Oscar Going NC-17?

This is sort of old news, but Steve McQueen's controversial and haunting film "Shame" was given an NC-17 by the MPAA about a month ago.  Fox Searchlight decided not to edit the film or appeal it for the less restrictive R.  "Shame" has been screened at several film festivals prior to getting the rating.  It was cited as an early Oscar contender for Best Picture, and Michael Fassbender's performance was considered the first performance that could seriously be considered for a nomination for Best Actor.  The new rating could potentially hurt its chances with Oscar.  It could potentially hurt its box office potential as well, but Fox feels differently.  They feel that the NC-17 is a badge of honor, and that its time to take a chance and show that real adult films can have this rating attached to it without being labeled smut.

I didn't comment on the rating because I didn't think it mattered much, but now that I've had some time to think about it (and let all this discussion of the rating overpower the film itself), I have to ask this of the people who are worried about the NC-17: What's the big deal?  Does anyone here know what NC-17 stands for?  It stands for 'No Children Under 17 Admitted.'  Now then, what does the R rating stand for?  'Restricted: No Children Under 17 Admitted Without Parent or Guardian.'  Really folks, is this really that different?  The only real difference these two ratings share is that one parents can take their kids into the film, and the other one they can't.  And really, would any sane parent actually take their kids to this film?  Depending on how much award talk it gets, I don't think getting the R rating would have helped this film much anyway.

We went through this dance last year when "Blue Valentine" received an NC-17.  The Weinstein Company managed to appeal the rating though, and got an R rating for the film without any cuts.  The film ended up grossing more than $10 million dollars at the box office and made some money on DVD and BluRay.  The film only cost $1 million to make though.  Would the NC-17 rating have REALLY hurt that film much?!  I doubt it. Oddly enough, this situation is also similar to that of "Midnight Cowboy" from 1969, when that film was predicted to be totally shut out of the Oscars because of its X rating.  And what happened?  Well, the power of the film was too much to ignore, and "Midnight Cowboy" became the first X rated film to win Best Picture (a year after the very G rated "Oliver!" took home the prize).

I make no claims that "Shame" will be the first NC-17 film to win Best Picture.  I attribute that more to some heavy competition then the films rating though.  I am looking at this film though and believe that this could potentially be the start of the NC-17 curse being broken.  Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution" creaked the door open, and I think "Shame" will fully open it.  "Lust, Caution" made around $4 million dollars in the US and $67 million worldwide on a budget of $15 million.  That's successful, regardless how you look at it.  Actually, considering that was rated NC-17 AND was in Taiwan, $4 million dollars looks pretty impressive to me.  Of course, this is all speculation until the film actually opens, but I've got a funny feeling we can expect big things from "Shame."

What Are Chances of Oscar Love For "50/50": About 50/50 I'd Say

So one of the movies that I'm going to cautiously be keeping an eye on during this Oscar race is "50/50."  I haven't written my review yet (it should come in at around three and a half stars for me), but spoil it a bit for you, this is a good movie.  It may not be the greatest film in the world, but its amazing how it takes a serious situation that is so bleak for everyone, and manages to make it funny while also acknowledging the despair that comes along with such bad news.  Again, it may not be a great film, but its a good film in what it ends up doing.  Seth Rogan was his usual funny self (though maybe a bit too routine to get an Oscar nomination), and Anna Kendrick was good as a young psychiatrist trying to help the main character.

However, the standout performance is obviously that of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who not only brings humor to the role, but also frustration and despair.  A role like this is tricky because the main character has to be confident enough for us to believe he can survive this, but vulnerable enough that we feel his pain.  He carries this movie so well, that I want to seriously consider his chances at getting a Best Actor nomination for the role.  This is the sort of juicy role the Academy loves, and we shouldn't discredit this one just because its a comedy.  A think other potential nominees include Best Original Screenplay and Best Makeup.  Will it make the Best Picture lineup?  Hmm...maybe.  It is a movie that would appear to get some number one votes, so you never know.  For now though, Levitt's performance is the one to watch out for.

