An excellent review / commentary

Maleficent: How Disney is Reshaping its own Princess Legacy, Giving Back What was Taken http://t.co/Kaz3AU30VH
— Sasha Stone (@AwardsDaily) June 2, 2014

awards daily

Posted On 01 Jun 2014

By : Sasha Stone

Make no mistake, Maleficent is a revisionist, feminist retelling of a familiar princess story, one of THE princess stories.

When I was a little girl, my favorite Disney movie was Sleeping Beauty. When I look back on this now, the only possible reason I can think of for loving it so much was that Aurora was, to me, the prettiest of all of the princesses. With her long cotton candy hair, her tiny waist and her generally sweet disposition, somewhere in my tiny brain it registered that if only I could be like her maybe someday my prince would come. This was before I fully realized the legacy of what past Disney Princesses left behind them. Now that the Disney princess thing has become its own industry, we’ve all started to look more closely at the princesses — who they were, what they stood for, what options they were given in various films. In almost all of them, even when they were given stuff to do beyond wandering through the forest and singing with butterflies, there was that ever-present man, or prince, destined to come along and complete them.

However, with Frozen last year and Maleficent this year, Disney has all but shattered their own legacy. Instead, they have done what few other studios has the balls to do: make the women matter on their own, without a male protagonist looming over them. More than that, make the relationships between women as important, if not more important, than the love interests by which they are usually defined. This is revolutionary stuff in an industry that rarely deviates from the formula.

Why should they deviate? The formula works. Hollywood choices are driven by the box office. Studios aim films mostly at the target demo, males 18 to 35. The film critics are mostly male in that same general age group. Box office success ensues. But the Twilight franchise and then the Hunger Games franchise showed the studios that women could be ticket buyers too if Hollywood started making movies for them. No, not rescue fantasies but movies where women did more than parade around as decoration.


As if to punctuate this point, the trailers before Maleficent featured a trailer for Transformers. If you want to know what kind of films Hollywood likes to make? There you go. Macho man at the center, pretty helpless blonde girl who needs protecting, toys from the target demo’s childhood that were menacing to them in their imaginary world now brought to vibrant life. Legos, comic books, toys — it’s a boys life, all right. They never have to grow up. But recently, Disney is changing the possibilities of what kinds of films might start to change the box office dynamic.

Maleficent is not an evil woman embittered by jealousy and rage seeking to destroy Aurora — she is a fairy queen who lives in defense of the Moors and all the creatures who live there. That world, her world, exists almost in direct opposition to the world where humans live. Early on in the film, Maleficent befriends Stefan, a young peasant boy with dreams that he may one day rule the kingdom. But in order to ascend to the throne, he must prove to the dying king that he’s able to defend the realm. The royal authority is threatened by Maleficent and her powers so Stefan slashes off her wings. In so doing, Maleficent loses the one thing that defines her as a fairy, her source of natural freedom, her identification of self. That is what corrupts her power to pull her toward wickedness, and that is what motivates her to put a curse on the young Aurora (Elle Fanning). Stripping her of her wings is filmed in such a fashion that it resembles a sexual assault, or even could be interpreted as genital mutilation — taking away power, rendering her helpless. Her rage stems from that violent act — not spurned love.

If the story didn’t evolve from there, Maleficent might be just your run of the mill “fairy tale,” but it does evolve, quite beautifully in fact. Maleficent, despite her desire to rob the king of something as significant as the thing he took from her, is softened by the good cheer and loving heart of Princess Aurora — again, not defined by her beauty necessarily but by her willingness to love. That suddenly turns this story into one where women protect women one another rather than tear each other down — which is what Sleeping Beauty and many of the past Disney princess stories were really about: jealousy.

Part of the reason Maleficent succeeds as well as it does must be credited to Jolie’s performance. Jolie has finally learned to harness that smoldering sexuality and self-assuredness she’s shown in flashes throughout her career. Here, she is really funny for the first time ever. She delights in being bad, toying with magic and silly humans. She is comfortable in the role of leather-clad dom, to be sure, but it is the more tender, vulnerable moments that really elevate this performance. The way she navigates the unexpected affection for Aurora is one of the more surprising aspects to the film. It is Jolie’s best performance to date.


Though you’d never know any of this from many of the critics on the web and on Twitter. It’s a mess, they declared. The movie falls apart, they lamented. It doesn’t know what kind of movie it wants to be! One actually told me, “go ahead and waste your money” to see this film.

This reaction is more telling of the demographic that now covers film news than it is about the film itself. Maleficent is entertaining to audiences overall (earning a Cinemascore of A), and is absolutely a worthy effort to be applauded, celebrated, appreciated. More than anything it is yet another moment for most of us to step back and take a good long look at how movies are rolled out now. If those critics kept anyone from seeing Maleficent, shame on them. That is not their job. That can only lead us to the inevitable conclusion that Hollywood should only make movies they approve of, that meet their own special list of criteria. Please don’t ever let it be so that filmmakers make films for critics and/or bloggers. They make the movies that are supposedly for audiences, right? Isn’t that the whole point of making movies, especially movies like this one? At least here, when the families go in droves to see this film, small children will get the enormous benefit of seeing women treated as actual people, something I can’t say about the majority of films this community of critics approve of.

That Angelina Jolie successfully opened the movie, that it is going to help raise the awareness of generations of young girls to see that their stories really do matter. Girls will now see that a woman is important beyond the man who rescues her, and that makes Maleficent one of the best stories, and best films, of 2014 so far. The doors are being opened. Who chooses to walk through them and who chooses to keep them closed will separate those who willingly live in the past and those who reach for the future.

