"Religulous," the incendiary documentary by Bill Maher and Larry Charles that dares to question organized religion, earned $3.4 million in its opening weekend, thus edging out the anti-Darwin doc "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for top nonfiction debut of the year.
Although the film will no doubt continue to make lots of green, the question now is whether "Religulous" can earn Oscar gold. As Bill Mahertold us up in Toronto, that would sure make up for those record 21 losses at the Emmy Awards.
To earn an Oscar nod, "Religulous" must now pass muster with the documentary branch of the academy.
One wonders how accepting these serious-minded film folk will be of an effort by two TV vets. While Maher has earned his stripes with his often inflammatory rhetoric on "Politically Incorrect" and "Real Time With Bill Maher," Charles (a two-time Emmy winner for "Seinfeld") is best known as the man behind the mockumentary "Borat."
Select branch members will screen all eligible films: those that played at least one week in L.A. and Gotham before the end of August, are at least 41 minutes long and are not shown on TV or the Internet for at least 60 days after finishing qualifying runs on both coasts. (Two top-grossing documentaries -- "Young @ Heart" and "Up the Yangtze" -- are disqualified because of airings on British and Canadian TV, respectively.)
An average scoring system will be used to produce a short list of 12 to 15 films. Only then will the academy's standard system of preferential voting be used to determine the final five nominees. [Rule 12(C)2 dictates that this second round of voting require the viewing of all short-listed documentaries in a theater unless the member watched all of the eligible documentaries in the first round.] This two-step process was instituted last year to address concerns about the caliber of films that were making the cut. This year's crop of possibilities offers a wide range of choices.
The top earner to date -- with nearly $10 million in sales -- is "U2 3D." Just as the name suggests, this is a 3D concert film featuring the Irish rock band U2. Although the film wowed the critics, scoring 83 at Metacritic, this type of documentary rarely makes it into the race.
However, with Oscar winner Martin Scorsese ("The Departed") helming "Shine a Light," this IMAX edition of a concert by the Rolling Stones could break that barrier. That film pleased enough ardent fans among the critics to score 76 at Metacritic and has earned just over $5 million.
While respectable, that box office take puts it well behind "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which has made nearly $8 million. However, Ben Stein's advocacy of intelligent design over Darwinism met with critical derision, scoring a mere 20 at Metacritic.
Much better received was "Man on Wire," which revisits Philippe Petit's daring walk between the two towers of the World Trade Center in 1974. Nearly universal rave reviews yielded a score of 89 at Metacritic, and the film has made almost $2.5 million. "Gonzo" looks at the life of another man who lived life on the high wire -- the late Hunter S. Thompson -- and had enough supporters among the critics to come in at 73 at Metacritic but has made only $1.2 million.
So far the best-reviewed docu of the year is "Trouble the Water," the Katrina-themed winner of the grand jury prize at Sundance, which has a perfect 100% score from top critics at Rotten Tomatoes. The L.A. Times calls it "more than a keenly dramatic look at how this country treats the poor and dispossessed." However, since late August, it's only earned $330,000 while showing at 14 theaters.
"Encounters at the End of the World," which recounts German filmmaker Werner Herzog's journey to Antarctica, may have warmed up enough critics to rate an 80 at Metacritic but met with cool indifference from the public, grossing just under $1 million. Three years ago, Herzog helmed the critically acclaimed "Grizzly Man," which did not rate with the documentary branch. "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" examines the legal troubles of the Oscar winning director ("The Pianist") and earned a respectable 78 at Metacritic. However, this HBO-financed film barely played in theaters, earning all of $58,000.
While the revolving cast has been nominated as outstanding talk show hosts in each of the first 11 seasons, they have never won the award. Hasselbeck has been part of this losing team effort since 2005. The ladies of "The View" have sometimes blamed this losing streak on the possibility that Emmy voters have found at least one of them to dislike at various time. Could Hasselbeck be the problem most recently? The constant friction evident between her and her co-hosts makes for great TV viewing, but is it possible that TV academy members are taking the side of the majority, thus hurting the whole team's Emmy chances? It may seem unfair to gang up on poor Hasselbeck about this too — she really does get enough grief — but I do wonder about this sometimes.
