Guys, it’s time to bring out the M word. In recent years, the morning of the first full festival day has become the unofficial prime real estate on Venice’s schedule. THE SHAPE OF WATER debuted in this slot two years ago and went on to win both the Golden Lion and the Best Picture Oscar. Last year ROMA and THE FAVOURITE screened back-to-back in the exact same slot and scored 20 Oscar nominations between them.
The tradition continues this morning with AD ASTRA, a film I consider to be – snap judgment, festival bubble etc. notwithstanding – a Masterpiece.
Full disclosure, I’ve always been somewhat of a James Gray agnostic. I realize this is something that could disqualify me from film journalism, but what am I doing here if I’m not being completely honest about my opinions. With AD ASTRA, though, it’s like Gray took what I do love about his work – the discipline and elaborate, graceful classicism – and imbued them with suspense, momentum, risk to create something altogether more compelling, invigorating, not to mention profoundly moving.
I never watched the trailer for the film and don’t know what would constitute a spoiler, but – as a rule – I recommend going into it knowing as little as possible. The gist of the story is: In the near future, the solar system comes under attack from sudden, inexplicable electric charges known as The Surge, whereupon a government-like space expedition company sends astronaut Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) on a classified mission to Neptune after connecting the source of the cosmic threat to a supposedly failed project led by Roy’s father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) 30 years ago. Without getting into specifics, it’s a journey of constant danger, surprise and, eventually, devastating realizations.
We’ve had a lot of space movies since GRAVITY (this year there’s still LUCY IN THE SKY and PROXIMA coming out). Besides the general thematic fatigue, what’s come to annoy me is how even visually these films tend to look like copies of each other and lose that sense of wonder about them. Not here though. Gray shows an exceptional eye for framing and composition that really gets the stupendous magnitude of the set-pieces across. Starting from the first action sequence 5 minutes into the film, you find yourself not just being in the familiar space station setting with the bluish sphere of Earth shimmering in the background, but positively awestruck by the sheer scale of things.
This sense of frightening vastness also applies to the distance traveled throughout the film. Unlike most sci-fi movies out there where the protagonists are beamed across galaxies but might as well have shot the whole thing in the same studio, you’re made to feel every last one of the billions of miles journeyed by Pitt’s character. When he’s finally reaches his destination, the exhaustion and absolute isolation are physically palpable.
As the head, mind and soul of the film, Pitt gives a shattering performance which draws its strength as much from what is expressed as what is suppressed. Roy is a first-rate spaceman who’s mastered an imperturbable, almost robotic equanimity required for the job. His pulse never quickens, he never loses his cool, as such he can believably survive the most harrowing crises that come his way. However, when secrets about his father are revealed and the place of mankind in the universe illuminated, this immaculate façade finally begins to crack and the wave of pure, unguarded humanity that pours out is heart-wrenching to watch.
Beautifully conceived with insights into the nature of obsession and solitude, gorgeously shot by Hoyte Van Hoytema (some of the images are so distinct they don’t just stun but haunt), evocatively edited by John Axelrad and Lee Haugen to balance tones of adventure, horror and drama, atmospherically enhanced by Max Richter’s superb, volatile score and carried by a expertly measured central performance, James Gray’s AD ASTRA is a singular, visionary achievement that thrills the senses and humbles the mind. Personally I think it deserves across-the-board awards recognition, meaning we could potentially be looking at two acting nominations for Pitt come January.
Screening right after AD ASTRA, Noah Baumbach’s MARRIAGE STORY messed me up even if it didn’t blow me away quite the same way – but that’s to be taken with a grain of salt, considering how we’re being fed (premium) apples and (superlative) oranges in such quick succession within the unnaturally warped festival setting.
The NYC/LA-set marital drama centers around actress Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and theater director Charlie (Adam Driver) who see the intended amicable breakup of their marriage turn into a prolonged, ugly custody battle for their 8-year-old son Henry. Baumbach’s screenplay is a detail-oriented, procedurally accurate investigation of the divorce process. It could probably use some trimming, especially in the first act, but when he gets going, his words sure do serious damage.
