Archive | December, 2007

A FRESH LOOK:
BEST DIRECTOR

27 Dec

BEST DIRECTOR
Projected Nominees
1. Ethan Coen, Joel Coen (No Country for Old Men)
2. Sean Penn (Into the Wild)
3. Joe Wright (Atonement)
4. Ridley Scott (American Gangster)
5. Julian Schnabel (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)
On the Radar
6. Sidney Lumet (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead), 7. Jason Reitman (Juno), 8. Tim Burton (Sweeney Todd), 9. Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton), 10. David Cronenberg (Eastern Promises), 11. Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood), 12. Marc Forster (The Kite Runner), 13. Denzel Washington (The Great Debaters), 14. James Mangold (3:10 to Yuma), 15. Mike Nichols (Charlie Wilson’s War)
Rationale
Much like their film for Picture, the Coen brothers are the only widely agreed upon nominee for Director. It is a little troubling that they collectively have only one previous Director nomination (Joel for Fargo), but it would be nothing short of shocking for them not to show up this time… Sean Penn has never been nominated for his previous directorial effortsThe Indian Runner, The Crossing Guard, or The Pledge—but Into the Wild showed unprecedented ambition and creativity on his part, and was so well-received at its DGA screening that he received a lengthy standing ovation. If they nominate him, he’s in… Wright is an interesting case. Atonement, like his first film, Pride and Prejudice, has been well received by critics, but that did not translate into a nomination last time, and might not this time. He’s only thirty-five, he’s a foreigner, and he’s largely unknown, so it’s not inconceivable that he could be pushed out by bigger name directors. That said, if support for his film is as strong as many suspect, it would be hard to imagine him not getting swept along… After those three, it becomes anybody’s game. My guess is that thrice-nominated veteran Scott has curried enough favor over the years to get in for Gangster, especially because he has yet to win. At the same time, one has to wonder how liked he actually is, since he failed to win the year that his Gladiator did, losing to someone who was competing against himself and presumably split his own vote… Picture and Director usually fail to correspond in at least one instance, and I think Schnabel may be that case this time. It is possible that many other branches will skip Diving Bell, but directors won’t, since Schanbel is such a quirky, unique artistic talent. He has been campaigning hard and the response has been good, thus far, so I’m guessing he will be the odd man in… I would not be shocked, though, to see 83 year old Lumet sneak in. His film is probably too dark and from too small a studio to manage a nod, but this five time nominee and 2004 Honorary Oscar recipient for lifetime achievement has done work that will remind many of his finest from the past, including 12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, and Network… As Juno goes, so goes Reitman, one would think. If the film doesn’t have the support to make the cut, he won’t either. But if Juno catches on, it is not inconceivable that he would ride the wave, as well. The young up-and-comer’s first two films have quickly disspelled suspicions of nepotism being more responsible for his career than talent. Both have won him a ton of respect fromhigh places, and his charming manner on the campaign circuit has wonhim many new fans… Eccentric Burton has a cult-like following that could generate more support than his film, but it has never amounted toenough for a Director nomination, and I have my doubts about his prospects with this one, as well… Maybe the hardest to figure out is Gilroy, who in his debut directorial effort has directed a potential Picture nominee, but who is still seen as more of a writer (Bourne movies) than a director. He probably has to earn his stripes a little more… This brings us to the two auteurs in contention, Cronenberg and Anderson. Cronenberg has built a career and cult-following on his extremely graphic films, but they have often been too much for people. A History of Violence brought him more into the mainstream, and both that film and Eastern have offered violence that seemed less gratuitous than integral to their dark stories. The test for him will be with the DGA—if he wins their support, I think he will be on his way to his first career nomination. Anderson has also never been nominated, despite being regarded as one of the most important and maverick directors of the present day. His films have also probably been too dark for the Academy’s tastes, and barring validation from the DGA, which he has also never before received, he will probably flatline… Finally, the wild cards: Forster specializes in emotionally moving films like Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland, but none of his stories may be as widely known or powerful as The Kite Runner. The problem is features no stars and is largely in a foreign language, meaning he has an uphill climb… Washington’s second directorial will probably go the way his first did five years ago. Antwone Fisher moved audiences, but not voters… Mangold couldn’t get nominated for Walk the Line, which was considered a serious contender all season, so it’s hard to see him getting through for the somewhat resurgent 3:10… And the only thing going for Nichols is that he’s Nichols, meaning he is so respected that everyone will at least check out his film. The problem is that once they do they will be sorely disappointed.