Personally, I believe the real reason "The View" co-hosts haven't won the Emmy is because voters prefer solo hosts. Over more than 30 years of the category's existence, multiple-host nominees have never won. The voting pattern is clear. Heck, the only time Regis Philbin ever claimed this contest was in 2001 when he was temporarily in between co-hosts of "Live" and got nominated alone.
But if the other theory is true and "The View" losses can be blamed on the presence of one troublesome co-host amongst the batch, it's not to hard to identify who that might have been over time.
For the first nine years, that may well have been Star Jones, whose popularity plunged in direct relation to her ever-shrinking waistline.
Once Jones was jettisoned in 2006, hopes were high that new moderator Rosie O'Donnell's love affair with the daytime Emmy Awards would continue. After all, for hosting her own talkfest, she had won six consecutive Emmys against, among others, "The View" panel. Alas, while her run-ins with Hasselbeck made for gripping TV, they did not sit well with Emmy voters, who preferred the softer edges of Ellen DeGeneres. With O'Donnell's departure last year after only one season, Whoopi Goldberg came on board to steer the conversation. Yet even the presence of Goldberg — one of only 10 people to win the grand slam of Oscar, Emmy, Tony, and Grammy awards — could not win over Emmy voters last spring.
Perhaps creator and occasional co-host Barbara Walters would do well to reconsider her commitment to having the conservative voice of Hasselbeck heard at the table . . . and by Emmy voters.
It's been about two months since I asked our forum moderatorsDarrin "DoubleD" Dortch and David "Guru" Schnelwar for their early Grammy predix, so, now that the eligibility period has waned, it's time for an update. David is busy now with a personal matter, so we'll catch up with his forecasts later. For now, here are DoubleD's thoughts — in his own words.
There is a horrible, horrible assumption that many Grammy "experts" make. Some experts — whom I won't embarrass by naming in print — seem to believe that albums and singles released early in the Grammy eligibility period will be forgotten by voters when nominations roll around. (NOTE: The Grammy eligibility period is Oct. 1, 2007 through Sept. 30, 2008.) Don't these "experts" realize that Grammy voters march to the beat of their own drum? How else do you explain Herbie Hancock's awful album of the year win earlier this year?
Can "experts" please stop saying that something is too old to be nominated? There are numerous examples of Grammy voters embracing "old" music. In December 2007, Vince Gill received an album of the year nomination for an album that was released in October 2006; Corinne Bailey Rae earned a song of the year nomination for a song that appeared on her 2006 album. In October 2000, U2 released their spectacular "All That You Can't Leave Behind" album. In February 2002, they won four Grammys for that album, including record of the year. Even Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" was released in October/November 1997 and didn't win record and song of the year and best pop female until February 1999. I could go on.
Despite being released in November 2007, I fully expect albums by the Eagles, Alicia Keys and Robert Plant & Alison Krauss to crack this year's album of the year lineup when Grammy nominations are announced in December. The Eagles, Keys and Plant/Krauss will be heavily nominated alongside Coldplay, which will more than likely lead the nominations.
Also, watch out for U.K. newcomer Duffy and Sugarland, the newest country sensation. Duffy's buzz has been building all year thanks to her throwback single, "Mercy," and I have a feeling the singer-songwriter will go over very well with Grammy voters, much as India.Arie did in 2001. Sugarland scored a surprise best new artist nomination a few years back. Grammy voters have an affinity for past best new artist nominees and winners, and since Sugarland has seen great success with its latest album, "Love on the Inside," I could see them doing very well in the general and country fields.
