in March and wasn’t a hit, so folks have forgotten about it. And that, as we all know, sucks.

What’s also pretty damn sucky is that some great performances are getting lost in the midst, ones that should be recognized but aren’t. I mean, I’m not even seeing these names show up in the critic’s groups voting or in any year-end pieces nowhere. So in the hopes that there are hordes of Academy members (I know of at least two who might) or Oscar bloggers reading HQ10, I’d like to toss these two names into the “For Your Consideration” pit and remind everyone just how terrific these guys were and that everyone should go to their massive pile of screeners and pull these two titles out (or if they weren't sent to you, put them in your Netflix queue) and you’ll see what I’m talking about. This is excellent work that should not be forgotten.

Every career has certain peaks and valleys and Samuel L. Jackson seems to be going through a bit of a valley at the moment. Many would place the blame at SNAKES ON A PLANE, but I don’t think you can fault him for that. Everyone wanted to love that movie, was hoping that it would be everything its title promised and the fact that it didn’t deliver isn’t really Jackson’s fault. On top of that he tends to do a lot of movies (four in 2005, three in 2006), so even though audiences like and admire Jackson , they can also tend to get burned out on him. Maybe because of this they ignored BLACK SNAKE MOAN back in February and in doing so missed what is probably his finest performance yet or at least his best since JUNGLE FEVER. His role in BLACK SNAKE, a very good film overall, was essentially the film’s heart and soul, that of a damaged man who seeks to save the soul (by chaining her to his radiator) of local nympho Christina Ricci (likewise excellent) and to save his own in the process. Plain and simple, Jackson was absolutely electrifying here, and let me tell you I really don’t use that critical cliché at all, but it totally fits here. The opening scene of the film (Jackson's goodbye with his ex-wife) showed a character with a lot of rage in him, and that's a Sam Jackson that we audiences know pretty well, but what's so exciting about BLACK SNAKE is that as the film progresses we see a softer and more soulful (if that's even possible) side of Sam Jackson and we see a character with a lot of love and a lot of pain and no place to let it out, except in music. And then Jackson performs the title song. He performs this song as a man who has truly experienced the blues and what you see is nothing more than a divine movie moment, a perfect melding of actor, character, music and direction that is overwhelmingly amazing. When I saw the film at Harry Knowles' Butt-Numb-A-Thon in 2006 the audience justifiably applauded at this scene; if you ask me this is the scene to run when Jackson finally gets his lifetime achievement awards. He has another amazing moment playing "Stack-O-Lee" later on in the film, but it was at this point in the film that I realized that Jackson has never been better, and to say that when you consider all of Jackson's many amazing performances means a hell of a lot. I do have a few issues with BLACK SNAKE MOAN (namely Justin Timberlake), but as far as Samuel L. Jackson is concerned the only issue I have is why he's not on anyone's list for Best Actor.

Even if Jackson were nominated he might have some competition from another contemporary movie acting great, Chris Cooper, and his stellar work in Billy Ray's BREACH. To a certain extent, this is a role that only the worst of actors could screw up: Robert Hansenn, a longtime FBI vet who had been selling secrets to the Russians for decades, also a devout Catholic and a major league-pervert. That role is acting gold, my friend, and I'm sure plenty of talented folk would have killed their children for the opportunity to play it. But as juicy as it is, it's a real tightrope of a role, because this was a guy with layers upon layers about him. He wasn't merely an evil guy who traded in his country for cash, he had a moral code, a belief system, a love of god and country, and on top of that, was exceedingly intelligent (he had managed to elude capture for decades). Any actor who gets to play this part has to do it right and what Cooper accomplishes is a small miracle; the guy is all this and more, but on top of that, his Hansenn is also a little paranoid, on edge (he can sense that they're on to him) and self-destructive, while also careful not to lose his cool because he is, after all, "not a spy". Few actors can really portray a person under this kind of pressure without making them look like a total nutjob and one of them is indeed Chris Cooper. His Hansenn is completely intimidating for Ryan Philippe's Eric O'Neill (the real-life FBI agent who helped capture Hansenn) and the entire audience since Hansenn is the smartest person in the room and demands absolute perfection from O'Neill, and let me tell you something, he's scary for that reason alone. But he's not a monster and Cooper makes him very human, flaws and all. With Cooper in the role you have an understanding of Hansenn as someone who truly loves America but also feels slighted by the government who he's given so much to, and you actually kind of get the reason why he did what he did. This role is pretty much the very definition of a complex character and what else can I say except that Cooper was superb. And he probably won't be nominated for an Oscar.

