The winners at Venice rocked the house, for sure. Todd Phillips’ Joker won the top prize – The Golden Lion. Grand Jury Award went to Roman Polanski’s J’Accuse!
Here are the winners as reported by Guy Lodge:
Golden Lion: “Joker,” Todd Phillips
Grand Jury Prize: “An Officer and a Spy,” Roman Polanski
Silver Lion for Best Director: Roy Andersson, “About Endlessness”
Volpi Cup for Best Actress: Ariane Ascaride, “Gloria Mundi”
Volpi Cup for Best Actor: Luca Marinelli, “Martin Eden”
Best Screenplay: “No. 7 Cherry Lane,” Yonfan
Special Jury Prize: “The Mafia Is No Longer What It Used to Be,” Franco Maresco
Marcello Mastroianni Award for Young Actor: Toby Wallace, “Babyteeth”
Written and directed by Todd Phillips and Scott Silver, directed by Phillips – this is already a controversial film and for all of the wrong reasons. Hollywood is not responsible for the behavior of men. Art is not here to instruct life but rather to comment on it. I can’t wait to see it. I also want to see the Polanski, if any distributor has the balls to release it here.
Fresh from Toronto: “Knives Out” received stading ovation from the public and rave reviews from the critics. We are seeing now a 82 at Metacrict (by comparasion, OUATH is 83), and a 100 Rotten Tomatoes. Some headlines say: “People went crazy for “Knives Out”. Considering that this is an essemble piece, SAG nomination and Golden Globe Comedy, I think both are happening.
A dark horse Best Picture contender is born?
On the other hand, while “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” have solid to very good reviews, none of them were raves, and I have read nothing about the audience reaction.
Yes, I’ve been really stoked for Knives Out ever since the trailer. It would certainly be something different in Best Picture. It would also help Rian Johnson overcome his Star Wars troubles.
Since when some silly comic craps win at major festivals?
As neither of us have seen the film, if it was good enough for Lucrecia Martel & co, it’s probably not “some silly comic crap”.
OT : Showgirls it ain’t. As a bit of a surprise, HUSTLERS has just debuted at TIFF to rave reviews, started at 80 on MC and 100 on RT (8.5 average rating), with Jennifer Lopez getting career-best reviews. The film is also tracking very well, so it will be interesting to see if it turns into a critically acclaimed smash hit whether it will register in the awards season at all other than the likely Golden Globe nods in the comedy category. I have to say I’m already low-key expecting a bit of category fraud here, they will probably claim Constance Wu is the lead so J-Lo could get a better shot at awards consideration in supporting when they are obviously co-leads or equal parts of a big ensemble.
KNIVES OUT and A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD also debuted to good/great reviews, too early to get a proper read on their Oscar prospects but for what it’s worth, Tom Hanks got some good ink, then again he always does yet no Oscar love for almost two decades now.
A word about The King. I have been analysing the 23 reviews on RT carefully, and I have noticed something remarkable. Chalamet has raves about his performance from *everybody*, except one specific type of reviewer: patriotic Englishmen.(**) These reviewers cherish the idea of Henry V as a legendary English hero, despite the fact he invaded a neighbouring country, and this film seems to have busted their cherished image. All the other reviewers thought he was great. Even David Ehrlich and Richard Lawson, who thought the film was weak, both wished there was less action and more Chalamet.
I calculated that if I remove all the Englishmen from Metacritic (you can’t do that, but I can because I am English myself), meaning I take out Phil de Semlyen, John Bleasdale, Xan Brooks, Jonathan Romney and Robbie Collin, then the Metascore jumps up from 67 to 74. Since all the UK reviewers were at Venice and seem to be done, that indicates that when all the American reviewers get to see the film, the film’s Metascore should jump up.
I am still not predicting him to get a nomination. However, he shouldn’t be ruled out at this early stage, due to a bunch of upset jingoistic Englishmen.
(** There is also one harsh review from a young Spanish woman. However, young female reviewers are rare, and harsh ones even rarer, so I don’t expect to see many more of those.)
(I should mention that several English reviewers did like the film too, including Phil de Semlyen from Metacritic, whom I mentioned above, and several more from RT.)
