ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 5376
Jan 1 12 10:21 AM
Official JMMB Twitter Master
Writer reps tell me that a mindset of one-step deals and the demeaning practice of sweepstakes pitching (where scribes must prepare ideas to win a job) has become commonplace. There is no shortage of competition for those gigs because good jobs are harder to find. Agents say that whenever possible, they’ve become de facto producers who take client-generated material to build packages with agency-repped filmmakers and cast. Studios and financiers don’t mind this, because their focus is readying tent pole films that studios feel will perform overseas. The strain on the feature business is evident at all the agencies including CAA. That agency ended the year with a flurry of exiting agents, with rumors that others may follow in the next few months. Once famous for finding jobs for long-timers, CAA now has a partner in TPG and a long roster of agents who have built up salaries in flush days that are not currently justified in an era of diminishing returns in the movie business and less money to go around.
Clearly something or someone has got to give in 2012. Things could get worse for everyone in the movie biz — and not just agents – if the business keeps contracting and/or buyers keep disappearing. Summit Entertainment and Lionsgate may merge, but not if Summit and Miramax marry first. Relativity Media may not find new financing. Other companies are less publicly in trouble. The resurgence of deals at Sundance and Cannes was fueled by new buyers like Open Road and FilmDistrict which has at least temporarily left the distribution business following the exit of Bob Berney. I’m told FilmDistrict will continue to be a buyer. But who knows what 2012 will bring?
Interact
Jan 20 12 6:55 AM
The studio has reshuffled their slate a bit, and most tellingly, "Arthur & Lancelot" has now been removed completely from the calendar. Taking its place on March 22, 2013 (one week after the release date pegged for 'Arthur')? Bryan Singer's "Jack The Giant Killer." But don't think that WB is going to leave a prime summer movie slot open -- they've also bumped the big '80s musical "Rock Of Ages" to June 1st, two weeks before the original June 15th date for 'Giant Killer.'
So what does this mean? Well, a few things. Firstly, it seems as if Dobkin's contemporary retelling of the classic tale is on ice for an indefinite period of time (until some budget issues are worked out or another studio throws it a lifeline). With both leads committed to television shows ("The Killing" and "Game Of Thrones") we wonder if they'll be able to stick around for if/when it gets moving again. Meanwhile, moving "Rock Of Ages" to the dead of summer makes sense. Tom Cruise is riding a huge wave thanks to "Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol" and it's clear the studio hope the heat for the actor will continue at the box office.
As for the push for 'Giant Killer' it's a bit of two pronged chess move by WB. With no bankable stars (sorry, Nicholas Hoult and Ewan McGregor aren't marquee names) and a trailer that elicited lukewarm response from fanboys, the studio was looking at a potential disaster this summer. Moving it nine months allows them more time to get those effects to a good place, but more importantly, really build out a campaign for the movie (say hello to Comic-Con in July folks). But moving from June to March? A clear indication the studio realizes that "Jack The Giant Killer" needs smaller competition to play against, and it's now the only fantasy film on deck on March 22nd (for now). Lots more opportunity for 'Giant Killer' to find a foothold, where a more crowded summer field may have been less forgiving.
Posts: 459
Feb 5 12 1:46 AM
Omer M. Mozaffar in Chicago
The Academy Award winners for the past thirty years have followed consistent molds, primarily in the categories of Best Actress, Best Actor, and Best Picture. It is a very simple set of templates that I will explain with excessive evidence. This is not to say that the Academy Awards are a conspiracy run by some secret society, although that idea would be quite fun. Rather, at the very least, there is a subtext to American culture that plays out in the ideas and ideals in American cinema, and it plays out consistently. At the very least, I'm illustrating some unwritten ideals in American culture. Whether or not they are healthy or corrupt, they are there in us. So, "Best Picture" is not a great movie; rather, it is a great movie that fulfills the mold.
Feel free to test my arguments against those award winners that I do and do not list. The films I leave out are either films that also support my point, or are films whose stories I do not remember, or in a few rare cases are films that I have not seen. I will let you decide if I am playing fast and loose with important details. You can look back in my Twitter feed from last year, when I repeatedly said from the beginning that the original runaway favorite for Best Picture ("The Social Network") had no chance of winning. Because, it did not fit the mold. Others were so convinced that I was wrong that they offered wagers that I should collect upon.
Now, let us see who the Oscar always goes to.
