SpoutBlog on spout.com

Under discussion:

Monsters vs. Aliens  (2009)

Jeffrey Katzenberg, for all his attempted promotion of digital 3D as the future of entertainment as we know it, may have done irreversible damage yesterday by attempting to advertise DreamWorks Animation’s upcoming digital 3D feature Monsters vs. Aliens by way of an anaglyphic 3D Super Bowl commercial necessitating outdated red/blue glasses. Here is a collection of scathing reactions found around the blogosphere:

• Cinematical is polling readers for their reactions to the 3D ads, and so far the majority response, at 43%, is “I never picked up the glasses to begin with.” The most popular response from those who did have the glasses: “They were okay.”
• One Cinematical reader asked the most important question in the poll’s comments section: “Why promote the amazing current gen tech that would wow the majority of public that hasn’t seen it with antiquated red/blue-lackluster crap?”
• CrunchGear also has a poll, and the current majority is of the opinion the 3D ads were lame.
• A sample comment on David Poland’s Hot Blog: “The unanimous opinion here was that the 3D in the Monsters Vs. Aliens ad sucked it” and simply. “
• Alex of FirstShowing.net rants against the ads: “This whole Monsters vs Aliens gimmick, or publicity stunt, or whatever you want to call it, only achieved the act of being a gimmick and nothing more. All of those millions of people who did have glasses were caught up in a frenzy of enthusiam over the novelty rather than genuinely interested.”
• I Watch Stuff also complains about the gimmickry: “I thought all the animation studios were pushing hard to legitimize 3-D as more than a gaudy bell and/or whistle. If that’s the case, maybe they should starting cutting all the look-at-this-coming-at-the-screen!-for-no-reason crap. A paddleball zooming at me? Come on. And furthermore, a paddleball at all? Does this generation of kids even know what a paddleball is? Why not a guy using a stick to roll a hoop out of the screen?”
• Too little too late? DVICE got a response from someone who will be harmed by the responses: “The good news: The CEO of RealD Cinema, the technique in which Monsters and Aliens will be shown in theaters when it’s release this March, assured us this morning that his effects are much better. ‘It’s important to recognize that today’s RealD 3D in theatres is a quantum leap better than what they saw on TV or may remember from years past.’ The only thing we can gather from that damage control: RealD sucks less.” Exactly, and this still doesn’t explain why millions of viewers were marketed to with the outdated effects.
• At Defamer, Seth ignores the 3D issue altogether and instead offers some criticism regarding the film itself, but ultimately he notes that negative responses don’t matter, because “This will make a gazillion dollars.” Well, if he’s right, then this won’t be a misstep for the technology after all. But I completely disagree with that box office prediction.
• And now, in case you found the glasses (I hear some people had trouble getting their hands on them) and want to watch the commercial again (or for the first time), here is the Hulu embed:

Under discussion:

Chariots of Fire  (1981)

Schindler's List  (1993)

Shakespeare in Love  (1998)

Billy Elliot  (2000)

Chicago  (2002)

Crash  (2005)

Brokeback Mountain  (2005)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button  (2008)

The Dark Knight  (2008)

Frost/Nixon  (2008)

Saving Ryan's Privates  (1998)

The Reader  (2008)

Slumdog Millionaire  (2008)

Milk  (2008)

With Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed.

Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there.

The Cancel-Out Factor

Let’s begin with the simplest argument, which has also been used recently as evidence that Milk’s chances for the top award have gone up: Whether due to a backlash or not, Slumdog’s lead may be shortening, and Benjamin Button may be gaining. So, the two films could cancel each other out and The Reader, not Milk, could sneak forward. Or, to give Milk the same credit as others are giving it, the three favorites cancel each other out and The Reader makes an even greater leap forward.

The Stephen Daldry Factor

Now for the weakest, but not completely implausible argument: It’s clear the Academy loves Stephen Daldry, as they’ve nominated him for Best Director every time he’s made a movie. Unfortunately for him, there’s no way he’ll win his category this year, because no director has ever won the Oscar without at least being nominated for the DGA award. So, Boyle remains a lock for Best Director, but Daldry’s fans could try and make a serious push for the film to win Best Picture. It would be a somewhat ironic win, since Daldry’s first nomination came for a film that wasn’t even nominated for the top award (Billy Elliot).

The Posthumous Oscars Factor (aka the Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella Factor)

Thanks to a special exception the Academy made for The Reader, there are now three posthumous Oscar nominees. Heath Ledger is most definitely going to win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Dark Knight, but what about Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella? The two are among The Reader’s four producers named to receive trophies if the film wins Best Picture. Academy members could consider this a year to pay special honor to the artists they’ve lost, and that would mean voting for two of their favorite filmmaking talents. On the other hand, though, with Pollack having previously won two Oscars (out of six nominations) and Minghella having previously won one (out of three nominations), it’s not as if the voters will feel as much of an obligation as they would if neither had been honored before. Still, never underestimate the power of the celebrity death cult.

