Reviews: Blue Valentine

It took ten years for director Derek Cianfrance's vision of Blue Valentine to come to the screen. After every grueling day of filming, it is reported that Michelle Williams would scream throughout the entire car ride home from set. Though its sex scenes were relatively tame, they were still viscerally affecting enough to earn it an NC-17 rating from the MPAA — usually reserved for the most extreme of content. Though filmed in a vérité style, the film is as cinematic as it is blisteringly real. It's a film that grabs you by your throat, and refuses to let go.

Some average moviegoers will take a look at the trailer and wonder what it's about. Well, the story line is really rather simple. It's an examination of a couple, played by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, jumping back and forth between past, at the start of their relationship, and present, as it crumbles apart. It's a character study, and the character is the marriage between Gosling's Dean and Williams' Cindy. It would do you an injustice for me to give away too much of the details of how the film unfolds, because a lot of the film's greatness lies in its little pieces. The details. Small and large puzzle pieces alike of this mosaic of a contemporary married couple, and you as an audience are trusted to place the pieces together as you see it and come to your own conclusions of the characters' situation.

Many of these pieces are offered by the two central performances by Gosling and Williams. Both play their parts with the honest and often unsettling realism of the rest of the film. Between the two of them, it's almost four performances you're really looking at — one for each of them in their youth as well as them slightly older. Ryan Gosling's first performance is that of a young man from a broken past who manages to remain as idealistic and joyful in his youth as he is a thick-skinned and hard worker. At his core, though, he's a man who aims to please — whether in the loving care that he took to decorate the nursing home room of the old war veteran he helped move in or the exuberance in which he romantically serenaded Cindy with his songs, and it's that natural tendency in him for love that we see remain most strongly when we shift to the present. We see how torn apart he is over the loss of the family dog, we see just how fantastic of a father he is to their daughter Frankie, and we see how devoted he is to keeping this marriage alive. On the outside, though, he carries the air of a broken man. We see the physicality in which Gosling got balder and fatter, but his ambitions have greatly lowered and he hardly sees himself getting much further in life than he is at this point. Gosling is said to have based his performance upon imitating writer/director Cianfrance, thereby offering perhaps what could be the more relatable side in the movie to more people by playing his role in the same eyes as the film is directed in.

But I would assert that just his equal is Michelle Williams as Cindy. Williams had some added difficulties in being the much less mature half in the portrayal of her character's high school years — not to mention the trauma inflicted upon her then — to being the more mature half in the present. She constantly berates Dean when simply being playful with Frankie, as she doesn't "want to have to clean up after two kids." She is faced with mounting pressures from her demanding nursing job, not to mention her home life with Dean where their marriage is very clearly on the rocks. Williams does a brilliant job filling in the gaps of what may seem like questionable judgment on the page of the script. How can she possibly let go of such a great father to her child? Why such a change of heart? How did she get so mature? How did she end up going through with keeping her baby?

Of course, I do give a lot of the credit to Ms. Williams for taking on these challenges and giving in a performance as thoughtfully well rounded and emotionally affecting as Gosling. And, by the end of the film, I did feel like I could perfectly understand both sides to their stories. In fact, possibly the greatest strength and testament to the effectiveness of their performances is how well they worked in harmony with one another (or appropriate lack thereof). Their chemistry was real, almost undeniable, and their interactions with each other carry the weight of their past experiences with one another and how central the other has been in their lives. But a lot of the credit, for all of these accomplishments, also deserves to go to the enormously accomplished screenplay. The film is really quite revolutionary, as far as I've seen, in the way it depicts real life topics like abortion and human sexuality with a frank and refreshing honesty. Whether it's Dean moaning that he deserves a little more affection or how in-your-face and truly horrifying the actual procedure of an abortion is displayed (as opposed to the "pro-life" argument framing it as an "easy way out" of sorts). The depiction of a high school pregnancy was also one shown with a refreshing honesty that neither glamorized it nor demonized it. It simply was what it was, just as everything else seen in the film, which is its strongest attribute.

And the whole thing made for cinema as compelling as it can be. And that's the thing — it is truly cinematic. The performances pulled from the actors themselves seem like enough evidence for Cianfrance's directorial breakthrough without even mentioning the performance from child actress Faith Wladyka, the best since Justin Henry in Kramer vs. Kramer. But whether it be from the crisp cinematography that could at one moment elate you as it breaks you the next, or the jump cut editing between the present and past, it is a film that truly captures the delicate balance possible between a blistering realism and truly visual cinema. There were points during the film where I had suddenly realized how literally breathless I was, and for how long. For the two hour running time of the film, I had forgotten that I had to go to the bathroom beforehand. When the two hour running time had finished, much sooner than I had expected it to, there was a palpable sense of devastation in the audience I saw it with. You could feel it. It was a knockout. Read more!

