YOUR AD HERE! SEE SIDEBAR FOR DETAILS.

I want to take a moment to discuss something that surprisingly few others have in the past…

Things can get a bit awkward for Oscar bloggers around this time of year because we’re invited to all sorts of events and parties for films and people about whom we will later have to write. Some feel that we shouldn’t ever attend these because doing so will bias our future coverage. Perhaps that’s true for film critics, who must share their personal feelings in their writing, but it’s not true for most Oscar bloggers — certainly not me — for one very simple reason: nothing is more important in our line of work than offering accurate projections. They are the measure by which you judge us, and the measure by which we judge ourselves, and for that reason (in addition to my own morals), no form or amount of flattery (or lack thereof) will ever lead me to present a picture of the awards race that is any different than what I honestly believe it to be.

Having made that very clear, I’ll now share some thoughts on a cool event that I attended last night: a party celebrating the DVD release of best documentary hopeful “Valentino” in the penthouse bar of The Standard Hotel in New York…

“Valentino: The Last Emperor” (Acolyte, 3/18, trailer), the debut directorial effort of journalist Matt Tyrnauer, offers a penetrating peak into the world of couture fashion and the relationship between one of its most famous designers, Valentino Garavani, and his boyfriend of nearly 50 years, Giancarlo Giammetti. The film came about after Tyrnauer spent a considerable amount of time following the men around the world for an August 2004 Vanity Fair profile, winning their confidence and permission to continue to observe them and record footage for a film. Using lightweight cameras that allowed him to keep up with their fast-paced lifestyle, he captured sides of both men that have never previously been seen by the general public and perhaps even close friends.

As someone who couldn’t possibly know less or be less interested in fashion, I was surprised to find myself deeply moved by the film when I first saw it on a screener shortly before its release early this year, and consequently I have been talking it up and keeping it on my awards charts ever since. I was concerned, however, that its awards hopes had been abandoned — until I received the invitation to this event, the turnout of which seems to indicate that it has support in high places. Those in attendance — in addition to Tyrnauer, Garavani, and Giammetti — included producer/beer heiress Daphne Guinness, talk show host Charlie Rose (who conducted an interview the director and subjects back on March 19), actor Hugh Jackman (on the day he was formally replaced as the host of the Oscars), actress Mischa Barton (back on the party circuit after a trying year), actor Adrien Brody, producer Brian Grazer, and even singer Madonna (whose 22-year-old boyfriend, Jesus Luz, was serving as the DJ, and who accordingly busted a few moves upon her arrival).

I understand that much of the “Valentino” awards campaign is being independently funded by Tyrnauer and that the PR firm 42 West is hard at work trying to revive interest in it and get it seen by critics groups. The early Fall release of the similarly-themed Anna Wintour doc “The September Issue” hasn’t made their work any easier, but I suspect that people who actually check out “Valentino” will find it to be the superior film.

Photo: Valentino and Hugh Jackman at the “Valentino” DVD release party. Credit: Scott Feinberg.

This evening, a friend wanted to know (a) what I thought it would take for a documentary to snag one of the slots in the newly-expanded best picture category, and (b) whether or not I thought any of this year’s documentaries stood a chance at doing so. Here was my response:

I don’t believe that a documentary will be among this year’s best picture nominees, even though there are now 10 slots in the category. For a doc to make the cut in future years, I suspect that it will have to be a rousing anti-establishment piece, like “Fahrenheit 9/11″ (2004) and/or a newsmaking social-conscience work, like “The Thin Blue Line” (1988) and/or a new take on an old doc-subgenre, like sports doc “Hoop Dreams” (1994) and nature doc “March of the Penguins” (2005). In my opinion, any one of those films might well have snagged a best picture nomination had today’s rules been in effect during their respective years of eligibility.

This year, “Capitalism: A Love Story” and “The Cove” seem to fit the first two descriptions and will probably generate some best picture votes, but I suspect that most voters will find the former too controversial and never see the latter at all. The only other doc with best picture aspirations is “This Is It,” the Michael Jackson concert doc, which fits my third description and has several other things going for it, too: (a) it has gotten so much free press that virtually everyone knows about it and most will eventually see it; (b) it is already a critical and commercial success; and (c) it is ineligible in the best doc category because it missed the Academy’s NY/LA screening deadline, which means that people who want to recognize it will have to do so in the best picture category. That all being said, I have my doubts that it will be most Oscar voters’ cup of tea.