A FRESH LOOK:
BEST PICTURE

26 Dec

BEST PICTURE
Projected Nominees
1. No Country for Old Men (Miramax)
2. Into the Wild (Paramount Vantage)
3. Atonement (Focus Features)
4. American Gangster (Universal)
5. Juno (Fox Searchlight)
On the Radar
6. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Miramax); 7. Michael Clayton (Warner Brothers); 8. Sweeney Todd (DreamWorks); 9. Eastern Promises (Focus Features); 10. There Will Be Blood (Paramount Vantage); 11. The Kite Runner (Paramount Classics); 12. The Great Debaters (Weinstein Company); 13. 3:10 to Yuma (Lionsgate); 14. Ratatouille (Disney); 15. Hairspray (New Line); 16. Charlie Wilson’s War (Universal); 17. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (THINKFilm); 18. Once (Fox Searchlight)
Rationale
There appears to be only one lock for a nomination, and that is No Country for Old Men. It is the only film that has passed every possible precursor test thus far (critics groups, HFPA, SAG), and it shows no signs of slowing down (DGA, PGA). The fact that everyone respects it indicates it will be in the race, but the undeniable anecdotal evidence is that its dark story, troublesome ending, and unclear message prevent many from feeling passionate about it, which may ultimately keep it from winning. … Into the Wild and Atonement, both sweeping epics, will probably get in largely on the backs of guild support (DGA, PGA), and especially voters from the Academy’s technical branches—composers, cinematographers, etc.—for whom they will be especially impressive. Wild should also benefit from the “Crash maxim,” which tells us that a movie featuring a large cast of popular and respected actors will have an edge in a close race because most of the actors’ friends will vote for them. … After those three, it is really anybody’s game, but my educated guess is that American Gangster will ride its strong box-office, SAG support, well known director (DGA will be a key indicator), and minority support to a nod, despite the fact that it is essentially a repackaged version of Scarface and other films like that have tended not to do particularly well with the Academy, largely due to their absence of an important message. … If this is accurate, then there is one spot remaining for, realistically, six films: Juno, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Michael Clayton, Sweeney Todd, Eastern Promises, and There Will Be Blood. I’m fairly sure we can eliminate There Will Be Blood, because while most respect Anderson’s ambition and Day-Lewis’ performance, few are entirely clear on what the movie is actually about on the surface, let alone below it. Also, even in much less competitive years than this, AMPAS has never gone for Anderson’s more accessible stuff (Boogie Nights, Magnolia). … The HFPA and SAG reminded people how much they liked Eastern Promises, and the DGA could certainly give it a major boost by singling out Cronenberg. More likely, though, is that voters will ask themselves if the film really made them think or feel anything, or just entertained. … Sweeney has been tough to read. Tom O’Neil argues we should not read much into its complete SAG shutout due to its late release, but my gut is there is more to it than that. It has done only so-so box office, only 80% of critics liked it, and no precursors championed it. Burton and his films have never been awards magnets, and the fact that this one is periodiocally graphic, and gruesome, and a musical may work on Broadway, but it’s a tough sell for the Academy, especially in a year in which many films tackle topics that seem more socially relevant or ‘important,’ as opposed to pure escapist fun. … This leaves us with one spot up for grabs among Michael Clayton, Diving Bell, and Juno. Candidly, I think any one of the three could snag it without causing too many people to raise an eyebrow. I have to stick with my gut, though, which is that Juno will get in. It is the only one of the whole bunch I’ve mentioned that leaves people feeling, above all, happy. Fairly or unfairly, happiness leads to passionate support—if not from all, then from many—and this is pertinent because voters fill out the five slots on their ballots in order of preference, with spot 1 carrying significantly more weight than spot 5. While most people admire a movie like Clayton, few feel strongly one way or the other about it, meaning it will probably receive scattered 4 and 5 votes; Juno, on the other hand, generates strong opinions—some argue it is a hard-to-believe story featuring overly cutesy dialog, but most cannot help but be charmed by it—and will probably generate many more 1, 2, and 3 votes. We must remember that it doesn’t even need as many votes as a Clayton; it just needs the votes it does receive to be high enough to make up the difference. I think Ebert’s no-holds-barred endorsement will help convince reluctant older voters to give the film a look, and I think the film’s highly impressive box-office and probable Globe win will help convince those who feel torn that it is a legitimate choice. … The big sleeper, of course, is Diving Bell. Those who see it are tremendously impressed, but it remains to be seen how many actually have or will due to its somewhat depressing subject matter and use of subtitles, both of which will unquestionably lead some to take a pass. If enough see it, it might not just get in… it could even win.

THE BLEEDING STARTS

24 Dec

Paramount Vantage has just announced (see video below) that it will host sneak screenings of future cult-favorite There Will Be Blood at midnight on December 29th in twelve major cities: Austin, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, Seattle, Toronto, and Washington, D.C.

alt : http://www.youtube.com/v/fRAWXi2uTf4&rel=1

If you live in Boston but can’t make the December 26th screening, there’s good news: Paramount has offered the Boston-based readers of this web site an opportunity to attend a free special screening on January 3rd at 7pm at the AMC Boston Common. In order to attend, you must reserve a spot in advance—to do so, send an email to scottfeinberg@hotmail.com with your name and email address, and the subject line “TWBB.”


ATWI… INTERVIEW SERIES

24 Dec

<center><b><i>ATWI</i>… INTERVIEW SERIES</b></center>

OLD PAL HAL

DESPITE 65 YEARS OF GREAT PERFORMANCES, HAL HOLBROOK HAS NEVER BEEN NOMINATED FOR AN OSCAR. AT 82, HE IS AS SHARP AS EVER IN INTO THE WILD. IS IT FINALLY HIS TIME?

“I don’t like to get knocked down—matter of fact, I hate it when somebody knocks me down, because when I was a kid I got knocked down a lot, and I didn’t take it easy—and so when that casting director knocked me down, I decided, ‘Screw him. I’ll climb a goddamn mountain.’”
—Hal Holbrook

Many people spend their childhood dreaming of becoming an actor, but from what I understand, acting was the last thing on your mind during your early years. I hope you can tell me about your life before you became an actor, and how one day—at the Culver Military Academy, of all places—you became one…
Yeah. Well, I never even thought of it, you know? I had no idea about such a thing. I was sent away to boys schools when I was seven years old, and mostly, in schools like that, I don’t know, one way or another you get attached to some athletic activity since it’s sort of a basic competition—when you’re in a boys school, you’re, sort of, jammed into a competitive kind of environment, I guess you might say, you know? It’s the essence of it. So, I mean, I got interested in athletics, you know? I was a distance runner, and ran the mile, and all that sort of thing. I was on the boxing team—I got beat up all the time; I was never any good. But, I don’t know, my last year at Culver, because of a situation that came about, I was kind of forced into taking the dramatics class to get one hour of credit so I could graduate—and, you know, with a lot of reluctance, ‘cause I thought these people were all kinda weird, and so did everybody else in the school. And when I got in that group, I found they were more fun than anybody and I really liked them. And, you know, when I went on stage, I suddenly had a wonderful feeling of people listening to me for the first time in my life, and that was the bug that bit me, I guess.

I know you ended up at Denison University, where Edward A. Wright was particularly influential in shaping you as an actor…
Ed Wright was a wonderful teacher. He was a really great teacher, and he became my longtime friend until he passed away. We spread his ashes on the Pacific from my sailboat here when he died—some of us who were his students. He had moved out here and so we were kinda watching over him the last years of his life when he wasn’t in too good shape. He was just this wonderful teacher, you know? He was a wonderful teacher. He didn’t push you into becoming an actor, but he taught you respect for the profession, and respect for the traditions of the theater over many centuries. The first class you had to take for the whole year was called “Introduction to the Theater,” and it was a survey of theater from the time of the caveman all the way up to, you know, John Barrymore. So you had to learn about the history of the theater, and develop some kind of a knowledge of it, and respect for it. I can imagine, from what I observe, most actors today don’t have any relationship at all with that information; they don’t know about it, because they don’t study it.

