Search This Blog

Tuesday, 15 December 2015

How to win an acting Oscar

To win an acting Oscar, Academy members need to notice you and nominate you. How do you achieve this? Easy, get a lead or preferably a supporting role in a film by Woody Allen or David O Russell!

The two combined are awards nomination-generating machines. At the Oscars, performers in Woody Allen films have been nominated 17 times, and won seven times over the past 35 years. Of late, David O Russell's triple whammy of The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle have generated 11 acting noms.

Here's the Woody Allen nominations list with wins in bold:
  • Annie Hall: Actor (Allen himself), Actress (Diane Keaton)
  • Interiors: Actress (Geraldine Page), Supporting Actres (Maureen Stapleton)
  • Manhattan: Supporting Actress (Mariel Hemingway)
  • Hannah & Her Sisters: Supporting Actor (Michael Caine), Supporting Actress (Dianne Wiest)
  • Crimes & Misdemeanours: Supporting Actor (Martin Landau)
  • Husbands & Wives: Supporting Actress (Judy Davis)
  • Bullets Over Broadway: Supporting Actor (Chazz Palminteri), Supporting Actress (Dianne Wiest)
  • Mighty Aphrodite: Supporting Actress (Mira Sorvino)
  • Sweet & Lowdown: Actor (Sean Penn), Supporting Actress (Samantha Morton)
  • Vicky Cristina Barcelona: Supporting Actress (Penelope Cruz)
  • Blue Jasmine: Actress (Cate Blanchett), Supporting Actress (Sally Hawkins)
And here's the David O Russell list, again with wins in bold:
  • The Fighter: Supporting Actor (Christian Bale), Supporting Actress (Melissa Leo), Supporting Actress (Amy Adams)
  • Silver Linings Playbook: Actor (Bradley Cooper), Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Supporting Actor (Robert de Niro), Supporting Actress (Jacki Weaver)
  • American Hustle: Actor (Christian Bale), Actress (Amy Adams), Supporting Actor (Bradley Cooper), Supporting Actress (Jennifer Lawrence)
Or of course you could clone Daniel Day Lewis (three wins from just five nominations), Meryl Streep (three wins from 19 nominations), or Cate Blanchett (three wins from six nominations, with a seventh nom surely to come for Carol).

Or simply make sure that you're in a film produced by Harvey Weinstein and/or The Weinstein Company!

Saturday, 12 December 2015

When is a supporting actor not a supporting actor?

Every awards season throws up surprises and snubs, and usually at least one awards body will go off piste and treat an actor's excellent performance quite differently. Simply put, when is a supporting actor not a supporting actor?

Take a look at what's happened so far with the SAG and Golden Globe nominations:
  • Rooney Mara nominated for the Best Actress Globe, but SAG have placed her in the Supporting Actress category.
  • Alicia Vikander nominated for Best Actress at the Globes, but Best Supporting Actress in the SAG
  • Christian Bale is nominated for Best Actor at the Globes, but SAG have placed him in the Supporting Actor category
There have been lots of other similar cases in movie history:
  • Was Anthony Hopkins' role as Hannibal Lecter really a leading role and not a supporting one?
  • Was Alan Arkin in Argo a supporting actor or a cameo performance?
  • Surely Casey Affleck was a lead actor in the Assassination of Jesse James not a supporting actor?
  • Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love was surely a cameo not a supporting role?
Also, the 'Supporting' category is often used/abused to reward an ensemble by highlighting the performer most likely to get nominated: Ian McKellen in Lord of the Rings, for example.

The main cause of these confusions is voter apathy, certainly in the case of the Oscars. Stories are legion of Academy members asking their partners to vote for them, and of late, if you don't send screeners (DVDs) of a film to Academy members, it will not get nominated. So the herd do what they're told: Harvey Weinstein and his team push Rooney Mara for Supporting Actress, when she is clearly in a lead role, and she gets shortlisted in the 'wrong' category.