Looking through the recent history of winners, however, we see that this trend is consistent. Natalie Portman in "Black Swan" (2010), Hillary Swank in "Million Dollar Baby" (2004) and "Boys Don't Cry" (1999). Charlize Theron in "Monster" (2003). Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball" (2001). Julia Roberts as "Erin Brockovich" (2000). Gwyneth Paltrow in "Shakespeare in Love" (1999). Susan Sarandon in "Dead Man Walking" (1995). Holly Hunter in "The Piano" (1993). Emma Thompson in "Howard's End" (1992). The exception here might be Jodie Foster in "The Silence of the Lambs," (1991), although the script and original novel fully fit this template. Of course, gender dynamics in the professional world in 2012 are significantly different than they were in 1991, so it may be that as a part of a 1991 film, her gender was very significant.
Nevertheless, if I am correct about this mold, then this point is rather disappointing, isn't it? I do think that this is a serious, perhaps scathing commentary on the plight of women in our culture: gender and/or sexuality is part of feminine identity in our culture in a way that it is not for masculine identity. In other words, a woman is reminded that she is a woman far more than a man is reminded that he is a man. Of course, if the Academy Awards represent masculine identity through Best Actor, then we have other issues to wrestle with.
Consider the winners. Tom Hanks is mentally challenged in "Forrest Gump," (1994) and gay in "Philadelphia" (1993). Nicholas Cage is the drowning alcoholic in "Leaving Las Vegas" (1995). Geoffrey Rush is beaten by his father into mental breakdown in "Shine" (1996). Jack Nicholson is obsessive-compulsive in "As Good as it Gets" (1997). Denzel Washington is an insane cop in "Training Day" (2001). Interestingly, the deleted scenes of "Training Day" reveal biographical bits that further illustrate that this character fits this "Best Actor" mold.
Best Picture. The biggest category might overtly seem to be the most American. The Academy Award Best Picture is, generally speaking, a liberation story. The Oscar goes to a film that involves someone in some sort of prison, seeking and achieving some sort of freedom, though death often takes place in the process (along with some sort of love interest, usually).
Of the remaining films, the film that seems to be the exception is "No Country for Old Men." The main thing I remember from that movie is , his hair and his weapon. Also, Forrest Gump frees Jenny from the clutches and memories of her father; I don't know if this thread would be central to its story, but I suppose it is. On a side note, even though it's been nearly twenty years since that movie, every time I meet someone named Jennifer, in my mind I start saying, "I know what love is, Jen-nay." Now that I think about it, I also keep imitating Gollum, from "Lord of the Rings." Maybe I need to spend less time analyzing movies and go read a book or make a friend or open my drapes, or something.
So, where do these Academy Award molds come from? I wonder if there is something Biblical here, in our American imaginations of females (like the women in the Bible), males (like the prophets in the Bible), and life in general. Meaning, films from Europe, especially from Sweden and France, really seem to have Catholic undertones. Films from America might be equally Protestant in nature, with the emphasis on liberation from authority and tyranny. This point is especially interesting, considering that many of the filmmakers and performers are non-believers, might even be non-American, but drink from the same American waters that the rest of us do.
By the way, this does not mean that if you make a film that fits the above models, that you will win Academy Awards; obviously, multiple nominees fit their respective molds, but only one wins. It also does not mean that all the nominations will fulfill the models in their respective categories; the winner, however, will most definitely follow the mold.
Feb 6 12 8:18 PM
Feb 20 12 8:57 AM
Interesting findings:
Interesting quote: 'African American actress and academy member Alfre Woodard, 59, cited the sexually explicit "Shame," which got no nominations, as an example of a film whose Oscar hopes may have been doomed by the academy's demographics. "Maybe if the median age was 45 to 50, a film like 'Shame' might show up, which I thought was a brilliantly rendered piece but a subject matter that you don't expect a certain older demographic would flock to see," she said.'
Does this mean Filth will suffer the same fate?
MORE: http://www.latimes.com/en...html,0,7473284.htmlstory
Posts: 1379
Feb 20 12 5:27 PM
Feb 21 12 10:32 PM
I still think the basic issue about whether or not Academy members will like the film is one of subject matter. I can't help thinking it's iffy. In large part, I think it's going to depend on James carrying off the role w/ the touches of charm, humanity, and pathos that Jon Baird talked about. I'm hoping he'll simply be too good for the Academy to ignore. Also think the script adaptation is crucial. e.g., I could see the movie getting an NC-17 rating like Shame if they really film the book. I doubt it, but who knows. ??Looking back, I checked the Oscar noms that Trainspotting received. Despite lots of critics' and European noms and awards, it got one nom for adapted screenplay (didn't win), which it seems is often a "consolation" nom for a movie that's too edgy for a best picture nom but too important to ignore. No actors were nominated although I think that was more of an ensemble piece.Still, judging from our initial reactions to Bruce and the book when we read it, I can see Academy members going "WTF?"
