Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
February 1, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Now that Academy Award nominations have been announced, what do you think are the biggest surprises? What nominations make you happiest? Most angry?
Josh Spiegel: I will answer your first and third questions with a question of my own. Will we find out during the Oscar ceremonies how many Academy voters' dogs were killed by the hand of Christopher Nolan? Because that must be why he's gotten three Directors' Guild nominations without a single Best Director nod from the Academy. My consolation prize is comparing Nolan - in awards terms, at least - to Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick, two other British greats who never won an Oscar for Best Director. I'm thrilled to see Toy Story 3 get the expected nominations, as well as those for my other personal faves, but there are very few surprises here. The biggest one of all is that, if the guilds are a hint, we're not going to see The Social Network win much more than Best Original Screenplay.
Brett Beach: I think the biggest surprise for me is that True Grit came as close as it did to tying The King's Speech for most nominations, and that was with its score being ruled ineligible by the arcane by-laws of that branch of the Academy. I was also surprised to see Black Swan up for Best Picture, even more so than Winter's Bone. I know it was up at the Globes, but I felt it would be just a tad too out there for the older members. Angry about? The whole kerfluffle over where to put Hailee Steinfeld and Leslie Manville is ridiculous. As technical and anal as it sounds, perhaps a rule should be instituted whereby anyone who is on-screen for more than half the running time, can only be considered in the lead category, and not supporting. It becomes solely about sticking her in the category where she might win, rather than the one that is honestly accurate. Happiest? I haven't seen the film, but was glad to see Sandy Powell nominated for The Tempest. She's my generation's Edith Head and ever since her credit card dress in the mid-90s, I've been a fan. Also, I am glad that Ruffalo has joined the nominee club at last.
Matthew Huntley: I'm with Josh in that there are no real surprises, though I'm more confident Nolan will have his moment in the sun one day. He'll probably win Best Director for a movie most people think is not as good as The Dark Knight or Inception (similar to people thinking Scorsese didn't deserve it for The Departed as much as, say, Raging Bull). These things are cyclical.
After seeing Blue Valentine today, I'm very happy to see Michelle Williams received a nomination for Best Actress. She creates one of the most sympathetic characters in a long time and she does it without gimmicks. With that said, why didn't Ryan Gosling also get nominated? He was just as indelible as his co-star. Although Natalie Portman has a practical lock on Best Actress, this is a very strong category this year (though I've to see Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole) and I think they are all deserving.
If I had to choose something to be angry about, it's that True Grit received so many nominations. Don't get me wrong - it is a fine movie, and the performances are worthy, but the picture as a whole didn't seem deserving of 10 potential Oscars. The Coen Brothers are so talented that I think these nominations were handed out by default. Again, True Grit is good, but I think this was the "safe" movie to hand out nominations to. The Coens don't usually make "safe" movies, and those are usually their best ones.
One quick note: Now that the PGA, DGA and SAG awards have been so kind to The King's Speech, and deservedly so (it's a great movie), I'm disappointed the more youth-oriented The Social Network isn't as strong a contender as it was only weeks ago. I personally feel The King's Speech is the better movie, but I was excited to see a movie about young people get so many accolades. To me, it signified Hollywood was opening up a bit and rewarding movies that were trying to be more edgy. Just an observation...
Edwin Davies: Snubbing Christopher Nolan and Haillee Steinfeld calling into question what the hell a Leading Actress is are the only things that really, really bother me. There's other stuff like Clint Mansell, one of the finest composers currently working, being denied a nomination for his work on Black Swan, but the news that his work would be deemed ineligible broke a few weeks ago so I've more or less got over it by now. Other than that, it's little things like, "How come 127 Hours didn't get nominated for cinematography?" which only bother me and like-minded film nerds. It's a pretty solid year and I really don't have all that much to complain about.
In terms of things that make me happy; Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross getting nominated for The Social Network's score; Banksy (BANKSY!) becoming the least likely Oscar nominee since Three 6 Mafia or Robert Towne's dog; John Hawkes landing a nomination for Winter's Bone. In fact, all the love for Winter's Bone has made me very, very happy. It's not going to win any of the awards it is up for, but that it has been duly recognized as one of the best films of the year and will now be on a lot more people's radar is just fantastic news.
Michael Lynderey: While I like all of the actors in the Supporting category (it's nice to see a John Hawkes type get a nomination), it's really too bad about Andrew Garfield. Having an Oscar-nominated Spider-Man (nominated as he's filming it, no less) would have been awesome, even if the odds of winning have been ka-powed by Batman's turn in The Fighter. Plus, Garfield gave a really good performance. Otherwise, the Oscars, especially after last night's SAG results, appear to be headed into an achingly predictable route.
Kim Hollis: I, too, am pleased about the John Hawkes nomination (his portrayal of Teardrop is remarkable) but at the same time I'm a little bummed that it came at the cost of Andrew Garfield. I'd choose Hawkes over him too, admittedly. I'm not so sure this awards ceremony is going to be all so predictable as everyone seems to think, though. Yes, the acting awards seem sewn up, but I feel like Best Picture is far from over. It's a two or three movie race, but it might just surprise us.
