A Few Random Thoughts on the 2010 Oscar Nominations
First posted Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010
The 82nd Academy Award nominations have been announced, with Disney/Pixar's Up getting a nod for Best Picture in addition to the expected Best Animated Feature nomination. I have to admit that as much as I liked the movie, I don't think it's the one I would have picked among Pixar's total output to get the nod for Best Picture. However, it was a pretty good if not great year for movies, it seems, and to paraphrase the parable about life on the African veldt, the Best Picture of the year only has to be better than all the other movies released in the same year, not the Best Picture ever.
In any event, I think the question of whether Up will become the first animated feature to win the Best Picture Oscar is moot once you look at its competition. The good news about animation being seated at the big kids' table is that it's another acknowledgment, however small, that animation is a serious medium capable of making great art and not just the kiddie stuff that a good portion of America (or at least a good portion of Hollywood) seems to think it is. The bad news is that this year's animated film has to stand toe-to-toe with the work of Quentin Tarantino and the Coen Brothers, as well as with the very highly acclaimed The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air, and Precious. This would be tough competition for any movie, regardless of medium, and to be honest I'd eliminate District 9 and Avatar as possible winners in this category as well. Science fiction and fantasy fare about as well as comedies in the Best Picture race, with barely a dozen movies from those genres getting nominated in the past 40 years and only The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's winning in 2003.
Avatar also happens to sit right in the crux of a few different issues I've been grappling with for the News. As our readers will have noticed, the headlines Avatar has been grabbing in the mainstream press are not reflected on our News Ticker. Like King Kong, the later Pirates of the Caribbean movies, and modern video games in general, I think Avatar uses similar techniques to more traditionally animated features, but that doesn't make it an animated movie in my view. At best, I'd call Avatar a hybrid film (at least from the clips I've seen -- I have not watched the movie and judging by the movie's phenomenal box office success, I may be the only person who was never that interested in it). I don't think many people would call Who Framed Roger Rabbit? or Mary Poppins "animated" movies, either, despite their heavy reliance on animation. In this, I'm afraid I break with our friends over at Cartoon Brew, who are congratulating Avatar for being the second animated movie in the Best Picture race. In any event, Cameron himself insists that Avatar is not animation, with an attitude that I think is merely another variation on the, "Cartoons are just for kids" mentality, so I'm happy to lock him out of the clubhouse. He will just have to find solace from my peevish snit in the billions of dollars he's made on the movie so far.
The second issue that Avatar brings up relates to the lack of recognition of actors in animation. Cameron himself has complained over perceived snubs at the acting of his Avatar performers in the SAG awards, and the movie's acting was bypassed by year's Oscars as well. I would point out the notable absence of acting award nominations for Cameron's films in general and humbly suggest that perhaps the technology is not to blame for the snubbing of the acting in Avatar, but he can gripe much more loudly about a point that animation fans have felt for some time: voice actors are routinely treated as second-class citizens to their on-camera equivalents. The shoddy treatment of the cast of Space Jam at the movie's premiere is a visible example, as is Cameron's own brusque dismissal of Meryl Streep's performance in Fantastic Mr. Fox. There is also the issue that the animators themselves are as responsible for the "acting" of a character as the voice actors, which begs the question of who exactly should get the credit for a particularly good performance. I would like to see wider recognition of a good performance in animation, but I must admit I don't really know how to get there. However, such nuances are probably well beyond the Academy members, and this is why we have the Annie Awards anyway.
I don't have any serious complaints about the nominees for Best Animated Feature. I think it was a very good year for animated movies in general, and I think swapping in a different movie released last year would shortchange one of the other nominees. I can say little or nothing meaningful about the Best Animated Short category.
In any event, no ruminations on the Oscars would be complete without predictions, although I openly admit mine are blissfully unencumbered by any biases that might arise from actually seeing many of the movies nominated. But hey, I'm just a guy on the Internet exercising his right to spout off about things he knows nothing about. As I mentioned, I don't think Up has even a long-shot chance at winning the Best Picture Oscar. Unfortunately, it will probably have to settle for the honor of being nominated, because I also suspect that Fantastic Mr. Fox will be the winner for the Best Animated Feature due to the Academy's general adoration for the works of Wes Anderson. It would be something of a shame if Pete Docter walked away from the ceremonies empty-handed, especially since I still believe he was robbed of an Oscar in 2003, but it looks like it might happen again this year. At least he won't be losing out to such a vastly inferior movie like Shrek. I don't hold out hope that the Academy will recognize the movie in the Best Original Screenplay category. This marks the 6th time an animated movie has been nominated for a writing Oscar (the other 5 being Toy Story, Shrek, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and WALL-E; the number goes to 6 if you want to call Mary Poppins animated), but none of them have ever won and again, Up faces some very stiff competition.
In any event, I would still like to congratulate all the nominees and wish them the best of luck. We'll see you all on Oscar night.
Source:toonzone.net/
Showing posts with label Oscar the cat knows. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscar the cat knows. Show all posts
Oscar de la Renta on 'The View': Don't Miss This
Oscar de la Renta told the ladies of The View that Americans have done amazing things to provide relief to the people of Haiti in the wake of their earthquake disaster, but de la Renta added this caveat: "We tend to sometimes move on to the next tragedy."
De la Renta told the story of how he wanted to be a painter and traveled to Spain from the Dominican Republic. He said that his mother made it possible for him to pursue his dream, and when he arrived in Spain, he realized that he loved fashion. De la Renta gave up painting altogether when he moved to America to focus on his fashion career.
In an admirably humble interview, de la Renta also dished on dressing First Ladies. Watch the video to see part of what he had to say.
Meanwhile here's an interesting tidbit. Oscar de la Renta has been married two times, the first time to French Vogue editor-in-chief fashion consultant Francoise de Langlade. She once said about Oscar de la Renta's designs: "Oscar is not my favorite designer--just one of them."
Source:limelife.com/
Oscar winners of old worth watching again
Feb. 2, 3:15 p.m.
Sergeant York — The flip side of The Hurt Locker, with best actor Oscar winner Gary Cooper, above, as a pacifist sharpshooter turned reluctant war hero.
