Game of Thrones

Quick show of hands. How many of you have read the fantasy classic GAME OF THRONES by George R.R. Martin? HBO is making it into a series now which comes as such a relief. Long novels are so much better suited to series format than movies and yet they're rarely adapted that way. You can follow the production diary here. I'm only 650 pages into the first novel -- god this is long -- but it's a page turner: superbly paced, tense, multi-layered, fine prose, and unpredictable plotting (a rare thing in fantasy novels).

Peter Dinklage has quite a role in his hands. He plays Tyrion Lannister, the manipulative, whip smart "imp" of the royal house of Lannister (the Lannisters are the villains mostly... Martin does a fine job of making sure your allegiances shift on occasion.)  Tyrion  is possibly the most complex character in a book that's teeming with vivid personalities. Not all of them are multi-faceted exactly but they all pop out from the page.  Do you think other vertically challenged actors applaud or resent him? There aren't that many roles out there and doesn't he gets them all. I remember registering shock when I saw Jordan Prentice in In Bruges. I was like "Peter Dinklage missed out on a role?"

EW has a new photo gallery of the characters. Looking through it I'm a bit worried about the budget (something about the costumes or armor seems too simple?) and I don't like how they've visualized Daenys Targaryen (Emilia Clarke) at all though that whole thread is my least favorite part of the stories many tentacles.

Are you excited for this production?

"I hope she'll be a fool..."

.

"... that's the best thing a girl can be in this world -
a beautiful little fool." - Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

(pic by Baz Luhrmann) JA from MNPP here. Deadline reported a little earlier today that Carey Mulligan will presumably play Daisy Buchanan for Baz Luhrmann's Gatsby, you know, if he gets around to making a Gatsby. (Who knows with Baz?) But for now as the Magic Eight Ball says signs point to yes. And perhaps the best visual I'll be given today is in their article:

"Mulligan was on the reception line for The Fashion Council Awards in New York when she got the call on her cell phone from Luhrmann, just a few minutes ago. She burst into tears on the red carpet in front of Karl Lagerfield and Anna Wintour."

Thanks for that, Deadline. They forgot to mention the part where the tears of an innocent caused those two's fangs to burst forth.

Anyway I think she's a great choice. What about y'all? And will Baz really get around to making this movie for real? And what do we think about Leo DiCaprio as Jay and Tobey Maguire as Nick?
.

Streep and Roberts for "August: Osage County"

The news, which isn't actual news yet so much as 'in talks' talking-points (the bulk of online movie articles), is this: Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts will take the plum Oscar bait roles of the pill-popping abusive matriarch Violet and eldest control-freak daughter Barbara in August: Osage County. The new (to feature directing) John Wells will sit in the director's chair instead of Mike Nichols as previously rumored.  It seems quite risky to give a project this complex and fraught with ways in which it could go wrong to a newbie but maybe his debut film (The Company Men) is unexpectedly rich?

 One of the most popular posts in the history of The Film Experience was our discussion of the casting of this genius actress-heavy play. It's THE stage-to-screen project to watch for any actressexual out there since the cast that matters is all female and the roles, to a one, are juicy with extra pulp. (The supporting female roles could put Oscars on shelves, too.)This news, if it does become actual news, is a weird sort of exciting/disappointing.

As many of you have gleaned I am something of an über Streep fan but I think she's wrong for this part. Streep has a glorious earthy warmth as a performer and Violet needs the opposite. Streep's most successful "cold" performances were in A Cry in the Dark (which came during the amazing chameleon years) and The Devil Wears Prada (see previous post) which came during her comedic ascendance. To do justice to Violet, she'd need to be as good as she was in both pictures... simultaneously. And sometimes when Streep goes cold (Doubt, The Manchurian Candidate) she pushes too much. Violet is more complicated than either the Prada or Cry roles and requires both jagged comic steel and dormant volcanic drama ... and both need to be channelled through a druggy fog for the entire film. In short: it's an A+ dream role, better than many whole Best Actress rosters combined.

I like Julia Roberts.

If Julia works as hard for August as she did for Erin Brockovich or Closer than she might absolutely nail the role of exhausted controlling Barbara. But how often does Julia work as hard as she does in those two movies? When you're a massive star with more innate charisma than most performers can muster over the entirety of a career, coasting is an ever present danger. If she coasts at all, you'll lose the electricity of the play. The play just crackles with the stuff. Any loss of that and you could have a disaster on your hands.

Streep is such a consummate performer that, whether miscast or not, many people will demand she win a third Oscar because she will be so spectacularly watchable in the end. Even if it's not quite what the movie needs. (We'll see. I can't say how badly I hope to be wrong.)

I watched the 3 hour play from the edge of my seat and loved-loved-loved. I will anxiously await the movie. But both casting decisions feel like the kind anyone could and would make without actually knowing anything about the play, the roles, the tone or what kind of movie it would need to be to be a great one. It reeks of corporate laziness. They are rather inarguably the most famous senior citizen actress and the most famous middle age actress; "STREEP | ROBERTS" will look great on a marquee. But it's sad to cast source material this magnificent with no regard for the actual source material, and all eyes towards some imaginary marquee.

