Shouldn't "Best" Mean Something?

By now you've heard that the Producers Guild, one of the true Oscar precursors, will stick to 10 Best Picture Nominees thank you very much. I'm sure we'll be hearing more of this from all precursor voting bodies. Many of them had ten nominees / honorees before Oscar even went there, hewing close to the critical "top ten" system. Since most precursors have a weird desire to predict Oscar that is equal to or even sadly greater than their desire to name "best" we assume most of them will stick to ten.

This way all of them can be 100% accurate in predicting the golden boy -- just have more nominees than could ever make it to Oscar's shortlist and you'll always be 100% accurate! The Hollywood Reporter thinks this will make the Oscars look elitist as the PGA is bound to honor Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two (a franchise they've already nominated if you'll recall) and Oscar probably won't. They write:

And the Academy will find itself back where it was three years ago, fending off accusations of elitism.

They say "elitism" like it's a bad thing! 

OUR HONEST QUESTION: Shouldn't you be elitist when you're naming "BEST"? Isn't that part of the deal?

Linkie the Pooh

Antagony & Ecstacy as part of his Blockbuster History series, goes the way of British Children's Literature (thanks Harry Potter) to discuss that great adaptation of Peter Pan in 2003. He has a fair point about Jeremy Sumpter's career since and I am alarmed to note that I didn't even realize it was the same actor when he had that one season key role on Friday Night Lights.
Scanners considers the Netflix pricing dilemma and the problem of aspect ratios. This makes me crazy too. Most television screens are wider now. Why does pan & scan still exist?
The Daily What shares my favorite new photo of a movie theater. I'll share it again.

I bring this up because at last night's Captain America: The First Avengers screening there was no air conditioning in a huge warehouse size movie theater here in Manhattan and it was, shall we say, sticky and smelly. If the reviews are terrible, blame the broken AC.

In Contention Captain America may find itself with a Best Original Song nomination. I'd be pleased. It sure was a fun ditty from Alan Menken and added to the film's period detail well.
Twitch Ubiquitous Oscar winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black gets another high profile gig with yet another Oscar winning director for Under the Banner of Heaven. I think it's official: DLB has the best agent in Hollywood. How many screenwriters have kept their moment in the sun despite being behind the scenes going for this long?
Salon Matt Zoller Seitz talks to his 9th grader daughter about his generation's defining franchise (Star Wars) and hers (Harry Potter). It's an interesting discussion though the conclusion worries me (visual superiority should never be considered "small consolation" in A MOVIE) and yet again reveals what damage George Lucas did to his intergalactic baby by screwing it up so badly in the Aughts. 
Super Punch omg. This 80s movie tee. I want. I want it hard. Someone buy it for me.
BoingBoing speaking of buying me things... like donations (see righthand sidebar) well, actually this has nothing to do with anything but what a fun concept. When this online store sells something, their Wario doll freaks out, with eyes lighting up and steam coming out his ears. Now I'm picturing all the actress dolls I should have and what they should do if i ever make any money...

Finally, MaryAnn at the long-running Flick Filosopher reminds us of a deeply entrenched problem in our popular culture this this simple graphic...

... and it's accompanying article. It'd be an easier argument to ignore if we didn't see it so often. Think of Pixar only now getting a female lead after 25 years in the animation biz.

I haven't seen the new Winnie the Pooh yet but I loved the character and his whole world as a child. Will I still? Have any of you seen it?

Box Office and Oscar: Bespectacled Wizards Break Bank

Harry Potter and Woody Allen, those short bespectacled movie magicians who both apparate into movie theaters constantly, each broke box office records this weekend, bookending the top ten chart. 

What kind of curriculum would Professor Woody Dumbledallen bring to Hogwarts?

The eighth and final film in the Potterverse sent walking papers to Batman (who had previously held the all time best first weekend record with The Dark Knight) and it even staged a bank robbery as its opening setpiece! Meanwhile, Woody Allen broke his own records. If you don't adjust for inflation, Midnight in Paris just became his highest grossing film in US dollars toppling the exquisite Hannah and Her Sisters which Nick and I were just chatting about. (Midnight in Paris is still trailing Match Point by a little and Vicky Cristina Barcelona by more than that in terms of global box office.)

