SpoutBlog on spout.com

Note: The straitjacketed lunatic pictured is not actually a member of the National Board of Review. We think.

The National Board of Review has released their annual list of film honors, but you’re only allowed to look at it after you read these stories about how the NBR’s is this mysterious organization that doesn’t disclose details about its membership, and just has a history of general shadyness. Okay?

Okay. First, The good: Casey Affleck was recognized for Best Supporting Actor for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (he’s really the lead in that film, but whatever); their list of the top ten films of year includes several titles that truly deserve to be there, including Jesse James, Atonement, and Sweeney Todd (which I’m not seeing until tonight, but I’ve heard almost nothing but good things, and I’m trying to keep this positive).

The Bad, The Inoffensive, and The WTF? after the jump.

(more…)

Under discussion:

There Will Be Blood  (2007)

Ted at BigScreenLittleScreen alerts us to this stupid post about There Will Be Blood by Marc Bernadin at EW:

When you hear that title, the moniker given to Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest, what images spring to mind? Gothic vampires, sure. A revenge film? Serial killer thriller, perhaps? Torture porn?…Would you feel swindled if you showed up to see a movie called There Will Be Blood and got a period piece about crude drilling? Is this a case of smart marketing, or a shifty bait-and-switch?

Take a break to roll your eyes, and then move on to Ted’s smackdown, which focuses on Bernadin’s just plain dumb reasoning:

If you???re telling me we???re at the point where people are waddling up to the ticket booth and making ad hoc selections based solely on film titles, then either a) it???s time to pack it up and shut it down, or b) look out for a big push coming down the pike for big-budgeted features under names like Strong Violence, or for the romantics: Brief Sensuality.

Ted’s right, but having seen the film, I’ll take it a step further: it’s not even a misnomer! There IS blood! Actual, red, product-of-violence blood! In several points across the film, although ultimately, the title could be literally read as a spoiler for the final scene. I also think it refers to a whole lot of thematic stuff about non-literal blood–blood as a synonym for family, genetics as a determinant to who we are, our fates, the way we relate to people, etc. Ted’s right that Bernadin’s argument is insanely literal, but worse than that–it’s literally inaccurate.

• What started as a fight over 4 cents has become a debate over $100 million. The AMPTP says their residuals offer would net writers $130 million over three years; the WGA says the studios’ math is wrong, and by their calculations, the deal is worth only $32 million. Yesterday, in response to a WGA counterproposal that would peg online residuals to the number of streams, Variety reports “the studios and nets offered conceptual questions about structure and measurement of streaming usage — in other words, they didn’t reject the proposal out of hand.” The Hollywood Reporter’s optismism over these new developments is barely contained in the headline, “It’s a holiday miracle: Sides ‘actually talk.’”
• Scott Kirsner reports from the just-concluded International Film Festival Summit for Variety. My favorite takeaway is this dry observation: “Sessions on selling sponsorship and working with the media were packed with attendees. Less full was a session led by two independent filmmakers, who advised fest organizers to drop their entry fees, supply free travel and housing and make sure that filmmakers could gain entry to the best parties.”
• Lionsgate vice chairman Michael Burns gave a speech yesterday indicating that the company is interested in maintaining a financial standing that would allow them to acquire a content library, should such an opportunity present itself; this was apparently code for, “We wanna buy MGM, y’all!“