Armageddon as directors top Hollywood rich list for 2009

An interesting fact emerges from this year’s Vanity Fair “top Hollywood earners” list: the top five places go to directors. Todd Phillips comes in at five, fresh from directing ‘The Hangover’ (subject of a recent Oscar snub), a surprise hit which must have seen Phillips claiming a proportion of the box office gross to earn his reported $44 million last year. At four, Jim Cameron (subject of Oscar buzz), comes in with some of that sweet ‘Avatar’ money. ‘Avatar’ was only released in the last couple of weeks of 2009, so Cameron’s place at four on this list shows just how much money he/that film has made in such a short space of time. I’d expect Cameron to be at the top of next year’s list with the same film. Three sees Roland Emmerich taking $70 million home for directing the disaster movie ‘2012’ (never linked to Oscars). Emmerich is probably another one seeing a healthy proportion of the box office as part of his fee.

That leaves, in second and first place, respectively, father and son duo (as pictured) Spielberg and Bay. They have (depressingly) been raking it in from the recent ‘Transformers’ movies. Say what you will about ‘Avatar’, but it is a coherent film at least – and with its heart in the right place. Michael Bay reportedly made $125 million last year so it's no wonder he doesn’t care what people say about his films. The full break down of this figure is available in the original Vanity Fair article, but interesting highlights include: $75 million from directing/producing the film, $25 million from sales of the DVD (yes, if you bought it, you’re lining his pockets, happy?) and $12.5 million from toys and video games etc.

I really, really wanted to come at this list from the perspective that, regardless of who they were and what they had made, directors had claimed the top five places in this poll, where usually actors dominate (as indeed they dominate the remaining thirty-five places). The thing is that there isn’t really a single person on the list who is there because they directed a film: rather all the directors on the list are also producers. Or they made $50 million from theme parks last year (Steven Spielberg).

Anyway, check out the entire top 40, and all the details therein, here.

Ozu monogatari: Mark Cousin's stares into the void

According to Kurosawa, Yasujirō Ozu made films of “dignified severity”. He meant it as a criticism. In terms of the films they gave us, the two men could hardly have been more different: you certainly couldn’t confuse the horse chase sequence in ‘The Hidden Fortress’ or the titular ‘Seven Samurai’ running through the tall grass to save the villagers (both conveying an urgency and a sense of speed) with the famous stillness found in Ozu’s work. The most famous examples of his work are slow, small-scale family dramas like ‘Early Spring’ and ‘Tokyo Story’ (though, as Tony Rayns points out in last month’s Sight and Sound, he made many other types of film in his long and prolific career at Shochiku).

Yet Ozu’s films are no less compelling than Kurosawa’s. They delight with their attention to detail. In Ozu’s films, pauses are emphasised, shots linger, often with the camera close to the ground or looking in at the “action” from another room. External shots of trains going by are a common occurrence and seem simply to mark the passing of time and require patience. They are formal, beautiful and poignant: emotional, yet never mawkish or sentimental. Ozu never had wife or family of his own, yet he told stories about families which speak a universal truth, such as when the well-meaning elderly couple of ‘Tokyo Story’ find themselves to be an unwelcome inconvenience when visiting their (now grown up) children, who have jobs to attend to and children of their own to raise. None of the people in these stories are wrong or bad: they just are.

I am writing about Ozu because there has been a lot of attention paid to his work recently. This has partly been due to the fact that this month sees a programme of Ozu films playing at the BFI Southbank (until February 27th) and partly because similarities between Ozu’s work and that of Hirokazu Kore-eda are being drawn in reviews of his new film ‘Still Walking’ (Sight & Sound’s Film of the Month for February). Noted film historian David Thomson has also seen fit to contribute a snobby and pompous article about Ozu versus ‘Avatar’ for the Guardian newspaper. But the piece that caught my attention was a tribute paid to the great man by Mark Cousins during BBC Radio 4’s Film Programme. During the programme, Cousins described not only his appreciation for Ozu, but also his experience visiting Ozu’s grave recently. He describes how the man he sees as the “centre of film history” is represented by a tombstone without a name or any dates, but simply the Chinese character “Mu” which he translates as “emptiness” or “the void”, but which can also be read as “the space between all things”. "Dignified severity" indeed.

