Awards season in filmland

[dirac]

The Golden Globes ceremony kicks things off on a dignified note.

Rourke's acceptance speech was peppered with mild profanities, Aronofsky made a joking (but nevertheless obscene) gesture toward Rourke, and "Slumdog Millionaire" producer Christian Colson uttered a four-letter expletive when the broadcast's producers cued music in the middle of his best drama acceptance speech. The remarks and gesture could spark complaints to the Federal Communications Commission; publicists from NBC did not immediately respond to e-mails seeking comment.

New York Film Critics Circle Awards for 2008.

[dirac]

The Oscar nominations are announced.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," a fable about a man who ages in reverse, dominated the 81st annual Academy Award nominations this morning, earning 13 nods, including best film, best actor for Brad Pitt and best director for David Fincher.

[miliosr]

I'm glad the Academy nominated Heath Ledger for his intense portrayal of The Joker in The Dark Knight. Without him, The Dark Knight would have been a decent superhero movie but not a minor masterpiece of the genre.

[dirac]

The consensus is that Ledger is a shoo-in. My own sentimental druggie favorite in this category is Robert Downey, Jr., who was a stitch in Tropic Thunder playing a risky part. I will allow that I thought Ledger and The Dark Knight a tad overpraised, although Ledger was excellent.

My complaint about both Ledger and Downey is that they're really stars in leading roles shoehorned into a category traditionally designated to honor character actors who don't fit into leading roles. In recent years the award and nominations have often gone to big stars as a sort of consolation prize for not qualifying for Best Actor or Best Actress, and I think this is a shame.

[bart]

History question: are Pitt and Jolie the first married couple to be nominated in the Best Actor/ Best Actress category in the same year?

Artistic politics question: do you think this is a year for Big Stars/ Big Movies? Or for the smaller and less known?

[abatt]

History question: are Pitt and Jolie the first married couple to be nominated in the Best Actor/ Best Actress category in the same year?

I don't think they are married.

[bart]

I don't think they are married.

Woops! Thanks, abatt, for tkhe correction.

I'm out of the loop on this one. I don't even know the terminology with which to re-phrase my question, but I guess my idea was: a couple who cohabits, is accepted publicly as a committed couple, has (in this case) children, and so on. I'm not an Oscars scholar, but the coincidence of these nominations, in the same year, does seem to be rather special.

[dirac]

There’s no real precedent for the Jolie-Pitt menage, I think. The spectacle of a couple of unmarried stars of equal firepower with a bunch of kids is a new one even for Hollywood.

I can think of Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, who were both nominated in 1967 for Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Hepburn won. T&H might have other dual nominations, although not necessarily in the same movie or as a couple, since their liaison wasn't formed until the early forties. In 1939, Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh were both nominated for Wuthering Heights and Gone with the Wind, respectively, and Leigh won. However, in both cases the couples were publicly discreet. Tracy never divorced his wife and both Olivier and Leigh were married to other people in 1939. Even if that had not been the case, couples living together without benefit of marriage didn’t flaunt it in those days.

I think Lunt and Fontanne both got nominations for The Guardsman. back when. They made it to the altar first, though. Let’s see....Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks are another example of two big married stars -- in terms of sheer popularity, the biggest -- but the Oscars arrived too late in their careers for them to get nominated in the same year. Otherwise it probably would have happened. She won once, and I don’t believe he was ever nominated. Diane Keaton and Warren Beatty were both nominated for Reds, but even they weren't really the tabloid deities that Pitt and Jolie are. That's about all that spring to mind. Any others?

In any case, I don't think this is Jolie's year. I wouldn't vote for Pitt myself but he could win.

[dirac]

Addressing bart’s other question, it seems to me that the nominations this year are mostly Naked Oscar Bait, like The Reader and The Curious Case of Brad Gump, and one indie underdog, Slumdog Millionaire. The big popular hits, The Dark Knight and Iron Man, didn’t make the cut. Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood’s entry for this year, was also snubbed.

I have no great preference this year. I haven't seen Gran Torino yet, and I'm interested in seeing Revolutionary Road. I was suspicious of Slumdog Millionaire, figuring it would be the Mumbai Juno, but it really is pretty terrific.

One other note: there was no Big Musical this year.

[sidwich]

History question: are Pitt and Jolie the first married couple to be nominated in the Best Actor/ Best Actress category in the same year?

Although not exactly the same, I think Diane Keaton and Woody Allen were a couple when they were nominated and won for Actress and Director (respectively) for "Annie Hall." Allen and Mia Farrow had the passel of kids but I don't remember Farrow ever being nominated for an Allen picture, and neither seemed to seek or receive the attention of the photographers like the Jolie-Pitts.

