Interview with an Academy Member - 2011

Every year, numerous publications, including the LA Times & Entertainment Weekly, reveal how anonymous Academy members voted, in the hopes of shedding some light on the way this years Oscars go down. Last year we were lucky enough to chat with a member who most often votes off the beaten path and he agreed to talk to us again this year, this time going even more in depth.

How do you think 2010 fared in general?


Overall, I actually think it's been a very impressive year. It may not have been very deep in terms of quantity of good films, but the top 10-12 were pretty exceptional. As a matter of fact this is the first time since I've been in the academy in which all the films I nominated actually made it on to the final ballot. I have heard some murmuring about this year's films lacking in some way and just last week on Show Business!, Peter Guber complained it was not a particularly great year because he didn't see any "Godfathers" out there. Truth of the matter is that I don't see any "Godfathers" in many of the recent Best Pic winners, so I'm really not quite sure what he was talking about. It certainly wasn't The Departed or No Country for Old Men. In terms of cinematic scope, I'd have to look back to Return of the King, and in terms of perfection, I think you'd have to go all the way back to Shakespeare in Love, but still neither of those touch The Godfather. So, I guess what I'm saying is sure, we'd all like to see more "Godfathers" being made, but in the mean time, this year's crop is a pretty damn good one.

What is your philosophy when it comes to filling out your ballot?


Well by the time I get the ballot I have tried very consciously to have already seen all of the major contenders and beyond, and then if I've seen all five nominees in a given category, I'll fill out the ballot IMMEDIATELY. This way it reflects my true gut feelings about the work itself. It is after all an Academy of motion picture arts and sciences, it's not about commercial success or "pimping" yourself to win (as one actress has infamously described her campaign). I can understand a studio campaigning for a film just to be sure that it's seen by as many members as possible, but it's hard for me to accept that one actor wants to have an Oscar more than any of the other nominees. So taking out an ad that essentially says "pick me because I want it more" seems counter intuitive to awarding the Oscar based on the performance alone. One of the major benefits of filling it out as soon as possible is to avoid being influenced in any way by all of the ensuing typical Oscar campaigns.

Was Supporting Actress a category you filled out before all the controversy, or did the ad end up affecting your choice?


I had seen all five nominees and in all honestly it was a no brainer for me to pick Hailee Steinfeld, who basically stole the entire picture and on whose shoulders the story rested. I thought Melissa Leo's performance in The Fighter was terrific, I could also name half a dozen other actresses who could have hit it out of the park as well. However it took looking at something like 14,000 girls to find Hailee Steinfeld and she was uniquely spot on. All of this being said however, if Julianne Moore had been nominated in this category, I very probably would have voted for her because she was the heart and soul of The Kids Are All Right and although that film is as close to an ensemble piece as the Best Picture nominees go, she truly supported every other performance in the movie. Her performance also took me by surprise in that it's the warmest, earthiest, most sensual, most vulnerable, most lovable that I've ever seen her in a film. She made the pivotal scenes with Mark Ruffalo believable and organic, when they so easily could have been cliched or come across as a stereotypical male fantasy.

Clearly Moore was a snub you weren't happy with, was there anything else you disappointed to see not receive a nomination?

First I have to reiterate that we Academy Members never get together and decide to snub someone. And for all I know, Julianne Moore pulled herself out of this category because her not getting nominated is incomprehensible to me. The only other film I wish had been nominated was Tangled for Best Animated Film as it came closest to giving me as an animation lover everything I enjoy about classic animated films. I didn't think the animation itself was as beautiful as it could have been, but the voice performances, the screenplay, the humor and the music were wonderful, as well as the twist of changing Rapunzel's rescuer from a prince to a thief, which worked extremely well. Everything about it seemed genuine, especially the lead performances and so your emotional responses to the story were more authentic than they were to Toy Story 3, which to me seemed to be working overtime to manipulate your emotions. The Illusionist was beautifully animated, but I can't say the story was all that engaging and while I really enjoyed the story, music and flight sequences of How To Train Your Dragon, the character design and particularly the lead voice acting and the dragons themselves just weren't very appealing. If Toy Story 3 had recused itself, as I think any animated film nominated for Best Picture should, that third slot would have most likely gone to Tangled. And just to clarify, I'd feel the same way about a Best Foreign Language film. If it should be nominated for Best Picture, it should not also be nominated for Best Foreign. I don't think there should be a built-in consolation prize.

