Nominations for the 61st annual Writers Guild of America awards are in, with a lot of names that will probably come up again in two weeks, when the Oscar nominations are announced.
In the original screenplay category, the films and their authors are Burn After Reading (Joel Coen and Ethan Coen), Milk (Dustin Lance Black), Vicky Cristina Barcelona (Woody Allen), The Visitor (Tom McCarthy), and The Wrestler (Robert Siegel). The Coens won WGA awards for Fargo and No Country for Old Men, and Allen has won four times, most recently for 1990's Crimes & Misdemeanors.
For adapted screenplay, the nominees are: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Eric Roth), The Dark Knight (Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan), Doubt (John Patrick Shanley), Frost/Nixon (Peter Morgan), and Slumdog Millionaire (Simon Beaufoy). Roth previously won this award for Forrest Gump, and Shanley won for Moonstruck. If you're wondering, The Dark Knight counts as "adapted" because it uses pre-existing characters. (The Oscars have the same rule.)
What does this mean for Oscar-watchers? In the adapted category, of the 120 nominees since 1984 (prior to that the WGA had separate categories for drama and comedy), 90 of them -- 75% -- have also been nominated for Oscars. But 11 of those WGA-but-not-Oscar nominees have happened in the last eight years alone, and some folks think the WGA-omitted Revolutionary Road and/or The Reader might get some Oscar love.
The original screenplay category is almost exactly the same story, with 31 WGA nominees not getting Oscar nods, 14 of those in the last eight years. Among the much-praised original screenplays that might get Oscar attention despite being overlooked by the WGA are Rachel Getting Married and Synecdoche, New York.
The WGA awards will be announced Feb. 7. You can see the entire list of nominees, including documentaries and TV shows (yay 30 Rock!), here.
The Oscars aren't until Feb. 22, and the nominations won't be announced until Jan. 22, but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is steadfastly whittling away the contenders. Shortlists were announced Tuesday for the Best Makeup and Best Visual Effects categories, helping us narrow down which films will eventually be nominated.
Next Thursday, members of the Academy's visual effects branch will gather at L.A.'s Goldwyn Theater to watch 15-minute highlight reels from each of the films, then vote to select the three nominees. As Varietyreports, this is already causing headaches because Journey requires 3D projection and The Dark Knight has IMAX scenes, and the theater isn't equipped for either. Maybe the filmmakers should have thought of that before they got all "innovative" and "different"!
(The reason they only show 15-minute highlights is that they can't expect every voter to have seen all seven contenders in their entirety, especially since the visual effects candidates are often really bad. Remember, it's because of this category that one must properly refer to Hollow Man as "the Oscar-nominated Hollow Man.")
The Producers Guild of America has officially existed since 1962, when separate groups for TV and film merged, but the PGA didn't start giving out awards until 1990. Since then, the PGA best picture winner has matched the Oscar winner 12 out of 19 times. They lined up last year (No Country for Old Men), but conflicted for three years in a row before that. So whichever film wins the PGA award on Jan. 24 has a reasonably good chance -- but by no means a slam-dunk -- of winning the Oscar, too.
But the more immediate question is whether The Dark Knight will even be nominated for the Oscar. The other four PGA nominees are likely Oscar candidates; it's The Dark Knight that's had the big ol' question mark next to it in people's guesses and predictions. A comprehensive list of past PGA nominees is hard to come by, even at the guild's own website, but Gold Derby's Tom O'Neil has done some number-crunching. He reports that of the 95 Best Picture Oscar nominees between 1990 and 2008, 72 were also PGA nominees. Statistically speaking, that means The Dark Knight now has about a 75% chance of getting an Oscar nomination.
The Hollywood Reporter posts that good ol' Arnold Schwarzenegger will soon be immortalized in DC not for his politics, but for his killing machine. The Library of Congress/National Film Registry has selected 25 films to be preserved in the registry. The choices must be "culturally, historically, or aesthetically" significant, and James Cameron's 1984 film The Terminatorleads the pack with its "ingenious, thoughtful script ... and relentless, nonstop action."
And it's a pretty interesting mix of films that will go along with Arnie. We're talking The Invisible Man, Deliverance, In Cold Blood, The Pawnbroker, The Killers, Johnny Guitar, The Asphalt Jungle, A Face in the Crowd, Sergeant York, Disneyland Dream, Flower Drum Song, Free Radicals, Hallelujah, The March, No Lies, On the Bowery, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, George Stevens WWII Footage, Water and Power, White plus silent films like The Perils of Pauline, One Week, So's Your Old Man,White Fawn's Devotion, and Foolish Wives.
