“They don’t make ‘em like they used to.” I would feel foolish making such a statement after seeing The Artist, the much-buzzed silent film of the festival circuit, for the film itself refutes the idea that movies have been in a decline the glory days of the silent era. If anything, the style and substance of The Artist demonstrate that the films of today are just as good as they were eighty years ago, if not better.
The Artist was a late addition to my TIFF line-up. You could also call it an early one, since my brother and I were so determined to get tickets that we both awoke in time for the festival’s final release of ‘same day’ tickets at 7am. Being a member, he got to the box office for seven, while I stayed at home to place an order online so that we could beat the members at the front of the queue. Oh, the things we do for film.
The Artist was an appropriate film for our effort, as it is a warm love-letter to the cinema. It starts as a throwback to the silent era, but The Artist ends as much more. Aside from the film’s overlength, director Michel Hazanavicius seamlessly recreates the look, feel, and even the sound (what a score!) of the silver screen days. The artist in the film is a successful silent actor, George Valentin (played by Jean Dujardin), who finds his career coming to a standstill with the advent of sound. George refuses to degrade himself by working in the ‘talkies’, even though his onscreen/off-screen crush, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), is skyrocketing to fame as the fresh ingénue of sound film. Dujardin and Bejo offer fetching physical performances, as do the rest of the ensemble, which includes James Cromwell, John Goodman and Penelope Ann Miller. “Best in Show,” however, goes to Uggy the dog, who easily bests Arthur from Beginners for this year’s award for best canine performance.
What has not been expressed enough about The Artist, though, is that the film is not merely an exercise in nostalgia. Much like Woody Allen looks to the past for inspiration in Midnight in Paris, The Artist shows that film buffs should appreciate the classics, but also recognize silent film as a product of a bygone era. As The Artist demonstrates with the turn in George’s career, there is a danger in refusing to adapt to the times. The Artist is a joyful tribute to the movies, but it also hints that as films progressed from talking to Technicolor, the medium evolved as well. And film lived happily ever after.
The second film of the day was Moneyball. Brad Pitt steps up to bat and brings Moneyball closer to the Major leagues, rather than the little league where it might have gone without him. Pitt gives an impressive performance as Billy Beanes, the general manager of the Oakland A’s who pulled the team from a slump by stacking their roster with the table scraps of wealthier teams. The film itself is not as strong as Pitt is though, for Moneyball is more of a good story, rather than a good film.
Pitt helps raise Moneyball above TV movie territory through his great synergy with co-star Jonah Hill. The pair is a lot of fun, especially as they riff on Aaron Sorkin’s snappy zingers. (Social Network fans will not be disappointed with the dialogue.) It’s mostly the overall management of Moneyball that prevents the film from being exceptionally moving or enriching. The film receives a surprisingly generic treatment from director Bennett Miller, which is disappointing given the strength of his debut Capote. Nevertheless, my only mild enthusiasm for the film was greatly eclipsed by the energy of the audience, who frequently burst into applause and laughter. It might not be my personal MVP of the festival, but Moneyball undeniably looks to be a crowd-pleaser.
(And if anyone mocked my preemptive Brangelina stalking yesterday, I’m happy to report that my efforts were not in vain, as none of the Moneyball crew attended this screening.)
Immediately after Brad’s movie, I saw the one with his friend George. While I wasn’t crazy about Brad’s movie, I loved, loved, loved The Descendants. The Descendants gives Clooney a virtuoso role and he inhabits it brilliantly. As Matt, a fifty-something workaholic and second-rate dad, Clooney gives an impeccably nuanced feat of dramedy. Clooney’s charm and persona root Matt as a fallible everyman, and his wry wit and mature eloquence take the film on an immaculate rollercoaster of laughs and tears. Clooney is in top form in The Descendants, just as much as he was in 2009’s Up in the Air.
Also making strong impressions are Shailene Woodley and Amara Miller playing Clooney’s onscreen daughters. Woodley gets an especially dynamic part as Alex, Matt’s eldest. The father-daughter combo of Clooney-Woodley could potentially join the mother-son duo of Swinton-Miller on the awards’ circuit. What a fun and dysfunctional family that would be!