Surrounded by tributes of alcohol (like Kurosawa, Ozu was a notorious alcoholic) this grave is somehow the ultimate monument to a man whose films faced the facts of human existence, however apparently bleak, without any need to sugar coat them. He didn’t even want to romanticise his own passing from this Earth. That takes a special kind of dedication to the “truth” so often talked about by artists. Yet Ozu was not a pretentious artist. He was a company man. He was loyal to one studio his whole life and made a great many films (from the silent-era onwards) as a hired gun. He was disciplined and demanding, a perfectionist, but not at the expense of his humility. And whilst his films are not sentimental, they are not without sentiment (‘Tokyo Story’, for one, is a real tear jerker). He was, for me, a real humanist with a deep understanding of, and affection for, life’s smaller moments. He is survived by his films and not by a piece of stone.

Apparently Mark Cousins visit to the grave was made as part of an upcoming documentary on Ozu’s life and work. I, for one, look forward to a closer look at this fascinating 20th century artist if and when it is released. I will keep an eye out.

The award for Best Trailer for a Motion Picture goes to...

Movie trailers: they can make you laugh, they can make you cry. Well, maybe not cry (that is unless the words ‘Transformers 3’ appear somewhere) but trailers can certainly make a very compelling case for themselves as an art form in their own right. They may not have an award dedicated to them at the Oscars, but here are three examples of trailers from the last year that would be in contention if they did (incidentally there is an industry award for trailers: see The Golden Trailer Awards):

Where the Wild Things Are had a superb early teaser trailer, helped in no small part by its use of an amazing song by Arcade Fire to really which really helps to invoke the spirit of the film:


Possibly my favourite of last year, A Serious Man had an amazing trailer which was a masterpiece in editing:


Finally, A Single Man, which has a very slick trailer and opens at the Duke of York's cinema from Friday 12th February. It looks stunning:


I hope you enjoyed the trailers. Please post some of your own favourites below and come back later in the week, when the latest Splendor Cinema/Duke of York's podcast will be up. It's our fourth episode and we will be looking at the Oscar nominations, picking our winners. It can't be missed!

My predictions for the 82nd Academy Award nominees are...

The nominees for the 82nd Academy Awards are due to be revealed today. I thought it would be worth jotting my predictions down here so I can refer to them at a later date, hopefully with regards to their accuracy.

As many readers may know, the Best Picture shortlist has been doubled from five films to ten. This makes my life a little easier as I’m bound to get one or two guesses correct now! I reckon we can expect to see the five features which were nominated for the same honour at last month’s Golden Globe awards, those being ‘Precious’, ‘Inglourious Basterds’, ‘The Hurt Locker’, ‘Up in the Air’ and, of course, the winner ‘Avatar’. They could be joined by the BAFTA best film nominee ‘An Education’, the highly-rated and commercially successful Vegas comedy ‘The Hangover’ and Pixar’s splendid ‘Up’. I don’t have too much confidence in the final two guesses, but I’m going to go with ‘The Blind Side’, a sentimental American football “you can live your dream!” movie, for which Sandra Bullock has been winning all the actress awards this year, and ‘It’s Complicated’ because it has Meryl Streep in it and also stars this year’s ceremonies co-hosts, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. There will be a lot of good will in the room, as they say.

In terms of Best Actress, I have already mentioned two obvious contenders: Meryl Streep for either ‘It’s Complicated’ or ‘Julie and Julia’ (at the Globes she was nominated for both) and Sandra Bullock. I expect to find Carey Mulligan on that list (or at least I hope to find her on it) for her dazzling turn in ‘An Education’. ‘Gabourey Sidibe’ may get a nod for her part as the abused and illiterate Precious in the film of the same name, whilst Julianne Moore is a possibility for her co-starring role in ‘A Single Man’.

Colin Firth is the hot favourite for Best Actor, with his portrayal of a homosexual University professor in Tom Ford’s upcoming film ‘A Single Man’. Jeff Bridges was a popular winner of the equivalent Globe last month, so he’ll surely be a contender for his role in ‘Crazy Heart’. To be honest, one of those two will win the award, so the remaining three are a formality: George Clooney (‘Up in the Air’), Tobey Maguire (‘Brothers’) and Morgan Freeman, perhaps a good outside bet for his portrayal of Nelson Mandela in Clint Eastwood’s ‘Invictus’. I would like to see ‘A Serious Man’ star Michael Stuhlbarg get a nomination, but that appears unlikely, though I’d be surprised if that film isn’t nominated for some minor awards (you know, little things like Editing, Sound and Writing!).

