The NY Times’ Scott on Changeling:
Toward the end of Clint Eastwood’s “Changeling,” in what is perhaps the only lighthearted scene in this rigorously somber film, Christine Collins, the heroine, is invited by some of her phone company co-workers, and then by her boss, to go out on the town and listen to the Academy Awards radio broadcast. The year is 1935, and “It Happened One Night” is Christine’s pick for best picture, but it’s hard to avoid interpreting this moment as a none-too-subtle wink directed at present-day moviegoers and Academy voters. Christine begs off — she just has too much work — and it goes without saying that on Feb. 22, Angelina Jolie, who plays her, will have to make similar excuses. She won’t be watching the Oscars with the likes of us; we’ll be watching her.
So far, so good, right? Right? Wrong:
That seems to be the plan behind “Changeling,” at any rate, an ambition telegraphed a shade too blatantly in the many close-ups of Ms. Jolie’s extraordinary face, which is by turns tear-streaked, stoical, crestfallen and howling. To watch her trace Christine’s harrowing emotional passage — a series of flights from anxiety to terror, from grief to rage, pausing occasionally at calm defiance or tremulous hope — is to witness an undeniable tour de force of screen acting. It insists on being regarded as a great performance and may, indeed, be mistaken for one.
Mistaken, of course, if you are a stupid Academy voter or, god forbid, a regular person because without Scott’s keen insights and lofty gaze. You know, it gets tiring to listen to critics complain about what they see as actors making a play for Oscar. Eastwood has lots of Oscars and Angelina has one — they aren’t out there pushing for it. Why would they? At any rate, the film has been mostly trashed by the critics – 48% on Rotten Tomatoes; Slightly better with 65% on Metacritic - but is it enough?
The LA Times’ Kenneth Turan gave it a good review, though he stops short of really praising Jolie’s performance, focusing it more on cinematographer Tom Stern and Eastwood:
As these cases develop, helped by strong performances by little-seen actors like Jason Butler Harner, they form a relentless pincers movement whose prongs move forward with an awful fatalism. In other hands, these clashes of good and evil might have seemed ordinary, but Eastwood makes “Changeling” a hard story to shake off. To see this film is to understand both how fragile and how essential our hopes for decency and truth are in a world that must be made to care about either one.
No Response for "We’ll Be Watching Angelina, Says AO Scott"
It just sounds more like a case of Eastwood perhaps fawning over his female lead a bit too much, which doesn’t necessarily have to do with oscars. It’s not like directors don’t have a history of perhaps indulging a beautiful actress with too many closeups.
Sasha, I also get tired of hearing people (critics, bloggers, whoever) complain about “Oscar-bait” and people trolling for Oscars. If I were an actress, I definitely think I would pursue parts like those in “Changeling.” They simply make for more interesting work than romantic comedies and action flicks.
Honestly, I really believe actresses get the “Oscar-bait” accusation more than actors or directors (of any gender). Just this year, I’ve heard people mentioning Angelina Jolie, Anne Hathaway, Keira Knightley, Nicole Kidman, and Kate Beckinsale as examples of Oscar-baiting. I’ve heard very few (if any ) mentions of Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Leonardo DiCaprio, Benicio del Toro, Hugh Jackman, or Daniel Craig in the same context. To me, it seems to be a terrible double standard. If a man pursues a meaty role, he’s stretching his chops as an actor. If a woman does it, she’s Oscar-baiting.
Sasha to AO Scott: Douchebag says what?
AO Scott: … What?
I’ll take Kenny Turan any day (although AO Scott occasionally does step out of himself and write an inspired review).
Perhaps this is the beginning of an Eastwood backlash… I mean he’s been “at the top” for quite a few years now… maybe people are ready to move on?
Sasha, I also get tired of hearing people (critics, bloggers, whoever) complain about “Oscar-bait” and people trolling for Oscars. If I were an actress, I definitely think I would pursue parts like those in “Changeling.” They simply make for more interesting work than romantic comedies and action flicks.
Honestly, I really believe actresses get the “Oscar-bait” accusation more than actors or directors (of any gender). Just this year, I’ve heard people mentioning Angelina Jolie, Anne Hathaway, Keira Knightley, Nicole Kidman, and Kate Beckinsale as examples of Oscar-baiting. I’ve heard very few (if any ) mentions of Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Leonardo DiCaprio, Benicio del Toro, Hugh Jackman, or Daniel Craig in the same context. To me, it seems to be a terrible double standard. If a man pursues a meaty role, he’s stretching his chops as an actor. If a woman does it, she’s Oscar-baiting.
