Delayed Reactions to the 2011 Golden Globe Nominees

Whatever fame (or infamy) the Golden Globes may possess, there's no doubt that they can be one of the key indicators of how awards season will swing. And in a year where few nominations feel certain, this year's Globe roster is finally helping the race take shape, all while throwing in a few wild cards.

For the full list of nominees, click HERE.

As far as the Best Picture categories go, the HFPA hasn't been to shocking. Long-expected favorites like The Descendants (Drama) and The Artist (Musical/Comedy) are here, in addition to Spielberg's War Horse, which just about screams "Oscar-bait" at the top of its lungs. The inclusion of The Ides of March feels pretty lazy here, as there were certainly stronger and less traditional dramas. And as for Hugo, well, I'll just hold my tongue. The surprise here, though, is that Spielberg's film almost feels like an afterthought. There isn't even a Director nomination for Spielberg. Over in Musical/Comedy, we have another fairly expected lineup, though it's nice to see 50/50 get some recognition along with obvious choices like The Artist and Bridesmaids, though I'll admit that I'm a little surprised that they didn't toss nominations to Young Adult or Crazy, Stupid, Love.

In Best Actor we have another fairly expected lineup, although I'm super-excited that the otherwise ignored Shame managed to score a nod for Michael Fassbender's excellent work, though I suspect this category will come down to Clooney vs. Pitt. As for Musical/Comedy, the choices are very nice, although this is hands-down going to Dujardin.
For Best Actress, Drama will likely come down to either Meryl Streep or Viola Davis. Things could swing in Davis' favor, however, considering that there seems to be a lack of passion around the other aspects of The Iron Lady, whereas The Help has been a huge success. Still-trying-for-an-Oscar Glenn Close or surprising almost-a-sure-thing contender Tilda Swinton could surprise here, but it's highly doubtful. And as for Rooney Mara, she should be thanking her lucky stars that she's here. As well-received as Fincher's take on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has been received thus far, it's the sort of film that, like his other serial killer films (Se7en, Zodiac), will make little to no impact on the awards race (barring some tech nods). As far as comedy goes, it really comes down to three of the 5. Most likely is Michelle Williams, as the HFPA will likely go gaga over the fact that Williams played (mostly successfully) an icon. The only other threats here are Charlize Theron's super-unlikeable character from Young Adult, or Bridesmaids' leading lady Kristen Wiig. Foster and Winslet (Carnage), like Mara in Drama, should simply be thankful for the nominations.

Where the Globes will really prove to be telling, however, is in the Supporting categories, which aren't separated by Musical/Comedy and Drama. For Supporting Actor, there are three possibilities, none of whom come off as a clear front-runner. Yes, Albert Brooks made it in for Drive while everything else about the film was snubbed, but even with his other critics awards, something about this performance doesn't feel like a major threat. There's also Christopher Plummer's lovely turn in Beginners, a performance that has the unrewarded veteran factor on its side. Lastly, there's Kenneth Branagh, who, like Michelle Williams, could score for his lively portrayal of an acting icon.

In Supporting Actress, the HFPA's winner will provide more of an indicator. The Artist's Berenice Bejo could finally gain some traction, or one of the ladies from The Help (Chastain, Spencer) could take the lead. Chastain does have the one-hell-of-a-debut-year factor on her side, and with her work in The Help standing as her most noticeably emotional, it could become the means by which awards bodies reward her for an outstanding year all around. There is room for potential spoilers Janet McTeer (who's been stealing co-star Glenn Close's buzz) or The Descendants' Shailene Woodley, although her lack of experience could go against her.

2011 SAG Nominees

I've more or less avoided commenting on the 2011-12 Awards Season so far, due to a number of factors. However, with this morning's unveiling of the Screen Actors Guild nominees and tomorrow's Golden Globe nominee announcement, I figured it was time to put in my 2 cents on the state of the race so far.

For a full list of the SAG nominees, click HERE.

