Skip Navigation

Frame by Frame

Archive for the ‘Film Industry’ Category

The Continuing Battle to Save Classic Films

Thursday, February 5th, 2015

Richard Verrier has an excellent piece in the Los Angeles Times on the battle to save the films of the past.

As Verrier writes, “Inside a 260,000-square-foot warehouse just over the Grapevine off Interstate 5, an archivist from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences clambered up a ladder to inspect a stack of dusty 35-millimeter film cans . . . The man on the ladder pulled several silver-colored canisters off the shelf and plunked them on a pallet that would later be shrink-wrapped and loaded onto a truck for delivery to the academy’s film archive. By the end of the day, some 5,000 cans of film would find a new home at the academy.

That left just 40,000 cans to go in the mission to rescue Hollywood’s ‘orphan films’ — movies abandoned by producers or the companies that financed them. Patiently watching over the operation was Greg Lea, a cheerful native of west London and fervent film historian. He and his colleagues at Deluxe Entertainment Services Group have spent the last two years trying to return the forgotten films, some dating back half a century, to their rightful owners. Most are art house or independent films that never made it to the big leagues.

‘This is 20th century American history, so you don’t want it to be lost,’ Lea said. ‘It may be someone’s dream that didn’t get abandoned, but they couldn’t afford to move the project any further. When you’ve got someone’s dreams, you don’t want to end up throwing them in the trash can.’ The end of film is a dramatic story in Hollywood. Paramount made headlines last year when it told exhibitors it would release virtually all future movies digitally. Most theaters around the country have invested millions to ditch their film projectors and install digital systems.

Slackening demand for film prints prompted Deluxe and Technicolor to close their film labs, laying off hundreds of workers. Fujifilm Corp. has exited the movie film business, leaving Eastman Kodak as the sole remaining major supplier of film stock. Kodak filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012, though several studios have banded together to keep the company’s film business alive.

Although digital technology enables studios to distribute movies much more cheaply than film, not everyone is happy about film’s pending demise. Prominent directors, including Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino, have opposed the relentless march to digital formats, contending the medium is inferior to 35-millimeter film. But there is a more fundamental question: When Hollywood goes all digital, what happens to the film legacy left behind?

It’s not an idle question. The original negatives of some 90% of the films made between 1901 and 1929 no longer exist. The same nearly happened in the 1970s when studios decided to divest themselves of nitrate film, which was used before 1950 and was highly flammable.  For the last two years, Deluxe has worked closely with the major studios and others to ensure that tens of thousands of film negatives were rightfully claimed.

But many more are orphans — produced by companies that either forgot about them, went out of business or no long wanted to pay to keep them in storage facilities . . . ‘Some companies make a decision that they don’t really want it anymore,’ Lea said. ‘It’s somebody else’s problem. You can understand it. But for those of us who want to preserve the film history, it’s the wrong decision.’”

You can read the entire story by clicking here, or on the image above.

Variety’s “Broken Hollywood” Series – Harvey Weinstein on the Collapse of The DVD

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

Variety is running a new series called “Broken Hollywood” – Or, How The Industry Must Change To Survive

In a guest opinion piece in Variety on January 28, 2015, Harvey Weinstein, producer extraordinaire, posted these thoughts on the collapse of the DVD market, and what Hollywood has to do to make up for loss of this revenue stream: “Every day we face new technology challenges. We have to look at our models — the theatrical model, the VOD [video on demand] model. We have to think about what we do with the lack of a DVD business. That was once an insurance policy for the industry. How do we deal with the newer technologies that are emerging and with the piracy that’s a part of the new digital age?  Little by little by little, VOD is making up for the DVD business. It’s more challenging, but I think eventually the technology will catch up and equate to what we lost.

Obviously, all of these things weigh in on how much money you’re bidding on projects. You don’t know exactly what everything will be worth, so you have to go with your pure gut. If a movie grossed $5 million in theaters, it used to mean that it would do $5 million on DVD. Now, with EST {Electronic sell-through; a method of media distribution whereby consumers pay a one-time fee to download a media file for storage on a hard drive] and VOD and everything else, who knows what you’re going to carve out? The theatrical business is now the biggest profit center. If you don’t win in theaters, you’re in trouble.