Cooper and Jackson are both invited to my place to watch the awards. We'll get a pizza and wish Daniel Day Lewis well, knowing damn well who should have been up there with him.

No Wonder Actors Hate Junkets

Priceless.

2007

“That's it... and look upon this moment. Savor it! Rejoice with great gladness! Great gladness! Remember it always, for you are joined by it. You are One, under the stars. Remember it well, then... this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' For it is the doom of men that they forget.”

– Nicol Williamson as Merlin in John Boorman’s EXCALIBUR

OK, maybe the EXCALIBUR quote isn’t quite the proper way to go, but it’s what my muse told me to open this piece with and besides, it’s my favorite quote from a terrific movie. But I think it does illustrate my point that 2007 was an unusually good year for movies and we should savior this moment because who really knows when it’s going to come again?

If you’ve been paying attention to the countless number of “Best of” list then you’ve been seeing a number of the same titles over and over again – THERE WILL BE BLOOD, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, ZODIAC, THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, RATATOULLIE, PERSEPOLIS, MICHAEL CLAYTON – and that’s all perfectly fine. I saw most of those films and would agree with those assessments. Every year most top ten lists look the same, but this year critics had a lot more to pick from and most would offer apologies to some titles or “Runner’s Up” lists. Either way, it’s an embarrassment of riches and that puts a smile on my face.

I’m not doing a traditional Top Ten list in part because there are plenty of top films I haven’t seen – THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD, ONCE, BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU’RE DEAD, that I all hope to catch some time in the next few weeks. But all those films that were good this year weren’t just good, they were damn good. They would be top five films if they came out in any other year, but getting them all at once made for a very special year. THERE WILL BE BLOOD and GRINDHOUSE were my absolute favorites (they share my “Best of 2007” slot) for the reasons that I love movies; BLOOD was brilliant filmmaking and compelling storytelling while GRINDHOUSE was overwhelming fun and entertainment, a film whose desire to please was evident every single moment the film was on screen. As for the rest, here are the top films I saw in 2007 (with apologies to George Romero’s DIARY OF THE DEAD and Chris Stapp and Matt Heath’s THE DEVIL DARED ME TO, two great films that have yet to be released):

JUNO - WTF?

Anyone looking to hop on the anti-JUNO bandwagon, the line starts here.

OK, here’s my deal with JUNO: I didn’t hate the movie. I was hating it for a bit, but then it got a little better and by the time it was done I didn’t feel like I wanted to kill anyone involved in its making, but I sure as hell don’t get the hype. I don’t understand just what the hell people are seeing in this one. Roger Ebert named it the best picture of 2007. Huh? It’s getting raves all around and a huge Rotten Tomatoes score. And to make matters worse, it’s probably going to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. What’s up with that?

Fellow haters (or just plain dislikers) join in with me: It ain’t that good, people!

JUNO is a movie with a serious case of The Cutes. Say what you will about the likes of Judd Apatow, his movies usually avoid The Cutes while JUNO swims in a ocean of them. This isn’t an organically quirky movie, like a Wes Anderson or Coen Brothers picture; it’s quirky by design. The lead character in it would hate this movie because she would recognize it for what it truly is: A poseur, plain and simple.