Much like Clooney’s performance, director/co-writer Alexander Payne does a remarkable feat of balancing the heart and the humour of the film. The Descendants has the rare skill of being able to elicit uproarious laughter one moment, but then prompt tears the next. In his first film since Sideways, Payne makes a film that is equally strong as his last one, but in some ways, The Descendants more neatly blends the flaws and follies of everyday folks. The Descendants is a sharp, funny, and endearing story of family ties. It’s also sheer perfection from first frame to last.
Clooney, Payne, et al appeared for a fun Q&A after the film and they were greeted with an enthusiastic standing ovation from the crowd. Once things settled down, Clooney and Payne gave some amusing perspectives on their work, and some of the other cast/crew chimed in. After basking in love for the film for another twenty minutes, the audience gave the film a second standing-o as the event came to a close.
The fourth and final film of the day was Take this Waltz, another mature dramedy that made for a good double bill with The Descendants. Waltz marks the sophomore feature from Canadian writer/director/actress Sarah Polley. When Polley made her feature debut in 2006 with Away from Her, she unveiled one of the best films ever produced in this country. It’s a very high standard for Polley to have set for herself, but while Take this Waltz might not be Away from Her, it shows that her first film was no fluke.
Polley smartly moves in the opposite direction of Away from Her and provides a hilarious and provocative story of lovelorn Torontonians. Michelle Williams gives a beautiful performance as Margot, a woman who meets the man of her dreams, but then remembers that she is married to somebody else. Luke Kirby takes the role of Daniel, Margot’s would be Mr. Right, while Seth Rogen plays her kind/dull husband Lou. As Margot navigates the steps of her desires, Take this Waltz builds a sweet and honest tale of complicated love. Adding to Margot’s oddball dance partners is Sarah Silverman as Geraldine, Lou’s alcoholic sister. Silverman has only a few scenes, but her razor-sharp comedic skills are not put to waste; rather, Polley gives Silverman some scenes that are just as funny as the comedian’s stand-up routines.
In addition to providing some droll conversations, Polley grants a warm energy to Take this Waltz through her striking compositions. Take this Waltz has a colour pallet so warm and vibrant it would make Pedro Almodovar jealous, especially as captured through the lens of cinematographer Luc Montpellier. A genuine talent could only make a film so aesthetically pleasing. (The Scrambler scene will take your breath away.) Polley also captures Toronto lovingly, and pays tribute to the city by using familiar settings or by exploiting the sounds of streetcars. Both a picture perfect postcard and a tender love story, Take this Waltz is one of the best Canadian films of the year.
On for Sunday: BBQ at the Canadian Film Centre, followed by screenings of Shame and The Skin I Live in (that’s a lot of skin).
Boxoffice Magazine
Pete Hammond
Sep 10, 2011
90
The surprisingly effective Moneyball has a smart script, solid direction and great performances.
indieWIRE
Eric Kohn
Sep 10, 2011
83
Director Bennett Miller has produced a warm and generally agreeable character study about the pratfalls of athletic institutions and the willingness to think outside the box.
All this critic’s reviews
Read full review
Early word is that Pitt, Jonah, and even Robin Wright could be possible Oscar contenders. I really hope this film performs well. The industry always has high standards when it comes to Pitt’s films. Also, people need to quit pitting Pitt against Clooney with the snarky comments. I won’t even reply to that because I know it will get me flamed. Mileage varies, I guess. Judging talents over personas and media networking is subjective. Both The Descendants and Moneyball have good chances, so far. The reviews for The Descendants did not have the raves that Sideways did, however, you have the power-house of popular Clooney campaigning for it.
Variety
Peter Debruge
Sep 9, 2011
80
While a hopelessly awkward-looking Hill provides fish-out-of-water laughs, Pitt gives a genuinely soul-searching performance.
All this publication’s reviews
Read full review
Boxoffice Magazine
Pete Hammond
Sep 10, 2011
90
The surprisingly effective Moneyball has a smart script, solid direction and great performances.
indieWIRE
Eric Kohn
Sep 10, 2011
83
Director Bennett Miller has produced a warm and generally agreeable character study about the pratfalls of athletic institutions and the willingness to think outside the box.
All this critic’s reviews
Read full review
Early word is that Pitt, Jonah, and even Robin Wright could be possible Oscar contenders. I really hope this film performs well. The industry always has high standards when it comes to Pitt’s films. Also, people need to quit pitting Pitt against Clooney with the snarky comments. I won’t even reply to that because I know it will get me flamed. Mileage varies, I guess. Judging talents over personas and media networking is subjective. Both The Descendants and Moneyball have good chances, so far. The reviews for The Descendants did not have the raves that Sideways did, however, you have the power-house of popular Clooney campaigning for it.
