Awards Season 2022: Screen Actors' Guild (SAG) Awards Winners

Just a quick update for you today, to let you know the film winners from the 28th Screen Actors Guild Awards, held last night (Sunday 27th February) at the Barker Hangar in Santa Monica, California:

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture

CODA

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role

Will Smith (King Richard)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role

Jessica Chastain (The Eyes Of Tammy Faye)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role

Troy Kotsur (CODA)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role

Ariana DeBose (West Side Story)

Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture

No Time To Die

It's always nice when awards bodies shake things up and make it feel less like a coronation and more of a competition.

Whilst Troy Kotsur's performance has been nominated multiple times throughout this awards season, this is his first win (with Oscar frontrunner Kodi Smit-McPhee previously winning the Golden Globe for his turn in The Power Of The Dog). CODA's Best Cast win seemed to come as a big surprise to a lot of people, not least actress Marlee Matlin (who plays Kotsur's wife). 

Whilst we're on the subject of shaking things up, Chastain's win for playing disgraced televangelist Tammy Faye Bakker has also put the metaphorical cat amongst the pigeons, especially as a) Nicole Kidman won the Golden Globe, and b) none of the Best Actress Oscar nominees were also nominated for a BAFTA. It'll be interesting to see how things pan out over the next few weeks.  

Helen Mirren was this year's recipient of the SAG Life Achievement Award, following in the footsteps of such figures as Betty White, Rita Moreno, Julie Andrews, and Lily Tomlin. 

In the television categories, Korean action drama Squid Game took home three awards whilst Ted Lasso won two, and Kate Winslet was awarded Outstanding Performance By A Female Actor in a Television Movie or Limited Series for Mare Of Easttown. 

Congratulations to all winners!

Next stop with awards season is this Sunday (6th March) with the Independent Spirit Awards, bucking tradition and being handed out weeks before the Oscars rather than the day before. 

[For the handful of people who may care, this is to let you know that there might be a delay with the blog featuring the Spirit Awards winners as Awards Guru (TM) Tez- i.e. the only one of the Watchers who is actually bothered about this frippery- is on holiday next week, and the results might not be available before he goes. He'll make every attempt to get the post sorted before he heads off, but- if he's not able to- he'll discuss the results when he's back on Friday 11th March] 

Awards Season 2019: Razzies Nominations

And so, as is traditional now on the eve of the Oscar nominations, we come to one of the more lighthearted and less serious awards: the Golden Raspberrys (Razzies), dishonouring the worst in film in 2018. 

Here are the full nominations for the 39th Annual Razzie Awards 

WORST PICTURE

Gotti

The Happytime Murders

Holmes & Watson  

Robin Hood

Winchester 

WORST ACTRESS

Jennifer Garner (Peppermint)

Amber Heard (London Fields)

Melissa McCarthy (The Happytime Murders and Life of the Party)

Helen Mirren (Winchester)

Amanda Seyfried (The Clapper)  

WORST ACTOR

Johnny Depp (Voice Only) (Sherlock Gnomes)

Will Ferrell (Holmes & Watson)

John Travolta (Gotti)

Donald J. Trump (As Himself) (Death of a Nation and Fahrenheit 11/9)    

Bruce Willis (Death Wish)

WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Jamie Foxx (Robin Hood)

Ludacris (Voice Only) (Show Dogs)

Joel McHale (The Happytime Murders)

John C. Reilly (Holmes & Watson)

Justice Smith (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom) 

WORST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Kellyanne Conway (As Herself) (Fahrenheit 11/9)

Marcia Gay Harden (Fifty Shades Freed)

Kelly Preston (Gotti)

Jaz Sinclair (Slender Man)

Melania Trump (As Herself) (Fahrenheit 11/9)

WORST SCREEN COMBO

Any Two Actors or Puppets (Especially in Those Creepy Sex Scenes) (The Happytime Murders)

Johnny Depp & His Fast-Fading Film Career (Sherlock Gnomes)

Will Ferrell & John C. Reilly (Holmes & Watson)

Kelly Preston & John Travolta (Gotti)  