I say 'wrong' because it's clearly wrong to a film fan, but it makes good business sense for Harvey to ensure his two leading ladies are not competing against each other: surely Carol will make more money if it wins two Oscars for Blanchett and Mara in Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress categories respectively than if the two compete against each other and lose?

How does the Academy define leading and supporting roles? Rather conveniently, it doesn't. Here's what it says: "The determination as to whether a role is a leading or supporting role shall be made individually by members of the branch at the time of balloting."

Furthermore, it notes that if a performer achieves enough votes in a single category for each of more than one eligible performance, only one performance will make the cut. So no hope for Cate Blanchett in Truth then as her role in Carol will garner more votes. Ditto Michael Fassbender: his Macbeth is better than his Steve Jobs, but if Oscar is going to support one of those performances, it will be the Apple biopic.

Of course none of this explains how neither SAG nor the Globes nominated the outstanding female performer of the year, namely Charlotte Rampling in 45 Years...

Monday, 7 December 2015

Cinemas: should they be bars that show films?

Cinemas used to be pantheons or sacred sites when I was young. Even going to the local 'fleapit' was an experience to be enjoyed. Visits to various Leicester Square venues in the late 70s to mid 80s were huge events: Empire Strikes Back at the Odeon and Dune at the Empire still longer lovingly in my memory.

That was the past; the future now looks like your average cinema will be a bar that shows films, if Screendaily's report on a recent debate can be relied upon. In brief, exhibitors don't want their businesses tied to the vagaries of the cyclical quality of content: their sites and staff cost money, and they can't rely on films consistently driving traffic through their doors, so they need people to visit their venues and spend when not seeing a film.

This future trend is more prevalent among indie chains (Curzon, etc) than the mass market players (Vues, Cineworlds, etc). As a Curzon member for several years now (I've visited Curzon venues 18 times this year, including Victoria, Soho, Mayfair and Bloomsbury), I feel able to comment on this first-hand. Curzon  has certainly invested in front-of-house at Soho, built the Victoria site and, depending on your viewpoint, butchered the old Renoir to create the Bloomsbury art-house multiplex (certainly the Renoir needed a decorative revamp, and while the Bloomsbury is a lovely new venue in terms of interior finish, the small auditoria and screens have not gone down well with long-time visitors that I know).

Soho always benefitted from its ground floor Konditor & Cook outlet, and I have used this cafe many times over the years in preference to Costas and Prets, etc, when not seeing films on the screens below. But there's no doubt that Curzon Soho is a cinema: I mean just look at the exterior, below! Yes, there's clearly a cafe behind the glass frontage, but the films being shown are detailed on the leading edge of the awning. Sometimes the glass frontage is decorated to coincide with a film promotion.



Now compare this with Curzon Victoria, below. I recognise that this site is all about what's below the visible ground floor and that there's a narrow frontage to play with, nevertheless does this shout 'I'm a cinema screening great films that you should be watching NOW'?



It's certainly tasteful and on-message, but what lies behind those shimmering curtains? Could you guess correctly, if you didn't know? And once downstairs, you're greeted with tasteful furnishings again and themed cocktails and choices of gin, and half a dozen disappointingly small auditoria.

It strikes me as perfect business sense that a cinema, particularly with an upscale audience, should seek to provide all that its clients need: not only the film, but also the drinks, tea and cake beforehand, the modern bistro meal, wine and cocktails after, and the DVD and book sales. But a cinema should be cinematic at heart, it should celebrate and venerate the theatrical exhibition of moving pictures, its primary focus should be the high quality presentation of film, backed up by excellent up-sell opportunities (the food and drinks, etc) - but the moment that the primary focus of the venue turns to the  concerns of non-film goers is a deeply concerning tipping point.

Of course, cinemas are fighting against the rising tide of quality TV, the shockingly short window between theatrical distribution and the retailing of the DVD, multimedia consumption, and quite simply the cost of cinema-going.

