Looking to catch up on the Oscar nominees — and fast?
Scott Tobias tells all, in the New York Times.
Check out his how-to guide here.

Looking to catch up on the Oscar nominees — and fast?
Scott Tobias tells all, in the New York Times.
Check out his how-to guide here.

Affecting, carefully calibrated performances by Ruth Negga, Tessa Thompson (those two actresses in particular), Alexander Skarsgard, Bill Camp and others. Brilliant, literate script. Gorgeous b/w photography. Superb sense of time and place. Resonant themes around race and society.
Seriously, what’s not to like about “Passing,” the impressive feature directorial debut from Rebecca Hall?
The Oscar nominations completely passed over “Passing.” Why?

As you’ve heard by now, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences wants to add an Oscar for outstanding achievement in “popular film” to the mix in 2019.
“The film business passed away today,” Rob Lowe (above left) tweeted in response. “It had been in poor health for a number of years. It is survived by sequels, tent-poles, and vertical integration.”
On the surface, it seems like a cockamamie, ill-advised plan. A few quick thoughts:
Hollywood loves movies about showbiz, and Alejandro Inarritu‘s funny, visually novel and quite original “Birdman” is justifiably lauded for its excellence in direction/tech and acting. So look to see that film win for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, and possibly for Best Actor (for Michael Keaton’s brilliant performance AND his body of work).
Still, I’m thinking it’s more likely that Eddie Redmayne will win for his impressive feat as Stephen Hawking in “The Theory of Everything.” Because, you know, it’s a “serious” biopic and Hawking is played by a Brit. And Brits win many of the big acting Oscars.
The cumulative effect of Richard Linklater‘s beautiful, unusual “Boyhood” — seeing a boy played by the same actor grow from child to adult, and his family members age, too, in what feels like real time over the course of a few hours — indeed was emotionally engaging, and it was the first feature film to notch that accomplishment. So it COULD take Best Picture and Best Director, but my guess is that Patricia Arquette‘s naturalistic turn as the protagonist’s long-suffering mom will result in the movie’s only major win, for Best Supporting Actress.
Best Actress: Julianne Moore, as an Alzheimer’s patient in the moving but not entirely satisfying “Still Alice,” deserves the win, and will get it, in part for a career’s worth of great work.
Best Supporting Actor: J.K. Simmons will win for his towering performance in “Whiplash” as the scariest band director in history.
Best Original Screenplay: Wes Anderson’s quirky, wildly inventive screenplay for his “The Grand Budapest Hotel” deserves it and will win it, I think. The film will win for Production Design, too, and probably Costume Design.
Adapted Screenplay: “The Imitation Game” deserves/gets the win.
Editing: What feat could beat the artfully-stitching-together-12-years-of-footage accomplishment of “Boyhood”?
Visual Effects: “Interstellar” deserves it and, I think, will win.
Foreign film: Probably “Ida.”
Documentary: Probably “Citizenfour”
Score: Probably Johann Johannsson, for “The Theory of Everything”; AMPAS wrongly denied Antonio Sanchez a nom for “Birdman,” IMO.
Upset potential: If anything, the commercial juggernaut “American Sniper” could force a surprise or two.
Stay tuned.
Blame it on the down economy, and the accompanying desire for escapist entertainment. Or perhaps it’s the fault of the nasty winter weather, which continued to break records nationwide (global warming, or new ice age?). Who wants to go outside?
Or maybe there simply wasn’t anything else worth watching on Sunday night.
At any rate, the 81st annual Academy Awards telecast drew 36.3 million viewers, an increase of 13 percent over the 32 million who caught the show last year, according to a report in the New York Times. Viewership grew by 22 percent among men ages 18 to 34.
That’s despite the predictable post-show grumbling by television critics and others, some of whom probably wouldn’t be pleased by the Oscars even if the telecast ran no more than two hours and was the funniest thing on TV.