Feb. 7, 8 p.m.
81/2 — Federico Fellini's Oscar winner for best foreign film inspired the musical Nine, with its creatively blocked director (Marcello Mastroianni) confronting the women in his life.
Feb. 10, 2:30 a.m.
Tender Mercies — Jeff Bridges' country music has-been in Crazy Heart could be the illegitimate son of Robert Duvall's Mac Sledge. Duvall earned a best actor Oscar, and his appearance in Crazy Heart makes this connection even clearer.
Feb. 13, 5:45 p.m.
Roman Holiday — The first time I saw Carey Mulligan in An Education, she brought memories of the gamine beauty of Audrey Hepburn, below with Eddie Albert, left, and Gregory Peck, in this best actress Oscar winner.
Feb. 19, 2:15 p.m.
Forbidden Planet — In order to truly appreciate the special effects in Avatar, revisit this 1957 nominee, featuring a crew of astronauts (including Leslie Nielsen when he acted seriously) in an alien world.
Feb. 20, 8 p.m.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind — Steven Spielberg's notions of alien contact with Earthlings are much more benign than District 9. At least Spielberg put the creatures in a mothership, above Wyoming's Devil's Tower, with enough fuel to return home.
Feb. 22, 6 a.m.
The Stratton Story — Think football player Michael Oher had it tough in The Blind Side? Try being a major league baseball pitcher after losing an leg in a hunting accident. James Stewart, above with June Allyson, is terrific in this fact-based sports drama.
Feb. 23, 2:45 p.m.
The Awful Truth — In order to fully appreciate how (500) Days of Summer reinvents the romantic comedy, check out this 1937 gem starring Cary Grant and Irene Dunne, above.
Feb. 25, 3:15 a.m.
Mrs. Brown — Emily Blunt's portrayal of Young Victoria is a fitting companion to Judi Dench's Oscar-winning turn as the British monarch in old age.
Feb. 26, 12:15 a.m.
The Dirty Dozen — Wouldn't you love to see a war movie teaming Lee Marvin's convict commandos with Brad Pitt's Inglourious Basterds? Just try to not cry when Jim Brown takes a Nazi bullet in the back.
Steve Persall can be reached at persall@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8365. Read his blog, Reeling in the Years, at blogs.tampabay.com/movies
Source:tampabay.com/
Predicting the nominees: Oscar announcement set for Tuesday
It’s all part of a plan to boost ratings for an Oscar telecast that hit a nadir last year, when not one of the indie-minded best picture nominees crossed the magical $100 million level at the box office. (“Slumdog Millionaire” did eventually achieve that mark after winning best picture.)
That won’t be a problem this year with “Avatar,” history’s biggest money earner, leading the charge. Good thing, too, because without the interest that James Cameron’s mega-blockbuster has created, there would be nothing interesting at all about this year’s ceremony.
Just look at the all-important acting categories, where Jeff Bridges, Mo’Nique and newcomer Christoph Waltz rank as prohibitive favorites to take home the little gold guy.
Only in the best actress category – where the slight favorite, Sandra Bullock, faces a stiff challenge from Meryl Streep – is there a hint of drama.
Still, if you’re like me (and, yes, I’m aware there are fewer and fewer of us), you won’t be able to resist the Hollywood glitz, politics and backstabbing that are so very much a part of the awards.
But who will be nominated? The answer comes Tuesday morning, when all names will be revealed. But why wait until then when my crystal ball is so clear? Well, maybe not perfectly clear, but pretty clear.
So without further ado, let me introduce my predictions on whose names will be called out Tuesday, beginning with:
Best Supporting Actress
The contenders: Vera Farmiga, “Up in the Air”; Anna Kendrick, “Up in the Air”; Mo’Nique, “Precious”; Diane Kruger, “Inglourious Basterds”; Betty White, “The Proposal”; Jane Lynch, “Julie & Julia”; Penelope Cruz, “Nine”; Marion Cotillard, “Nine”; Helen Mirren, “The Last Station”; Julianne Moore, “A Single Man.”
Locks: Coming off her wins at the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards, Mo’Nique heads into the Oscars as the overwhelming favorite for her haunting portrayal of an angry, abusive mother in “Precious.” She’s a shoo-in, as are “Up in the Air’s” unbeatable tandem of Kendrick and Farmiga.
On the bubble: The remaining two spots are anybody’s guess. But don’t be surprised if voters give a shout-out to the 88-year-old White in tribute to her longevity. The ballot-casters might, however, have a few qualms about honoring someone playing a role as crass as her foul-mouthed granny in “The Proposal.” As for Cruz and Cotillard, they can pretty much figure on watching the Oscars from their couches thanks to “Nine’s” minuscule box office. Which leaves the M&Ms, Moore and Mirren, who I think will fill the remaining spots. Why? Because voters love classy actresses, especially ones with resumes as glowing as theirs.
Best supporting actor
The contenders: Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”; Woody Harrelson, “The Messenger”; Stanley Tucci, “The Lovely Bones” or “Julie & Julia”; Christian McKay, “Me and Orson Welles”; Alec Baldwin, “It’s Complicated”; Christopher Plummer, “The Last Station”; Alfred Molina, “An Education”; Colin Farrell, “Crazy Heart”; Peter Capaldi, “In the Loop”; Matt Damon, “Invictus.”
Locks: Like Mo’Nique, the previously unknown Waltz has won every award there is to be won. And that will surely continue for the rest of the awards season. His closest competition – and it’s really not very close – is Harrelson, who gave perhaps the best performance of his career as the hardened Army officer in the criminally underseen “The Messenger.”
On the bubble: Again, the remaining spots are mere window dressing and a chance to acknowledge lifetime achievements. That’s why I think voters will go for Plummer, Molina and Damon. But if it were up to me, those spots would go to Farrell, showing off his lofty singing talents in “Crazy Heart,” and the two unknowns from across the pond, McKay and Capaldi, who were both larger than life in films almost too small to contain their talents.