Read the original post at awards daily

Fanning to shoot God Help the Girl before Maleficent

If Elle Fanning is able to commit to filming God Help the Girl in Glasgow in June before moving on to play Princess Aurora, then Maleficent's production may have been pushed back a few weeks -- enough time to also allow Angelina to take on the role of Malkina in Ridley Scott's The Counselor.

For Disney, postponing Maleficent may be more than just an accommodation to allow its two leads to take on other roles since London will be in the grip of Olympics fever in late July and they may want to avoid being affected by the crush.  And with a 2014 release date, they can easily afford to be flexible.  The Counselor was originally slated to start May 1 and two months should be enough time for Angelina and perhaps most of the film to finish shooting.  Michael Fassbender has a supporting role in 12 Years a Slave (where Brad has a cameo) that is also supposed to start in July so Ridley Scott has two big reasons to move quickly.

If Scott was eying Angelina for a mere cameo as stated in the Vulture article, there wouldn't be any need for prolonged discussions between them.  She simply needs to decide whether or not she wants to do it since she can easily squeeze in a few days' work for a brief appearance.   And cameos are usually a surprise -- not something to be "leaked" and discussed.

Just as Universal was interested in Besson's film when there was the possibility that she might star in it, the Fox insider who spoke to Vulture hinted that the company's participation may be tied to her name appearing above the title  -- which isn't normally done for small roles or cameos.  But what really makes me think they're discussing more than a small role is the fact that the lead female character, Malkina, fits her like a glove.  So much so that I can imagine Scott dream casting her for the part as he read the script and Corman McCarthy possibly using her as his inspiration.  The role is smaller than Fassbender's but it's still a key lead character and will require a major commitment from her -- hence (I believe) the reason for more involved discussions.

This is also the closest Brad and Angelina have come to being in the same film despite years of trying and Angelina said as recently as the Oscars that they "have an idea".   But I would be very surprised if Brad was being eyed to play Reiner, Malkina's boyfriend, since Angelina has said they are wary of playing a couple onscreen and he doesn't seem like a good fit for the role.  Having them in the same film but not the main leads would also be tricky to manage as it would be next to impossible to keep them from eclipsing Fassbender.

I would be very excited to see Angelina take the part.  It is a meaty role that may be the best match for her since Gia.   Based on the review that appeared in Script Shadow, it's easy to see why she would be attracted to the material with its allusion to revenge for violence against women. This has the potential to be her first Oscar Best Picture-nominated film and possibly her first Best Actress win. 



Sasha Stone ‏ @AwardsDaily

Angelina Jolie attached, or "in talks" to star in The Counselor, Ridley Scott's Cormac McCarthy pic. Ol' Ridley is ratcheting it up a notch.

Elle Fanning going with 'God Help the Girl'

Olly Alexander also in talks for Stuart Murdoch musical

By Jeff Sneider

Fanning

Following a long casting search that spanned the globe, "Super 8" star Elle Fanning and "Enter the Void" thesp Olly Alexander are in negotiations to topline "God Help the Girl," a Glasgow-set musical written and directed by Stuart Murdoch, the lead singer of Belle and Sebastian.Barry Mendel is producing through his Barry Mendel Prods. banner. Carole Sheridan of Glasgow-based Singer Films is also producing with Chris Curling and Phil Robertson of London-based Zephyr Films.
Project began in late 2003 when Murdoch started writing a few songs that had a 'girl group' sound. The songs led to the concept album "God Help the Girl," which was released in 2009 as a precursor to the film. Catherine Ireton sang the 'part' of Eve, the pic's main character, who has yet to be cast.
Alexander will play James, a cynical guitarist who accompanies Eve's singing and becomes a mentor to Cass (Fanning), an American teen who tags alongside the duo as she learns to play the guitar.

Producers raised more than $100,000 in financing on Kickstarter, and London-based sales agent HanWay Films will handle international sales when it begins shopping the project at Cannes. Production is skedded to start in Glasgow in June, just weeks before Fanning shoots Disney's "Maleficent" with Angelina Jolie.

Fanning, who was last seen in Cameron Crowe's "We Bought a Zoo," recently wrapped Sally Potter's "Bomb," which co-stars Annette Bening and Christina Hendricks.
Alexander is an up-and-coming Brit thesp who currently stars opposite Greta Gerwig in the indie "The Dish & the Spoon," which he and Gerwig both had a hand in writing. His other feature credits include Jane Campion's "Bright Star," Gaspar Noe's "Enter the Void" and the 20th Century Fox comedy "Gulliver's Travels."
WME reps Alexander and Fanning, who is also repped by One Talent Management.

Contact Jeff Sneider at jeff.sneider@variety.com

Sasha looks at the Awards Race and Critics

I agree with Sasha's pointed observations about the reliability of critics' opinions this year and in particular on the way they've treated women filmmakers. Even when I am a fan, I can set aside my partiality and view films with an objectively critical eye.  I came down hard on Florian von Donnersmarck's inept handling of The Tourist.   I  absolved Angelina for what other critics saw as her stiff portrayal because I read von Donnersmarck was instructing her on how a European lady of leisure comports herself down to directing her to walk much slower.  It was entirely his show and his failure.  Angelina's mistake was to blindly trust his judgement. 

But I am quite indignant that Blood & Honey deserves far better than it has received.  You don't even have to take my word for it. Jeff Wells, Ed Douglas and other discerning "elite" senior writers have included it among their Best of the Year lists. And yet it sits at 48% on RT and 57 on Metacritic.

