Angelina Jolie: ‘A Lack of Dialogue, Diplomacy and Education is Dangerous’ https://t.co/ONQtVBPkJZ via @variety

— Kristopher Tapley (@kristapley) September 3, 2017

TELLURIDE, Colo. — Angelina Jolie made her first trip to the Telluride Film Festival this year with her fourth directorial effort, “First They Killed My Father.” Based on the memoir by Loung Ung, it tells the harrowing story of Ung and her family, who fled their home in Phnom Penh, Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge regime took over and moved from village to village, hiding their identity and former life of privilege. Ung would eventually even train as a child soldier in a work camp for orphans to survive.
The film is Jolie’s finest hour behind the camera, told with vibrant visuals from Ung’s unique, and evolving, point of view. Jolie and Ung sat down with Variety at the fest festival to discuss the film.

Variety: Luong, I suppose the obvious question is what was your reaction to seeing your life unfold on the screen the first time you saw the film?
Loung Ung: Happiness and gratefulness. I think I’m just really grateful that it got done and it was made by a friend who I trust. I’m really happy with it. Of course, I was heartbroken to see some of the scenes in the movie, not particularly the big explosive scenes but the scenes of the family sitting together at dinner, that broke me to pieces.

Is it fair to say that feeling of happiness to share your story with the world supersedes the sad reminders that confront you in the film?
Ung: Yes. The story has never been silent to me. It may have been silent to many other people in the world but never to me. It exists in my head and heart and dreams and in my stomach and shoulders at times. So that’s something I’ve learned to deal with over the years and learned to heal. But the happiness definitely supersedes that. I’m so happy that this movie that honors families and traditions will go out and change hearts and minds. Personally, for me, as an activist, I’m happy for that, but as a daughter, I’m so happy that generations of Ungs who will come after me will know something about their history and know that we made this with love.

Angelina, on a nuts-and-bolts level, the visual language of the film is truly dynamic. You and your cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle have found a way to use objective photography to approach a subjective sense and it’s really remarkable. Talk a little about that.

 Jolie: Because the book was written through her point of view, that was the challenge. But you realize early on how much that could be a gimmick. What is that? What is a child’s point of view? Technically how to do it is one thing, but the other thing was more about the emotional point of view. Because you can get on your knees and imagine what she sees, and whenever you’re blocking a scene, you have to figure out where is she. But it’s also how she looks at things and what she looks at and what she looks away from when she’s five, and how that changes when she’s nine. So our Steadicam operator, Bella, really had to feel it out. She had to have a behavior behind the camera. If someone yells you have to look away. If you’re just a kid maybe you’re just coloring and start to look at the ceiling, because you’re a kid. To do that but to collect enough information was the challenge. It wasn’t, “Let’s do a master shot and then two close-ups.” We would talk about clues. We would say, “However we do it, when we’re in her POV, she needs to notice these three things.” At the checkpoint, for instance, she notices the western things, the pins, the money — these things are going to be taken. And Pa is going to be different and he’s going to lie. You create this whole world and shoot very free and wild, which is very Anthony, but however you shoot, you have to pick up these clues. But we also talked about the country being a character. That’s why the drone shots were important. It wasn’t just because it was big and beautiful, it was because the country was a prison. It wasn’t one place with walls, it was the country. So to show that and masses of people moving, the entire country uprooted, the sheer scale — we wanted to be very intimate with her, but then very inclusive of the entire country.