Variety
Peter Debruge
Sep 9, 2011
80
While a hopelessly awkward-looking Hill provides fish-out-of-water laughs, Pitt gives a genuinely soul-searching performance.
All this publication’s reviews
Read full review
For Moneyball, key members of the Social Network team including producers Scott Rudin and Michael De Luca and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin reunite to make another true life tale that pays attention to the details and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. The good news is not only does Moneyball succeed in taking us on a tour of the business side of baseball, it humanizes the shop talk to keep it from crashing into a sea of statistics. Thank writers Sorkin and original writer Steven Zaillian for keeping their eye on the ball in this story of a baseball-obsessed kid Billy Beane (Pitt) whose career takes him to the front office. He gets all the way to the World Series, and then shocks the baseball world by ditching his the star players and hiring replacements in the most unorthodox ways imaginable. Credit for this his curious new protocol goes to a business-minded Yale grad named Pete (Jonah Hill) who devises a system that deprioritizes star power in favor of research, cold heart stats and cheaper players. The scenes where the very non-athletic Pete explains his methods to the grizzled veteran coaches are priceless and help give Moneyball its swing. But the film belongs to Beane and Bennett Miller’s direction carefully weaves in the no-nonsense man’s struggle to keep his career and personal life together despite a divorce and a job that doesn’t let him spend much time with his daughter.
Pitt has never been better—he’s shrewd and wonderfully engaging—and you can see why he stuck with this role through eight years of development hell including the dispatching of original director Steven Soderbergh just days before the film was due to shoot two years ago. It’s a movie star role and Pitt, one of our last movie stars, fits it like a well-worn glove. Jonah Hill is his perfect counterpoint, deadpanning and underplaying at every turn. They make a great pair and Hill is well-positioned to move beyond comedy roles. In the role of the veteran (and conservative) manager, Philip Seymour Hoffman is perfectly cast as a man who clearly isn’t looking for any change. Robin Wright appears briefly as Beane’s ex-wife and Kerris Dorsey is a delight as his musically-inclined daughter. In flashbacks to Beane’s early baseball career, Pitt is nicely played by twenty-something look-a-like Reed Thompson. For baseball fans Moneyball is nirvana. For everyone else, it’s simply a smart, damned entertaining time at the movies.
***Snippet from Pete Hammond’s review.
For Moneyball, key members of the Social Network team including producers Scott Rudin and Michael De Luca and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin reunite to make another true life tale that pays attention to the details and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. The good news is not only does Moneyball succeed in taking us on a tour of the business side of baseball, it humanizes the shop talk to keep it from crashing into a sea of statistics. Thank writers Sorkin and original writer Steven Zaillian for keeping their eye on the ball in this story of a baseball-obsessed kid Billy Beane (Pitt) whose career takes him to the front office. He gets all the way to the World Series, and then shocks the baseball world by ditching his the star players and hiring replacements in the most unorthodox ways imaginable. Credit for this his curious new protocol goes to a business-minded Yale grad named Pete (Jonah Hill) who devises a system that deprioritizes star power in favor of research, cold heart stats and cheaper players. The scenes where the very non-athletic Pete explains his methods to the grizzled veteran coaches are priceless and help give Moneyball its swing. But the film belongs to Beane and Bennett Miller’s direction carefully weaves in the no-nonsense man’s struggle to keep his career and personal life together despite a divorce and a job that doesn’t let him spend much time with his daughter.
Pitt has never been better—he’s shrewd and wonderfully engaging—and you can see why he stuck with this role through eight years of development hell including the dispatching of original director Steven Soderbergh just days before the film was due to shoot two years ago. It’s a movie star role and Pitt, one of our last movie stars, fits it like a well-worn glove. Jonah Hill is his perfect counterpoint, deadpanning and underplaying at every turn. They make a great pair and Hill is well-positioned to move beyond comedy roles. In the role of the veteran (and conservative) manager, Philip Seymour Hoffman is perfectly cast as a man who clearly isn’t looking for any change. Robin Wright appears briefly as Beane’s ex-wife and Kerris Dorsey is a delight as his musically-inclined daughter. In flashbacks to Beane’s early baseball career, Pitt is nicely played by twenty-something look-a-like Reed Thompson. For baseball fans Moneyball is nirvana. For everyone else, it’s simply a smart, damned entertaining time at the movies.