Let me illustrate that final and important point: the disparity between current VOD prices (equivalent to the cost of a West End cinema ticket in the early 90s) and the true cost of 'going to the cinema' (for me, that's the drive to the station car park and the ensuing fee, the train travel to Victoria, followed by Tube or bus to the cinema, then the cost of the film plus any nibbles and drinks and the return travel) is so great now - that's a ten-fold increase in my case - that I have to really want to see a film and it has to be on a big screen to make the trip worthwhile. So, I can justify a full IMAX presentation of a well-made blockbuster at the IMAX, but documentaries and small-scale dramas are best viewed at home for one-tenth of the price, I'm afraid.

Not every cinema can be a votive temple to film, but every cinema should strive to be this first and foremost.

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Awards season is underway

The ‘for your consideration’ ads have started in the trades, so awards season is underway. The season gets a kickstart on 11 December when the Golden Globe nominations are announced. But momentum really picks up in the first week of January when the nominations are announced for the Producers Guild Awards, the Writers Guild Awards, the American Society of Cinematographers Awards, and the BAFTAs, and the Golden Globe winners are revealed.

The key dates are:
December

  • 9 SAG noms 
  • 11 Golden Globe noms 

January

  • 5 PGA noms 
  • 6 WGA noms/ASC noms 
  • 8 BAFTA noms 
  • 11 Golden Globes 
  • 12 DGA noms 
  • 14 Oscar noms 
  • 23 PGA 
  • 30 SAG 

February

  • 6 DGA 
  • 13 WGA/ASC (tbc) 
  • 14 BAFTAs/ASC (tbc)
  • 28 Oscars 

At this time, there are no obvious outstanding favourites for Best Film: for example, Todd Haynes’ beautiful Carol is one of the most romantic films ever made and reviews have been stellar, but will Oscar fall for a 1950s-set lesbian drama?

Is Trumbo too light on its feet to be accepted as a searing indictment of the McCarthyist Hollywood blacklist? Are journalistic investigations into important topics just too strident to make the likes of Truth and Spotlight palatable?

Can lightning strike twice for Alejandro G Inarritu with the bleak Revenant? Can a well-reviewed film Steve Jobs deliver in awards season when it hasn’t delivered at the box office?

Other questions: which is the better Cate Blanchett performance, Truth or Carol? And will she prevent Rooney Mara (who has the more challenging role in Carol) or Charlotte Rampling in 45 Years from winning?

If it’s any good, will The Force Awakens be recognised?

Will Charlize Theron and director George Miller be nominated for Mad Max: Fury Road? Does The Martian deserve awards kudos? And what of smaller films like The Big Short, Sicario or Suffragette: can they make hay as the big guns disappoint?

And will Son Of Saul perform that all-to-rare feat of a Best Foreign Film nominee finding its way on to the main category shortlists?

And then there’s the small matter of my own awards, the Golden Stans, which will be revealed on Monday 4 January.

Let battle commence!

Thursday, 19 November 2015

Can Star Wars: The Force Awakens break all box office records?

How big will Star Wars: The Force Awakens be? Will it obliterate every box office record? Maybe…  The biggest hit of 2015 so far is one of the most successful films ever: Jurassic World. So far it’s taken $652.2m in the US, plus slightly more than $1bn in the rest of the world (including $228m in China and nearly £100m in the UK). In so doing, it relieved Avatar of some of its records.


So here’s your Force Awakens record breaker ready reckoner:
  • More than $760.5m needed in the US to topple Avatar as the most successful film ever there
  • More than $2.1bn needed internationally to topple Avatar
  • More than $2.8bn needed worldwide to topple Avatar
  • More than $524.4m needed to beat Jurassic World’s worldwide opening weekend
  • More than $208.8m needed in the US to beat Jurassic World’s opening weekend record
  • More than $315.6m needed internationally to beat Jurassic World’s opening weekend record
  • Jurassic World is the fastest film to every US marker post from $100m to $650m: it crossed $150m in just two days; after 10 days in play, it had passed the $400m barrier; and on its 17th day on release, it edged over $500m.
  • The final instalment of Harry Potter holds the US record for the most successful opening day at $91.1m
  • Avatar holds the record for the most successful third, fourth and fifth weekends in the US.
  • In the UK, Skyfall holds the all-time box office record of £102.9m, having beaten long-time champion Titanic.