The movie dictates its own release strategy. You have to know what you have and be careful how much you spend on P&A [prints and advertising]. The Internet has become an incredibly effective marketing tool, but it’s also the source of greatest competition. There’s limitless content out there, so it’s easy to stay home and watch all these things. You have make a case for why your movie is compelling. What Radius-TWC [Radius-TWC; a the boutique label dedicated to simultaneous multi-platform VOD and theatrical distribution, started by The Weinstein Company] is doing with VOD is finding new ways to reach an audience. Nobody has time anymore. They’re pulled in so many directions. If they want to see a movie at 11 at night while the kids are asleep, this is the way to do it. It’s become an important source of income.

We’re entering a golden age for television. You can tell a better story there. You have more time. I can’t tell Marco Polo in under 50 hours. I wouldn’t know how to do anything other than offer up an abridged bad version of that. Let’s hope all technology companies follow Netflix’s model and marry content and technology with the same passion.” So, the new things out there are not only VOD, which has been around for a while, but also the actual, and legal downloading of files you store on your hard drive, or electronic sell-through. Already, many sites, such as Vimeo are doing this with HD video; iTunes and Amazon have been doing this in their own way for quite some time. But now it’s taking over the market. It’s the future, as I’ve said before; like it or not, physical media is becoming a niche product – if that.

This is an excellent series of “think pieces” – check out more from Variety’s “Broken Hollywood” series here.

Terence Fisher and Peter Cushing On The Set

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

Peter Cushing and director Terence Fisher on the set of Frankenstein Created Woman in 1966.

This completely silent, unedited, straight-from-the-camera newsreel footage from British Pathé News documents a day’s work on one of the last first-rate Hammer horror films, and one of the last Hammer films shot at Bray Studios, Windsor, Berkshire, where the company created some of their greatest Gothic thrillers in the late 1950s up to the mid 1960s. There’s really little more to say; we see Cushing in the beginning posing for the camera, ostensibly going over his script; greeting actor Susan Denberg; and then on set with Thorley Walters and director Fisher (above, right) during shooting.

Fisher, as was always his habit, kept a very low profile on the set, gently coaxing the actors through the script while at the same time quietly and efficiently fighting the clock to comply with Hammer’s legendarily frugal shooting schedules. I wish there was more of this material, but at least we have this – there’s a commercial in front of it, it seems, but there’s nothing I can do about that. Nice to see Fisher and Cushing in color, working on one of their last truly successful films, though even here, it was spoiled by producer interference when a plot element was added that didn’t fit in with the overall material – but that’s another story.

Click here, or on the image above, to see this short silent newsreel.

Roland Emmerich Tackles the Stonewall Riots

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

Director Roland Emmerich has created a new film on the historic Stonewall Riots.

Too few people today remember the Stonewall Riots, which started in a gay bar in Greenwich Village in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn. Police harassment of lesbians and gays was routine during the 1960s, even in Manhattan, but on this particular occasion, the patrons of the Stonewall decided to fight back for their rights, serving as a flashpoint for the Gay and Lesbian liberation movement. Roland Emmerich has directed a stack of forgettable disaster and science fiction action movies, most of which made a fortune at the box office – films like Stargate (1994), Independence Day (1996), Godzilla (the 1998 version), The Day After Tomorrow (2004), 2012 (2009), and most recently White House Down (2013) – but with Stonewall Emmerich turns his attention, with a much smaller budget of just $20 million, to a project which he has a deep connection to as a gay man, and I only hope he does the subject justice.

As Emmerich told Jeff Labrecque during the shooting of the film in the June 4, 2014 issue of Entertainment Weekly, “I was always naturally interested in the subject matter. Then, maybe two or three years ago, a couple of friends and I were kind of talking about marriage equality, and one of them said to me, ‘You know, Roland, you should make a gay movie.’ And I’m saying, ‘Well, nobody wants to see a gay movie from me.’ And then I kind of said, ‘Well, if it’s an important subject matter, then maybe they will.’ At the same time, I was involved with the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, and they told me that 40 percent of all homeless youth are gay, which is a disproportionate amount. That was like the bridge to today. It’s still going on. [Gay] kids get thrown out of their homes and become homeless, and [my movie] is like a story of one of these kids who gets involved in the whole Stonewall riots, because the riots were actually kind of done by the kids . . .”