***Snippet from Pete Hammond’s review.
you said it well ryan, i was just piggybacking and giving some examples… One other thing that is odd is that we tend to like variation from our actors (meryl streep accents, bale changing weight, etc) but we like consistency from our directors and auteurs. I’m working my way through the oeuvre of refn in anticipation of “drive” coming out on Friday and although he has some hits (pusher, valhalla rising) and misses (fear x) he is extremely consistent in his themes, obsessions, stylistic tendencies, etc. We (and I) love this about our directors and auteurs. Think of seeing a David Lynch, Wes Anderson, John Ford, Hitchcock, etc film. you can drop in on any 5 minute stretch in any of these movies and know you are watching that director. I adore that. I much prefer these types of auteurs to those that hop all over the place and change everything and are “caretakers” of the film production for a lack of better word. And the history of film is much less kind to these “caretaker” types. Modern day acting we want variation and like i said i love actors like streep, psh, and other chameleons as much as anyone, but i do miss the big personas we used to have in old hollywood. Humphrey Bogart may not have half the range of Phillip Seymour Hoffman but you could equally say PSH doesn’t have half the screen presence of Bogart- both are great. Say what you will about Tom Cruise and whats happened to his career and personal stuff lately but i really enjoyed his films from 1983- 2002 or so when he played a cocky good-looking guy persona (a “tom cruise” version of each of his characters in films). “rain man” is a good example. All the credit goes to Hoffman (dustin this time)- and yes he’s fantastic, but i would argue Tom Cruise as the “cocky-good looking” brother that goes through real change is just as good.
Again, i haven’t seen “the descendants” ( i can’t wait) but to me he doesn’t have to put on 20 pounds and grow a beard (syriana) for me to appreciate and enjoy his performance. I actually prefer him in “out of sight”, “michael clayton”, and “up in the air” where he played charming and well dressed characters- certainly closer to what he’s like in real life.
you said it well ryan, i was just piggybacking and giving some examples… One other thing that is odd is that we tend to like variation from our actors (meryl streep accents, bale changing weight, etc) but we like consistency from our directors and auteurs. I’m working my way through the oeuvre of refn in anticipation of “drive” coming out on Friday and although he has some hits (pusher, valhalla rising) and misses (fear x) he is extremely consistent in his themes, obsessions, stylistic tendencies, etc. We (and I) love this about our directors and auteurs. Think of seeing a David Lynch, Wes Anderson, John Ford, Hitchcock, etc film. you can drop in on any 5 minute stretch in any of these movies and know you are watching that director. I adore that. I much prefer these types of auteurs to those that hop all over the place and change everything and are “caretakers” of the film production for a lack of better word. And the history of film is much less kind to these “caretaker” types. Modern day acting we want variation and like i said i love actors like streep, psh, and other chameleons as much as anyone, but i do miss the big personas we used to have in old hollywood. Humphrey Bogart may not have half the range of Phillip Seymour Hoffman but you could equally say PSH doesn’t have half the screen presence of Bogart- both are great. Say what you will about Tom Cruise and whats happened to his career and personal stuff lately but i really enjoyed his films from 1983- 2002 or so when he played a cocky good-looking guy persona (a “tom cruise” version of each of his characters in films). “rain man” is a good example. All the credit goes to Hoffman (dustin this time)- and yes he’s fantastic, but i would argue Tom Cruise as the “cocky-good looking” brother that goes through real change is just as good.
Again, i haven’t seen “the descendants” ( i can’t wait) but to me he doesn’t have to put on 20 pounds and grow a beard (syriana) for me to appreciate and enjoy his performance. I actually prefer him in “out of sight”, “michael clayton”, and “up in the air” where he played charming and well dressed characters- certainly closer to what he’s like in real life.
@ ryan
“I guess some of us only think an actor is “acting” when he wears artificial teeth and latex nose and plays Somebody From History With An Accent”.
