Short Takes: The Descendants; The Iron Lady; War Horse

I’m loathe to approach the review for ANY film in such a lazily flip manner, but…I just can’t. Neither of these is an abysmal film by any means, but I suppose one could consider my tepid response to them as indicative of my general response to so many of the films in 2011. I can’t muster up the dedication offer full perspectives on either of the three…so…bit notes.

“Paradise can go fuck itself” directed by Alexander Payne; written by Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash

And, this movie too…okay, that’s harsh and not really my actual feeling. I suppose, no –I know - that The Descendants doesn’t hit me in the way it wants to, and not in the way that it undoubtedly will hit a slew of other people. And, it’s because almost everything in it comes off as decidedly synthetic to me. This is more than a little ironic since in his opening voice-over monologue Matt King tells us that he’s intent on showing the world that Hawaii isn’t the tropical paradise it’s made out to be; people have real problems here. Okay, I’m game – or, I really want to be. I heard that it’s mentioned in the trailer, so I suppose it’s not a spoiler to say that The Descendants reaches part of its crux when Matt finds out that his comatose wife has been having an affair with a real estate developer of some sort who, incidentally, stands to benefit from a potential decision which Mike may make concerning the selling of some family land; because the name “King” isn’t subsidiary – his family apparently owns a significant portion of the island on which they live since they’re descendants from…umm, I can’t recall actually (I saw this at the beginning of January) – Hawaiian royalty, let’s say. Mike’s the title-holder so he has THAT burden along with the cheating, comatose wife burden, along with the added encumbrance of a father-in-law who hates him; a teenage daughter who is a typically angsty, angry, rebel; a younger daughter who flips people off and calls her sister a motherless whore; his older daughter’s annoyingly mellow boyfriend who tags along for the family escapades, and – it would seem – no friends to stand by him.

Homeboy’s got it rough, y’all, because he is a VICTIM. It doesn’t matter that he a) admits to being a back-up parent in an opening monologue that doesn’t seem to be considered after it is expelled, b) so apparently unaware of what goes on around him that his daughter who is away at boarding school realises that his wife’s having an affair and he doesn’t and c) unable to offer any gems in terms of parenting skills – he’s a noble creature who upon realising that his cheating, comatose wife won’t wake up starts out on a trek to find the man who has cuckolded (aside: cuckolded is a word I learned from Shakespeare’s Othello, and wouldn’t you know it. The Descendants features a a scene where the husband talks to his dead wife, a scene that seems put there simply to show how much Mike has suffered, and not because he’s come to any sort of development over time,) him so said man will have the chance to say goodbye. As any travel story works, surprises will be made, bonds will be forged and it comes off to me as so decidedly uninspired I can’t help but discern a bitter taste in my mouth at its machinations. And, really, I’m not against movies having characters being somewhat reprehensible but the movie is so bizarre about its ideals and that aforementioned railing scene at a semi-corpse is just odd, oddly placed, oddly acted and so strange since it’s as if we’re supposed to cheer it on…which is just rather weird. And, then it all wraps so, so, so very neatly with overly earnest speeches, and photogenic moments (that final shot) eliciting little more than a shrug from me. So….umm, I didn’t hate it. (Nick, I am sorry.)

C-

“What a strange beast you have become”: directed by Steven Spielberg; written by Richard Curtis and Lee Hall

Look, cards on the table – War Horse is not the type of film that was going to work for me. A boy following his horse over a continents, years and owners because he loves him so very much? Umm, sorry…. I can’t. Not really. Seven people I read have mentioned its similarities to How Green was My Valley (which I happen to like), and – okay – fine it looks like a Ford movie, hell it perhaps even looks better because War Horse looks GOOD. Which is about the only thing is truly excels at, and I think even if all the pieces had fallen into place and War Horse had managed to deliver on all fronts I still wouldn’t have been able to muster up more than pleasant appreciation, and the thing is War Horse isn’t quite good on all other fronts. Although, really, it’s not bad either – so that sentence might be disingenuous. In fact, I can’t put my finger on anything significantly wrong with War Horse other than the fact that my temperament does not allow me to be the type of person who gets caught up in the manoeuvrings of a horse for two and a half hours. Theatre folk help me out here – doesn’t Albert’s relationship with the horse remind you of Jack’s freakish relationship with Milky White in Into the Woods? The relationship between a boy and his animal isn’t meant for humour here, it’s all in earnest – think, sometimes mawky, sometimes cloying and oh, so very deliberate earnest.