—————————
ITA. Its a double standard. Just like how “critics” complain about Jolie’s overexposure in the tabloids, but nobody ever does for Brad Pitt, who has been the tabloid favourite years before Jolie was even famous. Anyways, Jolie is still in the Best Actress race. Nearly all the reviews, even the negative ones about the film, praised Jolie and Jason Butler Harner’s performances. It’s safe to say Changeling is out of the BP race. But it is still in the race for Best Actor and Supporting Actor.
I have to disagree with you Sasha. Most actors who take roles that have oscar potential are after the oscar. They campaign hard for this. You don’t go to Cannes, give multiple interviews, go to meetings to convince certain people to give you an Oscar (like Jolie did in AMH and now in this film) if you are not trying for an Oscar. This film was made by Clint with the purpose of getting an Oscar for many involved. The difference between this and film and films like Austrlia and Doubt unlike Racheal Getting Married is that they are born with the purpose of Oscar and Racheal Getting Married is not, it just happens. This film has been trashed by the critics many very rude remarks about Angie’s acting. If she actually gets nominated it is because of Clint’s campaigning and her campaigning as well. Seems after all that they do want that Oscar! I appreciate that you are a huge Angelina fan but her acting in this piece according to critics falls very very short of good acting. She did much better in AMH. She has over acted this movie and only a huge amount of campaigning on her and Clint’s part will get her a nomination.
Um..Most of the reviews, even the negative ones said Jolie was great.
Angelina gave interviews and was at cannes for Kung fu panda too. Did she want an oscar for that one? She always gives interviews when she has a movie coming out.
Anonymous October 24th, 2008 at 10:55 am 5
Sasha, I also get tired of hearing people (critics, bloggers, whoever) complain about “Oscar-bait” and people trolling for Oscars. If I were an actress, I definitely think I would pursue parts like those in “Changeling.” They simply make for more interesting work than romantic comedies and action flicks.
Honestly, I really believe actresses get the “Oscar-bait” accusation more than actors or directors (of any gender). Just this year, I’ve heard people mentioning Angelina Jolie, Anne Hathaway, Keira Knightley, Nicole Kidman, and Kate Beckinsale as examples of Oscar-baiting. I’ve heard very few (if any ) mentions of Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Leonardo DiCaprio, Benicio del Toro, Hugh Jackman, or Daniel Craig in the same context. To me, it seems to be a terrible double standard. If a man pursues a meaty role, he’s stretching his chops as an actor. If a woman does it, she’s Oscar-baiting.
—————————
ITA. Its a double standard. Just like how “critics” complain about Jolie’s overexposure in the tabloids, but nobody ever does for Brad Pitt, who has been the tabloid favourite years before Jolie was even famous. Anyways, Jolie is still in the Best Actress race. Nearly all the reviews, even the negative ones about the film, praised Jolie and Jason Butler Harner’s performances. It’s safe to say Changeling is out of the BP race. But it is still in the race for Best Actor and Supporting Actor.
———————-
I completely agree with you on the double standard between Angelina and Brad.
Gran Torino Trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/grantorino/large.html
hey did you see the latest ‘Changeling’ review by The New Republic? “The WORST movie of the year???”… check it out…
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8a250bfa-c9ce-44b9-8025-a4bcaa0a3698
Funny cause some critic said Synecdoche NY was the worst film ever. So does that mean it is?? NO. IDIOT
Well, this is what I just had to say about it at MovieCityNews.com-
This can be found under my piece “Oscar Comes Into Focus at NYFF”
“This year the New York Film Festival celebrated its 46th edition by being a notable Oscar launch pad in a big, big way. Not since Helen Mirren’s regal opening of The Queen two years ago, has it (perhaps) nailed not only the Best Actress frontrunner, but also Best Actor by showcasing career-capping (and big-time Oscar bait-y performances) with its Centerpiece film – Angelina Jolie in Changeling – and its Closing Night film – Mickey Rourke’s Oscar knock-out punch in The Wrestler. At the very least both performances will garner nominations and are generating major impossible-to-ignore Awards buzz.
It used to be Toronto that focused the races, but this year it’s New York.
Changeling is another massive home-run of a film from screen legend director Clint Eastwood who is being greeted with “bravo” everywhere he goes. Angelina Jolie has never been better or more sympathetic in any role she has ever attempted. She’s absolutely sterling here as the real-life single mother Christine Collins whose only son mysteriously disappears one day.
