The NY Times Catches Awards Fever
Dargis, Scott and Holden chime in on the Oscar Race
Though the Oscars are kind of a West Coast affair, the New York Times isn’t about to let the season go by without having its say. This year, with a special Oscar section in Sunday’s paper, The Gray Lady appears to be favoring advocacy over simple prognostication as the Oscar race begins to heat up. First off, the big three critics weigh in with pleas for films that haven’t exactly been lavished with awards attention so far this year.
Manohla Dargis goes to bat for Zodiac, singling it out for being “that rare American movie that doesn’t turn murder into kicks.” She goes on to say that the murders in the film “don’t serve the usual narrative functions” and that they “are not exploited to punch up the action.” I’ve been quietly crossing my fingers for a Zodiac nomination for some time now. After inexplicably releasing the movie in March, the studio followed up with a promising Oscar campaign early on and the film has even managed to catch some late critical attention.
A.O. Scott makes the case for Into the Wild. In it he sees the protagonist Chris McCandless as a conflicted soul who forms easy connections with other people, but is driven from them in a quest for solitude. Scott views his quest for a deeper truth both noble and tragic. Earlier this week, Kris Tapley of In Contention came right out and picked Into the Wild as his favorite to win. It seemed like a ballsy pick to me, but maybe Tapley and Scott are on to something.
In Across the Universe, Stephen Holden responds to the counterculture mix of “idealism and rage” surreally set to Beatles tunes by Julie Taymor. Holden would seem to be out on a limb with this one. Though the film has had its admirers, it’s also received more than its share of scorn.
In a separate graphic, the three critics then offer up not predictions, but their “ideal slate of Oscar candidates” in eight major categories. For Best Picture, Scott votes for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, I’m not There, Ratatouille and Into the Wild. Dargis picks There Will Be Blood, The Bourne Ultimatum 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, I’m Not There and Zodiac. Holden likes There Will Be Blood, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Starting Out in the Evening, No Country for Old Men and Across the Universe. Interestingly, no single film was picked by all three critics.
In additional articles, Caryn James takes a long look at George Clooney; Charles McGrath admires Keira Knightley; Dennis Lim examines the brilliant use (or lack) of sound in No Country for Old Men plus the terrific work of production designer Jack Fisk in There Will Be Blood; and finally Mark Harris dissects the editing race.
Last but not least, in addition to his yearly duties as The Carpetbagger, David Carr wonders what the writer’s strike might mean for awards season.
Filed under: Awards
Related Posts: - Awards-a-go-go
- Hey, tired of awards yet?
- Indiewire 2007 Critics Poll: There Will Be Blood
- Sight & Sound’s Top 10 Films of 2007
- Film Critics Ring In: LA, NY Online, Boston, and D.C.
It’s about time others noticed the stark minimalism of No Country for Old Men’s soundtrack. My goodness what a completely… absent soundtrack it is! If There Will Be Blood bolsters an eerie, inescapably powerful score, No Country’s essential lack of such a tool is just as interesting a device in its own way.
It’s funny how things develop on the Internet. Sweeney Todd comes out, consensus is AMPAS won’t bite for Johnny Depp, suddenly the story for Best Actor becomes Clooney vs. Day-Lewis, Movie Stah vs. Mr. Method.
Thanks for this virtual cornucopia of articles, Craig. I really felt nothing but cold indifference towards Across the Universe, but several smart people I know loved it to bits (partly, I suspect, because of their deification of the Beatles).
I remember the first time I saw No Country and I came back to write my review, I was trying to think about the score…I mean come on, it’s Carter Burwell…and I remembered nothing.
So when I went back to see it a 2nd time, I made special note to pay attention to the score. I got so wrapped up in the movie I forgot.
It was a ballsy move on the part of the Coens, and it works.
I never saw Universe either. I was actually tempted, but I kept hearing it was cliched and simplistic. I was kind of afraid I’d like it anyway…then I’d feel stupid and we can’t have that.
That is an excellent article on the sound design and score for No Country. It highlights yet another facet of the movie that goes completely against the grain of the genre conventions the Coens are deconstructing with No Country.
I also like Dargis’ appreciation of Zodiac. That’s another film from 2007 that will reward careful repeat viewings.
I can’t wait for the director’s cut DVD of Zodiac.
Wow, it’s truly bizarre that A.O. Scott thinks Sweeney should be nominated (and win) Best Picture, but he doesn’t have Burton in as director at all and he’s got Depp in the very last slot for Best Actor. That makes no sense to me.
Very varying choices between the three. Interesting articles. Thanks for posting, Craig!
I wonder if the slots are ranked by favorite. They’re definitely not alphabetical so I guess the only other choice would be random.
But then why did AO write specifically about Into the Wild if he liked Sweeney better?
Maybe he thinks that Sweeney deserves to win, but feels that Into the Wild may have a better shot.
Or maybe they just don’t want to put themselves on the line by truly favoring one film over another. I don’t know.
Alison, have you seen Sweeney yet? Can’t wait to finally hear what you personally think about it after being a stalwart prognosticator of its chances. Crikey, I find myself hoping it’ll be nominated for no other reson than to reward your championing.