Movies should come first, not their ad campaigns.
*

Never Let (This Piece of) Me Go

It's hard not to lose your heart a little to Never Let Me Go at the start. Carey Mulligan, making good on that An Education promise, stares through you with big caring soulful eyes. She even confirms that look with dialogue about being a "carer". Andrew Garfield stares back, through glass, with an uncomplicated smile on his face. He's prone on an operating table and obviously in need of her caring. Never Let Me Go uses a definitive plea as title. Not to be to cruel when faced with so much neediness but can we do some haggling first? May we keep parts of you and discard the rest? Never Let This Piece of Me Go? Consider it a deal.

Cathy H, Tommy D, and Ruth ???

I'd personally like to keep the actors. I've even written up a "Best in Show" column on Andrew Garfield for Tribeca Film. The set decoration has its moments, too. I'll even keep the screenplay so long as I can jettison at least a third of Cathy H's redundant narrated bits and a truly atrocious final speech which ruins the heartbreak of the scene preceding it. You know the type of final speech I'm talking about "Let me spell out the theme for you in case you were two hours late to the movie or took a really long bathroom break." The narration is actually a bit baffling for a film that does, in fact, trust you to fill in some of the blanks. If you're trusting the audience to infer meaning on several occasions, haven't you already decided your audience is a smart one?

More than any film this year, I want to fuss with everything. The first donation needs to be Rachel Portman's score. Give that away immediately. One can half imagine the creative meetings "This is the climax of the film. Make it important." ...only they forgot to mention which scene. The score even treats transitional bits like cars pulling up to buildings as perfect moments to remind you that this is an ominous dystopian tale that is Breaking Your Heart. For all of the inherent power in Never Let Me Go's compelling premise, clever images and nuanced performances -- that seems to be the exhausting directorial mantra for the entire creative team: 'this is the climax, make it important!' But not every scene can be a climax - just as with life, they only happen once. C+

Related Articles
"Best in Show" Andrew Garfield
A Second Look at An Education
Oscar Predictions
*

Yes, No, Maybe So: Mildred Pierce (2011)

It's not intentional but today will be something of a TV day here at The Film Experience -- and to think how we were just bitching about all the false arguments in its favor -- and let's start with this trailer for the HBO Miniseries Mildred Pierce. [thanks to Sebastián for alerting me]



Like Angels in America seven years back, the director, cast and production values allow us to easily pretend that it's really just a feature film in disguise. It's just another part of The Great Convergence because what are today's franchises like Harry Potter and Twilight other than three season'ish long television series with bigger budgets?

YES I'll see anything -- and have seen everything -- that Todd Haynes directs. From subversive queer shorts like Dottie Gets Spanked to the inventive Superstar (the legally troubled Karen Carpenter bio with Barbie dolls) through to Oscar contending films like Far From Heaven and I'm Not There. His films never fail to excite the eyeballs, the intellect and hormones. Some people think he has trouble with the heart portion of entertainment, that his films are too heady, but to this complaint I say [insert expletive]. Even if that were true, better that problem than the far more common cinematic ailments of brainlessness, sexlessness and generic aesthetics.

NO I don't understand the casting of 23 year old Evan Rachel Wood as 34 year old Kate Winslet's nasty ungrateful daughter Veda at all. Aren't they too old and too young for their roles respectively, thus compounding the problem? Believable mother daughter chemistry won't be as important as usual since they're at odds, but still. Not sure I follow this. Plus, I've been aching for Evan Rachel Wood to get out of her bad girl rut. She has more range than this (or at least she once did).

MAYBE SO As much as I love Kate Winslet, performing in the shadow of Joan Crawford's signature role just seems so... foolhardy? It's one thing to star in an adaptation of a novel that's been adapted before. It's quite another to star in an adaptation of a novel that's been adapted before as an immortal and glamorous star's biggest hour.

I'm a yes given Kate + Todd + below the line players like DP Edward Lachman. Though I feel I should note that Todd's regular costume designer Sandy Powell did not work on this -- she told me her schedule conflicted when I interviewed her during the Young Victoria Oscar run.

My current plan: read the book in the next month or two so as not to be thinking of the gorgeous Michael Curtiz noir the whole way through.

Kate in her Emmy winning* role as Mildred Pierce.

You? Have you seen Joan Crawford's Oscar winning take on the Mildred Pierce role? If not, what are you waiting for?

*just guessin'
*

Double Oh! (Casting News)

By now you've heard that the great casting search of 2010 (distaff division) has ended. Rooney Mara has landed the role of Lisbeth Salander in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Rooney & Noomi

That's the role that Noomi Rapace played in the Swedish trilogy based on the best selling book franchise about men who really hate women. David Fincher rejected most of the famous names who wanted the coveted role of this short little sociopath. Little known fact: in addition to height and age requirements only actresses with double O in their name were considered for the famed Tattoo part.

Soleil Moon Frye was deemed too old, despite having come to fame playing short little sociopath Punky Brewster.

Speaking of double Os, it'll be nice to see 007 Daniel Craig again, won't it? Especially with Fincher's camera on him. Think of the multiple wonders Fincher's camera pulled from Brad Pitt over the years, give or take Benjamin Button.

In other strange double lettered casting news Marilyn Monroe ("MM") was supposed to be a character in two upcoming features with major actresses like Naomi Watts (Blonde) and Michelle Williams (My Week With Marilyn) playing her.