This unbelievably wrenching true-life story is set in 1920s Los Angeles, where corruption and darkness are lurking behind every sun-drenched corner. Jolie is staggeringly, magnificently good as she, the Changeling of the title, goes from loss to hysteria to horror to avenger of evil as she takes on the corrupt L.A. police department, and ultimately, yes, the city government, in an attempt to find her son.
It’s a tour-de-force role that carries Jolie on a rollercoaster of spellbinding twists and turns that lead her to the absolute embodiment of evil in the person of a man named Northcott. Young NY stage actor Jason Butler Harner could have an appointment with Oscar too, though they seem to be hiding him in all the pre-show publicity.
This film like Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby starts off as one thing and ends up being about another, but I won’t reveal what. I will say Eastwood is likely to be nominated himself once again and like Million Dollar Baby reap heaps of nominations(and maybe wins) in every category you could think of. From Musical Score (which Eastwood composed himself) to the picture perfect period sets and costumes. EVERYTHING. Maybe even Best Picture, too. It’s certainly jump-started the race.”
It’s a melodrama for sure and has BIG emotions and requires BIG acting and I like that. I really am rather shocked by the mixed reactions to this wonderful, powerful film that I’ve now seen TWICE.
I think that second half of it when it turns REALLY dark and horrifying, and yes, Jason Butler Harner, SHOULD be in the race for Best Sup. Actor. OMG! He’s sooooo scary! He’s the greatest screen villain since Anton Cigurh…
Because of the pedophilia that is examined full on in “Changeling” I think this is what is making people so upset with the film. The graphic nature of the violence is horrifying, and people leave the theatre disturbed and frightened in a way that they may never have been before.
Has child molestation and murder ever been this tellingly displayed in a major motion picture? I can’t think of one.
And Jason Butler Harner’s protrayal…well, I get shivers just thinking about it…
To re: Guest. Angelina is getting some very poor reviews. It is not quite true that even the negative ones are saying Jolie is great. Some of the ones that think it is great are not even mentioning Jolie as a good actress in this movie. First it has 46% from top critics for the moive. Added to this some extremely poor reviews. I really don’t thinkt hat Angie has a chance at a nomination. Only because of Clint if she gets one. Here are some of the poor reviews. Just so you know they are out there. Are there some good ones. Yes but she needs more than than this for an Oscar.
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/mo … 4936.story
The acting, though, is particularly unstable: The various children are unconvincing, Jeffrey Donovan as the corrupt cop and Christine’s tormentor, J.J. Jones, seems to be in some other movie, and Jolie … well, it may be possible that no movie is big enough to contain or control her. At no time is one unaware that one is watching Angelina Jolie, which is too bad because she isn’t incompetent, just incapable – of acting her way out from under her own persona.
http://www.morningsun.net/entertainment … inest-film
Clint Eastwood blurs the line between history and histrionics in “Changeling,” his under-written, overacted Oscar-baiter starring Angelina Jolie as the most glamorous grieving mother to ever hit the screen.
She weeps, she cries, she shouts – boy, does she shout – with overwrought vigor in her pouty-lipped portrayal of Christine Collins, the roller-skating switchboard supervisor who exposed widespread corruption inside the Los Angeles Police Department during the late 1920s.
Jolie practically screams “give me the damn Oscar” in overselling every line and situation with emoting that would drive most directors batty. Not Eastwood. He allows her to unleash some of the most unintentionally entertaining camp since Faye Dunaway took a stand against wire hangers in “Mommy Dearest.” ..”
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Movies/70266-CHANGELING/
..How many ways can Angelina Jolie cry? With growing panic and incredulity as her character, Christine Collins, discovers that her son Walter is missing. With terror turning into relief as Captain Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) of the LAPD arrives to tell her that Walter is alive. And that’s just the beginning: as Changeling rolls on and on, Jolie cries with steely rage and frustration, with desperation and resolve, with vulnerability and tenderness, with happiness tinged with melancholy . . . In short, she gives those tear ducts a workout to punctuate every twist and turn in Clint Eastwood’s convoluted but oddly inert true-life tale of injustice, evil, and the irresistible force of a mother’s love. Not to mention providing lots of material for her Oscar highlights reel.
..Contrast that with the brief cameo by Amy Ryan as a feisty prostitute falsely thrown into a Cuckoo’s Nest–like mental hospital. She has a hell of a right cross — maybe if she’d played Christine Collins, this would have been the kind of movie Clint Eastwood used to make.”