It’s also a great way to convey exposition naturally. In one scene lingers on a conversation between the men about the dangers that lie ahead, and you get that information, then she’s very organically distracted by some other children.
Jolie: I’m so glad you see it that way. That was the challenge, how to pick up some clues and information, and know that she doesn’t understand what they’re talking about. And maybe we don’t understand yet. We never say “Communism.” We just see people cut their hair, or dye their clothes, lose some individualism. But we never label it. The goal was if we’re really doing it right, by the time she gets to the soldier camp, you’re actually happy for her. If we can get the audience so indoctrinated and the characters are stripped and scared and starved and alone, but then she gets there and she’s with friends and she has food — hopefully the feeling in the audience’s head is to see how you get indoctrinated.
And we’re also hearing the same repetitive, hypnotic sort of mantras from the loudspeakers in the camp that she hears.
Jolie: Yes, and we even forget that she’s running around in her outfit getting stronger. We forget she’s wearing the exact outfit of the people who killed her father. We’re rooting for her, but she’s switched sides. And it takes her a while to realize she’s switched sides.

Luong, depicting all of this with visual language and everything, obviously this is the world of art and supporting theme on a level, but did it all nevertheless ring true for you throughout?
Ung: Oh God, yeah. It’s so eerie to watch it, the emotions and the anger. And I was happy when I got to the soldier camp. I was given more food, and I felt kind of guilty to have it. And I felt very aware when they put a gun in my hands that it was half my height and a third of my weight. But it gave me power.

It’s difficult to depict insidiousness. I think that’s what has been accomplished here. And also I wanted to talk about color. There are the vibrant sort of fever dream aspects to her imaginings early on, and then how the palette shifts throughout the movie, it’s very interesting. Could you speak to that, Angelina?
Jolie: It’s interesting because one, it’s sort of about that mix of the horror and the beauty, but it was also the ‘70s. And the ‘70s in Cambodia, they had their dancing and their movie theaters and their bellbottoms, and it was important to see what was stripped away. I wanted people to know Cambodia as it was. Not just narratively did I want to show what she lost, but it was just so vibrant. It was 1975, the year I was born, year zero. So it was about, “How can that happen there?” And then to see the color stripped away is what the film does. You start to really just focus on the reds and everything becomes almost neutral and black and white. And again, trying to do it so it doesn’t feel like a gimmick, but it means something and sparks something.

All of these ideas are exciting to play with as an artist and finding the visual ideas that will tell the story. Would you say that, even though this is a sad and harrowing story to tell, that this film is your most exciting creative endeavor so far.
Jolie: Yes. For all of those reasons. And I think I’ve finally gotten to a place where I’ve been learning a lot as I’ve been directing and trusting myself and being more creative. I care about every film I’ve done, but this one because of what it meant to my family and [my son] Maddox. Every day on set you could just feel the whole country. Everybody on our crew was affected by the war in one way or another. You would see grown men cry after a scene because they would remember something. So I feel a little pressure from it, but I feel we are representing a country. And I’m so proud of everybody that’s come together, considering especially that artists were the first ones taken out. There’s a poetic justice to artists coming back and telling the story.

Finally, and off-topic, but my phone has been blowing up with news alerts all weekend and I figure as a Special Envoy to the United Nations you might have something to say about it. What are your thoughts on the potential humanitarian crisis unfolding in North Korea with the ongoing testing of nuclear weapons?
Jolie: I think in general, about engagements in the world — of course it’s always important to protect your country. And this is not directly related to the question, but I’m somebody who very much believes in diversity and human rights and spreading democracy, but I believe in dialogue above all. I believe in diplomacy. I believe a lack of dialogue and diplomacy and education is dangerous. We’re at a time when we really need to be working with others around the world, our partners and allies and international institutions, working together to solve big crises and come together. I want to see more of that.

Top Telluride for me:

1. Lady Bird
2. Hostiles
3. First They Killed My Father

— Kristopher Tapley (@kristapley) September 3, 2017

Angelina Jolie recalls the emotional experience of screening her new film in Cambodia #Telluride https://t.co/TbakwyB7Cf pic.twitter.com/F6RvU7Xa3s

— Variety (@Variety) September 3, 2017

Telluride Film Festival: Angelina Jolie On Directing, Netflix, A Possible New Oscar Shot, And Getting Back To… https://t.co/BQ16Ihi1iM

— Pete Hammond (@DeadlinePete) September 3, 2017

 Angelina Jolie told me she’s having a great time at her first Telluride Film Festival, where since the debut here Saturday of First They Killed My Father, her fourth directorial effort that’s been winning strong praise.

