Monday, December 10, 2007

New York Film Critics Circle

Here's the other biggie people. Now both coasts have spoken.

Picture: No Country For Old Men
Director: The Coen Bros, No Country For Old Men
The critical frontrunner... but that's been obvious for a month or two

Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
Actress: Julie Christie, Away From Her
Supp Actor: Javier Bardem, No Country For Old Men
Would not surprise me to see all three of them follow suit at the Oscars

Supp Actress: Amy Ryan, Gone Baby Gone
Would very much surprise me to see her go all the way

Screenplay: The Coen Bros, No Country For Old Men
Cinematography: Robert Elswit, There Will be Blood
I love Elswit, don't you? Such a fine filmography

Foreign Film: The Lives of Others
Ugh. I hate release patterns --nothing against the film itself

Animated Feature: Persepolis
First Film: Sarah Polley, Away From Her
Documentary: No End in Sight

Defamer has a hilarious post on this and Tom O'Neill reveals some backstage shenanigans


Anonymous said...

Congrats to Amy but I really think Cate did a FAR better job playing Jude in "I'm Not There". Cate can play Amy's role any day of time easily, but not vice versa. I am not sure why Cate is not winning all the major critic awards? Is it because her role is not the traditional supporting role? Or because critics don't like the movie as much. I am bummed :(



i'm suspecting its just Cate fatigue. I can't be the only one.

and even if people aren't exhausted by her name, she did win filmdom's top prize just 3 years back for impersonating a 20th century icon. Perhaps people don't feel a repeat is necessary?

anyway. i like those performances about the same. that is to say i think they're both accomplished but i'm much crazier about other people this year --to me the things TILDA SWINTON found in her character for example are a helluva lot more interesting that what Amy or Cate were doing.


Anonymous said...

The NYFCC are the king of critic’s awards. They were the first group (yes, even before NBR) to hand out acting awards and when all’s said and done, they tend to get it “right” more than anyone else.

Dark indies (Leaving Las Vegas), Comedic indies (Sideways), Hollywood blockbusters (Return of the King)… cinematic excellence is what’s important to them. And I usually love their acting picks too; Sissy Spacek, Clive Owen, Heath Ledger and now Javier Bardem. God, they rule!

*NOTE: Whatever wins Best Picture at the NYFCC has always gone on to be nominated for either Best Picture, Directing or Screenplay at the Oscars.

*Oh, and I'm crossing my fingers for "No Country for Old Men" as Best Pic / Direction...

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah Nat... Tilda ALL THE WAY!

Beau said...

Okay, you know what?
I didn't see 'Gone Baby Gone'.
And do you know why?
Because it looked like a tireless retread of Eastwood's classy 'Mystic River' a few years back.
The fact that the story's penned by the same author doesn't help matters.
And it feels like another attempt on Affleck's part to garner some prestige and cred. It didn't work with "Hollywoodland" and it doesn't look like it works here.

I've nothing against Amy Ryan, really. And I didn't see the damn film.
But, I mean, COME ON.
Kelly Macdonald was so fucking phenomenal and made the most of her screentime in 'No Country', Catherine Keener and Kristin Stewart were SUPERB in 'Into the Wild', and Jennifer Jason Leigh was breathtaking in 'Margot at the Wedding'. We're not even including Blanchett in 'I'm Not There' in the equation.

I'm sure the perf's a beaut, but I wish the wealth had been spread a bit more. Macdonald, especially, could've snuck in with some critics love. Now it looks like I'll have to watch Ryan go up against Blanchett, likely Ronan and Redgrave (who do fine work but nothing earth-shattering in 'Atonement'), and maybe Swinton or Tomei unless Bonham-Carter goes Supporting.

Damn it.
I really wanted Kelly/Catherine/Kristen/Jennifer in on these.

Anonymous said...

You really should see Amy Ryan first before running at the mouth about a performance you don't know the merits of. She's excellent in the material she's given.

Beau said...

I'm not saying the performance isn't excellent. I'm saying I wish they'd spread the wealth a bit more.
Like I said, I'm sure the perf's a beaut, but the others deserve some cred as well.

Anonymous said...