Best actress
The contenders: Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side”; Carey Mulligan, “An Education”; Meryl Streep, “Julie & Julia”; Melanie Laurent, “Inglourious Basterds”; Emily Blunt, “The Young Victoria”; Gabourey Sidibe, “Precious”; Ellen Page, “Whip It”; Zooey Deschanel, “(500) Days of Summer”; Amy Adams, “Sunshine Cleaning”; Nisreen Faour, “Amreeka.”
Locks: On the strength of her shocking Golden Globe and SAG wins, Bullock can start picking out her gown and writing her Oscar acceptance speech now. Still, don’t count out Streep, also a Golden Globe winner, who was so amazing as Julia Child that I cannot believe voters – when it comes time to cast their final ballots – will overlook work that was superior to Bullock’s in every way. But, hey, she’s Streep; and sadly too many people now take her greatness for granted.
On the bubble: Among the also-rans, Sidibe is the closest to being a shoo-in for her wrenching portrayal of an abused and neglected teen in “Precious.” As for the fourth spot; I think it will go to Mulligan, although I believe her clout is fading now that voters realize “An Education” wasn’t as great as some critics proclaimed. That leaves one spot for Laurent and Blunt to fight over, with Blunt winning, simply because more voters are familiar with her than with Laurent. If it were up to me, though, it would be Laurent, who was amazing as a French resistance leader in “Basterds.”
Best actor
The contenders: Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart”; George Clooney, “Up in the Air”; Jeremy Renner, “The Hurt Locker”; Michael Stuhlbarg, “A Serious Man”; Colin Firth, “A Single Man”; Morgan Freeman, “Invictus”; Matt Damon, “The Informant”; Viggo Mortensen, “The Road”; Michael Fassbender, “Hunger”; Brad Pitt, “Inglourious Basterds”; Nicolas Cage, “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.”
Locks: It’s starting to sound like a broken record, but yet again, this is a race that is all but over, with Bridges prevailing. Deservedly so, too, because his drunken, washed-up singer in “Crazy Heart” was the finest work of his career, and no one came close to matching it. Joining him in the front row of the Kodak Theatre on March 7 will be Clooney and Renner, two guys who grew out of the slums of TV into charismatic leading men. They also share one other trait: They both dazzled with their heartfelt portrayals of committed loners who get their jollies from their work: Clooney dismantling people’s lives and Renner dismantling bombs.
On the bubble: Firth, who has never been nominated despite many a fine performance, would seem to finally be in line for some well-deserved kudos for his portrayal of a gay man tormented by grief. The fifth spot is not so certain. At one time, it seemed like Freeman would be a lock for his dead-on depiction of South African leader Nelson Mandela, but those hopes may have faded along with the film’s mediocre box office returns. If he falters, look for the unknown but terrific Stuhlbarg to squeeze in.
Best director
The contenders: James Cameron, “Avatar”; Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker”; Jason Reitman, “Up in the Air”; Quentin Tarantino, “Inglourious Basterds”; Lee Daniels, “Precious”; Clint Eastwood, “Invictus”; Lone Scherfig, “An Education”; Joel and Ethan Coen, “A Serious Man”: Nora Ephron, “Julie and Julia”; Marc Webb, “(500) Days of Summer.”
Locks: Although I hated his movie and what it represents (glitz over substance), the smug and narcissistic Cameron is the early favorite to win the Oscar. Hopefully, voters will wise up in the next couple of weeks and give the prize to the person who truly deserves it, Bigelow. And that’s not just because she’s the ex-wife of Cameron, the self-proclaimed King of the World. No, it’s because in her Iraq war drama, she created some of the best, most gut-churning suspense since Hitchcock in his prime. Although they weren’t quite up to her level, Reitman and Tarantino also deserve to be here; because, unlike Cameron, they are directors who know how to tell compelling, unconventional stories that don’t rip off “Dances With Wolves.”
On the bubble: That leaves one open spot, and who gets it is anybody’s guess. About six weeks ago, it looked like it would be Eastwood, but that was before “Invictus” failed to dazzle audiences and critics. Ditto for Rob Marshall for his DOA “Nine.” Daniels would seem the likely choice, given the amazing work he did in coaxing superb performances out of newcomer Sidibe and former Pepsi pitch woman Mo’Nique. He would be my choice, too. But I have a hunch voters will continue to show their love for the quirky Coen brothers and give them the nod.
Best picture
The contenders: “Avatar,” “Inglourious Basterds,” “Up in the Air,” “Up,” “The Messenger,” “A Serious Man,” “A Single Man,” “The Hurt Locker,” “Precious,” “An Education,” “Invictus,” “District 9,” “The Hangover,” “Star Trek,” “In the Loop,” “Coraline,” “Fantastic Mr. Fox.”
Locks: This is the category that has everyone anxious because the field has been expanded from the traditional five to 10. It’s meant to boost TV ratings, which is fine, except it in turn dilutes the strength of the field and opens the door for a movie to win best picture with only minimal support from voters. That means you, “Avatar,” which should win every technical award, as it deserves, but not best director or picture. No, that honor should go to either “Up,” “Up in the Air,” “Inglourious Basterds” or “The Hurt Locker,” all of which are likely nominees.
On the bubble: The other five openings likely will be filled with slightly lesser fare like “Star Trek,” “Distirct 9,” “An Education” and “Precious.” But if there is justice, those spots will go to the smart and sassy “In the Loop,” the ingeniously clever “(500) Days of Summer,” the tremendously well-acted “The Messenger,” the gorgeously animated “Coraline” and either of the year’s two superior documentaries, “The Cove” or “Food, Inc.”
Source:tauntongazette.com/
Big year for Canada at Grammys
LOS ANGELES — Whether Canada’s Grammy nominees end up in the winners’ circle on Sunday is still anybody’s guess. But there’s no doubt they took centre stage late Thursday night.
That’s when the Canadian Consulate in Los Angeles threw its annual Grammy bash to celebrate and showcase this year’s nominees from north of the 49th parallel.
“There is every reason to be celebrating tonight ... as long as nobody trashes anything,” half-joked Consul General David Fransen at the celebrity-studded gathering, held under a giant tent surrounding the pool of his swank Hancock Park residence.
“This truly is an extraordinary year for Canada at the Grammys.”
