Cinema Hype

U.S. soldiers face
off against girl in glasses
for gold statuette.

Hollywood and Highland may be your basic mall/Hare Krishna magnet 364 days of the year, but the red carpet and the giant golden statues are probably just about ready by now. Oscar night is this Sunday, and while CH will be tending more towards sweats-and-slippers chic than, say, the free-million-dollar-jewels look, the bloggish coverage will make you feel like you’re standing on the rope line. Or at least like you’re on the couch, sharing our popcorn.

Fairy tales are common fodder for movies these days–from Into the Woods-style updates to a recent film about the Brothers Grimm, studios and audiences seem to agree that classic stories bear telling and re-telling. The Oscar-nominated film Pan’s Labyrinth is a fairy tale, but not the kind you’d bring your kids to: rich with archetypal images and story devices, it’s a fairy tale as they were meant to be–lush, dark, and with no guarantee of anybody living happily ever after.

Pan’s Labyrinth follows Ofelia (Ivana Baquero), a young girl, to the country home of her wicked stepfather Sergi Lopez), one of Franco’s generals in the Spanish Civil War. There she finds an ancient labyrinth in the woods and enters into a kind of imaginary (or is it?) parallel world, complete with a hero’s quest meant just for her.

The world of the labyrinth is no “over the rainbow” kind of place–it’s dark, dangerous, and full of otherworldly creatures, none of whom are all that friendly. There is an unpredictable kind of peril in the labyrinth. But that’s more or less the point: Director Guillermo del Toro plays up the weirdness with visuals that are stunning in concept and in execution, so that even the most off-putting images are fascinating (a certain gaunt, flabby, eyes-in-his-hands creature comes to mind here). Everything is a little bit frightening, a with a little bit of a sense of danger, but also an appealing kind of sheen.

The spectacular macabreness of the labyrinth, however, is only part of the story. It’s an element of contrast: the imaginary world is unnerving, but Ofelia’s real life is so grim and her stepfather so frightening that time spent in the labyrinth is a relief. del Toro’s portrayal of Captain Vidal is as harsh and as efficient as a punch to the gut–he wastes no time in displaying the extent of the Captain’s capacity for violence. Pan’s Labyrinth is graphically gory, but the brutality is necessary for reasons of both plot and tone. Blood is an important part of many fairy tales, and any war story is bound to include bloodshed as a matter of course. The gore also raises the pitch of the movie, making it feel all the more chaotic and Ofelia’s situation all the more dire.

The basic elements of Pan’s Labyrinth are all strong, but what sets it apart and makes it truly satisfying is that the fairy-tale theme doesn’t end with the weird creatures. Much of what we see is familiar, even in its bizarreness, and del Toro weaves it all together beautifully in the end. He makes everything count and works with what he has in unexpected ways, honoring the roots of his chosen genre but not retreading the same ground over and over. The result is Grimm-ian: dark, possibly depressing, but with a kind of self-contained logic that a fairy tale reader can appreciate.

The upshot: Violent, but worth it. Just beautiful. Also, look out for the super-fantastic eye-hand guy!

Pan’s Labyrinth, Guillermo del Toro, Oscars

The award shows just keep multiplying, don’t they? They’re like bunnies. (Incidentally, my Tivo now thinks I love award shows, and records eighteen copies of whatever it can find to fill my insatiable need: BET awards, the Country Music Awards…whatever.) Oscar nominees were announced Tuesday; the line-up looks pretty standard, with perhaps a few surprises and many, many not-surprises.

CH will offer commentary, predictions, and cool-headed analysis in the coming weeks; for now, we’ll just offer a hearty congratulations and a little bit of advice to Abigail Breslin, who’s up for Best Supporting Actress and possible membership in the Temple-Paquin Young Oscar-Winner’s Club: Just Say No To The Beret. Got it?

Oscars, Abigail Breslin

Looking at the list of nominees for the Golden Globes back in December, I found myself focusing on the Best Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture category. Four of the five nominees were serious ack-tors, women who surely could have expected to win (Sorry, Beyonce! You understand, don’t you?). But I found myself disappointed. These women could play those roles in their sleep, I thought. The performances were strong, certainly: there was not a stinker in sight among Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada, Renee Zellweger in Miss Potter, Annette Bening in Running with Scissors, and Toni Collette in Little Miss Sunshine. But when it comes to awards, how do we quantify a strong performance that isn’t an obviously transformative one?