Donald J. Trump & His Self Perpetuating Pettiness (Death of a Nation & Fahrenheit 11/9)

WORST REMAKE, RIP-OFF or SEQUEL

Death of a Nation 

Death Wish

Holmes & Watson

The Meg 

Robin Hood  

WORST DIRECTOR

Etan Cohen (Holmes & Watson)

Kevin Connolly (Gotti)

James Foley (Fifty Shades Freed)

Brian Henson (The Happytime Murders)

The Spierig Brothers (Winchester)  

WORST SCREENPLAY

Death of a Nation

Fifty Shades Freed

Gotti

The Happytime Murders

Winchester

So it's a four-way tie between Gotti, Holmes & Watson, The Happytime Murders, and Death Of A Nation for most nominations (each with 6) 

Nothing for Venom. Nada. Zip. This surprises me. Joint-top nominations for The Happytime Murders? That does not surprise me. As for the other categories, everything seems pretty standard as the Razzies go. Slating for the Fifty Shades... films? Check. Raging contempt for Johnny Depp? Check.

In case anyone's wondering, Death Of A Nation is a 'docudrama' which- and I kid you not- compares the dramatic fracturing of the US over the presidency of Abraham Lincoln and the presidency of Donald Trump. A film which has the tagline: 'Can we save America a second time?' It's written and directed by 'documentarian' and convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza whose last film- Hillary's America: The Secret History Of The Democratic Party- did a massive hatchet job on Democrats in general and Clinton in particular and got similarly panned at the 2017 Razzies. Unsurprisingly, and with a depressing inevitability, D'Souza received a full pardon by Trump in 2018.  I look this shit up so you don't have to. You're welcome, random people of the Internet. 

The Razzies winners will be announced on Saturday February 23rd 2019 (ie. the day before the Oscars). 


Right, after all of this malarkey, it just leaves the big one: the 91st Academy Awards, whose nominations will be announced tomorrow (Tuesday 22nd January). I am still weighing up my predictions for the main six categories- several categories are wide open-  but I will post them later today (once I've actually made a decision). 

Review: Trumbo (UK Cert 15)

The story of screenwriter Dalton Trumbo may not be widely known but his treatment- and the treatment of the others known as the Hollywood Ten, all of whom were blacklisted by the industry for their association with Communism and some of whom were imprisoned for contempt by refusing to name names at the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)- remains one of the most shameful periods in Hollywood history. A new film, directed by Jay Roach (Austin Powers, Meet The Parents), tells his story with Bryan Cranston starring as the titular screenwriter.

Trumbo was (or had been) an active member of the Communist Party of the USA but was one of those subpoena'd to appear before the HUAC. He was found guilty of contempt and was imprisoned for 11 months. After his imprisonment, he went on to continue screenwriting under a pseudonym for a studio that specialised in B-movies. He also wrote the story for Roman Holiday but gave it to fellow writer Ian McLellan Hunter who acted as a front. He also wrote another film that won an Oscar for its screenplay- The Brave One- which was also awarded pseudonymously. It was only in 1960 when Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger publicly acknowledged his writing for Spartacus and Exodus respectively that his blacklisting ceased. 

Cranston's performance is strong, bordering on mannered on occasions, but full of vigour. Luckily, Trumbo is not portrayed as a mere saint or martyr; he is given shade, mostly by being an objectionable, irascible pain in the arse to his family members who he has working for him as he tries to finish his B-movie scripts (often writing in the bath). A particularly strong moment is when Trumbo butts heads with John Wayne over his World War II record. Cranston's performance earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Actor (the film's only nomination) and he also had a load of other Best Actor nominations. It's deserved; it's a powerful performance even if the writing tends to be a bit simplistic at times.

Helen Mirren gives a delightfully venomous edge to her portrayal of Hedda Hopper, the gossip columnist who was one of the main opponents of Communists, using her position to name names, even going so far as to threaten one of the studio heads with exposure if he didn't fall in line. There are stong supporting turns for Louis C.K. as blacklisted writer Arlen Hird (a composite character of several other writers) and Michael Stuhlbarg as actor Edward G. Robinson who eventually did testify at the HUAC hearings (although denied ever naming names). Not all characters are as strongly fleshed out however: Diane Lane doesn't have much to do as Trumbo's wife Cleo, for instance. 