The film is based on Loung Ung’s memoir about the devastating effect the Khmer Rouge had on her own family when she was just 9 years old. Ung, who is also in Telluride, adapted the book with Jolie. But Jolie told the Telluride audience yesterday the Cambodian people really made it themselves. “Netflix made it possible and gave them the tools to tell their story,” she said.

It is also a cautionary tale in the perilous world of today as dictators and dangerous regimes still seem to thrive the world over.  This movie, which could have been unrelievedly brutal and difficult to watch, instead is almost lyrical in some ways as told through the eyes of children so affected by that war, gorgeously shot by Oscar winning cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle with a great score by Marco Beltrami.

At an intimate Saturday night reception for the film at the Cosmopolitan restaurant as a thunderstorm raged outside, I suggested to Jolie and Ung (who now lives in Cleveland) that it was fate that intervened when Jolie, on a trip to Cambodia several years ago, just happened to pick up a $2 book on a street corner that turned out to be Ung’s memoir. The result changed her life and now the film is making its way out into the world. “I started directing just a few years ago and I thought what matters to me, what has changed my life, what needs to be told. And I love (Cambodia) and feel it is so important that people know what happened, and I want my son to know who his countrymen are and to be proud of their culture and to confront and be honest about the past,” she told the audience yesterday while explaining that she waited a few years until her son Maddox could fully participate, and in fact he has an Executive Producer credit on the movie and is also in Telluride.

At the reception I asked why she chose Netflix, and she said it was the reality of the current state of filmmaking that a small movie like this, in a foreign language and with no stars, would be lucky to play for a week at a small theater in New York. She said Netflix allows it to be found and seen by a much larger audience and will help give it a stronger social media imprint as well.

Getting this film made was just one hurdle for Jolie, but getting it seen is clearly her mission now. Netflix honcho Ted Sarandos sat directly in front of me at yesterday’s screening and I asked him about plans to have this film submitted by Cambodia for this year’s Academy Awards foreign language contest, and he said he is confident that will happen. That would have the extraordinary effect of making Jolie the rare American director with a movie eligible for the Foreign Language Film nomination. But first, it will also have to pass muster with Academy rules requiring the bulk of the key creative team to also be from the country of origin. For Jolie the fact that this film might be submitted by the current Cambodian regime is remarkable considering some of the things going on there now including attempts to shut down some of the media. “I am a western woman and it would be amazing if they could agree to send our film (to the Academy),” she said adding it would be a powerful and surprising message of unified support from the Cambodian government.

Jolie, with her continuing work with refugees the world over and her work with the United Nations , is already the winner of the Academy’s Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award, as well as having a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Girl Interrupted, but directing a movie that could possibly take her to the 90th Annual Academy Awards would be unprecedented for the star who has held Cambodian citizenship since 2005.

I also think her screenplay with Ung could find its way into the Best Adapted Screenplay category, which is much lighter this year in terms of competition. With past directorial efforts like In The Land Of Blood And Honey, Unbroken, and By The Sea shot, like First They Killed My Father, on foreign shores it would make perfect sense to see Jolie in the Foreign Language category, and in fact I brought up the fact that she is that rare director who has worked fairly effortlessly in several languages for her movies. She likes the dialogue to be authentic and doesn’t shy away from the use of subtitles.

With four directorial achievements under her belt I asked if she had another one lined up but she told me it is time to return to acting for a while. “I am now the breadwinner for the family so it’s time, ” she laughed . There were rumors that she might be doing Universal’s Bride Of Frankenstein but she said she is going back to Disney to do Maleficent 2. “We have been working on the script and this is going to be a really strong sequel,” she said, excited by the prospect of returning to that Disney villainess. Meanwhile she’s helping to make this Telluride Film Festival a memorable one.