I think you raise a good point. But it reminds me slightly of last year with Emily Blunt’s strange accent work in MPR raising some eyebrows in the UK (Americans were none the wiser) and missing a BAFTA nom. Clearly the British contingent in the Academy was so strong she missed out there too, however. Same could be true of Chalamet.
I have heard the accent in the trailer and it’s fine. Apparently he has the same voice coach as Emma Stone did in The Favourite. They both sound like they are speaking 19th-century English. Of course he doesn’t sound like people did in the 14th or 15th centuries, but nobody in the film does. Speaking like Chaucer did would be unintelligible to modern ears, or even to Shakespeare’s contemporaries in the 17th century.
Emily Blunt is British herself and went to a private school in London, so I don’t think the accent is the reason she wasn’t nominated either.
(It’s the lack of manliness that surprised the British critics, as I said below, even though the official portraits of Henry V show him to resemble Chalamet with a bowl-cut, much more than Olivier, etc.)
To be fair, Blunt’s accent in MPR did sound terribly unnatural even for a character like Mary Poppins. Some British newspapers even mentioned it in their reviews. It was not like they said that it wasn’t British enough (she IS British, as you rightly said), but some Americans might have thought “well that’s just what a posh Brit would sound like!”.
It was a bit cartoonish and appropriate for a Disney nanny, but I’m sure there were plenty of other reasons besides her accent that MPR didn’t get awards attention. It was a Disney sequel, for a start.
And it would certainly be wrong to think accents are the problem in The King. It was mainly the stark contrast to Olivier that threw some people. “Olivier’s Henry V famously spoke to the spirit of patriotism at a time of national crisis”, as John Bleasdale put it, but this film didn’t fill him with the same sense of patriotism. “It perhaps lacks the requisite majesty.” The strange word there was “requisite”, as if inherited leaders are required to show the same leadership qualities as elected leaders. The history of monarchy shows that is far from the case.
That was what was so fascinating about Blunt. She is British – as am I – and yet her Mary Poppins accent was so off key (many UK critics agreed). I can’t speak for Chamalet’s accent (sounds fine to me) but I think you are right that it ties more into English jingoism.
I think it ties into the mythology of great English figures. In reality, I imagine Chalamet would have (physically) been very like Henry V, and it is often forgotten that the King was just under 30 when he went to Agincourt. But with Olivier and Branagh still firm in the memory, I can see why a young American kid playing the role would cause some agitation.
Yes, that was their problem. Chalamet is actually perfectly cast as the young Prince Hal from Shakespeare’s Henry IV plays, and is also the right age. Olivier and Branagh never played Prince Hal, as they frankly wouldn’t have been capable. They have technically only played the third act of Chalamet’s character arc in The King, therefore they did not play exactly the same character as him and comparing them is inaccurate.
I still think Adam Driver is the one most likely to win…
Except he is a co-lead in his film, and it’s possible that Scarlett Johannson will have more of the heat.
According to what I’ve read they both shine equally
It’s possible. During award season he’ll be promoting The Report and Marriage Story and Star Wars will be hitting theatres. That’s a lot of buzz he can ride on.
I’m still not sure if Joaquin Phoenix is up to running around and playing the award campaign game…
I am not sure I can stomach another year of Twitter shit throwing and smear campaigns… the insane vitriol already being levelled against The Joker and it is mostly sight unseen!
There would inevitably have been a lot of heated discussion about Joker, as there is for all big-budget superhero movies. I recommend you ignore all those discussions, as I do, if it puts you off.
I will try… But just spending five minutes catching up on some of the ‘hot takes’ has given me high blood pressure. It seems curious that a comic book movie (I don’t generally like comic book movies) which actually looks good is being derided by so many people who haven’t seen it. They could at least least reserve judgement…
Thank goodness Polanski has caused a momentary diversion.
Please, please, don’t raise your blood pressure over Joker. It’s not worth it. There are better things to discuss, in ways which should be less heated. (But I do agree that people shouldn’t judge Joker without seeing it. I am sure everyone will see it before awards season gets truly underway, though.)
I was being slightly tongue in cheek… Thankfully, I don’t have high blood pressure (at least I think I don’t).