Meet the Contenders: Andrew Garfield in "The Social Network"

When we first meet Andrew Garfield's character Eduardo Saverin, he asks his best (and virtually only) friend Mark how he's doing. He had read his blog post that he had broken up with his girlfriend that night, and he assures Mark that he's there for him. This sets up the character of Eduardo, whom Aaron Sorkin introduces in the script as "a sweet looking Brazilian sophomore who almost always wears a three-piece suit." It is safe to conclude that Sorkin draws him as easily the most sympathetic character in his behemoth achievement of screenwriting, regardless of whether or not you believe his side is right or wrong. The case could very easily be made that his side is wrong, or perhaps simply undeserving of the hefty cash settlement his character likely received. Frankly, he was naïve; he tackled a revolutionary and visionary concept with old-fashioned and traditional business methods he had picked up in his Harvard education. He couldn't comprehend the capacity of facebook's potential nor it's viral nature. Thus, as Mark had warned, he got left behind.

Andrew Garfield's performance leaves room for such judgments to be made. He allows himself to be imperfect — extraordinary in his own right, but human enough to have flaws like any other. His Eduardo is brimming with humanity, bursting at the seams with love, affection, self-conscious insecurity, desire, envy, possessiveness, puerility, motivation, and some social ineptitude. Any actor could have coasted to a great performance with the character offered by Sorkin's script, but it's Andrew Garfield who takes charge to make Eduardo as fleshed out living, breathing, and humane character on every level possible. He ultimately takes the character of Eduardo from written to wholly emotional, and he does so with a searing realism. He disappears under this character with ease. Some have even said that where Jesse Eisenberg is William H. Macy delivering the distinctly wordy dialogue of David Mamet with a Shakespearean cadence where it concerns Sorkin's screenplay, that Andrew Garfield is Al Pacino in Glengarry Glen Ross — reading off the trademark dialogue in a way that still sounds wholly his own and that you'd attribute strictly to the character more than its inceptor.

That is to both of their credit. Andrew Garfield's performance wouldn't work without Jesse Eisenberg's to play against. We need to see Saverin's offer of love and support in the beginning of the movie to be met with Mark's cold dismissiveness. We need to see Eduardo time and time again reach out emotionally to Mark with little in return. One could theoretically assert that Eduardo is actually in love with Mark, who does not share his affection. At least, that's to the extent to which we see Eduardo lend his whole love and his whole self to Mark with a devotion and trust that make his end betrayal particularly heartbreaking. This is evidenced the petty bitterness and jealousy that he venomously directs at Justin Timberlake's Shaun Parker when he manages to capture Mark's heart and full attention. Attention that Eduardo craves. The warmth Garfield instills in Eduardo is crucially contrasted by the cruel coldness in Eisenberg's Mark, which also makes the latter much more in tune and connected to the idea of facebook than the former ever understands (he as a co-founder doesn't even know how to change items of his profile like his relationship status).

This unrequited love Eduardo feels for Mark gets down to a central insecurity and vulnerability that Garfield portrays with a delicate bravura that required to put all of himself out there, his portrayal of a friend wanting so much more emotional satisfaction out of his relationship that probably confronts some unsettling truths among many halves of such friendships. And he does so with such a devoted strength that you could pick up on cues in his subtle physicality throughout the film. He's drawn into Mark's ultimate betrayal to begin with because of a phone conversation that has Mark ending up being so friendly and open to Eduardo (to a suspicious extent) that has Garfield smiling from ear to ear, even after the scolding he had received from Mark for immaturely freezing his business account. It's an attitude and they are words that he's been longing to hear from his best friend directed at him.  He then confidently shows up in California and signs the contracts without the slightest inkling that his friend had just betrayed him and ultimately kicked him out of the company at the likely urging of Shaun Parker's corrupting influence.

Garfield puts forth much of his physical self throughout the film, in fact, and in a way that informs to emotions that pent up inside his character throughout the film's duration. Garfield is very much informed by the past of Eduardo, who is a Brazilian immigrant raised in Miami and became educated enough to be in Harvard. You can hear it distinctly in the impressive dialect Garfield dons for his accent, and in the general rhythm of how he carries himself. It's hard to describe, but having several Brazilian American friends, I can attest to this general aura that Garfield mysteriously nails in a way that's authentic and believable. He additionally forms his character in other ways; in the way he moves, when he awkwardly inches towards Mark in a dance wearing a Caribbean islander hat, when he shoves his hands as deep into his pockets as possible, when we shift to the present day court proceedings where Eduardo's broken heart can't even stand to take one look at Mark. Sign of a true master of his craft, he manipulates his body in a way that both subtly paints a nuanced portrait of his characters but also elicits an emotional response from the audience necessary in their experience of the film.

For instance, when Eduardo first shows up in California. Shaun barely notices the door knocks but opens it to find Eduardo drenched in the rain, ready to turn back to his taxi. He looks at Shaun with the puppy dog eyes that Garfield employs for the first time that communicate his sea of pain and hurt. Expecting to see his best and only friend, he sees the man who may have very well taken that away from him. The salt is added to the wounds the audience feels when it's revealed that Mark was meant to pick Eduardo up at the airport an hour prior, but he essentially forgot about him and left him alone in the pouring rain. Slowly he unravels his levels of stress in New York City trying to find investors, aggravated that Mark hadn't remembered when he told him he dropped his planned internship months prior (or perhaps hadn't listened). He says he's scared of his girlfriend, and he's coming to see how much Mark hadn't told him about their progress with facebook. Even then Mark is hardly listening, and this starts to snowball into what will become an avalanche of suppressed emotional pain for Eduardo into the film's climax.

