06/25/2009
Movies: Chéri, The Hurt Locker, Oscar Doubles Up
Nathaniel Rogers would live inside a movie theater but for the poor internet reception. He blogs daily at the Film Experience.
Now Playing: Bomb Squads, Courtesans, Pre-Ops and Cancer Patients
You're okay if I ignore the giant robots, right? I do admit to a teensy wounded bird crush on Shia Labeouf -- it's that permanently injured bandaged left hand -- and a tiny fascination with Megan Fox's inability to censor herself with the press, but after Roger Ebert, who loves almost everything, called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length" I knew better. Plus, there's other new movies to discuss starting with...
Chéri tells the tale of an aging courtesan Lea (Michelle Pfeiffer) who knows her prime earning years are ending. She begins a sexual dalliance with her fellow retired courtesan's (Kathy Bates) son Chéri (Rupert Friend) who she has known since his childhood. The affair is well known and even initially encouraged. The film quickly skips ahead several years and Lea now about to turn 50 (Pfeiffer herself turned 50 during the production) is still entangled with Chéri who is half her age. An arranged marriage for Chéri prompts a crisis within both of them. The untenable nature of the May/December romance is suddenly clear but so is the unexpected depth of the feeling involved... at least to the audience. Both Chéri and to a lesser extent Lea are all muddled about what it is they feel for each other and what exactly they're losing.
The advertising for Chéri paints it as a lighthearted comedy and to some degree it is but a fluffy bauble. The production design and costumes indulge in Belle Epoque grandiosity and both Pfeiffer and Friend are gorgeous objects for the camera's affection. The screenplay borrows most of its wit from the terrific source material, a short novel from French legend Colette (who also wrote Gigi and whose own life, I must add, would make a great film: lesbian love affairs, a brief stint working at the Moulin Rouge, an affair with her stepson and much much more).
MORE on Chéri and other new releases, AFTER THE JUMP...
Chéri reunites the director, writer and star of the classic Dangerous Liaisons but it doesn't have the laser precision of that randy vicious drama, instead veering awkwardly between farce, romance, comedy and tragedy. But despite its stumbles, the romantic duet is a pleasure to watch as is the chance to see Pfeiffer carry her first big romantic period role since The Age of Innocence (1993). The legendary beauty is now past Hollywood's preferred age for leading ladies which raises pointed parallels between courtesans and actresses. Rupert Friend (best known currently as Keira Knightley's boyfriend) matches Pfeiffer beautifully as the pampered boy-toy she's helped to raise. He's the sexual object rather than the actress fawning over his youthful cruel beauty. Maybe there'll be some fawning over Michelle Pfeiffer come Oscar season? Pfeiffer's great curtain call closeup pushes Chéri deeper and stings more than one would expect. It's far from a perfect film but thanks to the actors, it lingers.
Pfeiffer isn't the only actress headlining a new drama this week. Oscar nominated Shohreh Aghdashloo (24, House of Sand and Fog) stars in the Iranian story The Stoning of Soraya M and Kerry Washington (pictured left) plays a pre-op transsexual prostitute in Life is Hot in Cracktown. Washington should clearly be a movie star by now (beautiful + really talented) but she seems to be suffering from an age old Hollywood problem: they don't know what to do with black actresses. Even Angela Bassett's leading woman career was short lived. If studio cinema won't give Kerry the opportunities she deserves, I'm glad she's returning to indies where we first discovered her [a fine semi-obscure rental choice: her debut film Our Song (2000)] Lastly, Cameron Diaz stars in the weepie My Sister's Keeper based on the best-selling novel of the same name. The movie is grossly sentimental and manipulative and inexplicably shot in the golden happy hues of a coffee commercial or some such. One has to wonder why movie makers don't trust tear-jerking subject matter (cancer in this case) to jerk the tears. Trust me, cancer is enough. I cried all right but the movie is terrible and Cameron Diaz, still searching in vain for that first Oscar nomination, plays only one note here as the tunnel-visioned mother keeping her daughter alive.
If you value critical consensus, the movie to see this weekend is undeniably The Hurt Locker which is the gripping story of a bomb squad in Iraq. It's from director Kathryn Bigelow (Strange Days, Point Break, Near Dark) who knows her away around a great action sequence. Under appreciated actors Jeremy Renner (from Dahmer, and 28 Weeks Later) and Anthony Mackie (from Million Dollar Baby and the gay drama Brother to Brother) get the big roles. Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce and Evangeline Lilly turn up as well.