Well, maybe it doesn't say that much, but I think we'll be seeing There will be blood and Diving bell nominated in January.
Is Amy Ryan really THAT good?

Anonymous said...

Why should they spread the wealth if they each want to represent who THEY thought was the best Supporting Actress of the year? Just because they all thought that Amy Ryan was the best doesn't mean they should pretend they didn't just because other people did too.

I'm pretty sure critic's choices for supporting don't really effect the "prestige" awards (Oscar, SAG, Globe) anyway. Otherwise Jackie Earle Haley would have swept the board last year.


that good to deserve a sweep? I'd say an emphatic NO. but then I'm against sweeps on principal. because i think in any given year there's always a few performances worthy of prizes. we'll see what the smaller cities do but sometimes they follow like sheep

Anonymous said...

If multiple critics' groups see worth in Amy Ryan, then more power to her. It was a great performance. If all of these groups don't feel it in them to "spread the wealth", then they shouldn't. Like 30-some critics groups giving Helen Mirren awards for "The Queen". That's just what they liked. That's how the game is played.

The Jaded Armchair Reviewer said...

I think I'll calm down about the Amy Ryan thing until we get to the award bodies that announce nominees as well as winners.

John T said...

I suppose I'm going to have to see Gone Baby Gone now. Damn.

Also, it's nice to see Day-Lewis and Christie in the top two slots here-both actors I very much admire, though seem destined to be third or fourth place come Oscar night.

Beau said...

Amy Ryan has won Boston, D.C., LA and NY. Awards season began less than a week ago.
They might actually all think her perf is the best of supporting actresses, but you can't deny that there is a certain amount of influence that prior awards given out have on these. Hell, I praise Austin for the fact that they actually had the balls to give Best Actress to someone aside from Mirren. (Ellen Page, actually, for 'Hard Candy'. Which really was one of the best performances given by any actor last year.)

I just think there's a certain amount of influence that overwhelms the majority, be it one or two particular individuals in the circle or another group altogether.

Yeah, I am a bit peeved, so I'm rather biased in my judgement. Who isn't? I'll catch the film and hopefully marvel at her performance, which I'm sure is unmatched and unrivaled in recent cinema for her majestic portrayal of a histrionic single-mother looking for her child. Those are difficult to pull off, you know.

*The last part is said in jest, I won't judge the performance or the film until I've seen it. Unless it's the rape-my-childhood-and-leave-it-for-dead 'Alvin and the Chipmunks', I'll reserve judgement.*

Anonymous said...

Ryan's performance is nothing like that. It's more to it than it reads on paper.

jeff_v said...

I would say it's very nearly the opposite of a "majestic portrayal of a histrionic single-mother looking for her child."

Anonymous said...

When I think of the entire casts of "Mystic River," "The Departed," and "Gone Baby Gone," no one - I mean, NO ONE - has come as close to approaching the reality of Bostonians in the way that Amy Ryan manages in this film. It is not your stereotypical Oscar-winning role; other than giving her some really stinging quips, the screenplay does very little to define Helene. It is all Amy Ryan there. As someone who saw her as Stella in "Streetcar" and was shocked to find that it was she who also played Chris Cooper's wife in "Capote," I can say that I never anticipated such work from her. It's truly magnificent in the way that it steals the film. It should have sunk into the background because she really doesn't get much screentime and she doesn't win our hearts. And yet she defines the movie in a way that would be sorely lacking without her presence. I think that Ryan's performance single-handedly raises the film to something worth watching; it's at least the same if not greater impact that the opening shots of "real" Boston at the start of the film over Affleck's monologue.

I find that Tilda Swinton also did a remarkable job embuing her character with elements that the script only could have hinted at. They are my top two picks for Best Supporting Actress this year, and I'd find it tough to choose. But then again, I thought Jennifer Jason Leigh does supremely moving and simple work in "Margot," and I found Saoirse Ronan to be an absolute devil in "Atonement."

I think that BSActress is confusing us this year because, Blanchett aside, no one is coming forward with the typical Oscar roles, and so we don't know which way to look. Even so, there is some terrific work on display - some of the finest acting in any of the categories in roles that are totally underserved by their screenplays.

