In this morning’s roundup of Oscar news ‘n’ notes from around the web, Peter Weir’s new movie begins a long awards walk, while a judge clears the way for “The Illusionist.”
Peter Weir’s “The Way Back” didn’t get much interest when it was shopped to studios, but now it’s getting an Oscar buzz of sorts. Anne Thompson looks at the film, which follows a group of escapees from a Siberian prison camp as they walk across Asia to freedom, and uses it as a case study in “how difficult it is to get a period drama financed and produced today.” Her verdict is that the “grim episodic slog” needs a more expensive campaign – including bigger screening rooms – to really make much impact in awards season, where she thinks its best shot is probably Ed Harris for Best Supporting Actor. I’d throw in a wild-card cinematography nod – but then, I saw it on a big screen, where it looks mighty impressive and much more expensive than its reported budget of less than $30 million. And while the film certainly has its bold and beautiful elements, I don’t think it’s helped by its final five minutes, which are awfully clunky unless you’re a fan of that final scene from every episode of “Cold Case.” (Thompson on Hollywood)
Two years ago, Scott Feinberg began playing host to an anonymous Academy member, an Oscar-winning screenwriter who went by the code name “Deep Vote.” Now DV is back to begin his weekly discourses on the movies he’s seeing and how he plans to vote … and things kick off with a description of where he’s coming from. In brief: he likes good stories with satisfying endings, he prefers little indies and doesn’t care for animated or effects-driven films (though he somewhat condescendingly admits that “some of these can have cinematographic merit, too”), he often doesn’t agree with the Academy’s choices, and he thinks Oscar voters are incorruptible. But, you know, sometimes those incorruptible voters go against AMPAS wishes and write about how they’re voting. (ScottFeinberg.com)
Good news for one of the strongest dark-horse candidates in the Oscar Animated Feature field: a federal judge in Los Angeles has denied a restraining order request from the makers of the 2006 Ed Norton film “The Illusionist,” which sought to block the release of the new Sylvain Chomet film of the same name. Illusionist Distribution LLC sued Sony Classics over the film for trademark infringement and a variety of other ills, but Eriq Gardner reports that Judge Dolly M. Gee soundly rejected all of Illusionist Distribution’s claims, paving the way for an upcoming Oscar-qualifying run for Chomet’s film, which is based on an unproduced screenplay written in the 1950s by French filmmaker Jacques Tati. (THR Esq.)
Jeff Wells, who always prefers Oscar prognostication that comes from the heart, scolds the Gurus o’ Gold pundits who are predicting that “The King’s Speech” will beat “The Social Network” for Best Picture – because, he says, we all “know damn well which film is the more dazzling and audacious.” Well, maybe … though I’d submit that “dazzling and audacious” is a better description of “Black Swan,” and I wouldn’t dare predict that that one will win, either. “The King’s Speech,” Wells concedes, is “a very well made film,” but “it’s about comfort and tradition and respectability and hugs. It’s the Best Picture of 1993.” Actually, Jeff, that was “Schindler’s List.” (Hollywood Elsewhere)
Tom O’Neil says “Oscar gossips” are missing the year’s juiciest story, which involves the Best Picture battle between the Scott Rudin-produced “The Social Network” and the Harvey Weinstein-distributed “The King’s Speech.” His theory is that bad blood between the two lingers from the battle between the Kate Winslet vehicles “The Reader” and “Revolutionary Road” from two years ago … though I’d submit that for epic Oscar battles, you’d be far better off looking to the Miramax/DreamWorks faceoffs of years past: “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan” at the Oscars in 1999, “American Beauty” over “The Cider House Rules” the following year. (Gold Derby)
