400 Screens, 400 Blows - Dear Kate
Filed under: Columns, 400 Screens, 400 Blows
400 Screens, 400 Blows is a weekly column that takes an in-depth look at the films playing below the radar, beneath the top ten, and on 400 screens or less.
Well, Kate Winslet, you finally won your Oscar. Congratulations! It has been a long hard road since your first nomination, what was it? Fourteen years ago, for Sense and Sensibility? Then, let's see, the other nominations came for Titanic (1997), Iris (2001), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), Little Children (2006) and finally The Reader. In-between, there were lots of other attempts to get nominated, with performances in Kenneth Branagh's amazing four-hour Hamlet (1996), Philip Kaufman's fascinating Quills (2000), the awful anti-death-penalty message movie The Life of David Gale (2003), the turgid Finding Neverland (2004), and even a remake of a former Oscar-winner, All the King's Men (2006).
Some people thought you should have been nominated for last year's Revolutionary Road (181 screens), rather than The Reader. But can I be honest? I thought they were both bloody boring, both filled to the brim with prestige with no room for art or soul. (They are what Manny Farber once termed "parade floats" or "white elephants.") Because, let's face it, if you really want an Oscar -- and who can blame you for that? -- you have to make a certain type of film. We can fight and complain, but that's just the way it is.
Now you've won. And now you'll undoubtedly get more of the same prestigious type of scripts, sent by people hoping to win yet more Oscars and to sell more terrible films like The Reader. Which, by the way, has now grossed over $31 million. That's a lot for a film that you have to hold your nose and swallow like a pill. And it's all thanks to you.
But here's what I hope. I hope, now that your dream has come true, that you get to use your talent for something wonderful, weird and lasting, something beautiful and sad. Take Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; it stands out like a bloomed rose from your other weedy nominated films, simply because it has a personal stamp on it; it feels like a real work of imagination from a pair of weirdos with a crazy idea. It doesn't have anything to say about Nazis or the evils of suburbia or the death penalty, nor does it come from a classic novel. It's about sadness and loneliness and love, which is far more interesting stuff. Of all your films, it will be the one that young film buffs will be checking out decades from now.
Remember back all those years ago when you were in Jane Campion's Holy Smoke (1999)? People practically ran screaming from that film, but I loved it because it provoked in a way that neither The Reader nor Revolutionary Road would never dare or even consider. It was far more sexual, and human, than most of your other films. Or what about Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures (1994), your breakout role? What fun you must have had making that, doing all that crazy stuff, rather than just sitting for old age makeup.
Discuss: Should Gay Actors Stay in the Closet?
Sundance '10 Announces Non-Competing Film Premieres
'Up in the Air' Named Best Film of the Year by NBR
Johnny Depp to Play Pancho Villa?_thumbnail.jpg)
The International 'Iron Man 2' Poster Subtracts a Suit
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-20-2009 @ 7:01AM
Jim said...
Yeah, um...Finding Neverland is anything but 'turgid'. And who the hell uses the word turgid to describe ANYTHING? Finding Neverland was a fantastic movie and only someone with a cold heart would call it turgid. This is also a movie that got a 83% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so I'm hardly in the minority by defending the film.
Cinematical writers have increasingly taken to bashing actors, actresses, and films in absence of any journalistic credibility and/or real news/stories. Kate Winslet, while hugely annoying at awards ceremonies, is an amazing actress and deserves all of the praise that is heaped upon her.
Jim
Reply
3-20-2009 @ 9:52AM
Kevin said...
Turgid- Ostentatiously lofty in style
I loved Finding Neverland (it was one of those rare movies where when the credits rolled up you could see the boyfriends and husbands sitting there wiping their eyes and looking abashed) but by that definition I would have to agree that it was "Turgid". It was extremely ostentatious in its style, very over the top. I just don't think thats such a bad thing. It was about an author who writes story that is over the top and gregarious in its presentation and the movie was meant to mirror that sense, so while it was turgid it was also beautiful and heart breaking. I actually totally agree with most of what Mr. Anderson says here. I found both The Reader and Revolutionary Road to be blatant attempts at Oscar bait with virtually nothing new or daring to add to any sort of discussion. They merely looked at what the oscars have rewarded in the past and regurgitated the same tired themes and styles in the hopes of winning critical acclaim. Unfortunately it worked, and was the last nail in the academies coffin for me. What I would like to see is an awards show that sort of blends the MTV Movie Awards with the Oscars. There isn't any awards show out there that isn't either horribly conservative in their choices or ridiculously influenced by pop culture and whats "edgy". Great article.
Reply
3-20-2009 @ 12:32PM
juwan808 said...
I thought the article was horrendous, taking pot shots at a wonderful actress like Kate Winslet. You sound like she wrote the films herself, directed them and starred in them all for her own glory. That's ludicrous. Too many people work long and hard to make a movie, good or bad. And as an actress, and a popular one at that, you only have a small window of opportunity to make a mark on the big screen. Just look at Meg Ryan, or Julia Roberts. Kate Winslet has been at it for 14 years and is still getting better. So what. You didn't like her last few movies. Get over it. Some people are out there trying to do good and interesting work, and they're gonna have some mishaps along the way. To imply that she takes roles just for a chance to win an oscar is simply idiotic. Granted, some actors are hacks and are in it for something other than art. But there are some who stand out, who are willing to strip away their dignity and step out of their comfort zones for our entertainment. Have a little respect, Jeffery.
Reply
3-20-2009 @ 2:29PM
Anthony said...
Accordingly to other reader comments it is readily apparent you messed with the wrong actress! I am kidding. I love the article for what it is: an observation about certain actors and their desired career paths - and your desire for them to "get off the road" every once in a while. Next article you should ask Kiera Knightley to stop doing Period Dramas (which is a lot like asking her to stop being British).
By the way, Finding Neverland was turgid. It was an indulgent, well-crafted, pretty, saccharine tear-jerker. Not a bad movie, but not the type you tell the grandkids about decades from now.
Finally, the real question... As this article highlights there are clearly intentions by filmmakers to make "Oscar bait" films. The question is why, relatively speaking, audiences don't tend to watch them.
Reply
3-22-2009 @ 11:40AM
Dan said...
Since I have not seen ALL the movies mentioned above, I'm going to avoid that argument, but I am with you on everything else, Jeffery. I'm not sure I need to say anything else, because you said it all, and pretty damn well, so I'm just going to stamp a big co-sign!
Reply