Now, supposedly there's a third Marilyn picture in the works. The author of the book "The Life and Opinions of Maf the Dog", which is about the last two years of Marilyn's life as seen by the pet terrier that Frank Sinatra gave her, thinks that Angelina Jolie will play her in the film adaptation. But that sounds like an author delusion. What a strange movie that would make. Not that there's anything wrong with strange movies. We like them.

New Rule: In the future all movies must contain at least one scene involving a character named Marilyn Monroe so that every actress gets a chance to play her. Apparently they all want to.

Julia Roberts vs. The World

"Do you know this one girl with hair like this?"
-Scott Pilgrim

"Who MEEEEEEE?!?"
-Julia

Eat Pray Love and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World are almost kinda the same movie. Or at least thematically kin. No really. Though I'd grade them differently: B- and B+ respectively at least immediately after viewing.

Double Feature Review @ Towleroad

I'd love to hear what you thought of both or either. You starring in Read Share Like
*

"Respect the Link. Tame the Blog. Tame It!"

Flow TV a structural analysis on Glee, why some episodes don't work and others do.
Examiner Would Tom Cruise's career be different today had he won the Oscar?
Pullquote You can draw a line from Prince through Laurel Canyon and on to The Kids Are All Right.
Just a Cineast looks at Olivia de Havilland's first released movie Alibi Ike, 75 years ago.


Socialite's Life I hadn't heard this rumor about Taylor Lautner taking on Hugh Jackman's role in X-Men First Class and now I want to die a little inside. See also: every post where I lament franchise actors playing in multiple franchises. Don't mix up my film worlds!
Cinematical interviews the great cinematographer Wally Pfister from Inception
Twitch Film Christopher Nolan's little seen first film Following is now available on demand.
Dear Old Hollywood visits the sites visited by one Joan Crawford in Possessed. I always wish that someone would do them with NYC movies. Don't say "do it yourself." You don't wanna know the depths of my inability to know which way is up let alone north south east west.
Film Business Asia Gong Li & Andy Lau to star in remake of Mel Gibson movie What Women Want.
i09 reminds people of flops promoted heavily at past Comic Cons. A bit of reality to preface the annual uber-hype fest.
Chateau Thombeau "Is it Wong?"
Awards Daily The NY Post endorses homophobia in a piece on The Kids Are All Right

another thinkpiece on Inception

Roger Ebert linked to his latest piece from Twitter with a "you are allowed to dislike "Inception". While my initial reaction was to scoff 'Uh, thanks (?) for giving people permission.' I realize that a lot of the same mob who demand agreement from every critic (missing the point of criticism by 100%) worship Ebert as a God so I'm glad he wrote this article. It's a good one with lots of civility. I shan't scoff at the 'permission' given.

It's so weird that Christopher Nolan films always put me in this position.

• Truth: I have never disliked a Nolan film. I think they're all good... "thumbs up" in Ebert parlance. Yay for consistency!
• Weird Secondary Truth & Conundrum: The reviews of Nolan films always make me crazy. After each release and the attendant flurry of raves, I always end up disliking his films more than I did while watching them. In each and every case, the hysterical praise makes me feel uncharitable towards [insert film title] that I liked a lot. More than perhaps any other acclaimed filmmaker, I feel that people don't actually discuss the merits of his movies so much as shoot big blurb loads on them, bukkake style. Yuck!
  

Finally...

via Twitch we can see the teaser for the Tran Anh-Hung's adaptation of the modern classic Norwegian Wood starring Rinko Kikuchi. The official site is also up.



We need to read the novel soon, having heard only awestruck love vows to it. But the film looks pretty from these teasing glimpses.
*

Save Me Elmer Gantry, Save Me!

Fifty years ago today, Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster) started preaching to moviegoers. He started howling "Repent! Repent!" and multiple beautiful women started moaning "Save me! Save me!" to paraphrase a line from the satiric 1960 Best Picture nominee.


Elmer Gantry, a Richard Brooks adaptation of the novel by Sinclair Lewis, introduces us to a drunk womanizing salesman and churchgoing Christian who finds his calling when he decides to combine the two, hawking old timey religion with Sister Sharon (Jean Simmons), a revivalist. She's been making quite a name for herself converting the common folk wherever she pitches her tent. It goes without saying that once Elmer spots her, he also pitches his.

Once Sharon and Elmer have joined forces, there's no stopping them. They develop a perfect good cop/bad cop salvation routine: Elmer provides the sweaty fire and shouty brimstone and Sharon swoops in later to offer the soothing sotto voce God is Love denouement. (How anyone hears her quiet words in a huge tent with all the shouting and live musical accompaniment is a mystery the film never explains.) Sharon resists Elmer's sexual swagger at first but eventually succumbs like all the other women.

Of course, if you want your sweaty god-fearing rants to be charming and your aggressive "Repents!" to actually convert women into horny disciples, you'd better look quite a lot like Burt Lancaster, one of the manliest of film stars.


In fact, I suspect how one feels about Elmer Gantry the movie would be closely tied to how one feels about Lancaster as an actor/star. It neatly boils down to which of these two arguments you agree with.

1. A Doubter. Bill, Sharon's manager, doesn't trust Elmer. "Everything about you is offensive," he says to the new revivalist star. "You're a crude vulgar show off. And your vocabulary belongs in an outhouse."
2. True Believer. Sharon herself, finds him disarming and charming. "You're so outrageous! I think I like you. You're amusing and you smell like a real man."
   

