FiLM BiTCH AWARDS Medals Ceremony

This site's 10th annual honors have been announced. Cue the title themes to Bright Star and The Hurt Locker. Hunger doesn't really have a score so just cue a tinny radio transmission of Margaret Thatcher's voice. I dunno, get creative. Director Steve McQueen certainly did.

The Na'Vi honor the ceremonial wins of their destroyers.
Avatar wins 3 gold and 2 silver in technical categories.

The gold, silver and bronze medals are now announced for all of the "traditional" categories. I'm still working on the extra fun pages. Many of these medals were tough calls, so don't get too flummoxed if your favorites were bronze instead of silver or some such. Next month I might wish I'd switched a few up. After all, so much of "favorites" is mood-driven and susceptible to rescreenings. Although, don't get me wrong, there are incontestable gold medals, too. Tilda Swinton's win for Julia and Mo'Nique's for Precious were easy calls. They're the two best performances of 2009 (with Christoph Waltz a semi-distant third though he too is quite marvelous) and they'd be high up on a "decade" list, too.

The Hurt Locker reigns with the highest medal count (4 gold among them). What can I say, it was a rare "consensus" year for me. It was also a good year for toons. Between them, Coraline, UP and Fantastic Mr. Fox took 7 medals.

P.S. Before anyone freaks out about "The Dude" losing gold, remember that I owe him nothing. I didn't keep him waiting nearly as long as Oscar voters did. He won the top prize here just five years back for The Door in the Floor... a performance I still prefer to that Crazy Heart.

P.P.S. More awardage and final Oscar Predictions coming tomorrow.

Best Limited Roles, Line Readings, Poster and More...

Normally I finish off the FiLM BiTCH Awards before Oscar arrives. I'll announce my gold, silver and bronze for the Oscar-like categories for the 2009 film year on Tuesday. But I've still got all these extra categories hanging over me like a dark cloud. Not that I don't love the rain they bring. My other significantly less cinematic life absorbed way too much of my time this season. Boo. So it's a race to the finish line, now. And then a few days in recuperative coma.

A few favorite Limited Roles and Line Readings...
(suggest away for fill ins -- my memory is shot!)

And with only 8 days until Oscar hits...
another theme to follow Precious day.
It's EYE CANDY WEEKEND!

Posters, Trailers and Taglines
(yes, I added a trailer citation for the first time)


As always I love to hear both feedback and your own personal favorites in any of these categories. What's most important in an ad campaign for you: instantly iconic imagery, accurate representation of what's being sold, clever riffs on the theme or just plain old beauty? Maybe you require all of the above. You're so demanding!


*

Awardage: Breakthrough & Body of Work

We're not quite done with the films of 2009 yet. Soon. Very soon. Even if it doesn't seem like it, I'm working as fast as I can. Two more prizes now. The Body of Work prize is for multiple performances. This doesn't always work like a consolation "sorry, I didn't nominate you and congratulations on your Oscar success this year!" category but this year it works so much like that that I'm wondering if I should do away with the category? Thoughts?


Then there's Breakthrough for people that won deserved big(ger) attention this year. You've already guessed that this is mostly about Michael Fassbender. I can't help myself! Fassbender's "year" refused to be defined by the Gregorian calendar. Hunger's release was painfully stretched out and so was Fish Tank's. The gods of distribution have determined that he's the breakthrough of 2008, 2009 and 2010 depending on your zip code. It's very confusing... and global. And we hope he has many more years, however loosely defined, ahead of him.

The breakthrough category is always a bit blurry. Sometimes people have been around and I haven't noticed them. But since I do a fairly good job of noticing new actors, I don't abuse it as much as mainstream awards shows do. Of the five recipients: Sharlito Copley, Michael Fassbender, Tom Hardy, Catalina Saveedra and Sam Worthington only one is actually a "debut". That'd be Mr. Copley in District 9 but since it never felt anything like a debut, it's most definitely a breakthrough. How did he do that the first time out?

One odd but important note: I'm not even sure I liked Tom Hardy's performance in the experimental biopic Bronson. But I found it so committed to its own eccentricity and to the movie's balls out strangeness that I had to admire it even as I had no idea what it was or if it was too much of what it was. If you've seen it, maybe you'll understand.

Honors in this category come down to one question: "Do I want to see them in another movie?" and then a defining follow up "How quickly do i want to see said movie?" The answers must be "hell yes!" and "NOW".

The Awards

TECHNICALITY: Before you ask, Carey Mulligan and Gabby Sidibe were ineligible for the FiLM BiTCH Award in the Breakthrough category since they were nominated in one of the big four categories. It's my way of spreading the wealth.
*

Actors on Actors: Zoe's Lust, Tobey's Caution

I love New York Times "T Screen Tests". Thanks to In Contention for pointing out this beautifully minimalist video. I sometimes miss them. This one is hot actors of the moment talking about favorite performances from this past decade. It's pretty interesting.



I love reading between the lines on things like this. The questions it raises. Is Jake Gyllenhaal just a fundamentally unserious person? Is Tobey Maguire sincere when he chooses super close BFF Leonardo DiCaprio in The Aviator or just not committing to the exercize (though I love his acknowledgement that there needs to be more to biopic acting than mimicry)? Is Christoph Waltz hoping to be employed soon by the Coen Bros? Who is Sandra Bullock's hairdresser?

There's also Carey Mulligan freaking out over Saoirse Ronan's baby blues (don't we all?) and hip Vera Farmiga singing the praises of TFE's current It boy man Michael Fassbender in Hunger.

There's something about his face that is unlike anyone in the way it conveys emotion.

I also like imagining which actors might have totally whacky off-consensus Oscar nomination ballots (Jeff Bridges obviously) and which might be total conformists (Morgan Freeman, Julianne Moore?!?)

But my favorite of all has to be Zoe Saldana's left field praise of Tang Wei in Lust, Caution. You don't hear that performance brought up every day but it's simply beyond. God Tang Wei was great in that movie. And just this acknowledgement makes me love Zoe Saldana way way more. And the fact that she dwells on the physicality... I think she's telling filmmakers she's totally down with the sex scenes if anyone wants to offer her a truly meaty part.

NYFCC... Everybody Hurts

I'm late posting this -- hey, I can't be at the computer 24/7 -- but if you've somehow missed the latest round of critics prizes, here's the results from the NYFCC. They've been naming "bests" since 1935. How about that?

Picture The Hurt Locker

Director Kathryn Bigelow The Hurt Locker

Screenplay In The Loop

Actress Meryl Streep Julie & Julia

Actor George Clooney Up In The Air and Fantastic Mr. Fox

• Anyone else find it a little odd that Clooney's honor is a double dip with voicework but Streep, who voice stars with him in Fox and anchors soon-to-be-big-hit It's Complicated is only cited for Julie & Julia?

Supporting Actress Mo'Nique Precious

Supporting Actor Christoph Waltz Inglourious Basterds

Cinematographer Christian Berger The White Ribbon

• I knew he'd win at least a couple. Black and white work always take at least one critics prize. I'm not knocking Berger's work. I'm just sayin'.

Animated Film Fantastic Mr. Fox

Documentary Of Time and The City

Foreign Film Summer Hours

First Film Hunger by Steve McQueen

Special Prize Andrew Sarris, Film Critic

• Some lovely choices there I think. Especially happy to see Hunger, which suffered in buzz momentum from one of those inane "it's a 2008 film for the west coast and a 2009 film for the east coast" release structures, remembered. But then NYFCC also had to wait a whole year to honor 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days so they tend to be patient. Good on them.

By now it's obvious that The Hurt Locker is the year's bonafide critics darling. Such a fine film. But in the Aughts it is a little disappointing that there always seems to be just one. Even Eternal Sunshine was cast aside in its year so that everyone could agree on Sideways. Most years contain more than one film that might stand the test of time so it'd be nice if there was a little more argument annually about which film that is.

It's also obvious that roughly 80% of planet earth is sick of waiting for Meryl's third Oscar. If I had to guess I'd say that the planet needs it more than Meryl does. Streep Addicts out there will already know that this is Meryl's fourth honor from the NYFCC. She won there in her Oscar years and also for 1988's A Cry in the Dark. She's also a four time recipient of the LAFCA though she lost this year. She won LA's top prize in her Oscar years as well as for The French Lieutenant's Woman and Out of Africa.

Mia Farrow Dwindles

Mia Farrow is not eating and not for the shallow maddening reasons that actresses generally avoid solids. I am concerned. I'll let her do the talking from her 21 day hunger strike...

Today is the ninth day for me with no food, only water. I am still protesting the expulsion of humanitarians from all of Sudan (including, of course, the Darfur region and the refugee camps). Please call the White House (202-456-1111) and tell President Obama to help get humanitarian groups back in Sudan.

While I'm fully aware that desperate ploys like hunger strikes can garner media attention, Steve McQueen's Hunger is too fresh in the mind for this not to give me nightmares. Call me selfish but I don't like to lose great actresses before it's absolutely necessary to do so. Farrow's current standing in cultural hierarchies of movie stars is very low -- people don't talk about her -- but that rich filmography full of great performances will raise public regard after her eventual death. It would have to. That said: that eventual death doesn't need to arrive anytime soon. She's only 64.

Gabriel Stauring is quoted in the LA Times:

There’s no way she can go that long without doing permanent damage. We want to convince her that if we have somebody else that is famous and that would draw attention, that she should stop.

I don't mean to be glib or disrespectful -- I hate it when civilians trash über rich celebrities for trying to improve the world, an impulse that's totally part of the Bitch Pleeze snark phenomenon that we're all guilty of from time to time -- but can't Mia just do what other actors do and use movies as her soapbox? I'm not well versed in the disheartening situations in Darfur and Sudan. I've never called the White House before but I'm tempted. I'm also tempted to cook her omelettes and grilled cheese sandwiches (the extent of my culinary skills) and messenger them her way every day until she starts eating.
*

And the Best of British To You, Sir! (/Madam)

Dave from Victim of the Time here once more. It's St. George's Day here- the patron saint of England (and several other countries but who cares about them?)- and although usually all that patriotism makes me slightly ill I thought I'd be more cheerful for once and bring you good mostly-American people some examples of my country's film-making prowess. Although even though it's the English patron saint's day I'll still sticking the banner out to cover the other three countries of our country, because it's all very confusing and we haven't devolved yet. Only a matter of time, though, I hear. [/tangent]

Ten years ago, the BFI polled a whole bunch of people to determine what the best British films of the twentieth century were. Now- spoiler!- the winner was The Third Man. A fair enough choice, says I. You can't beat a bit of zither. But, since they did that, and happily it's ten years later, I've decided to be stunningly original and bring you some of the best of what we've had to offer in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In bite-size form, because you've already seen what happens when I start rambling.

Boy A. Plot description doesn't sell this one very well (I think someone's still holding it against me), but it features a superb Andrew Garfield, who I'm sure you'll all know in a few years time if you don't already (that's him to the left there), some wonderful cinematography and a screenplay that is really rather affecting.

Bright Young Things. A marvellous 1930s romp from the ever-dapper Stephen Fry, based on an Evelyn Waugh novel and with a superb Stephen Campbell Moore in the leading role. It's all generally very witty and slightly posh and a bit naughty and all very delightful until the war turns up and spoils it all, like it always does. Bloody war.

Ghosts. You might know documentary filmmaker Nick Broomfield from his two Aileen Wuornos films, but his first foray into a narrative film is rather excellent as well; focusing on a tragedy involving illegal Chinese immigrants working in Britain and struggling to survive. Draining but a very powerful watch.

Hallam Foe. Or Mister Foe as you Yanks might know it. Someone's favourite Jamie Bell (above) is preoccupied by the memory of his dead mother, and when he sees someone who looks just like her... things get a bit creepy. All full of gritty Scottish grimness and disturbing plot turns, but fascinating and superbly crafted. (And also with Claire Forlani, who I never knew was British before this, did you? You probably did.)

The House of Mirth. Terence Davies is one of our best but most scarce auteurs, a bit like Terrence Malick really; this adaptation of Edith Wharton's novel is slow, deliberate but superbly affecting, with- see a theme here?- a stellar turn from the wonderful Gillian Anderson.

Hunger. I look at this list and it's rather full of depression. You'll be glad to know things don't change with this one; painstakingly in its depiction of Bobby Sands' hunger strike, this is hardly the most comfortable watch you'll ever have, but the viscerality twinned with director Steve McQueen's (not that one) painterly sensibilities is an impressive sight to behold. [see previous TFE posts]

London to Brighton. More fun and games here as an experienced prostitute and a teenager new on the job run away, all bloody and the like, from their pimp in London and go to Brighton (er, obviously) because something rather bad has happened and they'd quite like to stay alive, thanks. Paul Andrew Williams blew people away a few years ago with this dark, powerful thriller.

Morvern Callar. Samantha Morton gets fucked up in Ibiza. Lynne Ramsay's intimate style is key to unlocking this strange, beguiling and strangely beautiful piece of work.

This Is England. Skinheads are scary. This film about skinheads is also scary, but marvellously so; Shane Meadows' work is always imbued with a rather morbid sense of humour, and the electrifying sense of constant danger. Thomas Turgoose marks himself out as the young boy who joins a gang of skinheads, and experiences the joy of community and the dangers of growing up all at once.

Vera Drake. Obviously if you're an Oscar-watcher you won't need me to tell you how good Imelda Staunton is here as a 1950s housewife who does backstreet abortions, nor that Mike Leigh brings his usual keen improvisation eye to the period setting. You already knew that? Good. Bears repeating, though, doesn't it?

Blimey. We're a depressing bunch, aren't we? I think my flag has wilted.

April Showers: Changeling

April Showers evenings @ 11 all month long

Showers in real life are comforting and cleansing. In the movies, they're often harrowing ... if you survive them that is. If my math is correct there are five types of shower/horror in the movies.

1. being murdered
2. being raped
3. being spied on (possibly for the purposes of #1 or #2)
4. seeing something you didn't expect to see (like blood or Kevin Bacon's penis)
5. being violently hosed down...
   

...is more specialized. It's generally spotted only in the wilds of prison movies or in the sub genre of Women's Pictures dealing with the martyred crusader. Think Meryl Streep in Silkwood or this recent demonstration from Angelina Jolie in Changeling.


Most of us will never experience the hose down (water fights on your childhood lawn don't count) so who knows if it's as painful as it always looks? The point is surely humiliation, rather than pain. It's another chance to build yet more sympathy for the heroine.

This isn't meant as a knock against Clint Eastwood (calm down) but why must workers in unfortunately dehumanizing facilities like asylums or prisons always be portrayed as evil themselves? This happens in a lot of movies, not just Changeling. When Eastwood grants these actresses shots of their own they're completely unforgiving and possibly malevolent.

Evil Worker #1 "spread your legs" she intones mercilessly
Evil Worker #2 has no voice. She wields her hose with committed intensity

Maybe these two ladies could just as easily have starred in a Woman's Picture themselves? Perhaps they're widows or hard up single mothers like Christine Collins? How easy was it for them to get jobs in the 1920s? Maybe at the beginning of their movie they were circling want ads just like Erin Brockovich did in hers. Maybe this is the first job they could find to feed their kids and they hate it with a passion? Surely not everyone who works at miserable jobs is evil themselves?

Hunger is the only recent film I can think of that understands that it can be even more emotionally potent and despairing to humanize the people doing the dehumanizing work. There was a brief shot of a crying prison guard after a particularly brutal "beat up the prisoners" sequence that was just devastating. Caricaturizing worker drones as evil simplifies your movie but it does dehumanizing work of its own.
*

2009... So Far So Good Great

We're only two and half months into the year -- this is right around the time I start going to movies again, waking from my Oscar hibernation -- and even though Watchmen didn't pan out, going from complex heady source material to a stiff 'eh?' as a film, we already have at least two fine candidates for a compelling, diverse and meaty top ten list come year's end. Some might call Steve McQueen's Hunger a 2008 film, what with its release in the UK and its 7 day stint in a single theater in LA last year (god, someone kill the "qualifying release"...drag it to hell!) but for my purposes it's a 2009 film. So 2009 is starting strong. Even Confessions of a Shopaholic was better than expected. That's a nice change of pace for the first three months of the year (although you wouldn't know it from the box office top ten which is 30% Mall Cops, Dogs & Tyler Perry, 40% extreme violence spectacles and 20% critically trashed romantic comedies)


If you haven't seen Coraline yet I urge you to do it while it's still in theaters. You can't get its 3D effects at home. The movie doesn't throw things towards the screen to make you "ooh" and "ah" over its technical accomplishment --everything is story/character based -- but Coraline doesn't need the hard sell because it's completely confident. Director Henry Selick's previous animated features (Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach) also had this enviable trait. They know what movies they are through and through. They don't seem to second guess whether or not you'll be buying what they're selling. A lot of lesser animated films and frankly, a lot of live action blockbusters should watch and learn.

Coraline the movie, adapted from the brilliant Neil Gaiman story about a girl who finds a door into a world mirroring her own, isn't scared of quiet scenes or laying the groundwork for its richly creepy 'grass is greener' conflict. I saw it in a theater filled with kids and for the most part they were as quiet as they were during WALL•E and Spirited Away. Kids can handle animated movies that are smart enough for their parents. And Coraline definitely has a lot to offer adults. The psychosexual subtext alone is hilarious what with teenage boys warned against entering the Pink Palace ("it's dangerous!") and vaginal tunnels leading to "Mother" and "Other Mother" as the case may be. A-

Hunger, on the other hand, is not all ages safe. It's a political bio / prison movie of sorts about Bobby Sands and the deadly Irish hunger prison strike of 1981. To be blunt, I'm not sure the film is any ages safe but safety is overrated in art. It's a brutal film --not in the typical "here's some gory violence to quench your insatiable bloodthirst!" movie-movie way but plenty harsh, putting the audience through the ringer psychologically, politically and emotionally. One of its first images, a shot of bloody knuckles under water, hurts more than most stabbings or gunshots on film, and once we see how the knuckles got bloody, the sting worsens. I realize this doesn't sound like a fun time at the movies (it's not) but why does art always have to be fun? Most of us understand this about music and paintings but we seem to have more trouble with it in movie theaters, always equating "the movies" with "good time at..." if you know what I mean. As cinema Hunger is pretty amazing (especially considering it's a debut film) and it's long can't-look-away shots and compelling juxtapositions of voiceover and static imagery will be more potent in theaters where you truly can't look away. I fear the movie's full gale force will be muted on DVD once you have the pause option. A-

Two terrific movies out already in 2009 and I haven't even managed to catch Two Lovers yet (of which I keep hearing good things). Coraline is still in 1000+ theaters. Hunger opens on March 20th in limited release, keep a look out for that one since it won't stick around long.

The BAFTA Nominations for 2008 and The Madhouse Act of 1828

Trivia Time! It's been 180 years since an Act of the British Parliament allowed for the building of mental asylums. The first ever built was the 1st Middlesex County Asylum in West London which opened its doors in 1831. The British invented insane asylums! Who knew? And yet it all makes sense...

177 years later, ancestors of those first Middlesex patients voted on the nominations for the British Academy Film Awards (or BAFTA or "The Orange Film Awards" --make up your minds!) honoring the films of 2008. Gemma Arterton ("Strawberry Fields" in the latest Bond film) and Hayley Atwell (The Duchess) made the announcements which were... _ _ _ _ _ _.

(You saw where that was going I hope. Good.)

Years ago I paid no mind to these particular awards and, scanning over this year's nominees, I think I was probably of sound mind back then. Somewhere along the line, I lost my resistance to them -- I think it was when Kate Winslet won a prize and thanked Peter Jackson for discovering her? (It's all Heavenly Creatures fault!) -- and I have lived to curse my interest in them ever since. I grew deeply suspicious of the Orange Film Awards when they changed their schedule to become an Oscar precursor. Must everything be about the Oscars? You don't see the Goyas (Spain) or the Cesars (France) trying to predict American film prizes! Now I'm not suspicious so much as perplexed.

If you want their full list you can click on the link above but let's just talk Picture & Acting

Best Film

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader and Slumdog Millionaire

Outstanding British Film

• Hunger, In Bruges, Mamma Mia!, Man on Wire and Slumdog Millionaire
  

I list these two categories together because I think it's odd and sad that they have a Best Picture prize and then a sort of ugly stepsister category to honor their own artists. ("Odd" wouldn't be the right word if we're talking more specifically about Mamma Mia!'s nomination. What is this, the British People's Choice Awards?)



Shouldn't the main prize "Best Film" be honoring their own films, the way virtually every country's academy does, responding first to their own productions while making room for the occasional import they really loved? The way their system is structured now they're basically telling you that the only film they made this year as good as an American film is Slumdog Millionaire and that's a) not remotely true since Hunger & In Bruges and the egregiously snubbed Happy-Go-Lucky are all pretty damn good pictures b) curiously self-loathing and c) inversely funny since the American Academy has often been accused of having Anglophilia. The grass is always greener I guess.

Side note 1: Despite's Milk's Best Picture nomination, they showed no real enthusiasm. Only four noms (Pic, Screenplay, Lead Actor and Hair/Makeup)

Side note 2: Has any film in history as unpassionately received as Frost/Nixon been so unanimously embraced by so many disparate awards bodies? It's a head scratcher. I haven't met anyone who hates it and a lot of people seem to think it's good and quite entertaining (myself included) but Best Picture every single time? What's more it has achieved this breezy awards champ status without public support -- It's made less than 8 million at this writing which is very low for an eventual Best Picture nominee, even if you're only looking at box office prior to nominations. (The lowest grossing future BP nominee in the past 2o years was Clint Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima with only $2 million in the bank prior to its nomination. But that was an Eastwood picture and the normal rules don't really apply).

I know, I know... only 10 pictures were actually released in 2008 so I guess the chances for Frost/Nixon were like 50/50 [*snort*]

It gets worse.

Leading Actor

• Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
• Dev Patel, Slumdog Millionaire
• Sean Penn, Milk
• Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

Leading Actress

• Angelina Jolie, Changeling
• Kristin Scott Thomas, I've Loved You So Long
• Meryl Streep, Doubt
• Kate Winslet, The Reader
• Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road

The best that can be said here is that they've put lead categories into a lead race (imagine that!). The worst that can be said is that the presence of Dev Patel definitely casts doubt on standard American perceptions that British actors are super serious about their craft.

We always marvel (rightly, I'd wager) that most of their stars actually train to act, rather than just show up at auditions hoping to be famous. But this is another reminder that acting well and judging artistic efforts are different skills. I wonder if Dame Judi Dench actually thought Dev Patel gave a stronger performance than Michael Fassbender in Hunger? Blargh!


I just don't have time for BAFTA anymore. At least if Patel gets nominated at the Oscars (likely) he'll be demoted to Supporting where they'll often nominate someone on the sole basis of their cuteness or luck at appearing in a popular film -- it's vaguely expected.

Supporting Actor

• Robert Downey Jr. Tropic Thunder
• Brendan Gleeson, In Bruges
• Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt
• Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
• Brad Pitt, Burn After Reading

Supporting Actress

• Amy Adams, Doubt
• Penélope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
• Freida Pinto, Slumdog Millionaire
• Tilda Swinton, Burn After Reading
• Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler

Oh, BAFTA. Art is subjective so I hate to make crass generalizations but anyone who thinks Freida Pinto is a better actress than Viola Davis probably has no business passing out awards in film excellence. Am I wrong? I mean, if you saw Doubt, what's your excuse?

P.S. I love beautiful people. They're wonderful to look at. I actually think we should have more ridiculously beautiful people in the movies and Pinto's pure loveliness is actually sort of jaw dropping. But hear me out. Just add a "Most Desirable" category like they used to do at the MTV Movie Awards. I mean... since that's how you wanna roll. I think Keanu Reeves is one of the most beautiful men ever projected on the silver screen but you don't see me handing him Best Actor prizes.

Beauty is its own reward. Shouldn't it remain so?

P.S. 2 New readers should note that I am not always this crabby. BAFTA nominations merely make me long for padded cells... (it's safer to bang your head against the wall that way). I promise to be less filled with bile next week. Er... that's when the Oscar nominations come out. Uhhhh, I take that back.

P.S. 3 Oscar Predictions updates are coming tonight.
*

Hungry for Hunger? You'll Starve

If you live in LA, you have seven days to catchthis new movie about the battle of wills between Maze Prison hunger strikers and Margaret Thatcher's regime that took place in 1981. Michael Fassbender (300) is mesmerizing in the lead role of Bobby Sands, doing a Christian Bale Machinist self-nihilism act. The rest of you/us will have to wait until 2009 to see Hunger. Or you could save it on your rental queues though this is not an ideal way to experience it. It's a brutal challenging film, fond of jaw dropping sustained takes and the ease of pausing at home or thinking "i'll finish this later" will dilute its cumulative power.


I've thought long and hard about L.A. only "qualifying runs" for Oscar and I'm considering disqualifying them for my own awards (I allowed for 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days last year... but it still felt off. It's the principle of the thing. It makes me crazy) One week qualifiers circumvent what I've always believed was a crucial aspect of cinema: the audience. You. Only industry and press can see these movies and here's the thing: movies should not be hard to see. If you can afford a ticket, nobody should be keeping your desired movie from you. The cinema is an artform for the masses [however abusive the masses happen to be to it with their dollars, continually requesting more talking dog movies and whatnot --but that's another topic. Sorry for the tangent. -ed.] and should remain that way.

It saddens me that the Academy, who regularly tweak their rules, still allow for these one-week qualifiers. Even though it's technically legal it's like cheating. It's a loophole. You are not really a 2008 movie if you open at one theater in one city for one week and then remove yourself quickly to plan for 2009. The idea, for all films that try this tactic, is to win Oscar nods and hope that that will boost their profile when they open for real. But this is rather like trying to pay rent by buying yourself a lottery ticket. It's not easy to get Oscar nods --particularly for small art films -- and many films that go this route never make good on their "opening in February/March" claims when they find themselves without Oscar nods... which is the case more often than not. Oops. The system as it is stinks; It's not healthy for these small movies, it screws with the structural calendar idea of awards systems and most importantly, it's no good for the movie loving audience who are left out of the conversation altogether.

[/soapbox]
*