Does Schwarzenegger fit right into this list? Are there others that should trump the Terminator? Sound off below!
A lot of the time, watching a movie, we recoil or start at something in it: That's fake, we say, and dismiss the whole film. On many occasions, that impulse is correct because the film is fake, but on rare occasions, we feel that sensation of dislocated wrongness not because the film is fake but because our world is; we can't wrap our heads around the facts and ugly truths of what we see, can't comprehend how such things are possible, and recoil from them out of refusal to believe, not because they aren't believable. This is one of the challenges Defiance, the newest drama from Edward Zwick (Glory, Blood Diamond) faces as it tells the true story of the Bielski brothers, three Belorussian Jews and outlaw petty criminals who, during World War II's pogroms and purges, protected hundreds of Jews from the Nazis, some surviving and others actively fighting back.
We witness Tuvia Bielski (Daniel Craig) make the decision to kill his horse so it can be eaten, and we cannot imagine such hunger. We watch Zus Bielski (Liev Schrieber) fight alongside Russians who hate him to stop Germans who hate him, and we cannot imagine such a grim choice. We watch Asael Bielski (Jamie Bell) fall in love, or a quick quip between two supporting characters, and we cannot imagine love, or laughter, in such a place. But there must have been such hunger; there must have been such anger; there must have been laughter, and love, in the years of exile. It's hard to imagine, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
Last Monday, yours truly was invited to help a friend of a friend out by offering to review Frost/Nixon on their podcast. As it turns out, it was the /Filmcast we were talking about, and it happened to be the same night that head honcho here Erik Davis was due to join in. Small world, eh?
So we tag-teamed our film chatter with the cool guys over at /Film -- David Chen, Adam Quigley, and Devindra Hardawar, to be specific -- and you can listen to that episode right about here. When Erik isn't twirling his hair around his finger and gushing about MTV's episodes of True Life, he and the gang manage to get around to discussing all the latest film news from Terminator: Salvation to the potential Suck Rogers with Frank Miller at the wheel.
I also took part in the /Film After Dark podcast and a recent year-end horror wrap-up extravaganza with just about everyone over at Bloody Disgusting, so with any luck and nearly no shame, we hope to share those as well. For those of you wishing to listen to David, Devindra and Adam record their next /Filmcast live, they'll be looking back on 2008 in film this coming Monday at 9 PM EST/6 PM PST.
Which year-end lists are really worth caring about? What films got a boost from the Broadcast Film Critics and Golden Globe nominations, like Happy-Go-Lucky, and which ones got lost in the shuffle? What's Iron Man doing on the AFI Top Ten Films List, anyhow? And what long, epic films are perfect for enjoying with a turkey sandwich on Boxing Day? Joining James this week to talk about all these topics and more is Kris Tapley of the weblog In Contention. You can listen to the podcast here at Cinematical by clicking below:
As ever, you can download the entire podcast right here -- and those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.
(We're reposting our review of The Wrestler form the Toronto International Film Festival to coincide with the film's theatrical release.)
By James Rocchi
After winning top honors at the Venice Film Festival, Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler rapidly became the must-see of the Toronto International Film Festival, with huge lines at the press and industry screening this afternoon seemingly unaffected by the news that Fox Searchlight had purchased the film. After seeing The Wrestler for myself, I feel the need to extend a note of caution about the film, which sailed into Toronto buoyed by advance raves for Mickey Rourke's performance as Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a low-level professional wrestler -- and we soon see how really, both those words could be in quotation marks -- whose '80s glory days are long over, scraping by at low-level, low-paying matches until a heart attack forces him to leave the ring and look at his life in the shadow of death. Many have already written about the parallels between Mickey Rourke and the swaggering, scarred wrestler he plays -- early success, fame and notoriety, a series of mis-steps and mistakes taking it all away bit by bit as the years advanced -- and the charge Rourke's own rise and fall offers a filmmaker like Aaronofsky looking to explore ruin and redemption.
But don't believe the hype -- or, more importantly, look past it; if a complicated, messy personal life were all it took to deliver a great performance, Paris Hilton and O.J. Simpson would have more Oscars than Katharine Hepburn. Rourke's work as Randy is physical, invested, powerful and sprawling -- but it's also quiet, sad and hauntingly wounded, too. And The Wrestler offers viewers far more than just Rourke's performance -- which, it must be said, is excellent -- if they're willing to not flinch from what it has to say: The Wrestler is a fascinating, rich, unblinking look at the dark, hunched mean streak that lies curled and poisonous inside of so much American popular entertainment and of so much American life. It's early to say this, but The Wrestler is one of the most grimly exciting, magnetically repellent movies we've had in a long time; it's flat-out one of the best American movies of 2008.