It’s not that any of those actors phoned their performances in, or that they put less than the required amount of effort into their roles. I’m sure there was thought and emotional preparation that went into those performances, and according the HPFA, the resulting work was worthy of an award. But haven’t we seen Streep as villainous-but-vulnerable before? Does Zellweger have to work especially hard to be spirited (accent notwithstanding)? And does it matter? What should go into the equation for an award-winning performance–do the difficulty of the role and the talent of the actor be considered factors?

When a role is dramatically different from an actor’s usual persona–Charlize Theron in Monster, say–the extra challenge usually wins the actor brownie points, and maybe an awards-show victory. This is where the theory of “uglifying” for a role began, as beautiful women started taking physically unattractive roles and then watching their careers take off. If a role is clearly a stretch, a makes sense. It’s the less flashy, truly “supporting” roles that come into play here: What makes a performance good, if an actor isn’t required to use his or her full range?

What do you think, readers?

Watching awards shows at my house is the best. Really. I mean, there’s a couch, there are these really comfortable slippers, there are snarky comments, there are…okay, actually, that’s all there is. But, obviously, CH Headquarters are the place to be for all things Globe-y. And since I can’t just keep everyone on the phone while I watch, I thought I’d try to replicate the experience as much as possible. Just try to imagine us on the sofa of your choice with a huge bowl of popcorn between us. It’ll all come to you, I swear. So without further ado, CH watches the Golden Globes:

Way to start with The Clooney. He doesn’t even need a co-presenter. Everyone wins!

Jennifer Hudson, I don’t know you at all, but I like your acceptance speech very much. Congratulations, you.

The “Best Song” category is always weird and jarring, because the pop songs they play over the credits are always weird and jarring.

Dude, Justin, way to stand there and look awkward. They don’t call you Mr. Smooth for nothing, do they?

I’m sorry, but being Miss Golden Globe has to be embarrassing. “I’m not nominated for anything, I’m not really in anything, and you only know me because of my parents, but I sure can wear a flesh-tone dress!”

I only love Kyra Sedgwick because she was in Heart and Souls with Robert Downey, Jr.

Aww, Sarah Paulson lost. I mean, obviously. But still.

“I am speechless. I am literally without a speech.” Hugh Laurie, I’m charmed.

If Emilio Estevez wins any kind of major award for Bobby, I will just die. Die, I tell you. Isn’t he off in Minneapolis, coaching a down-on-their-luck hockey team?

I work down the street from Pixar. Do you think John Lasseter would give me a CH Exclusive? One where I wouldn’t have to make up both sides of the dialogue?

Meryl Streep wins! Jaws everywhere…don’t drop. Way to rock the dress and glasses, Meryl. Dorothy Parker would have dug you; also, Tina Fey.

I’m happy for Eddie Murphy. The 90s were rough on him, I think.

Hey, Cameron, have you ever seen Firefly? Love the dress.

What? Ugly Betty over The Office and Weeds? I love America Ferrera a lot, but…*sniff* You can’t handle the truth.

Hugh Grant, for future reference, I recommend that you wear a hat when you ride in a convertible. I believe you’ve seen Bridget Jones’s Diary?

America (Ferrera), can I be your best friend? We will have sleepovers and eat popcorn and talk about boys, and it will be excellent.

Sacha Baron Cohen, I’m still trying to Q-tip your movie out of my brain, but you completely deserve this award, and not just because Ken Davitian sat on your face. Just so you know.

Dreamgirls. Did I call it? I called it. CH represent, yo.

That guy made a movie about soul music in the 1960s? I guess if a Cambridge graduate can create a movie about a Kazakh moron, I should just shut up now.

Filliam H. Muffman! That’s all I have to say about that. Oh, except that I love her enormous dress.

….Forest Whitaker? Really? Am I in the right place? Also: Eat that, Leo! Heh.

Oh. Oh, my. Is that….? Is that….my governor? That’s….a little embarrassing.

Babel. Eh. I wish I could roll my Rs like Inarritu, though. I bet I know what kind of potato chips he eats.

Oh. Arnold, you did not just say that. YOU’RE THE GOVERNOR. Stop with the impressions of yourself, or I’m moving to Nevada. Don’t think I won’t!

One down, one to go. Well played, all.