So which side of the argument do you fall on with this sweaty, loud, extremely physical actor? I'd like to know but, for myself, I'm agnostic. I can't choose a side. I fall in and out of love with Lancaster but I like him best when he's dialing it back a little to assess how well Elmer is performing his (usually successful) seductions OR when he can't control his impulses at all and just lets Elmer carry on like a mad men. It's the inbetween stuff that's hard for me to take. It's in those moments when he's merely laughing too loud, smiling too big, or talking too much that he's a crude vulgar show off to me ... unless he's so outrageous that he's amusing. It's then that I think I like him.

Being a loud show off or playing one successfully is a great way to win an Oscar, which Lancaster did for this preacher man star turn. Another great way to win an Oscar is to show up in a movie that's well under way and breathe new bracing life into it (See Frances McDormand in Fargo and Renée Zellweger in Cold Mountain for polar opposite examples of the same trick.) I had never seen Elmer Gantry before and I was shocked that Shirley Jones, who won for playing Lulu the hooker, doesn't even show up until almost exactly the halfway mark. It's a two and a half hour movie! Lulu's revenge plot (Elmer has skeletons, y'see) derails Gantry's burgeoning success until Lulu reveals that heart of gold. She's a hooker so you know she has one. It's the movies!

Lulu's schizo back and forth between loving and hating Elmer and her strange waffling between Christianity and sacrilege (in one scene she'll make a dirty joke about God, in the next she'll talk about the Bible with a beatific look on her face) is perfectly in keeping with the movie's indecision about whether to join true believers or mock them.

The movie actually starts with a too-careful disclaimer, suggesting that it's not going to have much satirical bite. Hollywood loves to play to as many demographics as it can which means that satire is not their strong suit. I'm not sure what the political/religious climate was like in 1960 when the film premiered but it was a hit. The film can't seem to make up its mind (at all) as to whether or not these preachers are hypocritical con artists or benevolent spiritual leaders. The only gospel Elmer Gantry seems truly comfortable selling is the gospel of showmanship.

And that, dear reader, it sells well. Lancaster's sermons still play like gangbusters in 2010. They even feel timeless. It was impossible not to see today's politician/preachers in his antics. Sarah Palin's winking 'lamestream media' anti-intellectualism was instantly recognizable in one pointed private moment between Elmer and a reporter (an excellent Arthur Kennedy) which plays out in a public forum.

"I admit I'm not smart like some of them -- some of them smartalecky professors, wiseguy writers and agitators. I don't know the first thing about philosophy, psychology, ideology or any other ology. But I know this. With Christ you're saved. And without him you're lost.

And how do I know there's a merciful god? Because I've seen the devil plenty o times.

Lancaster's sizzle in the sermon scenes has the unfortunate effect of making Sister Sharon seem like a dud in the charisma department. It's hard to suspend disbelief that she is the bankable person on their joint ticket. Could that be why the arguably miscast Jean Simmons was denied an Oscar nomination despite the Academy's love for the film?

The movie's finale is weirdly botched, opting for something like holy sentiment mixed with you-get-what-you-deserve moralizing while also trying to take one last dig at the salvation through donation con game. There are so many competing agendas and you cannot serve both God and Mammon (Matthew 6:24). B-

<-- Lancaster and Taylor with their Oscars in April 1961.

Since it's a muddled effort, is it sacrilegious to suggest that Elmer Gantry really deserves a remake? It's totally topical. Perhaps the novel needs a new set of filmmaker eyes on it. No matter, I suppose. We'll have to make do with a Paul Thomas Anderson double feature starring huckster preachers Paul Dano (There Will Be Blood) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (Untitled).

Have you seen Elmer Gantry?
I'd love to hear other perspectives on it.
*

The Beginning of the End of Harry Potter

Apparently yesterday marked quite a milestone. According to /Film, the Harry Potter series concluded filming just yesterday.

(How cute. They're at the cinema!)

I've never been part of Hogwarts mega-legion of boosters but it's still an historic moment that I thought we should mark here. I only wish that the series -- which has already earned more money than anyone could ever count or need -- hadn't popularized the greedy "split the last film into two" grab that every studio will now employ for all popular franchises. We haven't seen the results yet but one assumes the filler-to-substance ratio will be off the charts and you know it won't end with The Twilight Saga and Potter. I couldn't get through even the first Twilight book (my god the whining) so I can't speak for Breaking Dawn but Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows definitely doesn't need 300 minutes to tell its story, especially since the middle section of the book is filler itself. I wouldn't worry if these films were 90 minutes but you now they'll stick with the traditional Potter length which, six films going, average out to 150 minutes or 2½ hours exactly. I did the math. When the series is over Harry Potter will have lasted about 1,200 minutes... or roughly the length of two seasons on a pay cable drama. And isn't that what all these multi-film stories essentially are, ginormous television series that you have to pay for?



All that said, I hope the last two films miraculously turn out great for the fans and I also hope that there's enough of Maggie & Helena and such to get me through before the movies pull an Avada Kedavra on me with their bloat. And on that note I should quit typing. If I'm claiming that nobody needs that extra 150 minutes of Potter or another 378 minutes of Twilight in their lives than I probably shouldn't whine so much that I'm mistaken for Bella Swan.
Maggie Smith Helena Bonham Carter

Spy vs.Spy

Jose here.

Assuming you've seen the excellent The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (my review here)...