Actors cite different kinds of techniques—the Method or things like that—that they use to approach a part. I wonder what you draw upon to create a character…
Well, to begin with, it varies somewhat depending upon the role and, you know, what is demanded of it. I mean, if it’s an historical role, if it’s somebody recognizable, like Lincoln, or if it’s somebody out of a historical frame, like some Shakespearean character, then there’s a good deal of research available—research that you can do into the time that the person lived, and the conditions of life surrounding him, as well as his life—you know, wonderful, wonderful fodder, wonderful information for an actor to use in creating a role. When you’re doing a role that doesn’t require any of that because it’s just a person, like Ron Franz in this movie, it’s a different kind of approach. To begin with, my basic method when I get a role is—the first thing I want to do is learn the lines and get it out of the way. I want to learn the lines so well that I never have to think of the lines again because acting is not remembering lines; acting is thinking about what you’re saying. And if you’re worrying about what the next word is, it’s an interruption in the process, and it slows you down. So I get rid of the learning process quick and get it out of the way. And, I don’t know, I think every role requires some kind of a different investigation, because all these characters that you’re asked to play are different—they have a different history. I mean, you have to find out as much as you can about the life of the character and, you know, what kind of condition he’s in. I mean, if it’s a lawyer at a law firm, you know, you have to try to find out what you can about an area of life that you don’t know anything about, you know, ‘cause you’re just an actor. And the more you can find out about the way people behave in a certain profession or a certain way of life, the more interesting the role becomes for you. It’s amazing how you can sometimes, when you’re working on a role, just go out and walk down a street, a busy street—I used to do that in New York—just walk for several blocks down a street, and look at people as you go by, and you see little things they do, or gestures, or attitudes, or whatever. Sooner or later, you’ll see something that you think you can use in the role. You have to go outside yourself and look around at people, and observe people, and even in circumstances that don’t seem like it’s the right place for you to be looking for your character. You’ll find all kinds of little impulses. It’s mainly searching. And it’s not just digging into yourself, which is the basic thing you do when you’re playing a character anyway—you can’t avoid it, you know, you’re using yourself—but to go outside yourself and look for other little impulses that can feed the part. It’s hard to describe. This role, in this movie, was a kind of a different take for me because I decided that I wanted to not characterize the part at all; I just wanted to play myself. I wanted to be just as simple as I could. And the circumstances of the scenes that we did—of the whole segment in the film—the circumstances fed into that; they helped it in this particular role. Because, to begin with, I did not know Emile Hirsch. I met Emile once before we started filming, a couple months before. I met him in Portland, Oregon with Sean. Sean, and Emile, and I had dinner—I was up there doing a job when they were shooting around there—so I met Emile at dinner, and that’s all. And then we got together in the desert later to start our segment, which was about two weeks of work, and it was just the two of us. And the thing was shot mostly in sequence, so Emile and I got to know each other from day to day in more or less the same way that Ron and Chris McCandless got to know each other, you know? We didn’t know each other before we started working, and we kind of got to know each other scene by scene, the same way as they do in the movie. And, you know, that was a big help, because we didn’t put anything in the way of that—it was just who we were, and we were just talking to each other, we weren’t—at least, you know, for my part, I wasn’t characterizing anything. I was trying to figure how to handle this young man, and how to talk to him, and how to, sort of, maybe, give him some advice without intruding on him, and without being too, you know, like, “I know it all.” You know? I realized it was an individual, and getting interested in him, and it was a very man-to-man kind of relationship, and I don’t know—it just happened, without any strain or effort. And Sean is the kind of director that—he’s wonderful—he casts you in the role and leaves you alone.

In another interview, you shared a wonderful story about something that happened on a 1981 television movie, The Killing of Randy Webster, which connects directly to Into the Wild
Well, yeah. In 1980, I did a film—actually, I met Dixie Carter, my wife, on that film—that’s where we met, you know? We played a husband and wife of the boy who was killed by the police down in Houston, and the father particularly spent years trying to prove that his son was killed by the police with a throw-down gun to cover their mistake, and it was true, and it was the first time police in this country had ever been convicted of a throw-down gun situation. And this young man, Sean Penn, was playing a very small role—a friend of our son, you know—and it was a very small part; he had a couple little scenes, as I remember, and Dixie and I would watch him because there something unusual about him. You could see a special talent there, something really unusual, and so we took it upon ourselves to tell him so—we encouraged him. I mean, we told him we thought he was very talented, and I forget what we said to him at the time, but we took time to speak to him a couple of times, and tell him that we thought he, you know, had something special going for him. And so after the film was over, we got a letter from him—and he was a very non-verbal, kind of, quiet person; he was very retiring, very quiet, very modest—and we got a letter thanking us for encouraging him, which is a very unusual thing for someone to do, believe it or not, in this business. And I was so impressed that he did such a thing because it was such a gentlemanly thing to do, it was such a respectful thing to do—it was really just lovely. And, also, something I never forgot was the quality of the writing of the letter, because looking at this young man you never would have dreamed that he would write a letter that was so beautifully written—I mean, literarily speaking, it was a fine piece of writing, so much so that it never left my mind. So years later, when that script was sent to me, and I read it that night, and then the next day I met Sean—that was twenty-six years later—I remembered how beautifully written that letter was because the screenplay for Into the Wild that he wrote is a beautiful piece of writing. It’s a beautiful screenplay, gorgeously put together—it has a real poetic quality in places, and you can’t miss it—I mean, very impressive. The writing, like, of our scenes, you know, is so well done; it’s not overwritten, as so many screenplays are, you know? It’s not over-written. There’s a lot of space left for the audience to do the acting for you, you know? And that’s very important in creating good scenes on film, particularly.