"J. Edgar" Trailer

Today we get our first real look at Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar."  While Eastwood has not had a film in serious competition since "Letters From Iwo Jima," never underestimate him.  That's how so many people lost money the year "The Aviator" was supposed to sweep the Oscars and give Marty his much coveted Oscar.  This film is an Eastwood film, and he's directed two Best Picture winners.  It stars Leonardo DiCaprio, who routinely shows up in the Best Actor category.  It has a screenplay by Dustin Lance Black, who won an Oscar just a couple of years ago for "Milk."  Finally, it's a biopic about a VERY controversial figure!  Yeah, we haven't seen it yet, but it might be best to consider it a contender.

Ryan Gosling To “Drive” To Oscar

Well folks, there's another movie to keep an eye on: “Drive.” This action film has opened soft at the box office (a little over $4 million on the opening day), but the rave reviews are piling up. It appears to be a “love or hate it” film, but so far more people seem to love it than hate it. It's not even polarizing female audiences, which is amazing since “Drive” is being advertised as a more mature version of “The Fast & The Furious” (though I still conclude that “Fast Five” was the most pleasant surprise for me this year). The general praise from all the reviews Rotten Tomatoes picked up on is “a hyper-stylized blend of striking imagery and violence, Drive represents a fully realized vision of arthouse action.”

So what we have is a summer movie that was so artsy, that the studios decided to release it later in the year to capitalize more on the awards than the summer crowds. Did the studio do this because they trusted the more serious movie fans to carry this better than the teenage summer crowd that normally abandons movies after their opening weekend? Who knows. Aside from people commenting on how artful the film is though, the main praise is going to Ryan Gosling. His performance is considered the driving force behind this movie (no pun intended...if you want to believe me), and though he's young, there are few major performances so far this year that are challenging it. So far his biggest competition is George Clooney (ironically, his co-star of the upcoming “The Idles of March”) in “The Descendants,” Jean Dujardin in “The Artist,” and Michael Fassbender in “Shame.”

So what chance does he stand of winning? So far...hard to say, the movies listed above have yet to be seen by the audiences, so its hard to decide how this will swing. Here's a few things to consider though. First of all, George Clooney is clearly the biggest threat because his film HAS been seen by a good chunk of critics, and the buzz is already building! That said, he's won an Oscar, and that (sadly) sometimes counts against you). Jean Dujardin is riding high on the praise of “The Artist,” but he's largely an unknown, and that could hurt him. Michael Fassbender is known to audiences as Magneto from “X-Men: First Class,” but his role in “Shame” is that of a sex addict, which might be a rather challenging film for members of the Academy to go for.

One thing seems certain though: Gosling is in for a Best Actor nomination. Maybe more performances will come along, but this seems like a safe bet. “Drive” also seems to be in a good position for supporting nods, art direction nods, and even a Best Picture nod doesn't seem out of the question at this point. It will all come down to a couple big things: Whether the Academy and audiences embrace the film, and whether or not they “like” it enough to give it the nominations.

Australia Is Down For The Count

And so another Oscar potential has opened to average reviews and has all but tanked in it's chances to get Oscar nominations. Oh don't get me wrong, there is likely some nominations in the cards. Art direction, score, song, cinematography, and costumes are all a given for this film. But Best Picture, director, actress, screenplay, and so forth...that may be asking too much. If this movie gets any major award nomination it will be for Hugh Jackman for Best Actor, who actually steals every scene he is in and has played a role that will solidify him as an A-list actor. So why do I have this under the Best Picture predictions on the side-bar? Well, basically, this movie still has a slimmer of a chance in getting nomination.

That slimmer would involve the movie making a lot of money, and the opening weekend could suggest a nomination despite some of the problems with the film. So for now we'll wait and see how it does over Thanksgiving weekend. If it makes decent money, we'll keep it there for a couple more weeks. If it doesn't, then it will be gone by Tuesday (in time for you to pick up "The Dark Knight" on either DVD or BluRay). I did see the movie tonight and I'll be writing a full review soon, but to sum it up easily I'll use the term Oscar hopeful's hate to hear: It was good but not great.