Which were your top 5 and in which order were they nominated?


1. The Social Network

2. True Grit

3. Black Swan

4. Inception

5. The Kids Are All Right

So The King's Speech, the front runner, didn't even make your top five?


When I saw the movie, my first reaction was Colin Firth just gave the best performance of his career, deeply nuanced from the inside out... and is going to win an Oscar, but I honestly did not think I just saw one of the best movies of the year. It's that simple. I don't mean to diminish it in any way whatsoever by saying it would have worked as well on television, because I think some of the best television ever made is being produced now, but ultimately, it's was just not as outright cinematic as the films I did nominate.

What was your pick for Best Director?


I hope it's Fincher's year. There's not much else to say other than The Social Network was brilliantly directed. I've seen it 3 times now and it impressed me more with every viewing.

What was your pick for Best Actress?


I thought all 5 leading performances were absolutely wonderful this year, but I put the check next to Natalie Portman as soon as I opened my ballot. Jennifer Lawrence and Michelle Williams gave beautiful, subtle performances and I loved Annette Bening, but simply did not see that role as either the lead character or her best work. Natalie Portman's immersion in that character is what made Black Swan as stunning as it is and she was breathtaking in it.

What was your pick for Best Original Screenplay?


The King's Speech kind of carved its story out of historical tidbits and existing works whereas the Kids Are All Right was a wholly original, authentic, genuine portrayal of truly complex relationships thats is also very relevant to what's going on in our society today. It reflected the way that real people really speak and interact and it actually felt original, like something you hadn't seen before, which I don't think was accomplished by The King's Speech's screenplay, as well written as it might be.

Anything else you'd like to say?


On a side note, I wish there was someway to acknowledge the animated sequence in Harry Potter, which is probably among the finest animation I've seen this year in any context or format. I can only hope that if Deathly Hallows wins either of the categories it's nominated in (Art Direction, Special Effects), that the animator gets a well deserved piece of that award.

Read More

Happy Radiohead Day!

I hope you've all had a fabulous Radiohead day! Waking up to find The King of Limbs released a day early was a spectacular surprise. I need more time to process the album before I can write a proper post but it's certainly GOOD. I think Radiohead actually has a rule where (after Pablo Honey) they refuse to make bad albums. I like this rule.

I also like their video for "Lotus Flower"...Thom Yorke is so oddly sexy in it.

Read More

The Bottom Line: Melissa Leo's Personal Oscar Campaign

Crossposted on and commissioned by Film.com

In true industry fashion, for the first couple days following the publication of Melissa Leo's controversial "For Your Consideration" ads, the Internet was ablaze with talk of how inappropriate and awkward they were, asking what she was thinking and pondering whether it was going to hurt her chances. But in ever truer industry fashion, a couple days after that, the backlash to the backlash had begun, the Internet then ablaze with people being offended by the notion that these ads would affect her potential Oscar win, defending Leo, saying, *if* you're going to judge her at least try to get a sense of who she really is first.

I've actually been struggling with all of this myself. When I initially saw the ads, my reaction was one of pure and unbridled "WTF." Why on EARTH would the front-runner for the Academy Award find it necessary to take an ad out for herself, let alone an ad that is nothing more than a glamor shot. If this is about the performance? Why isn't the ad ... about the performance?

Then a few days later, after reading multiple defenses, I changed my tune. Everyone else has studios or publicists taking out ads for them; she had to take matters into her own hands. She isn't desperate, just excited -- who cares how she campaigns, plus, fun fact! She actually seems like a pretty amazing person.

Well now that the initial fervor has somewhat died down, I've finally settled on how I truly feel about the matter and whether or not it will affect her predicted win.