Argo

A thoughtful, balanced take.


HitFix

Off the Carpet: The long, strange trip of 'Argo'

Charting the rise, fall, rise and fall of this year's likely Best Picture victor

By Kristopher Tapley Monday, Feb 18, 2013 3:03 PM

The epic journey of Ben Affleck's "Argo" began at the Telluride Film Festival in September. After a couple of years of pandering a bit by accepting Toronto-bound Oscar bait in the form of films like "Black Swan," "The Descendants" and "127 Hours," and then bizarrely bemoaning the surge in awards coverage they yielded, the festival's directors pulled back over the last two years, retreating to their former identity of carefully curating selections from international festivals. But they nevertheless left room for one "Sneak Preview" on the line-up this time around, and that film was "Argo."

The film blew the roof off at its first screening there for patrons of the festival and attending press. A burst of applause hit at the film's oft-discussed airport climax and the stage was set for an Oscar thoroughbred to find its way through the season. But there were still six whole months in the season left to go. And no one wants to be a frontrunner too early for too long.
Soon enough, another film would join the conversation, as David O. Russell's "Silver Linings Playbook" debuted at the Toronto Film Festival and delighted audiences there. But "Argo" still had plenty to offer as it had its "official" premiere at the fest, duking it out with Russell's film for the coveted Audience Award.

"Argo" would ultimately yield that prize to Harvey Weinstein's primped and prepared contender, and it would also weather its first dose of controversy. Canadians weren't pleased with perceived insinuations that their government's hand in what was, after all, called "The Canadian Caper" was more superficial than the history had suggested. Affleck and Warner Bros. handled it swiftly and gracefully, adding a card at the end of the film for clarification, and the dust-up stretched no further than the Toronto city limits.

Lucky for "Argo" and "Silver Linings Playbook," Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" still had the onus of Oscar heavy. Sight-unseen, the film was an on-paper sure thing. Films like "Anna Karenina," "The Master" and "Cloud Atlas" played at the fest but were quickly regarded as uphill battles for Oscar. The sense was that we hadn't seen our Best Picture winner yet and, again, there was so much more around the corner.

The next stop of the season was the New York Film Festival. Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" would become an instant player as the opening night film, a visual wonder from a respected filmmaker. But ahead of its "official" AFI Fest bow, "Lincoln" would pop up as a surprise screening at the fest like "Hugo" last year. Finally gracing the season with its presence, it was a long breath of a film, a studied consideration of the 16th President's struggle to pass the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. It wasn't the expected Spielberg. It was contained. Indeed, the reserve even stretched to the work of composer John Williams. But while the sight-unseen frontrunner had finally landed, few were ready to concede it the victory just yet, even if a boatload of nominations were surely expected.

There were still more films to come, and after the Thanksgiving holiday, they would hit the ground running. "Les Misérables" was the first to come out of hiding, premiering to a New York audience full of guild and Academy members. And it couldn't have played better: applause throughout, crying, rave responses. One would be forgiven for thinking we had a Best Picture frontrunner on our hands, particularly with such a given as the Best Supporting Actress winner appearing clear as day. Further screenings on the west coast would begin to add nuance to the overall reaction as a great many critics, foreshadowing the overall critical reception to the film, took umbrage with the film's aesthetic. Nevertheless, the Broadway adaptation had more than its fair share of fans in the industry and was poised to be a big Oscar player.

"Les Mis" would have its moment for a time, but then Kathryn Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty" would steal its thunder and really make an impact. Seemingly starving for something this heady after the gooey "Les Misérables," the critics took to it like red meat. The film landed the weekend after "Les Mis" did and seemed to kill two birds with one stone: It presented itself as a drier, more journalistically minded and therefore "more important" CIA thriller alternative to "Argo" and, via star Jessica Chastain, muscled (for a time) Jennifer Lawrence out of frontrunner spot for Best Actress she had held since "Silver Linings Playbook" hit Toronto over two months prior. It seemed like it could be an awards juggernaut, but would it be too cold and distanced for Academy members to embrace it?