Take me through how Sean Penn came back into your life all those years later—you were sent the script, and then how did you come to be offered the part?
Well, I got a call from my agent that a script was coming from Sean Penn to the house that night, and he wanted to meet me the next day at the bar at the Four Seasons, so I knew that something serious was coming up—I mean, directors don’t ask to meet you and talk to you unless they’re really interested in you. So I read the script—and I’m very patient when I read a script, I don’t rush through it—so it took me a long time to get to my section ‘cause it’s at the end of the story. And I stayed up late, I just read the whole thing, and then the next day I went over and met Sean. And I had seen him twice—we’d never become friends, or associates, or anything like that. Dixie and I had watched his career develop, and all his fighting [laughs], all his eccentric behavior, if you can call it that—whatever, anyways—as he was going along. You know, we watched him with great interest, because we always had a real soft spot for him, and wished him well. But anyway, I had met him a couple of times—I did a low-budget film with his brother, Chris, and at the end of that everybody had a drink with Sean—but other than that, I hadn’t seen him in all that time. So I went over and met, and the first thing I did was tell him how wonderful I thought the writing of the screenplay was, and that I remembered the letter that he had written me—I never forgot how beautifully it was written—and then he told me he would like me to play this part. And I said, “Well, I certainly would love to play it.” And he said, “Do you have anything standing in the way? We’re gonna shoot—” and he gave me the dates. And I said, “If I do, I’ll get rid of it.” [laughs] “I’ll get rid of it.” Because I really wanted to do this role. I could see that it was wonderfully simple—I don’t know how to describe it. It was just a wonderful opportunity. And the whole project, the whole story is so extraordinary, and unusual, and daring. And what he did with it on film, what he did with it, and the editing that they did with it, the re-arranging of the original sequences—it was a very daring kind of a film.

I’d like to seek your opinion about something to do with the characters. People I speak with who have seen the film tend to have really enjoyed it but are very divided in how they feel about the character of Chris McCandless. Some people feel he is almost unforgivably selfish, in a way, from running away from not only a perfectly good life, but also from anyone who ever came to love him, including Ron. My suspicion, though, is that you, like your character, may be more sympathetic towards him, because I’ve read that you did some adventurous and maybe irrational things when you were a younger man, as did your son, which leads me to believe that you might understand Chris’ motivations better than others…
Well, I think maybe I do, simply because most people don’t have an opportunity—or they don’t take the opportunity if it comes along—to do the kind of out-on-the-edge things that Chris did, and which, frankly, I have done a few times in my life, more than once. And it’s an impulse that a person has. The impulse can be driven by various internal forces in your mind and in your emotional makeup, but what those impulses do is they make you want to go out and risk yourself, go out and takes risks. And I suppose you’re kind of looking for something—there’s always a reason—you can get poetic about it if you want to, but usually you don’t spend much time getting poetic about it, you know? I mean, the first time I did something really wild, you know—into the wild, you might say—was I just wanted to go skiing, and I had a little money for the first time in my life, I had ten days off from a show, so I wanted to go skiing, and the only place I could ski in September was on the glaciers of Mount Rainier and Mount Shasta. I had a friend in San Francisco, so I went to Mount Shasta, and I spent four days up there all alone on the mountain—there was nobody up there. You know, I don’t know what they’ve got up there now—they’ve probably got a Dairy Queen or something—but this was 1954, and there was nothing there except grizzly bears and all, you know, whatever kind of bears there were, I don’t know, and a Sierra Club hut at eight thousand feet. And, hell, I didn’t even know how to make a fire, really, you know? So I spent four days up there, and I found right away that trying to ski on the glacier was death defying because it’s white ice, you know? I didn’t know what a glacier was—it’s hard, white ice, and if you fall you just keep sliding down until you go into a swale, which is like a ravine, and then when the snow disappears and the glacier disappears you hit the rocks. So, I mean, it’s a good way to kill yourself, you know? [laughs] So I didn’t do too much skiing; I decided I wanted to climb the mountain—it’s fourteen thousand one hundred sixty two feet. And, you know, I got up about eleven and a half thousand feet on the glacier and passed out—you know, I did the whole Jack London thing, you know, “I’ll do five more steps, then three more steps,” and the next thing I knew I woke up, and I decided that was it. [laughs] I wasn’t gonna go any higher, any more, so I went back. So, anyway, I was frightened to death, but I was driven by an impulse to do it because I wanted— What had happened that created this trip— I was on a soap opera , a television soap opera—radio and television—in 1954. And I’d had, you know—like, the main story was me for eight months or something, and then I had a couple of weeks off. And, at that time, I was trying to get a job on a good evening job, one of the wonderful, you know, big-time dramatic things in the evening—you know, Studio One and all that kind of stuff, you know, that was on television in those days, with wonderful writers and directors. And, you know, it was very hard if you were in a soap, because anybody in a soap was looked down on, you know, like it was really third-class stuff. So I’d gone down 57th Street to CBS—I was on their network—I had a meeting with the casting director. And he really resulted—he really insulted me—and dismissed me with disdain. Humiliated me. I walked out of that place, and walked up 57th Street to 7th Avenue, on the corner where there was a Cadillac agency with a big picture window on the northeast corner. And I stood in front of it, and a young couple was standing inside looking at this beautiful Cadillac roadster, you know, with the top down, you know, gorgeous car, a lot of chromium. They were walking around, and I found myself look at them and thinking, “I can’t buy a car, but I could take a vacation. I could go somewhere.” I said, “What do I want to do now more than anything else? Well, I love skiing.” I did a lot of skiing in those days. I said, “I want to go skiing.” It was September. So I went to a ski shop, and I found the only places I could ski would be on the glaciers out west or in Peru—and that was, like, seven hundred and fifty bucks, and I couldn’t afford it, so I bought a ticket to San Francisco. I went home and I told my first wife, Ruby, that I was leaving the next day for San Francisco [laughs] to go up and spend several days on the mountain; she was so flabbergasted she didn’t know what to say. So I left. But, see, what drove me to do that was somebody knocked me down, and I don’t like to get knocked down—matter of fact, I hate it when somebody knocks me down, because when I was a kid I got knocked down a lot, and I didn’t take it easy—and so when that casting director knocked me down, I decided, “Screw him. I’ll climb a goddamn mountain.” So, I mean, if you want to track the impulse there, it’s pretty simple! [laughs]