Academy members *should* only vote based on performance, this is true. It's what we all hope for. But if we are going to believe in this principle, we need to really believe it. All of us. Which would mean no ads based on anything other than touting the performance. How can we ignore the ads and claim awards are about the performance, when that doesn't even seem to be what Leo believes? I love her, but it does sort of seem like she wants us to think that this is about *her*, not the character of Alice Ward, that she's been in this industry for years, that she's an old pro, that she's due -- nothing about her campaign or previous speeches have implied otherwise. So the whole argument seems very uneven. I'm all for focusing only on the performance, but it needs to apply all around. This would also mean, as much as I've loved the pieces I've read on the matter, that there shouldn't be articles explaining why she is a good person. It shouldn't matter.

To further complicate the situation, Hailee Steinfeld was being primed to upset Leo before all this ruckus started. Her momentum had definitely begun. If anything, this mini controversy may have simply brought up the conversation slightly sooner. But in terms of predictions I've been reading and industry insiders I've been talking to, the win was starting to swing in Steinfeld's direction BEFORE the ads came out. And the reason is the performance. Many people simply appreciate Steinfeld's performance more. It's been explained to me that Maddie does more to support Cogburn's journey than Alice did for Mickey's, and that Alice is more of a fun character role than an Oscar-worthy one. The biggest argument I've heard against Steinfield is that this is her first movie (...and?), the second biggest being that she is so vital to the film because she is actually the lead and therefore shouldn't win supporting. But the mere fact that whether she is lead or supporting is debatable; add to that the fact that kids have traditionally always ended up in the supporting categories, and that should squash this argument once and for all. Her placement is what it is, don't blame Steinfeld for it. (For what it's worth, I think her monologue at the end proves that Cogburn is in fact the "lead" -- it might have been her story, but it was her story about *his* redemption. He is the one that changes. She supports that change.)

Ultimately it comes down to this: I don't think Leo should have taken out those ads, but I do hope the Academy ignores them. And for that matter, any other ads. Performance should always be considered first, then role, then movie, then sentiment/history, then politics. While those last two factors are unfortunately inevitable, they should *at least* be considered after what really matters.

The worst part of this? If someone does upset Leo, guess what people are going to point to for the reason? Not the performance. Not the role. Perhaps not even the movie. They will point purely to this controversy. And this is reason enough alone not to have taken the ad out. It makes the Supporting Actress race unnecessarily focused on politics and outside factors, pure and simple. If anything is to come from the ad, perhaps it is Academy members being forced to "think about the performance," as people jumping to Leo's defense have urged them to do, that will end up hurting her come Oscar night -- maybe such a suggestion will make members second guess going with a supposed lock and really take another look at the other nominated performances.

I'd like to think voters will forget about this entire situation before sending in their ballots, especially because Melissa Leo was an absolute genius in The Fighter, and I'd be thrilled to see her take the win with no controversy. Unfortunately, in true industry fashion, no one forgets anything. Expect mention of these ads in every Oscar wrap-up article on the Internet should Leo win OR lose. Sigh.

Read More

Casting The Runaways

Crossposted on Film.com

At first glance, Marvel's Runaways being delayed for another year or two may seem like horrible news. But I have a much different perspective. When W released this photo a couple weeks ago, I started thinking about the large amount of teen talent out there right now. But specifically in the ages 11-16, as in, *just* too young to be cast in Runaways, had it begun shooting last month like originally intended, but the perfect age to begin shooting in 2012 or 2013. I mean, there's always been Disney and Nick kids, sure, but the list of consistently working teenagers who've never appeared on an episode of Wizards of Waverly Place is quite staggering, at least as far as girls are concerned. Consider: Chloe Moretz (13), Madeline Carrol (14), Georgie Henley (15), Dakotah & Elle Fanning (16 & 12), Nicola Peltz (16), Kiernan Shipka (11), and that's to name just a few.

Featuring the actual released breakdowns, I present to you, my casting for Runaways, mostly aimed to be just the right age in 1-2 years. Message boards dally in casting the property every year, but the actors in question quickly grow out of the roles. This fantasy casting is attempting to safe guard against that. Enjoy and feel free to offer up your ideas in the comments!