Bale For Best Actor?

Warner Bros. is pushing hard for "The Dark Knight" to get a Best Picture nomination. Heath Ldger's nomination is a lock, with Aaron Eckart as a dark horse for a potential additional Best Supporting Actor nominee. Warner has been printing lots of ads, but aside from from the ads that do that silly "For Your Consideration In All Categories" ads, Warner has been focusing on four specific categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Actor. Wait a minute? Best Actor? Who are they pimping for Best Actor? Could they be pushing for Ledger for bother categories? No, they aren't. Besides, with Ledger having a lock on a win for the supporting race, Warner Bros. wouldn't want to jeoperdize that win. No, they are pushing for Christian Bale to get a nomination in the lead slot. Which is interesting because Bale, up until now, has not been given much respect for this movie, constantly being overshadowed by Ledger.

Now it looks like Warner Bros. is realizing what a great performace this is, and so they are pushing hard for it. It would add more credability to the film if they got a lead actor nomination. However, I don't think this is going to happen, and not because the field is too crowded. No, the reason it's not going to happen is this: Bale is not the lead actor in this film. None of the actors are. "The Dark Knight," at heart, is an essamble film. No key characters gets more or less screen time as the other characters, and when they do it's minimal at best. Bale may play Batman, but Batman has as much screentime as Joker and Gordon. Single him out as a lead is playing favorites in a cast where no actor is more or less important then the other. The only actor to get a significant less amount of screentime was Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is the only character who truly comes off as a "supporting" character if there is one.

Still, since there is such a big push, and since "The Dark Knight" is likely to be one of the biggest Oscar contenders this year, I'm going to put Bales name on the sidebar. Don't expect this to last though. In the next few weeks we've got "Australia," "Milk," "Frost/Nixon," "The Wrestler," and all these other movies that will more then likely push Bale off the rader (if he was ever there). For now though, best of luck to Warner Bros. on their Oscar campaign.

"The Soloist" Trailer

Seeing as how Joe Wright's previous two films have attracted Oscar attention (particularly "Atonement," which got a Best Picture nomination) I feel that we can expect great things from "The Soloist." It looks like a movie with great performances, it a personal film, and (if the trailer is to be believed) it's based on a true story. Sounds like Oscar bait to me. Robert Downey Jr. has been having an esspecially good year. With "Iron Man" he revived his career in a big way. In "Tropic Thunder" he stole the show and looks to have a good shot at a Best Supporting Actor nomination. And now we have "The Soloist," which looks like potential Best Actor material. There's just five things standing in his way right now:

1. Voters could get confused as to which role to vote for, and he could walk away nomination-less.
2. Jamie Foxx could steale the nomination here.
3. The two actors could split the vote and neither get nominated.
4. Too much Downey could prove fatel to his chances.
5. "The Soloist" could be a terrible film, and thus not be award worthy.

Well, either way, glad to see Downey making films again. Whether he gets an Oscar nod or not it's difficult to revive a troubled career (just as Ben Affleck), and he managed to revive his in several big ways. So bravo to him.

Is Rourke Going To Wrestle In A Nomination?

I don't report on too many festival news because...frankly, there's just too much of it. Plus I don't like campaigning a film "too" much until I've seen it (though some movies, like "Milk," I blog about a lot just because I'm excited about it). That said I have been hearing an overwhelming amount of positive buzz about Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler." Particularly I've heard that Mickey Rourke's performance is one of those unforgettable performances that only comes along once a year. Since this is a lead role, maybe Rourke will have a good shot at the winning slot in the Best Actor category? Maybe the picture will even sneak into some other categories. Either way, this is one to look out for.