Golden Globes, Sacha Baron Cohen, America Ferrerra, Meryl Streep, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jennifer Hudson

Before we get far into this whole awards-show-season business, I feel that it’s only fair to confess something: I am a bad-luck charm. I’m like an interfering signal, cutting off all hope of victory for anybody in my path. I make professional sports teams lose, just by showing up for the game. My political voting record is terrible. And nobody I choose ever wins at entertainment awards shows. Don’t vote with me, or your picks will clearly lose.

That said, Cinema Hype would not be very hype-y about cinema without a few awards predictions. Silence does not become me. So, acknowledging that my choices will likely not be approaching the podium tonight, I offer CH’s choices for the 2007 Golden Globe awards:

Best Motion Picture - Drama:

Babel
Bobby
The Departed
Little Children
The Queen

CH Pick: The Departed
I’m at a bit of a disadvantage here, having (somewhat embarrassingly) not seen several of the choices. To some extent, this category is also comparing apples and oranges: what kind of comparison can we really make between The Queen and The Departed? I’m giving Martin Scorsese the silent treatment until he refunds the three hours I spent on Gangs of New York–hours I could have spent doing something, anything, else–but I’m working on letting go of that grudge.

Who Might Actually Win: Babel or The Departed

Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Borat
The Devil Wears Prada
Dreamgirls
Little Miss Sunshine
Thank You For Smoking

CH Pick: Dreamgirls
If this were a movies-I-want-to-watch-over-and-over-again contest, Little Miss Sunshine would win, hands down. Let the record reflect that the CH staff has nothing but affection for Olive Hoover and her family. However, I can’t in good conscience pick LMS for Best Picture: while I love it personally, there’s a looseness to the screenplay–a pacing thing, maybe–that keeps me from nominating it. I like the size and elaborateness of Dreamgirls; also, I wasn’t totally wild about Borat, Prada or Smoking. Dreamgirls it is.

Who Might Actually Win: Dreamgirls or Little Miss Sunshine, if the foreign press is feeling indie-friendly this year

Best Director - Motion Picture

Clint Eastwood - Flags of Our Fathers
Clint Eastwood - Letters from Iwo Jima
Stephen Frears - The Queen
Alejandro Inarritu - Babel
Martin Scorsese - The Departed

CH Pick: Well, who knows? Do I really want to vote for Scorsese? It’s like voting for the most popular girl in school to win Homecoming Queen. Not that Eastwood is exactly president of the chess club, either. I’m going out on a limb and saying Inarritu, even if I can’t make my keyboard spell his name correctly.

Who Might Actually Win: Eastwood has the statistical advantage, but Scorsese’s Scorsese. What can you do?

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama

Penelope Cruz - Volver
Judi Dench - Notes on a Scandal
Maggie Gyllenhaal - sherrybaby
Helen Mirren - The Queen
Kate Winslet - Little Children

CH Pick: Helen Mirren?
I’m feeling a little Sophie’s Choice about this category; in my opinion, it’s the toughest field at this year’s Globes. With the possible exception of Cruz, each of these women would be my pick–were the others not present. Despite my personal mission to promote all things Winslet, I suppose I’m going to have to go with Mirren, since I actually forgot during The Queen that she wasn’t…well, the Queen. Tough race, though.

Who Might Actually Win: Mirren, though a Celebrity Death Match between her and Dench might be entertaining.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama

Leonardo DiCaprio - Blood Diamond
Leonardo DiCaprio - The Departed
Peter O’Toole - Venus
Forest Whitaker - The Last King of Scotland

CH Pick: DiCaprio
I would love to be able to say Forest Whitaker, but DiCaprio has the Eastwood statistical-advantage thing cornered. I predict The Departed.

Who Might Actually Win: DiCaprio. They like him so much, they’re just looking for movies he’s in, just so they can nominate him. Or something.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Annette Bening - Running with Scissors
Toni Collette - Little Miss Sunshine
Beyonce Knowles - Dreamgirls
Meryl Streep - The Devil Wears Prada
Renee Zellweger - Miss Potter

CH Pick: Meryl Streep
If the Drama field is flush with potential winners…what happened here? (Also, I question the placement of both Running with Scissors and Miss Potter in the Comedy category, but that’s a whole different post.) Collette is always lovely, but her character in Little Miss Sunshine is the only one without a major plot thread. This one’s going to be death match between fine actresses playing not-particularly-challenging roles, I think.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Sacha Baron Cohen - Borat
Johnny Depp - Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man’s Chest
Aaron Eckhart - Thank You for Smoking
Chiwetel Ejiofor - Kinky Boots
Will Ferrell - Stranger Than Fiction

CH Pick: Sacha Baron Cohen
This is a quirky field, full of good actors being slightly underused (particularly Depp). My inner geek keeps prodding me to vote for Ejiofor, just because the thought of The Operative winning any kind of award is so exciting, but Cohen does a seamless job in a demanding role. Props to him, and a note to please keep his clothes on next time.