NICO

Breakdown: Uniquely beautiful, nurturing but guarded

(Note: Original breakdown didn't specify race, but after some controversy, "Asian-American" was added to the description of the character)

Suggestion: We get a time machine, go back to 1998, steal 16 year old Kristin Kreuk, and bring her back to play Nico. Oh, time travel doesn't exist? Cool. In that case, I'm going with the perhaps questionable choice of part Filipino Hailee Steinfeld. Nico is supposed to be Japanese American, but as most actresses fitting that bill, or at least fitting closer than Hailee is, (Sophie Oda, Malese Jow, Ellen Wong) are well beyond the appropriate age, I'm going with Hailee for fun. We know she can exude confidence on command, and it would be fun to see her take the journey from rebellious girl to woman in charge over the course of a few movies. Though ultimately I do hope that the casting office elects to go with an unknown here rather than cast too old or too white washed, while Hailee rocks the part of Katniss in the Hunger Games. Fingers crossed.

GERT

Breakdown: Chubby oddball, smart and verbal

Suggestion: The popular choice on the interwebs for Gert is the more or less on the money Mae Whitman. Unfortunately, Whitman is pushing 23, and no longer an actual teenager. I'd go more for either 16 year old Allie Grant (Weeds) or 14 year old Abigail Breslin. Both can do verbal, both can do sass and both are at least circling the correct age range. Another suggestion I've heard is 17 year old Jennifer Stone, mostly known from Disney/ABC Family ventures, and she actually fits the bill quite well, but since I'd like to avoid Disney kids, and we're skewing younger here, I'm sticking with Breslin. Can you imagine her with purple hair and glasses? Please yes please!

KAROLINA

Breakdown: Conventionally beautiful, with an unchecked ego

Suggestion: Taylor Momsen and Dakotah Fanning seem to be popular choices on various message boards, but as Karolina is both unusually poised and an alien, I'm going with the suddenly jaw droppingly stunning 16 year old Saoirse Ronan. She simuntaneously rocks an alien quality whilst remaining incredibly gorgeous. Girl is growing up well. And hell, I wouldn't object to making Karolina's famous actor "parents" happen to be Irish so Ronan can keep her accent.

MOLLY

Breakdown: An innocent, wide-eyed and overprotected

Suggestion: My pick for Molly isn't as well known as the others, but could definitely rock this part. Morgan Lily, best known by me for playing the 10 year old version of Juli in Flipped, soon to be best known by you as young Mystique in X-Men: First Class, has the right look and tenacity for the adorable, but resourceful Molly. I'm confident that in a couple years she will still be young and wide-eyed enough to pull off this role. 

ALEX

Breakdown: Very smart, natural leader, in need of a father figure. African American.

Suggestion: So while we are in 1998, stealing 16 year old Kristin Kreuk, can we also steal 16 year old Percy Daggs III, of Veronica Mars fame? He is such a spitting image of Alex, it makes my brain hurt. If that doesn't work out, I have a strange, but perhaps intriguing idea. Connor Cruise has decided to go into the family business, having recently shot Red Dawn, for which he lost all of his baby fat. I can't help but imagine glasses and longer hair on the 16 year old and seeing flashes of Alex. Though I'm beginning to warm to a particular actor who keeps popping up on Runaways casting boards across the internet - 17 year old Marcus Carl Franklin, best known for being the Woody incarnation of Bob Dylan in 2007's I'm Not There, for which he was nominated for a Spirit Award, and for his role in Broadway's Caroline or Change. Boy has chops and a striking resemblance to Alex.

CHASE

Breakdown: A rebel, ignores rules and authority, wounded inside

Suggestion: If Chase weren't specifically the oldest in the group, I'd love to recommend 14 year old Charlie Rowe (Never Let Me Go), but even two years from now, he'd be a tad too young. If filming were beginning now, I'd suggest 18 year old Josh Hutcherson. We certainly got a feel for his anti-establishment side in The Kids Are All Right, and he has a young enough face that a romance with the slightly younger Gert wouldn't seem entirely out of place. But going with the conceit of beginning production in two years, I'm selecting 16 year old Callan McAuliffe (I Am Number Four) who I think would actually make quite the nice match with Breslin.

So there you have it. Since the announcement a couple months ago regarding pushing production back and allowing Peter Sollet to make a different movie first, there has been some worry that the film will be shelved indefinitely. Here's hoping we still get our Runaways movie within the next couple years and that some of the kids on this list are considered? Maybe? Saoirse Ronan at least?

If it were up to you, who would you cast?