Really, I can’t fault it for that, neither will I fault it for its attempt to evoke a period gone by. Everyone seems down on nostalgia this year, and if Spielberg is taking a trip back with this one…he’s allowed, I suppose. What I don’t care to allow is the way the story just ambles like one of those pastures it’s set on with apparently no sense of direction, which is all well-and-good if this is a bildungsroman but ISN’T all well-and-good when your lead character is a horse. And, the story is only robbing the actors of chances to portray people (though Emily, darling, Watson rises above it so beautifully) and I can’t really judge Irvine’s performance because I’m never sure if Albert is the slightest bit touched, or just…umm, I don’t know. He’s saccharinely sweet in his earnestness. It’s not completely off-putting. The entire thing is just so – unchallenging and it doesn’t seem to have anything to say, not even about what I’d assume is the major theme of love and perseverance against all odds…etc, etc, but golly it tries too hard. But, it’s hardly a poor exercise. And, I wager that if this is the sort of thing that seems like it could be your thing then it definitely will be your thing because it’s okay in the way it does its…thing. It’s just not really a thing for me. (Sorry, Alex.)

C

“One must know when to go”: directed by Phyllida Lloyd; written by Abi Morgan

…and, this one, my friends doesn’t know when to go, it doesn’t even have the good sense to realise that it probably shouldn’t have arrived in the first place. Good thing first, (and yes I will say it has its one good thing which are part and parcel with its bad things) is that because it’s wonderfully noncommittal about its subject The Iron Lady is never difficult to watch. In fact, it’s incredibly easy to watch. There is no tension, no appearance of sustained dramatic beats so the film sits there and it’s easy to watch and its poorness never as objectionable as it could be if the film was COMPLETELY terrible. Small mercies. Okay, I lie – Meryl Streep is okay, too. Look, it’s another in a long line of roles where Meryl dons an accent and (if you’re a fan, like millions of you are) *transforms* herself into X person. I, myself, am not an ardent fan of this. When I like Meryl, it is at her least ostentatious and playing the woman with the Iron fist donning two accents (one more RP than the other) it’s a performance that can be nothing BUT ostentatious especially in a film like this which is just inert that I have to wonder why on earth it was made other than to give Meryl the chance to traipse around, touch her face poignantly, glare and then raise her voice in a series of what seem to be ham-fisted Oscar bait clips in the worst of ways. And, that’s a sentence that pains me to write because I never like to think that a film was made simply for awards’ purpose but The Iron Lady has so little about its protagonist that you’ll forgive me if this is where I suspect its roots lie. And even though it might win awards for the performance it’s shame because other than what I assume is a fantastic accent, Meryl’s performance goes nowhere.

Look, a good performance can come from a terrible film – not often, but it can happen. But, a good performance cannot come from a film so undemanding, tepid and lazy and sometimes Lloyd chooses some inexplicable decisions to make. The cutaways aren’t serving the story, and they’re not serving the actors either. I am, embarrassingly, not as au fait with Thatcher’s legend as I wish but from what I do know it’s so painful that it an attempt to – what I assume is – humanise her Abi Morgan tacks on the hook of Margaret and her husband Denis and their relationship being buoyed around The King and I and, wouldn’t you know, “Shall We Dance”. And, perhaps it’s deliberate that they make Margaret’s assertions on storming the boys’ club mentality of those around her some sort of reaction to her *knowing* that she’s “just” a woman because the film essentially boils down her entire life into a delusional, batty woman unable to let her dead husband go. It’s not deliberate, though, Lloyd and Morgan just seem to have approached the project in the wrong way. That ghost issue could be could work with a more adventurous team, but it’s use here is baffling, comical, ridiculous and just rather strange. I don’t dislike biopics generally, but films like this get me so incensed because it sets the genre back 20 steps. No, just, no. (Sorry, Walter.)

