I Am DB

January 15, 2014

Oscars 2013: Nominations Eve

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 6:30 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Gather round, one and all, and stand witness as I once again engage in the mysterious, socially-questionable practice of Oscar prognostication. It’s a little bit science, a little bit art, and a whole lot of hours spent watching and reading about movies. If you ever wondered how I maintain my pallid skin tone, wonder no more. Read on if you dare, and then talk amongst yourselves about planning my intervention.

BEST PICTURE
2011 was the first year that the Academy adjusted the Best Picture category so that it would include somewhere between five and ten nominees. Being a weak year, it was generally assumed that there would be seven, maybe eight, nominees. It turned out there were nine. 2012 was a much stronger year, so a full slate of ten films was expected. Once again, the tally came in at nine. And I’m guessing that’s where things will land this time as well. It’s been another impressive year with lots of viable candidates, but nine might be the magic number.

Surely that nine will include 12 Years a Slave, Gravity and American Hustle, which have been the dominant three movies on the circuit of precursor awards from critics and industry guilds. Although the former two have been the pair, ever since October, deemed to battle it out through the season, Hustle came on strong when it began screening in late November, and its stock has only risen. Over the weekend, it took home the Golden Globe for Best Picture – Musical or Comedy, while 12 Years won for Best Picture – Drama (its only award of the night).

Her has been a big hit with the critics as well, and earned nominations from the Producer’s Guild of America (PGA) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA). I initially thought it would be too offbeat for the generally conservative Academy, but now I think it’s striking a broader cord; broad enough to put it over the edge. The way nomination math works, a movie only requires a few hundred passionate supporters who name it their number one film of the year. I think Her will manage that. Nebraska is a safe bet, as is Captain Phillips, but neither are sure things. From there, it gets fuzzier. The old fashioned, feel-good Hollywood craftsmanship of Saving Mr. Banks was expected to play like gangbusters within the industry, even more so for being a movie about movies. But it landed a bit softly with the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), missing out on expected nominations for Best Ensemble and Best Supporting Actor for Tom Hanks. It was also overlooked by the WGA, leading some to wonder if the Academy will find a place for it. Also missing out with all the top guilds is the Coen Brothers critically adored Inside Llewyn Davis. Academy members have been kind to the Coens in recent years, but is this one a little too hard to love? I don’t know…if they liked 2009’s A Serious Man enough to nominate for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay, surely they like Inside Llewyn Davis enough. But this is a more competitive year than ’09, so maybe “enough” isn’t enough. The PGA nominated Blue Jasmine, but while Woody Allen’s latest is well-liked, I don’t know that it’s loved as much as his last Best Picture nominee, Midnight in Paris. It feels like a long shot to me. The Wolf of Wall Street is definitely in the running too, but I really have no grasp on where the consensus is falling.

The three remaining titles most likely to show up are Lee Daniels’ The Butler, Dallas Buyers Club and Philomena. Dallas, whose awards prospects initially seemed limited to the performances by Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto, has proven unexpectedly popular, earning a SAG nomination for Best Ensemble, plus nods from the PGA and WGA. As for The Butler and Philomena, both are said to play extremely well to the Academy’s older contingent, which remains a large voting bloc. I don’t know though; I have a hard time imagining enough people naming Philomena as their favorite movie of the year to secure it a nomination. The Butler seems more likely to hit those numbers. Neither film was nominated by the PGA, which was notable because their exclusion — along with that of August: Osage County, which has not made the splash once expected for a star-studded adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winning play — meant that Oscar junkie Harvey Weinstein was shut out. Rare is the Best Picture slate that doesn’t include a movie from Harvey Weinstein. As in any other category, the guild nominees do not tend to line up perfectly with the Academy, so the PGA’s Weinstein-free slate doesn’t necessarily bode ill. I feel like The Butler, which has Weinstein’s muscle behind it and which hits the “sentimental epic” notes that will appeal to voters who loved Forrest Gump and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, will make it in. If it doesn’t, and if Philomena misses too, then that violent shaking felt across Los Angeles on Thursday morning won’t be an earthquake. It will be the wrath of Weinstein.

Predictions:
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
Her
Lee Daniels’ The Butler
Nebraska
Saving Mr. Banks
12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
Before Midnight
Captain Phillips
Gravity
Her
Inside Llewyn Davis
Mud
Nebraska
Prisoners
12 Years a Slave

BEST DIRECTOR
Alfonso Cuarón pioneered new filmmaking techniques in an effort to realize his vision for Gravity, while Steve McQueen fearlessly plunged the depths of slavery in America for 12 Years a Slave. Both are almost guaranteed a nomination. I say “almost” because they occupy the same frontrunner status held last year by Argo‘s Ben Affleck and Zero Dark Thirty‘s Kathryn Bigelow. Need a reminder of how that turned out? Still, I think last year’s omissions were the unfortunate result of a collective honest mistake, with many voters choosing less obvious candidates because they figured Affleck and Bigelow would be covered by others. So those who truly want to ensure that Cuarón and McQueen are nominated might be more careful this year and cast their vote accordingly, rather than assuming that everyone else will vote for them.

David O. Russell, included last year for Silver Linings Playbook should find himself back again for American Hustle. All three of these gentlemen were cited by the Director’s Guild of America (DGA), along with Paul Greengrass for Captain Phillips and Martin Scorsese for The Wolf of Wall Street. The same quintet were nominated by the British Academy of Film and Television (BAFTA) as well, a body which, like the DGA (and other guilds) shares some membership with the Academy. But the Oscar nominations rarely align with the DGA’s selections, so where will the discrepancy lie? A few weeks ago, I probably would have said that Greengrass was in and Scorsese out. That could certainly be how it goes. But I also wonder if the controversy surrounding Wolf of Wall Street won’t rally those fellow directors who were impressed by the movie — and by Scorsese’s ability to still make vital, passionately-debated movies at the age of 71 — to throw their support his way. On the other hand, Greengrass doesn’t just impress for the skill and effectiveness of his usual intense and vérité approach, but also for drawing such impressive performances from the four Somali leads, none of whom had ever acted professionally before.

Still, if he or Scorsese miss (assuming it’s one of them, and that only one nominee is different between the Academy and the DGA), who gets the fifth slot? The Director’s branch often backs filmmakers with esoteric or unconventional visions, and I’m guessing that tendency will show up this year and boost Her‘s Spike Jonze, a remarkable and highly selective director, into the final five.

There are plenty of other worthy names in the mix. Some stand a strong chance of breaking in (Alexander Payne for Nebraska), others a less likely chance (the Coen Brothers for Inside Llewyn Davis, Woody Allen for Blue Jasmine, J.C. Chandor for All is Lost) and still others pretty much no chance, no matter how deserving they may be (Richard Linklater for Before Midnight, Jeff Nichols for Mud, Jean-Marc Vallee for Dallas Buyers Club).

I’m really unsure what to do about Greengrass and Scorsese. I don’t think Scorsese would be nominated if The Wolf of Wall Street isn’t also nominated for Best Picture, which I’m not predicting. Since the Best Picture race expanded beyond five films, all of the directing nominees have had their movie in the Picture race as well. But only directors nominate directors, whereas the entire Academy votes for Best Picture. So given the different voting contingents, it’s conceivable that a director could be nominated while his or her film is not. Right? Probably unlikely…but conceivable. Grrrrrr. I’m probably backing the wrong horse here, but I’ll stick with my initial sense that Wolf will miss Best Picture but Scorsese will make it for Director.

Predictions: 
David O. Russell – American Hustle
Alfonso Cuarón – Gravity
Spike Jonze – Her
Steve McQueen – 12 Years a Slave
Martin Scorsese – The Wolf of Wall Street

Personal Picks:
J.C. Chandor – All is Lost
Alfonso Cuarón – Gravity
Spike Jonze – Her
Harmony Korine – Spring Breakers
Steve McQueen – 12 Years a Slave

BEST ACTOR
Here’s where it starts to get bloody. Because while it has been a strong year for movies, it has been an extraordinary year for performances. All of the acting races are rich with contenders, and as usual, Best Actor is the most crowded. It’s going to be brutal.

Since as far back as October, most Oscar pundits — professional and amateur — have expected the lineup to consist of Chiewtel Ejiofor for 12 Years a Slave, Tom Hanks for Captain Phillips, Matthew McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club, Bruce Dern for Nebraska and Robert Redford for All is Lost. That’s a goddamn beautiful list right there. But let’s pretend those five names are not in play. So maybe the category features Leonardo DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street, Oscar Isaac in Inside Llewyn Davis, Michael B. Jordan in Fruitvale Station, Joaquin Phoenix in Her and Christian Bale in American Hustle (or Out of the Furnace, in which he is magnificent). Once again, a stellar line-up. Now let’s take those guys out of the picture too. How about Forest Whitaker for The Butler (nominated for a SAG award), Hugh Jackman for Prisoners (or Jake Gyllenhaal, just as good), Tye Sheridan for Mud (don’t discount him because of his youth; his performance is every bit as worthy of recognition as veterans like Redford, Dern and Hanks), Daniel Brühl for Rush (he’s being campaigned as a Supporting Actor, but that’s bullshit; he’s a lead), and Idris Elba for Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.

In a normal year, there would be somewhere between five and ten performances that are truly deserving. This year, you could fill the category three times over and, with any configuration, have a dynamite slate. So…yeah. The voters in the acting branch face an impossible challenge, and no matter how it shakes out, some people who were good enough to win won’t even get nominated.

Looking again at the five who have longest been considered the likely nominees, Ejiofor and McConaughey feel secure, while Redford appears to be the most vulnerable. He is the only actor onscreen in All is Lost, and he has barely any dialogue. It’s acting at its purest, from a highly respected industry legend who has only been nominated as an actor once, back in 1973 for The Sting. But surprisingly, he was passed over by SAG voters, with Forest Whitaker taking the spot he was expected to occupy. The only prize he’s collected is a Best Actor win from the New York Film Critics Circle, though he has been nominated by a number of regional critics organizations, and made the list for the Golden Globes and Broadcast Film Critics Association. Redford hasn’t played the campaigning game that can often make the difference, but he’ll have the support of his fellow actors.

Hanks could miss out too. The most powerful moments of his performance in Captain Phillips come at the very end of the movie, and they’re shattering. Up until that point though, his work is more subtle and contained. Excellent, but the kind of unflashy turn that could conceivably be overlooked. Still, the movie seems to be generating across-the-board support, and it’s the first movie Hanks has done in a long time that has that awards-friendly glow to it. His last nomination was for Cast Away back in 2000. It would be nice to see him back in the hunt.

Earlier in the season, I was unsure about Bruce Dern’s likelihood of going all the way, but Nebraska is holding strong, and Dern has been campaigning like a machine, appearing at countless Q&A’s and events to promote the movie and mingle with voters. At 77 years-old, Dern has been in the business a long time, worked with a lot of great people and collected an endless supply of colorful stories that have charmed audiences during all this promotion. His performance in Nebraska is low-key, but beautifully affecting. In the wake of the movie’s warm reception at the Cannes Film Festival, where he was named Best Actor, it was unclear whether Paramount would campaign him for Best Supporting Actor or Best Actor. He definitely belongs in the latter, but his chances of winning would be much better in the former. The studio made the right call going with the lead actor category, and Dern agreed, telling The Hollywood Reporter, “If I go supporting, I’m a whore.” He made similar remarks, in his typical, entertainingly frank manner, to Deadline. Dern should have a lot of support from the acting branch’s older members, many of whom he has worked with and/or known for years.

The last movie of the year to be seen by voters and critics was The Wolf of Wall Street, and by then the category seemed impenetrable. Yet many think DiCaprio can’t miss. Pete Hammond of Deadline wrote after one of the film’s first industry screenings, “It would be unthinkable to imagine he won’t be in the top five.” I have to disagree. Given the competition, it’s easily thinkable. And while I’m not counting him out by any means, the Academy has not sparked to DiCaprio of late. His last nomination was in 2006 for Blood Diamond. Since then, he’s been overlooked for J. Edgar (a superb performance, whatever your thoughts on the movie) and Django Unchained. Maybe voters will feel his time has come around again. Though even if they do, that doesn’t mean he’ll make the cut in such a competitive year.

Oh, and on a side note, can people please stop calling Leo’s performance in Wolf the best of his career? Because it’s not. It’s really good, and surely one of his most energetic and fun. It’s certainly a highly committed performance; he does so much impassioned screaming that it’s a miracle he didn’t permanently blow his vocal chords. But career-best? No. It’s not better than What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (will anything be?), and it’s not better than The Departed. So let’s everyone just dial it back a bit.

I do think DiCaprio, along with Forest Whitaker and Christian Bale, are the guys with the best chance of breaking the Ejiofor-McConaughey-Hanks-Dern-Redford stronghold. Whitaker’s win in 2006 for The Last King of Scotland is the only time he’s been nominated, so it would be nice to see him in play once again. (Personally, I think there are several stronger and more worthy performances that deserve inclusion, but I can’t deny I’d be happy for him). The SAG nomination means he can’t be discounted, but I’m unconvinced he’ll make the cut in the end. If Bale makes it in, he’ll have the momentum of American Hustle to thank. Not to suggest he isn’t great, because he is, but in such a fiercely competitive year, his chances would be lower if he weren’t in such a beloved movie (probably part of the reason that his buzz is all about Hustle instead of Out of the Furnace.) David O. Russell’s last two movies racked up seven acting nominations and three wins (Bale and Melissa Leo for The Fighter, and Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook). Silver Linings earned nominations in each of the four acting categories, and it’s possible that Hustle could do that same. But of the four actors likely to make that happen, Bale faces the steepest uphill battle. In his favor, he was nominated for a Golden Globe, a BFCA award and a BAFTA award. Keep in mind though, that the Globes have categories for Drama and Comedy, while the BFCA nominate six actors, not just five.