With that said, here are my insights on Grammy's top races this year:
ALBUM OF THE YEAR
FRONT-RUNNERS "As I Am," Alicia Keys "Long Road Out of Eden," The Eagles "Raising Sand," Robert Planet & Alison Krauss "Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends," Coldplay
FIGHTING FOR THE LAST SLOT "Detours," Sheryl Crow "Lay It Down," Al Green "Love on the Inside," Sugarland "Rockferry," Duffy "Tha Carter III," Lil Wayne
VETERANS THAT MAY SPOIL "Accelerate," R.E.M. "Backwoods Barbie," Dolly Parton "Death Magnetic," Metallica "Home Before Dark," Neil Diamond "In Rainbows," Radiohead "Modern Guilt," Beck "Two Men With the Blues," Willie Nelson & Wynston Marsalis
After the shocking nods for veteran acts Vince Gill and Herbie Hancock earlier this year, I think it's wise for us at least to consider the noteworthy veterans acts that have eligible discs. But I think the Eagles' comeback disc will be enough for voters this year. Barring some upset, I think the Eagles, Keys, Coldplay and Plant-Krauss are in. The last spot will probably go to Sugarland, though Duffy is a strong possibility.
RECORD OF THE YEAR
FRONT-RUNNERS "Bleeding Love," Leona Lewis "Mercy," Duffy "Stay," Sugarland "Viva La Vida," Coldplay
FIGHTING FOR A SPOT "All Summer Long," Kid Rock "American Boy," Estelle / Kanye West "Apologize," One Republic "Disturbia," Rihanna "I Kissed a Girl," Katy Perry "Like You'll Never See Me Again," Alicia Keys "Lollipop," Lil Wayne / Static Major "Love Lockdown," Kanye West "Love Song," Sara Bareilles "Pocketful of Sunshine," Natasha Bedingfield
Recently, while weighing Angelina Jolie's Oscar odds for "Changeling" and wondering if she's been snubbed by the academy since 1999 because of her tabloid life, I invited other Oscarologists to pipe in to get their views.
JEFFREY WELLS,HOLLYWOOD-ELSEWHERE.COM: "I'm not sensing a punishment mentality directed at Angelina Jolie because she's a gossip press mainstay. Perhaps subconsciously there's a certain resentment toward anyone whose life has become a pageant of relentless gallivanting about and resultant tabloid fodder and is therefore part of the idiot wind sandstorm out there that does none of us any good. I think we could all do well to focus less obsessively on the perks and pleasures of abundant wealth, which is what every vapid, under-educated status seeker in every corner of the globe dreams about every waking day . . . .
"On top of which her performance, I would argue, is somewhat less interesting and less penetrating than the performances by Kristin Scott Thomas ('I've Loved You So Long'); Anne Hathaway ('Rachel Getting Married'), Melissa Leo ('Frozen River') and Kate Beckinsale ('Nothing But the Truth'). And yet to come is Kate Winslet ('Revolutionary Road,' 'The Reader') and Meryl Streep ('Doubt'). Who am I missing? She isn't the least bit irritating like Sally Hawkins in 'Happy-Go-Lucky' -- she's a very beautiful actress who knows how to emote and play to other actors in an honest way that doesn't prod or grate.
"At best, Angelina Jolie is a third-place slot right now behindKristin Scott Thomas and Melissa Leo. She has the power of Universal and her own fame behind the effort, and I imagine she'll prevail, which will be fine if it happens. But she won't win." READ MORE
SASHA STONE, AWARDSDAILY.COM: "I agree with all of Jeff's actress contenders, except Beckinsale. She hasn't earned her spot yet and will need a LOT of critical acclaim, which she may yet get but hasn't so far. As far as Angelina Jolie, if her place in the industry was secure, she would have been nominated for 'A Mighty Heart.' That she wasn't showed that she is, perhaps, a bit overexposed. Manohla Dargis has said that she is so famous now it's impossible to imagine her as a different person. Her fame has eclipsed her ability to transform and thus, like Madonna, it's impossible to appreciate her 'acting' unless she's playing basically herself. You say the same thing, essentially, that she doesn't 'bury herself' in roles to a believable (Charlize Theron) degree. But then there's Clint to the rescue.