01 HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART TWO [review] new $169.1
(here's a fun article on the top ten US openings)
02 TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON $21.3 (cum. $302.8)
03 HORRIBLE BOSSES $17.7 (cum $60.1)
04 ZOOKEEPER $12.3 (cum $42.3)
05 CARS 2  $8.4 (cum. $165.3)
06 WINNIE THE POOH new $7.8
07 BAD TEACHER $5.1 (cum. $88.4)
08 LARRY CROWNE  $2.6 (cum. $31.7)
09 SUPER 8 $1.9 [thoughts] (cum. $122.2)
10 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS $1.8 [group thoughts] (cum. $41.7)

Apocalypse Now: Zookeeper fell only 38% in its second weekend indicating that it pleased its TGIF loving audience last weekend. Make of that what you will.

Oscar Buzz: I realize that a good cross section of TFE readers are Potterheads -- that's a given when something is that popular -- so I mean this with all due respect but I personally suspect that the Oscar hype is fan-fever rather than prophetic buzz. The conversation, such as it is, suggests that AMPAS will want to reward the entire series with a Best Picture nod for #8. As ever with punditry, I could be horribly wrong, but it seems to me that sentiment, which everyone is correct to assume is a hugely powerful campaign tool, won't necessarily play in to this degree. Sequels, as a general rule, don't get nominated unless their ancestors were also nominated. 

Here is the Oscar record for Harry Potter.

Sorcerors Stone: 3 nominations, 0 wins (art direction, score, costumes) 
Chamber of Secrets: nothing.
Prisoner of Azkaban: 2 nominations, 0 wins (score, visual effects)
Goblet of Fire: 1 nomination, 0 wins (art direction)
Order of the Phoenix: nothing.
Half-Blood Prince: 1 nomination, 0 wins (cinematography)
Deathly Hallows Part One: 2 nominations, 0 wins (art direction, visual effects)

That equates to roughly 1.2 nominations a picture with no statues and these are the kind of nominations that are generally given to ubiquitous blockbusters that are considered solid entertainments (scattered techs) but aren't truly beloved or considered Serious Art by the voters. Potter has never been nominated in any big ticket category... not even in screenplay where blockbuster adaptations of best-sellers can sometimes find footing. Potter's Oscar history thus far should given everyone who cares reason to hope that they'll want to reward the series with a goodbye statue for art direction (and even the haters wouldn't have much to complain about there given Stuart Craig's huge series-long achievements) but otherwise no branch within AMPAS has taken a consistent shine. On the other hand, last year after an already exhaustive seven films had passed it was still getting some attention so who knows...

If sentiment does move Academy voters, I suspect it will only move the film onto more ballots than usual but not necessarily in those crucial #1 "i can't live without this" positions. My take: if there's a Best Picture nominee already in theaters at this writing, it's either Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life (ONLY if its hardcore devotees stay faithful but that all depends on whether another Film as Art / Auteurist favorite arrives before December 31st) or Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris (which has two enviable campaign angles to work with: "comeback" and "nostalgia") and the list ends there.

What did you see this weekend? Or did you stay in and weep over the Friday Night Lights finale?

What do you make of the Oscar buzz for Midnight and/or Deathly Hallows? The real thing or just impatience to get the golden party started?

Yes, No, Maybe So: Hugo

Robert (author of Distant Relatives) here. If you, like me, have been wondering how the phrases "Martin Scorsese" and "family-friendly holiday season event film" could possibly fit together ever since the announcement of The Invention of Hugo Cabret...

...later shortened to Hugo Cabret, later shortened to Hugo (by the time the film hits theaters in November it may just be H.) the newly released trailer may answer your questions, though not necessarily satisfactorily, and may leave you with all new ones. Let's discuss.