1. Phoenix
2. Pryce
3. Di Caprio
4. Driver
5. Norton
I don’t see neither De Niro happening, nor Banderas.
Time to prepare my best We Live in a Society and Gamers Rise Up memes for Oscars night I guess.
They really must have changed a lot from the leaked script I read, because that was awful.
So did Martel see it? Who else is in this Jury?
Lucrecia Martel, Argentine director and screenwriter (Jury President)
Piers Handling, Canadian film historian and critic, executive director of the Toronto International Film Festival
Mary Harron, Canadian director
Stacy Martin, French actress
Rodrigo Prieto, Mexican cinematographer
Shinya Tsukamoto, Japanese filmmaker and actor
Paolo Virzì, Italian director and screenwriter
I thought Martel stated she was not going to see this (or was it the Polanski?) or am I dreaming?
I think you are referring to her saying that while she WILL watch every film in competition, she will refuse to go to the red carpet evening premiere of the Polanski film.
I guess this is it. Thanks.
It is official : JOKER is a strong contender for Oscar consideration in picture, director and adapted screenplay … and make no mistake about it, if it does secure those nominations, Phoenix is definitely winning Best Actor, that is my hunch at least.
I agree with you Phantom.
Phoenix is winning because too many reasons to deny him. But make no mistake, denial will continue to the bitter end. I bet that MBJ will become denialist’s champion for he is WB’s other contender. And I love MBJ but this is Phoenix year and everyone else should be happy with noms. You don’t want to win over an instantly iconic, transformative performance, with yet another brave lawyer who challenges the system on behalf of an innocent convict. In a movie that critics say is fine but didn’t elevate the genre. Unlike Joker that elevated it.
His narrative is just too perfect this year, nobody else’s comes close : it would be a random second win for DiCaprio for what essentially is an ensemble piece; Pryce could come close but at the end of the day he would be a first-time nominee in a co-lead role; if a rising star makes the cut clearly the nomination will be the reward (Chalamet, MBJ, Elgort, Oyelowo, Egerton) and Dafoe’s film will be probably too obscure to secure even his nod let alone his win.
The most likely upsets could be Adam Driver, Antonio Banderas and Brad Pitt and while latter two could have the makings of respective Oscar narratives that a competent awards strategist can sell the shit out of, both will face a very unique set of challenges first : Banderas is in a foreign-language film and those roles very VERY rarely get Oscar nominations, granted when they do, they have very similar pedigree to what Banderas’s role / film has this year. Brad Pitt on the other hand will have two big obstacles as far as a Best Actor campaign goes : 1. Ad Astra, at the moment slightly dividing critics who saw it in Venice, has to make massive dough not to be considered a flop and it probably won’t do that because art films directed by James Gray with bigger than usual budgets are not really what the masses in Middle America are all about 2. he is the very obvious frontrunner in supporting and will probably win there without breaking a sweat and double acting nods are rare for a reason.
Bottom line : for the win it seems to be Phoenix’s to lose, with Driver, Banderas and Pitt (in that order) seemingly distantly behind him. As for who will be the actual quartet next to Phoenix in the final five, well, who knows. Common wisdom say three of them are named in this paragraph. Then again, 10 years of AD cred tells me at this point it can honestly be anyone, anyone from this paragraph or the one before or anyone who is not even on my damn radar of course.
P.S. I am a prick about lead categories and always ALWAYS root for sole leads who carry their films alone. In the nominating stage, sure, I’m happy for the best performances if they make the cut even if they shared the load with co-leads, prominent ensemble players, scenestealing supporting turns, but when it comes to the win, I always hope it is the triumph of the performer who managed to sell the film essentially alone. So this year that would be Phoenix, Banderas or Pitt in lead actor.
I agree that Phoenix carrying the movie without an equal co-star makes him a more viable winner. Plus all other narrative advantages.
I thought Pitt goes Supporting?
For OUATIH, yes. For Ad Astra, he will go lead. Question is will the film still be a viable contender for an awards campaign by the end of the year. Reviews are good, could be better, also BO could really sink it. It is a moderately big-budget pic, it has to do well if it wants to succeed in the awards season.
I don’t think he’s happening for Ad Astra. It’ll add up to his Supporting nom for OUATIH and maybe even win (fingers crossed) but the movie’s likely to underperform at the boxoffice. Long range tracking doesn’t look good.