Sure. But that still begs the question: While you had a specific incident that propelled you to do that, it seemed to a lot of people who saw Into the Wild that Chris McCandless’ life wasn’t so bad, and it seemed almost irrational for him to do what he did—not only leaving his family, which is one thing, but also all these people who he met along the way, including Ron. However strong the impulse might have been, it’s almost heartless to leave all the people who love you, isn’t it?
Well, you know, I think the reason a lot of people have difficulty accepting what he did is that they don’t really understand how deeply he felt about the way of life that he was being asked to follow. I mean, that’s something that I can relate to. We have a bigger, more superficial way of life in this country. For me, the way of life right now in this country—we’re not serving people, we’re serving ourselves. We’re very selfish. We’re all wound up in little toys, you know? Laptops, blogs, looking at screens. People don’t really talk to each other anymore; they just jabber. There’s a superficiality that has taken over our society, particularly in the last twenty or thirty years, and it’s helped and inspired by the so-called ‘electronic revolution.’ [laughs] You know, the joke is that this is a communication revolution, but there’s less communication between human beings. Human beings are not taking time to just look at each other, and talk to each other, and get simple and basic, and that’s very much a part of the society you and I are living in right now—I gather you get a sense of it yourself. And this young man was deeply affected by that, and that is what most people don’t, perhaps, understand, because they don’t feel it themselves, because they’re not looking deep enough, maybe, or they don’t want to, or whatever. This young man was deeply affected by the society and the way of life that he saw surrounding him, and closing in on him, and the path that he was asked to follow. He did not want to follow that. He wanted to seek something simpler, and cleaner, and more basic, and more personal, that he could personally feel related to, and that is what he did.

I felt that despite their differences in age and other things, your character understands Chris better than anyone else. Watching that wonderful scene in the jeep—I heard you guys did it in one take, which is unbelievable—I got the sense that if your character was a little younger, he might actually have gone along with Chris on that journey…
Well, he might have! You know, Ron Franz was knocked down badly when he lost his wife and son in that terrible way, and when he got out of the army he decided to hide out. He isolated himself. Maybe, in the beginning, he thought this was kind of a searching idea, but it didn’t end up being that way. He isolated himself on the edge of the Salton Sea, and he became stuck in one place. And this young man comes along and excites his imagination because the young man is gonna travel, the young man is looking for something. I never took much time to analyze the role that way; I just responded to what I saw going on with Emile, and whatever was natural in me—I mean, I don’t have to work hard to dig up these feelings, as you can tell. [laughs] These feelings are all right under the skin for me, you know? All these feelings that I have— I mean, I can get very grouchy about the world I’m living in because I’m dissatisfied with it—I’m not dissatisfied with the life I have here with my wife, a wonderful, dear, wonderful, wonderful woman; I’m dissatisfied with the way I see the world going. I don’t just mean the war in Iraq; I mean everything. I’m eighty-two years old. I’ve lived a long time. You know, I’ve made all kinds of mistakes—every mistake you can think of, I’ve been there and done that—you know, I’ve been there and done that! But you can’t get to be eighty-two years old with your brain still working and not realize that a lot of the stuff that’s changed in our way of life along the way of eighty-two years—it ain’t working. There’s something wrong somewhere. There’s a combination that’s gotten outta whack. And I’m bothered by it. Thank God I have the Mark Twain show because I can go out and machine-gun, you know, some of the idiocy I see in the world because he’s got all the bullets there in his writing, you know what I mean? So I think what Chris McCandless did was heartless, as far as his family is concerned. It was heartless—it’s true. The thing is the film is very challenging because it’s not an easy take. There is no real specific answer of right and wrong in what he did. Yes, it was heartless for him to go and never contact his parents—very heartless. But you have to realize that means there was some kind of a deep, submerged anger going on there, you know? There had to be. But that anger was fueling something else: he sought a kind of freedom. He sought freedom.

Is that also why your character would climb that hill, even though it’s irrational?
Yeah. You know, I mean, you know, I’m not dead! You know? I mean, some kid would say, “Oh, you’re just an old guy.” “Screw you, I’m not! Get outta the way!” You know, I’m not gonna lay down and die—I mean, when I’m forced, up against the wall, you know? [laughs] So there’s a fire still burning in this guy. And he knows that this young man is headed for terrible risk and that he may not make it.

And that’s the last scene in the jeep, right?
Yeah. And in that scene in the jeep, you know— I didn’t think that deep about it because it was just natural. In a way—it sounds funny—but it was an easy scene to play because it was just beautifully written, because it was underwritten, and it was very true. And the essence there is that I know I’m gonna be turned down. That’s what’s underneath it. I know I’m gonna be turned down.

So why ask?
I can’t stop myself. I know I shouldn’t have said what I did, but I had to say something—I couldn’t stop myself. I knew I was gonna get turned down. And I think that’s what plays under what the character’s doing there. It makes it something we can all—I don’t know how to explain these things. [laughs]

A lot of people—especially your fellow actors—are shocked when they learn that despite the fact that you have given so many great performances on film, you have never even been nominated for an Academy Award. This year, many people believe not only that that, at the very least, is going to happen, but that you also stand a great chance of winning—which, not that anyone’s counting, would make you the oldest actor to win an Oscar in history. What would that outcome mean to you at this stage? I’m sure you don’t need the validation to know that you’ve done great work, but what would it represent to you? And is it something you allow yourself to get hopeful or excited about because it does seem like a very real possibility finally?
Well, it would be one of the greatest things that ever happened in my life, frankly, Scott, because I’ve lived a long time, I’ve been actor for sixty-five years, and to be recognized at this stage of my life and my career—especially for a role like this, that has nothing to do with the Mark Twain imprimatur, the mantra, or whatever they say, that word, you know, that’s been attached to me all these years, but for something so different. It would mean more than I can say. It would be—just—it would be a miracle. It would be a miracle. And it’s very hard to keep your head straight at a time like this, when these possibilities are being brought forward, you know, when you know that there’s a possibility, because you get into a kind of a thing that takes you away from what you really did. And what we have to remember, when we’re in this kind of a whirl— You’re sucked into, you know? You can’t help it. You go over, in your mind, at night, sometimes, when you’re trying to go to sleep, what you might say if you won, because it becomes very important—the people you want to thank, what you want to say—you want to say it right. You know, I really want to thank people, you know? And you get into a whirl, but it’s very important to remember that what you did was a good piece of work that you can be proud of, that people really took to their heart. That is what’s important. Winning or losing is not as important as that. And yet it’s very difficult because, as I say, you know, you get sucked into it. I mean, you look around, you go through the news. I just went through, I don’t know, the LA Times, the New York Times—we get ‘em both in the morning—you know, it’s one page after another. Full-page ads. All these pictures that have been opened in the last few weeks or months, you know, the new ones—Sweeney Todd. And all these actors that are up—high-powered actors—that are up for awards, and I’m against some of them, you know? I mean, the chances of squeezing through this powerful crowd with an award is a miracle! [laughs] It’s a miracle, Scott.