UPDATE: Tom O’Neil, my former colleague at the Los Angeles Times, has posted an email from an Academy member who attended a Sunday screening of the film at the Academy’s Goldwyn Theater that was apparently filled to capacity. The Academy member reports “the most enthusiastic response I’ve ever witnessed in 40 years of Academy screenings… similar to but better than the reaction given to ‘Chicago’ a few years ago. Audience broke into applause at least 10 times. They were ‘mesmerized’ and gave the film an enormous reception as the credits rolled. The editing is brilliant. I predict it will be the first doc to ever make the best picture nomination list, especially now that there are 10 best pic noms.”

Photo: Michael Jackson in Kenny Ortega’s “This Is It.” Credit: Sony.

Though something like this “Ellen” appearance by best actress hopeful Gabby Sidibe (“Precious”) may seem like nothing more than spontaneous throwaway fun, I suspect that it was actually quite carefully considered — and not just by her and her roommate Adam. After all, the biggest challenge facing Sidibe this awards season is convincing voters that she is not playing herself in the film — that though Gabby, like Precious, is a significantly overweight young black girl, she is not illiterate and morose but instead highly intelligent and in possession of a healthy amount of joie de vivre.

Why does doing so matter? Because it will show voters that she really had to work to give the performance that we see in the film. I don’t believe 2007 best actress nominee Ellen Page was  — or ever since has been — able to overcome the belief that she really is the eponymous character in “Juno,” and I suspect that’s why she got her nomination but didn’t win it.

Appearances like this one are important for Gabby not only because they begin to familiarize the general public with her name (although Ellen introduced her as “Gabourey,” when lately people seemed to be moving towards calling her the less-tongue-twisting “Gabby”), but also — and just as importantly — with what kind of a person she is (and is not).

The response to my post from yesterday, in which I explained why I believe Carey Mulligan (“An Education”) has an edge over Meryl Streep (“Julie & Julia”) in the best actress race, been steady and strong. Many Mulligan backers have never had nicer things to say about me, while some Streep fans have reacted with full-fledged outrage.

The reactions that I most looked forward to, though, were those of four other Oscar bloggers who almost always have a good pulse on the race — Tom O’Neil, Sasha Stone, Kris Tapley, and Jeff Wells — and it is with their permission that I will now share those with you…

Read the rest of this entry »

We’re still three months away from the announcement of this year’s Oscar nominees, so I get that it’s premature to be talking about winners. That being said, anyone who knows anything about the awards race knows that there are two — and only two — locks in the best actress category, Carey Mulligan (“An Education”) and Meryl Streep (“Julie & Julia”), so I believe it’s fair-game to begin pondering which will be in a stronger position down the homestretch.

First, a little refresher course on the ladies in question…

Mulligan

• Virtually unheard of a year ago. Had appeared on British television, played small part in “Pride and Prejudice” (2005), and was making Broadway debut supporting Kristin Scott Thomas in “The Seagull.”
• Things began to change at Sundance in January. “An Education,” in which Danish director Lone Scherfig cast her as central character Jenny, premiered and instantly spurred bidding war between several indie studios.
• Sony Pictures Classics nabbed film for around $3 million, took it on festival circuit (Berlin, Toronto, etc.), and began hearing same reaction everywhere it went: in their little film, a big star is born.
• As “An Education” is slowly released in theaters across America, look for Mulligan to bewitch audiences just as she does Peter Sarsgaard in film. No role has done as much for an actress as I expect this will do for Mulligan since Julia Roberts clicked in “Pretty Woman” (1990).
• Most apt comparison is even further back: Audrey Hepburn in “Roman Holiday” (1953). Audrey was — as Mulligan is — 24-years-young, British, and beautiful (in a gamine way that allowed her to appear both childlike and ladylike) when she gave breakthrough performance en route to best actress Oscar.
• Like Audrey in that film, Mulligan in this one comes to see world anew through eyes of man very different from herself, and in process comes of age before our eyes. By closing credits, she is less like innocent/carefree Audrey than battle-tested/worldly-wise Lauren Bacall (complete with low-voice), and audience cheers her as a survivor.
• Potential controversy: Mulligan’s character first seduced by Sarsgaard’s character when she’s underage and he’s not. With Roman Polanski’s situation causing heightened awareness of things like this, it could turn-off some.
• Oliver Stone’s highly-anticipated “Wall Street” sequel, in which Mulligan and boyfriend Shia LaBeouf are top-billed, will be released shortly after Oscars.