A careful reading of the reviews reveal that with just a few exceptions, critics praised Angelina's skills as director, even suggesting that she could follow in the footsteps of Clint Eastwood.  The worst of the negative reviews focused more on issues they had with her motivation rather than with the film itself.  A dismaying number of critics allowed their perceptions to be  coloured by what they know of her political views and intentions which she has certainly expounded on in her promotional interviews.  But she was careful not to make her views obvious in the film itself so such extraneous factors have no place in their reviews at all.  If her name was removed from the credits, these criticisms would vanish.  It isn't that critics were necessarily negatively predisposed but they weren't able to view the film with total objectivity the way they would if it had been by someone with a lower political profile. 

Those critics that did attempt to cite specific problems they had with the film often revealed that they failed to fully understand the film's complex story.  Manohla Dargis who has long been one of my favorite critics was one of the few who understood  that Ajla and Dajiel were metaphors for the war. 

I hope people will  just read reviews from the few reliable top critics and ignore the RT rating.  Because even where RT has deemed a review to be negative it often reads positive and gives them ample reason to check the film out even if they aren't fans of the director or the subject.  And it wouldn't be a bad idea for them to do the same for all films.

The State of the Race: The Changing of the Guard

January 2, 2012 by Sasha Stone in 84th Academy Awards, featured, State of the Race |

As I re-watched Avatar last night, or tried to, I was thinking about the future of cinema. I was thinking about how hard it is to sell dramas now to the general public. I was thinking about the Academy, and how difficult it must be for them to evolve out of the old way of presenting films to the new way they will be sold from now on. The only film that sort of addresses this changing of the guard is Hugo, which is traditional storytelling utilizing modern technology to ramp up the showmanship; the fresh enticement to get people out of their houses to buy tickets. We have to audiences a reason. An Avatar-like reason to shell out the dough. And with Hugo, the money is coming but it isn’t MI:4 money. It isn’t even Sherlock Holmes money or Twilight money or Harry Potter money or, alas, Bridesmaids or The Help money. And so people start talking about that like it actually matters. We can’t even count on our critics anymore to help us out here. They hard line it without considering the bigger picture, without seeing what’s coming next.

When it was down to Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker, most people knew by the end that the Academy would opt for the more nuts and bolts, traditional filmmaking –both as a way to silently protest the changing tide, but also to stem the tide for performance capture, 3-D technology and movies that cost a lot of money to make. That’s all fine and well if the nuts and bolts films make money and get good reviews. The Hurt Locker made no money but it was helped along by the critics. This year, you can mostly forget the critics. They’ve all but gone on vacation. Advocacy was never really their thing but it is even less their thing this year, after what happened last year.


For all of the bitching the top tier critics do about the Oscar race, and the people who cover it, from where I sit, the Oscar race is the only place where the celebration of real movies is still alive and kicking. It’s the only place where a film like The Descendants, Moneyball or The Artist really matters. It’s the old guard, preserving what we’ve had for 8 decades. But they can’t really do it alone. If Oscar buzz only drives a limited section of the general public to the multiplex of what use is it, ultimately? It’s been steadily becoming less relevant as the years progress, but that’s mainly because the general public is so dumbed down now compared to twenty years ago.

Worse than dumbed down, we are branded consumers — our children are raised to identify themselves with Coke and Pepsi, McDonald’s and Apple, NickJr. and Disney. They are branded as kids and they grow up branded as adults, which is why it is so much easier to sell a franchise than an original story. But my question is this – if that is what drives the box office, how on earth can we use box office as a gauge for quality? The truth is, we can’t. The model for the Oscar movie now is made for a low cost, like say the magic number, $15 million, then profits are a certainty. But try to work within the evolving technology, as Martin Scorsese has done with Hugo — give the general public a reason to spend money by seeing something in 3-D, and the costs soar, the profits don’t. Why, because it isn’t branded. You will hear many complaints coming from the target demo all growed up and they will always say the same thing: it doesn’t know what movie it wants to be. The truth is, they don’t really know how to pigeonhole it.

The future of film is effects-driven, sequels, animated, performance capture, 3-D. The public is going to want to spend money on those kinds of films rather than traditional dramas because they can most certainly wait for DVD. There is no need to go out to the movies and spend so much money — they can watch it much more comfortably on their flat screens. Sure, there are still upper middle class bored adults who want to see “quality entertainment” around the holidays. Retirement folks out in Pasadena, and New Yorkers with disposable income and too much time on their hands — and therein your Oscar demographic lays.

As we move into the heat of the season, where everything is final and nothing is negotiable, we take stock of the critics and their influence. Last year we saw unanimous agreement about one movie, at least where majority votes were concerned (dig a little deeper and you’ll find much dissent among the ranks) with high praise being dolled out for many more that didn’t end up winning the Best Picture prize. Most of the films up for the award were very well reviewed. Such will not be the case this year. Of the films up for Best Picture only one, The Artist, has managed to even get remotely close to the coveted score of 90 and above. It is closely followed by Moneyball and Harry Potter, sitting at 87.

The Artist – 89
Moneyball – 87
Harry Potter – 87
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy – 86
Tree of Life – 85
The Descendants – 84
Hugo – 83
Melancholia – 81
Midnight in Paris – 81
Drive – 79
A Dangerous Method – 76
Martha, Macy, May, Marlene
Bridesmaids – 75
Shame – 72
War Horse – 72
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – 71
Young Adult – 71
We Need to Talk About Kevin – 69
My Week with Marilyn – 65
Tyrannosaur – 63
The Help – 62
J. Edgar – 59
We Bought a Zoo – 58
Carnage – 57
In the Land of Blood and Honey – 57
Albert Nobbs – 53
The Iron Lady – 52
Anonymous – 50
Another Happy Day – 45
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close = 44
W.E. – 38

Who fared the worst in this season’s first-round shakeout? Female filmmakers, by far. I’d put critics right in there with them as I can finally say I agree with people who don’t listen to critics anymore. You’d be foolish to follow the critics this year, as you’d miss much of what the year had to offer; when we put our films down to a scoring system, our art in competition this way we’d better trust the judges or we can’t respect the race. We don’t, most of us, respect the judging that happens amid 6,000 or so Academy voters – or else we wouldn’t debate their choices. And I think, this year, you can throw the critics in that mix too. It’s mostly been a wash. We can only hope that the coming guild races enliven the year in film the way the apathetic critics failed to do.