D+

So, umm, short takes – with apologies, because – honest – I’d love to live in a world where I loved all the movies that came out. This is not that world. What think ye? All three of these just might win at least one Oscar, maybe more, in a month’s time. What do you think of them?

Incoherent Oscar: Makeup

I plan on assessing each film category of the Academy Award nominations until February the 26th. So, no, you haven’t gotten rid of the prognostics yet.
                
THE NOMINEES: Albert Nobbs; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2; The Iron Lady
           
Is this the only category where there really is a fair chance of any one of the nominees winning? I wonder, it’s a curious category on its own because the winners are almost never that obvious. Often because other than the random The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or The Lord of the Rings it’s the less “prestigious” films which make it here.
       

So, what can we tell from their usual tastes? Contrary to popular belief, aging in a film doesn’t necessitate recognition from the Academy’s makeup branch, and they’re not particularly liable to recognise work simply because it’s obtrusive (consider the nominations for The Young Victoria, wins for Frida and How the Grinch Stole Christmas). I think that’s the reason predicting them is always such of a head scratcher. One is never certain what they’ll go for.

Albert Nobbs: Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnston andMatthew W. Mungle

Of the eight persons nominated, one has been nominated before – Matthew W. Mungle. He’s won for Bram Stoker’s Dracula nominated for Schindler’s List, Ghosts of Mississippi. He’s nominated along with the team from Albert Nobbs and it’s the film I immediately want to consider as the most likely winner. Glenn’s work is the one getting most recognition, but the work here doesn’t focus on a specific character and though the general blogging populace seems split on whether the work is convincing for making Glenn “manly”, it’s a foreseeable winner. Particularly because the work done isn’t for Glenn specifically, the period necessitates makeup work on the entire cast.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2:  (Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight and Lisa Tomblin)

The same goes for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. it’s the first nomination for the film, and despite its supernatural roots the work is not as pronounced as you’d anticipate. Despite the questionable work done on the main trio in the epilogue, there’s some significant makeup work done in the main story – from the obvious done on Voldermort and Griphook to the more subtle bits on Dumbledore and Bellatrix. If there’s any category where the series can actually be lucky at winning a prize it would be here (despite nominations over the years no Harry Potter film has won an Oscar).

The Iron Lady:  Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland

Then, there’s The Iron Lady…the work done on Streep has retained significant praise (although I wonder if some of the effusive praise is just at the fact that it’s not as terrible as the work in J. Edgar, another film hinging on an aging protagonist). The work on The Iron Lady feels rather character specific, which mires its chances, although the argument could be made that the work done in La Vie en Rose was rather character-specific too –and, that, won an Oscar.

Projected Winner: Albert Nobbs
      
Alternate: The Iron Lady
        

Does Albert Nobbs walk away with it? Does The Iron Lady win a statue for the work on Meryl? Does Potter get some farewell love? Thoughts?

“You need to have something no one else has…”