"My only pause with what you wrote was the stuff about the pleased crowd at the screening. True enthusiasm is hard to suss out of a crowd eager to please. Some of the reviews I've read say she isn't very good — so if she isn't very good and she's Angelina Jolie that's two strikes against her at the outset. The clips I've seen of her show me what Jolie does best in a dramatic role: recede into the place of the victimized, the "poor me" kind of crying that she did so well in 'Gia' and 'Girl, Interrupted.' It's a selfish kind of crying and I'm not sure that will work with this particular part. We don't need her to tell us to feel badly for her; we should feel badly for her anyway. So her job here should be to try not to cry, to try to hold it together. I haven't seen it yet, unfortunately, so I don't now if she succeeds at doing that.
"The accusations I've read on the web that she's 'gunning for an Oscar' seem overly harsh: I don't think Angelina Jolie cares one bit if she wins or not, or is nominated or not. What she cares about is helping the movie per her contractual obligations so that she can make more films, make more money and fund her political and social causes. She's a big picture kind of person and so this Oscar talk is a bit beneath her, i think. I agree with Jeff also in that she's doesn't "need" an Oscar for any reason other than to help her make more films so she can continue to fund her causes. In other words, she's just doing her job. The Oscar voters tend to reward people they feel could benefit from a nomination so that they then feel like they're efforts are both heroic and not in vain."
THELMA ADAMS, US WEEKLY: "'Changeling' is strong commercially, but not strong as an Oscar contender. Jolie good, but better in 'A Mighty Heart.' And this year the women's field is looking strong. Let's see 'Gran Torino.' Maybe, if they release in December, that has an impact on this one's chances, especially if it's better."
ANNE THOMPSON, VARIETY.COM: "It's early days. The actress field is weak. 'Rachel Getting Married' has to be a hit. Sony Pictures Classics has to do everything right with its Hathaway campaign. Ditto Universal and 'Changeling.' With a weak field anything can happen."
EDWARD DOUGLAS, COMINGSOON.NET: "I think that Anne Hathaway for 'Rachel Getting Married' is the biggest story right now only because she's been doing the rounds all week to promote the movie and EVERYONE has been bringing up her Oscar chances. I definitely think she's guaranteed for a nomination since she has all the right credentials for a best actress nomination: young, the role involves lots of crying and nudity. (Helen Mirren's the only actress to win with only one of the three.) I personally don't understand the appeal of the movie and why everyone is raving about it, but as someone who just came back from a rehearsal dinner and was cringing the whole way through, it might just be my adversity to weddings in general.
Looks like Universal has decided to put Michael Sheen in the lead actor race opposite "Frost/Nixon" costar Frank Langella, which is surprising for many reasons.
Yes, sure, they both really are leads, with Sheen actually having more face time and lines of dialogue to speak as British talk-show host David Frost compared to Langella as the disgraced U.S. president he infamously interviewed on TV in 1977: Richard Nixon.
That means nothing at the Oscars. Denzel Washington had less screen time and dialogue than "Training Day" costar Ethan Hawke, but won in lead while Hawke had to settle for a losing nomination in supporting. Forest Whitaker won best actor over "The Last King of Scotland" costar James McAvoy, who had more screen time and dialogue too, but was placed in the supporting slot where he wasn't even nominated.
When "Frost/Nixon" was still a stage play, Langella and Sheen were both nominated for best lead actor at London's Olivier Awards. They lost to Rufus Sewell ("Rock N Roll"). At the Tonys when Sheen dared to take on Langella again, only Langella got nominated — and he won.
You'd think Sheen would be used to ducking down to the supporting category at film awards. Obviously, he had the lead male role in "The Queen" two years ago, but he was nonetheless pushed down to supporting, earning a nomination from BAFTA and a win from the Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. However, Sheen was snubbed at the Globes and Oscars.
Now that Langella and Sheen compete for best actor at the Academy Awards, Sheen may pay a terrible price for daring to take on a costar with the most demonstrative role based upon a real (and famous) person. Remember what happened to the actresses in "The Hours"? Sure, Nicole Kidman had the least dialogue and face time of all three women, but Julianne Moore wisely conceded that Kidman, as novelist Virginia Woolf, had the role of primary focus and so she ducked down to supporting where she was nominated at the Oscars. Meryl Streep dared to take on Kidman in the lead race. Both were nominated at the Globes, but when Kidman won there, Streep wasn't even nominated at the Oscars.