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0 … -2,00.html
Or too much, as here in Jolie’s high emoting. With flaring red lipstick on a face that hasn’t seen much time in the California sun, and with a grieving matched in severity only by her will to learn the truth, Jolie is supposed to be a regular working mom who rises to meet the challenge of dreadful events. The actress is capable of many things, but being ordinary isn’t one of them. Jolie seems to know that her startling, cartoonish, monumental beauty is a handicap here, so she goes bigger in her movements. A stream of tears stains her Kabuki makeup; her sighs come with shrugs worthy of Atlas. Underplaying would have helped. So would the casting of an actress who’s less glamorous and, I have to say, more human — someone like Naomi Watts.
Yet it all just seems like window-dressing for Jolie’s best-actress clip at the Oscars. It’s a fine if repetitive performance, but she’s already done the woman-in-the crazy-house thing with her Oscar-winning role in “Girl, Interrupted,” and she was better in last year’s “A Mighty Heart,” which failed to land her a nomination.Amy Ryan, an Oscar nominee as the mother in a missing-child case in last year’s “Gone Baby Gone,” has a few strong moments in a fleeting role as one of Christine’s fellow psych-ward inmates.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10-22/ … -portrait/
Jolie doesn’t perform in Changeling; she resolutely presents herself to the audience for admiration. The main attraction in Eastwood’s two-fisted snake-pit weepie is the spectacle of Jolie’s steely self-possessed suffering. As she lost her husband to Islamic terrorists in A Mighty Heart, Our Lady of Humanitarian Narcissism here endures another dreadful fate: losing her child to a mob of knaves, know-nothings, and psychos, even as she’s persecuted by the entire state institutional apparatus of California.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/movies/21dargis.html?_r=1&partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes&ei=5083&oref=slogin#
Clint Eastwood has wrangled a number of unruly stars in his long directing career, but somehow he hasn’t been able to do the same with — or for — Angelina Jolie. Despite Ms. Jolie’s hard work and Mr. Eastwood’s scrupulous attention, the difficult, fairly one-dimensional character fails to take hold. For much of the film, Christine weeps and pleads, begging the police for help and fending off disbelievers. She clings to hope, the problem being that Ms. Jolie, whose off-screen role as Angelina Jolie is so much more vivid and all-consuming than the parts she now plays on screen, this one included, does not come across as a clinger or a whiner or a pleader or even much of a waterworks. Like Joan Crawford, Ms. Jolie seems capable now of only playing variations on herself, which is why she was more persuasive holding back her tears as a steely Mariane Pearl in “A Mighty Heart.”
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20234989,00.html
Jolie, who brought a tremulous power to her portrayal of Mariane Pearl in A Mighty Heart — another woman distraught over a lost loved one — isn’t given enough notes to play here. She’s brave, despairing, defiant, and monotonous
This film was made by Clint with the purpose of getting an Oscar for many involved. The difference between this and film and films like Austrlia and Doubt unlike Racheal Getting Married is that they are born with the purpose of Oscar and Racheal Getting Married is not, it just happens.
________________________________________________________
How can you possibly know what was made with the express intent of getting an Oscar? “Changeling” is an unbelievably true story. I haven’t seen the film, but even if I see it and think it stinks, no one will be able to convince me that this was not a story worth telling. I’m sorry, but saying that “Rachel Getting Married” just “happened,” (last time I checked, no movie just “happens”) but those other films serve no other purpose than winning Oscars is completely ridiculous.
True I agree that there are double standards. However the tabloids give Angie more time because she talks more. For example when did Brad last give an interview? And when he does he rarely talks about his personal life. In fact only small statements about his children. The rest is all about the movie making and NO. Angie on the other hand her interviews are all about her personal life. THis makes the press think that she is more about tabloids then her movies and why she cannot seem to overcome her tabloid life. Brad on the other hand is considered elsuive and not out there as much. For Angie to stop this she needs to not discuss her personal life. I really thinkt hat this would help. Take some clues from JOhnny, Matt, Halle, etc.
As for Clint he always makes films that are “Oscar Bait” everyone knows that and states it. And be honest. Some movies are made with the express purpose of winning an Oscar, others such as comedy are not. Some are just movie making hoping to make money and never even thought to campaign and end up as big winners.