Streep

• Most respected actress alive, hands-down.
• Having consistently given great performances in major films for over 30 years (including five that received Oscar nods for best picture, three of which won), everyone already knows her name, and virtually everyone already likes her.
• Nora Ephron’s “Julie & Julia” is a big-budget/big-studio summer movie that every voter has heard about and nearly every voter will have seen — thus far, it’s made more than $100 million worldwide.
• In the film, Streep cooks up performance with all the ingredients that Oscar voters love: convincingly portraying a person who really lived and with whom we’re all familiar (Julia Child, “the woman who taught America to cook”); exhibiting major physical transformation (hair, posture, height); and mastering yet another accent.
• Best actress winners are very often women whose characters refuse to be victimized — like Streep’s Julia, who employs boundless energy and infectious optimism to disprove naysayers and achieve dreams.
• Thanks to her recent work in mainstream films — “The Manchurian Candidate” (2004), “The Devil Wears Prada” (2005), “Mamma Mia!” (2008), and now this — she has never been more popular at the box-office, especially with younger audiences.
• Though Streep has already won two Oscars, the record holder (Katharine Hepburn) won four, so it’s not like it would be unheard of to give her another.
• Nobody has received as many Oscar nominations — 15. Nobody has lost as many, either — 13.
• It’s been 27 years and 11 nominations — 12, if/when she gets one for “Julie & Julia” — since she last won. Many feel it’s time to correct that.

So who will win the 2009 best actress Oscar, Mulligan or Streep? As I’ve been indicating for several weeks now in my weekly projections — much to the consternation of a small but vocal group of Streep supporters — I give the edge to Mulligan. Here’s why…

Read the rest of this entry »

About a year ago I was seated next to the Indian director Mira Nair at a luncheon in New York City and spent most of the afternoon picking her brain about her next project: a big-budget biopic of the legendary aviatrix Amelia Earhart. I told Nair that as someone who is fascinated with American culture/history, the origins of public relations and celebrity, and the Oscar race, I couldn’t be more excited about it. Nair told me that a rough-cut of the film was being test-screened for the very first time later that day so she couldn’t be more nervous about it.

On Tuesday night, I was at New York’s Paris Theatre as Nair introduced the finished product to members of the public for the first time — along with stars Hilary Swank (Earhart), Richard Gere (her publicist/husband  George Putnam), and Ewan McGregor (her lover, allegedly, Gene Vidal) – at the world premiere of “Amelia” (Fox Searchlight, 10/23, trailer). Since then, reactions have been pouring in from every direction. Some have been friendly — Ray Bennett of The Hollywood Reporter calls it an “instant bio classic” that “ranks with recent real-life portrayals of Ray Charles by Jamie Foxx and Truman Capote by Philip Seymour Hoffman” and suggests it “could be similarly awards-bound.” Most, however, have been less generous — to cite a fairly representative example, Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times labels the film a “turkey” and “stinker” and says it clearly “missed the mark.” (For the record, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times — the unofficial dean of film criticism — registers somewhere inbetween.)

My own feelings are mixed. I’m generally a sucker for biopics like those that were so prevalent in theaters and at the Academy Awards during the heart of the studio-era — stuff like “Disraeli” (1929), “The Story of Louis Pasteur” (1936), “The Great Ziegfeld” (1936), “The Great Waltz” (1938), “Juarez” (1939), “Young Mr. Lincoln” (1939), “The Pride of the Yankees” (1942), “Yankee Doodle Dandy” (1942), “Madame Curie” (1943), “Wilson” (1944), and “Lust for Life” (1956). They come around less often these days — probably because modern audiences are more cynical and less willing to accept the heroization of real-life figures — but a few always pop up during the awards season, including “Schindler’s List” (1993), “Pollock” (2000), “A Beautiful Mind” (2001), “Ali” (2001), “The Aviator” (2004), “Hotel Rwanda” (2005), “Good Night and Good Luck” (2005), “La Vie En Rose” (2007), and “Milk” (2008). This is because they’re generally regarded as “important,” and rare is the film rewarded by the Academy that isn’t.