Film:

Starting with Best Ensemble (the closest thing SAG has to a Best Picture award, even though it really isn't, and shouldn't be voted on as such), we've got a mix of the predictable and the surprising. For all of the awards love that I'm expecting The Artist to receive over the next few months, it never seemed like an ensemble piece. Dujardin and Bejo (both nominated) seemed like the only major players in the modern-day silent film. Clearly, SAG thought differently. Other mentions, however, like The Descendants, Midnight in Paris, and The Help seem rather obvious. And then (thankfully) there's Bridesmaids, which could prove to be the awards season party-crasher in a year where (FINALLY) nothing/no one seems like a "lock" to win. Remember last year when almost every critics group gave Best Actress to Natalie Portman? Yeah, not happening this year. We finally have a really interesting awards race, and Bridesmaids' pitch-perfect female ensemble is just icing on the cake. By the time the stardust has cleared and the champagne has stopped flowing at the end of February, I'm sure that more tradtional, "Oscar bait" films (War Horse) will have made there mark, but if ever there was a year for things to get crazy, this is it.

Next we go to Male Actor in a Leading Role and Female Actor in a Leading Role. Though response to J. Edgar has been pretty muted, I guess I shouldn't be that surprised that DiCaprio made it in here. SAG does love to reward actors in Eastwood films (part of me thought they might toss a nod to Judi Dench, who was, admittedly, the best thing about J. Edgar). At the same time, you'd think that a branch full of actors might have noticed the "we did it in one take!" nature of DiCaprio's performance (it shows). Then there's Demian Bichir for A Better Life, and I have to confess, I have no idea where this came from. If there was going to be a "surprise" here, I thought it would be Shame's Michael Fassbender or even Take Shelter's Michael Shannon (both wrongfully snubbed). "But where the hell are Fassbender and Shannon!?" - George Clooney, demanding answers.

Other than DiCaprio and Bichir, though, the male lineup is filled out by our three presumed front-runners: Dujardin, George Clooney (The Descendants), and Brad Pitt (Moneyball). I haven't been able to see The Artist, but between Clooney and Pitt, I hope this one goes to the former. As much as I like Pitt as an actor, he keeps getting recognized for his weaker performances (though Moneyball is a much better performance than Benjamin Button). And as for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy's Gary Oldman, well, better luck next time. "We're not so very different, you and I. We're both searching for a GODDAMN OSCAR!!!"

Much more interesting, however, is how the leading ladies are shaping up. It's an unusually contentious year, with veterans (Streep, Close) and newcomers (Elizabeth Olsen, snubbed) fighting it out for five spots. Michelle Williams, who has picked up two critics awards thus far, is starting to become more of a threat than I thought she would be. Then there's Tilda Swinton, who finally seems to be on her way to a second Oscar nomination. "Wait...I actually got in? Wha..."

The film may have barely any exposure (as of now, it's not scheduled to open anywhere in the US outside of New York and L.A., which seems ridiculous), but that doesn't have an bearing on awards bodies. With back-to-back snubs (09's Julia and 10's I am Love), Swinton's passionate fan base has finally expanded, and the build-up could be enough to push her through to second Oscar nomination (about time). Then there's the above-mentioned Olsen, along with Charlize Theron, who still stand as potential threats.

As far as the supporting categories go, the women seem to be taking shape, while the men seems as all-over-the-place as ever. Berenice Bejo, previously thought to be gone, has finally come back. More predictable are The Help's Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain (at which point I'll assume that this is the performance she'll be primarily rewarded for in the future). "White people, man. White people..." - Octavia Spencer.

Melissa McCarthy from Bridesmaids is a nice surprise, and it's good to see that the handful of critics awards she's picked up haven't been for nothing. All the same, it's too bad that co-star Kristen Wiig has been so thoroughly ignored. Hopefully the Globes will change that tomorrow morning. Finally, there's Janet McTeer from Albert Nobbs, who's been earning some of the film's strongest reviews. On the other hand, this looks like the end of the road for Coriolanus' Vanessa Redgrave.

As for the men, the category has some mild front-runners, but the other slots have always seemed like question marks. Beginners' Christopher Plummer could very well take this, although SAG might fall in love with Branagh's interpretation of Laurence Olivier. Nick Nolte (Warrior) was once brought up as a possibility, but the film's failure at the box office seemed to be the end of him until now. As far as Jonah Hill and Armie Hammer are concerned, though, they probably ought to be happy that they made it in here at all.