Well, it’s not too shabby, anyway. At the 52nd annual ceremonies this weekend (airing live from L.A. on CBS and Global at 8 p.m. EST, 7 p.m. CST and 6 p.m. MST), 11 Canadian artists — including Nickelback, Michael Buble, David Foster, Drake and Neil Young — will compete for awards in 13 categories.
Another 10 Canucks — Diana Krall, Daniel Lanois, Natalie MacMaster, Oscar Peterson and others — are connected to 13 more nominations. Along with that, Winnipeg’s favourite son Young has been chosen 2010’s MusiCares Person of the Year, while Montreal legend Leonard Cohen is receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award.
While most of those major nominees were no-shows at the Consulate party, lesser-known candidates such as Montreal trip-hop duo Beast and Aboriginal powwow outfit Northern Cree made the scene. But there was one famous face: The 75-year-old Cohen, clad in his ever-present dark suit and fedora, made a brief appearance to say he was “deeply grateful” for his accolade.
“My great grandfather, Lazarus Cohen, came to Canada in 1869, to the county of Glengarry, a little town in Maberly,” the folk-rock icon said. “On this occasion, because of the great hospitality that was accorded my ancestor who came here over 140 years ago, I want to thank this country, Canada, for allowing us to live and work and flourish in a place that was different from all other places in the world. So I thank Canada for the opportunity that was given me to work and play and flourish.”
Tribute was also paid to the work and life of the late Pierre Cossette, a producer from Canada who is known as the “father of the Grammys” for bringing the award show to television. Mary Cossette, her voice breaking at times, gave a short tribute to her husband, who passed away in September.
For the most part, Thursday’s event — which was simulcast on radio — was a celebration. And while guest-of-honour Cohen didn’t play or flourish on this night, other performers did their best to make a dent in the party din. As the crowd of media, industry types, politicians and celebrities like singer Emmylou Harris and Canadian supermodel Coco Rocha shmoozed, munched fancy canapes and drank (what else?) Molson Canadian, they were treated to short sets by Vancouver singer-songwriter Dan Mangan, Newfoundland orch-rockers Hey Rosetta! and Toronto hip-hopper K’Naan. The latter closed the night with his song Wavin’ Flag, which he recently performed at the Canada for Haiti telethon.
Or rather, he was supposed to close the night — until superstar producer Lanois, who had told reporters earlier he planned to “rush the stage,” made good on his threat. He played an off-the-cuff song set with some members of his new band Black Dub. Then he and Emmylou Harris ended the show with a gorgeous duet, as Lanois called out the ballad’s chord changes to his standup bassist. That performance earned a rapturous ovation from fans who clustered around the stage with their cellphone-cameras hoisted.
darryl.sterdan@sunmedia.ca
Source:torontosun.com/
That’s when the Canadian Consulate in Los Angeles threw its annual Grammy bash to celebrate and showcase this year’s nominees from north of the 49th parallel.
“There is every reason to be celebrating tonight ... as long as nobody trashes anything,” half-joked Consul General David Fransen at the celebrity-studded gathering, held under a giant tent surrounding the pool of his swank Hancock Park residence.
“This truly is an extraordinary year for Canada at the Grammys.”
Well, it’s not too shabby, anyway. At the 52nd annual ceremonies this weekend (airing live from L.A. on CBS and Global at 8 p.m. EST, 7 p.m. CST and 6 p.m. MST), 11 Canadian artists — including Nickelback, Michael Buble, David Foster, Drake and Neil Young — will compete for awards in 13 categories.
Another 10 Canucks — Diana Krall, Daniel Lanois, Natalie MacMaster, Oscar Peterson and others — are connected to 13 more nominations. Along with that, Winnipeg’s favourite son Young has been chosen 2010’s MusiCares Person of the Year, while Montreal legend Leonard Cohen is receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award.
While most of those major nominees were no-shows at the Consulate party, lesser-known candidates such as Montreal trip-hop duo Beast and Aboriginal powwow outfit Northern Cree made the scene. But there was one famous face: The 75-year-old Cohen, clad in his ever-present dark suit and fedora, made a brief appearance to say he was “deeply grateful” for his accolade.
“My great grandfather, Lazarus Cohen, came to Canada in 1869, to the county of Glengarry, a little town in Maberly,” the folk-rock icon said. “On this occasion, because of the great hospitality that was accorded my ancestor who came here over 140 years ago, I want to thank this country, Canada, for allowing us to live and work and flourish in a place that was different from all other places in the world. So I thank Canada for the opportunity that was given me to work and play and flourish.”
Tribute was also paid to the work and life of the late Pierre Cossette, a producer from Canada who is known as the “father of the Grammys” for bringing the award show to television. Mary Cossette, her voice breaking at times, gave a short tribute to her husband, who passed away in September.
For the most part, Thursday’s event — which was simulcast on radio — was a celebration. And while guest-of-honour Cohen didn’t play or flourish on this night, other performers did their best to make a dent in the party din. As the crowd of media, industry types, politicians and celebrities like singer Emmylou Harris and Canadian supermodel Coco Rocha shmoozed, munched fancy canapes and drank (what else?) Molson Canadian, they were treated to short sets by Vancouver singer-songwriter Dan Mangan, Newfoundland orch-rockers Hey Rosetta! and Toronto hip-hopper K’Naan. The latter closed the night with his song Wavin’ Flag, which he recently performed at the Canada for Haiti telethon.
Or rather, he was supposed to close the night — until superstar producer Lanois, who had told reporters earlier he planned to “rush the stage,” made good on his threat. He played an off-the-cuff song set with some members of his new band Black Dub. Then he and Emmylou Harris ended the show with a gorgeous duet, as Lanois called out the ballad’s chord changes to his standup bassist. That performance earned a rapturous ovation from fans who clustered around the stage with their cellphone-cameras hoisted.
darryl.sterdan@sunmedia.ca
Source:torontosun.com/
Oscars Try to Navigate Through Babel
THERE was a time when the Academy Award for best foreign-language film reflected the state of world cinema: Fellini films won back-to-back Oscars in the mid 1950s, as did Bergman films in the early ’60s. But the category has come to suggest a peculiar gulf between Academy opinion and the tastes of critics and audiences alike.