I wish Oscar Isaac stood a stronger chance for Inside Llewyn Davis, but despite impressing many voters even beyond the film with his performances at a few concert events celebrating the soundtrack, there’s simply too much competition. And I really, really wish — though this isn’t even in the remotest realm of possibility — that teenager Tye Sheridan had a chance for his wonderful work in Mud. 17 years-old now but 14 when he shot it, Sheridan gives a nuanced, emotionally bare performance that deserves as serious consideration as any A-lister in the running.

A lot could happen in this race, but having to commit to predictions, I think the biggest surprise might be that it plays out exactly how it looked at the start.

Predictions:
Bruce Dern – Nebraska
Chiwetel Ejiofor – 12 Years a Slave
Tom Hanks – Captain Phillips
Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club
Robert Redford – All is Lost

Personal Picks:
Chiwetel Ejiofor – 12 Years a Slave
Oscar Isaac – Inside Llewyn Davis
Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club
Joaquin Phoenix – Her
Tye Sheridan – Mud

(Even for me, whose picks mean absolutely nothing to nobody, the choices are impossible. I can’t sacrifice any of these guys, but I so badly want to include Bale and Hanks. What a year…)

BEST ACTRESS
Like the Best Actor race, this one has seemed inflexible for quite a while. Cate Blanchett is so certain to win this award for Blue Jasmine that filling out the rest of the category is pretty much just ceremonial. Michael Barker, co-president of Jasmine‘s distributor Sony Pictures Classics, told Deadline back in June that no matter what else came along, Blanchett had the Oscar in the bag. Not the first time studio execs have made such bold claims, but this one will probably play out. Still, since she can’t stand alone quite yet, the conventional wisdom has been that she will keep company with Gravity‘s Sandra Bullock (considered her strongest competition), August: Osage County‘s Meryl Streep, Philomena‘s Judi Dench and from Saving Mr. Banks, Emma Thompson. And like Best Actor, there was enough great work to fill the category a second time, if not quite a third.

Of the next wave of contenders, the only one likely to break through is Amy Adams for her multifaceted work in American Hustle. The dark horse candidates are Brie Larson, playing a director at a foster care facility in the acclaimed indie Short Term 12; Julie Delpy, continuing to amaze as she deepens her now 19 year relationship with her character Celine in Before Midnight; and newcomer Adèle Exarchopoulos as a young woman in the throes of first love in the French film Blue is the Warmest Color, for which she and co-star Léa Seydoux shared the Cannes Film Festival’s Palme d’or prize with the director — a first in that award’s history. The chances that any of them could hear their name read are slim to none, but they’ve received a lot of love on the critics circuit. Adams and Delpy earned Golden Globe nominations in the Musical/Comedy category, as did Julia Louis-Dreyfus for her terrific performance in Enough Said, and Greta Gerwig for Frances Ha. (I really like her, but I didn’t care for the movie.) The BFCA, with six available slots, found room for Larson alongside Blanchett, Bullock, Dench, Streep and Thompson.

Bérénice Bejo, a Supporting Actress nominee two years ago for The Artist, garnered some early talk for her role in The Past, from Iranian director Asghar Farhadi. He took home the Best Foreign Language Film award the same year, for the outstanding domestic drama A Separation. Alas, even the critics awards haven’t found room for Bejo, so any dreams of Oscar will have to stay that way. (Unfortunately, I haven’t yet had a chance to see The Past, or Blue is the Warmest Color, so I can’t factor Bejo or Exarchopoulos into my own picks.) And lastly there’s Kate Winslet, who starred in Jason Reitman’s Labor Day. The movie didn’t earn the kind of acclaim that usually meets Reitman’s work, and while Winslet is quite good in the role, the movie is pretty low on the radar. She managed a Golden Globe nomination, but that’s as far as she’ll go.

The category could definitely play out as expected, which is also how the SAG nominations went. But I don’t know…I have a feeling Streep might sit this one out. August: Osage County, with its grand pedigree and powerhouse cast, came into the season with high expectations, but it was met with mixed reviews and has not generated a lot of buzz. It did play well with SAG, who awarded it two individual nominations and one for Best Ensemble, so that counts for something since actors nominate actors. And this is Meryl Streep we’re talking about. She’s been nominated for lesser work than this, and she is revered and beloved by all. But she’s also not hurting for recognition, having won her third Oscar two years ago on her 17th nomination. It’s not impossible that voters could decide to pass her over this time around. If so, her loss would be Amy Adams’ gain. I’ve bet against Adams before and been wrong each time. Dare I underestimate her popularity with the Academy yet again? She could also make it in at the expense of Dench or Thompson, both of whom are safe but not certain bets. But if I go with a gut feeling that’s been building for a while, I’d say Streep misses.

Predictions: 
Amy Adams – American Hustle
Cate Blanchett – Blue Jasmine
Sandra Bullock – Gravity
Judi Dench – Philomena
Emma Thompson – Saving Mr. Banks

Personal Picks:
Cate Blanchett – Blue Jasmine
Sandra Bullock – Gravity
Julie Delpy – Before Midnight
Brie Larson – Short Term 12
Meryl Streep – August: Osage County

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
All of the advance buzz for Dallas Buyers Club focused on Matthew McConaughey, but when the movie hit, Jared Leto received as much acclaim and attention as his co-star, playing a transgender AIDS patient who becomes McConaughey’s business partner. Leto’s performance — his first after a six year absence from acting — has nearly swept the critics awards, and made him the frontrunner for the win. Expect him to be joined by Michael Fassbender for 12 Year a Slave. After missing out on a nomination for Shame (for shame, Academy), his previous collaboration with Steve McQueen, the magnetic Fassbender should be a slam dunk nominee this time around as a drunken, brutish plantation owner.

SAG rounded out the category with newcomer Barkhad Abdi for Captain Phillips, Daniel Brühl for Rush, and James Gandolfini for Enough Said. Abdi is a good bet to make it in. He’s been a consistent presence on the landscape all season long, earning Golden Globe and BFCA nominations in addition to SAG, and his inexperience as an actor makes his performance that much more impressive. Brühl’s chances are less assured. He too was nominated for a Golden Globe and BFCA award, which were pleasant surprises considering that Rush had largely faded from the conversation since its September release. The movie is said to have a lot of admirers, and while that support may not carry it into the Best Picture race, which once seemed possible, it could be enough to get Brühl nominated. However I should say, for what it’s worth, that by no stretch of the imagination is this a supporting performance. Brühl is without question a co-lead alongside Chris Hemsworth, and Universal’s decision to campaign him as a supporting actor is just a way to give him a better chance at getting nominated, since he would never be able to break into such an overcrowded Best Actor field. Bruce Dern must think him a whore. As for James Gandolfini, he is absolutely deserving of a nomination for his change-of-pace role as a tender divorced man entering into a new relationship. The SAG nomination is welcome recognition, but had he not passed away this year, I think he would have been squeezed out. He’s received plenty of nominations from critics groups, but I don’t think he’s going to make it into the Oscar race. Respected as he is, he’s still most associated with his television work, and Oscar voters aren’t necessarily sentimental about these things. He could make it, but I’m not counting on it.

Who else is waiting in the wings? Bradley Cooper and Jonah Hill deliver colorful, incredibly entertaining performances in American Hustle and The Wolf of Wall Street, respectively. Neither managed a SAG nomination, but that is likely because their films weren’t ready in time to be seen by enough voters. Cooper has Globe and BFCA nominations, but Hill missed out on both of those. Cooper’s chances may be better, since voters are expected to go big with American Hustle, whereas Wolf of Wall Street‘s popularity within the Academy is more of a question mark. Hill, meanwhile, is known to have done a lot of improv that provides Wolf with some of its funniest moments, so that could work to his advantage with his fellow actors.

Tom Hanks was considered a strong contender for his role as Walt Disney in Saving Mr. Banks, but after missing out on SAG, Globe and BFCA nominations, he would now appear to be a long shot. Another Best Actor frontrunner who has a chance here, though not as much as it might have seemed earlier in the year, is Matthew McConaughey for his work as a charming fugitive in Mud. Will Forte has received some love from critics for Nebraska, but I don’t see it cutting through the competition. Among the actors relegated to long shot/near impossible status but who are nonetheless worthy of consideration: Harrison Ford for the Jackie Robinson biopic 42; Woody Harrelson and Casey Affleck, both quite powerful in Out of the Furnace; David Oyelowo for The Butler; John Goodman for a small but excellent turn in Inside Llewyn Davis; the perennially overlooked Sam Rockwell in The Way, Way Back; and Chris Cooper for a standout performance in August: Osage County.

And then there’s James Franco. His Spring Breakers is far outside the realm of movies that Oscar voters pay attention to, but it’s a textbook case to demonstrate that their narrow box often excludes work that absolutely deserves recognition. There are a number of categories where Spring Breakers deserves to be cited (you already saw me include its director Harmony Korine among my personal picks for Best Director), and if Academy voters took off their blinders, how could they not stand up for Franco’s sensational work as a hilariously materialistic DJ and drug dealer for whom spring break is a state of mind? The film’s indie distributor, A24, has mounted a campaign for Franco, but they only have so much money to spend, and none of it is likely to penetrate the Academy’s bubble. If Franco had a shot, he probably would have needed a SAG nomination, and that actually seemed like a possibility. SAG voters, after all, nominated Nicole Kidman’s somewhat gonzo turn in The Paperboy last year. Unfortunately, Franco was passed over, and a similar fate awaits him tomorrow morning. But if he somehow manages to get a surprise nomination, expect the gathered journalists in the room to let out an enthusiastic round of applause, hoots and hollers.

Predictions:
Barkhad Abdi – Captain Phillips
Daniel Brühl – Rush
Bradley Cooper – American Hustle
Michael Fassbender – 12 Years a Slave
Jared Leto – Dallas Buyers Club

Personal Picks:
Barkhad Abdi – Captain Phillips
Michael Fassbender – 12 Years a Slave
James Franco – Spring Breakers
Jonah Hill – The Wolf of Wall Street
Jared Leto – Dallas Buyers Club

(Again, I agonize over my meaningless picks. Kills me to leave off Coopers Bradley and Chris.)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Lupita Nyong’o was in her final months at Yale Drama School when she auditioned for 12 Years a Slave, and at the moment she’s the frontrunner to win the Oscar for her debut film. Not a bad way to break into the biz. But first the nomination. She’ll be there. As will last year’s Best Actress winner Jennifer Lawrence, who tears it up in American Hustle. For many viewers, she’s been the standout. On the other end of the age and experience spectrum is 84 year-old June Squibb, the veteran character actress who steals the show as Bruce Dern’s outspoken wife in Nebraska. It’s hard to imagine she won’t make the cut. Another good bet, though not a lock, is Oprah Winfrey for The Butler. Winfrey doesn’t act too often, but when she does, she somehow pulls off the seemingly impossible challenge of embodying a character despite being one of the most ubiquitous figures in the world. No small task. She was nominated in this category nearly 30 years ago for The Color Purple, and I suspect she’ll be back.

That leaves one slot, and any number of people it could go to…all of whom could also land in the final five if Winfrey or Squibb should miss. 2011’s winner Octavia Spencer was touted as a likely nominee ever since Fruitvale Station came out in July, but her chances seem to have diminished in the season’s later days. She could still make it, but after missing out on SAG, the Golden Globes and even the BFCA, I’m not counting on it. All three of those groups did, however, nominate Julia Roberts for August: Osage County. Like Daniel Brühl, Roberts should be in the lead category, but The Weinstein Company didn’t want her and Streep to contend with each other. Can Roberts make it in? I’m not sure. But it would be nice to see her there again. Like Tom Hanks, her last nomination came in 2000, when she won for Erin Brockovich.

One nomination that almost certainly won’t happen, but should, is Scarlett Johansson for Her. Although she never appears on camera, make no mistake: she is the movie’s female lead, and creates a fully developed, three dimensional character with just her voice. Several critics groups have nominated her, including the BFCA, but that’s unlikely to make a difference. Although the performance is eligible for an Oscar nomination, I don’t see actors going there, no matter how much they admire the film and her work in it. Whether it’s Robin Williams voicing the Genie, or Andy Serkis being replaced by a creation of visual effects in The Lord of the Rings or Rise of the Planet of the Apes, if the performer doesn’t appear on camera, actors don’t seem to consider it an award-worthy performance. Too bad, since I would think actors would understand the challenges of this work, and should be all the more impressed when it connects so successfully. Maybe someday this barrier will fall, but I don’t think voters are ready yet. However, in this case, there is a way to get around it…sort of. Johansson’s work in Her was not her only great performance this year. She was also excellent as the jersey girl sexbomb with unrealistic notions of romance in Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s directorial debut Don Jon. That performance is worth consideration on its own, but could pull double-duty as proxy recognition for Her.

If there’s a surprise in this category that catches most people off guard, it may well be Jennifer Garner for Dallas Buyers Club. She is not considered a likely contender, and in fact hasn’t received a single nomination in all of the precursor awards except as a member of the movie’s SAG-cited ensemble. But that Best Ensemble recognition was itself a big surprise, and the movie has been faring well in general. Garner is good in it, but doesn’t get to do the kind of transformative work that benefits McConaughey and Leto. Still, The Hollywood Reporter‘s awards analyst Scott Feinberg thinks she has an excellent chance, and his logic makes good sense. He says that voters only have time to watch so many movies, and when they find something they really like, they tend to vote for it across the board. It was by that reasoning that he was one of the few pundits to predict Jacki Weaver’s nomination last year for Silver Linings Playbook. There is usually at least one big surprise on nomination morning that most people didn’t see coming, and given the popularity Dallas Buyers Club seems to have, Garner could be it. Plus, after all of the accolades her husband Ben Affleck collected for Argo last year — not to mention the strange comments he kept making in his attempts to thank her, which made it sound like their marriage was a daily struggle — maybe voters feel that Garner has earned some recognition of her own. I can’t bring myself to predict it; I think this is the one acting category that will match the SAG list five-for-five. But if Garner does score a nod, I’ll definitely be applying Feinberg’s logic to future races.