Who's your favorite, book-to-screen, spy so far this century?


Stieg Larsson's Lisbeth Salander (as played by Noomi Rapace).

OR


Robert Ludlum's Jason Bourne (as played by Matt Damon).

Discuss!

For all you European readers who've already seen the entire Millennium trilogy how does it fare when compared with the amazing Bourne series? How do these two fare when compared to the books?

We Can't Wait: #3 NEVER LET ME GO

The We Can't Wait series nears it's end with an adaptation of a book about events shrouded in mystery; just like the film itself...

Never Let Me Go
Directed by: Mark Romanek
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, Andrew Garfield, Sally Hawkins, Charlotte Rampling, Andrea Riseborough

Synopsis: A woman reflects on her mysterious years at a private boarding school as she reunites with two friends scarred by those days.
Brought to you by: Film4 and Fox Searchlight Pictures
Expected release date: TBA

Dave: In a moment of unintentional foresight, I actually read 'Never Let Me Go' before I knew anything about it being turned into a film; it's a superb book, taking the reader to surprising, uncomfortable and devastating places, with a sci-fi aspect that never really registers as such because it's treated in so downtrodden and normalised a way. I'm not sure I thought it was a particularly cinematic novel but I also don't see why it can't work; the prose is fairly straightforward, so all that really needs doing is retaining the gripping way the mystery of the whole thing unfolds. I'm intrigued to see what Mark Romanek does visually; One Hour Photo was a solid enough film but I'd hope for at least a little bit of an infusion of his music video days, at least to liven up what could be a rote imagining of the boarding school of the first third.

But let's not fool ourselves; it's the cast here that we're all getting glinty eyes over. It might be Carey Mulligan's first big project post-breakthrough, but my eye goes straight to Andrew Garfield on the credits; although between this, Red Riding and his blindingly good performance in Boy A it's a wonder the boy can crack a smile any more. Then there's people like Keira Knightley and Charlotte Rampling hanging around too. A possible acting masterclass? Is Romanek the man to really coax greatness out of these actors?

JA: If he could coax greatness out of Robin Williams - and I think he was pretty dang great in OHP - I don't foresee him having much trouble with these lovely folks here, Dave.

I'm about as much in love with Ishiguro's book as I am with anything written in the past ten years though, so I ought to be terrified about an adaptation. But I ain't. I ain't at all! Mulligan, Garfield, Rampling, Sally Hawkins, Andrea Riseborough - just saw her on stage with Hugh Dancy and Ben Whishaw a couple of months ago in The Pride and she's become a pet project of mine to trumpet her name whenever given the chance, and she's got a good role here as Miss Lucy - and begrudgingly Knightley, who I loved in Pride & Prejudice and... I'll leave it at that.

Craig: Yes, the cast. I'm excited to see Rampling, Garfield and Hawkins here - and Mulligan has shown she can do boarding school cool already. Although with the exception of Keira Knightley, who hasn't completely convinced me in any film yet. But this one - along with her role in Cronenberg's new one - might see her expand a bit from the corsets and pirate girl area and she may surprise me. Though whenever they say Knightley, I say Rosamund Pike. She might have been a good choice here, though isn't she slightly older than the other two principle cast members? And would that matter? But yes, Jason, Andrea Riseborough - she was great in Happy-Go-Lucky (could she be the secret surprise here?).

Jose: Without knowing what the book was about, this film adaptation got my attention only by the cast (this could be the year of the great female ensembles). Keira, Carey and Sally all had wonderful breakthrough roles in the past decade and are some of the most fascinating actresses out there. I hope they will continue to prove their worth here, if not there's always the brilliance of Charlotte Rampling who can do no wrong.

Craig: Mark Romenek is such an interesting choice for director too. I'll echo the thoughts about One Hour Photo being quite the nifty film, and he's got the style factor sorted.

Jose: I'm sure Romanek will bring an interesting visual conception to the project; his One Hour Photo was clinically beautiful to watch and for a man who has confessed he wanted to become a director because of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the sci-fi angle of this tale sounds like bliss. I hope he gets inspired by his work on Madonna's Rain for this...

Keira, Carey and Andrew enjoying a moment off-camera; you can tell because they're smiling...

Craig: I never got to reading the book (mainly due to the ending being spoiled for me, darn it), so I feel I've missed out on a great piece of fiction here. I'll have to leap into this film version in the hope that it'll have a few surprises in store, which, by the sounds of it, it will have. I'm a sucker for downtempo sci-fi and everything all together does actually sound as if it could make for an extraordinary and fresh approach.

JA: I adore this book. If they can capture one tenth of the beauty and sadness therein, this will be something very very special to me.

Dave: There's a great weight of expectation there. I think that the fact, beyond the novel and the cast, this is another film we know very little about just makes the anticipation of it greater, because we just don't know. It's another film that looks so very promising on paper, but who can know if it will deliver? The fact that Fox Searchlight are on-board for American distribution suggests they've seen something of worth, though.

Are you excited, readers? Do you trust in Romanek, Carey and Keira? Or did you never want to let go of the book and let it up on that screen?