The film was shot in Montreal, partly for tax reasons, but also because, as Emmerich noted, “nothing in New York looks like the ’60s anymore, so we actually ended up with quite a big undertaking. We actually built part of Christopher Street and of the side of the Stonewall, just to be correct and how it really looked. Secondly, we do a lot of blue-screen. The movie ends with the first gay march, the gay liberation march in 1970, and that’s not possible anymore. So we do the whole scene with special effects, like blue-screen. We shot [that] in modern New York and turn it into 1969,  Well, it has a kind of quiet main-street approach, you know. I think it’s a very good story, a very good script. It’s more into the indie world, but I’m hoping it can break out like Brokeback Mountain. We’ll see. That’s the cool thing about it. I don’t have to worry as much about how many people see it or not. There’s not so much pressure when you make a movie like this. I think the movie will make its money back through presales.”

This is a story that needs to be told, and as I said, I only hope that Emmerich does a good job with it; working with actors Jeremy Irvine,  Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Ron Perlman, it would seem that he has a chance. Emmerich really is much more at home with big budget films, and as he told Labrecque, “It’s really cool to go from small project to big project. I’m going to do this in the future a lot. There’s nothing worse than sitting around for two or three years, and sometimes that naturally happens between these big movies, because they’re very expensive and very hard. You’ve got to get a green light. And then you just fill up [your time] with stuff that you want to make, and that’s cool.”

Distribution plans in the US seem to be on hold, or at least proceeding very quietly; though it’s already been pre-sold in Germany. I wonder what kind of US distribution it will get – probably “selected cities,” and then art houses, and VOD, which would be a shame if the movie lives up to its potential. Clearly, for the US market, this would seem like an “indie,” and Emmerich’s usual audience probably won’t give the film a chance. But I personally hope that it’s successful, and that Emmerich can successfully make a humanly scaled production – even if he thinks of it as a “small project” – because this is a part of American cultural history that people need to know more about.

Roland Emmerich’s Stonewall is – at this writing – scheduled for a 2015 US release date.

Stewart O’Nan’s West of Sunset

Sunday, January 25th, 2015

Stewart O’Nan’s novel covering the last years of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s life is the real deal.

This was recommended to me by the writer Timothy Schaffert, who, knowing of my own work on Fitzgerald many years ago, thought I would find it interesting. And he’s absolutely right. Most Hollywood fictionalized bios ring rather false, given the fact that the era of classic Hollywood is now so long ago and far away, and the tendency to sentimentalize, or over sensationalize Fitzgerald’s last truly harrowing years, from 1937 to 1940, when he batted around Hollywood in a number of jobs, starting at MGM but eventually sliding down the ladder to near oblivion before his premature death from a heart attack in 1940, seems almost irresistible to most writers.

But here, O’Nan brings the story of Fitzgerald’s last days to life, when he struggled to stay sober in the face of crippling alcoholism – not always with success -and managed to alienate almost everyone around him when he fell off the wagon. Agents deserted him, his powers were declining, and he never really understood the way the Hollywood game was played. O’Nan captures all of it, in a book of such page turning intensity that I sat down and read it straight through in a matter of hours. As the end of the narrative nears, the velocity picks up with truly cataclysmic intensity, and one feels that one gets a new, and appropriately sympathetic vision of Fitzgerald, an artist who waged war against his own self-destructive impulses and lost the battle.

There may be one too many star cameos here and there, and Humphrey Bogart looms larger in the book than he did in Fitzgerald’s real life, but others, such as Hunt Stromberg, Robert Benchley, Alan Campbell, Dorothy Parker, and of course, Sheilah Graham, the great love of his later life, a gossip columnist who seemed to understand Fitzgerald better than anyone else during his tenure in Tinseltown, and in whose apartment he died on December 21, 1940, are real and tangible presences. Not for the faint of heart, this is a novel about irrecoverable loss and isolation – the promise of youth and the collapse of overnight fame – and most importantly, about the Hollywood studio system, which never understood artists – then or now. O’Nan’s book is a stunning achievement, in which Fitzgerald appears as a fully rounded person, with all of his flaws and charm intact.