Feb 22 12 12:34 AM
Feb 23 12 5:33 AM
Feb 26 12 12:19 AM
Feb 26 12 12:41 AM
Feb 27 12 9:24 PM
BEST ACTOR Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
In the end, the Academy, like SAG (which has now predicted this category eight times in a row), opted for "the Clooney of France" over Clooney himself, making Dujardin its first French winner ever (Maurice Chevalier, Charles Boyer, and Gerard Depardieu were nominated) and only the fourth person to win best actor at both the Cannes Film Festival and the Oscars (the others were Ray Milland for The Lost Weekend [1945], Jon Voight for Coming Home [1978], and William Hurt for Kiss of the Spider Woman [1985]). I suspect that Clooney came very close (he's now 0-for-3 in the category in the last five years), but that voters ultimately concluded that he will have other chances whereas Dujardin might not (he plans to remain in France), and therefore opted to seize this opportunity -- like when they voted for Roberto Benigni for Life Is Beautiful (1998) -- to acknowledge him. Significant credit for this win must be given not only to TWC, but also to Dujardin's publicist Bryna Rifkin of ID-PR, who has now guided two French natives with broken English to acting Oscars within the last five years, the other being Marion Cotillard for La Vie En Rose (2007).
Apr 12 12 4:21 AM
The short, which will be called The Arrival, will see Daniel Craig as Bond showing up to Buckingham Palace to receive his next mission: launching the Olympic Games. The short will be screened during the BBC’s coverage of the ceremony, and there is even a rumour that Her Majesty may even cameo in the film.
Danny Boyle, whose last film was survival drama 127 Hours, was announced last June as the Artistic Director for the 2012 Olympic ceremony. He is known for directing from a wide range of genres, including drug drama Trainspotting and post-apocalyptic horror 28 Days Later. The opening ceremony will be called “The Isles of Wonder”, which will celebrate the whole of the UK.
Combining James Bond, one of the most iconic British characters in cinema, and Buckingham Palace, one of the UK’s biggest tourist attractions, is a smart move for attracting further attention for the Olympics, although Bond fans should probably be prepared not to see shootouts in the Royal bedrooms or the Duke of Edinburgh doing his best Blofeld impersonation.
Daniel Craig will next appear as James Bond in Skyfall, which is currently filming, under the direction of American Beauty’s Sam Mendes, whilst Boyle’s next film is art heist Trance, starring James McAvoy. Both films are due to be released later this year.
http://whatculture.com/fi...n-2012-olympic-games.php
Posts: 531
Apr 12 12 11:16 AM
Posts: 126
Apr 12 12 6:37 PM
Apr 13 12 10:31 AM
Nov 19 12 11:59 PM
Sir Anthony Hopkins doesn't suffer fools gladly. Not even icons like Sir Alfred Hitchcock.
"I think later in his years, he could have retired because some of the films became terrible," Hopkins told HuffPost Entertainment in a recent interview. For the record, Hopkins prefers Hitchcock's fertile period between 1954 and 1960, when the director produced "Rear Window," "Vertigo," "North By Northwest" and "Psycho." That latter film is at the center of Hopkins' newest effort, appropriately titled "Hitchcock." Directed by Sacha Gervasi ("Anvil: The Story of Anvil"), "Hitchcock" focuses on the making of "Psycho," as well as the relationship Hitchcock had with his wife, Alma Reville. Hopkins plays Hitch in the film, transforming his features and voice to embody the oft-imitated director; fellow acting legend Helen Mirren plays Reville.
"She was exactly what I expected," Hopkins said about his co-star. "Very professional, friendly, very good. Excellent actress. No-nonsense."
Neither is Hopkins, which is why it wasn't that surprising to hear the Oscar-winning star rail against both Method acting and the dog-and-pony show known as awards season.