TV:

I won't cover this as extensively, but there's a few things that need to be said. I've come to expect Community being snubbed, but where on earth is Parks and Recreation in the comedy categories? "This is LITERALLY the most disappointing snub of the year."

That cast should be filling out any number of slots, especially Amy Poehler, Rob Lowe, Nick Offerman, and Adam Scott. Jumping over to drama, an even bigger issue: how on earth did SAG pass up Showtime's outstanding Homeland, far and away the best new show of the year? At the very least, you'd think they could throw Claire Danes and Damian Lewis nominations (the former of whom was absolutely incredible in the season's penultimate episode). Unless the show was (for whatever reason) ineligible, this borders on inexcusable, especially considering the fact that Dexter managed to make it in. Yes, season 6 is a step up from whatever the hell season 5 was, but there's a limit. Claire Danes after seeing that Dexter made it in over Homeland.

Another bone to pick with SAG, though, comes down to the structure of the awards: why on earth do the TV awards not have separate categories for lead and supporting roles? There are so many good performances on TV right now, and the current roster of categories leaves the categories prone to defaulting to lead performances (except in the comedy categories). Oh well, at the very least Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones are nominated, although Aaron Paul and Peter Dinklage have fallen victim to the limited acting categories. At least they didn't do something crazy like nominating Colin Hanks for Dexter. Yeesh. "Yo, Claire: u mad?" - Jessica Lange.

One nice surprise, however, is the inclusion of American Horror Story's Jessica Lange in drama. The role is clearly supporting, and the show is batshit-insane and messy as hell, but Lange is one of the most consistently compelling (and deliciously campy) aspects of that glorious train wreck (season 1, and Connie Britton is already about to give birth to the antichrist...seriously).

The SAG awards air on January 29th; here's hoping that the guild members at least make some inspired choices from their relatively uninspired choices.

The Netflix Files: December 5-11

White Teeth (2002) dir. Julian Jarrold:

Adapted from Zadie Smith's wonderful novel of the same name, Jarrold's 4-episode miniseries is certainly engaging, if not quite as successful as its source material in getting the point(s) across. White Teeth's main concern is the question of what it means to be British in an era of multiculturalism, and features characters who are white, black, Bengali, Christian, Muslim, etc etc. But even though the casting is generally spot-on, the screenplay fails to find a means to transmit Smith's omniscient narration and exposition to the screen, leaving the story feeling less insightful than it really is. One complaint that often arises when novels are adapted is that the adaptation is too short, and leaves too much out. The same is true here, even though each episode is roughly 50 minutes. In dividing the story among the four main male protagonists, supporting characters and subplots don't feel as fleshed out as they should in order to achieve real impact. That said, it's at least well-assembled and well-acted (Geraldine James as the intrusive Joyce Malfen - Chalfen in the novel - in particular), and Jarrold directs the whole affair nicely and with strong soundtrack choices (the "Flight of the Bumblebee" scene is perfection), although it's a far cry from what he achieved last year with the Red Riding Trilogy. My only worry about this miniseries, though, is that anyone who sees it without reading Smith's novel may not think there's much more to the story or characters, when there truly is.

Grade: B-

Review: "Shame"

Steve McQueen really loves to make Michael Fassbender stare. Whether it's at a person, an object, or simply off into the distance, both of the director's collaborations with Fassbender have featured quite a bit of soulful/mournful staring. The difference in their second go-round together, though, is that this time the staring actually feels as though it has some characterization to it. Rather than hit a sophomore slump, McQueen and Fassbender have made a vast improvement in Shame, the director's examination of loneliness and sex addiction.

First thing's first, a confession: I'm part of that small group of film enthusiasts who wasn't won over by McQueen's debut, 2008's Hunger. Though it had moments of power, I was ultimately left cold by the director's attempts to use famed IRA hunger-striker Bobby Sands as a symbol of eternal dedication to a cause. As such, I was hesitant to endure another McQueen-Fassbender collaboration, even though I was momentarily impressed by what the director pulled off in that film. This time, though, by focusing on an issue as faced by a fictional person (and free from any danger of political bias, accidental or otherwise) McQueen has really hit it out of the park.