Another surprise could be Sally Hawkins, who played Cate Blanchett’s sister in Blue Jasmine. She’s received a smattering of mentions from critics, as well as Golden Globe and BAFTA nominations. Never discount an actress in a Woody Allen film. Other names that have popped up but would make for shocking nominations, however well deserved, are Sarah Paulson for her cruel plantation mistress in 12 Years a Slave; Julianne Nicholson and Margo Martindale as family members harboring secrets in August: Osage County; Melissa Leo as the caretaker of a young man suspected of abducting two little girls in Prisoners; and Léa Seydoux as a new couple’s more experienced lover in Blue is the Warmest Color.

Predictions:
Jennifer Lawrence – American Hustle
Lupita Nyong’o – 12 Years a Slave
Julia Roberts – August: Osage County
June Squibb – Nebraska
Oprah Winfrey – Lee Daniels’ The Butler

Personal Picks:
Scarlett Johansson – Her
Jennifer Lawrence – American Hustle
Lupita Nyong’o – 12 Years a Slave
June Squibb – Nebraska
Oprah Winfrey – Lee Daniels’ The Butler

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Expect to see American Hustle and Nebraska among this year’s crop. Her, whether or not it can manage recognition for Best Picture or Best Director, would seem like a given here as well. I would also have said that the Coen Brothers’ Inside Llewyn Davis was a sure bet, but its lack of a WGA nomination, or broad guild support in general, makes it a tougher call. But the biggest question mark is Gravity. While the movie is expected to be one of the most nominated of the year, its chances here are cloudier. Even many who love the film would say that the story is slight and that the movie’s screenplay is not where it stands out. Others would argue that it’s much weightier on the story and thematic front that it’s been given credit for. I suspect the writers will pass on it, but given its frontrunner status for other top awards, it could absolutely land here.

The indefatigable Woody Allen stands a good chance at his 16th writing nomination for Blue Jasmine. He got the WGA nod alongside Hustle, Her, Nebraska and Dallas Buyers Club, which is another strong but by no means certain contender. I’d say Dallas‘ chances depend on what happens with Gravity and Inside Llewyn Davis. Saving Mr. Banks could find some love here, but having not been the big player so far that it was initially expected to be, it’s hard to anticipate what the Academy will do with it. Enough Said and Fruitvale Station are also on the fringe, but I’m not expecting either to get this far. And if the writer’s branch decides to throw a curve ball or two, look out for Mud, All is Lost or Prisoners.

Predictions:
David O. Russell, Eric Warren Singer – American Hustle
Woody Allen – Blue Jasmine
Spike Jonze – Her
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen – Inside Llewyn Davis
Bob Nelson – Nebraska

Personal Picks:
Spike Jonze – Her
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen – Inside Llewyn Davis
Jeff Nichols – Mud
Bob Nelson – Nebraska
Aaron Guzikowski – Prisoners

[Update, January 26: My personal picks originally included Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg’s script for This is the End, but last night I remembered that script doesn’t qualify as original because it’s based on a short film: Seth and Jay vs. the Apocalypse. I removed it from my list and replaced it with Bob Nelson for Nebraska.]

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
The Writers Guild nominations aren’t as much of a guideline in this category since, as always, some scripts were ruled ineligible for guild consideration. This was true for Best Original Screenplay too, but the only disqualified movie in that field which is expected to be a contender is Fruitvale Station, and that’s hardly a frontrunner. Not so on this side of the fence, where 12 Years a Slave, which could well be the winner come Oscar night, did not qualify with the WGA. But you can bet it will be on the Oscar shortlist, probably joined by Captain Phillips and Before Midnight. Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke, the trio behind the latter, were nominated in this category back in 2004 for the previous film in the series, Before Sunset. They should repeat for this continuation which has been received just as enthusiastically, if not more.

Another strong possibility which didn’t meet the WGA’s standards is Philomena. With that and 12 Years out of play, the guild found room for August: Osage County and Lone Survivor. August still stands a chance with the Academy, but I wouldn’t bet on Lone Survivor. Not to take anything away from it; it’s a good movie. But a screenplay nomination seems like a stretch. The final WGA nominee, along with August, Survivor, Phillips and Midnight, is The Wolf of Wall Street, which I think will repeat here. Last summer’s beautifully spun teen romance The Spectacular Now collected a number of nominations from critics groups, but is a long shot to go the distance with the Oscars. Ditto the indie drama Short Term 12. These are the kind of wonderful small movies that, despite excessive praise from critics, never seem to attract the eyes necessary to lift them to Oscar-level awareness.

Predictions:
Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke – Before Midnight
Billy Ray – Captain Phillips
Steve Coogan, Jeff Pope – Philomena
John Ridley – 12 Years a Slave
Terence Winter – The Wolf of Wall Street

Personal Picks:
Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke – Before Midnight
Destin Daniel Cretton – Short Term 12
John Ridley – 12 Years a Slave
Carroll Cartwright, Nancy Doyne – What Maisie Knew
Terence Winter – The Wolf of Wall Street

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
It has not been a strong year for animation. At least, not in the mainstream. Several of the 19 films submitted to the Academy for consideration are foreign entries that did not get wide release or promotion here in the states, so I can’t speak to those. But homegrown projects were not, as a group, the best we’ve seen. If at least 16 of the 19 submitted films are accepted by the Academy, the field will qualify for five nominees. Less than 16 will mean a field of four nominees, and less than 13 will result in three. A three nominee field could sport an impressive group. Five will be pushing it, at least based on what Hollywood turned out.

There’s also been a change this year to how the nominees will be selected. In the past, a committee of 100 Academy members had to attend special screenings of all the qualifying films in order to vote for which to nominate. Now the committee will be larger, and its members will be allowed to view screeners of the nominees at home. But according to The Wrap, it is unclear if the Academy would provide those screeners or if they expect the studios to do so. (I’m guessing the former.)

Disney’s Frozen, a huge hit and well-reviewed fairy tale, leads the way, while The Wind Rises, Japanese animation master Hayao Miyazaki’s final film as director (he says he’s retiring), is a good bet. If the category tops out at three nominees, I expect Monsters University will round it out. But there will probably be at least four, and knowing so little about the foreign contenders makes it hard to tell what might make the cut. Only the French film Ernest & Celestine, a hand-drawn tale of friendship between a bear and a mouse, has landed on my radar, and word is that it’s excellent. Despicable Me 2 was a massive hit, but can the sequel get nominated if the original couldn’t? I suppose so, but I just don’t get what the big deal is with those movies…not that my personal feelings have any place in the subtle art of Oscar predicting. I just have to imagine that some of the foreign offerings are better than Despicable Me 2, or The Croods or most of the other Hollywood options (though I’ll admit I did like most of Epic). Of course, better doesn’t always mean anything. Depending on how much larger the voting committee is, and how members see the movies, the final slate could favor bigger, well-known films, or instead offer some surprises from beyond our borders.

Predictions:
The Croods
Ernest & Celestine
Frozen
Monsters University
The Wind Rises

Personal Picks:
Epic
Frozen
Monsters University
The Wind Rises

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Moving into the below-the-line categories, expect to see a lot of one word in particular: Gravity. It should come as no surprise that the astonishing outer space drama leads the way in this category, where it is likely to be joined by 12 Years a Slave and Inside Llewyn Davis. Those three movies were among the nominees for the American Society of Cinematographers award, where a three-way tie resulted in a seven-nominee race, rounded out by Captain Phillips, The Grandmaster, Nebraska and Prisoners. Usually there are one or two differences between the guild’s nominees and the Academy’s, but does the guild’s larger field mean the five Oscar nominees will come from this pool of seven? If so, that eliminates the gorgeous lensing of Her, which I had hoped would be a no-brainer.

If the branch looks beyond the ASC’s seven, and beyond the limits of traditional Academy fare, they would be wise to recognize the stunning work on display in Spring Breakers. Other films from earlier in the year that would make deserving nominees but that are probably too far removed from the Academy’s consciousness, whether by time or beause they aren’t sprinkled with whatever pixie dust deems them Oscar worthy: the Tom Cruise sci-fi film Oblivion, the creepy Mia Wasikowska thriller Stoker; and Sofia Coppola’s The Bling Ring, the last film shot by Harris Savides before his untimely death.

Based on no evidence whatsoever, I feel like the branch will take the opportunity to celebrate a striking black and white film whenever one is an option, so I’m guessing Nebraska will make the cut. As for that fifth slot, I could see it going to the beautiful imagery of The Grandmaster, the cold, dark compositions of Prisoners, the contrast of character intimacy and scenic vastness in All is Lost, and the simultaneously warm and cool clarity of Her. I’ll go with The Grandmaster. But man, what a tough call. Some really excellent work this year.

Predictions:
Phillippe Le Sourd – The Grandmaster
Emmanuel Lubezki – Gravity
Bruno Delbonnel – Inside Llewyn Davis
Phedon Papamichael – Nebraska
Sean Bobbitt – 12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
Emmanuel Lubezki – Gravity
Hoyte van Hoytema – Her
Bruno Delbonnel – Inside Llewyn Davis
Roger Deakins – Prisoners
Benoît Debie – Spring Breakers

BEST FILM EDITING
Best Picture frontrunners usually land a nomination for Editing, so expect Gravity and 12 Years a Slave to be here, and probably American Hustle and Captain Phillips as well. The fifth slot could go to another movie from the list of usual suspects, with The Wolf of Wall Street, Her, Nebraska, Dallas Buyers Club or Inside Llewyn Davis standing the best chance. Or it could go to a well-crafted, action-heavy movie like World War Z, Lone Survivor or The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. But the best shot may be Ron Howard’s Formula 1 race car film Rush, once considered a strong possibility for contention in the top categories. Things didn’t work out that way, but if Rush can get some love anywhere, it might be here.

Predictions:
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Gravity
Rush
12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
Captain Phillips
Gravity
Inside Llewyn Davis
Spring Breakers
World War Z

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
12 Years a Slave will probably find a home here due more to its place as one of the year’s major players than because it’s one of the five best art/set decorated films of the year. Gravity has a good shot too, though its limited locations make me wonder if it will be overlooked. American Hustle is a possibility, but I’m not convinced. It’s 1970’s setting does make it a period piece — and the design branches love their period pieces — but it isn’t as elaborate or obvious as the kind of period pieces that usually score here, which makes me doubt its chances. I hope that the subtle futurism and wonderful color scheme of Her will be recognized, but for some reason I don’t feel confident about it. Moving beyond the big dogs, the dazzling excess of The Great Gatsby should land a spot, and since all of Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth films have been nominated, it would stand to reason that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will follow suit. It’s possible that the voters could be tired of these, but with all the new locations on display, the films aren’t necessarily repeating themselves. Still, the familiarity of the world casts some doubt at this point. Meanwhile, the elegant scenery of Stoker and Oblivion deserve consideration, and Saving Mr. Banks is a possibility here too.

Predictions:
American Hustle
Gravity
The Great Gatsby
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
The Great Gatsby
Her
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Oblivion
Stoker

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Again, chances are good that we’ll see 12 Years a Slave here even though, yes, again, there are more interesting and imaginative choices to be made. American Hustle is expected to score here too, although I’m a tad wary. While the 70’s always allow for some entertaining fashion selections, the Academy doesn’t always take notice. Then again, signature pieces like the white macramé swimsuit worn by Amy Adams should push Hustle to the final five. The members of this branch are always on the hunt for an 1800s or early 1900s period piece and the elaborate outfits that mark that era, and they will likely find their champion this year in The Invisible Woman, a film about Charles Dickens and his younger mistress that was directed by and stars Ralph Fiennes. The Great Gatsby will probably break through here too. As for other period films that might pop up, there’s Saving Mr. Banks, although I’m not sure there is enough variety to secure it a nod. Inside Llewyn Davis features nice work too. Amidst the desaturated camerawork, the colors worn by John Goodman, Carey Mulligan, Justin Timberlake and F. Murray Abraham stand out nicely.

On the less historical, more fantasy-based side of the closet, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a possibility. The previous Hobbit film missed in this category, but not for lack of worthiness, so perhaps it will happen this year. There’s also The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, which features a wide variety of creative looks. I was a little surprised that the first Hunger Games film didn’t land a nomination here, and wondered if its chances would have been better had it come out at the end of the year rather than in March. Catching Fire was a November release, so we’ll see if that makes a difference.

While not exactly fantasy, the clothes in Her do a lot to sell the concept of a near-future that is logically grown out of the present day. It’s probably not flashy enough to do the trick for these voters, but it would be a nice surprise if it showed up. And since contemporary clothing almost never gets recognized, no matter how well or uniquely designed and suited to its film it is, we will almost certainly be denied nominations for Blue Jasmine and Stoker, both of which would be commendable surprises from the costume branch.

Predictions:
American Hustle
The Great Gatsby
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Invisible Woman
12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
The Great Gatsby
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Inside Llewyn Davis
Stoker

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
This continues to be a frustrating category, not only because it is governed by some stupid rules, but because the evaluation process is flawed. Steve Pond lamented these issues last week in The Wrap. For starters, a song can only qualify if it appears during the course of the movie itself or if it is the first song during the end credits. If it’s the second song in the credits, it’s ineligible. That might not happen often, but it happens. Also, members are asked to judge the contenders — and for the second year in a row there were 75 eligible songs — by watching a DVD that contains clips of each number as it appears in the movie. This puts end credit songs at a disadvantage, since voters have to watch them over scrolling names, with no context for how they actually fit into their movie or build on the final scenes. Worse than that, clips are limited to three minutes. If a song is longer, it simply cuts off. How can a song be judged fairly if it isn’t even offered in its entirety? Okay, I’ll concede it’s unrealistic to expect voters to sit through every full movie that has an eligible song just to see how that song fits into the whole, so context may always be a problem. But since that issue may exist no matter what, why not send a CD which contains each song in full, so that members have a second option for listening to the many contenders? It might be easier to listen to all the options if they can take it in the car with them, or elsewhere on the go. At the very least, whether delivered on a CD, a DVD or both, it’s offensive to the process not to include each complete song.

