list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Elegy on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Elegy/327054/default.aspx Title: Elegy
Year: 2008
Director: Isabel Coixet
Plot: Adapted from author Philip Roth's novel The Dying Animal, director Isabel Coixet's elegant tale of obsession explores the relationship between a highly respected professor (Sir Ben Kingsley) and an impossibly gorgeous grad student (Penelope Cruz). As their relationship deepens, the professor finds his ego impossibly challenged by the girl's enchanting beauty. Dennis Hopper and Patricia Clarkson co-star. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:01:21 GMTElegy2008Isabel CoixetAdapted from author Philip Roth's novel The Dying Animal, director <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___204197/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Isabel Coixet</a>'s elegant tale of obsession explores the relationship between a highly respected professor (Sir Ben Kingsley) and an impossibly gorgeous grad student (Penelope Cruz). As their relationship deepens, the professor finds his ego impossibly challenged by the girl's enchanting beauty. <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____94825/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dennis Hopper</a> and <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____13504/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Patricia Clarkson</a> co-star. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide243http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s327054.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Elegy/327054/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/29/40057.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/29/2009 11:01:21 AM
Body: There is a good reason Hollywood continually makes Animal House wannabes and avoids producing films that actually focus on academia. Kids prefer their college movies to be about the fun stuff. And so a movie like Old School grossed $75 million while another Luke Wilson comedy called Tenure currently lacks a distributor. The latter film may also be hilarious, as a satire of the tenure process, but if it doesn’t concentrate more on beer bongs and naked co-eds, it won’t attract as big an audience. And according to some scholars, it may not even resonate with them, because it couldn’t possibly be what the process is really like. Film blogger and associate professor Chuck Tryon was quoted about the film last year as saying, “my ongoing pursuit of tenure typically involves me sitting in front of my laptop until 1 a.m., I don’t know how interesting that would be to watch.” And evident by the scathing reviews from Sundance of John Krasinski’s Brief Interviews With Hideous Men, it appears another film about academia has failed to make a strong case for the subject matter. Too bad for the late David Foster Wallace, whose stories were adapted for the film, that Gus Van Sant wasn’t at the helm. A decade ago, in an interview with Van Sant, Wallace pretty much gushed that Good Will Hunting is the most accurate film about academia ever made. Do we agree with him? Let’s just say there’s not a whole lot of competition for such an honor. But in our attempt to recognize the ten best films about academia, Good Will Hunting doesn’t quite make the top spot. 9. (tie) Elegy (2005) and The Human Stain (2003) Neither of these films is especially great, but it would be criminal for us not to recognize the work of Philip Roth, an author who depicts the academic world perfectly in his novels, particularly The Dying Animal (which is the basis for Elegy) and The Human Stain. The adaptations of these two books fail to capture much of what’s on the page, but each film has its own merit. Elegy, which primarily deals with an affair between a professor (Ben Kingsley) and a student (Penelope Cruz), is worth seeing for the more interesting relationship between that professor and his Pulitzer Prize-winning friend (Dennis Hopper). Rarely is fraternity between two members of the academic intelligentsia portrayed so enjoyably. As for The Human Stain, which also involves a professor (Anthony Hopkins) and his affair with a younger woman (Nicole Kidman), the film deals primarily with the issue of political correctness within academia. The topic is addressed nowhere near as well as it is in Roth’s novel, but it is at least a starting point for discussion, and it’s also worth seeing for an example in how not to cast a movie. 8. Soul Man (1986) If we are to include The Human Stain, it’s just as well we acknowledge this earlier comedy, which also involves ironic situations regarding race and academia. Hardly a brilliant movie, Soul Man is at least as humorous in its examination of racism as the Harold and Kumar movies. Yet it is far less esteemed. And the whole black face thing can no longer be looked down upon now that Robert Downey Jr. has that Oscar nomination for Tropic Thunder. The movie is a worthy lampoon of the politics of affirmative action and their affect on college admissions (as well as an obvious and general look at racism within the student population), but it’s especially entertaining for James Earl Jones as a professor who refuses to favor the masquerading protagonist (C. Thomas Howell) just because he’s black. 