The Screengrab : letters from iwo jima

Thursday Poll for January 22, 2009

Paul Clark — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:49:00 GMT

Long an industry favorite, Clint Eastwood’s films has been nominated for Best Picture four times to date. But which of his nominated films has held up the best? In the eyes of our readers, his first Best Picture nominee (and winner), Unforgiven, still reigns. Bringing in a decisive 72% of the vote, Unforgiven trounced the competition. In fact, our readers preferred Eastwood’s orangutan comedies to any of his other nominated films by a margin of 17% to 11% (all brought in by 2004’s Million Dollar Baby). As for Mystic River and Letters From Iwo Jima, they got no love whatsoever from our voters. And while some would maintain these movies didn’t deserve to be ignored altogether, I believe it was Clint himself who once said, “deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”

Speaking of deserve having nothing to do with it, you may have noticed that Oscar nominations were announced this morning. And with the nominations come the inevitable surprises. Few people saw the The Reader (which has been met so far mostly with indifference from critics and audiences) being the force it was this morning, although if history teaches us anything it’s that tastefully-made adaptations of respectable Holocaust-related novels should never be counted out. Then again, some surprises were happier- for example, I didn’t see Michael Shannon’s nomination coming, but I was happy to hear his name called. And how awesome does “Werner Herzog, Oscar nominee” sound? On the other hand, there are the snubs. Some of them were obvious from the beginning- much as I loved Synecdoche, New York, I didn’t think it had much of a shot at anything. Others were more shocking, to say the least. In this week’s poll, I’ve listed five of the more notable snubs this year, four of which were considered legitimate front-runners, the fifth a longtime Oscar favorite who many thought might be invited back to the party again. So which of this year’s snubs was most egregious?

Which was the most egregious snub? | BuzzDash polls

As always, the comments section is open, in case you’d like to complain or praise the nominations. See you next week!

Oscar Launch: The Silly Season Commences

Scott Von Doviak — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:00:00 GMT

As the days of 2008 dwindle down to a precious few, the year-end think-pieces, Oscar prognostications and meta “we’re not really prognosticating, but rather ironically commenting on the ridiculous awards process” articles proliferate at an alarming rate. How to keep up? How to ensure that you’re familiar with not only the consensus Academy Award front-runners, but also the reasons they have been anointed, while more worthy efforts have been snubbed? Now more than ever you need to the Screengrab, where we consume and digest this information, then regurgitate the salient points in tasty bite-size increments.

We begin with The New York Times, where David Carr calls himself The Carpetbagger, an alias that lends him the aura of being above it all while he’s actually wallowing in it. “Against the backdrop of a historic presidential election and a vortex of economic dysfunction, the burgeoning Oscar season seems even sillier than usual,” Carr harrumphs. “After all, who really cares about the throwdown for best supporting actor at a time when the citizenry seems poised for a run on its own banks?” With that out of the way, he proceeds to handicap the horse race thusly: “This year, by the Bagger’s count, seven or eight films have a shot at best picture. The consensus, in no particular order — well, O.K., in a little bit of a hierarchy — includes The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, Revolutionary Road, Milk, Doubt and The Reader. And a surprise may be waiting in the wings: Clint Eastwood, a durable crush object of the Academy, has a habit of swinging out of the trees late in the game, as he did two years ago with Letters From Iwo Jima, so keep an eye on Gran Torino.” This all seems commonsensical enough, although to my eyes The Changeling looks more Oscar-y than the “get off my lawn” movie. I guess Gran Torino has the advantage of not having already flopped, however.

The Hollywood Reporter’s Steven Zeitchik wonders if indie film awards have become redundant. “The indie film movement sprang up as a reaction to mainstream Hollywood, so its awards should do the same. It's also good. The awards business may be awash in star and industry back-scratching, but in the Spirits and Gothams, a category of writers, directors and producers have trophy shows to call their own. But there's one thing these awards didn't count on as they forged their contrarian mission: They'd become too successful. Indie movies are now such a part of the awards mainstream that they regularly trump studio movies… the downside is that the shows now no longer seem like a necessary antidote to the Academy Awards; they seem like the Academy Awards lite.” Zeitchik suggest setting a ceiling of a $10 million budget and making previous Oscar winners ineligible for consideration for “indie” awards. Methinks the horse is already out of that particular barn; adopting these stringent guidelines is the best way to make these awards disappear entirely.