The film has come in for some criticism about the representation of Trumbo- who apparently had outspoken support for brutal Soviet-style regimes- and also about the historical accuracy (or otherwise) of what's presented. Every storyteller has an agenda and will pick and choose what to leave in and what to leave out and how to use what they've left in. You have to accept what's being presented in front of you. Here, there are moments of didacticism. There are several clumsily-executed homilies about truth and justice which jar but that's squarely a problem with John McNamara's script. 

This is a solid, if unremarkable, biopic but a story that definitely needs to be told.

Rating 3 out of 5

Tez 

Shakespeare On Film

Yesterday was the 450th anniversary of the birth of William Shakespeare. 

Whether you rolled your eyes and groaned when Shakespeare was mentioned at school or if you thoroughly loved his work, there's no denying that Shakespeare was a genius. Thanks to him, the world has some of the most beautiful, powerful, tragic, funny, horrifying, thrilling and engaging theatre ever performed (and which keeps being performed). We also have an expanded vocabulary- Shakespeare is known to have originated many words including assassination, bump and eyeball- and lines from his plays have passed into common parlance ('eaten me out of house and home', 'neither a borrower nor a lender be'). 

Shakespeare's plays are just that. Plays. They are not meant to be read in a stuffy classroom or lecture hall. They are living, vibrant texts that absolutely come to life when performed. 

So, to celebrate the birth of the Bard, we take a look at ten of Shakespeare's plays and their various film adaptations.

ROMEO & JULIET

The tragic tale of 'star-cross'd lovers' is most pupils' introduction to Shakespeare and it's become one of the most enduring love stories in the whole canon of literature. It's been filmed many times- in the 1936 version directed by George Cukor, Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard played the teenaged lovers (she was 34, he was 43); Franco Zeffirelli directed a rather beautifully lyrical version in 1968 with Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting in the lead roles, whilst the kinetic, frenetic wham-bam visuals of Baz Luhrmann's 1996 version (with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes) kickstarted a whole slew of updated Shakespeare productions on stage and screen.

A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM

Four young lovers, fairies, magic spells and a group of wandering players are the elements of this comedy. The 1935 version (directed by William Dieterle and Max Reinhardt) stars Jimmy Cagney as Bottom and the late Mickey Rooney as Puck, whilst the lush 1999 adaptation by Michael Hoffman transplants the scene from Athens to the Sicilian countryside and has a star-studded cast including Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett, Stanley Tucci, Kevin Kline, Christian Bale, Anna Friel, Sam Rockwell and Sophie Marceau.

HAMLET

There are three adaptations of Shakespeare's finest tragedy which are of particular interest. 

Laurence Olivier's 1948 black-and-white production holds a couple of firsts: it's the first (and so far only) Shakespearean adaptation to win the Best Picture Oscar, with Olivier as the first (and so far only) actor to win an Oscar for a Shakespearean performance. Thoughtful and powerful, like so many of Olivier's performances, it has remained the benchmark for all others to come after it. 

Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 adaptation with Mel Gibson in the title role is a bit hit-and-miss, but there are great performances by Glenn Close as Gertrude, Stephen Dillane as Horatio and Ian Holm as Polonius, whilst Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version is a full-on, unexpurgated version that stretches to four hours. Absolutely stuffed to the ginnels with star talent, with even minor roles taken by acting royalty, it's the definitive version of the story. 

To give you a glimpse of how good Branagh's Hamlet is, here's a clip which shows the famous 'to be or not to be' soliloquy:

HENRY V

Unashamedly patriotic, this oft-quoted History of the Battle of Agincourt was the perfect morale-booster during the darkest days of the Second World War. Olivier directed and starred in the 1944 version of the play, complete with music by William Walton, and won an Honourary Oscar for his troubles. In 1989, Kenneth Branagh made his directorial debut with a second adaptation of Henry V, following in Olivier's footsteps by directing himself in the lead. 

