Nathaniel's New York Film Festival: Coming Soon

The New York Film Festival starts officially on September 24th. Critics screenings have already begun but so far I've been in absentia. I have my reasons though the selection committee and certain cinephiles would surely scoff at them so they will go unnamed. This morning I picked up my credentials but opted to skip Carlos the Olivier Assayas film about Venezuelan revolutionary Ilich Ramirez Sanchez or "The Jackal" as he's infamously known in history and in the movies. I love Assayas (Summer Hours + demonlover = movie heaven plus rare artistic range!) but I can't do 5½ hour movies. I just can't!

That's one of the reasons people will scoff (oops. so much for unnamed). I've heard it's terrific but I know my limits. My back and ass know them, too. Hopefully I'll get a chance to see it in its piecemeal French miniseries form at some point. I love serialized drama as much as anyone but for me that's a television-specific experience and it should stay where it belongs.

While exiting the Walter Reade I spotted a "coming soon" poster for Desperately Seeking Susan.


It's not every day you see a "coming soon" poster for a movie that's 25 years old starring your favorite celebrity of all time. Director Susan Seidelman will speaking to the crowd at the screening (Sept 23rd -- get your tickets) and Rosanna Arquette and Aidan Quinn will also attend. If they blasted "Into the Groove" through the speakers and Madonna made a surprise appearance in her original costume I would die on the spot with a stupid grin on my face. What a way to go.

Susan is not part of the official festival (shame) though the fest usually does have a few retros. See, NYFF isn't exactly known for comedy if you know what I mean. They lean hard on Cannes lineups but only the dour subtitled selections. If NYFF goes "mainstream" it's usually for something gloomy, like say dead children a la Clint Eastwood's Changeling but not dead children a la Rachel Getting Married because that movie was too warm and humane! I'm partially joking since I love the NYFF but that 2008 selection committee decision will haunt me forever. They crazy. I shan't ever forgive them.

My point is this: in one particular NYFF year I sat through three films in a row from multiple countries starring voyeuristic barely verbal loners who stalked / killed women. I can't even talk about it! I just can't.

For 2010, I'm most excited for the following seven in roughly this order:

• Another Year -because it's a Mike Leigh film. That's all I need.
• Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives -because it won the Palme D'Or and I found Apichatpong Weerathesakul's Tropical Malady so worthwhile in its enigmas.
• The Social Network -because people keep saying it's "a perfect 10".
• My Joy -because Nick loved it.
  
  
  
• Meek's Cutoff -because Michelle Williams and Kelly Reichardt's last collaboration Wendy & Lucy was so moving. I'm sometimes allergic to westerns, though, so we shall see.
• Poetry -because I still think about Lee Chang-dong's Secret Sunshine frequently and staying power is not properly rewarded at the cinema.
• Black Venus -because even though Guy Lodge didn't love it, it sounds fascinating.
  

I'll see other pictures too but those have made me the most curious.

And because Jonathan Glazer's Birth (2004) seems to be coming up frequently in discussions round here lately, you should probably know (should you be in NYC) that one of the special events this year is an evening with film scholar David Thomson (The New Biographical Dictionary of Film) in which he will screen and discuss this wonderful and misunderstood picture.
*

Breakfast With... Alexandre Desplat (Magnificent Film Score Repurposed.)

Press play for the musical accompaniment to this post.

Have any of you seen the new "wake up" commercial for Quaker Oats? It's one of those commercials that would look right at home during the Olympics, as it's full of gorgeous images of Americana, sunrise, sports and other daily wholesome endeavors like the building of skyscrapers. If I hadn't been looking away from my telly when it aired, I doubt I would have made the connection but the entire commercial is scored to the opening theme of Birth (2004). Alexandre Desplat is arguably the best movie composer working so why shouldn't his scores live on past their movies?

The commercial voiceover goes like so...