The Social Network as a film has, as a central credit, a consistent pace that keeps you on your feet and keeps your ears on the ready. But, easily, the most exhilarating and compelling scene is, understandably, the climax, where Eduardo Saverin unleashes his fury upon Mark and Shaun and plans for his wrath, which just happens to be in the form of one of the two court cases at the center of the film. It's the clearest marriage of Sorkin's writing, Fincher's direction and the ensemble's acting, starting from when our jaws drop to the floor when it is revealed to us how much Eduardo's shares had dwindled down to by facebook's one millionth member. Arguably, though, it's Andrew Garfield who takes center stage. He goes to that unspeakable place for an actor that separates the greats from the greatests when, in a rage, his character delves into what I would dub 'emotional chaos.' We sense this earthquake coming as Eduardo glides towards Mark, yelling his name, and slams his laptop into this explosive supernova of pure and unadulterated anger — informed by the new contract. Informed by stress of his life in New York City and in his relationship. Informed by the jealousy that Shaun Parker had hijacked the company he worked with Mark to get off the ground. Informed by the purity of love that he time and time again blanketed upon Mark, his truest and best and virtually only friend, who turned out to betray all of that on such a monumental scale. Your eyes are glued to the scene. His delivery of the scene's closing line easily makes for the most invigorating and most bad-ass line delivery of the year: "You better lawyer up, asshole, because I'm not coming back for the 30%. I'm coming back for everything." Empire Magazine's on-set report chronicled this climactic moment, including a tidbit that Garfield, per instruction from David Fincher, had leaned in to Eisenberg's ear before shooting that scene and sharply hissed, "you're a fucking dick and you betrayed your best fucking friend. Live with that." The article goes on to describe the atmosphere the day that scene was shot, giving sense of the grueling method where Fincher demands as many takes as possible of the same scene, which the actors find liberating at times but is challenging of a scene requiring this much energetic emotion. "Under strip-lighting, amid desks and cool Cali-kid extras, Garfield has spent 90 minutes in an emotional maelstrom. Snatching and smashing. Snatching and smashing. Snatching and smashing. At 12.45 a.m. on a Friday in December 2009 - day 34 of the 70-day shoot, take 10 of this set-up - Fincher shouts across, ‘Andrew, disintergrate it! The computer: disintergrate it!’ It is a bastard hard scene: bringing rage and hurt again and again and again. Garfield, in dapper dark suit and perfect US accent, is excellent, but drained. After stumbling over the same word one too many times, he bellows an expletive. Eventually, 25 Apples will be obliterated. At 5.05 a.m., the various set-ups are exhausted, as is Garfield, when Fincher offers blessed words - ‘Cut it! Movin’ on’ - and shakes his hand. Garfield calls out to the crew, ‘Sorry if I was an asshole!’ He wasn’t. He was human. That’s what Fincher employed him for." And that's ultimately the greatest testament to that scene, in which Garfield provided for one of the most impressively explosive displays of acting perhaps ever caught on film by an actor of only his age.

That's also where his entire performance succeeds the most — in its humanity. A performance that can only be thought of as a gift to audiences, like the one I watched the film with who stayed through the credits just to catch his name. The one they called "that kid" before the start of the movie now had a name, and it was his performance that unanimously dominated the conversation as the moviegoers emptied out. Plenty of actors can make lemons into lemonade, and the lemonade in this character was very well already offered by Sorkin's screenplay and Fincher's efficient directing. But Garfield managed to make Mount Olympus out of it. It's the pièce-du-résistance so far of an already glowing and well decorated career from this actor, and it's a staggering achievement. It may very well be the performance of the year. Read more!

Biutiful

Alejandro González Iñárritu's latest Biutiful tackles difficult themes of mortality and finding peace with one's self before moving on to an afterlife. The film opens and closes with some fascinating sequences. It's just everything in between, however, that is problematic.

The film is anchored by a very humane performance given by Javier Bardem, in spite of the challenge of his character's supernatural sensibilities. His Uxbal is a family man, a business man, and an ex-husband nearing the end of his life. Bardem nails each aspect of the role with a general concern for people he feels responsible for. The audience's spirit deteriorates with his as the film labors on and we watch him inch closer to the end, where he'll be reunited with the dead he'd always been able to communicate with during his life.

If the film had managed to stay more focused on his storyline, the film could potentially have turned out a very emotionally affecting piece. But in true Iñárritu fashion, he can't help but try to dilute this storyline with other interweaving character narratives that have worked so well for his films in the past. Uxbal's brother, Tito (Eduard Fernàndez), getting ready to buy their father, has sexual flings on the side with Uxbal's bipolar ex-wife Marambra (Maricel Àlvarez) who is desperate to see more of her children. Apart from Uxbal's personal troubles, his professional affairs are in a delicate state between the Chinese manufacturers he goes to for supplies of counterfeit purses, the Senegalese immigrants who sell those purses on the streets and the police force Uxbal often bribes growing impatient of these street vendors working on illegal streets.