Sheen may drop down to supporting later this derby season, but the worst thing a star can do is create category confusion for academy members, who can put an actor in any category they want. The Oscars aren't like the Golden Globes and SAG Awards, which decide category placement themselves.
There was a chance Leonardo DiCaprio might've won an Oscar two years ago when "The Departed" won best picture if he hadn't confused voters with where they should place him. Oscar voters love to dole out an acting award along with the best-pic prize — like Russell Crowe ("Gladiator") in lead or Javier Bardem ("No Country for Old Men") in supporting. Yes, Mark Wahlberg was nommed in supporting, but, come on, he's not taken that seriously as a thespian. Wahlberg never had a real shot to win. Among "The Departed" players, it was Leo's gold to grab if he wanted it, but his handlers couldn't decide what category to put him him since he also starred in "Blood Diamond" that year.
Leo was placed in lead for both films at Golden Globes, BAFTA and Critics Choice, but went supporting for "Departed" at SAG. He scored noms for both films at the Globes and Critics Choice — and lost. He lost at BAFTA too, where he was only nominated for "Departed." At SAG he had losing bids for lead ("Blood Diamond") and supporting ("Departed"). At the Oscars, he ended up getting nominated for the wrong flick ("Blood Diamond"). No doubt Leo received lots of votes for "The Departed" too, but since they were split between lead and supporting and because actors can only get nominated once per category, his role in "Departed" got snubbed. Had it been firmly defined as lead or supporting role (preferably supporting), he might've caught a ride on "Departed's" victory wave.
There are many examples of films earning competing nominations in one category for its stars, with all ending up as losers: "Mutiny on the Bounty," "All About Eve," "Giant," "The Defiant Ones," "Suddenly Last Summer," "Becket," "Midnight Cowboy," "Sleuth," "The Turning Point," "The Dresser," and "Thelma & Louise."
In general, when costars are nominated against each other and one manages to prevail, the winner is the nominee with the flashier role: — Maximilian Schell over Spencer Tracy in "Judgment at Nuremberg," Peter Finch over William Holden in "Network," and Shirley MacLaine over Debra Winger in "Terms of Endearment."
That's also true of "Amadeus" depending on how you define flashy: F. Murray Abraham beat his louder but less high-brow costar Tom Hulce, thus appealing to academy snobbery. Interestingly, Sheen made his Broadway debut in the role of Mozart in a revival of "Amadeus" in 1999. For portraying Salieri, David Suchet got a Tony nod. Sheen did not.
"Religion is the easiest thing to sell because it's an invisible product," "Religuous" star Bill Maher tells Gold Derby in this video chat. "Which, by the way, you can't test it out until after you die. So no one's there to complain after you drive this thing off the lot and it breaks down — because you're dead. So what salesman doesn't want a piece of that territory?"
Maher and director Larry Charles take on quite a few of those dubious salesmen of religious beliefs in their sacrilegious documentary now in theaters. Because it's made by such notable showbiz folks, I ask Bill Maher, "Doesn't this documentary epitomize godless Hollywood in a way?"
"I hope!" he roars. "If I have anything to do with it it will."
"How many people at award shows do you see thanking God?" pipes in Larry Charles. "Hollywood is also using God for its own purposes as well."
"Religious people look at me as you might look upon a retarded child," Bill Maher adds, quoting them, "'He's unenlightened. He needs to be saved. He needs to be cured.' I respect all human beings and I would like them to see my version of enlightenment. And mostly I want them to laugh."
Reviews have been quite good from top media. Variety hails "Religulous" as "brilliant, incendiary," while Entertainment Weekly adds, "It's a film that's destined to make a lot of people mad, but Maher, for all his showy atheistic 'doubt,' isn't just trying to crucify religion — he truly wants to know what makes it tick. He leaves no stone tablet unturned." Other raves come from the New York Times, USA Today, Hollywood Reporter and from Roger Ebert at the Chicago Sun-Times. Among the pans is the Washington Post.