Anonymous said...

I love how some people complain about Marion being in a biopic and supposedly imitating Edith, but Cate Blanchett playing Dylan is soooo different. *rolleyes*

Beau said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beau said...

The trailer made her look like a Julianne Moore redux out of 'Freedomland'.

I feel like I should stick my foot in my mouth. Is she really this good? I've made my bitchy comments in the past, but I've never had this many detractors, even when I was suffering from PSH-overload after 'Capote'.

Anonymous said...

The Amy Ryan awards are more like "AMPAS there's this great stage actress having a good year, don't forget her ok."
She may have a good film career now too, working in the next Eastwood Oscar-bait alongside Jolie.

Also, they may think Cate Blanchett doesn't need more awards. She's like the new Meryl Streep. While Kate Winslet is more nominated, she rarely wins anything while Cate even has a Volpi Cupi now, plus Oscar, Golden Globe, SAG, BAFTA, some critics awards and she's one of the most respected people in the bussiness now. She doesn't need NY and LA to garner a nomination.

Anonymous said...

It's odd how quickly the consensus in certain categories formed this year. Amy Ryan is not only riding the momentum from these back to back wards, but I think she may be favored by an "anyone but Cate" mentality, similar to the feelings toward Meryl Streep around Out of Africa.


anonymous 1:23 who here is praising Blanchett while dissing Cotillard? me personally i'd rather see a year without biopic performances. I miss actors being rewarded for other reasons

anonymous 1:22 (i wish people would just type their names. how hard is that?) OMG i saw that production of streetcar and I loved her in it. I had totally forgotten that and didn't realize it was the same actor. how crazy.

Sid said...

I was hoping for AT LEAST one major win for Viggo Mortensen. Maybe at the NSFC?

Anonymous said...

I'm with Nate. I say call a moritorium on biopics in general. They are all becoming less and less interesting with each passing year.

As far as the concensus issue is concerned, it may be the cynic in me, but I think it's less a result of a genuine sentiment that one person or thing is the best and more a result of unimaginative thinking. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of performances given in hundreds of films each year, and almost every organization whole-heartedly agrees on the same handful?

What are the chances?

Anonymous said...

Kind of unrelated to what is going on here right now, but I posted something similar elsewhere and no one said anything (so, I will give it a go again):

I am not buying the whole Cotillard versus Christie fight for Best Actress. I liked both performances, btw, so, this is no endorsement either way.

In my opinion, if Cotillard just gets a nomination, that is a win for her. The Academy awards performers for whom English is a second language only if they either are in a primarily English language film (e.g., Magnani, Binoche, Signoret, Colbert, Ngor) or have proved themselves over the span of their career (e.g., Benigni, Loren - both of whom were two of Europe's biggest stars at the time of their win).

La Vie En Rose? Definitely not in English.

Marion Cotillard? Pretty much an unknown quantity in the US pre-LVER. Her only real notoriety is that she was in a little seen Russell Crowe film. She isn't exactly a well-known quantity in Europe either. She has a decent resume, but really the only highlight is a supporting role in A Very Long Engagement.

It is much more likely that these performers are nominated, but don't win. Just thinking of some non-winning performers nominated for performances primarily in a foreign language - Mastroianni, Giannini, Depardieu, Barrault, Adjani, Cortese, Cruz, Stallone (I kid). But the list goes on and on. And I won't even cover the primarily English language performances by ESL performers.

Maybe I am wrong here. But I don't think think we can talk about Marion Cotillard as anything other than a probable nominee. Talking about her as a "frontrunner" or even a possible "winner" seems a bit too much.

Anonymous said...

Michael Clayton leads Chicago nominations with 7 nods. There Will Be Blood close behind with 6.

And your Viggo got in - no Travolta! :)


charlie, i'd love to think you're right but what I'm guessing is that biopic mimicry trumps these concerns and she is a threat for the win. i mean the AMPAS voters have been going more and more 'mimicry is king' this past 10 years.

Andy Scott said...

I'm a little relieved that Cate isn't sweeping. I'm Not There just didn't do it for me.

StinkyLulu said...

For those of you who want to spread the wealth, that's what the Supporting Actress Blogathon is for! Join up, kids.

Gone Baby Gone ain't all that but it does make Mystic River look more and more like an episode of Cheers.

(By the by, I'm pretty agnostic on this year's race but I'd rank Amy Ryan well above Blanchett among this year's contenders.)

Anonymous said...

Biopics are fine. Just b/c you're jaded and are tired of them being awarded doesn't mean they shouldn't exist or that they don't have a purpose. "I'm Not There" was one of the most exciting films I've seen this year, and what Cate Blanchett did there was far deeper and significant than the lame "mimicry" label that she's been getting. Marion Cotillard was exceptional in "La Vie En Rose", and even though the film she was in didn't support her that well, she still rose above it and delivered one of the best performances I've seen in years. None of that would have happened if someone said, "gosh, I'm sick of those dang biopics! They win too many Oscars!" Thankfully the Academy doesn't see that way and adores them the way that many others do.

Unknown said...

so nat no post on pfeiffer lines? I mean I want to see the winner


the point is not that biopics can't contain fine work. they often do. the point is that they are overrewarded --you don't even have to be excellent to be rewarded for one. you just have to be in one.

FACT --as i see it ;): it's a lot easier to be nominated or win an Oscar for a totally average performance if you're in a biopic. if you're in an action flick or a suspense flick or any other less rewarded genre you have to be one of the all time best (sigweavy in aliens etc...) to even get nominated. and still you're never going to win.

and that ain't right, anyway you slice it.

adam k. said...

I wonder if Laura Linney is dying out? Her little perf is just the type that really could've used used the critics awards to stamp it into people's minds...

Anonymous said...

you don't even have to be excellent to be rewarded for one. you just have to be in one.

That's not true at all. Ask Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Cate Blanchett ("Veronica Guerin"), and Liam Neeson about just "bein' in a biopic" and that mimicry in and of itself got them Oscar nods. It didn't. You have to be noteworthy and strike a chord with the Academy to get recognized for biopics, and voters have done a great job lately of rewarding great performances of real-life people that go beyond impersonation to get to the heart and soul of these people. I'm glad of their existence and love seeing them done well.

Brian Darr said...

But if biopics didn't consistently get awarded, hardly anyone would make one. Who goes to see a biopic that's not in Oscar contention? Mostly people who are already diehard fans of the person being portrayed, if that. Action and suspense films can still get theatrical audiences even without awards, so they still get made even though their performers don't get awarded.

I say this as someone practically allergic to biopics (I have not even seen I'm Not There yet, and it's been playing for weeks here!)

Anonymous said...

It's all a matter of opinion, some like them and some don't. You don't need an Oscar ( or a nomination) to solidify a good performance.

I can't stand Romantic Comedies, but that's just me.


brian that is the single most hilarious defense of biopic Oscars I've read. it's like welfare for movie genres. hee. governme---academy subsidized filmmaking.


anonymous 4:43 -you bring up a point and perhaps i should clarify. the academy only goes apeshit for mimicry if they KNOW the performer in question.

and this is another reason i am so anti-biopic oscars. Kinsey was not a famous "performer" so far all we know Liam Neeson could have been doing the best mimicry job of all time and was still shunned for it.

do you see the problem here in rewarding performers for "becoming" people we know? who is to say that the other performers playing people we're less familiar with aren't even better?

Anonymous said...

There's no problem in rewarding performances from people that they know of from a wide scale. That's aggregate voting, and nothing can be done about that. They have that frame of reference with well-known people that they want to honor, and for whatever reasons, those performances strike a chord. It's their award to do with as they please, and rewarding biopics is what they like to do. It's perfectly fine.

Maybe it is an unfortunate byproduct of all of this that biopics of "lesser" known people aren't honored as much (if ever), but that's not enough of a reason to stop honoring the high-profile ones, especially when they're stellar roles.

Neel Mehta said...

When I first saw Contact, I noticed that I'd taken all the goodwill from The Silence of the Lambs -- motherless child, West Virginia upbringing, dying father -- and rolled it up into a different Jodie Foster character.

Biopics work the same way: they're a shortcut in character establishment. Even if you know nothing about the famous person depicted, you may know their reputation, and so the actor has a lot less work to do.

Just my opinion, but I prefer performances that aren't based on other people, or even previously published material, for that matter. The fresher the performance, the more I appreciate the acting.

Anonymous said...

I think the focus of the biopic issue is off.

I agree that biopics are way overdone (don't even get me started on how useless I think most of them are). But I think the weariness comes less from mimicry and more from the fact that the stories are all the same. Tell me that this isn't every single biopic in the past 20 years:

1. Movie opens and famous Person is young (or else, just to spice it up, we do a quick 2 minutes of the person today and then do a flash back! - and the flash back will be bookended, of course). He/she has some issue that he/she must overcome - e.g., parental problems, poverty, illness, whatever.

2. FP grows up (gotta have the obligatory teenager/young adult/early 20s scenes) and it is discovered that he/she has a talent. He/she may have been born with it or maybe it just became really well developed, through a lot of really really hard work, of course.

3. FP starts to make it big. He/she is nervous for his/her first performance or event or whatever. But he/she comes through it and makes it big.

4. FP has some issue that makes it hard for them to deal with being famous - e.g., addiction, tumultuous relationship, loneliness, The Man.

5. Famous Person dies or overcomes the issue or whatever.

6. End of movie. Yay!

Watch Coal Miner's Daughter and tell me that every biopic since then isn't a rip off (God I love that movie).

For those who are so biopic/mimicry weary (and I understand your argument), I would be interested to hear your take on performances based on, say, fictional characters from literature?

Have you ever had a problem with a performance or screenplay that doesn't stick close enough to the original text? What if a particular performer is miscast in a performance based on a literary figure? Aren't those, on some level, mimicry issues (yes, I know the mediums are different, but it is still mimicry)?

What about a performance of a fictional character from an original screenplay? Would you question the performance if the screenwriter said "you know what, that performance is not what I intended at all" or "I didn't really want that person for that part"? Isn't that, on some level, a mimicry issue?

Carl Joseph Papa said...

i would most like it if i see say swinton, staunton, kidman, pfeiffer, leigh, macdonald winning rather than amy ryan... i just don't get it

Carl Joseph Papa said...

ooohh and i forgot leslie mann heheh

Anonymous said...

I don't like that the majority of film critics are rewarding Amy Ryan. I really don't want her in the shortlist for Supp Actress. Tilda Swinton should be getting a lot of the kudos for her brilliant work in Michael Clayton. I hope she's not snubbbed again.

I'm surprised that Atonement has yet to receive any substantial award to solidify itself as a major contender.

Whoo! Julie Christie is nabbing most of the prizes from Marion Cotillard.

Does Helena Bonham-Carter still have a chance to be nominated for Sweeney Todd?

Anonymous said...

Charlie you make an EXCELLENT point. Most films are adapted from novels. You can make the exact same argument for that.

As far as original work, it's not like the actors ACTUALLY write the screenplays. They still have to read it and take directions from the director. The creation of ANY character is based on the writers and the actors just have to bring them to life.

So all of this mimicry talk is nonsense.

Besides I highly doubt the Best male winner will be from a Biopic.

gabrieloak said...

I agree that biopic performances have been given too many awards the past few years. I also detest sweeps. It all began with Hoffman getting every stupid prize for Capote with poor Heath Ledger who actually had to create a fictional character on screen getting a few scraps (one of them being the tough NYFCC prize). Or maybe it began with Jamie Foxx and Ray. Did Reese Witherspoon deserve all those awards for Walk the Line? Did Helen Mirren and Forrest Whittaker have to win everything last year?

I'm thinking there's going to be some backlash soon. Maybe at the Globes for best supporting actress. Certainly at BAFTA whose members will recognize some Brit actors at their ceremony.

Though the Screen Actors Guild will probably recognize Ryan because she's been in the trenches on stage so long.

Glenn Dunks said...

Sorry to go back to something that was towards the top of this entry, but I feel the need to respond to this quote by Beau:

"And it feels like another attempt on Affleck's part to garner some prestige and cred. It didn't work with "Hollywoodland" and it doesn't look like it works here."

I'm surprised people here didn't realise that - clearly - you just hate Ben Affleck and don't want him to even try and make a career for himself (or as you put it "garner some prestige and cred" uh? Isn't that what any actor/director/writer wants? Sorry you hate the guy, but that shouldn't stop his film from being rewarded if people think it warrents it.

I guess winning the Volpi Cup at Venice, receiving a Golden Globe nomination and winning a few critics awards for Hollywoodland and Gone Baby Gone isn't your definition of success, huh?


people put down the crackpipe ;)

MIMICRY has nuthin' to do with fictional characters. It's all about famous people copying the behavior of another famous person.

you're distorting the argument past comprehension

You cannot copy the text on the page to choose your facial movements and mannerisms and your vocal cadences or copy a character from a novel. You have to physically and emotionally imagine the performance as the actor.

Mimicry is an issue that's almost exclusively found in biopic dramas (or dramas or comedies that include real life figures)

...or in Halle Berry's embarrassing catwoman performance ;)

Anonymous said...

Charlie, you just don't like biopics. What about the ones that at least try to think outside of the box, like "I'm Not There" , "La Vie En Rose", or "Control"? The reality is, most of these artists' stories are going to go through that rags to riches kind of trajectory of highs and lows. Putting someone's squeaky clean life on the screen for two hours won't work. If you're tired of the same old kind of biopics, then don't watch them, but don't begrudge the Academy for finding worth in them and wanting to reward them with their highest honor (which is their award to do with as they please in the first place).

Matt Noller said...


I'm Not There isn't like that, but I barely consider it a biopic to begin with.

I've often been hard on biopic performances because they so rarely transcend mimickry. I criticized Jamie Foxx ceaselessly for what I saw as a terrific impersonation in service of a lousy performance.

On the other hand, it's all too easy to simply dismiss biopic performances as just mimickry without considering whether or not there's an actual performance there. It's so easy to just say, "Oh, all they're doing is copying a famous person. What's the big deal?" But that doesn't have to be the end of the performance, and at least for Cate Blanchett, it isn't. She goes way beyond "just" imitating Dylan, capturing all the layers of playfulness, stress, and resentment of his status as a star at that time. I understand the fear that she's being praised simply for playing a celeb - and that does happen; just look at Foxx - but if she were just playing an invented person with the same emotions, her work would be just as impressive, because her work goes so much deeper than copying Dylan's mannerisms. Being an imitation of a famous person does not mean it can't also be a great performance.

Also: Amy Ryan is amazing, and if she wins the Oscar it will be well deserved. And Tilda Swinton is a great actress, but I don't think her work in Michael Clayton is anything particularly special, except for that scene where she's rehearsing her speech, which is pretty stunning.

Glenn Dunks said...

But Nat the "omgmarionisedithpiaf!!!" people (as I like to call them) will not be swayed. There's no possible way.

Anonymous said...

Or you mean Biopics about Famous People right :-). There are plenty of biopics, most are about famous people and some are not. You can't copy someone mannerisms unless you see or READ about ( I agree about literary adaptations & Scripts) that person or character.

Then again , there's the private life vs. the work life. We rarely see famous people ( especially the ones that are made into biopics) in their personal life.

A big example is Idi Amin , uh I'm sorry, but there's just not enough ACTUAL footage of him during his reign to say "oh Forest just Copied him."

Look if you don't like biopics that's your business, but to undermine an actor by saying that person is only doing an imitation is ignorant. I highly doubt that ANYone here is an actor in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Kamikaze Camel, I haven't even seen La Vie En Rose and I honestly don't plan too.

TO say someone's performance shouldn't be rewarded because he/she is playing an actual person is just IGNORANT.

Glenn Dunks said...

Oh, I did like Control though. Perhaps because I have a stronger connection to the music of Joy Division, but it was nice to see a biopic that didn't feel like the movie revolved around one performance. It was more interested in Ian Curtis' life than about how great Sam Riley is as Ian Curtis, which I feel is the problem with some biopics.

Having said that there are plenty of excellent, fine and amazing biopics being produced. It's just that whenever there is one it's like the world stops and everything else becomes irrelevent.

Glenn Dunks said...

anon 7.27 - that's not what i said. not at all.


kamikaze you're right you're right. it's hopeless.

every statement that attempts to be halfway "let's discuss this" gets hopelessly channelled through absolutes and nonsensical comparisons.

oh well if you can't beat 'em join em


Anonymous said...

I think John Travolta could play Rose Marie. Just gave him a silver wig ith a little black bow and poof....OMHJohnTravoltaisRoseMarie.

Anonymous said...

Charlie, maybe it's just me, but a lot of genre films follow the same pattern.

Horror Movies
Romantic Comedies-Am I the only one who hates


Anonymous said...

But how is that somehow better than the "let's revel in the austerity of Julie Christie" fanclub that you and Nate are leading the path with Kamikaze? Get the hell over yourself.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Tera a lot of films follow similar patterns, not just biopics.

Oh I got a good one OmgCaseyAffleckisRobertFord. Oh wait and we know this because....

anon 7:57 or how about let's reward someone because of thier past work or because they're old and we should cherish our older actors ( someone actually said this about Julie Christie).


ooh boy. anyone else sensing this actress smackdown is going to get as ugly as the Swank vs. Bening days?

Anonymous said...

Nathaniel- I believe Ellen Page or Laura Linney will pull an upset over both parties. Not that I want her too.

Anonymous said...

Sorry typing fast. I meant not that I want them to.

adam k. said...

I think it's already gotten uglier : ( That was more an issue of someone already having another oscar.

And I am an actual actor, to whoever brought that up. Albeit I don't have a career yet, but that is the idea eventually. And for what it's worth, I think this whole debate has gotten way overblown. I mean, acting is acting, people. Come on. "Mimicry" and "imagination" are two different skills that are both important in acting. They're both difficult. I think mimicry is mildly overrewarded, probably due to the "wow once in a lifetime perfect match!" factor of actor and role... and it's just an easier thing to quantify, I suppose.

But anyway yeah, chill.

I want Laura Linney to win...

The Keeper said...

All these critics awards are all well and good, all I want to see is Nat's FB awards.

Glenn Dunks said...

anon 7.57 (so many anonymous people!!) it's not so much Julie Christie herself it's just that there are so many great performances that haven't been aided by the actor being able to copy a famous person yet it's that very performance that is garnering the majority of hype/awards. People like Christie, Linney, Page, Knightley, Adams, etc, all see to have gotten amazing reviews for their performances yet because people don't have a frame of reference to hold it up to they get relegated to the sidelines.

It's like how adapted screenplays always seem to be more "prestigious" than originals for whatever reason.


ah Keeper! that's awesome.



Anonymous said...

This is like the BEST thread I've ever read on here! Amazing work guys!

Can I just say a few things in response to some of the great things posted on here:

1. La Vie en rose is not thinking outside of any box. It's firmly in the corner of a very generic brown cardboard/badly constructed one.

2. Can I join the "let's revel in Julie Christie's austerity" club? Please? I'm not really a 'join the club' kinda guy, but that is one club I would happily sign away for this season.

2.b. PS: I'm all about the oldies this year - Christie, Redgrave, Holbrook, Dee. Probably Langella when it gets a release over here in 2011 or thereabouts. Loving me some geriatricaction. Although I was backing Mirren and O'Toole last year, so maybe it's a long-term thing?...

3. Oh and someone explain to me Kelly Macdonald's appeal in No Country? The first few scenes she was in were badly acted. No question about that. Her delivery, body language, that shocking accent (I could still hear that Glaswegian shrill behind the long-drawn out, finish-the-damn-word
-before-I-slap-you attempt at Texan). I mean, come on, seriously? Then she disappears for the rest of the movie. Finally, she kind of redeems herself in that coda scene. Does not an Oscar nominee maketh. (Hopefully.)

4. Paltrow was aces in Sylvia. Don't diss my homegirl.

5. Also Nat, why did you have to drag my poor punchbag-of-the-decade Halle into this one? Although you seemed to have liked Things We Lost so all is immediately forgiven.

6. Not related at all but I've just come back from seeing it so what the hell: WHY IS NO-ONE TALKING ABOUT LUST, CAUTION?? It came out in Sept in the US, you guys should've all seen it by now. Is the mere thought of it now not making you shudder in delight??...

Anonymous said...

Seconded about Film Bitch Awards - never been more anticipated than this year, for it's been both a quality-laden and unpredictable one.

Also, can we just campaign for Best Actress to be a seven-way tie this year?

Anonymous said...

Staunton vs. Bening = Hilary Swank for "Million Dollar Baby"
Christie vs. Cotillard = Hilary Swank for "P.S. I love you"
Easy, right ?

When you need her, she has a movie coming out in december
When it's oscar time, she's first in line
She knows how to knock it out of the park, for she grew up in a trailer park
She may have scars, but she's already won two Oscars


wait amir. who are the seven women for this tie?

and alex you are evil and must be destroyed


to all the Cotillard lovers. I call truce: one of me own best friends (Nick) also loves her so there ya go.

Anonymous said...

1. I find it interesting people are getting sick of biopics now, because the most interesting ones (to me) have been released only recently: Kinsey, The Aviator, The Queen, Control (Infamous, to a lesser extent).

2. I haven't read this entire thread, but I'd argue that yeah, you can mimic fictional characters. It's just less exact. What does Meryl Streep when she learns an accent? She mimics it. Maybe Amy Ryan had a specific boozing mother in mind. Sure, it requires imagination, but lets not dismiss performances of real people simply on the basis of mimicry. Oscar bait has become such a perjorative phrase that it's disappointing to see performances written off because they do contain some "bait" in them.

3. I think Blanchett's not winning for a few reasons. She's in a divisive film, she's the star of an epic backlash because she has the temerity to work a lot, she's just won recently for a superficially similar role (impersonating a 20th Century icon). I think she'll get nodded still (thanks to the amorphous nature of the category), but a win so soon? Doubtful.

Anonymous said...

Yes "La Vie En Rose" was thinking outside of the box in terms of how the film was structured.

Anonymous said...

Also, I loved Gwyneth in "Sylvia". I wasn't dissing her. That wasn't the point I was attempting to make.

Glenn Dunks said...

Arkaan, but Blanchett didn't exactly rack up the critics awards for her perf in The Aviator either. If I remember correctly it was all about Virginia Madsen with the critics that year.

Anonymous said...

Cate Blanchett is a fine, fine actress ... her win for Aviator, she was MIMICKING Kate Hepburn... she's doing the same with Dylan .... so why not Cotillard mimicking Piaf????

I don't get the argument of this point....

Anonymous said...

Well if Swank doesn't completely blow the competition away in a few weeks time when she reinvents the wheel with The Definitive Romantic Dramedy Performance, it's between (in alpha order) Berry-Christie-Foster-Jolie-Knightley-Linney (Savages)-Wei. Still can't decide who to nominate let alone win; to me, they all deserve a share of the pie for some reason or another.

Haven't yet seen Margot or Sweeney Todd so things may change...

Anonymous said...

I think Nathaniel's choices for Best Actress will be :
Christie - away from her
Do-yeon Jeong - secret sunshine
La Kidman - margot at the wedding
Linney - the savages
adams - enchanted

finalists :
molly shannon - year of the dog
wei - lust, caution
angelina jolie - a mighty heart
christina ricci - black snake moan
halle berry - things we lost in the fire

Anonymous said...

No, I don't think Adams would make Nathaniel's FB final 5. More likely Wei and Knightley...


amir --you make a good point. The Best Actress competition will be nonexistent once Swank reemerges... i'm sure her PS I love you performance will be like another ANNIE HALL or something -she's that good.


ok. i need a new punching bag. who is it gonna be? it's not going to be fun to hate on Swank when everyone else is doing it (which i suspect they will if the trailers are any indication)

Anonymous said...

SWank???? I just think THe Black Dahlia and get sick to my stomach.... I don't think she will be in the running for Oscars!!!

Sam Brooks said...

In regards to a biopic performance, I'm not getting to the issue of it being nominated or winning awards or not. But when I judge one, I judge it exactly the same way as I judge any other performance. It's still up to the actor to do his or her job and portray a character and convey those emotions. Whether the character is real or not is irrelevant to me.