RICHARD III

The seminal performance of Shakespeare's hunchbacked king is, unsurprisingly, Laurence Olivier's in the 1955 film (which he also directed). His tone of voice (famously spoofed by Peter Sellers when he performed 'A Hard Day's Night') and posture have been the blueprint for playing Richard for decades. However, the 1995 film directed by Richard Loncraine and starring Ian McKellen in the title role went in a different direction and is all the better for it. Set in an alternative fascist English setting, McKellen's turn as the scheming king is just fantastic. 

CORIOLANUS

Not one of Shakespeare's best known plays, this searing Roman drama of revenge and betrayal recently had a stage revival at the Donmar Warehouse featuring a powerhouse performance by Tom Hiddleston in the title role. However, it has also been filmed. A 2011 adaptation was directed by Ralph Fiennes (who also took the title role) and also starred Gerard Butler, Jessica Chastain, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave. There are blistering performances by Redgrave and Cox whilst it's a decent adaptation of a tricky play.

THE TEMPEST

This is my favourite of Shakespeare's plays. There are two particularly interesting film version of this lyrical, beautiful and poignant play. Derek Jarman's 1979 version, starring Heathcote Williams as Prospero and Toyah Willcox as Miranda (above), is full of the usual striking and out-there imagery you would expect for a Jarman film- for instance, the masque of the spirits is represented by opera singer Elisabeth Welch singing 'Stormy Weather'. The second is a 2010 version directed by Julie Taymor, remarkable for the gender-swap of the main character Prospero, now a sorceress named Prospera and played with style by Helen Mirren. Too bad about Russell Brand though.

In this next clip, Prospera gives up her magic in what is one of the finest speeches in the play:

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

There are two very different film versions of this Shakespearean comedy- the first was released in 1993, directed by Kenneth Branagh and starring Emma Thompson and Branagh as Beatrice and Benedick (along with a woefully miscast Keanu Reeves as the villain Don John) and Joss Whedon's delightful, minimalist 2012 adaptation with Whedonverse alumni Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof as the central couple, which succeeds to make the more implausible elements of the b-plot into something moving.

OTHELLO

The tragedy of the jealous Moor has had a fairly chequered film adaptation history, with two of the best-thought-of adaptations- the 1952 version starring Orson Welles and the 1965 version with Laurence Olivier- having the lead character played by a white actor in blackface make-up. However, Oliver Parker's 1995 version casts Laurence Fishburne in the title role who makes for a ferocious Othello, whose descent into jealous madness is aided by Kenneth Branagh as the duplicitious Iago.

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE

Classed as a comedy but with more than its fair share of drama, Michael Radford's 2004 film version sees Al Pacino in fine scene-chewing form as Shylock, determined to get his 'pound of flesh' from Antonio, the eponymous Merchant. The balance of the comedy and drama goes slightly awry here- its difficult to balance the lightness of the caskets against the drama of the court- but its a wonderfully committed performance by Pacino, plus there's an intriguing decision to play Antonio as a man in unrequited love with his friend Bassanio. 

In this final clip, you get to see Pacino's Shylock in full flow as he is questioned over his desire to exact his revenge on Antonio:

Other great film adaptations include:

• Roman Polanski's dark and powerful version of Macbeth (1971), with Jon Finch and Francesca Annis

• Franco Zeffirelli's 1967 version of The Taming Of The Shrew starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor as Petruchio and Kate

• Trevor Nunn's 1996 version of Twelfth Night starring Imogen Stubbs, Helena Bonham Carter and Ben Kingsley

• Titus, Julie Taymor's 1999 version of the bloody revenge play Titus Andronicus, starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange

• Kenneth Branagh's 2000 musical adaptation of Love's Labour's Lost starring Alicia Silverstone, Alessandro Nivola and Nathan Lane

When promoting the latest version of Romeo & Juliet which he adapted and augmented, Julian Fellowes created a bit of a stir by saying 'you require a kind of Shakespearean scholarship' and 'a very expensive education' to be able to follow the language of a Shakespeare play. 

Utter, abject nonsense. 