By the way, some of these same critics kill acres of trees in the course of endlessly hyping such awful “reality” programming as “American Idol” and “Dancing With the Stars” and “The Bachelor” and “The Biggest Loser.” Like they know from quality.
More factoids: Viewership for the show peaked in 1998, when 55 million watched Titanic win 11 Oscars, including best picture and best director (James Cameron). More than 40 million watched the Oscars show in 2007, when the award for best picture went to Martin Scorsese’s The Departed.
So much for those who would want to force the Oscars to honor only the year’s biggest crowd-pleasers.* Isn’t television already overwhelmed with popularity contests?
*(This is NOT a dis on The Dark Knight, which deserved Oscar attention on artistic merit alone. Its exclusion had more to do with a)a general disrespect for comic-book culture, and b)a liberal political agenda that clearly dominates the thinking of Hollywood types).
UPDATE: Mary McNamara, a television critic for the L.A.Times, writes, “If nothing else, the 81st version proved that the Oscars are important after all, that in this digitally splintered world where everyone can find something better to do every single second of the day, there remain media and entertainment experiences we long to share with one another.” The rest of her piece.

(Thanks to a piece in USA Today for some of the stats provided in this post)
The Reader, nominated for Best Picture, Best Actress (Kate Winslet) and five other Academy Awards, essentially is an examination of how a nation, Germany, chooses to deal with the sins of its past.
And yet, some have attacked the movie as a “Holocaust denial film,” saying that Winslet, who has already been honored with a Golden Globe and a Bafta, was too sympathetic in her portrayal of a female prison camp guard.
Mark Weitzman, head of The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, said “Essentially it takes a woman who serves in, is responsible for, is complicit in, you pick the words, in the deaths of at least 300 Jews – and her big secret shame is that she’s illiterate.”
The London Jewish Cultural Centre’s head, Trudy Gold, in an interview with Jewish News, also expressed her displeasure with the movie.
“This is just one of a spate of films portraying sympathetic Nazis. This woman acted monstrously, there’s no question about that. The question is have we gotten to the point where we have to make heroines out of Nazis? I do find it a bit sick.”
The talent behind the film, including director Stephen Daldry, David Hare, whose screenplay was adapted from the German bestseller, producer Donna Gigliotti and studio owner Harvey Weinstein, are striking back.
So are leading Jewish voices, including author and activist Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Here’s the joint statement issued by the filmmakers (caps are theirs), courtesy of the movie’s publicists:
“We are proud of The Reader and everyone who made this film. It is outrageous and insulting that people have called it a “Holocaust denial film.” While entitled to their opinion, these allegations are fueled by ignorance and a misunderstanding of the material, and are based on unsubstantiated arguments.
The greatest films elicit great debate and conversation. Unfortunately, the recent attacks on The Reader have generated debates, not about the substance of the film, but about what people believe to be the intent of the filmmakers. To take a piece of art that was constructed with the hard work of many talented people and turn it into propaganda is plain ignorant. No one is suggesting that The Reader must be beloved by everyone. On the contrary, there is always room for criticism. If one does not like the film that is one matter; but to project one’s personal bias on the filmmaker’s objective is wrong and something we could no longer remain silent about.
The Reader is a film about how a generation of Germans lived in the shadow of one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century. Some detractors of the film have said that it is a piece of Holocaust revisionism; however Holocaust survivors, children of Holocaust survivors and a Nobel Peace Prize winner feel differently.
Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner, has praised The Reader as “a film that deals powerfully with Germany’s reconciliation with its past.” He said that ‘it is not about the Holocaust; it is about what Germany did to itself and its future generations.’ He called it ‘a faithful adaptation of an important book, that is still relevant today as genocide continues to be practiced around the world.’ ”
Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti Defamation League, concurs, according to a press release:
“As we move further away from the Holocaust we must continue to tell the story of the Shoah in ways that will reach and touch new generations. The Reader, which takes place in post-WWII Germany, clearly portrays the horrors of the Holocaust, not visually but intellectually and emotionally. There is no doubt to what Kate Winslet’s character, Hannah Schmitz, did during the war. Her guilt is given. At her trial her crimes are portrayed in detail and she is brought to justice for them. The Reader is not meant to be a factual re-telling of the Holocaust; for that we have documentaries. Rather it is about guilt and responsibility that is as important for our times as it was for post-war Germans.”