Some Oscar-nominated foreign titles from the past decade will leave even committed art-house audiences drawing a blank: “Zelary” from the Czech Republic, “As It Is in Heaven” from Sweden, “Zus & Zo” from the Netherlands. Meanwhile critical favorites and festival hits have often gone unacknowledged; a list of conspicuous omissions might start — but certainly would not end — with “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” “Caché,” “Silent Light,” “Gomorrah,” “The Edge of Heaven,” “Secret Sunshine” and “Volver.”
This incongruity has much to do with the category’s submission and nominating process, which is more byzantine than for any other, involving nominating bodies in various countries and several Academy committees. This year’s nine-film shortlist, announced this month, was whittled down by two committees from 65 submissions; the final five, to be determined by a third committee, will be revealed along with the other Oscar nominations on Tuesday. Mark Johnson, a veteran producer (“The Notebook,” “Ballast,” the “Narnia” films) and chairman of the Academy’s foreign-language committee since 1999, said that he has been striving in recent years to improve a process that, he acknowledged, often left the impression of an out-of-touch voting body. “We’ve attacked some of what I think have been real legitimate problems and criticisms,” he said.
While Mr. Johnson’s efforts have been largely focused on arriving at a more credible group of nominees, they have not streamlined the complex, multistage procedure. At each phase “there are always surprises and disappointments,” said Michael Barker, the co-president of Sony Pictures Classics, which is distributing three of this year’s nine shortlisted films: Michael Haneke’s “White Ribbon” (Germany), Jacques Audiard’s “Prophet” (France) and Juan José Campanella’s “Secret in Their Eyes” (Argentina).
The rule changes have not eliminated controversy. This year some critics pointed to omissions like “Police, Adjective” (from Romania), “Mother” (South Korea) and “I Killed My Mother” (Canada), all of which were the submissions of their respective countries, and films like “The Maid” (Chile) and “Vincere” (Italy), which were not selected in the first place.
Jonathan Sehring, the president of IFC Entertainment, an active distributor of foreign films, called the nominating process “terribly flawed” and singled out for criticism the one-film-per-country rule.
Some countries arrive at their choice by polling an Academy-like professional organization with hundreds or thousands of members; countries with less robust film industries might have more ad-hoc groups, sometimes with as few as a dozen voters. While the system is designed to allow even the smallest of film-producing nations a shot, it also ends up punishing relative powerhouses like France and Italy, which have many more acclaimed releases in a given year than, say, Iceland or the Ivory Coast, but must pick only one.
The emphasis on national origin means that international co-productions (like “The Motorcycle Diaries”) tend to fall by the wayside. Until recently the Academy also insisted that the foreign language match the foreign country; for instance, Mr. Haneke’s “Caché,” a French-language film by an Austrian director, was deemed ineligible. And two years ago “The Band’s Visit” was disqualified from being Israel’s official candidate because too much of the movie was in English.
At the national level the decisions are often tangled in internal politics. “Some countries approach the process in terms of ‘Whose turn is it?’ ” Mr. Sehring said, adding that personal agendas can come into play. Some questioned Italy’s decision this year to submit Giuseppe Tornatore’s big-budget period epic “Baaria” over Marco Bellochio’s “Vincere,” a film about Mussolini’s secret lover that has been received with greater enthusiasm at festivals (and is being released in the United States by IFC this year); it has not gone unnoticed that one financial backer of “Baaria” is Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.
Voting bodies are apt to consider, sometimes above all other factors, how well a film might travel. Mr. Barker of Sony recalled being at an Academy-related panel at a film festival in Norway and hearing the question come up in the bluntest terms: “Do we pick what we think is the best film, or do we pick what we think the Americans will vote for?” France has fielded suspiciously treacly fare like “Merry Christmas” and “The Chorus,” ignoring work by better-known auteurs like Arnaud Desplechin and Olivier Assayas.
The record in the foreign-language category suggests a weakness for stodgy, conservative films, and the Academy members who vote in the category are usually older.
Gary Palmucci, general manager of Kino International, attended a few Academy screenings two years ago, when one of his films, “Beaufort” (Israel), was up for an Oscar. With a few exceptions, he said, “it looked like everybody was over 65.” (Kino has another Israeli film on this year’s shortlist: “Ajami,” which opens in New York this week.)
This demographic quirk can be partly chalked up to the rigors of the nomination process. Every year the submitted movies are divided into four groups; an Academy member who wishes to participate in the nominations must see at least 80 percent of the films in one group (which usually works out to more than a dozen films). All films must be seen in theaters; since most of the titles are not in commercial release, that usually means attending special Academy screenings.
“The people who have that kind of time are often the older members who are retired,” Mr. Johnson said. And they tend to favor what Mr. Palmucci described as “a more meat-and-potatoes kind of film.” Mr. Sehring noted that movies with relatively challenging subject matter (“4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” about abortion in Ceausescu-era Romania) or form (the hand-drawn animation of “Persepolis”) have often been overlooked.
Such criticisms are hardly new, but they intensified two years ago when the Academy snubbed “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” a Palme d’Or winner at Cannes. Mr. Johnson responded by introducing an intermediate step in the nominating process to try to create a safeguard measure against glaring oversights.
“I don’t mean to be critical of the general committee because it’s older,” Mr. Johnson said, “but I wanted to make the selection process reflect more the Academy at large.”
Instead of entrusting the general membership with arriving at the nine-film shortlist, the Academy now takes the top six choices of the voting members (an average of 300 every year, Mr. Johnson said); the remaining three are wild-card selections by an executive committee appointed by Mr. Johnson, including the director Curtis Hanson, the cinematographer Janusz Kaminski and the German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmark, whose film “The Lives of Others” was a foreign-language winner. (The shortlist is narrowed to the final five by yet another committee’s members, who watch all nine films in a three-day period.)
Last year — the first time the shortlist was determined by two separate committees — the eventual nominees included well-reviewed art-house hits like “The Class” and “Waltz With Bashir” as well as an under-the-radar critical favorite, “Revanche.” This year’s list includes the Berlin festival’s top prizewinner, “The Milk of Sorrow” (Peru), and two Cannes hits, “The White Ribbon” (Germany) and “A Prophet” (France), films that might be too dark or difficult to have made it this far under the old system.