Whether it would or wouldn't, the first batch of precursor groups were enamored with their shiny new play thing. The New York Film Critics Circle and National Board of Review crowned it the year's best as December rolled around, thought the Los Angeles Film Critics Association would stick up for (somewhat futilely) "The Master" and (as perhaps a saving grace) "Amour." But controversy was awaiting Kathryn Bigelow's film, and particularly, Mark Boal's journalistic efforts behind it.
Senators in Washington, in a bold, unprecedented move, not only took the film to task for what they viewed as a pro-torture argument, but instructed the filmmakers to alter content they felt indicated that key information in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden was directly obtained via torture, or, "enhanced interrogation" techniques. Whether "Zero Dark Thirty" could have survived the season en route to a Best Picture win without this controversy is up for debate. But it was very late in gearing up a proper awards campaign and it was wholly unprepared to deal with the nuance lost in the debate. Damage was surely done, but the level to which that damage truly mattered to the opinions of artists is, again, debatable.

As more and more regional critics groups began to speak up, the scales shifted. But they didn't shift to "Life of Pi" or "Lincoln" or the other films that had shown up in the interim since the Telluride Film Festival. They shifted to the one film seemingly elbowed out of the way by all of the season's comers. They shifted to "Argo." And they would stay there, though not without a scare.

As the year drew to a close, it started to become apparent that Affleck's movie was the most generally agreeable choice. It was a consensus pick. It was something everyone could agree on. And in a voting procedure that features the preferential ballot, that was going to be of the utmost importance. But when the Oscar nominations were revealed on the morning of January 10, all hope, but for a moment, seemed to be lost. "Argo" received seven nominations, but the film's director was skipped over by that branch for more artful choices like Michael Haneke and Benh Zeitlin.

The Academy's schedule change had yielded a bit of chaos for the guilds, which voted much earlier than normal and missed this and that (like lead actress Emmanuelle Riva in "Amour" or supporting actor Christoph Waltz in "Django Unchained"). But this perceived "snub" wasn't really owed to that. Theories were aplenty. Perhaps many directors felt that Affleck was sure to be nominated, so they wanted their vote to be felt elsewhere. Perhaps there was a bit of putting the actor-turned-filmmaker in his place. No one can be sure, but the film took a hit as other contenders like "Les Misérables," "Life of Pi," "Lincoln" and even "Silver Linings Playbook" all received more nominations. Indeed, "Lincoln"'s field-leading 12 made it, for all of a day, the odds-on favorite to win Best Picture. For the first time this season, Spielberg's handsome effort had a tangible feeling of being "the one."

That night, things would start to change. At the Critics' Choice Movie Awards, "Argo" would win Best Picture and Best Director. "I'd like to thank the Academy," Affleck said in cheeky retort to the morning's shocking turn of events. It was a happy moment for the team, one that felt like it would be a nice consolation. But the idea nevertheless began to formulate: Could "Argo" become only the fourth film in the Academy's history to win Best Picture without a Best Director nomination?

Over that upcoming weekend, "Argo" would keep its newfound second wind blowing. It would win Best Picture - Drama and Best Director at the Golden Globe Awards, while "Les Misérables" would reign victorious in the comedy/musical category (seemingly taking out "Silver Linings Playbook," though it was by no means finished). More regional critics awards would be added to the tally in January and suddenly, "Argo" was the most critically awarded film of the year, not "Zero Dark Thirty" (though Bigelow's film was on life support in the season by this time, Chastain's wins at the Critics' Choice Movie Awards and the Golden Globes notwithstanding).

Now it was time for the industry to speak up, and since "they" had notched "Argo" in fifth place for overall Oscar nominations, and since voting for the Globes and Critics' Choice awards happened outside the frame of Affleck's "snub," surely they would anoint the "true" industry favorite. Well, in so many words, they would do just that.