All in all, an amazing accomplishment.

Rare Houdini Film Premieres At TCM Film Festival

Saturday, January 24th, 2015

A very rare Harry Houdini feature film has been rescued and restored by Turner Classic Movies.

As Lisa de Moraes writes in Deadline, arguably the most authoritative source for Hollywood news, “Turner Classic Movies is bringing its restoration of ‘lost’ Harry Houdini classic The Grim Game to have its world-premiere screening at its TCM Classic Film Festival in March. This much-sought-after 1919 film — a complete print of which only recently was brought to TCM for restoration — features the escape artist and legendary illusionist in one of his few starring roles. The film was discovered and the restoration was produced and restored by film preservationist Rick Schmidlin, whose credits include such restorations as The Dickson Experimental Sound Film (1894/95), Greed (1924), London After Midnight (1927), Touch Of Evil (1958) and Elvis: That’s The Way It Is – Special Edition (1970).

In The Grim Game, Houdini plays Harvey Hanford, a young man who is framed for murder. As Hanford escapes from the police and goes after the gang of men who framed him, the movie offers numerous opportunities for Houdini to display his own skills as an escape artist, illusionist and stuntman. Among the most remarkable sequences is a mid-air collision between two airplanes that was a real accident caught on film and used in the story.

The only known copy of the complete film was held by Larry Weeks, a 95-year-old retired juggler who lived in Brooklyn. Weeks had obtained the film from the Houdini estate in 1947, had only shown it a few times and  never had been willing to sell it. Schmidlin got in touch with Weeks and visited him to assess the condition of the film. Weeks showed him the two film cans that contained The Grim Game. Schmidlin explained that TCM was willing to make an offer, and after two hours of discussion, Weeks finally agreed.

Schmidlin arranged to have NYU provide storage in its on-site vault. At NYU, an examination of the film revealed the total movie was 5 1/2 reels, not the five reels that always had been reported. They also had two reels of negative film. ‘Harry Houdini is an compelling cultural icon, but most people don’t know about his movie career,’ said Charles Tabesh, SVP Programming at TCM. ‘He made several films, but The Grim Game was his first feature, considered his best. It’s fascinating to see Houdini as an actor . . . it’s really fun to watch [a film] that even the most hardcore fans haven’t had a chance to see.’ During the world-premiere screening in Hollywood, composer Brane Zivkovic will conduct a live performance of his new score for the film. Additionally, The Grim Game will make its world TV debut on TCM later in the year.”

Turner Classic Movies – an invaluable cultural resource. Can’t wait!

Netflix Reaches for Global Domination With 60 Million Subscribers

Wednesday, January 21st, 2015

Why is this man smiling? Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix.

As Dan Frommer reports in Quartz, “Netflix finished last year with 57.4 million subscribers, up 4.3 million from the third quarter—its strongest subscriber growth all year. Fourth quarter revenue reached $1.48 billion, in line with what analysts were expecting and up 26% year-over-year. Netflix added more streaming subscribers outside the US (2.4 million) than in its home country (1.9 million) for the third quarter in a row. Netflix expects to pass 60 million members for the first time this quarter, finishing Q1 with 61.4 million subscribers worldwide.

The takeaway: Netflix’s international expansion is starting to work. In the company’s Q4 letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings noted that overseas growth exceeded expectations, and the company is now expanding faster than previously anticipated: ‘Our international expansion strategy over the last few years has been to expand as fast as we can while staying profitable on a global basis. Progress has been so strong that we now believe we can complete our global expansion over the next two years, while staying profitable, which is earlier than we expected. We then intend to generate material global profits from 2017 onwards.’