Are there any obstacles to the Force failing to smash all records? Yes! The first and most obvious is: is it any good? If words gets out fast via social media that it’s The Phantom Menace all over again, then its legs will wither in the Western markets very rapidly indeed. The level of pre-sales/advance bookings will almost certainly mean that short term records will be smashed no matter what, but if the film is poorly received by its target audience (the ones who will drive repeat business), then the longer term records become too much.

Also, Star Wars has no legacy in the world’s second largest film market, China. Jurassic World’s total there makes it only the third most successful Hollywood film this year behind Age of Ultron ($240.1m) and Furious 7 ($390.9m). However, go back five years to Avatar’s release in China and James Cameron’s smurf movie made an unprecedented $204m just as the country was expanding its consumption of film.

Reviewing Avatar’s box office performance (Force Awakens has broadly the same release pattern) is instructive. Its ability to smash short-term records was hindered by its duration, namely two hours and 40 minutes, which limited the number of performances per screen per day to three. Force is clocking in at two hours and 15 minutes, so four performances per day per screen should be the minimum achievable. And Force will show on more screens than Avatar.

Key to Avatar’s international performance was the number of countries that it generated more than $100m from: Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Spain and the UK. Furious 7, Jurassic World and Age of Ultron only passed the $100m mark in China!

So, in order to beat Avatar’s financial records, Force will need to beat $100m by a substantial margin in all the major markets.

Will other releases run interference? If Force is not well received, then yes. Opening day and date with it in the US is Alvin and Chipmunks: The Road Chip, which take away families with very young children. Then from Christmas Day, the Oscar hopefuls are unleashed, some in platform release and others in wide release: Tarantino’s Hateful Eight, Inarritu’s Revenant, Will Smith’s Concussion, and David O Russell’s Joy (with Jennifer Lawrence). And there’s also the remake of Point Break. On 15 January, in the run-up to Martin Luther King Jnr Day, Ride Along 2 arrives: the first Ride opened on MLK weekend in 2014 with $41.5m – a repeat performance would ensure that Force would be knocked off the number one spot it should in theory have held since opening on 18 December. And that would mean it would be unable to match Titanic’s 15-week run at number one.

In the UK, Titanic stayed at number one for 13 consecutive weeks. Here, the Force will face ‘opposition’ from the Peanuts Movie (opening 21 December), and that’s about it until 1 January, when the Oscar and BAFTA contenders arrive. Having said that, if the Force is strong, then it should stay at number one in the UK until 12 February (which would mean eight consecutive weekends at the top; no film has managed more than four weeks at the top since Avatar) when a flood of major films are unleashed: Zoolander 2, Point Break, and The Road Chip. If it survives that weekend, it will then face How To Be Single a week later – and that, judging by the trailer, could be another Bridesmaids.

My forecast if the Force is well-liked by its target audience is that it snatches $500m in the US before the end of 2015, and, that being the case, Avatar’s US record could be beaten (but probably not by much). 

Similarly, it should smash UK records with relative ease: $200m from the UK is not out of the question. The Chinese will determine whether Force can make it to $2bn-plus internationally – and Force doesn’t open in China until the end of January 2016.

Some records will not be threatened: in the Western world, not as many people go to the cinema as 50 or more years ago, so the records for the numbers of admissions will not be beaten. The record holder is, of course, Gone With The Wind: 35m admissions in the UK and 200m-plus in the US. If Force generated 200m admissions in the US with an average of ticket price of, say, $8.20, it would generate more than $1.6bn – and that isn’t going to happen!