Well,again I will say that Dafoe will probably run in Supporting and I can see him as a major treat to Pitt. I honestly think that people will ask themselves if Pitt needs Oscar number 2, and some can see him as a white privileged actor, if you understand me. Right now I think the only one that can stop Phoenix is Pryce. “The Two Popes” seems to be a crowdpleaser, Pryce is a very respected veteran and I think he can be something like Rami Malek this year. I just have this feeling. I don’t think Bandeiras will be nominated. Foreign male actors are generally nominated in weak years, which clearly is not the case in this race. The Best Actor field this year is the strongest I’ve seem in years. It is a shame that Best Actress looks so weak. I love Zellweger, but honestly, I don’t want her winning Oscar 2, while Close, Bening, Pfeiffer and Adams are Oscarless.
OT: Close, Bening, Pfeiffer and Adams would be a great name for a law firm!
My initial view of this season is that we’re heading to one more La La Land x Moonlight with Once Upon a Time x Waves. This win starts to make a strong case for Phoenix overdue win.
I don’t see similarities tbh. Once Upon a Time isn’t the frontrunner and is unlikely to sweep like La La Land. There are just enough movies coming out of festivals to gain more traction with precursors. Waves already sounds way better than Moonlight, and it has the white director that some corners of twitter may find unacceptable. So not totally poised for overwhelming woke votes.
As a comic book fan, I’m really excited about Joker’s big win (I was just expecting Best Actor). But I still have that negative thought in my head that maybe they gave Joker the big award so maybe big studios would be more willing to submit their movies to compete in festivals.
But supposedly the jury was super artsy fartsy and probably wasn’t going to love Joker so who knows. I’m still hyped.
Jury president Martel has expressed her disliking of superhero movies before, as well as expressing bafflement at what Marvel told her when they offered her Black Widow (basically that they wanted someone to work on the characters and that she shouldn’t worry about the directing of the action because they’d take care of it)
I’m super excited that Joker won Venice. especially since some feel good or middlebrow or schmaltzy whatever is going to win TIFF as always.
So I ask the same as I did when the schedule was announced: what does Joker winning the Golden Lion do? What is the value of this win? Is this going to convince anyone to see this movie? Is this going to help Todd Phillips’ career in any way? No, all this might do is increase the movie’s Oscar buzz, and that should not be the main purpose of a win for the Golden Lion
1. I suppose it might convince people to watch it. The people who would never go watch a “comic book film” but would be very eager to watch the Golden Lion winner, whatever it is. Sure, that might not be a very big audience, compared to the people who would’ve watched it anyway (presumably), but it does help the film reach new audiences.
2. Should the Golden Lion have a purpose? Or should it just go to the film that the jury honestly and truly considers the best achievement? I think there are arguments for both approaches, but I wouldn’t necessarily side with the first.
1. Wouldn’t Oscar buzz already do that, at least in the long run if it gets nominations?
2. You make a fair point but to slightly argue, I would like to note that each of the previous three Golden Lion winners have had immense Oscar buzz before and during the festival, and this makes my frustration with the win even stronger: if it’s just the best achievement in the opinion of the jury, why have three juries in a row gone for films that largely express the same thing as winners of the Golden Lion?
1. I would argue that Joker doesn’t have “Oscar juggernaut” written all over it. So they did not just weigh in with their award in the rather meaningless Oscar race by saying “here, pick THIS for Best Picture!”. Joker got good reviews, but not amazingly good (it’s “only” 75 on Metacritic). What if the point they wanted to make (not to the Academy, but the audience and generally, the “world”, if such a thing exists) was “This movie is excellent, do NOT dismiss it as “comic book” fare, but go and watch it and take it seriously!”. They wanted to promote it as a good film, and help it reach parts of the audience that it otherwise wouldn’t, perhaps build a future legacy that it otherwise couldn’t, and sure, if in the meantime they also help it get into the Best Picture lineup, why not?