Oh, and let’s discuss this lead character, OK? I understand that she’s nothing more than a 16 year-old girl, but I can’t remember the last movie I saw where the lead character was this obnoxious and unlikable. I’m sure you JUNO fans will just say that I don’t understand teenage girls (and the debate on whether or not that’s accurate is something for another time) but I know when I actively dislike spending time in the company of one and I sure did here. It wasn’t a matter of disliking Ellen Page, who I think is an excellent actress and is probably a little too on-the-mark here, but it's a matter of this character as written. She doesn’t sound like a real person, she sounds like the product of a screenplay, and is so overly cute and quirky that she gives those terms a bad name. I have this thing about “wish writing”, when characters talk in the manner that the writer thinks is cool and clever (which I personally find very amateurish) is always a strike against with me. Juno the character isn’t cool at all, just someone’s idea of what a cool person should be, and cool is something that can never be processed but must be natural. JUNO is very much processed cool.

And I want to make it clear that this isn’t just the fault of the film’s script, because director Jason Reitman deserves a lot of the blame, too. I very much enjoyed his debut feature, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING, a smart film with a lot of satirical bite, but I have no idea what the hell possessed him to make JUNO so damn lame. Actually, I know what is was - it was the wearing out of his Criterion Collection DVD for RUSHMORE, that’s what, as this is a film that desperately wants nothing more than to be it. From the soundtrack (dear god, it makes me hate music I usually like!) to the camera moves and the editing, Jason Reitman has a serious case of the Wes Anderson flu and I would appreciate it if he were quarantined for a while so that others don’t catch it. I suspect that Reitman’s heart is really in picture like SMOKING, a movie that wasn’t afraid to be unpopular, as opposed to a JUNO, which wants desperately to be loved. The unfortunate thing is that people are falling for it and I am, quite frankly, dumbfounded. The reviews, the awards talk, where does all this come from? I saw the film Friday night in a packed suburban N.J. multiplex that was packed with teenagers and they’re going to turn this into a bigger hit than anyone’s anticipating. But the thing that’s really getting to me is how this film will get several totally undeserving Oscar nominations at the end of the month. This has been such a good year for movies, to have a lame picture like this one be in the running is a little depressing. It’s not the state of Pakistan depressing, but it ain’t fun, either. I also saw MARGOT AT THE WEDDING over the weekend, and while the two films aren’t exactly 100% alike, it gets more laughs and sympathy for its extremely flawed (but fascinating) characters than JUNO does because they act like real people and it’s all the more memorable for it, too. It’s the kind of picture I expected Reitman to keep on making after SMOKING, not this.

So having said all this, I would like to point out JUNO’s one saving grace: Jennifer Garner. Funny thing was, I was talking to a friend of mine about her thus-far lackluster film career and how she’ll probably be back on TV in a few short years, and here she almost single handedly save JUNO from the worst of the year list. Garner, as the working woman who wants to adopt Juno’s baby, is the one thing in this film that feels genuine. I’ve known one or two women like Garner’s character and she nails the character surprisingly well and, best of all (and I credit the filmmakers with this, too) she’s not made out to be a bitch or anything like that. It’s like, OK, she’s not perfect, she has some flaws, but what she wants is genuine and it comes completely from the heart. Thank god for her, because Garner gives JUNO some genuine heart and a much-needed element of surprise. This was a picture I had hoped to like going in, but I spotted the warning signs early on and if it wasn’t for Garner I probably would be able to make it through. I strongly suspect that I’m not alone on this one, so if you’re not a member of the Juno MacGuff fan club, speak now. Please!

Merry Christmas from Headquarters 10!

Like a lot of folks, we'll be taking off for the next several days, enjoying the holidays, spending time with family, eating too damn much and seeing a lot of movies. In the meantime, enjoy some holiday images from all around this damn fine country of ours.

New York City

Austin, TX

Madison, NJ

And a greeting from everyone's mayor, Tommy Shanks:



Happy Holidays!