"Argo" won the Producers Guild prize, surprising to some. As February rolled around, it would win the Directors Guild prize, surprising to many. And for good measure, it would win the Screen Actors Guild ensemble prize, surprising to most. The weekend final ballots were mailed out to the Academy (a full month after the nominations were announced, which could ultimately yield any number of unexpected nuance, we should add), the film went across the pond to pick up BAFTA Awards for Best Film and Best Director.

The juggernaut was in full force so much that by the time it blew into the Writers Guild Awards last night and came away with a win over "Lincoln" and "Silver Linings Playbook" for Best Adapted Screenplay, no one ought to have been shocked by the outcome.

The trajectory and tone of the season has been an epic arc for a film that first hit in the mountains of Colorado. Some might be bored or disappointed by its dominance on the circuit as of late, but that complaint could just as easily be placed on the amount of foreplay that has been manufactured in the run-up to the Academy Awards. There are many, many awards shows, and a lot of them poll large voting bodies. A film like "Argo" is going to succeed consistently in that environment. Each time the film has seemed on the outs, it has picked itself back up and shown that, indeed, it can still "surprise."

So in this final pre-Oscar Off the Carpet column of the season, I submit that "Argo" hasn't been a foregone conclusion. It hasn't been a gargantuan awards player from the outset. The writing hasn't been on the wall since Telluride. It had to beat a lot of odds along the way, and frankly, that's been fun to watch. Whether it wins the Oscar on Sunday (which obviously seems likely) or loses it (anything apparently can and will happen this season and indeed, "Argo"'s old Toronto foil, "Silver Linings Playbook," has made a valiant phase two effort), the film will make history: No film has been this dominant on the guild circuit and lost the prize, while, again, only three other films have won Best Picture without a corresponding Best Director nomination.

If you look at the season in that light, maybe it's not so boring after all. Even with win after win for the film as of late, maybe this has actually been the most exciting awards season in a long, long time.
I know it has been for me.

(Final predictions will take on a few forms this week. Greg will speak up in a final "Contender Countdown" tomorrow, while Guy and Gerard will have their say via "The Long Shot" and "Tech Support" on Wednesday and Thursday. A big piece featuring final calls from me, Greg and Guy will go up some time Thursday, while my picks will be reiterated on the podcast with Anne Thompson on Friday. So stay tuned throughout the week. We have a lot of coverage for you.)

 BBC News (World) ‏@BBCWorld

#Argo: the real Tony Mendez describes what actually happened in Tehran http://bbc.in/YybF6A  (Warning: spoiler alert)

CCA

From HitFix

The critics choose embarrassment

A lot of bad decisions have the BFCA pointing in the wrong direction

By Kristopher Tapley Friday, Jan 11, 2013 12:43 AM

I apologized to BFCA president Joey Berlin after this evening's Critics' Choice Movie Awards for being frank about it, but I couldn't tell a lie: this year's show was an embarrassment. Appalling, I'd go so far to say.
Why? You've got Tony Kushner on stage during a commercial break, that's why. You've got Rich Moore talking over the crowd during another one upon accepting his Best Animated Film prize, that's why. You've deteriorated into the People's Choice Awards with added air time for Jennifer Lawrence to make some more "Hunger Games" remarks and Judd Apatow padding a show that could have dealt a little more courtesy to the winners of the evening.
So if Kushner can't have air time, I'll give him a little in that snap shot to the left. It was just disgraceful, to reduce the screenplay categories to the sidelines like that. The crafts categories, added a few years back, have always been dished out on the red carpet and announced as a bumper to commercial break, but it's just wrong. I was sitting next to "Life of Pi" cinematographer Claudio Miranda. He joked that his win was the best kind because he didn't have to get up and make a speech. Nevertheless, it's a level of disrespect that I don't find in keeping with the BFCA's stated purpose.
They want to make a principled alternative to the Golden Globes. But this is as tacky if not more so than anything I've seen the HFPA do. They added a slew of populist-geared categories this year, presumably to curry favor with The CW and boost ratings by getting people like Jake Gyllenhaal and Christian Bale in the mix. But it's so transparently ludicrous, and when I saw Kushner and Rian Johnson resorted to between-segment recognition, I nearly blew a cork.
And it was in the room. "There's a sense of, 'What is the point of this,'" a high profile individual who shall not be named told me. "They need to get their act together," said another. It was palpable. But maybe I was just being a dick about it, so I sent out a floater on Twitter. How was the show playing at home?
"Genre awards bring it to a stand-still." "The CW move seems like it inspired a complete change in 'prestige.'" "Awkward. Clumsy." "Low budget." Those were the replies.