But there is nothing Mr. Johnson can do once the nominees are set and the vote is opened to the entire membership. Last year his rule changes produced the category’s most respectable lineup in some time. But it was the Japanese film “Departures,” which many considered the most conventional and sentimental of the five, that won.
That decision may not stand the test of time, but in a sense it is in keeping with tradition. In 1981, when Mr. Barker and his partner Tom Bernard were at United Artists, they had a foreign-language Oscar frontrunner in François Truffaut’s “Last Metro.” The other prime contender was thought to be Akira Kurosawa’s “Kagemusha.” But the eventual winner was a Russian film, long since forgotten, called “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears.”
“It was a surprise to us that this could happen,” Mr. Barker said. “But then we realized this kind of thing has been happening for generations.”
Source:nytimes.com/
Some Oscar-nominated foreign titles from the past decade will leave even committed art-house audiences drawing a blank: “Zelary” from the Czech Republic, “As It Is in Heaven” from Sweden, “Zus & Zo” from the Netherlands. Meanwhile critical favorites and festival hits have often gone unacknowledged; a list of conspicuous omissions might start — but certainly would not end — with “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” “Caché,” “Silent Light,” “Gomorrah,” “The Edge of Heaven,” “Secret Sunshine” and “Volver.”
This incongruity has much to do with the category’s submission and nominating process, which is more byzantine than for any other, involving nominating bodies in various countries and several Academy committees. This year’s nine-film shortlist, announced this month, was whittled down by two committees from 65 submissions; the final five, to be determined by a third committee, will be revealed along with the other Oscar nominations on Tuesday. Mark Johnson, a veteran producer (“The Notebook,” “Ballast,” the “Narnia” films) and chairman of the Academy’s foreign-language committee since 1999, said that he has been striving in recent years to improve a process that, he acknowledged, often left the impression of an out-of-touch voting body. “We’ve attacked some of what I think have been real legitimate problems and criticisms,” he said.
While Mr. Johnson’s efforts have been largely focused on arriving at a more credible group of nominees, they have not streamlined the complex, multistage procedure. At each phase “there are always surprises and disappointments,” said Michael Barker, the co-president of Sony Pictures Classics, which is distributing three of this year’s nine shortlisted films: Michael Haneke’s “White Ribbon” (Germany), Jacques Audiard’s “Prophet” (France) and Juan José Campanella’s “Secret in Their Eyes” (Argentina).
The rule changes have not eliminated controversy. This year some critics pointed to omissions like “Police, Adjective” (from Romania), “Mother” (South Korea) and “I Killed My Mother” (Canada), all of which were the submissions of their respective countries, and films like “The Maid” (Chile) and “Vincere” (Italy), which were not selected in the first place.
Jonathan Sehring, the president of IFC Entertainment, an active distributor of foreign films, called the nominating process “terribly flawed” and singled out for criticism the one-film-per-country rule.
Some countries arrive at their choice by polling an Academy-like professional organization with hundreds or thousands of members; countries with less robust film industries might have more ad-hoc groups, sometimes with as few as a dozen voters. While the system is designed to allow even the smallest of film-producing nations a shot, it also ends up punishing relative powerhouses like France and Italy, which have many more acclaimed releases in a given year than, say, Iceland or the Ivory Coast, but must pick only one.
The emphasis on national origin means that international co-productions (like “The Motorcycle Diaries”) tend to fall by the wayside. Until recently the Academy also insisted that the foreign language match the foreign country; for instance, Mr. Haneke’s “Caché,” a French-language film by an Austrian director, was deemed ineligible. And two years ago “The Band’s Visit” was disqualified from being Israel’s official candidate because too much of the movie was in English.
At the national level the decisions are often tangled in internal politics. “Some countries approach the process in terms of ‘Whose turn is it?’ ” Mr. Sehring said, adding that personal agendas can come into play. Some questioned Italy’s decision this year to submit Giuseppe Tornatore’s big-budget period epic “Baaria” over Marco Bellochio’s “Vincere,” a film about Mussolini’s secret lover that has been received with greater enthusiasm at festivals (and is being released in the United States by IFC this year); it has not gone unnoticed that one financial backer of “Baaria” is Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.
Voting bodies are apt to consider, sometimes above all other factors, how well a film might travel. Mr. Barker of Sony recalled being at an Academy-related panel at a film festival in Norway and hearing the question come up in the bluntest terms: “Do we pick what we think is the best film, or do we pick what we think the Americans will vote for?” France has fielded suspiciously treacly fare like “Merry Christmas” and “The Chorus,” ignoring work by better-known auteurs like Arnaud Desplechin and Olivier Assayas.
The record in the foreign-language category suggests a weakness for stodgy, conservative films, and the Academy members who vote in the category are usually older.
Gary Palmucci, general manager of Kino International, attended a few Academy screenings two years ago, when one of his films, “Beaufort” (Israel), was up for an Oscar. With a few exceptions, he said, “it looked like everybody was over 65.” (Kino has another Israeli film on this year’s shortlist: “Ajami,” which opens in New York this week.)
This demographic quirk can be partly chalked up to the rigors of the nomination process. Every year the submitted movies are divided into four groups; an Academy member who wishes to participate in the nominations must see at least 80 percent of the films in one group (which usually works out to more than a dozen films). All films must be seen in theaters; since most of the titles are not in commercial release, that usually means attending special Academy screenings.
“The people who have that kind of time are often the older members who are retired,” Mr. Johnson said. And they tend to favor what Mr. Palmucci described as “a more meat-and-potatoes kind of film.” Mr. Sehring noted that movies with relatively challenging subject matter (“4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” about abortion in Ceausescu-era Romania) or form (the hand-drawn animation of “Persepolis”) have often been overlooked.
Such criticisms are hardly new, but they intensified two years ago when the Academy snubbed “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” a Palme d’Or winner at Cannes. Mr. Johnson responded by introducing an intermediate step in the nominating process to try to create a safeguard measure against glaring oversights.