Australia and New Zealand are up next. Hastings says Netflix is still considering its options for China—’all of them modest. With the growth of the Internet over the next 20 years, there will be some amazing entertainment services available globally,’ Hastings wrote. ‘We intend to be one of the leaders.’ What’s interesting: Hastings no longer blames Netflix’s US price increase earlier in the year for its slower subscriber growth. ‘We’ve found our growth in net [subscriber additions] is strongest in the lower income areas of the US, which would not be the case if there was material price sensitivity. Additionally, we implemented a similar price change in Mexico during Q4, and saw no detectable change in net additions.’”

And meanwhile, as this chart from the same article demonstrates, physical media, such as DVDs and Blu-rays, are declining in popularity just as fast as Netflix’s streaming service takes off. So if there’s a particular film that you want in a permanent copy, or at least a semi-permanent copy, I would move quickly now and buy the DVD. Already, Netflix’s offerings are skewing much more heavily to Hollywood pop culture titles, while the Criterion collection streams on Amazon, which offers a much more eclectic selection of classic and foreign films. Netflix is for mainstream movies – it will probably replace theaters for the vast number of viewers within the next ten years – and then DVDs will vanish.

Soon Netflix and Amazon will be the only games in town.

Las Vegas Odds for Academy Awards

Friday, January 16th, 2015

In Variety, Kevin Noonan reports the “morning line” from Vegas on the upcoming Oscars.

As Noonan notes, in Las Vegas “the smart money bets on Boyhood at the Oscars. The Wynn casino resort in Las Vegas released its initial Oscar odds following Thursday morning’s announcement of the 2015 nominees, with Boyhood coming in as the early favorite in a number of categories including best picture. Director Richard Linklater, at 1 to 6, and supporting actress nominee Patricia Arquette, at 1 to 7, also look like early favorites for trophies. On the other hand, American Sniper can start preparing its ‘just happy to be here’ lines, with 75 to 1 odds for both best picture and Bradley Cooper for best actor.

The predictions, produced merely for fun as gambling is prohibited on balloted contests, shine a light on the perceived lack of competition in the female acting categories; in addition to Arquette’s odds, best actress nom Julianne Moore (Still Alice) is the biggest individual favorite at 1 to 9. Comparatively, the tightest race seems to be in best actor, where Michael Keaton (Birdman), at 5 to 6, is only a slightly safer bet than Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything), at 11 to 10.

The full list of Vegas odds can be found below.

Best Picture
Boyhood, 2 to 5
The Imitation Game, 7 to 1
The Grand Budapest Hotel, 9 to 1
Birdman, 18 to 1
Selma, 20 to 1
The Theory of Everything, 30 to 1
Whiplash, 60 to 1
American Sniper, 75 to 1

Best Actor
Michael Keaton, Birdman, 5 to 6
Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything, 11 to 10
Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game, 20 to 1
Steve Carell, Foxcatcher, 30 to 1
Bradley Cooper, American Sniper, 75 to 1

Best Actress
Julianne Moore, Still Alice, 1 to 9
Reese Witherspoon, Wild, 8 to 1
Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl, 25 to 1
Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything, 40 to 1
Marion Cotillard, Two Days, One Night, 60 to 1

Best Supporting Actor
J.K. Simmons, Whiplash, 1 to 5
Edward Norton, Birdman, 10 to 1
Ethan Hawke, Boyhood, 12 to 1
Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher, 14 to 1
Robert Duvall, The Judge, 30 to 1

Best Supporting Actress
Patricia Arquette, Boyhood, 1 to 7
Emma Stone, Birdman, 12 to 1
Meryl Streep, Into the Woods, 15 to 1
Kiera Knightley, The Imitation Game, 25 to 1
Laura Dern, Wild, 28 to 1

Best Director
Richard Linklater, Boyhood, 1 to 6
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Birdman, 7 to 1
Morten Tyidum, The Imitation Game, 18 to 1
Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel, 22 to 1
Bennett Miller, Foxcatcher, 45 to 1″

I’m not saying I agree with these choices, by any means, but still, these are the same predictions I posted yesterday. However, let’s not forget some of the most egregious snubs, most especially Ava DuVernay for directing Selma, which got a nomination for Best Picture, but if that’s true, then who should get the credit — could it be the director? And what about David Oyelowo as Martin Luther King in the same film – why no nomination there? I can easily understand The Lego Movie not being in the running — it’s trivial at best –  and there are so many other good films that didn’t even make the cut. But for me, the major omissions were DuVernay and Oyelowo in the field, when they both clearly deserve to be in the running – and winning – that would be nice, too.