Shame revolves around Brandon (Michael Fassbender), a handsome (though I suppose that's a given considering the actor playing him), mid-30s man in Manhattan with a compulsive, all-consuming addiction to sex. His routine, however, is interrupted by the arrival of his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan). In the film's opening stretch, McQueen intercuts Brandon walking around his apartment naked with his attempted "flirtation" with an attractive woman on the subway. Though it initially feels slightly hollow, it does visually convey Brandon's state of mind regarding sex: it's not a matter of romance, it's about purely about the physical act. Without spoiling anything, the way Brandon's staring at the woman comes full circle functions as an obvious, albeit powerful statement regarding the character's transformation over the course of the film.

As Brandon, Fassbender caps off a stellar year that has finally given him attention he's deserved for a while now. He's made his mark in roles ranging from Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre, to a young Magneto in X-Men: First Class. In Brandon, however, the actor is able to end the year with a performance which goes beyond everything he showed before, which is no small feat. As in Hunger, this is a performance that doesn't rely much on dialogue, and more on physicality and facial cues. However, unlike Hunger, Shame actually gives the actor something to work with, sparse as the script may be. Instead of simply staring off into space, it feels like there's some meaning to Fassbender's long, silent looks, even if we're not entirely sure what they mean. There's no clear answer as to where Brandon's addiction comes from; the closest answer comes from a line from Sissy, "We're not bad people, Brandon. We just come from a bad place." That's it. And yet, under McQueen's guidance, that answer doesn't matter. What's important isn't the baggage that led Brandon to his condition, but rather how he deals with it. What could have become dull and repetitive becomes magnetic in Fassbender's understated, yet powerful presence.

Every bit his equal, despite her significantly small screen time, is Mulligan. Going as far away from her role in An Education (which scored the actress an Oscar nomination) as possible, Mulligan leaves quite the impression whenever she appears, particularly in her drawn-out rendition of "New York, New York." Where Brandon is sullen and introspective, Sissy is a live wire, and seeing Mulligan take charge of the role so fearlessly is impressive as hell. If anything, I wanted more interaction between the siblings, because it felt like there was so much territory in that facet alone that McQueen and co-writer Abi Morgan could have covered. That the script keeps itself so thoroughly focused on Brandon almost becomes a problem, because Sissy sometimes comes close to being underdeveloped to the point of being little more than a plot device. Thankfully, the power that McQueen is able to wring out of Brandon's story makes up for it, but this small issue is one that, if fixed, would only have made the film stronger.

As far as flaws go, there's not much else to go at. Though Shame's opening made me worried that the film would feel hollow, the performances and McQueen's direction manage to dig deeper than one would expect, and the climactic moments hit home. Some dialogue feels on-the-nose, as if McQueen and Morgan wanted to spell out Brandon and Sissy's issues rather than giving it a context. And though the film is edited and paced impeccably for the most part, one of the most important scenes goes on too long by about half a minute. It doesn't ruin the moment or drain it of its power, but after so many successfully executed long takes, it's surprising that a moment involving faster-paced cuts ends up feeling overly long.

On the artistic and technical front, however, the film is quite outstanding. In addition to the almost flawless editing, the film benefits from cold, crisp visuals, long takes (that rarely, if ever, leave one's mind wandering), and a combination of smart sound track choices and a limited score from Harry Escott. Though the movie may earn (just barely) it's NC-17 rating, it's anything but trashy or exploitative. The only shame greater than Brandon's would be to miss the movie (y'know, assuming you're old enough).

Grade: A-

Review: "My Week with Marilyn"

When the first images of Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe surfaced, eyebrows were inevitably raised. Despite her considerable talents, Williams has been known for dour roles that require none of the bubbly magnetism that Monroe was so famous for. Therefore, it's arguable that whether or not My Week with Marilyn is mild success or a small failure, because it's certainly not going to be remembered for much in a few years time.