Of course he also has a stellar cast to thank for that. Johansson and Driver are both on wonderful form, unselfconsciously exploring the kindness and selfishness of their characters. I found myself particularly affected by Driver who, in a later scene, launches into an extended musical number that’s in no apparent way tragic but, in its unexpectedness and utter tenderness, completely broke me. The duo’s chemistry is on full, fiery display in another scene in the third act where their last attempt at a friendly resolution ends in an violent, heartbreaking exchange that illustrates how easily love can turn into frustration, rage and shame.
MVP for me, though, is Laura Dern, who plays Nicole’s tough, sassy lawyer Nora. At once hilarious, winsome and 100% intimidating, she puts all the men in the movie in their place while getting the loudest cheers from the room for a pretty iconic monologue involving the Virgin Mary. Nominations? Me thinks very likely.
Viewed in the context of late 70’s KRAMER VS. KRAMER and Baumbach’s own 80’s-set THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, MARRIAGE STORY feels in many ways like divorce drama 3.0 updated for the modern audience. The legal proceedings have gotten nastier, the logistics that the parties must negotiate have gotten much more complicated, but most of the intensely conflicted emotions at stake somehow remain unchanged.
Well, Pete Hammond called Edward Norton’s ‘Motherless Brooklyn’ a masterpiece, praised Norton’s performance, and said that Alec Baldwin gives a carreer antologic best performance (I think we have another strong contender at the Best Supporting Actor race emerging).
Kris Tapley called it “Brillant.
Can this passion project be one of the frontrunners for Best Picture?
Can Norton follow the footsteps of Redford, Beatty and Costner and win Best Directing Oscar? (I honestly don’t believe Tarantino or Scorsese will win here).
Well, so many wonderful films are emerging this year, I wish one of them was released last year, so we wouldn’t have an Oscar so weak, with Green Book, A Star is Born, and BR called “Strong Contenders”. Sure Oscar 2019 is one to forget.
A Star Is Born can’t be considered weak, unless you have a bias against musicals. It has a Metascore of 88.
im ready to slay this season
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/53c89bdaf049e81bc35721b6ee9cb7c794819b817c4e4234e251c6f3001ad0d9.jpg
I’m stoked for this film for multiple reasons (Shakespeare, history, Chalamet, Pattinson, etc), but I’m trying to keep my expectations low, to avoid disappointment. I say it will have a Metascore of around 70.
Glad to hear Ad Astra is good. David Ehrlich called it a Masterpiece too.
First Oscar nomination for Max Richter??
I would love to see Baumbach win Original Screenplay and Gerwig Adapted, but that would be too cute to be true. Both seem like frontrunners though, at this point. Who are their biggest challengers?
Tarantino has original screenplay locked down, and I suspect Steven Zaillian is the frontrunner in Adapted.
Please, let’s not use phrases that imply something being locked for something in August
I will be incredibly shocked if Tarantino loses screenplay. This is the same Academy that rewarded him for that dogshit script for Django.
And his script for OUATIH is thousand miles better than Django. Right now QT is the frontrunner for Original Screenplay but we never know with the goodwill that Marriage Story is getting both with critics and audiences.
he does? his latest is the first of his movies I honestly think is just not good. at all. a nomination might be guaranteed due to his gravitas but a win is not happening
Hook it to my veins etc
Huh. First, I am THRILLED to read this about Ad Astra because Twitter comments have been kinda negative. Awards Watch was very disappointed in it. Someone said it’s this year’s mother! which depending on if you loved or hated that would be the same for this.
If someone said this year’s mother! That would make me very excited… But I haven’t noticed the bad reviews… Generally I thought they’d been pretty great so far with some negative but very vocal outliers among them?