So with all that said, what are we looking at? So many possibilities means a 100% accurate prediction is unlikely, but there are a couple of selections that are probably locks, beginning with “Let it Go” from Disney’s Frozen. It’s a fairly standard empowerment number, but Idina Menzel belts it out something terrific. U2 picked up the Golden Globe for “Ordinary Love,” their contribution to Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, and will probably be in the running here. In addition, there are five eligible songs from The Great Gatsby, including efforts by Jay-Z and Florence + the Machine. But the one with the most buzz is Lana Del Rey’s “Young and Beautiful.” Last month, there was an anonymous effort to mislead voters into thinking the song was disqualified, but there was no truth to it. Who knows if the trick was played by a rival studio, or one of the many Lana Del Rey haters out there, but the song is eligible, and in my opinion, deserving.

Unfortunately, my favorite song from a movie all year IS ineligible. “Fare Thee Well” from Inside Llewyn Davis, although new to me, is not new to the world. (If you’re a fan, check out some of its earlier incarnations courtesy of Vulture.) None of the wonderful songs from Llewyn Davis qualify, as they are all either older tunes being performed anew, or adaptations of previously existing ones. Several critics groups gave their Best Original Song award to the movie’s amusing track “Please Mr. Kennedy,” but the song borrows from a few similar pieces written during the era depicted in the movie, disqualifying it for Academy consideration.

One of the best songs of the year is not the typical studio-produced piece, but a bare bones rap clocking in at less than two minutes, performed by actor and musician Keith Stanfield, who plays a foster home resident in Short Term 12. It’s a song that would appear to perfectly encapsulate the intentions of the music branch, as it speaks directly to the character’s experiences and how he feels about his life. If the Academy’s goal is to recognize songs that are organic to their movies and have an impact on the story, than this isn’t just a nominee; it’s the winner.

Other songs that I really wanted to include among my personal picks were Ed Sheeran’s “I See Fire” from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, José González’s “Stay Alive” from The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, and Kings of Leon’s “Last Mile Home” from August: Osage County. If you’re interested in an assessment of the full field by someone who actually listened to all 75 contenders, here again is The Wrap‘s Steve Pond with his thoughts. In the end, anyone taking a shot at predicting this category is bound to miss at least one. But that won’t stop us trying. Having not heard anywhere near all of the options, here are my dart throws.

Predictions:
Let it Go – Frozen
Young and Beautiful – The Great Gatsby
The Moon Song – Her
Ordinary Love – Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom
We Ride – Spark: A Burning Man Story

Personal Picks:
Young and Beautiful – The Great Gatsby
The Moon Song – Her
Oblivion – Oblivion
So You Know What It’s Like – Short Term 12
Becomes the Color – Stoker

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Gravity and 12 Years a Slave will show up again here, but this is a case where the frontrunners will earn below-the-line nominations on true merit, not just because voters are selecting it lazily and without consideration. Or…I suppose maybe that is why they will select them, but at least they deserve to be here.

I’m sure I’ve said somewhere on this blog before (feel free to look around for it) that my favorite film scores are those that do their primary job of serving the movie, of course, but are also memorable enough in their themes and motifs to stand on their own as listening experiences. I find such scores are tragically rare these days. The only one from 2013 that stayed with me in that way was Hans Zimmer’s music for 12 Years a Slave. Mark Orton’s score for Nebraska has been growing on me too, but is ineligible for Oscar consideration because much if it was used in an earlier movie. Even The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug didn’t offer up any new themes that resonated with me after the movie.

And yet there were a great numbers of scores this year that made an impression on me in the context of their films, even if most of them were not distinctive enough on their own to become essential additions to my soundtrack collection…other than to serve as nice background music. Which is relevant here because…oh right, it isn’t. I’m just saying, there was a wealth of excellent music that provided atmosphere and emotional resonance to their films, if not exactly classic themes that will become part of the zeitgeist. Alex Ebert, frontman for the band Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros, just won a Golden Globe for his beautiful music from All is Lost, which plays an especially important role since the movie has barely any dialogue. Ebert was just one of many musicians who successfully dabbled in film composing this year. Skrillex worked with composer Cliff Martinez on Spring Breakers, and Muse contributed to the World War Z score composed by Marco Beltrami — though neither result appears on the list of 114 eligible scores). M83 created the music for Oblivion, and Spike Jonze enlisted his friends from Arcade Fire to provide original music for Her, either of which would be welcome nominees. Perhaps there were additional examples that I’m unaware of, but I thought this was interesting.

Among other scores that impressed me were Prisoners, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, Mud, Stoker, Philomena, Labor Day, The Grandmaster and Out of the Furnace (the latter two are also missing from the eligibility list).

John Williams, who is basically retired at this point except for anything directed by Steven Spielberg, as well as his impending return to the Star Wars saga, was apparently such a fan of the novel The Book Thief that he approached the producers and offered his services. Nobody’s going to say no to that, and the results are of course being talked up for a nomination. Williams is always a good bet, but the score didn’t leave much of an impression on me. There has also been some buzz for Hans Zimmer’s Man of Steel score. It was decent (certainly not better than the Williams score we all know and love, not that it was trying to be…or needed to be), but I don’t see that nomination happening. Zimmer could also be a contender for Rush, and his protégé Henry Jackman is in the mix for Captain Phillips. Once upon a time, Disney musicals were a given for score nominations, so Frozen could crack the list, and Saving Mr. Banks — a movie about Disney — might earn another nomination for Thomas Newman (though frankly, the only parts of that score that stood out to me were the moments that incorporated music from Mary Poppins). I didn’t get a chance to see Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, but the fact that its music was among the Golden Globe nominees means it stands a shot at an Oscar nomination too.

It’s clearly a packed field this year, with many possible outcomes. But here goes.

Predictions:
Alex Ebert – All is Lost
John Williams – The Book Thief
Steven Price – Gravity
Alexandre Desplat – Philomena
Hans Zimmer – 12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
Daniel Hart – Ain’t Them Bodies Saints
Steven Price – Gravity
William Butler, Owen Pallett – Her
Clint Mansell – Stoker
Hans Zimmer – 12 Years a Slave

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
In December, the Makeup Artists and Hairstylists branch of the Academy announced the seven-film longlist from which the three nominees will be chosen. Focusing only on the quality of the work and not the quality of the film, their selections run the gamut from Best Picture contenders American Hustle and Dallas Buyers Club to box office hits The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The Great Gatsby and Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa (no, I’m not kidding) to a couple of movies that are most definitely not Best Picture contenders or box office hits: The Lone Ranger and Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (still not kidding). Like I said, the branch evaluates the work, not the film, and both Bad Grandpa and The Lone Ranger feature excellent makeup work. I haven’t seen Hansel & Gretel, but now that I’m Googling some of its makeup images, I gotta say: pretty cool. Nice to see that The Hunger Games got some attention, after the first movie didn’t even make it to the longlist last year. All in all, the seven options represent a nice cross section of hair-centric work, aging makeup and creature prosthetics.

Among the surprising omissions are The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (which may have been considered “been there, done that”), Rush, World War Z, Lone Survivor and Lee Daniels’ The Butler, which not only aged Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey and other actors over several years, but also did a pretty nice job transforming Professor Snape Hans Gruber Alan Rickman into Ronald Reagan.

Predictions:
American Hustle
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
The Lone Ranger

Personal Picks:
American Hustle
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (What can I say? The stuff looks great.)

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Always one of my favorite categories, as visual effects and music scores were the two movie components that got me interested in the Oscars in the first place. Like the Makeup and Hairstyling branch, the Visual Effects branch narrows the year’s options down to a longlist, and chooses the nominees from there. The VFX longlist consists of 10 films, and that number will be cut in half for five nominees. This royal rumble features Elysium, Gravity, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Iron Man 3, The Lone Ranger, Oblivion, Pacific Rim, Star Trek Into Darkness, Thor: The Dark World and World War Z. While there are certainly other movies that might have made it, like Man of Steel or Ender’s Game, there isn’t anything missing that I would consider a glaring omission.

Besides, we all know what’s winning this award anyway.

Predictions:
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Iron Man 3
Pacific Rim
Star Trek Into Darkness

Personal Picks:
Same

BEST SOUND EDITING/BEST SOUND MIXING
By now, I have figured out what each of these things mean, and I understand the difference between them. Yay for me. In simplest terms, the sound editors record or create sounds that could not be captured during filming, either because dragons are not real (so I’m told) or maybe because the location was too noisy to get a usable recording of a particular real-world sound. Sound mixers then take all the sound effects and the music and the dialogue, and blend it all together in proper relation to each other.

Unfortunately, that does nothing to help me understand or predict what the best achievements in these fields are.

But I can make some educated guesses, and the first is that Gravity will be nominated in both categories. Captain Phillips has a pretty good shot at both too. Inside Llewyn Davis recorded its many song performances live during filming, just as Les Misérables did last year, so that gives it a good shot in the Mixing category. Beyond that, we can look to almost any big action movie as a possibility for one or both of these, meaning we could see The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, Pacific Rim, Man of Steel, World War Z, Lone Survivor, Oblivion, The Lone Ranger or Elysium. Animated films sometimes pop up here, especially those from Pixar, which makes Monsters University a possibility, or by association, Frozen. 12 Years a Slave might slide in if voters fill it in down the line; Rush could find some traction here with its many car races; The Great Gatsby, with all of that music and party noise and excess feels like a contender; and All is Lost relies heavily on the soundscape to tell its story.

That broad array of options is about as specific as I can get, so here are the rest of those educated guesses.

Sound Editing Predictions:
All is Lost
Captain Phillips
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Pacific Rim

Sound Mixing Predictions:
Captain Phillips
Gravity
The Great Gatsby
Inside Llewyn Davis
Star Trek Into Darkness

As for my personal picks, my limited understanding of these categories means I never have strong opinions, but I say each year that I think there should simply be one category, Best Sound Design, honoring a movie’s entire scope of sonic achievement. My picks for that imaginary category would be All is Lost, Gravity, Inside Llewyn Davis, Stoker and World War Z. I imagine if I had seen The Conjuring, that might find a place here too. But I didn’t, so it doesn’t.

With that, I think we’re done here. In keeping with tradition, I’m afraid I have no insight to offer for Best Documentary, Best Foreign Language Film or any of the short film categories. But since I’m sure I lost you somewhere around the sixth paragraph of Best Actor anyway, if not before, it’s just as well. The nominees will be announced tomorrow at 5:38am PT by Chris Hemsworth and Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs. And then tomorrow night, all the people who didn’t get nominated will try to put on a happy face when they attend the Broadcast Film Critics Association ceremony. The awards train stops for no one.

October 25, 2013

Grappling with the Remake 2: Grappling Harder

Filed under: Movies — DB @ 3:45 pm
Tags: , ,

A couple of months ago I wrote about Hollywood’s bad habit of making unnecessary sequels. Not long after, I wrote about another bad Hollywood habit: its obsession with remakes. Now I’m writing a Part II to the remake piece, and perhaps some of you, after reading/skimming/skipping the initial post, will deem this an unnecessary sequel. But with all the remakes in the works, I thought it worthwhile to take a closer look at some of them, and it seemed like that would be better suited to its own post. So here is my sequel to my post about remakes. I might have officially become the thing I loathe. Oh, the humanity.

First, I want to mention last week’s release of Carrie, a remake I discussed in Part I. Despite a robust marketing campaign that included heavy promotion during thematically appropriate shows like The Walking Dead, and despite the proximity to Halloween, the new version of Brian De Palma’s horror classic (based on Stephen King’s novel) didn’t make much of an impression. Reviews were mostly negative and the box office was disappointing. I suspect that will be the case with many of these if they see the light of day, as it has been with so many before. But Hollywood doesn’t seem to get the message. So what follows is a rundown of several remakes currently in development. More than a mere list of projects though, you also get my thoughts on whether the remake is a good idea or a bad. That’s the sort of thoughtful, expert analysis you’re paying for as a subscriber to this blog.

What do you mean you’re not paying for this?

To properly rate the “remakability” of these movies, I’ve created a system of measurement. In another recent post, Movie Mixtape #1, the 1985 Richard Pryor movie Brewster’s Millions was discussed, and my friend Brantley pointed out that it had been made seven times prior to Pryor. With that in mind, the following remakes in development are rated on The Brewster Scale, with one Brewster indicating that the remake is a terrible idea, and five Brewsters meaning the movie is a prime candidate for another try.

Let’s see what we’ve got…

ALL OF ME (1984, Director: Carl Reiner)
Steve Martin’s work as a lawyer who loses control of the right side of his body to the consciousness of a wealthy, dying woman (Lily Tomlin) is often referenced as one of the greatest performances of physical comedy ever. The proposed twist for the remake is to switch the genders, with a woman becoming partly overtaken by a man’s soul. Enough reason for a re-do? Not really. It might provide a nice showcase for a comedic actress, but how refreshing it would be if Hollywood studios and screenwriters took up the challenge of writing an original piece that offers such a showcase, instead of lazily adapting an existing property that stars two comedy icons.

Remakability:

X

BEN-HUR (1959, Director: William Wyler)
One of the greatest cinematic epics of all time. Winner of 11 Academy Awards. An undisputed Hollywood classic. So let’s take another crack at it, shall we? I mentioned in Part I that the Charlton Heston film was not the first adaptation of the 1880 novel about the Christ figure Judah Ben-Hur; it was previously filmed in 1925 and 1907 (the latter being a 15 minute short focusing mainly on the chariot race). But Wyler’s version is certainly the definitive take, and I’m not sure why anybody would try to out-do it. Remember the 2010 TV miniseries adaptation that aired on ABC? No, of course you don’t. A similar fate likely awaits whatever new version attempts to top Wyler’s. But plans are moving forward. Just yesterday, it was announced that John Ridley, who wrote the script for the rapturously reviewed new movie 12 Years a Slave, will handle scripting duties on Ben-Hur, which will be more faithful to the original book than Wyler’s movie. Yeah…we hear that justification all the time. Rarely does it prove true. To really put the absurdity of this remake in perspective though, look at who’s been hired to direct it. Timur Bekmambetov, whose hyperkinetic classics include the Angelina Jolie action flick Wanted, and last year’s Oscar winning biopic Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Do yourself a favor: read the first paragraph of New Yorker critic Anthony Lane’s review of Wanted. In one short paragraph, he brilliantly encapsulates Bekmambetov’s bombastic style. This is the guy that MGM has chosen to take on William Wyler. Facepalm.