The Artist: directed and written by Michel Hazanavicius

“I’m not telling. I won’t talk!” The first title card of The Artist bears these words. By now even those marginally motivated cinephiles would know that The Artist Michel Hazanavicius’s silent film and one of the most lauded films of 2011. Let me give some perspective to the presentation of this bit of dialogue. We’re being introduced to our protagonist, but not to him really – it’s a film within a film we’re seeing – George Valentin’s latest silent film, “A Russian Affair”. Obviously, though, it’s a tongue-in-cheek bit of cuteness from Hazanavicius and a suggestion of what’s to come in the form of Valentin both deliberately on Hazanavicius as a bit of irony and in a more significant way, and one which I think escapes Hazanavicius. For, what The Artist is about is the fall from fame of Valentin – a moviestar whose position is displaced by the advent of talkies in cinema and simultaneously the rise of a young ingénue seemingly ready to take his place as the face of the movie studio he headlines. It’s a concept which has been tried – and tried excellently – in A Star is Born, Sunset Boulevard and I’m sure a slew others. So, I’m immediately intrigued by what Hazanavicius plans to do with the potential plot using the silent form. For, from the first few moments we realise that Jean Dujardin’s charming yet very exasperating Valentin is as assured of his entitlement to fame as Norma Dresmond and as dismissive of those around him as Norman Maine and my interest is piqued. How does Valentin become worthy of the title “The Artist”, I wonder.

The thing is he doesn’t. Not really. Not at all, even. Beginners, The Ides of March, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Beaver and particularly Moneyball, Drive and Rampart are seven films which sit comfortably along with The Artist as films which are difficult to extrapolate from the performance of their lead players Jean Dujardin (who holds the majority of scenes from the film on his shoulder) is surely to be trumpeted for her decisive performance. But, all his gusto can’t distract me from the thinness of the role he’s playing. Or, more accurately, the loose creation of the role seems at odds with the film it exists in. For, Hazanavicius’ creation (if it’s anything other a showcase for Dujardin, it’s a director’s film) plays up the joie-de-vivre of the world the characters inhabit, and Valentin’s carelessness and capricious meanness makes it difficult for him to coalesce with the world around him. In two scenes which mirror the stolidity of his words in the opening he’s urged to talk. The producer Al Zimmer is telling him that the silent craze is over. But, George will continue on his – “I don’t need you” is what he tells Zimmer. A few scenes later, sunk in a depression he refuses to talk. His exasperated wife tells him she’s unhappy. “So are millions of people.” And, immediately, it takes me out of the story.

In Young Adult Mavis Gary ends the film the same way she began. That film is a pessimistic outlook on life and how, sometimes, people are shown the light only to retreat and avoid it. It’s the same thing that happens in The Artist, but Hazanavicius stumbles because he doesn’t seem aware of this. For the first third of The Artist I was intrigued because I kept thinking that Valentin would have that epiphany and realise how ungracious he was being. He’d hit the bottom to learn from his state. Then, as Peppy’s star began to rise I thought that Hazanavicius was offering a whimsical presentation of the capricious nature of the film industry. But, neither occurs. Everything which occurs is treated in earnest as if we should accept Valentin’s boorishness as legitimate and true. This doesn’t sully the goodness of Dujardin’s performance but it does leave a sour taste in my mouth in regards to the film’s treatment of women. Penelope Anne Miller’s forgotten wife and her plights are played for mere laughs and conversely Bérénice Bejo’s charm can’t mitigate the flatness of Peppy, who is worse off than George. She enters the film in love with Valentin, and we leave her in the same way. There is shockingly little for her to do in the way of characterisation, and the poor thing comes off seeming somewhat vacuous. She has no qualms about his temperamental nature, it seems, and Hazanavicius gives her no dynamism to play, no tension to get through, which is a shame because Bejo seems impossibly game and more significantly because much of the film sails through like a breeze despite these issues.

The very tried adage, all style and no substance comes to mind when I think of the film and that shouldn’t be an issue for me because I love style and I don’t mind if it diminishes the shine of the substance but The Artist can’t help but come off to me as a sweet, aesthetic, lovely bauble. And, no, it has nothing to do with the simplicity of the themes it establishes. Two people have over the last two weeks accused me of being inherently dismissive of artistic worth which is decidedly light. “Andrew,” they said, “You’re a snob. A film need not be wrought with grandiose observances on the significance of life to be a worthwhile film.” (Obviously they didn’t use those words, I’m paraphrasing for effect.) I have nothing against simplicity when fully realised (see Winnie the Pooh)but what robs Hazanavicius’ skill with his cast and his impeccable direction from making this film soar is the lack of follow through in the screenplay. It’s not that I want The Artist to be about something “bigger” but I want it to be about something more complete than its concept.