Yeah, iirc mother! had a bunch of yellow MC reviews after the premiere, even if its overall score was something like 84. Ad Astra is all green, and generally 70+.
Mother! ended up in the 70s and was down in the 60s at one point (obviously these things fluctuate in the early period, I don’t remember where it was after Venice) but yeah lots of yellow where Ad Astra (obviously lots of fluctuations because it’s early) is all green and 86 but there are people not yet counted who probably will be who aren’t high on it. We will see though I guess.
You may be right that it was something like 84 after the premiere, but just to clarify for casual readers, it has an overall score of 75 now. It has a bunch of yellow 60s and 50s, but a single red (and rather amusing) 0 score from Rex Reed also damaged its score considerably.
Marriage Story sits at 97 on Metacritic with 9 reviews.
And Ad Astra is at 87 with 9 reviews.
What a way to start the Venice Film Festival.
I’m seeing Ad Astra at 84 with 9 reviews, but still, that is very strong.
Now at 86 after 13 reviews
So, I guess this 2 and Once upon a Time in Hollywood is almost locked.
Then, I would say The Farewell, Us, and maybe Avengers have the next best chance between everything that has been seen.
I, myself, would like to see Bong Joon-Ho get the recognition he deserved
I don’t think Ad Astra is locked yet. It still feels like a big questionmark. Let’s see how the season treats it. I feel like marriage story and Hollywood are
I think that it is impossible to ignore that “Marriage Story” looks like the (early) frontrunner for Best Picture. But some questions still remain:
– Is Marriage Story the film to break the Netflix barrier and lead the streaming company to the podium? – It seems too big and strong to ignore.
– Can Johansson be a stronger contender for Best Actress than we imagine?
– Will the film secure Acting nominations in all 4 categories?
– Can we say that Laura Dern looks like the frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress and can have a wonderful Awards Circuit, with both Big Little Lies and Marriage Story? Also, it would be the first Oscar won by the Dern-Ladd family.
– And which film, at this point, would be “Marriage Story” most promissing oponent at the Oscar game? – In my personal and ordinary opinion, would not be “The Irishman”, not with 3 hours and 30 minutes running time and with an (almost) all male white cast. – Not with this new Academy.
I would like to know your opinions folk.
– Marriage Story does seem too big to ignore, but I don’t think it will win. The comparisons to a previous winner, Kramer vs. Kramer, will keep being made.
– Yes, she can.
– I think it will have 3 acting nominations.
– Yes, and she also appears as the mother in Little Women.
– It would be amusing if Marriage Story’s strongest competition turned out to be Little Women, and we could witness a real husband-vs-wife fight at the Oscars. Realistically, I think it will be The Irishman. After 3 years of good diversity after 2015’s Oscars So White movement, white and male should be acceptable again. They’re not banned from winning forever.
White and male were never banned… Last year lead actor was won by basically white male and while the bp film was about race it was still “lead” by a white male, the year before actor was definitely white male and the winning feature was predominantly white (even if the lead was female)… I don’t think white and male was ever not acceptable just as long as it wasn’t the only nominees and winners… Saying white men were banned from winning sounds like such an alt right talking point when the majority of winners were still white men (I’m not actually saying you are alt right, I know nothing about your politics just that it is something that reads very alt right)
You replied to the wrong person, as white males being banned (either forever or for the last three years) was not my point, but the point made by the person to which I was replying – Jhonny – who said this was the reason The Irishman would not win, as the new Academy wouldn’t allow it.
The alt-right would never put the adjective “good” before “diversity”, but I take your point about casual readers. Good reply, but Rami Malek was not “basically white male”. I hope that was a rushed error. He is of Egyptian heritage.
It was a rushed error but it’s actually an interesting discussion – since he is a white American with Egyptian parents who have European ancestry whether that counts as white or not in this context is an interesting discussion…
Still its against the point, yeah sorry I rushed into replying to the wrong person I guess but I just haven’t had that rant yet and I’ve seen so many people recently trying to sell that white people can’t win now because the academy is only pushing diversity. I think a lot of people saying it are actually well meaning but it is pretty silly.