7. Back to School (1986) While Soul Man deals with the benefit of being a minority when it comes to getting into college, this film from the same year deals with the benefit of being rich. The idea that anyone with enough money can get into the school of his or her choice is depicted comically in a two-scene setup. In the first scene, a university dean (Ned Beatty) asks millionaire entrepreneur Thornton Mellon (Rodney Dangerfield) how he could possibly admit him as a student when he has no high school degree, no transcripts and no SAT scores. The movie then cuts to the punch-line scene, in which the dean and Mellon are celebrating the groundbreaking of a new business school for the university, named after Mellon, of course. Another favorite jab at academia is with the famous cameo by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., who is hired by Mellon to write a paper about his own work. The paper earns a failing grade. 6. Wet Hot American Summer (2001) You’re probably wondering how a comedy set at a summer camp could possibly be about academia. Well, it’s not specifically about academia, but it does feature a subplot involving a science professor (David Hyde Pierce) that does poke fun of the concept of tenure. This was pointed out by Elaine Showalter, an English professor at Princeton and author of the book Faculty Towers: The Academic Novel and Its Discontents, so you have to accept that it fits the list. Sure, she’s the mother of WHAS star and screenwriter Michael Showalter, but that shouldn’t take away from her observation. 5. The Paper Chase (1973) This film features a plot that could very well lend itself to the other kind of college film, but it focuses its attention on the classroom and the relationship between student and professor rather than the dorm room and social affairs. Of course, the student protagonist (Timothy Bottoms) is getting some action, but it is with the daughter (Lindsay Wagner) of the professorial antagonist (John Houseman, who won an Oscar for the performance), and so even the sex stuff is part of the politics of academia. The best scene is at the end, when Bottoms’ character gives the finger to higher education by not even bothering to look at his final grades. If only the audience was also left unaware of his marks, as the original novel leaves that revelation out. 4. Good Will Hunting (1997) David Foster Wallace may have considered this film to be the best film about academia when he discussed it with Gus Van Sant in 1998, but since that time there have been two more poignant films to deal with the subject. Plus, it never was the best film on academia to begin with. So, as much as he’s right to celebrate the film and in particular the portrayal of Stellan Skarsgard’s character and the issue of professors wanting their students to be brilliant, but not too brilliant, there are three more titles to go. 3. Wonder Boys (2000) Based on Michael Chabon’s novel of the same name, Curstin Hanson’s film cinematically captures the atmosphere of academia as well as Philip Roth does on the page (perhaps Hanson should adapt Roth?). However, one issue with this atmosphere may be that the relationships and characters, though written and portrayed wonderfully, are rather common for such a story. Also, why not change things a bit and have the main character be a film teacher rather than a creative writing teacher, which an overused profession in these kinds of movies. The switch would be more appropriate for the medium, too. Aside from these minor criticisms, though, we can barely take a red pen to this film. It’s terrific. 2. The Rules of Attraction (2002) Probably the most cynical look at higher education ever filmed, Roger Avary’s highly underrated adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis’ novel shows us just enough of the classroom and professors (i.e. canceled classes and a single professor who accepts sexual bribes) to let us understand that the joke is in how little of that side of academia is actually necessary to a film like this. In that way it kind of does for college what Heathers does for high school. Neither film is a teen sex comedy in the fashion of most high school and college movies. And neither is a satire of education institutions in the way most of the other films on this list are. Rather, they’re mockeries of the whole education system, but only in that they each consider their respective system to be already a mockery of itself. 1. Horse Feathers (1932) Nobody mocks and satirizes better than the Marx Brothers, and in this film they bring their anarchic shenanigans and brilliant puns to the world of academia. At its core is the basic college sports story, but it’s also one of the first films (if not the first film) to deal with the concept of buying students/players. In addition to lampooning that practice, Horse Feathers makes fun of intellectual gatherings and talk, the influence of trustees and nearly every other aspect of scholarship and higher education you can think of, all in the opening scene. After more than 75 years, it’s still the funniest college movie and the greatest film about academia there is. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:01:21 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/29/2009 11:01:21 AMThere is a good reason Hollywood continually makes Animal House wannabes and avoids producing films that actually focus on academia. Kids prefer their college movies to be about the fun stuff. And so a movie like Old School grossed $75 million while another Luke Wilson comedy called Tenure currently lacks a distributor. The latter film may also be hilarious, as a satire of the tenure process, but if it doesn’t concentrate more on beer bongs and naked co-eds, it won’t attract as big an audience. And according to some scholars, it may not even resonate with them, because it couldn’t possibly be what the process is really like. Film blogger and associate professor Chuck Tryon was quoted about the film last year as saying, “my ongoing pursuit of tenure typically involves me sitting in front of my laptop until 1 a.m., I don’t know how interesting that would be to watch.” And evident by the scathing reviews from Sundance of John Krasinski’s Brief Interviews With Hideous Men, it appears another film about academia has failed to make a strong case for the subject matter. Too bad for the late David Foster Wallace, whose stories were adapted for the film, that Gus Van Sant wasn’t at the helm. A decade ago, in an interview with Van Sant, Wallace pretty much gushed that Good Will Hunting is the most accurate film about academia ever made. Do we agree with him? Let’s just say there’s not a whole lot of competition for such an honor. But in our attempt to recognize the ten best films about academia, Good Will Hunting doesn’t quite make the top spot. 9. (tie) Elegy (2005) and The Human Stain (2003) Neither of these films is especially great, but it would be criminal for us not to recognize the work of Philip Roth, an author who depicts the academic world perfectly in his novels, particularly The Dying Animal (which is the basis for Elegy) and The Human Stain. The adaptations of these two books fail to capture much of what’s on the page, but each film has its own merit. Elegy, which primarily deals with an affair between a professor (Ben Kingsley) and a student (Penelope Cruz), is worth seeing for the more interesting relationship between that professor and his Pulitzer Prize-winning friend (Dennis Hopper). Rarely is fraternity between two members of the academic intelligentsia portrayed so enjoyably. As for The Human Stain, which also involves a professor (Anthony Hopkins) and his affair with a younger woman (Nicole Kidman), the film deals primarily with the issue of political correctness within academia. The topic is addressed nowhere near as well as it is in Roth’s novel, but it is at least a starting point for discussion, and it’s also worth seeing for an example in how not to cast a movie. 8. Soul Man (1986) If we are to include The Human Stain, it’s just as well we acknowledge this earlier comedy, which also involves ironic situations regarding race and academia. Hardly a brilliant movie, Soul Man is at least as humorous in its examination of racism as the Harold and Kumar movies. Yet it is far less esteemed. And the whole black face thing can no longer be looked down upon now that Robert Downey Jr. has that Oscar nomination for Tropic Thunder. The movie is a worthy lampoon of the politics of affirmative action and their affect on college admissions (as well as an obvious and general look at racism within the student population), but it’s especially entertaining for James Earl Jones as a professor who refuses to favor the masquerading protagonist (C. Thomas Howell) just because he’s black. 7. Back to School (1986) While Soul Man deals with the benefit of being a minority when it comes to getting into college, this film from the same year deals with the benefit of being rich. The idea that anyone with enough money can get into the school of his or her choice is depicted comically in a two-scene setup. In the first scene, a university dean (Ned Beatty) asks millionaire entrepreneur Thornton Mellon (Rodney Dangerfield) how he could possibly admit him as a student when he has no high school degree, no transcripts and no SAT scores. The movie then cuts to the punch-line scene, in which the dean and Mellon are celebrating the groundbreaking of a new business school for the university, named after Mellon, of course. Another favorite jab at academia is with the famous cameo by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., who is hired by Mellon to write a paper about his own work. The paper earns a failing grade. 6. Wet Hot American Summer (2001) You’re probably wondering how a comedy set at a summer camp could possibly be about academia. Well, it’s not specifically about academia, but it does feature a subplot involving a science professor (David Hyde Pierce) that does poke fun of the concept of tenure. This was pointed out by Elaine Showalter, an English professor at Princeton and author of the book Faculty Towers: The Academic Novel and Its Discontents, so you have to accept that it fits the list. Sure, she’s the mother of WHAS star and screenwriter Michael Showalter, but that shouldn’t take away from her observation. 5. The Paper Chase (1973) This film features a plot that could very well lend itself to the other kind of college film, but it focuses its attention on the classroom and the relationship between student and professor rather than the dorm room and social affairs. Of course, the student protagonist (Timothy Bottoms) is getting some action, but it is with the daughter (Lindsay Wagner) of the professorial antagonist (John Houseman, who won an Oscar for the performance), and so even the sex stuff is part of the politics of academia. The best scene is at the end, when Bottoms’ character gives the finger to higher education by not even bothering to look at his final grades. If only the audience was also left unaware of his marks, as the original novel leaves that revelation out. 4. Good Will Hunting (1997) David Foster Wallace may have considered this film to be the best film about academia when he discussed it with Gus Van Sant in 1998, but since that time there have been two more poignant films to deal with the subject. Plus, it never was the best film on academia to begin with. So, as much as he’s right to celebrate the film and in