Wake up America. It's morning and morning is amazing: it's when we charge into the future, when we blasted off for the moon, scaled the heighest peak, and flew for the very first time. Morning starts and changes everything. It's a clean slate, a fresh start.

So come dreamers and trailblazers, champions ...come builders. It's morning. Wake up and be amazing.

Does your breakfast make you amazing?

You know what's amazing, oatmeal eaters of the world? Watching Nicole Kidman as Anna fall under the spell of a 10 year old boy who may or may not be her dead husband reincarnated. That's what's amazing. Though, I have to admit Anna's "trailblazing" does not exactly provide her with a clean slate or a fresh start.

And she does need to wake the hell up.


Wake up Anna. Wake up.
*
*

TV @ the Movies: Thelma & Louise Hates Texas. Drag U & Marie Antoinette.

I get many emails asking me to write more frequently about the small screen so I figured I should cave if a tv series really excites me (like Mad Men) but on one condition: it has to reference the movies (or feature a beloved movie actress) or involve awardage. I've highlighted movie-adjacent TV before like pre-fame TV roles or unexpected actress moments. So henceforth, I'll package it in series form. You know how we do here at TFE. If something I happen to catch on television references the movies, I'll feature it on Saturday mornings to thank it for doing so.


Last week on Friday Night Lights Becky fell asleep watching Thelma & Louise and that is... well, I can only suspend so much disbelief and you just don't fall asleep watching that movie. It's awesome -- top ten of the 90s level awesome. But Becky is my least favorite character so whatever. She's a mess and there's no accounting for taste. There's a reason Louise won't drive thru Texas, y'all! She'd rather drive right off a cliff. I can't even discuss falling asleep watching Thelma & Louise without turning red with fury. Inappropriate! Those women deserved better.

So for this edition of "TV @ The Movies" a brief discussion of Drag U instead.

RuPaul's Drag U episode 1.2 "Dateless Divas"
I'm fairly certain this show is not half as good as it could be.

• Qualm #1: a makeover show. Like we needed another one.
  
• Qualm #2: I'm assuming Raven won't be in every episode and when the first Raven-less episode appears, I will feel cheated.
  
• Qualm #3: why isn't the entire panel of judges famous queens like Lady Bunny? I mean to have a "Dean of Dance" and it's not Candis Cayne? That's just wrong!) -- but I love that the underlying message is so subversive: everyone would be better off if they became a drag queen.

Raven: These girls are lucky that they have the advanced technology of the dragulator!
RuPaul: The Dragulator is a highly sophisticated piece of tech-no-lo-gy

Raven was the hottest miss thang on last year's Drag Race (and anyone who coins the phrase "giving Michelle Pfeiffer Bitch" has won me for life.) so I'm happy that she's practically the star of Drag U already. And, of course, Ru's always had a way with hilarious line readings. The Dragulator is awesome. Ru understands the camp value of a low budget (not to mention the power of a catchphrase and cheap gimmick). Anyway, the [sassy head bob] tek•nol•uh•jee suggests that contestant Lenae becomes "Honey Boom" and she likes it.

"I was like, 'That's Marilyn Monroe. And she really is inside of me!'"

It's really more like Chicago's Queen Latifah when Velma's like "Not you too, Mama!?!" in despair of platinum blonde Roxie Mania but never mind. Later Lenae dances to "I'm Every Woman" in this new gold lamé platinum blonde version of herself which confuses the girlie iconography even further Whitney + Queen ≠ Marilyn??? Whaaaa... But I shouldn't doubt the Dragulator because it is to RuPaul what "Magic Screen" was to Pee Wee, yes?


So... eventually Lenae as Honeyboom blows a kiss to the judges with a "Happy Birthday Mr. President" proving once again that Marilyn did it best. More celebrities ought to understand their own image with pinpoint precision and sell it accordingly at public events. If they hope to be remembered 48 years after their death, that is.