Apparently, the New York Times critics, who have a love/hate relationship with the Oscars, actually try to inject themselves into the race (of course, because in the end, everyone wants to rub up against it) by putting out a ballot — they are fairly predictable – each will have a film represented — Scott: War Horse and Dargis: Hugo, Holden: The Descendants.

So, the question is, when will the Academy notice the change? It’s hard to know. Watching Avatar I was wondering that same thing. Are they ever going to see a movie like that as a serious Best Picture contender? Are they ever going to say: that is our future, we’d better embrace it.

It isn’t just the car fires here in Los Angeles that making for anxiety. It feels suddenly like the end of everything. Sure, we are hopeful – we see the slate of films coming in 2012 and we can see that there are still some actual dramas coming out of American film. But we also see that internationally, they’re continuing to kick our ass in terms of story and character. We know they don’t raise branded consumers, not yet anyway, and we know that most of the time box office isn’t even a part of the discussion.

Tomorrow, the Producers Guild announces. Two days later, the Writers Guild. The following week, the Directors Guild, and then finally, the Academy. We will pretend like any of it matters. We will pretend like their choosing films no one really wants to see is a way to preserve traditional storytelling and the Hollywood of old. The fight will rage for many years but I think we know what side will invariably win. What, then, is the future of the Motion Picture Academy? I ask the question because I don’t know the answer.

Tweets and update

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone

"closing titles confirm that the motivating intent in making In the Land of Blood and Honey was activist rather than artistic." (cont)

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone

That is a quote by @KarinaLongworth on Angelina Jolie's Blood and Honey. How is activism a bad thing again? Passionate cause and all.

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone

Angelina Jolie wasn't making a documentary, last time I checked, but a movie about something close to her heart.

filmystic Ryan Adams

@

.@AwardsDaily If only every movie could have an advisory label upfront: Artistic, Activist, Acktastic and whatnot @KarinaLongworth

»

ExtAngel Glenn Kenny

@

@AwardsDaily Longworth's looked down her nose at activism since the failure of her own great cause, finding distrib for "Harmony and Me."

DavidOSelznick David O. Selznick

In my day, we ignored the AMPAS's embarrassing past Best Picture mistakes. We didn't highlight them in ads. #forrestgump #oscarsposter



Luc Besson on his next film:

It seems that your next film will be with Angelina Jolie...
It seems Yes. (He smiles)

You confirm?
I confirm, Yes.

NYFCC and Indie Spirit

Matt_Mazur Matt Mazur 

@AwardsDaily And Team Higher Ground. :p And Team Angelina. Even Team Pariah. haha.

1 hour ago

Matt_Mazur Matt Mazur

@carlysparkle @AwardsDaily Hopefully these edgier, more interesting teams get some luv at the Independent Spirits today. I can live w that!

FilmFatale_NYC Film Fatale NYC

RT @peterknegt: Margin Call's fine. But better than Martha Marcy, Pariah, Submarine, Tyrannosaur and Attack The Block? Absolutely not.

Matt_Mazur Matt Mazur 
@FilmFatale_NYC yeah, that choice is kind of suspect. Also, Higher Ground & Angelina Jolie's film In the Land of Blood & Honey are deserving

NYFCC2011 NYFCC2011
Best Actor: Brad Pitt for "Moneyball," and "Tree of Life"

LouLumenick #NYFCC snubs: Descendants, Hugo, War Horse, Dragon, Midnight, Marilyn, MMMM, Shame, J. Edgar, Young Adult, Melancolia, Tinker,Tin Tin

AwardsDaily I can't believe they forced the Dragon Tattoo to screen only to shut it out. It's like, "I shaved my legs for this?" This is but the beginning of awards season my friends. It's a long and exhausting slog towards the finish, with minor joys here and there.
For me, I only get through it when the impossible becomes possible. Otherwise, I die inside. Every year.

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone
The Artist poised to sweep the critics awards. Paging gravitas. Anyone have any gravitas?

***

Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep, Albert Brooks, Jessica Chastain Win NY Film Critics

The Critics organization had planned to vote yesterday but had to put it off so they could see David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” a late entry. One movie for this season, Stephen Daldry’s “Extremely Close and Incredibly Loud,” was skipped entirely because it wasn’t ready. Even so, not all the critics in the group had a chance to see Angelina Jolie’s debut as a director, “In the Land of Blood and Honey,” set in Bosnia.

thelmadams Thelma Adams 

yes they did show Land of Blood & Honey. I saw it. Not all did I think

LouLumenick Lou Lumenick (Re Blood & Honey)

This was screened for NYFF and got less than a handful of votes in all categories, including first film

****

Ken Adams offers his take:

 
TaybackX Ken Adams
Bob Berney ain't no Harvey Weinstein.. it's a small studio, so what do you expect? and it's a tough movie to watch that won't appeal to many of the critics, AND it's in a foreign language.. 1 hour ago

*****

So my conclusion from all of the above is:

The first and most obvious is Brad is a lock for an Oscar nod.  It was never really in doubt as he has been among the frontrunners from the start. 