If you'd like to pursue the questions raised by "Religulous" further, I recommend reading this interesting article at Atheists.org, which builds the case for the assertion that there's no credible evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Uncontested is the fact that no one alive during the time Jesus is said to have lived wrote about him, which is strange considering that there are plenty of historic accounts of other messiah figures of the era. The first two mentions of him don't come till more than a half century after the date given for Jesus' execution, and the authenticity of those texts by Josephus in AD 93 and Tacitus in 120 are questioned by many secular scholars. Read more.
To read Gold Derby's take on Religulous' run for the Oscar, click here.
Since the Tony Awards began in 1947, five actresses have won theater's highest honor and filmdom's top prize — the Academy Award — in the same year.
The first to pull it off was Shirley Booth in 1953, winning a Tony for "The Time of the Cuckoo" and an Oscar for "Come Back, Little Sheba." The following year, Audrey Hepburn won her Tony for "Ondine" and an Oscar for "Roman Holiday." In 1975, Ellen Burstyn skipped the Oscar ceremony, where she won for "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore," as she was appearing on Broadway in her Tony-winning role in "Same Time, Next Year." Mercedes Ruehl won a Tony for "Lost in Yonkers" and an Oscar for "The Fisher King" in 1991. The most recent double winner: Dame Judi Dench in 1999, winning an Oscar for "Shakespeare in Love" and a Tony for "Amy's View."
Kristin Scott Thomas could well become the sixth name on that list of luminaries. She delivers a performance in the upcoming film "I've Loved You So Long" that has already generated Oscar buzz, and Thursday night she opened on Broadway in "The Seagull" to critical raves.
Last spring, Thomas won the English equivalent of the Tony — the Olivier Award — for her leading role in this Chekhov classic. Now, she is being showered with praise by American reviewers.
Linda Winer of Newsday said, "The actress, best known in this country as the handsome, unfaithful wife in 'The English Patient,' makes her glorious Broadway debut with her Olivier-winning portrayal of Arkadina, the vain, flamboyant, manipulative actress-mother whose visit to her family country estate is catalyst for a crowded household of Russian rapture, melancholy and mixed emotions. No mere monster-mom, this Arkadina manages simultaneously to seem acutely aware and distant, caring and thoughtlessly cruel — in short, the sort of star who, long ago, clearly lost interest in distinguishing between performance and reality. She wears grand gowns with offhand confidence, but doesn't bother to paint her face for family. She enjoys her virtuosic phony reflex, but has a smile that calibrates the tissue-thin affects of nuance."
Ben Brantley of the New York Times thought, "Ms. Scott Thomas, who was excellent as the aging actress Arkadina in London, here delivers a magnified, intensified performance that more than ever is the keystone to understanding this play." He goes on to explain — "Ms. Scott Thomas’s performance is funnier, sadder and braver than it was in London. Arkadina’s fears of fading away assume an almost clownish aspect as she scampers coquettishly to show she could play a girl of 15 or literally grovels in self-abasement before Trigorin. Striking grandly theatrical postures from the age of Duse and Bernhardt, this Arkadina knows that the only way to get attention in life is to be larger than life. Ms. Scott Thomas draws her with a vividness that is equally free of mercy and malice"
Michael Kuchwara of the Associated Press found that, "in Scott Thomas' striking, elegant performance, we get a beautiful, impetuous woman who craftily knows how to use her considerable physical charms to get what she wants." And Elysa Gardner of USA Today thought her, "a witty, poignant Arkadina, revealing a nervous fragility in the fading thespian who lives with and clings to Trigorin."
Airing Thanksgiving eve, this showcase of variety of acts with Rosie O'Donnell as ringmaster will serve as a backdoor pilot for a regular series.
Assuming that it is not a turkey, O'Donnell — who will be exec producing as well — could land another prime-time Emmy Award to join the one she won in 1999 for co-producing the Tony Awards, winner of best variety, musical or comedy special.
Though she did not pick up a nod for hosting that kudoscast, Rosie O'Donnell did compete for the individual performance in a variety program back in 1995 for her first HBO comedy special. Though she lost, given that it was to her childhood idol Barbra Streisand, one can assume she was happy just to be nominated.