You've played historical figures before. Did you have any apprehension about taking on another real-life character? Initially, yes, I did. I had apprehension all the way through the movie. I had done all my preparation, but being a perfectionist I wanted to make sure it was absolutely right. But Sacha said, "You're not Alfred Hitchcock, you're Anthony Hopkins playing him." I said, "Yeah, I know." But I wouldn't even look at the monitor screens [during production]. I didn't want to see myself or hear myself. I had done enough preparation to do the part.
What was the most difficult part of preparation? I think getting the makeup right was the first one. It wasn't difficult in itself, but we did about for or five camera tests to modify to make sure there wasn't too much makeup. Getting the voice right, too. I watched a lot of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" on television.
Did you ever meet Alfred Hitchcock before he died? I did in West Hollywood. My agent took me to this restaurant one day and said, "There's Alfred Hitchcock down there." I said, "Oh, God. Can I meet him?" Hitchcock had just gotten his knighthood, so we're walking past him and my agent said, "Good afternoon, Sir Alfred." He said, "Hello. How are you?" He said, "This is my client Anthony Hopkins." Hitchcock said [to me], "Charmed, I'm sure."
Sacha is a first-time feature director. Did he have to do anything to earn your trust? No, he got my trust. I did the movie, principally, because he didn't have any experience. I thought it would be a good challenge. He had such enthusiasm and he's obviously a very bright young man. He was obsessed with this film and he wanted me to do it, desperately. Then Tom Pollock, the head producer, joined us at lunch and he said, "Tony, we want you to do this, we hope you say yes." I said, "Well, if these guys believe in me, I may as well believe in myself." So, off we went with it.
A lot has been made about how the cast of "Lincoln" mostly stayed in character during that film's production. Is that something you like to do? No, I don't. There's no such thing. Well, you can do it if you want, but I don't go along with being called "Mr. Hitchcock." I think that's a lot of crap. I just don't understand that. If actors want to do that, fine. If they want to be miserable, that's up to them. I'm not interested. It's a job. I do the job. I'm certainly not going to make my life miserable just to be a character.
I imagine you'd make people around you miserable as well. Well, yes! It's a pain in the ass. Who the hell wants to be with some miserable grump because he wants to get his performance right, so you have to call him this or call him that? It's so boring. I've been with actors like that and they're a pain in the ass, they really are. They're unpleasant to work with and I don't think they're always that good either. I've worked with some awkward customers, fortunately not too many. I go out of my way never to work with them again.
A big part of "Hitchcock" deals with the fact that people thought he was too old and should consider retirement after "North by Northwest" came out. Do you ever think about when you'd want to retire? No, I don't ever want to retire. I did a few years ago. I didn't actually plan it, but I thought, "Maybe I should just slow down and call it a day." My wife said to me, "You do that, you will die. You can't retire. It's your work, it's your life. You love working." When men retire -- particularly men -- if they get out too early, they usually die of stress or loneliness or they drink too much or their hearts give out. I think a certain amount of stress in life is good. The stress of just working, which takes effort -- I think it keeps you going.
This film has a good amount of Oscar buzz. What do you think of awards season? Has it got a lot of Oscar buzz? I hadn't heard that.
I think it does. For you as Best Actor; for Helen as Best Actress. Quite honestly, my agent phoned me and said, "Tony, you've got to get to New York because there's talk of this and that." I said, "I can't go to New York because I'm doing two films here. I'm working again on Monday, I was working Friday; I can't possibly get to New York." He said, "Well, you've got to try and get out of it." I said, "No, I'm working with this film company." In a way, I'm sort of relieved that I don't have to get embroiled in all this publicity face to face. Because, (a) I can't do it, and (b) it makes no difference. You know, I've been around -- I've got the Oscar myself for "Silence of the Lambs" -- and having to be nice to people and to be charming and flirting with them ... oh, come on! People go out of their way to flatter the nominating body and I think it's kind of disgusting. That's always been against my nature.
You're not alone; more and more, it seems like a lot of actors want the work to speak for itself. I do, too. You know, kissing the backside of the authorities that can make or break it; I can't stand all that. I find it nauseating to watch and I think it's disgusting to behold. People groveling around and kissing the backsides of famous producers and all that. It makes me want to throw up, it really does. It's sick-making. I've seen it so many times. I saw it fairly recently, last year. Some great producer-mogul and everyone kisses this guy's backside. I think, "What are they doing? Don't they have any self respect?" I wanted to say, "Fuck off."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/anthony-hopkins-hitchcock-oscars_n_2156179.html
Share This