"Che" Will Be Twice As Much Fun/Money

According to Variety Magazine, Steven Soderberg's "Che" will be split into two films while the four hour long version will receive a "road show" release. For those who don't know what the term road show means it was basically a form of distribution for epic movies of the old days. See, back when three to four hour films like "Ben-Hur" and "Around the World In 80 Days" were being made, not all theaters had the surround sound and wide screens to make a mainstream release possible. Therefor these movies would open in select cities and then slowly move to other cities over the next couple of years. And since DVD didn't exist back then (heck, VHS wasn't even on the radar yet) this sort of run around could last a few years.

Now Oscar winner Soderberg, who is known for his experimental films, decided to make a four hour epic on the life of Latin Revolutionary Che Guevera, starring Oscar winner Benicio Del Toro as the the title character. It's a bold undertaking as the cinema hasn't seen a four hour epic released in theaters since Warner Bros. released "Gods and Generals" in 2003 (a major flop, though I blame that on the poor quality of the film and NOT the running time). While this would have been a hard sell to the public I think it could have been a success because people who are interested in this film expressed interest in sitting through a four hour film. By breaking it in two it feels like a cheap way to sell multiple tickets, and I'm not sure how many people are going to buy it.

This could also potentially effect the films Oscar chances (particularly Del Toro, who's an early favorite at a Best Actor nomination), because with two halfs of the film the votes this film receives could be split. Or maybe the Academy members won't vote for either. After all, how do you decide which half of the movie has better direction and/or acting then the other? In fact, chances are the road show release of the full movie is there to try and eliminate this confusion for the voters. Either way I'm less confident in the film now.

They Didn't Nominate WHO [In 1955]!?!

Actors get snubbed for Oscars all the time. Chances are this isn't news to you, chances are one of the main things that turns anyone off from the Oscars are actors and films that the Academy DOESN'T nominate (more so then who wins)! One of the great tragedies the Academy made was when they didn't nominate James Dean for his powerful performance in "Rebel Without A Cause."



Now I've had discussions with a friend about James Dean. He feels Dean was an overrated actor, who acted in ways that would keep him unemployed in todays films. He may be right (his Oscar nominated performance in "Giant" is good for the first half but hooky for the second half), but no one can deny that his performance in "Rebel Without A Cause" to be one of the most legendary performances of our time. I recently re-watched the film and was amazed by the power in it. Yes, it's a little over the top. Most performances were back in the day. But Deans performance was rightly over the top. After all, he was playing a trouble teenager And face it: Most teens are a little over dramatic when they express themselves. What is compelling though is why Dean's character is angry.



He has a good life. There's nothing in particular that you can single out that would make him mad. What I always got was the little things that made him tick. His parents contradicting each other. The school bullies. The shyness around girls. This is one of the few movies that gives the troubled teenager so many little things to frustrate him that his rebeling feels inevitable. He has no specific reason to be angry, he just is. Maybe he doesn't realize why he's angry himself. Trust me folks, these unspoken emotions can't be found in the script. Stangely enough, while co-stars Natalie Wood and Sal Mineo got Oscar nominations for this movie the Academy foolishly passed over Dean, who was unagrubly the most important and emotional character in the film.



Shortly afterwards Dean would die in a car accident and the Academy would apologize for giving him Oscar nominations for "East of Eden" (an average performance) and "Giant" (an uneven but still decent performance). This performance though remains unnominated, despite the fact that it still influences creators today. Oh you don't believe me? Check out this picture of "Futurama"...


...and you tell me that this movie still isn't inspiring someone out there.

Another Oscar Nod For Viggo?

Because of my rule to not post Oscar predictions in the bar until I've seen a movie, Viggo Mortensen's name won't go under the Best Actor category...yet. However judging from this trailer for his upcoming film "Good" it's looking like there's a good chance that he'll be up for another Oscar nomination this year (excatly one year after his dark performance in "Eastern Promises").



I'm also going to say that this movie looks like a good bet for a Best Picture nomination. If for no other reason then the fact that World War II films tend to do well at the Oscars, so this is one to keep an eye on in the future.