Meanwhile Lenae's competitor Debbie is transformed into "Moxie Mayhem" saying

"It's like Memoirs of a Geisha meets Marie Antoinette"

And you know that mash-up sent me reeling... cuz I hate and love in equal measure! [To recap: Memoirs = hate / Marie = love]


'Honeyboom' won the competition but I was the true winner because it got me to thinking about Marie-Antoinette, aka the 'misunderestimated' movie of the Aughts.

Leaping far from the RuPaul's Drag U topic, out of curiousity, I thought I'd check that statement. Nope! Oops. It's almost the most critically hated of my top 50 favorite movies of the Aughts but not quite. These are the least acclaimed of those, according to the TomatoMeter, the only films in my top 50 to not score in the 80% and above of critical approval. These are the places I refused consensus. Not out of contrarianism, mind you, but from pure love of the movies in question.

• Birth (39% on Rotten Tomatoes)
• Marie Antoinette (55% on Rotten Tomatoes)
• I ♥ Huckabees (62% on Rotten Tomatoes )
• Bring It On (64% on Rotten Tomatoes)
  
• Idioterne (The Idiots) (70% on Rotten Tomatoes)
  
• Moulin Rouge (77% on Rotten Tomatoes)
• 25th Hour (78% on Rotten Tomatoes)
  
• Beau Travail (79% on Rotten Tomatoes)

What'cha think about that?
*
I Heart Huckabees

Decade in Review: 2004 Top Ten

Moving on to 2004. What follows is my original top ten list, based on films released in NYC in 2004. If I have anything new to say that'll be in red after the original text.

Top Ten Runners Up (in descending order): Aviator, Hero, House of Flying Daggers, Mean Girls, Maria Full of Grace, The Five Obstructions, Collateral, Goodbye Lenin!, Birth and Closer Yes, I'm absolutely horrified by the rankings now. Nothing about that ranking feels right now. I am most ashamed that Birth was only at number [cough] 19 in its year. In my self-flattering memory I "almost" put it in the top ten despite the then brutal reviews. I was ahead of my time! Oh well... at least I did actually name it the #1 most underappreciated film of the year. At the time I said...

Jonathan Glazer made a significant splash four years ago when his brilliantly acted heist film Sexy Beast debuted to much acclaim and some arthouse success. That film's success was attributed largely to its magnetic star Ben Kingsley. Glazer's sophomore effort is also built around a brilliant performance, Nicole Kidman's this time. The reaction has been decidedly different. It's far closer to hate than love. Birth is a confounding and unsettling movie and it's meant to be. Nevermind that it's on many worst lists. It's worth seeing because Glazer is going to be an important filmmaker. Despite an ending that feels like a fumble, there is much in Birth that's superbly handled, haunting, daring, and evocative. Stay tuned to Glazer's career.

That big career I was hoping for hasn't materialized (there's still no Birth follow-up) but the film has aged beautifully. But I still love everything on my top ten list so I don't know where exactly I'd put it now... or Mean Girls, which I've watched more than any of the films in the top ten list since. All of a sudden the dawning realization. Might 2004 be the best year of this decade rather than 2001?

10 Bad Education (Pedro Almodovar)Pedro's films have a way of growing stronger on repeat views. You become more attuned to their beautifully executed imagery and storytelling structures. Even if you resist they eventually win you over (though I've yet to succumb to Matador). So, on principle, I knew better than to leave this twisty 'fag-noir' out of my list, even if I loved the also-rans just as much.

Bad Education has many immediate virtues; Gael Garcia Bernal's carnality and triple-whammy star turn, and the expected visual thrills and chills. Curiously though, this fascinating noir also has one virtue that seems to be playing a double role as vice; the layers of stories that are actually all one story. Therein, at least at this writing, lies my tiny seed of discontent and the film's 10th place rank (low for a Pedro). I'm not sure that Bad Education's many superb threads weave expertly into one superlative garment. I loved the stories. I understand them as one story. But I waited for the grand emotional fusion which never quite came. The disparate threads are tightly knit in my head but not my heart.