Dan Zak of The Washington Post would like the Oscars to lighten up. “In February, the Oscar for Best Picture went to No Country for Old Men, a highbrow slasher movie, the bleakest contender to take the top prize since -- well, since the year before, when The Departed won. Further cementing the notion that bleak movies get made in order to strike gold, three out of four acting Oscars were given to people who played villains: Daniel Day-Lewis as the monstrous oilman in the nihilistic There Will Be Blood; Tilda Swinton as the sniveling attorney in Michael Clayton, a movie in which every person has mortgaged his soul; and Javier Bardem as the dead-eyed killer Anton Chigurh, who cattle-gunned the entire cast of No Country save for Tommy Lee Jones, whose character ended the movie on a note of despair, not death. This year, that might count as a happy ending. Big movies have tent-poled 2008 with a tarp of cruelty. No resolution, no absolution. Just the raw misery of the human condition. Buh-leak. We expect this of fringe foreign films, the confounding subgenre of torture porn, and most documentaries, but not the biggest hits and highest-praised movies of the year.” How to cure this case of the bleaks? Why, the recession might just be the ticket! Expect an onslaught of inoffensive feel-good movies, which is good news for everyone except those of us who find the likes of Beverly Hills Chihuahua infinitely more depressing than any Cormac McCarthy adaptation.

Related:
Top Five Oscar Moments
Jokers Wild About Heath Ledger's Oscar Chances

Spike Lee's Next "Miracle"

Phil Nugent — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:00:00 GMT

In anticipation of the release next week of Miracle at St. Anna, Spike Lee's first movie since his biggest hit, the atypically good Inside Man, John Colapinto profiles the director in The New Yorker. [Not available online] Colapinto notes that Lee has made eighteen feature films, "three of which (Do the Right Thing, Jungle Fever, and Malcolm X) have earned him a reputation as a filmmaker obsessed with race." That count seems a little soft: for instance, it's hard to think of any reason besides an obsession with race for making Bamboozled, and even the movie that Lee clearly intended as a showcase for his warmer, fuzzier side, Crooklyn, included a subplot about the foul odor emitted by the film's token white man, played by David Patrick Kelly in outrageous honky drag. After scoring a great success with an ingenious genre picture that required him to mostly give it a rest, Lee's new movie, "the first by a major American director to treat the experience of black soldiers" in World War II, gives him a chance to climb back on his hobbyhorse and also to issue the public proclamations that have sometimes seemed to be his real art, which his movies are only intended to promote. As Colapinto writes, the film is meant "as redress not only for [Clint] Eastwood's Iwo Jima pictures but for an all-white Hollywood vision of the Second World War which dates to the 1962 John Wayne movie The Longest Day--and before." It will be remembered that Lee instigated a vicious back-and-forth between himself and Eastwood by complaining about the absence of black soldiers in Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima; after Eastwood invited the younger filmmaker to shut the fuck up, Lee called him "an angry old man" and advised Dirty Harry that "we're not on a plantation either." That stroke was standard operating procedure for Lee, who has a history of shutting down discussions by accusing his attackers of racism, a move that has traditionally left them sputtering defensively. The down side of this tactic that it's left Lee with a public image that he may now regret, if only because it may have overshadowed his reputation as a moviemaker. "People think I'm this angry black man walking around in a constant state of rage," he told Colapinto. This misperception makes Lee very angry, and the article describes a man who, because of that, is walking around in a constant state of rage.

One reason he has for being ticked off--even when he has access to Colapinto, a writer who is so much on his side that he even seems to like Summer of Sam and the godforsaken color dance interlude in Lee's debut feature She's Gotta Have It--is that getting funding isn't as easy for him as it used to be. Lee would probably argue that it's never been easy for him, but a lot of filmmakers before Lee wanted to make a biopic about Malcolm X, and Lee was the one who got to bitch in the press about not being given a big enough budget after the epic production was given the green light. (One of the other filmmakers who wanted to make it was Norman Jewison, who was almost ready to go, with Lee's star Denzel Washington in the lead role, when Lee nudged him aside by making a public stink about how wrong it would be for a white director to be entrusted with Malcolm's story.) Miracle at St. Anna wasn't Lee's first choice for a follow-up to Inside Man; it was what he could get funded after he discovered that the box-office cachet he had picked up from that movie wasn't enough to get studios interested in his other dream projects, a James Brown biopic and a movie about the 1992 Los Angeles riots. (St. Anna didn't make the studios salivate, either; Touchtone Pictures signed on to distribute it only after European companies ponied up the money.) It'll be interesting to see whether an historical drama benefits from some of the gravity that Lee has acquired in recent years, seen best not in Inside Man but in his documentaries 4 Little Girls, whose title refers to the victims of a racially motivated church bombing in Birmingham in 1963, and the Katrina epic When the Levees Broke. Stanley Crouch, who wrote a searing attack on Lee back in 1989, believes that his nonfiction-film work has had a strong, salutary effect on Lee: "There was something about the dignity of those people he encountered when he was making 4 Little Girls that had a very deep impact on him, and in some way they seemed to help him grow up. When you got kids yourself and you're talking to the father of someone whose child was blown up by the kind of people who blew those kids up, and you see that this person is not ranting and raving in some kind of theatrical purported rage of the sort that you see in Do the Right Thing." Miracle at St. Anna opens on September 26.