“It’s about time others noticed the stark minimalism of No Country for Old Men’s soundtrack. My goodness what a completely… absent soundtrack it is! If There Will Be Blood bolsters an eerie, inescapably powerful score, No Country’s essential lack of such a tool is just as interesting a device in its own way.”
Beautifully summed up Alexander. And that’s a funny reflection Craig on how you kept “missing” the No Country score because the film was so absorbing.
Agree with you Joel. Zodiac is very much a film that likely rewards repeat viewings. I’ve only seen it once and thought it completely absorbing and offering up a satisfying ending.
Is anyone besides me clinging to a glimmer of optimism that Zodiac could actually pull more than a technical nom? I know it’s a long shot…
I would be thrilled if Zodiac got more than a technical nom, Craig, but I’m not counting on it.
No, I haven’t seen Sweeney yet, sartre, but a friend of mine (who I consider to be one of the smartest people I’ve ever known and whose tastes match mine usually) saw it. She is a big Johnny Depp fan. She didn’t like it and told me she couldn’t wait until the movie was over. She went as far as to suggest that I wait for it to come out on DVD. Also, she felt that Toby showed everyone else up.
She’s not a professional singer but she did start out as a vocal music major in college, and she’s an excellent musician and singer. To quote her: “They can all carry a tune. But that’s not enough for me.” She did concede that the acting was good, however for her it came down to an issue of them not doing justice to the music.
I have a feeling that I will have the same reaction. To be honest with you, sartre, I’m really not championing the movie at all. I genuinely believe, objectively, that it has a great chance. Or at least I did. A lot of the support for it is obviously fading, and right now things don’t look good. There are still a few more precursors to come, and it may fare very well in those. And they may jumpstart a campaign for the film that will push it right into the limelight again. We’ll see.
:-)
(kicking Sweeney to the curb) Go Zodiac!
Sadly, it ain’t got much precursor going for it. Missing out on critics groups awards and not getting anything at SAG. Cling to Glimmer if you will, or at least allow him to hold you up. But I don’t think our friend has the power to deliver the BP nomination.
He’s clinging to Lars and Finishing the Game anyway.
Truth be told, I’m tired of yakking about it. I just want them to announce the nominations so we can get down to business.
I don’t have an f’ing clue how it’s all going to shake out. I’m just chasing my own tail. Thinking in circles.
Yeah, enough already. But we do have the remaining guild awards to go - including the all important DGA.
I’m not much interested in the Globes. But will celebrate the No Country and likely DDL win (though if any group goes for Clooney it’s likely to be them).
re: the Globes: if an awards show is held in a forest and nobody watches…
Well Alison, if not your championing I hope it’s your objectivity that is rewarded.
I hope you don’t go with your trusted friend’s advice, and instead see it in the theater. It’s your responsibility as a Sultan to do so :-) and how can you confidently finalize your LIC top 10 list without seeing it soon?
That’s very true, sartre. I probably will see it in the theater. :-)
I’m pretty sure that both the Globes and the BFCA will go for Clooney over DDL. He’s the popular choice.
What’s truly striking is the way in which Clooney has won son many critics groups awards. For a while it was becoming monotonous, how he kept winning over and over.
Perhaps the Day-Lewis performance is so intense as to become divisive.
Well, I was thinking along the lines of these groups going for the more popular stars, Alexander. Clooney has taken several critics awards, but so has Day-Lewis, so I don’t know if that’s a good gauge. It indicates to me that they are both solidly in the running.
But I guess some people may not like intense, in a movie or a performance. Clooney is more subtle. Or the BFCA may go for someone else like Viggo Mortensen or Johnny Depp. Like Clooney, Johnny Depp is very popular.
As I’ve said before, never underestimate the power of the Clooney Mistique. It seems like everyone either wants to DO him or BE him….or both. He’s about as close as we have right now to the old time movie stars. He’s not in Cary Grant’s league, but he’s the best we’re going to get. I really think all he needs is to be ‘decent’ in a role and he has a leg up on everyone else.
Fans also really love Depp, but is he as embraced by the industry as Clooney seems to be?
I don’t know, Craig. People say the same thing about Depp. That everyone either wants to DO him or BE him…or both.
In one of her comments over at AD, Serena mentioned that George Clooney reminded her of Cary Grant in a way. Although I don’t think anyone will ever be in Cary Grant’s league (he DEFINED debonair and is one of the handsomest actors that ever graced the screen), I would say that Clooney is the one that comes the closest in our time. Whether one likes him as an actor or not, I don’t think anyone can deny that he’s distractingly good-looking, very stylish and extremely charismatic.
There are people who really hate him, but I don’t understand why, except that they resent him winning awards that they feel he is unworthy of receiving. But he seems to me like a nice, likable guy with a good sense of humor. I don’t find anything to hate about him and I do like watching him on screen. He may not be a chameleon actor, but he’s intelligent and committed in his performances and he projects a likable, downright charming persona on screen.
Maybe I’m just a victim of the Clooney Mystique.
“Maybe I’m just a victim of the Clooney Mystique”
You and me both sister, and being a boy he’s not even my type!
Perhaps I’ve underestimated Mr. Depp. I always had the sense that he was a bit of an industry outsider. He always bristled at the concept of being a ‘movie star’ where George seems to bathe in it while drinking champagne.