The bigger question and the one of greater interest is how it reflects upon B&H's Oscar chances. FilmDistrict's efficiency in managing the screenings and the effectiveness of their awards strategy has been called into question since apparently not all NYFCC members had a chance to see it.  Given Jeff Wells' and Sasha Stone's recent comments about how slowly the screening invites were being parceled out, that isn't a surprise.  It is notable that both Roger Friedman and Thelma Adams made a point of mentioning that it was not seen by all members -- suggesting that they believed that could have had an impact on the result.  Of course even if all the critics had seen it, it's possible B&H wouldn't have won any awards or nominations anyway.  But at least it would have competed in a level playing field instead of being handicapped right off the bat. 

I think it still has a shot at an Oscar nomination following in the shoes of Letters from Iwo Jima, but a Million $ Baby analogy is now obviously out of the question.  A strong chorus of critical acclaim would still give it a shot at getting in -- along the lines of a 90% on RT, 85% on Metacritic -- no different from what it was before.  The FilmDistrict insider who told Dave Karger that B&H wasn't really an Academy film may in part have been lowering expectations but there is undoubtedly also some truth to it given the subject matter and the level of brutality onscreen.  Academy voters may be inclined to give Angelina some recognition out of respect and appreciation for her efforts, her idealism and the film's inherent quality, but she is not the Academy darling that Clint was when he made Letters. 

Of course it's a bit deflating when expectation have been raised by the raves the film has received so far. I thought it would have been at least acknowledged by the Indie Spirit.  They gave Angelina an acting nod for A Mighty Heart and they've voted for edgier films and performances in the past.  Dave Karger said only a small group votes on the Indie Spirit nominations and it's not known if there were also some within that small group that failed to see the film. Matt Mazur obviously thought the film had a shot with both groups.  A NYFCC win or a Spirit nom would have catapulted the film into the collective consciousness of the Gurus of Gold and other Oscar oddsmakers.  The absence of either hasn't really hurt its chances but that is 2 less accolades that it could have received. 

Her best bet was and remains the Golden Globes.   Echoing what Scott Feinberg said, anything beyond that would depend on the reviews it receives and there is a strict embargo in place right now.  Given the problems they've encountered screening the film in a timely manner for everyone, it appears FilmDistrict may have erred in advising Angelina to totally skip the awards circuit and in choosing to start screening the film so late in the game.

Sasha and Matt

The tweets below suggest a working relationship between Matt Mazur and Sasha Stone wherein she obliges him / his firm with articles on their clients.  But I wonder why Sasha was openly complaining about not having been invited to a screening of Blood & Honey as of Sat (11:55AM).  If Matt and DDPR get Awards Daily coverage, at the very least Sasha should get into early screenings -- and maybe she did.

It's very possible and even likely that upon reading her tweet Matt and DDPR quickly arranged a special screening for her (they could have even sent her a DVD).  If so, it's possible that B&H is the "way out of the box" film she tweeted about the next evening that is her pick to win BP.   Yes, this is the Dave Karger guessing game all over again....

But it's not so far-fetched.  Kevin Juggernauth of The Playlist, some of whose writers have already seen it (including possibly Juggernauth himself), wrote "advance word has been very strong." Even Caryn James, who famously trashed Angelina in the NYTimes for looking glum on the Golden Globes days before her mother passed away and whose antipathy is still apparent also noted that the "film has been getting terrific advance word."

So it's reasonable to expect that B&H will be very favorably reviewed once the embargo lifts.  With a serious subject that is right up the Academy's alley and a familiar face behind it, there is no reason why it can't be considered a BP front-runner -- especially when a thin and light silent film by a largely unknown French director is.



Sunday's PM tweets

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone

My thoughts about what will win Best Picture are under wraps right now because no way this group would buy them. So I keep quiet.

But let's just say it's way outside the box. #bestpicture
27 Nov

Today's AM tweets

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone @Matt_Mazur Hey cutie, ADM I'm working on today. Got slammed.  
Matt Mazur @AwardsDaily oh you're busy? ;-) <3
Sasha Stone:  Just all of a sudden! Good to be distracted, though, keeps me from obsessing on men. :-)
Matt Mazur:  nothing seems 2 keep me from that dark obsession haha! I've got Tori and Angelina in town this week and not even that works!

Matt Mazur: Swooning over @awardsdaily 's interview with #Viggo: Oscars 2011: Viggo Mortensen Sets The Standard bit.ly/vGavFH #ADangerousMethod

DDPRLLC Donna Daniels PR: Sasha Stone of Awards Daily lauds Viggo Mortensen of A Dangerous Method in an Oscar 2011 exclusive... fb.me/1fX3xZySJ   

Moneyball Q and A

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone

"The beauty of this story is that it's about values, not about success or failure." Nice, Brad.
 It's always bizarre looking at extremely pretty primate humans like Pitt. They are so easy in the eyes.

Last night, during the q&a, Brad Pitt was asked a question by a tongue-tied, somewhat depressed gentleman.It was an awkward long five (cont)
And after the q&a, Pitt was swarmed, like a piece of sugar on an anthill. But he stopped on his way to shake that guy's hand. (cont)
minutes and no one knew what was going to happen. Pitt gave him the sweetest answer, thoughtful, involved, honest. (cont.)
In the midst of a storm of cameras and clinging women and voices and strange acting primates, Pitt had a conversation with him. #socool
I have to say, if I wasn't won over by him being the prettiest ape, that surely did it. #fawning #iembarrassmyself
 I will post pics of Pitt a bit later today, they're blurry but ...

davekarger Dave Karger

Best tidbit from my MONEYBALL Q&A: Brad Pitt cast Jonah Hill after their mutual friend Catherine Keener suggested him. Good friend to have!