Taken from two (reportedly) factual accounts, Simon Curtis' film revolves around Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), a recent college grad who longs to work in the film business. He manages to find a job on The Sleeping Prince (which would eventually become The Prince and the Showgirl), starring Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) and the titular Monroe. As Olivier and Monroe's acting styles clash on set, Colin starts to develop a bond with Monroe.

It's certainly a story rife with potential for quite a bit of nostalgic fun. And, thankfully, we've been spared the Greatest Hits type of treatment that sank Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar. Unfortunately, since the story ultimately centers on Colin, Marilyn sometimes feels kept at a distance. It's probably the biggest obstacle the movie has to overcome, and it's what keeps the whole thing from being anything more than a light dramedy. Instead of delving deep into Monroe's difficulty with handling Olivier's drastically different style, and her intense self-consciousness and need for approval, we only get the vaguest hints. The deepest sentiments the film can offer are when Marilyn tells Colin (her face wet with tears), "People don't see me; all they see is Marilyn Monroe." Depth isn't exactly the name of the game here.

But even if the script is too lightweight to make the most out of its subject matter, at the very least Williams deserves credit for not coming off like a bad Saturday Night Live impersonation. She's doing the best she can with the material she's given, though unfortunately she's left playing Marilyn the starlet more often than Marilyn the imperfect human being. Thankfully, Williams is able to capture some of Monroe's magic when performing her scenes for the movie within the movie. It's a shame, though, that Curtis' execution makes The Prince and the Showgirl look like something that belongs at the dawn of the sound era, rather than the mid-50s. Kenneth Branagh also has quite a bit of fun as Laurence Olivier. It's all a bit surface-y, although the actor does hit home runs in the handful of scenes that require more than flash.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said of Mr. Redmayne, though none of it is his fault. A talented actor in his own right (I, for one, can't wait to see him as Marius in Tom Hooper's Les Miserables this time next year), the role is such a bland audience-insert that there's little to be done. He's used as our guide into the world of show business, and to tear away the curtain between the magic of Hollywood and the behind-the-scenes conflict, but the film would have been better off not giving him as much attention as it does. This really should have been Marilyn's story, and by sticking so close to Clark's POV, the film feels like little more than a fancy-looking dessert that's lacking in flavor. It all goes down smooth enough, but once you're done you realize that it could have and should have been so much more.

Grade: B-/C+

Review: "Moneyball"

For all of the baseball talk in Bennett Miller's Moneyball, which follows Oakland Athletics GM Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) as he tries to rewrite the rules of scouting, there is something universal about its protagonist's quest. Yes, this is a movie revolving around baseball, but don't confuse this for another The Blind Side or Remember the Titans. At its core, Moneyball is about a man's obsession with finding self-validation in a game he can no longer play. So even though there's a hardly a scene where baseball isn't involved (I counted...2...3?), Miller and co. have fashioned a steady, engaging film that benefits from a charismatic performance from its golden leading man.

The script, co-written by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, gets things off to a slow start as it lays the groundwork. Billy Beane is determined to forgo the traditional method of scouting to build up his team, despite widespread antagonism from the rest of his coaching staff. After a chance encounter with analyst Peter Brand (Jonah Hill, pre-weight loss) at an opposing team's office, he discovers that the young man has a radical idea about how building teams should work. After moving Brand over to Oakland, Beane begins to, against considerable opposition, use Brand's method to try and make the team a success.

Once it gets past its opening stretch, filled with more dry baseball statistical talk than anything resembling character development, Miller's film starts to really gain its momentum. The more the film juxtaposes the team's journey with flashes of Billy's history in baseball, the richer it all becomes. Moneyball is not a sappy, inspirational sports story, but it does have any number sincere, rousing moments. Though there are title cards that occaisionally track the A's wins, the focus remains on the behind the scenes action, rather than needlessly protracted scenes of the team playing baseball to fill time. Whenever the film shows the A's in action, there's something to be found for Billy and Peter, whether it's a challenge, a success, or a failure.