For her daytime talker, O'Donnell won six consecutive daytime Emmy Awards for hosting (1997-2002) and another five (1998-2002) for producing. Since then, this mercurial talent has bounced around, landing for a controversy-filled season on "The View" and making headlines with incendiary postings on her own blog. Now, with a kinder, gentler O'Donnell in the offing — she promises "old-time variety, live from New York with a nod to Ed Sullivan, Carol Burnett and memories of Sonny and Cher" — she could well win over Emmy voters again.
And the strong critical support for the film, which opened today, certainly boosts her chances of making the final five. The comedy drama from Oscar-winning director Jonathan Demme scored 84 at Meta Critic and 79 at Rotten Tomatoes.
Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times hailed Hathaway for delivering "a career changing performance." As he explains, "With her chopped hair, constant smoking and wraith-from-hell demeanor, Kym calls on aspects of Hathaway, best known for considerably lighter fare like 'The Princess Diaries,' 'The Devil Wears Prada' and 'Becoming Jane,' that simply have not been seen before, and the actress rises to the challenge beautifully, making Kym simultaneously empathetic and outrageous. It's not just that Kym has been an addict, she's done things while under the influence that even she cannot forgive herself for. Yet far from being contrite, Kym is quick to condemn everyone else. Determined to get the consideration she needs to feel whole, she lashes out at what she calls 'the Salem witch trials' atmosphere in her family."
For Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, "The last actress you'd expect to see cast as a self-loathing, frayed-nerves drug casualty is a red-carpet blossom like Hathaway. Yet from the moment she shows up, her eyes peering with a junkie's paranoid radar from beneath her Louise Brooks-helmet-slashed-with-a-straight-razor hair, the actress wires you right into her rage and awareness. Kym is a walking disaster, but a disaster with feelers, and the effect she has upon her family is to electrify them with the dreaded truths she calls up. Hathaway is a revelation: She makes toxic narcissism mesmerizing, but she also gives Kym a desperate confessional ardor."
Lou Lumenick of the New York Post called Anne Hathaway "the icing on the cake" and said, "She's the one to beat for the Best Actress Oscar for her riveting turn as Kym, who has spent years in and out of rehab after her drug use led to the accidental death of her younger brother." And A.O. Scott of the New York Times thought, "With her pale, slack features and dark-rimmed eyes framed by severe bangs, Ms. Hathaway resembles the silent film star Louise Brooks in 'Pandora’s Box,' except that Kym is less like the curious maiden of Greek mythology than like the box itself: a bottomless repository of guilt, destructiveness and general bad feeling."
Claudia Puig of USA Today found, "the film is at its best in scenes featuring Hathaway's mercurial character. It's a triumphant and darkly nuanced role for her and a departure from the more lighthearted comedic performances she has given. Though she recently showed she can pull off a period piece in her portrayal of Jane Austen in 'Becoming Jane,' she has proved beyond a doubt that she also can play a complex and tortured soul." And Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal said, "Anne Hathaway, sweeps away all clinical categories with a performance of phenomenal energy and heartbreaking beauty."
Angelina Jolie has not been nominated for an Academy Award since she won best supporting actress of 1999 for "Girl, Interrupted."
That's surprising considering Jolie's prominence in American pop culture, her Hollywood lineage as princess of a past Oscar king (Jon Voight, "Coming Home," 1978), popularity with other awards (three Golden Globes, two SAG Awards) and box-office success (movies grossing more than $2 billion worldwide).
Largely, the oversight is probably due to the choices she's made — preferring mostly popcorn pix — over the last decade. But last year Angelina Jolie had a good shot at a bid for her critically hailed turn as Mariane Pearl in "A Mighty Heart," which reaped her nominations from the Golden Globes, SAG, Indie Spirits and Critics Choice. When she failed to make the Oscar cut, award gurus wondered: Has Angelina Jolie's life in the tabloid headlines lost her the respect of those notorious snobs in the motion-picture academy? And, if so, can she ever win it back?
Now here comes Hollywood's most beloved cowboy and trusty Oscar magnet, Clint Eastwood, to the rescue as the director of "Changeling," which I saw Thursday at the New York Film Festival media screening.