It would seem lazily flip of me to say that Hazanavicius uses the silent genre as a gimmick but when despite the technical skill his only inclination for making the movie seems to be an homage I’m a little sceptical. There really is nothing there. It can’t succeed as a love story because I can’t buy Peppy’s sycophantic admiration of Valentin as romance especially when he seems to reciprocate only inasmuch as the relationship is helping his fame. And, curiously, I can’t say that it intends on serving as a shrine to silent cinema when the film’s endpoint is Valentin moving to the talkies out of necessary. Add sound to the story, and I think the novelty of The Artist wears thin – which doesn’t bode well for it as something of lasting effect. And, still throughout this The Artist is enjoyable in its own moderate and I’m already annoyed at how the state of the current awards is going to make this look like part of that god-awful conspiracy rooted in that terrible word backlash (something I need to write about some time). The Artist is a more than enjoyable bit of entertainment and it’s a fine film. And, it does have something no film in the last decade or so in that it’s a silent one. But, it forgets that it needs something all films have – at least all great ones – a working story. Which, alas, causes it to fumble a bit at its delivery . Aaah, but it is pretty, and it is enjoyable...but it so quickly dissipates...
              
B/B-

Incoherent Oscar: Two Days Later Reactions (Five Vaguely Vexing Issues)

So….Oscars. Curiously, enough I had not planned on posting an official reactionary post to the Academy Award nominations announced on Tuesday morning. I’d just planned to take a few days, and return with some discussion on where the race is headed. But, then, that’d make my somewhat truncated Oscar coverage even more truncated and a few things have occurred in the past few days that have, unfortunately, increased by ire at the state of the race, not only specifically in regards to actual nominations but the way in which they’re being regarded. So, the thinnest layer of dust settles on the nominations I offer my thoughts – some on the nominees, and some on people’s reactions to them
          
Five issues that give me pause.

The Importance of the Screen Actors’ Guild

Prognostics were surprised by a number of notable omissions, among them the exclusion of Albert Brooks, Shailene Woodley and Michael Fassbender. Always happy to be “in” on the game, even if retrospectively, the common narrative now is that one should never underestimate the Screen Actors’ Guild because Brooks, Woodley and Fassbender were absent there, as well. Precursors play their part, each of them in their own way – and certainly there is some significance to extrapolate since the actors are a part of the AMPAS. But, there’s something along the lines of overreaching when the running thread is SAG is indelibly important when it’s the same SAG which nominated Tilda Swinton, Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer – all performances which went unnoticed by the Academy. In short, it’s a two-way street, precursors – like the SAG – can be accurate, and they can be inaccurate.

Only Late Releases are Remembered (a fallacy)

A mere glance over the list of nominated films, particularly the slate of nine best picture nominees elucidates the silliness of such a claim. Is it a point that could be made about previous Oscar nominations’ line-up before, perhaps….but we’re talking about the presence, so let’s ahead. War Horse and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close - the two December released to be nominated for Best Picture. We’ve got The Tree of Life and Midnight in Paris released in May, The Help released in August, Moneyball released in September, The Artist released in October, The Descendants and Hugo both released in November. Bridesmaids and Beginners are two films up for acting prizes, released in May and June. So, yes, only late released are remembered.

What’s more, three films which missed out on key nominations that most seem to be up in arms about (admittedly, not without reason) were released in December - Shame, We Need to Talk About Kevin and Young Adult. So, at least assess both sides of this rather thorny fence. They’re not all f0r late releases, nor are they all against them. Worth noting.