Moneyball Merit, Pitt's Compassion

Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill sat for a q & a last night with Entertainment Weekly's Dave Karger after a screening of Moneyball at Sony Studios. I'm not ignoring what they said or the still-potent pleasures of the film, but the standout moment was Pitt's gentle handling of a strange, inappropriate confession from a gloomy guy in the left-front row who said he'd been feeling depressed and was "contemplating suicide." Everybody in the room whispered "what the fuck?" but Pitt took it in stride and offered a nice brotherly reply.

Brad Pitt at Sony's Cary Grant theatre following last night's Moneyball q &a.

Here's a super-dark YouTube clip with decent audio of the depressed guy. (It starts at the 42-second mark.) Cool-hand Pitt delivered a common-sense riff about the up-and-down-ness of things, and in a relaxed, no-big-deal sort of way. He gave the guy a little "chin up" and "I know it's tough but it'll get better." The sound system was really echo-y so it's hard to hear much but Pitt said that "life is cyclical...when you're up and you're up and when you're down you're down...it is tough, man...it's tough...but man, it's cyclical."
After the discussion broke Pitt was mobbed by fans (mostly women) looking for photos and a word or two, but Pitt went over to the sad guy (whose depression, I gather, was over job and money prospects) and talked with him a bit more.
The Pitt-Hill discussion followed a 6:30 pm showing of Bennett Miller's Moneyball, which -- yes, we need to do this once again -- is still easily, absolutely and obviously the best film of the year so far, or is at least tied for that distinction alongside The Descendants.
It's so much finer and smarter and more skillfully directed, written and performed than all the late-arriving Best Picture twirlybirds (especially and definitely including War Horse and The Artist and Hugo) that...I don't want to get out the hammer but is there something in the water or what? The Artist, a bright shimmering bauble and a charming, silver-toned curio, is a hotter Best Picture contender than effing Moneyball? An almost comically schmaltzy, old-time manipulative Steven Spielberg horse film deserves more Best Picture love? Are we all living inside the Truman Show dome? If so, would it be okay if I become a heroin addict?

Pitt, Hill, Karger.

I realize, of course, that Moneyball doesn't deliver conventional satisfactions (no big win at the end, no Natural-style home run, no cute dog) but it's so amazingly singular and patient and wise and masterful. The fact that Miller allows the soundtrack to go utterly silent on several occasions is awesome in itself. Unlike other sports films and their standard strategems, it probably takes a couple of viewings to really get what Moneyball is throwing.
Plus it contains Pitt's finest performance of his career and the best swaggering-movie-star performance in a long while. George Clooney doesn't "swagger" as Matt King in The Descendants -- he's playing an anxious, grief-struck dad who settles into a tough situation and comes out of it in a stronger, slightly less selfish, more father-like place. Pitt's Billy Beane is also besieged and uncertain, but he's a little more of a kick to hang with. So perhaps he's a notch or two ahead of Clooney...maybe.
And 28 year-old Hill slips into a new realm or membrane of some kind. His Peter Brand character is mostly about analytical brainpower, but he's a guy who loves to stay out of things. His greatest comfort is blending in with the walls and the furniture. The pleasure of Hill's performance is in the silences, the unspoken stuff, the stillnesses, the looks of terror and trepidation. It's a major growth-spurt role, and absolutely deserving of Best Supporting Actor honors, partly because Hill's decision not to do just raunchy comedies like Get Him To The Greek and The Sitter represents the best instinct or impulse that an actor can have, which is to move up the ladder by growing his or her game.
Here's the mp3 but good luck with understanding it due to an echo effect caused by the Sony tech guys. Pitt, Hill and Karger's voices were audible to those in the first few rows, but their amplified voices came out of a pair of speakers in the rear which created a delayed-echo effect. Pitt would say "I'd like-like to give-give credit-credit to Bennett-Bennett Miller-Miller," etc. Plus the mikes didn't work half the time. (Pitt threw his to the ground.) Plus there was no light on the trio so you couldn't really see much.
I'm sorry but the Sony tech guys get a failing grade and five demerits each. If I was their boss I would ream their ass.

Sasha Stone warms up to B&H

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone

Angelina Jolie to appear on 60 Minutes this Sunday. Her new film is being quietly buzzed, in a good way. bit.ly/u8ZdwP

 Since nobody knows anything yet, I went with Tree of Life for pic and Scorsese for director for the @nyfcc predictions 

Two prominent New York critics panned THe Descendants so I will be surprised if it pulls that one out but we'll see #nyfcc

ScottFeinbergAgreed--look out for MELANCHOLIA or, if not, THE TREE OF LIFE. #NYFCC

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone  

Also since awards season is a snake eating its own tail, the simple act of predicting the NYFCC before they even vote guarantees (cont)

They will want to not be a foregone conclusion. Hence, they might surprise people with what they choose. Right? Wrong? #nyfcc

What if Angelina Jolie's movie hits big? What if it gets the NYFCC? What if it Million Dollar Baby's this awards race?

ScottMendelson Scott Mendelson

@

@AwardsDaily I think WB is positioning EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE as the de-facto MILLION DOLLAR BABY of 2011.

AwardsDaily Sasha Stone

@

@ScottMendelson Would love it if it were a strategy. Time's a ticking down, though. But I could see it ending up that way.

 - But the two Scotts have other ideas though.