The subplots of the Senegalese street vendors' struggling family lives and the Chinese factory owners with a labor force of illegal immigrants don't only distract from the power of the central themes, but are indicative of a larger tone of self-seriousness the film suffers from. Several shots like that of a dead owl in the snow, a pigeon walking over a lifeless homeless man, or birds en masse flying in formation over a sunset-lit sky seem perfectly poetic on their own accord, but in context often seem out of place and trying much too hard. The revelation of the two Chinese factory owners being gay is so overt and unintentionally hilarious that it trivializes their sexuality, and the screenplay's attempt of emotional manipulation falls flat on the audience. The film often deals with the question of exploitation, whether between the factory owners and their laborers or Uxbal trying to profit from their work. The film asks, "who's exploiting who?" It would seem to me that, most of all, it's the film itself.

The film has been described as "unconventional," which will be used to explain much of the negative reaction that will come from it. Fact of the matter is that that's not what's wrong with it. I found promise in the unconventional premise, and was hoping to find an unappreciated gem in this film. And there are good points to it. The larger ensemble work is strong, sudden cuts show the spirits of the dead hanging off ceilings in a deliciously creepy fashion, the camerawork is well lit and shot. All in all, though, the film is greatly uneven. The editing, usually strong in Iñárritu's work, attracts attention to how awful it is at some points including split seconds of random shots unnecessary in setting the scene. The score comes blaring in oafishly at the most bizarre moments where you’d least expect it. Many emotional tensions set up at certain points are relieved unsatisfactorily and awkwardly, and it drags on for far too long. The film is simply a mess, and a disappointingly missed opportunity.

Grade: C Read more!

MOB: How bout dem leads?

The lead categories are quickly crowding themselves, and many great performance will probably be left to the wayside. Who can make the cut, and who has the best chance of winning?

We'll start with lead actor, which I suspect will be lined up with Best Picture contenders.

1. Colin Firth - The King's Speech
2. James Franco - 127 Hours
3. Jesse Eisenberg - The Social Network
4. Jeff Bridges - True Grit
5. Ryan Gosling - Blue Valentine
6. Robert Duvall - Get Low
7. Javier Bardem - Biutiful
8. Michael Douglas - Solitary Man

The difference here is whether their films will get seen or not, and that's why the first four slots are filled by performances in probable Picture contenders that will be seen, with the last slot being the remaining film with the most chances to be seen. Colin Firth has the appearance of an easy frontrunner, being in a film jockeying for the whole win and coming fresh off of a snub of a brilliant performance last year in A Single Man to an overdue performance — ironic in two ways. 1) Somehow their mistake in not giving him the win then makes him overdue now and 2) He's likely to face the man he lost to last year again.
That's what separates him from James Franco, who won a critics poll of the best actor in show at the Toronto Film Festival. He might face similar success in his one man act with the critics awards this season, and if his film really takes off would be serious competition to Mr. Firth.
Jesse Eisenberg's another young ingenue in the mix this year, like Franco, going for his first nomination this year. As the face, soul, and carrier of this generational "event" of a film, I do think he will be hard to forget and will carry a formidable number of critics awards on his own a la Jeremy Renner last year for The Hurt Locker. Winning, though, would be difficult.
Then we have Jeff Bridges, blah blah blah, leftover admiration from last year in a major Picture contender. Then, call me crazy, I just made the decision to keep Gosling in a predicted five. Why? Well, many people saw Blue Valentine's chances as deflating with many other films stealing its spotlight and taking attention away from it, until it came roaring back in the conversation recently with a harsh NC-17. Derek Cianfrance refuses to make cuts to it. Now it's chances must be dead for sure, right? Wrong. This is exactly what it needs. Everyone knows the rating on it is bullshit, but it peaks a curiosity factor nonetheless. Particularly among the actors, who will need to see just how realistic Gosling and Williams made their sex scenes that pushed this film over the MPAA's edge. And that's exactly who needs to see it for the actors and the film itself to see any success. As we speak, Harvey is working to appeal the rating to the MPAA — wise, and safe, decision. Best case scenario is that the rating gets overturned and is allowed to be released in more markets with an R rating in conjunction with the talk it generated with an initial NC-17. But, if not, Harvey can milk the hell out of that NC-17 rating and turn this into an opportunity to bring back the NC-17 rating to artistic credibility.
That will get it more seen than Biutiful, anyways. The film is divisive but generated talk among Academy-liked Bardem after his Cannes win this past year, and is said to be in the conversation for this year's Foreign Language Film category (though it might be a bit stranger for the average Foreign-voting member). Get Low has already been seen, and that perhaps may lie its problem. Though it's not out of the question that AMPAS is bombarded with screeners bearing the star's name — ROBERT DUVALL. And then, of course, we have the potential sympathy vote with Michael Douglas with a performance in Solitary Man that I've already seen testimonials of by Academy members who loved it.