Remakability:

X

THE BLACK HOLE (1979, Director: Gary Nelson)
After Star Wars exploded, every producer and studio in Hollywood wanted a slice of the sci-fi pie, and Disney’s contribution was this cheesy but effectively creepy tale about a scientist aboard a vessel thought to be missing, who plans to conduct an experiment by taking the ship into a black hole. The cast included Maximilian Schell, Anthony Perkins, Robert Forster and Ernest Borgnine, but what I remember most from seeing the movie as a kid are the robots: the R2-D2-esque V.I.N.CENT and the foreboding Maximilian. The Black Hole was an interesting venture for Walt Disney Pictures. No other film they’d produced had depicted human deaths or any sort of profanity, and because this featured both, it became the studio’s first PG movie. Yet it was still a Disney film, so it couldn’t push the darker elements of the story as far as they might have gone. Joseph Kosinski, the director of Tron: Legacy and Oblivion, is attached to the remake, which is being written by Prometheus co-writer Jon Spaihts. Kosinski’s impressive visual sensibility, combined with the freedom to explore and indulge the sinister side of the original, makes The Black Hole a rare specimen that could benefit from a new version.

Remakability:

X

THE BODYGUARD (1992, Director: Mick Jackson)
The original film has a firm place in popular culture, though probably due more to Whitney Houston’s soundtrack — powered by the chart-topping phenomenon “I Will Always Love You” — than to the movie itself, which was poorly reviewed. It was a big hit, earning $121 million in the U.S., but much of that was likely due to timing. Kevin Costner was still such a huge star at the time that even the haircut everyone hated couldn’t trim their enthusiasm, and Houston hadn’t yet begun her decline into drugs and bad behavior. The movie surely has a lot of fans who remember it fondly from their teenage years, but a remake could potentially improve on the story. Apparently the protector in this version will be an Iraq war veteran, and the plot will involve internet stalking. Put Channing Tatum in this thing and you might just have something.

Remakability:

X

THE CANNONBALL RUN (1981, Director: Hal Needham)
While it absolutely holds a special place in my memories of childhood, this comedy about a cross-country car race isn’t exactly hallowed ground. However I’m fervently opposed to this remake as it was originally conceived back in 2011 because it was essentially intended as a feature-length commercial for General Motors. There hasn’t been any news about the project since then, and if it is still in development, it’s possible that the parameters of the deal have evolved and that GM is no longer financing it. Still, the original film has such a great, fun cast — Burt Reynolds, Dom DeLuise, Sammy Davis Jr., Dean Martin, Jackie Chan, Roger Moore, Farrah Fawcett, Jack Elam…can the movie’s charm be reproduced? It’s been a long time since we’ve had a star-packed, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World type of film. It would be nice to see a new one that does its job well, but it better be more than a prolonged advertisement.

Remakability:

X

CLUE (1985, Director: Jonathan Lynn)
A cult comedy classic based on the Parker Brothers board game (my personal favorite of all the boarded games, sorry Sorry!), the original is a dumb comedy, but a hilarious dumb comedy. Its sensational cast remains impressive, with Christopher Lloyd, Tim Curry, Martin Mull, Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean and the dear departed Eileen Brennan and Madeline Kahn all clicking superbly. C’mon, do you really think you can compete with this?

Efforts to develop this remake are headed up by Gore Verbinski, the director of Pirates of the Caribbean, Rango and The Lone Ranger. And despite the whole premise of Clue involving a murder mystery in a large mansion, one of Verbinski’s producing partners seems to envision it as “a global thriller and transmedia event that uses deductive reasoning as its storytelling engine.” I don’t even know what that means, but I know it’s not Clue. File this one under the Battleship Syndrome: exploiting a familiar property for name recognition but doing something that in fact has nothing to do with that property or what people enjoy about it. If someone wants to bring Clue back to the screen, they should try adapting the Steven Millhauser short story “A Game of Clue”, which moves between a family playing the game and the characters inside the game, with each group experiencing tension and conflict (including Col. Mustard’s attempted seduction of Miss Scarlet). I didn’t actually love the details of that story, but I like the idea. Why not use that as a loose springboard for a new movie that is a little more unconventional, but at least original? Well…original aside from the whole “based on a short story” part. I’d enjoy seeing that. But anyone attempting a straight-up remake deserves to be killed with the lead pipe in the billiard room by me.

Remakability:

X

THE CROW (1994, Director: Alex Proyas)
James McAvoy has been connected to this remake of the supernatural thriller that gained notoriety when star Brandon Lee — son of Bruce — died in an accident on set. It’s got a pretty cool, dark fantasy/thriller premise, but the original was generally well received and has retained some cult classic status. The tragic death of its star lends it some additional weight as an object of modern movie lore. What’s the point of going back to the well?

Remakability:

X

DeathWish DEATH WISH (1974, Director: Michael Winner)
Charles Bronson starred in this movie (and its four sequels) about a man who turns vigilante, hunting down the criminals who attacked his family. The premise is pretty straightforward, and we’ve seen it many times, including such recent films as The Brave One, with Jodie Foster in the Bronson role, and Liam Neeson’s Taken. There is a certain satisfaction audiences seem to take in watching a good person who has been wronged exact violent revenge, so the idea has ongoing merit. But it’s for exactly that reason that a remake is unnecessary. What value does the Death Wish title hold for anyone? If we have to see yet another story like this one, there’s no need to invoke an old title. This one ranks low on the Brewster Scale not because the original is sacred, but because a remake feels moot. And if there’s any truth to the report that producers want Bruce Willis to star, that’s all the more reason for me to wish death on this whole idea. Willis would sleepwalk his way through a by-the-numbers movie like this.

Remakability:

X

DIRTY DANCING (1987, Director: Emile Ardolino)
The original was a huge sleeper hit whose popularity endures to this day. Which is why remaking it is a fool’s errand. The movie clicked with audiences at the time and has become something that one generation of fans hands down to the next. It captured something magical, and that’s not going to happen again. It was already remade once, and failed to connect. Okay, Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights was technically a sequel, with Patrick Swayze cameoing, but it was basically the same plot in a different location with new characters. If it didn’t work then, why does anyone think it will work now? People’s love for the original is all about the music and the chemistry between Swayze and Jennifer Grey. Even with the original film’s choreographer Kenny Ortega now in the director’s chair, this is a bad idea. Let’s keep this one in the corner.

Remakability:

X

ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK (1981, Director: John Carpenter)
I led off Part I with news that the longtime effort to reboot this cult classic was given new life earlier this year. Producer Joel Silver wants to do a reboot trilogy, with at least the first chapter taking place before the events of the original, perhaps depicting how New York fell in the first place. This article likens the approach to Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which was a surprisingly impressive addition to that long-running series. It’s not necessarily a bad idea, and let’s be honest: Escape from New York is not as good as its cult status might have you believe. On the other hand, Kurt Russell is rightfully iconic as Snake Plissken, and I have no interest in seeing another actor play that part…especially when we don’t see enough of Russell himself these days. Here’s a crazy idea: instead of remaking yet another John Carpenter movie, why not give that money to Carpenter himself and let him make something new?

Remakability:

X

FLATLINERS (1990, Director: Joel Schumacher)
This thriller had a decent premise, but despite that and an impressive cast — Julia Roberts (fresh off Pretty Woman), Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt and William Baldwin — the movie hasn’t retained a strong pulse. The five stars play medical students who attempt to bring each other to the brink of death in order to glimpse the great beyond, then revive each other before they actually cross over. Turns out there are some pretty intense side effects. Director Niels Aren Oplev, who helmed the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, might be directing. Is there a better movie to be made from this concept? Possibly. Can I see audiences caring? Not really.

Remakability:

X

FLIGHT OF THE NAVIGATOR (1986, Director: Randal Kleiser)
This somewhat forgotten sci-fi adventure from Walt Disney Pictures had a pretty cool story. The short version: a 12 year-old boy falls down a ravine in the woods near his house and is knocked unconscious. When he wakes up a few hours later and goes home, he discovers that it’s not a few hours later at all. Eight years have passed, and he hasn’t aged a day. Meanwhile, NASA scientists are attempting to investigate a crashed spaceship, and it soon becomes apparent that the boy’s fate is tied to that of the mysterious ship. Soon, he finds his way to the craft and must team up with its robot pilot so they can both get home. I liked the movie, but even as a kid I thought there were some hokey things about it. While I have friends who remember it fondly, it doesn’t appear to have retained the wider nostalgia factor of similar 80’s movies like The Last Starfighter, Young Sherlock Holmes or Explorers. But the story is intriguing enough to deserve a second shot. As of last fall, the team of director Colin Trevorrow and writer Derek Connolly, who made the indie hit Safety Not Guaranteed starring Aubrey Plaza, Mark Duplass and Jake Johnson, were set to provide the script, with Trevorrow possibly directing. I don’t know if the project is still on their plate now that they are working on the new Jurassic Park movie, but based on Safety Not Guaranteed, they seem like a good fit for an updated Navigator.

Remakability:

X

GREMLINS (1984, Director: Joe Dante)
Now someone is pissing me off. This is early enough in development that it might never come to pass, so I’m crossing my fingers that it fails to come together. The Steven Spielberg-produced original requires no updating or fresh approach, and the fact that somebody would waste money on a remake that no one wants or needs while the great Joe Dante, director of the original, can’t seem to get funding to make a new movie of his own, is maddening. The potential remake is currently in the hands of producers Seth Grahame-Smith and David Katzenberg (son of Jeffrey), though Frank Marshall, who co-produced the original, says the project could most likely not move forward without Spielberg’s approval. So far, there’s no indication that Spielberg has given his blessing, (or that he’s even been asked for it). I can only hope he has the good sense to put the kibosh on any such requests.

Remakability:

X

HEAT (1986, Director: Dick Richards)
I knew almost nothing about the original film when this news came up, and all I know now is that it starred Burt Reynolds and was written by the great William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, All the President’s Men, The Princess Bride), based on his novel. Brian De Palma was initially set to direct the update, in which Jason Statham will play a recovering gambling addict who works as a bodyguard. Now De Palma is out and Simon West (Con Air, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider) is in. The original film doesn’t seem to be all that well-known, which maybe makes it a respectable candidate for remaking. Then again, the plot description doesn’t sound unique or compelling, and to emphasize the pointlessness of it all, Goldman is once again writing the screenplay. A remake could make sense given the low profile of the original, but the formulaic set-up leaves me cold.

Remakability:

X

HIGHLANDER (1986, Director: Russell Mulcahy)
Why are people still trying to squeeze life out of this franchise? The first film has respectable cult classic standing, but only diehards were interested in the four subsequent films, the last of which went straight to a TV premiere. The syndicated TV series that aired from 1992-1998 occupies a place of honor in that world of Xena and Hercules fans, but why the insistence on trying to revive something that time has treated with indifference? Already, this remake has had a troubled history. Two directors have dropped out (Justin Lin and Juan Carlos Fresnadillo), and Ryan Reynolds — attached to play Connor MacLeod — has departed as well. Of the immortal highlanders, it is famously said, “there can be only one.” That should have gone for the series too.

Remakability:

X

JACOB’S LADDER (1990, Director: Adrian Lyne)
Why do we need a new version of this? The original, in which Tim Robbins plays a Vietnam veteran suffering hallucinations that threaten to consume him in 1970’s New York, has a respectable reputation as a psychological horror film. It wasn’t a huge hit, so the desire to remake it can’t be attributed to exploiting a brand name property, but neither was it poorly reviewed enough to suggest that a new version could improve upon a promising but poorly executed concept. It may not have lit up the box office, but it developed a following on home video. So…why? According to this article, the remake would “examine the themes of the original against a contemporary backdrop” Translation: 1990 was a really long time ago, so we’re going to make this movie again and even though it will be pretty much the same, it will be more relatable because we’ll set it in the present day. It will feel really different because this time Jacob will be a veteran from Iraq or Afghanistan! What a crazy twist!!

Remakability:

X

LEPRECHAUN (1993, Director: Mark Jones)
Yes, you’re reading this right. The low budget horror-comedy about a leprechaun leaving a trail of bodies in his wake as he searches for his stolen pot of gold, has been targeted for a remake. It’s planned as a co-production between the movie studio Lionsgate and World Wrestling Entertainment, who plan to cast WWE star Dylan “Hornswoggle” Postl in the title role, originated by Warwick Davis (best known as the star of George Lucas’ Willow, and for playing Return of the Jedi‘s Wicket the Ewok and Professor Flitwick in the Harry Potter films). It could be argued that B-movies like Leprechaun are exactly the kind that should be remade, since they can almost certainly be improved upon. But how much better can a movie about a homicidal Irish fairie be? The existing film is exactly what it should be, and anyone aspiring to do something more legitimate with it is chasing a pot of fool’s gold. Think they’ll be able to convince Jennifer Aniston, who starred in the original, to do a cameo?

Remakability:

X

LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1986, Director: Frank Oz)
This would seem like a one-Brewster no-brainer, but it’s a little trickier than that. I love this adaptation of the 1982 off-Broadway production written by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken, the brilliant duo who would go on to success and multiple Oscars with Disney’s The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin before Ashman’s untimely death. The idea of a remake — especially by a smart, talented guy like Joseph Gordon-Levitt — initially made me as bloodthirsty as the plant at the story’s center. But there are two reasons why it might be acceptable. First, the movie omitted several songs from the play, making it a somewhat incomplete version. Second, the original ending was famously rejected by test audiences, prompting an entirely new finale which made dumbass viewers happy but which completely removed the Faustian element from the story…which kinda defeats the purpose. The movie was released on Blu-Ray last year with the original ending included among the special features. It’s nice to finally have that officially available. There was a rough, black and white version floating around for a while on an earlier DVD that was recalled by producer David Geffen because the inclusion of the original ending had not been authorized.