Box Office Preview & Red Carpet Reports

A troubling stat for the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise : Pirates 1 scored 78% on Rotten Tomatoes, Pirates 2 - 54%, Pirates 3 - 45%, and so far Pirates 4 is at 40%. If this is truly worse than 2 & 3 I am not seeing it in theaters. That would be masochistic. But Johnny & Co. won't miss my $10 as Pirates is one of the sure huge hits of the summer. I just wonder why they couldn't recapture the magic of Pirates 1.

B.O. rebound in the cards?

Industry outlook positive for summer

By Andrew Stewart

Over this past weekend, the combined perfs of debuts "Bridesmaids" and "Priest" along with holdover titles "Thor" and "Fast Five" helped weekend totals keep up with, if not run a smidgen ahead of, the comparable 2010 sesh. The weekend before was down roughly 11% from last year, unable to catch the $128 million opening for "Iron Man 2," but "Fast Five" led a massive 56% uptick over the weekend of April 29.

Now it's Disney's opportunity to help turn the B.O. tide, with "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" set to bow worldwide this weekend. The film is high on most moviegoers' must-see lists and is expected to open to boffo biz, with tracking suggesting it'll exceed "Shrek Forever After," which opened the same weekend last year with $70.8 million. (The "Pirates" franchise's second installment, "Dead Man's Chest, opened to $135 million; the third, "At World's End," bowed to $114 million.)

Joel Cohen, CEO of Movietickets.com, described "Pirates" -- and other forthcoming franchise titles such as "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" -- as "home runs."

"If you look at the upcoming titles, they're guarantees," he said, adding that Memorial Day-weekend offerings "The Hangover Part II"and "Kung Fu Panda 2" characterize the summer as ideal counterprogramming. "That's the most impressive part of this summer. I've never seen a summer that's been put so well together."

One possible snag for B.O. optimists is that with major releases piled on top of each other all summer long, even the biggest titles won't have much room to run beyond opening weekend. Studios will need to rely on counterprogramming to afford any breathing room -- much like Disney's "Toy Story 3" was able to play alongside Summit's "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse," which launched just two weeks after "Toy" last year.

This year, Disney-Pixar's "Cars 2" bows the same week as Sony's R-rated "Bad Teacher," and a week before Paramount's "Transformers." Pics like "Hangover II" and Paramount's "Super 8," which bows on June 10 after "X-Men: First Class," are being tubthumped as potential fanboy-frenzy starters.

That's important, because success this summer won't rely solely on how these potential blockbusters open but how they play throughout the season.

From Lainey

Brange > Cannes

We had Brange as our top story on etalk yesterday and I can't imagine it was any different for any other entertainment show. They were the Main Event on Monday. Yesterday I described the process of getting credentialed for a red carpet here in Cannes - click here for a refresher. The request office opens at 10am. I sent Dylan there at 9am to start queuing while I headed to do the same for the press conference after the screening. There were a dozen people ahead of him. Within half an hour the line had extended all the way down the hall of the press centre, easily double how it was for Johnny Depp and Pirates 4. I was on edge all day waiting to find out if we had secured a spot. This is the pressure. This is how badly every outlet in the world needed that footage.

We were lucky to get a spot right at the top of the carpet so we could see them pull up at the Palais. When the fleet arrives, there are handlers and publicists and security and door openers all waiting to attend to the celebrities. The door openers wear white gloves. Brad alighted first, then I saw him put up his hand, wave off the door opener that was about to assist with Angelina's side, and he did it himself, going around the back of the car to present his lady. It's hot, yes. Really, really, really hot. But it's also an example of how well these two play their sh-t. He is the ONLY person who should be holding her hand, especially the first time you see her on this grand of an occasion. It's in the small details, right?

They immediately went over to the wall of fans lining the street. Signed autographs, giving out handshakes, maybe a hug here and there. Some broad swooned, literally. Like her knees gave out and I thought she was going to brain it on the barricade. After a few minutes of that, Brad was rushed over immediately to my right, like 6 feet away, to go live on Canal +. He was on form last night. Top form. Like a total boss. Like it was his party. You should have seen him greeting people - some producers he would hug warmly, grasping them with a firm shake, and a charming word to the wife/girlfriend, big smile, cheeky inside jokes, a cool motherf-fcker behind his shades. When the interview wrapped, he went back to the fans for some more loving, and then made his way to the base of the carpet to meet up with co-stars Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain.

Sean, by they way, did not bother with the photo call or the presser earlier that afternoon. I guess he knew it was Brad's show. Or couldn't get out of bed. Sean parties HARD in Cannes. When Brad first saw Sean, it was a brother moment. He grabbed him by the back of the neck, drew him close, the other hand reaching around his shoulders. Kinda like - thanks for coming to my party, I hope you have a good time.

It gets better.

With Chastain in the middle, the three walked hand in hand down the photo gauntlet and up the stairs. Before that though, he instructed an assistant type to look after the Jolie. She lingered back while he posed with the cast. I noticed a few people trying to talk to her, to ask her something, lean in and chat. She politely answered each time but her eyes, they never, ever, not once, left Brad. It was almost… possessive. Not in an insecure way but it was intense. Almost like - I'll wait, but don't make me wait long.

And he didn't.

He, Chastain, and Penn turned around at the top of the steps, did the obligatory, traditional wave, as the cast of the presenting film is meant to do, and then he leaned over to the two of them and said he'd be right back, started making his way back down the stairs. At this point, choreographed perfectly, the crowd that was gathered around Angelina parted, and she started making her way down the carpet to meet him. He approached her with his arms slightly outstretched. Dylan zoomed in on that moment and we were lip-reading later on when we watched it back in the truck; we *think* he said "ohhhh yessss". As in "you're f-cking hot tonight".