The supporting actor prizes will be won by Mo’Nique for ‘Precious’ and Christopher Waltz for ‘Inglourious Basterds’, without a shred of doubt in my mind. The two female leads of ‘Up in the Air’ (Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick - who would both be worthy winners in my opinion) may also be nominated in the supporting actress category, whilst Waltz is likely be competing against Matt Damon and Stanley Tucci (‘Invictus’ and The ‘Lovely Bones’ respectively). Best Director is being billed as a tussle between a former husband and wife: James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow (‘Avatar’ and ‘The Hurt Locker’ respectively). That category may be fleshed out by the likes of Jason Reitman (‘Up in the Air’), Lee Daniels (‘Precious’) and, possibly, Tom Ford for ‘A Single Man’. You heard it here first!

I now lie in wait to see if my predictions are given any credence by the actual nominations later today. Please share your thoughts and predictions below.

****UPDATE****
I just thought I’d update this post in response to the Academy Award nominations having been announced now. Earlier I predicted the nominations and I am pleased to say I was (mostly) accurate. I predicted eight of the ten Best Picture nominees successfully. I was incorrect when I suggested ‘The Hangover’ (winner of Best Comedy or Musical at the Golden Globes) and ‘It’s Complicated’ might be included. However, I was happy to be wrong as two of my favourite films of last year were nominated instead: ‘District 9’ and ‘A Serious Man’. Whilst neither will end up winning the award (‘The Hurt Locker’ and ‘Avatar’ must be considered favourites, and both are nominated for nine awards overall) I am glad to see both making the list and earning themselves that honour. I was very pleased to find Carey Mulligan in the Best Actress category, as predicted. In fact, in that category I only got one guess wrong (Julianne Moore was not nominated, but Helen Mirren instead). It’s the same story with my picks for the actor category, with one wrong guess, in this case Tobey Maguire was not nominated and Jeremy Renner, of ‘The Hurt Locker’ was. A good mistake again. I guessed correctly with the nominations for both supporting categories, though I only guessed three names for each in that case. I was incorrect about Tom Ford being nominated for the director category for ‘A Single Man’, with Tarantino the preferred choice in the final shortlist.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen a foreign language film slipping into the Best Picture category now that the shortlist has been expanded. 'The White Ribbon' is certainly a better film than many that made the list. And whilst 'The Hangover' wouldn't have been my pick for Best Film, it would have been good to see comedy being acknowledged. However, it was pleasing to see an animated film successfully able to escape its sub-category this year, and 'Up' is deserving of the honour. All in all I'm pleased with the nominations. Whilst 'Avatar' will probably win the Best Picture and Best Director awards, I am really happy to find that six of my top ten films of 2009 (see the list in the right-hand margin of this blog) are nominated for awards, with three nominated for the main prize.

The "Worst Movies Ever"?

It's official! A new poll has found to be true what we'd hitherto only suspected: Joel Schumacher's 'Batman & Robin' is the worst film of all time. That is, at least, according to the readership of the UK's Empire Magazine, the votes of whom have formed the basis for a "50 Worst Movies Ever" poll on the magazine's website. Aside from the winner, the list includes the likes of 'Transformers 2', 'Year One' and 'The Pink Panther 2' from the year just gone, aswell as high entries for the 1980 film 'Raise the Titanic' and 'Highlander 2'. Ok, now I know that such reader polls are to be taken with a pinch of salt. But I'm not going to diminish this list, but instead I think it is worth our consideration for a number of reasons.

Firstly, if anything this list is more interesting as an indication of what is currently very unpopular rather than what is really historically the "worst movie ever" as the title claims. Most bad films are, of course, seen by very few people (Michael Bay's output seemingly acting as the exception to the rule) and hence a really bad film will only appear on the list if it has achieved a certain notoriety as "so-bad-its-funny", a type of film ably represented on this list by such camp favourites as 'The Room' (must-see trailer below!), 'The Avengers', 'Battlefield Earth' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'. Generally, though, the films on this list are of a certain technical standard, with reasonable levels of acting and direction (though sadly not in the winner's case). Therefore the list is really "which big studio movies didn't people like?"