What you need to understand Shakespeare is a clear production design, a director who understands the text and can get their vision across, and a cast who know what it is they are saying and can convey the necessary emotions. You don't need a fancy degree or years of study. Shakespeare's plays were written and performed for the masses as well as the aristocracy and speak to us all. 

The play's the thing, indeed

Tez

Review: Hitchcock (UK Cert 12A)

The story behind the making of Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock's classic horror/thriller, is as interesting as the finished product. Based on the book by Stephen Rebello which chronicles the entire process, from conception to finished product and beyond, Hitchcock is director Sacha Gervasi's first non-documentary feature film (after Anvil: The Story Of Anvil). 

The opening scene sets the tenor for the film. Wisconsin mass-murderer Ed Gein (Michael Wincott) kills his own brother. After the fatal shovel blow happens, the camera pans across to see Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) standing there with a cup of tea. He then delivers a cheeky speech straight down camera. This blend of drama and wit permeates the film, making a likeable if slightly insubstantial drama, akin to My Week With Marilyn.

Anthony Hopkins gives a sterling performance as Hitchcock; Hopkins is a gifted mimic and has Hitch's rolling accent down to a tee. There are hints of his 'darker side' (explored more fully and unflinchingly in The Girl)- voyeurism,  his 'fantasy romances' with his leading ladies, his tendency to emotionally manipulate his actresses to get the desired result- but these faults never tip him over into being fundamentally unlikeable. Psycho was a massive gamble for Hitchcock and, as such, the stress and anxiety are there in spades. The prosthetic make-up is just brilliant too. The moment when he's outside the movie theatre and is almost conducting the screams of the audience during the shower scene is absolutely brilliant.

Helen Mirren is also just sublime as Alma Reville, Hitch's devoted wife and collaborator. She bears a lot with exceedingly good grace- her husband's infatuations, the people who look past her and through her (despite everything she's done to help Hitch get where he is)- but her performance is never martyred, never suffering. Indeed, one of the main plot points is whether she will have an affair with the silky Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston, turning on the smarm), a conflict that's never really a threat. Her quiet demolition of Hitch when he declares she should be giving him her 'full support' is a brilliantly written and played scene: she never gets hysterical, she keeps it under control but lets him know in no uncertain terms what she does for him.

There is uncanny casting for the cast of Psycho, so hats off to Terri Taylor (casting director) for getting so close to the original. Perhaps the best is James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins. Whilst he bears more than a passing physical resemblance to the late Mr Perkins, D'Arcy's brief performance evokes the actor fully. Scarlett Johannson gives a brilliant performance as Janet Leigh and there are scenes when she's shooting the car scenes for Psycho where I had to do a double take; the hair and make-up team have also done a sterling job. Good too is Jessica Biel as Vera Miles; Miles and Hitchcock had a famously fractious relationship after she dropped out of playing Madeleine in Vertigo due to being pregnant. She gets a couple of meaty scenes not only with Hopkins but also with Johansson, warning Leigh not to get to close to the maestro.

Other decent performances are Toni Collette as Hitch's secretary Peggy Robertson, quietly aghast at the content of the movie but still standing by her boss. Michael Stuhlbarg is also great as Hitch's agent Lew Wasserman, standing up to the studio boss when Hitch is determined that Psycho will be his next picture. Kurtwood Smith is good as head of the censor board Geoffrey Shurlock who clashes with Hitch over some of the content of the film (most notably the flushing toilet, a first for American cinema) and there's a nice one-scene cameo by former Karate Kid Ralph Maccho as screenwriter Joseph Stefano.

The film does take a few mis-steps in places- most notably the use of Gein to show Hitchcock's inner feelings. The killer- inspiration for Norman Bates, Leatherface in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Buffalo Bill in The Silence Of The Lambs- appears to Hitch in dream sequences and even acts as his psychotherapist at one point. Whilst the scenes are used to show Hitch's internal feelings, I couldn't help but feel that a better screenwriter would have found a way around it. A cardinal rule of creative writing is show, don't tell. Sadly, John J. McLaughlin doesn't always do this and the film suffers a little because of it.