09 I ♥ Huckabees (David O Russell)
A comedy of chaotic singularity. It's been a long time since we've seen rapid-fire sophisticated verbal joking alongside manic slapstick. It's been an even longer time since the last "existential detective comedy" (Wait --was there a last one?)

If the cultural zeitgeist in 2004 had been all about playful soul-searching rather than blindly choosing sides, Huckabees may have hit big. The film's climax, a scene between two existential detectives (Hoffman & Tomlin) and corporate climber Brad Stand (Jude Law) is formed around the question "How am I not myself?" This inquiry is first posed as a throwaway. Brad's more defensive than curious. He's annoyed that the detectives have questioned his basic internal honesty. He exasperatedly asks "How am I not myself?" as if swatting them away. (What a silly thing to question!) But the detectives begin to repeat the inquiry aloud, spinning it around their own tongues to taste its true meaning. The comedy often emerges from the way they engage and disengage from conversations becoming distracted by their own curiousity. They are both service providers and true believers. But laughs are not the only purpose of this movie. The sequence darkens. Going about his day Brad moves from exasperation to self-loathing to fear, the question haunting him all the while. It takes on a mantra feeling by the end. It's a good question to answer, if you're up for it.

Like Mean Girls this is ridiculously rewatchable. I adore it and I still wish there could be a movie serial that ran before all features following the further exploits of Bernard and Vivian, existential detectives. In fact I wish they could interrupt every bad movie and start "investigating" the director, actors or screenwriter's issues. Why are you making this movie?

08 Dogville (Lars von Trier)
Prologue) In which we are stunned by brilliant staging and an impressive huge cast.
Chapter 1) In which Grace (Nicole Kidman) arrives and Tom (Paul Bettany) the

obvious director-surrogate in this parable gives a 'moral lecture' and is immediately chastized by the narrator for "lashing out somewhat haphazardly in all directions."
Chapter 2-5) "Happy Times" -The cast interacts lovingly...
Chapter 6,7) until their love is exposed as shallow self-interest and their "true face" emerges and the film becomes totally shattering.
Chapter 8,9) In which the director (Von Trier) lashes out somewhat haphazardly in all directions and the film ends.

Dogville is harrowing, excruciating in its inevitability, and unforgettable. While colder than the 'Golden Heart trilogy' (Breaking the Waves, The Idiots, Dancer in the Dark) which raised Von Trier's profile to an icon of divisiveness, Dogville is equally potent. Understandably misread as an Anti-American screed, it's closer to a condemnation of the entire human race. This town is "...not far from here."

07 The Incredibles (Brad Bird)
I saw The Incredibles three times within the month of its opening. And every time something else opened the following month that only looked half-appealing I thought to myself. "Now, self, you can always go and see The Incredibles again!" This great superhero film may be written off as comfort food, but it's not without nutritious value. I've never considered re-watchability to be the strongest indicator of quality but it counts as an obvious plus. The film's cheerful but serious inventiveness becomes more obvious upon repeat viewings.

Brad Bird, who also directed the last American 2-D animation classic The Iron Giant, deserves all the kudos he gets for this special toon. He also wrote the jam-packed, funny and relevant screenplay. He's not the first auteur to work in animation, but he's the genre's greatest superhero behind the scenes in quite some time. He may only be voicing Edna Mode ("I never look back! It distracts me from the 'now'.") but to me he's Mr. Incredible.

For more on Brad Bird, I suggest reading Robert's Directors of the Decade entry. I haven't seen this movie in too long. I'm totally watching it again as soon as this year's awards crush is over.

06 Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (Kim Ki Duk)
Gorgeously humane and intimately scaled, Spring... is the spiritual tonic that the cinemas most needed in this year of religious-fueled fury (The Passion) and human pettiness and ferocity (Dogville). Director Kim Ki Duk also moved from cruelty (see previous films) to peace and meditation here. spring, summer, fall, winter...and spring is structured with complete simplicity (the title is truthful), but what could have been a precious and obvious film is instead profoundly moving.