True I agree that there are double standards. However the tabloids give Angie more time because she talks more. For example when did Brad last give an interview? And when he does he rarely talks about his personal life. In fact only small statements about his children. The rest is all about the movie making and NO. Angie on the other hand her interviews are all about her personal life. THis makes the press think that she is more about tabloids then her movies and why she cannot seem to overcome her tabloid life. Brad on the other hand is considered elsuive and not out there as much. For Angie to stop this she needs to not discuss her personal life. I really thinkt hat this would help. Take some clues from JOhnny, Matt, Halle, etc.
As for Clint he always makes films that are “Oscar Bait” everyone knows that and states it. And be honest. Some movies are made with the express purpose of winning an Oscar, others such as comedy are not. Some are just movie making hoping to make money and never even thought to campaign and end up as big winners.
————————————–
Jolie does talk about the film she is promoting. But the media only takes quotes frrom when she is answering questions about her personal life, so it seems she only talks about it. Here’s an example: http://www.thedeadbolt.com/news/105154/joliechangeling_interview.php
Also why did you say Halle Berry? She’s also an outspoken woman. Have you read her latest interviews??
Report: Halle Berry Says She Takes Control in Bed
Halle Berry has confessed all about her sex life, saying that her orgasms have gotten better as she’s gotten older.
The stunning Oscar winner, who has just been voted the Sexiest Woman Alive by Esquire, told the magazine: “You know that stuff they say about a woman being responsible for her own orgasms? That’s all true, and, in my case, that makes me responsible for pretty damn good orgasms.
“They’re much better orgasms than when I was 22, and I wouldn’t let a man control that. … Not anymore. Now, I’d invite them to participate.”
“I’ve learned my tricks. I know what I like. I do not wait around. I initiate. And I’m not all about frequency — I favor intensity.”
Halle admitted that if her romance with Gabriel Aubry — the father of her baby — ever ended, she wouldn’t be looking for a boy toy to satisfy her sexually.
She confided: “Men in their 20s? Forget it.”
Yeah..She’s so private. She even talked openly about her comitting suidice. Jolie is the same way.
Changeling was high on my list of must-watchs, but, now (after having viewed trailer few times) I hit the mute button whenever I seen the trailer on TV. Maybe, it’s the way trailer was cut but I find it very hard to listen to Angelina Jolie’s voice and crying. I still intend to watch the movie because I am intruged by the subject matter.
Even Oscar-obsessed nutjobs like myself don’t think some movies are made with the sole purpose of winning Oscars. That’s absurd.
I liked this movie. and Angelina is very good. People should get over her public persona and evaluate her acting skills. I am sure there are some people out there smart enough to do that. What she does in her personal life has nothing to do with her acting. When i was watching the movie I couldnt keep my eyes off her. She was good and believable…And yes she was pretty. So???
If Reese Witherspoon won Best Actress Oscar in that supporting role, Angelina at least should get nomination for this movie.
By the way saying Changeling is the worst movie of the year is just nonsense. Clint-haters hate the movie, that is what it is.
By the way, I dont think comparing ANgelina to Halle Berry is fair. Since winning that Oscar what has Halle Berry done??? anything meaningful or at least box office hit???? One bad movie after another, all box office flops (dont count Bond movie, she was the girl in a bikini, thats it) Oh yeah Xmen movies!!! I am sure people went to see Halle in Xmen movies like Catwoman!!!
As for Clint he always makes films that are “Oscar Bait” everyone knows that and states it. And be honest. Some movies are made with the express purpose of winning an Oscar, others such as comedy are not. Some are just movie making hoping to make money and never even thought to campaign and end up as big winners.
___________________________________________________
I’d love to see you come up with one statement from anyone close to Clint that says he only makes films to win Oscars. At his age (and after 4 competitive wins), do you really think that’s what he’s going for?
I will be honest. Like DBibby said, it’s completely absurd to think that the films you mentioned were made only to win Oscars. You think the cast and crew had no intention of gaining personal satisfaction out of doing a good job, even if they ended up Oscar-less? Also, you do realize that plenty of comedies have won Oscars, right? Unless you were present at the pitch meeting, you have no proof as to whether “Changeling” or any other movie was made simply to win Oscars.
I don’t agree with Guest. Brad Pitt always talked about his personal life that’s why it was so hard for some fat women to get over his marriage ending. That’s how we knew he wanted to be a father so damn bad. He went on TV crying about it. I think Brad Pitt only stopped talking when he got with Angelina Jolie because it’s just easier to let her take the brunt of the tabloid /media hate.
I don’t agree with Guest. Brad Pitt always talked about his personal life that’s why it was so hard for some fat women to get over his marriage ending. That’s how we knew he wanted to be a father so damn bad. He went on TV crying about it. I think Brad Pitt only stopped talking when he got with Angelina Jolie because it’s just easier to let her take the brunt of the tabloid /media hate.