Anyway, yeah I hesitate to throw around Cary Grant references like they’re no big deal because no one will ever be Cary Grant. Ever.
Like I said, Clooney is as close as we’ve got, but movie stars are different now than they were back then, I think.
Well, I may be remembering wrong, but I believe that it was Mr. David Poland who originally commented that everyone wants to either DO Johnny Depp or BE him…or both. Or was it Tom O’Neil? It was definitely one of these guys. ;-)
I can see the comparison - both are debonair, handsome, charismatic and capable of playing sophisticated light comedy, farce/screwball, and drama (including darker characters). I’m sure Serena wouldn’t suggest they’re in the same league as actors though.
I admired Clooney’s courage to do a film like Good Night, and Good Luck at a time when America’s media was neglecting its responsibility as the 4th estate. And I think him a very fine actor and seemingly great guy.
But I personally prefer actors who bring more intellectual nuance to their performances or more instinctual emotional rawness. It’s not that he’s wanting on these fronts it’s just that he’s not quite at the highest level.
I don’t want to do or be George or Johnny, but I can see why others would.
Thanks for the shout out, Alison.
I’d DEFINITELY date either George or Johnny. I’m quite the fan of them both. They’re both gorgeous. Very hard to believe that Johnny’s over 40.
I love the fact that George was on all these lame TV shows early on. (But he was also on Roseanne. Which was actually good.) I know that people told him he was just handsome & he would never really have a decent shot. God knows good looking guys are a dime a dozen in LA. & there was nothing on his resume that showed that he was anything but a competent actor. At most. But he persisted regardless. He just refused to accept what people told him. The turning point was when he landed ER. He received such a magnificent payday that I’m positive from that point on he never had to work again.
But he did a truly amazing thing. With that financial freedom he decided that he was going to do interesting work that challenged him. Quality films that would leave their mark. He started working with Steven Soderburgh & they formed a production company. He grew & matured as an actor. Became a director. Actually won a VERY deserved Oscar for Syriana. Now he has a multitude of critics’ awards for Michael Clayton. George should be exceptionally proud of his performance & that picture.
I’ve been following the entertainment industry since I was a little kid & seeing at least 30 films annually since I was a teenager. This is one of the most incredible, unlikely reversals in modern movie history. But I’m happy for George. He worked hard for all this success. He’s a good guy.
Johnny is a whole different ball game. Sure, he started on crappy TV as well (21 Jump Street, anyone?) but he proved his brilliance early on. Johnny was far more than a flash in the pan. He stretched & transformed himself with each role. It’s a bloody shame that it took POTC to put him on the Academy’s radar when he could easily have been nominated for almost anything he did post Edward Scissorhands. He’s a unique, idiosyncratic talent. I’m just happy that he finally got to an appropriate level of recognition. I don’t think that he’ll win the Oscar for ST (something tells me he may not even make the cut). But he will win. SOON.
As for my thoughts on the critics….
I love Manohla. I think she’s fabulous. Stephen Holden is a guy I’m rather fond of. AO’s a decent writer.
I STILL see Lady Chatterley being talked up here. Did any of these three actually read DH Lawrence? Terrible movie with lousy performances IMO. About as sexy as some dude’s old gym socks. WTF is up with that?
*sigh*
I do like their choices in other categories besides BP.
I dig that Manohla loves Zodiac. She seems like the kind of person that would champion a film like that. She also has Robert Downey Jr., Fincher, James Vanderbilt’s sc & Jodie Foster (!!!!!) on her list.
AO is an Into The Wild fan, with citations for Emile, Sean as both director & screenwriter, Sidney Lumet, Julie Christie & Ellen Page.
Stephen Holden digs Marion, Julie, Ellen, Saoirse Ronan, Diablo’s Cody’s sc for Juno, as well as the screenplays for BTDKYD & Atonement.
Interesting mix…
It’s not that he’s wanting on these fronts it’s just that he’s not quite at the highest level.
I agreed. But I think I would add a “yet” to that. Michael Clayton is one of his best performances to date. I really think he will keep getting better and better. Also, I think he brought more emotional rawness to the role of Clayton than I’d ever seen him do before.
Often people are rewarded not for being better than anyone else but for being their best, and in the reviews of this film many critics pointed out that Clooney outdid himself in Michael Clayton. If the Academy decides to honor George for this reason, I’ll be a teensy bit disappointed that he beat out powerhouse performances like Day-Lewis and Mortensen. But I wouldn’t be angry or unhappy.
But again that may just be the effects of the Clooney Mystique.
sartre, you know me too well. I had to laugh when I saw your post immediately after I’d submitted mine. Though I do love both Mr. Depp & Mr. Clooney, they are clearly NOT in the same league as actors.
Too true…& you KNEW I was gonna say that. LOL
sartre, you strike me as too much of an individualist to want to be either of those illustrious gentleman.
But I’m curious. If this is too personal, pass it by with my compliments.
Is there ANYBODY (living or dead) in film that you admire to the point that you would want to be him?