Bonus Feature: Major Oscar News
Movie sites went berserk yesterday as AMPAS (i.e. the Academy aka The Oscars) announced that the Best Picture nominees would total 10 rather than 5 going forward. Actually that's going backwards since the Academy used to have 10 nominees. 1943, Casablanca's year, was the final year for 10 nominees -- until 2009 that is. Here's a few diverse takes from 'round the web. A lot of people seem to think that a wider Best Picture field would prevent travesties like Crash's victory over Brokeback Mountain (the theory being that more films makes it less easy to vote against something) or strange occurrences like hit films such as Dreamgirls and The Dark Knight getting plentiful nominations without a corresponding Best picture nod. I personally think it's too early to know what this might mean. It should make for an interesting and highly speculative Oscar season, though.
Posted 7:46 PM EST by Nathaniel_R in Film, Nathaniel Rogers, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"Cheri" is teriffic. Not to be missed.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jun 25, 2009 7:49:15 PM
>>You're okay if I ignore the giant robots, right?
No, actually. Because we're gay, we're not supposed to be interested in Transformers? My robot loving ass will be firmly planted in a theater Friday night, popcorn in hand. I don't even think these indie movies only you and Ehrenstein have heard of are playing in my city.
This movie column perplexes me. Towleroad revels in pedestrian pop culture topics like David Beckham, American Idol, and the toe-tapping scandals of Republican congressmen. But when it comes movie time, we're suddenly all high-brow around here? Fuck that.
PS: You vomited HTML all over the page.
Posted by: crispy | Jun 25, 2009 8:43:55 PM
argh
i love Michelle Pfeiffer - can't wait to see this
Posted by: sundog | Jun 25, 2009 9:34:25 PM
The Hurt Locker is an amazing film. Really impressively done.
Posted by: Daniel | Jun 25, 2009 10:43:24 PM
Crispy -- congratulations for contributing to Michael Bay's enormous hack wealth!
P.S. my ass also loves robots (we have that in common) but it don't love Michael Bay movies. I mean jive talking robots with a gold tooth? No thanks.
Posted by: Nathaniel R | Jun 25, 2009 11:10:34 PM
The picture of Rupert Friend is super-dreamy. Another awesome article, Nathaniel. Your weekly column is one of the high points of towleroad.com
Posted by: Wayne B. | Jun 25, 2009 11:58:40 PM
Oh, I don't deny that Michael Bay is a hack. On the scale of shit directors, he's just barely a notch above Roland Emmerich. That said, no one goes to a summer blockbuster about transforming robots for the dynamic character arcs.
So you just keep writing these shitty columns each week about movies no one sees, and you keep getting 2-3 comments each week. And eventually, Andy will realize he could be getting thousands of pageviews from more populist movie coverage.
Posted by: crispy | Jun 26, 2009 12:13:34 AM
CRISPY,
you always make me laugh. i think, though, that you are confusing the words popular and populist. it seems that you like popular movies. if you want to criticize nathan for supporting populist movies, criticize him for supporting "the stoning of soraya m" and others.
Posted by: nic | Jun 26, 2009 12:36:52 AM
Crispy: It's people like you who lower the standards of art. I mean, god forbid anyone should have high-brow film taste.
Posted by: Lev Lewis | Jun 26, 2009 1:05:57 AM
Jesus, Crispy! I doubt Nathaniel's opening has anything to do with "Gays don't/shouldn't like Transformers." He probably assumes that you can read about Transformers everywhere else in the world, so it's okay to pick up a different talking point. Is it really SO AWFUL to hear just a little about what else is out there, especially since you long ago made up your mind to see Transformers? I think Nathaniel's doing this site a big favor by drawing my attention to things we haven't all heard of, and not wasting Towleroad space on all the same stuff I could learn about on E! Online, or by standing in line for cigarettes at CVS. (I understand your point and can respect your position, but why do you have to be so rude about it?)
Whatever, I'll probably get flamed now, but just speaking for myself, Nathaniel... keep up the good work! I did not know about the Kerry Washington movie at all and will keep my eyes out, even for when it comes out later on DVD. And thanks for warning me away from My Sister's Keeper, which was starting to tempt me, for who knows what reason.
Posted by: S. Kirkland | Jun 26, 2009 1:12:47 AM
Saw CHERI. It's terrible. Frears is alternately brilliant and bad, as he never does the same thing twice, but this is a miss. Pfeiffer actually sucks - she trips all over her dialogue. This review is, I feel, overly kind. HURT LOCKER is fantastic - I hope Summit make a(nother) fortune for this ostensible gamble on an Iraq movie.