Apart from the filmmakers themselves, I can't think of many people who have championed directors more than Roger Ebert, who for 40 years has been an outspoken supporter of filmmaking not just as entertainment but as an art form. And the Directors Guild of America agrees: The group announced today that on Jan. 31, Ebert will receive its Honorary Life Member Award.
He will be the 43rd person (and the first film critic) in the DGA's 61-year history to be given the award, which is "for recognition of outstanding creative achievement, or contribution to the Guild, or the profession of directing." Michael Apted, current president of the DGA and a frequent recipient of Ebert's praise for his own films, said in a press release, "From the blockbuster to the tiny independent film, Roger Ebert has devoted his career to sharing his love of film with generations of moviegoers. In doing so, he's kept directors on their toes for more than 40 years. I am very pleased to welcome him as an Honorary Life Member of the DGA."
Ebert said, "It is a great honor to be chosen by those men and women who are the creators of the art form I love above all others," though I suspect we'll see a more detailed response in his blog.
Like every red-blooded American, I dread the interminable Best Original Song presentations during the Oscars. More often than not, the songs suck, the presentation is elaborate and boring, and the insistence on playing the songs in full drags out an already too-long evening. But this year there's one song I'll actually be excited to see -- assuming it actually gets nominated. Thankfully, none of the Academy's arcane rules disqualified it.
Variety has the just-announced list of 49 eligible Original Songs from 2008. It features the entire soundtrack to High School Musical 3, the memorable "Jai Ho" from Slumdog Millionaire, the worst Bond song of all time, and -- the one I'm rooting for -- Bruce Springsteen's "The Wrestler" from, uh, The Wrestler. If you haven't heard it yet, you can do so here. You'll probably want to bookmark that until the official soundtrack is released on a date to be determined.
Needless to say, a Dark Knight snub's got nothing on the possibility of the Boss not getting to perform this amazing song at this year's ceremony. I might boycott the damn thing. Though, if Steve Coogan gets to perform "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus" instead, I could be persuaded to reconsider.
What are your favorites from 2008? Any of them not on this list? (Ahem, Pineapple Express, anyone?)
Looks like the Austin Film Critics Association have become the first critics group to name The Dark Knight as their favorite of the year (the flick tied Slumdog Millionaire in votes in Chicago). Variety tells us those crazy cats from Texas (drunk off the intoxicating vibes at the Alamo Drafthouse, perhaps) handed out a total of five awards to the Batman sequel, including Best Picture, Supporting Actor (Heath Ledger), Adapted Screenplay, Best Director and Best Score. Other notable Austin Critics awards went to Let the Right One In (Best Foreign Language), Sean Penn, Milk (Best Actor) and Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married (Best Actress).
While The Dark Knight has pushed its way onto more than a few top ten lists (AFI included it in their top 10), the film has taken somewhat of a backseat to frontrunners like Slumdog Millionaire, Milk and WALL-E. In the last round of critics awards, Boston showed a tie between Slumdog and WALL-E -- giving the latter yet another push toward a potential Best Picture nod at the Oscars. Will The Dark Knight continue to remain on the sidelines, or will other critic groups refuse to let Baby sit in the corner?
As the season marches on, 'for your consideration' ads litter the trades and various awards analysis websites. However, there aren't nearly enough campaigns for the year's worst performances.
Oh, and then there's just about the entire cast of The Happening. (If I had to pick just one person, though, I'd go with the gardener who babbles on about hot dogs. The man's priceless.)
So, unless we're about to let Witless Protection sweep the Razzies, what were some of your least favorite performances of the year?
OK, this topic might only interest a few movie nerds, but that includes me, so I'm writing it.
Most people know that to be eligible for Academy Award consideration, a film must play theatrically for at least a week somewhere in Los Angeles County within the calendar year. But what about short films? There are categories for those at the Oscars (usually announced coincidental with the viewing audience's bathroom breaks), but surely those little live-action and animated flicks didn't play theatrically somewhere. I mean, when do you ever see short films in a theater other than in front of the new Pixar movie?
The answer, which you can read for yourself in the Academy's rules, is that for short films, they either have to play theatrically (for three consecutive days, at least twice a day), OR win a best-in-category award at an Academy-approved film festival. And that makes a lot of sense -- the only way most of us ever see shorts at all is at film festivals.