Audience response: huzzahs galore. Clint has not only crafted another fine film that's going to garner widespread attention and admiration, but it's not an ensemble film like his last best-picture nominee, "Letters From Iwo Jima," or, to a lesser extent, his last best-pic winner, "Million Dollar Baby." It's all Angelina all the screen time.
You only care about this movie because you buy her performance as a heroic, real-life woman, circa 1930, who battled L.A. police when they locked her up in an insane asylum when she refused to accept a mysterious boy as her missing son. Four of the last five best-actress winners — and seven of the last 10 — portrayed real women. And it's a big, showy role at that, full of big crying scenes, booming declarations and righteous strutting. Oscar voters love all that.
One problem might be the fact that she doesn't bury her famous personality inside a vastly different character like Nicole Kidman did portraying Virginia Woolf in "The Hours" and Helen Mirren as Elizabeth II in "The Queen." But Julia Robertsdidn't do that in "Erin Brockovich." That's a good parallel to make because, in both movies, the actresses are celebrated Hollywood beauties taking on defiant, crusading roles while looking and acting a lot like their lovely selves. Also: just like Jodie Foster in "The Silence of the Lambs" and, minus the crusading part, Cher in "Moonstruck." Obviously, Oscar voters like that sometimes.
Yes, that's true too of Angelina Jolie in "A Mighty Heart" — which had the plus of being based upon a real, heroic person as well — but Oscar voters like the movies they hail to be successful. "Heart" was a huge flop at the box office because studio execs foolishly decided to open it wide during summer, which was the wrong time of year for that kind of film, and a long time away on the calendar from derby season. Furthermore, it happened to be about a topic — war in the Mideast — which also came up short of Oscar expectations for "In the Valley of Elah" and "Charlie Wilson's War." It's possible that Jolie was just one more casualty of war, bad timing and and dumb studio decisions.
However, that didn't stop her from being nominated for all of those other top Hollywood awards.
Now, though, she has a lucky Oscars charm: Clint Eastwood's movies have won chunks of academy gold for five actors — Gene Hackman ("Unforgiven"), Sean Penn and Tim Robbins ("Mystic River") and Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman ("Million Dollar Baby") — and generated four more nominations.
Paul Newman may have appeared in only five Broadway shows in his lifetime but he will receive the ultimate tribute from the theater community Friday night when the lights along the Great White Way are dimmed to honor his passing last week at the age of 83.
After some success in early television, Paul Newman made his Broadway debut in the original 1953 production of William Inge's scorching drama "Picnic." As the best friend of the wandering hero, he won a Theater World award. Newman went off to Hollywood to make the ill-fated "The Silver Chalice" the following year but returned to the rialto in 1955 with a starring role as a desperado in "The Desperate Hours." While Humphrey Bogart would play that part on film, Newman would get another chance for a starring screen role as a boxer in 1956's "Somebody Up There Likes Me." He followed this with a series of film successes capped off by his Oscar-nominated performance in Tennessee Williams' "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" in 1958 (he lost to David Niven for "Separate Tables").
Though his star was shining bright in Hollywood, Newman returned to Broadway the following year to star as a smooth-talking gigolo in Williams' "Sweet Bird of Youth" opposite Geraldine Page, who earned a Tony nod for her work as a fading Hollywood beauty (she would also pick up an Oscar nod for the 1962 film version with Newman).
After two more Oscar-nominated performances –- "The Hustler" (1961) and "Hud" (1963) — Newman was back on the boards once again in 1964 starring in the comedy "Baby Want a Kiss" with wife Joanne Woodward. That was the last Broadway was to see of him until 2002 when he played the stage manager in a production of Thornton Wilder's "Our Town."
That show had started out at the historic Westport Playhouse, a theater company run by Woodward in their Connecticut hometown. Newman was nominated for a 2003 Tony Award as best actor in a play but lost to Brian Dennehy for "Long Day's Journey into Night." (He would also lose the Emmy race that year for the TV version of the production to William H. Macy ("Door to Door.")