This is an industry event, nothing more, but they could have made more inclusive choices.

William Beaudine’s Birthday

Thursday, January 15th, 2015

William Beaudine (with pipe) on the set of The Life of Riley (1927), with cinematographer Charles Van Enger.

William Beaudine, Sr. was born this day in 1892. One of the most prolific directors of the American cinema, with more than 300 feature films to his credit, as well as many television series episodes, he had a long career in silents, particularly directing Mary Pickford in some of her major films, such as Sparrows (1926), before professional jealousies consigned him to the margins of Poverty Row, and an endless succession of program films, which are nevertheless much more interesting that most historians give him credit for.

Always ahead of the curve, Turner Classic Movies is spending most of today running Beaudine’s work in a series of sparkling new prints of his fllms during his period in the 1940s at Monogram, which have been screened for years in inferior dupes that didn’t do the original negatives a shred of justice. Now, in clean new digital transfers, we can see them as they were really made; will someone now release them on DVDs? Some are already out in that format, in the Warner Archive series, as I noted in my blog entry for the DVD release of Beaudine’s brutal crime drama Don’t Gamble With Strangers (1946). But more needs to be done.

As The MMC Website notes in their excellent overview of his career, Beaudine was “born William Washington Beaudine in the Bronx on January 15, 1892. His father was also William Beaudine, a driver for a milk company; his mother was Ella Moran. Bill Beaudine was the oldest of three sons. His father and his youngest brother Ted died of pneumonia in 1905, so by age thirteen he was sole support for his mother and little brother Harold. This early assumption of responsibility gave him a practical outlook on life and directing, a determination to keep working no matter what.

Beaudine entered show business in 1909, as a clerk at the Biograph Company in New York City. He doubled as an extra on D. W. Griffith shorts, worked as both cameraman and assistant director for Mack Sennett, while continuing to play bit parts. In October 1914 Bill was offered a job at Kalem Film Company in California. He immediately married his fiancé Marguerite Fleischer, and after one year as an assistant director, he was promoted to director with Minnie the Tiger (1915). In 1916 he switched to Universal Film Manufacturing Company, directing shorts for them, on many of which he worked with writer Jack Cunningham.

From 1918 to 1921 Beaudine went from one studio to another, as companies went under or decided they could do without him. His brother Harold also came out from New York as a director of silent shorts. He was eventually picked up by Warner Brothers, who often loaned him out. With Watch Your Step (1922) for Goldwyn, Bill Beaudine made the jump to feature length films (five reels), and by 1930 had gone freelance, and was living in a Beverly Hills mansion with his wife, four children, and servants.

One of his best films was Penrod and Sam (1931), but after that, he fell afoul of Sam Briskin at Columbia, and was out of work for six months, the longest period in his life. By the time he picked up work again at Paramount, all five of the banks in which he kept his savings had failed. Paramount itself went bankrupt, and Beaudine scrambled to find work wherever he could, sometimes directing shorts for MGM using the screen name ‘William X. Crowley’. Beaudine made one of his most successful films with W. C. Fields, The Old-Fashioned Way (1934), but despite its popularity he received only one job offer, from a British film company. Beaudine would spend four years in England making well-received comedies that very few people in America ever saw.

Returning to the states in 1938, he found that he was forgotten in Hollywood. He had difficulty getting and keeping jobs with major studios, so he went to work for ‘poverty row’ independents. He soon acquired the reputation of a competent workman-like director, who was always well-prepared, and obsessed with maintaining the shooting schedule. He in turn grew a little cynical about the mediocre screenplays and barebones budgets he had to work with.

By the 1950s, Beaudine has moved over to television, and directed for Walt Disney and others during his last years, as well as helming numerous episodes of Lassie. In the 1960s, he directed episodes of Naked City and The Green Hornet. In 1969, Beaudine was given a tribute for his long career by the American Film Institute. He died March 18, 1970, in Canoga Park, California, of uremic poisoning.”