Posted by: us distributor | Jun 26, 2009 1:30:56 AM
It's simple, 10 best picture nominations will an even longer Oscar show with 5 additional best picture film clips to show, 5 additional movies to poke fun at in the opening monologue, and so forth. Thus only the most hard core fans on the east coast will be awake when the winner is finally announced.
Posted by: WillnPL | Jun 26, 2009 4:36:16 AM
i can't wait for this movie to come out. michelle pfeiffer looks awesome. i read somewhere she's 51 now.
www.projectgaynovel.blogspot.com
Posted by: projectgaynovel | Jun 26, 2009 5:05:10 AM
It was late and I was cranky, so perhaps my comments were a bit rude. My apologies to Nathan.
Still, I stand by my position that this column's indie/limited release focus is completely at odds with the rest of Towleroad. Yes, I will go to EW.com for Transformers coverage; alternately, you could go to Filmsnobs.com for this stuff.
Posted by: crispy | Jun 26, 2009 9:38:11 AM
crispy. no problem.
but i'm still a little confused by your adamant rejection of limited releases or your insistence that i never talk about mainstream cinema. Last week I led with The Proposal. I led with Fighting. I led with Fast and Furious. I gave Star Trek a lot of air time (but you complained about that, too)
But more importantly: what's wrong with limited releases and festival coverage? Especially since this is a gay site. There's where 99.9% of gay cinema resides -- not that there's been much of that lately. If gay filmmakers and grande dames of the cinema and documentaries or adaptations of seminal gay works don't interest you (all things covered so far and usually of interest to the GLBT community in my experience) ... then yeah, i guess the column is not for you.
Posted by: Nathaniel R | Jun 26, 2009 10:29:53 AM
Nothing inherently wrong with limited release coverage.
I just think gay people are interested in far more than gay cinema. In fact, that's why I think Towleroad is so successful... it's not just a gay site. Andy's coverage frequently goes beyond the gay ghetto.
Given the race-baiting antics of this commenting community, a post about the jive-talking robots in Transformers would have been a firecracker here.
My point is: Cover both! And I promise to stop being a douchenozzle.
Posted by: crispy | Jun 26, 2009 10:55:02 AM
Jeremy Renner in Hurt Locker is stellar. The film notes in its intro, "War Is A Drug" ... and his character unfortunately gets addicted.
You ought also check his performance in the recently cancelled TV series The Unusuals.
Posted by: malo-ji | Jun 26, 2009 10:59:48 AM
Crispy. You're pathetic. You are rudely dismissive of the writer for having the audacity to cover some amazing specialty movies rather than the moronic Michael Bay warfest that even the mainstream media is saying is a piece of junk metal. You are the reason why jackasses like Bay keep making crap movies and idiots line up to take them in like stupid lemmings. Why don't you go read Perez Hilton, Mr. Douche?
Posted by: Ray | Jun 26, 2009 11:27:37 AM
Love Cheri, the novelette, and its sequel; eagerly await the film, glad to read a somewhat favorable review. Years ago a boyfriend gave me amazing pearls because of that story.
Posted by: RichardR | Jun 26, 2009 11:30:25 AM
crispy -- i have been covering both but i do hear what you're saying.
richardr -- oh, that's sweet (only one shouldn't model one's romances on Chéri! ha ha) i hope you like the movie. it isn't perfect but it looks beautiful and it's great to see Pfeiffer in a big role again. I probably should've mentioned that she's my favorite movie star.
Posted by: Nathaniel R | Jun 26, 2009 12:02:24 PM
I understand both Crispy's point about film coverage choices and how easy it is to be rudely dismissive during online comments. (See Ray's snippy and harsh-ass response.) I've done the same, and we can all reach for better.
Since I too live in an area where limited release films are unavailable, I barely skim those roundups, and typically only get my interest piqued if the films have have legs into the awards and DVD-release cycles.
You couldn't drag me into Transformers, either, though I'm sure Mr. Labeouf is very pretty, as post-Disney beef and cheese usually are...
Posted by: adamblast | Jun 26, 2009 12:05:59 PM
Ray, sweetheart, it's Mrs. Douche. I have been happily married for three years now.
Posted by: crispy | Jun 26, 2009 12:17:08 PM
Oh, Crispy, you are sooo sharp and witty. You put Colette to shame, and the world is thrilled that you are happily married.