"We Can't Wait: Summer and Beyond" complete series: The "orphan" picks Nathaniel (Burlesque), JA (Love and Other Drugs), Jose (You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger), Craig (What's Wrong With Virginia?), Robert (True Grit) and Dave (Brighton Rock); Team Film Experience Countdown #12 It's Kind of a Funny Story, #11 Sex & the City 2, #10 Scott Pilgrim vs the World, #9 Somewhere, #8 The Kids Are All Right, #7 The Illusionist, #6 Toy Story 3, #5 Inception, #4 Rabbit Hole, #3 Never Let Me Go, #2 Black Swan and #1 The Tree of Life.

We Can't Wait: #4 RABBIT HOLE

Our We Can't Wait series continues as we discuss a film all of us want to see but know very little about...

Rabbit Hole
Directed by: John Cameron Mitchell
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Aaron Eckhart, Dianne Weist, Sandra Oh, Tammy Blanchard



Synopsis: Life for a happy couple (Kidman and Eckhart) is turned upside down after their young son dies in an accident.
Brought to you by: Fox Searchlight Pictures
Expected release date: TBA

Jose: Proving why she's the most constantly adventurous working actress, Nicole Kidman is back with one of her two big back to back projects (if The Danish Girl ever starts shooting of course...) which has her play a character that won Cynthia Nixon a Tony during the play's Broadway run.
Do you think this means Oscar attention for Nic or will it be her own Proof?

Craig: If truth be told, I would've actually liked to have seen Cynthia Nixon do it. I like Kidman (Margot! Birth!) but how much more of an interesting project would it have been had Nixon been given the role in the film. Of course, she's nowhere near as bankable as Kidman so it may never have been a consideration on the part of the film's backers or producers - and of course Kidman is one of the producers - but I'm keen to see Nixon really expose her drama chops on film in a big way. I really hope it's not a Proof for Kidman though - my fingers are crossed that that approach is avoided.

Robert: I don't think awards bait, and I don't thing big emotional weepie. I suppose someone more familiar with the play can fill me on whether the film should hit those marks.

David: My brain seems to have come up with a very limited way of seeing this film: if it starts racking up awards, I fear I'll hate it. It's as if I want it to fail miserably! But my favourite Kidman performances have always been the ones in her more challenging, offbeat movies - Dogville and Birth spring straight to mind, but I found more to appreciate in Fur than most seemed to - and it seems that the Kidman dramatics that I groove to are not the ones the awards bodies start weeping over.

Jason: ...Nicole, being sad. She's so wonderful at sad! Almost as wonderful as she is playing a bitch (Susanne Stone Moretto forever!), but since she seems to prefer the sad I'll take the sad.

Jose: I'm sure Kidman will be splendid but how excited are you about the rest of the cast?

Nathaniel: Even without JCM's strong vision behind the camera I would have been sold by the cast. Dianne Wiest takes over the grandmother role that Tyne Daley won acclaim for on Broadway and we can certainly always use more Wiest on the silver screen. I think she's one of the greatest living actresses and I'm eager to see her attack another meaty role onscreen.

David: Having Dianne Wiest in the cast boosts interest even higher - the movies have missed you, Dianne!

Jason: I didn't even know Dianne Wiest was in it! And that there jumps it up a couple of notches all on its own. She's spectacular. And Aaron Eckhart... I like to stare at Aaron Eckhart and his large strong hands. So all's good.


Will Eckhart's hands lend enough support to Kidman's sure to be devastating performance?

Jose: I'm also dying to see what Mitchell does with material that wasn't written by him; Shortbus and Hedwig were two of the most confrontational works of the '00s but they probably were very personal as well.

Robert: The wild card here is Mitchell. The "suburbanites in mourning" genre is one that's in danger of getting old fast, if it already hasn't. I don't know what he'll bring to the material, but I anticipate something unconventional. When I think John Cameron Mitchell I don't think mainstream. Here's hoping it does so while still maintaining that rebellious JCM touch.

Nathaniel: Mitchell should be able to work this visually into something far more expressive than just dour suburban drama. First of all there's the title metaphor and second, I believe the teenage character Jason (Miles Teller) is into drawing or comic books or some such (or am I creating a false memory?) and Mitchell has already promised a complete cinematic rendering so we might see animated flourishes? I'm guessing. He's used them in both of his other film to fine stylistic effect.

Jason: It really is all about JCM for me, working on material he didn't create - I don't have anything against his two previous films, mind you, I love both, but I'm curious to see what he does with something that seems on the surface so different.

Craig: Cameron Mitchell is such a solid talent, he's shown in Hedwig and Shortbus that he can spin from pathos to party in a heartbeat (and often do it in the same scene), but if this is an all-out drama I'd like to think he'll add something a bit more fresh to it to shake up the possible over-familiarity of the genre. From the very few stills I've seen, part of me does groan a little at the apparent heaviness of its heart-wrenching feel, but then I'm immediately perked up by the mere presence of Eckhart. But a still is a still - the movie itself could spark and fly off the handle!

David: I've only seen Shortbus but I'm afraid of his directorial identity being stripped by an awards hungry studio. He was a very interesting choice for Kidman to make, though, and I would trust that her as producer means she's made the choice for artistic reasons.

I know hardly anything about the source material, so I'm sure my head is imagining this all wrong, but I'd love a Lynchian vibe off this whole thing - a mess of dark emotions manifesting in weird and memorable imagery. I think it might just be the word "rabbit" though. The Rabbit Hole? Who knows what's down there.

Jose: With JCM's visuals and the polarizing reactions Kidman has been drawing from audiences and critics throughout the decade this at least is sure to be one of the year's most fascinating projects.