Note: All 5-8 have a reasonable chance at that last slot.



As for lead actress, things are especially competitive this year.

1. Natalie Portman - Black Swan
2. Annette Bening - The Kids Are All Right
3. Lesley Manville - Another Year
4. Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole
5. Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine
6. Julianne Moore - The Kids Are All Right
7. Jennifer Lawrence - Winter's Bone
8. Sally Hawkins - Made in Dagenham

It's looking, though, as if people will want to shape this fascinating year into a Portman vs. Bening showdown. Both should easily be able to claim respective Golden Globes (Portman for Drama and Bening for Comedy/Musical) making this super old school. There are those, however, that suggest that Black Swan simply will not get the necessary love to put Portman in contention for the win (notably the podcast earlier today from InContention). I think not, though. The narrative seems perfect: Natalie Portman is completely respected in Hollywood, at a perfectly ripe age that they love to reward in this category in a role considered baity and brilliantly executed. It will have passionate and enthusiastic fans that I think will push it into other categories, leaving this the only probable one with a remote chance of rewarding the film itself with. But, admittedly, that last reason is shakier considering just how out of the ordinary this film might seem to the Academy.
Which would leave the next battle option between Annette Bening and Lesley Manville, which the InContention folks seemed to consider a much more viable option. Both similar in hearing cries from Oscar watchers who think that they should instead be campaigned in a much weaker Supporting category where they'd be much more likely to be nominated and perhaps even win. However, they do seem pretty safe and much of a reason why this lead category is so crowded, and possibly two of the frontrunners for the win itself. Bening benefits from seeming overdue (thought of as a runner-up for both American Beauty and Being Julia, both of which she lost out to Hilary Swank) and being in a more "seen" film. However, people genuinely love Manville's performance. Arguably it's been received more kindly by the critics, and in many ways would be the opportunity to reward the 60-something year old Mike Leigh. Even if it's not specifically giving him an Oscar in the form of director or screenplay, which would be difficult for him this year but not out of the question, the Academy could decide for the first time that they want to recognize the achievements of one of his actors in recognition of his very actor-centric process of extreme improvisation in approaching his films.



Not to mention, the film will play very well to older members of the Academy. I think it will also see much British love, considering its a weepier Mike Leigh film than something like Happy-Go-Lucky passed over two years ago. This could often be the deciding factor in close races, as with Marion Cotillard's BAFTA-supported performances three years ago or Tilda Swinton's that same year. Her character is a tragic one, one whose found herself in desperately lonely circumstances that leaves her with little other option other than to seem pathetic. She sculpts a character from the ground up from the start of the film, appearing to the audience in just her character's facade in her drunken comfort. Slowly she unravels, though, revealing personal traumas of her past and a clingy dependence on her friend Gerri (played marvelously by Ruth Sheen). By the very last frame of the very last shot of the very last scene, however, our hearts are simply torn apart as it seems that the only way Mary can feel any semblance of love from this family that she needs in her life she needs to butt out of the actual family dynamic of Gerri's, and continue to repress her actual personality and self, which probably leaves her feelings of unloved loneliness inevitably strong.

Well, perhaps you know who I'm championing.

I also see a slot for Nicole Kidman's comeback role in Rabbit Hole, though this already Oscar winner isn't in conversation for the win. I keep Michelle Williams in my top five for Blue Valentine the same way and largely for the same reasons that Ryan Gosling remains in my lineup.

I do hope Julianne Moore, my personal preference between her in Bening in their film, is able to be given at least a chance. She is arguably more overdue for more roles and going tete-a-tete in scenes with Bening, she wins. Her delivery of lines like "just listen to me" seem to blunt any impact Bening has against her, despite her being very strong in her individual scenes. I'm not even that big of a fan of hers, compared to those who think she deserved wins in Short Cuts, Boogie Nights, The Big Lebowski, Magnolia, The End of the Affair, The Hours and Far From Heaven. But I think she deserves at least as much attention as her co-star.

Jennifer Lawrence seems to be a quaint name in such a big year, but with the aid of critics help (Winter's Bone remaining one of the best reviewed of the year), DVD screeners being shoveled to Academy voters' doors and at least a SAG nomination (to make her this year's Melissa Leo), she could sneak in a slot of her own.

And then I include Sally Hawkins for Made in Dagenham, a film that many see playing well to Academy members and seeing Hawkins, also wonderfully warm in Never Let Me Go, as a sure-thing standout. With attention to co-star Miranda Richardson's chances in Supporting, Hawkins' film has a chance to be seen and perhaps loved enough to see her get a nomination to make up for her monstrosity of a snub for Happy-Go-Lucky. Read more!

MOB: Let's talk Supporting

Usually around this time, the Supporting races don't look none too crowded. This year's especially exciting (or quiet, however you want to look at it) considering that this is the first year in a while without a heavy frontrunner (Waltz/Mo'Nique, Ledger/Cruz, Bardem, etc.).