And even though the sport of baseball may be a team effort, Moneyball comes down to the efforts of one man (at least, on screen): Mr. Pitt. Though not up there with say, his work in The Assassination of Jesse James..., Moneyball provides Pitt with an opportunity to turn in a more traditional 'star' performance, and it's a task he handles with aplomb. Barring a few quick, charming scenes with Beane's daughter Casey (Kerris Dorsey), just about everything here revolves around his involvement with the team. It's a connection, though, that comes through and connects, which is a good thing because really no one else here, even Hill's Brand, registers much as a character.

If anything, that's the one thing keeping the film from true greatness, for all of its strong moments. Sports tend to ignite a passion in people, and even though there are scenes of elation in Moneyball, the film is so thoroughly centered on Beane that one can only get so connected to images of the team celebrating. Beane's devotion to baseball and the A's is apparent, yet when the final title cards roll across the screen, they feel more perfunctory than moving. The schmaltz has been left behind, thankfully, but at the same time, the film seems to have missed its chance to be more human, and therefore make a greater impact.

Grade: B

The Month in Review: November 2011

Best Film (Theaters): Martha Marcy May Marlene

Known to my friends as, "the one with all of the M names," Sean Durkin's debut unfolds with much more grace than its title tumbles off of the tongues of those unfamiliar with it. Jumping between past and presence with incredible ease, the film is quietly arresting from its opening sequence. Though it may be as deep of an examination as it seems to think it is, this is still an expertly crafted pyschological thriller, and one hell of a debut. Led by Elizabeth Olsen's excellent performance, you may have a hard time remembering the title, but you'll have a hard time shaking either her work, or the film around her.

Best Film (DVD/Streaming): Army of Shadows

Jean Pierre-Melville's classic, delayed from release in the US until 2006, hasn't lost anything over the decades since its first unveiling. Masterfully told, this tale of French Resistance fighters in WWII confronts the brutal reality of the struggle with a refreshing honesty and maturity. The whole thing may end up being a bit of a downward spiral, but Melville never manipulates, and lets the events fully earn their intended reactions.

Best Director: Jean-Pierre Melville - Army of Shadows

Turning to his own experiences in WWII proved to be a goldmine for Jean-Pierre Melville, as it resulted in one hell of a movie. Melville has a way of capturing his performers' littlest ticks amid the drearily epic story, which is quite the accomplishment. Army of Shadows may focus more on the logistics of operations than overblown violence, but what flashes there are provide a compelling (and in several instances, horrifying) look at the life of the men and women of the resistance.

Best Male Performance: Paul Newman - Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Though he doesn't do much initially other than lay about sullenly on a sofa, the unravelling that Newman's Brick goes through is haunting to watch. Though the film is filled with big personalities, the more Brick gets dragged into the mess of it all, the better Newman becomes. It all comes down to the final confrontation with Burl Ives' Big Daddy in the basement, which elevates Newman's work to the status of legendary. It's almost painful to watch, yet it's simultaneously impossible to look away. One of the greatest performances, by one of cinema's best actors.

Best Female Performance: Elizabeth Taylor - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Though she plays one half of one of cinema's most dysfunctional couples, Taylor by herself is such a force to be reckoned with it's a miracle the other actors were left standing by the story's end. Taylor digs deeper than ever with Martha, and the results are ferocious, compelling, and intense as hell. Watching her slip from sly flirtations with Nick (George Segal) to savage bile-spewing with George (Richard Burton) so seamlessly is a marvel to behold. And, just when it doesn't look like Taylor can take the performance further, she nails her character's shattering climactic scenes. The film itself may be hard to watch, but Taylor's performance is too good to miss, as it's one for the ages.

Best Screenplay: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof by Richard Brooks and James Poe (adapted from Tennessee Williams' play)

Building an entire film on nothing but characters talking in different rooms can be quite the challenge, which is just one more reason why Brooks and Poe's adaptation of Williams' play is such a triumph. The dialogue, as much as there is, navigates an emotional minefield with such skill that there's hardly a moment that feels less than compelling.

Best Ensemble: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Newman, Taylor, and Ives. Those three names along make Cat on a Hot Tin Roof a force to be reckoned, in addition to strong work from Jack Carson, Judith Anderson, and Madeleine Sherwood. Watching the myriad of relationships between and among the characters play out is quite the show, and the almost non-stop fireworks is one of the most impressive acting displays ever captured on film.