How about you readers, will you take the proverbial trip with them or is this something you'd never want to watch? Oh and did anyone who saw the play tell us a bit more about it? Do you think it'll translate well to the screen?

"We Can't Wait: Summer and Beyond"
The "orphan" picks Nathaniel (Burlesque), JA (Love and Other Drugs), Jose (You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger), Craig (What's Wrong With Virginia?), Robert (True Grit) and Dave (Brighton Rock); Team Film Experience Countdown #12 It's Kind of a Funny Story, #11 Sex & the City 2, #10 Scott Pilgrim vs the World, #9 Somewhere, #8 The Kids Are All Right, #7 The Illusionist, #6 Toy Story 3, #5 Inception, #4 Rabbit Hole, #3 Never Let Me Go, #2 Black Swan and #1 The Tree of Life.

We Can't Wait: BRIGHTON ROCK

Dave here, trying to resist whinging and moaning about the fact no one wanted to see this but me. (Idiots.)

BRIGHTON ROCK
Directed by: Rowan Joffe (yes, son of him who directed The Killing Fields)
Starring: Sam Riley, Andrea Riseborough, Helen Mirren, John Hurt

Sam Riley on the set of Brighton Rock

Synopsis: The second film adaptation of Graham Greene's Brighton Rock, where a violent youth named Pinkie murders a man and marries a naive waitress who could destroy his alibi, pursued by a suspicious older woman who both wants to bring him to justice and protect the innocent girl.
Brought to you by: BBC Films and Optimum Releasing (one of the best distributors in the UK)
Expected release date: No word; could even be next year... I do back the wrong horses, don't I?

I didn't really mean for my first appearance in this countdown project to be so... British, but I suppose it was foolish of me to expect much excitement elsewhere when my main reason for looking forward to this is so personal; I practically dissected Graham Greene's novel in high school, and anything that can survive that amount of scrutinization with love intact is something special indeed. The first adaptation back in 1947 is mostly famous for being Richard Attenborough's breakthrough role, and it's surprising the amount of things they got away with back then. But surely this will be a fuller, more visceral adaptation, merely because it can be. Although the central appeal of film noir is its darkly suggestive nature; let's hope they resist spelling everything out for us modern day folk.

the 1938 "entertainment" by Graham Green| the 1947 film version

Of course, films of books you love are always risky propositions (there's another one later on in the countdown), but the cast tips this my scales in favour of excitement; the ever-reliable John Hurt, the "better in supporting roles, AMPAS" Helen Mirren and two rising stars in Sam Riley, who impressed as Ian Curtis in Control, and Andrea Riseborough, who's been making marks in TV work, most notably as a young Margaret Thatcher. We just have to hope Joffe the Younger - who also wrote the screenplay, pulling the story forward slightly from the 1930s to the 1960s - has a knack for transferring the novel's compulsive moral intricacies on-screen and lives up to Greene's lean, highly cinematic style.

So what do you think, readers? Are you looking forward to chewing on some Brighton rock? Or do you think this new batch should've been left behind the counter?

"We Can't Wait: Summer and Beyond"
The "orphan" picks Nathaniel (Burlesque), JA (Love and Other Drugs), Jose (You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger), Craig (What's Wrong With Virginia?), Robert (True Grit) and Dave (Brighton Rock); Team Film Experience Countdown #12 It's Kind of a Funny Story, #11 Sex & the City 2, #10 Scott Pilgrim vs the World, #9 Somewhere, #8 The Kids Are All Right, #7 The Illusionist, #6 Toy Story 3, #5 Inception, #4 Rabbit Hole, #3 Never Let Me Go, #2 Black Swan and #1 The Tree of Life.

"The Writer" Jose on Kate as "Hanna Schmitz"

It's "Kate Winslet Day" Pass it on.

Jose here with a second look at Kate Winslet's most under/over-rated performance.

While watching the European Film Awards last year two things struck me:

how much I'd missed the acting clips during 2009's Oscar ceremony and also how differently do Europeans perceive greatness compared to people in our hemisphere.

When they got to Best Actress (in a mouthwatering lineup that included Penélope Cruz, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Yolande Moreau, Katie Jarvis and of course Winslet) I was surprised to see that for Winslet's clip they picked my favorite scene in "The Reader".

The moment when Hanna enters a church, while on her biking holiday with Michael (David Kross) and sits on a bench while listening to a children's choir. That scene, for me, represents what made her performance so powerful. Hanna sits there, her face changes and we see her visibly moved to the point of tears. Winslet appears to be doing absolutely nothing, which might be the truth, because we realize that this isn't Winslet anymore.

The church scene embodies both aspects of Hanna and Winslet's performance. On one side the people who see her as a Nazi monster might think that she cries because she misses her youth, is envious of the little children who sing and might want to have them for lunch. Those who care to see beyond the Nazi tag, will see a woman that perhaps is watching beauty for the first time in her entire life. She has a secret-which I won't spoil for those who haven't seen it-that makes this scene all the more relevant when we discover it. Hanna is in experiencing an indescribable presence she never even imagined existed before. Can it be that through art she's experiencing God?

I found it a bit disappointing that in her lust for Oscar, Winslet reached a point where she didn't seem to care what performance she got it for and the media only concentrated on how much she wanted the damn thing. Because truth be told, in "The Reader" the actress, in all her delicately raw glory, becomes the writer (no offense to Bernhard Schlink and David Hare) of Hanna Schmitz.