The thing that sets apart those that resonate from those that don’t is fairly simple: they show us something about the person – real or invented – that we didn’t already know. The chief problem with “Amelia” is that it doesn’t. Earhart lived long enough ago that virtually nobody alive today can tell you first-hand what she was actually like, but not so long ago that people have stopped caring. The result is that most of us already know the core facts that the movie restates, and few others are introduced: she was the spunky woman who felt she could hold her own with the men, at least in the sky, and did; whereas Charles Lindbergh was “Lindy,” she was “Lady Lindy,” a feminist before feminism and a celebrity of the highest echelon; and, of course, that she never fulfilled her greatest ambition of flying entirely around the world, instead crashing along with her navigator somewhere in the Pacific while at the helm of her Electra aircraft.

The fact that everyone knows the ending of the film before the beginning might initially seem to be the hardest obstacle to overcome, but it isn’t — after all, the same could be said of “Titanic” and “United 93″ and they were damn good. No, the bigger problem is that Earhart’s life on the ground wasn’t nearly as exciting as her flights in the sky, which were themselves more exciting in concept than in practice. (Heck, Earhart herself could barely stay awake for those!) What really made Earhart a legend in her own time, and has sustained her as one after it, is less what she did than what she represented. Earhart was the living embodiment of the sense of limitless potential that Americans felt during the twenties — at least until a crash of a different sort sent them reeling back to reality. She was an outlier; a country girl who conquered the city; a pioneer on a new frontier; a go-getter with a can-do attitude for whom not even the sky was the limit; a person who would never say die, until she did. All of that is obviously impressive; it’s just not particularly conducive to a two-hour cinematic spectacle.

I think the filmmakers realized that but felt they could overcome it the same way Hollywood has always clogged the holes in its plots: with what the old studio chiefs used to call “boy-girl stuff.” (Preston Sturges mocked this in his 1941 classic “Sullivan’s Travels.”) They couldn’t. This, I believe, is because everything we knew about Earhart, both prior to seeing the film and during it up until her publicist plops a kiss on her — prompting both her and the audience to ask why he did that – suggests that nothing was ever more important to her than flying and that nothing else ever even came close. Frankly, everything we knew about her suggested she was entirely asexual. Now, all of a sudden, we’re to believe that she’s madly in love and sexually hungry? (I doubt that even “Pretty Woman”-era Richard Gere could have had that much of an effect on a woman, let alone Richard Gere twenty years later.) It just doesn’t ring true.

Neither does an attempt to introduce a love-triangle to the plot, which is another common act of desperation in Hollywood. Yes, it’s true that Earhart knew transportation tycoon Gene Vidal — that much is beyond dispute — but I don’t believe for one second that he was a romantic figure in her life, certainly not to the extent that the film implies he was. I submit that he is portrayed as one in the film for two reasons: (1) because the filmmakers needed a little more spice to make this thing fly, if you’ll pardon the pun, and (2) because Gore Vidal was apparently consulted by the filmmakers despite the fact that he has — as I found when I interviewed him exactly a year ago — aged into a bitter, egomaniacal S.O.B. who loves nothing more than name-dropping and placing himself and/or his family at the center of virtually every major event in our nation’s history. (He got himself into this film quite a bit, too.) He is a brilliant thinker and writer about American history, but he is not a credible source when it comes to his own history and someone should have recognized that. (According to Roger Friedman of The Hollywood Reporter, Putnam’s granddaughter is already making the media rounds insisting that the Vidal affair never happened.)