“I don’t mean to be critical of the general committee because it’s older,” Mr. Johnson said, “but I wanted to make the selection process reflect more the Academy at large.”
Instead of entrusting the general membership with arriving at the nine-film shortlist, the Academy now takes the top six choices of the voting members (an average of 300 every year, Mr. Johnson said); the remaining three are wild-card selections by an executive committee appointed by Mr. Johnson, including the director Curtis Hanson, the cinematographer Janusz Kaminski and the German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmark, whose film “The Lives of Others” was a foreign-language winner. (The shortlist is narrowed to the final five by yet another committee’s members, who watch all nine films in a three-day period.)
Last year — the first time the shortlist was determined by two separate committees — the eventual nominees included well-reviewed art-house hits like “The Class” and “Waltz With Bashir” as well as an under-the-radar critical favorite, “Revanche.” This year’s list includes the Berlin festival’s top prizewinner, “The Milk of Sorrow” (Peru), and two Cannes hits, “The White Ribbon” (Germany) and “A Prophet” (France), films that might be too dark or difficult to have made it this far under the old system.
But there is nothing Mr. Johnson can do once the nominees are set and the vote is opened to the entire membership. Last year his rule changes produced the category’s most respectable lineup in some time. But it was the Japanese film “Departures,” which many considered the most conventional and sentimental of the five, that won.
That decision may not stand the test of time, but in a sense it is in keeping with tradition. In 1981, when Mr. Barker and his partner Tom Bernard were at United Artists, they had a foreign-language Oscar frontrunner in François Truffaut’s “Last Metro.” The other prime contender was thought to be Akira Kurosawa’s “Kagemusha.” But the eventual winner was a Russian film, long since forgotten, called “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears.”
“It was a surprise to us that this could happen,” Mr. Barker said. “But then we realized this kind of thing has been happening for generations.”
Source:nytimes.com/
Books: Oscar the cat knows when death is near at Providence nursing home
PROVIDENCE —The cat’s uncanny. It knows when death approaches.
At first this was just a curious observation. Now it’s an undeniable conclusion, first published two years ago in a medical journal and now in a new book coming out Tuesday: “Making Rounds with Oscar: The Extraordinary Gift of an Ordinary Cat.” (Hyperion, $23.99).
Oscar is the cat. David Dosa is the author and the doctor. And it would be a mistake to assume from the title that Oscar merely accompanies Dosa at Steere House in Providence, which cares for patients with terminal dementia.
“It’s definitely his world,” Dosa says. “He just lets us work there.”
Oscar lives at the nursing home. And in his roughly five years there, Oscar has sensed the imminent deaths of some 50 patients whom he insisted on sitting beside and keeping company as their lives came to a close.
“It’s not like he dawdles,” Dosa writes. “He’ll slip out for two minutes, grab some kibble, and then he’s back at the patient’s side. It’s like he’s literally on a vigil.”
Dosa is an assistant professor of medicine at Brown University. He has faith in science, not in a cat. Well, that was once the case. Dosa’s faith has been shaken.
“My own intellectual vanity made it easier for me to reject the notion that some errant feline could know more than we as medical staff did,” Dosa writes. “I felt strangely elated by the notion that I could be completely wrong.”
A few years ago Dosa realized he was completely wrong. Two patients on opposite sides of the nursing home were dying. A female staff member who earlier noticed Oscar’s aptitude to sense the onset of death took Oscar out of one patient’s room and brought him to the room of the other patient who was regarded as more deathly ill.
“She brought in this angry cat and put him on the bed,” Dosa says. “Oscar charged out of the room and immediately ran back to the other room. Oscar was right. That patient died that evening. The patient we thought would die first lived a couple of more days.”
Dosa could no longer deny Oscar’s ability. So Dosa didn’t. Instead, he told everyone. He wrote an article about Oscar that appeared in July 2007 in the New England Journal of Medicine. And suddenly, Oscar was national news.
Everyone knew about Oscar, certainly families using the services of Steere House.
“People would say, ‘Have you heard what this cat does?’ ” Dosa says. “Now there is this added sense of, ‘My God, Oscar is in the room. You know what that means.’ Families have taken it for what it’s worth, perhaps comfort for a loved one, but haven’t taken it overboard.”
Dosa is a geriatrician, not a veterinarian. However, he has had plenty of interaction with cats: Steere House has five besides Oscar.
“None of them do anything like this,” Dosa says. Their most interesting behavior is by one cat that likes to sleep on the bench of the lobby’s player piano.
“It makes it appear as though he’s playing,” Dosa says.
That’s nothing compared with Oscar appearing on the bed of a dying patient several hours before the patient dies.
Why Oscar does this is a matter for speculation. Dosa’s best theory has to do with ketones. They’re biochemicals with a distinct smell that is created when the body’s cells begin to degenerate, easily detectable by a cat with its keen sense of smell. But why is Oscar — and only Oscar — attracted to it?
“Obviously we’d love to be able to say that he’s helping the dying,” Dosa says. “That’s something we all hope for. We all have a fear of dying and the idea of a cat sitting with us and praying with us into the next life is something we all want. We’ve gotten a number of letters from people saying just that.”
Maybe Oscar likes the smell of ketones. But, Dosa say, Oscar also likes the nursing home residents.
“This is essentially his whole world,” Dosa says. “He has 40 family members on the floor. He wants to be with them when they’re in need.”
The need, apparently, is only at the end of their lives. Oscar is not that social a cat.
“This is not a cat that likes me,” Dosa says. “The first time he met me, he bit me.”
Oscar’s unsociable nature makes his death’s-door visits even more remarkable.
“You find him under a bed or behind a medicine cart. Like any cat you could probably bribe him if you wanted to see him.”
There’s some question whether the patients, all suffering from dementia, know Oscar is sitting with them. “I don’t know that they would know if a cat jumped on their bed,” Dosa says.
On the other hand, Dosa has seen surprising responses.
“Even with patients with terminal dementia, things get through. Patients who can’t hold a conversation or walk will light up when they see a baby on the floor. Music is another.”