So which festivals "count" for Academy purposes? I'm glad you asked, because it brings us to the reason for this post. The current list of approved festivals is here, and it has the usual suspects -- Toronto, Sundance, Venice, Cannes, Berlin, etc. -- plus about 60 others all over the world. And the news that's a semi-big-deal for our friends in Austin is that our beloved South By Southwest Film Festival has just been approved as an addition to that list. From now on, any short film winning the top prize at SXSW is eligible for Oscar consideration. SXSW is legit now!
What's going on with Summit Entertainment pulling Catherine Hardwicke off of the Twilight films? And who should they get to replace her? Does The Day the Earth Stood Still work as 'hard" science fiction, or is it just hard to watch? And what can cooking with pork tell us about modern leading men? Joining us to talk about these topics and much, much more on The Rocchi Review this week is writer and editor Devin Faraci of Chud.com, who shares his thoughts on the Oscar race and why, precisely, Punisher: War Zone works for him and a wide variety of other topics. You can listen to the podcast here at Cinematical by clicking below:
As ever, you can download the entire podcast right here -- and those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.
Each year the ratings for the Academy Awards seem to drop, and each year more and more people seem to blame the host for his (or her) inability to keep the world glued to their screens for three-plus hours. Sure, it takes a whole lot of everything to satisfy those tuning in to Hollywood's biggest night, but perhaps with the recession and economic problems, folks aren't itching to watch pretty millionaires congratulate one another with smiles, hugs and gold statues. Or we can just blame Jon Stewart for f**king it all up.
Either way, the Academy might be looking to switch things up this year by bringing on a host who isn't a stand-up comedian or a TV personality. According to Deadline Hollywood, they've chosen someone "way outside the box" to host this year's ceremony, and there won't be "the traditional segment of joke-telling near the start of the broadcast." DH says, however, that this person "is in the movie biz," and an announcement could come as soon as early next week. While some would prefer to see them lose the funny guy (or girl), I kinda liked it when they'd open up the show with some laughter or a musical number or, ya know, something light and entertaining ... since that's what these people do for a living -- they entertain. And if the Academy chooses some bore to walk out on stage and open up the show with a monologue about how "important" and "meaningful" movies are, I'll be switching channels in no time. Or, they could announce the new host as being The Jonas Brothers ... and then, well, we're all screwed.
But what do you think -- who would you prefer: a funnier, song-and-dance host or a more serious one?
UPDATE: Apparently, according to Deadline Hollywood, Hugh Jackman is the "way outside the box" name the Academy wants to nominate as host for the Oscars. He sure does look good, and claw good, but will he host good?
UPDATE 2: USA Today now confirms that Jackman will indeed host the Oscars.
Nominations for the 61st annual Writers Guild of America awards are in, with a lot of names that will probably come up again in two weeks, when the Oscar nominations are announced.
The Oscars aren't until Feb. 22, and the nominations won't be announced until Jan. 22, but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is steadfastly whittling away the contenders. Shortlists were announced Tuesday for the Best Makeup and Best Visual Effects categories, helping us narrow down which films will eventually be nominated.
Fans of a certain cave-dwelling rubber-fetishist have cause to celebrate: 
"I'll be back" now has a whole new meaning.
Last Monday, yours truly was invited to help a friend of a friend out by offering to review 
Apart from the filmmakers themselves, I can't think of many people who have championed directors more than Roger Ebert, who for 40 years has been an outspoken supporter of filmmaking not just as entertainment but as an art form. And the Directors Guild of America agrees: The group 
Like every red-blooded American, I dread the interminable Best Original Song presentations during the Oscars. More often than not, the songs suck, the presentation is elaborate and boring, and the insistence on playing the songs in full drags out an already too-long evening. But this year there's one song I'll actually be excited to see -- assuming it actually gets nominated. Thankfully, none of the Academy's arcane rules disqualified it..jpg)
As the season marches on, 'for your consideration' ads litter the trades and various awards analysis websites. However, there aren't nearly enough campaigns for the year's worst performances.
OK, this topic might only interest a few movie nerds, but that includes me, so I'm writing it. 
Each year the ratings for the Academy Awards seem to drop, and each year more and more people seem to blame the host for his (or her) inability to keep the world glued to their screens for three-plus hours. Sure, it takes a whole lot of everything to satisfy those tuning in to Hollywood's biggest night, but perhaps with the recession and economic problems, folks aren't itching to watch pretty millionaires congratulate one another with smiles, hugs and gold statues. Or we can just blame 