I think Statham could take Hopkins
Kim Hollis: Which practice bothers you more, Jason Statham doing the same movie over and over again, or Academy Award winner Anthony Hopkins taking projects that would make even Michael Caine blush?
Josh Spiegel: Now, now. Sir Michael Caine is about to appear, in vocal form, in Gnomeo and Juliet. Gnomeo and Juliet, a computer animated movie about gnomes by way of Romeo and Juliet. Did I mention that Patrick Stewart will be in the film as William Shakespeare? I'm pretty sure that this is going to be one of the great bad movies of all time, but to answer your question, it's the Hopkins laziness. Jason Statham does his job very well; Anthony Hopkins used to try, and he's long since given up.
Brett Beach: If Jason Statham ever gave an Oscar worthy performance, and then went back solely to fare such as Crank 3: The Heart that Wouldn't Die, The Transporter 4 and The Expendables 2, there might be something to gripe about. As it is, he knows what side of the bread his butter goes on and applies that butter liberally and often. Anthony Hopkins has had a career spanning six different decades, one filled with highs (The Lion in Winter, The Remains of the Day) and lows (Freejack, Bad Company), but as a four-time Oscar nominee and one-time winner, the onus is on him to choose worthy projects, even the commercial ones. As with DeNiro, Pacino, and others. I do wish he would make those choices, or have someone do so in his stead.
Matthew Huntley: I think the Statham redundancies bother me more, because at least when Hopkins takes on lesser quality projects, there's an off chance we'll see something we haven't seen before. Statham typically generates a "been there, done that"-type of reaction; whereas Hopkins' choices are more anger-inducing, which make them more fun to talk about. Talking mild crap about Crank or The Mechanic isn't as fun as lashing out against Bad Company or The Wolfman. Think about this: with a group of friends, would you rather see a dull action movie or a potential Razzie Award winner?
Bruce Hall: People like us always suggest that guys like Statham should branch out, and then when they do we usually turn our noses up at the results. Statham is an action guy. His movies may not crush the box office but they make money often enough to keep him and the people who hire him in business - and that's what it's all about. In the same vein, I think we're being too hard on Hopkins. It's easy to sit on this side of the camera and insist that great performers should only take great roles. If every great actor was like Daniel Day-Lewis and only came down off the mountain every thee or four years, would we be okay with that? Almost everything the man does is gold, but we hardly ever see him! Is that what we want? Most performers simply love to perform, and every project can't be a gem if you want to be in the game every day. The Silence of the Lambs doesn't come along every year and if you wait for it just to keep the critics happy, you may run the risk of working less. Even if you take a bad film, the only role you have to nail is yours. Don't be ashamed of a bad movie, be ashamed of a bad performance.
When you're at the beginning of you career you take whatever you can get, because just having your face in front of the camera is the important thing. When you're at the point where Hopkins is, you have the luxury of being able to pick and choose, so why not do something like The Wolfman just for kicks? Not everyone has as much money as we like to think they do, or accepts roles based on the same criteria we think we would, having never been in their position. As Michael Caine famously pointed out, sometimes you just take it for the paycheck. And when you're in a position to cherry pick, I see nothing wrong with doing something just for the work, just because you enjoy it. Is that wrong? I'll let you know next time someone offers me a UPS truck full of hundred dollar bills to do something that I love.
Edwin Davies: Hopkins' laziness because, even though Statham tends to star in films that blend together (with the exception of the Crank films, which you really can't mistake for anything else he has been in) he is often the best thing in them and he does bring a certain charm and presence to every project that suggests that he is putting at least a little bit of effort into his roles. Anthony Hopkins rarely seems as if he is trying these days, and that's pretty sad, really. Every so often he'll make a film like The World's Fastest Indian in which he delivers a good performance, but even then he doesn't push himself or try anything new. There's also the disparity between the levels of talent being wasted. I like Statham, but he has never given a performance on a par with Hopkins in The Elephant Man, Silence of the Lambs or Remains of the Day.
I'd be perfectly happy for Jason Statham to keep making fairly generic, dumb action films for the next ten years, but I'd be ecstatic if I saw a new film with Anthony Hopkins in where he was not only good but doing something we haven't seen him do a thousand times before.
Michael Lynderey: Neither. Both are a well-established practice in filmdom, with a lot of precedent. It's awesome to see an Oscar winner chewing the scenery in B-horror films. That's why I go see movies in the first place. And there's nothing wrong with Statham doing his thing and pleasing his fanbase. There aren't a lot of action stars turning out one or two low-budget escapades per year, the way they used to do it, so it's cool to see someone upholding the tradition, even if they're not always very good movies (and so what if they're not? that's expected). My point is that both of the phenomena chided by others here, to me represent just some of the reasons why I love movies.