I don't think anything has come close to the spectacle of the Jolie-Pitts since the days of Pickford and Fairbanks, though. They (and Mr. Pitt's now-ex-wife) have milked the tabloids for all the publicity they are worth. And to tell the truth, I'm not sure they each would have received those nominations without the tabloid fanfare surrounding them.

[dirac]

Hi, sidwich. I forgot about Woody and Diane. I think they had broken up long before, but the principle is the same.

I think you may be right as far as Jolie and Pitt are concerned. (Pickford and Fairbanks were truly The People's Choice.)

[Giannina]

I think I operate in a vacuum. I feel that if anyone other than Frank Langella wins best actor they haven't seen Frost/Nixon; he did more with his face than most do with half their body. Ditto with Viola Davis; her short scene started innocently enough and built to what I consider the high point of the movie. I remember when, I think it was, Jane Alexander won best supporting actress for "All the President's Men" with less than a 5 minute scene; now best supporting can be half the movie as with Philip Seymour Hoffman (who deserves every award made).

Giannina

[dirac]

I think I operate in a vacuum. I feel that if anyone other than Frank Langella wins best actor they haven't seen Frost/Nixon; he did more with his face than most do with half their body. Ditto with Viola Davis; her short scene started innocently enough and built to what I consider the high point of the movie. I remember when, I think it was, Jane Alexander won best supporting actress for "All the President's Men" with less than a 5 minute scene; now best supporting can be half the movie as with Philip Seymour Hoffman (who deserves every award made).

Giannina

Hello, Giannina. I haven't seen 'Frost/Nixon' yet. Hoffman's role in "Doubt" is also an example of what I meant earlier - he is a co-star in the picture, not a supporting actor. (I thought Streep ate him for lunch, though.)

Another historical precedent for Davis is Beatrice Straight's win for "Network." And Judi Dench's Elizabeth in "Shakespeare in Love" was barely there.

[sandik]

I have no great preference this year. I haven't seen Gran Torino yet, and I'm interested in seeing Revolutionary Road. I was suspicious of Slumdog Millionaire, figuring it would be the Mumbai Juno, but it really is pretty terrific.

I was surprised that Eastwood was left out -- I don't always like his work, but he's certainly been a mainstay of the film industry.

And I was surprised that Revolutionary Road was passed over, especially considering its reception at the Globes.

the Mumbai Juno!! I'm snickering.

[sidwich]

I remember when, I think it was, Jane Alexander won best supporting actress for "All the President's Men" with less than a 5 minute scene; now best supporting can be half the movie as with Philip Seymour Hoffman (who deserves every award made).

Unfortunately, there's often not a whole lot of rhyme or reason on the Leading/Supporting distinction. On the flip side, Frances McDormand won her Best Actress Award for "Fargo" when she was on the screen for less time than William H. Macy who was slotted into the Supporting Actor category.

Most of the time, names are submitted in the category that it's felt the performer has the best shot even if it doesn't really make sense otherwise. I think there's no question that the part of Effie is the lead and Deena is the supporting in "Dreamgirls" but it was felt that Jennifer Hudson had a good shot at an award as a newcomer in the supporting category and I think there was some serious ego-stroking for Beyonce Knowles.

In the old days, there was even less sense in the old Tony Award system. The Leading categories were limited to stars who were billed above the title, and everyone else was considered featured no matter how large a role they played. So for example, when Yul Brynner won his Tony for "The King and I" it was for "Featured Actor" because the only person billed above the title was Gertrude Lawrence. (After the original run, I think all of Brynner's Anna's only received featured billing).

[dirac]

True, sidwich, but I think there was a time when there was a pretty clear distinction between Best Supporting, which was where the Fay Bainters and Walter Brennans got their recognition, and Best Actor and Actress. (I can think of examples such as Olivia de Havilland in Gone with the Wind, who was probably better known than Vivien Leigh to US audiences, winning Best Supporting. On the other hand, Melanie is clearly a supporting role.)

On the flip side, Frances McDormand won her Best Actress Award for "Fargo" when she was on the screen for less time than William H. Macy who was slotted into the Supporting Actor category.

I wonder if such an instance may have something to do with the necessity of finding enough nominations to fill out the Best Actress category. There tend to be fewer really substantial roles for women than for men in films likely to be nominated for Oscars these days.