I also wonder what clip of hers would Oscar have chosen.

USC Scripters Awards Ignores Its Programming, Loves the Prawns

Here's how the USC Scripters, an annual book-to-screen honors organization describes itself on their own website

Established in 1988, the USC Libraries Scripter Award is an honor bestowed annually by the Friends of the USC Libraries in recognition of the best film adaptation of a book or novella, and is given to both the author and screenwriter. By honoring the literary artistry and collaborative process of turning a book into a screenplay and ultimately into a film, this unique award acknowledges the full spectrum of the writers' creative process.

<--- [drawing source]

So... yeah.

So I'm not sure how District 9 was even eligible, since it's based on a short film, but these 'Library Friends' went there anyway. Are they also experiencing inexplicable cravings for catfood?!?

Their nominees:

• Crazy Heart
• District 9
• An Education
• Precious
• Up in the Air

Crazy Heart and District 9 sure are picking up last minute awards steam, aren't they? I'm happy for District 9 even if it isn't one of my "favorites" just because it's such a nontraditional choice for awards season glory and more thinking outside the box is always good. This could well be the Oscar Adapted Screenplay list, too, although there's a number of other possibilities: Invictus, In the Loop, Where the Wild Things Are (I realize that's just me dreaming... but seriously, how hard must that have been to adapt?!), The Road, The Informant!, A Single Man and though I doubt it's happening now I suppose a posthumous nod for Anthony Minghella on Nine would occur to at least some voters.

The Crazy Heart case makes me a little befuddled, too. It made Kate Winslet "come undone" but it didn't do much for me at all apart from Bridges and the music (both wonderful). I'm not sure what people are seeing in it otherwise. Or are two elements enough to make a movie one of the year's bests? I saw something overly familiar and repetitive when I looked at it. But I should stop resenting it* pronto and just love that they're finally going to get around to honoring my Jeff Bridges.

*I can't help it. I'm wired to resent those naked "we couldn't commit but now we're releasing it at the last second because we think we might be able to win an Oscar" releases. They just reinforce all the bad patterns of the Oscar circus and the studio mandated film ghettos.

Birthday Suits: Hamlets & Hydes

Today's Cinematic Birthdays 11/13

1312 Edward III (of Windsor), not the gay one who gets more cinematic treatment (including Derek Jarman's fascinating take), but his son. This is the one Shakespeare wrote a play about and the one who Mel Gibson implied to be the bastard son of Braveheart William Wallace, thereby giving the finger to history unless Wallace's sperm could survive years past his death. That Gibson's sperm could magically endure beyond the grave is far more likely. He already has eight children.

1833 Edwin Thomas Booth, famous influential thespian and the 19th century's most prominent Hamlet. He's been portrayed onscreen and stage by famous thespians like Richard Burton and Frank Langella, usually in stories connected to his estranged brother's assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Will someone play him in the Spielberg helmed Lincoln film?

Oskar, Steve and Whoopi

1897 Gertrude Omstead, one of many silent film actresses who moved on once sound hit the movies.
1922 Oskar Werner, the most famous stage Hamlet of the 50s? If you don't count 40s holdover Sir Laurence Olivier. Werner had an erratic relationship with Hollywood and a difficult relationship with François Truffaut. Today he's best remembered for his 60s films including Ship of Fools (Oscar nomination) and Jules and Jim (as Jules)
1938 Jean Seberg "New York Herald Tribune. New York Herald Tribune"
1947 Joe Mantegna for some reason when I think of him I always think of watching him try to keep up with Mia Farrow's personality shifts in Alice (1990)

1955 Whoopi Goldberg aside from cameos or voice performance, she basically dumped the movies at the turn of the millenium. Do you miss her or are you fine with The View?
1967 Steve Zahn MVP of many a supporting movie cast. Recently had quite wonderful chemistry with Amy Adams in Sunshine Cleaning. They should work together again.
1969 Gerard Butler ...
1981 Shawn Yue the young version of Tony Leung Chiu Wai in those Infernal Affairs movies (that inspired The Departed). Hey, if this 28 year old actor can grow up to be half (nay, a third) as awesome as Tony Leung Chiu Wai we should all be very very grateful.

Finally, a big cinematic thank you to Robert Louis Stevenson on his 159th anniversary. If he'd only ever written The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr Hyde the cinema would owe him a great debt. It's impossible to even measure its influence, particularly on conflicted movie monsters and superheroes. The novella was adapted five whole times before sound even hit the movies. The first sound adaptation won Fredric March the Oscar as the famous doctor at war with his internal demon. He's one of only a handful of actors who've won the Oscar for a horror role. Actors who've portrayed the good/evil doctor since include everyone from John Malkovich to Udo Kier to Kirk Douglas to Leonard Nimoy. It's been awhile since Hollywood has tackled the story in a big budget way. The story has been mostly relegated to dvd or telefilms since Mary Reilly (starring John Malkovich and Julia Roberts) flopped in the mid90s. If The Wolf Man is a success next year I suspect a lot of the horror classics might see new prestige treatments onscreen.

Stevenson also wrote Treasure Island and Black Arrow which have also been adapted multiple times. Have you read any of these classics or just absorbed them through pop culture?

*