The other mis-step is the length of the film. At a positively svelte 98 minutes, the film nips along at a fair old pace. But I wanted more. More information about the actual making of the film, the nuts-and-bolts process, some of the stories (the blood in the shower scene). More about what the actors felt about what they were doing- there are hints that Perkins had a very similar relationship to his mother that Bates did (without the corpse-stealing and transvestism, of course), so that would have been interesting to explore. What the film has done is made me want to read the book it's based on, so that's no bad thing.

You don't really need any prior knowledge of Psycho before you go in, but it'll enhance the experience if you do. All said, a handsomely-made piece, impeccably acted throughout, a wonderful glimpse of behind the scenes of a classic film. It left me wanting more.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Tez

The Tempest (2010)

The Tempest is one of my favourite pieces of literature and my favourite of Shakespeare's plays. So when I heard that there was to be a film adaptation of the play directed by Julie Taymor (Titus, Frida, Across The Universe), I was intrigued. Not least because Taymor would be changing the gender of the main protagonist- from the sorceror Prospero to the sorceress Prospera.


Apart from the switch in gender, the film follows the plot of Shakespeare's original: on the way back from the marriage of his daughter, Alonso (the King of Naples) and his entourage are caught in the titular tempest and are shipwrecked on a distant island. But this  was no act of nature; Prospera  has raised the storm deliberately. She and her daughter Miranda were stranded on the island when her brother Antonio (supported by Alonso) usurped her from the dukedom of Milan. For twelve years, Prospera has been exiled on the island and now has her chance for revenge... The play is such a wonderfully powerful piece, touching on themes of love and loss, revenge and sacrifice, redemption and restoration. With such a strong  base, you would think the success of the project would be virtually assured. Well, not quite. There are a few misgivings that I have regarding the film which stop it being, for me, truly great. 

Just in case you think one of those misgivings in the switch in gender, let me be clear: I don't have any problem with changing Prospero's gender, especially when you have as accomplished an actress as Helen Mirren in the role. Her Prospera is a volcano ready to erupt, full of simmering passion and righteous anger for her treatment (Taymor wisely explains in pretty decent pseudo-Shakespearean writing that Prospera became Duke of Milan once her husband died, was accused of witchcraft by Antonio and then banished). Prospera's journey throughout is powerful stuff and Mirren is just excellent. Her grasp of the Shakespearean language frankly puts some other performers to shame, especially with the two famous speeches ('Our revels now are ended' and 'Ye elves of hills').


Other performances are fairly strong; David Strathairn, Chris Cooper and Tom Conti are all eminently watchable (especially Conti as the garrulous old counsellor Gonzalo), whilst Alfred Molina is good as the drunken butler Stephano. Sadly, Russell Brand grates on me every time he's on screen as the court jester Trinculo and Reeve Carney, who plays Ferdinand, has rockstar looks but is utterly bland (not sure whether that's the role or the acting though). They also shamelessly rip a song from Twelfth Night- 'O Mistress Mine'- so that Carney (a rockstar) can get to sing.

Taymor's visual style is impressive, utilising the harsh backdrops of Hawaii and Lanai to good effect and sequences showing the magical apparatus in Prospera's cell (and the masque for the marriage) are excellent. However, there were a few moments which baffled me, mostly around the presentation of Ariel, the airy spirit who serves Prospera. Sadly, Ben Whishaw's decent performance was slightly spoiled by the fact that, to me, he looked like a ghost from a Japanese horror movie - bone-white skin, black hair, staring eyes- which undercut him slightly. However, there is a rather poignant moment towards the end when Ariel and Prospera share a scene (and it appears to be the only time Mirren and Whishaw were in the same room together). 


As a piece of film-making, it's assured if a little shaky in places. As an adaptation of Shakespeare, its success (or otherwise) will depend on how much importance you give to the re-gendering of Prospero. Like I said previously, it wasn't a huge issue for me and raised some interesting questions: is a mother's love different from that of a father's, for instance. As a curio, this is well worth seeing but by no means would I consider it the seminal version of the play.


Rating: 3 out of 5


Tez