I’m sure your answer (if you choose to give it) would be quite fascinating…
anyway…my refs to finishing the game is borrowed joke.
yeah i’d rather root for finishing the game than antonemnet or whatever. and refing ‘finishing’ is funnier than refing the ‘bucket list’.yeah i’m the only one that thinks this. but were have all the bucket list jokes gone ??/you’re all so fair weather. ha ha….
and no my beleoved craig…i’m clinging to bianca !!!!! :)
i neither want to do georeg clooney nor be him. i would like to do some of the females he’s done though. how about that for a plot twist ???? :)
viva your neighborhood geek kids.
really considering all the stuff i’m supposed to take seriously.’finishing the game’ doesn’t seem that bad. and i’m only 80% sincere when i say that.
but hey what geroge clooney say ?????
it’s so much about the looks etc. and when you’ve got the looks i guess the rest just works/and adults sure as hell won’t shut up about it.go adults. suffer the children/geeks..
the dream is over/the damage is done/f**k/you for playing along’
‘you never filp kisses on the letters you send/misery…is your only friend..’
considering my disinterest in george clooney/the clooney thing i guess that means he’s good. *yawn*
*ha ha*
i also don’t care about johnny depp.but i realize i’m not really a movie fan….
and yeah i’d be jus as annoyed if the do or be thing type comment had a female orgin point(beat that)
where the losers at ?? yeah i din’t think so.(beat that too)
I’m so comfortable in my own skin - flaws (and believe me there are too many to recount) and all that I wouldn’t want to be anyone but me. Plus, my wife loves me and life has given me nothing more precious - so how could I fantasize about being anyone else?
I sincerely believe that we’re all special (even the most damaged among us). And that learning to accept and love ourselves is a key to personal well-being and to the capacity to give and receive love.
I don’t mean to come across like a string of Hallmark card sentiments. But I think the keys to a more content and satisfying life in this respect aren’t that difficult to identify, it’s finding the right ways for each of us as individuals to reach them (or at least come close to them) that’s often hard.
Sorry, I don’t think this is particularly fascinating.
Alison, I’m afraid I agree with your friend about Sweeney Todd. Moulin Rouge and Chicago have demonstrated that you don’t need stellar singing voices to make a successful musical film, but Depp — and especially Bonham Carter — don’t make the cut, IMO. Ultimately, it’s about serving the material, and the material suffers in this case. For that reason alone, I reject the notion that Tim Burton should be nominated. Casting is such an important factor, and Burton erred here.
I find the comparisons of Clooney to Cary Grant quite ironic but certainly apt. Grant was a complete construct. He created himself from head to toe to serve his image. Don’t get me wrong, I believe he was an incredible talent. But the times (1930s) demanded that he not be himself in order to survive the conservatism that swept Hollywood (and the country) in the early 1930s. Prior to that, he lived pretty openly as a gay man, both in New York and then later in LA. Grant was one of the few major stars willing and able to make the required transformation. Others included Gary Cooper and Robert Taylor. Those who did not included Ramon Navarro and William Haines. Some might say that Navarro and Haines failed because they couldn’t survive the evolution to talkies, but that’s no true; it was how they chose to deal with their sexuality that ruined their careers.
There are many who contend that Clooney is gay, thus solidifying comparisons to Grant. Though that’s possible, all I can do is speculate on that point. He certainly is well-liked, however, and his politics and intelligence (and did I mention classically handsome appearance?) have a lot to do with his popularity.
The one to watch is Ryan Gosling. I absolutely loved his performance in Lars and the Real Girl. Although I admit I caught him acting a couple of times early in the film, he’s young enough to improve on that. This guy has serious potential.
Pierre, I have it on very good authority that George is, AT THE VERY LEAST, bisexual. He had a short early marriage to Martin Balsam’s actor daughter, Talia - & then swore he would never marry again. (Kinda convenient, right? Rock Hudson did much the same thing.)
The things that I keep hearing is that’s pretty much the reason that George bought that villa in Italy. He wanted a shot at conducting his private life away from prying eyes. Which is his right & I support that totally.
Can’t help saying it & it’s just a straight woman’s perspective but…
I’ve always had dear friends of all different types & varieties of sexual persuasions, races, religions etc. The only thing my broad base of acquaintances & close pals has in common is that they’re wonderful people & that they treat me well.
I am completely cognizant that the film & TV industries are completely built on the basis of illusion. But I wish sincerely (& mightily) that we had evolved as a society to a point where people could be themselves, love whom they choose, live their lives without fear of reprisals - & STILL HAVE THEIR CAREERS.
I am aware that Europeans are supposedly less uptight about this than North Americans. But still…
Certainly we have made great strides. There are gay characters on TV now. Not in any great number. But some. Some actors (like Sir Ian) have had their careers thrive after coming out. But this is (unfortunately) the exception & not the rule.
I can’t help it. Maybe it’s because I operate from the absolute principle of fairness - & it pains me deeply to have good people persecuted for something they can not help. You are who you are…& that’s it as far as I’m concerned.
I’m a HUGE Cary Grant fan. Despite the multiple marriages, I heard ceaseless rumours about him. Even after his death. The poor man. That must’ve been a horrible way to live.
Well, it is the beginning of a new century. Perhaps things will change. I bloody well hope so. For the people that I love, it couldn’t come soon enough…
Favorite Cary Grant: His Girl Friday
I LOVE HGF. I own it.