————————
Yeah I find it unfair that the tabloids trash Jolie every week since 2004. Nobody blames Brad for anything, not even the end of his marriage.
What annoys me when critics talk about Jolie being “overexposed” because the tabloids constantly make up stories about her to sell magazines is this – WHY ARE THE CRITICS READING THE TABLOIDS? Isn’t their job to maintain enough distance from actors to objectively view a movie and NOT see the personality thrust upon an actor by tabloids? Am I the only one who wants to know why folks like AO Scott and Manhola Dhargis are reading the tabs and then using them against Jolie by complaining that her “personality” is bigger than any character she could play and they can only see Jolie herself on screen and not the character? If they’d quit reading gossip they wouldn’t have that problem. Actually they would because they’ve already made up their minds about Jolie as a person. Dhargis, in particular, goes out of her way to take unnecessary personal stabs at Jolie when she’s reviewing a film. If the critics can’t separate the two, then they need to beg off reviewing Jolie’s movies. It’s not fair to Jolie or movie goers when a critic can’t give an unbiased opinion on a movie and not punish the actors because of preconceived notions about them. And who knows, if they opened their minds up maybe, just maybe, they’d relax enough and find that they enjoy a movie after all. But…I’m not holding my breath on that.
What annoys me when critics talk about Jolie being “overexposed” because the tabloids constantly make up stories about her to sell magazines is this – WHY ARE THE CRITICS READING THE TABLOIDS? Isn’t their job to maintain enough distance from actors to objectively view a movie and NOT see the personality thrust upon an actor by tabloids? Am I the only one who wants to know why folks like AO Scott and Manhola Dhargis are reading the tabs and then using them against Jolie by complaining that her “personality” is bigger than any character she could play and they can only see Jolie herself on screen and not the character? If they’d quit reading gossip they wouldn’t have that problem. Actually they would because they’ve already made up their minds about Jolie as a person. Dhargis, in particular, goes out of her way to take unnecessary personal stabs at Jolie when she’s reviewing a film. If the critics can’t separate the two, then they need to beg off reviewing Jolie’s movies. It’s not fair to Jolie or movie goers when a critic can’t give an unbiased opinion on a movie and not punish the actors because of preconceived notions about them. And who knows, if they opened their minds up maybe, just maybe, they’d relax enough and find that they enjoy a movie after all. But…I’m not holding my breath on that.
—————————–
You stole the words from my mouth. People need to stop reading tabloid garbage. If they have a problem of seperating tabloid and celebrity, then that’s unfortunate.
You stole the words from my mouth. People need to stop reading tabloid garbage. If they have a problem of seperating tabloid and celebrity, then that’s unfortunate.
——————
Sorry I meant tabloid image and character.*****
Angelina is a film actress. She’s in movies. That’s what she does. She already has an Oscar. Other awards? Been there done that. She’s an actress and has been in some good films lately. Earth shattering? no, but still good. She still has that “ethnic look” that the industry has against her to get other leading actress parts but she still manages. I hope she does Atlas Shrugged and the Catherine The Great movie ( Love & Honor). I saw Changeling at the NY Film Festival and it was pretty good. Earth Shattering? again, no but still worth going to see. I will continue to see films that Angelina Jolie is in. it’s good seeing her up there on the big screen. I could care less what tabloid publications( people still read those?), blogger, gossipists have to say. they are not in the film business. They are about something else that has nothing to do with films or their stars.
Sasha to AO Scott: Douchebag says what?
haha! Bebe!
A.O. Scott: Synecdouchebag, New York Times
They aren’t out there pushing for it? Really? I seem to recall Eastwood being pretty annoyed when the movie with all the hobbits beat Mystic River. And you’d better believe Jolie pictures herself winning five to beat out Hepburn.
To Sertan, I hate going there, but Halle Berry is still a black woman in a white man’s Hollywood. If you ignore Tyler Perry films, what high profile gigs can black women grab these days? (Aside, thank God for The Secret Life of Bees) Heck, even an amazing actress like Angela Bassett turned down the role of Storm for Halle Berry to accept it, and now she’s on ER. Halle has shown she was capable, but roles are out there for her?