particular the portrayal of Stellan Skarsgard’s character and the issue of professors wanting their students to be brilliant, but not too brilliant, there are three more titles to go. 3. Wonder Boys (2000) Based on Michael Chabon’s novel of the same name, Curstin Hanson’s film cinematically captures the atmosphere of academia as well as Philip Roth does on the page (perhaps Hanson should adapt Roth?). However, one issue with this atmosphere may be that the relationships and characters, though written and portrayed wonderfully, are rather common for such a story. Also, why not change things a bit and have the main character be a film teacher rather than a creative writing teacher, which an overused profession in these kinds of movies. The switch would be more appropriate for the medium, too. Aside from these minor criticisms, though, we can barely take a red pen to this film. It’s terrific. 2. The Rules of Attraction (2002) Probably the most cynical look at higher education ever filmed, Roger Avary’s highly underrated adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis’ novel shows us just enough of the classroom and professors (i.e. canceled classes and a single professor who accepts sexual bribes) to let us understand that the joke is in how little of that side of academia is actually necessary to a film like this. In that way it kind of does for college what Heathers does for high school. Neither film is a teen sex comedy in the fashion of most high school and college movies. And neither is a satire of education institutions in the way most of the other films on this list are. Rather, they’re mockeries of the whole education system, but only in that they each consider their respective system to be already a mockery of itself. 1. Horse Feathers (1932) Nobody mocks and satirizes better than the Marx Brothers, and in this film they bring their anarchic shenanigans and brilliant puns to the world of academia. At its core is the basic college sports story, but it’s also one of the first films (if not the first film) to deal with the concept of buying students/players. In addition to lampooning that practice, Horse Feathers makes fun of intellectual gatherings and talk, the influence of trustees and nearly every other aspect of scholarship and higher education you can think of, all in the opening scene. After more than 75 years, it’s still the funniest college movie and the greatest film about academia there is. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/1/37819.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/1/2008 7:00:29 PM
Body: Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:29 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/1/2008 7:00:29 PMKate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/4/22/27661.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 4/22/2008 5:02:29 PM
Body: Egotastic has a couple of artfully lit but not particularly safe for work clips from Elegy, which feature a naked Penelope Cruz in bed with Ben Kingsley. I don’t know much about this film––it premiered at Berlinale, where Jurgen Fauth described how Cruz’s “breasts even become a plot point”––but surely, this is the most pre-release attention ever given to anything directed by Isabel Coixet, and that’s probably ultimately a good thing. Still, it points to an alarming trend of indie/art films which position the 65 year-old Kingsley as a sex symbol to much, much younger women. If it takes three examples to make a trend, we can easily find the other two in Kingsley’s next film to hit the American marketplace, Sundance crowd pleaser The Wackness. The 31-year age difference between Kingsley and Cruz makes their coupling only slightly less convincing than the actor’s love-at-first-sight meet-cute with a character played by Jane Adams in The Wackness. Adams is 43, but in Jonathan Levine’s film, she looks and acts younger. The “just add pot” instant chemistry between these two “loveable losers” is one of the more repellent indie film cliches in a film replete with them (I’ll save my commentary on the other cliches for my review, which we’ll post later this week around the time of The Wackness‘ premiere at Tribeca). Much has been made of Kingsley’s make-out scene with 21-year old Mary-Kate Olsen in The Wackness, but at least the film seems to be playing that as obviously ridiculous (although, with The Wackness, you never know––the film’s internal Ridiculous-o-meter is pretty unreliable). But the film clearly wants us to take the Adams/Kingsley romance seriously, which makes it way more disturbing that the couple of shots of Kingsley slobbering on, to paraphrase Lindsay Lohan, a piece of “Full House ass.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:02:29 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog4/22/2008 5:02:29 PMEgotastic has a couple of artfully lit but not particularly safe for work clips from Elegy, which feature a naked Penelope Cruz in bed with Ben Kingsley. I don’t know much about this film––it premiered at Berlinale, where Jurgen Fauth described how Cruz’s “breasts even become a plot point”––but surely, this is the most pre-release attention ever given to anything directed by Isabel Coixet, and that’s probably ultimately a good thing. Still, it points to an alarming trend of indie/art films which position the 65 year-old Kingsley as a sex symbol to much, much younger women. If it takes three examples to make a trend, we can easily find the other two in Kingsley’s next film to hit the American marketplace, Sundance crowd pleaser The Wackness. The 31-year age difference between Kingsley and