He & Roz were brilliant in that. Pierre & I had a discussion over at AD re comedic performances vs straight dramatic acting. HGF is pretty much the epitomy of the former. I think it should be studied by every aspiring film actor. Everything you need to know is right there in front of you…
But I also dig Holiday & The Philadelphia Story - & I own them too.
I’ve always adored Holiday. Cary & Kate have a real spark in that - & she’s very sweet & likable. She has a tendency to come off as brittle & intimidating - as attractive & marvelously talented as she was.
She didn’t have as many scenes with Cary in TPS. That was Jimmy’s show.
But Holiday’s a treasure. Lew Ayres was pretty damned adorable in that too.
Oh, Holiday! What a wonderful movie! My favorite Cary Grant/Kate Hepburn movie, even though I did love The Philadelphia Story.
I also have a deep love of Notorious. Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. They were sexy without even kissing.
ahhh..Notorious. With the extra added side bonus of Claude Rains.
And Holiday is a classic. The Philadelphia Story goes without saying, but I just got finished saying it the other day.
I know it’s not taken seriously by the intellectual types, but one of my favorite Hitchcocks is To Catch a Thief with Cary Grant and the impossibly beautiful Grace Kelly.
Craig, I LOVE To Catch a Thief. It’s funny and classy, Grace’s outfits are THE BOMB and Grant is as debonair as ever. And he had wonderful comedic talents as well.
I don’t consider Notorious one of Hitchcock’s best film, but it is my second favorite. Shadow of a Doubt is the first. Claude Rains is fantastic, and even though he’s a “villain type” he’s really a victim as well and you feel sorry for him at the end. Grant and Bergman sizzle on screen. That scene on her balcony when they’re nuzzling each other? One of THE HOTTEST movie moments in my opinion.
And speaking of Grace Kelly, I also loved Rear Window. More great outfits. :-)
Thief. Seriously! Hanging out in the Riviera being all suave and debonair. Come on!
I WOULD say Notorious is among Hitch’s best. So there! I feel sad for Claude, though you start out thinking he’s a creep. And Grant is such a jerk to Ingrid! That was pretty harsh. But yeah. The balcony. Proof that less is more and movies have never really been the same.
Rear Window was the first time I realized I loved old movies when I was a kid, so yeah, it’s my favorite Hitchcock. Don’t even have to think twice about it. And don’t forget Thelma Ritter.
Shadow of a Doubt is a good one too. Probably one of his creepiest. Joseph Cotten as bad guy is brilliant casting.
Shadow of a Doubt is my absolute favorite of his films. The whole Charlie and Uncle Charlie dynamic is fantastic, and the film is very subtle and psychological.
Notorious is my second favorite, and it is a great film. But for me, his best were Shadow of a Doubt, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief and Psycho. To Catch a Thief, though not as serious as some of his other pictures, was extremely well-made and entertaining. Psycho was genius in my opinion. It’s more than just a textbook criminal psychology case. There are so many layers to Janet Leigh’s character, and even to Norman Bates, though we only see it in one small scene. I think Hitchcock may have been one of the first directors to cast someone famous and beautiful like Janet Leigh and kill them off within the first hour of the film.
I love Hume Cronyn in Shadow.
To Catch a Thief seems so light and effortless, I don’t think people think of how much effort goes into making it that way. It may not be pushing the boundaries of cinema, but it’s some terrific artists at the top of their game.
I think it’s hard to appreciate Psycho in this day and age unless you take it in the context it was made. So very revolutionary the way the audience’s expectations are subverted at every turn, especially Janet getting bumped off.
Hume Cronyn was awesome!
I actually think there is more to Psycho than that. Yes, Hitchcock’s psychological analyses of the criminal mind were very oversimplified. But there is a lot to the characters, I think. Janet Leigh’s character is complex and touching. She errs because her life situation is frustrating and she sees stealing the money as the only way out of her bind. After speaking with Bates she decides to go back and return the money, and face the consequences. She’s going to redeem herself and gets snuffed out before she can. I just find it touching. And there are many aspects to the movie that are like that.
Maybe I’m reading too much into it. Anyway, I do like Psycho very much. And the first time I watched the movie it scared the hell out of me.
Notorious is one of my all time favorite films - a desert island pick.
My favorite Grant/Hepburn is Bringing Up Baby. But all the films cited here are wonderful. I agree Craig, Joseph Cotton (always good) was amazing in the role.
No I think you’re right on Alison. There are a million subtleties and nuances going on there, but I think it’s easy for someone from today who doesn’t watch a lot of old movies to look at it and wonder what all the fuss is about.
The interplay between Norman and Marion when she first comes in out of the rain… He’s childlike, but creepy.
sartre, I LOVE Bringing Up Baby. The two of them were so funny in that movie. And Cotton was always great. In Shadow of a Doubt he was truly scary. And I loved The Third Man.
Craig, Norman Bates almost seems nice when she first comes in out of the rain. Then he gets creepier as they keep talking and he instantly changes when she suggests that he “send her somewhere”. The first hint of the possible menace that lurks there.