Look at the career trajectories of the best of the young women of color. Eva Mendes, Kimberly Elise, Gabrielle Union, Rosario Dawson…they’re reduced to standing out in ghetto-fied melodramas or standing pretty and saucy in Frank Miller-type films…I can’t knock Halle for at least doing films like Perfect Stranger or Catwoman. Since Dorothy Dandrige, or a lesser extent, Monster’s Ball, I haven’t seen a single black woman other that Jennifer Hudson given a fully realized 3-D character to portray on screen. Those roles are being tailor made for Kate Winslet, Angelina, and Kiera…not knocking those women, but standing up for a fascinating talent limited by the current standings of Hollywood.
Jada, Kimberly Elise, Angela…their finding their roles on TV these days. It shouldn’t be. (The same case could be argued for Glenn, Holly, etc, but at least they have Meryl, Helen, and such repping them on the big screen…who’s repping the women of color?)
Let me first say I did not care for CHANGELING, and I have liked most of Eastwood’s movies of late (even against the backlash towards MYSTIC RIVER and MILLION DOLLAR BABY). Eastwood directs this in a one-note style, and you never really understand the motivations of any of the characters. Plus, the corruption of the LA police, rather than feeling integral like it did in L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (which this movie is being compared to in some reviews), feels remote, so we don’t understand that either.
However, I don’t blame Jolie. True, she only comes off as well as the movie lets her, and I don’t think she’s as good here as she was in A MIGHTY HEART, which gave her a character to play and a director who used her well. More off, I want to know again; why are “Oscar bait” movies considered the scum of the movie world, and worse than cash register jobs like, say, the latest SAW movie? At least CHANGELING was trying to do something.
To that person who posted those negative reviews…
EW gave Synecdoche NY a D+ and High School Musical a B. That says it all. Also those negative reviews all give superficial reasons.
“They aren’t out there pushing for it? Really? I seem to recall Eastwood being pretty annoyed when the movie with all the hobbits beat Mystic River. And you’d better believe Jolie pictures herself winning five to beat out Hepburn.”
Again, proof? Quote? Link?
“More off, I want to know again; why are “Oscar bait” movies considered the scum of the movie world, and worse than cash register jobs like, say, the latest SAW movie?”
Absolutely correct. This is why I so hate the term “Oscar-bait.” God forbid that we see a movie where a woman is crying from something other than a torture device in use! We can’t have that!
Chance , I think Angelina is in the same boat as Halle. neither has really had good roles after their oscar win. Most good roles are tailor made for MEN. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s not about skin color as much as it is about gender.
Chance , I think Angelina is in the same boat as Halle. neither has really had good roles after their oscar win. Most good roles are tailor made for MEN. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s not about skin color as much as it is about gender.
——————————
ITA.. There are very few great roles written for female leads. Since her Oscar win, Jolie’s only Oscar Buzzed performances were A Mighty Heart and now Changeling. For Halle Berry she’s had Things We Lost In The Fire.
Halle was also nominated for an Emmy for “Their Eyes Were Watching God”. Why do people forget her TV work when it was “Introducing Dorothy Dandridge” that proved she was a more than capable actress.
But back to the subject: I don’t think you have to read tabloids religiously to know that Jolie is everywhere. All you have to do is walk past a newspaper stand or flip to a channel on TV. I don’t really blame A.O. Scott for that.
Halle is amazing on TV…maybe she should stay there…seems more fruitful for her. And Queen did fascinating work in Life Support. Her best since Set It Off IMO.
As a side note, Jennifer Hudson’s mother and brother were found shot dead today…feels like it should be said. I’m lifting her and her family up in prayer.
This is starting to remind me when everyone dumped on Cate Blanchett for being so BOLD and BRAZEN and BRAVE in The Second Elizabeth movie last year.
And guess what? The academy loved her enough to give her an Oscar nomination despite what others side about her.
The Academy lurves them their stars…Angelina is ASTOUNDINGLY beautiful and phonogenic and in this film she is totally playing against type as a hard-working, blue-collar, CHASTE single mom.
Chaste- that’s an adjective that I never thought I’d use to describe Angelina Jolie.
USUALLY IRL the part of Christine Collins would be cast with somebody like Amy Ryan. But she can’t greenlight a movie. And Clint can and he wanted Angelina in this – totally-cast-against-type role.
Anyway, the Oscar chances we should be discussing are Jason Butler Harner’s HORRIFYING child serial killer. Baby-faced and boyish and funny and DEADLY. WHAT a performance!
Universal is sitting on his part of the story the last part. They don’t even have any clips ready yet with him in it!
But sometimes, just sometimes, good things happen to good performances and he’ll get noticed.