Special Thanks: Cakes

Read More

Warning Signs: How To Tell You Are Becoming A Movie Blogger

Crossposted on and commissioned by Film.com

Things used to be so different. If you wanted to be a journalist, you majored in journalism. Or if you didn’t have that kind of foresight, you’d write a couple samples, submit to small publications or free magazines, building your portfolio so you could one day make it to the big leagues. My dad always tells me about how he started writing music reviews in the ’70s just to get free records and it led to his entire career being possible, but how he had to work really hard to get his pieces published.

These days, a lot of people start their own blogs with a similar idea, thinking, maybe I can get free stuff, maybe I can make a career! But there are almost as many un-updated blogs out there as there are non-working actors. Sure, in theory, anyone can be a blogger, but to really be considered one, you have to crossover into a very specific and sometimes strange area. So we decided to provide you with a guide, a way of figuring out when you’ve finally made the transition from wanna-be-blogger to wanna-be-journalist *actual* blogger. Some snarky, some serious, but all true. And as I consider myself nothing more than a blogger, please take these with a self-deprecating grain of salt. Warning signs, in chronological order, below!

You start carrying a tiny notebook with you at all times, for movies, for events, for post ideas, for future tweets.

You find yourself taking notes in your tiny notebook during movies more than you’re actually watching the movies, much to the chagrin of anyone you ever see movies with ever.

You filled up your tiny notebook. And your next tiny notebook. And your next. You now have A LOT of tiny notebooks.

You download a recording app for your iPhone/iPad because you were buying too many tiny notebooks.

You start turning down hanging out with friends so you can stay home and write recaps. For shows you don’t like. For your own website. That no one is paying you for. Great idea!

Your stomach hurts with jealousy when you read other, snarkier recaps of said TV shows.

Any time you disagree with something, anything, anywhere, you think “This will make a great post!” … It doesn’t always work out so well.

You understand the importance of Twitter and can explain it to someone with zero irony.

You start thinking exclusively in 140-character blocks.

You start getting into tweet wars with Devin Faraci … that he never knows exist.

Your blog has at least 300 posts/year and you consider that to be not good enough.

Your movie rating system quickly dissolves into “the most awesome,” “really awesome,” “awesome,” “pretty awesome,” or “not that awesome, but still awesome enough.”

Your “Real Life Friends” Twitter list is starting to closely resemble your “Favorite Movie Blogger” Twitter list.

You quote movie bloggers to your friends, without explaining who they are, who they write for, or the fact that they are even writers to begin with.

You’ve won at least three Twitter/blog contests.

You’ve held at least three Twitter/blog contests.

You now feel no guilt when you write off movie tickets, DVDs, video games, comic books, your cable bill, and more on your taxes.

You’ve been linked to by Slashfilm‘s Page Two, The Film Experience, or any other number of successful blogs’ link posts.

Your blog now has its own link post each week.

You start beginning conversations at events, screenings, and conventions with “What’s your Twitter handle?” And surprise! More often than not, turns out you know the person already.

You begin getting bizarre, unsolicited packages in the mail that range from flip cams to candy to screeners to books to packets of fake blood. And you accept this as perfectly normal.

You feel a kinship with Scott Weinberg because you both tweet way too much and you both love your cat. Sometimes this turns into both of you tweeting way too much ABOUT your cat. Note: This one could also just apply to me.

You start being called names, belonging to cliques and having haters. It’s like high school all over again, only now you’re the cool kid. VICTORY!

And finally, the true sign that you have become a movie blogger — someone starts paying you to write about movies. That one’s pretty cut and dry.

Read More

Need A Last Minute Geeky Valentine?

 Check out these, from Beavotron

These remind me of Eruditechick :)

For more geeky valentines, ranging from Lost to Left for Dead to The Office, follow the link!

Read More

A Happy V-Day Courtesy of Radiohead

The new Radiohead album, The King of Limbs, is available for pre-order on the band's official website. You can now order either a digital download or the "newspaper album" + digital download. The album will then be available for download this Saturday, Feb. 19th.

I'm too happy for words. Let's just say that life is sweet again and, despite being single, I feel the love everywhere on this stupid holiday.

Expect a review soon!

Read More