I agree completely with you here ryan. There are actors and roles where i’m amazed at how they disappear into roles (psh in capote, de niro in raging bull, hoffman in midnight cowboy, etc)… but there are just as many roles where the actor plays variations of his/her screen persona that are just as good. What about old hollywood with jimmy stewart, cary grant, john wayne, or anti-heros steve mcqueen or clint eastwood to name a few? To say one is better than the other is missing out i think on the skill and pleasures of what the other gives you.
but there are just as many roles where the actor plays variations of his/her screen persona that are just as good. What about old hollywood with jimmy stewart, cary grant, john wayne, or anti-heros steve mcqueen or clint eastwood to name a few?
Exactly, drake. (you always make your points so much more politely than I do — you prompt me to reply with a better explanation)
Old school actor and new school alike. I was struck last week watching Attack the Block and all the young acting talent on display — some of those kids appearing in their first film, and nailing it When a director (and casting director) discover someone like John Boyega, part of the reason he’s hired to play the part is because he brings the right personality to the role — his own personality. Maybe it’s possibly to “act” as cool as Moses in Attack the Block, but I believe the role is such a knockout because John Boyega truly emanates that a lot of that coolness himself. If that means he’s “playing himself” then he the only guy can do that, so why shouldn’t he get credit for delivering it?
Same goes for Fassbender and Gosling. Don’t we all wish their charm was all about ACTING? so that maybe we could try to ACT that way too? James Dean has the same personality in all the casual PR clips we’ve seen as he has on screen.
The role Cloonley plays in The Descendants is likeably self-effacing with a wry sense of humor — just like Clooney himself, sure. Some might suspect that Alexander Payne wrote the role with Clooney in mind, since it’s tailor-made for his talent and fits him like a glove. But of course we know that the novel was written years before Clooney and Payne were ever involved — and the father on the pages of the book is the same as the dad we see in the movie,
It’s not a suitable role for Eddie Marsan. It’s a role for George Clooney. There’s a reason the phrase “role of a lifetime” exists, and The Descendants exemplifies it.
@ ryan
“I guess some of us only think an actor is “acting” when he wears artificial teeth and latex nose and plays Somebody From History With An Accent”.
I agree completely with you here ryan. There are actors and roles where i’m amazed at how they disappear into roles (psh in capote, de niro in raging bull, hoffman in midnight cowboy, etc)… but there are just as many roles where the actor plays variations of his/her screen persona that are just as good. What about old hollywood with jimmy stewart, cary grant, john wayne, or anti-heros steve mcqueen or clint eastwood to name a few? To say one is better than the other is missing out i think on the skill and pleasures of what the other gives you.
but there are just as many roles where the actor plays variations of his/her screen persona that are just as good. What about old hollywood with jimmy stewart, cary grant, john wayne, or anti-heros steve mcqueen or clint eastwood to name a few?
Exactly, drake. (you always make your points so much more politely than I do — you prompt me to reply with a better explanation)
Old school actor and new school alike. I was struck last week watching Attack the Block and all the young acting talent on display — some of those kids appearing in their first film, and nailing it When a director (and casting director) discover someone like John Boyega, part of the reason he’s hired to play the part is because he brings the right personality to the role — his own personality. Maybe it’s possibly to “act” as cool as Moses in Attack the Block, but I believe the role is such a knockout because John Boyega truly emanates that a lot of that coolness himself. If that means he’s “playing himself” then he the only guy can do that, so why shouldn’t he get credit for delivering it?
Same goes for Fassbender and Gosling. Don’t we all wish their charm was all about ACTING? so that maybe we could try to ACT that way too? James Dean has the same personality in all the casual PR clips we’ve seen as he has on screen.
The role Cloonley plays in The Descendants is likeably self-effacing with a wry sense of humor — just like Clooney himself, sure. Some might suspect that Alexander Payne wrote the role with Clooney in mind, since it’s tailor-made for his talent and fits him like a glove. But of course we know that the novel was written years before Clooney and Payne were ever involved — and the father on the pages of the book is the same as the dad we see in the movie,
It’s not a suitable role for Eddie Marsan. It’s a role for George Clooney. There’s a reason the phrase “role of a lifetime” exists, and The Descendants exemplifies it.
maybe a small unknown independent film will come out of no where and steal it all,read that butler’s film was good
maybe a small unknown independent film will come out of no where and steal it all,read that butler’s film was good
A murky Oscar picture at TorontoNo clear front-runners have emerged (unlike last year). This could help boost awards chances for big studio films that skipped the festival.By Steven Zeitchik and Nicole Sperling, Los Angeles Times September 12, 2011
Reporting from Toronto —
By the end of the first weekend of last year’s Toronto International Film Festival, a trio of movies — “The King’s Speech,” “127 Hours” and “Black Swan” — had emerged as clear front-runners for the coming Oscar season.