Clint Eastwood is a master storyteller and I don’t think anybody could’ve gotten a film made with this difficult, dark material.
I don’t think you stop Angelina’s nomination.
There’s only three more fabulous femme performances out there, still to be seen. Two by Kate WInslet and one by Meryl Streep.
Kate could cancel herself out by splitting her own vote with “The Reader” and “Revolutionary Road.” Meryl they’ll nominate. Like with Angelina, it’s a reflex action. They love to nominate people that they’ve nominated and given Oscars to before. THEY LOVE THIS.
And they WILL watch this movie.
I also just saw Melissa Leo’s magnificent star turn in “Frozen River”. Does Melissa Leo, still a low profile NY actress stand a chance of being noticed against Kate W.Meryl, Angelina, Anne H. Keira and Kristen Scott Thomas. No. She doesn’t unfortunately.
Sony Pictures Classics has her film and also “Rachel” and also “I’ve Loved You So Long” and they’re pushing those two films over “Frozen”. It came out and disappeared and made no money. And is another Canadian effort and a really, really marvelous, suspenseful one. But…Even Sally Hawkins in “HGL” is gonna have a huge uphill battle with these women.
I second Stephen Holt’s analysis. I think all three of them, A.J., K.W., and M.S. wll get nominated. Kate’s double nomination may work against her as we have seen in the past. Or Academy may decide to give her supporting award (I’d rather have her lose this year and come back and win best actress later). KST is also very good but it is a small French movie. Dont think Academy will award another French speaking actress in a french movie year after MC. I can see her win some critics awards though.
Even though she has two (one supporting!!!), since her last one was 25 years ago I think Meryl Streep is long overdue. So this year might be her year. And who can say it is unfair. I even can see her accepting her award with a standing ovation.
Thank you, Sertan. I’ve felt for a long, long time it’s Meryl v. Anne Hathaway, who has the momentum.
It also depends on how good a movie “Doubt” is no DOUBT Meryl will be very strong in that role of the vicious nun, Sister Aloyisius(sp?), the sister of Charity who is anything BUT charitable.
But a lot of success of the movie depends on Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s performance. I know he’s the greatest actor of his generation but that priest Father Flynn has to be big Question Mark of a performance. GRRREAT role for an actor and Bryan F. O’Bryne got a Tony Nomination for it on Broadway.
But you never knew what was up with him. Which is why Sister Meryl has her DOUBT.
Fingers crossed that it will be a galvanic movie and as much of a hit as it was on Broadway.
That’s the other thing that figures into these actresses possible nods. Is the film a hit?
“Rachel Getting Married” is sustaining at the box-office and I can totally see the Directors Branch nominating Demme, for this rather ASTOUNDING come-back.
The Academy, almost above all, LOVES come-back stories. Which could be Meryl’s, too, this year…AND Mickey Roarke’s….
Who ever thought that the two stars of “Devil Wears Prada” would be the two who have to duke it out at the Oscars?
John Patrick Shanley(“Doubt”) not known at all as a screen director is directing his own play… Outcome…Iffy……
Stephen,
I saw the play Doubt as well. I am sure that it is a meaty role, meaty enough, for Meryl to get nominated at least. However, I have one problem. When i was watching the trailer, in a few scenes i felt like i was watching Miranda from Prada movie in a different costume…Meryl was playing a mean woman all over again. May be it was me. I am almost confident that PSH did a good job, given he is a very good stage actor as well.
I am almost sure that Anne Hathaway will get nomination, of course except her new movies “passengers” and other upcoming movie “Bride Wars” work against her. I truly believe that her perfromance in Rachel was very good, definetely worthy of nomination , and much better than Sally Hawkins.
Another big nquestion mark is Reservation Road. If it is really good, then Kate Winslet may not only get nomination but also win for that movie , she is another overdue. Of course unless she also gets supporting nod for Reader and cancel out herself.
In Actor category, i think it will be Mickey Rourke vs. Sean Penn. My friends in Turkey saw Wrestler and say he is very good. Also as you said and i also believe Academy like comeback kids (Eddie Murphy!!!) and Sean Penn already has one Oscar, even though i believe he deserves another one too. I would also like to see Brad Pitt get nod for Benjamin Button. At least in previews he looks good but dont think he has a much chance in winning.
Penn wont win. I suspect he migth be snubed due to his comments about the oscars and Hollywood he has made in Cannes this year.
I will go for a surprise win. Brad Pitt. For Benjamin Button and BAR. I see a win a la Crowe in Gladiator
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.