In the Mood for Podcast: Episode 30

EPISODE 30: 2D Or Not 2D

[1:13:55]

You can Listen online or

Download MP3

(Right click... save as)

It's Episode 30 of In the Mood for Podcast, a British-based film podcast hosted by Calum Reed of Ultimate Addict and Pete Sheppard of In the Mood for Blog. The last podcast of 2012 sees us catch up on releases from the past ten days. They include the dubiously-casted "Jack Reacher," the aca-entertaining "Pitch Perfect," and Bette Midler's return to the screen in family comedy "Parental Guidance." We snubbed the 3D showing of "Life of Pi," but still discuss its visual prowess in length, and also chat about directors with a history of elevating their source material. All of this, plus a discussion about the hotly-contested Foreign Language Oscar race, and a pitch for a Greer Garson biopic.

Discussed on the podcast: 

Opening Segment: Discussing the recently announced shortlist of contenders for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar  [2:45 - 17:30]

*Preconception Corner*

Reviews of: 

• "Jack Reacher"
• "Pitch Perfect"
• "Parental Guidance"

[20:20 - 49:45]

Closing Segment: Our take on “Life of Pi,” and discussing directors who elevate their source material [49:50 - 1:07:35]

*Shag, Marry or Kill?*
*The Watson Factor*
*The Poupaud Range*

Intro Music: New theme music!
Outro Music: Phoenix, "Rome"

A Review of The Lincoln Lawyer (Furman, 2011)

The Lincoln Lawyer

Directed by Brad Furman

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Ryan Philippe, Marisa Tomei, Josh Lucas, John Leguizamo, Frances Fisher

Grade: C+

Written for InRO:

Adapted from American crime writer Michael Connolly’s popular novel of the same name, “The Lincoln Lawyer” defies expectations as much as it affirms them, swinging pendulously between mediocrity and cheeky appeal. The moment Matthew McConaughey – not the most modest-looking of men, given his hulky physique and fashion-conscious frame – is seen lounging in the back of a five-door saloon, accompanied by a soundtrack of hip-hop tunes recalling the Glory Days of status and power, “The Lincoln Lawyer” feels like it’s going to be the smug, schmoozing low-rent affair hinted at in its trailer. Brad Furman’s film however – much like its principal star – works on challenging our initial perspective of lawyer Mick Haller, whose less-than-dignified esteem and tendency to gain acquittal for notorious criminals has earned him quite a grubby reputation.

In truth, McConaughey looks as if he’s screen-testing for a Gucci commercial in the opening first few scenes, tilting his shades at a variety of angles and doling out his trademark Texan drawl. As the confident Lincoln lawyer he manages to navigate through cases involving a jailed biker and a troubled hooker, before hitting a relative brick wall with case number three: millionaire businessman Louis Roulet (Philippe), who is charged with brutally assaulting an escort girl. Coming up against his District Attorney ex-wife Maggie (Tomei) and shrewd prosecution lawyer Ted Minton (Lucas), Mick learns more information about the night in question, which leads him to re-investigate an old murder case and question the validity of his client’s innocent plea.

What’s tackier? Hiring two actors more accustomed to gossip columns than awards luncheons; or giving your man on trial a moniker that sounds like something only Jackie Collins could have devised? Either way, given the seedy kind of dealings going on in “The Lincoln Lawyer” it actually finds a pretty happy-medium with these seemingly shallow creative decisions, knocking the idea of the law profession as coasting and lavish on the head fairly quickly. The narrative takes on the shape of an admittedly not-very-complex parable, but does so effectively, and without foreshadowing key events too painstakingly in advance, or making its plot twists too abruptly pivotal. One might even call it disarming and thoughtful when dealing with the more ambiguous legal elements – if surely no wiser than a television drama like “The Good Wife.” Even when afforded with three times as much time to flesh out its story, “The Lincoln Lawyer” still feels like it’s breezing by with episodic, plotted execution.