Sure, have that rant. Unfortunately, since you replied to the wrong person, Jhonny probably missed it. I have given him a heads-up, so he can read it.
Rami Malek says he is one eighth Greek, which wouldn’t be enough to make someone white. Looking closer at the ethnicity of Rami Malek’s parents, Wikipedia tells me they are Coptic Christians. This wouldn’t make them white either. The Coptic Christian church adopted Christianity long before Europe did, according to tradition. The family are still Arabs though, and they all speak Arabic.
I didn’t mean to say that “white and male were banned”. Honest, if the artist has the talent, it is enough to reward. What I tried to say, and maybe it is interesting the discussion, is that the Academy now has more demographical diversity contigents that would vote based on gender or race for example, and because of that, there could be and impediment for “The Irishman” wins – but honestly, I don’t think it will win anyway. But coming back to the point, this “new Academy” trully votes based on diversity, gender, race – towards other factors – and maybe this was one of the reasons Glenn Close shockingly lost – these new members, who mostly could not even know Close body of work, would never vote on a film called “The Wife” -. But to finish the point and try to illustrate what I am saying: This year, I saw an interview of An Academy Member that represents this new contingent, and she said laughing – I saw it on TV – “Since I didn’t watch any of the films, I vote on everything that was named “black”: Black Panther, Blackkksamn, etc.” This video is on youtube. I want to state clear that I am all in favor of diversity, as I am a gay person myself and of a latino haritage. I only used – the real – example to illustrate my point.
The new members are also against traditional marriage now? Well, Marriage Story with its anti-marriage storyline should have it in the bag then! (/snark)
What one random (and highly irresponsible, if true, or perhaps she was just being funny?) new voter might do is not representative of what the Academy as a whole does. I’ve told you in my last reply to you that voters will not vote permanently on race and gender and against white males forever. I don’t see this year playing out on race and gender lines at all, and hardly any reasonable person is predicting that. Unreasonable people, maybe.
You should read Alex’s posts carefully. He/She (I often get people’s gender wrong on the internet) explained, with examples, that white males still dominate and always have done. You really don’t need to worry on their account. I suggest moving on.
Let’s see. The number of Black Actors to win Best Actor in 91 years:
Denzel
Sidney Poitier
Jamie Foxx
Forest Whitaker
That’s it 4 out of 91, but “James Baker” saying “white men were banned” is so goddamn insulting I’m surprised you were as polite as you were to him.
(BTW, when Ali won Supporting Oscar #2, he became only the second black actor or actress to even WIN multiple Oscars, with Denzel being the other one)
I didn’t say that: Jhonny said that! (Read his post below now, for confirmation.) I repeated what Jhonny said in the process of disagreeing with him. (He said the new Academy would not support The Irishman because it had white males – i.e. he said they are banned. I disagreed with him, and I said The Irishman would win.) If I need to apologise for anything, it is for a lack of clarity on an internet site which has casual readers who don’t read carefully.
Kindly do not put words in my mouth. I don’t want to be pedantic, but now I am forced to be. It is POOR FORM to attribute quotes to someone who did not actually make that quote. I did not utter the words “white men were banned” (your quotation marks — as if I had made that quotation!). My actual words were: “They’re not banned from winning forever.” These are not the same quotes. You may interpret them as being the same, but they are not the same. That is merely your interpretation. Other saner people might read my actual quote as sarcasm directed at Jhonny. However people want to interpret it, my actual words are not the same as the quote you attributed to me.
You’re truly pissing me off, Pete. You know perfectly well that I am one of the strongest voices for racial diversity in that other site we both visit. You, on the other hand, have still not explained why you have not managed to watch the acclaimed film Call Me By Your Name, two years after its release. I’ll say it now: I believe you are homophobic. There you go. You asked for it.