05 Before Sunset (Richard Linklater)
Making a sequel to a film as delicate and "moment in time"-ish as Before Sunrise seems like a fool's errand. But writer/director Linklater and his stars Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke are no fools. This re-meet is less cute (though still cuddly), deeper, and more resonant. It improbably improves the original, which is a pretty awesome trick. Celine and Jesse have aged well. Before Sunset's purity (it's told in real time) gives a beautiful ebb and flow to the chatty conversation and emotional reveals, and culminates in one of the great movie endings.



The last two movies just get to me. Man, do they get to me. Tears!

04 Sideways (Alexander Payne)
He's four for four now. Payne first made a mark in 1996 when Citizen Ruth won many cinephile hearts for its satirical know-how, poking fun (with gusto) at both sides in the eternal abortion rights battle. Next up came Election (my personal favorite) a hilarious high-school-as-macrocosm of politics movie. And finally, two years ago broader audiences finally discovered his work (with the help of a genuine legend Jack Nicholson) in About Schmidt. Apparently though, for a complete triumph with the sacred trinity of Audience|Critics|Oscar, the fourth time is the charm.


The current backlash-generated question is: Are critics wrong to have been so unanimous in declaring Sideways, a light angsty middle age buddy comedy, the best film of the year? Perhaps. Is that anything to hold against this funny, incisive, memorable, and superbly acted gem? Absolutely not. Drink up!

Though I still think the backlash was as suspect as it claimed the critical reaction was, I readily admit that I don't love this as much now. Before Sunset feels richer when it comes to romantic baggage and if the negatives of this and, say, Birth were on fire. I'd be trying to save Birth. You know? But it's a good movie. So there.

03 Vera Drake (Mike Leigh)
Leigh is most frequently thought of as an ensemble director. His now famous method of working involves months of rehearsal and improv with his team of actors before the movie has a real script and before any footage is shot. His films tend to have uniformly strong work from their entire teeming cast... even the bit roles are perfection. What is less often remarked upon is the way his film's are often built organically around one magical, lived-in and accomplished lead performance from a character actor. Add Imelda Staunton's Vera Drake to the list that includes Brenda Blethyn's teary Cynthia Purley (Secrets and Lies) and the great Jim Broadbent's towering, magnificent William Gilbert in Topsy Turvy.

I wish I had given Imelda Staunton my gold medal that year. I was too caught up in that silly Bening vs. Swank round two stuff. Argh! Done in by Oscar punditry and my own actressexual "issues".

02 Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi)
The first film in years to make me feel like a little kid again. Absolutely joyous from start to finish. My gratitude goes out to Tobey Macguire and Kirsten Dunst who continue to exhibit a rare chemistry. Kudos also to the team behind Doctor Octopus. Superheroes need a great rogues gallery and Doctor Octopus alone makes 2 a significant improvement on the original. I don't know if "there's a hero in all of us" but Sam Raimi is one in my book. He continues to show complete acceptance and love for that most maligned genre; the comic book film. This webslinging adventure is, quite simply, the greatest superhero movie ever. "Excelsior!"

01 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry)

When I first published my top ten list I never entered any text to explain my number one choice. For a movie that's at least partially about self-erasure, I suppose that's appropriate. The movie is utterly brilliant. Unlike Joel's memories, it will endure forever.

I know you love Eternal Sunshine, but what else made 2004 great for you? Oscar went crazy for Million Dollar Baby (I like it more now than I did back then), the public went crazy for Shrek 2 and The Passion of the Christ and The Bourne Supremacy. You?
*

The ReBirth (?) of Nicole Kidman

I'm trying not to place 2010's Rabbit Hole, the stage to screen story of a grieving family, on a pedestal of unrealistic expectations. Acclaimed plays can make brilliant movies but there are no assurances. They can be tricky beasts to cage in two dimensions. So I'm trying to lower my expectations but Nicole Kidman is not making it easy for me.