Related stories: Clint Eastwood Would Like Spike Lee to Shut His Face

Spike Strikes Back

Scott Von Doviak — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:00:00 GMT

Folks, we’re having a hard time keeping up with this story. When we checked in on Friday afternoon, Clint Eastwood had just fired back at Spike Lee over his complaints that Eastwood’s Iwo Jima pictures were lacking in African-American presence. Coining perhaps his most iconic catchphrase since “Go ahead, make my day,” Eastwood remarked of Lee that “A guy like him should shut his face.” Naturally we figured that Lee, being the mellow, non-confrontational fellow we know and love, would simply let it slide. But that’s not the case.

The Guardian, the newspaper that carried the Eastwood interview in which he made remarks, now brings us Lee’s retort. The Do the Right Thing man hauls out the heavy ammunition right off the bat. "First of all, the man is not my father and we're not on a plantation either. He's a great director. He makes his films, I make my films ... And a comment like 'A guy like that should shut his face' - come on Clint, come on. He sounds like an angry old man right there."

“I'm not making this up,” Lee continues. “I know history. I'm a student of history. And I know the history of Hollywood and its omission of the one million African-American men and women who contributed to the second world war. Not everything was John Wayne, baby.” Responding to Eastwood’s defense that none of the men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima was African-American, Lee says, “For him to insinuate that I'm rewriting history and have one of the four guys with the flag be black ... no one said that. It's just that there's not one black in either film.”

Lee wraps it up by getting topical. “Even though he's trying to have a Dirty Harry flashback, I'm going to take the Obama high road and end it right here. Peace and love.” Yes, we can only hope the upcoming McCain/Obama debates will match the level of collegial discourse found in the Eastwood/Lee dialogues.

Related:
Spike Lee Blasts Clint Eastwood, Coen Brothers
Spike Lee Goes to War

Clint Eastwood Would Like Spike Lee to Shut His Face

Scott Von Doviak — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Publicizing the new box set of Dirty Harry DVDs, Clint Eastwood took the opportunity to respond to Spike Lee’s comments from the Cannes Film Festival. As you’ll recall, Lee took issue with Eastwood’s two-part World War II film, specifically the paucity of black faces in Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. “Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total and there was not one Negro actor on the screen," Lee told reporters. "If you reporters had any balls you'd ask him why. There's no way I know why he did that -- that was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It's not like he didn't know.”

This isn’t the first time Lee has gotten all up in Eastwood’s grill. “"He was complaining when I did Bird [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker],” Eastwood tells The Guardian. “Why would a white guy be doing that? I was the only guy who made it, that's why. He could have gone ahead and made it. Instead he was making something else.”

Eastwood realizes there was a “small detachment” of Negro soldiers on Iwa Jima, but in his words, “they didn't raise the flag. The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn't do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate.” He sums up the Miracle at St. Anna director succinctly: “A guy like him should shut his face.”

With that out of the way, Eastwood is free to talk Dirty Harry, and to clear up those rumors that he’s taking the character out for one more spin in the upcoming Gran Torino. “Some idiot came up with some theory…Not at my age,” he stresses. “There are certain age limits on police officers. They'd have retired me out at 65.”

Related:
Spike Lee Blasts Clint Eastwood, Coen Brothers
Under the Hood of Eastwood's "Gran Torino"

Spike Lee Blasts Clint Eastwood, Coen Brothers

Scott Von Doviak — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:30:00 GMT

Talking up his World War II epic Miracle at St. Anna, due in October from Walt Disney (!), Spike Lee took the opportunity to get in some shots at a couple of perennial Cannes darlings.

It wasn’t quite Kanye West declaring that George Bush doesn’t like black people, but Lee did have some thoughts to share about Clint Eastwood’s acclaimed pair of WWII pics, Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. "Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total and there was not one Negro actor on the screen," Lee told reporters. "If you reporters had any balls you'd ask him why. There's no way I know why he did that -- that was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It's not like he didn't know."

At least that observation has some relevance to Lee’s current project, but he seemed to go out of his way to swipe at the Coen brothers as well. "I always treat life and death with respect, but most people don't. Look, I love the Coen brothers; we all studied at NYU. But they treat life like a joke. Ha ha ha. A joke. It's like, 'Look how they killed that guy! Look how blood squirts out the side of his head!' I see things different than that."

All of this comes from The Hollywood Reporter, which also notes that Lee is about to start work on a documentary about basketball legend Michael Jordan. Lee knows Jordan from the commercials they did together for sneakers made by Asian sweatshop labor, a little factoid Eastwood or the Coens may want to bring up next time the Do the Right Thing man starts gassing on about his respect for human life.