Oscar may be a harbinger of death, Dosa says, but he’s also comfort to the living — especially family members. “They find comfort in having Oscar there,” Dosa say. As much time as family members may spend with a patient, Dosa says, it never seems enough. “It’s easier to leave knowing there is a cat sitting there.”
One clear benefit to Oscar’s presence is the notification of kin.
“Families always ask, ‘Should I fly my daughter out from California?’ It’s a very difficult question.”
Oscar makes the answer easy. Sometimes a dying person can hold on far longer than doctors expect. However, when Oscar visits a patient, the staff knows the patient hasn’t long to live. “Oscar has allowed us to be a little more responsive and to call family members.”
And family members appreciate that. A few of the obituaries of Steere House residents have mentioned that the person died in the company of their family and “Oscar the cat.”
“The cat has something to teach us,” Dosa says. “Death is a difficult time and Oscar being there at the end of life serves as a model for all of us. People see what they want to see in Oscar. But they definitely do seem to take some benefit from him and what he does. That in itself is amazing doctoring.”
brourke@projo.com
Source:projo.com/
At first this was just a curious observation. Now it’s an undeniable conclusion, first published two years ago in a medical journal and now in a new book coming out Tuesday: “Making Rounds with Oscar: The Extraordinary Gift of an Ordinary Cat.” (Hyperion, $23.99).
Oscar is the cat. David Dosa is the author and the doctor. And it would be a mistake to assume from the title that Oscar merely accompanies Dosa at Steere House in Providence, which cares for patients with terminal dementia.
“It’s definitely his world,” Dosa says. “He just lets us work there.”
Oscar lives at the nursing home. And in his roughly five years there, Oscar has sensed the imminent deaths of some 50 patients whom he insisted on sitting beside and keeping company as their lives came to a close.
“It’s not like he dawdles,” Dosa writes. “He’ll slip out for two minutes, grab some kibble, and then he’s back at the patient’s side. It’s like he’s literally on a vigil.”
Dosa is an assistant professor of medicine at Brown University. He has faith in science, not in a cat. Well, that was once the case. Dosa’s faith has been shaken.
“My own intellectual vanity made it easier for me to reject the notion that some errant feline could know more than we as medical staff did,” Dosa writes. “I felt strangely elated by the notion that I could be completely wrong.”
A few years ago Dosa realized he was completely wrong. Two patients on opposite sides of the nursing home were dying. A female staff member who earlier noticed Oscar’s aptitude to sense the onset of death took Oscar out of one patient’s room and brought him to the room of the other patient who was regarded as more deathly ill.
“She brought in this angry cat and put him on the bed,” Dosa says. “Oscar charged out of the room and immediately ran back to the other room. Oscar was right. That patient died that evening. The patient we thought would die first lived a couple of more days.”
Dosa could no longer deny Oscar’s ability. So Dosa didn’t. Instead, he told everyone. He wrote an article about Oscar that appeared in July 2007 in the New England Journal of Medicine. And suddenly, Oscar was national news.
Everyone knew about Oscar, certainly families using the services of Steere House.
“People would say, ‘Have you heard what this cat does?’ ” Dosa says. “Now there is this added sense of, ‘My God, Oscar is in the room. You know what that means.’ Families have taken it for what it’s worth, perhaps comfort for a loved one, but haven’t taken it overboard.”
Dosa is a geriatrician, not a veterinarian. However, he has had plenty of interaction with cats: Steere House has five besides Oscar.
“None of them do anything like this,” Dosa says. Their most interesting behavior is by one cat that likes to sleep on the bench of the lobby’s player piano.
“It makes it appear as though he’s playing,” Dosa says.
That’s nothing compared with Oscar appearing on the bed of a dying patient several hours before the patient dies.
Why Oscar does this is a matter for speculation. Dosa’s best theory has to do with ketones. They’re biochemicals with a distinct smell that is created when the body’s cells begin to degenerate, easily detectable by a cat with its keen sense of smell. But why is Oscar — and only Oscar — attracted to it?
“Obviously we’d love to be able to say that he’s helping the dying,” Dosa says. “That’s something we all hope for. We all have a fear of dying and the idea of a cat sitting with us and praying with us into the next life is something we all want. We’ve gotten a number of letters from people saying just that.”
Maybe Oscar likes the smell of ketones. But, Dosa say, Oscar also likes the nursing home residents.
“This is essentially his whole world,” Dosa says. “He has 40 family members on the floor. He wants to be with them when they’re in need.”
The need, apparently, is only at the end of their lives. Oscar is not that social a cat.
“This is not a cat that likes me,” Dosa says. “The first time he met me, he bit me.”
Oscar’s unsociable nature makes his death’s-door visits even more remarkable.
“You find him under a bed or behind a medicine cart. Like any cat you could probably bribe him if you wanted to see him.”
There’s some question whether the patients, all suffering from dementia, know Oscar is sitting with them. “I don’t know that they would know if a cat jumped on their bed,” Dosa says.
On the other hand, Dosa has seen surprising responses.
“Even with patients with terminal dementia, things get through. Patients who can’t hold a conversation or walk will light up when they see a baby on the floor. Music is another.”
Oscar may be a harbinger of death, Dosa says, but he’s also comfort to the living — especially family members. “They find comfort in having Oscar there,” Dosa say. As much time as family members may spend with a patient, Dosa says, it never seems enough. “It’s easier to leave knowing there is a cat sitting there.”
One clear benefit to Oscar’s presence is the notification of kin.
“Families always ask, ‘Should I fly my daughter out from California?’ It’s a very difficult question.”
Oscar makes the answer easy. Sometimes a dying person can hold on far longer than doctors expect. However, when Oscar visits a patient, the staff knows the patient hasn’t long to live. “Oscar has allowed us to be a little more responsive and to call family members.”
And family members appreciate that. A few of the obituaries of Steere House residents have mentioned that the person died in the company of their family and “Oscar the cat.”
“The cat has something to teach us,” Dosa says. “Death is a difficult time and Oscar being there at the end of life serves as a model for all of us. People see what they want to see in Oscar. But they definitely do seem to take some benefit from him and what he does. That in itself is amazing doctoring.”
brourke@projo.com
Source:projo.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