[abatt]

Slumdog picked up the "best ensemble" (that is, best picture) award at the Screen Actors Guild Awards last night. Other film winners were Streep (lead, Doubt), Penn (lead, Milk), Winslet (supporting, Reader) and Ledger (supporting, Dark Knight).

[dirac]

I enjoyed seeing the "Slumdog" crew go up to the stage for the ensemble award - their excitement was touchingly genuine and everyone spoke well. (A striking contrast to Kate Winslet, who's still pulling that "I'm at a loss for words, burble, burble" routine when all season she's been a favorite to win something and has been pulling in nominations and wins right and left. Prepare a speech, woman.)

[abatt]

(A striking contrast to Kate Winslet, who's still pulling that "I'm at a loss for words, burble, burble" routine when all season she's been a favorite to win something and has been pulling in nominations and wins right and left. Prepare a speech, woman.)

I guess this is her way of trying look spontaneous. It's the same routine that Jennifer Hudson used a few years ago with her Dreamgirls wins - trying to seem totally shocked and spontaneous when she had already won every award ever created.

[sidwich]

True, sidwich, but I think there was a time when there was a pretty clear distinction between Best Supporting, which was where the Fay Bainters and Walter Brennans got their recognition, and Best Actor and Actress. (I can think of examples such as Olivia de Havilland in Gone with the Wind, who was probably better known than Vivien Leigh to US audiences, winning Best Supporting. On the other hand, Melanie is clearly a supporting role.)

I think you are on to something. I do think that this distinction was probably much easier to make under the studio system where most films were built around a star in a leading role, and otherwise populated with featured players and character actors. I think it's much more difficult to make the distinction in many of the indie/ensemble films that are popular today.

De Havilland in GWTW is a bit of a special case. I think a number of actresses had refused the role of Melanie, and De Havilland very smartly accepted it as a way to transition away from being the Warners' favorite damsel in distress and into being a respected actress. (I think she lost the award to Hattie McDaniel, though).

I think there's always been some difficulty though. As I recall the supporting categories only came into being after Franchot Tone was passed over for the award for "Mutiny on the Bounty" when there was still only "Best Actor/Actress." His role would have been considered a supporting role today, and I think the Academy correctly realized that it was unfair to try to try to compare roles of such disparate size.

[dirac]

(I think she lost the award to Hattie McDaniel, though).

You’re quite right, sidwich. Embarrassing error on my part, too, since I’ve seen the footage of McDaniel accepting her award I don’t know how many times.

I think it's much more difficult to make the distinction in many of the indie/ensemble films that are popular today.

Very sound point. I guess the kinds of cases I really have in mind, apart from the examples mentioned above, would be Jamie Foxx getting nominated as Best Supporting Actor in “Collateral” when his role is equal with Cruise’s, and Foxx was by any definition a star. And many of our most recent winners in the Best Supporting Actress category, for example, have been stars like Zellweger and Blanchett. So you have a situation where the stars are hogging all the categories, not just the big kahunas.

I guess this is her way of trying look spontaneous. It's the same routine that Jennifer Hudson used a few years ago with her Dreamgirls wins - trying to seem totally shocked and spontaneous when she had already won every award ever created.

Must be the current fashion. Seems to me that even if you’re the longest of long shots you could jot a few things down before the big night. Although if Richard Jenkins somehow manages to win Best Actor and becomes totally incoherent, I’ll excuse him.

[abatt]

Awards season marched on last night with the BAFTA's, Britain's version of the Oscars. Slumdog did great, winning the best picture award, best adapted screenplay, and several other non-acting awards. Kate Winselt won for the reader. Mickey Rourke won best actor. His speech was very funny, and loaded with curse words that were bleeped out. Penelope Cruz won supporting actress for Vicky Christina Barcelona. She seemed truly surprised. Heath Ledger won supporting actor.

[dirac]

I find the spectacle of Rourke depressing. What a wonderful young actor he once was. Sigh.

[dirac]

I hope anyone who sees the show tonight will post reactions. Not sure if I'll see it myself.

[sandik]

A small observation -- I didn't necessarily like all the changes they made in the format for the Academy Awards this year, but I do really appreciate the shift in announcing the winners. In the past, they would always give the names of the individuals and then the name of the film they had worked on. Invariably, the audience in the theater would start applauding after the first couple of words, and would drown out the rest of the information. This was fine if they were announcing the acting awards, or the directors, or if you had a really good memory for the list of names for the craft awards, but not so good if you didn't. I noticed tonight that the presenters started all their "and the award goes to..." statements with the name of the film, and then the individuals. Much easier to follow along!