I agree Alison that Hitchcock draw too much on the oversimplifications of Freudian psychology. But at least he was exploring icky psychological territory at a time when others seemed reluctant or unable to do. Like Craig, I agree with your take on Janet Leigh’s performance and character.
Agree with you on Bringing Up Baby, Sartre. Hawks was a master with comedy. Particularly dialogue.
I have to say I think the only famous Cary Grant film I’m not a huge fan of is Arsenic and Old Lace. I haven’t seen it for a long time, but it seems kind of shrill. Doesn’t appeal to me the way the other ones do.
Arsenic and Old Lace was funny, but it is pretty shrill. It’s not one I could watch again and again, unlike Bringing Up Baby.
Hawks is definitely a master with comedy and dialogue, Craig. One of my favorite films of all time is directed by him: To Have and Have Not. Bogey and Lauren. And Hoagy Carmichael, playing and singing his own songs. A real treat.
It’s not a classic but I still enjoy Arsenic and Old Lace. If only the Coens’ Ladykillers was as good a farcial black comedy :-)
There are some very, very funny moments in Arsenic and Old Lace, sartre. It just gets to be shrill and over-the-top in many parts. To me, anyway.
Ahhh yes, Hoagy Carmichael as Cricket singing Am I Blue.
Jeez, talk about sexy. Bogie and Bacall in that movie.
“Anybody got a match?”
Some of the Best.Lines.Ever in that film. I love when Hoagy sings “Hong Kong Blues”. What a great song.
Yes I wouldn’t kick Arsenic out of bed for getting crumbs in the sheets, but I don’t think it transcends its stage roots the way Philadephlphia Story and Holiday did.
You know, I used to mostly watch old movies. One of the drawbacks of writing about them is I have less time for it. I keep meaning to work more older movies into the site, but I haven’t gotten it off the ground.
Their onscreen chemistry was so palpable!
Seriously, didn’t they have to invent non-flammable film stock because of those two?
I’m gonna play devil’s advocate & say that I didn’t care for Notorious at all. A lot of people love it. I saw it some years ago on my birthday in the afternoon before the big annual celebration.
I was very disappointed. There’s a lot of overt sexism in that picture. They do everything but brand a big red A on Ingrid’s forehead - & it’s completely undeserving.
Hitchcock may have been a good filmmaker. He may have loved blondes. *sniffs* But I think that man had a lot of issues with women that he tried desperately to work out in his art. What Tippi Hedren says about his obsession with her & how he tried to ruin her career speaks volumes.
But I adore The Third Man & I do own the Criterion version. I fell madly in love with Joseph Cotten in that. Now that’s a FILM…
How can you miss with a combination like Trevor Howard, Orson Welles & the aforementioned Mr. Cotten? Alida Valli was so beautiful in that. That melancholy zither haunts my dreams. So does that gorgeous b&w cinematography.
I could go on for pages. Sir Carroll was a genius…
Oh, yeah. I own To Have & Have Not as well. I recall Lauren talking in her autobiography about how she was an innocent, sheltered 18 year old that knew nothing about men or life.
Greatly impressive debut - & incredible acting. She really pulled that off. Quite the iconic stunner she was….
It’s true that there is a lot of overt sexism in Notorious, Serena, and Hitchcock certainly did have his issues. Many of them. But to me that aspect of the film is a reflection of the times and the double standards that were imposed on men and women. And unfortunately that was the attitude toward women who didn’t keep themselves virginal until they got married.
That aspect of the film doesn’t bother me the way it bothers you. I take it for what it is. But I can understand how it would rub you the wrong way.
mmmm…Valli.
I don’t deny that Hitch had issues with the womenfolk, but I didn’t feel like he was looking down on Bergman’s character. If anyone comes across negatively, it’s Grant through most of the last part of the picture. She’s punished by the characters in the movie, but she’s where our sympathies lie.
Very true, Craig. We really do sympathize with her. Grant’s character is an absolute jerk for a lot of the film and he’s absolutely cruel to her.
“I was a fat-headed guy in a lot of pain.”
Stil, we agree Hitch wasn’t exactly known for being nice to his leading ladies. Right?
Absolutely.
I agree Serena that Hitchcock had a misogynous streak and one with a weird sexual kink. But such subtexts could make for a certain richness of characterization and a pervasive mood of psychological unease. I understand and respect your reaction to the film’s sexist attitudes but for me, like Alison, I accept that it is a depiction of the world as it existed at the time. Who knows how future generations might look back and find fault in our contemporary social and gender mores. Among the things I find particularly striking about the film are Grant’s and Bergman’s performances – the former so subtle, dark and manipulative yet with clear indications of powerful romantic feelings, compassion, and self-loathing (you can see Grant’s character battling with himself) and the latter layered and painfully vulnerable. Reacting to his withholding of romantic feelings with bruised neediness and ultimately self sacrifice. I also admire how it captured an aspect of male psychology so powerfully – how men can find hardboiled barriers to accessing and acting upon their hearts. How they allow the sweetest rose to fall and be lost. Bergman’s character ultimately proved true to herself and courageous. The Grant character’s self-denial, putting ideals before his heart, showed him to be a tragic and unsympathetic figure.
I don’t think I’ll ever like Notorious, sartre. As much as I adore Cary. I really love Claude Rains as well. Completely superb character actor in a ton of great & intriguing movies.