The Harvey Weinstein Factor

It’s been awhile since Harvey’s heyday at the Oscars. While heading Miramax, he managed a couple surprise victories in the Best Picture category, and at the 2003 awards, Harvey actually had a connection to four of the five Best Picture nominees. He used to be known as someone not to be reckoned with when it came to his desire for Academy Awards. But it’s taken years for The Weinstein Co. to see one of its films in contention for the top prize. So, will Harvey once again show great influence over the Academy? According to Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, Harvey’s been advised not to go crazy with the Oscar campaigning this year, partly for economic reasons and partly because his chances are considered low. But Karger thinks he’s still going to “go whole hog,” because “otherwise he wouldn’t be Harvey Weinstein.” And when Harvey goes whole hog, things like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan happen. Seriously, there are already those who believe the whole Slumdog backlash thing was started by a certain “truth-and ethically challenged mogul” who would benefit from such a smear campaign.

The Schindler’s List Factor

As much as we all like to joke about the Academy’s Holocaust fetish, no Holocaust movie is a sure thing for Best Picture (especially if such a film is the one non-Harvey Weinstein-related nominee). But one Holocaust film in particular is the Academy’s pride and joy: Schindler’s List. If Slumdog Millionaire continues its awards season sweep, garnering top kudos from the WGA, the BAFTAs and finally the Oscars, it will actually become a more-honored film than Schindler’s List, which holds the current record for awards season domination. Unfortunately for Spielberg’s film, as noted by In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley, there were no BFCA or SAG ensemble awards back then. So, due to more opportunities, Slumdog could break the record rather unfairly. For Schindler’s List-loving members of the Academy, that might be an incentive to vote for The Reader, a fellow Holocaust film, instead of for Slumdog, which nobody could reasonably argue is better than the 1994 Best Picture-winner.

The Tolerance Factor

One of the major arguments in favor of Milk’s chances are that a Best Picture win for that film would make up for the Brokeback Mountain loss three years ago. And the Academy might vote for Milk in order to prove it is tolerant. But in a way, honoring Crash over Brokeback Mountain was a display of tolerance, only one that focused on race rather than sexual orientation. The Reader could be this year’s Crash, and not just because it’s one of the most critically hated Best Picture candidates in years. An argument against the aforementioned Schindler’s List Factor is that The Reader is almost like an anti-Holocaust film, because it attempts to make the audience sympathize with a concentration camp guard who slaughtered many Jewish prisoners. If the Academy should really feel the need to again prove its members are tolerant, honoring The Reader, which allegorically deals with Germany’s struggle to come to terms with its Nazi past, would be an even stronger display of this than would honoring a film focusing on gay rights. The again, the latter action may potentially be easier for some voters.

The Surprise Factor

Okay, this is actually the simplest argument: the Oscars are full of surprises. From Marisa Tomei’s out-numbered defeat of the British (and Australian) in 1992 to the shocking 1936 win by write-in candidate Hal Mohr to the unexpected Best Picture wins by non-frontrunners Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago and Crash (among others), the Academy should never be underestimated when it comes to their aim with monkey wrenches. So, the best reason not to dismiss The Reader in the Best Picture race is that all Oscars races are anyone’s game up until the envelopes are opened and the winners are named.

Under discussion:

Happiness  (1998)

“Ten years have passed since Happiness, but I prefer not to be beholden to the literalness of time or circumstance. I like to tweak things, get at stuff from a fresh angle, and so, for example, some characters have aged five years, some twenty years, some histories have been altered, and I have allowed race not to be something set in stone. Of course, it’s a completely different cast. It’s more fun and interesting that way.”

So says Todd Solondz, in reference to his highly-anticipated sort-of sequel to Happiness. Formerly titled Life During Wartime, The Playlist passes along word that the film is now being called Forgiveness, and that Fortissimo Films has acquired worldwide sales rights. Fortissimo were initially on board to fund the film, back when it was first announced in 2006 at Cannes.

In November, we learned a few casting details, including that  The Wire’s Michael Kenneth Williams would be playing the part originally played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Paul Reubens would be taking over for Jon Lovitz. The film’s IMDb profile has been expanded a bit, and it looks like Ally Sheedy is taking Lara Flynn Boyle’s Happiness Part, and Allison Janney is taking over the role of “Trish” for Cynthia Stevenson.

The Playlist discovered a long synopsis for the film with character names matched up to actor names, and he presumes that Hilton’s role must be “small if they mention eleven actors and not even a peep of her.” But I had another thought: what if the producers are just carefully guarding the film’s biggest casting joke?

The only actor on the Forgiveness IMDb page who isn’t associated with a  character yet is Paris Hilton, which leads me to the following, probably completely crazy conjecture: the original rumors on this film suggested that it was to include characters from both Happiness AND Welcome to the Dollhouse. Is it possible that Hilton is playing Dawn Weiner?

Now this is COMPLETELY SPECULATIVE. But … it seems within the realm of possibility that Solondz, clearly on a mission to stretch his exploration of identity even further than he went with Palindromes, would find something inspiring about the idea of the pre-teen reject once played by Heather Matarazzo growing up to be Paris Hilton. It also seems possible that he’d take some pleasure in going the other way, in de-Parising Paris. Either option would likely play on Hilton’s presumed cultural naivete — it would be impossible to watch her playing Dawn Weiner, regardless of how she played it, without wondering if she understood the original depiction of the character.

I know, I’m probably wrong. It’s just a thought.