The biggest problem, though, is that the film never adequately answers the question: what about flying made Earhart feel it was worth the risk — dare I say likelihood — of death? In fact, it only even considers it flippantly when she first meets Putnam and he asks her why she flies, to which she responds, “Why does a man ride a horse?” That’s cute, but it’s just not good enough. (Subsequently, she mentions wanting to be “free,” like the animals in the wilderness and unlike the people in the civilization over which she flies, but that was already a cliche in her own time.) Not providing the audience with a decent answer to that question is like not providing the audience with the meaning of “Rosebud” after making them wonder about it for an entire film.

Having now exhausted my list of things to bitch about — yeah, I’ll let the iffy accents slide, I guess — it’s only fair to offer some praise. Swank is as good as anyone could possibly be as Earhart, and not only because she bears a striking resemblance to the character. As was the case with the two performances for which she won Oscars for best actress, ”Boys Don’t Cry” (1999) and “Million Dollar Baby” (2004), she imbues her character with both strength and vulnerability, a combo that few actresses can pull off convincingly. It seems unfair for her performance to be denied awards attention because of the shortcomings of the rest of her film, especially since other recent performances haven’t been, including Annette Bening in “Being Julia” (2004), Felicity Huffman in “Transamerica” (2005), and Cate Blanchett in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” (2007).

Also, “Amelia” deserves to be a part of any discussion about awards for best cinematography (Stuart Dryburgh, previously nominated for “The Piano,” has overseen some majestic shots from the air — although not as stunning as those in “Up in the Air”), best costume design (like last year’s “Changeling,” this film features exquisite fashion from the twenties), and best original score (thanks to a sweeping submission by the always-dependable Gabriel Yared, who incidentally won his Oscar for scoring another aviation-related epic, “The English Patient,” 13 years ago).

Photo: Hilary Swank in “Amelia.” Courtesy: Fox Searchlight.

Earlier this week, New York Post film critic Lou Lumenick suggested that the Gotham Awards’ total snub of “Precious” (Lions Gate, 11/6, trailer) was indicative of a backlash against the high-profile campaigning that exec-producers Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry have been conducting on behalf of the film.

Tom O’Neil, my former colleague at the Los Angeles Times awards blog “The Envelope,” found the snub “shocking” and wrote a lengthy rebuttal in which he states, “I agree with Lou that a backlash is brewing against [the film], but among some film critics, not among Oscar voters or other industry folks and not as a result of Oprah’s or Tyler’s embrace… I think critics are starting to resent the fact that their darling flick’s gone mainstream… ‘Precious’ is obviously Oscar-bound.”

When Tom asked for my thoughts on this today (along with several other awards pundits), I responded as follows:

I think the folks behind “Precious” need to worry a lot less about an Oprah-backlash than about a violence-backlash. I guarantee you that a large segment of the Academy — much of which is still comprised of older and fairly conservative folks — will leave screenings, turn off screeners, or not even check out the film at all because of its shocking violence, vulgar language, and upsetting scenarios. The thing that attracted Oprah, Tyler Perry, and others to the film is the message that the film leaves you with: that no person is bound by their circumstances and every person has the power within themselves to rise above them. That’s a message that nearly voter would embrace… the problem, I suspect, is that they may never get far enough into the film to hear it.

Do I think “Precious” will be totally snubbed by the Academy (which is composed of thousands of industry insiders) as it was by the Gotham Awards’ nominating committee (which is apparently made up of only four critics)? No — support younger voters will probably secure it a spot among the ten best picture nominees, along with two or three other categories — but I also don’t think it’s likely to be the awards juggernaut that Tom (and a few others whose views I also respect) seem to think it will be.

I can tell you this much: if the film and/or director Lee Daniels and/or lead actress Gabby Sidibe and/or supporting actress Mo’Nique (whose character will pose the chief problem for many of the aforementioned voters) are snubbed by the Academy — which is honestly not inconceivable to me — there will be an uproar that could make past Oscar controversies — think “The Color Purple” (1985, lost all 11 nominations it received, including one for Oprah), “Do the Right Thing” (1989, no best picture nod), “Brokeback Mountain” (2005, lost to heavy underdog “Crash”), and “Dreamgirls” (2006, not nominated for best picture or best actress) — pale in comparison.

Photo: Tyler Perry, Oprah Winfrey, and Gabby Sidibe at the Toronto International Film Festival premiere of “Precious.” Credit: C.J. LaFrance (Getty Images North America)