Let's start with actress, just to do things a little differently.



Get ready to see a lot more of that eyebrow raise. Sony Picture Classics have ensured that Animal Kingdom is the first major FYC screener to be sent out to the doorsteps of Academy members so that they will have ample time to see it. I suspect that Jacki Weaver, pictured above, will perform one of the only critics sweeps (NY/LA/NSFC) of this season with this performance in the 96% rated flick and pushing her way to an easy nomination like Amy Adams in the past for the critically-aided Junebug. The film is small, however, and is not all that seen (no matter how much SPC wishes to change that). I see her getting in, but a win would be difficult.

1. Miranda Richardson - Made in Dagenham
2. Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom
3. Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech
4. Dianne Wiest - Rabbit Hole
5. Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit
6. Barbara Hershey - Black Swan
7. Kimberly Elise and/or Thandie Newton - For Colored Girls
8. Melissa Leo - The Fighter

I think Richardson, a two-time nominee, is someone that most Academy members will be old enough to remember and perhaps want to finally recognize for her strong film career. In a weak-ass year and an Academy-friendly film in the politically uplifting Made in Dagenham, this might just be a good opportunity to do so.
There is, of course, also Helena Bonham Carter, in probable frontrunner The King's Speech. She should ride a wave of love from the film and recognition from her name to a nomination, but reviews have never been all that strong for her compared to her co-stars and she's not likely to be in contention for the whole shebang.
Dianne Wiest is a respected character actress in a juicy role from a Tony/Pulitzer prize winning play. She's gotten good reviews and already has two Oscars to show for the industry's admiration of her (although, unlike those other two, this is not a Woody Allen movie). Hailee Steinfeld will need a bit of obvious category fraud to get into this category, but little girls can generally get away with it especially if the film is advertised as a Bridges vehicle, since there's no chance for her in a lead category. But she looks impressive enough in a very impressive trailer, and I think with [i]The King's Speech[/i] this film could be another three-nominee film (with Bridges and Damon).
Here's where we move into the 6-8 tier that I have a harder time seeing make it. Black Swan is very well reviewed and I believe it will have ecstatic supporters on its side. It has supporting actresses to offer in a weak race. However, the reviews for the supporting ladies, specifically, have not been as strong as say the film itself or Portman's performance. Between the two I think comeback veteran Barbara Hershey would have the best chance at a nomination for her "evil mother" performance a la Mo'Nique. But for someone with as little buzz as either her or Kunis (despite her prize at Venice), I think the film would need more support for either of them to make it in the way Helena Bonham Carter will be aided by her film's general enthusiasm. There are two other films that potentially have Supporting duos to offer in nominations that are big question marks right now. For Colored Girls and The Fighter both appear to be Oscar bait, both by filmmakers who are almost rather reviled in Hollywood. Tyler Perry tries his hand at the Oscar game after seeing the kind of urban fare the Academy could go for with last year's success of Precious, he adapts a very challenging play into a film with an all-star black cast. David O. Russell takes on the often-nominated boxing drama — filled with strippers, drug addicts, and bitchy moms (Melissa Leo's part being the one I find more likely than Amy Adams' stripper) in every attempt to almost punch its Oscar radar. The most we have at this point from either of them are trailers, in my opinion with For Colored Girls looking far stronger (though perhaps melodramatic) compared to the schmaltz and desperation The Fighter's trailer reeks of.



As for Supporting Actor, we have a field that looks more crowded but is still just as unsure how it's going to play out.

Here's how I'd rank the field of 8 likely contenders:
1. Geoffrey Rush - The King's Speech
2. Andrew Garfield - The Social Network
3. Mark Ruffalo - The Kids Are All Right
4. Christian Bale - The Fighter
5. Matt Damon - True Grit
6. Sam Rockwell - Conviction
7. Ed Harris - The Way Back
8. Justin Timberlake - The Social Network