Well, not that you need advice from me, but I guess the one thing I would say is that—as you hinted at—it’s not the measure of an actor whether or not they’ve won an Oscar, because so many of our greatest actors—Cary Grant, and the list goes on—never won an Oscar. And you’re right that it’s so political, and so much about glad-handing, and who can take photos with the most number of people, or do the most things, and so it often ends up being that the best performances or the best films are not the ones recognized. So while I am hopeful for you here, and while I know that it must be very exciting, I hope you won’t allow them to define how good or not good you are, because people in the real world are not the same people in the Academy, and many of them have already awarded you with a real place in their hearts that a lot of people who do win Oscars will never have. So, for whatever it counts, I just wanted to say that…
Well, thank you. I really appreciate you saying that, and I think you’re absolutely right. And I do know—I do know, from the way people stop me on the street now and tell me about what they feel about this performance. And it means everything in the world to me.

Well, I want to thank you for the interview and for so many performances—I know that when I think of Deep Throat, I don’t think of Mark Felt; I think of Hal Holbrook!
Thank you, Scott.

THE STATE OF THE RACE

22 Dec

The following projections are by no means scientific and are arrived at through
a variety of means, including advance screenings and insights from trusted industry sources.
As always, your comments are welcomed.
(Positive momentum) (Negative momentum) NEW (New to the category)

BEST PICTURE
Projected Nominees
(1) Juno (Fox Searchlight)
(2) No Country for Old Men (Miramax)
(3) Atonement (Focus Features)
(4) Into the Wild (Paramount Vantage)
(5) The Diving Bell and Butterfly (Miramax)
Major Threats
(6) American Gangster (Universal)
(7) Michael Clayton (Warner Brothers)
(8) The Kite Runner (Paramount Classics)
(9) Sweeney Todd (DreamWorks)
(10) There Will Be Blood (Paramount Vantage)
(11) Eastern Promises (Focus Features)
(12) The Great Debaters (The Weinstein Company)
In the Mix
(13) Charlie Wilson’s War (Universal)
(14) 3:10 to Yuma (Lionsgate)
(15) Hairspray (New Line)
(16) Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (THINKFilm)
(17) Ratatouille (Disney)
(18) Once (Fox Searchlight)

BEST DIRECTOR
Projected Nominees
(1) Ethan Coen, Joel Coen (No Country for Old Men)
(2) Joe Wright (Atonement)
(3) Sean Penn (Into the Wild)
(4) Julian Schnabel (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)
(5) Ridley Scott (American Gangster)
Major Threats
(6) Sidney Lumet (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead)
(7) Jason Reitman (Juno)
(8) Tim Burton (Sweeney Todd)
(9) Marc Forster (The Kite Runner)
(10) Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood)
In the Mix
(11) Mike Nichols (Charlie Wilson’s War)
(12) David Cronenberg (Eastern Promises)
(13) Denzel Washington (The Great Debaters)

(14) Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton)

BEST ACTOR
Projected Nominees
(1) Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)
(2) Johnny Depp (Sweeney Todd)
(3) George Clooney (Michael Clayton)
(4) Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises)
(5) Ryan Gosling (Lars and the Real Girl)
Major Threats
(7) Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild)
(8) Frank Langella (Starting Out in the Evening)
(9) Denzel Washington (American Gangster)
(10) James McAvoy (Atonement)
(11) Tommy Lee Jones (In the Valley of Elah)
In the Mix
(12) Tom Hanks (Charlie Wilson’s War)
(13) John Cusack (Grace Is Gone)
(14) Jack Nicholson (The Bucket List)
(15) Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Savages)
(16) Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men)

BEST ACTRESS
Projected Nominees
(1) Ellen Page (Juno)
(2) Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose)
(3) Julie Christie (Away from Her)
(4) Angelina Jolie (A Mighty Heart)
(5) Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
Major Threats
(6) Keira Knightley (Atonement)
(7) Laura Linney (The Savages)
(8) Amy Adams (Enchanted)
(9) Helena Bonham Carter (Sweeney Todd)
In the Mix
(10) Tang Wei (Lust, Caution)
(11) Halle Berry (Things We Lost in the Fire)
(12) Keri Russell (Waitress)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Projected Nominees
(1) Hal Holbrook (Into the Wild)
(2) Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)
(3) Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton)
(4) Casey Affleck (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford)
(5) Tommy Lee Jones (No Country for Old Men)
Major Threats
(6) Philip Seymour Hoffman (Charlie Wilson’s War)
(7) John Travolta (Hairspray)
In the Mix
(8) Philip Bosco (The Savages)
(9) Max von Sydow (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)
(10) Paul Dano (There Will Be Blood)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Projected Nominees

(1) Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone)
(2) Cate Blanchett (I’m Not There)
(3) Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton)
(4) Jennifer Garner (Juno)
(5) Ruby Dee (American Gangster)
Major Threats
(6) Saoirse Ronan (Atonement)
(7) Catherine Keener (Into the Wild)
(8) Vanessa Redgrave (Atonement)
In the Mix
(8) Marisa Tomei (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead)
(9) Kelly MacDonald (No Country for Old Men)
(10) Jennifer Jason Leigh (Margot at the Wedding)
(11) Leslie Mann (Knocked Up)
(12) Tabu (The Namesake)

OOPS SHE DID IT AGAIN

21 Dec

Vanessa Redgrave (Atonement) helps bail out al Qaeda suspects? Probably not too good for her Oscar prospects…

VIGGO ON AWARDS

20 Dec

My recently-posted interview with Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises), who was today nominated for Best Actor by the Screen Actors Guild, is generating an unusually high number of hits and links from Viggo fan siteshe is a quiet, humble, soft-spoken guy and a terrific, underrated actor, and there is clearly a groundswell of support from people who hope to see him pick up his first career Oscar nomination. People seem to be paying particular attention to the portion of our chat where he addressed his thoughts on awards. Some suspected that he hurt his standing with the Academy when he rejected their invitation in 2004 to become a voting member, so I asked him about:

One last thing that occurs to me: I remember that in 2004, after The Lord of the Rings, you had been invited to join the Academy, but declined. Now, with Oscar buzz surrounding another performance, I’m sure a question will be whether or not you are amenable to awards, or do you share Marlon Brando’s idea—
No, no. I mean, look, first of all, I haven’t any—much of any—experience with that. I mean, I was pleasantly surprised to hear, a week or two ago, that I had won an award in England for the British Independent Film Award—Best Actor, you know, and against some really fine actors over there. And that was a very nice surprise. I couldn’t go ‘cause I was in New Mexico shooting Appaloosa; I would have gone had I been able to. I was nominated for Spain’s equivalent of the Oscar for Alatriste, also, earlier in the year. And I was able to get that Sunday to go and come back on the Monday morning. David gave me permission—I was shooting Eastern Promises at the time—and I went. Didn’t win, but I went. So my feeling about it is I’m not gonna go just to go to one of those things. I think it just seems like a terrifying thing. But if you’re nominated, I think, in my opinion, you know, you go. And if I were, I would be flattered, and grateful, and all that—even knowing that it’s kind of a crapshoot, and a lot of mediocre gets recognized, for some reason, above other stuff that should be, including, say, David Cronenberg, who’s never been nominated, which I find puzzling, or Tim Burton. I mean, Werner Herzog probably won’t get nominated for Rescue Dawn, but he should, as should some of the actors, but they probably won’t. I guess the best way to describe it would be to quote, you know, of all people, Winston Churchill—and I’m not a big fan of his, by the way. I know that he was a pioneer in promoting the aerial bombing—just to try out the equipment, basically, in the 1920s—aerial bombing of Iraqi civilians. So he did, you know, a lot of good things that he’s remembered for—said a lot of good things, anyway—but he also did a lot of bad things, so I have mixed feelings about him. But one thing he said about medals—his thoughts on medals—which you could apply if you just change the word ‘medals’ for ‘awards’—he said something that I think I agree with, which is: “Never seek them. Always accept them. Never wear them.” And so that’s how I feel about it. If it happens, fine.

THE VOTER WITHIN

20 Dec

I recently emailed a friend, who is an Academy member and Oscar-winning screenwriter, seeking his current views on the awards race. Here, in its entirety, is what he volunteered:

Remind me again after the nominations. I’ve only seen a few of the films so far.

From the few I’ve seen, I’d be q. content if Juno got the prize for Original Script. But maybe something’s better.

More & more, they are playing for that first big weekend… which can only be due to anticipation, not exactly merit… Will Smith as the last guy on Earth just broke the record. That doesn’t mean the movie was a bad one, however… just mildly prejudices me against it.

SAG POST-MORTEM

20 Dec

It is no overstatement to say that the Screen Actors Guild nominations this morning have completely shaken up the Oscar race. We can now assume that several key players in the race who were once thought to be safe may, in fact, be in trouble, including: Atonement‘s young foreign stars, James McAvoy and Keira Knightley, young unknown, Saoirse Ronan, and old well-known, Vanessa Redgrave; leading men Denzel Washington (American Gangster) and Johnny Depp (Sweeney Todd); and Charlie Wilson’s War supporting standout Philip Seymour Hoffman. For a number of others, though, we can also conclude that there is more support than we had anticipated, including: superstar Angelina Jolie; the films 3:10 to Yuma and Hairspray; actors’ actors Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) and Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises); and supporting players Tommy Lee Jones (No Country for Old Men) and Catherine Keener (Into the Wild). Here is a comment or two about the results from each category, along with the results of my predictions, which turned out to be a pretty accurate forecast overallRuby Dee, Ryan Gosling, Cate Blanchett’s lead nomwith the exception of the big surprises in the Best Ensemble category, which nobody saw coming

Best Ensemble (3/5; missed 3:10 to Yuma and Hairspray): This is a bizarre list, to say the least, but I guess it shows that casting a wide and early net with DVD screeners really works. It’s hard to argue with No Country or Into the Wild, which are the clear favorites at this point, or American Gangster, which is a solid choice… but yes to the largely forgotten 3:10 to Yuma and underwhelming Hairspray, and no to the front-running Atonement, hyped Sweeney Todd, and ensemble-epitomizing Juno? Weird. What we can deduce from this is that No Country is as strong as ever and is in for a nomination, as if there was ever much doubt about that. Into the Wild, which took a PR hit from its Globes snubs, rebounded strongly with a nominee in every category in which it was eligible, and is also probably in. I don’t think we can conclude that American Gangster is a sure bet, though, since its leading men failed to make the cut (although supporting player Ruby Dee got a career nod). I think this is the end of the line for the other two—and much further along than they or their people ever thought they’d make it. With the Academy, look for Atonement to bounce back thanks to the support it will have across the branches, and then bank on a dogfight for the remaining two spots between Juno, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Michael Clayton, and perhaps Sweeney Todd. (There Will Be Blood has not gone over as well with non-critics and The Kite Runner has failed to amass any precursor attention, and so both have probably fallen out of the Best Pic mix.)

Best Actor (3/5; missed Emile Hirsch for Into the Wild and Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises): As with Best Picture, we can now go ahead and project two locks: Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood) and George Clooney (Michael Clayton, a first-time SAG nominee for a film role). The biggest shocker is the absence of Depp, whose fellow actors loved him enough just four years ago to give him the SAG Award over Oscar favorites Sean Penn and Bill Murray… and for Pirates of the Caribbean! I think Depp will still get in with the Academy, but I’m not so sure about the other big snubee of the category, Denzel Washington. Washington has never been a favorite of SAG (only two career noms and zero wins from them, as opposed to five noms and two wins from the Academy), but his movie made the Best Ensemble cut, so what happened? One can reasonably surmise that Denzel and co-star Russell Crowe split each other’s vote, with Crowe’s further split by the apparent support for 3:10, and unless Universal does something quickly and visibly to clarify whether or not Crowe is lead or supporting, this same thing will happen at the Oscars. This opens the door for some surprise possibilites, including the three highly-deserving young actors with whom SAG opted to go, each of whose performance has a built in Oscar selling point: Ryan Gosling (mental illness), Viggo Mortensen (foreign language), and Emile Hirsch (weight loss). All three basically stand an equally good chance at making the final cut, although one could fall victim to the Academy’s older demographic, which might instead opt for Frank Langella (Starting Out in the Evening) or, less likely now, Tommy Lee Jones (In the Valley of Elah).