The name Martin Scorsese was, is, and will continue to be the selling point behind this film, at least for cinephiles who consider each new Scorsese film an event. But the trailer here has definitely been cut for the kind of mass audience that doesn't flock to Scorsese in droves. If you're looking for something non-threatening enough for the kids, but well crafted enough for adults, this trailer is targeting you. And in that sense the trailer does have something of an "instant holiday classic" feel to it. Not to mention some possibly impressive production design by Dante Feretti that could get him noticed again after his Shutter Island snub last season.

Yet while the production design appears promising, there's always the possibility that this busy-looking film will be a gold and teal nightmare. The 3D cinematography is rife with things flying at the camera. In this trailer alone we count at least five: Sacha Baron Cohen's hand, a dog, dragon smoke, a key necklace, and Hugo's hand. (So help me if that scene of Hugo going down a big fun slide is accompanied with a POV shot) Barring the title card there's not much here that feels Scorsese. Sure it's off his genre, but even when he does go off genre, Scorsese explores the same general themes and ideas (once calling The Age of Innocence his most violent picture). So even the slightest hint of a Scorsese touch, like the presence of Ray Winstone, was welcome, though I wanted to shout "No Hugo! Don't go with Mr. French!"

So what is Scorsese doing? Pilling up money for his next project? An academic exercise in trying something new?

Actually what he's doing is a family-friendly holiday season event film in exactly the way Scorsese would do it. Scorsese was never going to do fantasy in the mold of something modern. His films always reference back to the classics. Even Shutter Island disappointed many by possessing the obviousness of an old melodramatic Hammer Horror film instead of something that felt new. But that's what he does. Something tells me that what interested Scorsese in this project was the potential to make an homage to Georges Méliès (played by Ben Kingsley) and the films that birthed the fantasy genre. And those films were indeed intentionally artificial and filled with gimmicks.

So maybe we can't fault Scorsese for inconsistency of vision. We may want Scorsese to be modern and inventive. We may want him to wow us with spectacle like Peter Jackson or Christopher Nolan. But that's the fault of our expectation. What Scorsese clearly wants to do is recreate the magic of the old days. Whether or not you end up liking Hugo may depend on whether you appreciate the note on which the trailer ends, a recreation of the Lumiere's brother's L'arrivée d'un train à La Ciotat this time with the train actually pummelling toward the audience... in 3D.

The Sickness

JA from MNPP here, foolishly wading for the briefest of moments into everyone-around-here-but-mine’s forte – that is, the Oscar discussion. I was just looking at the newly released poster for the “cancer comedy” 50/50, seen there to the right, and I couldn’t help but immediately wonder why Joseph Gordon-Levitt doesn't seem to be a blip on the radar when it comes to the conversation regarding the 2011 Best Actor race. Granted it’s awfully early so pretty much anybody’s blip is a hazy blip, but we’ve got an actor here who’s been getting more respected and loved with each passing year… and he’s playing the Terminal Illness card!

Of course there are a couple factors standing in 50/50’s way of serious attention It’s a comedy, for one. It’s a comedy about terminal illness co-starring Seth Rogen to be more specific, and one wonders how long a shadow of ickiness Judd Apatow’s Funny People casts. Once upon a time someone must’ve contended that Adam Sandler had a shot at an Oscar nomination before that movie came out, I’d wager. But JGL’s no Adam Sandler, thank goodness.

Sure the trailer’s jokey but you can tell there’s some dramatic meat there for Joe to chew on all the same. It’s not like AMPAS has proven they don’t have a weakness for the ocassional melodramatic dramedy about disease, hello approximately one thousand golden boys for Terms of Endearment. Granted director Jonathan "The Wackness" Levine's not exactly at the same point in his career as James Brooks was, of course. But Anjelica Huston's in it! She's insta-cred, right? (How I wish that were true - then Wes Anderson would be drowning in Oscars.)

"It's an honor just to be nomin... nevermind."

Is JGL just too young? I know Nat’s crunched the scientific data before (while wearing a lab coat and standing over a couple bubbling beakers, I like to imagine) and Best Actor usually goes to the older gentleman – ingénues are strictly Best Actress, dang it! But Joe would look so pretty cradling that statue! Natalie Portman who?