While it reads as trite to tell this particular tale through the eyes of a familiarly troubled male protagonist (both romantically and morally), it works fairly well. We’re used to seeing this kind of flawed ‘hero’ eventually emerge on the cleaner side of ethical dilemma, and McConaughey charts Mick’s journey with more mannered physical drama than say, Cloooney’s corporate turncoat Michael Clayton, but nevertheless punctuates the character’s deep-rooted flaws as much – if not more. While it feels as if “The Lincoln Lawyer” is keen to flaunt Mick’s lack of moralistic fibre too heartily, it’s probably more down to McConaughey finding his feet with the character, as the hang-ups of this TV-pilot framework somewhat fade with the actor’s canny interpretation of the escalation in the film’s second half, where Mick’s control-freak characteristics come back to bite him. It’s also impressive how film and actor alike manage to sustain a limber energy throughout.

Despite its surprising heft as a literary drama, “The Lincoln Lawyer” is still lax and by-the-numbers when addressing Mick’s relationship with Maggie (which, as a plot aside, goes completely nowhere) and doesn’t make enough of John Leguizamo’s role as Mick’s colleague. It’s a bit of a struggle to care much about the outcome of the case, and you sense that the film, whether led by the novel or not, is trying far too hard to push the story into an unnecessary final twist. Brian DePalma’s The Black Dahlia had a similar (albeit far more lastingly dangerous) revelation to elevate it into guilty-pleasure territory, but “Lincoln” leaves us with an abrupt, anti-climactic stab at a ‘surprise’, and a limper, befuddled mystery to exit with.

By no means gritty or even enlightening on a social level, “The Lincoln Lawyer” represents an easy way to stage an age-old fable, and can’t really hide its paperback roots. Whether or not a film should be celebrated for barely avoiding mediocrity is questionable, but McConaughey and Furman manage to fashion success out of selling a relatively unambitious premise well. It genuinely works by overachieving as a middle-of-the-road crowd-pleaser, with enough allure as a twisty drama, and a degree of candour at knowing that it isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of courtroom thrillers. As ego-centric as its protagonist is, “Lawyer” finds ways to temper its own self-expectation, and for that is commendable – even if it’s inherently indebted to the Nineties and unlikely to be canonised by many.

2008 Oscar Preview & Predictions: The Big Six

Picture

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

What Should Have Been Nominated? Where to start? I'll be talking a bit about the Academy's choice of these five pictures when I start my review of 2008 next week. But for now, let's just say that I can think of at least ten films better than Milk, my favourite in the category. Chief among them is Wall-E, which I'm sure wasn't far away, and The Dark Knight's omission from this lineup is hard to bear.

What Deserves To Win? I've cooled on all of these films but Milk is very well-made and the only one that struck a resonant chord with me. It's standard in many ways but always interesting and certainly knows itself more than these other pictures.

What Will Win? You can read theories about Benjamin Button being the "true Oscar picture", or Harvey Weinstein going all-out for his holocaust baby, but this is Slumdog's year. The media undoubtedly had a lot to do with the film's buzz and making it seem like serious fare, but since most of Hollywood seem to love it the awards press can't shoulder all of the blame. Slumdog Millionaire will win because it's genuinely cherished -- at least for now.

Director

Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire
Stephen Daldry - The Reader
David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard - Frost/Nixon
Gus Van Sant - Milk

Who Should Have Been Nominated? Anyone a bit more interesting. Andrew Stanton, Christopher Nolan (and I'm not even the biggest fan of his direction), and Darren Aronofsky are the major players who were left in the lurch.

Who Deserves To Win? Gus Van Sant, for the reason that the others either had relatively little to do (Daldry & Howard), or were overbearing in visual elaboration of painfully simple stories (Boyle & Fincher).

Who Will Win? Danny Boyle.

Actor in a Leading Role

Richard Jenkins - The Visitor
Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn - Milk
Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler

Who Should Have Been Nominated? TBA. My personal awards (The Addicts) start next week.