Alex, I’m sorry, I’ve been polite so far, but you should not have “liked” Pete Miesel’s slanderous post about me. I feel forced now to point out that you have very poor punctuation and spelling to match your poor reading comprehension skills. Last year’s BP race was not “lead” by a white male, but “led” by a white male. I did agree with the substance of your post, though, as I already said below (apart from the part where you said Rami Malek was basically a white male, which some people might find highly offensive). You mounted a spirited defence, and I approved of it, so well done for that.
-At the moment I’m thinking the film will eventually not win best picture because of two things: first up, Netflix has too many films on its plate, and if most of them get good reviews, I think they’re going to try to push all of them to showcase that they are a big player in the Oscar race. The Irishman especially worries me. To me it doesn’t look like a best picture winner (it feels like people are using attitudes from 20 years ago to argue for its likeliness as a winner) but Netflix already seems to be expressing that the campaign for that film will be big and expensive, meaning that it will most likely be their main player at least until December when the industry nominations start to come out and we’ll now what the situation really is. And I feel like at that point turning the narrative towards Marriage Story will be notably more difficult. Second, I think a film about divorce will eventually be way too heavy and without any reason to award it or anything uplifting about it for voters to rank it above whatever else rises into the center of the race on the final ballot
-Why not?
-I don’t think supporting actor will necessarily happen, not enough people are talking about Liotta (or is he supposed to be the supporting actor contender) and the film doesn’t strike me as the kind that fans of the film in the Academy will think in sweep mentality like for example Silver Linings Playbook
-I’m predicting her at the moment but I’m not sure when previously a supporting winner was a distant third among the most praised performances in the film in terms of early critical reception from festivals
-I think that the film that will most confidently be among the top contenders fighting Marriage Story is Joker because Warner Bros. would not be presenting the film like they are and building up awards hype as much as they are unless they are incredibly confident about the movie and ready push it towards Oscar attention. On the other hand, at the moment I’m still predicting A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood to win best picture as a placeholder. If it’s really good, it kind of has a good collection of things that I think the Academy will respond to
Kramer vs Kramer won Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay plus 4 other nominations.
I think it’s unfair to say: “That film won 40 years ago, and hence a film about the same thing is an easy winner this year”. And Kramer vs. Kramer had “reasons” why it won:
1) The movie made a $106 million in the States, which would be almost $350 million these days. It was a hit
2) A film that had to do with divorce was most likely a much more daring topic in 1979, and people might have wanted to award it simply because it was about the topic, as well as its more gentle male lead character, who probably made the film seem like a statement against traditional Hollywood filmmaking
3) The film was by far the critical favourite, winning both NYFCC and LAFCA and getting a runner-up spot at NSFC as well. A critical consensus like that is almost impossible to achieve these days.
And if we presumed that nothing had changed, Kramer Vs. Kramer is much less focused on the emotional struggles of going through a divorce than it is about a character figuring his life out and becoming a good father after the divorce. It’s a film with light elements, it is quite heartwarming and it has a happy ending. Marriage Story seems to be much more about a difficult relationship and the relationship breaking apart, and that is not the same thing as Kramer Vs. Kramer.
Scarlett is a movie star.
So were Stone and Gosling, that didn’t help an eventually sad movie about a relationship that ends up with the two breaking up win best picture
A dysfunctional relationship that ends with the two breaking up. That script had multiple third act issues.
Also, the breakup film Blue Valentine from 2010 is critically acclaimed (81 on MC) but made no impact at the Oscars, apart from a sole Actress nomination for Michelle Williams.
This really sucks for me to point this out, but Marriage Story is going to run into some rocky times the instant Baumbach is asked to compare/contrast the movie to his own divorce from Jennifer Jason Leigh (when he left her shortly after she gave birth to hook up with Gerwig).
Edit: will it be a nasty Oscar campaign hit on him? Sure. But we expect these now.