Best Actress (4/5; missed Angelina Jolie for A Mighty Heart): There’s no getting around that this is very troubling news for Keira Knightley (Atonement), and nothing short of terrible news for Laura Linney (The Savages). Knightley has some reason for hope, though, since she was also passed over by SAG last year for her perf in Pride and Prejudice, but subsequently received an Oscar nod. Both times Linney has been Oscar-nominated, though, it was preceded by SAG recongition, and she really needed this to gain some traction, as well as personal motivation to keep up the good fight on the campaign trail. The big winner, obviously, is Jolie, who looks like a safer bet than ever on the heels of her Globes nom and now this. So what are we looking at? Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, and Julie Christie are all in. Angie is probably in the four slot. And that fifth spot is down to Knightley and the woman who we have all been underestimating as a Best Actress candidate, Blanchett. Knightley’s film will get a lot of other nominations, so she could ride those coattails to a nod even though her performance in the film is relatively small, but like SAG, I think the Academy might very well go with Blanchett (Elizabeth: The Golden Age) out of pure respect for the actress and not this specific performance or film. I think SAG’s announcement pretty much puts an end to the notion that the fun but lightweight performance of Amy Adams (Enchanted) could make the cut. For similar reasons, it is also probably the end of the game for Helena Bonham Carter (Sweeney Todd), the only other anticipated threat.

Best Supporting Actor (5/5; missed none): The only thing that caught some people off guard here was the absence of Philip Seymour Hoffman for his colorful performance in Charlie Wilson’s War—Hoffman is a brilliant actor and was the highlight of the film, but the problem, people, is that the movie sucked and, unlike the HFPA, SAG members are not easily blinded by starlight. Instead, they went for a nitty, gritty performance from Tommy Lee Jones (No Country for Old Men) in a film they clearly adored. The only reason some people have been reluctant to project Jones as a likely supporting nominee is that his co-star Bardem is a lock for a slot in the final five, and many questioned if the movie had enough support to carry Jones in, as well. We now know it does. Barring any unforseen developments, I think that the Academy will match SAG’s choices in this category: Bardem is in. Holbrook is in. Wilkinson is in. You’ve gotta think that Casey Affleck is in. And as for the fifth spot? Philip Bosco (The Savages) and Max von Sydow (The Diving Bell and the Buterfly) were the old-timer options other than Holbrook, and neither showed up anywhere, so they are in all likelihood done, and Paul Dano (There Will Be Blood), a younger alternative, did his best but was clearly outclassed by Day-Lewis, so he also appears to be done. All of this means that the Academy can either give their final supporting slot to John Travolta for his awkward, cross-dressing performance in Hairspray (which even SAG didn’t do, despite liking the movie enough to give it a Best Ensemble nod); Philip Seymour Hoffman for his twitchy, quirky turn in a disaster of a movie; or Tommy Lee Jones for his quiet, understated, powerful performance in No Country, which would also probably have to suffice as all the acknowledgment he is going to get for his other fine performance this year in In the Valley of Elah. I’m thinking Jones.

Best Supporting Actress (4/5; missed Catherine Keener for Into the Wild): The choices here are more interesting than surprising. Coming into this, we already knew that Ryan and and Blanchett are in. You had to suspect Tilda Swinton’s chances were good, but there was a seed of doubt because despite being a serious actor she has never before been personally nominated by SAG, let alone the Academy. Now, with the widespread support of Michael Clayton and SAG’s support of her, one has to believe that Swinton is in. Then there were some question marks. What would happen with the Atonement ladies, younger Saoirse Ronan and older Vanessa Redgrave? Would Saoirse’s youth (not to mention her unpronounceability) hurt her? Would Redgrave’s part be considered too small? (SAG did nominate Judi Dench for her small bit in Shakespeare in Love…) For whatever reasons—very possibly because they canceled each other out—neither made the cut. Instead, we had Ruby Dee, who surprised a number of people, but who I anticipated for a few reasons: first, she was authentic enough in a small part; second, we know from recent history that SAG members like to trot out an acting legend for a ‘tribute’ nomination, of sorts, even for a rather insignificant performance (James Garner for The Notebook, Cloris Leachman for Spanglish, etc.); third, she is a hero to many actors, and particularly to many minority members of SAG whose path she helped pave; and, fourth, we knew SAG liked her and her late husband Ossie Davis enough to present them with the SAG Lifetime Achievement Award just six years ago. The biggest surprise, though not entirely unanticipated, is seeing Catherine Keener show up. Actors adore her—though she only had one previous Globe nomination, she has twice been an Oscar nominee, and I cannot tell you how many actresses I speak with who cite her as a personal favorite. That fifth spot was strongly coveted by Jennifer Garner (Juno), but she realistically was always a long shot—yes, she was a four time Globe nominee and one time winner for her work on TV’s Alias, but she still has dues to pay as a film actress. I would not at all rule her out at the Oscars, though. Beyond her, I don’t see many other potential threats. This was the last best shot for Kelly MacDonald (No Country for Old Men), Marisa Tomei (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Margot at the Wedding), Leslie Mann (Knocked Up), Tabu (The Namesake), Romola Garai (Atonement), and Michelle Pfeiffer (Hairspray), and so it looks like it will be SAG’s five trying to hold off the Atonement ladies and Ben Affleck’s wife come Oscar time.

SAG NOMINEES

20 Dec

BEST ENSEMBLE
3:10 to Yuma (Lions Gate)
American Gangster (Universal)
Hairspray (New Line)
Into the Wild (Paramount Vantage)
No Country for Old Men (Miramax)

BEST ACTOR
Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)
George Clooney (Michael Clayton)
Ryan Gosling (Lars and the Real Girl)
Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild)
Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises)

BEST ACTRESS
Julie Christie (Away from Her)
Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose)
Angelina Jolie (A Mighty Heart)
Ellen Page (Juno)
Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth: The Golden Age)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Casey Affleck (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford)
Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)
Hal Holbrook (Into the Wild)
Tommy Lee Jones (No Country for Old Men)
Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Cate Blanchett (I’m Not There)
Ruby Dee (American Gangster)
Catherine Keener (Into the Wild)
Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone)
Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton)