Oscar's Gonna Have His Way Toniiiiiight.

Jose here.

The brand new poster for the 83rd Academy Awards was released today.
Here it is if you have yet to see it...



The main poster (which seems to be yet another variation of the "Oscar as superhero" theme AMPAS always seems to recur to) is accompanied by three other posters which all include iconic images of Oscar night.


He will leave someone speechless tonight.

Reads the one accompanying the envelope we all love to hate.
And as cute as the tagline is, it truly should've been followed by "unless your name is Julia Roberts".


He will change someone's life tonight.

...when I saw the one with the spotlights I realized I was reading the taglines to the melody of West Side Story's fantastic "Tonight Quintet".
Try it yourself for some extra fun!
Oh and also, does Oscar still change lives? Did it ever for that matter?


He will make the stars shine tonight.

This one is perhaps my favorite because it highlights the one thing all of us love about Oscar night: the red carpet.
Even if we all want to slap each other the day after people we dislike beat Meryl Streep or Martin Scorsese loses Best Director for the umpteenth time, we all have a jolly time discussing who we loved and loathed during the red carpet show.

The classy, simple design of the accompanying posters also reminded me of something else:



Of course Black Swan might as well have the most brilliant poster campaign of the year and poor Oscar's posters look like they were designed on Paint after seeing the magnificent work graphic design company La Boca did with Darren Aronofsky's film.

Anyway, do you like what you see or would you have preferred to see Anne and James on top of a giant statuette like last year's strange design?

Glenn Close as Albert Nobbs

Glenn Close got back in front of movie cameras two days ago. Albert Nobbs has just started filming. She plays a cross dressing woman in 1890's Ireland.

[photo src]

Barring the movie going to cable (these things happen) of failing to get distribution (these things happen, too) will Glenn Close finally be back in the Oscar race next year at this time? She was last nominated for 1988's Dangerous Liaisons over twenty years ago. Since that Oscar regular heyday (5 nominations all within the 1980s) she's gone on to win 3 Emmys, 1 SAG and 2 Golden Globes for television roles.

The film is directed by Rodrigo García (pictured left with Close) who specializes in the actresses, most famously in television or in films like Mother & Child, Nine Lives and Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her. We hope he finds new inner fire as a writer/director this time. The talent with actors is obviously there but the energy of the filmmaking, some sort of electric spark is missing. So far. Will this project be the game changer?

The movie is based on the short story turned play The Singular Life of Albert Nobbs which the diva actress previously played on stage... before she was ever in a movie! I couldn't find a photo from the play but here's a review from 1982 (!) of Ms. Close's performance, the same year she first hit the big screen in The World According to Garp. Michael Gambon and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers co-star.

Woody Turns 75. Undoubtedly Writing 43rd Feature Film.

What you're looking at below is a screenshot from the new Film Experience site (opening in a couple of weeks) in the "top tens" section... which is more like a "top 1" for each year from 1920-1979 (until I see or revisit more films from those years).

Woody Allen made my favorite films of 1977 (Annie Hall), 1979 (Manhattan) and 1985 (The Purple Rose of Cairo) and came very close to doing so in 1986 (Hannah and Her Sisters) and 1992 (Husbands and Wives). I haven't done the math but he's way up their under "most represented filmmaker" in my personal bliss lists. Other repeat #1 champs are Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks and William Wyler. But you'll see those lists soon enough.

Though I've expressed concern about Woody Allen's qualitative if not quantitative decline in various posts (I've nearly hated the last two films, Whatever Works and You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger), he has given us so much great cinema over the past four decades that today on his 75th birthday I only want to sing him "Happy Birthday". Or maybe play it for him on the clarinet. If only I could play.

10 Favorite Woody Flicks

1. Manhattan (1979)
2. The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
3. Annie Hall (1977)
4. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
5. Husbands and Wives (1992)
6. Bullets Over Broadway (1994)
7. Interiors (1978)
8. Match Point (2005)
9. Stardust Memories (1980)
10. Sleeper (1973)

Disclaimer: This list is constantly in flux after the top 5 which are inarguably my favorites. I should probably rewatch some of the older ones. I've been meaning to take a good long look at Crimes and Misdemeanors and Another Woman again especially. The only ones I haven't seen: Bananas (1971), Love and Death (1975), Zelig (1983... I've been meaning to watch this one forever. It's like a strange mental block for me), and Cassandra's Dream (2007)

Weird Oscar Trivia: This is little commented on but I think it's worth noting. Though it's well known that Woody Allen is Oscar's #1 screenwriter (14 nominations, 2 wins) and among their 10 favorite directors of all time (6 nominations, 1 win) isn't it bizarre that, given the intensity of that AMPAS love, he's only ever had 2 Best Picture nominees (Annie Hall & Hannah and Her Sisters)? Strange.

Next? Woody's 42nd feature film Midnight in Paris which is about an engaged couple travelling to Paris on business and cheating on each other. I'm guessing on that last part of that sentence but it doesn't take a psychic. Will the film be another goodie like Vicky Cristina Barcelona or a mess like Whatever Works? The new film stars Rachel McAdams and Michael Sheen (now a real life couple). Marion Cotillard plays a character referred to as the 'Muse' -- an Allen staple. When it comes to the new cast, we're most excited to see Mimi Kennedy join the Woodyverse. She seems ideally suited for it, yes? She was so gutbustingly funny in In the Loop (2009).

Woody directing Kennedy and McAdams in Midnight in Paris (2011)

 All of them are newbies to the Woodyverse but he doesn't repeat his cast members that much anymore (sigh). Still no Dianne Wiest in sight. Since Paris is done filming he's undoubtedly writing Untitled Woody Allen Project i.e. the 43rd due in 2012. That how he do.

Wish Mr. Allen a happy 75th in the comments, and tell us your favorite of his films!
*

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Green Lantern"

Another round of insta-judgments. Just add trailer. Suddenly we know if...

• yes) we're buying tickets
• no) we're shunning the movie, or...
• maybe so) withholding the judgments until we have more info.

Maybe so is usually the correct answer. Sometimes great trailers lead to disappointing movies. And sometimes virtually every piece of marketing for a movie will practically beg you not to see it when you might actually like it if you do  (*cough* TANGLED... more on that soon).

But it's hard not to pre-judge. Commercials invite you to do just that.

In brightest day... in blackest night... 

Ryan "Sexiest Man Alive" Reynolds stars as the Hal Jordan incarnation of Green Lantern. There have been many Green Lanterns, both before and after him but Hal is the most famous.

Yes. For those of you who are unaware, Green Lantern is actually not just any old superhero. He's powerless. The power is in his ring, a mystical device, and though he's superheroic, he's but one of many. In a way he's like an anonymous everyman worker-bee hero. It's an interesting twist on the typical one-of-a-kind hero concept if you stop to think over it. Which is why I was hoping some really crafty creative type would've pitched this as Green Lantern Corps to some cable station, and made it a really intelligent sci-fi multiple worlds series using something complex/multi-dimensional like Battlestar Galactica as inspirational role model rather than IronDevilSpiderBatSuperHulkMan. Instead it looks like we got...

No. ...just another Superhero Origin Flick. You've got your boyman who is suddenly given the gift of great power and he has to learn adult responsibility and heroism while some bland but beautiful girl encourages him from the sidelines. Sound familiar? It should. And: YAWN. I get that we need our hero myths. But do they have to be so similar every time? Also I laughed so hard this afternoon when @MediaObsessed said on twitter

Blake Lively as a fighter pilot? Oh Hollywood, sometimes penises should not be allowed in casting decisions.

HEE. So so true. I was worried about the casting from the get go. Ryan Reynolds is somewhat talented but there is something a touch blande/assembly line about him... like he's the photograph of a star rather than the flesh and blood actuality (though we totally thank him for the approximation of flesh part). When you add the Hot Girl of the Moment as the love interest it starts to just seem really... generic, like no one had a vision other than a Hulk-like grunted directive "Make Tentpole. Smash Puny Box Office Records."

Maybe So. Er... uh... I got nothing this time. It just looks so generic. It doesn't even look like good eye candy. The visual effects are generic too. It's hard to imagine this even being in contention for Best Visual Effects at the Oscars for 2011. Unless it's a really weak year. They do have 5 visual effects slot now. My point is this: I curse the day that CGI made filmmakers so lazy about the aesthetics of power. Why do all spells, mutations, powers, mystical or scientific equal gaseous colorful swirls?

I'm not interested. I'm a no. I know I complain about superhero movies a lot but I actually love superheroes. Like most boys and some girls, I grew up adoring them. I just want their movie doppelgangers to have more individualized personalities and to be made with real care for the big screen.

You?

Ménage à trois "A Dangerous Method"

Eeep!

Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud. Put me on the couch.

Keira Knightley as Sabina and Michael Fassbender as Carl Jung.

Yes, It's VIGGO (my vote for the most consistently brilliant 50something male actor working), Keira, and the wonderful Michael Fassbender in David Cronenberg's Psychiatrists In Love. er... The Dangerous Method. I once saw a play about these three characters (not the Christopher Hampton play "Talking Cure" that this is based on) and I remember nothing about it other than that it was great subject matter but I was too drowsy to focus.

poll by twiigs.com

Cronenberg is a true original. I feel as if I have no idea what to expect from him here and I like it like that, I do. I shall psycho-analyze these new photos all day. Join me.

"God of Carnage" The Movie

News this heavy with starry wattage and awarded source material spreads quickly. I'm sure you've heard this morning that Kate Winslet & Matt Dillon will square off with Jodie Foster & Christopher Waltz as the combative couples of Yasmine Reza's hilarious and occasionally disturbing four-hander, God of Carnage. Make that Roman Polanski's God of Carnage, since he's bound to make adjustments in the adaptation. I fear that they'll add characters and scenes and lose the play's intense get-me-outta-here vibe... all in the name of "opening it up" as a movie. But perhaps I worry for nothing. Polanski has shown skill at non-literal claustrophic material in the past. In the play two sets of parents meet up cordially to discuss a school fight between their children and the way it breaks down, everyone basically breaks down. The play is entirely set in the living room of one of the couples and takes place in real time.

James Gandolfini, Hope Davis, Marcia Gay Harden and Jeff Daniels
in Broadway's God of Carnage (2009)

Polanski is a reliable auteur and all four actors are strong but I still have to worry. It's my nature. I'm hoping that everyone involved understands first and foremost that it's a comedy. This type of material could easily fall apart if it loses its satiric edge and embraces the dramatic too willfully. If it does, people will just be like "ugh. these people are so immature. I hate them!" and you know how the public reacts to characters they don't like.

Pray for Jodie to pull this off!

The most intriguing casting choice has to be Jodie Foster, who I assume is taking on the Tony-winning Marcia Gay Harden role. I would haved loved to have seen Harden get this shot on the big screen but they rarely let people transfer... even Oscar winning people who aren't bankable. Anyway, Foster knows from claustrophic environs (Panic Room, Flight Plan, Silence of the Lambs) but she hasn't spent much time honing her comic gifts and this character is, at least in my experience of the play, the fulcrum point. She's full of abundant pretense and holier-than-thou speechifying and she'd be utterly detestable and annoying if she weren't also so funny and so endearingly a complete emotional wreck. It's just a killer role.

I'm glad the two time Oscar winner will be truly challenging herself for the first time in well over a decade but if you rest you rust and I hope she's up to the challenge.
*

Meryl Streep's "Iron Lady" and Her Political Films

Received a message on Twitter this morning requesting my thoughts on Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. Seems she's in talks to star as the Iron Lady herself in an early 80s set film about the lead up to the Falklands War. [src]

My thoughts, eh?

Me think about Streep? Never! But with Great Hope Springs and this one, it seems that the two-time Oscar winner will just keep reaching for the bait until a third is hers.

Though I can already sense that the rest of the internet will be gung-ho about this idea, I would urge caution. Perhaps it's silly to get caught up in any "Meryl will win her third Oscar for Thatcher" speculation.

The rest of the internet seems to have forgotten that this film will supposedly reunite Meryl with her Mamma Mia! director Phyllida Lloyd. Since Lloyd couldn't even manage the basic building blocks of film in Mamma Mia! (camera placement, editing, etcetera) and since there'll be no buoyant ABBA tunes to gloss over film weaknesses, and since Thatcher won't give Streep the opportunity to win shocked/amused hearts by jumping around with boundless 'can-you-believe-I'm-practically-a-senior-citizen?' energy ... well, I can't really see this as a crowd pleaser or a serious Oscar bait project. Yet.

The cynicism comes from another more political place, too. Though I greatly admire Meryl Streep's political activism offscreen and love it when she gets political in her acceptance speeches at awards shows, I'm not sure she's a true fit for political films. The last time I saw Streep playing a conservative politican (The Manchurian Candidate) I found it to be one of her hammiest and most predictable performances. And the great actress's other recent political films Lions for Lambs and Rendition didn't interest the public or Oscar voters. In point of fact, none of her political films have.

from left to right: The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Plenty,
The Manchurian Candidate, Rendition, Lions for Lambs

Zero Oscar nominations for a movie set in the political world probably doesn't sound that shocking until you stop to consider this second fact: Meryl Streep has appeared in 43 pictures and she has been nominated for 16 of them. That 37% nomination ratio beats just about anyone in any field (save James Dean of course). Yet, this seems to be the genre that wins her no love.

But then there's the biopic factor. And that's significant. That could change things.

I am sad to imagine that Streep would have to resort to mimicry to win (For all that she's given the cinema, to use a commoner's tactic?) but it may come to that since they never have time for her as a "winner" and they always have time for biographical performances. Thatcher is certainly a well known figure with an instantly recognizable voice that people will love hearing Streep nail in the same way people loved those flouncy vowels from Julie & Julia. [Note: Julia could, come to think of it, destroy my thesis since she plays a government official's wife in that one and was nominated. But the kitchen is that film's true location, not the government.]

Here's a few pie charts I whipped up about the past decade in Oscar acting winning character trends: real people in blue, fictional characters in red.


One could argue that the Academy voters can only choose from what films are made and released and women are the leads in fewer pictures than men. It's possible (though I'd like to see statistics) that they get more "true story" opportunities than not because you can't exactly change someone's gender in a biopic for better bankability (let's leave the hugely depressing 'men are more bankable' factor out of the conversation). But regardless, it's clear that when it comes to the Best Actress category itself, The Academy values character creation less than character recreation. That totally disturbs me though I readily admit it disturbs me far more than it does your average Oscar watcher and more than once I've been told to shut up about it already. Maybe it's just a personal hangup.

So this is why I was rooting so hard for Meryl Streep to win in 2006 for The Devil Wears Prada and Johnny Depp to win in 2003 for The Pirates of the Caribbean. Creating a perfectly realized instantly classic character that people will obsess about for years to come, even if you're creating it from bits and pieces of real life figures of your choosing, is far more of an imaginative creative feat for an actor than recreating the vocal cadences and posture of a famous person.

"I said to myself. 'Go ahead, take a chance. Hire the smart fat girl'"

That's all.

Are you excited to see Streep as Thatcher or do you wish she'd hook up with a true auteur who would challenge her mightily. Was Adaptation (2002) the last time?
*

Great Hope Springs Tailspin

Wasn't it just yesterday in a comment thread when someone mentioned Meryl Streep & Jeff Bridges not having worked together. To which I was all "hey, they're the same age but they never let actresses play romantically opposite actors the same age!" Funny how these things pop up in the internet ether and the next thing you know, we all seem like prophets.

The Bridges & The Gummers
Jeff & Meryl know a little something about longterm coupling

But I'm burying the lead... or at least muddying it. Okay. As you may have heard Streep & Bridges are close to signing for a marital drama called Great Hope Springs about a couple who've been together for decades having an intense weekend therapy session that will decide the fate of their marriage.

I always argue with myself about movies in development. To wit:

Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges working together = Probably gah!some and reason enough to be very excited.

But...

Another marital drama for Jeff with a blonde lovely (see also: The Door in the Floor) and it's not Michelle Pfeiffer again??? Only La Pfeiffer would make me sad about a Streep/Bridges pairing. I just don't get what the problem is with getting The Fabulous Baker Boys onscreen together again?

<-- Jeff @ Michelle's star ceremony in 2007

From all reports ever shared orally, written on paper, or otherwise recorded in the history of the existence of the world and its movies, Jeff and 'chelle are as super fond of each other offscreen as they are amazing together onscreen, which is to say: very very very fond of each other. How did Pfeiffer tagging along on his Oscar campaign (It wasn't just Oscar night. There was also Palm Springs) go unnoticed by everyone in world who might be involved in movie industry dealings that might lead to them reuniting, fictionally speaking.

But, okay. What's that?

Oh yes, the Great Hope Springs director is Jessie Nelson, the woman who made I Am Sam, and we don't care for that movie so much.We thank it for bringing us wee Dakota Fanning (nice to meet'cha!) but otherwise we have very little time for it even though we thought Pfeiffer was sort of quite good in a weird/thankless/unlikeable way. So maybe it's best that she not repeat that situation.


If that movie is indication, which it might not be since it was a first film, Great Hope won't be subtle and that might be bad for the material since marital dramas that are too histrionic are really hard to sit through and often titled We Don't Live Here Anymore or Revolutionary Road.

Plus, if we're being honest we all know that Streep is a big ham -- a big ham we love, don't forget. (More soon on the Streep series. I'm just a few days behind.) So if a director WANTS big attention grabbing acting and doesn't want her to save some for the next movie, you'll get it all. But therein lies the rub. You can't say that you weren't getting it all with Sean Penn in I Am Sam even as you wanted to give at least half of it back.

[UPDATE: It might be Mike Nichols instead of Nelson in the director's chair, instead.]

Finally, if Streep is doing a marital drama, the movie has a big old cloud hanging over its head and that cloud's last name is Kramer. As in Kramer Vs. Kramer. Because, how you gonna measure up Great Hope Springs? Tread carefully.

The third crucial role of the psychiatrist is not yet cast. Philip Seymour Hoffman had to pull out of the project to ruin P.T. Anderson's next masterpiece (argh and also: calm down if that sentence made you angry) so maybe somebody less ubiquitous but able to keep up with Jeff & Meryl is in order. Might I suggest David Strathairn? Doesn't he deserve better after Good Night, and Good Luck.? Couldn't he have a go?

I'm trying to stop jabbering away.

I'm in a tailspin... HELP. Talk to me.
*

Oscar Night... in January?

I don't know how much stock to put in Deadline Hollywood's "breaking" rumor -- how is a rumor, "exclusive news"? Discuss -- that AMPAS is debating about moving the Oscars to January. If it is true, or rather, if after discussing it (which is all the "news" states), they actually decide to do it, I can't imagine we'll see that happen until the 2011/2012 race.

Pros: Hollywood might actually release the films in the same calendar year that they're supposedly being honored for. You'd think that last year's Best Picture race, in which summer > December by a 4/2 Best Picture nominee margin (including the actual winner), would have helped convince distributors to spread out the prestige pieces in 2010 but that doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe a January awards ceremony would help? This would also help to stop confusing 'which year are you talking about?' questions that come up in Oscar discussions. When someone says "the 2008 Oscar winner!" do they mean Slumdog Millionaire (released in 2008, winning in 2009) or do they mean No Country For Old Men (released in 2007, winning in 2008)? The Film Experience always go by the year of release y'hear, but the later the Oscars are the more other people don't (including the IMDB) which makes things confusing. A January ceremony could potentially make November the month of choice for adult oriented studio releases which would be a better alternative from a moviegoing perspective than Christmas. November is far less hectic than December. Plus, why wouldn't Hollywood want the holiday money twice over (first by opening limited in November, second by expanding at Christmas time) ? I'll never understand why they ignore Thanksgiving the way they do.

Cons: It's very possible that the December releasing with platforms stretching until March and April is so ingrained in Hollywood's DNA now that they wouldn't think to start earlier to alleviate concerns about whether or not the movies are actually being seen. And, actually, from a big studio perspective, they might prefer that the films aren't seen. It's much easier to buy votes if people are voting on buzz and "looks good on paper" than on their actual firsthand relationship to the film; Buzz can be bought but personal feelings are difficult to purchase. An earlier awards ceremony could also mean that we see even less discernment in Oscar nominations and winners than we do now, and even less careful consideration of merits from the critics and precursor groups (obviously if Oscar moves earlier everyone else will too which means you'll see critics groups voting in November before they've seen everything). Nobody wants Oscar's choices to get yet more repetitive and blah.

What say ye?
*

Eliza Mulligan-Doolittle

...Just you wait Henry Higgins. Just you wait.

You'll be sorry but your tears'll be too late.....>>>......

Audrey Hepburn and the latest "new Audrey Hepburn" Carey Mulligan

So it looks like the remake of 1964's Best Picture My Fair Lady is going to happen after all. Carey Mulligan will be playing Eliza Doolittle instead of Keira Knightley as previously reported. Now, this is why I don't spend hundreds of posts tracking every pre-production film the way most sites do -- well, that and the time and the lack of staff and the preference for actual movies rather than movies no one will see for another year or three -- because things are always in flux. The Carey Mulligan news is also a handy illustration of why I never trust either rumors or denials. It was less than a month ago that Mulligan said there was zero truth to the rumor.

This seems like a risky move to me. Mulligan's already got the 'new Audrey Hepburn' tag as she worked the fashions with stick thin elegance all awards season. Maybe her agents aren't worried. After all every young actress must suffer the "new so and so" thing as they come into their stardom. [tangent: There was even a time --shudder with me now -- that Entertainment Weekly tried to call Julianne Moore the new Julia Roberts. I'm like an elephant. I never forget. Could any two actresses be more different?] But it's one thing to be labelled "the next so and so". It's quite another to be labelled so and then sign up to take on one of their signature roles. It's risking direct comparison. And who wants to risk comparison to one of the greatest movie stars of all time?

I don't exactly object to My Fair Lady being remade (though I assumed it would be a non-musical version when I first heard the news) and I'm thrilled that Emma Thompson is involved. That's a sure sign that the book inbetween the classic score will be witty. In truth I'm just happy that any musical is still getting made after Nine's bombing. See, Hollywood has a way of assuming that one thing equals every other thing ("Avatar made billions. Therefore ALL movies will make billions if we convert them to 3D!") so I feared Nine's financial blood bath would spell the end of the musical resurgence despite all the musical hits that directly preceded it.

Carey & Anne & Keira, Doolittle Triplets

I have no idea if Carey Mulligan can sing or not but this is yet another situation where we have a movie musical happening and Anne Hathaway is not starring in it. What is going on here? If any single actress from Young Hollywood should be doing musicals, it's her. She's the only one who has made it completely obvious that she was born for it. And yet nothing. Still. (And I don't think they'll let her do her own singing as Judy Garland in that biopic, you know?) And you'd think Hathaway would be a total fit for Eliza. Hollywood loves to see actors repeating themselves and Hathaway has had a lot of training at Pygmalian-esque screen make-overs (The Princess Diaries, The Devil Wears Prada).

If the movie does happen (we're still early in the process mind you), I will die with curiousity waiting for Oscar to react. The original My Fair Lady was a huge Oscar sensation but for Audrey herself who wasn't even nominated, despite it being one of her three signature roles (the others obviously being "Holly Golightly" and "Princess Ann"). It's widely believed she was snubbed as misplaced karmic punishment for winning the role when the producers deemed Julie Andrews (who originated it on Broadway) unfit to sell a movie, having no previous film experience. Andrews got the last laugh becoming a huge film star that same year, winning the Oscar for Mary Poppins and chasing it with The Sound of Music, one of the biggest box office behemoths of all time.

Angelina Sees You

Well... someone to the right of you at least. Hi, Ang'.

Did I ever tell you about the time Angelina Jolie did see me. Oh, of course I did. Best celebrity sighting ever. We were close enough to touch. Not that we did!

I'm so ready for Angelina Jolie to have another Girl, Interrupted or A Mighty Heart level performance again, aren't you? Here's hoping that The Tourist (the film she's in costume for above) co-starring Johnny Depp is a winner. The behind the scenes crew indicates it might be: Oscar winning screenwriter (Julian Fellowes), Oscar winning cinematographer (John Seales), Oscar winning costume designer (Colleen Atwood) and the Oscar winning director of The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck... well sort of an Oscar winning director ... it's never listed as an Oscar win on their IMDb pages but the directors of Best Foreign Film winners always claim the prize. It's not like a country can put an Oscar on its mantlepiece. Countries have borders, not mantles. We hope Florian got to keep the statue.

A Handful of Link

Reel Geezers on Avatar. I haven't watched this one yet but the real geezers are worth watching.

Tribeca Film Sandy/Streep face-off & the other acting races. By moi.
Movie Dearest on the Best Original Song nominees. Sing Out Louise Kirby!
New Yorker "talk of the town" And the Oscar Goes To...
In Contention Guy Lodge hits the Berlinale
Coming Soon Glenn Close to star in The Singular Life of Albert Nobbs, a gender-bending costume drama, which starts filming in July. Maybe she's not done searching for that missing Oscar yet. March 2011 or 2012 here she comes???
The Root on the history of African Americans and the Oscars from Hattie McDaniel to Precious

August: Osage County (The Movie)

CAST THIS!

But before the movie... the tour! It starts in just under three weeks in Denver. I'm not getting paid for this but I'm going to shill because live theater needs to be promoted. It's so much cooler than TV ... even if Corporate America can't profit off of it as much (finite audience = number of seats in house) and thus makes it seem uncool by ignoring it or dismissing it as irrelevant.

Oscar winner Estelle Parsons, 81, headlines the August tour

And given that THE MOVIE -- all caps because if it's any good it'll be BIG -- is going to be the subject of much discussion whenever it begins to film and especially once it's in theaters, you'll want to be in the know early on. Even if you're not normally a theater person. If you haven't been following theatrical buzz and awardage these past couple of years, it's the latest from Tracy Letts who also wrote the incredible Bug which was made into a movie that a lot of people misunderstood or outright hated but I assure you that the play itself was phenomenal. They're much different beasts anyhow: Bug was taut, claustrophobic and tiny where August is messy (in the good sense), sprawling and very populated. It's a darkly funny drama about a family in crisis in Oklahoma. The father has disappeared and the daughters rush back home to deal with their abandoned and impossibly difficult pill popping mother. At three hours or so in length it's far more complicated than that but it's a great night out at the theater: funny, involving, memorable, dramatic. In short: if you're near it, get tickets. They're on sale now.

July: Denver August: San Francisco September: LA October: Portland and Seattle November: Toronto and Hartford December: DC January: Tempe, Dallas, Tulsa Feb: Chicago, Michigan, Iowa. It's also in Melbourne and then Sydney, Australia

<-- Parsons on the set of Rachel, Rachel with director Paul Newman

This will also give you the rare chance to see an Oscar winner live on stage. I stupidly missed Estelle Parsons here in NYC when she was playing Violet (one of the two lead roles, a combative mother and daughter) so I'm considering catching the show again in DC or Michigan if I can figures out the $. I always enjoyed Parsons as a comic foil on Roseanne and I love her work as the lesbian friend of Joanne Woodard in Rachel, Rachel (they were both nominated). That's such a fine underseen film so, rent it. Parsons won the Oscar as "Blanche" in Bonnie & Clyde (1967).

But back to August: Osage County
If you're game now, let's think up a dream cast.
Here are the main roles, in descending order of their "screen time" and the age according to the text (though obviously Hollywood will practice some creative license there)

Leads
Violet -Pill popping drug-addled matriarch, fond of devouring her young and filled with rage about her miserable childhood. She's also funny (65). Deanna Dunagan, left, originated the role on stage.
Barbara - Violet's eldest daughter, a college professor. Exhausted but controlling. Her marriage is failing (46)

Major Supporting Roles
Ivy -Violet's middle daughter who has never left home. A secretive plain jane type (44)
Karen -Violet's youngest. Flighty, willfully naive and eager to be loved. Newly engaged (40)
Bill -Barbara's husband, also a professor. He's left her for a student but comes back to Oklahoma with her to deal with the family crisis (49)
Jean -Barbara's daughter. A sexually precocious pot smoking vegetarian (14)
Mattie Fae -Violet's sister. Loud, flamboyant, nervous. Also fond of devouring her young (57)

Minor supporting characters
Charles -Mattie's husband. Calm, good natured (60)
Little Charles -Mattie's son, largely regarded as a shy loser (37)
Beverly -Violet's husband, a pontificating poetry-loving alcoholic. He disappears in the first act, setting the plot in motion (69)
Steve - Karen's insensitive businessman fiancé (50)
Johnna -empathetic Native American housekeeper and cook (26)
Sheriff Deon -Barbara's ex-boyfriend, on the search for Beverly (47)

The two lead roles and at least one of the supporting parts (Mattie Fae) are complete Oscar Bait roles: high drama, sneaky comedy, southern accents, total theatrical fireworks. The nearest film equivalent I can think of is Terms of Endearment but this is darker and more vicious, though also quite funny. And Violet is closer to Annette Bening's character in Running With Scissors in terms of how nightmarish she is as a druggy mother than to Shirley Maclaine's Aurora.


Working actresses in the right age range for the three daughters are too numerous to mention here but every actress in her late 30s to early young-looking 50s would be wise to already be prepping and campaigning for either Barbara, Ivy or Karen (or even Mattie Fae). Acclaimed juicy prestige material like this with so many roles for smart talented women doesn't come along regularly.

Though it's been assumed that Mike Nichols will direct and that Meryl Streep's talent and box office pull will win her the "Violet" role nothing is yet set in stone. The road from announcement to contract signing to pre-production can be quite volatile and with the Weinstein Co involved who the hell knows...

Other actresses in vaguely the right age range for the Violet or Mattie Fae parts (i.e. mid50s to mid70s) include: Judy Davis, Glenn Close, Kathleen Turner, Kathy Bates, Anjelica Huston, Dianne Wiest, Susan Sarandon, Sissy Spacek, Melinda Dillon, Diane Ladd, Jane Fonda among many others. It's an ideal movie for getting underused actresses back in play.


Is this all overwhelming to read? It was to type.

Some people have gone either further than me, like Walter Hollman (who you'll know from frequent comments right here) who has casting suggestions for every role.

I hope the lucky casting director takes this as seriously as one might take brain surgery. It's important! There are so many options. You could go real life mother/daughter (Diane Ladd & Laura Dern) you could experiment with co-stars with proven chemistry reuniting (Thelma & Louise as Violet & Mattie Fae?). You could use math multiplied by Oscar fever to try and create the single most nominated cast in the history of motion pictures. Whether or not you've seen the play, cast away in the comments. Would you cast by pure talent, family resemblance or gut instinct?

I can't remember who suggested it to me but the idea of Kathleen Turner in the Mattie Fae role fills me with utter delight. So let's start there. Comment away!

A Bizarre Moment of Oscar Trivia with Kyra Sedgwick

Congratulations to Kyra Sedgwick who just got her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame!

Remember when it looked for a millisecond like she might get an Oscar nod for playing Julia Robert's sassy sister in Something to Talk About back in 1995? Stealing scenes from Julia might seem like a hard thing to do and commendable, too, but it pisses Academy voters right off. One must not pull focus from their Pretty Woman!

Future Julia Roberts co-stars consider yourself forewarned! If you steal a movie from the billion dollar grin, you will get media attention. You will get a Golden Globe nomination. But, come Oscar nomination morning, THE BIG SNUB AWAITS YOU.

the case evidence:

• Sally Field, Steel Magnolias (1989)
• Hector Elizondo, Pretty Woman (1990)
• Dustin Hoffman, Hook (1992)
• Sophia Loren, Pret-à-Porter (1994)
• Liam Neeson, Michael Collins (1996)
• Kyra Sedgwick, Something to Talk About (1995)
• Rupert Everett, My Best Friend's Wedding (1997)
• Hugh Grant, Notting Hill (1999)

Yes all of them were Golden Globe nominated and then Oscar snubbed.

Rupert Everett was considered a lock in '97. No nomination. Argh!

There is reason to believe that this golden curse has been broken: Natalie Portman and Clive Owen (Closer) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (Charlie Wilson's War) all survived pulling Julia's focus in recent years, trading in their Globe hoopla for coveted Oscar nominations. But that said Natalie & Clive won the Globes but still lost the Oscar. So, I still say that Javier Bardem ought to watch his back on the set of Eat, Pray, Love if he wants another run at Oscar in 2011.
*