Posted by: Jeremy | Jun 26, 2009 12:56:09 PM
whatever, crispy. i like my high brow just as much as the low, that's how we do it in new york. and i have heard of all of these movies and really appreciate the meaningful reviews.
Posted by: Clayton | Jun 26, 2009 3:38:52 PM
Personally, I could care less what the Academy does with their discredited award. But I have to chuckle at how desperate it is to pump some excitement into a process that most people now see as nothing more than just another popularity contest that has little or nothing to do with artistic accomplishment.
Sid Ganis now reveals himself for the Oscar pimp he is. Instead of being concerned with the scandalous lack of credibility in the Academy’s voting methods, he is concerned that there are not enough people watching its boring telecast. This should have been obvious to all when they decided to move up their awards show a month, from late March and early April to late February. Thus making it even more impossible for the industry members to see all the nominees in every category. This should have been a tip off even before the Brokeback Mountain debacle as to where the Academy’s priorities lay. They were in effect announcing in advance that the impossibility of industry people being able to see all the nominees in time for voting was not a concern to them. After all, everybody knows that Academy members don’t bother to see all the nominees. Even the ones they vote for. Let alone the ones they vote against! They were more concerned with positioning their telecast so that they would not be the also-ran of the awards season. In short, they were saying that they cared more that their telecast garner more ratings and thus more advertising bucks for ABC (and more of a licensing fee for the Academy) than that the awards have any credibility. It was almost as if they were admitting that no one really believes the Academy members actually vote the awards on merit. They vote for the movie and the performance that has the most hype. Sort of like American Idol. Except that it’s not only a popularity contest, but a way of drumming up advertising dollars for all concerned.
Since this bit of pandering to the television audience didn’t work, they have now decided on a more Draconian method. Ganis and the benighted board (at the urging of ABC no doubt – note Ganis’ quote, “Our partners at ABC are very, very happy”) have increased the Best Picture nominees from five to ten. That means there will be five more movies that the Academy members can avoid seeing.
If nothing else this move cheapens the nominations. It now will not be a distinction to get an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture. Anyone and his Aunt Minnie will be eligible. As one observer pointed out, since the Academy recognizes, on average, 300 films as eligible for the Best Picture prize in any given year, that in essence means that one out of every thirty movies has a chance of getting a Best Picture nomination. Although the possibility of an embarrassing nominee has always been there with even five nominees (Dr. Dolittle, anyone?) one can only imagine what stray dogs the Academy is going to have make excuses for in the future.
Nor do I think anyone will be fooled by this ruse. Inevitably there will be Best Picture nominees that will not receive any other important nominations (Director, Screenplay, Performances) and will be written off by the media and moviegoers as also-rans, there simply to fill out the ballot. The Dark Knight, for instance. Since the other categories would still be held to five nominees, it would still not have a nomination for directing or writing and only one nomination for acting (our dear Heath!) and thus would’ve been given little chance of winning the big prize. Let’s not forget, even though the members of the Academy don’t feel it’s necessary to actually see all the nominees, they do feel it’s their duty to give the prize only to socially significant or important films. All the better to make themselves feel significant and important.
It will be amusing to see what the Academy will do going forward to shore up its award’s dwindling popularity. Maybe in an effort to get the special effects crowd they’ll come up with the Best CGI Movie. Or the beer-swilling college set, the Best Gross-Out Comedy. For the teenyboppers they could come up the Best Performance by a Hunk. There are any number of ways the Academy can prostitute itself. And as long as the powers that be in Hollywood (Stephen Speilberg, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, et al) look the other way the Academy will get away with it. Remember when Rob Lowe made a fool of himself dancing with Snow White at an awards ceremony back in the eighties? There were still members like Billy Wilder around to complain about the lack of dignity that was being displayed by the Academy. And the Academy listened. Now, the Hollywood crowd is so greedy and spineless they wouldn’t dare risk losing a future golden man by even suggesting that the Academy could improve its operations.
The only way the Academy can regain any of its old prestige for its award is an entire overhaul of the voting system. But then they would have to admit that up till now the Academy members have been cavalier with their exalted privilege. Instead they’ll continue putting band-aids on gaping wounds and hope everybody won’t notice. Or more to the point, ignore it for their own personal reasons. If the Academy keeps it up they’ll be no more meaning to the award than the gilded hunk of metal that it
Posted by: VINCE | Jun 26, 2009 7:40:01 PM