So…if a remake included the songs that never made it to the screen, and if the movie retained the play’s darker ending, then there might be good enough reason to give it a shot. I don’t know if it could be better in the end (I mean, how are they gonna top Steve Martin’s version of “Dentist!”), but it would have enough new material to justify the endeavor.

My Brewster Scale rating is based on these two changes. But without both of them, the new filmmakers are just trampling on a classic for no reason. Oh, and one other deal breaker: if they use CGI to create Audrey II instead of going with a puppet, all bets are off.

Remakability:

X

THE MUMMY (1932, Director: Karl Freund; 1959, Director: Terence Fisher; 1999, Director: Stephen Sommers)
That’s right. A fourth reboot of The Mummy. The first was an Old Hollywood classic starring Boris Karloff. The second, from Britain’s famed horror film factory Hammer Studios, starred house stalwarts Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. The third was a tongue-in-cheek, CGI-fueled adventure starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. There have been sequels, spinoffs…can we give it a rest already? Universal Pictures announced last fall that the latest version would be directed by Len Wiseman, whose utterly mediocre directing career — in addition to being practically interchangeable with Sommers’ — boasts two Underworld movies, Live Free or Die Hard and the instantly forgettable Total Recall remake mentioned in Part I. His only impressive accomplishment in show business has been marrying Kate Beckinsale. The new Mummy he has been placed in charge of will attempt to distinguish itself from earlier versions by being set in the present day. Well, I’m sold. (Maybe they can combine it with Jacob’s Ladder. ) A new location or time period is not going to prevent this from being just another hollow exercise doused in numbing visual effects. Oh, but here’s the best part: Universal is apparently so impatient to get this thing going that they have hired two writers to work simultaneously on their own versions of the script, with an eye toward taking the best of both and mashing them together. Isn’t that how The Wizard of Oz was written? No no, it was Jaws. Wait, no, it was no decent movie, ever.

Remakability:

X

POINT BREAK (1991, Director: Kathryn Bigelow)
Yes, before she became the Oscar-winning director of prestige films like The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, Bigelow worked on genre flicks and actioners like Near Dark, Strange Days and this cult classic about surfing, skydiving bank robbers and the FBI agents trying to catch them. You could argue that this is a good candidate for remaking, since the original is kind of cheesy. Thing is though, it’s because Point Break is cheesy that anyone still remembers it affectionately. The movie’s entire cultural relevancy lies in the fact that it’s so silly it’s awesome. If the remake’s producers are aiming to legitimize it a bit, then they’re missing the point. But maybe their problem is that they don’t see the movie for the half-joke that it is. “Point Break wasn’t just a film,” enthuses producer Michael DeLuca. “It was a Zen meditation on testosterone fueled action and manhood in the late 20th century and we hope to create the same for the young 21st!” Good grief. Meanwhile, producer Andrew Kosove wants to be clear that the new movie will not be a mere carbon copy of Bigelow’s. “This is the thing — surfing is a part of it, but I will tell you that we believe firmly, in terms of remaking a film like this, we’ve got to make it fresh. [Our Point Break] has got elements of the original and it’s not just surfing, it’s other kinds of extreme sports, but surfing is very, very prominent in the story.” Ohhhhh, it’s not just surfing! They’re incorporating other extreme sports! Well, with such a wildly original take on the material, I’m sure this will be money well spent.

Remakability:

X

POLICE ACADEMY (1984, Director: Hugh Wilson)
Like a lot of these movies, it can be hard to make a call. On one hand, my own nostalgic feeling for the movie (and Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment, the first of six sequels) prompts me to reject any notions of a remake. On the other hand, it’s not like we’re talking about a revered classic that couldn’t possibly be undertaken. But also like a lot of these movies, there doesn’t seem to be much point. Directing reins have been handed to a guy named Scott Zabielski, a producer and director on Comedy Central’s popular Tosh 2.0. I have no reason to think he’ll make a movie that is notably better than the still funny original with Steve Guttenberg. The only way I can see a remake having strong commercial prospects is if the ensemble were headed by a star with a strong following. If Adam Sandler or Zach Galifianakis came onboard, a remake might generate interest. Without the presence of a star who can pop, I’d say commercial prospects are iffy. And even with the right star, it still strikes me as a waste of money. I mean, Jesus…there were seven of these movies already. Does the world really need more Police Academy?

Remakability:

X

REBECCA (1940, Director: Alfred Hitchcock)
Steven Knight, the writer of such terrific films as Dirty Pretty Things and Eastern Promises, would probably do a bang-up job adapting Daphne du Maurier’s novel about a young woman who moves to Manderley, her new husband’s estate, where she finds herself haunted by the memory of his deceased first wife. But remaking an old movie just to attract a new audience can’t be automatically permissible. The movie itself has to be considered. If it’s little known or almost entirely forgotten, then a remake might be understandable. On the other hand, if it’s one of the best films by one of the all-time best directors (and a Best Picture winner at the Oscars to boot), then not so much. The Hitchcockiness of Rebecca outweighs the old-timey, black-and-whiteness of Rebecca, making it a sacred text that should be left alone. If you’ve never seen the original, starring Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine, George Sanders and Judith Anderson as Manderley’s formidable housekeeper Mrs. Danvers, it’s well worth your time just as it is.

Remakability:

X

THE ROCKETEER (1991, Director: Joe Johnston)
Sure, this old-fashioned adventure didn’t become the hit Disney hoped it would be, but it’s terrific fun with style to spare and a spot-on cast that includes Timothy Dalton, Jennifer Connelly, Alan Arkin and Terry O’Quinn. It has plenty of devoted fans, and I can’t imagine it being done much better than it already was. This article points out its similarities to Iron Man, which I would wager are more likely to hurt a new version than help it (there’s also a valid Captain America comparison to be made). Sometimes, good movies fail to connect with a broad audience. That doesn’t mean you should pour millions of dollars into remaking them. If anybody can sell a product, it’s Disney. How about a re-release backed by an aggressive marketing campaign?

Remakability:

X

SCARFACE (1932, Director: Howard Hawks; 1983, Director: Brian De Palma)
Really, Universal? You’re planning a third version of the classic story about a gangster’s rise to power? Talk about a pointless endeavor. De Palma’s version with Al Pacino as Tony “Say Hello to My Little Friend” Montana has lost none of its swagger, and remains enthusiastically celebrated to this day. In what world does anyone shepherding this project think they’re going to replace or even duplicate the cultural significance and popularity of the De Palma/Pacino collaboration? The undertaking itself is stupid enough, but it was recently announced that soft-spoken British director David Yates is likely to direct. Yates is a fine filmmaker who, for the most part, impressively handled the last four Harry Potter films, but he could not be more wrong for material like Scarface. Nothing he’s done has displayed evidence of the revved-up energy a movie about an ascending drug kingpin calls for; on the contrary, his style has been known to sap the energy out of scenes that really needed it. The script is in better hands, having been initially written by David Ayer (Training Day, End of Watch) and re-written by Paul Attanasio (Donnie Brasco, Quiz Show, TV’s Homicide: Life on the Street), but with all due respect to David Yates, he’s not the guy to tackle this material…which shouldn’t be tackled in the first place.

Remakability:

X

SHORT CIRCUIT (1985, Director: John Badham)
This one has been in development for a while, and the intention is to make the new Johnny 5 (if that’s what they even call him) more threatening than the kindly original that befriended Ally Sheedy. But if they stick with their plan to redraw Sheedy’s character as a teen or younger child, there’s only so much threat the robot can pose. No surprise, they also want to root the movie in a more contemporary view of warfare technology, where drones are employed to do our dirty work for us. If they can strike the right balance between commentary and fantasy, it might be okay. But as with many of these remakes, the question is not just whether or not the original merits a new approach, but also whether audiences can be expected to show up. I have a hard time imagining that a new Short Circuit would do much business.

Remakability:

X

SOAPDISH (1991, Director: Michael Hoffman)
Paramount execs should have their mouths washed out for even discussing something as offensive as remaking this superb, underrated comedy. Even with a funny guy like actor/writer Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation‘s Jean-Ralphio) given the script assignment, there’s no way they’ll come up with a funnier movie than what Hoffman and writer Robert Harling achieved with this little nugget of hilarity, featuring great work from Sally Field, Kevin Kline, Robert Downey Jr., Whoopi Goldberg, Elisabeth Shue, Cathy Moriarty, and Teri Hatcher. Sure, there might be additional jokes to mine from the story, which goes behind the scenes of a daytime soap opera and reveals the lives of the cast and crew to be more melodramatic than anything on the show. But this will just wind up being a watered down retread at worst, and at best a funny but derivative waste of millions of dollars. Do yourself a favor and just watch the still sparkling original.

Remakability:

X

STARSHIP TROOPERS (1997, Director: Paul Verhoeven)
C’mon people, the movie isn’t even 20 years old! It stars Neil Patrick Harris, for God’s sake! This one is another brilliant idea from fucking Neal Moritz, who I discussed in Part I (and even further back than that) and who also gifted us with that lousy remake of Verhoeven’s Total Recall last year. There have been no updates about Troopers since that Recall tanked last summer, so we can only hope that maybe the project has been shelved. If it’s still in development, the intention, according to co-producer Toby Jaffe, is to make the movie a more faithful adaptation of the Robert A. Heinlein novel on which the original was based. Again, this is a common refrain among people who remake movies that were based on books in the first place. I find it rare, however, that initial adaptations deviate so drastically from their source material that a new film interpretation feels fresh or different. Basically, everything Jaffe says suggests all that was fun in Verhoeven’s film will be removed from the remake. Sounds like a blast. I’d love to drop Neal Moritz and Toby Jaffe into the middle of the planet inhabited by Troopers‘ giant killer bugs, so they could meet horrible, slimy deaths.

Remakability:

X

SUMMER SCHOOL (1987, Director: Carl Reiner)
Mark Harmon starred in this breezy comedy as a high school gym teacher whose vacation plans go up in smoke when he gets roped into teaching remedial English over the summer to a group of generally sweet but failing students. The original is still an enjoyable lark, so I don’t see the point in a new version. Surely all the complex themes found in this movie can be explored via a new, original story. Maybe there’s a reason the remake has been stuck in development hell for eight years. Besides, the premise would now be completely implausible; what public school in the country could afford to keep its doors open in the summer these days? As it is, the movie was ahead of its time: it got a PG-13 even with Chainsaw and Dave’s staged classroom massacre.

Any effort to top that would surely land the movie an R, making it off-limits to all those teenagers who can’t wait to see a remake of the movie with that guy their dad watches on NCIS. So much lost revenue…

Remakability:

X

THE TOXIC AVENGER (1984, Directors: Michael Herz, Lloyd Kaufman)
Leprechaun isn’t the only B-movie title being prepped for a remake. This cult classic about a weak, nerdy janitor who falls into a vat of toxic waste while fleeing tormenters, only to transform into a grotesque but powerful creature who protects the innocent against criminals, is also coming back around. The remake of this over-the-top comedy has some surprisingly A-list talent attached. Steve Pink, director of Hot Tub Time Machine and co-writer (with John Cusack) of Grosse Point Blank and High Fidelity is writing and directing. Akiva Goldsman, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of A Beautiful Mind and Razzie nominated screenwriter of Batman and Robin, is listed among the producers. And Arnold Schwarzenegger may come aboard to play The Exterminator (get it?!?), who helps the title character harness his newfound powers for good. I’ve never seen the original, so I can’t really say much, but I have to think that the Leprechaun logic applies here too: this is campy, B-movie stuff. Trying to bring actual, respectable resources to it defeats the purpose. Plus, the detailed plot synopsis on Wikipedia describes a lot of giddily extreme violence that the remake would likely eschew, removing yet more of what probably lends the original its cult appeal.

Remakability:

X

VIDEODROME (1983, Director: David Cronenberg)
Let me explain something to the execs at Universal: there are certain directors who have a unique style and cinematic voice. You might have heard them described as “auteurs.” When they make a movie, that movie bears their stamp, and becomes an extension of their own personality and concerns. In other words, there are certain directors whose work you don’t remake. David Cronenberg is one of those directors. Jesus, do you really think some unknown commercials director and the writer of Scream 3 and the last two Transformers movies are going to make a better movie than David Cronenberg? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Remakability:

X

WARGAMES (1983, Director: John Badham)
With a title like WarGames, you can imagine a couple of junior studio executives drooling over the possibilities to remake the movie with the protagonist using modern computers. Thing is though, the only way in which the original version from 1983 doesn’t hold up is in the technology. Dramatically, WarGames holds up remarkably well. Giving the technology a facelift is not a good enough reason to justify a remake. Of course, the entire way warfare is conducted these days is a long way from the missile tracking tension of the Cold War era that the original film depicts. It’s possible that a remake could find an entirely new way to frame the general premise of a skilled, computer hacking teen who unwittingly breaks into a government computer program and triggers a potentially catastrophic international incident. In that case, the remake would, like many, really be in name only, trading on the title while delivering a relatively new plot. I’m wary, but I can’t deny there’s some potential there, depending on how the filmmakers approach it. Still, the original is so good. Just let it be. Seth Gordon, director of the Donkey Kong documentary King of Kong and Horrible Bosses, is the latest name attached.

Remakability:

X

WEIRD SCIENCE (1985, Director: John Hughes)
Umm…no. Don’t even go there. This sci-fi comedy is pure 80’s magic that can not be recaptured. Anthony Michael Hall at his smart-alecky best; Bill Paxton in his breakthrough as Chet, the most obnoxious older brother ever; Kelly LeBrock as the sexy, exotic dream girl created by two nerds on their computer; Robert Downey, Jr. in one of his earliest roles…this John Hughes comedy is as enjoyable today as ever. Universal and Joel Silver (who produced the original) want screenwriter Michael Bacall, who scored with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, 21 Jump Street and sleeper hit Project X (high school party Project X, not test pilot chimps Project X), to draft an “edgier” take on the material, going for an R rather than the original’s PG-13. While I support making more R-rated comedies, Weird Science doesn’t need to be edgy, and the promise of a little gratuitous nudity — a staple of R-rated 80’s comedy — is hardly reason to mess with a good thing.