Who Deserves to Win? This is one of the best categories actually, although the only ones I'll admit to loving are Penn and Rourke. They're the frontrunners so at least there's some justice in the world. I can't decide between them just yet.

Who Will Win? I've been going back and forth on this so it's time to make a decision. Penn's advantages are that he has the lion's share of critics awards (which obviously doesn't matter much, just ask Sally Hawkins), the biopic character, the straight man playing gay card, the fact that he dies, the Best Picture nominee, and the SAG. Rourke's plus points: he has the media, the comeback story, the fact he has considerably less Actors to help him in the film, the Globe and BAFTA wins, and that Sean has already won an Oscar whereas it would be a great "story" if he were to crown a troubled career with a golden guy.

I always find that predicting from the heart is a bad idea. I want Mickey Rourke to win this, because he's bound to make a great speech and Sean Penn really doesn't need another Oscar. But something tells me that the biopic will win out again, as no other likely acting winners on the night will have played real-life people, and so I'm predicting that Sean Penn will win this particular tussle.

Actress in a Leading Role

Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
Angelina Jolie - Changeling
Melissa Leo - Frozen River
Meryl Streep - Doubt
Kate Winslet - The Reader

Who Should Have Been Nominated? TBA. My personal awards (The Addicts) start next week.

Who Deserves To Win? By a country mile it's Anne Hathaway, who has so much more to do than the other four women, and generally succeeds.

Who Will Win? I'm having jitters about Winslet's chances, what with the Meryl SAG win and the fact that nobody really loves Kate's performance. But the other four women have had similarly troubled paths, and you've surely got to think that with just the one nomination (for a performance undefeated at Globe, BAFTA, and SAG) Kate Winslet has enough supporters to win this one with ease.

Actor in a Supporting Role

Josh Brolin - Milk
Robert Downey Jnr. - Tropic Thunder
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road

Who Should Have Been Nominated? TBA. My personal awards (The Addicts) start next week.

Who Deserves To Win? I might be being picky but I reckon both Hoffman and Ledger are leading in their respective films. But I'm willing to admit that these aren't Jamie Foxx in Collateral-style examples of category fraud and so I'll whole-heartedly commit to saying that Ledger's performance is fantastic, and way worthier than anyone else included here.

Who Will Win? There really haven't been many posthumous nominations/wins, you know? His win seems a given, which in turn is generating talk that Academy members might tick another name instead, believing that their vote won't matter. This seems a very wayward theory to me, and if Heath's name isn't called out and received to a lengthy standing applause, I'll be shocked.

Actress in a Supporting Role

Amy Adams - Doubt
Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Viola Davis - Doubt
Taraji P. Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler

Who Should Have Been Nominated? TBA. My personal awards (The Addicts) start next week.

Who Deserves To Win? Again, I consider Amy Adams to be a lead in Doubt; if only for her part in the Frosty the Snowman office meeting. Hers is my favourite performance of these five because she's the principle force, introspectively coaxing us from one side of the fence to the other, and she's devastatingly effective as a naive, torn, inexperienced young woman frightened of allegiance and equally wary of confrontation. Beyond that, I like Penelope Cruz and Marisa Tomei very much.

Who Will Win? I think this is still a five-way race. Taraji P. Henson represents Benjamin Button's only realistic chance at a major award (rather like Swinton in Michael Clayton), Davis has the baitiest role in an incredibly baity film, Marisa Tomei won lots of critics stuff and her film has just the two nominations, of which its fans could easily tick both boxes on their ballots. Penelope Cruz has the only legitimate precursor in BAFTA (Winslet's Reader performance won both Globe and SAG in this category) and has been up there in the betting for a while, and Amy Adams has by far the biggest role (co-lead, if you ask me) in her film and is the kind of American starlet (like Tomei back in '92) that wins for a Supporting award.

I'm actually going to go for Marisa Tomei, because it's been sixteen years since she won, and she may mop up votes from the people who *just* preferred Penn's performance to Rourke's.