Aaron Eckhart co-stars in Rabbit Hole"The reason why I’m in the movie is
Nicole. If she wants to work with somebody, then that’s what happens"

First she offers the directorial job to the brilliant John Cameron Mitchell who I've loved since I saw him tear it up on stage as Hedwig when I first moved to New York. Now in the NY Times she brings up Birth, one of her very best, as comparison to Rabbit Hole.

When I first responded to [Rabbit Hole], it was because I read it, and it was about grief, which fascinates me,” she said. “Loss and love seem to be themes that run through my work.” This film is about “a marriage and the way that people fuse through pain, that you can either be pulled apart or you can come together. In the same way that ‘Birth,’ a film that I did, was about loss of the loved one who’s your partner in life, this is the most profound loss, and it’s the worst place to tread. And so my nature tends to be to explore something that I’m terrified of."

I love the modesty of "a film that I did"... not "a film that I killed in. I'm sometimes a genius" which is a more accurate statement, if you ask me.

$100 Million. No Questions Asked.

Twitch asked a great question on Friday that has been dancing around in my head naked all day: which auteur would you like to see handed a huge pile of money ($100 mil') and complete freedom to make whatever the hell kind of picture they wanted to make with it? Our pal JA answered (always worth a read) and I should, too.

My five.

Jonathan Glazer. Birth and Sexy Beast are both so well directed and imagined with limited budgets. They're also the kind of features that scream 'this director will have trouble getting his films financed!' Imagine how pissed the cinephiles of 2050 are going to be if his feature career ends with Birth, only his second, a movie that will undoubtedly be revered by then.

Terry Gilliam. He makes every list like this... and that's out of more than pity. Even when he doesn't have a lot of money, the visuals are memorable. And an always fascinating if not always great filmography that includes Baron Munchausen, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas, Tideland, The Brothers Grimm, Brazil, The Fisher King ... he so deserves a major comeback.


Paul Thomas Anderson. Because, for such a contemporary auteur, he does period incredibly well (Boogie Nights & There Will Be Blood) and I love that its hard to predict what he'll come up with. That said he's never going to get $100 million to work with since he's never made a sizable hit. That's the audience's fault, not his. His films are so thrilling. Why isn't everyone lining up every opening weekend? He should be a household name by now.

Warren Beatty. Mostly because I want to see him work again one last time. He's getting up there in years (72) and he's only directed four pictures: Heaven Can Wait, Reds, Dick Tracy, Bulworth; none of them looked cheap so he'd need a lot of money to play with. No conditions but if there's another Reds in him, my god it needs to come out.

I'm cheating for the last picture with both conditions, cast and theme. I want a Women's Picture omnibus film. Each entry must be as obsessed with actresses as your average Almodóvar picture and Dianne Wiest must appear in all ten segments.

portraits from Portroids

Other suggested cast members: Kristin Scott Thomas, Julianne Moore, Jane Fonda, Kerry Washington, Samantha Morton, Emmanuelle Béart, Holly Hunter, Ari Graynor, Ludivine Sagnier and Catherine O'Hara. The following 10 directors gets $10 million and 10 minutes for their entry: Lynne Ramsay, Jonathan Demme, Claire Denis, Jane Campion, Richard Linklater, Wes Anderson (but only if it's completely about Angelica Huston), Patrice Chéreau, Brad Bird, Brian de Palma and Jodie Foster (provided her segment is an abbreviated version of Flora Plum. That's the only way we're ever seeing it)

I know that only 20 people would buy tickets but I love all 19 of you who'd join me in the theater.
*

Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole and the Legacy Factor

Why is it so hard to stay in the present with the movies? The news cycle is constantly asking us to look ahead a year or two. Just barely came to grips with performances we might be loving in 2009 and already we have to think about Nicole Kidman's 2010? Alas, it can't be helped. When it comes to Nicole Kidman we can't look away.