Particularly Lawrence Of Arabia. “On the whole, I think I’d rather stay in Tumbridge Wells.” LOL
This is the point that I was making before. People don’t necessarily have to agree. Not even with me. If there is an intelligent subtext to their argument then I don’t mind that they’re not on my side of the fence.
I genuinely enjoy hearing other peoples’ opinions. They just have to be able to back it up with some intellectual discourse. As long as I can comprehend where they’re coming from, I don’t have a problem with it.
Thank you, sartre. Your explanation was beautiful - & it makes a great deal of sense…
I could be deluded.
LMAO
Very doubtful IMO, dear heart…
“He’s delightful, he’s deluded, he’s delovely”
Hee hee…
Are you still up?
I’ve had all kinds of nonsense I’ve had to finish. It just piled up. So that’s why I haven’t been away from my computer. Or doing something more interesting somewhere else.
*shakes head*
Some night…
I”ve been sitting here not writing a review of Persepolis. I have a long day tomorrow so I should be in bed.
Hmmm…That’s too bad. I was gonna suggest something. But I’ll leave it for another night.
Let you get some rest.
I’m SUCH a generous chick…
Stephen Holden, aka ‘the guy who isn’t A.O. or Manohla’, loses major cred with me for supporting Across the Universe, which I mostly hated.
I just rewatched To Have and Have Not and The Big Sleep this weekend. They’re both great, but I was surprised at how well THaHN holds up despite its relatively lesser reputation. It’s a pure Hawks movie, a bare skeleton of a plot fleshed out with a series of brilliant, sultry scenes with great dialogue between Bogart and Bacall (and Walter Brennan too) and featuring Hawks’ subtle philosophizing about life.
On the other hand, I’ve never warmed to The Philadelphia Story. It struck me as painfully stagebound and just kind of tedious. I need to revisit it, though.
Oh, and Hitchcock - he had a misogynist streak, but he also loved women, and he loved his women characters. Bergman in Notorious, Teresa Wright in Shadow of a Doubt, Kim Novak in Vertigo, Janet Leigh in Psycho, Tippi Hedren in The Birds and Marnie - all victimized by men, but Hitchcock was aware of it and was sympathetic to their plights even as he was the instigator of said plights.
Well, gee, I go out on the town and see There Will Be Blood for the second time at the arthouse in Mill Valley (sartre will know where I’m talking about, I reckon) and look what I miss.
I just want to comment and say that I love all the films mentioned in this thread thus far.
Save The Ladykillers. ;-) (It’s “okay,” though. I can forgive the Coens for almost anything.)
In defense of Hitchcock, while it’s transparently clear that he had his own “issues” with women in general, and particularly mother figures, I see his films as his way of wrestling with those issues. Much of his art serves as auto-critique in my estimation. I made this case during a Hitchcock course when Vertigo was being discussed. “Oh, isn’t James Stewart such a bastard to Kim Novak,” people wailed. A female student sitting near me asked me what I thought of Vertigo, since she had never seen it, before it was screened. For some ineffably impulsive reason, I said, “It’s a sick, twisted film. A truly great sick, twisted film, though.” Once it was over she looked at me and said, “You were right.”
Hitchcock’s films seem to be on their first and most basic level deceptively simple tales of icy blondes and authoritarian mothers whose comeuppance came over and over in one way or another (especially for the blondes). And it’s doubtless true that his handling of actresses often crossed the line between being a dictatorial director and being an outright ugly bully. Yet, as Hitchcock was influenced by his Catholicism, I find it particularly apparent in his work the need to atone (you’ll like this one several levels, Serena… ;-)…) and make out of his own obsessions and fears legitimately entertaining films.
So, when Cary Grant or James Stewart mistreats the Hitchcockian archetype (and how ironic and interesting that Howard Hawks is mentioned frequently in this thread as well as Hitchcock, as they both explored female archetypes which, in the case of Hitchcock–domineering, possessive and/or sexually destructive in a cerebral, typically untrustworthy way—he routinely found repellant but fascinating, depicting it in a harsh, febrile manner and in the case of Hawks–the spunky chick who wants to hang out with the guys–an archetype with which he was in sempiternal love) I consider it Hitchcock’s only way in dealing with his own animus and sexual paranoia.
Take Notorious for example, since it’s being discussed the most. The element at work is that, at a certain point, neither the Grant nor Bergman characters want to say what they need to say to the other character for the sake of their own being and their relationship–and each one is waiting for the other to say their part, and neither is willing, so neither does. (This scene concludes with the dinner “becoming cold.”)
While Hitchcock’s perspective may be masculine, he’s willing to look from the woman’s point of view (both literally with his camera and, in a narrative sense, figuratively). It’s no coincidence that as the Stewart character in Vertigo becomes less and less balanced, our sympathy gradually shifts to Kim Novak’s. Irony of ironies, this may be one of the reasons why Vertigo was the rare Hitchcock box office underperformer in 1958–for its sexual “progressiveness,” so to speak. Many audiences were stunned to see Stewart behave so maniacally, and the tilt in natural sympathies towards the feminine character was less fitting and suitable in the late 1950s than it would be today. It’s one of the basic reasons, it seems, that the film and its message were largely unrecognized for a while.