The Atrocities of the Music Branch

Joe Reid presents the issue in a much better written article (here), but I still have to mention what is perhaps the most galling development when it comes to the slate of nominees. I tweeted on Tuesday that the real upset of the nominees’ list was the two original song nominees, and not only because I was hoping for Alan Menken Oscar win. Something needs to be done to revamp the category. The current way of choosing nominees is not working. It’s not working for the potential nominees and it’s not working for the Academy’s rep and really if they’re not going to do it right they might as well just toss out the category, as much as it pains me to admit. Truly, some of my favourite moments of the ceremony came as a result of the category and I shall be sad to see it go, but with the way it is right now…it’s as if it’s already gone.


Best use of talent not best use of talent in a good film

“X film has this many nominations, when Y film only has this many.” It’s an understandable sentiment when some of your favourites are overlooked, but when that sentiment leads to the “agreement” that the Oscars are silly because of it, it’s a bit ridiculous. W.E. and Transformers are two easy targets that too many have been railing against. I haven’t seen this instalment, but the film always had excellent sound work and visual effects. And, I haven’t seen W.E. either but the stills of it do suggest some excellent costume designing. So, what gives? Should only “good” films be eligible for craft nominations?


The Oscars Don’t Mean Anything (fallacy)

Few things have absolutely annoyed me as much as Gavin Polone’s article (link) on (his words) “The Great Oscar Farce”. Obviously, like any event the Oscars’ are not for everyone but his entire article sits poorly with me, for an array of reasons – a number of which I wouldn’t bother entering into dissertation on because these things are subjective. But, one bit particularly annoyed me. In his desire to establish that the Oscars’ “value” had denigrated he notes:

“If possessing a statuette was actually worth something, shouldn’t there be some direct correlation between casting an Academy Award winner and higher box office? If you were financing a drama that starred a man in his mid-¬forties, would you feel more comfortable with your investment by offering the part to Sean Penn or Kevin Spacey, each with two Oscar wins, or to Will Smith or Johnny Depp, neither of whom has won?”

I think it speaks for itself, no? Especially when compounded by the fact that the suggestion that Depp and Smith would be the sounder “investment” when in the same article he lambastes Hollywood for thinking only in terms of numbers.The AMPAS has never shied away from their function, peers judging their fellow peers...and if nothing else, they'll mean that.

Am I sorry to see some of my favourites left off the ballot? God, yes. No Alexandre Desplat is particularly sad, when he’s had such a kick-ass year especially in the face of TWO John Williams’ citations. The exclusion of Michael Shannon, too, is unfortunate even though the Best Actor lineup is generally fair. But, really, I’m really okay with the nominations. Prognosticating shall be back to normal this weekend.

         

Two days later…what are you thinking about the nominees? What do you think of my issues?

Remembering Chance Wayne...

I swear he had more on-screen chemistry with Geraldine than any of his other costars, or perhaps I just adore Sweet Bird of Youth so much that it makes it seem so.

Ah, well, happy birthday Paul.

Incoherent Oscar: Dream Duos

I did this very random entry last year, and I think I’ll make it a tradition because it’s quite fun. Chances are your twitter timeline exploded yesterday when the Oscar nominations were announced. I haven’t posted an official response on the blog (yes, I know you’re just salivating waiting for that), I shall get to that later in the day – it is necessary. For, now, I’m looking at the slate of 20 nominated actors from the youngest (Rooney Mara at 26) to the oldest (Max Von Sydow at 82) and I picked out five pairs of the 20 that I’d like to headline a film together. To make things more interesting, for me, I’ve decided to add one of the five nominated directors to each pairing (some work, some don’t – you decide).
        
Potential movie pairs ahead…
        
Gary Oldman and Christopher Plummer (d. Michel Hazanavicius)
Naturally, since I know painfully little of Hazanavicius’ work outside of The Artist (thoughts on that forthcoming soon…ish) I’m not sure what would be a departure from the norm for him, or right up his alley. I do love the very British pairing of Plummer and Oldman, although I’m a bit more stumped on what their movie should be about. I would not be averse to Oldman reprising his role as Smiley (or a Smiley-esque figure) for a movie with Plummer as the stand-in for Control. Because, even though John Hurt is fabulous and even though it’s been nice seeing Plummer being gregariously nice in Beginners recently I’d love to see him get dark and dubious again opposite Oldman.