2. I do see what you mean, but I would argue that all three are different. For The Shape of Water, well, I don’t have a very good reason, but surely it must happen time to time that a relatively Oscar-friendly Hollywood film wins the Golden Lion. Then, Roma, while definitely was tipped as a major Oscar player before winning the Lion, was quite an extraordinary film in terms of its acclaim. Not only was there a relatively clear consensus at Venice that it was the best film of the bunch, and a career-best of Cuarón, but we saw afterwards its total domination of the critics’ awards and top 10 lists. Plus, the jury president was del Toro, by which I do not suggest favouritism, but rather that Cuarón’s style of filmmaking was probably particularly close to his heart. And this year, apart from Joker and perhaps the Polanski, most of the awarded films were pretty unexpected I believe. A lot of the more high-profile, widely predicted films went home with nothing. This suggests to me that the films that they didn’t just lazily pick the “Oscar fare” as you (and I) would fear, but based their picks on factors that I (or you) might approve of more. The possible reasoning for picking Joker for the top prize I already outlined in point 1. So while I also am a bit worried that Venice might trend towards being an “Oscar-race” film festival similar to, say, Telluride, I do not necessarily find this year’s prize winners, especially Joker winning, a sign of that.
Sorry for the long rambling, lately I don’t really find my way with words.
By convincing people you mean high brow HFPA/Guild/BAFTA/AMPAS members, correct? Joe and Jane multiplex don’t know WTF Golden Lion is. They might think it’s The Lion King remake.
There are plenty of moviegoers who know what the Golden Lion is. Those people keep arthouse cinemas alive. Joe and Jane Multiplex already has a prebooked ticket for Joker.
true but festival run still has little to do with boxoffice. As you said, general public has a prebooked ticket. WB wants Oscar and the best way to get voters to take you seriously is actually win some on the way to major prize.
Yeah, if WB wants to win the Oscar, they will be very happy with this win. But I was talking about the Jury’s considerations, not WB’s. In their view, anointing Joker as the winner can have a positive impact on viewership not by box office numbers, but by composition of the crowd.
That’s a good point.
I’m pretty sure it will help Todd Phillips career.
I guess I should phrase it again: was Todd Phillips’ next film not going to get made before this win? I’d argue not, especially as I’ve understood he’s quite respected at Warner Bros.
I guess you’re right. WB takes care of its directors unless you’re Zack Snyder.
The value of the win is that it’s a serious contender, not a joke (pun intended). They didn’t go to all festivals to boost the boxoffice cause Joker was going to smash no matter what. They want Best Picture and this is a great way to convince skeptics.
But why should Venice be limited to being nothing but an Oscar launching pad? They could do so much to change the fall film conversation but now they’re just hanging on to a tiny bit of publicity from Oscar people that is in no way really tied to Venice but only to individual movies that Venice can book at the moment, and that kind of situation is always going to be only a little more than a “oh, and it had its world premiere here” footnote on Telluride and Toronto (if you want proof, look at the drop in attention and amount of press after the first few days of Venice).
Venice isn’t limited to oscar launching pad. A win for the movie with oscar aspirations is as great news as is a win for the movie without it. And Joker needed this for Toronto basics are gonna give audience award to another muh race boo boo.
Do you think? Why would it not help convince people who would normally dismiss it as a silly comic book movie to see it? Surely there are plenty of people who simply wouldn’t ever think to watch a movie called Joker but after Venice might think “Okay maybe I should give this one a shot”. Regardless of the Oscar race. Though I guess this is kinda linked to the Oscar race since Oscar noms will probably do this more than a Venice win. Also I don’t think the award should serve a specific purpose at all, really the jury should give it to what they think was the best film – and obviously this year that was joker.
Okay I just saw someone else made exactly my points… you may ignore this.
Emmanuelle Seigner continues so beautiful, so beautiful. It was a nice moment to see her receiving the award in the name of Polanski. I really think the massage of the Festival was: “Fuck you all!”. In one aspect, very weird or at least unexpected choices. I was expecting Joaquim Phoenix to win, not the movie itself. It is strange to give the prize to the film, but not to the actor – who is the heart of the film. What to think of “Joker” in terms of the Oscar? Can be bigger than we imagine? Or this award was just a festival hype thing? I would like to hear you folks, and even Sasha herself. Can “Joker” be the studio film at the Oscars that will beat Netflix?
I think they wanted to spread the love.