This year? Not so much.
As the weekend draws to a close, no prototypical awards title has risen above the fray. Instead, it’s lighter fare such as Jennifer Westfeldt’s marital comedy “Friends With Kids” and Lasse Hallström’s quirky satire “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen” that are generating the most attention, with the latter selling to CBS Films for about $4 million on Sunday afternoon.
Even Brad Pitt’s baseball-underdog picture “Moneyball” has generated as much talk for its commercial possibilities as for its golden-statuette potential.
That divide means that some of the biggest Oscar contenders could emerge much later in the season, when directors Steven Spielberg (“War Horse”), Martin Scorsese (“Hugo”) and Clint Eastwood (“J. Edgar”) all bring out films under the auspices of the Hollywood studios; none of those movies is playing in Toronto.
It also means that, after several years in which smaller independent films dominated the Academy Awards, this year could see something of a return to Oscar glory for the studios.
(Two other Toronto titles with high expectations, Marc Forster’s violent drama “Machine Gun Preacher” and Steve McQueen’s kinky sex film “Shame,” were set to premiere Sunday night at the festival; the latter landed a distribution deal during Toronto as well as an acting prize at the Venice Film Festival. And Roman Polanski’s “Carnage” and Tomas Alfredson’s “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” both potential Oscar contenders, have played in Venice but have not premiered stateside.)
The weekend was not overly kind to serious films from highly credentialed directors. Projects from Sarah Polley, Oren Moverman and David Cronenberg — whose psychoanalysis drama “A Dangerous Method” features Keira Knightley as a traumatized woman involved with Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud — have drawn more ambivalent responses from audiences and critics.
Some of the principals in those films acknowledge the divided reaction. “It’s an extreme thing,” Knightley told The Times of the movie. “It’s not for everybody.”
While it’s been a strong start to the season for Pitt, the festival’s other mega-star, George Clooney, has had a more mixed weekend. His films, the political drama “The Ides of March” (which he also directed) and Alexander Payne’s family dramedy “The Descendants,” in which he plays a grieving father, elicited positive but not overwhelming reactions when they premiered over the weekend.
Although Clooney’s films have earned respectable reviews, the noise around him has been as much about his charming persona and his personal life (including his new ex-wrestler girlfriend) as it has been about his work.
That’s often the case with a star of his caliber, but in the past he has attracted more attention for his performances, as he did with his portrayal of hatchet man Ryan Bingham in “Up in the Air” in 2009.
Bennett Miller’s “Moneyball,” which Sony will release Sept. 23, came into the festival with high hopes, sporting an All-Star filmmaking pedigree and landing a coveted Friday night slot at Roy Thomson Hall.
The movie lived up to the hype, earning enthusiastic ovations after its debut and packing a 1,200-seat theater during a second screening, yielding goodwill for Pitt, who plays Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane, as well as supporting players such as Jonah Hill.
“The reviews out of the [premiere] screening, coupled with the audience reaction,” said Marc Weinstock, president of marketing for Sony Pictures, the studio behind the film, “couldn’t have gone better.”
Although the movie’s commercial prospects are bright, it remains to be seen how much of a force it will be on the awards circuit.
A murky Oscar picture at TorontoNo clear front-runners have emerged (unlike last year). This could help boost awards chances for big studio films that skipped the festival.By Steven Zeitchik and Nicole Sperling, Los Angeles Times September 12, 2011
Reporting from Toronto —
By the end of the first weekend of last year’s Toronto International Film Festival, a trio of movies — “The King’s Speech,” “127 Hours” and “Black Swan” — had emerged as clear front-runners for the coming Oscar season.
This year? Not so much.
As the weekend draws to a close, no prototypical awards title has risen above the fray. Instead, it’s lighter fare such as Jennifer Westfeldt’s marital comedy “Friends With Kids” and Lasse Hallström’s quirky satire “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen” that are generating the most attention, with the latter selling to CBS Films for about $4 million on Sunday afternoon.