Not much to say, here. Geoffrey Rush is considered just as good if not better than Colin Firth in their Best Picture hopeful, but we'll see if the Academy is eager to throw another Oscar at his feet (to me he seems esteemed enough to end his career boasting more Oscars than the one he already has). I'm championing Andrew Garfield but I'm not alone; the kid's turned into something of a superstar after The Social Network and he seems to be a big part of why people are beginning to anticipate the new Spider-Man movie he'll headline. But he's just starting to become recognizable to people, and many might see it as a bit too soon. Mark Ruffalo is a respected actor, yet to be nominated, in a film that won't win Best Picture but is likely to be nominated for one. Recap: so far we have one Oscar winner who probably doesn't need another win, an unnominated actor who doesn't need a win yet and then an unnominated actor that people just want to see damn nominated. We'll see how it goes but so far I'd say that all three are in fair contention to win it all.
Then we get to murkier territory. As I said, we're very unsure about The Fighter unlike the men of the first three films I've ranked, but even if it falls in flames I do think people are eager to give Christian Bale his first Oscar nomination seeing as though this is his first chance since people started caring about him to get an Oscar nomination. He plays a drug addict and looks really over the top in the trailer (I'm just not a big fan of his, sorry), and though he has a reputation in Hollywood I do think he's just populist enough to have enough #1 votes for a nomination. Win? Right now I wouldn't say so, but there are enough precursor opportunities that I can see him taking (starting with the NBR) that would put him in conversation for it.
Matt Damon has the benefit of having two films that will have some fans, though I think True Grit will be far less divisive than Hereafter is proving to be (despite having some vocal fans). Plus, his futile lead campaign for the latter would help him in a general sense of obligation to throw him one this year (like last year when his Invictus mention seemed also helped by his lead performance in The Informant!
Sam Rockwell has a feeling of being due similar to Bale and Ruffalo, but he's not yet as well known as they are, and his films' reviews are rather flat (though his generally sing praises). He's definitely in conversation for it, though, especially if the Academy buys its sap more than critics have been.
The last two options are very different on the surface level but face similar problems. Ed Harris is a well respected veteran character actor who has four unsuccessful Oscar nominations. He's in a film that may or may not get Academy love but he faces internal competition from other actors in his film, some (Colin Farrell) even receiving stronger notices in the few reviews there are for the film. Justin Timberlake is not a professional actor whatsoever, though a superstar in his own right (more than Harris, anyways). Some feel like he steals the show in his likelier Best Picture contender, The Social Network, but he faces heavy internal competition from a more sympathetic Andrew Garfield and a fascinating performance by Armie Hammer (also being campaigned in this race). Read more!

MOB: let's talk Director

We're in the midst of October, and already it seems like we're getting a clearer sense of the contenders before the first precursors come our way in a month and a half. Don't fret, though, the year will stay exciting with a bulk of December hopefuls left (with plenty of room for some, but there are so many and the release is relatively late so they will drop like flies).

Here, I've assembled various long lists. 8 for the acting categories and director, 15 for picture. This will make all you amateur gurus' jobs easier by giving you a shortlist of what I feel stretch the biggest eligibility of candidates from which to choose for your predictions. I think per day, perhaps, possibly, I'll make a post focused on one of each category. Let's start with directing, which will often inform Picture which often informs many of the acting categories:

Best Director (alphabetical, by film)
Danny Boyle, 127 Hours
Mike Leigh, Another Year
Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
Christopher Nolan, Inception
Tom Hooper, The King's Speech
David Fincher, The Social Network
Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, True Grit
Peter Weir, The Way Back

The Director's branch has never been afraid to accept new members into their groups, so this is a relatively heavy hitting group of directing superstars that I objectively think would be in contention for the nomination. Even Tom Hooper, director of John Adams, is someone I'd consider a heavy hitter amongst TV directors at least and one who is recognizable enough to have at least a shot at the DGA win (he has been nominated before...). That being said, and with The King's Speech recent win of the Audience Award at the Hamptons Film Festival, to keep company with its Toronto prize (arguably an increasingly important prize leading into the Oscars season), it shows heavy support among actual Academy voters like those who would be attempting the Hamptons festival. The Festival circuit seems to have been a wise decision for Weinstein's campaign of this film, and nevertheless I think it's as safe a bet for Picture as it is here. Of course, taking the festival route, it distinguishes itself from The Social Network appropriately hitting the mainstream. Two weekend box office victories in a row for this film premised around a popular website with only one star in it (who's hardly an actor) and artistic pedigree to the crew. That's an enormous achievement, and as we speak it still seems to be dominating the popular discourse which is essential in attaining buzz. It's in an unfortunate position that makes it ripe to peak too soon, and I think thus far we've seen more evidence of widespread Academy support for The King's Speech, but Fincher probably even maintains a frontrunner status in this category for the win regardless of how the film fares in Picture. I think he's safe.

Those two are in the top tier. From there it gets slightly murkier. The Coen brothers and Danny Boyle are both recent winners, neither of which I can imagine won't benefit from leftover love from '07 and '08, respectively, and relatively big names in the business with probable Best Picture nominees on their hands. There could be room for one of them, or both of them.

The third tier has more of a foreign flavor. Mike Leigh, from the UK, has no less than six Academy Award nominations; two for directing. Peter Weir, approximately the same age as Leigh, hails from Australia. He, too, holds six Academy Award nominations to his name without a win. Difference being, they're all for directing. They both boast baity ensemble pieces this year, though on vastly different scales, that run the risk of being underseen. Both Picture candidates, of course, but not safe. The Way Back announced a qualifying run for the end of December very recently by a distribution company that doesn't seem very resourced to get the film out there. But then again, Weir's been nominated for Best Director six times; the Academy's directing branch is clearly enamored. I'd say the branch gives him so much support that they alone can get his film into Picture. But the film itself hasn't found ecstatic support among its few reviews, with the exception perhaps of Kris Tapley from InContention. Mike Leigh's film is seen as more likely to get into Picture with better reviews, a more able-bodied distribution company in Sony Pictures Classics and likely precursor support in the critics awards. It's very tough to say, but my guess is that one of the two gets in. Both, though not impossible, would be difficult.