In recent years, Beaudine’s work has seen something of a revival, for although much of his work is journeyman material, at his best, he was capable of really solid genre craftsmanship, and doesn’t deserve the nickname “One Shot” which was erroneously applied to him long after his death. Beaudine, in all of his films, was a conscientious and patient auteur – if professional misfortune hadn’t kept him off the lots of the major studios, he undoubtedly would have done a great deal with better material. As it was, he did very best with the material he was given, and thus his films, especially in the 1940s, given a much more accurate vision of the era than many major studio productions.

William Beaudine – one of the most prolific directors in Hollywood history.

2015 Oscar Nominations & Predictions

Thursday, January 15th, 2015

And so the Oscars roll around again.

First off, let’s just remember that although The Academy Awards have managed to elevate themselves into the stratosphere of award ceremonies, they’re industry awards, voted on by members of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, not not critics, or members of the public. Their main function, now and always, is to highlight Hollywood as the supposed center of the cinematic universe, and underscore the hegemony of Hollywood mainstream filmmaking, while making a few cursory nods to the rest of the world with one “foreign” film – it’s really a three hour advertisement for the American film industry, voted on by those who are a part of that industry – so as Norman Mailer might say, “it’s an advertisement for itself.” In short, unlike Cannes, or Berlin, or the New York Film Festivals, this is strictly an industry event.

That said, it seems to me that in this particularly contest, the big winners will be –

Best Picture, BOYHOOD, Richard Linklater’s ambitious real time experiment;

Best Actor, Michael Keaton for BIRDMAN on the “comeback” theory, and also because BIRDMAN got so many nominations throughout the entire ballot;

Best Actress, Julianne Moore for STILL ALICE, which is a fantastic performance in a very small, tightly budgeted film, and a very good choice, although it’s sad to see Marion Cotillard nominated in the same category for the infinitely superior TWO DAYS, ONE NIGHT, but that will never win;

Supporting Actor, J.K. Simmons for WHIPLASH, and absolutely deserving in every sense – Simmons has been a journeyman actor for decades, and here he really gets a chance to shine, and really delivers – a remarkable performance;

Supporting Actress, Patricia Arquette for BOYHOOD;

Adapted Screenplay is wide open, but I’ll go for Damien Chazelle for WHIPLASH;

Best Foreign Film, IDA – a virtual lock;

Best Editing, Tom Cross for WHIPLASH, a dazzling display of virtuoso technique, especially in the final moments of the film;

Best Special Effects, Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter and Scott Fisher for INTERSTELLAR, though personally I think Dan DeLeeuw, Russell Earl, Bryan Grill and Dan Sudick should win for CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER, which despite its comic book origins is a much more intelligent and thoughtful film than Nolan’s entry;

and I’ll stop there.

BIRDMAN or GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL may well sweep the other categories through sheer momentum; but the whole thing is really up in the air at this point, and these are just my thoughts on the subject. There were so many excellent films that weren’t nominated – as always – so this is just handicapping a very closed field. But we’ll have to wait until February 22nd, 2015 to find out what really happens – so until then, take a look at the ballot yourself, by clicking here or on the image above, and place your bets.

The entire ballot is posted as a pdf here; see what you think.

About the Author

Wheeler Winston Dixon

Wheeler Winston Dixon, Ryan Professor of Film Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, is an internationally recognized scholar and writer of film history, theory and criticism. He is the author of thirty books and more than 100 articles on film, and appears regularly in national media outlets discussing film and culture trends. Frame by Frame is a collection of his thoughts on a number of those topics. To contact Prof. Dixon for an interview, reach him at 402.472.6064 or wdixon1@unl.edu. Visit him at his website, wheelerwinstondixon.com

RSS Frame By Frame Videos

  • War Movies
    UNL Film Studies professor Wheeler Winston Dixon at one of the earliestand most enduring film genres, the war movie. […]
  • Frame By Frame - Hollywood Composers
    UNL Film Studies professor Wheeler Winston Dixon highlights the most prolific Hollywood film composers. […]

In The National News

National media outlets featured and cited Wheeler Winston Dixon on a number of topics in the past month. Find out more on the website http://newsroom.unl.edu/inthenews/