Cruz makes their coupling only slightly less convincing than the actor’s love-at-first-sight meet-cute with a character played by Jane Adams in The Wackness. Adams is 43, but in Jonathan Levine’s film, she looks and acts younger. The “just add pot” instant chemistry between these two “loveable losers” is one of the more repellent indie film cliches in a film replete with them (I’ll save my commentary on the other cliches for my review, which we’ll post later this week around the time of The Wackness‘ premiere at Tribeca). Much has been made of Kingsley’s make-out scene with 21-year old Mary-Kate Olsen in The Wackness, but at least the film seems to be playing that as obviously ridiculous (although, with The Wackness, you never know––the film’s internal Ridiculous-o-meter is pretty unreliable). But the film clearly wants us to take the Adams/Kingsley romance seriously, which makes it way more disturbing that the couple of shots of Kingsley slobbering on, to paraphrase Lindsay Lohan, a piece of “Full House ass.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/22/27660.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/22/2008 5:01:08 PM
Body: Egotastic has a couple of artfully lit but not particularly safe for work clips from Elegy, which feature a naked Penelope Cruz in bed with Ben Kingsley. I don’t know much about this film––it premiered at Berlinale, where Jurgen Fauth described how Cruz’s “breasts even become a plot point”––but surely, this is the most pre-release attention ever given to anything directed by Isabel Coixet, and that’s probably ultimately a good thing. Still, it points to an alarming trend of indie/art films which position the 65 year-old Kingsley as a sex symbol to much, much younger women. If it takes three examples to make a trend, we can easily find the other two in Kingsley’s next film to hit the American marketplace, Sundance crowd pleaser The Wackness. The 31-year age difference between Kingsley and Cruz makes their coupling only slightly less convincing than the actor’s love-at-first-sight meet-cute with a character played by Jane Adams in The Wackness. Adams is 43, but in Jonathan Levine’s film, she looks and acts younger. The “just add pot” instant chemistry between these two “loveable losers” is one of the more repellent indie film cliches in a film replete with them (I’ll save my commentary on the other cliches for my review, which we’ll post later this week around the time of The Wackness‘ premiere at Tribeca). Much has been made of Kingsley’s make-out scene with 21-year old Mary-Kate Olsen in The Wackness, but at least the film seems to be playing that as obviously ridiculous (although, with The Wackness, you never know––the film’s internal Ridiculous-o-meter is pretty unreliable). But the film clearly wants us to take the Adams/Kingsley romance seriously, which makes it way more disturbing that the couple of shots of Kingsley slobbering on, to paraphrase Lindsay Lohan, a piece of “Full House ass.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/22/2008 5:01:08 PMEgotastic has a couple of artfully lit but not particularly safe for work clips from Elegy, which feature a naked Penelope Cruz in bed with Ben Kingsley. I don’t know much about this film––it premiered at Berlinale, where Jurgen Fauth described how Cruz’s “breasts even become a plot point”––but surely, this is the most pre-release attention ever given to anything directed by Isabel Coixet, and that’s probably ultimately a good thing. Still, it points to an alarming trend of indie/art films which position the 65 year-old Kingsley as a sex symbol to much, much younger women. If it takes three examples to make a trend, we can easily find the other two in Kingsley’s next film to hit the American marketplace, Sundance crowd pleaser The Wackness. The 31-year age difference between Kingsley and Cruz makes their coupling only slightly less convincing than the actor’s love-at-first-sight meet-cute with a character played by Jane Adams in The Wackness. Adams is 43, but in Jonathan Levine’s film, she looks and acts younger. The “just add pot” instant chemistry between these two “loveable losers” is one of the more repellent indie film cliches in a film replete with them (I’ll save my commentary on the other cliches for my review, which we’ll post later this week around the time of The Wackness‘ premiere at Tribeca). Much has been made of Kingsley’s make-out scene with 21-year old Mary-Kate Olsen in The Wackness, but at least the film seems to be playing that as obviously ridiculous (although, with The Wackness, you never know––the film’s internal Ridiculous-o-meter is pretty unreliable). But the film clearly wants us to take the Adams/Kingsley romance seriously, which makes it way more disturbing that the couple of shots of Kingsley slobbering on, to paraphrase Lindsay Lohan, a piece of “Full House ass.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/student/MemberTagFilms.aspxstudent
Number of films tagged: 1420

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 63

]]>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:35:57 GMT14202463Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/professor/MemberTagFilms.aspxprofessor
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 39

]]>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:30:14 GMT7422239Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/maydecemberromance/MemberTagFilms.aspxmaydecemberromance
Number of films tagged: 178

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 6

]]>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:08:19 GMT17856Tag