Even Brad Pitt’s baseball-underdog picture “Moneyball” has generated as much talk for its commercial possibilities as for its golden-statuette potential.
That divide means that some of the biggest Oscar contenders could emerge much later in the season, when directors Steven Spielberg (“War Horse”), Martin Scorsese (“Hugo”) and Clint Eastwood (“J. Edgar”) all bring out films under the auspices of the Hollywood studios; none of those movies is playing in Toronto.
It also means that, after several years in which smaller independent films dominated the Academy Awards, this year could see something of a return to Oscar glory for the studios.
(Two other Toronto titles with high expectations, Marc Forster’s violent drama “Machine Gun Preacher” and Steve McQueen’s kinky sex film “Shame,” were set to premiere Sunday night at the festival; the latter landed a distribution deal during Toronto as well as an acting prize at the Venice Film Festival. And Roman Polanski’s “Carnage” and Tomas Alfredson’s “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” both potential Oscar contenders, have played in Venice but have not premiered stateside.)
The weekend was not overly kind to serious films from highly credentialed directors. Projects from Sarah Polley, Oren Moverman and David Cronenberg — whose psychoanalysis drama “A Dangerous Method” features Keira Knightley as a traumatized woman involved with Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud — have drawn more ambivalent responses from audiences and critics.
Some of the principals in those films acknowledge the divided reaction. “It’s an extreme thing,” Knightley told The Times of the movie. “It’s not for everybody.”
While it’s been a strong start to the season for Pitt, the festival’s other mega-star, George Clooney, has had a more mixed weekend. His films, the political drama “The Ides of March” (which he also directed) and Alexander Payne’s family dramedy “The Descendants,” in which he plays a grieving father, elicited positive but not overwhelming reactions when they premiered over the weekend.
Although Clooney’s films have earned respectable reviews, the noise around him has been as much about his charming persona and his personal life (including his new ex-wrestler girlfriend) as it has been about his work.
That’s often the case with a star of his caliber, but in the past he has attracted more attention for his performances, as he did with his portrayal of hatchet man Ryan Bingham in “Up in the Air” in 2009.
Bennett Miller’s “Moneyball,” which Sony will release Sept. 23, came into the festival with high hopes, sporting an All-Star filmmaking pedigree and landing a coveted Friday night slot at Roy Thomson Hall.
The movie lived up to the hype, earning enthusiastic ovations after its debut and packing a 1,200-seat theater during a second screening, yielding goodwill for Pitt, who plays Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane, as well as supporting players such as Jonah Hill.
“The reviews out of the [premiere] screening, coupled with the audience reaction,” said Marc Weinstock, president of marketing for Sony Pictures, the studio behind the film, “couldn’t have gone better.”
Although the movie’s commercial prospects are bright, it remains to be seen how much of a force it will be on the awards circuit.
@ ryan brad will not win because he doesnot play that game,ass kissing do the math, he is not the greatest actor but he has been giving decent performances and doing better movie.I never said he should win
@ ryan brad will not win because he doesnot play that game,ass kissing do the math, he is not the greatest actor but he has been giving decent performances and doing better movie.I never said he should win
Wow… you love George Clooney in another role where he basically plays himself? i guess some of us aren’t that hard to impress.
George Clooney in another role where he basically plays himself?
George Clooney: not married, not a father.
but yeah, his character is good-looking and 50 years old, so ok, he’s playing himself?
I guess some of us only think an actor is “acting” when he wears artificial teeth and latex nose and plays Somebody From History With An Accent.
Wow… you love George Clooney in another role where he basically plays himself? i guess some of us aren’t that hard to impress.
George Clooney in another role where he basically plays himself?
George Clooney: not married, not a father.
but yeah, his character is good-looking and 50 years old, so ok, he’s playing himself?
I guess some of us only think an actor is “acting” when he wears artificial teeth and latex nose and plays Somebody From History With An Accent.
not everyone buys george hunt for an oscar, too bad his ass is been kissed because its all about politics
In Payne’s vision, all of these elements were probably supposed to add up to a picture of utmost honesty. Instead, The Descendants is an ultra-polished picture in which every emotion we’re supposed to feel has been cued up well in advance. There’s nothing surprising or affecting about it, and not even Clooney, who works wonders with the occasional piece of dialogue, can save it.
not everyone buys george hunt for an oscar, too bad his ass is been kissed because its all about politics
In Payne’s vision, all of these elements were probably supposed to add up to a picture of utmost honesty. Instead, The Descendants is an ultra-polished picture in which every emotion we’re supposed to feel has been cued up well in advance. There’s nothing surprising or affecting about it, and not even Clooney, who works wonders with the occasional piece of dialogue, can save it.
where is it getting bad reviews? from whom? metacritic.com has nothing yet.
where is it getting bad reviews? from whom? metacritic.com has nothing yet.