Then the next, and final, tier we see Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky. The similarities can be spotted from a mile away. They have a similar reputation among young film fans as mainstream visionaries whose work has yet to be significantly rewarded by major bodies this time of year. Both came close in 2008 with The Dark Knight and The Wrestler. This year doesn't look all that different. Inception is a major summer smash that's seen as an opportunity to finally throw Nolan a nomination while Black Swan is a Venice festival breakout hit with heavy critical acclaim but potential divide amongst its viewers. Inception will have a DVD release to remind voters of how necessary it will be portrayed to give kudos to this major Hollywood studio production. Black Swan, though it might not find consensus love in the Academy, will almost surely have enough passionate supporters in the block to throw #1 votes its way.

How will this all play out? I think the logical thing to do might be to include both from the first tier, and then one each from the following. So a standard good prediction might look like David Fincher, Tom Hooper, Danny Boyle, Peter Weir and Christopher Nolan.
Of course, though, I'm not very logical. My line of thinking is more along the lines of ranking the piers of possibility. Here's how I see the chances for these contenders playing out:

1. David Fincher, The Social Network
2. Tom Hooper, The King's Speech
3. Danny Boyle, 127 Hours
4. Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, True Grit
5. Peter Weir, The Way Back (hell, at this point he could be a lone nominee that we otherwise saw as impossible in 10 nominee-years)
6. Mike Leigh, Another Year
7. Christopher Nolan, Inception
8. Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan

But, I include all 8 since those are who I see as the candidates as of right now. Read more!

NYFF Diaries: The end

Lesley Manville as Mary
Photo by Simon Mein (c) Thin Man Films Ltd., Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

2010's New York Film Festival wraps up, and I have four more films seen: Inside Job, Certified Copy, Aurora and Another Year. For lack of time, the reviews haven't been posted yet, but I think I'll do another larger MOB segment on Another Year and its chances the same way I did for The Social Network in my last post.





Eliot Spitzer
Governor, New York State (2007-2008); Attorney General, New York State (1999-2007)
Photo by Representational Pictures, Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

Inside Job is an infuriating look at the breakdown of successful regulations upon our financial system starting with Ronald Reagan and continuing even today with President Obama following the ensuing financial meltdown. Effective in its arguments with very strong interviews, the film presents the facts in a manner that's very comprehensible to more people than just those who profit off of the system's manipulation as many who were interviewed for the project did. Made by a liberal, but even the most ardent Obama supporter will leave the film reflecting upon how criminal it seems that Obama appointed the type of people who fed into the system's downfall even after the fact. The film takes no prisoners, and our country could benefit from more average people being educated by the film enough to hold our nation's leaders more responsible for their economic actions.

Grade: B

Celebrated Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami marks a new chapter in his long career with Certified Copy, making a film outside of his home country for the first time. The naturally sunny Tuscan cinematography keeps the film floating light on its feet as Kiarostami's trademark ponderous dialogue and themes unfold. English Opera singer William Shimmell and heavily decorated French actress Juliette Binoche play characters that, at first glance, seem to be meeting for the first time but then brilliantly evolve their dynamic into a couple that may or may not have been married for fifteen years. The common insecurities, grievances, and worries of both of their respective married lives slowly unfurl throughout the film. Shimmell's tonal sensibilities make for a solid film debut, but it's Binoche, under the baggage of fifteen years of the character's single motherhood, who steals the show. To me, probably the best (and certainly most accessible) film of Kiarostami's yet.

Grade: A-

Aurora is the latest offering of Romania's booming new wave film scene, perhaps jumpstarted by director Cristi Puiu's film The Death of Mr. Lazarescu several yeas ago. His latest, which he both directs and stars in, is a dreadful test of your patience and movie watching ability. Throughout its three hour lifespan, perhaps four brief events in between seem to advance a plot in any way and two of those might hold your slightest interest. Puiu himself gives a very soulful performance as a very average man who goes on a killing spree against several people associated with his ex-wife. But again, the action is few and far between the tedious display of his everyday life and encounters that stretches the film to its length. The only slight payoff of the whole thing is an amusing conversation with investigators at the very end.

Grade: D



Lesley Manville as Mary
Photo by Simon Mein (c) Thin Man Films Ltd., Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

Another Year is the latest offering from Mike Leigh and among the most emotionally affecting films of the year. The film, among other things, studies age and its various consequences and connotations. Among his illustrious string of performance pieces, Another Year offers the very best performances in any Leigh film thus far and adds Lesley Manville's role as Mary to a competitive list of cinema's very best drunkard performances. The other two central performances of Jim Broadbent's Tom and Ruth Sheen's Gerri give off a magnificent parental warmth and naturally convinces you of their forty years together. But it's Manville, especially at the end, who ends up shattering your heart. It's also among the most visually sophisticated and cinematic of Leigh's films, showing each of the four seasons with a different tone and feel appropriate to that time of the year. Another Year is magnificent.

Grade: A+
Read more!