Perhaps but I remember you were mentioning this a lot when Lady Bird came out and it’s not like that narrative popped up that strongly that season. And if the film is an even portrait of a divorce, if it’s linked to that breakup, he could be interpreted as apologizing to Leigh by the film and at least also making Leigh (as a character) the lead of the movie, which is at least on some level more admirable than just using the breakup as fodder for a movie about how it was hard for him
It’s just so damn tricky when you even scrape this kind of meta-ness
I still think Gerwig on many levels was not helped during Lady Bird because of the JJL thing. EVERYTHING was lining up for her after the Golden Globe wins, she had the MeToo stuff, she was the magazine “it” girl. And the film promptly collapsed with the guilds from that point on. Correlation obviously isn’t causation, but you have to wonder a little bit.
I think that the Globes’ wins for that film weren’t a showcase of the film having the buzz to win best picture. The film lost screenplay to Three Billboards, showing that Lady Bird wasn’t the “best picture” winner of the Globes that year. And Gerwig wasn’t even nominated for director, which emphasizes the idea that those two wins were because the competition wasn’t as aggressive in the comedy categories and that it wouldn’t have won those awards in the drama categories. And yes, the film was critics’ and pundits’ favourite to some degree but so was for example Carol, but no “controversy” destroyed that film’s path to a best picture nomination, but rather that most likely old men were made uncomfortable by a film about two women whose identity in the context of the film wasn’t defined by their relationships with male characters, that are about how these women choose to live their lives so that they find what they want to do with their lives and figure out who they are and that actually give those kinds of characters the space and time in the film to see them go through these questions in ways that generally still in my opinion are mostly reserved for men in Oscar movies. That’s not in my opinion that different than Lady Bird
Fernand, I always like to read your comments. I am betting on a 4 acting nominations for Marriage Story, not because of Liotta, but because Alan Alda. He is a legend, and if he can be nominated for such a very small role in “The Aviator”, he can be nominated for anything.
“Attitudes from 20 years ago” may seem like a long time ago to you, because you are, unless I am mistaken, 20. However, despite the new intake, most Academy members are still boomers, and 20 years ago is not long to them at all. If The Irishman is good, they would still consider it current and would support it.
I guess the point I’m making is that people are arguing for The Irishman’s chances by naming only best picture winners from 20 years ago (the previous example for something like The Irishman winning would in my opinion be Return of the King 16 years ago). Instead what the previous 15 years have shown in my opinion is that the Oscars have moved away from epics from big-name directors that win because of their popularity with the general public and their impressive craft. Instead what has been constantly shown is that smaller, more character-focused dramas that are decicedly “about something” in a way that voters can get behind that topic and that veer strongly more towards independent/moderately budgeted filmmaking are winning these days. Thus I personally don’t see the logic behind the Oscar community naming every year as its frontrunner a film the kind of which hasn’t won in 15 years. (But yes, I can see that my age is probably an element that’s making it harder for me to get the thought process behind the idea)
This is not to say that a lot of the voters aren’t the same, but that with a different kind of campaign machine, the internet making much easier the idea of collectively going through a movie with a fine toothcomb (not sure if that’s the right way to express that phrase) and in the previous 10 years a new voting structure, these people are thinking differently about the individual movies and hence also vote differently.
Just a heads-up that further discussions about your last point are happening below.
The two leads in Marriage Story are awfully white you know, besides, we were told over and over that Green Book killed that kind of “woke” shit, right?
“woke” is a word that is overused on Jeff Wells’s site. I don’t recall ever seeing it used on this site. You’re getting the two sites mixed up.
Green Book is a much misunderstood film which has well-meaning people on both sides. The people who supported it are clearly not racists — although some of them could possibly have middlebrow film tastes. The people who opposed it on lack of accurate black representation grounds are also clearly not racists — although some of them could possibly be homophobic.
Thanks for these reviews. I’m looking forward to more. With Zhuo-Ning Su at Venice and Sasha at Telluride, this is undoubtedly the best site on the web for festival coverage.