Secondly, the list provides an insight into the watching habits of readers of the magazine and gives a decent impression of the publications target demographic. Aside from the aforementioned "Plan 9", there aren't any films on the list which pre-date the 1980's (that's right: the first eighty years of cinema were near faultless). It's really gone downhill since the eighties though: a whopping thirty-seven of the fifty films listed (that’s 74%) were made in the last decade! However, this is an understandable lack of perspective in the list, given that Empire’s readership are probably reasonably young and have seen more films from this period than any other (or at least remember them more vividly). We can see this "last thing you saw" syndrome in full affect in earlier lists too. Michael Medved's reasonably famous book "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time (And How They Got That Way)", published in 1978, features numerous films from the 1970's, including films like 'The Omen', 'Exorcist 2' and the innocuous disaster sequel 'Airport 1975'. Doubtless a similar poll conducted ten years ago would have included ‘Waterworld’, a film absent in this new list and seemingly forgotten (or reclaimed) now. Of course, these lists need to have well-known, contemporary films on them if they are to appeal to a wide audience, so in that respect they are brilliant for their publishers. A reader who finds some obscure, straight-to-video horror film or a forgotten silent movie in the list is likely to feel alienated and may stop reading altogether.

Thirdly, it is perhaps most interesting to consider the oldest films on the list as being there on merit, as enduring examples of bad film. George Lucas's ill-fated 1986 adventure film 'Howard the Duck' features, as does 'Superman IV', 'Jaws: The Revenge' (the one starring Michael Caine) and the disastrous 'Heaven's Gate'. The 1990's throw 'Showgirls' and 'Street Fighter' (one of four video game adaptations on the list) into the mix. These films seem to have earned their place on this list. There also seems to be a number of people who have used this list to express an agitation with the diminishing returns offered by many sequels, a sort of protest vote: 'Spiderman 3', 'Matrix Revolutions' and 'Blade Trinity' are all examples of instances where a once-popular franchise has run out of goodwill from the cinema-going public the third time around.

Finally, if the films on this list are representative of which sort of bad films people have paid to see, and not simply the definitive "worst ever", then it paints a depressing picture for UK cinema. Only two UK films make the list ('Swept Away' and 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men'), whilst the remaining forty-eight are American imports. You could see this as evidence that American films are inferior to those imported from elsewhere, or to those made on these shores, but in reality this seems to confirm the dominance that Hollywood enjoys at the UK box office. Yes, it seems funny to decry UK film and wider world cinema not making more of an impression on this list, but it would have been encouraging to find that people had been drawing from a deeper, more-varied pool of movies.

All in all, an interesting list, whatever you think of the choices.
To read the full list for yourself visit Empire's website here, and then kindly return and share your thoughts on the results on this blog!

It's official: 'Avatar' IS the king of the world

How about that then? 'Avatar' has overtaken 'Titanic' to become the highest grossing movie of all time. Of course, the ticket prices have gone up since 1997 (and 3D ticket prices cost even more) so this doesn't necessarily mean more people have seen 'Avatar' (yet), though I'm sure it's still got time. After all, it has only been out for six weeks and it will get a boost after it wins all the Oscars in March. It may even benefit from increased replay value due to the fact that we are yet to have true 3D in our homes, with some seeing this as the last chance to experience the film in this way.

I didn't think 'Avatar' would be as popular as 'Titanic'. Sure it has had a lot of publicity and then there is the 3D which will have peaked a lot of people's curiosity, but 'Titanic' arguably had an equal balance between romance, action and historical interest, whereas 'Avatar' is more skewed towards the action. Well, I was very wrong indeed, and not for the last time, I'm sure. Whatever you think of the film it has surely been good for the industry and should be praised for getting people into cinemas at least.

Apparently it is the first part of a planned trilogy. Will it go the way of the 'Star Wars' prequels where the first film grossed the highest and people didn't come back for more? Or will it do what Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings have done and gross more and more with each release? In other words, will James Cameron have the top four highest grossing movies of all time on his hands in the next decade? We will have to wait and see. We shall also have to wait and see how 'Avatar' affects the world of film production in general. Will Hollywood studios greenlight a whole raft of 3D, live-action movies in the next few years? Is 3D here to stay? I'm sure the debate about the future of 3D movies has really only just begun.
My short review of 'Avatar' was published on the Splendor Cinema blog and can be read here.

The latest Dukes/Splendor podcast is here!

That's right, it's that time again. Last Friday Jon Barrenechea and I sat down to discuss 'A Prophet' and 'Up in the Air' and, as usual, there was some general chatter about film distribution. You can listen to the episode here or by downloading it from iTunes (where you'd be a fool not to subscribe).

Jon also makes some interesting points about protection and exhibition of domestic cinema, which he goes into in more detail on his blog (with regards to the "banning" of 'Avatar' in China). The man makes a lot of sense.

Apologies for some issues with sound quality this week. I have found an external mic, and it will hopefully be better next time.
Finally, for those with an interest, I have just started a "sister" blog to this one with a focus on video games. Please give it a look, if you are so inclined.