If I could glean anything from Hazanacicius work in The Artist it's that he's good with actors, and true I don't want Plummer and Oldman in a silent film, nor do I want them in a whimsical look back at Old Hollywood, but we do know that both men glower with distinction, and neither need words to penetrate your soul, so maybe it's a bit like a silent movie.

Demián Bichir and Brad Pitt (d. Terrence Malick)
I want Bichir and Pitt to star in a crime drama where they’re allies, but then I think what would Malick do with a crime drama? Transpose to some war, make a film about the battle-field? Replace them with dinosaurs? I’m just being silly. He’s not opposed to visceral crime (see Badlands) and sure he has his proclivities - but who doesn't right? Regardless of what might be his preference, Malick is obviously a fine director which I like to think means he could tackle anything he wishes to. And, Brad’s better performance this year was under him so why not have the two of them teamed up again?

Then, even if I didn’t love A Better Life Bichir is a fine actor. He has this quiet intensity going for him which I think makes him work excellent both as a the larger than life father he plays in that, as well as a still-waters-run-deep antihero. Cast him in a morally ambiguous role opposite Pitt and I’m sold. 


Kenneth Branagh and Viola Davis (d. Woody Allen)
I dare you resist this. Viola Davis is a veteran of the theatre, and I love theatre people being gloriously theatrical on screen (see Annette Bening in Being Julia) for every theatrical avenue Viola could hit you just know that Shakespearean thespian Branagh would be right there matching her on every beat. Add that to the idea of Woody who did fine work with the theatre backdrop in Bullets Over Broadway and I think, my friends, we’ve got gold.

I can't validate why Branagh has sort of bee missing in action recently, and more than a few persons have intimated that they'd love for Viola, and black actresses in general, to find some key roles that don't focus explicitly on their race, I think a Woody comedy would be a nice way to both bring Branagh back to the fold, and give Viola a nice key role to sink her dramatic chops into.  

Jean Dujardin and Meryl Streep (d. Martin Scorsese)
I want Scorsese to make another lady-picture. And, no this is not a deprecating comment, I want another The Age of Innoncence or Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. Scorsese is brilliant with the ladies (see Liza Minnelli give her finest performance under him). Why not have him team up with Streep for a film about an older woman and her young lover, played by Jean Dujardin. Will it be a tragedy? A comedy? A melodrama? Who knows? More importantly, who cares?

Sure, I am never completely on board the Meryl train, but the woman is lovely and I want to see her create a role from scratch. One of the reasons I loved 80s Meryl so much was because of her lovely work with introspective characters created from scratch and I'd love too see her create another role like that (it's not incidental that since the eighties my favourite performance from her was the excellent creation of Clarissa Vaughan). And, more importantly...who say no to Meryl and Jean AND Martin?

 Jessica Chastain and Glenn Close d. (Alexander Payne)
If I want Scorsese to make a lady-picture, Alexander Payne NEEDS to make on. His sharpest critics tend to zero in on his boorish male leads and he has admittedly has issues with his women. So, what to do? Get Glenn Close and future world-ruler Jessica Chastain. At first, I was thinking a mother daughter duo, but then I thought boot Rose Byrne (who I like, have no fear) and create a faux-Damages affair for the cinema. Glenn in all her powerful, majesty and budding chameleon Jessica Chastain as a would be contender as heiress to Glenn’s throne.

I'm very curious to see what becomes of Chastain, she's lovely and even her more gritty characterisation in The Debt was still a bit sweet, so it'd be nice to see her attempting to come against someone with Close's general strength of projection. And, who doesn't love a good female/female showdown when done tastefully?
                    

Mix and match the Oscar nominees....which pairs would you like to see emerge? Which actors need to work with which directors? Make your choices in the comments.