She's taking over Cynthia Nixon's (Sex & The City) TONY winning role as the grieving mother in the hit play Rabbit Hole. Aaron Eckhart takes over for silver fox John Slattery (Mad Men) as the grief-stricken father. Emmy regular and TONY winner Tyne Daly was the third name actor in the Broadway production, playing the wife's mother. No word yet on which movie star will be getting her part. This is yet a further reminder that it's nearly impossible for actors to be cast in the screen versions of their stage successes, even when they're already known quantities. You only get lead movie roles if you're an 8 figure salaried movie star.

News about the transfer of the Pulitzer winning Rabbit Hole spread like wildfire Thursday. I'm not quite sure what prompted the sudden news surge since Nicole Kidman was booked for this film as early as January 2007 . Maybe it's that the whole thing is more real now with Aaron Eckhart in place and none other than TFE favorite John Cameron Mitchell (himself a Broadway vet) signed to direct.

<-- John Cameron Mitchell (right) with fellow firestarter Bruce LaBruce last year. John is 45 years old and he still looks like he's 25. I hate him.

It's that last bit that's most interesting. John Cameron Mitchell has made one widely acclaimed outré miracle (Hedwig and the Angry Inch) and one divisive but still award winning outré picture (Shortbus). He has never directed someone else's material for the screen. It makes sense to employ him for a theatrical conversion since he understands the medium but why Rabbit Hole? It doesn't seem to fit into what we know of his sensibility. It's a relatively conventional story of a husband and wife whose child is accidentally killed. It won stellar reviews for its performances and its incisive look at grief but studies of grief aren't exactly untrodden ground at the movies and the material isn't out there in any way. Its detractors claimed it wasn't theatrical enough for the stage. It was more like a screenplay already.

I hope Mitchell has an interesting take on it. But even if it remains only a straightforward quality drama, good on Kidman. She can't be stopped. If there's a great or challenging director alive that she wouldn't crawl across beds of glass to work with, it's probably just because she hasn't heard of him/her yet. For all the heat she takes in the press for her box office returns being disproproportionate to her salary and her "weird" taste in unconventional projects (i.e. interesting failures or thorny near-masterworks), she'll have the last laugh. Most movie stars are beautiful and talented. Those things are givens. Few of them seem to understand the importance of working with auteurs. They concentrate instead on finding mainstream hits, franchises and middlebrow prestige pieces. Kidman has done that, too, sure. But the best thing about her is her willingness to throw herself down the artistic rabbit hole and into the wilds of auteurial visions. I'm a staunch defender of Kidman on this front. Think of Dogville, Birth, Eyes Wide Shut, Portrait of a Lady, Moulin Rouge! and even the ones that didn't work like Fur and Australia.

Auteur-loving Kidman, always plotting.

I'm of the opinion that stars that serve auteurs first and foremost have the best chance of being remembered once they're dead. Uma Thurman has had a continually rocky career. Will she be remembered in 50 years time? Absolutely! Playing muse for Tarantino seals the deal. Stars that don't challenge themselves by working with real auteurs tend to fade, no matter how blinding their spotlight currently is. Box office is mostly irrelevant to the legacy equation. Consider this current example: Julianne Moore. She started her acting career in the 80s but found her first substantial fame in 1995. Guess which movie people associate with her ascendance: Assassins which grossed $30 million or [safe] which grossed $512,000? That's what I'm talking about! And that's with only 14 years of distance. Imagine what happens to the collective cultural memory in 50 years time.

So... Nicole Kidman. Mega famous now. Mega famous forever. Add John Cameron Mitchell to her ever expanding list of auteur conquests. Cross your fingers that their collaboration makes Rabbit Hole really sing and sting on the screen.
*

Rant From a Defensive Kidman Fan

I normally enjoy the snark and wit of the blog "by Ken Levine" but I took issue with this post which takes easy potshots at one of the best actresses on the planet. The usual complaints are there: botox, box office poison, weird movies, etcetera. I'm not sure why hating on Nicole Kidman became such a popular sport. It can't only be her ubiquity. Cate Blanchett is even more irremoveable from magazines and screens these days and it's definitely uncool to hate on her as I've discovered ... I'm still dressing the wounds, you savage unforgiving beasts!