Who Might Actually Win: Cohen or Depp, as an apology for gypping him last time

We at CH know that everybody’s planning on watching the Globes straight through, beginning to end, no bathroom breaks. Right? But just in case you do need to wander away and blow your nose, CH is here for you. We’ll be providing the completely play-by-play (on West Coast time; sorry, we’re powerful, but we can’t bend time [yet]). So fear not! Wander as you like! CH has your back.

Golden Globes

The Golden Globe Awards are coming right up, aren’t they? This Sunday? I’m having a hard time gearing up this year. Generally, I like the Globes. I like that they honor film and TV, drama and comedy. I like that somebody can get stuck in the bathroom and still be considered a winner–you know the Academy would just look around and then go to the next person on the list: “We take it back! The Oscar now goes to…Dana Delaney!” Things are a little awkward on the awards front this year, though. I’m not feeling the Golden Globe love yet. Maybe a little quality time watching Isaac Mizrahi skeeve everyone on the red carpet out will put me in the spirit. Note to self: Mizrahi. Skeeve.

I think my lack of enthusiasm this year stems from my own uncertainty: I’m looking at the list of nominees and starting to feel a little inadequate. I saw a lot of movies in 2006, and now they’re telling me I wasted my time? I’m not an award-winning movie watcher? Now they tell me. Maybe I should have skipped Mission: Impossible 3 and saved those two hours for Babel. I saw Talladega Nights. Would I have been better off with Volver? The whole thing is worrisome.

To be fair, plenty of this year’s nominees are recent releases. I don’t feel bad about not having seen Notes on a Scandal or Miss Potter; nobody’s seen Notes on a Scandal or Miss Potter. Several others never made it out of limited release–sherrybaby, Little Children, and The Last King of Scotland, for example. I’m pleased that so many of this year’s nominees are small and/or independent films. I just wish I’d seen more of them.

I’d also like to say, while I’m at it, that I do have my doubts about a couple of the films on the nomination list. The Devil Wears Prada? Really? It was fine. Meryl Streep was fine. Anne Hathaway’s enormous eyelids and extraordinarily shiny hair were fine. But…really? Also: Thank You For Smoking. I know that a lot of people loved this movie. I remember sitting in the theater, thinking, “We make a movie indicting the tobacco lobby, and this is all we can come up with? We can’t be any funnier, any less obvious than this?” I digress. But I’m underwhelmed. What about Brick? It was the best movie I saw in 2006, and it’s nowhere to be seen. What about The Science of Sleep? What about The Prestige? These are all strong, interesting movies–better than a lackluster adaptation of a middling chick-lit novel, certainly–and none of them are anywhere to be found.

We’ll see what happens come Sunday. Keep your eyes open for more CH input in the coming days; in any case, there’ll be plenty of goofy outfits to mock, and that’s enough for me.

golden globes

Happy New Year (slightly belated) from Cinema Hype! The CH staff took a much-needed hiatus for the holiday, wherein not a single film was analyzed or quoted or even watched (okay, that’s….a lie). But things are looking up for 2007, and we’re ready to take on the world of celluloid! Bring it on! (It’s already been broughten.)

Along with the glorious in-ringing of the new year, we here at Cinema Hype would like to announce a new CH undertaking: the 501 Project. Starting this month, CH will be watching and reviewing all of the Academy Award Best Picture winners in a row, starting with the 1927-28 winner (Wings) and proceeding all the way up to the present. This isn’t a race; there’s no time limit or weekly quota. But upcoming Oscar films will be announced here for the benefit of anybody who wants to watch along. We’d love to hear from the CH community about the supposed best films of the last 80 years–comments and e-mail are our bread and butter around here.

The name 501 Project comes from the serial numbers stamped on the heels of all Oscar statuettes beginning in 1949–rather than begin with number one, the ID numbers began with 501. That, and it’s a nice name.

Here’s to a good year and lots of good film.

Academy Awards, 501 Project, film history

Nominations for the 2007 Golden Globe Awards are up.

Welcome to awards season, folks!

Many, many thoughts to follow in the days and weeks to come. In the mean time: Twice the Leonardo = twice the fun? Talk amongst yourselves.