Tying this post’s conclusion to its beginning, I can say I was wrong in my assumption that I would love There Will Be Blood 50% more the second time I saw it.
I love it 500% more.
To paraphrase The Kinks, Alexander, you really got me going now.
I’ll respond to your many points as I go down the list.
I heard that Hitch had a thing for gorgeous blondes cuz he was rather obsessed with one who wouldn’t give him the time of day & that she broke his heart irrevocably. I have no idea if it’s true cuz I didn’t get it from a reliable source. But that COULD explain why they featured so prominently in his filmography. I’m a student of human behaviour. sartre has the training. All I’ve got is my intuition & my *ahem* life experience. But I’m sure my lovely kiwi friend would agree that that is a way of playing out that conflict. Over & over. Considering that some of Hitch’s films had happy endings it’s a way of drawing it to an acceptable conclusion that escaped him in reality.
I don’t think much of him as a person. But some truly brilliant filmmakers have terrible reputations as people. I think the sun rises & sets on David Lean & he was supposed to be a real SOB. So I’ll put my feelings on Hitch the person aside.
Vertigo is a masterpiece. I think that’s the only Hitchcock that I own. I was horribly offended the first time I saw it. But I didn’t watch it from the beginning. I had to keep reminding myself that it was filmed in 58 otherwise I might’ve done something drastic. *rolls eyes*
When I saw it again from the start it all fell into place. Scotty’s obsessed. Bloody well close to a breakdown when he loses Madeleine. When he meets Judy the cycle starts all over again. But I felt sorry for the guy. He’s not a sexist prick. He’s wounded. Terrified that it’s all gonna go down the same way. It’s so beautifully photographed with those bright vivid colours. But I felt a deep sense of dread early on when I first watched it. (I didn’t miss enough of the beginning that I didn’t get a concrete idea of what was to come.) I had the identical feeling within the first few minutes of Atonement.
Vertigo is masterful…& inevitable.
I thought Rebecca was equally excellent. I only saw it once so my impressions are not vivid. But it WAS incredible. I’ll have to see it again soon. People have said that it’s the film that’s most unlike the rest of his output. I guess that’s cuz Selznick produced it - & he was more of an auteur than many directors of his era.
I didn’t know that Hitch was Catholic. You got me there, pal.
Truly great analysis. Nicely done, Alexander. You’re deep…& that’s always intriguing. I love it when people highlight stuff or go into detail regarding perspectives that I have yet to consider. Intellectual fervour is most important - & it’s kinda rare these days.
You’re certainly making a contribution in terms of intelligent discourse, honey. I’m so proud of you….
Well, I’m seeing TWBB on the weekend. FINALLY. I have no idea what I’ll think of it. None whatsoever. I liked Hard Eight (in spite of Paltrow - if she never worked again I wouldn’t miss her), worshipped Boogie Nights (& bought it), dug Magnolia (in spite of its oddness) & LOATHED PDL.
DDL is pretty much a god that can do no wrong as far as I’m concerned. I don’t want to get my hopes up, though. I’ve loved a lot of things this year & there weren’t many films that didn’t live up to my expectations.
Gonna keep an open mind. But I’ll know one way or another.
Soon enough….
Thank you all for your different perspectives on Hitchcock. That was interesting.
Did you find with TWBB Alexander that the first time you just kind of reacted to it as it had its way with you, but the second time you could really pay attention and be a more active viewer?
This was my response. It’s not so much that I missed things the first time around (though I did), it’s more that I didn’t have a chance to process it all as it was unfolding.
Seeing it again, knowing how it’s going to play out, it all starts to fall into place.
Jeffmcm, all I can say by way of defending Philadelphia Story is that I think it succeeds or fails completely on the personalities of the cast…which are considerable.
Serena, thank you for both your kind words and thoughts about Hitchcock. Your description of Vertigo’s characterizations are quite true and important for people to understand.
I agree that The Philadelphia Story’s stagebound but it’s one of those stagebound ’30s/’40s films that feels all that much stronger for it. Cukor seemed more at home with that kind of film and his strenghts come through in that film. Though James Stewart won for that (as payback for losing the year before for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) it’s Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn who shine. Grant’s performances, in films such as The Philadelphia Story, His Girl Friday and Notorious, are beyond reproach.
Craig, everything you said regarding There Will Be Blood is exactly right. The film felt dramatically less “unreachable” after seeing it a second time. It moved even faster, and the 2 hours and 35 minutes is utilized as economically as possible. This time I realized there was not a single wasted minute. Truly brilliant filmmaking. Like you, this time I was able to actually process everything, crystalizing just how powerful and–in a magnificent way–ruthless it actually is.
It does me good to hear you loving the movie Alexander.
DGA noms are in. PTA made the cut.
So did Schnabel!
I know! But this was TWBB-centric discussion I was coming in on, so I kept things pithy and relevant. :-)
Pith and relevanth are overrated thithter!
You don’t have to tamp down your enthusiams here Alison. It’s a place to celebrate them and shout them from the rooftops. I hope.
Julian Schnabel! Julian Schnabel! Julian Schnabel!!!
atta girl