So they did their thing. And you're looking at the pictures. And there was the usual chest-rubbing and his hand lingered above her ass and a lot of handholding too, and then he stepped back so the photographers could shoot her solo, and then when that was done, he took her hand again and they made their way upstairs to the first landing, where she was greeted by the Festival people, and they turned around again to wave at the crowd, and there was another flight of steps to get to the top at which point, at the highest point, they faced the entire Croisette, people were screaming, it was full madness, and it was like Celebrity Royalty, the King and Queen of Cannes being celebrated by the masses…….

As Sean Penn had to wait patiently by the door before he could go inside the theatre.

That's the BEST part of this story.

It is protocol at Cannes for the final shot on the carpet to be the cast of the film that's being screened. You have seen it happen every night here during the festival. Tree of Life was the movie last night. Supposedly. But you wouldn't know it the way the Brange took over that situation. Angelina Jolie's not in it. She's not in Tree of Life. If you strip it down, she was Brad's date. His plus one. Which makes me laugh just to have written that. Is Angelina Jolie ever anyone's plus one?

Those two owned that sh-t like it was a balcony wave after a wedding…while two time Oscar winner, and the actor who actually does appear in Tree of Life, Sean Penn had to stand there, like some kind of attendant, observing them receiving their adoration, before he was allowed to go inside and have a seat. Amazing, right?

When they were done and were finally ready to enter the theatre, the Jolie made eye contact with Sean and he smiled broadly. They exchanged an affectionate hug. He actually laughed at something she had said. She then turned, very, very formally to address Jessica Chastain. I seriously thought Chastain was going to curtsey. You have to remember though, this is Chastain's movie. Wearing a lovely yellow gown, flanked by two major actors, her major Cannes debut, last night was supposed to be her moment. Instead, it felt like she became some kind of lady-in-waiting, stepping aside as the Queen took her rightful place. Gamesmanship?

No! cries the Brangelunatic, Angie would never!

Sure, whatever you say.

They did the same thing on their way out. He made two trips: holding hands with Chastain and another producer, and then, again, escorting the Jolie back down the steps.

This is what we love about celebrity. If I could, I'd replay this entire carpet for you over and over again, as a study in how and why the Brange is running their brand better than anyone else in the business. Think about how Tom Cruise bungled his sh-t. Think about how quickly that turned into a mess. It's not like it's a cash competition either. It's not like Tom isn't as rich as the Brange. This is a matter of execution. No one does it like they do.

I will say though, despite all the study of strategy (and he may have an Oscar nomination in mind this time because he really does deliver a tremendous performance in Tree of Life), that they are very, very well tuned to each other. In body language, unspoken communication, he seems to be very attentive towards her, they're aware of each other at all times, and while there's no doubt they spin it to suit their own purposes, these two aren't pretending to be together. It's not done. It was never done. Will it be done? Not sure. But judging from what they threw down here at Cannes, not for a while.

Also attached - Brange out for dinner last night after the carpet.

No I didn't like her dress. It wasn't so pageant-y in person as it is in pictures but it's still kinda bridal-y all the same. You almost didn't notice last night though. Her face was especially crazy. As in awesome to look at. Dylan was having a hard time with his camera because all the photographers were jostling; the situation became quite aggressive. He said last night that it wasn't his best work, and we didn't know how well it would turn out when we were feeding it back. But we ended up sending over some really great viz. They were able to use so much of it. When I asked him about it - I thought you said it might be sh-t - he replied, and he's not really into the Jolie, "Sometimes, it's the subject, you know? Sometimes you just have to point at it and she does all the rest".

It was true in her case last night. They did a great job on her face last night.

Cannes Diary: Tree of Life at Cannes
By Sasha Stone

May 17, 2011

The climax of the Cannes Film Festival, at least from this American’s point of view, was yesterday’s screening and gala for Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life. It started out being the most anticipated title, and it ended up being the most talked about, and most “important” film to screen here. Some might even describe the 64th annual fest as, “there was The Tree of Life and there was everything else.”

If Johnny Depp’s appearance at the Croisette was like the President of the United States, one might say Brad and Angelina’s presence was more along the lines of the second coming of Christ. Brad Pitt himself nearly shut things down when he appeared solo for the photo call and press conference. But everyone knew Angelina Jolie was going to dress up and come to the gala that night. Cars lined up for miles as fans packed into Cannes. They crowded the street, climbed up on benches, stood for hours in the blazing hot sun all to catch a glimpse of two very beautiful primates.

For the fun of it, I’d dragged my daughter out for the night so she could get a look at how it all works down here in Cannes when a celebrity makes such an appearance. On TV everything looks so much bigger than it is. The red carpet seems to go on forever. Cannes appears like a giant, impossible city – something like Miami Beach maybe. But when you are here, though, it is much smaller, maybe more like Santa Barbara. The red carpet outside the Lumiere is only about one block long, if that.

When Brad Pitt finally arrived, the crowd heaved in his direction, as if he gave off such a force of magnetism it seemed to lift the crowd momentarily, like a heat pocket. He smiled and waved. The nobodies with their point-and-shoots up in the air, their faces sculpted into masks of ecstasy maybe did feel like they were having a real experience with Brad Pitt. His radiance was one thing, but it was Angelina who drew audible gasps from the swell of people. Each time she turned her perfectly symmetrical, wide-jawed-doe-eyed face in their direction it was like seeing, well, a double rainbow.

Brad! Angelina! Brad! Angelina! They called their names and when they did, Brad would wave in our general direction. All the while a giant TV screen lets the people see them up close. Two beautiful, elusive stars captured in memory for the briefest of moments might amount to all the magic left in this world to a few of the waiting and the watching.

After the stars went inside the crowd dispersed, better for having glimpsed two of God’s finest creations.