Oh, and it didn't help that someone had the bright idea to blatantly insult nominees this year. An email went out to BFCA members asking if they had ever panned one of the nominees or some such. It would be cute to needle them a bit, I guess was the idea. Well, a barb for Anne Hathaway and "The Princess Diaries 2" sure blew up in their faces when she called them out for misspelling her name on the big screen after she was up for, and won, Best Supporting Actress. Good for her. Who thought that was a good idea? And who decided to execute it like a sledgehammer?
Sam Rubin as host was another sticking point for viewers, it seemed. I had wondered why there hadn't been a host announcement. The BFCA went with one of their own, a local (KTLA), and he apparently landed just this side of a ton of bricks.
The defense is that the BFCA is trying to find an audience. Awards for genre performances are meant to draw bigger numbers. But forgive me if I don't think that should be the goal. Maybe the audience should come to them. That's what "principled" is. Not blatant pandering that couldn't be more desperate if it tried.
With all of that off my chest, I was happy to run into a few people at the show. "Beasts of the Southern Wild" director Benh Zeitlin was a favorite amongst the audience, constantly courted during commercial breaks. He was brought around by Kathleen Kennedy to meet Steven Spielberg, surely a huge moment for him. He said he shrieked when he heard his name called this morning as a surprise Best Director nominee. It's such a lovely story.
Ben Affleck was hounded by iPhone camera-wielders most of the show (many of them, sadly, BFCA members), but I pushed through the wall of desperation to get a few words in with him. He admitted he was upset over his Best Director snub by the Academy this morning but it wasn't all frowns for long as he and his film won top honors at the show. I let him know that I think the film still has a decent shot to make a play, despite what the "stats" might say, because of the preferential balloting system. It's simply a year so strange that anything can happen. But he noted he was in good company on the sidelines, given Kathryn Bigelow's absence.
Best Actress winner Jessica Chastain was there with her grandmother as her date. She said she just performed "The Heiress" on stage in New York yesterday and has more of that to come this weekend. The double-duty would be murder for anyone but she's a hard worker. And her heartfelt speech was a touching note.
I also ran into Sony Classics honcho Michael Barker, who gave me a fierce handshake and said, "I told you!" Indeed, he had a lot of confidence going into this morning that "Amour" would land big nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actress. And it did. And like me, he thinks Emmanuelle Riva has a real shot at winning the Oscar. The strategy is percolating to life, believe me.
At the after party I spoke with "Flight" screenwriter John Gatins at length, a bit of a surprise nominee this morning. He's on cloud nine and reiterated what he told me this morning, that his friend Rian Johnson should have been there for "Looper." Quvenzhané Wallis, meanwhile, was dancing the night away. The girl loves the camera and plenty had theirs out to grab photos and videos (me included). She just lights up her corner of the room. Finally, John Hawkes puffed a cigarette outside, way more okay with being an Oscar snubbee than you'd expect of anyone. He is, as ever, humble, happy, himself.
So if the show itself was unfortunate all around, at least the chance to convene with these talented people the day many of them got some great news was enjoyed. And I hope the BFCA figures it out one of these days, but on this trajectory, I'm not all that hopeful.
Check out the night's winners here. And now, Quvenzhané Wallis is going to dance for you.