I think quite possibly the reason it's cool to hate on Kidman is sadder to point out: her artistry. It's true that her mainstream efforts tend to stink a little. She doesn't have the best taste in mall films or her heart isn't in them. And just as the haters suggest Kidman makes small weird and unsuccessful films, too. These intermittently challenging volleys to the audience --Fur, Birth, Dogville, Margot at the Wedding etcetera-- seem to upset people, else why would they so frequently be used in the targeting of the star? I don't think we're used to behemoth stars confronting us with our own limitations as movie consumers and I think it's even more discomforting -- for whatever reason...I'm no psychologist-- to realize that this type of film/role is what makes one particular A Listers heart beat quickly and fondly. And I think even the people who won't watch these movies have realized this about Mrs. Urban by now.

Our other formidable and über famous actresses who could handle the auteur driven tasks that Kidman takes on, or the burdensom warped psychologies she attempts to illuminate choose not to. Streep, Dench, Blanchett, Winslet etcetera mostly don't go to such dark and weird places... at least not with such persistence. Helen Mirren has some peculiarities in her filmography but people weren't paying such close attention. After the Queen she chose National Treasure 2 (maybe that was an avant garde tribute to Charlize Theron and Halle Berry's post Oscar choices? Oh Helen you sly silver fox) Even Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton, former darlings of iconoclast auteurs and the avant garde respectively, are spending lots of time in mainstream Hollywood pictures.

I think the public at large would probably prefer it if they didn't have to hear about little oddities like Fur and Birth and, here's the truth about fame's power, they wouldn't if people like Kidman weren't in them. Which brings us to The Golden Compass. I'll give you that it's messier plotwise than most of the would be blockbusters you see out there. But cut it a small break, it's got much more complex material and themes to deal with. So F'in What if The Golden Compass isn't half as successful monetarily as the simple Christ metaphors in Narnia. Who cares?

The old cliché that awards bodies don't cotton to unlikeable characters (unless they happen to be showy "love to hate" villains) is holding true this year for Kidman's impressive if highly confrontational work in Margot at the Wedding (my thoughts). Is the problem that she doesn't give the audience a good light charming woman as a buffer inbetween the disturbed ladies? Or is the problem that she's just not great at the light stuff that's usually a requirement for supersize celebrities who command $15 million a picture?

Can't we at least look at The Golden Compass (my review) and recognize that Nicole Kidman understands and is beginning to illuminate a character with an unusual surplass of mental baggage. Or is that verboten in a children's fantasy flick, this discomforting psychology as obvious as the golden monkey on her back? Shouldn't the reviewing types be writing about these things rather than bitching about how smooth Nicole's face looks. That particular quibble wasn't in Mr. Levine's post but I've seen too many reviews that complain about the way she's lit, as if her scenes were filmed in such a way entirely to serve her vanity. Newsflash to all people bitching: look at the movie. Numerous surfaces are filmed this way. Kidman's face is but one of hundreds of elements that get that airbrushed glossy sheen) But, oh yes, sorry. Nobody wants to think about cinematography and production choices when they watch a movie. They just want to love or hate on celebrities and gawk at CGI.

Pass the popcorn. [/rant from a defensive Kidman fan]

These posts aren't Nicole Kidman related but they're in the same field on the commerce/art battleground: NovaSlim has a funny post on the whack criteria of judging musical talent by bank accounts; Low Resolution takes Richard Corliss to task for his oddly incoherent and pandering article on "out of touch" critics. Imagine it... critics daring to trumpet movies that haven't come out yet and adult oriented films that don't play with the Transformers crowd.

Classic Kidman Quiz: We Are All Nicole Kidman
*