Take This Waltz is getting bad reviews!
Take This Waltz is getting bad reviews!
I’m reading an unenthusiastic “meh”. It seems like you haven’t been wowed yet. Am I getting that wrong?
I’m reading an unenthusiastic “meh”. It seems like you haven’t been wowed yet. Am I getting that wrong?
I’d say awards potential for Waltz is pretty low. In some ways it’s a braver feature than Away from Her though, and almost feels like the risky debut that that wasn’t. But Williams’s character isn’t the sort the Academy responds to in BA (whiny, uncertain), and the script will likely be too light for their taste. Great production design: it’s too bad AMPAS tend not to go for really good domestic spaces in that category.
I’d say awards potential for Waltz is pretty low. In some ways it’s a braver feature than Away from Her though, and almost feels like the risky debut that that wasn’t. But Williams’s character isn’t the sort the Academy responds to in BA (whiny, uncertain), and the script will likely be too light for their taste. Great production design: it’s too bad AMPAS tend not to go for really good domestic spaces in that category.
Any awards potential for Take This Waltz? I really hope that if Michelle Williams does get nominated, it should be for this film, not My Week with Marilyn (for which I hope Ken Branagh gets nominated). However, the Academy tends to prefer biopic performances over fictional ones. for whatever reason.
Any awards potential for Take This Waltz? I really hope that if Michelle Williams does get nominated, it should be for this film, not My Week with Marilyn (for which I hope Ken Branagh gets nominated). However, the Academy tends to prefer biopic performances over fictional ones. for whatever reason.
Glad to be hearing so many good things about The Artist. I’m going to try to see it at NYFF a month from now. I’ve been unenthusiastic about the Descendants, but if you say it’s really that good I guess I’ll have to check it out.
Glad to be hearing so many good things about The Artist. I’m going to try to see it at NYFF a month from now. I’ve been unenthusiastic about the Descendants, but if you say it’s really that good I guess I’ll have to check it out.
Sorry if that seemed unclear! I liked Moneyball, but I would say it’s probably the lesser of the films I’ve seen so far. Maybe 3-3.5/5?
Sorry if that seemed unclear! I liked Moneyball, but I would say it’s probably the lesser of the films I’ve seen so far. Maybe 3-3.5/5?
i’m jealous as well…. good start to the reviews of “moneyball”… http://www.metacritic.com/movie/moneyball its still early but so far so good
i’m jealous as well…. good start to the reviews of “moneyball”… http://www.metacritic.com/movie/moneyball its still early but so far so good
@ brian most of the reviews are great,most liked the screenplay plus brad and jonah.The only negative review i saw was the guardian’s review,variety,hollywood reporter,deadline,hollywood elsewhere,indiewire the list goes all said great things non say it was like a TV move come on by the way this waltz has really bad reviews
@ brian most of the reviews are great,most liked the screenplay plus brad and jonah.The only negative review i saw was the guardian’s review,variety,hollywood reporter,deadline,hollywood elsewhere,indiewire the list goes all said great things non say it was like a TV move come on by the way this waltz has really bad reviews
Moneyball may only have mild appeal to those with a mild interest in baseball
Moneyball may only have mild appeal to those with a mild interest in baseball
too bad you did not like moneyball,it has lots of great reviews and seems like it will do well in the box-office,looking forward to it
not everyone buys george hunt for an oscar,..
…too bad you did not like moneyball,
not everyone buys Brad’s hunt for an Oscar
too bad you did not like moneyball,it has lots of great reviews and seems like it will do well in the box-office,looking forward to it
not everyone buys george hunt for an oscar,..
…too bad you did not like moneyball,
not everyone buys Brad’s hunt for an Oscar
Quite a day of screenings. Color me jealous as fuck.
Quite a day of screenings. Color me jealous as fuck.