Early Oscar Season

Off the Carpet: Out of proportion

Best Picture hopefuls look to sustain early season buzz

By Kristopher Tapley Monday, Oct 1, 2012 12:27 PM

Here's what I think happens. A film is seen. It's genuinely loved. Like minds attract and in the intimate atmosphere of a film festival, the love grows. But with the love comes a desire for others to love, too. So the selling starts. The passion takes hold. And soon, even defenders of the film are damaging it, taking defensive positions, not allowing it to breathe freely and make its way unsuspectingly to fresh eyes like it did theirs.
This, I think, happens every year. And I'm not above it. A number of films are getting the advocacy treatment early on, siphoning precious gas needed to run the course. And favorites are being chosen, aggressively, by those fortunate enough to get the early, taste-making look. But fans of "Argo" won't concede the film's thinner-than-most thematic structure while knocking "Life of Pi" or "Silver Linings Playbook." Fans of "Silver Linings Playbook" won't concede its formulaic rom-com tendencies while knocking "Argo" or "Life of Pi." And fans of "Life of Pi" won't concede its clunky framing and extraneous elements while knocking "Argo" or "Silver Linings Playbook."
The result is an identity for a film established before it has really developed one. It's a small world with a tight radius, so the entertainment industry feeds on these morsels and voters in all sorts of bodies have something presented to them with certain notes and proclamations when it finally crosses their bow. And it just drowns the spirit of the thing.
If you're waiting to unveil later in the season, you're all too happy to see this. You want to know what the campaigns for "Lincoln," "Les Misérables," "Flight," "Hitchcock," "Zero Dark Thirty," etc. are thinking? They're thinking they'll gladly concede this turf for now, because it's a load blown early. You hold onto whatever mystery you have until it's your turn to go. Meanwhile, if you're one of the films with all the current buzz, your fingers are crossed that the other guys don't have the goods, because you know -- particularly with this crop -- that you don't have the sort of home run that will blow through a season unscathed.
Harvey Weinstein did it two years in a row, but he had undeniables. "The King's Speech" faced what looked on the surface to be stiff competition from "The Social Network," but it was all a mirage. "The Artist," meanwhile, held up to "Hugo" because it was a discovery throughout the fall. Both films were crowd-pleasers, and so is "Silver Linings," but the latter won't have much support from the crafts branches and it may be outed soon enough as an oversold commercial film.
Warner Bros. has done well when playing the non-campaign campaign, and "Argo" is the perfect kind of film for that strategy. But a Telluride bow and the applause that met it makes it hard to creep through the season, while the early buzz (which carried into Toronto) allows for harsher scrutiny of what some see as merely a tight thriller from a movie star.
Fox has bobbled campaigns in the past but has rarely sported a major player in the early months. Now they have Ang Lee's first contender since he was, many would say, screwed out of a Best Picture Oscar in 2005. But a film like "Life of Pi" is the toughest sort to keep afloat for so long, as it provides such an opportunity for cynicism and small-picture-obsession to fester and sink the ship (no pun intended).
Somewhere in all of this is "The Master," the highbrow entry, praised to the heavens, which paved the way for a "what's the big whoop?" response from many. Luckily its spotlight was stolen by the other three, which could keep it in the background long enough for the passionate base to form around it (particularly as other films open and, inevitably, disappoint). But it's the critics' favorite, and as the old maxim goes: critics don't vote for Oscars.
What I'm saying is I don't think we've seen a Best Picture winner yet. And I could absolutely be wrong about that. A lot of these campaigns haven't really shown their hand yet. But my instinct, for whatever it's worth, is that this year's engravee has yet to take a bow.
After all it is -- as of today -- just October. So let's all just slow down a bit.