Remakability:

X

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962, Director: Robert Aldrich)
Walter Hill, the director whose credits include The Warriors, 48 Hrs. and — what do you know? — Brewster’s Millions, is onboard to write and direct this remake of the classic psychological drama that paired divas Bette Davis and Joan Crawford as sisters who had been movie stars in their youth, now aging and confined to their mansion, one serving as poisonous caretaker to her wheelchair-bound sibling. Davis and Crawford had a contentious relationship off-screen that informed their relationship in the movie, and both had fallen out of popularity in Hollywood by the time this project came around. It was a huge hit that boosted their careers, and their pairing remains one for the ages. Maybe a remake could be well handled (there was a TV movie in 1991 starring Redgrave sisters Vanessa and Lynn), but like so many other on this list, there doesn’t seem to be much point. The original is well worth seeing, and is bolstered by the combination of its two feuding stars.

Remakability:

X

THE WILD BUNCH (1969, Director: Sam Peckinpah)
Seriously? You’re gonna remake Peckinpah’s landmark western about a bunch of badasses in the dying days of the Wild West? Yeah, good luck with that. Will Smith is developing this as a vehicle for himself, with a modern-day setting that involves the drug war in Mexico. I like Will Smith and all, but he’s not a straight-up tough guy. The Wild Bunch is about straight-up tough guys. Absolute hardcore motherfuckers. That’s kinda the whole point. They’re the wild bunch. The movie was a product of its time, arriving when Hollywood was in the midst of a sea change and a new style of grit and violence was taking over. It was two years after Bonnie & Clyde and three years before The Godfather. If Will Smith wants to make a movie about some tough guys engaged in the Mexico-U.S. drug trade, fine. But don’t call it The Wild Bunch. Critics, film historians and fans will massacre you…which might be an ironic tribute to the original’s finale, but won’t do your reputations any good.

Remakability:

X

There we have it. And in case you weren’t keeping track, there were a lot of lone Brewsters on that list.

There are a couple of others that I mentioned in enough detail in Part I that I didn’t include them here. One is Poltergeist, which is unfortunately going ahead. The other is the 1970’s James Caan movie The Gambler, which Paramount Pictures was developing without even bothering to tell the writer of the original, James Toback. As I said, the movie was initially set up with The Departed trio of screenwriter William Monahan, director Martin Scorsese and star Leonardo DiCaprio. That version fell apart, but a remake is still going forward, with Rise of the Planet of the Apes director Rupert Wyatt tackling Monahan’s script, Mark Wahlberg in the Caan role and Brie Larson as the female lead. Jessica Lange is also being sought.

I have no doubt there are plenty of other remakes in development as you read this, and plenty more will come along as time goes on. I’ve heard rumors over the past few years about new versions of Three Men and a Baby, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, The Neverending Story, Romancing the Stone, Overboard, Logan’s Run, Commando, American Psycho, Porky’s, Timecop, Cliffhanger, The Butterfly Effect and more. Whether or not any of these are still happening, I don’t know. Among those we’ll definitely be seeing next year are new versions of Robocop (sans Edward Norton, thankfully) and Endless Love, as well as two remakes that feature African-American casts in place of previously white ones: About Last Night… and Annie. I’m sure there will be others too. Few will be good ideas, and just as few will be hits, but Hollywood will keep shoving them down our throats anyway. Yet maybe, if audiences have the good sense to seek out original films when they go to the movies (and seek out older films when they’re staying in), studios and producers like Neal fucking Moritz will eventually get the message and stop the madness. In an appearance at Comic-Con this past summer, Joss Whedon said the following when asked what franchise he’d like to work on after The Avengers:

The reason I don’t really have an answer to that question is — and I realize the hilarious irony of the man who’s making a sequel to The Avengers and just made a Much Ado movie saying this — but I do feel like we’re in desperate need of new content. Pop Culture is eating itself at a rate that is going to become very dangerous. I’m seeing too many narratives built on the resonance of recognition. It’s not even nostalgia. It’s: ‘I remember that from yesterday.’ That’s gonna become really problematic. Although it’s enormous fun to work on something I enjoyed as a child, I think it’s really important for all of us to step back from that. Create new universes, new messages, new icons. So that ten years from now, we can reboot those!

Well said, Mr. Whedon. In the meantime, we’ll keep grappling.

Now do me a favor, so I don’t feel like I’m raging against the machine all by myself here. I know some of you more avid movie watchers have some thoughts of your own on this, whether about specific remakes that you like/don’t like, or think should be made or shouldn’t be made, or about the whole remake machine in general. Chime in below and grapple with me.

October 8, 2013

The Best American Argument for Judging a Book by Its Cover

Filed under: Books,Real Life — DB @ 12:45 pm
Tags: , , , ,

At the risk of throwing my readers into a state of confusion, I’d like to take a brief detour from my usual subjects of movies and TV to talk about books. Yeah, I read books too. Sometimes. So what if they’re mostly by Dr. Seuss or have titles that end with “for Dummies”?

We’re always told not to judge a book by its cover, and though the phrase is usually used as a metaphor, I assume it did originate as advice about bound reading material. Yet some of my best reading discoveries have come from ignoring that nugget of age-old wisdom. Once, while browsing the Used section of San Francisco’s Green Apple bookstore, my eye was drawn to a red spine with a picture of a white owl. Upon picking up the paperback book, my first impression was that I liked the cover. The book was The Manikin, by Joanna Scott. It was a finalist for the 1997 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. I read the following summary:

The Manikin is not a mannequin, but the curious estate of Henry Craxton, Sr. in a rural western New York State. Dubbed the “Henry Ford of Natural History,” by 1917 Craxton has become America’s preeminent taxidermist. Into this magic box of a world—filled with eerily inanimate gibbons and bats, owls and peacocks, quetzals and crocodiles—wanders young Peg Griswood, daughter of Craxton’s newest housekeeper. Part coming-of-age story, part gothic mystery, and part exploration of the intimate embrace between art and life, The Manikin is compulsively readable and beautifully written.

The book was in good shape, so I bought it, read it, and dug it. I think what I liked most about it — and this may drive book lovers crazy, but here it is — was that I saw such great cinematic potential for it. I still have a dream of seeing this book made into a movie, albeit with some alterations. (Much as I liked it, there were a couple of plot developments I didn’t buy.) I tried to adapt it myself once, just as a personal project, but I didn’t get very far.

It happened again not long afterwards. While drifting about the books department at the city’s now-defunct Virgin Megastore, I noticed a book cover depicting a gothic-looking structure against a blue and pink sky. I went in for a closer look. The building on the cover reminded me of something Terry Gilliam might have drawn in his Monty Python days. I grabbed Everything and More by Geoff Nicholson off the shelf. The description went like this:

The first novel to combine shopping and terrorism, Everything and More is the story of what happens day and night in Haden Brothers, a vast London department store designed as a replica of the Tower of Babel. It caters to all known human wants, as well as several more mysterious needs. Into this shopper’s Eden comes young Vita Carlisle, captivated by Haden’s wares since her youth. Her childhood dream is realized when she is hired to work in the legendary emporium. Then one evening Miss Carlisle shows up in the mysterious penthouse office of Arnold Haden, the reclusive scion of the founders.

Three pieces of dynamite are taped to her perfect waist.

She’s angry.

She’s about to explode.

It sounded good, but I wasn’t in a buying mood that day. I replaced the book on the shelf and left, but I kept thinking about it. I liked the plot summary, yes, but really it was the cover that I couldn’t shake. I kinda wanted that cover. So soon after, I bought the book. Read it, loved it, started reading more Geoff Nicholson.

This judging a book by its cover thing was working out pretty well for me. And so it happened again that, while walking through the fiction section in a bookstore that I can’t remember now, I saw out of the corner of my eye an illustrated cover that reminded me of a poster that was hanging in my bedroom. The poster was for the Todd Solondz film Happiness…and if you’ve ever seen that movie, you might consider it disturbing that anyone would want a 27″ x 41″ reminder of it on their wall. I liked the movie — as much as one can “like” a movie as uncomfortable to watch as Happiness — but having the poster up wasn’t about the film (which deals pretty explicitly with such happy-fun-time subjects as pedophilia, masturbation, deep loneliness, emotional isolation, rejection, adultery and decapitated heads in freezers) so much as the poster itself. I just really liked the poster, which was illustrated by Daniel Clowes, the graphic novelist behind Ghost World.

So anyway, I saw this book cover and thought, “Is that cover art by Daniel Clowes?” I picked up the book, The Best American Nonrequired Reading of 2003, and confirmed that Clowes was indeed the featured artist. Then I took a look at the book itself. I was aware of Houghton Mifflin’s “Best American” series, but while I had come across editions for such groupings as Short Stories, Mysteries and Essays, I’d never heard of the Nonrequired Reading line. A look at the back explained that this collection, edited by Dave Eggers, contained a potpourri of works including short stories, nonfiction, comics, essays and more, culled from a spectrum that included national magazines like Time and The New Yorker as well as online zines. This edition included work by Sherman Alexie, David Sedaris and Mark Bowden. Intrigued, I decided to buy it.

Shortly after the purchase, I was flying from San Francisco to Boston, and thought this would be the perfect book to take on the plane. I like reading short pieces when I’m flying. With all the distractions that accompany air travel, I frequently look up from my reading to see what’s happening around me. (Is that cute girl going to sit in the seat next to me? Is that overweight man going to sit in the seat next to me? Is that couple with the already-crying baby going to sit in the seats next to me?) I started to pick through the book looking for the pieces that seemed most interesting, but then I considered that the point of a volume like this was to read things that I might ignore or not come across otherwise. Cherry-picking my selections would defeat the purpose, so I started at the beginning and read it straight through. From Eggers’ foreword, I learned that the pieces for the collection were chosen by a group of San Francisco Bay Area high school students, who met weekly with Eggers at his SF-based writing center, 826 Valencia. I read it all, cover to cover. I enjoyed some of the pieces, while others didn’t do much for me, but I loved the concept. From that point on, The Best American Nonrequired Reading has been my flying companion. I don’t fly all that often, so I’m usually a couple of years behind with the series, but I buy each new edition (released every October, the newest hits shelves today) and work my way through, no matter how long it takes. I only read it when I travel.

My experience is always the same: some pieces I like, some stay with me, others do little for me and are quickly forgotten, but each new selection is a mini-mystery. Among the standouts over the years are a New York Times Magazine article by Chuck Klosterman, called “The Pretenders”, about a Guns N’ Roses cover band (included in the 2003 edition); a Pulitzer Prize winning story from The Washington Post, titled “Pearls Before Breakfast”, about a social experiment in which world-renowned violinist Joshua Bell performed, to little notice, in a Washington D.C. subway station for 45 minutes during a weekday morning rush hour (it appeared in the 2008 volume); and “What Killed Aiyana Stanley-Jones?”, an article by Charlie Leduff that paints a powerful, painful depiction of Detroit’s ills. Broad enough to give a sense of the entire city’s hopelessness and intimate enough to capture individual citizens’ devastating realities, the article could serve as the blueprint for a new version of The Wire. Originally published in Mother Jones, it was featured in the 2011 Nonrequired Reading. In 2004, the collection included a short story titled “The Minor Wars”, which was later expanded into a novel called The Descendants, gaining wider exposure when it was adapted into the Oscar-winning 2011 film starring George Clooney.

The impressive roster of authors that have been represented over the years includes David Mamet, Miranda July, Michael Lewis, Joyce Carol Oates, Rick Moody, Kurt Vonnegut, Conan O’Brien, Alison Bechdel, Stephen King, Neil Gaiman and Jhumpa Lahiri, while artists like Viggo Mortensen, Beck, Matt Groening, Judy Blume and Ray Bradbury have contributed the foreword. And unlike most entries in the Best American series, which enlist a new guest editor every year, this one is the permanent domain of Dave Eggers and his student committee. In recent years, they introduced a front section full of random amusing lists such as Best American Fake Headlines (collected from The Onion), Best American New Band Names, Best American Things to Know About Chuck Norris (from ChuckNorrisFacts.com), Best American Fictional Character Names, and so on. The combination of eclectic literature, entertaining lists, thoughtful forewords and an always amusing introduction by Eggers himself, as well as short bios of the students, makes The Best American Nonrequired Reading series a perennial favorite. Whenever I read it, my enthusiasm for writing is sparked and I find myself inspired toward journalistic intentions that inevitably go unfulfilled. My pointless little blog remains my meager venue for exorcising that demon. Still, those brief moments of inspiration feel nice. I always look forward to a new volume of The Best American Nonrequired Reading, which I never would have discovered if I hadn’t judged a book by its cover. And the best way to have that experience is to undertake the declining pleasure of browsing aimlessly through a bookstore and allowing your eye to wander until something catches it.

September 30, 2013

Star Trek Into Déjà Vu

[IN SCOTTY VOICE: “Captain, there be huge spoilers ahead!”]

Seriously, read no further until you have seen Star Trek Into Darkness. Which, if you missed in theaters at the beginning of the summer, was recently released on DVD and Blu-Ray. (Damn, that theatrical-to-home viewing window is getting smaller all the time.) A lot of people seem to be catching up with it now, so here are some thoughts I didn’t get around to posting a few months ago. You know you want it.

When director J.J. Abrams and writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci took the reins of Star Trek in 2009, they found a clever way to establish their own take on a well-known set of characters while still honoring the canon and acknowledging what had come before. For the most part, fans seemed to embrace their approach. Now with that groundwork laid, the rebooted Star Trek could begin the whole boldly going where no one has gone before thing. Yet, as those who’ve seen Star Trek Into Darkness know, assuming they are familiar with the original series of Trek films, Abrams, Kurtzman, Orci and Damon Lindelof (a producer on the first film but new to the writing team for the follow-up) instead took the film very much where the series has gone before, choosing to evoke Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn in substantial ways. You don’t have to be a Vulcan to question the logic.

I enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness in and of itself. I found it exciting, well-paced, emotionally effective and fun. As with the previous film, the actors were all entertaining and the visual effects were superb. But if examined in the greater context of the entire Star Trek film series, I can’t help but be puzzled and a little disappointed that the creative team chose to so blatantly tread on ground already covered in Wrath of Khan…not just in using that film’s titular villain (originated so brilliantly by Ricardo Montalban and played here by Benedict Cumberbatch), but in mirroring its famous climax.

For as long as Star Trek Into Darkness was in the works, fans aggressively speculated that the villain would be Khan. (In April, Vulture put together a timeline of sorts detailing how long this has been going on; its mere existence amuses me.) All along, the filmmakers refused to play ball. When it finally came out that Cumberbatch’s character was a terrorist named John Harrison, a traitor within Starfleet, many of those fans still insisted this was just a ruse, and that Abrams and company had Khan up their sleeves. Now we know it’s true. My question is, why? Why did so many fans want to see a villain they had already seen in a film which so many of them consider the finest big screen installment of the series? And more importantly, why would the filmmakers concede to give it to them instead of offering an entirely new antagonist? And why the hell does Carol Marcus have a British accent? (That’s totally off-topic, actually, but a valid question posed by my hardcore Trekker friend, May.)

The choice of villain is not the only way that Into Darkness hearkens back to Wrath of Khan; the new movie also recycles the climax of the earlier film, in which Spock sacrifices his life in order to save the crew of the Enterprise. Here, it’s Kirk who gives up his life…but other than the role reversal and the specific details of why the ship and its crew are in danger, the situation plays out exactly the same. It’s one thing to layer a movie like this with easter eggs and references to the previous films; it’s another thing to take an entire pivotal sequence and, with only minor alterations, completely reuse it. Some might call it creatively bankrupt, and while I wouldn’t be able to argue, I won’t go that far; to me, it just seems so miscalculated and pointless. This is a science-fiction film. The writers have the entire universe as their playground; they can do anything they want, and certainly Star Trek has provided enough alien races and planets to draw from if they want to revisit something familiar for the fans to appreciate. Yet with only their imaginations to limit them, this is what they came up with. It made no sense to me, so I looked for some explanations. They were not hard to find.

Early on in this interview with Grantland, co-writer Lindelof explains exactly why they chose to embrace Khan as the villain. After explaining that many potential viewers of this movie are not even familiar with the original TV series or films, Lindelof says:

The other conversation, which is the conversation that we find ourselves having 100 times for every one time that the other conversation takes place, because they don’t care, is: “Is it Khan? Are you doing Khan? Don’t do Khan! You guys shouldn’t do Khan! You have to do Khan.” Like, it’s just all different iterations of that conversation, and that started during the first movie, [which] was: “Are you going to do it? Don’t do it! Do it!” Just all that.

And that’s the worst thing you can say to someone. I mean, I’m not — I like watching sports, but I’m not good at them, but I consider myself to be highly competitive, and J.J. and [Into Darkness co-screenwriters] Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman] and [producer] Bryan [Burk] are all like-minded like that, and it was just — we were getting briar-patched, you know? It was a good old-fashioned Brer Rabbit–ing, when people were saying to us, “Don’t do it.” It was like: We either do it now, and we do it as much of a touchstone back to that original movie as possible, so that no one will ever ask us after this movie comes out again, “What are you doing from the original series?” Because it’s like, that’s all they were really asking us, is “When are you going to do Khan and how are you going to do Khan, and how reminiscent of The Wrath of Khan is it going to be? Are you doing “Space Seed” or are you doing Wrath of Khan or are you doing both or whatever?

(“Space Seed” is of course the episode of the TV show that first introduced Montalban’s Khan.) Lindelof goes on a bit more about the decision process and the question of calling back to the original series, but what the above answer boils down to is, “We decided to do Khan because if we didn’t, people were going to keep asking us if we were doing Khan, and telling us we should do Khan or telling us we shouldn’t do Khan and that was going to be really annoying, so we did Khan to shut everybody up.”

Doesn’t sound like a good reason to me (although I can appreciate the desire to get annoying fanboys off their back).

This interview with the film’s other two writers, Kurtzman and Orci, suggests that they developed the story and the villain, then debated whether Khan and his backstory could be grafted onto that villain. They felt it could, and that doing so would work whether viewers were familiar with Khan’s history or not. So they went ahead with it. But they probably wouldn’t have considered the Khan question had the fans not been going on and on about it, which brings up another important point. The internet has forever changed the face of fandom, allowing the creators of art and entertainment to collide directly with the consumers of that art and entertainment. Fans have become part of the dialogue, and creators can and often do respond directly to their comments and concerns. This is certainly an area in which Lindelof is practiced, having engaged with avid Lost fans over the course of that show’s six years on the air. While he has always maintained that he and co-producer Carlton Cuse told the Lost story that they want to tell, the duo also often said they were monitoring the fan reactions, listening to what the chatter was and occasionally making minor course corrections based on that feedback. A lot of TV showrunners say the same. Today, it’s not enough for opinionated fans of movies and TV to passively watch what’s on the screen. They’ve morphed into entitled brats who not only want, but somehow expect, to be part of the conversation. As such, the creators run the risk of being held hostage by the desires of the fans. So we get a new Trek movie with an old Trek villain because the fans wouldn’t shut up about it.

Okay, fine…I don’t even have a big issue with Khan as the bad guy here. What he does in this movie and what he does in “Space Seed” and Star Trek II are completely different. I’m more confused and let down that the writers didn’t stop at repurposing Khan, but unnecessarily took things further by reusing something as major as Spock sacrificing his life for the ship. Sure, here it’s Kirk instead, but as I mentioned, nearly everything about it plays out the same way, down to Kirk and Spock separated by glass as they say a tearful goodbye. In Wrath of Khan, that goodbye was built on the established, long-time friendship the two shared, imbuing their final moments together with a deep well of emotion. That’s something the new film’s corresponding scene can’t possibly match, even if it does a decent job of tailoring the exchange to the relationship as it exists at this point in the reboot. Perhaps more importantly, the death carries less weight in the new film because we know there’s no way Kirk is going to stay dead. Indeed, he is swiftly revived and on his feet again as though he had just taken a power nap. At least Wrath of Khan ended with Spock dead, the crew in mourning and the possibility (even if unlikely; this is science-fiction) that he was gone for good. When moviegoers walked out of Wrath of Khan, Spock was dead, and would remain so for two years of real-time. When the crew reassembled for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the entire movie was about that search. Leonard Nimoy only appeared in the final scenes, and the effect of Spock having been dead didn’t just go away immediately. The mental and emotional repercussions continued to play out in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. In contrast, Kirk is dead for about ten minutes, if that, in Star Trek Into Darkness, then he’s up and about and back to his normal self. So not only is the death scene devoid of any real sense of loss, and its aftermath further trivialized by the lack of lingering effects, it doesn’t even carry any surprise, since we recognize what’s happening from having already seen it in a previous movie. Maybe the filmmakers would argue, as Lindelof does say in the Grantland interview, that plenty of the new film’s audience members have never seen Wrath of Khan. Fair enough. But does that make it okay? What they might consider to be homage feels more to me like theft, whether or not every viewer realizes it.

X

In the end though, the heavy references didn’t seem to hurt the movie. It did well at the box office, it’s doing well on home video and the reviews were more positive than not, with some even appreciating what Lindelof refers to in the Grantland interview as “the Khan of it all”. Vulture‘s David Edelstein wrote:

Is the movie good? It’s hard to be objective. The plotting is clunky and nonsensical, but Abrams and crew bombarded me into happiness. More than that, they made me feel so special for getting the in-jokes. Star Trek Into Darkness is a feature-length dialogue with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Abrams and screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Robert Orci, and Damon Lindelof set the 1982 film’s best-known lines (and best-known scream) in peculiar new contexts.

I agree that it’s fun to pick up on all the in-jokes, but I would have preferred such sly references to be the limit of the new movie’s reliance on the older one, as when Spock invokes Star Trek II‘s “needs of the many” line in the opening sequence. Still, like I said at the beginning, I enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness within its own bubble. Not only was it fun, but it tossed around a few interesting ideas, like the debate over whether or not Starfleet – founded with peaceful intentions of space exploration – should be militarized in the wake of the events depicted in the first movie. There was also the further development of the characters. In an interview with Playboy, J.J. Abrams said, “We’re testing these characters in ways they deserve to be tested: Kirk being cocky to a fault, Spock being so Vulcan that it raises the question of how he can possibly be a friend or lover when he’s that unemotional.” I also liked Khan’s M.O., which was not motivated by simple definitions of good and evil. Unlike his 1982 counterpart, this Khan is not driven by a desire for power or revenge, but rather devotion to those he loves. My friend likened him to Ed Harris’ character in The Rock…then immediately chastised himself for making a positive reference to a Michael Bay movie. But I agreed with the comparison before reassuring him that The Rock is the one Bay film that can be referenced free of embarrassment. Harris’ character in that movie is a more three-dimensional villain than action movies usually offer, and so is Into Darkness‘ Khan. That said, the same motivations could have been applied to an all-new character. I hope that whenever Star Trek Out of Darkness or Star Trek Toward the Light or whatever they decide to call it comes out in a few years, the creative team will show a little more originality and a little less attention to the hum of the fanboys by introducing an original threat into an otherwise familiar world.

September 25, 2013

Are You Watching Ghost Ghirls? You Should Be.

Filed under: Internets — DB @ 4:00 pm

A few months ago, I argued against the making of a third Ghostbusters movie, but that doesn’t mean I’m opposed to the entire sub-genre of human/spirit confrontation. In movies like Ghost and The Sixth Sense, ghosts aren’t busted so much as aided in the completion of unfinished business so that they might pass on peacefully into that beckoning white light. I’m significantly less open to so-called reality television programs like SyFy’s Ghost Hunters and The Travel Channel’s Ghost Adventures, which portray paranormal investigations. My limited exposure to these escapades has shown them to be ridiculous and repetitive. On the plus side, their inherent silliness makes them ripe for parody. Enter actresses Amanda Lund and Maria Blasucci, who have found a fresh take on the ghostbusting premise (much fresher than Dan Aykroyd is likely to find at this point, with all due respect) by combining elements of these shows with the helping-ghosts-move-on device of the aforementioned movies. The result is their new web series Ghost Ghirls, which debuted two weeks ago on Yahoo!

I’ve already plugged the show on this blog, back in December when it was announced that Jack Black would serve as Executive Producer. My reasons are personal: the series’ ace writing team includes my friend Ryan Corrigan, whose gifts as a comedic writer and director are among Hollywood’s best kept secrets (though you need only click the previous link and check out some of the YouTube videos I provided to discover for yourself what the rest of the world will eventually catch on to). Given his involvement, I’ve been eager to see the results, and now that all 12 episodes are available, I want to ensure that everyone else sees it too.

Meeting the ghirls is as easy as clicking this link or going to ghostghirls.com. Lund and Blasucci, who co-created the series with its director Jeremy Konner (who also directed the original Drunk History shorts), play longtime friends Heidi and Angelica, whose ditziness idiocy is balanced (somewhat) by their ability to see and communicate with spooks and specters. Lund and Blasucci are college friends who have been writing and performing together for years, and their dry, affectionate interaction powers the episodes. Even beyond their appeal though, the premise is rich and the parade of A-list comedy stars who pop up in guest roles provides an added dimension of fun. Black and Konner busted open their Rolodex and, thanks to the show’s smart concept and the quality of the scripts, landed people like Val Kilmer, Molly Shannon, Jason Ritter, Colin Hanks, Dave Grohl and Jason Schwartzman. (And look out for Ryan’s cameo during a brief flashback in Episode 12.)

If you haven’t found your way to the show yet, that’s understandable. There are, after all, a lot of girls vying for your pop culture attention these days. You got your New Girl, you got your 2 Broke Girls and you got your plain Girls. But I’ve always believed that you can never have enough girls around, so make room for these two. Another reason you may have yet to enjoy the series is that Yahoo! has done a lackluster job promoting it. At least the show is in good company on that front. The same day Ghost Ghirls debuted, Yahoo! launched a number of other comedic web series starring stalwarts like Ed Helms, Cheryl Hines and John Stamos. None received the kind of flashy promotion on the homepage that you would expect from a content provider actually interested in attracting eyes to its investments. (Strangely, Yahoo! did a much better job promoting the show further in advance than upon its release. They sent Lund, Blasucci, Black and Konner to SXSW last March, and to Comic-Con in July. At both events, their panel and the series preview were greeted enthusiastically.) Luckily for Yahoo! – and for you – there are people like me doing their marketing for them. On that note, check out a recent edition of the Fortnight on the Internets podcast to hear an interview with Lund and Blasucci (and Ryan), as well as a conversation conducted with Nerdist in which the ghirls are joined by Konner.

I hope Yahoo! gets their act together promoting this thing, because they have a winner on their hands. Ghost Ghirls has plenty of laughs, but isn’t afraid to occasionally aim for the heart. Episode 9, “The Golden Ghouls,” is set in a nursing home, and while it doesn’t skimp on the funny, it’s also surprisingly sweet. If you prefer your comedy a touch meaner, try Episode 5, “Ghost Writer,” featuring the great Bob Odenkirk as a hilariously misogynist ghoul, or Episode 8, “School Spirit,” which deals with a ghost bully (and includes an impressive performance by child actor Isaak Presley).  So go over to ghostghirls.com and begin your binge. The episodes clock in at an easily digestible 9 to 13 minutes. Not only will you be supporting up-and-coming talents Lund and Blasucci – and my friend Ryan – you’ll also be supporting me. Because when Ryan makes it big, I can convince him to hire me as his assistant or manager of his media empire or something. He’s made no indication of actually doing that, but I figure if I just keep saying it, he’ll give in.

Oh, and if the Ghost Ghirls are listening, you need to add Haley Joel Osment to your Season 2 guest star wish list. I feel strongly about this.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.