Will any of the folks associated with the movie, or anyone else, allude to the controversy during the Oscar ceremonies on Sunday night?
Stay tuned.
Changeling (Universal, widescreen, $29.98) DVD of the Week
— feature, 140 mins; rated R
The first and least accomplished of last year’s Clint Eastwood films*, Changeling, set in the Los Angeles of the 1920s, features an Oscar-nominated performance by Angelina Jolie.
Jolie, in another turn as a real-life character (she played Mariane Pearl in 2007’s A Mighty Heart), is Christine Collins, whose 9-year-old son suddenly vanishes.
The LAPD, steeped in corruption, instead of working the case brings another boy — a street urchin, not Walter — back to Collins. Why the wrong kid? So that the department, in a hasty attempt to repair its heavily damaged reputation, can trumpet its success at solving the case and gain a little good PR.
Collins, of course, despite assurances to the contrary, protests that her son is still missing. For her troubles, she gets a quick trip to a mental ward, and public humiliation to boot. Her only ally, for a while, is a stiff-collared minister played by John Malkovich; his attacks on police misdoings reach thousands via his radio broadcasts.
There’s plenty of grist here for a terrific neo-noir film, ala L.A. Confidential — bone-deep corruption in the police force, a sycophantic press, a force for good that may or may not be in the fight to boost his own celebrity, a few good cops, evil running rampant, a vintage-sounding score (composed by Eastwood) with mournful trumpet ballads on the soundtrack.
Eastwood, not surprisingly, gets the period feel right, and Jolie effectively gives her all to a somewhat undercooked character. And yet, Changeling is oddly misshapen, shifting from a tale of a missing child and police corruption to another story, about an emotionally/mentally damaged murderer of children, played to sickening effect by Jason Butler Harner.
The resulting trials – of the killer and the police department – take place simultaneously in film time, along the way causing the movie to nearly, but not quite, overstay its welcome. Call Changeling another smoothly professional, craftsmanlike effort from Eastwood, a veteran director who retains a knack for expert storytelling.
DVD extras:
*(The second, superior Eastwood film released last year was Gran Torino)
Also released this week:
Flash of Genius (Universal, $29.98), the “true” story of the man who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. Oddly, it’s more compelling than it sounds, largely due to Greg Kinnear’s surprisingly nuanced performance as a gifted engineer determined to fight for recognition for his achievement – even at the expense of his marriage and his sanity. Also stars Lauren Graham, Dermot Mulroney and Alan Alda. Extras: Audio commentary by director Marc Abraham; deleted scenes.
Choke (Fox, $27.98), a willfully quirky, occasionally funny, decidedly adult-oriented comic drama, adapted from the book by Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club). Sam Rockwell is a sex addict and con artist on a quest to find his father — he’s choking on his urges and his mixed-up identity, and he’s literally choking on pieces of food, stuck in his throat in hopes that a wealthy restaurant patron will save him, and then shower him with sympathy checks. Clark Gregg, making his directorial debut, strains for a mix of edgy indie comedy and Judd Apatow slackerdom. But the seams are showing. Also stars the reliably offbeat Anjelica Huston, Kelly MacDonald, and Brad William Henke. Extras: Very funny, very crude audio commentary by Gregg and Rockwell; “A Conversation with Clark Gregg and Chuck Palahniuk; deleted scenes; gag reel; more.
Also out:
Body of Lies (Warner Bros., $22.99)
Hobson’s Choice (Criterion, $39.95)
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People (Sony, $27.98)
I Served the King of England (Sony, $28.96)
Quarantine (Sony, $28.96)